The Ahulbayt in Quran [Electronic resources] نسخه متنی

Reasons Behind the Commemoration of Imam al-Husain (AS)

Rached Zantout> From: rached@ee.

eng.

ohio-state.

edu
(Rached Zantout)

Rached Zantout> Subject: Martyrdom of Hussein Bin Ali (The
Master of the

Rached Zantout>
Youth in Jannah)

Rached Zantout>

Rached Zantout> Allow me to shift the emphasis of the
discussion a little

Rached Zantout> bit to a misunderstanding I might have.

This

Rached Zantout> misunderstanding might be due to the
environment in which I

Rached Zantout> was brought up.

Assalamu Alaykum,

After reading your article, I realized that the
misunderstanding here is

due to accepting what you have heard by some of your Wahhabi
friends

without giving it a second thought.

What they have
provided you as an

argument against the Shi'ites is fully rejected by logic, let
alone the

History and Hadith.

Had you have think about their
argument, you would

never have bought it nor would you have posted it, my friend.

However,
I

presume that you are searching for the truth, and I will be
glad to share

my understanding of the subject with you.

Rached Zantout> The Shia netters refer to Karbala and what
they do at that

Rached Zantout> time as a celebration of the Martyrdom of
Imam Hussein.

Any

Rached Zantout> Muslim must mourn the killing of one of
the most beloved

Rached Zantout> youth to the Prophet (PBUH) as well as one
of the most

Rached Zantout> important Sahabi's, the son of two of the
most important

Rached Zantout> and loved people among the Sahabah (Ali
and Fatimah RAA

Rached Zantout> both).

Still, I do not
understand why people celebrate the

Rached Zantout> Martyrdom, I mean I mourne it and I am sad
at what

Rached Zantout> happened, but celebrate is the wrong word.

Brother, if you have tuned to SRI, you would have seen many
reasons behind

commemoration of the martyrdom of Imam Husain (AS).

Since
you mentioned

that this subject has been discussed in SRI and MSA, then you
should have

had some idea about these arguments.

Do you have
any comments on those

arguments?

Let me put it in simple words.

If your father (may
Allah grant him long

life if he is still alive) dies, what will be your reaction
to his death?

If you loved him a lot, you or other members of your family
will cry for

him.

crying is a sign of missing a highly dear one
for a person who has

human heart.

Now, suppose he has been killed on the path of Allah with
some noble ideas

to implement.

What will be your reaction to his
martyrdom? Do you pass from

it as in the case of a simple death? Or you raise your voice
and try to

keep his noble ideas alive by REMINDING people of his actions
and thoughts

and give them a LESSON on his bravery and sacrifices, and
asking people to

join his path and to KEEP ALIVE his noble thoughts?

[ One side remark here is that, just imagine that you and
your brothers and

sisters mourn for your father who has been martyred, and
meanwhile some

body jumps and accuses you of killing your father because you
are mourning

for him and based on his logic mourning is a sign of feeling
guilty of

murdering.

What will be your reaction to such
corrupted logic? I am really

interested to hear from you.

]

Now, let us go further and consider a religious leader who
has spent his

lifetime in learning the religion and teaching others the way
one should

live and explaining the Islamic duties and thoughts.

If
such person is

martyred by the tyrannical rulers, then our commemoration
will include a

much wider aspect, since this man is no longer a father of an
individual,

but rather a father for all those who were benefiting from
his knowledge

and guidance.

Finally, if we consider the supreme level of the Prophet
Muhammad and his

Ahlul-Bayt who were the best of mankind, the most
knowledgeable, the most

illustrious, the most god-fearing, the most pious, the best
in personal

virtues, and the most honored before Allah and the leaders
for all the

generations till the day of judgment, then one can comprehend
that keeping

their path alive is a DUTY upon us as their followers.

By commemorating the martyrdom of Imam Husain (AS), we learn
lessons from

his noble thoughts and convictions.

Learning about
what happened to him and

his companions in the history will provide us a light for the
future.

Learning about his actions has inspiring effects on our
actions as well.

Rached Zantout> The other more puzzling thing is what
happens during the

Rached Zantout> celebration.

Again I might be
wrong and please correct me

Rached Zantout> in a gentle way if I am.

Usually
during this celebration,

Rached Zantout> my Shia brothers start hitting themselves
on the head (Is

Rached Zantout> it at that time or am I wrong ?) until in
some cases they

Rached Zantout> faint or blood starts getting out of their
heads.

