Karbala – A Lesson For Mankind

“The tyrant dies and his rule ends, the martyr dies and his rule begins.” — Soren Kierkegard

The straight path or the right path is always the most difficult one to travel but one that rewards the most, and so we are told when young. This battle of good versus the evil is an age old phenomenon. Every religion has some story or the other to show us the ‘right’ path from the ‘wrong’ one.Hinduism celebrates the victory of Lord Krishna over the demon Narakasura (among other stories) as Diwali, Christians remember the crucification of Jesus Christ as a supreme sacrifice in the way of God, and so do Muslims observe Moharram (the month in which the tragedy of Karbala took place) to commemorate the supreme sacrifice of Imam Husain, the grandson of the Prophet [PBUH].

“Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord.”—Surah Aal-e-Imran (Chapter 3), Verse 169

The tragedy of Karbala took place some 49 years after the death of Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] in 61 Hijri (AD 680).

The Events Leading Up To Karbala

The Muslim Caliphate briefly came to Imam Hasan (elder grandson of the Prophet [PBUH]) after the martydom of Ali bin Abi Talib (son-in-law of the Prophet [PBUH] and the Fourth Caliph of Islam). Sensing a possible split in the Muslim empire Hasan entered into a peace treaty with Amir Mu’awiyah, the son of Abu Sufyan and father of Yazid.

“Hasan agreed to relinquish all authority to Mu’awiyah in exchange for an agreement not to harm any of the supporters of Ali, and to govern by the book of God and the examples of the Prophet. This he would do by letter and by word, explaining to the congregation in the Kufa mosque that he had ceded his right to rule ‘for the best interest of the community and for the sake of sparing blood’. Mu’awiyah acknowledged that ‘the reign would belong to Hasan after him’ (though this would soon be quietly forgotten) and that to avoid all future strife the next Caliph was to be decided by a formal council.”

—The Heirs of the Prophet Muhammad and the roots of the Sunni-Shia Schism, Barnaby Rogerson

All the first four Caliphs had first been acclaimed by the people of Medina but this right and duty had now been brushed aside in favour of the courtiers at Damascus. The solemn pledge to hold a ’shura’ was broken. None of the previous Caliphs had thought to impose their own sons on the community, and had looked beyond the narrow loyalties of a family, towards their brother in faith. When Mu’awiyah died, Yazid was acclaimed as the Caliph. It marked the decisive emergence of dynastic monarchy triumphing over the religion of God.

The moment Yazid came to power he started demanding the oath of allegiance (bay’ah) from everyone using unfair means. Paying allegiance was an old Arab practice which was carried out in important matters such as that of rulership and authority. Those who were ruled, and specially the well known among them, would give their hand in allegiance, agreement and obedience to their king or the one in authority and in this way would show their whole-hearted support for his actions without any opposition to him. The approach of Yazid was proof enough of the kind of Muslim he was. He showed complete disregard for the tenets of Islam.

*Ibne Aseer (A renowned historian Allamah Ali bin Abil Karam more famous as Ibne Aseer Jazari) in his Tareekhe Kamil has this to say for Yazid, “Yazid was notorious and well known for his love of numerous musical instruments, passion for hunting and play with young boys, dogs, monkeys, etc. Every morning he rose still drunk. His monkeys and young boys wore gold caps. If a monkey died, he spent a considerable time in mourning it.”

“Traditions inform us that Yazeed loved worldly vices, would drink, listen to music, kept the company of boys with no facial hair, played drums, kept dogs, making frogs, bears and monkeys fight. Every morning he used be intoxicated and use to bind monkey with the saddle of a horse and make the horse run.”

—Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah, Ibn Kathir

Yazid’s message was delivered to Imam Husain as well but he said a firm no. Acknowledging Yazid’s authority by the Prophet’s [PBUH] grandson at this point would have meant confirmation of his evil deeds and Caliphate. For Yazid, Husain’s seal of approval was the one most needed.

*Abul Hasan Ali bin Husain Mas’oodi in his Muroojuz Zahab wa ma’adinul Jawahir reported, “Whoever accepted the slavery of Yazid by swearing fealty at his hands was spared, otherwise he was subjugated. Thus the meaning of allegiance to Yazid was not merely the acceptance of a new caliph, but it meant to sell one’s Religion and faith in slavery to a tyrant.”

The Kufans urged Husain in Medina to ride north and lead them against the usurpation of the Islamic world by Yazid, and to reclaim his rightful place as the head of the Muslim nation. Husain, encouraged by the chief men of Medina, decided to respond and rode out of the oasis to assume the leadership of the true army of Islam. But not a soul left the garrison city to join him on the desert trail. The Kufans too would betray him! When Husain settled at a land devoid of water or vegetation named Karbala (‘Karb’ in Arabic means grief and ‘bala’ is for trials) he had just 72 loyal soldiers with him.

Battle For Truth

The battle of Karbala finds great similarity with the one at Badr – Islam’s first battle. It was the holy Prophet [PBUH] at Badr who fought with 313 die-hard supporters against a formidable army of some 1000 men. That day against all odds the small group won a decisive victory, and paved the way for a future Muslim empire. 56 years later it was his grandson with just 72 loyal men, who fought against an impossible opposition of several thousands to save Islam from the clutches of tyranny.

Karbala was a battle of truth against falsehood, humanity against villainy, righteousness against evil, justice against corruption. The much loved grandson of the Prophet [PBUH] stood in the scorching heat of Karbala along with his companions, devoid of water but determined. His loved ones, including his six month old son, fell martyr one after the other. In spite of this he repeatedly invited the other party towards righteousness and forbade them from evil and immorality, but it all fell on deaf ears. When the time arrived for him to march ahead all alone, he did it in a fashion which was reminiscent of his illustrious father Ali.

One of those who fought the battle of Karbala against him says, “I have never seen a person bereaved of his sons, menfolk and his companions more Lion-hearted than him. The foot soldiers were scattering to his right and left like goats when a wolf come upon them.” —–Ibne Aseer, Tareekh Kamil

Husain fell in the desert of Karbala on that fateful Friday, the 10th of Moharram 61H. Worse was to follow. The bodies of the martyrs including the Imam were not only refused a proper burial but were trampled under the horses’ hooves and were left for the birds. The Kufan army looted the belongings of Husain. Imam’s family including his women-folk and tender children were humiliated and taken captives after burning down their camps. The women were paraded with uncovered heads. It wasn’t Islam!

“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.” —Charles Dickens

The severed heads of the martyrs including Husain were raised on spears. How Yazid played with Husain’s head and the emotions of Imam’s family is a well documented fact. Karbala to this day remains a heart-wrenching story of exemplary courage and bravery to uphold the real principles of Islam.

