Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Piranepir And Sadaat Hasani

Recently a Sunni has written in his magazine about an amazing miracle of Pir Dastagir. He says that since he was a Hasani Sayyid, his spiritual effect is such that all Hasani Sadaat (descendants of Imam Hasan) are all Sunnis while the Sayyids (descendants) of Husayn (a.s.) are Shia. When a person is a bigot, he is blind and deaf. First of all, Abdul Qadir Jilani was not a Sayyid. It is a false claim and also that other Hasani Sadaat were Sunnis.

It is written in Umdatul Matalib that Pir Dastagir was not a Sayyid and he never even claimed thus. His sons also did not make such a claim. His grandson was first to claim it, but he could not prove his claim. Even if Abdul Qadir had been a Sayyid, he could not have the power to make anyone Shia or Sunni. Except Allah, no one has the power to make anyone a believer or infidel. Even the Holy Prophet (S) had no power to forcibly convert infidels into believers. Just as the Holy Quran says:

“Surely you cannot guide whom you love.”1

Such vain thoughts are possible only in such people. If a writer is not unbiased, he cannot write the truth. The claim that all the past and present Sadaat Hasani were Sunnis is false. There is nothing to prove that Hasani Sadaat should only be Sunnis and Husaini Sadaat only Shia. At present there are many Hasani Sadaat (descendants of Imam Husayn) who are Shias and many Husaini Sadaat who are Sunnis. The same had been in the past. Since disunity occurred in Sadaat, they never followed one and the same religion, as we have proved in the foregoing pages.

There was a tribe that descended from Imam Hasan (a.s.) and resided outside Medina. They were all Shias, but it seems the writer of Zujarul Awaam is unaware of this. This tribe still follows Shia religion even though Sunnis of Medina accuse them of various falsehoods, but they are not prepared to forgo their ancestral faith. Since they are Shias, Sunnis of Medina oppress them in various ways. Even the Turkish government did not accord them any respect. Except for menial and laborious jobs, these Sadaat do not have any gainful employment. They live in very difficult conditions, yet they do not wish to go away from there. If someone offers them Khums money, the Medinites snatch it away from them and the Turkish authorities are mute witnesses of this. Why do the heavens not crash at such atrocities on these Sayyids? It is nothing but the consequence of Umar’s words: “We have the Book of Allah with us.” Allah says in the Holy Quran:

“Say, I do not ask from you any recompense except the love of my family members.”2

And the Prophet said: “I leave among you two heavy things.” But the commands of Allah and His Prophet were not obeyed. The statement of ‘We have the Book of Allah with us’ became more powerful. Now I wish to ask whether such things have an iota of truth? The fact is that no miraculous power can make any Sayyid a Shia or Sunni, although it is very unlikely that a Sayyid should become a Sunni, but when the factors are such that can make him a Sunni, he becomes a Sunni. There are mainly three causes that can make a Sayyid, Sunni. They are as follows:

(1) The first cause is ignorance. That is, he doesn’t know what is the religion of Ali al-Murtadha’ (a.s.) and what is the religion of Zaid Ibn Thabit. He thinks the religion he is following was the same as the one his ancestor, Ali (a.s.) had and all Bani Hashim were believing in the same religion. Most of the time he has this misconception and the truth is never revealed to him.

But if he learns that the religion of his ancestor was distinct from the Farooqi religion or that the name of his ancestor has been removed from Quran, as we have shown above, he would not remain a Sunni for a moment. The same thing happened to this writer, who after studying the books had to give up the deviated religion.

(2) The second cause, which is not less powerful than the first one, is worldly position and power. When Ahlul Sunnat were in power, Shias had to observe dissimulation (Taqayyah) and thus they pretended to be Sunnis. Their children and descendants thus became Sunnis and still continue to be.

(3) The third cause is social influence and education. Usually many Sayyids at a young age are influenced by Ahlul Sunnat company and themselves become Sunni. They never give up their ancestral religion after research and study. It would not be surprising if one day such people were to become Jews or atheists due to the influence of company.

Similarly, due to education and training, there is a distance from ancestral religion. A good example is that of Sayyid Mahdi Ali Khan Sahab, Mohsinul Mulk. He was a Sadaat from a high family. His family religion was Imamiyah, but he left it and died on the faith of Ahlul Sunnat. I used to be astonished at his giving up his ancestral religion. But one day I heard him in a speech at Bankipur and from that day my astonishment ended. It seemed from his statements that beyond his grandfather, they were of a famous family. They were leaders of religion being Sayyids and they also had worldly power. But during the time of his father, they underwent difficult times. In his own words, they could not even afford five rupees a month to pay for a tutor.

