[By Maulana Abu Muhammad ibn Dawood]
Introduction to the Topic
The death of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), which is commonly known as ‘Karbala’, was indeed one of the most tragic events in the history of Islam, but not for the reasons which have generally been understood. If the grief over Hadhrat Hussain’s (radhiyallahu anhu) martyrdom was merely on account of his (radhiyallahu anhu) being martyred, then a question should surely arise as to why has this grief only been displayed over his (radhiyallahu anhu) death? Was the death of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) not a more tragic event? And if it is said that the extra grief is due to the cruel manner in which Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) was killed, then one could surely ask as to why such grief is then not displayed over the death od Hadhrat Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu).
In the following lines, an attempt has been made to delve deep into the episode of ‘Karbala’, in search of the many unanswered questions that revolve around this issue, and in the search of the true villains responsible not just foe the death of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), but for the widespread chaos, bloodshed and anarchy the resulted therefrom.
By merely glancing at the battle itself and perhaps the few days before prior to the battle, one gets exposed to only that portion of ‘Karbala’, which the hypocrites of Islam have always attempted to bring forward, due to the support they acquire through it in achieving their sinister motives. However, when this matter is investigated carefully bearing, keeping in mind the seventy years of Islamic history that had preceded it; the era during which it occurred; the area in which in occurred; the people with whom it had occurred; the reasons behind Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) appointing Yazid as his vicegerent; and the reasons which brought Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) over to Iraq, when ‘Karbala’ gets discussed, keeping all these issues in mind, a new picture emerges, totally different from what had previously been entrenched in the minds of people.
Thus, in the first half of this article, various such issues shall be discussed, which, when pieced together in one puzzle, shall enable one to re-open an investigation into a fifty-year old conspiracy, whih finally culminated with the catastrophe, known as ‘Karbala’. Amongst these issues are:
1.) Looking at Iraq/Iran and its inhabitants in the light of the Ahadith.
2.) The propaganda of the hypocrites of Iraq against every leader in Islam.
3.) The strength and status of historical narrations.
4.) The era of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu).
5.) Who assassinated Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) and why.
6.) Reasons behind Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) remaining insistent regarding the appointing of Yazid as Caliph.
After the death of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) set out for Iraq, with the hope of taking back the Caliphate from the Umayyad family. Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) chose Iraq as the base from where he (radhiyallahu anhu) could launch his military campaign due to the numerous invitations, and hundreds of lettera he (radhiyallahu anhu) had received from various parties in Iraq. Yet upon his arrival, these parties disappeared from the scene, leaving Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) to the mercy of Ubaidullah bin Ziyaad and his forces. Why did all these parties disappear?? Did they merely turn coward upon receiving news of the arrival of Ubaidullah ibn Ziyaad or was the reason behind their disappearing act based upon some other ulterior motive??
Could it be that the parties that had invited Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) over to Iraq were in fact hypocrites and shaitaani forces, plotting to re-ignite the flames of infighting within the Ummah, and to turn the masses against their leaders, thereby ensuring that the Caliphate never remain stable? When one makes an in-depth study of the people of Iraq/Iran in the light of the Ahadith of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), and in the light of their history, prior to Islam reaching their lands, this seemingly improbable notion becomes more and more probable.
This first part of this book shall thus deal with the subject:
Iraq/Iran in the light of the narrations
Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) has narrated that Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:
“The centre of kufr is towards the East” [Muslim]
Hadhrat ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) mentioned, ‘I saw Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) pointing towards the East and saying:
“Trails shall come from there! Trails shall come from there! [Sahih ibn Hibban]
In an attempt to pinpoint the exact area intended in this narration, scholars have provided a few possibilities, but the one that has attracted the attention of the Jamhur (majority) is Iraq/Iran, which includes Kufa, Basrah, Baghdad, Khurasan, etc. This area was the capital of the Persian Empire, and was famous as the stronghold of the majus (Zoroastrians/ Parsis/ Aag Pujaris). It was from this area that the majority of the early conspiracies against Islam were planned.
The Ahadith and statements of the Sahabah (ridhwanallahu anhum) and Tabi’een which indicate that ‘East’ refers to the area of Iraq/Iran are many. From amongst them are the following:
➡ Hadhrat Abdullah ibn ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) has narrated that he witnessed Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) pointing towards Iraq, saying:
“Listen well! Fitnah (trails and tribulations for the Ummah) shallcome from there! (Rasulullah repeated this thrice) It is there that the horn of shaitan shall rise!” [Musnad Ahmad]
➡ Abdullah ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) once made duafor the land of Sham and Yemen. When the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) asked for dua for Najd (a famous raised area of Iraq mentioned by Khattabi and Bahili), Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) replied,
“That is the area of tremors and trials, and it is there that the horn of shaitaan rises/shall rise!” [Sahih al Bukhari]
Explaining the meaning of the rising of ‘qarn-us-shaitaan‘ (the horn of Shaitaan), the scholars have mentioned various possibilities, viz.
* Shaitaan really has horns, and it is in this land that he arises / shall rise to make his attacks. [e.g Dajjal will rise from the city of Isfahan, Iran]
* It is metaphoric; referring to evil power, i.e from this land shaitan’s power shall spread. [e.g This can referred to the Saud Dynasty rising in the Najd area of Arabia came to power with the help of the Dajjalic British ]
* It refers to the army/ helpers of shaitaan, i.e this area shall be their capital/headquarters.
* The word ‘Qarn’ refers not to ‘horns’, but rather to ‘generation’. The meaning of the narration shall then be ‘In this land, evil shall continue springing up. Every time one generation comes to an end, another shall rise.’
➡ Speaking of the Haruriyyah (i.e the Khawarij), Hadhrat Sahl ibn Hunayf (radhiyallahu anhu) explained that he had heard Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) saying, ‘From there, (pointing towards Iraq), that group shall emerge who shall recite Qur’an, but it shall not pass their throats (i.e it shall not affect their hearts at all). They shall be exiting Islam as an arrow leaves its bow” [Musnad Ahmad]
It was from this very area (i.e Iraq and its neighbouring areas) that:
a) the killer and the parties responsible for the assassination of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) came. [In the assassination of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), the names of four people came up, viz. Abu Lulu Firuz al-Majusi (the killer), Harmuzan, Jafeena and the son of Firuz (refer to Usdul Ghaba). The following text appears in Tarikhul Islam of Hafidh Dhahabi: “Abu Lulu and his son were both fire-worshippers, Harmuzan, a famous leader of the Persians, accepted Islam after being caught, some have said that he was a good Muslim. Others felt that he definitely played some part in the assassination of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), since Abu Bakr’s (radhiyallahu anhu) son has seen him golding the knife the night before killing. (And Allah knows best)]
b) the killers of Hadhrat Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu) came [tariq al Islam Adh-Dhahabi]
c) the battle of Jamal occurred in this area, i.e near Basrah which was perhaps one of the greatest trails for the Ummah. [Tariq al Islam Adh-Dhahabi].
d) the rise of the Khawarij occurred in this area. Many of the soldiers of the army of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) participated in the Battle of Siffin (between Hadhrat Ali and Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhuma)) were from Kufa. After the Battle, when the truce was finally reached, these soldiers showed their true colours by abandoning Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and settling in Harurah (a district in Kufa). Their abandoning Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) at this stage clearly showed that their purpose behind the war was never to establish justice, but rather to keep the ummah fighting amongst each other. This group became famous as the Khawarij, regarding whom Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) many years previously warned the ummah about saying:
“From the East, there shall emerge a sect, whose Jihad, Salah and Saum shall amaze all, but in reality they shall be exiting from Islam as an arrow exits from a bow (i.e with great speed), amongst them shall be a man whose forearm shall bulge out like a breast of a woman. The group at that will which will be closest to the truth, shall stand up against them“
Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), after witnessing the emergence and rise of this sect, which in a short span of time had reached numbers of up to twelve thousand, waged a severe war against them, and with the Divine Aid of Almighty Allah, destroyed their backbone. At the end of the battle Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) even sent his soldiers in search of the one who had been described by Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). After an extensive search he was located hidden under some dead corpses. He was dragged in front of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), affording all the opportunityto see the truthof the worda of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).
e) the martyrdom of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) occurred in Kufa, and those behind the assassination were all from the Khawarij sect, whose roots where in Iraq.
f) the martyrdom of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) known as the incident of Karbala, occurred in Iraq. The murderers and the ones who had plotted his death and brought him over were all from Iraq. The first claims of the Shia were made by a Jew who portrayed himself as a revert to Islam, viz. Abdullah bin Saba (also known as ibn Saudah). Although he came from Yemen, the area he chose to lay the foundation of his false creed was none other than Iraq (Kufa and Basrah) and Egypt.
g) the rise of Jabbariyyah occurred in Iraq/Iran. The leader of this sect was Jahm ibn Safwan, who studied under Ja’d ibn Dirham in Basrah (Ja’d ‘coincidently’ happened to be the first person to voice the filthy opinion that the Qur’an-e-Majeed is a created word), Jahm was from Iran, and in the forefront of the call to overthrow the rule of the Banu Ummayyah.
h) Iraq was the birthplace of the sect known as the Qadariyyah. The first recorded claims regarding the denial of Taqdeer (destiny) came from Ma’bad Juhani in Basrah. [Ma’rijul Qubool Bisharah salaamul Wusool]
i) the rise of Mukhtar ibn Ubaid Thaqafi (the liar), occurred in Kufa. Claiming to take revenge from the killers of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), he had thousands of innocent men, women and children slaughtered. He even laid claim to being a recipient of revelation. The brother of Hadhrat Abdullah bin Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu), viz. Musab bin Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu) finally had him killed.
j) the killing of thousands of leading scholars of the Tabi’een, on the hands of Hajjaj ibn Yusuf Thaqafi occurred in Iraq.
k) The home of the Qaramita was Persia. This sect wqw regarded as perhaps the worst sect of the Shia, famous for their massacre of the Hujjaaj and their abduction of the Hajar-e-Aswad on the year 317 A.H. for a period of about twenty-two years
l) the issue known as Khalqul-Qur’an (the claim that the Qur’an is created) was spearheaded by a man from the Qaramita, Bishr ibn Ghayyath al-Marith. Infact, as recorded in Al-Bidayah, the first person to raise this issue was Ja’d bin Dirham (of Iran). He learnt it from Bayan ibn Sam’an, who learnt it from Talut (the nephew and son-in-law of Labid ibn Asam, the Jew who practiced black Magic upon Rasulullah sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Talut learnt it from his father-in-law, Labid, who learnt it from a Jew of Yemen.
Summarising the conspiraciew, the trails and the evils that arose from this area, Hadhrat Maulana Sayyid Sulayman Nadwi (rahimahullah) has written in Seeratun Nabi, the summary of which is:
“When one makes a deep study of history and seems to get the feeling that almost every astray sect and every major trial and evil that arose against Islam somehow had its roots in the land of Iraq!”
However, from the above, it should never be misunderstood that Iraq produced nothing but filth. Rather, to confront the evil that continuously arose from Iraq, Almighty Allah brought forth from that very lands such giants of Islam that in every era broke the backbone of these fitnas. On account of these luminariesthe land of Iraq was regarded as one of the major centres of Islamic knowledge during the era of the Sahaba (ridhwanallahu anhum), Tabi’een and for many years thereafter.
What made Iraq and its inhabitants, i.e the Majus (fire-worshippers) the centre of so much of evil??
The inhabitants of Iraq/Iran, before being conquered by the Muslims, were mainly Majus (fire-worshippers). In the Ahadith, one finds clear mention that just as the Majus (fire-worshippers) were responsible for much of the attacks made upon religionin the previous ummah’s. So too shall it be in this Ummah.
Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) warned most emphatically:
“For every Ummah there have been Majus, i.e worshippers of the fire” [ibn Abi Aasim]
1) Due to another Hadith, which has been narrated on a similar pattern, i.e ‘Verily for every Ummah there is a test‘ [Ahmad]
The explanation of (Verily for every Ummah there are Majus!) that comes to mind is that just as how in every Ummah there have been Majus (worshippers of fire)that stood in the frontline of evil, ensuring that ‘The Truth’ never spreads, so too shall it be in this Ummah, irrespectiveof whether they expose themselves as open Majus (i.e fire/devil worshippers/satanists, etc) or they hide behind the mysterious names of ‘Illuminatti’, Free Masons, etc).
The Majus (fire-worshippers) of Persia
The basic principles of the religion of the Majus (Zoroastrianism, named after Zoroaster), at the outset appears similar to that of Islamic belief, i.e they believed in and worship a mighty Being that had created the entire universe, a Being that is good and rewards good. Their only difference is that together with this they also believe in a separate deity of evil, also uncreated, whose mission is to create chaos, mischief, etc. Ultimately the Deity of Good shall triumph, thus their worship is directed solely towards it, and they hold nothing but enmity and hatred for the god of evil.
Until this point, nothing about them appears so significant, that could have necessitated the mentio of “for every Ummah there are Majus“, since their only error was their attribution of evil to another Being, whereas in Islamthe Creator of both good and evil is one, whilst the shayateen are mere instruments utilizes for the creatiob of evil. When only so much is understood regarding their faith, one in fact finds it difficult to understand why so many of them refused to accept Islam, since the difference between the two faiths hardly appears major.
But when one looks deeper and understands which Being, according to them, is good and which is bad, which shall teiumph and which shall fail, at that point the reality of this faithcomes to the fore.
Majus (Zoroastrians) turn towards a flame while praying. At the heart of a Zoroastrian place of worship burns a fire and where possible the fire burns continuously, symbolizing ‘an eternal fire’, ‘a fire that shall always remain high’.
According to them fire represents the spiritual flame within us, and through fire are the ethical values of order, beneficence, honesty, fairness and justice created. As long as the temporal, outside fire remains burning high, till then shall the inside fire stay lit. Creation is the result of fire!, a famous sentence in their set of beliefs is, ‘God did not create the heavens and earth with dust and water, but rather with fire! Fire is the source of light, and, in their understanding, light represents wisdom, while darkness represents ignorance. The passing of Zoroastrian ideas and values from one person to the next is symbolized by a new flame being lit from an exiwting one, or by a flame being passed from one person to the next.
To simplify it further, when Ibleesrefused to prostrate to Nabi Aadam (alayhissalaam) , it was merely on account of jealousy, since he felt himself alone worthy of being vicegerent on earth. When he saw this honour being passed on to one created from dust he could not controlhos enmity, and vowed to prove that not only shall fire remain supreme over man, but that man himself shallbow to the service of fire, hold it high, and himself become its slave.
When Zoroastrians speak of the God of good, they are not at all refeering to Almighty Allah, but rather to Iblees the accursed, their God of Fire, known to them as ‘The God of Wisdom, Justice and Order’. As for the God who is not of fire (i.e Almighty Allah) that, according to them, is a God of darkness, intent on spoiling all the good of this world and the next; an evil God, who hates man; a God that shall eventually be destroyed. (Na’audhbillahi min zaalik)
Many are mistaken into believing that the Majus (Zoroastrians) worship fire. Rather, theu worship a ‘being’ whose symbol is ‘fire’, and thus direct their worship towards it.
As for the birth of Zoroastrianism, it is believed to uave commenced in Southern Russia almost four thousanduears ago. Its adherents then migrated south into Eastern Iran. Around the eighth century B.C., the Persians and the Medes of WesternIran also adopted the religion. When the Persians conquered Babylon, they took the religion with them into Southern Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq and a few surrounding areas).
The concept of New Year’s Day comes from a Zoroastrian festival known as Nawruz (New Year’s Day) which is celebrated every year around March 21 at the Northern Spring Equinox. In fact, many aspects of present-day Christianity hail from the rituals of Zoroastrians. Since Constantine, the king who carved out much of modern-day Christianity, who had hypocritically accepted Christianity in order to ruin it from within.
Zoroastrians worship none other than Iblees himself, and it is this ideology of theirs towards which the burning flame in the hand of the statue of Liberty indicates, and it is this ideology which is shown world-wide in the opening ceremony of the Olympics, i.e. ‘the Fire shall always remain high’.
This ia the reason why they could never accept Islam, since the Almighty of the Muslims is the one they detest the most, and the accursed Iblees is the one they revere the most.
Another interesting feature of these people is that they would prefer lighting their fire on high open areas, mountains or hill tops, etc. And their worship ceremonies would be officiated by the ‘Magi’ (legendary Zoroastrian priest). Add to the word ‘Magi’ a few extra letters and you are left with ‘Magician’, with ‘cian’ meaning ‘ancient’.
The role of the Magi would be to ensure that the fire never dies. Households would come to the fire-house, which the Magi would manage, to light their own fires. Since they gave their lives to the ‘Fire’ it was only natural that the ‘Fire’ (Iblees and his shaytani forces) would reward them for their services, but their reward would only be superfluous, just as how today’s Ashkenazi Jews, Free Masons, etc are rewarded.
Through the rewards offered by their false deity, the fame of the Magi spread beyond the bordera of Iran. They were found to be unsurpassed in their knowledge of philosophy, history, geography, plants, medicine and events regarding heavens. Their high moral standing, their wisdom, their ability to heal the sickand their years of learning made them legendary throughout the Middle East.
A particular feature of the Magi was their habit of wearing Taylasaan (Tayalisan – a Persian Shawl which will be discussed further) over their shoulders, the other amazing dress feature of the Magi was that they would have their faces covered, just as how today satanists cover their faces when in their Temples.
Their mighty empire was known as the Sassanid Empire, and they were known to the Sahabah (ridhwanallahu anhum) as Banu Sassaan. Islam first penetrated the Sassanid territory when Hadhrat Khalid bin Walid (radhiyallahu anhu) invaded what is presently known as ‘Iraq’, and the battle of Qadisiyyah, which followed three years later, under Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas (radhiyallahu anhu), lwd to the permanent end of the Sassanid control of West Iran.
Finally in the year 644 A.D the mighty Sassanid Empire was brought permanently to the ground, with its emperor just managing to save his life, by fleeing to China. At the time of the death of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) almost the whole of the South Caucasus (the entire region of the Persian Sassanid Empire) was captured. The Persian war ended with the conquest of Balkh, beyond that lay what was known as the land of the Turks and still further lay China.
After the assassination of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), at the hands of a Persian slave [According to some historians, and this was the view of the son of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) himself, as well as a few of the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum), the assassination of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was not merely a result of a verdict that has been passed by Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) regarding the slave, Abu Lulu Al-Majusi, but was rather the result of a well planned Persian plot to assassinate their most hated conqueror (i.e Hadhrat Umar radhiyallahu anhu) with Harmuzan, a Persian leader, who had only accepted Islam after being caught, being at the center of the plot.] almost the entire Sassanid Empire, at various intervals, tried rising in rebellion, being spearheaded by their emperor, who had returned from China to co-ordinate the rebellion, These rebellions finally ended with the death of the emperor himself, killed by one of his own people, a miller, trying to snatch his purse. These rebellions clearly showed that many of the Zoroastrians were never going to be happy with the Islamic rule.
Long before the invasion of Persia had even began, Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had made mention that Kisra, the Persian emperor, has been destroyed and there will be no real Kisra after him, i.e their empire was on the verge of collapsing. In fact, at the time of the birth of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). The Persian emperor had seen a dream in whicg he was shown that their empire shall only see twelve more emperors. In the era of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), this became a reality and the mighty satan-worshipping empire (known as the Persian empire) evaporated.
Due to many of the inhabitants of this empire having enjoyed years of close contact with the shayatin, it was obvious that not everyone was going to happily accept Islamic rule. Some satanists fled to neighbouring Zoroastrian countries, whilst others, upon the instructions and guidance of the shayatin above them, disguised themselves as believers and hypocritically entered into Islam, merely so that they could launch their attack against Islam from within, as Paul, Constantine and others had done with the religion of Nabi ‘Eesa Maseeh (alayhissalaam). Due to their satanic empire being destroyed, the attack of the Majus (satanists) against Islam would now be through ‘taqiyyah’ (concealing their true identity) and nifaaq (hypocrisy).
Thus, when Rasulullah spoke of the Majus (fire worshippers/satanists) that shall operate in this Ummah, he did not spoke of a non-Muslim party, that shall openly worship the fire and believe in two deities, but rather of a group of that shall appear in Muslim garb and with a pious outlook, but shall have their kufr beliefs lurking deep within their bosoms. Their mission shall be the same as the Majus (fire-worshippers) that preceded them, except that their method of operation shall be different. Their attack shall be from within, which shall make it all the more dangerous, and the targets of their attack shall be innocent believers, who shall be deceived by their apparent piety, acts of worship and profound knowledge.
Discussing the Majus of this Ummah, Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:
The Majus of this Ummah are the Qadariyyah!
If they fall sick, do not visit them, and if they pass away, do not perform their janaazah salaah!
This group, labelled as the ‘Qadariyyah’ due to their strange beliefs regarding ‘taqdeer‘ (pre-desrination) appeared towards the end of the era of the Sahabah (ridhwanallahu anhum), and thereafter spread into about 22 different groups. The salient feature of this sect was their denial or their creating doubts with regards to the divine creed of taqdeer. Speaking of their different groups Ulama have listed the following:
Regarding the evil of this sect, many narrations have been recorded by Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) wherein the order was given to completely disassociate from these people. For this reason, the Sahaba (radhiyallahu anhum) would even refuse to reply to the salaam of these people.
A mere glance at one of the leading figures of this sect, viz. Ma’bad Juhani, shall enable one to easily dissect this group and see through their guise of deception. Through the brief description of Ma’bad, that shall now be provided, there is hope that much shall be understood regarding the hypocrites who operate within Islam, the strength of the propaganda, and the power and support they enjoy from all other shaytani circles.
Ma’bad ibn Abdullah al-Juhani (a leading figure of the Qadariyyah)
Amongst the first to raise the issues with regards to Taqdir was Ma’bad ibn Abdullah al-Juhani, from Kufa (Iraq). He portrayed himself as a man of piety, Ibadah and a reliable narrator. He was known to always frequent the gatherings of Hadhrat Hasan al-Basri (rahmatullah alayh). He narrated Ahadith from many Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum). After his fame had spread to quite an extent, he began denying the concept of taqdir, and spreading confusion amongst the massea of Basrah.
When Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was informed of his actions, he issued the following verdict regarding Ma’bad and others who followed his thought of mind:
“If you meet them again, tell them that I have nothing to do with them. By Allah, if any one of them spends gold equal to Mount Uhud in charity, Almighty Allah will never accept it, until and unless he believes in Taqdir”.
Ma’bad later on proceeded towards Madinah Munawwarah and attempted spreading his filty beliefs there. He was so persistent on his view that he was ready to die for it. The Caliph, Abdul Malik bin Marwan finally had him executed on account of his kufr beliefs.