“In a distant age and climate, the tragic scene of the death of Husain will awaken the sympathy of the coldest reader.”—Edward Gibbon

Abdullah Yusuf Ali, the famous English translator of Qurán, has beautifully summed up the whole essence of this epic battle.

There is of course the physical suffering in martyrdom, and all sorrow and suffering claim our sympathy, —- the dearest, purest, most outflowing sympathy that we can give. But there is a greater suffering than physical suffering. That is when a valiant soul seems to stand against the world; when the noblest motives are reviled and mocked; when truth seems to suffer an eclipse. It may even seem that the martyr has but to say a word of compliance, do a little deed of non-resistance; and much sorrow and suffering would be saved; and the insidious whisper comes: “Truth after all can never die.” That is perfectly true. Abstract truth can never die. It is independent of man’s cognition. But the whole battle is for man’s keeping hold of truth and righteousness. And that can only be done by the highest examples of man’s conduct – spiritual striving and suffering enduring firmness of faith and purpose, patience and courage where ordinary mortals would give in or be cowed down, the sacrifice of ordinary motives to supreme truth in scorn of consequence. The martyr bears witness, and the witness redeems what would otherwise be called failure. It so happened with Husain. For all were touched by the story of his martyrdom, and it gave the deathblow to the politics of Damascus and all it stood for.

Lessons From Karbala

Karbala stands for courage, self-sacrifice, integrity, honesty, vision, and bravery beyond words. It symbolises all that is pure and true. Karbala teaches us that real battles are always fought in the minds and not on ground. Yazid was powerful and yet he lost the battle for truth.

“I learned from Hussain how to be wronged and be a winner.” —Mahatma Gandhi

Also, being in the majority need not necessarily make you right.

“The best lesson which we get from the tragedy of Karbala is that Hussain and his companions were the rigid believers of God. They illustrated that numerical superiority does not count when it comes to truth and falsehood. The victory of Hussain despite his minority marvels me! —Thomas Carlyle

As the old adage goes, “Nothing lasts for ever.” Husain and his followers made sure that their martyrdom gave a fatal blow to Yazid’s oppressive rule. Karbala haunted Yazid till his eventual death two years later.

“Imam Husayn uprooted despotism forever till the Day of Resurrection. He watered the dry garden of freedom with the surging wave of his blood, and indeed he awakened the sleeping Muslim nation. Husayn weltered in blood and dust for the sake of truth. Verily he, therefore, became the bed-rock (foundation) of the Muslim creed; la ilaha illa Allah (There is no god but Allah).”—Sir Muhammad Iqbal

It also teaches us to be patient and stand up against any form of wrong treatment. We curse Yazid and his army for their inhuman treatment of people, yet the cruel treatment of captives by the so called jihadis meets little protest. Muslims must recognize and protest against the savagery of inhuman treatment at all times, no matter who does it and where it takes place.

“If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever): And the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him.”— Surah An-Nisa (Chapter 4), Verse 93

The best homage that we can pay to the great tragedy is to do some soul-searching. Do we have the right to be called the followers of the Prophet [PBUH]? Have we really understood the message of Imam Husain? Are the tears for Husain drawn merely by the scenes of mere butchery? Would we ever stand up to the false narrations of the events at Karbala by some maulanas to generate excessive grief? Was Karbala a political war or a struggle for true faith? Are we ready to shed aside our differences and respect each others’ view during our religious discourses during Moharram?

And when we finally have all the answers then we would understand the real message of Karbala.

“Shah ast Hussain, Badshah ast Hussain,

Deen ast Hussain, Deen e Panah ast Hussain,

Sar dad, na dad dast, dar dast-e-yazeed,

Haqaa key binaey La ila ast Hussain”

“It’s Hussain the Prince, it’s Hussain the king,

He is Faith, and Faith’s Defender most daring,

He preferred death to Yazid’s allegiance,

With his blood, Islam has verily been living.”

—Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti

Karbala

Karbala was the last breath of the age of faith. Very few historical events have shaped the language, culture, music, politics and sociology of Muslim peoples, as has Karbala. Languages such as Swahili and Urdu that were born a thousand years after the event relate to it as if it happened yesterday. A laborer in Kuala Lumpur reacts to it with the same immediacy as aqawwal in Lahore or a professor in Chicago. Karbala is a noun, an adjective and a verb all at once. Indeed, Karbala marks a benchmark in Islamic history and a central hinge around which the internal dialectic among Muslims revolves.

Until the assassination of Ali ibn Abu Talib (r) the issue of succession to the Prophet had been decided through mutual consultation. Abu Bakr (r), Omar (r), Uthman (r) and Ali (r) (the Khulfa e Rashidoon as Muslims generally refer to them) drew their legitimacy from the consent of the people. The process was inherently democratic. Abu Bakr as Siddiq (r) specifically forbade the nomination of his own son as the Caliph after him, thereby avoiding dynastic rule. Omar ibn al Khattab (r), in his last will, nominated a council of six of the most respected Companions to choose his successor. The Companions were cognizant of the pitfalls of dynastic succession and the excellence of rule by consultation and consent. Theirs was the age of faith. The mission of the first four Caliphs was the creation of a just society, enjoining what is noble, forbidding what is evil and believing in God. In this struggle, they took extraordinary pains to ensure that their immediate families did not profit from their privileged positions.

Muawiya bin Abu Sufyan changed this process. Upon the advice of Mogheera bin Shoba, he nominated his eldest son Yazid as his successor. This was an historical benchmark. Rule by consent requires accountability. Rule by a strongman requires force without accountability. The nomination of Yazid destroyed the requirement for accountability. After Muawiya, Muslim history would produce sultans and emperors, some benevolent, others despotic. Some would declare themselves Caliphs, others would hobnob with Caliphs, marrying their daughters and offering them exorbitant treasures as gifts, but their rule was always the rule of a soldier. The transcendence of the rule ofTawhid and the accountability that went with it came to an end with the assassination of Ali (r).

Muawiya had wasted no time in extending his hold on the territories formerly held by Ali ibn Abu Talib (r) and Hassan ibn Ali. Iraq was in the juggernaut of Muawiya’s police force, so the Iraqis had no choice but to accept the imposition of Yazid. The province of Hejaz (which is a part of Saudi Arabia today and includes the cities of Mecca and Madina) was another matter. Respected personages such as Hussain ibn Ali, Abdullah bin Zubair, Abdullah bin Omar, Abdullah bin Abbas and Abdur Rahman bin Abu Bakr opposed the idea of a dynasty as contrary to the Sunnah of the Prophet and the tradition of the first Caliphs. To convince them, Muawiya himself traveled to Madina. A meeting was held but there was no meeting of the minds. Not to be deterred by this defiant rejection, Muawiya came out of the meeting and declared that the five had agreed to take their oath of allegiance to Yazid. According to Tabari and Ibn Aseer, Muawiya openly threatened to use force if his proposition was not agreed to. The ammah (general population) gave in. Only later was it discovered that the rumor of allegiance of the “pious five” was a ruse.

