Multifarious dissonant stories roam the literature
assigned to the history of the event of Kerbelâ. Exploiting this turbidity,
some books fabricate and present tragic tales, whereby to mislead their
readers, to confuse their minds and to undermine their beliefs. With those
mendacious and concocted tales they try to coax their readers into their own
aberrant credo. This muddy-waters tactics has given rise to a state of affairs
wherein different people hold different opinions concerning the event of
Kerbelâ and everyone believes that their opinion is the only true knowledge.
Muhammad Abd-ush-shekûr Mirzâpûrî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, a great Indian
scholar of history, dedicated long years of his life to research on the
subject, learned the facts, and wrote a book entirely allotted to the subject,
entitling it Shahâdat-i-Husayn (Martyrdom of Husayn). Ghulâm Haydar Fârûqî ‘rahimahullâhu
ta’âlâ’, one of Mirzâpûrî’s disciples in the Madrasa-i-islâmiyya in Karachi,
Pakistan, translated the book from Urdu into Persian and the new Persian
version, entitled Rafâqat-i-Husayn, was printed in Karachi. A passage from the
introduction to the book reads as follows:
Islam suffered the first disruptive blow from a fitna, which inflicted
irreparable damage on the religion and caused millions of Muslims to deviate
from the true course of Islam, and which gave birth to superstitions and
whimsical speculations quite contrary to Islam and concocted for special
purposes. The fitna was on the verge of extinction, when it was rekindled by
Ya’qûb Kulaynî’s son, one of the unfortunate boys who had fallen victim to the
misguidance invented by the Jew named Abdullah bin Saba’. In order to demolish
the Islamic religion from the interior and to mislead Muslims, the wretched
miscreant fibbed quite a number of lies and compiled his lies in a book which
he entitled Kâfî. Ferocious heretics
such as TÛSÎ and MEJLÎSÎ, who appeared later, fanned the fire of sedition and
discord among Muslims by trying to spread the principles in the book Kâfî. They
based their religion on a double-faced policy which they called Taqiyya, and used it as a cloak under which to
carry on all their subversive and inimical activities. Simulated love of the
Ahl-i-Bayt is their most widely known
taqiyya. With this simulation they have caused millions of Muslims to deviate
from the right course and led them to perdition. The first thing to do to
protect Muslims from falling into their trap, therefore, is to reveal the inner
nature of the Muhabbat-i-Ahl-i-Bayt
(love of Ahl-i-Bayt).
True Muslims who adhere to the path guided by Muhammad
‘alaihis-salâm’ and who follow in the footsteps of the Sahâba are called Ahl as-Sunnat (Sunnî Muslims). Not only
have the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat explained the meaning of Muhabbat-i-Ahl-i-Bayt as something
good, but they have also stated that love of Ahl-i-Bayt is a component part of
îmân. The heretics, on the other hand, reiterate that love of Ahl-i-Bayt is the
basis of their religion, although all their actions and attitudes betray their
hostility against the Ahl-i-Bayt. A thorough probe into the historical facts to
elucidate the matter whether Hadrat Husayn was martyred by the Sunnî Muslims or
by the heretics will incidentally clarify what we mean in the final part of our
statement. A reasonable person who reads their books is quite unlikely to
believe that the martyrdom was perpetrated by the Sunnî Muslims. They adroitly
interpose the names of Hadrat Mu’âwiya and Yazîd in a manner as to misinform
the ignorant. However, none of the books relating the tragic event contains a
single expression clearly stating that those two Khalîfas were smeared with the
blessed blood of Hadrat Husayn. Not even the vaguest implication that Hadrat
Mu’âwiya might have had to do with the martyrdom of Hadrat Husayn has been
witnessed throughout the literature assigned to the event, let alone a clear
statement that it was done by his order. What is unanimously stated (by all
books and scholars) is that the martyrdom of Hadrat Husayn did not take place
during the caliphate of Hadrat Mu’âwiya. Molla Bâqir Mejlîsî, whose name is
mentioned above, relates Hadrat Mu’âwiya’s last advice to his son Yazîd as he
was dying, as follows:
“You know what relation Imâm Husayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ is to the
Messenger of Allah. He is a part from the beloved Prophet’s
blessed body. He is an offspring from the flesh and blood of that most
honourable person. I understand that the inhabitants of Iraq invite him to go
there and be with them. But they will not help him; they will leave him alone.