I have

Rached Zantout> even seen (on TV) pictures of small
children being hit or

Rached Zantout> being made to hit themselves (I admit that
those could be

Rached Zantout> fabrications and out of context pictures
but that's what

Rached Zantout> I've seen and I am ready to be corrected).

I
ask my Shia

Rached Zantout> brothers and sisters, is this the way to
celebrate ? Why do

Rached Zantout> you hit yourselves ?

I have never heard of small children being hit, nor have ever
seen adults

are being hit.

What you pictured should be really
an amazing ceremony.

No

my dear friend, there is no such silly actions.

These
are propagated by

those who hate to see the remembrance of Ahlul-Bayt, and they
resort to all

possible means to mock to Followers of the Members of the
House of the

Prophet (PBUH&HF).

And you has become their
voice unwittingly, I presume.

Usually the ceremony includes speech by a learned man with
regard to the

movement of Imam Husain and his aims and his message.

Then
the speech

continues to reminding the heart-breaking events of the
catastrophe of

Ashura and those who have human heart will cry, and mourn.

Of
course, there

are traditions transmitted by Ahlul-Bayt which state, crying
for Imam

Husain, or making others to cry for him (through speech and
reminding the

events) has a lot of rewards.

In fact, all the
prophets of God without any

exception cried for Imam Husain and commemorated Ashura,
including Prophet

Muhammad (PBUH&HF).

Not only that, but also the
Jinns (unseen creatures)

mourn for Imam Husain.

I have mentioned some of
traditions affirming this

fact in my previous posts quoting from Sunni collections.

Nonetheless, we affirm that hurting own body is forbidden.

Some
people may

get very emotional and do that, yet the rest are not to be
blamed.

An

analogy is the case when a person loses a dear one, where
s/he will cry for

him.

Due to the height of emotion one (specially
women) may start beating

herself to the extent that it causes harm for her body.

This
is what is

forbidden, while what has no harm to body (including beating
chest) is

allowed.

Thus the commemoration can not be
questioned by the innocent

overreaction of certain individual(s).

Rached Zantout> The explanation that I was given (by Non-Shia's
mind you),

Rached Zantout> that Shia hit themselves as a punishemnt
that they left

Rached Zantout> Imam Hussein go from Koufah (?) alone with
a few men and

Rached Zantout> did not help him.

At the same
time it was them who sent for

Rached Zantout> him to come and lead them to fight for his
right to be the

Rached Zantout> Khalifah.

It is really amazing that you readily accept such rumor
without even giving

it a second thought.

Even I suppose the Shia killed
Imam Husain in year 61

AH, why should I feel guilty about what some people did in
the history?

Even suppose my father killed Imam Husain, then why should I
feel guilty of

what my father did? The sin of a sinner will never be
inherited to his

offspring.

(The ancestors may have a share of such
sin if they mislead

their offspring, but the reverse is never true).

Thus
such argument that we

cry for Imam Husain since our fathers allegedly killed him
would be the

most stupid interpretation on the reason behind commemoration
of Imam

Husain (AS).

I shouldn't expect any more
intelligence from the enemies of

Ahlul-Bayt.

My dear brother, we cry in the memory of Imam Husain, for:

1- all the messengers of God cried for him;

2- all the Imams of Ahlul-Bayt cried for him;

3- we love him more than we love our fathers and our dear
ones;

4- he is a Symbol of resistance against tyranny and the
leader of the

Martyrs for us;

5- we want to swear allegiance to him and his path and keep
aloof from

their enemies;

6- his aims have not been fully achieved and his blood has
not been

revenged yet.

As such, we keep this
event with all its emotion alive

until such time that Imam Mahdi (AS) appears who
will cleanse the

surface of the Earth form all such tyrants;

7- condolence to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH&HF) and the
members of Ahlul-

Bayt;

8- abiding the instruction of Ahlul-Bayt in remembering this
event and

seeking the reward associated with it.

And there are much more reasons that you will find if you
switch the books

at your disposal and study some Shiite literature regarding
to Imam Husain

(AS).

As for the stupid claim that the Shia killed Imam Husain
(AS), I would like

to first ask you what is the definition of Shia.