Muawiya died soon thereafter (692) at the age of seventy-eight and Yazid ascended the Umayyad throne. One of his first acts was to order the governor of Madina, Waleed bin Uthba, to force an oath of allegiance from Abdullah bin Zubair and Hussain ibn Ali. Sensing the imminent danger to his life, Abdullah bin Zubair left Madina for Mecca under cover of darkness and took refuge in the Ka’ba, where he would presumably be safe from Yazid’s troops. Hussain ibn Ali consulted with his half-brother Muhammad bin Hanafia and moved to Mecca as well.

Those Companions of the Prophet and other Muslims, who believed that Ali (r) was the rightful Caliph after the Prophet were called Shi’ Aan e Ali (the party of Ali (r), which explains the origin of the term Shi’a. The term Sunni is of later historical origin). As is recorded by Ibn Kathir and Ibn Khaldun, these Companions were not entirely satisfied when Abu Bakr (r) was elected the Caliph. However, to maintain the unity of the community they supported and served Abu Bakr (r), Omar (r) and Uthman (r). When Hassan(r) abdicated in favor of Muawiya, many amongst Shi’ Aan e Ali withdrew from politics. While maintaining no animosity against the power structure, which was almost always hostile to them, they accepted the spiritual leadership of Ali’s (r) lineage.

Kufa had been the capital during the Caliphate of Ali ibn Abu Talib (r) and members of Shi’ Aan e Ali were numerous in Iraq. Hussain ibn Ali received insistent letters from the notables of Kufa inviting him to Iraq and to accept their allegiance to him as the Caliph. As a first step, Hussain sent his cousin Muslim bin Aqeel on a fact finding mission. Muslim bin Aqeel arrived in Kufa and set up residence in the house of a well-wisher, Hani. The supporters of Hussain thronged this residence, so Muslim sent word to Hussain encouraging him to migrate to Kufa.

Meanwhile, Yazid dispatched Ubaidullah bin Ziyad, commonly known as Ibn Ziyad, the butcher of Karbala, to apprehend Muslim bin Aqeel and stop the incipient uprising. Ibn Ziyad arrived in Iraq and promptly declared that those who would support Yazid would be rewarded and those who opposed him would have their heads cut off. Greed and fear of reprisals did their trick. The Kufans made an about-turn and abandoned Muslim. He was attacked and executed by forces of Ibn Ziyad. Before his death, Muslim sent word to Hussain that the situation in Kufa had changed and that he should abandon the idea of migrating there. By this time, Ibn Ziyad’s forces had cut the communications of Hussain’s supporters, so the second message from Muslim never reached Hussain.

Unaware of the ground situation in Kufa, Hussain started his move from Mecca to Kufa in 680 with his supporters and well-wishers. On the way, news arrived that Muslim had been killed. According to Ibn Kathir, Hussain wanted to turn back but the demand for qisas (equitable retribution) from Muslim’s brothers prevented him. He did inform his entourage of the developments and urged those who wanted to return to do so. All but the very faithful, mostly members of the Prophet’s family, left him.

Undaunted, Hussain ibn Ali moved forward and was stopped by a regiment of troops under Amr bin Sa’ad at Karbala on the banks of the River Euphrates. A standoff ensued, negotiations took place and Amr bin Sa’ad communicated this to Ibn Ziyad in Kufa. But Ibn Ziyad would accept nothing short of capitulation and Hussain’s explicit baiyah (oath of allegiance) to Yazid. Sensing that Amr bin Sa’ad was reluctant to commence hostilities against the Prophet’s family, Ibn Ziyad recalled him and replaced him with Shimr Zil Jowhan. Shimr, a man without moral compunctions, surrounded the Hussaini camp and cut off the supply of water. The final confrontation came on the 10^th of Muharram. (Muharram is the first month of the Islamic calendar and the date is mentioned here because the 10^th of Muharram has come to occupy a special place in Muslim history). Hussain, the soldier of God, who had drunk from the lips of the Prophet and who would not submit to the tyranny of Yazid, arranged his seventy two men in battle formation, advanced and met the forces of darkness. Each of the men was cut down and at last, the grandson of the Prophet also fell. His head was cut off and sent to Kufa where Ibn Ziyad mistreated it in the most abominable manner and paraded it through the streets. The ladies and surviving children in Hussain’s entourage were safely escorted back to Madina by some well-wishers. It was the year 680.

More Muslim tears have been shed for the blood of Hussain ibn Ali than any other martyr in Islamic history. Hussain’s martyrdom provided Islam with a paradigm for selfless struggle and sacrifice. For hundreds of years, generations would rise, invoking the name of Hussain ibn Ali, to uphold justice and to fight against tyranny. For some Muslims, it was the defining moment in Islamic history.

Hussain stood for faith and principle in the face of tyranny and coercion. In the person of Hussain, faith held its head high against the sharpness of the tyrant’s blade. Hussain was the embodiment of the Qur’anic teaching that humankind is born into freedom and is to bow only before the Divine majesty. Freedom is a trust bestowed upon all men and women by the Creator; it is not to be surrendered before the oppression of a mere mortal.

Karbala imparted a new meaning to the term struggle. Humankind must strive with patience and constancy in the face of extreme adversity. Comfort and safety are not to be impediments in the higher struggle for the rewards of the hereafter. Hussain did not give up his struggle even though he was abandoned by the multitudes that had offered him support. He did not surrender while facing insurmountable odds.

History is a jealous and demanding consumer. Time and again, it demands the ultimate sacrifice from the faithful, so that faith may renew itself. Karbala was a renewal of faith. Islam received an eternal boost from the sacrifice of Hussain ibn Ali. Faith had triumphed even while the sword had conquered.

Before Karbala, Shi’ Aan e Ali was a religious movement. After Karbala, it became both a religious and political movement. As we shall see in later chapters, the echoes of Karbala were heard again and again throughout Islamic history and imparting to it a directional momentum that persists even in contemporary affairs.

So great was the shock from Hussain’s martyrdom, that even Yazid sought to distance himself from the tragedy. Ibn Kathir reports that when he heard of the events of Karbala, Yazid wept bitterly and cursed the actions of Ibn Ziyad. But when we view the sum total of Yazid’s actions and his personal character, these were nothing but crocodile tears of a tyrant.

