Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Chapter 8: Mutilation of the Concept of Jihad

In Islam, there is no concept of aggressive or preemptive war. This was amply demonstrated by the Prophet (S) throughout his life.1 Whenever possible, the Prophet (S) negotiated for and entered into peace treatise with those who declared war against him. He sent delegations to neighboring countries inviting them to Islam; a religion and life of peace here and hereafter. The first Caliph, and more particularly Umar who acted as the chief advisor to the first caliph and later he himself as the second caliph, were fully aware of this concept of Jihad in Islam.

For the Prophet (S), there was never any need for a standing army. He was preaching the concept of One Unique God deserving worship, a harmonious coexistence and peaceful way of life full of piety and above all self-restraint and love for others. The code of conduct prescribed for the Muslims was intended to create a peaceful model society. Muslims were taught that there should be no compulsion in religion.2

Whenever individual Muslims were threatened by any aggression, they were first advised to endure it in patience and supplication. There was no scope for aggressive propagation of Islam. It was the conduct and astute way of a Muslim’s life that was to provide the incentive for non-Muslims to be attracted towards Islam. This was amply proved during the first emigration of Muslims to Abyssinia where their conduct won several converts to Islam. Any difference in ideology was to be sorted out through wise and convincing exhortation and dialogue.3

All missionary zeal had to be confined to inviting men towards good, enjoin what is right and forbid what is evil.4 If, in spite of exhortations and dialogue, someone could not be convinced about Islam, the Holy Qur’an enjoins that he should be left alone, saying “You to your ways; and I to mine.”5

Islam was a religion that meant to rule the heart of men and not their person, purse or territory. The method adopted by the Prophet (S) was to send delegations and letters to neighboring kingdoms explaining Islamic tenets and not to send armies or arsenals. In Islam, there was never any scope to maintain a standing army, nor did the Prophet (S), throughout his life, ever raise a standing army. Whenever an occasion demanded the defense of Muslims or the enforcement of a mutually agreed covenant, volunteers were called for. There was never any compulsion that all Muslims should join the army. At any rate, there was not a semblance of an army during the Prophet’s time.

The propensity of an Arab’s mind, in those days, to readily incline towards all sorts of expeditions and warfare for the sake of Ghanima (spoils of war in the form of slave boys and girls in addition to the usual booty) was only too well-known to the Caliphs.6 The Caliphs cleverly gave a religious colour to the adventure for the sake of infusing in their soldiers that zeal and disregard for life which is so essential for winning a war.

When Abu Bakr became the first Caliph, he was confronted with complicated issues of religion as well as governance. In all such cases, he referred people to Umar for finding a solution. So frequent was this done that people started asking Abu Bakr:“Are you the Caliph or Umar is the Caliph?” Umar was also seen to reverse several decisions made by Abu Bakr. However, invariably both Abu Bakr and Umar considered Ali (a.s.) as the final authority. They repeated the tradition in which the Prophet (S) had declared:“Among you the best Judge is Ali.” Umar often confessed:“But for Ali, Umar would have perished.” Many such instances are compiled in a book under the title “Qadhaya (judgments of) Ameerul Mo’minin.”

Whenever Muslims met privately or in congregation after prayers, there was open and fierce discussions about the ignorance so often exhibited publicly by the Caliph and his inability to find solutions to even the simplest questions that arose. They compared the Caliph’s incompetence to the ease with which Imam Ali (a.s.) solved the most difficult issues. People in every congregation, recounted the various traditions of the Prophet (S) extolling Imam Ali’s supremacy over all the other Muslims in knowledge, virtue, valor and nobility. They also recounted the various occasions when the Prophet (S) nominated Imam Ali (a.s.) as his successor, and how, unfortunately, inept and ignorant persons deprived him of his rightful and deserving place. The discussions became more serious in the month of Ramadan when large gatherings assembled in mosques after breaking the mandatory fast. Umar found large groups openly expressing their dissatisfaction with the capabilities of the Caliph. In order to prevent such critical discussions, Umar ordered that instead of indulging in discussions, people should spend their time in prayers. People asked him as to what prayers and how much prayers are to be performed, as they did not practice any such prayers during the Prophet’s time. Thus, arose the practice of Tarawih prayers during the month of Ramadan. The lofty matter of prayers was utilized to conceal the real intent of putting down any discussion about the Caliph. Till this day, there is raging controversy among the Sunnis as to the number of Raka’s to be recited in Tarawih and whether the Tarawih is not in fact the Tahajjud (Midnight) Prayers.

The Caliph was fully aware of the fact that the foundation of his Caliphate was raised on wobbly and suspect grounds and that a popular revolt was likely to erupt any moment, seeking to restore the Caliphate to Imam Ali (a.s.). Therefore, the need for wars and expeditions had, perforce, to be invented and declared, so that men might be sent away to far-off places on expeditions and wars. Thus, public criticism about the competency and legitimacy of the person occupying the seat of the Caliph was avoided and the possibility of immediate revolt averted. Gilman wrote:“Despots have always found it necessary to employ their subjects in foreign wars from time to time, in order to keep them away from feeling the galling chains by which they are bound, or to hear their clanking; and it came to pass that when the Caliph had all the tribes of Arabia under control, he saw no better way to retrain them from new revolts than by tempting them to make inroads upon their neighbors. Nothing could have been better planned by a ruler acquainted with the volatile nature of his subjects.”7 On similar lines is the opinion of the great scientist, philosopher Aristotle, whom the Prophet (S) identified as one among the Apostles of God.8

The sending of foreign expeditions by the first two Caliphs was never a religious movement, but the political expediency that the situation demanded to safeguard their precarious perch on the Caliphate. What was then sought to be disseminated by the sword was the political sovereignty of the Arabs and not Islam the religion. Coupled with this, was the greed to subjugate the rich resources of opulent neighboring countries.

The principal reason for the wars was to divert the attention of Muslims from the inefficiency of the persons heading the State, by taking advantage of the Arab’s greed for loot. The historian K. Ali observes that the Caliphs realized that the opulent lands of Persia, Egypt, Rome and Syria had to be conquered to free the Arabs from their dependence on the mercy of others and to relieve them from perennial financial embarrassment.9 The expeditions brought immense wealth. But along with opulence, came several evils.

Nicholson observes about the ills brought by financial affluence:“The conquests made by the successors of the Prophet (S) brought enormous wealth into Mecca and Medina, and when the Umayyad aristocracy gained the upper hand in Uthman’s Caliphate, these towns developed a voluptuous and dissolute life which broke through every restriction that Islam had imposed.”10 Many people joined the army in anticipation of getting large booty, others out of misguided religious fervor. In one stroke, the narration of Hadith was prevented, while simultaneously those who were criticizing the mode in which the Caliph came to power, were dispatched to far-off lands, either to lavish in their ill-gotten loot or to be branded a martyr and buried in alien lands. At any rate, the result was that potential opposition was effectively and ingeniously removed.

The cause for the war with Syria is said to be the Caliph’s desire to carry out the last wish of the Prophet (S) who had ordered Usama to proceed towards Syria.11 The reason given is misleading. The Prophet (S) had ordered Usama bin Zaid to proceed immediately to Mu’ta to avenge the disrespect and murder of his father Zaid who was sent as the Prophet’s envoy. The Prophet (S) had ordered all the Ansar and the Muhajirin, except Ali (a.s.), to assemble under the command of Usama. Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and, of course, even during the Prophet’s life, the Banu Umayya disobeyed his order and remained in Medina. Later, after the Prophet’s death, the Caliph now pretended to fulfill the last wish of the Prophet. We have seen earlier how the last wish of the Prophet (S) to leave a written Will was defeated by this same group of people. In fact, the incident at Mu’ta, during the lifetime of the Prophet (S) did not involve the Syrians at all but involved the Romans whose chieftain Shurahbil of the Banu Ghassaan murdered the Prophet’s envoy.12 Instead of Rome, Abu Bakr declared war against Syria. The War against the Romans was declared only in 634 A.D, two years after the death of the Prophet (S).

Greed and Territorial Expansion: Motive for the Early Wars

Though the wars were given a religious colour by misinterpreting the word ‘Jihad’, the real reason was purely mercenary, coupled with the desire to annex neighboring countries.