If
Shia means all those

who claim to love Ahlul-Bayt, then I can tell you that ALL
Muslims, with no

exception from the time of the Prophet till today are Shia!
Even the

Wahhabis are Shia by your definition.

Shia means
"followers", and as such

those who forsake their leader can not be considered his
followers by any

stretch of imagination.

The true followers (Shia) of Ahlul-Bayt have always been in
minority.

The

Shia of Imam Husain were those who stayed with him in Karbala
(beside those

who did not have ability to join him due to justifiable
reasons.

Examples

include, but are not limited to: Ibn Abbas and Jabir Ibn
Abdullah al-Ansari

who were both blind at that time.

)

Those who fought Imam Husain comprise those you claim to be
Tabi'een

(disciples of companions) whom you believe you should follow!
Those who

fought Imam Husain were NEVER the followers of Ahlul-Bayt
unless you

believe in contradiction.

Those who joined the army
of Yazid were rather

the followers of Satan.

Yes, some of those who
wrote to Imam Husain to come

over Iraq, did not support him later, for the simple reason
that they were

not his followers but rather the followers of their own
whims.

They were

people who were tired of the oppression of the Umayad, and
they were

looking for a an easy relief.

Some of them thought
if Imam Husain takes

over the power and they will be able to get rid of oppression
and more

importantly they were thinking of reaching to money, position
in his

government.

But after the pressure of the agent of
Yazid in Kufah and the

enforcement of marshal law, and when they saw that their
lives are in

jeopardy and their dreams are unlikely to take place, they
forsook Imam

Husain's deputy.

They were no better than Talha and Zubair who supported Imam
Ali at the

beginning for their own worldly interests, but when they
found that the

Imam will not fulfill such interests for them they went
against him and

fought him.

Do you ever claim that Talha and Zubair
were the Shia of Ali?

Certainly not.

Shia means "followers",
and those who forsake their leader

can not be considered his followers by any stretch of
imagination.

BTW, you, as a Sunni, acknowledge Imam Ali to be a righteous
Caliph.

Does

that make you Shia? Certainly not.

Similarly, most
of those who were living

under the government of Imam Ali were not his followers, and
that was why

they rebelled against him for their own worldly interest, the
list include:

Aisha/Talha/Zubair and their supporters, as well as those
whom Imam Ali

named them al-Khawarij (kharijites) who disobeyed Imam Ali in
the battle of

Siffin and announced that Ali is a polytheist (Mushrik).

No
doubt that Imam

Ali gave an oath that he will fight and kill all of them
except nine

individuals who will be able to escape (one of which later
murdered Imam

Ali (AS)), and this exactly happened in the battle of
Nahrawan.

Imam Ali

never called them Shia, nor the historians claimed them as
such, but you

do! The Shia of Imam Ali are those for whom the Messenger of
Allah as

follows:

The Messenger of Allah said to Ali:
"Glad tiding O Ali! Verily you and

your companions and your Shia
(followers) will be in Paradise.

Sunni references:

(1) Fadha'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p655

(2) Hilyatul Awliyaa, by Abu Nu'aym, v4, p329

(3) Tarikh, by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, v12, p289

(4) al-Awsat, by al-Tabarani

(5) Majma' al-Zawa'id, by al-Haythami, v10, pp 21-22

(6) al-Darqunti, who said this tradition has been transmitted
via numerous

authorities.

(7) al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami , Ch.

11,
section 1, p247

Thus the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) used to say the
phrase of "Shia of

Ali".

This phrase is not something invented
later! Prophet Muhammad

(PBUH&HF) said that the true followers of imam Ali will
go to Paradise, and

this is a great felicity.

Also Jabir Ibn Abdillah
al-Ansari narrated that:

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF)
said: "The Shia of Ali are

the real victorious in the day of
resurrection/rising"

Sunni references:

- al-Manaqib Ahmad, as mentioned in:

- Yanabi al-Mawaddah, by al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, p62

- Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthoor, by al-Hafidh Jalaluddin al-Suyuti,
who quotes

the tradition as follows: "We were with the Holy
Prophet when Ali came

towards us.

The Holy Prophet said: He and
his Shia will aquire salvation

on the day of judgment.

"

The "day of rising" could also refer to the day of
rising of al-Mahdi (AS).

But in more general term, it means the day of judgment.

The stupid claim that Shia killed Imam Husain follows that
the Prophet

states those who will kill Imam Husain will go to Paradise!
Perhaps, you

believe that's why Yazid did so.

