Sun09222019

Last updateD, d M Y ga

Birthday and Childhood of Fatima Ma'sumah (s.a.)

Birthday and Childhood of Fatima Ma'sumah (s.a.)

In the holy city of Medina, the holy household was awaiting the arrival of a new born.

In the house of Imam Kadhim (A.S.)...

Every Father Should Try Educating His Child

Every Father Should Try Educating His Child

Among the factors which build up man's personality are the family environment and parental guidance. The latter factor i...

Relaxation Techniques for Children

Relaxation Techniques for Children

Relaxation techniques are methods of distracting away from tensions by means of recreational activities. They are helpfu...

  • Most Read

  • Latest Post

  • Most Reviews

  • Photo gallery

  • Bookmark pages

  • Book Reviews

Sample image Sample image Sample image Sample image Sample image Sample image


Fatima is Fatima

by : Dr. Ali Shari'ati

Back You are here: Home Books Yazeed The Stance Of Imam Hussain [as]

The Stance Of Imam Hussain [as]


The stance of Imam Hussain [as]

Was this only a political dispute?Azam Tariq al Nasibi stated:

Kr-hcy.com states:IT WAS ONLY A POLITICAL DIFFERENCE WITH YAZID AND HAZRAT HUSAYN WANTED TO RECTIFY THE SITUATION. IT WAS NEVER A CONFRONTATION BETWEEN ISLAM AND KUFR AS NONE OF THE CONTESTANTS EVEN ONCE CALLED EACH OTHER AS KAFIR (INFIDEL).

Reply One

What this Nasibi has failed to recognise is the fact that opposition to Ahl'ul bayt (as) is inexorably linked to the Deen; it cannot simply be watered down to a political dispute. In this connection we shall cite a narration of a Sunni scholar Allamah Shibli:

"'Ali [r] said to Mu'awiya 'Guard yourself from hating me since Rasulullah (s) said that on the Day of Judgement those that hate me shall be turned away from the Pond of Kauthar and be thrown in the fire".

This one example serves as proof that Mu'awiya's hatred / opposition to Imam 'Ali (as) can never be defined as a political dispute. Had it just been a political matter, Hadhrath 'Ali (as) would not have threatened Mu'awiya his enemy with Hell Fire. This example serves as proof that even the political enemies / opponents of 'Ahl'ul bayt (as) shall burn in Hell.

Reply Two

Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah al Hafidh Jalaladun Suyuti records this tradition in Khasais al Kubra, on the authority of Sahaba Uns bin Harith:

"I heard Rasulullah (s) say 'Verily my son [Husayn] will be killed in a land called Kerbala, whoever amongst you is alive at that time must go and help him".

Khasais al Kubra Volume 2 page 125 (Maktaba Nurree Rizvi Publishers, Pakistan If this was only a political dispute, then why did Rasulullah (s) deem it incumbent on the Sahaba to help his grandson Husayn (as), who he called his son? Politics is something without compulsion, for in Islam it is part of religion, for Islam is a system of life. And there is no ordinance in Islam that compels a person to follow a certain political persuasion UNLTIL that person submits to Islam. But here Rasulullah (s) commands the companions to side with Imam Husayn (as), making it a duty on them to side with Husayn (as). Hence it can only be deemed to be a religious ordinance for THOSE WHO BELIEVE and have embraced Islam. The difference between Husayn (as) and Yazeed was thus, incontrovertibly, a religious one, for the Holy Prophet (saws) made it a duty for the Muslims who follow his religion to side with Husayn (as). This logic is undeniable and crystal-clear.

Was this a battle of truth against falsehood?

Azam Tariq Nasibi stated:

Kr-hcy.com states:"THE BATTLE OF KARBALA IN 61 A.H. WAS NOT A BATTLE BETWEEN TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD OR ISLAM AND KUFR AS IS ALLEGED BY THE SHIAS".