The Tragedy of Karbala

Although medieval Muslim historians undoubtedly give the impression that Islam has grown into a large number of sects (or parties, firaq), most of these are not "sects" but legal and theological schools, as pointed out by orientalists like Goldzihr. Indeed, throughout the history of Islam one looks in vain for a sect based entirely on doctrinal differences. The doctrinal and theological extremes to which, for example, certain sufis and philosophers went — let alone the Mu´tazila and even the Khawarij — are obviously incompatible with orthodox teaching, and yet this by itself has given rise to sectarian developments. The criterion of the permissibility of a schism in Islam has, rather, been something that can perhaps be best called "community solidarity," and has been characteristically concerned from the beginning with practical and above all political issues.

The Shi´ah constitute the only important schism in Islam. Unlike the Khawarij, who rebelled against the Ijma´ of the community at the practical level, the Shi´ah have, over the centuries, evolved a doctrine of Divine Right (both with regard to religious and political life) that is irreconcilable with the very spirit of Ijma´. The occasion of the Shi´ah secession was also the political event of hostility between Hadrat Ali (RAA) and his opponents, the Umayyads. After Ali´s (RAA) assassination, the Shi´ah (party) of Ali in Kufa demanded that Caliphate be restored to the home of the ill-fated Caliph. This legitimist claim on behalf of Ali´s descendants is the beginning of the Shi´ah political doctrine. The motives that led to this curious legitimist claim on the part of the Kufan Arabs are not very clear, except the fact that certain southern tribes, in their traditional enmity against the Northerners, decided to champion the Hashimites against the ruling Umayyads, and also the fact that the Prophet (SAW) had been from the Banu Hashim came to be easily exploited. This legitimism, i.e., the doctrine that the leadership of the Muslim Community rightfully belongs to Ali (RAA) and his descendants, was the hallmark of the original Arab Shi´ism which was purely political. Monuments of this Arab Shi´ism are to be found today among the Zaydis of Yemen with their Shi´ah Imam, and in Morocco where the ruler is a decedent of the house of Ali (RAA) but the religion is that of Sunni Islam. But already among the earliest Shi´ah partisans there were strong traces of a religious enthusiasm for Ali (RAA) combined with the political motive, although there was not as yet the dogmatic extravagance that was to develop in the 2nd/8th and 3rd/9th centuries. The social struggles in early Islam, when the discontent of Persian clients (Mawali) was broiling against the ruling Umayyads, gave undoubtedly a further spur and quite a new turn to the socio-political activities of the Shi´ah.

Thus, we see that Shi´ism became, in the early history of Islam, a cover for different forces of social and political discontent. The fundamental religious impulse was derived from the violent and bloody death of Hussain (RAA), Ali´s son from Fatima (RAA) at Karbala at the hands of government troops in the year 61 A.H. (681 C.E.) whence the passion motive was introduced. This passion motive combined with the belief in the "return" of the Imam gives to Shi´ism its most characteristic ethos. From the very beginning, however, the practice of moderation and catholicity of spirit, which had created the Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama´ah, i.e., the orthodoxy, developed into a theoretical and doctrinal principle, according to which although "there can be no obedience to sinful command," yet "the ruler should be obeyed even though he be unjust" for "an unjust ruler is better than lawlessness." Therefore the charge of conformism against the Ulama as a whole seems justified, and the principle of "obedience even to a tyrant" was often carried to its extremes. It is, nevertheless, true that this political wisdom of the Ulama has done a fundamental service to the community which cannot be underscored. For, under the cover of this principle, the Ulama exercised a stabilizing function in the political chaos especially after the break-up of the Abbasid Caliphate when the adventurer sultans had to, at least externally, observe the Shari´ah (whose guardians were the Ulama) which checked their excesses and kept their rule generally humane.

The contents of this booklet mainly consist of a speech delivered by Dr. Israr Ahmad, Ameer of Tanzeem-e-Islami, on 8th of Muharram Al-Haram (the first month of the Islamic calendar). The speech was delivered in Darussalam Mosque, Lahore, and was later published in Meesaq, the monthly magazine and the organ of Tanzeem-e-Isalmi. After a persistent demand from the readers, the speech was published in the form of a booklet under the title Saniha-e-Karbala.

The substance of the booklet is an endeavor to reveal the real background of the tragedy of Karbala and to lay bare the events leading to a series of tragedies in the Islamic history. The tragedy taken in a distorted perspective has led to tremendous confusion about the conflicts of the Companions of the Holy Prophet (SAW). It gave rise to a separate sect in Islam, the Shi´ah. It is necessary for every Muslim to be aware of the real background of the events in order to avoid distorted concepts about the Companions of the Holy Prophet (SAW), as it is a part of our faith to show due respect to them all and consider everyone of them free from perversion of intention in their actions.

The Urdu booklet was translated into English by Commander (Rtd.) Muhammad Tufail. May Allah (SWT) accept the efforts of the author and the translator and make it effective in dispelling misconception from the minds of Muslims.

Dr. Absar Ahmad

Director (Hon.) Qur´an Academy

In The Name Of Allah, The Most Merciful & The Beneficent
On the 10th of Muharram Al-Haram, 61 A.H., a most abominable and tragic event occurred in the desert of Karbala that resulted in the martyrdom (shahadah) of Hussain Ibn Ali (RAA), the grandson of our Prophet (SAW) and the son of his daughter, along with most of the members of his family and their supporters. It should be borne in mind that this tragedy did not take place all of a sudden like a bolt from the blue. It was in fact the manifestation of the plot of Sabayees which had claimed the life of Uthman (RAA), the third Caliph and the son-in-law of the Prophet (SAW) twenty-five years earlier. Caliph Uthman´s (RAA) martyrdom took place on 18th of Dhu Al-Hajj, 36 A.H.

We must not overlook the fact that the struggle between the forces of good and evil is a continuous process which never ends. In the history of mankind, evil has reigned supreme most of the time whereas the triumph of good has been sporadic and short-lived. Another well-established fact is that the evil forces, even if subdued and subjugated, never acknowledge total defeat. On the contrary, they become submissive for a while and lay low, waiting for an opportunity to strike back. Often the evil forces, when subdued, go underground but never abandon their struggle to cause rift and strife among their opponents. The Prophet of Islam (SAW) brought about an incomparable and unprecedented revolution in the history of mankind, a unique miracle for all times, and established a state and government to dispense justice to the people over a vast tract of the globe. In the words of the Qur´an:

…the Truth came and the falsehood vanished... (Al-Isra 17:81)

But toward the end of the Prophet´s revolution, the evil forces put on a disguise and lay low, waiting for the right moment for a counter-attack. Thus, immediately after the demise of the Prophet (SAW), insurgencies raised their ugly heads against the Islamic state. False prophets and defiants of Zakat challenged the central authority and waged wars against the state of Al-Madinah Al-Munawwara. These were the counter-revolutionary forces, determined to disintegrate the newly established Islamic state; but through resolute and prompt action, Abu Bakr Siddique (RAA), the first Caliph, defeated them and consolidated the achievements of the Prophet´s Islamic Revolution. It was a great service to Islam rendered by the first Caliph who had a short but glorious reign.

