WHO KILLED
IMAM HUSSAIN (AS)?
2nd Edition
Authored
by:
Answering-Ansar.org
Presented
by:
ShiaOfAhlalbayt
So who killed Imam Hussain (as)? – Lets
investigate history
Ansar had
perpetuated the common lie that the Shia killed Imam Hussain (as). In this
refutation we shall analyse the facts of history to expose the fallacy of such
a claim. Their argument can be summarised as follows
1.
The Shi’a invited Imam Hussain (as) by writing
letters and requesting that he come to Kufa so that they can recognise him as
their Imam.
2.
Imam Hussain (as) sent Muslim bin Aqeel (as)
as his representative to assess the situation
3.
The Shi’a gave bayya to Imam Hussain via
Hadhrath Muslim bin Aqeel (as).
4.
The same Shi’a subsequently abandoned him
following the entry of Abdullah ibn Ziyad.
5.
The Shi’a failed to support Imam Hussain (as)
as a result he was killed.
The approach we have taken is to focus on the historical
sources in detail and then identify and expose the beliefs of the Kufan people.
The beliefs of the people of Kufa
Imam of
Ahl’ul Sunnah Allamah Shibli Numani in al Faruq states that Hadhrath Umar
established Kufa city:
“The city was founded in 17AH and, as Omar had expressly commanded, houses
sufficient to lodge forty thousand persons were built. Arab tribes were
allotted separate quarters under the supervision of Hayaj ibn Malik. Omar had
given clear instructions with regard to the plan of the city as well as its
construction... The Jami Masjid was built on a raised square plateform and was
so big that forty thousand persons could pray in it at one time.”
Omar
the great (Al Faruq) Volume 2 page 95
“Besides the Jami Masjid, separate mosques were built for each quarter of
the city. Among the people settled in Kufah were twelve thousand from
“In Omar’s lifetime the city came to attain such greatness and splendour
that the Caliph called it the head of Islam”.
Omar
the great (Al Faruq) Volume 2 page 96
Kufa was a city that was founded by the second khalifa, Arab tribes settled
there. No doubt they were loyal to him. They deemed him to be the legitimate
khalifa, so much so that Umar deemed Kufa to be the head of Islam. Accordingly
they accepted the Caliphate of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. Umar’s building a
Jami Masjid having accommodation of 40,000 worshippers and many other mosques
further proves the fact that the majority of the population were his followers or
Nawasib want to suggest that their caliph made a mosque for 40,000 Shias?
The people of Kufa believed firmly in Khailafath of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and
‘Ali (as). This is clearly proven by the fact that we read in al-Tabari (Egypt
Ed) p189 Volume 5 Chapter 19, that when a group including Malik bin Ashthar
spoke out against Uthman in Kufa they were set upon and attacked.
The Kufan Arabs accepted the concept of khilafath that had been established at
Saqifa, and expanded by Hadhrath Umar. The Kufans were those that deemed Ali
(as) to be the fourth khailfa, which is not the belief espoused by the Shi’a
who deem him (as) to be the rightful khalifa after Rasulullah (s).
We do not learn from any authentic text of history that the vast bulk of the
people of Kufa were Shi’a, on the contrary we learn that the majority were
adherents of Uthman.
The mass extermination of the Kufan Shi’a by
Mu’awiya’s Governor Ziyad
Afriki
had posed this question regarding the situation Imam Hussain (as) faced:
|
Ansar.org
states: |
|
There
are also the numerous references to the people of Kûfah as the followers
(albeit capricious followers) of his father and brother. And were we to
assume that many, or even most of them were not Shî‘ah in the “religious”
sense, the question which next presents itself is: Where were the real Shî‘ah
when their Imâm required their help? Were they only that handful who emerged
from Kûfah? |
One should also point out that any trace of Shi’a presence that existed in Kufa
was in effect eliminated with the coming to power of Ansar.org’s Imam Mu’awiya.
When Ziyad bin Sumayya became Governor of Kufa he slaughtered the vast bulk of
the Shi’a of Ali, to the extent that only a few were left.
see:
1. Al Bidayah wa al Nihaya Volume 3 P50;
2. Al Kamil Volume 3 page 245,
3. Nasai al Kafiya page 70,
4. al Istiab Volume 1 p138 and
5. Tarikh al Tabari Volume 6 page 155
Allamah Muhammad Bin Aqeel writes in Nisaih Kafia, page 70 (published in
“Muwiyah made Ziyad Bin Sumaya governor over the people of Kufa and linked
it with Basrah. As Ziyad had lived in Kufa during the time of Ali[ra], he was aware of all Shias living there. He dragged
Shias from every stone and mount and murdered them, threatened them, cut off
their hands and legs, made needles pierce their eyes, hanged them over trees,
exiled them from Iraq and made them homeless to the extent that no renowned
Shia remained there in Iraq”
This was the treatment afforded to the adherents of Ali (as) under Mu'awiya.
Such was its severity that when Ibn Ziyad become Governor of Kufa, he said to
Hani bin Urwa (who was Shi’a):
“Didn’t you know Hani, when my father came to this land, he did not spare
the life of any one of this Shi’a except for your father and Hujr? You know
what happened to Hujr”.
History of Tabari, English translation - Volume 19 page 38
In such circumstances how can we accept that the vast bulk of Kufans were
Shi’a? How can it be believed that the Shi’a, that had
been obliterated by Ziyad all of a sudden appeared again and were strong and
confident enough to summon Imam Hussain (as) to them.
No doubt Ansar will claim that Imam Ali (as) making Kufa his centre of
administration was due to the Shi’a Majority there. We would ask Ansar:
"Did Imam Ali spread Imami Shia'ism in Kufa at the time? If yes then
this proves Imami Shi'aism is the true sect that was propagated by Maula Ali
(as) to the masses. If there answer is no, then it not
somewhat unusual that another Sect was propagating their beliefs, and the yet
the Shi’a Madhab spread everywhere?
Whatever answer Ansar give, the fact is that it cannot
be proven that the majority was Shia. When Ziyad and his son had successfully
adopted every method to exterminate the Shia then it is logical that vast bulk
of those individuals who invited Imam Hussain (as) to Kufa were not Shi’a.
The words of Abdullah Ibn Abbas which he spoked to Imam Hussain[as] serves
another proof that there were just a few Shias left in Kufa. When Imam Hussain[as] decided to leave Makkah to Kufa Ibn Abaas
suggested him not to go Kufa. When Ibn Abbas came to Imam Hussain[as]
for the second time he said:
“ O my brother! I want to be patient but what shall I do since the problem
is serious that I cannot maintain patience. I fear your death and destruction
during this journey because the people of Iraq are the group of deceitful
people hence you should not go near them and if the people of Iraq really want
your caliphate as they claim, then you should write to them that they should
first drag their enemies out of Iraq only then you should go there. And if you
are adamant to leave Makkah then (instead of Iraq) you should go Yamen that
there are huge forts and mountains and there are Shias of your father and you
will remain safe there from people (Banuy Umayah)”
Tareekh Tabari, Volume 6 page 217 (Arabic)
Ibn Abbas suggested Imam Hussain[as] not to go Iraq as its dwellers were
deceitful rather he should go Yemen as there are Shias of Ali. This proves that
there were almost no Shia in Kufa otherwise Ibn Abbas would
not have mentioned this feature of
Letters were written by those people with differing aqeedas, the majority of
which were not Shi’a, but adhered to an aqeedah that in later times came to be
coined as the beliefs of Ahlul Sunnah. They considered all 4 to be Khalifas of
Rasulullah (s). The fact is the People of Kufa were tired of the repressive
policies that Yazeed had subjected them to, and hence they turned to Imam Hussain
(as) for help.