In such a state of poverty, he was forced to go to Barabanki at the age of eight, where a royal personage took him under his care. He gained education and finally got a job under the British. Since he was very brilliant, he worked hard and soon he rose to a good administrative position and finally became the Deputy Collector.

Obviously, if the Nawab had continued to live with his family, he wouldn’t have got the chance to gain such education and to become a collector. What else could he have done rather than opt for the religion of the collectors, because he did not get any chance to get religious training at home? If he had gone under the care of a Padre, he would have become a Christian. There is no doubt that his family religion was Shiaism, but he did not get any teaching of Shia faith.

On the other hand he got training in the Hanafite School. The first impression is the most powerful one, so it was not unexpected from him. Thus, being a boy from a Shia family, he left his religion. His relatives used to be very surprised at this, but he did not do anything unexpected. He followed only the religion whose teachings had been inculcated in him. And that was also the religion of his benefactor who had taken him under his care and had done everything to provide him shelter and education. The Nawab used to remember his benefactor with gratitude.

It is well known that Nawab Mohsinul Mulk reached the position of collector and was based in Mirzapur. At that time, other Sunni officers like Imdad Khan served in the capacity of Deputy Collector. Though he was not a religious person, the Nawab took care to follow the exigencies and during his stay in Mirzapur, he wrote his book, Aayatul Bayyinah. The quality of this book is well known to all those who are well-versed in Ilmul Kalam (Scholastic Theology). Here we do not wish to evaluate his book. It is sufficient for us to prove that education and training in wrong hands can make a boy from a Shia family a Sunni.

Notes

1. Surah Qasas 28:56

2. Surah Shura 42:23

Caliphate is From Allah or Caliphate is From People – Its Connection with Composition of Marsiya (Elegy) Writing

It should be clear that Ahlul Sunnat Caliphate includes Imamate and in fact, Caliphate cannot be separated from Imamate. They consider it as an affair of people while Shias consider Caliphate as an affair ordained by Allah. Since Mir Anees1 was also a Shia, he also had the same view regarding Caliphate. That Caliphate which includes Imamate, is an affair ordained by Allah and in no case can it be an affair decided by the people.

All the elegies (Marsiya) of Mir were based on this very belief and all Shia Marsiya writers follow this belief in the past and still are. If the reader is not aware of this matter that Shia consider Caliphate a divine affair, which means that the Holy Prophet’s Caliph cannot be man-made because the Holy Prophet’s Caliph should be like the Holy Prophet (S), an infallible, this unaware person cannot gain any benefit from these Marsiya writers. For example if any person is not aware of the Christian belief of Trinity, he cannot appreciate Milton’s Paradise Lost.

Thus, the reader of Shia Marsiya must keep this in mind that as per the belief of Shias from the fourteen divine personalities, the personality about whom he is reading the Marsiya, is indeed infallible. Allah makes his infallibility obvious and only Allah has made him infallible, and if he is from the Twelve Imams, he is the Caliph and Imam from Allah’s permission and people have not selected him.

It is seen in the writings of Shia Marsiya writers that all these Shia poets consider Imam Husayn (a.s.) as the rightful Imam and the rightful successor of the Holy Prophet (S). They all confess to his infallibility. They consider his military action as Jihad and his killing as martyrdom. It is obvious that these views have no compatibility with Sunni faith.

The principles of faith of Ahlul Sunnat state that Imam Husayn (a.s.) was neither the Caliph of the Holy Prophet (S), nor the Imam of the time or infallible. His battle against Yazeed was an uprising and that is why his killing cannot be considered martyrdom. As mentioned by them: “Husayn engineered an uprising and was killed by the sword of his grandfather.” It is well-known that this statement was of Pir Dastagir Abdul Qadir Jilani in Ghaniyatu Talibeen. But it cannot be found in the printed version of this book.

But there can be no doubt that it is the statement of Abu Bakr Ibn Gharbi as Nawab Siddiq Husayn Khan Bhopali writes in his book Hujajil Karamah and the words are as follow: “There is no doubt that from the aspect of demand of religion of Ahlul Sunnat, the belief of Abu Bakr Ibn Gharibi is not inappropriate. It is a necessary thing that from the aspect of roots of belief, only this should be the belief of Ahlul Sunnat, but those Sunnat who have a contrary belief, are indeed unprincipled.”

