Who killed Imam Hussain (as)? (part 5)

Posted by Unknown at 04:53

The Nasibi objections towards the Sahabi Suleman bin Sard (ra) and the Tawabun

 

The main objection that the hypocritical Nasibis have against the Sahabi Suleman bin Sard (ra) and those who repented along with him is that their repentance evidences their involvement in the murder of Imam Hussain (as) and the real murderers like Ibn Ziyad and Umar ibn Saad are innocent of this crime. These Nawasib quote Qazi Noorullah Shostari from his book ‘Majalis Momineen’:

Nawasib quote:
“(The Tawabun gathered and said) We are sorry for what we did and we want to repent, may Allah have mercy on us and forgive us, and those amongst this group that had gone to Karbala began to repent, Suleman bin Surd said that there is no other way for us but to raise swords in the same way that the Bani Israel killed each other. Like it is mentioned in Quran: ‘We did injustice on ourselves….’. After saying this, all the Shia came down on their knees in order to seek repentance.

There is no doubt that the Sahabi Suleiman ibn Surd was not involved in the murder of Imam Hussain (as) in any way, shape or form. These hypocritical Nawasib are using the above reference out of context so that it suits their own agenda of false propaganda. The above passage is about those political Shias and adherents to the Caliphate of the Sheikhayn who went to Karbala when they were forced to do so by Ibn Ziyad. Now let us delve into this Nasibi propaganda.

Reply one – Suleman bin Surd is one of the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad (s)

We will debunk the fabricated claim of Suleman bin Surd being involved in the murder of Imam Hussein (as) later in the article but let us first establish that he was a noble Sahabi and not only that but Hadith narrated from him can be found the Six Ahle Sunnah Canonical Hadith works [see Al-Jame Al-Bayan Al-Rijaal Sihah Sitta, Volume 1 page 172, Haiderabad Deccan].
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 (s)”.
Imam Abu Muhammad Abdullah bin Asad al-Yameni popularly known as Al-Yafee states in Miraat al Janaan Volume 1 page 141 – Hyderabad edition:
“Sulayman (ra) was a Sahabi of the Prophet (s), hadith have been narrated on his authority”.
The famous Sunni scholar Ibh Katheer mentions in his book Al-Bidayah wal Nihayah, Volume 8 page 271:

فاجتمعوا في دار سليمان بن صرد وهو صحابي جليل

“They (the Tawabun) gathered at the house of a noble Sahabi Suleman bin Surd”.
The two very famous Sunni scholars Imam Dhahabi and Imam Ibn Hajr Asqalani likewise counted Suleman bin Surd as one of the noble Sahaba.
1. Al-Kashif by Imam Dhahabi, volume 1 page 461 Biography 2101.
2) Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb by Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani, volume 1 page 378 Biography 2582.
Now let us remind Ahle Sunnah and more importantly the Wahabis/Salafis of their basic belief which has been penned down by famous Sunni scholar Muhammad Al-Khamees in his book Etiqad Ahl al-Sunnah, page 135:

وجوب اتباع الصحابة والتابعين في جميع مسائل الدين

“Following the Sahaba and Tabayeen is obligatory on all religious issues”
We read a similar thing in Ejmal al-Isaba by Khalil al-Alaaei (d. 761 H), page 66:

أن التابعين أجمعوا على اتباع الصحابة فيما ورد عنهم والأخذ بقولهم والفتيا به من غير نكير من أحد

“There is an Ijma amongst the Tabayeen to follow the Sahaba, adopt their opinions and give fatwas according to their statements without any condemnation”
Imam of the Salafis Ibn Qayim in his book Elam al-Muwaqeen, Volume 4 page 123 wrote a separate chapter about proving the obligation of adhering to the Sahaba and he gave the following title to the chapter:

الادلة على ان اتباع الصحابة واجب

“The proofs that following the Sahaba is obligatory”
Now we would like to ask these Nawasib how can they call a noble Sahabi like Suleman bin Surd a murderer and that too of the grandson of the Holy Prophet (s) Imam Hussein (as)? The very fact that Nawasib consider Shias to be Kafir is that they claim we are selective in our obedience and respect of the Sahaba whereas according to them each and every Sahabi is to be respected and those who don’t do so are Kaffirs. If the Nawasib themselves are disrespecting the famed Sahabi Suleman bin Sard then they are either Kaffir according to their own preaching and / or they are hypocrites because as soon as the matter of Ahlulbait is spoken they modify their own rulings.

Reply Two – Qazi NoorUllah Shostari’s reference is not a piece of historical evidence

The second part of our argument is that we want the Nawasib to prove that the above used passage is not Qazi’s personal view but a historical fact, but they will never be able to prove the same since there is not a single evidence in the history of Islam that shows Suleman bin Sard himself was involved in the murder of Imam Hussain (as). On the contrary, there are numerous historical evidences that he was not even present in Karbalah. The only ‘sin’ that this noble Sahabi committed was that he was not able to come to help Imam Hussain (as) in Karbalah. Imam Dhahabi writers:
“Sulayman bin Surad, the Leader of the al Khuza’i in Kufa, the Sahabi,
he has a few narrations from Ubay and Jubayr bin Mut’im from Yahya bin Ya’mar and Uday bin Thabit 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)
Dhahabi further writes about Suleiman bin Surd and Mussayab bin Najaba:
“Gave an order to commence Jihad against Ibn Ziyad. Backed by a strong army of thousands, Sulayman stated ‘If I am killed your leader is Mussayab”.
Siyar al-Aalam al-Nubla Volume 3 page 395
We should point out that Musayyab bin Najaba is one of the Tabayeen and Hadith narrated from him can be read in Tirmidhi. Imam Ibn Abdul Barr writes about Sulayman bin Surad:
“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 abandoned him and then he (Hussain) was killed, Sulayman bin Surad, Mussayib bin Najbah al-Fazari and others expressed regret for having failed to aid Hussain [r] and die with him”.
al Istiab Volume 2 pages 43-44
The above evidence clearly shows that the Tawabun did not participate in the battle of Karbala but the above mentioned Qazi Noorullah Shostri’s reference only shows that all of them were repenting for not being able to go and help Imam Hussain (as) at his time of need. Ibn Katheer has also recorded the letter of Musayyab Ibn Najaba which evidences that he was unable to aid the Imam due to the curfew-like conditions imposed by the by government and not only that he staunchly hated Yazid and his army who perpetrated the massacre in Karbalah.
“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
The above passage points out two groups of people:

• The First group that was not able to reach and help Imam Hussain (as).
• This first group wanted to avenge the murder of Imam Hussain (as) from a second group that murdered him (as).

Thus, when we analyze the sole comments of Qazi Noorullah Shostri in light of the annals of history, the former is then left with no value. It is obvious from the above discussion that this passage was Qazi Noorullah’s personal view and not historical evidence. For Nawasib to cling to this passage and try to distort the history of Islam is shameful. It is also obvious if looked at through the prism of history that the statement of Suleman bin Surad in the above cited Qazi’s passage is not talking about his being involved in the murder of Imam Hussain but he was merely referring to those ‘Aama’ who actually participated in the massacre of Karbalah under the flag of Ibn Ziyad whether under duress or not.
So where do the Nawasib hide now? Why don’t they come out and declare a noble Sahabi as a murderer of Imam Hussain? We are sure that no Nasibi is going to come out and do the same, all they will do is keep playing with the comments of Shia scholars in order as propaganda fodder to ‘prove’ that the Kufan majority were Shias in a religious sense, so as to hide the reality, namely that the Tawabun comprised of the noble Sahaba such as Suleman bin Surd.