Amongst the people who learnt from him and strove to spread his false beliefs was Ghailan of Damascus. After being threatened by Umar bin Abdul Aziz (rahimahullah) with execution he drew back, but on the death of Umar bin Abdul Aziz (rahimahullah), he again emerged. The Caliph, Hisham ibn Abdul Malik, later had him executed.
Regarding Ma’bad, the words of Hadhrat Hasan al-Basri (rahimahullah) adequately describes his reality:
“Be aware of Ma’bad, he is astray and leading others astray”
The actual reason behind Ma’bad holding so firmly to his false beliefs, and the true identity of the people whom he learnt this filth shall perhaps will never be known with certainity, but one fact that stands out in his history, as well as the history of the innovaters of the three main astray groups of Islam, viz. The Shia, the Khawarij and the Jahmiyah, is that they were all from Iraq.
Ma’bad’s execution brought an end to his life, but his false beliefs continued spreading through the sifferent sect that surfaced thereafter. Some of the Qadariyyah would deny taqdir completely, claiming that man has full control of his affairs, whilst others would claim that man has no control and will, whatsoever.
The views of the Qadariyyah, despite facing the opposition of the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) and the most learned of the Tabi’een, continued spreading, and over twenty sects of theirs became notorious. The Mu’tazilah, Jahmiyyah, etc. who later arose, would adopt from their claims, and thus share many similarities with the Qadariyyah.
What caused the false beliefs of one man to spread so fast and to such a great extent? Why did it not stop spreading with his death? What caused others to share the same conviction amd fervour as Ma’bad? Could it be that the source from which Ma’bad had acquired his training was still alive, preparing others to do the same? Could it be that great, evil powers were behind the sect known as the Qadariyyah, as well as being behind the rise of Khawarij, the Shia’ and the Jahmiyyah? Could it be that sinister forces within Iraq were behind the initial conspiracies against Islam, or do you feel the views of Ma’bad were just based on a thought that occurred to him, for which he and those who came after him, were ready ro lay down their lives?
After reading just a little regarding the life of Ma’bad and the influence he had in spreading the creed of the Qadariyyah, does the possibility now not seem strong that Ma’bad, the Qadariyyah and all the other secta that arose thereafter, from Iraq and sueeounding lands, were nothing but satanic groups working in the guise of pious Muslims?
Due to having such sinister groups operating within Iraq/Iran, and its sueeounding areas, these areas would continously cause mischief and plot to weaken the foundation of the Islamic Caliphate. Their mischief began as soon as Islam entered their borders, i.e. during the era of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) and peaked during the rule of Yazid ibn Mu’awiyah.
Amongst the mischief caused by these trouble-makers was their habit laying complaints and branding false accusations against practically every leader appointed over them. Many unfortunately are only aware of the complaints they had laid against Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and his son Yazid, whereas if one were to scrutinize the amount of times complaints came from this region and how each time it proved to be falsely, one would surely be more cautious regarding accepting or lending an ear to any of the accusations of the people of Iraq.
A brief summary of some of their accusations shall now follow, whereby one may understandthe manner of their propaganda. An important point that should be noted from the following is that their accusations would be spread with great expertise, as though they were masters in the field of propaganda. For this reason, despite the amount of times that their claims would be false, Muslim leaders would still feel compelled to lend a slight ear to their new claims and thus send out teams to investigate.
The mischief of Iraqi hypocrites during the era of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)
Hadhrat Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas (radhiyallahu anhu), the conqueror of Iraq and one of the ten given the glad tidings of Jannah, was appointed over the people of Kufa in the era of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu). Within a short space of time, complaints began reaching Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) regarding various aspects of his public and private life. They even complained regarding the quality of his Salaah! Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) thus had him removed from his post and appointed Hadhrat Ammar bin Yasir (radhiyallahu anhu) in his place.
Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) thereafter summoned Hadhrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu anhu) and questioned him regarding the allegations levelled against him. When asked about his Salaah, he responded, ‘By Allah, I led them in Salaah in the manner taught to me by Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) without the slight deviation. I lengthen the first two raka’ats of the ‘Isha and shortened the last two. Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) expressed great happiness at his answers and remarked, ‘I thought as much’ (i.e I myself did not believe these allegations).
A delegation was also sent to Kufa to enquire from the locals regarding Hadhrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu anhu) and to see how many dislike his rule. To the amazement of the delegation not a single Masjid could be found supporting these allegations. Rather the people had nothing but praise for Hadhrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu anhu). They finally met one man by the name of Usamah ibn Qatadah. He stood up and said, “Since you are asking in the name of Allah, I feel obligated to speak. Sa’d does not take part in military expeditions; he does not distribute the spoils of war fairly, and he is not just in his rulings!”
When Hadhrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu anhu) came to know of what he had said, he remarked, ‘I shall make three dua’s. O Allah! If this man is lying and is merely trying to gain fame, then lengthen his life, lengthen his poverty, and let him fall into great calamities!’ Thereafter, whenever this man would be asked regarding his conditions he would reply, ‘Old and in great difficulty. I have been afflicted with the curse of Sa’d!’
Abdul Malik ibn Umair mentioned, I have personally seen this man, with his eyebrows drooping over his eyes due to old age. He would interfere with young girls and poke them as they passed by. (Bukhari/Muslim)
Hadhrat Ammar ibn Yasir (radhiyallahu anhu) was appointed in the place of Hadhrat Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas (radhiyallahu anhu). Within a short period of time, complaints against this most noble Sahabi began reaching Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) from various quarters of Kufa. Amongst the accusations levelled against this Sahabi was that he was incapable of fulfilling his duties and he was not trustworthy! (Na’audhubillah).
So many complaints reached Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) regarding him, as though the entire Kufa had turned against him. Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) thus summoned him to Madinah Munawwarah. A group set out with him on the pretence that they would stand in his defence, but when he reached Madinah Munawwarah he found them worse than the people he had left behind. They complained that Hadhrat Ammaar (radhiyallahu anhu) was incapable of fulfilling his responsibilities, knew nothing of politics, and was totally unaware of what role he had been appointed to fulfil. On seeing their hatred for their leader, Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) felt it best to remove Hadhrat Ammaar (radhiyallahu anhu) from his post.
Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) thereafter enquired as to whom they would prefer as a leader. They nominated Hadhrat Abu Musa Ash’ari (radhiyallahu anhu). Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) acceded to their request. Within a year from the appointment of Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu) the complaints began again. As the complaints intensified Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) sent an order that Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu) step down from his post and had him re-appointed in Basrah.
Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) despite his unique talent in ruling and recognizing the talent and qualities of others, found himself confused as to how he could sort out the affairs of the people of Kufa. He complained to those around him:
“The people of Kufah have rendered me helpless!”
He also said “What is wrong with this group of one hundred thousand, that they are not content with any Amir, nor can any Amir live happily with them?” After deep thought and consultation with those around, Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) asked Hadhrat Mughira ibn Shu’bah (radhiyallahu anhu) to take up residence in Kufa as its governor. Hadhrat Mughira (radhiyallahu anhu) remained governor over Kufa until the death or Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu). Just before the death of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), due to complaints received, Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) maee a decision to appoint Hadhrat Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas (radhiyallahu anhu) once again over the people of Kufa. This decision was regarded as part of his bequest and carried out after gis demise. Hadhrat Mughira (radhiyallahu anhu) remained governor of Kufa for just over two years.
In the place of Hadhrat Mughira (radhiyallahu anhu), Hadhrat Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas (radhiyallahu anhu) was re-appointed. The poisonous environment of Kufa and its surrounding areas however could never allow any leader to stay in peace. Soon after he too was removed and replaced with Walid ibn Utbah. Walid had been a governor from the time of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) and at the head of numerous conquests in the era of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu). Until his appointment in Iraq, he had never been found guilty of any wrong.
Amazingly, as with many leaders before and after him, it was only the people of Iraq who would find something wrong with him. Through the efforts of this odd group of Iraqis he was finally brought to court accused of drinking liquor and being a faasiq (i.e an open transgressor).
The testimony of the Iraqis would always appear to be strong, thus the Caliph would be hesitant in rejecting their word. On the same note however he would neither be too keen to accept it, knowing well that accusations from the people of Iraq had always proven to be false.
These Iraqis exihibited no shame in leveling accusations, and had no regard for any personality. People generally only know of the accusations they had leveled against Yazid, the son of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), branding him an adulterer, a drunkard and even an apostate. The fact of the matter is that they spared none from their poisonous tongues. Yazid was not the first accused of being evil and unjust. This accusation had already been leveld against Hadhrat Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas (radhiyallahu anhu). Yazid was not the firat to be branded as a drunkard. Walid ibn Utbah was accused with the same. Yazid was not the first accused of adultery. This accusation had already been leveled against Hadhrat Mughira ibn Shu’ba (radhiyallahu anhu).
The people of Iraq, as Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) had rightly said, left no leader exempt from tgeir accusations and false propaganda. However, certain individuals were selected to receive the worst that their tongues could offer. Amongst them were Hadhrat Uthman, Hadhrat Mughira bin Shu’bah, Hadhrat Amr bin Al-Aas, Hadhrat Mu’awiyah, Yazid and in recent times, the last Caliph of the Islamic world, Sultan Abdul Hamid.
The accusations against Hadhrat Amr ibn Al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu), and the issue of Tahkeem (Arbitration)
The incident of Tahkeem (Arbitration) is one that is well-known amongst scholars. Unfortunately, the details of this incident have been mixed with many filthy and poisonous lies, and propagated with such strength, that for many it has become a fact-beyond-question. In the version that the Persian/Jewish-satanists ensured gets propagated, one finds a blatant attack being made upon the honour and noble character of Hadhrat ‘Amr ibn Al-‘Aas (radhiyallahu anhu), an illustrious companion of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), a Sahabi who had the honour, after accepting Islam, of being invited by Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) to all mojor consultations, and only afyer hearing his opinion would Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) make a decision.
Unfortunately, due to the effort made behind the propaganda regarding him, many good Muslims and even certain scholars have become doubtful of his sincerity. Certain individuals have even gone to the extent of labeling him as a traitor, a liar, a deceiver and a cunning fox. (Na’audhubillah)
Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to first shed some light on the issue of Tahkeem, an arbitration that was carried out by Hadhrat Abu Musa al-Ash’ari (radhiyallahu anhu) and Hadhrat ‘Amr ibn Al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu), the conqueror of Egypt, to solve the dispute which had occurred between Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and thus bring an end to years of in-fighting which had (according to what has been narrated) already claim the lives of over seven thousand believers, a figure which even the wars against the mighty Persian and Roman empires had not managed to produce.
When the battle of Siffin (A huge battle, in which Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and the people of Iraq fought against Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and the people of Shaam, due to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) not being prepared to pledge allegiance to Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), as long as the killers of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) were not brought to trail and punished) was brought to an abrupt halt, each party was asked to send an arbitator to to discuss the situation and find some solution to end the bloody conflict that had begun with the death of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu). Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) sent Hadhrat Abu Musa Ashari (radhiyallahu anhu) and Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) sent Hadhrat Amr ibn Al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu).
The details generally given for what occurred during the arbitration process, are as follows:
(Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu) and Hadhrat Amr ibn Al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) met, discussed the matyer in great detailand finally decided to remove both Hadhrat Ali and Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhuma) from their posts and leave the Ummah to then choose someone else for the Caliphate.
When the time came to make this announcement , Hadhrat Amr ibn al Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) requeated Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu) to address the crowd first. Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu), after praising Almighty Allah and sending salutations upon Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) announced that he had decided to remove both Hadhrat Ali and Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhuma) and leave the Ummahfree to elect a new leader.
After stepping back, Hadhrat Amr ibn ai Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) came forward and contrary to what had previously been decided, announced that he agrees with Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu) as far as removing Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) from his post is concerned. As for Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) it is his decision to keep him in his post.
When Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu) heard this he became furious and a heated argument broke out between the two. The two parties returned to their leaders, informing Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) of his removal from the seat of Caliphate, and giving Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) the glad tidings of becoming Amirul-Mu’mineen.
When the party of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) were informed of a decision, a huge number of them broke away from his party and put up a tent at a place known as Harura. This group came to be known as the Khawarij. Dissatisfied by the decision made by the arbitrators, the branded Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) kafir (disbeliever) and began making terrible attacks on his followers, going to the extent of cutting the bellies of Muslim women, when still alive. Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) made great attempts to bring them back under his authority, but when all efforts failed, he launched a severe attack on them, which resulted in their almost total annihilation)
These are the details which are generally in the minds of those who have a little knowledge about Islamic History, due to man’s quick preusal through the books of history, without any concern for what is authentic and what is not, what is acceptable and what is not, what cpuld be considered as probable and what could not.
Again, with just a little pondering over the above, keeping in mind the principles laid down for the acceptance of historical narrations, with the honour and integrity of the Sahabah (ridhwanallahu anhum) being at the prime, one shall quickly realize that much of the details of the above account are nothing but lies propagated by the satan-worshiping Persians, posing as soldiers in the armies of both parties.
A few of the events mentioned above, which obviously cannot be correct shall be listed below, intended merely as a guide, knowing full well that a thorough investigation of the incident shall surely result in more and more lies coming to the fore.
First Lie regarding the Tahkeem: The Khawarij were angered by the deceit of Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu)
It has generally been understood that the Khawarij broke away from Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) due to their dissatisfaction with the ruling of Hadhrat Amr bin al Aas (radhiyallahu anhu), whereas the reality is that they had expressed their anger and dissatisfaction with Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) from the very beginning, i.e. from the time they were informed that both parties had agreed to arbitration. Thus, their anger was never with the decision made by the arbitrators, rather it was with the fact that the Muslim Ummah had brought an end to the in-fighting, which had already resulted in the death of thousands.
These filthy people were never going to accept any decision made by the arbitrators, since disunity within the Ummah was their prime objective. The basis of their mission was to divide the entire Ummah and they were will aware that arbitration would burst their balloon. Criticizing the decision made by Hadhrat Amr bin al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu), and portraying him as deceitful, cunning politician, was done merely to formulate a better excuse for their breaking away from Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu).
The proof of this is what has been narrated in Al-Bidayah that when the decision was made to allow Hadhrat Abu Musa al-Ash’ari abd Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhuma) to arbitrate in the matter of the Ummah. Ash’ath ibn Qais was sent to inform all of this decision. When he came to the tribe of Banu Tamim and read the message to them, Urwah ibn Uzainah stood up angrily and shouted out, ‘How dare you allow man to decide in the matters of religion! Only Almighty Allah is the one who decides!’ Urwah then swiped his swprd towards Ash’ath, but missed, with the blade landing on the behind of the horse of Ash’ath.
The division in the army of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) began at the event, with thousands seperating themselves and camping themselves in the area known as Harura. The evil perpetrated by this band finally compelled Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) to raise his sword against them, whereas just a few months ago, they formed a major part of his army.
In reality, it was this very group which was behind the assassination of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) and the wars of Jamal and Siffin. Until that moment they had been operating in the guise of pious men, constantly in prayer and recitation of the Qur’an. At this point in history their guise were thrown off, and their identity exposed. Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had warned the Ummah of this hidden threat, he (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had mentioned that the first time the identity of these hypocrites shall get exposed is when they shall rebel against Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu).
Exactly as predicted by Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), these filthy group of hypocrites surfaced, and as predicted, were halted in their tracks and brought to their heels by Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and his faithful Companions, but only after having wrecked great damage upon the Ummah. After the war, when remarked that the hypocrites have now been eradicated, Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) corrected him by saying that this group shall continue re-surfacing till the end of time, with the sole mission being to halt the progress of Islam and the Muslim Ummah. [refer to Tarikh al Baghdad]
Anyway, the actual purpose of mentioning the above is to show that irrespective of what decision the arbitrators would make months later, this group of hypocrites were never going to accept it, since their sole desire was to keep the Ummah divided, fighting amongst themselves.
During the incident of Tahkeem (arbitration) neither did Hadhrat Abu Musa Ash’ari (radhiyallahu anhu) make a cowardly decision , nor did Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) deceive. Rather their gathering brought a halt to years of infighting which had already claimed the lives of close to one hundred thousand. The only group angered by their decision was that of the hypocrites, and it was these very people who would later disfigure the entire issue of Tahkeem and have historians record it with fabricated versions.
Second Lie regarding the Tahkeem
Hadhrat Abu Musa and Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhuma) had discussed the matter in privacy, but Hadhrat Amr (radhiyallahu anhu), later, in front of all, spoke lies regarding the decision they had reached.
Narrations show that many Sahaba and prominent men were present at the meeting between Abu Musa Ash’ari and Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu), and each detail of the meeting was recorded on paper. How then it could ever be possible that Hadrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) to lie in front of the entire crowd, gathered to hear a decision, without a single person from those present standing up at that moment, or even after, and explaining to both parties that his announcement was not true.
The purpose of arbitration was to unite both parties, with both parties accepting the decision taken by the man they had elected on their behalf, if Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas had lied, why then did Hadhrat Abu Musa al-Ash’ari (radhiyallahu anhu) not just say so? The words of Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) could never demand the obeidience of the army of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). Rather, that which Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu) would decide for them, only that would they regard as binding and necessary to accept.
In arbitration matters, no one man can deceive, since each party shall only listen to his own member!
Third Lie regarding the Tahkeem
Both parties had initially agreed on removing both Hadhrat Ali and Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhuma) from their posts, and to leave the Ummah free to choose their Caliph.
Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) had until now, never made the claim of being the Caliph. He himself had repeatedly said that when the killers of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) would be brought to trail, he would be the first to pledge allegiance to Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). When Hadhrat Mu’awiyah never laid the claim for the Caliphate, what then would be the need for Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas and Hadhrat Abu Musa al-Ash’ari (radhiyallahu anhu) to decide to remove both and let the Ummah choose a new leader!.
He who was never in a post, how does one remove him from that post??
It would not even be correct to say that perhaps what is meant is that he be removed from his positionas governor over Sham, because the words attributed to Hadhrat Abu Musa and Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhuma) clearly state that they wanted to remove both, so that the ummah could again decide who should rule over them. In an Islamic State it is only the Caliph that rules over all. As for the governors, they shall remain governors only as long as the Caliph allows, thus they have no rule of their own. To remove a governorwould have no significance, since his post depends upon the Caliph. If the new Caliph would choose to keep him, he would remain. If the new Caliph would dismiss him, he would be dismissed.
A different scenario of the Tahkeem (arbitration) has been narrated in the Musannaf of Abdur Razzaq as well as in the Tarikh of Tabari, with amuch stronger chain of narrators (sanad). In this narration clear mention is made that after agreeing upon choosing a new Caliph, Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu) presented the name of Hadhrat Abdullah ibn ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) as a suitable candidate, but Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) did not agree. Thereafter, Hadhrat Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) presented the name of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) as a suitable candidate for the Caliphate, but Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu) did not agree. Both parties then seperated, since they could not agree upon a new Caliph. Had there been any truth to the normally-famous version that they had initially agreed to remove both Hadhrat Ali and Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhuma) from their posts, what then would be the reason for Hadhrat Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) presenting the name of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah to Hadhrat Abu Musa as a suitable candidate for the Caliphate? After agreeing to fire one, would one ever present the same person’s name as a candidate for the position one had just fired him from??
The sanad of this narration is indeed much stronger than all the other narrations describing the Tahkeem (arbitration), thus to ignore it would truly be a great injustice to the field of proper research. The narration, as recorded by Abdul Razzaq, narrating from Abdullah ibn Ahmad, narratimg from his father Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, narrating from Sulayman ibn Yunus, narrating from Zuhri is as follows:
In this narration a completely different picture has been painted, quite contrary to what is normally mentioned with regards to a great Sahabi lying and deceiving, an act which even the pagan Arabs would not do!
The above-mentioned text forms only a small portion of a lengthy narration, the crux of which is that when the time appointed for ‘The Arbitration’ drew near, the parties representing Hadhrat Ali and Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhuma) arrived at the selected spot, known as Daumatul-Jundal. A special invitation was sent to Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), who had kept himself aloof from the conflict, and Hadhrat Abdullah bin Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu) to attend and help the Ummah reunite. The invitation was accepted, and these two luminaries, accompanied by many of their friends and students, also presented themselves at the meeting. Nothing was discussed in privacy, The discussions that took place between Hadhrat Abu Musa and Hadhrat Amr (radhiyallahu anhuma) were witnessed by many. In fact, Hadhrat Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) ensured that all important points and issues on which consensus had been reached, be written down in paper.
The first Major decision upon which the consensus was reached was that the present Caliph steps down from his post, affording the Ummah to the opportunity to unanimously choose a leader. The problem however arose when it came to choosing a new Caliph. Hadhrat Abu Musa al-Ash’ari (radhiyallahu anhu) proposed the name of Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), which Hadhrat Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) was not prepared to accept. Hadhrat Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) then proposed the name of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), which Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu) was not prepared to accept. Thus the two parties separated without the arbitration proving unsuccessful.
(In this narration there is no mention of Hadhrat Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) deceiving or lying. Had the issue of preference been solely the strength of this narration over all the other narrarions regarding the ‘Tahkeem’, that would have indeed been sufficient for it alone to be considered and all conflicting narrations be left aside. However that is not the case. Beaides the fact that this narration is backed up with a much stronger chain of narrators, there are many other factors also which demand it be given preference and placed above all the other conflicting narrations. Among those factors are the following:
a) This narration refutes the accusation laid against Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) that he won the arbitration through deceit and blatant lies. Arguements and harsh words on many occasions occurred between the Sahaba (ridhwanallahu anhum), since they were the children of the same household, i.e they were all from the illustrious faternity of the Sahaba (radhiyallahu anhum) and were not bound to those laws of respect which we have been commanded to observe for the Sahaba (radhiyallahu anhum). Prince’s, in the court of the King, may criticize, argue, and even fight against each other, but dare any man to from out of the royal family attempt to slap a prince or merely look at him with contempt! The Sahaba (radhiyallahu anhum), due to the fervour each one had for establishing the truth, would many a time issue harsh word against his fellow Sahabi brother, bit never would he dare lie or deceive.
The hearts of the Sahaba (radhiyallahu anhum), as mentioned in the Qur’aan, have already passed the test of Imaan. The purity of their hearts had received certificates from the highest of quarters, i.e. Almighty Allah himself. Only that mind which has not as yet understood the strength of Almighty Allah’s declaration of purity could ever conceive such heart to still be filthy, hypocritical traits such as deceit, lies, etc.
Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) occupied a most prominent place amongst the Sahaba. After his accepting Islam, Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) included him amongst his selected confidants, with whom he (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) use would consult all the matter of importance. During the era’s of Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhuma), he played a leading role as a leader in the conquests of prominent areas like Egypt, al-Aqsa etc.