If he should fall into your hands, behave in appreciation of his value!
Remember
the
closeness and affection of the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa
sallam’ to him! Do not get back at him for his behaviour! Mind you don’t break
the substantial ties I have established between him and us! Be extra careful
lest you should hurt or offend him!” This advice of Hadrat Mu’âwiya’s to (his
son) Yazîd is written in the three hundred and twenty-first (321) page of the
book Jilâ-ul’uyûn, which was written by
Muhammad Bâqir bin Murtadâ Fayzî Khorasânî, a Shiite leader, who is better
known with his nickname Molla Muhsin. He died in 1091 [1679 A.D.]. According to
a book entitled Nâsikh-ut-tawârîh,
written by a Shiite theologian named Muhammad Taqî Khân, Mu’âwiya also wrote
the following will for his son Yazîd: “My son, do not succumb to your sensuous
indulgences or temptations! Protect yourself from the slightest wrongful
behaviour towards Husayn! Be extra careful not to have the blood of Husayn bin
Alî around your neck when you stand (for the last judgement) before Haqq ta’âlâ
on the morrow! Otherwise, you will never attain comfort and peace on that day;
you will suffer endless torments!” Moreover, the author quotes a hadîth-i-sherîf, which he ascribes to Abdullah ibn
Abbâs, in the hundred and eleventh (111) page of the sixth volume of the book:
“Yâ Rabbî! Do not give barakat to a person who is slack in observing the
reverence and honour due to Husayn!” Hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ always
behaved politely and respectfully towards Hadrat Husayn both in speech and in
writing and never showed disrespect towards him. Imâm Husayn, in contrast, was
rather harsh towards him, especially in the letters that he wrote to him. In
fact, when Hadrat Mu’âwiya’s sons Yazîd and Abdullah, told their father to
answer in kind when they saw the reproachful language that Hadrat Husayn used
in his letters, he placated them, saying, “You two are wrong, saying so. How
can I ever blame Husayn bin Alî? A person like me blames another person and
tries to convince others to agree with him, and still no one believes him. No.
A discreet person wouldn’t do that. How can I ever blame Husayn? I swear in the
name of Allah that there is nothing blameworthy about him. I will write to him.
Yet I will not write anything that will imply a browbeating air or which will
hurt him in the least.” The Shiite author of the book Nâsikh-ut-tawârîh concludes as follows in the
seventy-eighth (78) page of the sixth volume of the book: “In short, he did not
do anything to
Hadrat Mu’âwiya not only always behaved kindly and
respectfully towards Hadrat Husayn, but also served him. This fact is
acknowledged in a smooth language in the book Nâsikh-ut-tawârîh: “He made a habit of sending Hadrat Husayn thousands of dirhams
of silver yearly. That was only additional to other valuable goods and various
gifts.” And the insults and annoyances that Hadrat Husayn held out in return
for all those kindnesses and services were received with tolerant detachment on
the part of the compassionate benefactor.
Goods of kharâj[1] were dispatched to Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ from
Yemen. The caravan (carrying the goods) was passing through Medîna en route for
Damascus, when it was apprehended by Hadrat Husayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’,
who took all the goods and dispensed them to the Ahl-i-Bayt and to other people
whom he liked, writing the following message for Hadrat Mu’âwiya: “Camels laden
with goods and perfumes were being herded en route from Yemen to Damascus. I
knew that the goods that were being taken to you were to be put into the Bayt-ul-mâl. I took them because I
needed them. Wa-s-salâm!” Hadrat Mu’âwiya’s acknowledgement of Hadrat Husayn’s
‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ message was appended with the following note: “I would
not have withheld your share from the goods that would have been brought to me
had you allowed the caravan of camels to get through. However, o my brother, I
know that you are not the kind of person to deign to simulation or flattery. In
my time, no one shall harm you. For I know your value and your high grade. I
shall receive all your behaviour with gratification.” These reciprocations are
written in the fifty-seventh (57) page of the book Nâsikh-ut-tawârîh.