In short, to read the Marsiya of Shia, it is necessary for the reader to be aware of Shia beliefs. Otherwise, he would not be able to fully understand the principles of Shia faith and nor would he be able to derive any pleasure from them. It should be clear that Ahlul Sunnat of Bihar who follow the Hanafite religion and who are safe from the influence of Wahhabis, look at the tragedy of Karbala’ as viewed by Shia. They consider Imam Husayn (a.s.) as the oppressed one and believe that his killing was martyrdom. Though they may be opposed to the rituals of mourning as practiced by Shias, they have no difference of opinion regarding the tragedy of Karbala’ itself.

According to the belief of Shias, Imam Husayn (a.s.) was infallible like his grandfather, the Holy Prophet (S) and his father, mother and brother were, like the Holy Prophet (S) also infallible. And his successors from Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) to Imam Sahibul Asr (a.s.) are considered infallible. The Imamiyah consider these fourteen infallibles to be pure from small and great sins and to be immaculate in all aspects.

This however is not the belief of Ahlul Sunnat. But since Shia Marsiya writing is based on Shia beliefs, Imam Husayn (a.s.) is mentioned as an infallible in Shia Marsiya and his Imamate is considered a divinely ordained affair. On the basis of his infallibility and divine appointment, Shias ascribe to the belief in his oppressed position and his death is considered a martyrdom.

Thus, if the matter of infallibility and divine office is taken away, the structure of Marsiya writing crashes to the ground. Sometime ago, a book was published by Maulavi Nazir Ahmad Dehlavi, which shows that the writer had no connection with the belief of infallibility. That is, he did not even ascribe to the belief in the infallibility of the Holy Prophet (S).

Note

1. A very famous Urdu poet of India.

‘Devotion’ Of Maulavi Nazir Ahmad to the Holy Prophet and His Family

From the topic of his writing, it seems to be devotion, but he says: “We consider the Holy Prophet (S) to be having all the human weaknesses and regard him as human.”1 If this statement is correct, the Prophet cannot be in any way considered superior to Isa (a.s.) and from this statement, the infallibility of the Holy Prophet (S) is nullified. Indeed, being a prophet, Isa (a.s.) was infallible just as his followers agree to his infallibility and on the basis of his infallibility, he was away from all human weaknesses. In this way, the non-infallible cannot be superior to an infallible.

Now the Christians would know that a well-known Ahlul Sunnat scholar has made a statement, which testifies to the claim of the Christians and falsifies the claim of the followers of Muhammad. It is correct that: The people are on the religion of their rulers. Thus, the writer has only supported the religion of his masters, the British, who were ruling the country during this time, so it was not unexpected from him. The writer has, by his writing, repaid the favors of his British masters, especially, Sir William Mayer, who was the Lieutenant Governor and a well-known anti-Muslim personality. The Maulavi has written similar things about the Chief of the Lady of Paradise, Lady Fatima Zahra (s.a.), which shows that he had no regard for the infallibility of the great lady.

On page 99 of his book, he writes: “In spite of the fact that Fatima was not denied her rightful share of Fadak, she, on the basis of her enmity with Abu Bakr took a negative stance. She stopped speaking to Abu Bakr and made a request that she must be buried at night and these people should not be allowed to participate in her funeral. What a severe anger she had!”

We seek Allah’s refuge! O Maulavi fear Allah! You have written such a statement about the Chief of the Lady of Paradise! And accused her of anger? Can such words be justified for a daughter of the Holy Prophet (S) like Fatima (s.a.)? Except for an everlasting unfortunate person, such a misdemeanor cannot be performed by anyone. Whether Fatima (s.a.) rightfully expressed her dislike for Abu Bakr and Umar or not is beyond the scope of this discussion. Here, we just point out the disrespectful attitude of the Maulavi. Indeed, such a statement about the chief of the Lady of Paradise can only be issued by one who is an opponent of the family of the Holy Prophet (S). It seems that the writer had no manners at all, though he considered his style to be liberal.

There is no strength and power except by Allah.

Another example of the same type of misdemeanor is presented below. The Maulana says: “It was all the better for Islam that the male issues of the Holy Prophet (S) did not survive. Only a daughter survived him and due to her progeny, the Muslims were divided into Sunnis and Shias, who are forever fighting each other. If a male child had survived, he would have proved to be like the son of Nuh (a.s.).”

O Muslims! Is such writing according to Islamic etiquette that he is expressing satisfaction that the Holy Prophet (S) did not leave a male issue? First he said that his son would have proved to be like the son of Nuh (a.s.), then he expressed regret that his surviving daughter had issues and progeny. He wished that she were issueless. How can a Muslim pen such words? Or can be pleased with such writings? If such writings are not considered vile, what is?