Sahaba and Tabieen living in Kufa wrote to
Imam Hussain (as) and became the Tawabun
|
Ansar.org
states: |
|
Four
years later the Shî‘ah of Kûfah attempted to make amends for their desertion
of the family of Rasûlullâh sallallâhu ‘alayhi wa-âlihî wasallam. There
emerged a group of Kûfans calling themselves the Tawwâbûn (Penitents) who
made it their duty to wreak vengeance upon the killers of Hussain. |
It is an established fact that those that wrote to Imam Hussain (as) and then
failed to support him became the force of the tawabun. Where Afriki’s logic
falls apart is the fact that he assumes that ALL those who wrote to Imam
Hussain (as) adhered to Shi’a aqeedah, a fact that cannot be supported by the
fact that the Shi’a had in effect been ethnically cleansed of Kufa under Nasibi
Ziyad’s Leadership. Afriki has tactically avoided this, preferring to describe
ALL the writers of letters as Shi’a. The reality is amongst those leading
figures that led the calls for the Imam (as) to join them in Kufa WERE Sahaba
such as Sulayman bin Surad and Mussayab bin Najabah (see History of Tabari –
English translation Volume 19, page 24) and Tabieen. Afriki has failed to
comment on this fact, preferring to simply copy and paste from his Nasibi
Imams. For the benefit of Afriki and his fellow adherents we shall inshallah
delve into this matter by examining the lives of two Sahaba that lead the
invites to Imam Hussain (as) and then led the Tawabun.
The Sahabi Sulayman bin Surad and al
Mussayab bin Najabah led the Tawabun
Sulayman
bin Surad was a Sahabi of Rasulullah (s), not only that – he was an individual
from whom hadith have been narrated on his authority in the Saha Sittah of
Ahl’ul Sunnah. As evidence on can consult al Jamaah Bayyan
Rijaal, Sahah Sittah Volume 1 page 176 (Published in Dekkan).
We read in al Aqd al Shameen fi Tareekh al Jildh al Kameen Volume 4 page 607
that:
“Sulayman bin Surad al Khuza’i benefited from the companionship of
Rasulullah (s) and narrated hadith from him”.
Imam Abu Muhammad Abdullah bin As`ad al Yameni also known as Al Yaf`ee states:
“Sulayman (ra) was a Sahabi of the Prophet (s) hadith have been narrated on
his authority”.
Miraat al Janaan Volume 1 page 141 – Hyderabad edition
Dhahabi writes as follows:
“Sulayman bin Surad, the Leader of the al Khuza’i in Kufa, the Sahabi, he
has a small narration from Ubayy and Jubayr bin Mut'im from Yahya bin Ya'mar
and Uday bin Thabet and Abu Ishaq and others. Ibn Barr states ‘He (Sulayman)
was amongst those that wrote to Imam Hussain [r] and gave him bayya. They were
unable to support him and greatly regretted this, and subsequently waged war. I
am of the opinion that he was a pious religious individual, he joined the army
on account of his sin of failing to support Hussain [r], he made tauba (asked
for forgiveness) and left to avenge the shedding of his (Hussain’s) blood, this
army was known as the army of the Tawabun”
Siyar al-Aalam al-Nubla Volume 3 page 394 -395 (Beirut edition)
This book can also be downloaded from a Salafi/Wahabi website:
Al-Meshkat.net
- hh.zip - (Cached)
So from here it is clear that a Sahaba was a lead figure that deserted Imam
Hussain (as). Whilst Afriki is seeking to attack the Shi’a for allegedly
deserting the Imam, Ibn Barr a leading Sunni scholar despite Sulayman bin
Surad’s inability to support the Imam, praises him and deems him religious and
pious.
Mussayab bin Najabah was another Sahabi that joined Sulayman in the Tawabun.
Although he did not side with the Nasibi army of Yazeed, they (despite their
promise) failed to support Imam Hussain (as), they
regretted this sin, made tauba and led a movement to avenge the slaughter of
Imam Hussain (as), his family and supporters. When they left for battle and
confronted Abdullah Ibn Ziyad, Sulayman….
“Gave an order to commence Jihad against Ibn Ziyad.
Backed by a one thousand strong army, Sulayman stated ‘If I am killed your
leader is Mussayab”.
Siyar al-Aalam al-Nubla Volume 3 page 395
Ibn Barr writing on Sulayman bin Surad states:
“Sulayman bin Surad was a good, pious and religious man. During jahiliyya
his name was ‘Laseer’ – Rasulullah (s) changed it to Sulayman. He was amongst
those that wrote to Hussain ibn ‘Ali [r] and invited him to Kufa. When he
[Hussain] arrived he was killed, although they did not participate in his
murder, Sulayman bin Surad, Mussayib bin Najbah, Najab Furdhee and others
expressed regret for having failed aid Hussain [r] and die with him”.
al Istiab Volume 2 pages 43-44
It is clear from this source that whilst these individuals did not join
Yazeed’s army, they felt remorse having invited the Imam (as) and then not
supported him in his hour of need.
Ibn Kathir states as follows:
“And the people gathered in the home of Sulayman bin Surad, this gathering
comprised of the great righteous Sahaba”.
ibid Volume 8 page 2
Ibn Kathir also records a letter of Mussayab bin Najabah that states clearly
that whilst not siding with Yazeed, the Tawabun failed to support Imam Hussain
(as) having themselves invited him:
“Allah (swt) has tested us, in relation to supporting the son of
Rasulullah’s daughter. We were exposed as liars, he relied on our support and
we failed to provide it, we broke our promise, we shall kill those that killed
him and his family”.
al Bidayah Volume 8 page 247
Among those who wrote letters to Imam Hussain [as] also includes Shabath bin
Rabi * who later on also participated in his murder. Those Nawasib who
accuse that it was Shias who wrote letters to Imam Hussain [as] shall check
their prominent hadith books in which we can find hadeeth narrated by this
beloved killer of Imam Hussain [as]. We will prove the Sunnism (Nasibism to be
correct) of this man in another chapter.
* Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu) Vol 8 page 1013
Here is a list of those Sunni scholars and hadith
scholars that have referred to Sulayman bin Surad leader of the Lashkar Tawabun
as a Sahaba:
1.
Kitab al Muhajir page 691 by Muhammad bin
Habeeb al Baghdadi
2.
Tahdeeb al Ithidab page 187 by Ibn Hajr
Asqalani
3.
Tareekh Baghdad Volume 1 page 200-201 by Abu
Bakr Khateeb Baghdadi
4.
Tajheed al Isma al Sahaba Volume 1 page 255 by
Dhahabi
5.
Jamaadath Nasab al Arab page 238 by Ibn Hazm
Andalusi
6.
Al Tabaqat al Kubra Volume 4, part 1 page 30
by Ibn Sa’d
7.
Al Kashaf Volume 1 page 316, footnote 2122 by
Dhahabi
8.
Al Ahbar fi Khabar Volume 1 page 53 by Dhahabi
9.
Al Jama bayyan al Rijaal al Saha Sittah by al
Hafidh Muhammad bin Tahir Volume 1 page 174 footnote 673
10.
Tahkeeb al Takreeb page 187 by Ameer ‘Ali
Barelvi
Analysing the comments of S.M.A Jafri
|
Ansar.org
states: |
|
There is
also the tendency of claiming that those who deserted Sayyidunâ Husayn were
not of the Shî‘ah. Jafri writes:… |
To counter this we should point to Ansar that your very own great Anti Shi’a
scholar al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz stated that at that time, all Muslims were
known as Shi’a! He wrote:
"It should be known that the first Shias (who are the Sunnis and the
Tafdiliyyah) in old days were known as Shias. When the Ghulat and the Rawafid
Zaydiyyah and Ismailiyyah took the name for themselves, Sunnis and Tafdiliyyah
did not like this name for themselves and so they took
the name of Ahlu's-Sunnah wa’l Jamaah."