This is an attempt by the champions of the 21st century Nasibi movement to deny how all Muslims, Shia and Sunni alike, view the Battle of Karbala. To most Muslims, Shia and Sunni alike, Husayn (as) embodied faith and the true religion, while Yazeed embodied kufr and the devil. After all, did not Husayn (as)'s grandfather tell the Muslims to side with Husayn (as). Thus most Muslims see in Karbala the ultimate battle between the forces of good and those of evil. The Nasibis would instead have us see it another way, simply as the embodiment of good happens also to be the Third Shia Imam, and this adulation for him by the Sunni world is intolerable to the Nasibi cult. Ansar.Org's favourite Nasibi son Afriki also sought to discredit the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (as) - by mocking the notion of most Muslims that this was a battle between truth and falsehood. In his article on 'Who killed Imam Husayn?' he stated:

Ansar.org states:However, it is regrettable that despite the huge amount of attention the subject of Karbala enjoys, the event is persistently portrayed as two-sided. It is always depicted as Husayn against Yazid, Right rising up against Wrong, the Quest for Justice against the Forces of Oppression.

Reply One

We have proven that Yazeed opposed the concept of revelation and denied the Prophethood. To raise one's voice against such an enemy of God is certainly proof that Imam Husayn (as) was on the party of truth and was seeking to counter Yazeed's falsehood. Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi, a staunch Wahabi, in Taufa Ithna Ashari, Chapter 1 page 6 stated clearly that: "Imam Husayn was aware of the falsehood of Yazeed the Paleeth (impure)"

If opposition to such a transgressor is not Jihad then what is? How can these same Nasibi define the Banu Umayyad campaigns of conquests, pillaging / looting etc, to satiate Muslim greed and maintain a life of luxury as Jihad? If Jihad is defined as fighting the kuffar then Yazeed and his ancestors were kaafir, his father may have sought to cloak his hypocrisy but Yazeed openly declared his kaafir beliefs, and al Istiab also gives clear proof over the hypocrisy of Abu Sufyan.

When people opposed Yazeed in Madina, amongst them were the largest concentration of still living Sahaba, and the vast bulk were slaughtered. Amongst those who were martyred by the side of Husayn (as) in actual battle were also Muhammad (saws)'s sahaba, while at the actual battle not one sahaba was found on the side of Yazeed's army. Were their actions [as Sahaba] false? Against Yazeed ranged the majority of the surviving sahaba - were all misguided waging war against a man who did not even know the Holy Prophet (saws), was a man who used his penis to penetrate men/ dogs/bears/sisters/daughters/mother? Yazeed expected the Bayya while he openly expressed that Muhammad (saws) was a fraud. Yazeed and the clique of sahaba like Abdullah bin Omar (son of the second khalifa) that supported him were scum of the worst kind.

Reply Two

Ibn Kathir in al Bidaya wa al Nihaya Volume 8 page 231 narrates this hadith on the authority if Abu Ubaydah:

"My Ummah shall be ruled with justice, until the first individual that shall destroy it, he shall from the Banu Ummaya, his name will be Yazeed".

In a short time span of three years this Khalifah of Azam Tariq shed the blood of the family of the Prophet, the residents of Medina and catapulted the Kaaba. Rasulullah (s) pinpointed the man that would destroy the Deen BY NAME. When this is the case then opposition to him can automatically be defined as opposition to falsehood. Why do the Nasibis support a man cursed BY NAME by the Holy Prophet (saws) himself.

Reply Three

Even advocate of Mu'awiya Ibn Khaldun in Mudaqqimah Volume 2 page 304 states:

"Husayn was on the right path, he attained martyrdom for which he shall be rewarded".

Another Mu'awiya supporter, the Grand Sheikh of Wahabis Ibn Taymiyya states:

"The Ahl'ul Sunnah believes that Husayn was a martyr and he attained an exalted rank on account of this martyrdom. Those that killed him are worthy of God's condemnation and curse".

In this connection Allamah Shibli also makes an important observation:

"Husayn did not oppose giving bayya to Yazeed because he wanted to become the Khalifa - his opposition was to elevate the kalima of Tauheed and Deen of Hanafeeya, in this regards he was following the footsteps of his father".