Apparently, it seems that just as the Maulana is pleased at the absence of male issues of the Prophet, he was also unhappy that Lady Fatima had issues. If the Maulana had been present during the time of the Prophet, he would have congratulated the Prophet for his not having any son and he would have also expressed condolence on the birth of his grandsons. The statement of Maulana clearly shows that he is indeed hateful to the Sadaat, and he wished that all Sadaat became extinct. But when cruel people like Muawiyah and Yazeed could not destroy the Sadaat how can this Maulana succeed in his aim?

When the wretched infidels began to address the Prophet as childless, the divine command affected the spread of the Prophet’s progeny to such an extent that Muawiyah, Yazeed and all the Caliphs of Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas got tired of killing the Sadaat, but they did not succeed in their mission. How can the Maulana be considered in any way effective in this matter?

The Maulana writes that if a son of the Prophet had survived, he would have been like the son of Nuh (a.s.). This is indeed a strange statement. It is not necessary that the son of every Prophet should be like Nuh’s son. However, one thing is certain that if the Prophet had left a son, he would also have been treated like the other members of the Prophet’s family at the hands of people like the Maulana.

The next example of this disrespect is on the page 99 of his book where he writes: “On one side was Fatima (s.a.) that she died but did not reconcile and on the other was ‘A’ysha, much more than this. In our country there is a belief that women are extremely stubborn and the same qualities were found in these two.”

Whatever the Maulana has written about Fatima (s.a.) will be recompensed by the Prophet but whatever he has written disrespectfully about ‘A’ysha caused consternation among Sunnis and after this he was greatly criticized by Ahlul Sunnat intellectuals. Apparently, Shias do not say anything because this sect was used to such disrespectful acts.

Now in the end, I am giving another statement of the Maulana by which we realize the devotion of the Maulana to the family of the Messenger (S), especially with regard to Imam Husayn (a.s.) and the tragedy of Karbala’. In the same book, on page 94, he writes: The Prophet willingly spent his life in poverty and hunger and he preferred it. He always prayed for such a life for himself: “O Allah! Make me live among the poor and count me among the group of the destitute.” And for his progeny he used to pray: “O Allah! Appoint the bare minimum sustenance for the progeny of Muhammad.”

The Progeny members could not remain content on their sustenance and they began to dream of kingdom and even lost their demeanor. How many conquests did His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) obtain when he was on the seat of Caliphate. Poor man! He could remain a Caliph only for four years and nine months. And in the beginning itself an internal war erupted. When he was free from it, Muawiyah usurped the Caliphate and he was just a Caliph for namesake.

After his death, his son, Hasan, tried his best to obtain Caliphate but within a period of six months, he had to forgo Caliphate and the power of governance completely came into the hands of Muawiyah and after his death this continued in his progeny. At that time, the Prophet’s progeny should have remained patient and content like their respected grandfather. But Husayn, the second son of Ali, did not accept the Caliphate of Yazeed, the son of Muawiyah. And reaching Kufa, he took allegiance of the people for his own Caliphate. Everyone knows the consequence of this. The future progeny of Fatima (s.a.) should have derived a lesson from this incident. But the greed of kingdom never allowed them to sit in peace.

In the view of this Maulana, Muhammad’s Progeny had no contentment and they were greedy for rulership. If Husayn Ibn Ali (a.s.) did not accept the Caliphate of Yazeed, it was a very unsuitable act. And when he did not do so, he had to suffer the consequence of his deed. This shows that the Maulana does not consider Muhammad’s Progeny worth honoring. Apparently, in his view, Muhammad’s Progeny was selfish and greedy. If the Maulana had only half the love for Muhammad’s Progeny that he has for their enemies, he would not have written such a book.

Patience, contentment and thankfulness were imbibed in the very souls of Muhammad’s Progeny and they had no desire for rulership. Imam Husayn (a.s.) had opposed Yazeed for religious factors. He considered it illegal to give allegiance to Yazeed and he also believed that the allegiance of Muslims for Yazeed was incorrect. Imam Husayn (a.s.) knew that he was the rightful Imam and the Caliph appointed by Allah. That is why he gave his life on the path of truth with absolute patience and satisfaction. The view of Maulana that Imam Husayn (a.s.) lost his life for greed of material world, could only be the belief of the followers of Yazeed and it cannot be a belief of any Muslim. The views of a person are in consonance with his character.

Here, I am reminded of an incident, which is very suitable at this juncture. A person who had become rich by chance, told a friend of mine that Husayn (a.s.) gave his life in pursuit of material wealth. If he had no greed of wealth and kingdom, he would not have rebelled against Yazeed. My friend replied: “Because you are prepared to lay your life for worldly wealth, always busy in selfish pursuit of wealth and spend a life of selfishness, you consider Imam Husayn (a.s.) like yourself. Indeed, one considers others like oneself.