Tuhfa
Athna Ashari (Urdu) page 16, published in Karachi
So at this particular time yes the Shi’a did kill Imam
Hussain (as) but that is only because all Muslims were known by the title
Shi’a. But as Shah Abdul Aziz states this Shi’aism developed
in to the beliefs of the Rafidi (Imami Shi’a) and Ahl’ul Sunnah. Being
Shi’a of Ali (as) meant a different thing to different people. Identifying the
true Shi’a, Shah Abdul Aziz states:
"The title Shi'a was first given to those Muhajireen and Ansar who gave
allegiance (bay'ah) to Ali (may Allah enlighten his face). They were his
steadfast faithful followers during his (Ali's) caliphate. They remained close
to him; they always fought his enemies, and kept on following Ali's commands
and prohibitions. The true Shi'a are these who came in
37 Hijri" (NB 37 Hijri -the year Imam Ali (as) fought Mu'awiya at Sifeen).
Tuhfa
Athna Ashari (Urdu) page 27, published in Karachi
Here those that stood at Sifeen with Imam Ali (as) were his Shi’a. But to say
their views on Imam Ali (as) were one and the same is completely incorrect.
There were those that were:
1.
Loyal to Imam Ali (as) because they deemed him
to be the khalifa after Rasulullah (s) e.g. Amar bin Yasir (ra).
2.
Loyal to Imam Ali (as) because his khailafath
was legitimate in accordance to the principles of ijma, bayya had been given
hence it was compulsory to obey him e.g. Ubayy bin Kab (ra).
3.
Loyal to Imam Ali (as) as long as he fought
Mu’awiya once arbitration was accepted these same Shi’a turned their backs on
the Imam and became Khwaarijee.
From these three groups three schools have developed the Imami Shia, Ahl ul
Sunnah, Khwaarji. All groups were called Shi’a despite their differing beliefs.
And then what of Ansar forefathers the camp of Mu’awiya, by
what belief system were they known? The answer is they were known as the
Shi’a of Uthman – the title Shi’a also identified this group.
So Ansar in light of this fact, tell us which of these groups of Shia killed
Imam Hussain (as)? Were they:
1.
Those that deemed Ali to be the Imam after
Rasulullah (s) appointed by Allah (swt) Shi’a that developed today in to what
is known as Shi’a Ithna Ashari?
2.
Those Shi’a that deemed Imamate to be the
right of the Ummah, and that Imam ‘Ai WAS the rightful khalifa due to the
people of Madina giving him bayya? The belief that developed into Ahl’ul
Sunnah?
3.
Those that had become his enemies (following
the Sifeen arbitration) who are today’s Khwaarij?
4.
Those that stood opposite Imam Ali (as) as his
enemies right from the start – the Shi’a of Uthman?
These are the 4 categories of Shi’a that existed at that time, so which group
shed the blood of Imam Hussain (as)? Was it just one group, or did all of these
Shi’a collude collectively?
History tells us that two groups of people played a role in Imam Hussain (as)
killing, they were:
1.
Those that vocally supported Yazeed and hence
deemed his Khalifa to be legitimate.
2.
Those that physically supported Yazeed by
fighting in his army against Imam Hussain (as).
The participation of the Sahaba and their
sons in killing Hadhrath Muslim bin Aqeel (as)
We have
clear proof that prior to his invitation to come to Kufa Yazeed had resolved to
take whatever steps were necessary to extract bayya from Imam Hussain (as).
When Mu’awiya died Yazeed wrote to his Governor in Madina, Waleed bin Utbah:
“Adopt a tough attitude in obtaining bayya from Hussain, Abdullah Ibn Umar,
Abdullah Ibn Zubayr, do not delay, nor display any signs of weakness, do not
leave them until they give bayya”.
Al Bidaya wal Nihayah (Urdu) Vol 8 page 1004, Nafees Acadmy
In this connection Waleed summoned Marwan and asked his opinion on which he
said:
“They are aware that Mu’awiya has died, invite them to give bayya, should
they refuse then strike off their necks”.
Al
Bidaya wal Nihayah (Urdu) Vol 8 page 1004, Nafees Acadmy Karachi
Upon returning to Makka he [Hussain]
received letters from the people of Kufa, He sent Muslim bin Aqeel to go and
assess the situation. Outwardly the people portrayed their support for Muslim
bin Aqeel and in turn for Hussain – 1000 people gave bayya. Spies notified
Numan bin Basheer, he did not openly adopt tough measures, but in this regard
gave a sermon warning people against sedition and urged the people to remain
loyal in the bayya that been afforded to Yazeed. One man stood up and said to
Numan ‘This matter cannot be curtailed without adopting force, the approach
that you have adopted is like that of weak people”.
…Yazeed said to Ibn Ziyad ‘When in Kufa find Muslim bin Aqeel and then kill
him. Ibn Ziyad arrived in Kufa with 17 men having assessed the situation he
spoke to the respectable people in his palace and queried the whereabouts of
Muslim bin Aqeel. There was some opposition but Ubaydullah abducted these
notables and deterred people from supporting Muslim.
So much so that by Maghrib prayers only thirty people remained with him, by
night fall they also deserted him. That night Muslim stayed in the home of an
elderly lady, her son notified Abdul Rahman bin Asheesh. Abdul Rahman told his
father at that same time who was in Ubaydullah’s house, Ibn Ziyad asked why the
secrecy, they told him and Ibn Ziyad immediately sent 70-80 men headed by Ibn
Harith Makhzomi who was the head of police. Muhammad bin Asheesh and Abdul
Rahman were with them. They collectively captured [Muslim] and sent him to Ibn
Ziyad residence. Upon reaching the doors of the residence (he was met by) some
of the sons of the Sahaba standing there. Muslim did not recognise them
although they recognised him. They were waiting to meet Ibn Ziyad, Muslim’s
face and clothes were covered in blood, whilst in that state he made a request
for water, one of the group said, ‘You will not be able to drink this until you
taste the hot water of Hell’. Muslim replied ‘Son of Hell you are more entitled
to drink the fire of Hell; than me’.
Al Bidaya Volume 7 page 154
Ibn Katheer fails to name the group of Sahaba and tabieen that had taunted
Muslim (as), Tabari identifies some names including one ‘Umro bin Harith
Makhzoomi”.
Dhahabi states “Umar bin Harith is counted amongst the Sahaba of Rasulullah
(s) that had settled in Kufa… he is a Sahabi who narrated hadith from
Rasulullah (s).
Siyar Al-Aalam al-Nubla, Volume 3 page 417
Later Ibn Kathir informs us about Umar bin Harith:
“Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad arrested Muslim bin Aqeel and sent him to Umro bin
Harith Makhzoomi, who was the Chief of Police”.
al Bidaya Volume 7 page 155; Tabari Volume 6 page 198
Those waiting to meet Ibn Ziyad in his Palace were Kathir bin Shahab, we learn
of him in Tabaqat ibn Sa’d Volume 6 page 103:
“He narrated traditions from Umar bin Khattab and was one of Mu’awiya bin
Abu Sufyan’s Governors”.
