Section 1: Muharrum, Q's 5-9 - Killing of Imam Husain (as), revolt against Yazid, Karbala a defeat, evilness of Yazid & Ashura

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.

Section 1: Muharrum Q's 2-4 - Black clothes, Crying & Maatum

The next few questions deal with the mourning that takes place by the Shia across the globe when commemorating the martydom of Imam Hussain (as), grandson of the Holy Prophet. Reading on various forums and blogs, a lot of Sunni Muslims seem to have this rather simplistic view of Shias, we are those who wear black, cry all the time and hit ourselves. This post deals with those three features.

Q2: Why do Shias wear black clothes during Muharrum?

As already discussed, Shias commemorate the sacrifice, murder and martydom of Imam Hussain in Muharrum. In the tragedy of Karbala, he along with his close family and companions were brutally killed by the corrupt Muslim leader at the time, Yazid ibn Muawiya. Starting from the first of Muharrum to the 'Arbaeen' (40days after the sacrifice), Shias attend majlis (gatherings) to commemorate the events that took place.

We are mourning the cruel loss of the grandson of the Holy Prophet in outrageous circumstances. Is it not obvious why we would be wearing black clothes or crying with emotion? When you attend a funeral no-one would be wearing bright, loud clothes and laughing. The mood would be sombre, sad and everyone would be in black clothes. The same applies to Shias who are mourning the death of Imam Hussain (as).

Q3: Why do Shias cry so much during Muharrum?

Again, a rather simple answer - Shias are in mourning, crying is the natural response. People try to claim that somehow crying is wrong and un-Islamic but it has been encouraged by the Holy Prophet and is mentioned clearly in the Holy Quran.

"And when they listen to the revelation received by the Messenger, thou wilt see their eyes overflowing with tears, for they recognise the truth: they pray: "Our Lord! we believe; write us down among the witnesses." (Quran, Surah 5, Verse 83)

Surah Yusuf (no. 12) goes on to describe what happened to Prophet Yacub when he discovered that Prophet Yusuf had gone missing.

"And he turned away from them, and said: "How great is my grief for Joseph!" And his eyes became white with sorrow, and he fell into silent melancholy." (Quran, Surah 12, Verse 29)

Prophet Yacub cried so much his eyes went "white with sorrow." During the time of the Holy Prophet after the Battle of Uhud and the martydom of his uncle Hamzah, Tabari narrates in his book: "The Messenger of God passed by a settlement of the Ansar of the Banu Abdal al-Ashhal and Zafat and heard sounds of lamentation and women weeping. The Messenger of God’s eyes filled with tears and he wept, but then he said “Yet Hamzah has no women weeping for him”. When Saad bin Muadh and Usayd b. Hudayr came back to the settlement of the Banu Abdal al-Ashhal, they told the women to gird themselves up and go and weep for the Messenger of God’s uncle." (The History of the Prophets and Kings, Vol 7, pg 137) The Holy Prophet encouraged his followers to cry and mourn the loss of his uncle and yet we are not meant to cry when remembering the death of Imam Hussain (as).

This idea that it is somehow wrong to cry, to get emotional over such a loss is absurd. Hanafi scholar Sheikh Sulayman ibn Ibrahim Qandoozi sums it up best: "The grief of Imam Husayn (as) is the grief on which not only Humans, but even jinnat, Angels, animals, birds, the sky and trees, all lament. Thus it is written that the sky wept for forty days on (the martyrdom of) Imam Husayn (as)"

Q4: Why do Shias hit themselves (perform maatum) in Muharrum?

This is arguably the most controversial act performed by Shias during majlis, in Muharrum. The act of hitting oneself in sorrow is not wrong per se, but the extremes that some Shias take it to, the act of actual self-flagellation to the point of actual harm, brings a lot of attention and criticism.

When people refer to Shias hitting themselves, they often refer to Zanjeer maatum, the act of hitting oneself with chains and knives. It sounds gruesome and often can be. The majority of Shias will engage in the act of hitting their chest out of grief and tradition, but Zanjeer takes it forward to the next step. Like all things, there are extremes and I would say that Zanjeer is the extreme in this case and not something performed by the majority of Shias.

