Section 2: The Prophet's Companions, Q's 12-15

Apologies for such a long absence on updating the blog. I will proceed with some further questions about the Holy Prophet's companions.

Q12: What problem do Shias have with Aisha?

This question can be simply answered by another question - why did Aisha go against Imam Ali (as)? Why did she lead an army against Imam Ali (as)? There lies the crux of our problem with Aisha. Take away all the surrounding controversies and disagreements about Aisha and just focus on one main event, the Battle of the Camel. I do not believe that the name of Aisha should be cursed or abused, after all she is highly revered by the Ahle-Sunnah who regard her as Ummul Momineen - the Mother of the Believers and she was the wife of the Holy Prophet. However, she led an army against Imam Ali (as) in the Battle of the Camel and there can be nothing positive about that fact.

The status of Imam Ali (as) is unquestionable. At Ghadeer-e-Khum (which I will be discussing later), the Holy Prophet announced to hundreds of thousands of Muslims "O Allah! Love him who loves Ali, and be enemy of he who is the enemy of Ali; help him who helps Ali, and forsake him who forsakes Ali." This has been narrated in several Sunni and Shia books alike, it is undisputed. So what was Aisha doing, leaving the house of the Holy Prophet to lead an army against Imam Ali (as)?

There is a ludicrous argument made by some that the Battle of the Camel was a difference of opinion and both Imam Ali (as) and Aisha were right. If you take the view that both were right, what do you explain to the 10-20,000 Muslims who were killed in that battle, what will happen to them on the Day of Judgement? Will they all be told that they were fighting for the right side - does that even make sense? We need to be clear about the rights and wrongs of the Battle of Camel, only one side was right - truth was on the side of Imam Ali (as).

Q13: What problem to Shias have with Muawiya?

I really struggle to understand why we even need to explain our enmity towards Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan. His disgraceful acts and deeds are there for all to see and yet he is still revered and praised by many Muslims. One of my first posts on this blog was answering this very question in detail.

Q14: Why don't Shias trust Abu Hurairah?

Again, this is a question I have discussed in some detail earlier in my blog.

Q15: Why don't Shias trust Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and other Sunni books of tradition?

The narrations in both Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are questionable to say the least. There are several narrations which defame the Holy Prophet. I am actually embarrassed at quoting some narrations from Sahih Bukhari which talk about the Holy Prophet's alleged sex life and lewd behaviour, but in order to answer the question, I feel they must be highlighted:

"While Allah's Apostle was carrying stones (along) with the people of Mecca for (the building of) the Ka'ba wearing an Izar (waist-sheet cover), his uncle Al-'Abbas said to him, "O my nephew! (It would be better) if you take off your Izar and put it over your shoulders underneath the stones." So he took off his Izar and put it over his shoulders, but he fell unconscious and since then he had never been seen naked." (Vol 1, Book 8, No. 360) 

"Anas bin Malik said, "The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas, "Had the Prophet the strength for it?" Anas replied, "We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty (men)." And Sa'id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven)." (Vol 1, Book 5, No. 268) 

"Narrated Aisha: The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me. While in Itikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses)." (Vol 1, Book 6, No. 298) 

"Narrated Aisha: We performed Hajj with the Prophet and performed Tawaf-al-ifada on the Day of Nahr (slaughtering). Safiya got her menses and the Prophets desired from her what a husband desires from his wife. I said to him, "O Allah's Apostle! She is having her menses." He said, "Is she going to detain us?" We informed him that she had performed Tawaf-al-Ifada on the Day of Nahr. He said, "(Then you can) depart." (Vol 2, Book 26, No. 789)

Just imagine for a second, an anonymous author made such statements about the Holy Prophet, like the ones you have just read. There would be an uproar across the Muslim world, the author would be hunted down and persecuted - and rightly so. Yet, these outrageous traditions are in Sahih Bukhari and we are meant to believe them to be true? Allah (swt) describes the Holy Prophet as: "And thou (standest) on an exalted standard of character." (Surah 68, Verse 4). How can any of the above traditions be true? If they aren't true then what other traditions in the Sahih Bukhari and Muslim are also questionable?