This can also be read in the Online Tabaqat Ibn Sa`d at the website of
Salafies/Wahabies:
Al-Eman.com
Online Tabaqat
Upon receiving the news that Imam Hussain (as) was making his way for Kufa
Marwan bin Hakam wrote to Ibn Ziyad, stating:
“Hussain ibn Ali is heading in your direction. He is
al Bidayah Volume 8 page 165
As Imam Hussain (as) made his way to Kufa, Yazeed also wrote to Ibn Ziyad
stating:
“I have heard Hussain is making his way to Kufa. From amongst my Governors
it is you that is being tested, freedom shall depend on successful completion
of this mission, or you could be enslaved again, in the same way that slaves
are freed, or freemen are made slaves”
al Bidayah Volume 8 page 165
The Shi’a of Uthman / Nasibis killed Imam
Hussain (as)
History
lifts the lid and exposes the true killers of Imam Hussain (as). On route to
Kufa Imam Hussain (as) met Al Farazdaq and asked him about the situation in
Kufa, he assessed the matter saying:
“The people’s hearts are with you but their swords are with the Banu
Ummayya”.
Tabari English translation Volume 19 pages 70-71)
When the people had swords raised against Imam Hussain (as) there is then no
basis to conclude that these individuals were Shi’a, rather they were Nasibi
hiding in the midst of the people.
It is clear that when Ibn Ziyad began his terror campaign it was the second
group of “Shi’a” that were brought to heel – not the first group since as
mentioned earlier they has already been exterminated in Kufa. This second group
of Shi’a whilst unhappy with Yazeed’s behaviour, still deemed his position as
Khailfa to be legitimate as he had obtained the bayya of the people, if they
had any doubts these were laid to rest by advocates of Yazeed such as the
sahaba Abdullah Ibn Umar (as we shall expand on later). This group therefore
set aside their personal views and abandoned support for Imam Hussain (as) and
joined hands with Yazeed as he in their eyes had obtained the ijma of the
people. These individuals were Shi’a when they gave bayya and sided with Ali
(as) following the death of Uthman. They deemed Imam ‘Ali (as) to be the
legitimate fourth khalifa as he had obtained the ijma of the people. Their being Shi’a of ‘Ali (as) was only as long as Imam ‘Ali (as)
was khalifa. These same individuals therefore had no hesitation in
supporting Yazeed as they likewise deemed his succession as Khalifa to be based
on ijma. The Kufans may have had sympathies towards Imam Hussain (as) that influenced
their decision to write to him, but influential words of support for Yazeed’s
right to rule from notables such as Ibn Umar, ensured that their faltering
loyalty to Khalifa Yazeed was restored. They were NOT the Shi’a of ‘Ali rather
they were the Shi’a of Uthman.
We have the example of Nafi bin Hilal who entered the battlefield of
“I am al-Jamali. I believe in the religion of Ali. A man called Muzahim al
Hurayth came against him crying “I follow the religion of Uthman”. Nafi
replied, “Rather you follow the religion of Satan”. Then he attacked and killed
him
Tabari Volume 19 pages 136-137
So here we see Yazeed’s army was not Shi’a in the
sense that Ansar would like to lead its readers to believe rather it was
Uthmani.
Azrar bin Qays taunted Zuhayr bin al-Qayn (History of al-Tabari Volume 19 page
113):
“Zuhayr according to us you were not the Shi’ah from this family (bayt). You
used to be a supporter of the party of Uthman. Zuhayr said, ‘Aren’t you presuming
from my position that I am one of them?”
Note the reply Zuhayr admitted that he was Uthmani Nasibi but we ask Afriki,
‘what was his position now?’ Clearly his position with the Imam (as) meant that
he was a Shi’a of Ahl’ul bayt (as).
From here the truth has been separated from falsehood, the true Sect has been
distinguished from the false Sect – Yazeed’s army were not Shi’a, but were in
fact Nasibi / Uthmani the army of Hussain were the Shi’a of Ahl’ul bayt (as).
When Yazeed’s forces encircled Imam Hussain (as) and his Sahaba, Ibn Ziyad sent
a letter to Ibn Sad in which he stated:
“Stop the water of Hussain in same way that Ameer’ul Momineen Uthman was
treated”.
Tabari Volume 19 page 107)
Ibn Kathir similarly records that Ibn Ziyad gave the order:
“Become obstacle between Hussain and water and treat them in the same way
that pious, righteous and oppressed Amee’rul Momineen Uthman was treated”.
Al
Bidayah wal Nihayah (Urdu), Volume 8 page 1058
It is clear as day that those that killed Imam Hussain
(as) were those that deemed Uthman to be Ameer’ul Momineen. In Shia aqeedah we
do not deem anyone other than Imam Ali (as) to be Ameer’ul Momineen,
we do not even bestow this title to any of the other Imams. But the army of
Yazeed considered Yazeed to be Ameerul Momineen, contrary to Shi’a Aqeeda.
Ibn Kathir further records:
“Ibn Ziyad wrote Ameer al Harmain Umro bin Saeed and informed him about
about the glad news of Hussain’s death, he asked a caller who then made its
announcement and when the woman of Banu Hashim heard that announcement their
voices of lamentation raised and Umro bin Saeed said: “ This is the revenge for
the lamentation of the wives of Uthman bin Affan”
Al
Bidayah wal Nihayah (Urdu), Volume 8 page 1097
Those in Yazeed’s army were not the Shi’a of Ali, rather they were Uthmani /
Nasibis. If Ansar are going to plead with us and claim that these are different
terms then allow us to present the views of one of their own beloved Imams, Ibn
Taymiyya:
“If Nasibi deem Ibn Sad to be an Uthmani it is on account his taking avenge
for Uthman and praising him”
Minhajj al Sunnah Volume 1 page 164
Ibn Taymiyya had also written that:
“Uthman’s Shi’a would openly curse ‘Ali from the Mosque pulpits”.
Minhajj al Sunnah Volume 3 page 178
So we learn that those that martyred Imam Hussain (as) were NOT the Shi’a of
‘Ali (as) but were the Shi’a of Uthman – the Nasibi forces loyal to Yazeed. Ibn
Kathir (who was a student of Ibn Taymiyya) and other historians have shed light
on the fact that amongst the killers were the sons of the Sahaba. Even
prominent Sahaba such as Umar bin Harith and his family joined the ranks of
Yazeed’s army. As we have already proven Umar bin Harith was Ibn Ziyad’s, Chief
of police, who arrested Muslim bin Aqeel (as) and presented him to Ibn Ziyad,
who subsequently had him executed.
Yazeed had given a free hand to Ibn Ziyad, and Marwan’s letter to Ibn Ziyad
demonstrated that the aim was for Imam Hussain (as) to give bayya – if he
refused then he was to be killed. It is ironic that the Ansar Nasibi claim that the Shi’a of Ali (as) killed Imam Hussain (as) by
inviting him to Kufa – the reality is the Nasibi Shi’a of Uthman had pre
planned his murder before he even reached Kufa. If we were to accept that these
individuals were the Shi’a of Ali (as), their very entry on to the battlefield
in Yazeed’s camp meant that they were now Shi’a of Uthman i.e. Nasibi.
Naming and shaming the Nasibi killers of
Imam Hussain (as)
Yazeed’s adviser Marwan was a Nasibi
Imam of
Ahl’ul Sunnah Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi states in Tuhfa Ithna Ashari page 97:
“Hadith narrated by Marwan can be found in al Bukhari, even though he was a
Nasibi, rather he was leader of that wicked cult.”
Tuhfa
Ithna Ashari (Urdu), page 97 Published in Karachi
Shah Waliyullah Dehlavio had also written similarly:
“Mu’awiya’s rebellion and Marwan’s being a Nasibi are proven facts”
Sharh Ahfaq Tasneef page 270
Yazeed bin Mu’awiya was a Nasibi
Shah
Abdul Aziz states in Tuhfa Ithna Ashari page 8:
“When the cruel people of
Tuhfa
Ithna Ashari (Urdu), page 8 Published in Karachi
Founder of Dar al Ulum Deoband, Muhammad Qasim Nanotwi writing on Yazeed stated:
“Yazeed was a fasiq, he was irregular in Salat, committed Bidah and was
Chief of the Nasibi”.