About the war with Syria, K. Ali writes, “There were other causes that widened the gulf of relationship. Arabia is a land of desert and hence its inhabitants had to seek their fortunes outside Arabia. On the other hand, the Byzantine Empire was famous for its richness and better living and so the Muslims, in order to solve their economic problems, turned their eyes towards the Byzantine Empire. Besides, the strategic position of the Byzantine Empire was such that it was necessary for the safety and defense of Islam.”13 Abu Bakr made Yazid ibn Abu Sufyan, the Governor of Syria. On Yazid’s death, his brother Mu’awiya succeeded as Governor, perpetuating a family rule that lasted for almost a century.

About the war with Persia, K. Ali writes, “From the geographical point of view, Iraq, a province of the then Persian Empire, formed the natural part of Arabia. Hence, it was essential to the Arabs…The economic factor was not less important in deciding the fate of Persia. Iraq is a land of immense wealth due to the flow of the Euphrates and the Tigris over the surface of the province. Being a barren land, Arabia depended on the province of Iraq for trade. But, the Persians did not allow the Islamized Arabia to carry on the trade with them. So, the economic necessity drove the Muslims to come into conflict with the Persians.”14

That the wars were nothing but empire building and moneymaking is admitted by the Sunni Historians K. Ali:“When Abu Bakr was on his deathbed, Muslims had defeated the Roman and Syrian frontiers. After that, Khalid bin al-Waleed annexed Damascus, Ardan, and Hims one after another to the empire of Islam.”15

That empire building and economic considerations were the sole motive for the wars against Palestine and Egypt is admitted by K. Ali in these words:“The causes for the conquest of Egypt are not far to seek. The strategic position of Egypt, the richness of its grain producing soil and the enmity of the Roman Emperor led the caliph to turn his attention to the conquest of Egypt. The Byzantines had been living in Egypt since their expulsion from Syria and Palestine. It was not safe for the Muslims to allow them to live so near to Syria and Palestine. Besides that Egypt was lying so dangerously near to Hijaz that it might be great danger to the Muslims… The Arabs were not free from financial embarrassment. They had to depend on the mercy of others for the solution of their economic problem. Egypt was a rich country due to the flow of the Nile on its surface… So, the Muslims, in order to improve their lot and weaken the economic position of the Byzantines, felt it necessary to conquer it.”16 Amr bin al-Aas was made the Governor of Egypt. Later Marwan and Khalid bin al-Walid became governors under the rule of the Banu Umayya.

Thus, the wars waged during the period of the first two Caliphs were based on political and economic expediency. There is absolutely no element of religion or holiness in the wars, except that the successful warmongers went by the name of ‘Muslims’. To call these ‘wars’ as ‘Holy Wars’ or ‘Islamic Wars’ will be the greatest abuse and injustice to the noble word ‘Jihad’ the greatest of which is the Jihad an-Nafs; the strife against the carnal desires of the self. All the wars were either imperialistic preemptive aggression or for aggrandizement. Such wars satiated the corporeal desires, in the process building an Empire in the name of Islam. Such wars had absolutely nothing to do with Islam the religion of Peace and Brotherhood, so strenuously propagated by the Prophet (S). Nicholson observes:“The Empire founded by the Caliph Umar and administered by the Umayyads was essentially, as the reader will have gathered, a military organisation for the benefit of the paramount race.”17 The well-known Sunni writer Shibli reports from Abu Dawud that the Arabs repeatedly asked the Prophet (S) whether a man would get any reward for Jihad if he also had any worldly gain in view, and every time the Prophet (S) replied that persons who had worldly gain in view, would not get any reward in the next world for his Jihad.18

The institutions of the army and the treasury were created for the first time in Islam by Abu Bakr who molded them on the Roman Model. These two institutions, as we have seen above, had no place in Islam nor did they have the sanction of the Prophet (S). They were innovations introduced into Islam that were catastrophic, changing Islam the religion of peace into a band of sword wielding, unlettered and uncivilized men who called themselves Muslims.

The Muslims in the army, young and old, coming from far and near, towns and desert, had no opportunity to understand anything about Islam. They were forbidden to hear traditions that were the only other source, apart from the Qur’an, to impart knowledge of Islam. The Qur’an itself required knowledge of its special literary quality, the idioms, parables, history, science, fables, the esoteric meaning, exegeses, annotations with reference to the cause and circumstances of revelations in order to understand the meaning of its verses. Most of the Muslims remained ignorant of the real Islam, but externally appearing to be Muslims.

The army, for its commanders, had such inveterate enemies to the Prophet (S) and his Message, as Mu’awiya bin Abu Sufyan, Khalid bin al-Walid, and Amr bin al-Aas. They had the least knowledge of or care for Islam. For them, Islam was an empire and all that was involved was politics and economics. They flouted all the laws of Islam. Drinking was the most common habit for them. Mu’awiya used to recite a couplet saying, “The Banu Hashim has played with the rule; no archangel ever descended nor was anything revealed (to Muhammad).” Amr bin al-Aas fixed the Qur’an on the door and pierced it with arrows. Khalid bin al-Walid was an incorrigible debauch. One can imagine the faith of the ordinary soldier under such commanders. The pity of the matter is that the commanders went unpunished though the Caliph fully knew their crimes. Later historians glorified them as ‘able’ commanders, concealing the atrocities they committed.

About the Muslims assembled by the Caliphs into an army to invade the advanced civilizations of Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt and Rome, the best description is given by Nicholson:“Against such (Islamic) doctrines, the conservative and materialistic instincts of the desert people rose in revolt; and although they became Muslims en masse, the majority of them neither believed in Islam nor knew what it meant.”19

These half-baked Muslims were dumbstruck when they came face to face with the material pomp and glory and a great wealth of philosophy of the civilizations they conquered. They had no answer to the philosophies and debates prevalent among those whom they conquered. The only answer they could find was to consider themselves mere pawns in the hands of an unseen ‘destiny’. They became numb fatalists, resigned to their fate. The reason is analyzed ably by Osborne who observed, “Fatalism is thus the central theme of Islam… The great bulk of the people are passive; wars and revolutions rage around them; they accept them as the decrees of a fate which it is useless to strive against.”20 But in fact, such fatalism is completely alien to Islam.

As we noted above that the very object of the wars was to gain economic advantage and acquire territory, there was much pillage and looting. The rulers led a grandiose and pompous life indulging in the very luxuries that Islam had prohibited.

The expeditions brought, in addition to immense wealth, a plethora of cultures, alien to Islam and unknown to the Arabs. While wealth brought back the pagan spirit of unrestrained, indulgent life, the cultures brought in philosophies which puzzled the conquering Arabs. The ancient civilizations of Rome, Babylon and the Indus valley had their own philosophies. The Arabs, intoxicated with wine and wealth, could hardly care to understand the alien philosophies or to distinguish Islam from such philosophies.

Those Muslims, who had no any interest in the preservation of Islamic philosophy, found that they, personally, were not aware of any answer to such philosophies as reincarnation, transmigration, karma, nirvana…etc. They could never know the Islamic philosophy regarding Divine Decrees and Human Volition. They simply resigned themselves to fate, which they assumed had made them rulers of a vast empire out of the nomads of the Arabian Desert. All this was on account of their abandoning Ali (a.s.) and the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) who were the fountainhead of the Islamic jurisprudence and philosophy.

S.M. Mirza wrote, “It can well be imagined in what shape Islam emerged from the medley of ideas, in which the doctrines of genuine Islam had the weakest position. It was itself an immature, imperfect and defective Islam, which the armies carried to foreign lands and gave to the converts, who in turn, mixed it with their old ideas and habits of thought. It was almost inevitable that their Islam should have more of a paganistic than an Islamic tincture.21

In such a situation, the Caliph, as much puzzled as the common soldier in an alien land, passed an edict that if one did not find a ready answer in the Qur’an or the Sunna, he should use his conjecture to arrive at a solution. This played havoc with Islam which became distorted, assuming any shape that a man could imagine, completely distorting the basic and most vital Islamic concept about God. Thus, they assumed God to have a human-like body that would become visible on the Doomsday. The license to find your own solution gave rise to any number of cults, quite foreign and opposed to Islam. Thus, people imagined that they could realise God within themselves, with the help of wine and opiates.