Could any sane mind can ever imagine a Sahabi (radhiyallahu anhu) of this calibre concluding his chapter in the glorious history of Islamic heroes with an act of deception, and that too, not just deceiving a few individuals or friends bit rather the entire Muslim Ummah, the illustrious Sahaba around him, and all those who until that time had viewed him as a true leader and a hero of Islam?!
Could any sane mind can ever imagine a Sahabi (radhiyallahu anhu) of this calibre concluding his chapter in the glorious history of Islamic heroes causing untold harm to the cause of Islam, that Islam for which he had on so many occasions thrown himself at the tip of poisonous swords without a concern for his life? Na’audhubillah! The Sahaba (ridhwanallahu anhum) were men of true purity and piety and Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) was from amongst the elite of this illustrious fraternity.
b) Logically also, deception from the side of Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) cannot be conceived possible. The reason being that he only played the role of one member from the panel of two, chosen to artbitrate between two major forces. Even if he lied as to what had been agreed betweem him and Hadhrat Abu Musa al-Ash’ari (radhiyallahu anhu), his lie would hold no effect, since the party of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) would obviously only accept as true what Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu) would report.
c) History itself shows that the arbitration never led to the appointment of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) as Caliph. Rather, after assassination of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), Hadhrat Hasan ibn Ali was chosen as Caliph, and it was he who handed over the Caliphate to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), what then was the purpose of Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas deceiving and lieing to Hadhrat Abu Musa al-Ash’ari (radhiyallahu anhu), and what did it achieve? The only logical answer would be that there was no deception and no lie. Both the parties attempted choosing a new Caliph, but they were unable to reach any consensus. The two parties thus returned to their lands, without agreeing upon a new leader.
Despite no agreement being reached, fighting between the two parties however came to an halt, due to a pact made soon thereafter between Hadhrat Ali and Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhuma), with each promising not to launch any attack on the land of other. Iraq will be the land of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and Sham will be the Land of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu).
The status and principles of Tarikh (Islamic History)
This discussion has become quite lenghty, whereas it was only intended as an example of how the enemies of Islam have distorted so many historical narrations with their poisonous propaganda. In fact, many a time one shall find an extremely weak narration being given more prominence and and being more well known than all other narrations on the topic, despite their chains of narrations being stronger and their being closer to the demands of the Shariah and logic.
The reason for this is that man is prone to remember and accept that which is oft-quoted, without much consideration to it authenticity. Even if one were later to be shown a more reliable narration, he would brush it off as fabricated, merely on the basis that it conflicts with what he has already been taught.
However it should never be felt due to the lies and poison hidden within historical narrations, the entore subject of Islamic history has now been rendered useless and without any purpose. This is not at all the case. Islamic history plays a vital role in understanding many aspects of Islam, and it serves as a unique tool to cultivate the awe of Islam in one’s heart, to create awareness within one, of the plots of Iblis and his armies, and teaches one the modus operandi of the enemies of Islam.
Understanding the status of Islamic History, its level of authenticity and the manner in which ot shpuld be utilized, is essential if one desires re-opening the pages of history and delving deep into the episode of Karbala. Thus before proceeding to the discussion regarding the era of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and the reason for his selecting Yazid as his vicegerent. It would seem appropriate to shed some light on the principles on the study of Islamic history.
For this, the article of Hadhrat Mufti Muhammad Shafee’ Uthmani Saheb (rahimahullah), which was intended as a forward to a book Hadhrat has compiled at the end of his life, in refutation to the many who were relying upon historical narrations in pasding judgement and leveling criticism against the illustrious Sahaba (ridhwanallahu anhum) and those that came after them.
Hadhrat Mufti Shaafi’ Saheb (rahimahullah) writes in the forward to his book The Rank of the Sahaba:
‘It has been explained above that it is not correct to judge the noble Sahaba (radhiyallahu anhum), their personalities and to stipulate their ranks, based only on historical narrations. This is because they hold a special position in the light of the Qur’an and Sunnah because of their being the medium between Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and the Ummah. History does not have such a rank, based on which this status can be lowered or increased. The meaning of this can never be understood to be that the science of history is totally unreliable and useless (the need and importance of it in Islam will be clarified later), but the reality is that belief and reliance has various stages.
In Islam, the level of belief and reliance that is placed on the Qur’aan and Mutawatir Ahadith, that level of belief has not been placed upon the general Ahadith. The rank of the statement of the Sahaba (radhiyallahu anhum) is not that of the Hadith of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Similarily, the rank of the belief and reliance on historical narrations is not the same as that of the Qur’aan, Sunnah or the statements of the Sahaba (radhiyallahu anhum) proven through an aurhentic chain of narration.
If a Hadith is found to be in (apparent) contradiction to the text of the Qur’aan, then it will be compulsory to interpret it (make ta’wil) and if the interpretation is not understood then it compulsory to leave that Hadith out. Similarily, if a historical narration contradicts anything proven in the Qur’aan and the Sunnah, then it will be left out or it will be compulsory to interpret it, no matter how reliable and dependable that narration is in historical terms.
This grading of reliability and dependability does not lower the honour and importance of a science, but it enchances the Shariah and the honour of its laws, such that the highest level of reliability and dependability will be necessary in order to prove them.
THE IMPORTANCE OF HISTORY IN ISLAM
It is sufficient to gauge the importance of history in Islam from the fact that history and stories is one of the five important sciences of the Noble Qur’aan. The Noble Qur’aan gives special importance to explaining the good and bad conditions of the days of before and after past nations. However, the Noble Qur’aan has a unique style of explaining history and stories. Instead of mentioning the story in sequence, it divides the story,and narrates it together with other subjects. Also, the story is not mentioned just in one place, but the Qur’aan repeates the story in various places.
Through this unique method, the importance of history as well as its objective is clarified, i.e the lessons behind each incident. Islam has taught special etiquettes in the writing of history, and has also stated that history, merely as a subject, has no real value. History becomes valuable only when one takes lesson from it.
After pondering over the treasure of Ahadith and Sirah of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) one shall find the entire treasure to be a history of the speech and actions of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). When people began narrating incorrectly and fabricating Ahadith, then the need arose for the history of narrators to be known, in order to protect the Ahadith. The Imam’s of Ahadith placed great importance upon this. Sufyan Thawri (rahimahullah) said that when narrators began to lie, we used history to oppose them.
That part of history, which deals with narrators of Ahadith, (regarding whether they are reliable or not) has been given great importance in the science of Hadith. It even received a separate name, i.e Asma’ ur Rijal (The names of narrators).
The scholars of the Ummah that have objected and classified the criticism of narrators to be backbiting, their objection was only in the case where the criticism went beyond the limits of the Shariah; where finding fault and disgracing the person without need and necessity became the objective; or where there was no justice and balance exercised in the grading of a narrator.
Just as the Muhaddithin felt the need to scrutinize the narrators, at the same time they placed a number of necessary conditions in order to keep this work within the limits of the Shariah. This has been explained in detail by Hafidh Abdur Rahman Sakhawi (rahimahullah) in his book- Al-A’lam bil taubeeq liman zim al-tareeq.
In this book he has mentioned that the first condition for levelling criticism is that the intention of the criticizer be correct. The intention should never be to show a fault of a narrator or to disgrace him, but rather the objective should be well-wishing and the protection of the Ahadith.
Secondly, this work should only be done regarding that person who has a link to the narration of a Hadith; or in the case where one would be saved from harm due to the criticism levelled. If this is not the motive, then remember, it is no work of Deen to make spreading the faults of someone a past-time.
Thirdly, a scholar should only suffice a minimum required in this particular field, which is that a particular narrator is weak, unreliable or he fabricates narrations. Extra words that point out a fault should be avoided. Whatever is said must only be said after thorough investigation and research.
In summary; that part of history that deals with the protection of Ahadith i.e criticizing the narrators, jarh and ta’dil, explaining their biographies, etc, forms the part of those necessary sciences upon which the preservation of the Ahadith of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) depends.
As for that part of history, which has generally been referred to as ‘history’, which discusses all major events which occurred rrom the time the universe was created until present times, the incidents of the Ambiya (alayhimussalaam), the lives of rulers and kings, the revolutions in the world, wars, victories, etc, these incidents, have been narrated from generation to generation and some have come down in book form. Before Islam, this was nothing but a collection of stories, incidents and tales, which had no verification and none ever bothered regarding checking its authenticity.
Islam was the first to make clarification and research into the authenticity of the narration necessary. The Noble Qur’aan says:
“If a sinful person brings you a report, verify its correctness”.
Those who recorded the teachings of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), his speech and actions adopted this special method and made more than one science through which the Hadith of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was protected. Principles were also formulated foe the other matters that were narrated. In the general history of the world that the Muslims compiled, these principles were considered as far as possible.
Muslims were the ones who accorded history the standing of being a proper and reliable science. Muslims taught the world to write history and to verify it. The scholars of the Ummah had scrutinized the narrations of the incidents of the Ambiya (alayhimussalaam) and then the Ahadith. Not only did they separate the truth from the falsehood, but also they established stages from highest to lowest in the true and reliable narrations.
They separated the part of history that deals with the Ahadith i.e. Asma’ ur Rijal and made it a part of the science of Ahadith. They also paid special attention to writing general history, the history of countries and kings, the history of various parts of the world and its Geography.
There are great Imams of Hadith and Tafsir, scholars and jurists, etc, who have written regarding the history of Ummah. Thousands of small and big books were written, from which it is proven that this history also has a status in Islam.
In the first 40 pages of his book,Hafidh Abdur Rahman Sakhawi (rahimahullah) has made mention of the virtues and benefits of history in detail, in the light of the statements of the scholars and wise men. The greatest and most comprehensive benefit is to derive lesson; to realize the temporary nature of this world by pondering over the rise and fall of nations, to create consciousness of the great power of Allah Ta’ala and to become aware of His bounties and blessings through the biographies of the Ambiya (alayhimussalaam) and the pious; and to inculcate within one the importance of staying away from disbelief and sin, by taking lesson from the evil end of the disbelievers and sinners.
Despite this science having so many benefits and virtues, none have ever accorded this science the status that the beliefs of Islam and laws could be drawn from it. No one ever accorded it such a status that historical reports could be used as proof in the laws of halaal and haraam. Historical reports are not regarded as effective in those laws for which there is a need for Shar’i proof. In addition, there is no path for historical reports to create doubt in any of the laws that have been proven from the Qur’aan, Sunnah, Ijma’ or Qiyaas.
The reason for this is that, although Islamic history is not baseless tales, without a chain of narration, however two matters cannot be overlooked when studying history and when using it for one’s objective. Those who overlook these two matters will use history incorrectly and will fall into the trap of many deviated groups.
The first matter is that the Ahadith of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) i.e. his speech or actions which the Sahaba (radhiyallahu anhum) have heard or seen, was a trust which they understood had to be conveued to the Ummah. They thus paid special attention to every utterance and actions of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and ensured that it remained preserved in their minds and hearts, as far as possible.
Besides this, the intense love that the Sahaba (radhiyallahu anhum) had for Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was such that they were not even prepared to let the water he (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) used for wudhu fall to the ground, they would rub it on their faces and chests. When they would protect the hair that separated from the body of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and his old clothing more than their own lives, how could it ever be fathomed that they would not give due importance to protecting the Ahadith of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)?
The immense love of the Sahaba (radhiyallahu anhum) spurred them to protect his (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) every word and to care for his every hadith, more than even their own lives. Almighty Allah, for the protection of the words of His beloved Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) created a most noble group, possessing angelic qualities, numbering more than a hundred thousand, all with one mission i.e to ensure the protection and propagation of the speech and actions of the single personality, Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).
This privilege was not accorded to anyone before Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Even if one were amongst the greatest of kings, then too no one would ever have the concern to listen to every word of his, attentively, remember it, and then propagate it to others. The incidents of kings, conditions of countries and places, and the changes of time are definitely studied and heard with interest, but who has the concern to remember them properly and propagate them as well? Therefore, historical incidents and narrations can never have the same status as that of a Ahadith!.
Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was commanded to propagate the Qur’aan and the teachings of Risalat (known as the Ahadith) throughout the world, and to the coming generations, until the Final Hour. For this purpose, Allah Almighty blesses him with such Companions, who were filled with his love and honour. Together with this, Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) made it the obligation of every Sahabi (radhiyallahu anhu) to convey whatever aspect of Deen they heard or saw from Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) to the Ummah.
Then too, the danger remained, that when propagating a law, or when narrating from one person to the next, it could easily happen that a mis-quote would occur or that a man could misunderstand a statement and narrate it according to his misunderstanding. To ward off this danger, He (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) issued a stern warning to the narrators of his Ahadith, that they were to exercise the utmost caution possible when narrating his words and actions, Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) would constantly repeat the following: he who wilfully attributes something false to me should prepare his abode in the fire
This severe warning made the Sahaba (radhiyallahu anhum) and the scholars of Hadith that came later so cautious in the narration of Hadith, that as long as a Hadith was not proven with very steong research, they stayed away from attributing it to him (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) The scholars that followed and arranged the Ahadith in chapters and sections, selected only a few thousand Ahadith, after great research, from the hundreds of thousands that they learnt.
In tadrib ur Rawi, p.12, Allama Suyuti (rahimahullah) has written,
Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) said that he chose (the ahadith of) Sahih Bukhari from a hundred thousand authentic (sahih) and two hundred thousand unauthentic (ghayr sahih) Ahadith that he knew from memory. Subsequently, in Sahih Bukhari, there are four thousand unrepeated Ahadith.
Imam Muslim (rahimahullah) said that he chose from three hundred thousand Ahadith when writing his sahih, in which there are only four thousand unrepeated Ahadith.
Imam Abu Dawud (rahimahullah) says that from five hundred thousand Ahadith of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) he selected for his Sunan only four thousand Ahadith.
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (rahimahullah) says that he chose the Ahadith of Musnad Ahmad from seven hundred and fifty thousand Ahadith.
In this way, through natural means and in the shade of the wise administration of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), that Ahadith of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was gathered in a unique, divinely aided method and it became the second proof of the shariah after the Qur’aan.
GENERAL HISTORY COULD NEVER ACQUIRE THIS STATUS!
This is because, firstly, there was no reason for people to give importance to remembering general incidents and events and then convey themto the people; exactly as they hear.
Secondly, if the historians had to judge and scrutinize historical reports and record them with the strict research the hadith narrations require, and only if three or four thousand were chosen from four hundred thousand in Ahadith, then in historical narrations, not even four hundred would have remained! Ninety-nine percent of historical narrations would be forgotten and obliterated and worldly and religious benefits attached to them would have been lost.
This is the reason why the books of the Imams of Ahadith alone have the status of being principle, reliable works. The narrators that have been classified as weak in the field of Ahadith, when it comes to history, these narrators are also accomodated and their narrations are given consideration.
Waqidi and Sayf ibn Umar have been classified as weak in narrating hadith. In fact, they have been severely criticized. However, when it comes to history, the imams of Hadith do not find any problem in narrating from them.
In the science of history, all types of narrations are gathered in each chapter, without any real research or inquiry regarding its strength. Scholars who are taken to be leaders in inquiry, research and investigation in the sciences of Qur’aan and Sunnah, when they write a book in the field of history, then although they do not give place to baseless stories and tales, however, they do not over-exert themselves in researching the lives of the narrators and checking the criticism levelled against them, as they would gave done, had it been Ahadith that were being narrated.
Had these scholars exercised such caution in history as they did when it comes to the science of Ahadith, then ninety-nine percent of history would have been lost from the world. The world then have been deprived of the benefits, lessons, wisdoms, etc, that are linked to this science.
Also, since no Shar’i law was ever going to be extracted from the books of history, no real need for such caution and research was ever felt. That is why the imams of Jarh and Ta’deel (scholars who were famous in describing narrators) also adopted a wide, accepting stance in the field of history. The famous imam of Hadith and Usul al Hadith, Imam ibn Salah (rahimahullah) states in his book Ulum al Hadith:
The aspect dominant among the historians that they gather many narrations in which, authentic, unauthentic, and all tupes of narrations are mixed.
Allamah ibn Kathir (rahimahullah) was a famous Imam and a well-known researcher . He had an outstanding quality of researchin and investigating narrations. However, when this same luminary writes his history work, Al Bidayah Wan Nihayah, then this level of inquiry and investigation does not remain, in fact, he himself attested to this fact, with the following statement, regarding some of the historical narrations in his book:
“I myself have doubt about their authenticity. However, since Ibn Jarir al Tabari (rahimahullah) and others have transmitted these narrations before me, I had thus merely followed suit. Had they not mentioned these narrations, I would have not recorded it in my book.”
It is quite apparent that in the search of a Hadith, he would have never that despite doubting its authenticity, just because some previous author had mentioned it that is why he wrote it.
This is despite the fact that ibn Kathir (rahimahullah) has refuted many narrations of Tabari (rahimahullah) and criticized them in Al Bidayah Wan Nihayah. All these points testify to the fact that in the field of history, those who criticize some narrations, they too have regarded it appropriate to gather as many narrations as possible regarding an incident, under one chapter, despite it being weak or even possibly fabricated.
This is not the co-incidental error of any individual, but this is the line of thinking of all the imams of science of histpry, that it is no fault to mention weak, unreliable narrations in the science of history without criticizing them. The reason for this is that they understood well that beliefs and laws of the shariah are not proven through history. Rather, its purpose is that man takes lessons from it and learns from the errors of those who had already slipped.
If a person desires using these narrations as proof for a ruling that deals with Islamic beliefs or practical deeds, then it is his responsibility to adopt the same laws for scrutinizing the details of each and every narrator, as is necessary in the narration of Hadith.
Without knowing this , how could it ever be permissible to draw rulings from historical narrations, just on the basis of a narration bein found in the history book of some reliable Imam of Hadith!
(End of quotation from Maqaam e Sahaba)
Crux of the entire discussion
Every science and every book occupies an important position, but as long as the principles of that science are not understood, the usage of the books written in that science could easily prove detrimental.
Hiatory occupies a lofty position in the sciences of Islamic knowledge, due to immense benefits it provides. It too is however governed by principles. If these principles are not understood and adhered to, the science of history could easily lead one to straying far from the path of the truth, which evntually ends with one criticizing the Ambiya (alayhimussalaam) and the Sahaba (radhiyallahu anhum), who have already received their pass-certificates from the Knower of All-Secrets, Almight Allah Himself.
A book of history can never be regarded as a book of Ahadith, and its narrations can never be regarded immune from being fabricated or alteration, irrespective of who the author may be. No book of history has the right to be regarded as sahih (authentic)!
The narrations of history shall be governed by the principles of the Qur’aan and authentic Ahadith, sayings of the Sahaba (radhiyallahu anhum), statements of the Tabi’een, Tab-e-Tabi’een, and great scholara of Islam, and finally the common sense. If it is found contradicting any of the above, it shall be subjected to ta’weel (interpretation). If interpretation proves difficult, it shall be disregarded, since its chain of narrators offer no guarantee of the authenticity of the narration. The most that could be said is that it has a fifty percent of chance of being true, and a fidty percent chance of being fabricated. Due to the chance of being fabricated being so high, there is no reason to demand the narration being accepted, especially when it contradicts solid evidence, as is itself surrounded by so much of contradiction.
Keeping the above principles in mind, one shall find the objections levelled against the illustrious Sahaba (ridhwanallahu anhum), merely on the basis of historical narrations, having no authenticity whatsoever!
The demand however is that these principles not only be remembered when it comes to accusations levelled against the Sahaba (radhiyallahu anhum), but rather these principles are to be considered before lending credence to any accusations made, against any individual, irrespective of creed, colour and position.
Together with this, it is vital that one keeps in mind that the evil Persian/Jewish satanists who were operating in full-force during the era of Hadhrat Uthmaan and Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhuma), they were not going to suddenly disappear from the scene and stop their mischief. Rather, their evil will grow stronger with the passing of each day.
Creating fights among the Muslims was their ambition, and they were prepared to do anything to achieve that goal. When studying any incidents of conflicts among between Muslims, which occurred after the era of the Khulafa e Rashidin, it is imperative that one bears in mind this group of hypocrites, and first check if perhaps their filthy hand was not operating behind the scene.
The rise of the Khawarij
After the Tahkeem (arbitration) failed to reach a unanimous decision, Hadhrat Ali and Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhuma), after a few more skirmishes, agreed to halt the in-fighting, and not to contest for land which was already under the opposing party’s rule. The people of Iraq and other areas would still refer to Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) as “Amir-ul-Mu’mineen”, whilst the people of Shaam would address Hadhrat Mu’awiyah with the title of ‘Ameer’. The Ummah finally found some relief from theyears on internal conflict that had already claimed the lives of thousands. The only ones that were not happy were the hypocrite Persian/Jewish/Majus Satanists, who had made it their ambition to break the strength of the Ummah through internal conflict.
The only way now to re-initiate the internal conflict amongst the Muslims was to have all thpse personalities assassinated, who had taken the Ummah out of the vicious waves of turmoil. The three personalities who were viewed as the greatest threats to the plots of the Persian Satanists, and whose being assassinated was vital for their plans, were:
Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)
Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu)
Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu)
As long as portraying the love of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) had helped the cause of the Persian Satanists, they were in the front line of those singing his praises, attributing to him divine qualities and levelling the worst sort of criticism against all who had prevented him taking his so-called ‘destined’ place as the true first Caliph in Islam. (Na’audhubillah). But as soon as they perceived Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) being a barrier to their filthy motives, they forgot all their claims of love and switched to the other extreme branding him and all his loyal followers as ‘Kafir’ (Na’audhubillah). In fact, some of these hypocrites went as far as slaying hadhrat Ali’s (radhiyallahu anhu) close companions, just on account of their remaining loyal to his command.
A glance at the hypocritical traits and the filthy minds of the Khawarij
These hypocrites had portrayed themselves as the most pious, most learned, and most loving and loyal from the warriors of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). The marks of lengthy sajdah would be clearly visible on their foreheads, their continuous recitation of the Qur’aan had earned them the title of “Qurra (the reciters)”, and their fervor for fighting was unique. But as soon as the Ummah accepted the decision of Tahkeem (arbitration), which brought to a temporary halt to the years of in-fighting, their true colours came to the fore.
Without giving and thought to the love and honour they had for so many years portrayed to Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), eight-thousand of these so-called ‘Qurra (learned men of the Qur’aan)’ together with their familiesand friends, broke away from his army, and refused to even lend an ear to his answers to the objections they had. Even the answers of Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu), who the entire Ummah has accepted as the “Ocean to the knowledge of the Qur’aan”, his answers too could not break their stubborness, merely due to it being based, not on ignorance, but on hypocrisy.