Zaynab page 157

When Imam Husayn, according the Ahl'ul Sunnah Sect, died a martyr then his difference with Yazeed cannot be condensed down to a political dispute. These Nasibi need to understand that you can only die a martyr if you are defending the Deen - and Ibn Taymeeya said the Ahl'ul Sunnah hold the opinion that Imam Husayn (as) was a martyr. Can we not therefore conclude that the aqeedah of Ahl'ul Sunnah is that Imam Husayn (as) the martyr was slain upholding the Deen and his killer Yazeed was following falsehood? This is self-implicit if one accepts, as Ahl al Sunna do, that Husayn (as) achieved the rank of martyrdom.

Reply Four

Ibn Asakir records (in Mishbaath ba Sunnath page 219) a hadith on the authority of Hadhrath Ayesha:

"Oh Allah never shower your blessings on the cursed killer Yazeed. He will rebel against my beloved Husayn and martyr him"

Does this not act as conclusive proof that the battle of Kerbala was a battle between truth and falsehood? Rasulullah (s) deemed Imam Husayn (as) a martyr and cursed Yazeed, his killer who rebelled against Imam Husayn (as). Verily a martyr dies on the path of truth whilst a baghi (rebel) dies on the path of falsehood. Need we say any more on this topic?

Does the Sahaba's failure to support Imam Husayn
(as) prove that this was not a battle
between truth and falsehood?

This filthy Nasibi then states:

Kr-hcy.com states:IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT SEVERAL HUNDREDS OF SAHABA WERE ALIVE AT THAT TIME BUT ALL OF THEM KEPT ALOOF FROM THIS EVENT TO SAVE UMMAH FROM ENTANGLEMENT AND BLOODSHED. HAD IT BEEN AN ENCOUNTER BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL, THE SAHABAH WHO THROUGHOUT THEIR LIVES HAD NOT SHIRKED JIHAD WOULD HAVE DEFINITELY THROWN ALL THEIR WEIGHT BEHIND HADHRAT HUSAYN.

Reply One

Azam Tariq seems to suggest that the Sahaba would not be so shameless as to ignore Jihad. These Nasibi claim to be the defenders of the Sahaba, let us leave them aside for a moment and focus on Mu'awiya and the Banu Ummaya clan. Did they not shirk their duties to defend Uthman at the time of his murder? The entire Banu Umayya, including Mu'awiya stood back and allowed their relative Khalifah be slaughtered. Poor old Uthman was left on his own with no support, no son, brother in law or relative sought to protect his dear relative. Is this how the passive Gandhi ethics of Uthman were met? If these Nasibi claim that they were merely following the words of noble Uthman who stated no one whether that be his clan, the people of Medina or Mu'awiya's army support him, then his desire is false since it is even incumbent on a seventy year old man to protect his life. Failure to do so constitutes suicide that contravenes the Shari'a.

Reply Two

If the Sahaba could not shirk the responsibility of Jihad then we should point out that poor old Uthman was cornered in his home for forty days before his end and the Sahaba did not have the decency to fight and protect their imam even though this oppression occurred in the city in which they resided. When they shirked 'jihad' in their own hometown then what likelihood was there to expect these same 'lions' to defend Imam Husayn (as) who had been cornered two thousand miles away by Yazeed in the remote plains of Kerbala? Can these Nasibi produce any evidence that their Imam Yazeed had made a declaration via radio / television / papers that he was intending to fight Imam Husayn (as) on a specific date at a specific venue - and that despite this, the Sahaba shirked their responsibilities?

Reply Three

Rather than protect poor Uthman history testifies that many played a key role in his downfall and killing. Ayesha for example had issued takfeer against Uthman. Why did the Sahaba not raise their objections and seek to head off these libellous claims? Why is this Nasibi trying to use the Sahaba's inaction with regards to supporting Imam Husayn (as) as proof - when the same Sahaba were involved in killing Uthman? On Azam Tariq's assessment can we therefore deem their action against Uthman to be correct?