Bukhari himself famously collected traditions from across the Muslim world, he travelled far and wide to collect traditions and yet when you add them up, whilst he collected over 1100 traditions from the likes of Abu Hurairah and Ibn Umar, 900 from Anas Ibn Malik, he only manages 70 from Imam Ali (as). More importantly, Bukhari lived during the time of the eight, ninth, tenth and eleventh Holy Imams. In all his travels, he failed to get any traditions from the family, the Ahlul-Bayt of the Holy Prophet. How can we accept the traditions of Sahih Bukhari?

That concludes section 2 and next time I move on to discuss some of the questions that revolve around Imam Ali (as) inshallah. 

Section 2: The Prophet's Companions, Q's 10-11

Moving on to a very emotive topic of discussion when it comes to discussing the differences between Shias and Sunnis - the companion's of the Holy Prophet. When I try to engage with Sunnis on various forums on the internet, the usual attacks are around our apparent views on the companions, specifically the first 3 caliphs after the Holy Prophet's death. We are apparently known for repeatedly cursing certain companions and displaying outright hatred towards them. In this section I will answer some of the common questions about our views on the companions.

Q10: Why are Shias against the companions?

Shias are not against the companions per se, but are stricter when it comes to deciding who is a good companion of the Holy Prophet and who is not. Sunnis seem to cast anyone associated with the Holy Prophet as a companion and then go on to describe them as people beyond reproach, sometimes based on the faintest of connections with the Holy Prophet.

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Sunni scholar, in his works on the companions, al-Isaba fi tamyiz al-Sahaba, describes them as: "Every one who has narrated a hadith or a word from the Prophet, or seen him while believing in him, is counted among the Sahabah. Also (of the Sahabah) is any one who has met the Prophet with believing in him, and died as a Muslim, whether his meeting with him being long or short, narrating from him or not... ...or who has seen him without sitting with him, or has not seen him due to an excuse." Taking these criteria, the companions number into the 100,000s, and they are all beyond reproach, criticism and questioning.

Turning to the Quran, Allah separates the companions into three categories. Firstly there are the good companions:

"Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other. Thou wilt see them bow and prostrate themselves (in prayer), seeking Grace from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure. On their faces are their marks, (being) the traces of their prostration." (Surah 48, Verse 29)

These are the companions that no Muslim should have any problem with, people like Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, Salman e-Farsi and Ammar ibn Yasir. Sunni scholer Ibn Hajar al-Haytami in his book Al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah states that the Holy Prophet said "Verily, Allah has commanded me to love four persons and has told me that He loves them." When the people asked who these four persons were, he said: "Ali bin Abu Talib, Abu Dharr, Miqdad, and Salman."

Then the Quran refers to the not so good companions:

"O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter." (Surah 9, Verse 38)

There were many events during the time of the Holy Prophet where various companions doubted his decisions and verdicts. Examples include the signing of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah when certain companions doubted the Holy Prophet and questioned whether signing the treaty was a good move for the Muslims. Then there was the Battle of Uhud when certain companions fled the battlefield in fear of defeat and others stayed behind to defend the Holy Prophet and fight in the name of Islam. We know who these companions are, they are clearly mentioned in all the history books. Are such companions meant to be beyond criticism?

"O ye who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet, nor speak aloud to him in talk, as ye may speak aloud to one another, lest your deeds become vain and ye perceive not." (Surah 49, Verse 2)

As the Holy Prophet lay on his deathbed, nearing the end of his life, he asked some companions for a pen and paper to write his last instructions, his last will. Instead he was shouted down by some companions and said to be delirious! Astagfirullah. "When Allah's Apostle was on his death-bed and in the house there were some people among whom was 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, the Prophet said, "Come, let me write for you a statement after which you will not go astray." 'Umar said, "The Prophet is seriously ill and you have the Qur'an; so the Book of Allah is enough for us." The people present in the house differed and quarrelled. Some said "Go near so that the Prophet may write for you a statement after which you will not go astray," while the others said as Umar said. When they caused a hue and cry before the Prophet, Allah's Apostle said, "Go away!" Narrated 'Ubaidullah: Ibn 'Abbas used to say, "It was very unfortunate that Allah's Apostle was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise." (Sahih Bukhari, Vol 7, Book 70, No. 573)

Lastly, the Quran refers to the hypocrites, those who pretend to be close to the Prophet and Islam. There is a whole Surah in the Quran dedicated to them - Surah 63, The Hypocrites.