Qasim al Ulum page 221
The presence of Yazeed, Marwan and Ibn Ziyad proves
that this was a Nasibi Government, that took hatred of Ahl’ul bayt (as) as part
of their deen. If Yazeed’s advocates are going to absolve him
of the killing of Imam Hussain (as) we would like to know why he faiuled to
adopt steps to protect Imam Hussain (as)? Is the protection of life and
property of subjects not the duty of an Imam? Did Yazeed send his army to
protect Imam Hussain (as) from the Kufan Shi’a who (as Ansar attest) had
deserted him – or did he send the army to corner and kill him?
Ubaydullah bin Ziyad’s father was a Nasibi
Writing
on Ubaydullah’s father Ziyad, Shah Abdul Aziz states in Tuhfa Ithna Ashari page
484:
“We need to mention Ziyad the product of fornication, upon receiving power
from Mu’awiya the first thing that he demonstrated was his enmity towards the
family of Ali”.
Tuhfa
Ithna Ashari (Urdu), page 484 Published in Karachi
If Ziyad was a Nasibi on account of his hatred of Imam ‘Ali (as)’s children
then his son continued this Nasibi mantle playing a lead role in the oppression
of Imam Hussain (as).
So who supports the Nasibi killers of Imam
Hussain (as)?
It is
quite logical that those that deemed Yazeed to be the rightful khalifa, were the same individuals that killed Imam Hussain
(as). We the Shi’a distance ourselves from Yazeed and his supporters. So Ansar,
kindly tell us, do you? Do the Ahl’ul Sunnah and Nasibi express hatred towards
those that supported Yazeed and killed Imam Hussain (as)? Unfortunately this is
not the case. Nasibi claiming to adhere to the Sunni faith have written,
praised and defended Yazeed as a pious man. We have Pakistani Hanafi scholar
Mahmood Abadi who wrote "Khilafath Muawiya aur Yazeed”- where he praised
Yazeed, deeming the method of ruling used by Hadhrath Umar and Yazeed to be the
same.
Had the matter stopped there then no doubt that would be proof in itself, but what Ansar are hiding from their followers is
the fact that their Salaf Imam took ahadith from those that killed Imam Hussain
(as). Proof of guilt lies with ‘association’ those with blood on their hands
will have no shame / guilt in taking hadith from the killers of Hussain (as) since
these are their descendants. Those who had no part in killing
the Imam (as) would naturally revile his killers and have no association with
these killers on matters pertaining to Deen. The ultimate criterion for
determining WHOM the actual killers of Hussain (as) lies in hadith. No doubt a
group whose Salaf ancestors supported the Khilafath of Yazeed and killed Imam
Hussain (as) will have no shame in taking hadith from those same individuals.
Whilst we deem the cursing of Yazeed, Ibn Sad, Ibn Ziyad etc to be a compulsory
act, compare this to the respect afforded to Imam Hussain (as)’s killers by the
Ahl’ul Sunnah Ulema…
Umar bin Sad bin Abi Waqqas
Dhahabi
whilst writing on the life of Ibn Sa’d states in Siyar Al-Aalam al-Nubla Volume
4 page 349:
“Umar bin Sa’d lead the army that killed Imam Hussain (as), the Mukhthar
killed him…Imam Nasai has narrated traditions from him”.
Ibn Hajr Asqalani writes:
“Umar Ibn Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas Zuhri Abu Hafs Madani lived in Kufa .He
narrated traditions from his father and Abu Said al Khudri. His son Ibraheem
and grandson Abu Bakr bin Hafs, Abu Isaac Al Subay'ee, Ayzaar bin Harees,
Yazeed bin Abi Maryam , Qathadha, Zuhri and Yazeed bin Habeeb and others have
narrated hadith from him. Ajli commented that he narrated hadith from his
father, many took narrations from him, he is counted amongst the Tabieen, and
he is Thiqah (highly reliable), he killed Al Hussain”
Tahdeeb al Tahdeeb Volume 7 page 450-451
The book can also be downloaded from a Wahabi/Salafi website:
Tahzeb
al-Tahzeb, Vol 7 No. 747 - (Cached)
Another Sunni scholar Jamalalddin Abi al Hajaj Yusuf al Mizzi in his detailed
and esteemed Rijal book “Tahdeeb al Kamal” under under the topic “Umar ibn
Sa’d” records:
“Ahmed ibn Abdullah al’Ajli said: He is the one that killed Hussain,
and he is a thiqah (trustworthy) Tabiee.”
Vol
21 No. 4240
This ‘reliable’ Umar bin Sad was the son of the Sahabi Sa'd bin Waqqas, about
him Imam Bukhari wrote in Tareekh al Sagheer:
“When Imam Hussain arrived in Kerbala, Umar bin Sa'd was the first
individual that cut the tent ropes”
Tareekh al Sagheer, Volume 1, page 75
From here it should have dawned on Ansar that the killers of Imam Hussain (as)
were Nasibis. Your Salaf followed their way and deemed these figures to be
reliable / respected personalities, basing the cornerstone of Deen – hadith in
accordance with traditions that had been passed down by them.
Ubaydullah bin Ziyad
On Ibn
Ziyad, Ibn Hajr Asqalani states:
“He is 'UbaydAllah bin Ziad , the prince of Kufa for Mu'awiyah and his son
Yazid , and he is the one who prepared the armies from Al Kufa to fight Al
Hussain until he was killed in Karbala . He was known as Ibn Marjanah and she
is his mother (Marjanah) .
Ibn Asakir has mentioned for him a "translation" in "Tarikh
Dimashq" and he was mentioned in Sunan Abi Dawood… And he narrated from
Sa'ed bin Abi Waqas and Mu'awiyah and Ma'qel bin Yasar and Ibn Umayyah the
brother of Bani Ja'dah . And from those who narrated
from him are Al HAsan al Basri and Abu al MAlih bin Usama.”
T`ajeel al Munfa Bazawaid Rijal al Aimah al Arbah, page 180
The book can also be downloaded from one of the favourite website of
Wahabies/Salafies:
No.
647
Ibn Kathir in Al Bidayah wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 page 1252 Under the topic
‘Ibn Ziyad’ also recorded the place of Ibn Ziyad in the Sunni Hadith works.
Al
Bidayah wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 page 1252
If the Ansar claim that they bear enmity towards the
Shi’a as they killed Imam Hussain (as) could they be so kind to comment on why
their madhab take hadith from those that killed him? This proves that their
leading recorders were at peace with taking hadith from the killers of Imam
Hussain (as). Ansar, you claim to be the true adherents of Ahl’ul bayt (as)
tell us, would true lovers of Ahl’ul bayt (as) take
traditions from their killers?
If some ignorant Nasibi is still going to assert their ancestor Ibn Ziyad as
Shia then allow us to present the words of Ibn ziyad which clearly proves that
just like other Nasibis Ibn Ziyad also deemed Yazid as his Imam. Ibn Kathir
records that Ibn Ziyad wrote to Umar Ibn Sa`d:
“Become obstacle between Hussain and water, treat them in the way Ameer al
Momineen Uthman was treated and ask him and his companions to give byah to
Ameer al Momineen Yazid bin Muawiyah”
al Bidayah wal Nihayah (Urdu) Volume 8 page 1058
Ahmed Bin Daud Abu Hanifa Dinwari records the statement of Ibn Ziyad:
“I killed Al Hussain due to the reason that he revolted against our Imam
[Yazid] and the very Imam[Yazid] sent me the message to kill Al Hussain. Now if
the murder of Hussain is a sin then Yazid is responsible for it”
Akhbaar Tawaal, page 279 (Egypt) by Ahmed Bin Daud Abu Hanifa Dinwari
Hence we came to know that Ibn Ziyad likewise prominent Sunni scholars deemed
Yazid as one of the caliphs of Islam or Ameer al Momineen. We will inshallah
elaborate on this in our Seventh Chapter.