Agha S.M. Mirza wrote:“The state of things, coupled with the fact that the Muslims, during the early Caliphate, had been given the sanction to use their own judgement in religious matters if they thought there was nothing in the Qur’an or Hadith applicable to the case under consideration,22 led to Islam being rent asunder into different sects, most of them taking their inspiration not from the Qur’an but from the atheistic philosophies of Greece and India.”23 That was because the conquering young Muslims, uninitiated in the Philosophy or study of Islam, thought that they had nothing suitable to give in return for the Greek philosophy or the Hindu Vedanta.

The sects they invented were a curious mix of paganism, pantheism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Greek philosophy and Vedanta. They had nothing to do with the simple philosophy of Islam taught by the Prophet (S). Thus, the Sufis emerged, absorbing into Islam such paganistic beliefs as Incarnation, Nirvana, Karma…etc., by giving them Arabic terminology of Hulul, Haqiqah, Fana’…etc. The effect was that Muslims became either fatalists or persons like Junayd and Mansur al-Hallaj, who claimed that they were personifications of God [Haq]. Their search for God invariably started in the hallucinations created by opiates or a drug of Hashish.

The proponent of each sect took care to meet the political exigencies which required that Islam be so molded, the Qur’an so interpreted and explained, as to support the usurpers of power on the death of the Holy Prophet (S), for they were required to justify and explain to the public that all that was done, indeed had Divine sanction. Agha M.S. Mirza has written a detailed book in Urdu setting out all the amendments, modifications, abrogations and distortions made in the Islamic Theology, by the first three Caliphs, the Umayyad and Abbasid rulers.24

It is Abu Bakr and Umar who had gifted Syria to the notorious sons of Abu Sufyan and gifted Egypt to the equally notorious Marwan. It is their offspring, the Umayyads, steeped in paganism who, submerged in lust and wine, came to rule the Islamic State for over a century. Muslim historians note that the greatest possible harm was done to Islam under the Umayyads in the first instance and later on by the Abbasids, and that in the midst of worldly grandeur and power, Islam stood deserted and forlorn.25

The first Caliph came to power through an election of sorts by a handful of persons at Saqifa at a time when the Prophet’s body lay unburied. At the time of his death, the first Caliph, instead of letting Muslims elect their leader, left a will nominating the second Caliph as his successor. It is curious that when questioned whether the Prophet (S) did not nominate any one to succeed him, the first Caliph had quoted the tradition that ‘prophets do not leave behind any inheritance’. But when his turn came, the first Caliph made a will of the Caliphate as if it were a heritable property belonging to him.

It is thus that the mode in which the second Caliph came to power was not through any election of sorts or through election by a committee but by nomination by the first Caliph. The third Caliph, on the other hand, was chosen by a select committee nominated by the second Caliph, with one member of the committee having the casting vote. Thus, the ascension of the first three Caliphs to power was retrograde, going from democratic process of sorts to autocratic nominations by individuals or by a one-sided committee selected by an individual.

During the period of the first Caliph as well as during his own tenure, the second Caliph is credited with planning and executing the territorial expansion of the Muslim Empire. He is also reported to have burnt or destroyed libraries and works of arts and sciences, which he considered not in consonance with his understanding of the Qur’an. If the books were in agreement with the Qur’an, he still decreed that they should be destroyed as being redundant. It is due to this that it became notorious that Muslims propagated Islam with sword in one hand and the Qur’an in the other. He also entertained Abu Sufiyan, Marwan, and Mu’awiya into his close, but private circle of influential political advisors.

Notes

1. Abu Dawud, vol. 1, p.348, the Caliphate, p. 323.

2. Qur’an, 2:256.

3. Qur’an, 16:125.

4. Qur’an, 3:104.

5. Qur’an, 109:6.

6. Shibli’s Seeratun Nabi, vol. 1,part 1, p.444-447.

7. The Saracens, Ch.25, p.226.

8. Shirazi’s Asaar-e-Tarikh Ajam, p 37.

9. A study of Islamic History, p.101.

10. Literary History of the Arabs, p.241.

11. K. Ali’s ‘A Study of Islamic History’, p.82-83.

12. K. Ali’s ‘A Study of Islamic History, p.89, 97.

13. Ibid., p.97-98.

14. Ibid., p.94.

15. K. Ali’s ‘A Study of Islamic History’, p.98.

16. Ibid., p.101

17. A Literary History of the Arabs, p. 254.

18. Seeratun Nabi, quoting Abu Dawud, Vol.1, p.348.

19. R.A. Nicholson’s ‘Literary History of the Arabs’, p.178.

20. Islam under the Arabs, p.26.

21. The Caliphate, 340.

22. Shibli’s Al-Faruq, Part 2, p.64, 240.

23. The Caliphate, p. 335-336.

24. Kitabul Tafriq Wal Tahrif Fil Islam.

25. Abul Hasan an-Nadawi’s Seerat Ahmed Shahid, p.21.

Chapter 9: Mutilation of the Concept of Zakat and Khums

Having deprived the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) of their rightful position, it was essential that they should be subjected to poverty and want. The next step of the conspiracy was to deprive them of the very source of their sustenance. At the same time, funds were needed to enrich the opponents of the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). Under the Divine Law, provision was made to the poor in the form of a Poor Tax [Zakat] of 2.5 percent on some products (if they reach a certain specified amount) of every Muslim. The Sayyids {progeny of the Prophet(S) } were specifically prohibited from receiving Zakat from non Sayyids. Islam highly recommended alms giving [Sadaqa or Khairat] every day. No limit was prescribed for Sadaqa or Khairat. The Sayyids were specifically prohibited from receiving Sadeqa.

Thus, Sayyids were left with Khums, which is one fifth of the total accumulated profit in the form of cash or goods that remains as balance in the account of a Muslim at the end of the financial year. Both Zakat and Khums are in accordance with Qur’anic Injunctions.1

In Islam, there was no need to create a treasury or a central fund, for whatever was recovered as ghanimah [spoils of war] was immediately distributed. K. Ali writes, “So no regular system for the collecting of revenue grew up. The small sources of revenue that would come to the State treasury were distributed among the people then and there.”2 When there was no treasury, there was no question of collection of funds nor was there any organization to collect such funds. Hence, there was no possibility of misappropriation by those in possession of such funds.

The responsibility of payment of Khums and Zakat rested solely on the individual.3 Such of the Muslims who could afford, were commanded to voluntarily set apart Zakat and Khums from their income and property at the end of every financial year and pay the same to those indicated in the Qur’an. It was made obligatory that every person should himself distribute Zakat and Khums to the deserving and the needy; firstly among the relatives within the family, and then to the orphans, the wayfarer, and lastly to deserving others. Muslims were also commanded to give generously in charity to the poor, whether Muslims or non-Muslims. The burden was laid on the individual because people should be made aware of their obligations to and the rights of others over them. The act of complying with injunctions relating to economy had to be performed by the Muslims voluntarily and conscientiously with the fear of Punishment for breach or a hope for reward for adherence to the Divine Law, in the afterlife. In this structure of economy, there is no provision for an agency for enforcement of collection of funds or a treasury for its safekeeping or distribution. Until today, the command regarding Zakat4 and Khums5 remains unaltered. Contrarily, Khums and Zakat were made state revenue. The Government was never aware of the plight of the poor in distant territories. Khums and Zakat was doled out to the cronies who hovered around the persons in power. Instead of the self-conscious duty of a Muslim, Khums and Zakat became cumbersome levies payment of which every Muslim avoids!