I know what type of a person you are. Providence has not given you the ability to discern the merits of Imam Husayn (a.s.). Your internal make up is like Bani Umayyah and you are created only for the worldly life. How can you understand the benevolence, courage, magnanimity and other praised qualities of Imam Husayn (a.s.)?” One who considers Caliphate and Imamate as divinely ordained affairs could not have a view like that of the Maulana. It is a pity that on the basis of false beliefs, Muslims used to consider Muhammad’s Progeny as ordinary people. They should look at them with an impartial view. How can the Maulana call himself a Muslim and refer to Imam Husayn (a.s.) in such words?

While a German scholar has contrary views. He writes: “Imam Husayn (a.s.) certainly did not undergo the hardships of Karbala’ for greed of wealth. It was for the defense of his grandfather’s religion that he suffered such tribulations.” The same scholar has penned a seven-volume book on Islamic Politics. The followers of truth must appreciate his impartiality and truthful view and gain divine rewards for this. He writes: “On one hand, Imam Husayn (a.s.) saw that Yazeed has become the heir apparent and Bani Umayyah has got the rulership of Muslim lands. They were slowly gaining influence over the religious affairs of the Muslims. It was certain that in the due course, they would destroy the faith of Muslims and deviate them from the religion of his grandfather.

On the other hand, Imam Husayn (a.s.) was certain that due to ancestral enmity, Yazeed will destroy Bani Hashim whether he was given allegiance or not. This was the reason why he decided to start a revolution against Bani Umayyah. From the time Yazeed became the successor of Muawiyah, Imam Husayn (a.s.) considered it obligatory for himself to deny his obedience. He did not even conceal his opposition from anyone. And on the same basis, Yazeed was in pursuit to extract allegiance from him and to make him subservient. Imam Husayn (a.s.) moved towards martyrdom and established a superb example of revolution.”

Anyone who is aware of the historical realities of that time and the kind of carnage unleashed by Bani Umayyah and the way they had started distorting the religion of Muhammad (S) would indeed confess that if Imam Husayn (a.s.) had not laid down his life at Karbala’, the Muslim Ummah would have had quite a different Islam than what they are having now. It was the initial period of Islam and hence it was possible that its rituals and rules would have been destroyed completely. Imam Husayn (a.s.) had seen the character of Bani Umayyah during the Caliphate of his father, Ali (a.s.) and his brother Imam Hasan (a.s.), that is why immediately after Yazeed came to the throne, Imam Husayn (a.s.) traveled from Medina so that he may propagate true Islam in major Muslim areas. Wherever he went, people developed hatred towards Bani Umayyah.

Yazeed was also not unaware of these subtle factors. He knew that even if Imam Husayn (a.s.) got the support of people at any minor town and raised the standard or revolt due to the hatred of people towards Bani Umayyah and their love for Imam Husayn (a.s.), he would gain influence over all the kingdom of Islam and Bani Umayyah will be annihilated; that is why immediately after assuming the throne, Yazeed made a firm intention to kill Imam Husayn (a.s.). This was the only cause due to which Bani Umayyah contributed to their own eradication from the face of the earth.

The greatest proof that Imam Husayn (a.s.) willingly moved to martyrdom is that he was well aware of the military prowess of Bani Umayyah since the time of his father and brother. He was certain that he would be martyred and this was often stated after the martyrdom of his father. This proves that he had no ambition for rulership. He had time and again reiterated since he left Medina that he would certainly be killed. If it had not been a willing step, he would not have rushed to it, knowing fully well the military prowess of Bani Umayyah.

He also stated this to the people who had accompanied him, so that if any among them were after material benefits, they may leave his side. If Husayn (a.s.) had desired to save his life, he would have tried his best to collect an army. But instead of mobilizing forces, he was constantly beseeching his companions to leave him if they wanted to live. Knowing that it was the first step towards a revolution, Imam Husayn (a.s.) let himself be martyred in the most pitiful manner, so that people may be more affected by his sorrowful plight.

Obviously, if Imam Husayn (a.s.) had exploited the devotion that the people had towards him, he would have succeeded in raising a huge army. But if he were killed in those circumstances, it would have been said that he died for greed of wealth and rulership and the oppressed position that heralded the magnificent revolution would not have been achieved. Thus, except for whom it was impossible to leave; that is the sons, brothers, and nephews; he told them to leave him, but they did not agree. They were also such people whose piety and honor was much valued by the Muslims. Their martyrdom with Imam Husayn (a.s.) lent more effectiveness to the tragedy.