Nor would all the invective addressed to the Amîr Mu’âwiya
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ by visitors to Damascus bear on his liberality. He
would requite their curses with goods and monetary gifts. Here is an example
from the aforesaid Shiite book: “Visitors to Damascus from Hadrat Alî’s
surroundings would swear at Mu’âwiya and hurt him. He would give them presents
from the Bayt-ul-mâl. Thus they would return home without having suffered any
harm or annoyance.” (p:38) As is
---------------------------------
[1] A kind of zakât paid by non-Muslims.
Detailed information is provided in the first chapter of the fifth fascicle of Endless
Bliss.
understood from these writings, it is an abominable slander and a
blatant lie to blame Hadrat Mu’âwiya for the martyrdom of Hadrat Husayn and to
malign him on account of a wrongful accusation.
For that matter, it is out of the question to attempt to
vilify Hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ on account of the allegation
that he poisoned Hadrat Hasan ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’. As is written in the
three hundred and twenty-third (323) page of the Shiite book Jilâ-ul-’uyûn, Hadrat Hasan said, “I swear
in the name of Allah that Mu’âwiya is better than these people. These people
claim to be Shiites. Yet they have attempted to kill me and they have stolen my
property.”
It is written in various forms in Shiite books that Yazîd
did not have a hand in the murders, either, and that, contrary to a prevalent
opinion, he was not a bad person. He never forgot his father’s advice about
Hadrat Husayn. He did not write anything to invite Hadrat Husayn to the city of
Kûfa. He did not attempt to kill him. Nor did he give an order to kill him. He
did not rejoice at his death. On the contrary, he felt extremely sad and wept
bitterly. He declared a period of mourning for him. He castigated those who had
martyred him very harshly. He showed deep respect towards the Ahl-i-Bayt
(household, family) of Hadrat Husayn, and fulfilled their wish to leave Damascus
and go to Medîna, treating them with great honour and kindness and seeing them
off under the protection of a detachment of bodyguards. Shiite books enlarge on
these facts.
The famous Shiite theologian Molla Bâqir Mejlîsî relates as follows in
the four hundred and twenty-fourth (424) page of his book Jilâ-ul ’uyûn: “Yazîd appointed Walîd bin ’Uqba
bin Abî Sufyân, who was known for his kindnesses towards the Ahl-i-Bayt,
governor of Medîna. He dismissed Merwan bin Hakem, an enemy of Imâm Husayn and
his progeny ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’, from duty.” He goes on in the
four hundred and thirty-second page: “If Yazîd had been Imâm Husayn’s enemy, he
would not have replaced a governor inimical towards him with one friendly with
him.” He says in the four hundred and twenty-fourth page: “One night, Walîd
sent for Imâm Husayn and showed him a letter that he had received from Yazîd.
The letter said that Hadrat Mu’âwiya was dead and Yazîd was the new Khalîfa.
Upon this Imâm Husayn recited the âyat, ‘Innâ-lillah...’.”
This written statement shows that Hadrat Husayn was
not
hostile to Hadrat Mu’âwiya and that he knew him as a true Muslim. Otherwise, he
would not have recited the âyat, “Innâ-lillâh...,”
upon hearing about his death.
When Zajîr bin Qays reported Hadrat Husayn’s ‘radiy-Allâhu
ta’âlâ ’anh’ martyrdom to Yazîd, he bowed his head and said nothing. Then,
raising his head, he said, “I wanted you to obey him, not to kill him. I would
have forgiven Husayn if I had been there.” This fact is written in the two
hundred and sixty-ninth (269) page of the book Nâsikh-ut-tawârîh. It is written
as follows in the three hundred and twenty-first (321) page of the Shiite book Nahj-ul-ahzân, which was printed in Iran:
“Someone came along with what he considered to be glad tidings and said to
Yazîd, ‘Congratulations! Husayn’s head has arrived.’ This exasperated Yazîd. He
berated the man angrily, saying, “May you never get glad tidings!’ ” It is
stated as follows in the two hundred and twenty-ninth (229) page of the book Nâsikh-ut-tawârîh:
“Shimir-zil-jawshan put Imâm Husayn’s blessed head with pride before Yazîd and
boasted, ‘Fill the saddle-bags of my camel with gold and silver, for I have
killed the best of people with respect to parents.’ ‘Never expect any prize
from me,’ was Yazîd’s answer. Terrified and disappointed, the man went back.