“I killed Al Hussain on the orders of Yazid to kill him otherwise he would
kill me therefore I chose to kill Hussain”
Tareekh Kamil, Volume 4 page 55 (Egypt)
Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti writes in Tareekh Khulfa, page 140:
“Yazid wrote his ruler in Iraq Ibn Ziyad for the murder of Hussain”
We read that it was Yazid who gave orders to Ibn Ziyad for the murder of Imam
Hussain[as] and those people who deemed Yazid as their caliph and Ibn Ziyad as
their ruler made the instructions of Yazid practical. The case is clear like
mirror. The army which Abu Bakar sent during his caliphate deemed him as their
caliph not somebody else, same was the case with Umar when he send troops to
Iraq, Iran and Syria.Those armies followed the instructions of their respective
caliphs because they deemed them their caliphs or Imams and suppose if there
was someone who didn’t deem Umar or Abu Bakar as his caliph, he could have
easily refused to follow the instructions what ever the result might have been.
Thus we see that Ibn Ziyad & Co. thoroughly obeyed Yazid without any
hesitation.
Shabath bin Rib’i
The Ansar
had claimed that the Shi’a of Kufa had written letters to Imam Hussain (as)
inviting him to join them in Kufa. One of the leading figures who no doubt
Ansar will claim was Shi’a was Shabath bin Rib’i. His writing to Imam Hussain
(as) is stated clearly in History of Tabari English translation, Volume 10
pages 25-26 and 
Al
Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu) Vol 8 page 1013.
We should point out that neither do we take hadith from this individual, nor do
we praise him. He had no link to the Shi’a madhab. This ‘betrayer’ whom the
Ansar would no doubt label as Shi’a is actually an authority narrator in the
eyes of Ahl’ul Sunnah.
Dhahabi writes on him in Siyar Al-Aalam al-Nubla, Volume 4 page 150:
“This is the individual that rebelled against Imam Ali, he rejected the
arbitration, and then subsequently repented…he narrated hadith on the authority
of ‘Ali, Hudhaifa. Muhammad bin Ka’b Kurdhee and Sulayman Timee took hadith
from him in Sunan Daud”
Ibn Hajr writes in Tahdeeb al Tahdeeb, Volume 4 page 303:
“Shabath bin Rb'i al Tamimi AL Yurbo'i Abu 'Abd al Quddous Al Kufi, narrated
from Hudayfa and Ali, and from those who narrated on him Mhammad bin Ka'eb Al
Qarzi and Sulayman A Tamimi …. DarQutni states that he (Shabath) was a caller
(Mu'azzen) for Sajah. Ibn Habban mentioned him among the truthworthy (Thiqa)
and states that he committed wrongs, Bukhari and Muslim have narrated hadith on
his authority where Fatima [r] had asked to be given a Servant۔ Al 'Ajali said that this is the first individual that assisted
in the killing of ‘Uthman and also participated in the killing of Hussain [r].”
Tahzeb
al-Tahzeb - (Cached)
We appeal to justice. Examine the life of this Nasibi / Khwaarijee. No rational
person would ever conclude that he was a Shi’a of Ahl’ul bayt (as). This so
called ‘Shi’a” Kufan that wrote letters to Imam Hussain (as) is a narrator of
your Saha Sittah – Sunan Nasai and Abu Daud – you deem him to be an authority
figure. Despite his writing to the Imam (as) he can never be defined as Shi’a –
he never was a true Shi’a – simply a troublemaker who dedicated his entire life
to playing an integral role in dissension. Despite this Imams of Ahl’ul Sunnah
Nasai and Abu Daud deemed him to be a reliable source – tell us Afriki should
we deem the killers of Imam Hussain (as) to be reliable honest individuals – or
should we distance ourselves from such personalities? We should point out to
Nasibi al Afriki that the harsh reality is it was your Salaf that invited Imam
Hussain (as) and then subsequently killed him – that is why you still love the
individuals and prove your appreciation for them by narrating hadith on their
authority. Would you respect and rely on the words of an individual that
murdered your grandson? If not, then why do you respect and accept the word of
those that killed the grandson of Rasulullah (s)? Is such behaviour not an
insult to the memory of Imam Hussain (as) and Rasulullah (s)? Would true
followers of Ahl’ul bayt (as) behave in such a manner?
Some more proofs of the killers of Imam
Hussain [as] being Nasibis while supporters of Imam Hussain [as] being Shia
Proof one
When Imam Hussain [as] left Makka and arrived at a place near
Kufa, upon the orders of Hasees bin Tamim he was met by Hur bin Yazid who was
accompanied by 1000 of his army men. Hur bin Yazid remained with Imam
Hussain [as] so that he could not let Hussain [as] go to Madina and then both
of those groups reached at Nainawa. Suddenly there appeared a rider on a fast
mount coming from Kufa. He was bearing weapons and carrying a bow on his
shoulder. They all stopped and watched him. When he reached there he greeted
Hur and his followers but did not greet al Hussain and his followers. He handed
Hur a letter from Ibn Ziyad. It said the following:
“… When this letter reaches you and my messenger comes to you, make al
Hussain come to a halt. Let him stop at an open place without protection and
water…”
History of Tabari, Volume 19 page 102
Yazid bin Ziyad bin al Muhasir Abu al-Sha`tha al Kindi who was with al Hussain
[as] looked at the messenger of Ibn Ziyad and recognized him. He asked him:
“Are you Malik bin Nusayr al Baddi? The other replied: “Yes”. He was the
member of the tribe of Kindah. Yazid bin Ziyad exclaimed: “May your mother be
deprived of you! What is the business you have brought!”.
The other man retorted: “What is this that I have brought,
I have obeyed my Imam and have remained faithful to my oath of allegiance”. Abu
al-Sha`tha responded: You have been disobedient to your Lord and have obeyed
your imam in bringing about the distruction of your soul. You have aquired
shame and punishment of Hell-fire.Indeed God has said: “ We
have made them imams, who summon people to the Hell-fire and on the Day of
Resurrection they will not be helped”. You imam is one of those”
History
of Tabari, Volume 19 page 102
Dear readers, who was this messenger of Ibn Ziyad Malik bin Nusayr? This was
the same individual who approached Imam Husasin (as) on the day of Ashur when
he [as] fell from his horse suffering from severely injuries and struck him
[as] on the head with his sword. The sword cut the hood of his (as) cloak and
injured his head.
See: 
History
of al Tabari, Volume 19 page 153
The words of that brutal person i.e “I have obeyed my Imam and have remained
faithful to my oath of allegiance” clearly shows that he deemed Yazeed [la]
to be his imam which is a conclusive proof of him being aloof from the madhab
of Ali/Hussain [as], and his association with the Sunni madhab that deems
Yazeed [la] to be their 6th imam a belief that Sahih Bukhari proves that
Abdullah bin Umar the son of second caliph adhered to.
