Who killed Imam Hussain (as)? (part 12)

Posted by Unknown at 06:17

The Imams criticism of ‘their’ Shi’a

 

Ansar.org stated:

Sixty years later the grandson of Sayyidunâ Husayn, namely Zayd ibn ‘ Alî ibn Husayn, led an uprising against the Umayyad ruler Hishâm ibn ‘Abd al-Malik. He received the oaths of allegiance of over 40 000 men, 15 000 of whom were from the very same Kûfah that deserted his grandfather. Just before the battle could start they decided upon a whim to ask his opinion about Abû Bakr and ‘Umar. Zayd answered: “I have never heard any of my family dissociate himself from them, and I have nothing but good to say about them.” Upset with this answer, they deserted him en masse, deciding that the true imâm could only be his nephew Ja‘far as-Sâdiq. Out of 40 000, Zayd was left with only a few hundred men. On the departure of the defectors he remarked: “I am afraid they have done unto me as they did to Husayn.” Zayd and his little army fought bravely and attained martyrdom. Thus, on Wednesday the 1st of Safar 122 AH another member of the Ahl al-Bayt fell victim to the treachery of the Shî‘ah of Kûfah.6 This time there could be no question as to whether those who deserted him were of the Shî‘ah or not. The fact that the thousands of Shî‘ah who deserted Zayd ibn ‘Alî looked upon Ja‘far as-Sâdiq as their true Imâm shows that by and large they were the same as the Ithnâ ‘Asharî, or alternatively Imâmî or Ja‘farî Shî‘ah of today.

This is a completely incorrect notion. If these individuals deemed Imam al Sadiq (as) to be the Imam of the time why would they have then turned their back on the rightful Imam and turned to Zayd for guidance? In Shi’a fiqh the call for Jihad is a duty of the Imam of the time. Afriki himself admitted that the Shi’a deemed Imam al Sadiq (as) to be the Imam. When the Imam (as) had not given the call for Jihad, why would his followers entered into jihad under the leadership of another Imam? The ithna ashariyya shi’a were those that recognised the Imam al Sadiq (as) from the point of the death of his father Imam Baqir (as). They never wavered away from him (as) nor did they recognise the Imamate of Zayd bin ‘Ali. Those that sided with Zayd may well have had sympathies with Ahl’ul bayt (as) and a hatred of Banu Ummayya but the fact that they had recognised the Imamate of Zayd and entered his fold means that they were NOT those that today would be deemed as Shi’a Ithna Ashariyya.
One should point out that from Abu Zahra’s text we read as follows:

“Just before the battle could start they decided upon a whim to ask his opinion about Abû Bakr and ‘Umar. Zayd answered: “I have never heard any of my family dissociate himself from them, and I have nothing but good to say about them.”

This cannot be the case since it is well established that Hadhrath ‘Ali (as) was critical of the Shaykhayn and this has even been vouched for by Imam Muslim. We read in Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4349 that Umar acknowledged the following to Imam ‘Ali (as):
When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) passed away, Abu Bakr said:” I am the successor of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him).” Both of you came to demand your shares from the property (left behind by the Messenger of Allah). (Referring to Hadrat ‘Abbas), he said: You demanded your share from the property of your nephew, and he (referring to ‘Ali) demanded a share on behalf of his wife from the property of her father. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) had said:” We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity.” So both of you thought him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that he was true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. When Abu Bakr passed away and (I have become) the successor of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him), you thought me to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest.
When Umar is himself testifying that Imam ‘Ali deemed him and his predecessor to be ‘liars, sinful, treacherous and dishonest’ is it not logical that this opinion had filtered down to the Ahl’ul bayt (as) also? Would the Imams speak highly of individuals that their grandfather deemed to be a liars, treacherous, sinful and dishonest?