K. Ali writes, “In the Holy Qur’an, Zakat has been mentioned just after prayer. It is said, ‘Perform the prayers and pay the tax6 ’ [Sura 2:80]. Zakat indeed is the tax for the poor. It was imposed on the men of means, and all the money realized as Zakat was distributed among the poor and needy. Through this system of Zakat, the social consciousness has been reflected. There was an idea behind this consciousness.”7 Earlier on the same page, he writes:“With the expansion of the Islamic empire under Umar, the amount of regular collection of revenue increased and it necessitated a well regulated revenue system.” Umar also innovated and imposed a new type of Zakat unheard of during the times of the Prophet (S) and even during the period of Abu Bakr. Umar imposed Zakat on foreign non-Muslim merchants and horses.”8

Regarding Khums, the fifth-share reserved in the Qur’an as the amount payable by every Muslim to the progeny of the Prophet (S) (the Sayyids), K. Ali writes:“This [Khums] was an important source of income of the state under the first two caliphs. It was divided into three portions according to the Holy Qur’an. But the share of the Prophet (S) and that of his relatives were spent on the weapons and equipments of the army.”9 This statement brings out two things:firstly, that only during the period of the first two Caliphs, Khums was made an important source of income for the state. Secondly, the amount meant to be paid to the Prophet’s relatives was stopped and diverted for purchase of arms, contrary to the Qur’anic injunctions. However, Umar increased the share of Aa’isha several fold, for which bounty she ever remained thankful to Umar.

Islam had prescribed an astute life bereft of pomp and revelry. What the Prophet (S) taught was a simple way of life and a simple belief in an Unseen, Omnipotent God. It prohibited wine and a pompous way of life. The Umayyads, who by nature were boisterous revelers, could not suffer the prohibitions, as much as they could not comprehend an Unseen God. Nicholson wrote that the Umayyads who had come to power as ‘kings by right, Caliphs by courtesy’, adds, “As descendants and representatives of pagan aristocracy, which strove with all its might to defeat Muhammad, they were usurpers in the eyes of the Moslem community which they claimed to lead as his successors.”10

In the pre-Islamic times, the Arabs never believed in a life after death, nor did they believe in resurrection, the Day of Judgement, or the Final Reckoning. They had no concept of accountability, reward, or punishment for their deeds. They lived their life to enjoy it uninhibited to the full, for the moment. They suddenly realized that Islam sought to put strange shackles, which they were only too eager to remove and abandon on the slightest pretext. The death of the Prophet (S) provided the opportunity. In a show of asserting their independence they theorized that no Divine sanction is necessary in the matter of the Prophet’s successor to govern the temporal affairs of the Islamic State. Thus assuming power, the Caliph demanded that Zakat and Khums should be directly paid to the agents of the Caliph instead of paying it to the deserving, as the Qur’an directed.

Dispute about the Caliph’s Authority to Collect Zakat

At the days of the Prophet (S), Zakat was never collected by any authority. Payment of Zakat was an individual’s responsibility under Qur’anic injunctions. For the first time, Abu Bakr ordered that Zakat to be paid to tax collectors appointed by the government. This innovation was strongly resented by several Muslims, who rightly believed that Zakat was not a part of the state fund or treasury.11 It, therefore, became necessary for the first two Caliphs to change the very meaning and interpretation of the word ‘Zakat’ treating it not as an individual’s obligation but as the right of the state. In this view of the matter, the Caliph, for the first time in Islam, created a standing force to extract Zakat from all Muslims and remit it to the treasury. Later, the very same force was converted into an army for invasion against foreign countries.

The first Caliph ordered the formation of an army to subjugate the Muslims who refused to pay Zakat and Khums. The expedition brought great disrepute as its leader Khalid bin al-Walid not only killed Malik bin Nuwaira (the Prophet’s companion) unjustly, but also he got married (by force) to the beautiful wife of Malik immediately after killing him, without waiting for the mandatory period of Iddah12 to elapse. This caused great resentment among Muslims. However, the Caliph refused to take any action against Khalid, the transgressor. On the other hand, Khalid’s action was sought to be justified under a concocted tradition that if a scholar does the correct thing he will be rewarded for it, but if the scholar commits a mistake and then regrets, he will be doubly rewarded, once for repentance and the second for future abstinence!

The manner in which Imam Ali (a.s.) administered the institution of Zakat and Khums stands out in stark contrast to the coercive methods adopted by the earlier three Caliphs. He gave standing instructions as Model Code of Conduct13 to the Tax Collectors. He directed them to be gentle and considerate towards the subjects and to accept what they voluntarily disclose as their tax liability. Where tax was paid in kind, Imam Ali (a.s.) directed that the owner would have the first choice of retaining what he wished. He reminded the tax collectors that Zakat was in fact a person's due to Allah and should be distributed among the poor and the destitute with equanimity. He made it clear that the greatest crime is the crime against the community, that is the usurpation of public funds.

The difference between the administration of the State by Imam Ali (a.s.) and the other three Caliphs is the difference between a just government and a corrupt government. In the matter of appointments to government posts, Imam Ali (a.s.) was never influenced by relationship. The only criteria for him was honesty and adherence to the Islamic principles.

Under the first three Caliphs, Marwan, Amr bin al-Aas, Abu Huraira and Abu Sufyan’s sons Yazid and Mu’awiya were patronized and they amassed unlawful wealth. Persons banished by the Prophet (S) for sedition and creating wars and conflicts were reintroduced as high profile officers in the administration of the Muslim nation. People were asked to use their own surmise and conjectures in the matter of interpreting Islam.

Imam Ali (a.s.) on the other hand, never played politics and was therefore intolerant of any sort of corruption. He did not entertain anyone on the basis of kinship or any clannish considerations. He followed the Islamic tenets strictly and interpreted the Qur’an on the basis of what the Prophet (S) had taught him. He abhorred interpolations, innovations and other human interference in religious matters.

Notes

1. Zakat - Qur’an, 2:3, 43, 80, 83, 177, 277; 4:77; 162; 5:12, 55; 7:156; 9:5, 11, 18, 71; 18:81; 19:13, 31, 55; 21:73; 22:41; 78; 23:4; 24:37, 56; 27:3, 30, 39; 31:4; 41:7; 58:13; 73:20; 98:5. Khums - Qur’an, 8:1, 41; 17:26; 30:28; 33:27; 59:6-9.

2. A Study of Islamic History by K. Ali, p. 140-141.

3. Qur’an, 2:2-4.

4. Qur’an, 2:3, 43, 80, 83, 177, 277; 4:77,162; 5:12, 55; 7:156; 9:5, 11, 18, 71; 18:81; 19:13, 31, 55; 21:73; 22:41, 78; 23:4; 24:37, 56; 27:3, 30, 39; 31:4; 41:7; 58:13; 73:20; 98:5.

5. Qur’an, 8:1, 41; 17:26; 30:28; 33:27; 59:6-9.

6. It is curious that Mr. K. Ali translates the verse in this manner as to justify the collection of tax by the Caliph. The Verse is translated to read :“ Perform the prayer and pay the poor tax”.

7. Qur’an, 8:41, A Study of Islamic History by K. Ali, p. 141.

8. K. Ali’s ‘A study of Islamic History’, p. 106.

9. Ibid., p. 142.

10. A Literary History of the Arabs, p. 193.

11. K. Ali’s ‘A Study of Islamic History’, p.870.

12. A specified period of time that must elapse before a Muslim widow or divorcee may legitimately remarry.

13. Nahjul Balagha, Instructions 25 and 26.

Chapter 1: Preamble

The battle at Karbala is a well-known tragedy in the human history. It is not fiction or legend, but a historical fact, chronicled by several historians who were present in the battlefield, of whom Abu Makhnaf an independent reporter and Hamid ibn Muslim, the imbedded reporter of Yazid’s army, are the best known.

The battle at Karbala is unique in several respects. At Karbala, Imam Husayn (a.s.) changed the very meaning and connotation of the terms ‘victory’ and ‘defeat’, ‘life’ and ‘death’. He and his small group of his companions redefined human nature itself. They redefined the limits of human endurance of sufferings for a noble cause. In sacrificing their lives, they set an example to those who fight against anarchy and materialism to protect the freedom and independence of mankind. At Karbala, the conqueror became the loser and the vanquished became the victor. By sacrificing their lives, the martyrs of Karbala became immortal, while Yazid by killing them was erased out of the good books of history.

Imam Husayn (a.s.) showed that numbers and odds do not matter. What really matters, is the propriety, nobility and nature of the cause itself. Imam Husayn (a.s.) showed that truth and righteousness are ineffaceable and that the killing of a few persons, does not and cannot obliterate the truthfulness and nobility of their cause.