When the Sahaba had participated in the killing of Uthman, who as they claim was the Khilafah over the Muslims, and this did not bother them in the slightest, then how can Azam Tariq ask us why the Sahaba remained silent and failed to side with Imam Husayn (as)? It's those Santas again - the Nasibis keep hiding behind them while we lift their red Santa kaftans and expose their uncircumcised privates.

Reply Four

If this Nasibi claims that the Sahaba's inaction serves as evidence that no Jihad had taken place then we should point out that in Medina a group of the companions openly advocated their opposition to Yazeed and demonstrated this opposition by removing their shoes from their feet. Then the people of Medina rebelled and fought the army of Yazeed. Tell us, can we describe the Sahaba's rebellion in Medina and fighting Yazeed, as Jihad on their part and a battle between truth and falsehood? Were the people of Medina not on the path of truth? Or were all those who narrated this event of Harra including great Nasibis such as Ibn Kathir Dimishqi misguided by Ibn Saba in this regard?

Reply Five: The Santas are cowards

If Azam Tariq claims that the Sahaba never shirked Jihad then what can we say of the fact that the Sahaba in the Battle Uhud fled for their lives leaving Rasulullah (s) exposed to the enemy forces - does Surah Aal-e-Imran not expose their Jihad phobia in this regards?

Reply Six

Did the Sahaba and Tabieen not leave Umm'ul Momineen Ayesha during the battle of Jamal? She was left on her camel, undefended. What happened to the honourable Sahaba on this occasion. Did they not shirk their Jihad duties here?

Imam Husayn (as) fought Yazeed's army in hand-to-hand combat as he was brave, as were the sahaba who joined him. Most of the other sahaba only fought Yazeed when Yazeed attacked them in Madina i.e. they were set upon. This is because none had the courage of a Shia Imam, who took on the might of the world' most powerful empire rather than abandon his principles. Meanwhile, the Santas were running scared.

Was Imam Husayn (as) returning so
as to give bayya to Yazeed?

Tareekh Kamil Volume 4 page 48 Imam Husayn

Al Bidayah Volume 8 page 175

Tareekh Tabari page 314

Tadkhira Khawwas page 141

We read in al Bidaya that Uqbah bin Subhan narrates:

"I accompanied Husayn from Makka until the time that he was killed. I heard all of his speeches and at no point did he state 'Take me to Yazeed so that I can give him bayya" The comments of an actual Sunni scholar, Allamah Shibli in his book Zeyneb page 156 are also worthy of note:

"Husayn said 'I am from the Ahl'ul bayt of the Prophet. Yazeed is not worthy of receiving my bayya'"

Kr-hcy.com states:WHEN HAZART HUSAYN WAS STILL ON HIS WAY TO KUFA HE RECEIVED NEWS THAT HIS COUSIN, MUSLIM BIN AQEEL, WHO WAS SENT EARLIER BY HIM TO KUFA TO ASCERTAIN THE CONDITIONS THERE, HAD BEEN MURDERED ON RECEIVING NEWS OF THE DEATH OF MUSLIM BIN AQEEL, HAZRAT HUSAYN LOST CONFIDENCE IN THE PEOPLE OF KUFA AND DECIDED TO RETURN BUT THE RELATIVES OF MUSLIM BIN AQEEL UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF SABAI ELEMENTS INSISTED ON AVENGING THE MURDER OF MUSLIM BIN AQEEL AND HENCE HAZRAT HUSAYN DECIDED TO RESUME HIS ONWARD JOURNEY TO KUFA.