The Khawarij refused to shift from their position unless and until Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) would accept his error in agreeing to the Tahkeem, and would openly repent from his act of “kufr” (Na’audhubillah), which he had, according to them, committed by allowing “man” to arbitrate, whereas according to their concocted understanding, “the only arbitrator is Allah Taala”.
Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) obviously would never accept these absurd demands, and the Khawarij were never going to alter their stance.
After the Tahkeem (arbitration), ended without any unanimous result, Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) initially intended setting off in the direction towards Sham, attempting once more to force the people of Sham into pledging their allegiance. As his army moved away from Iraq, the Khawarij found and oppoetunity to vent their anger and went wild in their massacre of Muslim women and children left behind.
Among those brutally slaughtered by the Khawarij is the prominent Sahabi, Hadhrat Abdullah bin Khabbab (radhiyallahu anhu) together with his pregnant wife. On their way to execute this nobly Sahabi, they happen to pass by a swine, belonging to some dhimmi (a non-Muslim citizen). One of the men steuck it with his weapon, tearing its skin apart. A so-called “pious” man from the group rebuked him on gis action and sent him to the dhimmi, to pay the price of the animal, and ask for pardon. A while thereafter, one of the men picked up a date that fell from a nearby tree and began chewing it. His friends rebuked him and forced the date out, saying, “What? Without paying its price?” (This was the condition of their outward piety, as for the condition of their hearts and soul, the action that followed is more than sufficient to explain its filth and hypocrisy!).
Hey then brought Hadhrat Abdullah bin Khabbab (radhiyallahu anhu) forward, and mercilessly severed his neck from his body. As they approached his wife, she screamed out, ‘Do you not fear Allah! I am a pregnany women”. Her plea was of no avail, since these were not men in front of her, buy rather animals. They cut her belly open, exposing the foetus. (May Allah Taala deal with them as they deserve)
The filthy actions of these animals caused Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) to stall his plans of battle against the people of Sham, and instead turn his attention to the Khawarij, who had once upon a time, formed part of his elite force and close confidants. Due to having for so long enjoyed such a close relationship with these people, Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) felt it extremely difficult to suddenly lift his sword against them. Thus he sent Harb ibn Murrah Abdi to discuss the matter with them, but he too was mercilessly slaughtered. Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) was now forced to engage them in battle.
Before the battle could begin, Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) announced that if the killers of his companions were handed over, he would leave the rest unharmed. The Khawarij boldly answered that all of them had killed his companions, and were now desirous to spill his blood as well.
Qais ibn Sa’d ibn Ubadah (radhiyallahu anhu), with great feeling, warned them of the consequences of their actions, followed by the advices of Hadjrat Abu Ayyub Ansari (radhiyallahu anhu), and followed by the eloquent and heart-rendering speech by Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) himself, but all ended in vain.
Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) then ordered Hadhrat Abu Ayyub Ansari (radhiyallahu anhu) to lift up a flag of protection for the Khawarij, and announced that whosoever walks towards the flag shall be spared. Similarly, whosoever walks towards Iraq and Mada’in, he too shall be spared. This announcement proved detrimental to the Khawarij, as the majority of their men deserted their ranks and sped towards safety. The Khawarij were not left with just less than a thousand warriors, and against the force of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), this number proved too insignificant. Seven from the army of Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) attained martyrdom. Whilst on the side of Khawarij, not a single soul was spared, from either death or severe injury.
The Shayatin had deceived these Khawarij to such an extent, that even when they were being pierced, at that moment too they remained adamant that they alone were on truth. Hadhrat Abu Ayyub Ansari (radhiyallahu anhu), after stabbing his spear through the chest of a Khawariji, exclaimed, “go straight to the fire!, O enemy of Allah!” To his amazement, the Khawariji, with his last worldly words, replied, “Soon you shall see who is more deserving of the fire”.
After the battle, Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) took a walk amongst the dead, saying, Woe be to you! The one who has deceived you has truly caused you the greatest of harm!” Someone asked, “Who had deceived them?” Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) replied, ‘Shaytan and evil souls that had give them false hopes, made their evil deeds seem noble, and deceived them into believing eternal success and victory was destined for them.” Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) thereafter ordered that the wounded of the Khawarij, numbering upto four hundred, be attended to.
The Khawarij once formed a great part of the army of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), thus the relarionship that had existed between them and the true followers of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) was very strong. To raise the sword against one’s own friends was obviously very hard on the heart, and after the battle many of Hadhrat Ali’s own men were to be found gloomy, knowing that they had just killed their own friends.
To remove their grief, Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) informed them that Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had predicted that such a group would one day rise, who shall apparently have all the traits of piety, whereas in reality they shall have no relationship whatsoever with Islam. They shall be the worst of people and the ones that shall kill them shall attain immense rewards. Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) explained them that Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) even described the features of the leader of this group, and had made special mention of a bulge on his hand. He then sent out scouts to search for such a man amongst the dead, explaining that if such a man is not found, it shall be proof that they were wrong in their attack, but if they do find this man, then they should understand that they have been selected to kill the worst of men.
After an exhaustive search, the man described by Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was pulled out from under some corpses. As soon as Hadhrat Ali’s (radhiyallahu anhu) eyes fell upon the man’s body, he fell straight into Sajdah, and rose only after spending a long time thanking and glorifying Almighty Allah. The feelings of remorse that had gripped his men now disappeared.
The number of Khawarij that were killed during this encounter was close to six-hundred, and about four hundred were injured. What do you think happened to the rest of them? Do you think they just disappeared? Nay, they just stepped back into the dark for a brief while, waiting for the next opportunity to strike and reignite the flames of disunity that had been burning within the Ummah for so many years.
The assassin of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) Iran/Iraq. The killers of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) hailed from Iran/Iraq and Egypt. The hypocrites who ignited the wars of Jamal and Siffin were men from Iraq/Iran, who later took the name as Khawarij. Now, when it came to the assassination of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), who else one could expect to step forward for this heinous deed, except the one from Iran/Iraq.
After a few more encounters between Hadhrat Ali and Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhum), a truce was finally concluded, which demanded that the in-fighting be brought to an immediate halt. The hypoceite enemies of Islam realized that their only hopes for re-igniting the flames of war amongst the Muslims now lay in the assassinations of Hadhrat Ali, Hadhrat Mu’awiyah and Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhum). Three men feom the Khawarij met to lay out the plans for the co-ordinated strike upon these three luminaries at one and the same time.
It was decided that Abdur Rahman ibn Muljim will martyr Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), Bark ibn Abdullah will slay Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and Amr ibn Bark will kill Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu). The 17th of Ramadhan, 40 A.H was the day set to carry out this task.
The martyrdom of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)
It was decided that Abdur Rahman ibn Muljim will martyr Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), Bark ibn Abdullah will slay Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and Amr ibn Bark will kill Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu). The 17th of Ramadhan, 40 A.H was the day set to carry out this task.
Many years previously, Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had asked Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) if he was aware of who the wretched man was, Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) had replied that it was the man who stood up to slaughter the camel of Nabi Salih (alayhissalaam), in lieu of the few nights of enjoyment with a women renowned for her beauty. Hadhrat Ali’s (radhiyallahu anhu) answer was derived from the verse of Surah Dhuha, wherein Allah Almighty states:
“Then the most wretched man stood up (intending to slaughter the camel of Salih alayhissalaam)”
Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) then asked Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) if he was aware of who the second most wretched man is. Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) expressed ignorance, upon which Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) himself gave the answer with the following sentence:
“The man who shall murder you!”
To assist with the assassination, ibn Muljim brought two other Kharijis; Shabeeb ibn Najdah Haruri and Wardan into the plot. On Friday night, 17th of Ramadhan 40 A.H, the three of them hid in the Jami’ Masjid of Kufa. Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) entered the Masjid at the time of Fajr and began awakening the people for salah as usual. Shabeeb ibn Najdah Haruri came out and struct Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) with his sword causing him (r to fall in the mihraab. Abdur Rahman ibn Muljim came forward and dealt a second blow with his sword. The beard of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) became soaked in blood. He shouted, “Catch my killers”, Wardan and Shabeeb ibn Najdah Haruri fled but Abdur Rahman ibn Muljim was caught. Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) was brought to his home and Abdur Rahman ibn Muljim was presented before him. He said, “if I die, then kill him, If I remain alive, I shall mete out an appropriate punishment myself!”.
Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had infact described the details of the assassination of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) to such an extent that Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) himself, just a few days before his assassination was found saying:
What is keeping the ‘most wretched’ back? Why is he delaying? By Allah! Soon this beard of mine shall be drenched with the blood of my neck”
When hope of his life came to an end,he called his sons and made a bequest to them regarding taqwa (piety), good deeds and service to religion. Someone asked, “O noble one! Shall we pledge allegiance at the hands of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) after you?” He replied, “I do not command you to do so, nor do I prohibit you. Do what is appropriate!”
He (radhiyallahu anhu) was reciting the following verse when he passed away:
Whoever does any good act (even) to the weight of a particle, he shall surely see it!
And Whoever does evil (even) to the weight of a particle, he shall surely see it!
He was sixty-three years of age and he held the post of the caliphate for approximately 4 years and 9 months. The Janazah Salah was performed by Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) and according to the preferred narration of Ibn Kathir (rahimahullah), he was buried in the inner part of the Dar al Khalifah, Kufa. May Allah Ta’ala be pleased with him. (note: shias think that the grave of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) is in Najaf. Ibn Kathir (rahimahullah) has classified this view to be baseless. He then narrates from Khatib Baghdadi (rahimahullah) that the grave in Najaf attributed to Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) is actually that of Hadhrat Mughira ibn Shu’ba (radhiyallahu anhu). Besides this, there are various regarding the place of burial of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). See Al Bidayah Wan Nihayah vol 3 pg. 329-330, Qadhi Zain ul Abidin Meerthi).
After the demise of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) called for Abdur Rahman ibn Muljim. Abdur Rahman ibn Muljim said, ” I took a promise to also kill Mu’awiyah. If you permit , I want to carry this duty out as well. I promise that if I remain alive, I shall definitely come to you.”
Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) rejected his request and told Abdullah ibn Ja’far (radhiyallahu anhu) to kill him.
Abdur Rahman ibn Muljim had so much conviction on his baseless belief that at the time of his execution he was reciting Surah Alaq and he was saying, “I do not want to keep my tongue negligent of the remembrance of Allah at this time!”
The friend of Abdur Rahman ibn Muljim, Bark ibn Abdullah reached Damascus. The very same day, at the same time, he attacked Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), when ge emerged from the Masjid after Fajr. Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was slightly injured but recovered quickly. Bark ibn Abdullah was caught and killed. After this incident, Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) got a room made for himself in the Masjid and appointed a guard that would be on duty at the time of Salah.
The other friend of Abdur Rahman ibn Muljim, Amr ibn Bark, reached Egypt and he too attempted to fulfil his promise at the appointed time. Coincidently, that day, on account of illness, Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) could not come to the Masjid. Kharijah ibn Abu Habibah came instead and led the salah. Amr bin Bark thought that Kharijah bin Abu Habibah was Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) and attacked him lethally. ‘Amr ibn Bark was caught and killed.
After the assassination of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), the people of Iraq pledged allegiance to Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), whilst the people of Sham pledged their allegiance to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu). Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) held the post of Caliphate for aboit 6 months, and thereafter made a decision to hand the Caliphate totally over to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu). This decision of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) shocked all, but through it the Ummah was re-united, the doors for Islamic conquests re-opened, the many evils that had, because of the in-fighting, had crept into the Ummah, were now pushed back, the Muslims power strengthened and the hopes of the hypocrites were shattered.
During his youth, Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) had received many indications from Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) regarding the mantle that he would one day occupy. In the light of those indications, Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) took this most bold step, despite the opposition he encountered from those around him. The results of his bold decision soon proved that no better decision could have been made at that crucial time in Islam. Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had himself indicated towards the wisdom and goodness behind this decision, when he had said, many years previously, from the pulpit, whilst pointing towards Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu):
This son of mine is a leader.
Perhaps Almighty Allah shall use him to reconcile between two great parties of the Ummah!.
The decision that Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) took to hand over the Caliphate was thus one hundred percent in accordance with the wish of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). It was a decision which finally brought back for the Muslims their days of peace and unity. The only group that burnt upon seeing the results of this decision were the Khawarij/Persian satan worshipping hypocrites, since this decision was going to halt their progress and spoil their plans for another twenty plus years.
As long as the term, “Love for the Ahle-Bayt” suited their nefarious plans, these hypocrites woul scream it out at the top of their voices. But, when the need for these illustrious personalities of the Ahle-Bayt would no longer remain, it would be these very hypocrites who would ensure their assassination. Who else was responsible for the assassination of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)? Were it not the very men, who as long as they needed him fought bravely in his defence and scream out slogans in his honour, raising him from the level of being a slave of Almighty Allah to the mantle of divinity? Did the Khawarij, once upon a time, not form a major part of the army of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)? Did they break away from him, merely on account of a misunderstanding, or was it due to many of their leaders being nothing but satan-worshipping hypocrites?
After the assassination of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), many of these hypocrites came running to pledge allegiance upon the blessed hands of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu). Their intention was nothing but to re-ignite the extinguished flames of war, and start the fight for power all over again. Their slogans of “love for Ahle-Bayt” once more began, and with it their hopes of collapsing the Islamic Caliphate were raised again.
Six months later however, when the news of Hadhrat Hasan’s (radhiyallahu anhu) decision reached their ears, they, in one second, forgot all their sympathy and love for the Ahle-Bayt, and began openly mocking Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu). For the second time this group was found giving support, hypocritically, merely in order to have their nefarious plans passed, and pulling back the support, as soon as their need for the individual no longer remained.
Tabari has narrated that when Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) was accepting the allegiance, he made the people say that they would obey his every command, would unite with whosoever he unites and fight against whosoever he fights. These conditions made the people of Iraq doubt his ability to rule. They began saying amongst themselves, ‘This man is not fit for the Job! It seems he is not interested in fighting!” It was not long after that Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) was stabbed (by some Iraqi warriors). This attack made Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) more wary and distant from the people of Iraq. [refer to Tarikh al Tabari]
Khateeb al Baghdadi narrates in his Tarikh that when the news of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) reached the ears of his die-hars supporters, it seemed as though their backs were going to break in anger. When Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) came back, they even had the audacity to swear him in his face. A man, known as Abu Aamir, Saeed ibn Natl, mockingly addressed Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) with the words:
Salaam be upon you! O the one who has disgraced the believers!
In Al-Bidayah, It has been narrated that after handing over the Caliphate. Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), together with his entire family, left the lands of Iraq and returned to Madinah Munawwarah. As he would pass the different clans and tribes of Iraq, instead of crying and bidding him farewell, many would come out merely to rebuke him over his decision and cowardice.
Had these people really had any respect for him on the basis of him being from the Ahle-Bayt, they would have respected his every decision, and would never have dared showing the least form of disrespect, especially when in front of him. The reality however was that there never was in the hearts of the satanist hypocrites of Iraq/Iran any lovefor the household of Nubuwwah. The term ‘love and revenge for Ahle-bayr’ was merely a slogan they had devised to win support and sympathy. As long as any member of the Ahle-Bayt was needed, they would reach the sky in praising and extolling him, but as soon as their motive was attained, they would disassociate
from him completely, and in fact if needed, they would even be prepared to have him assassinated.
When one studies the reasons behind Hadhrat Hasan’s (radhiyallahu anhu) leaving Iraq for Madinah Munawwarah, one shall find the prime reason being the abuses of the Iraqi’s towards him and his family, after he refused to submit to their demandsof continuing the war against Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu). These people had no real interest in the spirituality and high rank of Hadhrat Ali, Hadhrat Hasan and Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhum) and for all the other great personalities of Ahle-Bayt. Rather, the names of these illuminaries were used to bait the innocent believers into thinking that imaan is based upon hating and fighting against all those, who, in their corrupted opinion, were opposed to the Ahle-Bayt and had prevented them from their ‘divine’ right of rule, even if it may be the closest and most beloved companion of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) viz. Hadhrat Abu Bakr and his Daughter Hadhrat Aa’isha (radhiyallahu anhum).
Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) himself explained the prime reason behind his abandoning Iraq. His words, as quoted by Tabari, were as follows:
O people of Iraq! Three of your actions have spurred me to migrate from this land:
1) You assassinated my father!
2) You openly criticize and hurl remarks at me!
3) You looted my belongings!
The crux of the above is that Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) never left Iraq due to being ‘defeated’ by Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu). His life did not end while hevwas burning with fury against Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and the people of Sham. In fact, he and his brother, Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhum), enjoyed many privileges during the reign of Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), and would at least once a year visit him in Sham. Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) posed no threat to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), thus it is impossible to believe that Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), after receiving complete hand-over of power from Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), would now find the need to have him poisoned. The only one’s that had a motive for assassinating Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) were the hypocrites of Iraq, who had been behind the assassination of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), who had looted the belongings of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) and stabbed him in the process, and had turned completely against him after him hand-over of power.
Those who were thirsty for the blood of believers, and who had from the very beginning, been behind all the turmoil reigning amongst the Muslims, who had been instigating one Muslim group against another, and who had forsaken Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and planned his assassination after finding him a barrier to their plans, rhese very people were now, after finding Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) not interested in continuing the war, looking for a new avenue of re-igniting the flames of disunity and turmoil within the Ummah.
As long as Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) would remain alive, there was no hope of any other opposition to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) standing up, thus the removal and assassination of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) was imperative for the hypocrite/Satanist league operating from Iraq/Iran. Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) was poisoned, while in Madinah Munawwarah, and an attempt was made to point the finger towards Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), an accusation that no sane mind would ever believe, and which no Sahabi ever gave any consideration to. The evil bodies behind his assassination however remained hidden, as they had been in the assassination of Hadhrat Umar, Hadhrat Uthmaan, in the battle of Siffin and Jamal, in the assassination of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and in numerous other incidents.
As soon as Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) was assassinated, this hidden satanic league turned its attention towards Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), hoping that through him the fight for the Caliphate would be re-ignited. Letters began pouring in, addressing Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), falsely attributed to the general population of Iraq, begging him to accept their allegiance and stand up against the so-called ‘oppressive’ rule of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu).
In Al Bidayah, Allamah Ibn Kathir (rahimahullah) narrates that after the death of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), Musayyib ibn Utbah al-Fazari, together with a group of Iraqis, came to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) and begged him to break his allegiance to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and accept their allegiance to him, saying, ‘We are well aware of your opinion in the matter regarding Mu’awiyah’, (referring to the fact that Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), was from the very beginning not happy with the decision to hand over the Caliphate).
Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) replied, ‘I have hope that Almighty Allah reward my brother for his good intentions (i.e to refrain from fighting and thus save the blood of the Ummah), and I hope that He rewards me for my good intentions (the love of fighting against the oppressors)” [al-Bidayah]
When the governor of Madinah al Munawwarah, Marwan ibn Hakam received the news of these delegations, he had a message sent to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) saying, “I fear that Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) become a target of fitnah (turmoil)!” Hadhrat Mu’awiyah thus wrote to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), cautioning him from falling into the trap of Iraqis. His advice was as follows:
“Remember, the one who takes pledge in the name of Allah (i.e has pledge allegiance to a Caliph), it is only appropriate that he now fulfils his pledge!, I have been informed that some peopl of Kufa have requested you to join them in breaking the unity. I am sure that through past experience you now realize that the people of Kufa can never be trusted. They have already betrayed your father and your brother. Thus fear Almighty Allah and remember your pledge. If you attempt to plot against me, I shall punish you severely!”
Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) replied to this letter saying:
“Your letter has indeed reached me, and I am in no way intending to do that which you suspect. And Almighty Allah alone guides towards good. I have no intention to fight against you, but at the same time I fear that if Almighty Allah has to ask as to why I abandoned Jihad against you, I shall have no answer!” [Al-Bidayah]
In Al-Akhbar al-Tiwal, Hafidh Dinawari has quoted the following, which explicitly shows that some people from Iraq were continously on the lookout for some excuse to re-ignite the flames of disunity amongst the believers:
When the news of the death of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) reached the people of Kufa, the leaders of Kufa sent their condolences to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), via letters. Ja’dah ibn Hubeira, who would display the most love for the Ahle-Bayt, wrote:
‘Such friends of yours are present here (i.e in Kufa and Iraq), who are eagerly awaiting your coming, who regard none as your equal! They are well aware that the opinion of your brother, Hasan, was to avoid war, whereas you are a man who shows kindness to friends and severity against the enemy, a man who fights bravely for the Deen of Allah. Thus, if you are desirous of achieving these goals, come over to Kufa immediately, for we have, in your service, handed ourselves over to death!’
Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) replied them as follows:
‘I hope that Almighty Allah blesses my brother with the best. As for me, at the present moment, I do not feel that rebellion to be appropriate. Thus, as long as Mu’awiyah remains alive, remain in Kufa, seek shelter in your homes, and avoid becoming targets of suspicion. If something happens to him (i.e he passes away) whilst I am still alive, I shall write to you again, informing you of my plans’.
If one were to ponder over the above quotes, the reality shall surely dawn that certain elements in Iraq and its neighbouring surroundings were desperate to keep the Muslims disunited, and were clutching at every straw to achieve this. It is commonly understood that Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) went to Kufa due to the evil that Yazid was perpetrating. The above and other evidence, that shall later be brought, shows that this was never the reason for Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) going over to Iraq. Rather, the call for rebellion against every ruling government was a common cry of the evil elements of Iraq, Egypt etc. They had made this cry during the rule of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu), during the initial reign of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), during the end of the rule of Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), when he appointed Yazid as his successor, during the era of Yazid, and when Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) finally accepted their invitation, but upon reaching Kufa, found none ready to stand in his support.
This call of rebellion against the Ummayyad government, would thereafter continuously be made, in different areas and at different times, with the basis now being, ‘revenge for the Ahle-Bayt, revenge for Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu)‘. The efforts of these Satanist groups finally found some sort of success, about seventy years later, with the fall of the Ummayyad empire and the rise of the Abbasi government, which was in actual fact, a Persian backed government, a government that openes up the doors for the Fatimi/satanist rule in Egypt, and brought into the Islamic countries all the corrupt ideologies and cults.
During the twenty year reign of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) showed no interest in joining any rebellion, thus, the efforts of the Iraqi hypocrites in re-igniting the flames of disunity in this period was minimial. The Muslims were now able to enjoy an era of peace, stability and have their eyes cooled by witnessing the doors of Jihad against the disbelievers re-opening. For some unknown reason, many still hold the notion that the rule of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was an oppressive, evil rule. To remove this misconception, a summary of the era of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), together with a brief introduction to the man himself, shall be given:
Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and his era of rule
1) Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was amongst those Sahaba, who took part in the Battle of Hunain, regarding whom Almighty Allah declared:
“Then Allah sent down his special mercies upon His Messenger and upon his believers!”
2) Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was amongst those Sahaba, who took part in the Battle of Tabuk, regarding whom Almighty Allah declared:
“Verily Almighty Allah turned His attention of mercy upon His Messenger, the Muhajireen and the Ansaar, those who followed His Messenger during the hour of difficulty (i.e the Battle of Tabuk)”
3) Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), besides being blessed with the mantle of Sahabiyat, and being a close relative of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), was also blessed with the honour of being amongst the scribes of revelation. [Tabarani]
4) Qadhi Iyaadh (rahimahullah) has quoted that Muaaz ibn Imraan was once asked whether Mu’awiyah ibn Abu Sufyan (radhiyallahu anhu) was greater or Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (rahimahullah). Hadhrat Muaaz became very angry and retorted,
“A non-Sahabi (i.e Umar bin Abdul Azeez (rahimahullah) or any one else like him) can never be compared to a Sahabi (radhiyallahu anhu)
Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was a Sahabi of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) his sister was the wife of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), he was the scribe of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and one who trusted Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) with revelation”
5) When Abdullah ibn Mubarak (rahimahullah) (the world renowned scholar of Hadith and Fiqh, famous for his bravery, generosity, and deep knowledge in literature, nahw, lughaat, poetry, and all other Islamic branches) was asked as to who was greater, Hadhrat Umar bin Abdul Aziz or Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), he issued such a reply which brought an end to the entire discussion. He said:
“The dust that settled on the nose of the horse of Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), whilst he rode alongside Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) that dust alone is thousand times superior to Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (rahimahullah)!”
6) Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was blessed with the trait that his every judgement found success. One who will ponder over his twenty year rule, in which he pulled an entire Ummah out of years of in-fighting and united them under one flag, in which he sorted out the differences between all the disputing parties and brought stability back for the Ummah, in which he reopened the doors of Jihad against the enemies of Islam, and in which he extinguished much of the fitnah (trail) that the Khawarij had re-ignited, if one were to ponder over these feats, achieved in such a short span, one shall surely admit that Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was indeed one of the greatest rulers the world had ever seen. If one were to ask as to where did Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) learned such remarkable governing principles, the answer would be nothing else but that he had been blessed with the dua’s of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).
Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Umairah (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) made the following dua
for Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu):
“O Allah, make him a guide, and guide him, and guide others through him!”
The result of this most blessed dua were visible throughtout the life of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), and through the blessings of this dua he was able to establish such an empire, that made a senior member of the Tabi’een, Al-A’mash exclaim:
“If you had seen Mu’awiyah, you would have thought him to be Al-Mahdi!” [Tabrani]
When the dua of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) aided Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) throughout his life, and drew him of safely in the most dangerous of situations, when it established him as ‘one guided in his decisions’, and as ‘one through whom others found guidance’, when it enabled him to rule wisely as Ameer over Sham for twenty years, during the era of Hadhrat Umar and Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhuma), and then for another twenty years as Caliph over the entire Muslim world, could one ever then imagine that at the most ceucial juncture of his life, i.e at the time of his death, this most blessed dua would fail him, and instead of ending his life on a high note it haf reached, he terminates it with the ‘worst’ decision a ruler could ever have made, i.e appointing a successor one who had absolutely no right and was not at all worthy of being appointed??
Those that view the decision of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) in appointing his son as his successor, a decision upon which he (radhiyallahu anhu) remained upon during the last four years of his life, those that regarded this decision to be the greatest administration error ever committed, should ponder over the dua of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) for Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), and ask themselves as to why did the dua failed when the time came for him to make the most crucial decision of his life!
Whosoever shall pinder over this point shall see in Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and at his decision to appoint his son as his successor a completely different picture as to what the Persian satanists have portrayed to the world! (In Shaa Allah, at a later stage, this picture i.e the true picture behind his decision, shall be made more visible).
7) Tabrani has quoted an amazing experience of a Sahabi, Hadhrat Awf ibn Malik (radhiyallahu anhu). He narrates that while Hadhrat Awf (radhiyallahu anhu) was taking seista, he awoke suddenly to find a lion approaching. He reached out for his sword, but the talking of the lion (by the way of a miracle) caused him to stop in his tracks. The lion said, Do not panic! I have been sent with a message! Allah has sent me to order you to inform Mu’awiyah that he is from the men of Jannah! Hadhrat Awf (radhiyallahu anhu) asked, “Which Mu’awiyah?” The lion replied, “Mu’awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan!”. [Majma Al Zawaa’id].
8) Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) had the good fortune of enjoying family relationship with Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam. His relationship was first established due to both he and Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) being born in the family of Abde Munaf . This relationship was later strengthened when his sister, Hadhrat Umme Habibah (radhiyallahu anha), was married to Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (rahimahullah) was once asked if the hadith, ‘No family relation shall be of any aid on The day of Judgement except that relationship which is linked to me’
also applies to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu). Imam Ahmad replied, ‘Most certainly! In fact, he is linked to Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) both due to nasab (being from the same family) and due to him being the brother-in-law of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)’.
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (rahimahullah) would also say that due to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) being the brother of Hadhrat Umme Habibah (radhiyallahu anha), who is one of the mothers of the believers, he (radhiyallahu anhu) shall thus take the title of being the ‘Uncle (mother’s brother) of the believers’.
9) Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) praised the first Muslim army that shall wage jihad by sea with the following words,
‘The first army of my Ummah that shall ride the seas has made Jannah compulsory on themselves‘ [recorded by ibn Hajr]
Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was blessed with the good-fortune of being the Ameer of this army. This occurred during the rule of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu).
10) Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had asked Almighty Allah to overlook any such sentence that could emit from his blessed tongue, in which there might be some form of curse for an individual who was not deserving for it. If ever such a sentence would emit, Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) has asked Almight Allah to transform it into a means of purifying and elevating the individual.
Imam Muslim, in the chapter of those regarding whom Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) uttered some word which they were not deserving of, and which was then transformed into a dua for their spiritual and worldly elevation, made mention of an incident concerning Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), which has been nrratted from Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu), the incident is as follows:
‘Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) sent Abdullah ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) to call Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu). He returned, informing Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) that Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was eating. After a while Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) again sent him and he returned with the same reply. i.e he was still eating. Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) at that moment said: May Almighty Allah never satiate his belly!” [Sahih Muslim]
Commenting on this, Allamah Ibn Kathir (rahimahullah) has written that Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) benefitted from this statement both in this world and the hereafter. His condition in this world was that his table would never be empty. Food would continuously be brought in front of him, for him and his guests , and he would never find his belly unable to tale in more. In fact, he himself would say, “My belly always has space for more. It is only that I get tired of eating!”
11) Ibn Sa’d has narrated that once Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) requested to Hadhrat Aa’isha (radhiyallahu anha) that she send him the hair and shawl of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). When it reached him he wore the shawl and after soaking the hair in water, drank the water, and passed it over his face.
12) Despite Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) being amongst those Sahaba (ridhwanallahu anhum) who would narrate only from Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), after great thought and ensuring that he had heard and understood correctly, then too he was blessed with the honour of having, according to what has been counted, twenty-three Sahabah narrating from him, amongst whom were: Abuzar Ghifari, Abdullah bin Zubayr, Abdullah bin Abbas, Abdullah bin Umar, Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al Aas, Nu’maan bin Bashir, Wa’il ibn Hujr, Abu Darda and Abu Sa’id Al’ Khudri (radhiyallahu anhuma).
Hafidh ibn Hajr al-Haythami has written, after making mention of the great luminaries from the Sahaba and the Tabi’een that had narratted from Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu):
If you were to ponder over which giants of Islam narratted from Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), you shall realize what a great jurist and Mujtahid he was!
13) The fact that Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) occupied the position of governor over Sham during the reign of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), that itself is a sufficient testimony of his high rank. Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) had himself said:
‘By Allah, I make every effort possible to choose only the best (as governor over the Muslims)’
14) In praise of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) said:
“You speak regarding the wit and intelligence of Kisra and Caesarwhereas you have Mu’awiyah amongst you!”
15) In praise of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), Hadhrat Abu Darda’ (radhiyallahu anhu) said:
“I have not seen one whose Salaah resembles the salaah of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) more than your Ameer” i.e Mu’awiyah!”
16) Urwah ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that he never heard Miswar ibn Makhramah (radhiyallahu anhu) making mention of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), except that he would make dua for him.
17) Hadhrat Aa’isha (radhiyallahu anha) was so happy with the rule of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), and the peace and stability he had established, that she would at times say:
“At times, I even wish that Almight Allah take from my lifespan and increase through it the lifespan of Mu’awiyah”
18) In praise of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu), who was known as the ocean of knowledge , said:
‘None of us has more knowledge than Mu’awiyah!’
19) Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) praised the generosity of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), saying that he has never seen a man more generous than him. When questioned as to whether he was even more generous than Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) himself, Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) replied that Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was greater, but Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was more generous.
20) The great Sahabi, who was placed in a fire but did not burn, Hadhrat Abu Muslim Khawlani (radhiyallahu anhu) once said to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), ‘By Allah, from the time we began loving you, we have never harboured any anger towards you! From the time we began obeying you, we have never disobeyed you! From the time we united under you, we have never separated for you! From the time we pledged allegiance to you, we have never broken that allegiance! Our swords are on our necks. If you order, we shall obey! If u call, we shall immediately present ourselves! If you proceed ahead, we shall trail behind! If we proceed ahead, we shall always wait for your arrival!.
21) Abu Ishaq As Sube’ei said, “After Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), we found none that could match him! [Minhaj al Sunnah]
He would also say, “If you had seen the era of Mu’awiyah, you would have thought him to be the promised Mahdi!” [Al khilal fil Sunnah]
22) Mujahid would say, “Had you seen Mu’awiyah, you would have said due to his great virtue that he is indeed Al-Mahdi!. A similar statemwnt has been attributed to Qatadah. [Ibid]
Jihad during the era of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu)
One of the salient features of the truthful Caliphs of Islam was that they strove to keep Jihad alive. In the era of turmoil, i.e. from the death of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) until the appointing of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) as Caliph, this fundamental pillar of Islam came to a temporary halt, which was just what the enemy desired. Then too, the desire to send out the Muslim armies to all the corners of the world, for the spreading of the truth, remained the burning desire of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), but due to the cirmustances he was unable to do so.
When Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) ascended, and the Muslims once again gathered under one flag, he immediately re-ignited the process of having armies continuously on the move.
Describing this virtue, Saeed ibn Abdul Aziz said:
After the assassination of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu), the sending out of armies came to an halt, and was only re-initiated when the Ummah united on the appointment of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) as the Caliph, in the forthieth year after Hijri, which was called ‘The year of Unity’. Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) began sending armies into the Roman lands. A group og sixteen armies woul spend the entire year there, and upon there return another group would take there place. Then in the fifty-second year after hijri, he appointed his son (Yazid) as Amir over an army, which included many Sahaba (radhiyallahu anhuma), (amongst them were Hadhrat Abu Ayyub Ansari and Hadhrat Hussain radhiyallahu anhuma) to attack the Romans by land and by sea. This army finally managed to cross the gulf and lay an attack on Constantinople, from its very doorstep, the army thereafter returned.
Had there been no virtue to mention about Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) except this one, it would have been sufficient for his status to be realized, since the upholding of the fundamental of Jihad has always been the hallmark of the truthful leaders of Islam. Evil elements have always tried to lay criticism on the rule of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and the Ummayyad Empire that he established, by citing incidents feom the personal lives of some of its members, incidents which have no real sanad and can thus never be verified. The one aspect which they could not manage to cover was the fact that Jihad and Islamic conquests thrived during this era, with its armies spreading out from Sham in all directions.
It was during this era that:
⚫ the first attack on Constantinople occurred, during the era of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu)
⚫ Islamic armies reached the islands of the Mediterenean Sea.
⚫ Islamic armies crossed the Atlantic and conquered Spain.
⚫ Conquests reached the southern tip of France.
⚫ The entire North Africa, practically, was brought under Muslim rule.
⚫ The lands known as ‘Mawara’ al nahr‘ including Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, etc was brought under Islamic rule
⚫ Muslim armies reached the borders of China, and collected Jizyah from its leader
⚫ Muslim armies brought India under Muslim rule.
Due to the great conquests that occurrwd during this dynasty, some historians have stated:
It would not be anything amazing if one were to say that the Ummayyad empire played one of the most important roles in Islamic History, with regards to the conquests made!
As for the dynasty that followed, known as the ‘Banu Abbas’ which hailed from the lands of Iraq/Iran, this dynasty, despite opening wide its doors for all deviant groups, allowing the establishment of the first Shia empire in Muslim lands, i.e. the Fatimid empire, and bringing to a practical halt all Islamic Jihad movements, despite delivering these and many other terrible blows to the Muslim world, yet one finds the books of history silent when it comes to criticizing it. Why? The reason is what has been mentioned from the very beginning, i.e. Jewish/satanic/hypocrite forces
have always attacked the books of history, and endeavoured that the truth remains stained.
As for the oft-repeated narrations and historical incidents in which some form of criticism against Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and his family, the Banu Ummayyah, can be discerned, Allama ibn Taymiyyah, after proving in length that the Rafawidh (Shiites) have always emerged as the greatest liars and deceivers of every era, summarised the answers to all the objections raised against Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and the Ummayyad dynasty in the following words:
‘The Shia’ rejects rhat which is clear-cut, and whose truth is evident. As for that which has no basis, and whose falsehood is manifest, those are the narrations which they strive to revive, an example of which is what they narrate regarding Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu)’ [Majmu-al-Fatawa]
When fabricated Ahadith, concerning Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), can be found with made-up-chains of narrators, what could one then expect to be the case with historical incidents, which have no chain of narrators whatsoever?
Shaykh Mahmood Shakir, while discussing the issue of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), his family, Banu Ummayyah, and all its Caliphs, wrote most decisively:
The accusations levelled against the Banu Ummayyah have no sound chains. In fact, in the majority of these narrations there is no mention of who first narrated it, which clearly indicates of it being baseless. Thus, no consideration could ever be given to it. If one were to adopt here the method used for scrutinizing Ahadith, which is of course the best method for ascertaining the teuth of any matter, then majority, if not all, of the accusations levelled against the Banu Ummayyah shall be found unreliable and shall be disposed off.
A common accusation levelled against Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) from hypocrite quarters is that he had made many promises to Hadhrat Hasan and Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhuma) to entice them to hand over the Caliphate, but failed to fulfil those conditions afterwards. Anyone with a little knowledge of Islamic history shall know that deception and lying were never the traits of the noble Arabs, neither before Islam and of course not after.
Together with that, not a single incident can be found wherein Hadhrat Hasan or Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhuma) stands up to complain to the people of Makkah Mukarramah or Madinah Munawwarah that Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) had eeceived them and broken his promise. When the generosity of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) would not miss the commoner, could one ever think that the noble grandsons of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) would ever find him unwilling to give? Yes, if what they had asked was found out of his reach, due to promises and pacts which he could not breaks, then in those situations, Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) would ensure that they be given a much better substitute.
Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) had a lot of respect for Hadhrat Hasan and Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhuma) and would try his utmost best to fulfil their every request. This remained his trait throughout his life and he departed with this very bequest that their rank and status always be considered.
Haafidh al Deenawari has quoted the following in Akhbaar al-Tiwaal:
Historians have mentioned that throughout the life of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), Hadhrat Hasan and Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhuma) never experienced any such act from him, which caused them inconvenience and difficulty, nor did they ever harbour any sort of anger or malice against him. Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) ensured that they receive whatever has been promised to them, and he never witheld his favour and kindness to them.
Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) in fact, performed the nikah of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) to Aa’isha, the daughter of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) and himself paid the mahr (dowry) of ten thousand dinaars on behalf of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu). Aa’isha thereafter remained in the marriage of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) till his death.
Summary of the above
Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) together with being a close Sahabi of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), which in itself is sufficient for one’s praise, was blessed with many noble qualities and traits which made him an outstanding leader and a winner of hearts. His twenty year rule of peace and stability, which had been preceded by years of war and internal conflict, bear ample testimony to this.
If the purpose of mentioning all of the above was merely to highlight the status of this great Sahabi, then despite this too being necessary in today’s time and an act of great merit, but in the context of what we are trying to discuss, i.e. the reality behind Karbala, such a discussion would naturally seem out of line, especially it has generally never been denied that he was a great man. The only problem seems to be with his son, Yazid.
The actual purpose of the entire discussion in actual fact has nothing to do with regards to the personality and status of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), but it had been rather brought to lay the foundation of a most important issue, which constitutes the basis of the investigation into the reality of Karbala.
In simpler words, whoever shall read about the conditions and stability in the era of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), and shall study his noble traits and qualities, he shall be forced to admit that Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) left nothing during his reign of rule as a cause for any group to rise in rebellion. Yet if one were to look a bit deeper, he would find the people of Kufa continuously calling for the overthrow of the government of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and the reinstating of the Ahle-Bayt. What was Hadhrat Mu’awiyah doing wrong that made them beg the Ahle-Bayt to come over and have him overthrown? Was it that he too was committing adultery or was he drinking liquor or was he an oppressive, stone-hearted ruler?.
The fact that the people of Iraq were continuously making attempts to incite Hadhrat Hasan and Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhuma) to rebel against Hadhrat Mu’awiyah is a no hidden matter. A few examples of their nefarious activities during the era of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) have already been mentioned. But for the purpose of re-highlighting this fact, a narration from Mu’jam al Tabrani, which has a sound and strong chain of narrators, shall now be mentioned:
Yazid bin al-Asam narrates that once whilst on a journey with Hadhrat Hasan ibn Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), a bundle of letters reached him, Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) called for a container, and had water poured into it. He then threw the letters into the water, without even bothering to glance at its contents. I asked ‘O Abu Muhammad! (Hadhrat Hasan), who has sent all of these letters?’ He replied, ‘It has come from the people of Iraq, a group that shall never accept the truth, and shall never desist from their evil. As for myself, I do not fear being deceived by these people. However I do fear that they may have an impact on him!’ Saying this Hadhrat Hasan pointed towards Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu).
When one questions as to the reason behind Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) going over to Iraq to assist with the overthrow of Yazid, the answer shall generally be that Yazid a tyrant, an adultrer, a habitual drunkard, etc, (allegations that never have been proven).
But, if the same question is now put forward that these reasons are all well and valid, but what then was then reason behind the people of Iraq calling Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) over; for the same sort of overthrowing duringbthe reign of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), was he too doing the same?
If this question can be answered, it shall open up an entire new understanding of the incident of Karbala. Had the people of Iraq never complained of any governor before Yazid, one could have possibly believed all their sorrowful tales of the cruelity of Yazid, his oppression, his open transgression, etc. However after realizing that a group of people from Iraq were from the very beginning always at the throat of their leader, desiring his removal from his post, irrespective of their status; when one realizes that overthrowing the government was always their goal and that they would do anything to accomplish it, one shall then look at the entire incident of Karbala and the accusations against Yazid, preceded by the assassination of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) from a different angle, and insha Allah many unanswered questions shall then find answers.
The issues that shall be discussed Insha Allah be discussed are of an extremely delicate nature. It is like a bush of thorns, from which very few have come out unscathed. The majority who attempted falling into these issues were finally forced to take sides, some would side with Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) (which would obviously be the safe option), but would then have to answer as to why none of the Sahaba of Makkah Mukarramah and Madinah Munawwarah were not prepared to join him in his joirney to Iraq, and he would also have to explain why Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) after ruling wisely for approximately twenty years, chose to make an unwise and rash decision to appoint his son who was (according to this group) not at all fit for the job, and thus put his hereafter in jeopardy.
As for the second group, who would side with Yazid (which is not a good decision at all), he would, besidea having to face the wrath of the Ummah, have to answer as to why Yazid such a hasty decision in sending Ubaidullah ibn Ziyaad over ro Kufa to deal with Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu). When the matter was of such great importance, why did he himself not go over to Kufa and deal directly with the problem? And if it is said that Yazid never had asked for the assassination of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), then why did he later not have Ubaidullah ibn Ziyaad punished for not obeying his command? Also, why did he order an attack on the blessed cities of Makkah Mukarramah and Madinah Munawwarah just before his passing away?
To attempt a through investigation into the matter of Karbala, with the purpose of making a decision in favour of one of the two groups, and finding the other blameworthy, such an attempt is not only futile and dangerous, but it is in fact fully in line with what the shayateeni forces had wanted from the very beginning. Taking sides has and shall achieve nothing except further weakening of the Ummah.
Fifteen noteworthy points
The safest route in this matter thus be to look with an eye of justice and love at both parties, to regard both parties sincere in their motives, and to realize that love for any one party does not demand that the other not be defended. If one were to look at the matter of Karbala, after adopting this approach, fifteen startling points will shall come to light, viz.
1) The call for the overthrowing of the Ummayyad Caliphate had noting to do with Yazid. Rather, this call had already been made during the era of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), and even in the era of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu). The practice of falsely accusing leaders and governors, merely to ensure no stability in the government, was thus nothing new.
2) The love of the Ahle-Bayt, which the people of Iraq claimed to be the basis for their entire mission, was nothing but a shaytaani farce. This very slogan had already been used against Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhuma), with the claim that they snatched the right of Caliphate from Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and deprived Hadhrat Fatimah (radhoyallahu anha) from her inheriting a share in the land of Fadak. (Na’audhubillah)
These very same hypocrites, who intended nothimg but keeping the Ummah divided, then sided with Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), and at the same time continued instigating the opposing party, resulting in major wars breaking out amongst the Muslims, and many valuable lives being lost through in-fighting. In their hypocritical expression for the love of the Ahle-Bayt, they were even prepared to claim divinity and infallibility to Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), but as soon as he chose to halt the war, they forgot all their love and branded him apostate. Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) was thereafter assassinated by these very slogan-waving hypocrites, now know as the khawarij, and Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) was elected as the new leader.
The books of history record that the love, the people of Iraq expressed for Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) was much more than the love which they held for Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) but this too was short-lived. As soon as Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) handed over the Caliphate to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) his ‘loyal’ supporters suddenly disappeared. In fact, their attitude towards the illustrious grandson Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) now became so filthy, that now he finally felt it best to abandon the lands of Iraq and return to the pure lands of Hijaaz. The hypocrites of Iraq were so bold in their criticism of tgeir once, ‘pure/infallible Imam’, that they even had the audacity to walk right upto him and brand his as ‘a disgrace to the Ummah‘.
After reaching Madinah Munawwarah, the attempts of the hypocrites in luring Hadhrat Hasan to break his pledge and call for the overthrow of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) continued, but Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) was no longer prepared to lend them an ear. The only fear he had was that their sad letters could have an effect on his brother, Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), thus he always ensured that the letters be destroyed. There are even recorded incidents of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) warning his brother against ever inclining towards the liars of Iraq.