Before Imam Husayn (a.s.) and his companions sacrificed their lives in the battle at Karbala, a victorious person was the one who stood with a fluttering banner in his hand, while the vanquished lay slain on the ground, his flag lying limp beside him. The victor assumed the mantle of a successful mission, while the loser was clothed with the infamy of defeat and his unjust cause. Success in the battle was proof of victory of justice over anarchy and oppression. Victory was synonymous with a just and popular cause and the victor commanded the love, adoration and respect of the public. The victorious and their cause became immortal. The vanquished was buried in history, only to be remembered as a lesson to posterity, his defeat considered the defeat of his unjust cause.

Mothers loved to name their children after the victor and shunned the name of the vanquished. The victorious became heroes and the vanquished were treated as villains in the everlasting memory of a nation, country, tribe or culture. The epics, Iliad, Maha Bharatha, and Ramayana are some examples, depicting truth and justice as personified in the triumphant hero.

All these concepts were changed by Imam Husayn (a.s.). For the first and perhaps the last time in history, the battle of Karbala established that the vanquished might also be the victorious in his cause. The triumphant were the ones who lay beheaded in the battlefield, their lifeless bodies, proclaiming the victory of a living cause of immortal truth.

Imam Husayn (a.s.) and his small group of companions redefined human nature itself. Generally, power and wealth attract people anxious to pick up the crumbs. Those who lose power or wealth, find only deserters. Karbala reversed this notion. None from the small group of Imam Husayn’s companions deserted him, though they knew that at the end of the day only death and no worldly gain awaited them. On the other hand, even at the last moment before the battle commenced, several warriors from Yazid’s huge army, crossed over to Imam Husayn’s camp, despite knowing fully well that only death awaited them though worldly gain in the form of the spoils of war would have been within their easy reach, at the end of the day.

It is natural for every person facing immediate and imminent threat to his life, to seek and gather people for his support and assistance. It is more so where a war is planned and the leader gathers as many men as he could find to form an army capable of facing the threat.

Quite contrary to this human nature, Imam Husayn (a.s.) at every stage of his journey from Medina to Karbala, dissuaded people from joining him, saying that what Yazid sought was only his blood.

It is obvious that, firstly, Imam Husayn (a.s.) was convinced of the threat to his life and yet dissuaded people from joining him to form an army; secondly, he had no intention of waging a war; thirdly, he wanted to avoid bloodshed or at least to mitigate the loss of life; lastly, by taking ladies, children, his close relatives, a few aged companions, and the least number of able bodied youth, Imam Husayn (a.s.) wanted to show that though the small band of people held no threat to his empire, the cruel, atrocious, unjust and evil nature of Yazid and his huge army would certainly commit the most horrendous murder and atrocities without any excuse..

Imam Husayn (a.s.) showed that truth and justice do not always lie on the side of the victorious majority. He showed that numbers do not count and a handful of persons, standing up to oppression at the cost of their lives, do in fact represent truth, justice, independence, and freedom. He showed that truth is irrepressible, eternal, and would manifest itself even from the trampled and lifeless bodies of the martyr. Their death is not defeat but is in fact the victory of truth, righteousness, justice, and the very spirit of freedom of mankind.

In as much as its other aspects, the uniqueness of Karbala extends even to its pathos. There is not a single human relationship that was left out from the list of martyrs. The relationship of the patriarch and his family, between the leader and his followers, parent and child, newly wedded husband and wife, between siblings, between cousins and children of cousins, bond between friends, master and servant, rider and steed etc., were all successfully put to test.

Historians, normally, are patronized by the winning party that assumes power and write the chronicles of the victorious. History may also record a few instances of individual valor of some opponent, but popular Historians never espouse the cause of the vanquished. Karbala is unique in this respect also. Without exception, every chronicler records the justness of Imam Husayn’s cause, the cruel and unjust abuse of his dead body and the torment that the remaining members of his family and friends, particularly the widows and orphans suffered after the tragedy.

Any historian attempting to eulogize the cause of the defeated forces would be branded a traitor. Such historians and their records would be, mercilessly burnt and put out of circulation. However, at and after Karbala, the atrocities were so open and rampant that Yazid and his evil advisors, despite their tyrannical suppression and torture had no means or courage to prevent the tragedy of Karbala being related, recorded, repeated, and passed on to posterity.

In his speeches, letters, and discussions Imam Husayn (a.s.) made it clear that he was leaving Medina only in response to the call of the Kufians who had written thousands of letters and sent hundreds of emissaries complaining that they had no Imam to guide them in matters of faith and that, as the Imam, it was incumbent upon Husayn (a.s.) to hurry to their guidance. Their complaint against Mu’awiya first, and later against Yazid, was not so much regarding the physical or monetary suffering but against the willful distortion of the principles of Islam. Therefore, it became obligatory for Imam Husayn (a.s.) to leave Medina and go to rescue the faith from being mutilated and corrupted by Mu’awiya and his son Yazid. There was absolutely no political motive in this.

Later, when al-Hurr’s cavalry surrounded Imam Husayn’s caravan, sealing off all roads except the one leading to Kufa, a false propaganda was made by Yazid that Imam Husayn’s journey was an affront to the political power of Yazid. Imam Husayn (a.s.) made it clear that he was invited by the people of Kufa for religious guidance and that he had no political aspirations, and said that he would move out to any far-off land beyond the domain of Yazid’s rule. This demand to be permitted to go out of Yazid’s dominion was repeatedly made by Imam Husayn (a.s.) till his last moments, signifying that he had no political aspirations and that his only intent was to preserve and propagate the faith in its true form, as revealed by his grandfather the Prophet (S).1

For those who believe in miracles, numerous instances of the Divinely inspired foresight of Imam Husayn (a.s.) and several miracles performed by him are found in Karbala. Collecting water, in advance for al-Hurr and his army, long before they arrived thirsty; the sudden shying of the horse and throwing the taunting enemy soldier into the burning ditch; the fountain of water which gushed when Imam Husayn (a.s.) struck his toe on the ground to show his daughter Sakina (a.s.) that he had the supernatural power to procure water; the intense and valiant fight by Imam Husayn (a.s.), a man fifty-eight years old, before whose eyes his friends and children were slain; the reciting of Qur’an by the severed head of Imam Husayn (a.s.) throughout its long journey from Karbala to Kufa to Damascus and back; the radiant light that was witnessed by hundreds, which emanated from the niche wherever the severed head of Imam Husayn (a.s.) was kept during night and many more such instances of supernatural events are recorded in history. The recitation of the Qur’an by the severed heads carried on lances or slung in the necks of horses and camels provide the only proof of the Qur’anic verse that declares that those who are martyred in the way of God, are not to be counted among the dead, but that they are very much alive and are sustained by God.2

Even today, one can witness Husayn’s miracle, when mourners inflict themselves with blades, pieces of broken glass bottles picked up from the ground, chains and swords, and exchange those articles without even cleaning before using them in the Muharram processions. Their wounds are cured without recourse to medicine. Another unique and miraculous feature is that, even to this day, the processions consist of heart patients, diabetic patients, and those who suffer from severe hypertension. None of them is known to have died from the self-inflicted injuries or breast beating in the religious processions during the commemoration of Imam Husayn’s martyrdom, anywhere in the world. All these are signs of Imam Husayn’s continuing miracles. While self-flagellation is considered in Christianity as a means of expiating for sins, it is practiced only by highly revered priests. Among the Shias, it is a common practice during Muharram.

Curiously, it is called a ‘battle’, but there were no two armies waging war at Karbala. On one side was Imam Husayn (a.s.) with a few tens of persons, including an infant six months old and several teenagers. Opposing this small group was a huge army of infantry, cavalry, and other regiments. The nobility and intensity of purpose and the vigour and valour with which the small band of people fought a huge army, gave it the shape of an unforgettable epic battle. Today, Imam Husayn (a.s.) and his small band of supporters are universally acknowledged as innocent martyrs, while Yazid and his huge army are disgraced for their abominable acts of large-scale massacre and torture of men, women and children.