Reply

If the brothers of Muslim wanted to avenge his death - then what is the big deal here? The desire to avenge the blood of an innocent is not a reprehensible act. The Qur'an prescribes an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Yazeed was responsible for the killing of an innocent here, and the state being controlled by Yazeed had committed the atrocity, so the innocent's brothers decided to follow God's Word and carry out the penalty against the soldiers of Yazeed who had committed this action as the state would do nothing having committed the atrocity. The family of Rasulullah (s) were the rightful heirs of Hadhrath Muslim (as) - if his brothers took action to fulfil a desire to avenge their brothers unlawful murder at the hands of a demonic khalifa, then what is the objection? It was no reason why Imam Husayn (as) should have halted his journey. If the family of Rasulullah (s) had discussions amongst themselves and continued on the journey then how exactly does this absolve the transgression of Yazeed? If Imam Husayn (as) was intending to return to Medina, a view for which there is no historical or textual basis, then what basis did Yazeed then have to kill Imam Husayn (as)?

We the Shi'a believe that Yazeed, in order to strengthen his reign, blocked Imam Husayn (as)'s march to Kufa at a place called Karbala. This is testified to in all historical sources e.g. whole chapters in Tabari and the chapters in all the other historical works that chronicle 60-61 AH. They also chronicle the fact that Yazeed's army then killed Husayn (as) in a pitched battle. This sin is worse than kufr. Husayn (as) was the last voice of open dissension in the Ummah, and dictators like Yazeed deal with those that speak out against their unjust ways by using their armed forces to liquidate them. The choices that were put before Imam Husayn (as) were to either accept the reign of Yazeed or die. If Imam Husayn (as) really was returning to give bayya to Yazeed then there would have been no need for this battle. The objective of bayya could have been carried out through via an intermediary, and indeed Yazeed's commanders at the Battle of Karbala said to Husayn (as) that he would be free to go if he gave the bayya to Yazeed.

In fact it is manifestly clear that Yazeed wanted one thing and one thing only from Imam Husayn (as) - his bayat. Husayn (as)'s refusal to give this bayya was the trigger that enabled Yazeed to justify killing Imam Husayn (as) to the Muslims. But other Muslims objected and said, as most do to this day, that Husayn (as) could not have given bayya to Yazeed as the latter was unlawfully appointed khalifa in breach of treaty, and further Yazeed's character would have destroyed Islam had the very grandson of the Prophet (saws) sanctioned such a demon as Khalifah. It is like voting for a homosexual into power - if he is elected it means that homosexuality is not condoned by the people. This is the state in many western countries today. Had the greatest and most learned Muslim of the age, indeed the closest male blood of the Prophet (saws) given the bayat, it would mean that dog/sister/bear/mother daughter penetration was acceptable in Islamic society. Given how fragile 60/61 AH was - Islam was still a very new religion - Islam itself as a religion with laws for society would have been destroyed. This is why Husayn (as) is called the Saviour of his grandfather's religion. Yazeed's ulterior motive was on top of extracting the bayat, and thereby completing his agenda to decimate Islam as a religion in society, to avenge the slaying of his family by Muhammad (saws) and Ali (as) by exacting tribal blood revenge - this is obvious from his words when the head of Husayn (as) was brought before him, in which Yazeed claims that the Revelation to Muhammad (saws) was a power game of the Hashim tribe, and one in which his own tribe of Umayyad had been the losers which was now avenged by killing Muhammad (saws)'s grandson who was also Ali (as)'s son.

Was Imam Husayn (as)'s alleged return from Karbala
without fighting proof that this was not a
battle between truth and falsehood?

Another Nasibi, lieutenant of Azam Tariq, Hafidh Salah'udeen in his book 'Khilafat ai Mu'awiya aur Yazeed' echoed these comments in his book page 23

"If the battle of Kerbala was a fight between truth and falsehood, then he [Husayn (as)] would not have made plans to return to Medina. Haqq (truth) is linked to rules of martyrdom, falsehood is not linked to anything"

Reply One

Can this Nasibi cite us any proof that Imam Husayn set a date and venue to fight Yazeed? Yet again the Nasibis adopt a tactic of using words that give the impression that they are supported by historical facts. The reader might think that this premise of the Nasibis is based on some kind of textual source. There is none - it is just a fairytale of this Nasibi that Husayn (as) intended to return to Madina rather than do battle. Not one book, page, sentence, word, letter or dot in any book exists that says this was his intention or that he made plans to return to Madina. This is what Nasibis do every day in their speeches. They just LIE to people. I am angry at being LIED to like this. The most disturbing thing is that this man Azam Tariq and his deputies have hundreds of thousands of followers in places like Pakistan who believe every word of his. See how the Nasibis just lie. Here the Nasibi makes up a whole story that Husayn (as) was returning to Madina - as if he is an expert on history with academic references. This story has, literally, just been made up by him in this sentence.