Such claim by Wahhabis has been made solely to cover the
nasty face of the

tyrannical leaders of that time and to drift the attention
from their

horrible crime, and to justify their rule.

It will
not be surprising that

they have gone as far as saying it was the legitimate right
of Yazid to

take all possible action to preserve his dynasty.

In
contrast with the

claim of these individuals, the Sunni history confirms that
Imam Husain was

killed by the direct order of Yazid (LA):

Ubaydullah Ibn Ziyad (the governor
of Yazid in Kufah) was leaving Iraq

to Syria after killing the battle of
Karbala, with a guard of his

followers.

Shuraih (the
payroll Judge who gave verdict that the blood

of Imam Husain is Halaal) noticed
that he was silent for a long time,

he approached him and said: "O
Ubaydullah, I think it bothered you

that you killed Husain?! Ubaydullah
said: No! Indeed Yazid had

ordered me to either kill Husain or
he (Yazid) will kill me.

Sunni reference: History of Ibn Athir, v4, p140

The above gives evidence to the fact that he was Yazid who
gave the direct

order to kill Imam Husain (AS).

Later, when the
scandal of his horrible

crime and the abuse of the household of the Prophet started
shaking his

regime, he condemned the act of Ibn Ziyad in public and
disassociated

himself.

It has also been reported that:

Yazid ordered the head of Husain
brought to Syria, when it was put to

him he started abusing it and
beating it with his stick and said the

following
Poetry:

I wish that my elders in Badr
witness the fear of Khazraj from the

falling of the swords.

Then
they would have cherished and savored (my

act) and by saying O Yazid may your
arm be powerful (for getting

revenge by killing Husain).

Sunni refernces:

- Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, end of ch.

11,
pp 331-332

- al-Radd Ala al-Muta'assib al-Aneed, by Ibn al-Jawzi, p47-48

- Tarikh Alisalm v5, p18-19

Ibn al-Jawzi comments:

It is not difficult to understand
why Ibn Ziyad (the governor of Yazid

in Kufah) fought Husain, but the
more surprising was the brutality of

Yazid in abusing the head of Husain
and whipping Husain's mouth with

his stick, and ordering to carry the
household of the Prophet on

camels without saddle, and many
other shameful acts such as displaying

his head in the city.

It
is certain that he (Yazid) did not have any

intention but to humiliate (the
household of the Prophet) by

displaying the head.

Such
action is permissible only for al-Khawarij

and transgressors.

Had not
Yazid have the rancor of the al-Jahiliyyah

(the era before Islam) and the
malice of (the defeat of his clan in)

the battle of Badr, he would have
respected the head (of Imam Husain)

when he had received it and he would
have buried it with shroud.

Sunni references:

- Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, end of ch
11, pp 331,

quoted from Ibn al-Jawzi.

- al-Radd Ala al-Muta'assib al-Aneed, by Ibn al-Jawzi, p48

Also Ibn Jawzi in his commentary about Ibn Hanbal's damning
of Yazid said:

"would there be a greater crime
than killing Husain?!"

It should be noted that many Sunni scholars allow explicit
curse of Yazid,

among them are Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and Ibn al-Jawzi.

Ahmad
proves his opinion

by Quran.

(See al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, by Ibn
Kathir, v8, p223; also

Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, end of Ch.

11,
pp 331-332;

also al-Radd Ala al-Muta'assib al-Aneed, by Ibn al-Jawzi,
p47-48).

However,

as Ibn Hajar wrote, the least thing that is agreed upon by
ALL the Sunni

scholars (including the pseudo ones) is as follows:

It is unanimously agreed that it is
permissible to curse those who

killed Husain (may Allah be pleased
with him) and those who ordered

his killing and those who allowed it
and those who were pleased with

that action, without explicitly
mentioning the name of Yazid.

Sunni reference: Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami,
end of

ch 11, p334

Let us now see the opinion of the son of Yazid about his
father and

grandfather, who was the witness from within the royal
family!

.

.

.

When (Yazid) offered
the kingdom (throne) to his son, Muawiyah the

second, in order that the flag of
caliphate continues to wave in the

house of Abi Sufyan!!