Ansar.org stated:
Why then, if he had so many devoted followers, did Imâm Ja‘far not rise up in revolt against the Umayyads or the ‘Abbâsids? The answer to this question is provided in a narration documented by Abû Ja‘far al-Kulaynî in his monumental work al-Kâfî, which enjoys unparallelled status amongst the hadîth collections of the Shî‘ah:Sudayr as-Sayrafî says: I entered the presence of Abû ‘Abdillâh ‘alayhis salâm and said to him: “By Allâh, you may not refrain from taking up arms.” He asked: “Why not?” I answered: “Because you have so many partisans, supporters (Shî‘ah) and helpers. By Allâh, if Amîr al-Mu’minîn (Sayyidunâ ‘Alî) had as many Shî‘ah, helpers, and partisans as you have, Taym (the tribe of Abû Bakr) and ‘Adî (the tribe of ‘Umar) would never have had designs upon him.” He asked: “And how many would they be, Sudayr?” I said: “A hundred thousand.” He asked: “A hundred thousand?” I replied: “Yes, and two hundred thousand.” He asked again: “Two hundred thousand?” I replied: “Yes, and half the world.” He remained silent.Then he said: “Would you accompany us to Yanbu‘?” I replied in the affirmative. He ordered a mule and a donkey to be saddled. I quickly mounted the donkey, but he said: “Sudayr, will you rather let me ride the donkey?” I said: “The mule is more decorous and more noble as well.” But he said: “The donkey is more comfortable for me.” I dismounted. He mounted the donkey, I got on the mule, and we started riding. The time of salâh arrived and he said: “Dismount, Sudayr. Let us perform salâh.” Then he remarked: “The ground here is overgrown with moss. It is not permissible to make salâh here.” So we carried on riding until we came to a place where the earth was red. He looked at a young boy herding sheep, and remarked: “Sudayr, by Allâh, if I had as many Shî‘ah as there are sheep here, it would not have been acceptable for me to refrain from taking up arms.” We then dismounted and performed salâh. When we were finished I turned back to count the sheep. There were seventeen of them.7It seems from this narration that the tragedy of Karbalâ taught Imâm Ja‘far as-Sâdiq something about those who claimed to be his followers which the Shî‘ah of today are still refusing to come to terms with: that in the trials and misfortunes of the Family of Rasûlullâh sallallâhu ‘alayhi wa-âlihî wasallam the role of the Shî‘ah was as great, if not greater, than that of their physical enemies.