In the next twenty years which include the reigns of Omar (RAA) and Uthman (RAA), the second and third Caliph of Islam, many more countries were conquered under the banner of Islam and the Muslim empire extended over a vast expanse of the globe, comprising Iraq, Syria, Iran on one side and a large part of North Africa including Egypt and Morocco on the other. But the historical process has its immutable laws. As the Revolution of the Prophet (SAW) was challenged by the reactionary movements on the Arab land, the same happened with the conquests of those two Caliphs. The first target of these reactionaries was the person of Omar (RAA) who was assassinated by Abu Luloo Feroze, a Parsi slave from Iran. It was purely an Iranian plot hatched by Hurmuzan, an Iranian general, who thought that if Omar (RAA) was removed from the scene, the empire of Islam would fall like a house of cards. But by the grace of Allah (SWT), it survived the calamity. Abdullah Ibn Saba, a Jew from Yemen, under the garb of a Muslim, took his sojourn at Madinah. He had all the trappings of an expert plotter and the Jewish genius at intrigues, an attribute of his clan. He planted subversive ideas among the people. He pleaded for the usurped rights of the house of the Prophet (SAW), carried out a propaganda campaign against Caliph Uthman (RAA) and incited the people to revolt. He declared Ali (RAA) to be the rightful successor to the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and dubbed Uthman (RAA) as a usurper. He told people that every Prophet has a wasee and Ali (RAA) is the wasee of Prophet Mohammad (SAW) and, therefore, entitled to be the caliph after the Prophet. He also preached the divinity of Ali (RAA), thus striking at Tauheed, the very root of Islam. The Iranians, who had embraced Islam only a few years before, were taken in by this propaganda because they had a long history of kingship and hero-worship. They were familiar with the divine rights of kings, and hero-worship was diffused in their blood. They readily accepted these ideas and became their champions. Similarly Abdullah Ibn Saba floated another viewpoint related to the second appearance of Prophet Isa (AS). He argued that Prophet Muhammad (SAW), who is the best amongst the prophets of Allah (SWT), would also appear with Christ, for the contrary would imply that he is inferior to Prophet Isa (AS). This was the same argument used by the Qadianis in later years, who invented the notion of the death and burial of Prophet Isa (AS) in Kashmir. They argued that it was illogical for Prophet Muhammad (SAW) to have died and for Prophet Isa (AS) to be alive in the heaven. Unsophisticated and illiterate Muslims saw a point of adoration in it for Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and fell an easy prey to that sort of propaganda.

Abdullah Ibn Saba travelled all over the Muslim lands and set up his propaganda centers at Basra and Kufa, but his attempts failed in Damascus. Then he went to Egypt where he formed a party of his supporters. Consequently, the last two years of Caliph Uthman´s (RAA) reign were filled with machinations, intrigue, and turmoil all over Muslim territories. It culminated in the most unjustified murder (martyrdom) of Caliph Uthman (RAA) who was the ruler of a vast empire and had tens of thousands of soldiers under his command but refused to shed the blood of Muslims in self-protection. Governors of provinces from all over the empire besought the Caliph to allow them to send troops to quell the uprising and to protect his person from the rebels who had surrounded his residence, but he remained strict and steadfast in his decision. It is perhaps a unique and unprecedented episode in the entire history of mankind that a very powerful man, like the Caliph Uthman (RAA), refused to use authority for his personal safety and let himself be assassinated. May Allah (SWT) shower His blessings on him.

The murder of Habeel (son of Adam) by his brother Qabeel is perhaps an incident comparable to Caliph Uthman´s (RAA) assassination. When Qabeel declared his intention to kill Habeel, the latter announced his resolve, in the words of the Qur´an:

Even if thou stretch out thy hand against me, I shall not stretch out my hand against thee to kill thee; lo! I fear Allah the Lord of the worlds.
(Al-Ma´ida 5:28)

So, Habeel was assassinated by his brother and that was the first act of homicide in the history of mankind. It was a totally unjustified murder in which the victim refused to offer resistance as in the assassination of Caliph Uthman (RAA). For such an act, Allah (SWT) has declared His reward and punishment in the Qur´an:

For that cause We decreed for the children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter of corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and saveth the life of one person, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind...
(Al-Ma´ida 5:32).

Before Caliph Uthman´s assassination, Abdullah Ibn Salam (RAA), a Jewish scholar who had converted to Islam, addressed the rebels surrounding the residence of the Caliph in these words: "O people! beware of murdering a caliph of a Rasool (Messenger of Allah) for, I am a scholar of Torah and I tell you that Allah avenges the murder of His prophets and the murder of the deputies of his prophets (caliphs). There has hardly been any murder of a prophet which Allah has not avenged by inflicting death on seventy thousand people and the murder of a caliph by inflicting death on thirty five thousand people." Now it is on record that, after the martyrdom of Hadrat Uthman (RAA), the conflict and strife among the Muslim continued for almost five years. Civil war broke out and three major battles — Jamal, Siffeen and Nahrwan — were fought, causing eighty-four thousand deaths of Muslims at the hands of other Muslims. Many a pious and good Muslims were slain by the sword of fellow Muslims. Amongst them were eminent Companions like Talha (RAA), Zubair (RAA), Ammar Ibn Yasir (RAA) and many more. Ali (RAA), the fourth Caliph, also sacrificed his life in this strife. Ameer Mu´awiya (RAA) was also attacked but survived. Amar Ibn Al-Aas (RAA) survived a murder attempt due to an alibi; his proxy was killed instead. The schism and strife among the Muslims caused by Abdullah Ibn Saba and his followers claimed countless valuable lives.