The actual act of hitting ourselves in grief can be a natural response, an outpouring of emotion when someone is upset. It was something instituted by the Holy Prophet and also performed by the likes of Aisha and Umar. It has also been mentioned in the Quran, when the wife of Prophet Abraham was told she would be blessed with a newborn despite her old age:

"So he conceived in his mind a fear on account of them. They said: Fear not. And they gave him the good news of a boy possessing knowledge. Then his wife came up in great grief, and she struck her face and said: An old barren woman!" (Quran, Surah 51, Verses 28-29)

Sunni books have also narrated at the time of the Holy Prophet's death, Aisha overcome with emotion and grief hit herself along with the rest of the Prophet's wives. "I got up beating my chest and slapping my face, along with other women." (Sirah Ibn Hisham, Volume 4 page 655). Umar, did something similar: "When Umar received news of the death of Numan ibn Muqran, he placed his hand on his head and wailed: 'O my grief for Numan!" (Aqd al Fareed, Volume 1 page 342). 

There is nothing wrong with expressing grief by crying and by hitting oneself, rather it is a natural response. Some take it to the extreme but focus on the actual act and you will see that it is something that has been carried out throughout history and will continue to do so.

That concludes this particular post with the answers to 3 common questions about Shias in Muharrum. As I keep stating, we are commemorating the horrendous killing of the grandson of the Holy Prophet. There is not other incident in the history of mankind that even compares to the great sacrifice of Imam Hussain (as) Inshallah I will return later with a few more answers in relation to Muharrum.

Section 1: Muharrum, Q1 - What is the basis for the Shia account of Karbala?

We Shias recently commemorated the martydom of Imam Hussain (as), the grandson of the Holy Prophet, on the 10th of Muharrum - Ashura. And just yesterday we commemorated the 'Chelum' of that sacrifice (the 40th day after the 10th).

Every year in the months of Muharrum and Safar, Shias and other Muslims across the globe commemorate this great sacrifice. I have met a few Muslims over the years who have never even heard of this great tragedy in Karbala and we are often asked as to why we mourn in these months - what is the reason for such grief and lamentation?

In very brief detail, the corrupt ruler of the Islamic kingdom in 680 AD, Yazid ibn Muawiya, demanded the allegiance of Imam Hussain (as). He knew that his rule would not be vindicated without his backing. When Imam Hussain (as) refused and left Madina to avoid further trouble he was led to the land of Karbala where he faced a 30,000-strong army. Imam Hussain (as) along with his loyal companions and family members were brutally murdered on the 10th of Muharrum. The women-folk and children of his camp along with his son (the only male survivor) Imam Zainul-Abideen (as) were then marched to Damascus, Syria to the court of Yazid and imprisoned there before eventually being released. Every year, we Shias commemorate this great tragedy.

You can read into the tragedy of Karbala in a lot more detail in plenty of websites and books because the events that took place have been extremely well documented in the years that followed the tragedy. Numerous Sunni books have detailed the events that took place in great detail. The main source of the events come from the Shia historian Abu Mikhnaf who had written about the events of Karbala (Maqtal al-Husayn) within a hundred years - a remarkable achievement at a time when narrations of the Holy Prophet were being recorded several hundred years after his death. It has also been translated into English.

His work has been deemed reliable enough to be used by the great Sunni historians Tabari and Baladhuri. Tabari has a entire volume dedicated to the caliphate of Yazid ibn Muawiya (volume 19) in his book The History of the Prophets and Kings, where he discusses the murder of Imam Hussan (as) and Yazid's role from Abu Mikhnaf's works.

Outside the Muslim world, the tragedy of Karbala has also been narrated by Western historians such as Edward Gibbon, who in his book The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, states: 

"In a distant age and climate the tragic scene of the death of Hosein will awaken the sympathy of the coldest reader." (Volume 5, pg 417). 