"When the Hypocrites come to thee, they say, "We bear witness that thou art indeed the Messenger of Allah." Yea, Allah knoweth that thou art indeed His Messenger, and Allah beareth witness that the Hypocrites are indeed liars. They have made their oaths a screen (for their misdeeds): thus they obstruct (men) from the Path of Allah: truly evil are their deeds." (Surah 63, Verses 1-2)

Some of this hypocrites, even the Holy Prophet was unaware of and their punishment awaits on the Day of Judgement:

"And among those around you of the wandering Arabs there are hypocrites, and among the townspeople of Al-Madinah (there are some who) persist in hypocrisy whom thou (O Muhammad) knowest not. We, We know them, and We shall chastise them twice; then they will be relegated to a painful doom." (Surah 9, Verse 101)

This has been further complimented by Sahih Bukahri, "The companions of the Prophet said, "Some men from my companions will come to my Lake-Fount and they will be driven away from it, and I will say, 'O Lord, my companions!' It will be said, 'You have no knowledge of what they innovated after you left: they turned apostate as renegades (reverted from Islam)." (Vol 8, Book 76, No. 586). So who are these people, who are these companions referenced in the Holy Quran and Sahih Bukhari? Certain companions will be punished according to the Quran and the hadith and yet we are meant to treat every companion as an equal?

We should recognise that the Holy Prophet was surrounded by great men, but he was also surrounded by not so good men and also by rank hypocrites. Not all of them are worthy of praise and blessing. Surely, it makes sense to be more analytical and precise when it comes to deciding which are the suitable companions to follow.

I agree that cursing of certain companions does take place by some Shias, I can't deny that. However, I know many people disagree with such practices and many Shia scholars have criticised such actions. I agree, there is no need for curses and hatred towards some of the companions. Instead, we should focus on dialogue and discussion about the history and why some companions are worthy of much reverence over others.

Q11: For the sake of Islam and unity, shouldn't we just follow all the companions?

There is a hadith in some Sunni books by the Holy Prophet: "My Companions are like the stars; whoever among them you use for guidance, you will be rightly guided." Firstly, this is a highly questionable hadith; its authenticity has been questioned by many Sunni and Shia scholars alike. Secondly, for arguments sake, let's accept the hadith to be true - it doesn't actually make much sense. How can we follow all or any of the companions without question? For example, how can I follow both the third caliph Uthman ibn Affan and the great companion Abu Dharr? Uthman had Abu Dharr whipped and exiled from Madina to the desert where he eventually died alone. How can I follow both of these companions?

There are many examples of such conflicting choices when deciding who to follow amongst the companions. Another example is at the Battle of Jamal, on one side was Imam Ali (as) and the other was Talha and Zubayr, companions of the Holy Prophet. They went to battle against each other. How can we follow both? We have to follow those companions who were on the side of the truth. At the Battle of Jamal who was on the side of truth? It is illogical to try to argue that we should just follow all the companions.

Next time I will continue with section 2 by focusing on some particular companions, those who perhaps attract the most criticism amongst Shias. Still to come after that, will be some questions about the succession to the Holy Prophet and also some about Imam Ali (as).

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?

50 Questions about Shias

Once again, I have been busy with my notes during the Muharrum lectures and hope to put them to good use. I will be restarting this blog inshallah over the next few weeks with a new series. Inspired by a series of lectures I have attended, I hope to answer a series of questions that non-Shias have about us. I will be covering 50 main questions that Shias often face and will be using the Quran, Sunni books and some common sense & logic to answer them.


As always I invite healthy and necessary debate but will not tolerate any abusive comments. We are all here to learn and grow closer to Allah and I hope the series will prove to be informative and enlightening for all.


Join me from next week as I go through a variety of questions and topics starting with Muharrum, Karbala and the murder of the grandson of the Holy Prophet: Imam Hussain (as)

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.