This tradition shows how stringent the definition of Shi’a is in the eyes of our Imams. The Imam (as) had thousands sitting in his midst, but despite this he (as) felt that only a handful was his true Shi’a in name and deed. The Imam deemed the Shi’a, to be those who followed him in EVERY action and deed, the slightest transgression meant that he (as) did not deem such individuals as true Shi’a. If anything this tradition demonstrates the high standards the Imam expected of his followers. The Imam had thousands of followers who were by definition his Shi’a and yet despite this he (as) only considered 17 of them worthy of attaining martyrdom with him.
If Nasibi are still going to make this an issue stating that it demonstrates the cowardice of the Shi’a, perhaps they could elaborate on how many true Sahaba were willing to lay down their lives for Rasulullah (s). The texts of history testify that in Uhud the vast bulk of the Sahaba fled the battlefield leaving Rasulullah (s) wounded, Umar included who sat dejected declaring that there was no need to fight as Rasulullah (s) was dead (see Siratun Nabi, by Allamah Shibli Numani, English translation by M.Tayyib Bakhsh Budayuni, Volume 2 page 66-67 (Kazi Publications, Lahore – First edition),The History of al Tabari, Volume 6 page 122 – English translation by M.V.MacDonald (State University of New York Press). Similarly ‘Uthman fled so far that Rasulullah (s) mocked him stating the distance you fled was far he returned to Rasul (s) after three days (The History of al Tabari, Volume 6 page 127). If this was the state of the alleged closest Sahaba then what did Rasulullah (s) expect of others?
There was no change in the situation by the time of Hunayn; the same supposed loyal / brave Sahaba yet again deserted Rasulullah’s side when the going got tough. Indeed the Qur’an itself exposes their behaviour:
“Certainly Allah helped you in many places, and on the day of Hunayn, when your great numbers made you vain, but they (i.e. number) availed you nothing and the earth became too small for you not withstanding its spaciousness, then you turned back retreating.”
Qur’an 9:25
The books, of Ahl’ul Sunnah clearly state that in the battle of Hunayn, in which ten thousand companions (including all those who had done bay’ah under the tree) had participated, all of them fled away except four who remained steadfast, three of them were from the Prophet’s clan, Banu Hashim (‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, ‘Abbas ibn ‘Abdul Muttalib and Abu Sufyan ibn al?Harith ibn ‘Abdul Muttalib) and one from another clan (‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud).”
see Tarikh al Khamis, vol 2. p. 113 As Sirah al Halabiyah. vol. 3. p 255
Alhamdoillah Imam Hussain (as) had far more Shi’a ready to sacrifice their lives for him in battle, than Rasulullah (s) had Sahaba. If there were any lessons to learn, it was that the Shi’a of Imam al Sadiq (as) needed to elevate themselves to rank of the Shi’a of Imam Hussain (as) before they entered the battlefield, rather than follow the example of the Sahaba of Rasulullah (s).
If we surmise from this tradition that only a hand full of true Shi’a existed we would like to Ask Afriki, which side were Ahl’ul Sunnah affiliated with at that time? Do they not claim that Imam Sadiq (as) is their Imam? If this is indeed the case why were they not supporting him? Imam Jafer (as) was referring to fighting the Khalifa of the time, so who supported the Khalifa? Were these Salaf the adherents of Ahl’ul Sunnah or Shi’a? The Khalifa was the Imam of the Jamaah the majority (Ahl’ul Sunnah) the people had pledged their allegiance to him. Is it not curious that you deem Imam Jafer Sadiq (as) to be your Imam – whilst your Salaf descendants were supporters of the Khalifa that Imam Sadiq (as) wanted to physically oppose!

Ansar.org stated:
It therefore does not come as a surprise that none of the supposed Imâms after Hussain ever attempted an armed insurrection against the rulers of their times. Karbalâ had taught them the fickleness and treacherousness of those who claimed to be their Shî‘ah. It is about them that Imâm Ja‘far is reported to have said:No one bears us greater hatred than those who claim to love us.

Reply One

The key word here is “those who claim to love us” claiming and actually loving is where one can identify one’s love for a Leader. Shi’aism is more than just a declaration that one is Shi’a. It is based on acceptance of the authority of the Imam by word and deed. The same applies to the way that we define Sahaba. We deem Sahaba as those that love and obeyed Rasulullah (s) in word and deed – actions that contravene this criteria take individuals away from the Shi’a definition of Sahaba. The Imam (as) here is making it clear that those that merely ‘proclaim’ love for them but do not adhere to their teachings are their greatest enemies. The same was the case of the Sahaba, those that claimed they loved Rasulullah (s) but disrespected him, opposed him and deserted him and opposed him were his greatest enemies.

Reply Two – The Ahl’ul Sunnah falsely claimed that they were Shi’as

As evidence we will cite the following esteemed Sunni works:

1. Sawaiqh al Muhriqa page 91 verse 8
2. Nur al Absar page 80
3. Ahsaaf al Rahibeen page 187
4. Taufa Ithna Ashari page 6, Part1