On the basis of his knowledge and diplomacy, and on the basis of the animosity of Bani Umayyah towards Bani Hashim, be left no stone unturned to highlight all this. Imam (a.s.) knew that after his martyrdom, the women and children of Bani Hashim, who were Muhammad’s Progeny would be made prisoners and would be taken from one place to another. This incident would spread in the Arab world and have such an effect as cannot be imagined. Thus, the way the prisoners were taken around, was in no way less cruel than being killed. Similarly, it created the same effect on Muslims as the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) had.

In these incidents, the enmity of Bani Umayyah to the Prophet’s family and their beliefs regarding Islam and their treatment of Muslims has been clearly brought out. This was the reason that Imam Husayn (a.s.) used to clearly tell those of his friends who restrained him from this journey that he was going for being killed. It was because their thoughts were limited and they had no idea of Imam Husayn’s aim, which is why they used to restrain him. The last reply of which was that he was going because it was the Will of Allah and his grandfather had ordered him to take the step. The people used to say that since he was going to be killed, he should not take women and children with him. On this Husayn (a.s.) used to reply that it was the Will of Allah that his family should be made prisoners.

The words of Imam Husayn (a.s.) were unique from the aspect of spirituality and apparently he did not take these steps to obtain rulership or power. And he also did not step into this great danger without being aware of consequences. The proof is that a year before this tragedy, he used to tell his close confidants who had an enlightened heart and perfect reason to comfort them that after his martyrdom, the Almighty Allah would prepare a group who would separate truth from falsehood. And who would visit their graves and weep on their tribulations and destroy the enemies of Muhammad’s Progeny. These people would follow the religion of his grandfather. He and his father would love them and on Judgment Day, they shall be raised with Muhammad’s Progeny.

O readers! What should be done! It is surprising that a scholar of non-Muslims is relating the incident of Karbala’ in such a way that informs of the great status of the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) while a Maulana of Delhi in spite of his claim for being a Muslim, lays false allegations on Imam Husayn (a.s.) that are not possible in any respectable people. No one can say that the Maulana was insane, but it is certain that his blind greed for worldly status had deprived him from the wealth of the love for Muhammad’s Progeny.

Note

1. Ummahatul Aimma, Pg. 33, line 7.

Tragedy Of Karbala’ Demands Close Attention

It should be clear that the incident of Karbala’ is such a tragedy that has attracted the attention of writers, philosophers, historians and all intellectuals. From the aspect of religion and ethics, it is such an incident in Islam that its equal is not found. Rather, if it is compared to other such incidents that are often recorded in war poems, we shall see that it does not have any equal. Since it is a factual incident, it is very much clear which people constituted the opposing groups and which group was on the side of Yazeed and which one sided with Imam Husayn (a.s.).

Husayn’s Side

1. Imam Husayn (a.s.), the chief of the martyrs.

2. Muslim, paternal cousin of Imam Husayn (a.s.).

3. Aun and Muhammad, sons of Zainab binte Ali (a.s.).

4. Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.).

5. His Eminence, Ali Akbar who was brought up by Lady Zainab (S).

6. Ali Asghar, the six-month infant of Imam Husayn (a.s.).

7. Lady Zainab and Umme Kulthum, daughters of Ali (a.s.) and Fatima (s.a.) who loved Imam Husayn (a.s.) greatly.

8. Fatima Sughra, the younger daughter of Imam Husayn (a.s.) whom the Imam (a.s.) had left in Medina because she was unwell.

9. Fatima Kubra, who had come to Karbala’ with Imam Husayn (a.s.).

10. Sakina, another daughter of Imam Husayn (a.s.).

11. Lady Laila and Umme Rabab, the respected wives of Imam Husayn (a.s.).

12. Qasim Ibn Hasan.

13. Abbas Ibn Ali, standard bearer of Imam Husayn’s army, who was the half brother of Imam Husayn (a.s.), but was greatly devoted to the Imam (a.s.). He had no equal in his sincerity and sacrifice.

14. Hurr who was previously the commander of Yazeed’s forces, left them and joined the ranks of Imam (a.s.) and achieved the wealth of martyrdom.

15. Habib Ibn Mazahir, who was the childhood friend of Imam Husayn (a.s.). He was martyred in Karbala’ while he was of an advanced age.

