The Stance of Imam Hussain (as)
Was this only a political dispute?
Azam Tariq al Nasibi stated:
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
Hafiz Ibn Asakir records this tradition on the authority of Sahabi Anas bin alHarith:
أنس بن الحارث يقول سمعت رسول الله ( صلى الله عليه و سلم ) يقول إن ابني ذا يعني الحسين يقتل بأرض يقال لها كربلاء فمن شهد ذلك منكم فلينصره
“I heard Rasulullah (s) say ‘Verily my son, means Husayn, will be killed in a land called Kerbala, whoever amongst you is alive at that time must go and help him”.
Tarikh Dimashq, Volume 14 page 223
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 UNTIL 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:
“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:
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 – In the battle of Kerbala Imam Husayn (as) was with the truth and Yazeed adhered to falsehood
As we cited above, Ibn Asakir has recorded this tradition on the authority of Sahabi Anas bin al-Harith:
“I heard Rasulullah (s) say ‘Verily my son, means Husayn, will be killed in a land called Kerbala, whoever amongst you is alive at that time must go and help him”.
This same narration can be located in the following Sunni books:
- Al Isaba Volume 1 page 81 Dhikr Uns bin Harith
- Khasais al Kubra Volume 2 page 125
- Kanz ul Ummal Volume 6 page 223 Dhikr Husayn
- Sirush Shahadatayn page 80
- Kifayath al Talib page 429 Dhikr Husayn
- Neel al Autar page 88
- Zakhair al Uqba page 146
Comment
If two individuals are fighting and the Prophet (s) tells you to go to the aid of one of them, then that individual will be on the path of truth, since the Prophet (s) would never give an order to stand with falsehood. In Kerbala, on one side was the illegal Khaleefa Yazeed bin Mu’awiyah on the other was Imam Husayn grandson of the Prophet (s), an individual whom the Prophet (s) gave an order that his Sahaba come to his aid.
Reply Two – One who fights Husayn (as), fights the Prophet (s)
We will prove this by citing the following Sunni sources:
- Adhaab al Mufraad page 17
- Sunan ibn Majah page 14, Manaqib Husayn
- Sunan Tirmidhi Volume 2 page 587 Manaqib Husayn
- Zakhair al Uqba page 133 Dhikr Husayn
- Sawaiqh al Muhriqa page 114 Dhikr Husayn
- Ya Nabi al Mawaddth page 164 Chapter 54
- Jama al Usool Volume 10 page 21
- Mustadrak al Hakim Volume 3 oage 177
- Kanz al Ummal Volume 6 page 220 Manaqib Husayn
- al Fusl al Muhimma page 171 Dhikr Husayn
- Ahsaaf al Raghibeen page 175 Dhikr Husayn
- Nuzlul Abrar page 55 Dhikr Husayn
- Mirqaat Sharh Mishqaat page 55
In Adaab al Mufarad, page 17 we read:
“The Prophet (s) said Husayn is from me and I am from Husayn”
In Mirqaat, Qadhi Iyad states:
“Our Prophet via Prophetic knowledge and revelation knew that his grandson Husayn would be martyred fighting Yazeed bin Mu’awiya, that is why the Prophet made a specific reference about him, stating he shared three qualities with him (s),
- Loving both is compulsory
- Disrespecting both is a sin
- Fighting both is haraam and a sin”
This Hadeeth proves that in the same way one that fights the Prophet can never be on Haqq (Truth), likewise on that fights Husayn can never be on Haqq either, this proves that in Kerbala Yazeed was on the path of falsehood, and Husayn (as) on the path of truth.
Reply Three – One that fights the Ahl’ul bayt fights the Prophet
We have relied on the following Sunni works:
- Sunan Ibn Majah, English translation by Muhammad Tufail Ansari, Volume 1 page 81
- Fada’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p767, Tradition #1350;
“Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said regarding Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn (Allah be pleased with them all): I am at peace with those with whom you make peace and I am at war with those with whom you make war”
Imam Ibn Habban has included this hadith in his collection of ‘Sahih’ Hadiths (Sahih Ibn Habban Volume 15 page 433), Imam Hakim declared it ‘Hasan’ (al-Mustadrak, Volume 3 page 161) and Imam Nasiruddin Albaani al-Salafi also declared it ‘Hasan’ (Al-Jame’a al-Saghir wa Ziadateh, page 235).
This Hadeeth proves that when Yazeed fought Imam Husayn (as) in Kerbala he was actually fighting the Prophet (s), and is automatically on falsehood.
