The next few questions explore some
of the history leading up to the tragedy of Karbala. I'll be discussing claims that
the Shia were indirectly responsible for the death of Imam Husain (as), that Imam
Husain (as) was wrong to stand up to Yazid ibn Muawiya and somehow Yazid ibn Muawiya
was not an evil tyrant. Along with that, I'll be explaining how despite his martydom,
Imam Husain (as) was victorious after the events of Karbala.
Q5: Weren't Shia's responsible for killing Imam Husain (as)?
Before the events of Karbala, Imam Husain (as) was living in Medina.
He was facing increasing pressure to give allegiance to Yazid ibn Muawiya. Fearing
violence in the holy city of Medina, Imam Husain (as) was looking for a way out
of the city. The people of Kufa wrote several letters to the Imam inviting him to
come and live amongst them, to lead as their Imam.
Imam Husain (as) sent his cousin
Muslim ibn Aqeel to visit Kufa and see for himself how genuine the support
was for the Imam. Upon his arrival, Muslim was greeted by thousands of well-wishers
confirming their allegiance to Imam Husain (as), begging for his arrival. Yazid
sent the cursed Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad to replace the sitting governor after Umar
ibn Saad (leader of Yazid ibn Muawiya's army at Karbala) wrote to him, making him
aware of the situation: "Muslim
bin Aqeel has come to Kufa and the Shia have given the oath of allegiance to him
on behalf of al Hussain bin Ali. If you have any need of Kufah then send a strong
man there who will carry out your orders and act in the same way as you would against
your enemy. Al Nauman bin Bashir is a weak man or he is acting like a weak man" (Tabari, Chaper 19). Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad
quickly spread fear around Kufa, threatening to kill anyone who supported the arrival
of Imam Husain (as).
Unfortunately, the faith of the Kufans was not strong; Islam had only
arrived in Kufa during the calpihate of Umar ibn Khattab. He had set it up as a
military fort during his rule and it was then the hub of Imam Ali's (as) caliphate.
When word of the threats of Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad spread, the supporters fled in
their droves out of fear. Muslim ibn Aqeel was captured and executed after refusing
to turn away from Imam Husain (as).
This idea that because the Kufans turned their back on Imam Husain
(as) when threatened by torture and killings and therefore were responsible for
the Imam's death is wrong. Ubaydullah's threats were not mere words, he imposed
a curfew on Kufa, actively sent his army to look out for people who were supporting
Muslim ibn Aqeel and even spread rumours that the Syrian army was arriving to support
him in his quest to shut down any support for Imam Husain (as). "Women began to come to their sons and
brothers, urging them to go away as the people would be enough without them. Every
man went to his son or his brother telling him, ‘Tomorrow the Syrians will come
against you. What have you to do with the war and this evil doing? Go away.’ Thus,
each took someone away. They continued to disperse so that by the time evening came
Muslim b Aqil only had thirty men with him in the mosque" (Tabari, Chaper
19). Great fear was spread throughout Kufa by his aggressive actions and many supporters
of Imam Husain (as) were executed in Kufa. Despite this, several Shia Kufans managed
to escape the city and fought alongside Imam Husain (as), sacrificing their lives
in Karbala.
Q6: Wasn't Imam Husain (as) wrong to revolt against the ruler of his
time, Yazid?
In 2007, Peace TV owner Dr. Zakir Naik sparked controversy when speaking in his annual
Peace Conference. He claimed that the tragedy of Karbala was merely a "political war," a "difference of opinion" and went
on to call Yazid Radiallah ta'la anho
(may Allah be pleased with him)! He was rightly condemned by Shia and Sunnis alike.
Firstly, Yazid was never a legitimate rule of the Islamic kingdom.
He was appointed as successor to his father Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan after his death
- totally going against the treaty that Muawiya has struck with Imam Hasan (as).
After his death, the caliphate was meant to return to Imam Hasan and Imam Husain
(as). If he wanted to, Imam Husain (as) was perfectly entitled to stand up against
Yazid.
Secondly, Imam Husain (as) did not lead a revolt against Yazid. He
never set out to fight against Yazid's army. When he was faced with Hur and his
small battalion as they commanded him to turn his camp and escorted him to Karbala,
he had the upper hand and could've resisted, but he never intended to fight or be
the aggressor.