Yet, Imam Husayn’s battle at Karbala is often distorted by prejudices created over centuries of adverse propaganda carried on by suppressive regimes. The consequent mutilation of real facts led to the dilution of knowledge of the historic events, resulting in an unfounded belief that it was a battle between two powers for succession fought between the Umayyads represented by Yazid son of Mu’awiya, and the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) represented by Imam Husayn (a.s.).

The Shrine of Imam Husayn (a.s.) was razed to the ground at least on eight occasions. Even the lote tree that marked the grave was cut down and the soil tilled, so the people may not be able to identify the spot. Yet after every demolition, a new and more elaborate structure came up. How did people identify the spot in the absence of any trace? It is reported that the aroma and fragrance emanating from the spot lert people identify the spot. In the famous Hadith of al-Kisa, Imam Ali, Imam Hasan, and Imam Husayn (a.s.) detected the presence of the Prophet (S) from the aroma and fragrance that emanated from the body of the Prophet (S). On another occasion, the Noble Lady Fatima (a.s.) wanted to give a present to one of her friends who was getting married. The Prophet (S) took out a few drops of his sweat that was applied to the bride. Not only the bride but also seven generations among her children carried the incense of the Prophet’s sweat. Jabir ibn Abdullh al-Ansari was blind when he visited the shrine at Karbala soon after Ashura. He identified the grave by the aroma and fragrance that emanated from it.

Among the Twelver Shia, their Majlises [meetings], are veritable universities of their theology, where the basic Shiite tenets, conceptual and philosophical teachings of the twelve Imams (a.s.) in addition to scientific and historical facts revealed by the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) are taught and orally transmitted. An early effort in English, in the detailed study of the life of Imam Husayn (a.s.) and the battle of Karbala, available perhaps only in some libraries, was the pioneering work of my mentor, master and guide, the late Al-haj Moulvi Mirza Ghulam Abbas Ali Sahib of Madras. He was a lecturer of the then Government Muhammadan College [Govt. Arts College], Madras. He was well versed in Arabic, Persian, and English. He was also a great orator among the Twelver Shia of South India.

In the preface to his book ‘Life of Husayn the Saviour’ Alhaj Moulvi Mirza Ghulam Abbas Ali wrote: “Several authors have attempted to give vivid pictures of stories, whose chronology is not yet traceable and whose antiquity has led many to doubt the reality and genuineness of the stories themselves and to suspect them as of the production of intelligent heads for the inculcation of high moral and ethical principles to the common folk in the most appealing and dramatic fashion. But eye witness facts, as true as the day, occurred a thousand years ago among the so called ‘most intelligent people of the middle ages’, recorded in history by authors of the age, are relegated to darkness and are not compiled to form a readable volume in English literature.”

S. V. Mir Ahmed Ali Sahib Vafakhani is another great luminary from Madras, which fortunately is also my place of birth. S.V. Mir Ahmed Ali Sahib joined clerical service in the Government Muhammadan College Madras and later obtained his Bachelor’s Degree in Oriental languages and also his M.Ed in Psychology. Mir Ahmed Ali Sahib’s English translation with commentary of the Holy Qur’an printed by Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an from New York in 2002, is quite popular, especially with reference to the Holy Bible. He was a contemporary of Mirza Ghulam Abbas Ali Sahib. At page 11[a] of his Introduction to the Translation of the Holy Qur’an, S.V. Mir Ahmed Ali Sahib mentions several contemporary leading Shia scholars of Madras and refers to Alhaj Mirza Ghulam Abbas Ali Sahib and his book ‘Life of Husayn’, which was first printed in 1931.

It appears that S.V. Mir Ahmed Ali Sahib Vafakhani had first published in the year 1925, a booklet of 25 pages under the title ‘The King of Martyrs’ which was reprinted four times by the year 1964. Its popularity prompted him to write a second book ‘Husayn - the Savior of Islam’ which was first printed in 1964. Its second edition is printed by Ansariyan Publications, Qum, Iran in the year 2005. This book makes many references to the Bible and Christian dogma in regard to the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.).

Another book on the subject is the excellent work of Sheikh Abbas al Qummi, under the title ‘Nafasul Mahmoom’. It has been translated into Urdu. Aejaz Ali T. Bhujwala translated it into English. The best book in Urdu on the subject is ‘Akhbar-e-Matam’ published in Ramadan, 1947 A.D. It is available in the Salar Jung Library, Hyderabad. A very enlightening, popular and well-researched book on the subject in Urdu is Bilgirami’s ‘Zibhe Azeem’.

Ansariyan Publication, Qum, Iran has published in 2002 a very well documented and well-written book of Yasin T. al Jibouri. The book in English bears the title ‘Karbala and Beyond’ is very useful, particularly with reference to the incidents that took place after Ashura. Other books published by Ansariyan Publications are, the English translation of Ali Nazari Munfared’s book under the title ‘Imam Husayn (a.s.) and the Saga of Karbala’ and Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi’s book, translated into English by Sayyid Ather Husayn S.H. Rizvi under the title ‘Understanding Kerbala’.

The popular source for eyewitness accounts of the battle at Karbala are the ‘Maqaatil’3 of Abu Makhnaf, and Hamid ibn Muslim, the latter being a scribe embedded with the army of Yazid. They meticulously recorded not only the events but also the conversation, sermons and challenges in the battlefield called ‘Rajaz’.4 If anyone of these two chronicles omitted a particular event or a dialogue or sermon, found elsewhere, it may be due to the scribe’s absence from that place and time. But, over all, their records are authentic and have never been disputed as the coinage of a fertile imagination.

The chief source for the Twelver Shia are the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) - members of the Prophet’s family - who were present at Karbala in Imam Husayn’s camp and related the correct versions which was then passed on to successive generations by the Infallible and Immaculate Imams (a.s.). The present book is an attempt to understand the correct facts and philosophy behind the Battle of Karbala, in the Shiite perspective.

Notes

1. Biharul Anwar, Vol. 44 p. 329.

2. Qur’an, 2:154, 3:169, 3:195.

3. Maqtal literally means the ‘Manner (orand Place) of Massacre’.

4. Rajaz is the customary manner in which an Arab warrior addresses his opponent, in single combat, introducing himself, his lineage, his military exploits, combat acumen and success in earlier wars.

Chapter 2: Historical Background

One has to look beyond the canvas of the battlefield itself, into the early days of Islam, in order to understand the cause and the facts and circumstances, which led Imam Husayn (a.s.) to face an enormous army at Karbala and the reason and philosophy behind his refusal to submit to an apparently simple demand for allegiance to Yazid. From a reading of the following pages, the reader will understand that the seed for the battle of Karbala was sown long prior to the birth of Imam Husayn (a.s.) and later the battle was ultimately forced upon him. This is brought out by the repeated assertions of Yazid’s army that though Imam Husayn (a.s.) himself had done nothing against them or against Islam, they had gathered to seek revenge for their ancestors who were killed by his father Imam Ali (a.s.) in the battles of Badr, Uhud, al-Khandaq and Honain.

During the life of the Prophet (S) all disputes, whether they led to a fight or not, were between believers and non-believers or the opponents of Islam. Chief among the opponents of Muhammad (S) and the religion he preached, were the Banu Umayya (the Umayyads) headed by Abu Sufyan the father of Mu’awiya and grandfather of Yazid. Abu Sufyan’s wife Hind is the most infamous woman in the history of Islam, who plucked out and chewed the raw liver of the martyr Hamza in the battle of ‘Uhud’.1

History does not record any serious conflict, except petty jealousies, between the Banu Umayya and the Banu Hashim (the Hashemites), prior to the proclamation of Islam. The Banu Umayya never believed the Prophet (S) to be the Messenger of God. They suspected that under the cloak of religion, a mighty empire was in the making under their cousin Muhammad (S). The Banu Umayya only desired and planned to appropriate the leadership of the empire from Prophet Muhammad (S). They had nothing to do with Muhammad’s Message. Before ostensibly accepting Islam, when Abu Sufyan saw the zealous followers of the Prophet (S), he exclaimed, “Indeed our cousin has built a powerful army.”