His share was a mere nothing both in this world and the next.” It is written in
the two hundred and seventy-second (272) page of the (same) book that he
(Yazîd) pronounced the malediction, “May his murderer be doomed to the wrath of
Allah!”
As is clearly stated in Shiite books, not only were Hadrat
Mu’âwiya and Yazîd absolutely clear of the blessed blood of Hadrat Husayn
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’, but also ibn Ziyâd and ibn Sa’d and even Shimir
were not among those who martyred the blessed person. It is stated as follows
in the Shiite books written in the book Rafâqat-i-Husayn:
1) People who fought against Imâm Husayn were not
Damascenes or Hijâzîs (people of Hedjaz). All of them were from Kûfa. (Khulâsa-t-ul-masâib, p. 201)
2) Imâm-i-Husayn was martyred by Irâqîs (people of Iraq).
Not a single Damascene was among them. Those who perpetrated the notorious
cruelty against the Ahl-i-Bayt were people of Kûfa. (Mas’ûdî)
3) It is an established fact that there were not any
Damascenes
among the people who martyred Imâm Husayn. (ibid, p. 21)
4) Abî Mahnaf informs that ibn Ziyâd’s army contained an
eighty-thousand-strong cavalry, and that the entire number consisted of people from
Kûfa. (Nâsikh-ut-tawârîh, v. 6; p. 173)
5) None of the Shiites who lived at places other than Kûfa
came to help the Imâm. However, contemporaneously with an answer to the letter
that he had received from the people of Kûfa, he had sent a letter to the
people of Basra, asking for their support; and the Shiites living in Basra had
written back that they would help. (Jilâ-ul ’uyûn)
People who martyred Imâm Husayn at Kerbelâ were the same
people who had plotted treason and cruelty against Imâm Alî and Imâm Hasan.
Twelve thousand people came together and wrote a letter to Imâm Husayn,
inviting him to Kûfa and promising their support. They were the same people,
however, who martyred Hadrat Husayn’s paternal first cousin Muslim bin Uqayl, a
representative sent by the blessed imâm in acknowledgement of their invitation.
The same people, again, disguised themselves as soldiers of Yazîd, anticipated
Imâm Husayn’s arrival, and martyred him at Kerbelâ. It is written in the Shiite
book Majâlis-ul-mu’minîn that a Shiite
named Musayyib bin Nuhba and ’Umar bin Sa’d ibn Abî Waqqâs went to Kerbelâ.
6) Shîs bin Rabi’î, a commander under ’Umar bin Sa’d, and
four thousand Shiites under his command attacked the blessed imâm. (Jilâ-ul ’uyûn)
7) Shîs bin Rabi’î was the first abhorrent person to
alight from his horse to cut off the blessed head of the imâm. (Khulâsa-t-ul-masâib, p. 37)
8) When Imâm Husayn saw Mujâr bin Hajar and Yazîd bin
Hâris among his assailants, he said, “Have you forgotten the letters of
invitation you wrote to me?” (ibid, p. 138)
9) When the imâm attained martyrdom, Habîb bin Muzâhir,
commander of the right wing of the imâm’s army, laughed and said, “The Ashûra
day is the day of rejoicing and celebrating.”
10) Another person who acknowledges that Imâm Husayn was
martyred by Shiites is Qâdî Nûrullah Shusterî, an eminent Shiite scholar.
Attention: Scholars of Ahl
as-sunnat wrote myriads of books proving the fact that people who refuse
Islam’s authentic Madhhabs are preaching heresy and trying to demolish Islam
from the interior. Thirty-two of such valuable books, their titles and authors,
were appended to the eightieth (80) letter, -written by Hadrat Imâm Rabbânî,
whose biography is to follow,- which covers an entire chapter of this book,
(immediately after a biography of Hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’).