However we shall refute this fairytale that has come out of this Nasibi's deranged mind (Is this Nasibi on hallucinogenic drugs?) - we are now having to refute the verbal diarrhoea that comes out of a deluded mind: this is the level of argument the Nasibis have. If the Imam (as) had set a date, and then not fought, then we would have to accept that Imam Husayn (as) abandoned Jihad. We the Shi'a believe that Imam Husayn (as) declared that he was the true representative of Rasulullah (s) and hence he rejected the authority / obedience to Yazeed. Yazeed's army, by cornering and killing Imam Husayn (as), proves Yazeed's actions were false and Imam Husayn (as) was on the path of truth. Had Imam Husayn (as) returned from Karbala that would not in any way prove that Yazeed was on the right path, his returning without fighting in no way means that Yazeed was right! What on Earth was that reply from the Nasibis about in the first place? It still does nothing to exonerate Yazeed. What this nasibi said is called verbal diarrhoea. It's malformed crap without any shape or substance that just comes out and you can't control it. This is what Nasibis talk - crap with a kaftan, a turban and an Arabic accent to pass off as something more substantial. It is tragic that this turbaned crap is out there preaching to Muslims and taking them astray.

Reply Two : The Sahaba in Usamah's army
returned without fighting

We read in Sharh Muwaqqaf Volume 1 page 746 Dhiky Ikhthilaaf Al-e-Islam

Rasullulah (s) said that whoever does not participate in the army of Usamah, Allah's lanath be on such a person. N.B. This is not the Usamah bin Ladin of today but the Usamah bin Zaid who was a companion of the Holy Prophet (saws). The Shaykhain were also present in this army. A battle that Rasulullah (s) prepares and sends out is definitely a battle of truth, so why did Abu Bakr and Umar leave the battle and return without fighting? This Nasibi clearly believes that martyrdom is dependant on Jihad, then how will these two individuals be forgiven for failing to participate in Jihad whilst Rasulullah (s) was on his deathbed? If these Nasibi are going to claim that the Shaykhain's return without fighting does not prove that their Kaafir opponents were on the right path, Imam Husayn (as)'s ALLEGED (in this Nasibi's dream) returning to Medina does not prove the correctness of Yazeed's Fasiq Government.

Reply Three

Riyadh al Nadira states that Abu Bakr returned without delivering the verses of Baraath to the kuffar. The deliverance of these verses was definitely delivering truth against falsehood, and Abu Bakr's return without delivering these verses in no way means that the kuffar were right.

Reply Four : Rasulullah (s) returned
from Tabuk without fighting

We read in al Bidayah Volume 5 pages 14, that Rasulullah (s) prepared a huge army to counter the kaafir threat at Tabuk, but he returned without fighting. This expedition was definitely a battle between truth and falsehood, and in the same way that Rasulullah (s) returned without fighting does not mean that the kaafir Byzantines were in the right, Imam Husayn (as)'s ALLEGED returning to Medina (in the Nasibi's dream) in no way means that Yazeed was in the right.

Reply Five : Rasulullah (s) returned
from Makka without performing Hajj

The books of Ahl'ul Sunnah are replete with the fact that Rasulullah (s) left from Medina to go to Makka and perform Hajj with the Sahaba. The Kuffar and Makka prevented him from doing so and he returned without carrying through this objective. Hajj is a duty, so how were all the Muslims forgiven for failing to carry out Hajj that year?