The Prophet’s uncle Abbas rebuked Abu Sufyan saying that it was not an army but a small group of devout followers of the Message of Muhammad, the Prophet (S). Abu Sufyan replied, “Call it by whatever name you will, for me it is a mighty army with immense potential to create an empire.” Abu Sufyan’s attitude never changed throughout his life, though he claimed to have professed Islam and ingratiated himself among the companions of the Prophet (S). Years later, when Uthman became the third Caliph, Abu Sufyan jumped with joy seeing his dream come true in the shape of the leadership of Islam falling in the hands of his kin, Abu Sufyan gleefully advised Uthman:“Now that the Caliphate has fallen into your hands, toss it around like a ball and fearlessly perpetuate it among your own kin, the Banu Umayya, for there is neither paradise nor hell.”2

The real cause for the jealousy and blood feud between Banu Umayya and Banu Hashim is best set out in the words of Abu Sufyan’s son Mu’awiya. It is reported that Mutawwaf and his father al-Mughira visited Mu’awiya who was reclining on his couch, and advised him to be considerate and less harsh towards the Ahlul Bayt, now that he was in power. At that very moment, the mu’azzin (the caller who calls out the azan) shouted the call for prayers. Mu’awiya abruptly sat up and declared: “It is impossible that I take kindly to the Ahlul Bayt. What memory do I leave behind when I die? Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman ruled for long periods during their caliphates. After their death, does anybody remember them, except occasionally to say that they were the caliphs? Many people benefited from Uthman but they have forgotten his bounties and even what had happened to him. When I die, the same thing will happen and I will be completely forsaken. But, look what Hashim’s offspring has done - five times every day, till Doomsday the minarets of every mosque around the world will echo, twenty four hours every day, the proclamation ‘I bear witness that Muhammad is the prophet of God’. What difference does it make if I lead a pious or vicious life?.”3

A similar incident is reported with reference to Mu’awiya’s father Abu Sufyan. It is related that Abu Sufyan had grown old and blind. He was sitting in the mosque along with Abdullah ibn Abbas and several others. The Mu’azzin started calling for the prayers. When the Mu’azzin reached that part of the call testifying the Prophethood of Muhammad (S), Abu Sufyan said, “Look where my cousin Muhammad has placed his name.” Imam Ali (a.s.) who heard this retorted, “Muhammad placed his name not out of his own fancy but as commanded by God.”4 This rancor in the hearts of the Banu Umayya that Prophethood is only a pretense to worldly power persisted through out centuries and continues to do so till date.

Though Abu Sufyan, Mu’awiya, Yazid and their ilk spared no effort, they could not prevent the proclamation of the Prophet’s name and Mission, five times every day, all over the world in the Azan. Regarding this, the Qur’an reveals, “They desire to blow out [extinguish] the light of Allah, but Allah seeks to perfect His light, though the infidels abhor it.”5 Long after the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) had returned to Medina after the tragedy of Karbala, Ibrahim bin Talha bin Obeidillah asked the fourth Imam al-Sajjad (a.s.): “Who won the battle at Karbala?.” Imam al-Sajjad (a.s.) replied, “When the time for prayers comes and when the Azan and Eqama [the two calls before every prayer] are called out, you will know who the winner is.”6

Having failed to remove the Prophet’s name or substitute some other name in its place in the Azan, Mu’awiya invented a novel way of taking revenge against the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), particularly Imam Ali (a.s.). Mu’awiya made it obligatory, in all the provinces under his control, that five times every day, after prayers Ali (a.s.) should be abused and cursed from the pulpits [over seventy thousand pulpits according to some reckoning] by the leaders of the congregations. Inventors of stories demeaning Ali (a.s.) or coining false traditions in favour of the Banu Umayya were lavishly rewarded. Abu Huraira and Amr ibn al-Aass earned so much wealth by this process that Umar had to confiscate their huge unaccounted wealth.7

Some of the close companions doubted the wisdom and infallibility of the Prophet (S), for they considered him to be an ordinary mortal like themselves.8 Historians record the fact that in his last moments when the Prophet (S) demanded a pen and parchment to write down his last will and testament, Umar, one of the companions, not only refused to oblige but also even prevented others under threat from complying, stating that the Prophet (S) had become delirious in his death throes and that the Qur’an is sufficient for guidance of Muslims.

After the Prophet (S), serious dissensions were created as to succession. One party asserted that the Prophet (S) had clearly nominated his successor while the opposite party contended that the Prophet (S) did not nominate anyone and had left the matter of succession in the hands of the Muslims. The nomination of Imam Ali (a.s.) by the Prophet (S), which they had personally witnessed on numerous occasions, was very fresh in the minds of Muslims. They saw the Prophet (S) nominate Imam Ali (a.s.) from the very first day when he invited the tribe of Quraish to the ‘Feast of Youm ad-Dar (day of warning) ’.9 Again, for reciting before the non-Muslims of Mecca the Chapter ‘Bara'a’ which in effect sets out the policy in Islam, Ali (a.s.) was entrusted with the task while the Prophet (S) declared that God had ordained that such an important task could be carried out either by the Prophet (S) himself or by Ali (a.s.) ;10 during the confrontation with the Christians of Najran in what is called ‘Mubahala’; and on the occasion of his last pilgrimage at a place called Khum the Prophet (S) nominated Imam Ali (a.s.) as his successor and made obedience and love of Imam Ali (a.s.) obligatory on the entire Muslim Ummah.11

As the very first step towards nullifying the Prophet’s nomination of Ali (a.s.) as his successor, over the dead body of the Prophet (S), Umar unsheathed his sword and brandishing it, shouted that he would behead anyone who said that the Prophet (S) was dead. Umar declared that Muhammad could not die and that he had simply gone, like Moses before, to meet his Lord.12 Thus, very cleverly an impression was created that the question of succession to the Prophet (S) had not yet opened, since the Prophet (S) was not dead!

Shortly after the receipt of the news of the Prophet’s passing away, Abu Bakr returned to Medina, from Suk where he was living with his newly wedded wife. He proclaimed that Umar’s contention that the Prophet (S) could not die and that like Moses, he had simply gone to meet the Lord, is quite contrary to the Qur’anic verses which declare that one day, like any other person, Muhammad (S) was also destined to die.13

Even as the body of the Prophet (S) was being prepared by his family members for burial, Umar and Abu Bakr left for the place called ‘the Saqifa14 of Bani Sa’ida’ as they considered the matter of succession far pressing and urgent than the burial of the Prophet (S).15 At the Saqifa, Abu Bakr was declared by Umar as the leader [Caliph] of the Muslims.16 Later on when the group returned to the Prophet’s house, they found that he was already buried by Imam Ali (a.s.), his children, relatives, and close companions of the Prophet (S), who performed the funeral rites. The ever-scheming Abu Sufyan unsuccessfully tried to incite Imam Ali (a.s.) by saying that he would support Imam Ali (a.s.) and provide sufficient men and weapons so that Imam Ali (a.s.) might, with Abu Sufyan’s support, challenge Abu Bakr. Imam Ali (a.s.) asked Abu Sufyan to desist from his favorite and evil games of sowing sedition and discord among Muslims. Imam Ali (a.s.) said that Islam was still in its infant state and any precipitate action at that stage, even though justified, would still be harmful to Islam.