Tohfa:
“The first Sect was the Shi’a, and these were the Salaf of the Ahl’ul Sunnah”
We read in Tohfa page 6:
“The first Shi’a were the Sahaba and Tabi’een”
The Shah claims the Salaf of the Ahl’ul Sunnah were Shi’as, those traditions wherein our Imams condemned the Shi’a actually refer to these individuals who were Sunni’s but falsely proclaimed that they were Shi’a. That is why they had a hidden support for Mu’awiyah happy to be bribed by him, they also had their swords ready to slay Imam Hussain (as) when the time arose.
Initially there was no Sect called Sunni, hence such individuals sat amidst the Shi’a and caused difficulties. The Sahaba and Tabieen were included amongst these difficult elements. These individuals were those that initially supported Hadhrath Muslim when Imam Hussain (as) sent him, then sided with Ibn Ziyad and subsequently also deserted the Imam (as) when he arrived. Imam Jafar (as) condemned these individuals since that was the umbrella name that they were all known as, it was much later that they formally switched to calling themselves Ahl’ul Sunnah wa al Jamaah. It is about these individuals that Imam Jafar (as) was commenting, those posing as Shi’a, that led to him rightly pointing out, ‘No one bears us greater hatred than those who claim to love us’.

Ansar.org stated:
Imâm Ja‘far is also reported as having said:No verse did Allâh reveal in connection with the Munâfiqîn, except that it is to be found in those who profess Shî‘ism.9

There is nothing embarrassing here the Imam (as) is making it clear that munafiqs were present amongst the Shi’a, in the same way that munafiq sat in the midst of Rasulullah (s) and proclaimed to be his Sahaba. They were exposed in numerous verses such as Surah Munafiqun BUT their presence alongside Rasulullah (s) placed them within the ambit of Sahaba. In fact Rasulullah (s) acknowledged that munafiq were in his midst and still defined them as Sahaba:
We read in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 428:
Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:
We were in a Ghazwa (Sufyan once said, in an army) and a man from the emigrants kicked an Ansari man (on the buttocks with his foot). The Ansari man said, “O the Ansar! (Help!)” and the emigrant said. “O the emigrants! (Help!) Allah’s Apostle heard that and said, “What is this call for, which is characteristic of the period of ignorance?” They said, “O Allah’s Apostle! A man from the emigrants kicked one of the Ansar (on the buttocks with his foot).” Allah’s Apostle said, “Leave it (that call) as is a detestable thing.” ‘Abdullah bin Ubai heard that and said, ‘Have the (the emigrants) done so? By Allah, if we return Medina, surely, the more honorable will expel therefrom the meaner.” When this statement reached the Prophet. ‘Umar got up an, said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Let me chop off the head of this hypocrite (‘Abdullah bin Ubai)!” The Prophet said “Leave him, lest the people say that Muhammad kills his companions.” The Ansar were then more in number than the emigrants when the latter came to Medina, but later on the emigrant increased.
One should take note that Rasulullah (s) did not refute Umar’s claim that Ubai was a hypocrite. Despite this Rasulullah (s) included him within the broad definition of companions due to his sitting with this group. If munafiq sitting in the presence of Rasulullah (s) can be defined as Sahaba then why is Afriki trying to score points by highlighting the fact that Imam al Sadiq (as) acknowledged the presence of munafiq amongst his Shi’a?

Ansar.org stated:
Before Sayyidunâ Husayn, his elder brother Sayyidunâ Hasan was the victim of the treacherousness of the Kûfans. In his book al-Ihtijâj the prominent Shî‘î author Abû Mansûr at-Tabarsî has preserved the following remark of Sayyidunâ Hasan:By Allâh, I think Mu‘âwiyah would be better for me than these people who claim that they are my Shî‘ah.10

Again the key word here is “claiming to be Shi’a”. The Imam (as) was clearly demonstrating that proclaiming to be a Shi’a means nothing if by actions your deeds contravene the edicts of the Imam. He was seeking to expose these individuals as hypocrites / Nasibi hiding within his ranks who were seeking to harm him. We will inshallah seek to explain this, by making use of an example:
I am the Chairman of a successful football club ‘The Malangs’, that has won nUmarous lucrative titles and contracts both in my own country and in Europe. The club commands a huge fan base through the country. Unfortunately the success and popularity of the club, whilst increasing the clubs financial value has also attracted an unsavoury element, racist hooligans. Unfortunately historically there has been a correlation between racism and football. A small but vocal fringe of teams ‘supporters’ are members of a right wing Nazi group, whose sole objective is to create a white society. They have two methodologies for carrying this through:

1. Recruiting racists
   
2. Seeking notoriety via random acts of violence and criminal damage

Their loyalty is not towards the club they are not supporters in the real sense, rather they have infiltrated the fan base and are using are using the club to further their own ambitions by turning it into a recruiting ground for white youth. The club is travelling to an away match in Europe. Fans travel out including this small racist element. Whilst there, they take the opportunity to partake in anarchy after the match, they set fire to cars, smash shop frontages, shout racist slogans and daub racist slurs on the walls. Untold damage is caused to residents, businesses and personal livelihoods. My response as Club Chairman will be to call a Press Conference where I will express regret at what happened and condemn the activities of ‘Our fans’. The reality is that these ‘fans’ are not true ‘fans’, but are merely opportunists who have used the teams popularity as a springboard to conduct illegal acts. The fact that these racist individuals have travelled with my team, and have attended with the official Fan Club, wearing the teams clothing etc – has led to them being associated with that team. The fact that I have condemned our fans for the unfortunate events does NOT mean that I am attacking all of the team’s supporters. I am directing my criticism at those unruly element that have no loyalty towards the club, rather whilst posing as fans they have caused trouble for the local community that has in turn damaged the reputation of the Club.
The same principle applies with the source that this Nasabi has cited. When Imam Hasan (as) criticises those professing to be his Shi’a, he is referring to individuals who whilst professing their support for the Imam (as) by posing as his Shi’a were actually seeking to destroy his support base from within. They were not Shi’a in the real sense rather they were opportunist trouble makers, as were the racist fans in the above example.
If we are going to pinpoint this group of fraudulent Shi’a, then then we need to look no further than cite the comments of Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Delhavi in Taufa Ithna Ashari page 11:
“The Sunni Sect were initially known by the title Shi’a”
The Shah admits that there was initially no name of the Ahl’ul Sunnah, and through trickery and deception these individuals made their way into the ranks of the Shi’a. By sitting with the true Shi’a they began to scheme towards killing our Imams (as). When Imam Hasan (as) laid out initial plans to fight Mu’awiya bin Hind they created a plot to have the Imam (as) killed. It was this group of Shi’a that the Imam (as) was condemning, the group that at a later time formulated into the new distinct title of Ahl’ul Sunnah was al Jamaah.
By stating “I think Mu‘âwiyah would be better for me” Imam Hussain (as) was pointing out that hypocrites are worse than one’s enemies are. Whilst Mu’awiya was Imam Hasan (as)’s open enemy, and tactics for dealing with the enemy are clearly drawn, the same cannot be said of hypocrites, those who our Imam (as) defined as “claim that they are my Shî‘ah”. Hypocrites were conducting their nefarious activities whilst sitting amongst the Shi’a, their undercover enmity to Imam Hasan (as) was much more damaging to the visible open enmity of Mu’awiya.

Ansar.org stated:
When Sayyidunâ Hasan eventually became exasperated at the fickleness of his so-called Shî‘ah, he decided to make peace with Mu‘âwiyah. When someone protested to him that he was bringing humiliation upon the Shî‘ah by concluding peace with Mu‘âwiyah, he responded by saying:By Allâh, I handed over power to him for no reason other than the fact that I could not find any supporters. Had I found supporters I would have fought him day and night until Allâh decides between us. But I know the people of Kûfah. I have experience of them. The bad ones of them are no good to me. They have no loyalty, nor any integrity in word or deed. They are in disagreement. They claim that their hearts are with us, but their swords are drawn against us.10

The key to this narration is what appears at the end. The Imam (as) is stating that his ‘supporters’ had deserted him stating “They claim that their hearts are with us, but their swords are drawn against us”. Can those whose swords are drawn against the Imam be deemed as his Shi’a? If for example you have a friend who you trust, behind your back he is plotting to have you killed – can that individual be deemed to be your loyal friend (even though up until yesterday you sat at the same table with him?) We ask this Nasibi this question had Rasulullah (s) stated that amongst his Sahaba existed some whose “hearts are with us, but their swords are drawn against us” – could such individuals be defined as his Sahaba? Clearly not Imam Hasan (as) was identifying the presence of Nasibi munafiqs in his camp, they claimed to be his followers but their real intention was to have him killed.