3) As soon as Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) was assassinated, the slogans of love for the Ahle-Bayt once again began pouring in from the people of Iraq, and regular invitations and appeals would be sent, beggi g that he take back the right of the Caliphate, which (in their opinion) had been reserved for the Ahle-Bayt, and promising their full support if he does so. Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), understanding well that breaking one’s allegiance without any real grounds was not allowed, would respond back that at the present moment they should remain patient, and let fate take its course.
The news that the people of Iraq were instigating Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) to stand up against the government even reached the ears of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), upon which he sent a letter advicing Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), against any such act. Hadhrat Hussain’s (radhiyallahu anhu) reply, as recorded in Al-Bidayah, and which has already been mentioned, as follows:
Your letter has indeed reached me, and I am in no way intendung to do that which you suspect. And Almighty Allah alone guides towards good. I have no intention to fight against you, but at the same time I fear that if Almighty Allah has to ask as to why I gave abandoned Jihad against you, I shall have no answer!
When Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) decided upon selecting his son as the next Caliph, from the entire galaxy of the Sahaba and the Tabi’een, he found four or five senior Sahaba not in favour of his decision. From these, Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Umar and Abdullah ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhuma), both promised that if they found the rest of the Ummah pledging allegiance to Yazid, they would follow suit.
Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was now faced with the choice to either change his decision, due to the opposition of Hadhrat Hussain, Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubayr and Hadhrat Abdur Rahmaan bin Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhuma), or ignore their opposition and move ahead with his decision. He chose the latter, since the selection of any other person would also not be free of the opposition of some party or the other. The people of Egypt would prefer Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu), the people of Hijaz would prefer Hadhrat Abdullah bin Umar or Hadhrat Abdullah bin Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhuma), the people of Iraq would not be happy with anyone besides Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) , and the people of Sham would never accept as their leader, except one from the tribe of Ummayyad. Expecting all the clans and tribes to unanimously select one leader was thus a futile exercise and Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was well aware of that.
It should also be remembered that when selecting the next Caliph, the present Caliph is encouraged to consult with his subjects, but not compelled to accept the decision. Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) himself ignored the opposition of certain people when it came to selecting Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) as Caliph, and this has been the practice of every leader who came thereafter. Even in the selecting of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) there existed the difference of opinion amongst the few who had been elected to choose, so how could it now ever be considered possible to find a man, upon whom the entire nation would agree.
5) When Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) and his companions were questioned as to the reason for their not agreeing with the decision of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), none of them made any mention that they found him unfit for the position, or that he was a habitual drunkard, or an adulterer, etc. Their answer was merely that they felt that this was opening up the doors of ‘Hirqaliyah- a system of succession’, qhere afyer every leader his son ascends to the throne, irrespective of whether he was capable or not.
6) Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was well aware of the reason behind their opposition, but still he felt that the betterment of the Ummah lay in Yazid being elected. This decision of his was based purely on his sincere concern for the unity of the Ummah, and had nothing to do with desiring to keep power within his family.
7) The hypocrites of Iraq understood well that Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) was opposed to the appointment of Yazid as Caliph, and found this to be the ideal opportunity to re-ignite the flames of war amongst the Ummah. Yazid was in Sham, far away from Iraq, but as soon as the news of the death of his father began spreading, their letters of complaints of Yazid began pouring in, whereas their leader was Nu’maan ibn Bashir, a Sahabi (radhiyallahu anhu), and Yazid was far, far away from them.
8) The inhabitants of Makkah Mukarramah and Madinah Munawwarah warned Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), from believing the letters of the people of Iraq, since their betrayal was well-known, but he was determined to give them a final chance to prove their loyality. He (radhiyallahu anhu) due to the insistence of the people of Hijaz, eventually agreed to first send his cousin, Muslim bin Aqeel over to Iraq, to confirm the authenticity of the letters from the people of Iraq. When Muslim ibn Aqeel arrived, he was introduced to scores of loyal supporters, and thus wrote to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) that there support was genuine. As soon as the letter was sent, his host Mukhtaar ibn Ubaid al-Thaqafi had him exit his house, and Muslim ibn Aqeel found himself deserted, left at the mercy of Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad. Before his death he made a final attempt to warn Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) of the betrayal of the Iraqis, but his letter of warning reached too late.
9) Had there been no instigators and hypocritws acring as in-betweens, Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) and Yazid would have aurely come to a truce, but the fate had been written otherwise. Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad was never going to allow Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) the opportunity to speak personally to Yazid, knowing full well that Yazid would surely pardon him. as was the bequest of his father.
10) Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) had been invited over to Iraq, not to lead any revolution, but rather so that his life could be used as an excuse to start a revolution that was intended to bring down the entire Ummayyad empire. The hypoceites who had wrotten to him, inviting him and promisi g their help, were never going to be interested in saving his life. Rather, it was noyhi g but his blood that they had desired, which they could thereafter use as support-gainer against the Ummayyad, who would be framed for the killing. Why else do you think that from the hundreds that showed their faces to Muslim ibn Aqeel, as loyal aupporters of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), not a single one of them showed up when he required their help the most. In fact, as mentioned in many narrations, it was these very hypocrites who stood on the side of the army who had come out in his opposition.
11) There was no reason to have Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) martyred. He himself offered to allow himself to be arrested and taken to Yazid. In fact, he even promised, as mentioned in many narrations, that he was now prepared to pledge allegiance at the hands of Yazid. Such a move would have surely be a strengthening factor to the rule of Yazid, thus, it is inconceivable that Yazid would have ever disagreed to such a proposal. The only benefactors from the martyrdom of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) were the very hypocrites who had lured him into coming to Iraq. His blood was essential to their plans. To ensure that he does not come out alive they even joined the armycoming out to have him arrested. The purpose of these hypocrites in the army of Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad was merely to ensure that Hadhrat Hussain does not leave Karbala alive.
12) There is no proof that Yazid ever ordered the killing of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) and common sense itself shall show that even the most weak-minded rulers would avoid issuing such an order. The hiatorical narrations clearly show Yazid openly expressing his innocence feom having issued such a command, and wishing if only such a disaster could have been averted. Almighty Allah Himself exposed the culprit behind the death of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) i.e. Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad, by having snakes come out of his nostrils and ears after his death, as quoted by Imam Tirmidhi (rahimahullah), whereas no suvh thing happened with Yazid.
13) A few years after the martyrdom of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), the first host of Muslim ibn Aqeel, Mukhtaar ibn Ubaid al-Thaqafi, openly made the call of rebellion against the Ummayyad, using the slogon of ‘revenge for Ahle-Bayt’ as a source of winning support. With such a slogan, who would ever think of not lending a helping hand to his movement? The sorrowful tales of Karbala has already made the public lose faith in the Ummayyads, and all were thus desirous of justice being served.
The revolution led by Mukhtaar gained tremendous support and soon the majority of Iraq was rallying under his flag. As his power increased, he made apparent a few of his satanic beliefs, firstly claiming that Muhammad Hanafiya, the son of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), was the promised ‘Mahdi’ and thereafter moving to the claim that he himself is ‘god-incarnated’ (Na’audhubillah). His soldiers behaved as barbarians as they raped and savaged innocent women and children and massacred all who resisted joining their movement.
His move was finally brought to an abrupt end when Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu) ordered his brother, Mu’saab to stop him in his tracks. A fierve war broked out and Mukhtaar was finally brought to the ground. When this was the reality of the first host of Muslim ibn Aqeel, what else could be said of the entire affair of calling Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) over to Iraq except that it was nothing but a bloody conspiracy, plotted by Shaytani forces spread along the length and breadth of the Islamic world, with its centre being Kufa?
14) Just a how Yazid had been instigated into sending Ubaidullah Ibn Ziyad against Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), so too was he later instigated into having his forces attack the Holy Lands of Makkah Mukarramah and Madinah Munawwarah. Yazid could possibly never be found completely innocent of making rash decisions, but accusations of kufr, fisq, etc, that, without any proof, is surely not the demand of looking at the matter with the eyes of justice.
15) The martyrdom of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) was surely one of the major catastrophes that the Ummah had to see, but it was definitely not the worst. Why then has it remained the only episode that gets remembered year after year, and why has an open investigation into its reality never been allowed?
Why has every party that has attempted to question of Karbala been branded as ‘men against the Ahle-bayt’? Is it that the label ‘against the Ahle-bayt’ has been formed to ensure that none ever dare to investigate the ‘bloody’ secrets of Karbala, and to serve a purpose similar to that which the ‘Holocaust’ or ‘911’ serve??, i.e. to keep the flames of war blazing, to rally support for a mission engulfed in false accusations and oppression, and to ensure that the truth never gets revealed.
The above fifteen point have been mentioned as a summary of what one could discover if the incident of Karbala were to be studied without any preconceived idea in mind. It is not necessary that one’s conclusion be exactly the same, but the minimum that an unbiased study of the incident would do is leave one with many unanswered questions, and with many doubts regarding the story that has become common amongst the masses and even amongst many scholars.
As with regards to proving the above fifteen points, let it first be understood that most of what is known regarding Karbala and the factors leading to it has been derived from historical narrations, which can never be accepted as concrete proof. These historical narrations either have no chain of transmission (sanad) or even if they do, very few have undergone any sort of test to verify its authenticity. Added to this is the fact that even if a narrationcan be traced upto a Sahabi, through a strong chain of narrators, then too, the question shall always remain as to who did the Sahabi get his information from. A Sahabi would never lie, but in the era of the Sahaba and Tabi’een, hypocrisy was indeed rife, and liars, instigating Sahaba and Tabi’een against each other were spread around the Muslim world.
If a statement of a Sahabi or a senior Tabi’een had to reach is with an accept chain, it will still be necessary to reach for the informant before accepting the information. If a Sahabi or a Tabi’i
were to claim that he had witnessed an incident personally, his word would be talen immediately, but if he is merely quoting what had reaches him, such news would require verification.
Incidents of men like Abdullah ibn Saba and others instigating sahaba and tabieen against each other are numerous, and in fact it was this very sort of instigation that laid the foundation for the assassination of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu), and the wars that followed thereafter.
Thus, if a Sahabi or a Tabi’i were to comment on any issue regarding the conficts that occurred during their era, it would be essential that before accepting his statement, it first be seen that if his informant can be relied on, and whether the informant himself witnessed the incident personally, or is he also merely narrating from someone else. At times, one shall realize that despite an incident being narrated by numerous historians, but when it comes to tracing it to at least one authentic source, not a single narration can be found to be reliable.
Historical narrations lending support to the version that has been mentioned above can thus easily be provided, but narrations supporting conflicting versions can just as easily be found. What shall the criterion therefore be, which shall prompt one to accept one narration over another, when in strength each narration is practically the same, i.e. its narration can hardly be verified?.
In proving the fifteen points mentioned above, I have thus chosen a method of questioning the motive, wisdom, probability and practicality of different aspects of Karbala and surrounding issues. That version which fits most with the demands of Islamic principles, and does not leave any unanswered questions shall be adopted, and all conflicting narrations ignored. Historical narrations supporting the preferred version shall be provided, not to prove the version, but rather merely to show that such narrarions also exist, which have generally been ignored, either purposely or just because it was felt that it goes against the grain of the commonly accepted version.
Karbala and its Surrounding issues, facts or fiction
1) The assassination of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) and the culprits behind it
Various parties have been accussed of poisoning Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), with the most famous being that it was his wife, Ja’dah bint Ash’ath,
instigated either by Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), with the promise of marrying her to his son, Yazid, or instigated by her own father Ash’ath ibn Qais, who in turn was instigated by Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu). Despite this view being mentioned in many unverified historical narrations, the accusations against Ja’dah and Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) fails to answer the following questions:
a) What benefit Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) could ever derive from from the assassination of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu)? In fact, as long as Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) remained alive, there remained no fear of the Iraqis instigating Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) , since it was common knoqledge that Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) was totally against in-fighting, and for that very reasonhad agreed to hand over the Caliphate. Had hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) been alive at the time when Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) decided to elect his son, Yazid, as the next Caliph, there is a great possibility that he would have ensured that none opposed Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), since his life ambition was to keep the unity of the Ummah, and to seal all the doors that could lead to in-fighting.
In attempting to answer this, certain narrations have been concocted to show that in the truce made between Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu). It was agreed that after the death of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), the caliphate would be returned to Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu). Hadhrat Mu’awiyah’s (radhiyallahu anhu) motive in having him assassinated (radhiyallahu anhu) was thus to protect himself from having to fulfil this condition. (Na’udhubillah) The stupidity and absurdness of this ‘made-up motive’ is more than evident, since if such a condition had ever been laid, it would have been common knowledge amongst all the Sahaba and Tabi’een present during that era, and it would surely have found some mention in authentic narrations.
b) Why can no narration be found wherein Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) accuses Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) of having killed his brother? Rather, what can be found is even after the death of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) would visit Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) atleast once a year, and accepting from him gifts, just as he would do during the lifetime of his brother.
c) The wife of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), Ja’dah, was herself a princess, being the daughter of Ash’ath bin Qais, chief of the famous and mighty tribe of Kindah, and loyal friend of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). She had the honour of being in the marriage of the prince of both the worlds, the most handsome man of the time, the grandson and beloved of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), a mab who every woman desired of that time desired entering into his wedlock. Due to being the wife of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), she was also blesswd to be the daughter-in-law of Hadhrat Fatima Zahra (radhiyallahu anha), and of the close household of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Having acquired all this prestige and honour, what benefit could there now possibly be for her to forfeit all this glory and honour, merely so that she could be married to Yazid, who was absolutely no match whatsoever in front of the leader of the youth of Jannah, Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu)!.
d) Had Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) or Yazid ever thought of poisoning Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), they would have never done it through his wife. Would they ever take a chance of having themselves humiliated in front of the entire Ummah, and branded as traitors, knowing full well the wife’s love for her husband, especially a husband like that of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), would surely have her exposed their evil intentions? When no weak-minded man would ever take such a chance, where then could such an unwise plot ever emit from the mind of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), who has been declared as one of the most wise of the Arabs.
e) If the motive behind the assassination of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) was to clear the path for his son, Yazid, to become Caliph, why then did Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) also not make some sort of effort to have the few standing in opposition to Yazid’s election also murdered. Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was well aware that the only true opposition that Yazid would have to face was that of Hadhrat Hussain and Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubaur (radhiyallahu anhuma). If assassination Hadhrat Hasan was so easy, why did he then not have the same done with these illustrious two as well?
f) Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) would yearly present himself, together with his brother, in front of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu). Had Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) ever intended having him assassinated, he could have easily ordered that they be ambushed during one of the journey’s and killed. In this way, their would be no fear of a woman ever exposing the men behind the killing, nor any concern of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) standing up for any retaliation.
g) According to one narration, the father of Ja’dah, i.e. Ash’ath ibn Qais, having been bought off by Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), instigated his daughter to poison Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu). From all the narrations, this one is the most preposterous, since Ash’ath ibn Qais passed away approximately nine years before the demise of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), and according to some narrations, Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) himself performed his Janazah Salah.
Due to the above eight factors (a-g) it seems only right that Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), Yazid and Ja’dah ibn Ash’ath be absolved from having played any role in the assassination of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), and other subjects now be brought under investigation. The suspects with the greatest motive, who would attain the most benefit throught the death of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) would obviously be none other than the very ones who had been behing all the wars and assassinations thus far, i.e. the Satanist/Persian/Khawarij/Jewish forces operating primarily from Iraq, but whose forces of hypocrites had now spread all over the Muslim world.
Their motive would be obvious, i.e. only with the removal of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) could their hopes of re-ignitong the flames of war ever be realized. Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) had already made it clear that he was never going to lend support to any Iraqi movement, and as long as he was alive, he would ensure that Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) too never inclines towards them.
A narration, with a sound and strong chain, which supports this has already passed above (the narration of Yazid bin al-Asam), in which Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) expressed concern that in his absence he feared that the people of Iraq would easily instigate his brother against the present government and thus re-ignite the flames of war amongst the Ummah.
Another indicating factor towards the involvement of this group is the fact that as soon as the news of the death of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) spread, letters from parties in Iraq started pouring in, expressing regret over his death, but at the same time instigating Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) to join them in opposing the government. An example of this has also previously passed, the gist of which is as follows:
(When the news of the death of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) reached the people of Kufa, the leaders of Kufa sent their condolences ro Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) via letters, Ja’dah ibn Hubeira, who would display the most love for the Ahle-bayt, wrote,
Such friends of yours are present here (i.e. in Kufa and Iraq), who are eagerly awaiting your coming, who regard none as your equal! They are well aware that the opinion of your brother, Hasan, was to avoid war, whereas you are a man who shows kindness to friends and severity against the enemy, a man who fights bravely for the Deen of Allah. Thus, if you are desirous of achieving these goals, come over to Kufa immediately, for we have, in your service, handed ourselves over to death!)
As for Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), no real change in his manner of governing occurred after the death of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), which could in some way have indicated that he was just waiting for the death of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) to carry out some new idea. It was only seven years later, when he felt that his death was fast approaching, that he began considering having Yazid elected as Caliph after him. Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) passed away in the 49th year after Hijrah, whilst the issue of having Yazid elected only began in the 56th year after Hijrah, four years before the death of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu).
The crux of this discussion is that the accusation made against Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and Yazid regarding their involvement in the murder of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), this accusations have no real basis, and common logic also defies it. In fact, suring the entire era of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), not a word was ever mentioned regarding his, or his son’s possible involvement in the death of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu). Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) for the next nine years, continued making his annual visits to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), but not for once did he even raise the issue of the death of his brother.
It was only years later that the evil segments had this absurd claim propagated, and without any verification, the simple-minded believers began repeating it, as though it was a decided truth. As for those against whom there definitely was some form of case, i.e. the liars of Iraq, their mention was hardly ever made in the lists of possible suspects.
As with regards to the women accused of poisoning Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), Ja’dah bint Ash’ath, despite famous historians having painted her as the killer, without making any indication whatsoever that this accusation too has never been verified, if one were to merely ponder over her life-history alone, it would be more than sufficient to expose the fact that the accusation laid against her, forget not being proven, was never even mentioned during her lifetime.
A summary of her life, as mentioned in Tabaqat ibn Sa’d, and other sources, show:
1) She was the maternal niece of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu).
2) She was married to Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), while Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) was still alive. She thus had the privilege of remaining in the wedlock of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) for over 9 years, getting separated only due to his death. Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) was well known for his habit of retaining women in his marriage for only short periods of time, and thereafter divorcing them and accepting others into his wedlock, merely with the intention of allowing more and more woman the opportunity of having some sort of share to be from the family of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Despite this habit, Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) kept Ja’dah till the end. Why?
Can it be conceived that a man of such wisdom and foresight remain blinded from the evil hidden within this woman, thereby keeping her back and sending so many other righteous and pious women? Does the love and inclination which Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) expressed for this woman not offer any indication towards her nobility, piety, righteousness and sincerity? Has Qur’aan not hinted that the inclination, love and admiration expressed by a pure believing male for his female partner should be considered as a significant sign of the purity of the female herself? [Here the reference is being made to the verse 26 of Surah Nur, Wherein Almighty Allah says: “And pure souls shall surely only be inclined to that which is pure”]
3) After the death of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), Ya’qub ibn Talha, the son of Hadhrat Talha ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu, one of the ten who received the glad-tidings of Jannah during his life) extended his hand of marriage towards her. She remained with him in Madinah Munawwarah, till his death, and bore him three children. Ya’qub ibn Talha was a high-ranked Tabi’i, famous for his generosity. Would such a man ever think of marrying a woman who had been accused of poisoning Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), and thereafter residing with her in the very city in which Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) had passed away?
4) During her stay in Madinah Munawwarah, with her new husband, a time came when the people of Madinah, including her husband, pledge their allegiance to Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu). During this time, why did Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu) not have her brought to trail? The only reason that comes to mind is that during that time, in Madinah Munawwarah, not a single accusation had been levelled against her by anyone, thus the need of an investigation never arose.
5) After the death of Ya’qub, the eldest son of Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) married her, from whom she bore two children. Knowing the close relationship between Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu and the family of Hadhrat Hasan ibn Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), could one ever imagine his eldest son marrying a woman accused of poisoning Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu). The fact that he married her and kept her with him in Shaam clearly shows that during that era, no accusation had been levelled against her, neither in Hijaz, nor in Shaam.
From the above, one can clearly gauge that during the era of the Sahaba (radhiyallahu anhum), no accusation had ever been made against Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), nor againsy Yazid, and neither against Ja’dah, at least not in the lands of Hijaz and Sham. No trail was ever held, no evidence was ever heard, and in fact, no finger was ever pointed at any of these three, regarding having played amy role in the murder of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu). When this is the case, could one ever now dare lifting the finger of accusation against any of these three individuals, especially after being aware of the strict verdict of the Shariah regarding accusing without any valid proof!
2) Why did Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) appoint his son, Yazid, as Caliph after him?
Was it due to extreme love he held for his son, which spurred him to betray the trust Ummah had places upon him, and appoint one unworthy as their leader. (Na’udhubillah). Or was it that his love for fame and power would not allow him to let the reigns of Caliphate ever leave his family. (Na’udhubillah)
After a period of over forty years, during which Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) proved himself as a great well-wisher of the Ummah, and displayed, through his actions, the acceptance of the dua of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) for him,that he always be rightly-guided, now when his death was most evident, and when his hereafter was about to begin, would such an intelligent man ever make such a decision that wouls wash away all his good, just so that homis son gets the title of ‘Caliph’? (Na’udhubillah)
If all the above are to be regarded as impossible, what then could ever have been the reason behind Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) being so insistent that the Ummah accept Yazid as the Caliph, deapite knowing fully well that certain illustrious Sahabah were not at all happy with his intention?
Perhaps one could say that Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was unaware at that time regarding the future actions of his son, and understanding him worthy to had him appointed. The problem with these answers are however manifold, a few of which are,
a) It is clear from the books of history that Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was well informed of the dissatisfaction of certain Sahabah, with regards to his making Yazid as Caliph. In fact, Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) even travelled to Hijaz, solely to discuss this issue with them and question the reason behind their disapproval.
b) After the death of Hadhrat Muawiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), not a single Sahabi, from those who had shown their disatifaction with his decision, ever mentioned to the people that the reason behind their not pledging to Yazid was due to his actions changing drastically after the death of his father.
c) From the five Sahabah who openly criticized the decision of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) while he was alive, only two remained standing in opposition after the appointment of Yazid, i.e. Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubayr and Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhuma). Hadhrat Abdur Rahman ibn Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) passed away before this, whilst Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Umar and Abdullah ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhuma), as they had previously promised, pledged allegiance.