An instance from the authenticated record of the battle of Jamal is narrated here to illustrate how Muslims fell victims to the traps laid by the Sabayees. After the occupation of Basra, Umm Al-Momineen Ayisha (RAA) received a message from Caliph Ali (RAA) for talks and negotiation. It should be remembered that she was never a claimant for the caliphate. Her only demand was that the murderers of Uthman (RAA) must be punished immediately. Ali (RAA) offered to accept her demand if his hands were first strengthened by a declaration of allegiance to him by her group. Both the armies of Ayisha (RAA) and Ali (RAA) were facing each other and camping on the battle field when these negotiations started. The news of this negotiation reached Abdullah Ibn Saba and Malik Ibn Ashter Nakhey. They immediately pursued their nefarious plot to undermine the peace talks. Accordingly, under the cover of darkness, they, along with some of their followers, mounted an attack on Umm Al-Momineen Aisha´s (RAA) camp and the rumor was spread that the attack was made by the forces loyal to Ali (RAA). At the same time, they sent the word to Ali´s (RAA) camp that Umm Al-Momineen Ayisha´s (RAA) forces had initiated the attack. Consequently the opposing armies clashed with each other with all their might, leaving thousands dead on the battle field. It is a very painful part of Muslim history that no investigation to discover the truth in time was ever successful. The same thing happened at the battle of Siffeen. When a stage for peaceful negotiations was set, the Sabayees undermined it and a new scion of dissidents, the Khawarij, appeared on the scene, opening another front for the warring factions.

During the reign of Caliph Ali (RAA), the Muslim empire did not exit as a single state under one central authority but broke up into various power centers. Ameer Mu´awiya (RAA), the governor of Syria, demanded avenge of Uthman´s (RAA) murder. "The assassins of Uthman (RAA) are in your camp and they are your advisers. I will not declare allegiance to you unless they are punished," he insisted. It should be borne in mind that Ameer Mu´awiya (RAA) did not put forward his claim to the Caliphate and was contented with the governorship of Syria. Whether his demand and pressure on Ali (RAA) was justified or not is an open issue, and everyone is entitled to have an opinion.

Caliph Ali (RAA) was killed by a Khariji, and his son Hassan (RAA) accepted the allegiance of the people at Kufa, a big army base. It appeared that another conflict was in the making. Hassan Ibn Ali (RAA), leading a forty thousand strong contingent, marched to Medinah where he had to confront Ameer Mu´awiya (RAA), the governor of Syria, who faced him with a huge army. A small squad was leading the army of Hassan (RAA). It was rumored that the squad had a clash with the enemy and suffered a defeat. The persons responsible for spreading this rumor were never identified. Upon hearing the rumor, the Kufi forces revolted against Hassan (RAA) and not only looted his camp but also manhandled him. He had to take refuge in Chosroes´ palace. But this incident shook the confidence of Hassan Ibn Ali (RAA) in his Kufi supporters; he therefore sent a word to Ameer Mu´awiya (RAA) for peace talks. Ameer Mu´awiya (RAA) not only accepted the offer but also sent a blank cheque, so to say, for a settlement in accordance with the terms of Hassan (RAA), who laid down the following conditions:

The tax collections from the province of Ahwaz shall be paid to Hassan (RAA).

A grant of two million dirham shall be paid annually to Hussain (RAA), his younger brother.

Banu Hashim shall be preferred in the distribution of allowances and grants.

A general amnesty shall be declared for all who took part in the battle.

Ameer Mu´awiya (RAA) accepted all these terms and peace was restored in the sprawling empire. Strife and civil war came to an end and the state was unified under one central authority as he forced allegiance from all the dissidents. Hassan Ibn Ali (RAA), commenting on the transfer of authority, said, "If Mu´awiya was the rightful successor to the Caliphate, he has received it and if I had that right, I, too, have passed it on to him; so the matter ends there." This was in accordance with the prophecy of the Holy Prophet (SAW) about Hassan (RAA) when he had said, "Through my son Hassan, Allah will bring about peace between tow warring factions of Muslims." It was an honor bestowed on Hassan Ibn Ali (RAA) by Allah (SWT), but the Sabayees were highly indignant at his peace move. They called him names and taunted him with the words "Ya Aar Al-Momeneen" (O, Shame for the believers!) and "Ya Mozill Al-Momineen" (You, the debaser of the Believers!). Ostensibly they were his supporters, but in fact expressed their utter resentment at his action for peace making which ushered in an era of twenty years of unity and tranquility in the Muslim empire.

Muslims belonging to Ahl Al-Sunnah Wal-Jama´ah (the Sunni sect of Islam) do not include Ameer Mu´awiya´s (RAA) reign in Al-Khilafah Al-Rashidah (the period of Rightly Guided Caliphate). But Ameer Mu´awiya´s (RAA) twenty years reign is still considered to be the best period in the entire Muslim history after Al-Khilafah Al-Rashidah, because during his reign all the functions of a Muslim state — maintenance of peace, dispensation of justice, struggle for the supremacy of Islam, dissemination of the Word of Allah (SWT) — were performed admirably well. The reign of Omar Ibn Abdul Aziz (RA) is also considered a glorious era of Islamic history, but it should be borne in mind that Ameer Mu´awiyah (RAA) — who was not only a Companion of the Holy Prophet (SAW) but also a scribe of Divine Revelation — stands much higher in rank and status than Omar Ibn Abdul Aziz (RAA) because the latter was a Taba´yee (a companion of the Companions of the Prophet) and not a Sahabi. It is the common belief of the Sunnis that however pious a person may be, he cannot be rated equal to the lowest among the Companions of the Prophet (SAW).

Hassan Ibn Ali (RAA) lived for ten years during the reign of Ameer Mu´awiya (RAA), and after the peace agreement between the two, they had a very close and friendly relationship. However, Hassan (RAA) was poisoned to death, most probably by the same group who were enraged at his armistice with Ameer Mu´awiya (RAA). By no stretch of imagination this heinous deed can be ascribed to Ameer Mu´awiya (RAA) who had no grudge against Hassan (RAA).

Before we discuss the nomination of Yazeed as a successor to his father, it would be appropriate to understand some basic and relevant issues. Firstly, the differences in belief (aqeeda) and juristic interpretation (fiqh) among the various sects of the Muslim Ummah have been grossly exaggerated. The Sunnis have no disagreement regarding belief, and have only some minor differences over the interpretation of the Shari´ah. In fact, there are only two sects in Islam, i.e,. Sunni and Shi´ah, because they differ over beliefs as well as over the interpretation of Shari´ah. There are certain differences which do not cause the parting of ways. For instance, opinions about historical events and personalities can be overlooked. If one considers Ali (RAA) better than Abu Bakr (RAA), one can do so because it does not contravene any basic tenet of Islam. Similarly, the Sunnis believes Abu Bakr (RAA) the best among the entire mankind after the prophets of Allah (SWT), yet this does not constitute any basic article of faith of a Muslim. However, the concept of the Infallible Imamate maintained by the Shi´ahs is unacceptable because it strikes at the very root of the concept of Prophethood. Only the prophets were continuously guarded against and protected by Allah (SWT) from any sin, and with the termination of Prophethood the privilege of infallibility has been taken away by Allah (SWT) from all the progeny of Adam. The door of personal judgment (Ijtihad) is open while the door of Divine Revelation (Nabuwwah) has been closed forever.