Proof Two
When Muslim bin Aqeel [as] was taking bayah from the Kufans who had gathered
there on account of their disaffection with with the tyranny that the Bani
Umayyah were subjecting them to, Yazeed [la] received a letter from Kufa
written by Abdullah bin Muslim al Hadrami which contained the following text:
“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 Numan bin Bashir is a weak man
or he is acting like a weak man”
History
of al Tabari, Volume 19 page 30
He was the first man who wrote to Yazeed [la] and then Umarrah bin Uqbah and
Umar bin Sa`ad also wrote along the same lines to Yazeed. Yazeed on receiving
this letter wrote to Ibn Ziyad:
“My followers [Shia] among the people of Kufa have written to me to inform
me that Ibn al Aqeel is in Kufa gathering units in order to spread rebellion
among the Muslims. Therefore when you read this letter of mine go to Kufa and
search for Ibn Aqeel as if you were looking for a bead until you find him. Then
bind him in chains, kill him or expel him”
History
of al Tabari, Volume 19 page 31
Yazeed [la] used the word “Shia” for his adherents in Kufa which has been
translated as “followers” in English version but can be read in its original
Arabic and Urdu version.
Tarikh
Tabari (Urdu), Volume 4 part 1 page 154, Nafees Academy Karachi
Dear readers, you must have recognized the writer of this letter Umar bin Sa`d.
This was same cursed individual who was sent as an army chief for the murder of
Imam Hussain [as] and he was the one who fired the first arrow at Imam al
Hussain [as].
See: History of al Tabari, Volume 19 page 129
His words i.e “Shia have given the oath of allegiance to him on behalf of al
Hussain bin Ali” clearly shows that he did not have any connection with the
the Shia of Ali/Hussain [as] in fact we have already highlighted the
prestigious place this individual enjoys among the hadith works of the Ahl’ul
Sunnah. Crucially, the words of Yazeed [la] i.e “My Shia among the people of
Kufa have written to me” strengthen our stance that Umar bin Sa`d was the Shia of Yazeed [la] and from the group/sect
that deemed him [la] to be their Imam. Moreover the belief that Hussain
rebelled against Yazeed accurately tallies with that of the present age Nasibis
like Ibn Arabi etc. Are the Nasibis still going to show their stubbornness and
remain shouting that the “killers of al Hussain were his own Shias”
while we have already made the sect of His [as] killers known to everyone?
Proof Three
We read in history that on the day of Ashur when the war began and the majority
if helpers of Imam Hussain [as]’s helpers were martyred a man namely Yazeed b.
Maqil of the Banu Salimah of Abd Qays, came forward from the army of Umar bin
Sa`d and called out to Burayr b. Hudayr who was the companion of Imam al
Hussain [as]:
“How do you think God has treated you? Burayr replied, “By God! God has
treated me well and treated you badly”. He answered “You are a liar. Even
before today you were always a liar. Do you remember when I used to go with you
among the Banu Lawdhan? Then you used to say that Uthman was a man who indulged
himself excessively, that Mu’awiyah b. Abi Sufyan was one who was in error and
who caused people to go astray, and that the Imam of guidance and truth was
‘Ali b. Abi Talib. Burayr retorted: “I testify that this is my opinion and
belief”. Yazeed b. Maqil replied: “And I testify that you are one of those who
are in error. Burayr called out: Then I challenge you to contest of curses. Let
us call on God that the lair be cursed and the
spreader of falsehoods be killed. Then come out for combat.” They both advanced
and raised their hands to God, calling upon Him to curse the lair and the one
who was truthful should kill the one who was false.
Each of them came advanced against the other. They exchanged blows. Yazeed b.
Maqil struck Burayr b. Hudayr a light blow that did not do him any harm. Burayr
b. Hudayr struck Yazeed b. Maqil a blow that cut through his halmet and
penetrated his brain”.
History
of al-Tabari Volume 19 pages 132-133
Dear readers, do we still need to prove the madhab of the killers of Imam al
Hussain [as] and the madhab of his helpers? Burayr b. Hudayr deemed:
1.
Uthman a man who indulged himself excessively,
2.
Mu’awiyah a follower and a guide of wrong path
3.
‘Ali b. Abi Talib as Imam of guidance and
truth
The above three beliefs tally up with the belief of the Shia
Athna Asharis. Compare this to Yazeed b. Maqil who was among the
opponents of Imam Hussain [as] and deemed Burayr b. Hudayr misguided for having
those three beliefs in the same way that modern day Sunnis deem the Shi’as
misguided for adhereing to these three believes.
If the filthy Nasibis like that of Sipah e Sahaba still insist that Shi’a
killed Imam Hussain [as] whilst that are the true lovers of Ahllubait [as] then
we have a simple and straight question to them:
“Do you Nasibis like the helper of Imam Hussain [as] Burayr b. Hudayr deem
Uthman a man who indulged himself excessively, Mu’awiyah a follower and a guide
of wrong path and ‘Ali b. Abi Talib as Imam of guidance and truth ?”
If your answer is in positive only then you have every right to to call
yourselves the lovers of Ahlulbait [as] oif you do not then you adhere to the
school of thought followed by Yazeed b. Maqil who was among the killers of Imam
Hussain [as].
Moreover the thing on which Mubahila took place between Burayr b. Hudayr and
Yazeed b. Maqil along with its result is clear to all readers and that makes it
clear as to which side adhered to the truth and which side adhered to
misguidance.
Proof Four
After immense fighting that resulted in Burayr b. Hudayr being martyred his
killer Ka`b bin Jabir Al Azdi left the scene, his wife or his sister said to
him:
“You have given help against son of Fatimah and you have killed the leader
of reciters of Quran. You have brought great disgrace. By God! I will never
speak a word to you”
History of al-Tabari Volume 19 pages 134
Ka`b bin Jabir Al Azdi then proudly recited a poetry:
“Ask that you be told about me - and you are blameworthy
at the battle against Hussain, while the spears were pointed….
I had with me a spear from Yazan- whose joints had not betrayed it,
And white sword which was sharpened, and both edges of it were cutting.
I singled him out amoid a group whose religion was not my religion, for I am
satisfied with Ibn Harb (i.e Yazid)…..
Tell Ubaydallah if you meet him,
That I am obedient and attentive to the Caliph…”
History
of al-Tabari Volume 19 pages 134
His words “whose religion was not my religion” clearly shows that his
religion was different than the relgion of the helpers and followers of Imam al
Hussain [as] while the religion of Imam Hussain [as] and his followers was
affiormed through the words of Burayr b. Hudayr. Yet again his belief of
deeming Yazeed as his caliph corroborates Sunni ideologoy esposused by Abdullah
ibn Umar in Sahih al Bukhari. If Nawasib like that of Sipah e Sahaba and
ansar.org accept the religion and beliefs told by Burayr b. Hudayr only then
they should rightly deem themselves the follower sof Ahl’lubait [as] otherwise
they should be ashamed of sharuing the same religions as the killers of Imam al
Hussain [as].
Proof Five
Ibn Kathir records following incident:
“Qais bin Mashar Sedadi brought the letter of Hadrath Hussain to Kufa where
Hussain bin Numair Thaqfi caught him and sent him to Abaidullah ibn Ziyad. Ibn
Ziyad asked him to climb over the peak of the palace and abuse the liar and the
son of a liar Ali bin Abi talib and his son Hussain. He climbed up and praised
Allah (swt) and then said: ‘O people! Without any doubt this man Hussain bin
Ali is the best of among all creations of Allah and he is son of Hadrath Fatima
the daughter of Holy Prophet and I am his messeger towards you and I have been
separated from you from the valley of Zulramt, respond to him, be obedient and
pay heed to him. Then he cursed Ubaidullah Ibn Ziyad and his father and
supplicated for the salvation of Hadrath Ali and Hadrath Hussain. He was then
hurled from the top of the palace on the orders of Ibn Ziyad”
Al
Bidayah wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 page 1045-1046 topic "Incident of
Hussain bin Ali, reason of his exit from Makkah and situation of his
murder"
Just compare the views of Ibn Ziyad and Qais bin Mashar with that of Shias and
Ahl’ul Sunnah of today bus asking yourselves:
Which sect adheres to the position of Imam
Hussain’s messenger Qais bin Mashar by cursing Ibn Ziyad and his father
Which Sect has accomodated Ibn Ziyad into
their madhab by taking hadeeth from him?