16. Fizza, the maidservant of Lady Fatima (s.a.); after whose martyrdom she continued in the service of Lady Zainab.

17. Hind, the wife of Yazeed and who was devoted to the prophet’s family. She had no information of the tragedy of Karbala’ but when the prisoners were brought to Damascus she came to meet them in prison. It is not inappropriate to include her among the partisans of Husayn (a.s.).

18. Wahab Ibn Abdullah Kalbi and Zohair Qayn.

These exalted personalities are mentioned in the elegies (Marsiya).

Yazeed’s Side

1. Yazeed Ibn Muawiyah, the ruling Caliph.

2. Ibn Ziyad, son of Ziyad who was made a brother by Muawiyah. At the time of the tragedy of Karbala’, Ibn Ziyad was the governor of Yazeed in Kufa.

3. Umar Ibn Saad, Commander-in-Chief of Yazeed’s army.

4. Shimr, who mounted the chest of Imam (a.s.).

5. Khuli, who beheaded Imam Husayn (a.s.).

6. Hurmala, who martyred Ali Asghar by shooting an arrow at him.

7. Naufal.

8. Hakim Ibn Tufail.

Destruction of the Imam’s Enemies

All the above oppressors and also those unfortunate ones who participated in the killing of Husayn (a.s.) either died or were killed during three or four years. None of them survived to bear the sorrows of this world. Yazeed himself died within three and a half years of this incident. Indeed, the people who helped Yazeed and acted on his orders will be raised with him and they all would be recompensed like him and abide in Hell forever.

Philosophy of Karbala’ Tragedy And Distribution Of Wisdom

It is well known that wisdom is of two kinds: religious and practical. Practical wisdom is of three types:

1. Good manners

2. Determination

3. Diplomacy.

The first of these is the personal trait of every person. The second is applicable to his relationship with his family members and the third is concerned with the affairs of the nation. All three of them are discussed with relation to the tragedy of Karbala’.

Manners And Etiquettes

This is the first type of practical wisdom. Every human being is concerned with this, though he may be of any class or creed. Being human, if one has no human manners, one is not considered a human being. It is well known that the Almighty has bestowed human beings with two types of existences. An apparent existence that is evident from his physical body that includes flesh and blood, organs and nerves. The next is his internal existence that includes his moral capabilities.

Moral capabilities are of two kinds: One is natural perception and the other is responsibility. The former are such that if they had not been in control of human beings, they would have never got superiority over other animals. The latter is opposite to these. If they are not paid attention to, human beings can be worse than animals. We must know that moral training is concerned with the first type. After considering the incident of Karbala’, it becomes evident that from the ethical point of view, it is a great matter of moral values.

That is, it is a great treasure of moral ethics. The good moral points are: helpfulness, faithfulness, bravery, charity, patience, satisfaction, forbearance, concealing of defects, forgiveness, mercy, favor, worship, meditation, piety, modesty, loyalty, sincerity, truthfulness and openness. In the same way, bad qualities are greed, anger, wrath, enmity, falsehood and jealousy etc.

It is necessary for man to cultivate good morals and to control bad habits and he must always strive in this direction. Another name of this practice is moral training. The incident of Karbala’ is such a great event that by considering its events, one can achieve moral perfection in full. Just as the partisans of Husayn (a.s.) present such interesting examples of moral perfection, the partisans of Yazeed exhibit the abased characteristics.

For examples, if Imam Husayn (a.s.) shows benevolence to the army of Hurr and his animals, the army of Ibn Ziyad repaid this kindness by preventing them the water of Euphrates. Rather, in return of the request of water, Hurmala shot an arrow at the six-month infant of Imam (a.s.), Ali Asghar and martyred him.

In the same way, we can present hundreds of examples from which we realize the good morals of the people of Husayn’s side and the evil nature of Yazeed’s partisans. Mir Anees, with his astonishing narrative capability, beautifully presents the picture of the morals of the two parties. Mir has shown how good were Imam Husayn (a.s.) and his followers.

And how evil were Yazeed and his cohorts. How far were Imam Husayn (a.s.) and his companions from material desires and how Yazeed and his compatriots were more inclined to wealth and pelf. Imam Husayn (a.s.) refused to pledge allegiance for the sake of religion and Yazeed for the sake of worldly life, was demanding allegiance of Imam Husayn (a.s.). For the sake of religion, the followers of Imam Husayn (a.s.) were his followers and the people followed Yazeed for material greed.