Reply Four – The Prophet’s distraught appearance before Ibn Abbas proves Husayn (as) was on truth and Yazeed was on falsehood
We have located this narration from the following esteemed Sunni works:
- Sawaiqh al Muhirqah, page 642-643 published in Faisalabad
- Mishkat al Masabeeh, Volume 8, page 140
- al Isaba page 334, Dhikr Husayn
- al Istiab page 340, Dhikr Husayn
- Asad ul Ghayba, Volume 2 page 23 Dhikr Husayn
- Mirqaat Sharh Mishkaat, Volume 11 page 397 Dhikr Husayn
- Musnad Ibn Hnbal, Volume 4 page 29 Hadeeth number 2165
- Tareekh Islam by Dhahabi, Volume 2 page 349 Dhikr Husayn
- Tareekh Ibn Asakir, Volume 4 page 343 Dhikr Husayn
- Tareekh ul Khulafa, page 208 Dhikr Husayn
- Sirush Shahadatayn, page 88
- Tadhkirat ul Khawwas al Ummah, page 152, Dhikr Husayn
- Kifayat al Muttalib, page 428 Dhikr Husayn
In Mishkat we read:
“One afternoon I dreamt of Holy Prophet (s) standing with his hair disturbed and with dust tangled in them and he was holding a phial filled with blood. I said to the Prophet: “May my parents by sacrificed at you. What are you holding?” The Prophet (s) replied: “I am holding this phial filled with the blood of my son and his companions that I have been collecting all the day long.”
I remembered that day and when the news of Al Hussain’s (as) martyrdom came, and I matched that day with the day I had dreamt the Holy Prophet (s), I came to know that it was the same day”.
The distressed state of the Prophet (s) at the time of the death of the Prophet (s) serves as clear evidence that our Imam Husayn (as) was with the truth and Yazeed (l) was on falsehood. If Nasibis argue that the words of Rasulullah (s) in a dream are not authentic then we suggest to them to consider these words:
Abu Huraira narrates: The Prophet (pbuh) said: “Whoever has seen me in a dream has in fact seen me, for Satan does not appear in my form” Sahih Muslim, vol. 4 p 1225 no 5635
Reply Five
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?
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 Six
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 Seven – The Sunni Ulema have accepted that in Kerbala Imam Husayn (as) adhered to the truth and Yazeed was on falsehood
As evidence we shall cite the following esteemed Sunni works:
- Sharh Fiqh Akbar page 72
- Neel al Autar Volume 7 page 181, Kitab al Jihad
- Shadharath al Dhahab Volume 1 page 69 Dhikr the events of 61 Hijri
- Tareekh Ibn Khaldun Volume 1 page 180
- Tauhfa Ithna Ashari page 370 Chapter 11 part 3
- Minhajj al Sunnah Volume 2 page 241 Dhikr Yazeed
- al-Awasim min al Qawasim, page 232
In Sharh Fiqh Akbar we read:
“Some illiterates have said (Allah forbid) that Imam Husayn was a rebel, this is Batil according to the aqaid of Ahl’ul Sunnah wa al Jamaah, this may not be palatable to those that have fallen away from the truth”.
This is a leading book of Hanafi aqaid that is clealrly stating that Hanafi Sunnis do not deem our Imam to be a rebel, obviously those Sunnis that say otherwise are actually practising taqiyya, posing as Sunnis when they are actually hardcore Nawasib.
Neel al Autar:
“There are those people who aided the Deen, they opposed the leader of the time because the leader was Unjust who had left the way of the Prophet, these people are the people of truth and Imam Husayn is at the top of such individuals”
Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah Shaukani stated clearly that Yazeed was unjust and abandoned the way of the Prophet (s), and Imam Husayn (as) aided the Deen by opposing Yazeed, and our Imam was on truth and Yazeed was on falsehood.
Shadharat al Dhahab:
“The people is Islam are in absolute agreement, that Imam Husayn’s opposition to Yazeed’s bad deeds was a good step, similarly the act of Ibn Zubayr and the Madinans opposition against the Banu Umayya was also a good step”.
Even advocate of Mu’awiya Ibn Khaldun in Mudaqqimah 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 middle way is that of the Ahl’ul Sunnah who don’t deem Husayn a baghi or the Khaleefa , and deem his murder to be martyrdom”
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 al 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.
These references prove that the scholars of Islam acknowledge that Imam Husayn (as) attained
Martyrdom, hence Imam Husayn (as) adhered to the truth in Kerbala. The Prophet (s) stated that the Ummah must come to his (as) aid that he would be martyred in Kerbala
Reply Eight
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?
The acceptance that the Imam (as) was a martyr is proof that he adhered to the path of truth and Yazeed was on falsehood.
![Tafseer Mazhari [Urdu], Volume 8 page 268](http://www.shiapen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/tafsir_mazhari_v8_p268.jpg){kind=link}
![Tafseer Mazhari [Arabic], Volume 5 page 271, commentary of 14:29](http://www.shiapen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/tafsirMazhari_v5_p271.jpg){kind=link}