If one were to say that Yazid was good while his father was alive, and his true colours were only revealed upon the death of his father, then one would surely have to question the wisdom behind Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Umar and Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhuma) opposing Yazid’s appointment, while he was outwardly pious and upright (i.e. during his father’s life) and accepting his rule happily, after he began displaying all his evil colours and traits (i.e. after the death of his father). It would be as though one is saying that they openly rejected his appointment while he was good, and happily accepted it when he became bad! (Na’udhbillah)
d) If Yazid did become bad and evil after the death of his father, why then did the vast majority of Sahabah and Tabi’een npt oppose him?. Rather, thr books of history show clearly many illustrious Sahabah and Tabi’een serving happily as commanders, chiefs, advisers, etc under Yazid.
Could it ever be possible that after having seen only upright, Allah-fearing caliphs, viz. Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Hadhrat Umar, Hadhrat Uthmaan, Hadhrat Ali and Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhuma), the Ummah would then suddenly find their new Caliph, Yazid, perpetrating open acts of indecency and immorality, yet none from his chief ministers, advisors, soldiers, and the Ulama and the Fuqaha around him would criticise his actions or atleast announce his resignation from Yazid’s cabinet.
The above few points shall Insha Allah be sufficient to show the weakness of the view that Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) appointed Yazid as Caliph while he was good, and that the opposition of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) occurred only due to his later turning evil.
The question now remains as to why would Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), right at the end of his life, choose to spoil his hereafter by entrusting the responsibility of caliphate to his son, knowing full well that there were many other more deserving candidates, and that his son, Yazid, was not at all fit for the job? What could possibly have spurred him on to male such a rash decision and why did the general ummah, which comprised of many Sahabah, during the four years that he remained alive after openly making announcing decision, not demand that he retract? If one were to reply that the 5 senior Sahabah dis in fact object, the question shall then be phrased more explicitly as, why did only five from the entire galaxy of Sahabah and Tabi’een object? Why did the rest remain silent?, Could it be conceived that all the Sahabah and Tabi’een of that era, besides five, had now become so gripped with the fear of the Mu’awiyah regime that none dared to speak out?
If one were to then answer that during that era there were not really so many senior Sahabah alive, our answer would be that in the matters of Deen, the junior Sahabah and the Tabi’een were blessed with the many fervours which the seniors had been blessed with. Where the seniors were lamps of guidance, so too were the juniors!
In fact, a mere glance at the names of the illustrious Sahaba alive during that era would be more than sufficient to show the weakness behind the argument. For the benefit of the masses, some of these names shall be listed below. Among these names, some shall be of those, who although they never lived to see the reign of Yazid, but were however alive when Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) announced his decision to have his son appointed as Caliph after his death, yet they voiced no opposition to his decision.
In Al-Bidayah, it has been recorded that the announcement of Yazid becoming Caliph after Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), this was made in the 56th year of Hijrah, four years before the demise of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu). Sahabah and senior Tabi’een, who lived after the announcement, but dis not voice any objection, include, amongst others:
1) Hadhrat Aa’isha (radhiyallahu anha) (passed away 58 A.H) whose opinion in all the Deeni matters was respected greatly by all, and whose objection against Yazid being appointed would most definitely have been recorded, had she ever made any. In fact, when Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) complained to her, regarsing the few Sahabah who were in objection to his decision of appointing Yazid, she adviced him to treat them qith forbearance, and ensured him that what he desires, that would surely happen. [Al Kaamil]
2) Hadhrat Umme Salamah (radhiyallahu anhu) (59 A.H)
3) Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) (63 A.H)
4) Hadhrat Dhahaak ibn Qais (radhiyallahu anhu) (64 A.H), He served under Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), then under Yazid, then under Mu’awiyah ibn Yazid and finally when Mu’awiyah ibn Yazid stepped down from the caliphate, he pledged allegiance with Hadhrat ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu).
5) Hadhrat Jaabir ibn Samura (radhiyallahu anhu) (66 A.H)
6) Hadhrat ‘Adi ibn Haatim (radhiyallahu anhu) (67 A.H)
7) Hadhrat Bashir ibn Aqrabah al-Juhani (radhiyallahu anhu)
8) Hadhrat Mahmud ibn Rabi (radhiyallahu anhu) (99 A.H)
9) Hadhrat Buraydah Aslami (radhiyallahu anhu) (73 A.H)
10) Hadhrat Bilal ibn Harith Muzani (radhiyallahu anhu) (60 A.H) He carried the flags of Muzeinah on the day of conquest of Makkah Mukarramah
11) Hadhrat Aa’iz ibn Amr (Abu Hubayra) (radhiyallahu anhu) (passed away in the caliphate of Yazid) – He was from the Sahabah who made the pledge of Al-Ridhwaan.
12) Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Abi Aufa (radhiyallahu anhu) (86 A.H)
13) Hadhrat Abu Juhaifah (radhiyallahu anhu) (83 A.H)
14) Hadhrat Amr ibn Harith (radhiyallahu anhu) (85 A.H)
15) Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Busr al Maazini (radhiyallahu anhu) (88 A.H)
16) Hadhrat Abu Umamah Bahili (radhiyallahu anhu) (86 A.H)
17) Hadhrat Anas ibn Malik (radhiyallahu anhu) (93 A.H)
18) Hadhrat Wathila ibn Aqsa (radhiyallahu anhu) (85 A.H)
19) Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Hadith Zubaydi (radhiyallahu anhu) (86 A.H)
20) Hadhrat Hirmaas ibn Ziyad Baahili (radhiyallahu anhu) (102 A.H)
21) Hadhrat Ruwayqi ibn Thabit Ansari (radhiyallahu anhu) (63 A.H)
22) Hadhrat Salamah ibn Akwa (radhiyallahu anhu) (74 A.H)
23) Hadhrat Buraydah ibn Husayb (radhiyallahu anhu) (73 A.H)
24) Hadhrat Abu Baraza Aslami (radhiyallahu anhu) (74 A.H)
25) Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Mugaffal (radhiyallahu anhu) (59 A.H)
26) Hadhrat Abu Waqib Laithi (radhiyallahu anhu) (68 A.H)
27) Hadhrat Jaabir ibn Abdullah (radhiyallahu anhu) (74 A.H)
28) Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Thal’abah (radhiyallahu anhu) (93 A.H)
29) Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Ja’far (radhiyallahu anhu) (84 A.H)
30) Hadhrat Miswar ibn Makhramah (radhiyallahu anhu) (64 A.H)
31) Hadhrat Maslamah ibn Makhlad (radhiyallahu anhu) (62 A.H)
32) Hadhrat Abu Tufayl Aamir ibn Wathilah (radhiyallahu anhu) (100 A.H)
33) Hadhrat As’am ibn Sahl ibn Haneef (radhiyallahu anhu) (100 A.H)
In short, there were many Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhuma) who were alive at the time when Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) announced his decision to appoint his son after him, yet none of them voiced any objection. Neither have any objections, in the lifetime of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), against Yazid from the senior Tabi’een been recorded. Could it be said that all were afraid from Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) or was there some other reason for their silence?
An explanation that, in my understanding, answers the issue of why Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) chose to appoint his son, Yazid, despite being aware that all five senior Sahabah were opposing the idea, and answers why practically all the Sahabah and Tabi’een accepted Yazid as Caliph, shall now be mentioned. If one chooses not to accept this ezplanation, he may then search for another, but one that does not put any stain on the intergrity of the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhuma) as a whole, and on Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) in particular.
An explanation that clears these illustrious personalities from all accusations and doubts
When Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) passed the age of seventy, after enjoying twenty years of stable rule as Caliph, his attention and worry shifted to ensuring that the Ummah do not, after his death, again fall into years of in-fighting, due to their differences with regards to who should be the next Caliph.
Hadhrat Mu’awiyah’s (radhiyallahu anhu) base had always been the land of Sham, with the capital in Damascus. The army of Sham had always proven loyal to his command, even during the most trying of times. Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) understood well that the warriors of Shan had a strong affiliation with the Ummayyah clan, due to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah’s lengthy rule over them, first as governor, from the time of Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), and thereafter as Caliph. The fear always existed that by now selecting a Caliph from another clan, it would re-ignite the fights and the bloodshed that the Ummah had just come out off.
This feeling of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was indeed dead on target, and found its proof years later when Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu) was selected as Caliph by the inhabitants of Hijaz, but due to his not being from the Ummayyad clan, he did not receive full support from the people of Sham. In fact, they were even prepared to make an assault upon the noble cities of Hijaz , just so that an Ummayyad could receive the seat of caliphate. Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu) was martyred and an Ummayyad, Marwan ibn Hakam, followed by his son, Abdul Malik ibn Marwan was placed on the seat of caliphate.
Hadhrat Mu’awiyah’s (radhiyallahu anhu) ardent desire was that the flames of fire amongst the muslims never be re-ignited by the hypocrites of Iraq. He thus searched for a solution that would keep all happy and the flags of jihad in full motion. For this, he consulted his senior advisors and spent many months in deep thought. Finally, his eyes fell upon his son, Yazid, who had already proven himself as an able leader, after leading the first attack on Constantinople, over an army which consisted of many senior Sahabah, with Hadhrat Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (radhiyallahu anhu) being the most note-worthy, due to his passing-away in this journey.
Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) found his armies of Sham as loyal and obedient to Yazid as they were to him. Had he immediately chosen Yazid as Caliph after him, he would hardly have found any opposition from those around him, and his decision would then have become binding upon the rest of the Ummah. Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) however felt it best to make his intention known and to see what the Ummah felt regarding it.
From the very beginning, Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) made it clear that the appointment of his son has nothing to do with holding on to power. It was based solely on the well-being of the entire Ummah, and to keep the unity. Statemebts recorded from Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), regarding this, are as follows:
I fear leaving the Ummah after me as a scattered flock with no shepherd!
Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) presented this reason to Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Umar (rashiyallahu anhu), upon which Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) promised that if the Ummah would pledge allegiance to Yazid, he too would do the same, and this was exactly what he did after the death of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu).
(It has been narrated that Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) mentioned once, while one the pulpit)
O Allah! If I had appointed him (Yazid) on account of finding him able and suitable for the post, then let it happen!
And if I had appointed him, solely out of my love for him, then let it not happen!
I fear leaving the Ummah of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) as sheep with no shepherd!
When the thought of appointing Yazid as Caliph first occurred to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), he sent the following command to his governors:
I have reached old age, and my bones are now weak and lean. I fear that the Ummah may divide and differ after my death. Thus I have chosen to appoint a Caliph who shall rule after me. However, I dislike doing any such thing, except after mutual consultation. Thus, unform the people of my intention, and inform me regarding opinions in this matter!
History can never deny that after the intention of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was made known, the vast majority accepted his decision happily, and many even expressed joy over the fact that a suitable leader has been chosen, and that future internal fighting has been avoided. To throw water over its reality, hypocrite elements to worked tirelessly pollute these narrations with their poison, and today unfortunately we find narrations suggesting that all the noble and influential men and women of that era, besides three, were bought off and bribed by Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) into accepting Yazid as their leader. (Na’udhbillah)
Some speeches made in front of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), by delegations of various Muslim countries, with regards to his intention on appointing Yazid, shall now be mentioned. However, as previously mentioned, if one were to open the books of history, he shall find just before the narration a few sentences, fabricated by hypocrites, indicating that the speaker had been bought off, and was thus acting hypocritically. (Na’udhubillah)
a) According to some narrations, the first individual to suggest appointing Yazid as Caliph was Hadhrat Mughira ibn Shu’bah (radhiyallahu anhu). In presenting the reason behind his suggestion. He explained:
O Amirul Mu’mineen!, verily you had seen the spilling of blood and disunity that occurred after the assassination of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu). In Yazid, there is a worthy successor, thus appoint him as the next leader, so that if something has to happen to you, the people may find protection in him, and a leader to take over from you, and the need to spill blood and cause chaos shall not arise! [Al-Kaamil]
b) A delegation of approximately over forty people from Iraq, with Urwah ibn Mughira (the son of Mughira ibn Shu’bah radhiyallahu anhu), delivered the following address:
‘O Amirul Mu’mineen!, now that you have become old we fear disunity once again raising its filthy heads, thus choose for us a leader, to who we may all turn! When asked who they felt suitable, they replied, ‘Your son!, Yazid!. That is our opinion and the opinion of those behind us!’
c) Dhahaak ibn Qais Al-Fihr (radhiyallahu anhu), a prominent Sahabi, delivered the following address:
O Amirul-Mu’mineen! It is essential that the people have a leader after you. We have found that in unity alone is the protection of our blood, and it alone shall keep peace and harmony amongst us. Times are always changing and Almighty Allah alone is unique. As you as well aware, Yazid, your son, is a man of good character and firm determination. He is the most fore-bearing, knowledgable and far-sighted. Thus appoint him as a leader after you, so that we may live in harmony under his shadow.
It should be well understood that I am not trying to show that none opposed the decision to have Yazid appointed, as that would be an open lie. What I am trying to show is that those that happliy accepted the decision were indeed many; and to so that their accepting was based solely on worldly motives, greed, etc, is preposterous a an unsupported accusation.
The books of history itself accept the fact that the vast majority of the Ummah promised to pledge their allegiance to Yazid, in the case of the demise of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), a majority which consisted of many illustrious Sahabah and the Tabi’een. And from those that opposed, history itself shows that Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Abbas and Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhuma) later pledged their allegiance, just as they had initially promised. Were they all bought off?.
Unable to veil this reality, the most that the hypocrites would do was to forge some excuse that found a stable place in books of history is what has been quoted by ibn Athir in al-Kamil:
Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu( would shower favours upon those close to him, and show his compassion and kindness to those who wished to remain aloof, until finally majority of the Ummah accepted his decision and pledged their allegiance to Yazid.
The excuse mentioned above, despite it being the most suppressed in attacking the honour of the most illustrious personalities of that era, yet if one scrutinizes it slightly, he shall find it boiling down to one statement, i.e Hadhrat Mu’awiyah bought their allegiance! (Na’udhubillah! – neither was Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was a briber, nor was rhe Ummah as a whole ever a sell-out).
The fact of the matter is that there is no other reason for the vast majority of rhe Ummah accepting Yazid, except that they had no real problem with him being their leader, just as how they had no problem when he led the first expedition to Constantinople, despite their being many senior Sahabah alive at that time, who in fact participated in that very expedition.
The only question that arises now is that if there was nothing really wrong with Yazid, then why did Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubayr, Abdullah ibn Umar, Abdur Rahmaan ibn Abi Bakr, Abdullah ibn Abbas and Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhuma) openly oppose the decision.
The opposition of a few illustrious Sahabah to the appointment of Yazid and the reason behind it
Generally it has been understood that these Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhuma) opposed the decision due to Yazid being a drunkard, an adulterer, and an open transgressor, etc. Had any of these factors been present in Yazid, during his illustrious father’s life, do you think Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) would ever have appointed him as the next Caliph? Forget caliphate, Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) would never have even made him a governor or a collector over any area. Rather, Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (eadhiyallahu anhu) would have immediately established the Islamic punishment upon him, and had he not done so, the rest of the Ummah would surely have stood up and demanded that his son be tried for his crimes and filthy acts.
Had any of these factors been present in Yazid,do you think Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) would have made a special trip to Hijaz, just to enquire the reason behind the opposition of these illustrious men? And when he did finally get the opportunity to question them with regards to them opposing his decision, would not at least one of them gave made mention of any one of these factors. In the answers that these illustrious Sahabah gave to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), there is no mention of Yazid being a transgressor, a drunkard, an adulterer, etc. In fact, had any of them or any one else ever accused Yazid of adultery, the accuser would immediately have been asked to present four witnesses, failing which, he himself would have been whipped eighty times for false accusation. Did any such thing happen?
When Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) questioned the reason behind their opposition, their answer was solely that they feared that by him appointing his son as Caliph, an act which none had done thus far, it would open up the doors for hirqiliyyah in the matters of caliphate, i.e. upon the death of a Caliph, the eldest son would automatically take the throne, even if he had no credentials, no ability, no interest whatsoever.
According to a narrarion of Ibn Athir in Al-Kaamil, when the first news of Yazid’s appointment reached the people of Hijaz, Hadhrat Abdur Rahmaan ibn Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) openly announced his displeasure in the following words,
Rather, it is your intention to establish the caliphate on the principles of Herculism.
i.e. upon the death of one leader; his son shall immediately takes his place!
When Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu) spoke on the behalf of all, the point that he put forward to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was that he should adopt the method of either Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), who left the matter of appointing a new Caliph in the hands of the Ummah, or of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu), who appointed a man outside his family-circle, viz. Hadhrat Umar, or of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), who ordered that the next Caliph be chosen from a group, after mutual consultation of the members of that particular group
Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubayr’s (radhiyallahu anhu) purpose was to highlight the point that before Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), none had ever chosen a Caliph from within his own family, and thus they felt that he should follow suit.
The discussion between Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubayr and Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhuma) as recorded in Al-Kamil, is as follows:
‘Choose one of the three options. Either adopt the method of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) or that of Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) or that of Umar (radhiyallahu anhu). The method of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was that he did not appoint any vicegerent and the Ummah thereafter unanimously chose Abu Bakr as the leader.’ Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) replied, ‘At present, there is no man like Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu), upon whom all shall unite, thus I fear disunity rising.’
Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu) thereupon said, ‘ Fair enough, so why do you not adopt the method of Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) who dis appoint a man from the Quraysh, but who was not from his immediate family, or the method of Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), who left the matter for six to decide, but ensured that his son and his immediate family dis not fearure amongst those six.
The options presented by Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu) to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) makes it very clear that the opposition of these illustrious individuals had nothing to do with the personality of Yazid himself, bit rather with the fact that he was the son of the Caliph. They had no problems with Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) selecting a future Caliph, nor did they have any problem with Yazid. They were only in opposition to an act of a Caliph selecting some close family member as the next Caliph.
In clearer words, had hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) selected someone out of his immediate family circle, they would have no objection. Also, if some other Caliph had to later choose Yazid, that too would be acceptable as long as there existed no close family link between the two. The issue was with selecting close family members, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the personality of Yazid!.
This, and this alone is the reason why none of them criticized the character of Yazid when voicing their opposition, and why none of them felt the need to attack the intregrity, ability, etc of Yazid, Understand this well, for upon this lies the basis for understanding the truth behind the incident of Karbala, and it is this point that shall explain why both parties i.e Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) and Yazid, later did, what they did.
Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) heard and understood the reason behind their opposing the decision, but as every Ameer has the option to either consider or reject the opinion of even influential members of hos cabinet; Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) too had that right. Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) weighed his options and finally decided to go ahead with his proposed intention, knowing full well that some or the other party would always stand in opposition, no matter who is selected.
The people of Sham had their own likes and dislikes, the people of Iraq were never found happy with anyone thus far, the people of Hijaz would obviously desire one from the Banu Hashim, whereas the people of Damascus would not accept except from the Ummayyad family. Choosing one whom all unanimously accepted, was now close to impossible, thus Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) felt that the safest for the Ummah would now be to choose one that he has seen and tested from up close, one who the Muslim armies of Sham would give their full support to, one who the people of Iraq would be too scared to oppose, and one who the majority of Hijaz had already shown that they would accept.
As for the few from whom Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) feared opposition, he would have practiced upon one of two options:
1) Have them arrested and kept under government eye, letting none come close to them, nor allowing them in any way to start any sort of revolt against the Caliph. This plan of action has, from the very beginning, been allowed in Islam, irrespective of who the arrested party is.
In Islam, keeping peace and stability of the Ummah has been given great importance, so much so, that Islam has even allowed the beheading of great personalities if there is a fear of their breaking the peace. Acring upon this very principle, Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) raised the sword against Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), when he refused ro pledge allegiance. Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) in his parting advices, explained this principle of Islam most vividly, when he ordered Hadhrat Suhayb (radhiyallahu anhu) to keep watch over the six Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum), who had been appointed to choose the next Caliph from amongst them. Hadhrat Umar’s (radhiyallahu anhu) order at that time clearly showed that the Ummah only accepting one leader is most vital, and in obtaining this purpose, even if an illustrious individual has to be executed, it shall be allowed. Hadhrat Umar’s (radhiyallahu anhu) words were:
Lead the people in Salaah for three days, during which time they should discuss this matter privately.
If they unite upon any one man, then if any person oppose their decision, then cut off his neck!
2) The other option that Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) had was to now leave matters as they were, and overlook the opposition of a few, irrespective of their popularity and prominence, as long as they do not initiate any revolt against the government. The second option was one which demanded great amount of tolerance and forebearance, and a heart of sympathy, compassion and love which was exactly Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was blessed with.
Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) neither forced his decision down their throats, nor had any one of them arrested and persecuted, rather he himself overlooked and ignored their opposition, and adviced his son, Yazid, to do the same. Had Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) wished, he could have easily ordered arrest and expulsion feom the lands of Hijaz, or that they be executed, but of that sort occurred. Rather, what the books of history show, is that Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) accepted the allegiance of the majority of the Ummah for his son, overlooked the opposition of the few who did not agree, and bequeathed that their opinions be accepted, as long as it does not lead to chaos and strife.
The advices and wasiyyah of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), to his son, Yazid, as appears in Tabari, which has been mentioned below, shows clearly the love and respect Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) has for Hadhrat Hussain (rashiyallahu anhu) and his desire to save the Ummah from in-fighting:
In the sixtieth year after the hijra, when Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) began feeling the pangs of death, he called Dhahaak ibn Qais, who was in-charge of the police force, and Muslim ibn Uqbah, and ordered that they convey his wasiyyah (parting advices) to his son, Yazid, who was at that time, absent, his wasiyyah was as follows:
“Always be considerate to the people of Hijaz, for they are your origin. Honour the one who comes to you from them, and always be concerned of those that do not come.
As for the people of Iraq, even if they have to ask for a new leader every single day, hear their request and endeavour to fulfill it, for the changing of rulers is much less in weight than having a hundred thousand swords raised against you.
Never forget the people of Sham! In fact regard them as the carriers of your secrets and the base of your trust. When in difficulty, seek their help, and when the difficulty gets removed, return them to their lands! Spending too much time in foreign lands could ruin their culture and beautiful traits.
From the Quraysh I fear only three! Hussain ibn Ali, Abdullah ibn Umar and Abdullah ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhuma) As for Ibn Umar, his abstinence has made him such that he shall never really show interest in taking what you have i.e the caliphate.
As for Hussain ibn Ali, I feel that the people of Iraq themselves, who have already assassinated his father (radhiyallahu anhu), and deserted his brother, they shall also do him down, i.e betray him. But remember that he is your family, his rights over us are indeed enormous, and he has been blessed with an extremely close relationship to Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).
I feel that the people of Iraq shall somehow or the other entice him into going back to Iraq (to start some sort of revolt). If he does do so and in the process gets arrested , then overlook his error,
forgive him and set him free. Verily, if the same would happen in my life, I would surely forgive him!
Finally, regarding ibn Zubayr, so beware of his cunning ways! If he stands in opposition, then do not leave him until he seeks a truce, if he does do , then immediately accept and as far as possible save the blood of your nation from being spilled.