Ijtihad, the exercise of personal judgment within the framework of the guidance provided by the Qur´an and the Sunnah (the sayings and doings of the Prophet) is a privilege vouchsafed to every Muslim who is well-versed in the teachings of Islam. The possibility of an error of judgment can never be ruled out because to err is human. But any judgement or decision made in good faith and with a clear conscience has a reward for the judge, regardless of the correctness of the judgment. That is the belief of the Muslim Ummah. In the light of this principle, we can judge the actions of all the caliphs of Islam to be without malice and can hold any opinion we like provided it is not derogatory to their status as the Companions of the Prophet (SAW).

Now let us look at the issue of Yazeed´s nomination by his father, Ameer Mu´awiya (RAA), as an heir-apparent to the caliphate. According to authentic historical records, it was done on the advice of Moghira Ibn Sho´ba (RAA), who was a very intelligent and far-sighted Companion of the Holy Prophet (SAW). He argued that on the death of Ameer Mu´awiya (RAA), the issue of his succession, if remained uncertain, might plunge the Ummah once again into a war as had happened in the pre-Mu´awiya period; hence it was advisable to nominate a person to wield authority in the event of Ameer Mu´awiyah´s death. He also suggested the name of Ameer Mu´awiya´s son Yazeed for the job. Now it is open to question whether this decision was justified or not, but no aspersions should be cast on Ameer Mu´awiya (RAA) or Moghira (RAA) who arrived at the conclusion with a clear conscience and in good faith. Both occupy venerable positions in the order of merit of the Companions of the Prophet. Moghira (RAA) was one of those who swore allegiance to the Prophet (SAW) under the tree (on the occasion of Baiy´ah Al-Ridwan) and Allah (SWT) has commended all of them who took part in that (Al-Qur´an: Al-Fath 48:18). He remained a faithful friend and supporter of Ali (RAA) throughout his life. But much water had flown under the bridge since Ali´s (RAA) times and he could apprehend danger in the absence of most of the influential Companions of the Holy Prophet (SAW) who had died by then (60 A.H.). The new generation did not have that sense of responsibility or moral embellishment as the old had. In view of such arguments, they took a decision counter to the democratic spirit inculcated by the Prophet (SAW) among his followers. Nevertheless, they cannot be condemned as having ulterior motives of their own, apart from the good of the Ummah, because the Sunnis believe in the diction which asserts:

All Companions of the Prophet were just.

We can differ with the Companions, but we cannot malign them as mala fide.

Now look at the other side of the picture. Many prominent dignitaries among the Muslims including the three Ibad Allah — i.e., Abdullah Ibn Zubair (RAA), Abdullah Ibn Omar (RAA), Abdullah Ibn Abbas (RAA) as also Hussain Ibn Ali (RAA) and Abdur Rehman Ibn Abu Bakr (RAA) — not only disapproved of Yazeed´s nomination but also declared it against the spirit of Islam. The historic comment of Abdur Rehman Ibn Abu Bakr (RAA), when he was asked for allegiance to Yazeed´s heirship, is well worth taking note of. He said, "Now instead of acting upon the Prophet´s (SAW) and the rightly guided Caliphs´ tradition, do you want to adopt the tradition of Caesar and Chosroes?" Also, the fact cannot be overlooked that, except these five prominent Muslims, many others, including a large number of the Companions of the Prophet (SAW), swore allegiance to Yazeed´s nomination. All these people cannot be maligned and declared mala fide. Some may even allege that Ameer Mu´awiya (RAA) bought their loyalties. If we accept this premise, by the same token it can also be alleged that Hassan Ibn Ali (RAA) too was bought over, and the Shi´ahs consider Hassan (RAA) to be an Imam Masoom (an infallible guide or leader). Obviously this is not the right course of thought and argument because, if pursued to the logical conclusion, it would tarnish many illustrious names among the Muslims. The only right conduct for us could be to absolve all those who supported Yazeed as well as those who opposed him of all blame because they all acted according to their convictions and for the good of the Muslim Ummah.

Now let us examine the stand which Hussain Ibn Ali (RAA) took in the situation. As said earlier, he sincerely believed that the nomination of Yazeed to the heirship of the Caliphate would destroy the spirit of democracy and republicanism nurtured and developed so assiduously during the Prophet´s era and afterward, and that it would lead to hereditary kingship which was repugnant to the original political teaching of Islam. He therefore resolved to oppose this with all the resources at his command. The bag load of communications, sent to him by the people of Kufa, not only approved of his stand but also promised support and loyalty to his cause. Kufa was a military base and a very strategic city situated at the crossroads to Iran and Syria. He thought that if the people of Kufa supported him, as their letters written to him indicated, it would be possible to effectively neutralize the change being brought about in the body politic of the Muslim Ummah. So he argued and resolved to act for that cause. Abdullah Ibn Abbas (RAA) also shared his thoughts but he opposed Hussain´s (RAA) going to Kufa because he knew the Kufis better and warned him not to repose his confidence in their loyalty. The Kufis had earlier betrayed Ali (RAA) and his son Hassan (RAA). Abdullah Ibn Omar (RAA) and Abdullah Ibn Zubair (RAA) also had similar opinions about the Kufi character and vehemently besought Hussain (RAA) not to depend on their words would be against him; "Under the slightest pressure or pecuniary coercion the Kufis would change their loyalties," the three Ibad Allah warned Hussain (RAA). But he appeared to have taken a firm decision. So he brushed aside all their pleadings and warnings, and decided to proceed to Kufa, placing his confidence in Allah (SWT). For he acted in the true spirit of Allah´s and the Prophet´s command:

So when you have decided (on a course of action) repose your confidence in Allah (Aal-e-Imran 3:159).

It may be argued that Hussain (RAA) committed a mistake in the assessment of the situation, but no insinuations about his intentions can be entertained. He had no lust for power or avarice for wealth. This is the common belief of the Ahl Al-Sunnah Wal-Jama´ah (the Sunnis). They do not consider him, like all non-Prophets, to be infallible; at the same time they do not doubt his integrity either.