Ansar.org stated:
Imâm Mûsâ al-Kâzim, the son of Imâm Ja‘far, and the seventh of the supposed Imâms of the Shî‘ah, describes them in the following words:
If I had to truly distinguish my Shî‘ah I would find them nothing other than pretenders. If I had to put them to the test I would only find them to be apostates. If I were to scrutinise them I would be left with only one in a thousand. Were I to sift them thoroughly I would be left with only the handful that is truly mine. They have been sitting on cushions all along, saying: ” We are the Shî‘ah of ‘Alî.” 11

Again the Imam (as) is stating that a true Shi’a is one who has a 100% conviction in the Imam and follows him in word and deed. A proclamation means nothing practical application is what counts which is what is proven in this hadith. The same is the case with the Sahaba, they might have vouched for the fact they were companions but their actions after Rasulullah (s) proves that only a handful remained as true Sahaba. As proof one need go no further than traditions in Sahih al Bukhari:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, “While I was sleeping, a group (of my followers were brought close to me), and when I recognised them, a man (an angel) came out from amongst (us) me and them, he said (to them), ‘Come along.’ I asked, ‘Where?’ He said, ‘To the (Hell) Fire, by Allah’ I asked, ‘what is wrong with them?’ He said, ‘They turned APOSTATE as renegades after you left.’ Then behold! (Another) group (of my followers) were brought close to me, and when I recognised them, a man (an angel) came out from (me and them) he said (to them); Come along.’ I asked, “Where?’ He said, ‘To the (Hell) Fire, by Allah.’ I asked, ’What is wrong with them?’ He said, ‘They turned APOSTATE as renegades after you left. So I did not see anyone of them escaping except a few who were like camels without a shepherd.”
Sahih Bukhari Hadith: 8.587
If only a handful of Sahaba remained on the straight path (and were hence were true Sahaba by word and deed), then why is this Nasibi criticising the fact that Imam Kazim (as) stated that only a handful of true ‘Shi’a existed’ amongst those that sat in his midst?
The ‘true’ Shia are those that follow the Imams in all aspects of their lives. Imam Kazim (as) defined the ‘true Shi’a as follows:
“These people claim that we are the Shi’a of ‘Ali, the true Shi’a are those whose actions are in accordance with his words”.
Rowza Kulayni page 107; Ahsaan al Fatawi Volume 1 page 84
Afriki had quoted the Imam (as) stating “Were I to sift them thoroughly I would be left with only the handful that is truly mine” – it is these individuals that are true Shi’a loyal followers of the Imams who adhered to them in all aspects of their lives following them in word and deed. These are those individuals that Imams deem to be ‘their’ Shi’a. If all the Shi’a are treacherous to the Imams could this Nasibi kindly explain why Rasulullah (as) had praised the Imams and their Shi’a?

The Shi’a will enter Heaven with the Prophet (s), Imams Ali (as) Hasan (as) and Husyan (as)

Ibn Hajr records this tradition from Imam Tabarani in Sawaiqh al Muhriqa page 159 (published in Cairo, Egypt):
“O Ali four people will enter heaven first of all. You Hasan Hussain your descendents and me will follow us and our wives will follow our descendents and our Shi’a will be to the left and right of us”.
If the Shi’a are a treacherous people why was Rasulullah (s) guaranteeing salvation for his Shi’a as well as the Shi’a of Imams Ali (as), Imam Hasan (as) and Imam Hussain (as)?