For those who aspired to succeed to the Prophet (S), it became necessary to stop repeating, if not completely obliterating from the memory of the public, the numerous occasions when the Prophet (S) nominated Imam Ali (a.s.), openly and publicly as his successor. One of the first orders issued by Abu Bakr on becoming the Caliph was that traditions should neither be related, recorded, nor propagated, on the ground that the Hadiths, if related, were likely to confuse and disillusion the public. Umar continued this edict and went to the extent of threatening to behead not only those who tried to relate traditions, but also those who listened to them. In fact, Umar imprisoned ibn Mas’ud, Abud Darda, and Abu Mas’ud for relating Hadith in defiance of his orders.17 When Uthman succeeded Umar, he followed the earlier caliphs and continued the embargo on relating, collecting, or publishing Hadith.18

Mu’awiya, during his tyrannical tenure, went one-step further. He not only prohibited relating of any hadith extolling the virtues of the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), but also encouraged invention and propagation false and fictitious tales about the Prophet (S) and his progeny (a.s.). Imam Ali (a.s.) was made a special target by bribing people to openly defame and abuse him five times a day from every pulpit. The Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) were portrayed as anti-Islamic mutineers (baghi). In addition to this, absurd traditions were invented, intending to extol the virtues of the three caliphs, which in fact were derogatory of the Prophet (S). For example, it was said that Umar asked the Prophet (S) to see that his wives were veiled but the Prophet (S) did not listen to him until the commandment for hijab was revealed, in support of Umar.19 Another tradition related that Satan was not afraid of the Prophet (S), but was mortally scared of Umar.20 Some of the invented traditions were outright slanderous and brought down the honor and dignity of the Prophet (S), so much so that the Prophet (S) came to be portrayed as a sexual pervert.21

Mu’awiya, during his long regime, pretended that he was the only surviving relative of the Prophet (S). To some extent, he succeeded in obliterating from the public mind, the existence of the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) in Syria, Iraq, and the newly conquered Spain and Rome. The malicious and false propaganda by Mu’awiya was so intense that when the people of Syria learnt that Imam Ali (a.s.) was martyred while leading the Morning Prayer in the Mosque in Kufa, they exclaimed ‘What was Ali, who never prayed, doing in the Mosque!’ As a result of the calumny, in a short span of time people failed to recognize Imam Husayn (a.s.) the beloved grandson of the Prophet (S). Therefore, in every sermon or discussion Imam Husayn (a.s.) made it a point to introduce himself as the Prophet’s grandson and the surviving heir of the Prophet (S).

Abu Sufyan, Mu’awiya, and Yazid changed the philosophy and teachings of Islam. They openly permitted what was prohibited and neglected what was enjoined. Corruption and debauchery in high offices and oppression of the pious and the poor became the order of the day. It is in this context and situation where the hypocrites and opponents of Islam sowed and nurtured the seeds of distortion of Islam, that the Battle of Karbala becomes a milestone in the history of Islam. It is another story that Abu Sufyan, Mu’awiya, and Yazid could not succeed in removing the name of Husayn’s grandfather, the Prophet (S), from being proclaimed five times every day. Just as anticipated by Mu’awiya himself, today he is forgotten and if at all remembered, his name is linked only to hypocrisy, cunning, evil, and irreligion. Today, mothers shun naming their children after Mu’awiya or Yazid. It is interesting to note that the word ‘Mu’awiya’ though used for a male - the son of Abu Sufyan, literally means ‘a bitch’22 .

Notes

1. Tareekh at-Tabari, vol. 3, p. 22 &23 [s] Egypt, Seeratun Nabi, vol. 1 p. 273, al-Istee’ab, vol. 2 p. 286, al-Majlisi’s Hayatul Quloob, 253.

2. Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. 11, p. 357, al-Mas’udi’s Muruj ath-Thahab vol. 1 p. 440, Tarikh al-Khamees, Vol. 2 p. 97, Ask Those who Know, p. 42.

3. Al-Muwafaqiyyat, p. 576, al-Mas’udi’s Muruj ath-Thahab vol. 2, p. 341, Ibn Abil Hadid, vol. 5, p 130, al-Ghadir, vol. 10, p. 283, Ask Those Who Know, p.43-44.

4. Al-Mas’udi’s Muruj ath-Thahab, vol. 6, quoted in Mufti Jafer Husayn’s preface to the English translation of Nahjul Balagha, p67.

5. Qur’an, 9:32.

6. Al-Amali of Sheikh at-Tusi, p.66, al-Jibouri’s Kerbala & Beyond, p.131.

7. K. Ali, A Study of Islamic History, page 144.

8. Al-Bukhari, vol. 2 p.14, Tareekh al-Khamis by Dayar Bakhti – vol 2 p. 32, Madarijun Nubuwwa, vol. 2 p. 286-287, History of Islam p.357, 358.

9. Musnad of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal vol. 1 p.331, Abul Fida, Part 1, p.116, at-Tabari, vol. 2 p. 217, ibn al-Athir, vol. 2, p.22, Mustadrak of al-Hakim, vol. 2 p. 133, Habib Al-Sayyar, vol. 2, Part 3, p.160, ibn Kathir’s Tarikh, vol. 3, p. 40, Kanzul Ummal, vol. 6 p. 392, 397, 401 and 408, Rawdatus Safa, vol. 2 p. 278 and 279, Ibn Taimiya’s Minhajus Sunna vol. 4, p. 80, al-Mohibbuddin at-Tabari’s ar-Riyadul Nadira, Part 2 chap. 4 Section 6 p. 168, 202, 203.

10. Al-Bukhari, Kitab as-Salaat, p. 238, at-Tabari, vol. 3 p. 154, ibn Sa’d’s Tabaqat, vol. 2, Part 1 p. 121, Abul Fida, vol. 1 p.150, Habibus Sayyar, vol. 1, part 3 p. 72, Tarikh al-Khamis, vol. 2, p.156, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani’s Fat~h al- Bari, vol. 8, p.241, Madarijun Nubuwwa, vol. 2, p.492, ibn Khaldun, vol. 3, p. 222-225, Tarikh of ibn Kathir, vol. 7, p. 337, 357, ibn al-Athir, vol. 2 p.111, The Caliphate, p. 58.

11. Sahih of Muslim, vol. 7, p. 122-123, Musnad of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal vol. 3, p. 14,17, 26, and vol. 4, p. 367, 371, vol. 5 p.182, 189, Jalaluddin al-Suyuti’s al-Jami’ul Kabir, Kanzul Ummal vol. 6, p.390 and vol. 3 p. 61, Musnad of Abu Dawud p.23 tradition No.154, Amir Ali’s Spirit of Islam, Part 2, Ch 8, p. 292-293, The Caliphate, p 178-185.

12. Al-Bukhari, chap., Ashabun Nabi, vol. 2, p. 193, Musnad of Ahmad bin Hanbal vol. 1, p. 334, Tabaqat of ibn Sa’d, vol. 2 Part 2, p.55, Shibli’s Al-Faruq, vol. 1, p.65, Ibn Khaldun vol. 2, Supp. P.63, ibn Hisham, vol. 4, p.334, Abul Fida’s Qasasul Ambiya, p. 418.

13. Ibn Hajar al-Makki’s as-Sawa’iq, p.5, ibn Hisham, vol. 6, p.5.

14. A shed; a covered communal place appropriate for conversation and discussion.

15. Shibli’s al-Faruq, vol. 1, p.66 quoting at-Tabari, vol. 3, p.208; Abul Fida’s Qasas, p. 417.

16. At-Tabari, Vol. 3, p.200-210, al-Bukhari, Bab Rajm al Hubla, Musnad of Ahmad bin Hanbal vol. 1, p. 55, Ibn Hajar al-Makki’s as-Sawaiq chap. 1 Section 1, p. 5, al-Kamil of ibn al-Athir, vol. 2 p. 124, Tarikh ibn Kathir vol. 5, p.245, al-Mohib at-Tabari’s ar-Riyadun Nadira, Part 2, Section 3, p. 164. ibn Hisham, vol. 4, p. 338, Tadhkiratul Huffaz by ath-Thahabi – vol. 1 p.2, 3, 5 and 7, Sunan of ibn Maja, vol. 1 p. 12, Sunan of ad-Darimi, vol. 1 p. 85. Shibli’s al-Faruk, Part 2, p. 223, 225, Agha Muhammad Sultan Mirza’s The Caliphate p. 58.

17. Abdul Salaam al-Nadwi’s Tarikh al-Fiqh al-Islami, p. 161-162, ath-Thahabi’s Tathkirat al-Huffadh Vol. 1 p. 7.

18. Musnad of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal vol. 4, p. 64.

19. Al-Bukhari, vol. 1 p. 46.

20. Al-Bukhari, vol. 4 p.96, vol. 8 p. 161.

21. Sahih of Muslim, vol. 2, p.157, Sahih of al-Bukhari, vol. 1 44, 171, 123, vol. 2 p. 65, 71, 232 and 234, & vol. 4, p.68, vol. 7 p. 29, quoted in Ask Those Who Know, p. 67-68.

22. Cf. Al-Munjid, p. 694.