Mir Anees has realistically explained the benevolent qualities of Imam Husayn (a.s.) and his side; including, Aun, Muhammad, Akbar, Abbas and Qasim. Hurr’s love for truth and the way he confessed to truth and how he changed sides when truth had become manifest to him. In the same way, Mir Anees has presented the admirable qualities and lent beauty to his composition. On the other hand, his poetry brought out the evil qualities and vicious traits of the partisans of Yazeed. In the knowledge of this writer, it is the natural duty of every person that he must study the elegies of Mir Anees from the aspects of moral values because the event of Karbala’ is extremely edifying and Mir Anees has described these events in a natural manner and in a beautiful style.

The statement of the Maulavi that Imam Husayn (a.s.) arose to gain power, informs about the evil thinking of this writer. Imam Husayn (a.s.) was certainly not a discontented person. Imam (a.s.) indeed did not arise for kingdom and greed of wealth. Imam (a.s.) considered himself the rightful successor of the Holy Prophet (S) and hence he refused to give allegiance to Yazeed.

The allegation of the Maulana for Imam Husayn (a.s.) that he was greedy, is no less than the atrocities committed by Ibn Ziyad and Shimr. Anyone who makes such allegations against the noble personality of Imam (a.s.) cannot be called a follower of the Holy Prophet (S). What type of Islam is it that is based on the enmity of Muhammad’s Progeny?

I am extremely regretful for the Maulavi and Mirza Hairat Dehlavi. Destiny has made these two gentlemen opponents of Muhammad’s Progeny, whereas the allegation perfectly fits the character of Muawiyah, because as per the command of the Holy Prophet (S): “This person will never be satiated by eating.”

It is justified that this allegation is concerned with the family of Yazeed. May Allah be merciful to this Maulana and people who have similar view and bestow them the ability to realize the merits of Muhammad’s Progeny. Their situation seems to be serious and we sincerely pray for their guidance.

Obviously, when a person considers Imamate and Caliphate as divine affairs, he cannot blame Imam Husayn (a.s.) for greed and discontentment. To consider the office of Caliphate an affair decided by the people is the first step towards the dishonor of the noble personages. Such people can never believe in spirituality. Till the time of his death, such a person will remain a materialist and nothing else. Thus, for these people, all are same: The Holy Prophet (S) and Abu Sufyan, Muawiyah and His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). They are all equal in the view of those who have no spirituality.

Determination

It is a trait that is concerned with the family and society of the people. The first type of this wisdom as mentioned by us, is connected with the being of every person. No one is free from it. If a person lives in a corner of the world alone, then its relationship cannot be broken. But the next type, which in the terminology of rulership, is determination, it is clearly related to the children, friends and neighbors etc. This type informs us of their rights and how we should live among them. It is necessary for us to first improve our morals. And then we should become habitual of determination for achieving our aim. The tragedy of Karbala’ is also concerned with this type of moral quality.

We should know that the behavior of Imam (a.s.) with Lady Umme Laila, Umme Rabab, Lady Zainab, Fatima Sughra, Fatima Kubra, Sakina, Abbas, Ali Akbar, Ali Asghar, Aun, Muhammad, Habib Ibn Mazahir, Hurr and with all the participants of the event of Karbala’ informs us of the perfection of Imam’s morals. The behavior of the husband with the wife, the behavior of the brother with the sister, the behavior of the father with the son, the behavior of the uncle with the nephew, behavior of the friend with friend, of the master with his servants. All such ideal behaviors are explained through this great event in a beautiful manner.

Mir Anees, by divine help he received in composing the elegies (Marsiya), describes the events most eloquently. There is no doubt that the Mir has also, through his poetry, presented a study of moral science by this incident. The elegies of Mir only from these two aspects are such that ordinary people to whichever faith they may belong, must not deprive themselves from their study. Indeed, it is a misfortune not to get the chance of reading the Marsiyas of Mir Anees.

If Mir Anees were born in a European country, the educated public of that time would have sung his praises. But it is a pity that he was born in such an ignorant land, where his presence did not make any difference. The limit of ignorance is such that due to this carelessness, his literary compositions were printed on such cheap paper that even mediocre verse is printed on better material. The work of Mir Taqi Mir is printed in a beautiful edition. It is only so because it has reached the hands of those who have literary values and they could not publish it in any way less respectful. The writer is certain that when the Europeans realize the literary values of the compositions of Mir Anees they would definitely not leave any stone unturned in according it the respect that it deserves.

Civic Sense

This is the third type of moral ethics. It is the quality that is clearly related to the nation. All the efforts of the governments of the world are busy to find out these principles. In Europe, there is such a great demand for this that it is beyond the comprehension of we, Indians.

The incident of Karbala’ also has great cultural aspects. It is so much concerned with moral values that every kind is related to this event. Some of the cultural aspects of these events are discussed below.