Charles Dickens perhaps understood it best when he said "If Hussain fought to quench his worldly
desires, then I do not understand why his sisters, wives and children accompanied
him. It stands to reason therefore that he sacrificed purely for Islam."
Imam Husain (as) did not revolt against Yazid, he went out of his way leave Medina
in order to avoid any bloodshed. He was happy to leave the rule of Yazid and be
left alone.
Q7: Don't Shia's exaggerate how bad Yazid truly was?
Certain defenders of Yazid ibn Muawiya try to refer to the expedition
to Caesar's City when Yazid ibn Muawiya was said to have led the Muslim army into
battle. They refer to the following Sahih Bukhari hadith:
"Umair said. Um Haram informed
us that she heard the Prophet saying, "Paradise is granted to the first batch
of my followers who will undertake a naval expedition." Um Haram added, I said,
'O Allah's Apostle! Will I be amongst them?' He replied, 'You are amongst them.'
The Prophet then said, 'The first army amongst' my followers who will invade Caesar's
City will be forgiven their sins." (Sahih Bukhari,Volume 4, Book 52, No. 175)
During the time of Muawiya's caliphate, he commanded an army to attack
Caesar's City and some claim that Yazid was in the army ranks. If he was, then this
hadith has been used as an attempt to "forgive" Yazid of his numerous
crimes. It is highly disputable that Yazid was in the army at all. In Tareekh Kamil,
Volume 3, Ali ibn al-Athir narrates: "In
50 Hijri, Muawiyyah (RTA) sent huge army to Caesar (Rome) and appointed Sufyan bin
Au’f as Commander of the army. He also ordered his son Yazid to join the army. Yazid
made excuses and said that he was feeling ill. Muawiyyah freed him."
Even if Yazid ibn Muawiya was in the army that attacked Caesar's City and the hadith
is accurate, does it mean he is guaranteed forgiveness, regardless of his actions?
There is no such thing as unconditional guarantees in Islam. Can he be forgiven
for ordering the killing of the grandson of the Holy Prophet? If you want to gloss
over that horrendous act, what about what he did in the second and third years of
his short rule. Tabari narrates the massacre at Medina when the forces of Yazid
ibn Muawiya killed thousands of people, raped hundreds of women and then moved onto
Mecca in the third year, setting fire to the Holy Kaaba! This is someone who Allah
should be pleased with?
Q8: The Battle of Karbala was a big loss for Imam Husain (as)?
The tragedy of Karbala was a mission of truth, the truth of Islam,
Allah and the Holy Prophet. It was a mission to expose the enemies of truth, Yazid
ibn Muawiya and Bani Ummayah. Imam Husain's (as) victory was achieved by suffering,
struggling and the ultimate sacrifice. It is what has made it everlasting, leaving
a permanent imprint on our consciousness.
The Holy Prophet had struggled to suppress the ignorance and anger
of the Arabs and a mere 50 years after his death the anger had risen up once more.
The strength of the uprising, personified by the evil tyrant Yazid ibn Muawiya was
powerful enough to deface the Holy Prophet's actions. In Imam Husain's (as) mind,
Islam was in need of reactivation and thus it required a complete overhaul, complete
revolution. This could only be achieved by suffering and sacrifice, through a physical
and spiritual jihad not seen before in human history and seen again since. Imam
Husain (as) did not set out to fight a military battle, so the face that he, along
with his companions were brutally killed by the far bigger, much more heavily armed
army, is irrelevant to the concepts of victory and defeat.
You measure victory by achievements of stated aims. Yazid ibn Muawiya's
aim was to get the pledge of allegiance from Imam Husain (as). Imam Husain's (as)
aim is not to bow his head to tyranny, to illegitimate rulers and to stay on the
true path of Islam. Imam Husain (as) and after his death, the 4th Holy Imam, Imam
Zainul Abedeen (as) did not bow to Yazid. In fact, no Imam was ever asked again
to give allegiance by any future caliph.
Q9: Isn't Ashura mean to be celebrated by fasting?
I have addressed this most ridiculous of Muharrum myths in an earlier
post: Myth of Ashura.
That concludes section 1, questions on Muharrum. Next time I will be
discussing some common questions about the companions of the Holy Prophet, including
the first 3 kulifahs.
No comments:
Post a Comment