Another historian, Reynold A. Nicholson, English Orientalist wrote in his book A Literary History of the Arabs: 

"Husayn fell, pierced by an arrow, and his brave followers were cut down beside him to the last man. Muhammadan tradition, which with rare exceptions is uniformly hostile to the Umayyad dynasty, regards Husayn as a martyr and Yazid as his murderer." (pg 197)

There are no doubts about the tragedy that took place in Karbala in 680 AD it has been narrated by Muslims (Shia & Sunni) and non-Muslims alike. As followers of the Holy Prophet, it is only right that we commemorate such a tragic event every year. What upsets me the most is that the entire Muslim world (Shia and non-Shia) do not commemorate such a sacrifice that saved Islam. Without it, the Islam we know today (of any shape or form) would have been entirely corrupted and unrecognisable from the Islam brought to us by the Holy Prophet.

I will go on to discuss and clarify some of the events and practices that Shias carry out in commemorating this tragedy. Whatever your views may be on the practices of Shias during the months of Muharrum and Safar, the tragedy of Karbala needs to be widely acknowledged across the Muslim world. The Holy Prophet brought this great religion to mankind and a mere 50 years after his death, his grandson was being killed by so-called Muslims, by those who claimed to follow the Holy Prophet. The most important question for non-Shias and those who do not respect this sacrifice is why did it happen?

Myth of Ashura

Tomorrow, 6th December 2011 will be the 10th of Muharrum, Ashura, when Shias and many other Muslims commemorate the Tragedy of Karbala; the sacrifice of Imam Husain (as) - grandson of the Holy Prophet - and his companions to save the religion of Islam which was being butchered by the corrupt ruler Yazid ibn Muawiya - son of Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan. What took place on that day fourteen centuries ago needs to introduction, it was simply the greatest sacrifice by mankind and is rightly remembered across the globe.


However, over the past few years, the message of Imam Husain's (as) mission has been tampered with, by some small but vociferous groups, trying to belittle the message of Karbala and trying to ignore what took place on Ashura. This was epitomised by Dr. Zakir Naik in 2007 when he gave a speech claiming that the tragedy of Karbala was merely a political battle and referred to Yazid as Radiallah tala anho (May Allah be pleased with him).


More and more we hear of various Muslims who promote fasting on this day. It has apparently been recommended by the Holy Prophet because it is a day that celebrates many famous occasions throughout the history of mankind whilst at the same time blatantly ignoring the sacrifice of Imam Husain (as). They want to devalue the significance of Ashura and distract Muslims from the events on that day.


The alleged hadith by the Holy Prophet tells of a time when he met some Jews who were fasting on the 10th of Muharrum. When he asked them why, he was informed that on this day Prophet Musa celebrated escaping from Egypt and the clutches of the Pharaoh. It was also said to be the day when Prophet Ibrahim was saved from the fire that he was thrown in to burn alive and the day when Prophet Adam descended down to earth from the heavens. Upon hearing this the Holy Prophet declared that all Muslims should also fast on this day, and because no-one loved Prophet Musa, Ibrahim and Adam more than him, he recommended that Muslims should fast on the day before and the day after for good measure as well.


Does any of the above make sense? The Holy Prophet, the most important  man on earth, the last of the Prophets of Allah, had to be taught a Jewish tradition that he was unaware of and then decided to make it his own for the Muslims? The hadith has been totally fabricated and has been narrated by the likes of Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan and Abu Hurairah. Additionally, the Jewish calender does not run in the same pattern as the Islamic calender so the dates should never correspond with each other on a yearly basis. Even if the celebration took place, it would not be on the 10th of Muharrum every year.


Even if you disagree and believe the hadith to be accurate, the fundamental question is do the Jews celebrate the occasion now, will they be fasting tomorrow? The Jews fast on six seperate occasions and none of them celebrate Moses leaving Egypt. So, if the Jew's don't acknowledge such an event, why are some Muslims?


This hadith and the action of fasting has been created simply to belittle the message of Imam Husain (as), an attempt to try to marginalise the events of Karbala. It will never work, the sacrifice of Imam Husain (as) and his companions will live on till the Day of Judgement inshallah. Before I conclude, I attach some pictures of billboards that have been put up across London highlighting the events of Karbala.