When the nomination issue was deliberated upon in Madinah, Abdullah Ibn Zubair (RAA) went over to Makkah and so did Hussain (RAA), because some prominent Muslim were of the opinion that Makkah would be the best place as a stronghold or base for launching a campaign for building up public opinion against Yazeed´s heirship. However, before any significant work could be done in this regard, Ameer Mu´awiya (RAA) died and Ameer Yazeed took over the reigns of government. Now Hussain (RAA) received heaps of letters from the Kufis pledging their loyalty and support to him if he mounted an attack against Ameer Yazeed´s forces. He sent his cousin Muslim Ibn Aqeel (RAA) to Kufa to find out facts. Soon he received an affirmation of the loyalty of Kufis from his cousin and he started preparations for a journey to Kufa. Abdullah Ibn Omar (RAA) and Abdullah Ibn Abbas (RAA) pleaded vigorously against his plan and entreated him to at least leave women and children in Makkah if he was determined to proceed to Kufa. But Hussain (RAA) ignored their suggestions. On the way he received the report of Muslim Ibn Aqeel´s (RAA) death at the hands of Ameer Yazeed´s men and the apathy and indifference displayed by the people of Kufa at this incident, and also the news that the Kufis had shifted their loyalties to Ameer Yazeed, pledging support to him against Hussain (RAA) and his followers.

Now Hussain (RAA) was in a dilemma: should he continue his journey towards Kufa or return to Makkah? The Arab tradition of avenging the murder of their man, at all costs, was too strong for him to resist. Besides, the close relatives of Muslim Ibn Aqeel (RAA), who were accompanying Hussain (RAA), declared their resolve to punish the assassins and continue their march. For Hussain (RAA), it was below his dignity to abandon them and return to Makkah. So, he decided to continue his march to Kufa. Meanwhile Auon and Mohammad, the two young sons of Abdullah Ibn Jaffer Tayyar, a cousin of Hussain (RAA), arrived with their father´s message: "For God´s sake, don´t go to Kufa." However, Hussain (RAA) continued his journey with these two boys joining his camp and arrived at the desert of Karbala. Ibn Ziad, the governor of Kufa, arrived there with one thousand soldiers under his command and offered one option to Hussain (RAA) in accordance with the instruction from Ameer Yazeed: "You can neither go to Kufa nor return to Makkah, but you can go any where else you want." Obviously, the only course open for Hussain (RAA) was to Damascus, the capital. It is very unfortunate that he turned down the offer and continued his sojourn at Karbala trying to win over the support of Ibn Ziad´s men because in his addresses to the Kufis under Ibn Ziad´s command, he mentioned the persons by name who had written letters to him pledging loyalty and support and pleaded with them to honor their pledges. The Kufis, fearing the possibility of ensuing persecution and punishment, disowned their letters and denied their authorship.

Meanwhile, a reinforcement of four thousand soldiers, under the command of Amar Ibn Sa´d, arrived at Kufa from Damascus. Amar was the son of Sa´d Ibn Abi Waqas (RAA), the conqueror of Iran, and was also related to Hussain (RAA) for whom he had all the sympathies. Talks of reconciliation continued but the Kufis, fearing reprisals in case of a reconciliation, forced their leader Ibn Zaid to toughen his attitude. Realizing this, Hussain (RAA) placed three options before them: "Allow me to return to Makkah safely, or allow me to proceed to the frontiers of the Muslim empire so that I may continue my campaign against non-Muslims, or allow me a safe passage to the capital, Damascus, where I may settle the issue with Ameer Yazeed in person."

The conspirators, however, succeeded in undermining the reconciliation talks and forced Amar Ibn Sa´d to corner Hussain (RAA). "Either surrender unconditionally or get ready for war," they demanded. Obviously an unconditional surrender by Hussain (RAA) was a tall order and a challenge to his honor and dignity. He was constrained to fight the enemy though heavily outnumbered and under-quipped. Thus, the Sabayee conspiracy that sabotaged the peace talks just before the battles of Jamal and Siffeen was successful once again, and Hussain (RAA) and all his camp followers were slain mercilessly on the sands of Karbala. However, all of them displayed unflinching courage and valor on the battle-field.

In apportioning blame for this tragedy, fictitious stories have been fabricated about the disagreements between Ali (RAA) and Uthman (RAA). In fact, there were no disagreements between the two, who respected and loved each other like brothers. It is again the Sabayee elements who concocted bogus stories and phony events to cover up their own heinous acts of perfidy in this drama of strife and partisan-politics forced on the Muslims. No attempt has ever been made to unmask their ugly faces and instead their version of these episodes has been accepted as authentic, resulting in deep malignity against the highly venerable and illustrious personalities of the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

From the assassination of Uthman (RAA) right up to the tragic event at Karbala, one can easily discern the hidden hand of Sabayee agents who successfully plotted against the solidarity of the Muslim Empire and plunged in into senseless bloodshed. The entire blame must be placed on them, where it rightfully belongs, and the fair names of the Companions of the Prophet (SAW), who are all adool (scrupulously just), must be exonerated from the calumny and ignominy to which they have been exposed through the malicious propaganda of the Sabayees.

It would be worthwhile to mention here two instances of fair play and God-fearing conduct of Ali (RAA) and Ameer Yazeed. When Ali (RAA) defeated Umm Al-Momineen Ayisha (RAA) at the battle of Jamal, he treated her with the same reverence and decorum to which she was entitled as one of the "Mothers of the Believers." He conducted her and her retinue of ladies and gentlemen with all the respect and security to Madinah. This amply demonstrates that there was no personal enmity or malice between the two. Again, when the battle survivors, ladies, and children from Hussain´s (RAA) camp of Karbala arrived at Damascus, Ameer Yazeed treated them with due regard and respect and expressed his sympathies with them. He also expressed his sincere condolences at the needless bloodshed and said, "Had Ibn Ziad not gone to such an extent, I would have been pleased with him even then."

The two martyrdoms, that of Uthman (RAA) and of Hussain (RAA), have caused agony in the hearts of the Muslim Ummah and have cast their gloomy shadows over its fourteen hundred year history. The have caused dissension and fighting among the Muslims who have fallen into the trap of those who sowed the seeds of discord and shifted the blame to the most respected persons of the Ummah. It is, in fact, the triumph of those intriguing elements who were jubilant over their accomplishment. Now, we are at each other´s throat and hurl bad names and odium on the very honorable personalities of Islam. Some people consider names of Yazeed and Shimer a symbols of profanity and an anathema while some others use Amar Ibn Sa´d´s and Ameer Mu´awiya´s (RAA) names as expletives. May Allah guide such people to the right course and protect us from sharing their company or views and give us the wisdom and strength to heed Prophet´s warning:

Beware of expressing opinions about my Companions and, after I am gone, do not use them for your own ends; for whosoever will love them would do so because of their love for me and whosoever would have rancor against them, would do so because of their rancor against me.