After his death, Muawiyah the
second, gathered the people on a well

known day, he stood in them
preaching, he said:

"My grandfather Muawiyah
stripped the command from those who deserved

it, and from one who is more
justified of it, for his relation to the

Messenger of Allah and his being
first in Islam, and that is Ali Ibn

Abi Talib, he (Muawiyah) took over
it by your help as you are fully

aware.

"

"Then following it my father
Yazid wore the command after him, and he

did not deserve it.

He
quarreled with the son of the daughter of the

Messenger of Allah, and by that he
shortened his own life.

.

.

He rode

his whim and hope left him behind.

"
Then he cried and continued:

"Surely, the greatest problems
of us is our knowledge of his bad

behavior and his awful ending, and
that he killed the progeny (Itrah)

of the Messenger of Allah, and he
permitted drinking alcohol, and he

fought in the sanctuary of Mecca,
and destroyed the Ka'ba.

"

"And I am not the one who is
dressing up for your command, nor the one

to be responsible for your
followers.

.

.

You choose for yourselves.

.

!!"

Sunni References:

- Khulafaa al-Rasool, by Khalid Mohammed Khalid, p531 (The
above Quote

included author's punctuation.

)

- Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, end of ch
11, pp 336

Now, please offer these reports to your Wahhabi friend and
see if they to

know better than the son of Yazid as to who killed Imam
Husain.

Also Shabrawi wrote in his book that:

"Would any man of reason doubts
that Yazid killed Husain?"

Sunni reference: Alethaf, by Shabrawi, pp 62,66

Moreover, In Ibn Abbas's reply to a letter by Yazid, he said:

Do not think that I will forget your
crime of killing Imam Husain (AS)

Sunni reference: Tarikh Ya'qubi, v2, p249

Then can any man of reason think that Yazid did not order
killing Imam

Husain?!!! The above was just few Sunni documents out of
many, to prove

this fact.

Please refer to the articles of Br.

Abbas
which were posted in

SRI for more.

Rached Zantout> Throughout Islamic history many mass
conversions between

Rached Zantout> Sunni and Shia occured.

Two big
examples are Egypt (Shia

Rached Zantout> mostly and then mass conversion to Sunni)
and Iran (Sunni

Rached Zantout> mostly at one time and then mass
conversion to Shia).

Dear brother, you have very distorted information for which
you have no

evidence.

I am afraid, you are confusing between
the government and people.

Most people of Persia were the followers of Ahlul-Bayt from
the beginning

of their conversion to Islam.

One reason for their
tendency to Shia was the

discrimination that Umar enforced between the rights of Arabs
and non-

Arabs.

Another reason was the injustice of some
governors and their

misconduct that was being carried on in the name of Islam,
and so on.

This

gave reason to people for searching the truth and they found
the shining

light of Ahlul-Bayt and their followers such as Salman al-Farsi
who was

also an important factor.

However, later, Umayad
and Abbasid oppressive

governments continued their injustice to Arabs and non-Arabs
alike! They

prosecuted the followers of Ahlul-Bayt in Persia, Iraq, Hijaz,
and other

places.

The early Sunni government in Iran did not
represent the belief of

people as much as the today's governments in Iraq, Lebanon,
Kuwait, United

Arab Emirate, Amman, and Bahrain (which are all Shia
dominated) do not

represent the belief of their people.

As for the Fatimid rule in Egypt, you should better know that
they were the

offshoot of Ismailis.

We do not consider Fatimid to
be Shia of Imam Ali at

all.

They were among the political movements
appeared centuries later.

Again the difference between the belief of people and the
government should

be noticed.

Your claim concerning the conversion in
Egypt is false.

Based

on "The Encyclopedia of Islam," the majority of
people in Egypt were Sunnis

during the entire reign of Fatimid, and as such, no
conversion occurred

when the Fatimid government collapsed.

It was
politically started and

politically ended.

Thus neither in Iran nor in Egypt mass conversion from Sunni
to Shia or

vice versa occurred.

No body can force a person to
convert into another

religion or school of thought, since belief is in the heart
of People and

not in ID.

Those who convert their religion in
their heart due to the

pressure of government, did not have religion at all!
Recall the existence

of many Arabs inside Hijaz in the Arabian Peninsula (what is
now known as

the kingdom of Saudi Arabia) who have been Shia of Imam Ali
(AS) from the

time of Imam Ali till now despite the fact that Hijaz has had
the most

oppressive regimes since the early history of Islam.