Moreover the role of Ibn Ziyad’s close associate Hussain bin Numair who
apprehended Imam’s messenger and sent him to Ibn Ziyad is also evident against
Imam Hussain [as] and His [as] lovers. After the incident of
ÍÕíä Èä äãíÑ ÇáßäÏí Ëã ÇáÓßæäí ÇáÍãÕí Ñæì Úä ÈáÇá ãæáì ÃÈí
ÈßÑ۔۔۔ ßÇä Úáì ÇáÌíÔ ÇáÐíä ÞÇÊáæÇ Èä ÇáÒÈíÑ ÈãßÉ æíÞÇá Ãäå
ÃÍÑÞ ÇáßÚÈÉ۔۔۔ ÞáÊ ßÇä ÃÍÏ ÃãÑÇÁ íÒíÏ Èä ãÚÇæíÉ Ýí æÞÚÉ ÇáÍÑÉ
“Hussain bin Numair al Kndi Sakuni Himsi narrated from Billal the slave of a
person namely Abu Bakar… He was in the army which fought Ibn Al-Zubair in
Mecca, and said that he burnt Ka'aba…He was one of Yazeed's army leaders in
Hara battle”
Tahdeeb al Tahdeeb, Volume 2 No. 683
Proof Six
Ibn Kathir records that when Ubaidullah Ibn Ziyad caught Hani bin Urwah, he
started to torture him. When the relatives of Hani gathered at his palace Ibn
Ziyad through Qadi Shureh sought to turn them away by calming them:
“Ubaidullah Ibn Ziyad said to Hani: ‘Allah has made your blood Halal for me because
you are Haroori’. Thus according to his orders he was locked up in next to a
house and his tribe Banu Mazhaj came and stood at the door of the palace along
with Umro bin al-Hajaj. They thought that Hani had been killed. When Ibn Ziyad
heard their noise he asked Qadi Shureh who was near to him to go to the people
and told them that the Ameer has detained him so that he could question him
about Muslim bin Aqeeel. Therefore Qadi told them: ‘Your master is alive and
our king has beaten him up to a extent where there was no danger to his life”
Al
Bidayah wal Niihayah, (Urdu) Vol 8 page 1018-1019 topic "Incident of
Hussain bin Ali, reason of his exit from Makkah and situation of his
murder"
If Nawasib have not recognized this Qadi Shureh; yet another follower of Ibn
Ziyad then allow us to reveal his revered place in the madhab of Ahl’ul Sunnah.
This man is not only praised by the Sunni Ulema but he has also narrated
hadiths in principle hadith books like Bukhari. Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani
records:
ÇáÈÎÇÑí Ýí ÇáÃÏÈ ÇáãÝÑÏ
æÇáäÓÇÆí ÔÑíÍ Èä ÇáÍÇÑË Èä ÞíÓ Èä ÇáÌåã Èä ãÚÇæíÉ Èä ÚÇãÑ ÇáßäÏí ÃÈæ ÃãíÉ
ÇáßæÝí ÇáÞÇÖí æíÞÇá ÔÑíÍ Èä ÔÑÍÈíá æíÞÇá Èä ÔÑÇÍíá۔۔۔ æÞÇá
ÍäÈá Èä ÅÓÍÇÞ Úä Èä ãÚíä ÔÑíÍ Èä åÇäÆ æÔÑíÍ Èä ÃÑØÇÉ æÔÑíÍ ÇáÞÇÖí ÃÞÏã ãäåãÇ æåæ
ËÞÉ æÞÇá ÇáÚÌáí ßæÝí ÊÇÈÚí ËÞÉ۔۔۔ ÇáãÝÑÏ æÞÇá Èä ÓÚÏ ÊæÝí ÓäÉ
79 æßÇä ËÞÉ
Shureh bin Al-Harith bin Qais bin Al-Juham bin Muawya bin Amer Al-Kindi Abu
Amuaya Al-Kufi the Qadi, he is called Shureh bin Sharhabil or Sherahil narrated
in Bukhari, Sunan Al-Nesa'i … Hanbal bin Ishaq narrate that Ibn Meen said about
him: ‘Thiqah’. Al-Ejli said: ‘Kofi Tabee Thiqah’… Ibn Sa`ad said: ‘He died in
year 79 and he is Thiqah’.
Tahdeeb al Tahdeeb, Volume 4 No. 574
If any Nasibi still accuse Shias of being involved in the murder of Imam
Hussain [as] then it is just pure stubbornness, for the truth is that Sunni
Ulema not only praised the associate of Ibn Ziyad but also deemed him worthy
enough to derive their religion from him.
Did the tragedy of Karbala
|
Ansar.org
states: |
|
However,
it is regrettable that despite the huge amount of attention the subject of
Karbalâ enjoys, the event is persistently portrayed as two-sided. It is
always depicted as Husayn against Yazîd, Right rising up against Wrong, the
Quest for Justice against the Forces of Oppression. Many an opportunist has
even gone to the extent of superimposing upon the event the theme of Shî'ah
against Ahl as-Sunnah. |
It certainly was since here stood the difference between the two concepts of
Imamate. Those that deemed the station of Imamate to be man appointed and than
it was based on ijma. This school of thought developed
into what is today Ahl'ul Sunnah. Those that deemed the station to be based on
the appointment of Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s) a school today deemed Shi'a
Ithna Ashari. On the one side we head the Imam of the people [ie. The Imam of
Ahl'ul Sunnah] and on the other side was the Imam appointed by Allah (swt) -
the Imam of the Shi'a. As Shi'a we reject the claim that Yazeed was a
legitimate khalifa, rather we make it clear that a fasiq can not occupy the
position of Khalifa of Rasulullah (s). Hence we believe that the duty was to
support Imam Hussain (as) as we deem him to be the legitimate Khalifa of
Rasulullah (s). This automatically places us at logger heads with Ahl'ul Sunnah
who believe that:
1.
Appointment of the Khalifa is the based on the
ijm'a of the public.
2.
Once bayya is given the Khalifa rule is
legitimate.
3.
Once bayya is given it is incumbent upon the
people to support the Khalifa
In accordance with these principles the Ahl'ul Sunnah deem Yazeed to be the
legitimate Khalifa of the time, and that it was incumbent upon the people to
support him by any means necessary. The struggle was indeed a battle of two
concepts and can be deemed to be a struggle between Sunni / Shi'a viewpoints on
Imamate.
Ahl'ul Sunnah deem Yazeed to be the
legitimate Khalifa of Rasulullah (s)
Ansar.org's
Nasibi writer Abu Sulaiman gave a glowing endorsement of Yazeed's legitimate
right to rule in his article on Mu'awiya, stating:
|
Ansar.org
states: |
|
Mu'awiyah was eager for people's agreement to give allegiance to his son Yazeed. He resolved to take allegiance to Yazeed as a crown prince. So he consulted the grandest companions, the masters of the people and the district's governors. They all accepted. Delegations from the districts came with acceptance to give allegiance to Yazeed. Many Companions gave him the allegiance as well. Al-Hafedh Abdulghani Al-Maqdisay says: "His (Yazeed's) caliphate is rightful, sixty of the companions of the prophet peace be upon him gave him the allegiance. Ibn Omar was one of them." [Qayd Al-Shareed min Akhbar Yazeed, by Ibn Khaldoun, p.70] |