The Death of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and an end to a glorious period of rule
After spending over forty years governing the affairs of the Ummah, twenty as governor and twenty as Caliph, during which he returned to the Ummah its stability and re-initiated the blessed act of Jihad against the disbelievers, Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) at the ripe of seventy-eight, parted from this temperory world for the eternal life of the Hereafter. To Almighty Allah we all belong and to Him is our return.
Before passing away, Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) bequeathed that he be buried in the Qamees (kurta) that Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) that Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had given him, Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) had some of the blessed nails of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) by him. He asked that they be crushed into powder and placed in his eyes and mouth, after which he should be left to the mercy of Almighty Allah Ta’ala, who is The Most Merciful.
As death approached, Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) began saying, ‘If only if I was an ordinary man from the Quraysh, in Zu-Tuwa, and had not ever had any share in the governing!’ (statements of this kind were found on the tongues of the many of the great rulers in Islam, which portrayed the great fear they had in their heart for the Creator)
After his death, Hadhrat Dhahaak ibn Qais (radhiyallahu anhu), holding the shroud of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), mounted the pulpit, saying:
Amir ul Mu’mineen!, Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was the blade and strength of Arabs, with which Almighty Allah brought to an end turmoil, and whom Almighty Allah gave rule over His servants, and whose armies were spread in the lands and at sea. He was a servant from the servants of Allah, who Almighty Allah has now called back. He has now completed his time and has returnes to his Creator.
Lessons learnt from Hujr Ibn Adi (rahimahullah)
By the grace of Almighty Allah, in this chapter, a great deal has been mentioned, through which it is hoped that the reader shall gain some understanding of the character of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), his honourable position as a high ranking Sahabi, the wisdom and reasons behind his every decision, his fervent desire to keep the Ummah united, his foresight and forebearance, and finally the basis for appointing his son, Yazid, as Caliph after him.
Great effort had been made to highlight the point that many issues in this regard have generally been regarded as unquestionable, whereas the reality is something entirely different. Basic principles have at times been ignored, just on the basis of certain unauthenticated hiatorical narrations, an act which should never have been done, especially when it becomes a cause of tainting the image of illustrious Sahabi and great men of the Ummah.
There would obviously be many accusations and ceiticism levelled against this great personality of Islam, since the shaitani forces of his area were scratching frantically for any piece of thread, through which they could turn the Ummah against its leader and have them call for the overthrow of the government and a return to civil strife, but the strength and tact of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), earned through the dua’s of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), prevented the plots from fully hatching.
The answer given by Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), when questioned as to why it seemed as though he was ageing fast, throws plenty of light on the extent that these forces would go to somehow tey to pull him down from his seat of rule or at least taint his image in the public eye. His answer was:
Why should I not be ageing, when I am always being confronted by various individuals from the Arabs, levelling such criticisms and remarks against me , which I am forced to answer!
Whatever good I do is ignored, but if any error occurs, its news spreads like wildfire!
The crux of the matter is that the criticisms and accusations levelled against the rulers of Islam, especially during its initial era, never had any substand and weight behind it, but the manner in which it was propagated, that made it seem as though it was something major.
Hadhrat Mufti Muhammad Taqi Uthmani Sahib has made mention of some of the weightier accusations levelled against Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), in his book, Hadhrat Mu’awiyah aur Tarikhi Haqa’iq and has provided detailed answers explaining the truth behind each of those accusations. Since work has already been done in this sphere, I have chosen to not delve into these issues.
However, since a great lesson regarding history can be learnt from one of the issues that Hadhrat Muft Taqi Sahib has discussed, I shall spare a few moments to briefly outline that issue and then draw attention to the point to be learnt from the incident.
The incident concern Hadhrat Hujr ibn Adi (rahimahullah), a senior Tabi’ee and a man of extreme piety, who, due to unknowingly been spurred by shaitaani forces in Muslim guise, would continuously spearhead efforts to have Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) overthrown. At times, his attacks on the government would merely be verbal and at time physical. In fact, he was one of the sincere ones who wrote to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) that he has under his belt many, many fighters who were ready to lend their support to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), if he decided standing up against the rule of Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu).
Hadhrat Hujr ibn Adi (rahimahullah) was finally arrested, after spearheading an unsuccessful rebellion against the ruling party, and sent to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) to make a ruling regarding him. After hearing and receiving testimony from many Sahabah and Tabi’een, that Hadhrat Hujr had, without any doubt, spearheaded attacks and revolts against the Islamic state, Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) ordered his execution.
Hadhrat Hujr (rahimahullah) was a man of great piety, thus news of his execution would obviously shocked many. The very shaitaani forces who had until now been using Hujr bin Adi for their ulterior, filthy motives, immediately moved into step two of their plan, which was to now propagate and portray his execution as an act of barbarism, injustice, cruelity, etc. Their propaganda as is the case with all their propagandas until today, caused tears to be shed for Hujr, inplaces far and wide. So strong was their manner in portraying Hujr (rahimahullah) as a hero, who died fighting for the truth, that Hadhrat Aa’isha (radhiyallahu anha), despite the unique respect she held for Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), was also angered at the decision, and when Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) later visited her, during a trip for Umrah, she immediately brought up the issue.
Hadhrat Mu’awiyah’s (radhiyallahu anhu) decision regarding Hujr ibn Adi (rahimahullah) was definitely correct, but due to the picture of the incident having been portrayed all over the Islamic world totally different from its reality, whoever would hear it would regard Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) blame-worthy.
As for Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), he was so convinced that his decision regarding Hujr had been correct, that after explaining his reasons to Hadhrat Aa’isha (radhiyallahu anha) regarding why he had issued the order for Hujr’s (rahimahullah) execution, he ended the discussion regarding Hujr ibn Adi saying:
Allow me and Hujr to solve this matter out amongst ourselves, in front of our Creator.
Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) would never have said the above had he not been confident that in front of Almighty Allah he would be able to adequately answer why he had decided in the case of Hujr as he had decided.
In the mind of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), the principle of ijtihad was well-grained, that Almighty Allah is the true Judge, in front of Who is every event, seen from every angle. When looked at from the angle of Hujr ibn Adi (rahimahullah), Almighty Allah knows well that Hujr was sincere in his attempts to remove what he felt was incorrect. Hujr (rahimahullah) had no idea whatsoever that the ones spurring him to do what he was doing were in fact using him for sinister motives. i.e to start some form of uprising and to push the Ummah back into civil strife. Almighty Allah would never deal with Hujr as He will deal with rhe hypocrites operating behind the shield of Hujr, despite them all being of the same camp, since by Allah, man shall be judged upon his intention, not just the outside picture. Where the satanic hypocrites would be flung headlong into Jahannum, at the very same time Hujr ibn Adi (rahimahullah) will find himself being crowned with the crown of a martyr, who died for the establishment of the truth.
As for Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), Allah Ta’ala shall judge his action, looking at it from his angle, and not the angle og Hujr ibn Adi. Hadhrat Mu’awiyah’s (radhiyallahu anhu) reasons behind ordering the execution of a pious soul shall be kept in front and on account of these reasons Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) shall alse be declared “correct in his judgement” and rewarded for his effort.
Whoever studies the entire incident of Hujr ibn Adi, either from the writing of Mufti Taqi Uthmani Sahib, in ‘Hadhrat Mu’awiyah aur Tarikhi Haqa’iq’ , or from any other book
, keeping in mind the principles of studying history, which has thus far been mentioned, he shall surely admit that neither was Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) wrong in his decision to execute Hujr ibn Adi, and neither shall Hujr ibn Adi be considered as blameworthy in the hereafter for his deeds. Each one, when looking at the incident from his side, shall easily be able to prove that had any other upright person been in his shoes, he would have made the very same decision.
The entire incident, as we have it today, presented in front of us to read and study from different angles, these details were neither in front of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), nor in front of Hadhrat Hujr ibn Adi (rahimahullah), thus it would be totally unfair to today read the incident, and then reclining in our soft couches, have the audacity to question why Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), or why Hujr bin Adi (rahimahullah) did that. Allah Almighty shall judge them on account of how they saw the whole scenario, not on account of how we today see the scenario. When in the eyes of Allah Almighty both shall be worthy of reward and praise, would it then ever male sense tp us, who are not at all aware of what shall be our own condition tomorrow, to take the seat of ‘self-appointed judge’ and issue verdicts of guilt against one of the two.
Through the incident of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and Hujr ibn Adi (rahimahullah) the principle of ijtihad has been made very clear. If ypu have properly understood this point, you shall now find it quite easy to apply this principle ro all the other mushaajaraat (internal conflicts) that occurred from the very beginning and continue until today.
Where Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) was martyred oppressively, at the same time you shall be able to understand that not every single individual involved in the rebellion against Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) is to be regarded as evil. Where many had evil intentions from the very beginning, there were definitely as just as many who were pulled into the rebellion innocently. Where some of the killers of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) were nothing but satanists, operating hypocritically, there were many others, who were sincere devotees of Islam, desirous of only good, and totally unaware of what was to unfold thereafter.
Similarly, when Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) had just reasons for delaying in bringing the killers to court. Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), when looking at the picture from his angle, shall be found just as correct in refusing to pledge allegiance, as long as the killers were not taken to task. This is how Almighty Allah shall rule between both these parties, thus we should never feel brave enough to try and offer any other ruling. Hadhrat Ali, Hadhrat Uthmaan and Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhuma) shall surely be found holding hands in Jannah, and satan-worshipping individuals who operated hypocritically, some serving in the quarters of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and others in the quarters of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), despite apparently being under the banner of the truth, their abode shall be nothing but hell.
This is the golden principle in understanding the internal conflicts of the past, the summary of which is that each party did what he did, due to seeing the picture or scenarios from his angle. The whole picture, as perhaps we see it today, was never in front, and thus his ruling can never be expected to uave been in accordance to the demands of the entire picture. His responsibility was ijtihad, using whatever knowledge was at the moment present in front of him, and that is exactly what he did, and upon that shall Almighty Allah judge him.
At the same time: there would always be powerful satanic elements, operating from both sides, and painting pictures in front of both parties, whose falsehood would years later emerge, but at that moment would be understood as true. Each party would thus at times maked decisions based on false pictures and fabricated information put forward, and this would obviously just lend wood to an already burning fire.
When Almighty Allah shall judge, He shall never reprimand the one who was sincere in his intentions but erred in his ijtihad, rather he shall be rewarded for his efforts and sent straight into Paradise. Destruction and misery shall never be his lot, but rather the lot of the hypocrites operating from within. As Allah Almighty states:
Amongst men are those who make claims on Iman on Allah and the last Day, whereas in reality they have no belief whatsoever. Their intention is merely to deceive Allah and the believers, but in actual fact they are deceiving none but themselves. In their heart their is a filth (i.e the filth of kufr) and Allah allows them to make it even more filthier (i.e. with their plots against Imaan, which initially always appears to be successful). Foe them is a severe punishment, an account of what they have earned!
In the internal conflicts of the past, on both sides one shall find innocent, sincere men, being spurred against each other by the hypocrite forces. For the sincere, Almighty Allah has written forgiveness and reward, and for the hypocrites operating from both sides Almighty Allah has destined total destruction.
The golden principle must now be applied to the internal conflict that occurred between Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) and his cousin, Yazid, and the conflict that occurred between Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu) and Abdul Malik ibn Marwan, and to all other internal conflicts that continue until today, and then see what conclusion and judgement that you reach.
In the next issue, the incident of Karbala shall Insha Allah be dissected to quite an extent, but if this principle can be kept in the front of one’s mind, it shall already provide answers to most of the unanswered questions regarding Karbala, and it shall help tremendously in explaining the conflicting reports regarding everything surrounding Karbala. (And Almight Allah alone guides to the entire truth).
Returning to the original discussion, mention was made that Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) would obviously have been criticized on numerous accounts and occasions, due to the satanic forces working in full force to somehow or the other de-throne him or at least spoil his reputation in the public eye.
Hadhrat Mufti Taqi Uthmani Sahib has, in his book, explained in a beautiful manner, the reality behind those accusations, thus there is no need to repeat it all here.
The final two issues
Only two accusations that generally stand out vividly, due to the intense manner in which it has been propagated, shall, as a conclusion to this part, shall be discussed.
1) Why did Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) appointed his son, Yazid, as Caliph, despite being aware of the opposition of Great Sahabah?
2) Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had mentiomed that the Caliphate would last for thirty years (which would end in the 40th year after Hijrah) after which the era of kingship shall begin. Does this then not make clear indication that the rule of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was a disliked rule due to it beginning after the fortieth year of the Hijrah?
In the paragraph’s that have passed, much of issue no.1 has been discussed, from which it has become apparent that:
a) Hadhrat Mu’awiyah’s (radhiyallahu anhu) decision had nothing to do with holding onto power.
b) Yazid was not, during the life of his father, regarded as unfit for the post.
c) The Majority of the people during that era were happy with the decision.
d) There was no solution which Hadhrat Mu’awiyah could see, which woul ensure the unity of the Ummah remains intact and in-fighting does not re-occur.
e) The appointment of Yazid was an issue of Ijtihad, for which Almighty Allah has promised reward, even though one errs in his final judgement.
f) It was never necessary that Hadhrat Mu’awiyah submit to the view of the Sahabah opposing to his decision, nor was it necessary that he seek their opinion.
g) Selecting one’s own son as Caliph is totally permissible in Islam, on condition that the son should be fit for the post.
h) The basis for the opposition to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah’s decision was never the personality of Yazid, his character, actions, etc, as has been generally understood, but rather the fear of appointing one’s close family members would open up the doora of Hirqiliyat, (the throne of rule being held in one family, irrespective of ability, piety, etc).
I) Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu, until his death, upheld the honour of Ahle-bayt, and instructed his son, Yazid, to do the same.
What has now to be discussed is issue No. 2, with an explanation of the hadith of caliphate and mulookiyyah (kingship), which shall provide the reason behind Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), being prepared to take the throne, knowing full well that the era of Caliphate has now terminated.
To understand this issue, it would first be necessary to discuss the difference between caliphate and mulookiyyah (kingship) to understand the Sharii ruling of both, and then to study the Ahadith regarding the issue.
Caliphate and Mulookiyyah (kingship)
From the very onset it should be understood that Mulookiyat (kingship) and hirqaliyat (system of succession) are not one and the same. When Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu), Hadhrat Abdur Rahmaan ibn Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) voiced dissatisfaction against the appointment of Yazid as the next Caliph, they explained the reason for their dissatisfaction being that his appointment was opening the doors of ‘Hirqaliyyah’ (a system of succession, that every time one would pass away, another family member would immediately take his place, even though he was not at all capable for the post). Had Hirqaliyyah (system of succession) and mulukiyyah (kingship) been the same, they would have never accepted the rule of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) as well, since they were all well aware that after the 40th year of Hijrah, the era of kingship was to begin.
Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), when handing over the caliphate to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), made it very clear that the underlining reason for doing so was that the era of caliphate was now terminated, and he did not desire ruling as a king. When Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) accepted the caliphate, he too accepted it knowing fully well that the era of caliphate has now been terminated, and even openly ecpressed that despite the era of caliphate coming to an end, he was prepared to accept the responsibility of rule, even though it would be through the system of Mulookiyyah (kingship).
Had Hirqaliyyah (system of succession) and mulukiyyah (kingship) been the same, the Sahabah who voiced opposition against Yazid’s appointment would have also voiced their opposition against Hadhrat Mu’awiyah’s (radhiyallahu anhu) appointment. Which they never did.
Had mulukiyyah (kingship) had the same meaning as Hirqaliyyah (system of succession), there would have been no need for Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) to hand the caliphate over so quickly, since there was still to be another twenty years plus before the so called system ‘Hirqaliyyah’ would start.
Had mulukiyyah (kingship) had the same meaning as Hirqaliyyah (system of succession), the Ahadith would not have mentioned the 41st year after Hijrah as the beginning of Mulookiyyah, but rather the 60th year of Hijrah, since it was only around that time that Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) began thinking of appointing Yazid.
What then is the meanin of Mulookiyyah?, if one were to ponder over the make-up and the root (masdar) of the two words, i.e. Caliphate and Mulookiyyah, much of this shall be answered, the details of which are as follows:
The word Malik – with a kasra under the Laam, which translates as ‘king’, comes from the root word Malak with a dhammah on the ‘Meem’ , which means to rule. As for the word ‘Caliph’ it comes from the root word Khalaf which literally translates as ‘to come after, to come from behind, a successor’.
Looking at the root word, one shall find that much of the meaning of ‘Caliph’ can be found in a king and vice-versa. A Caliph succeeds another ruler, and so does a king. He comes from behind, so too does a king. A king rules, so too does a Caliph.
The only difference is that a Caliph becomes a ruler, and succeeds primarily through initial appointment, whereas this is not necessary for a king. Nabi Aadam (alayhissalaam) was a Caliph of Almighty Allah on earth, due to his being appointed and selected for the responsibility. As for a king, being selected by the masses, or by a large group of upright men and scholars, this is not conditional. A king may become king through force, by waging war and attacking village after village and town after town, until its inhabitants finally surrender to his command.
A Caliph is one who does not work and fight for his selection. Yes, after the majority or the main core of the scholars and men of piety select him as Caliph, there shall naturally be those who still oppose the decision. At that time, to save the system of caliphate, the Caliph is permitted to wage war against those refusing to pledge allegiance.
In short, in caliphate the underlining issue is the selection of an individual, after which he, the Caliph, shall then work towards strengthening the empire, whereas in Mulookiyyah, the underlining issue is to acquire rule and to get oneself accepted, which is achieved through permissible avenues, and many a time through inpermissible avenues, i.e oppression, through propaganda, lie and deceptions, false promises made during campaigning, etc).
If one, as a king, rules justly, he shall be rewarded, and if one after being selected (made Caliph) abuses his post, he shall be surely taken to task.
A Caliph and king, both are rulers, both come after someone else, and both shall either get rewarded or punished, in accordance, not to the name of their position, but rather to the work they do in that position.
Merely being a Caliph never meant that one now becomes exempt from Divine punishment, and neither does being a king make one worthy of punishment. It all has to do with what work one carries and has nothing to do with what titles one carry.
Had Mulookiyyah (kingship) demanded punishment and retribution, then no sane believer, forget one who holds the rank of the Sahabi, would have openly expressed happiness to take over through the system of Mulookiyyah. Would a Sahabi ever say that he was more than happy to allow the burden of a major sin upon his shoulders?!
Once when Hadhrat Mu’awiyah was taunted that he was not a Caliph but merely a king, he replied that although the responsibility of the Ummah was not destined to reach him through the system of caliphate, he was still quite happy to accept it through the system of kingship. Had kingship alone been a sin and an act of oppression, do you think Hadhrat Mu’awiyah would ever have said this? On that occassion his words were:
You are telling us (in a taunting manner) that we are mere kings, whereas we are more than happy to be more than mere kings! [Taarikh of Ibn Asakir]
After having understood this, one can easily understand why the era after the 40th year of Hijrah was declared as an era of Mulookiyyah, why Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) was not prepared to hold onto rule and why Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was ready to accept it.
Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Hadhrat Umar, Hadhrat Uthman and Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhuma), all of these illustrious personalities were selected to lead the Ummah, thus each one was ‘a Caliph’. There was no rival competition, and thus no need to fight for rule. Their taking the seat of rule was purely due to being selected by others, without them having to lift a sword.
Even during the era of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), when hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) refused to pledge allegiance, it was never due to him rivalling for the post of Caliph. In fact, Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) mentioned on numerous occasions that as soon as the killers of Hadhrat Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu) put to trial, he will immediately pledge allegiance. The era of the first four Caliphs of Islam was termed as an era of caliphate due to the fact that each leader during this era would be selected by others, without him having any rival foe the post against whom he would firat have sight.
Then, when the issue of arbitration arose, during the end of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) life, despite it not reaching any final decision, so much was definitely made clear that in the event of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) stepping down from the post of Caliphate, the decision of the next leader was not going to be a unanimous one. Some were now going to be in favour of Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), some in favour of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), some in favour of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu). Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) would most probably never have accepted the caliphate, thus the fight for the post would now be concentrated between Hadhrat Mu’awiyah and Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhuma).
When Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) was appointed as a Caliph by the people of Iraq, and accepted by the majority in Hijaaz, he knew very well that Hadhrat Mu’awiyah and majority of the Sham, which was the central army of Islam, were not going to readily accept his caliphate, he understood, through the indication of the Hadith that the era of being unanimously selected and having no opposition had now come to an end, and the seat of rule would now go to whosoever was ready to fight for it and win it. Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), in accordance to his nature from the very beginning, was never going to be prepared to have blood spilled merely so that he could keep his post, and for this reason handed the reins of rule over to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu).
Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), was given the post, he also understood that it had not reached him through any unanimous decision, but rather just so that further bloodshed could be avoided. He was well aware that the manner ‘rulership’ had reached him was different from that of the previous Caliphs, but at the same time understood that acquiring rule, whether through the method of unanimous selection, known as Isthiklaaf (being made a Caliph), or whether through the method of Mulookiyyah (fighting for the position), both were permissible, as long as the underlining intention was good. This was what Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) meant when he said that if rule has to come in his hands through the system of Mulookiyyah (due to force and power), then too he was prepared to accept it, especially when this now seemed the only way that stability was going to be restored for the Ummah.
Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) had already realized that as long as the caliphate was going to be kept close to Iraq, satanist forces, operating primarily from there, would continuously be igniting some of the other form of trouble and dissension. Moving the Islamic government away from their central base would at least minimize their influence, and history bears testimony that this what exactly what thereafter happened. For the next twenty years the Ummah were able to experience peace within their lands, the wheels of Jihad began to spin again, new territories were conquered, the Khawarij were hunted down, and the treacherous attacks of satanic hypocrites, working from within, were brought to an abrupt end.
Satan’s forces now found that their only hope of success in crushing Islam from within lay in bringing down the Ummayyad Dynasty (the government of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) which ruled from Sham) and somehow or the other shifting the caliphate back to Iraq. The entire escapade of Karbala was solely so that this could be achieved. By winning the sympathy of the Ummah against the caliphate, through the blood of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) and through the slogan of ‘revenge for the Ahle-Bayt’, the Ummah would now unknowingly be pitted against the ruling government, thereby weakening its pillars and laying the foundation for it to one day be overthrown.
Insha-Allah, in the next part, an attempt shall be made to dissect the incedwnt of Karbala itself, together with answering pertinent issues which have generally been ignored, so that a clearer picture of the incident may come to the fore, and the true conspirators behind the assassination of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) may get exposed.
May Allah Almighty guide all towards that which is right and bless us to do that which pleases Him. Aameen.
➡Part 2 will be posted separately tomorrow Insha Allah!