Imam Hussein in History, Sunni Perspective Options

[Jim]

Studying and contemplating history is a duty upon Muslims so that they can derive fruitful lessons and make use of them in changing their status quo. The revolution that Imam Al-Hussein made was a revolution against aggressive tyranny rather than against a certain ruler. Muslims today, with their Sunni and Shiite groups, need to unite as one force against all forms of arrogance, domination and injustice.

Moreover, it is not enough to stand against arrogance and injustice but Muslims should also exert great efforts to reform their internal conditions and establish the principles of consultation and choosing the leaders, as Almighty Allah has ordered, so that they can play their role in guiding humanity to the right path.

---

Responding to the question, Sheikh Faysal Mawlawi, deputy chairman of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, issued the following fatwa on 29/2/2004:

The revolution that Imam Al-Hussein made was not a rebellion against a legal ruler; it was a revolution against a tyrant dictator, Yazid Ibn Mu`awiyah, who deprived the Ummah of its right to choose its rulers [by succeeding his father to the caliphate]. Besides, he was notorious for being corrupt and dissolute. The majority of the Sunni scholars and others agreed to that, and Ibn Hajar mentioned so in his book As-Sawa`iq Al-Muhriqah. By his revolution, Imam Al-Hussein's aim was not at all to support the Shiites, though the tragedy of Karbala' (the place where Imam Al-Hussein was martyred) was a turning point in the history of the Shiites, for since then they were no longer a mere political group supporting the People of the House (Prophet Muhammad's descendents), butrather they became an independent school that had its own beliefs, jurisprudents, social organizations and system of rule.

The aim of Imam Al-Hussein behind such a revolution, as he declared it, was:

"To reform the nation of my grandfather (Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him)." This would imply putting an end to all kinds of corruption and deviation from the right path so that the nation could be united again. Uniting the nation would not be achieved in the existence of corruption; Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), is reported to have said:

"My Ummah would not unite in supporting corruption."

Al-Hassan (Al-Hussein's brother) was eager to regain the unity of the Muslim Ummah, so he made conciliation with Mu`awiyah and conceded the caliphate to him for that purpose. Al-Hussein did seek the same aim but in a different way, for the circumstances (under which he made the revolution) were different.

Here, I would like to refer to the fact that Muslims at that time were not divided into Sunnis and Shiites in the way it is known nowadays. Anyway, all Muslims then believed that transferring the caliphate from Mu`awiyah to his son Yazid by means of inheritance was unlawful and that Al-Hussein, being a pious, honest and courageous person, was worthier of being the caliph then. However, they did not go to fight with him against Yazid's army. Besides, those who sent for Al-Hussein and urged him to go to war against Yazid let him down and did not fight with him. The senior Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) advised Al-Hussein not to go to war, but Allah's Will was that he would go and the tragedy of his martyrdom would take place to remain a disgraceful stain on our glorious history.

We have to review the objective reasons for the revolution of Al-Hussein, (may Allah be pleased with him). We can sum up such reasons into two:

First, he refused Yazid to assume the caliphate without consulting the nation. Second, he refused the corruption and absolutism practiced by Yazid.

The two reasons have to do with the Imamate (the caliphate or leadership). This was the first and most important subject on which controversy rose among the Muslims. It was because of that subject that fighting took place between Muslims. Throughout history, the controversy over that subject has focused on two theories.

According to the first one, the Imam is to be appointed by Almighty Allah; this theory has been adopted by the Shiites. The second theory is that of the Sunni and the majority of the Muslims; it states that Imams or leaders are to be chosen after consulting the Muslims in that regard.

I see that the two theories lack clear mechanism. The first theory has been controversial among the Shiites themselves. One sect of the Shiites, the
Twelvers, are of the opinion that Imams are to be twelve persons of the People of the House. But many other Shiites believe that the Imamate is not confined to those persons. Besides, of those twelve persons, only two became Imams: `Ali Ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) and his son Al-Hassan, who assumed the caliphate for few months before conciliating with Mu`awiyah. The rest of the twelve persons have been held to be Imams in the sense that they have been eminent knowledgeable scholars and jurisprudents. The Sunnis agree with the Shiites in that regard except on two points: the infallibility of those twelve persons and the authenticity of the narrations reported to have been said by them.

As for the theory of choosing the rulers after consulting Muslims, it was applied in a certain way on choosing Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him). `Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said in that respect: "Pledging allegiance to Abu Bakr was an unprecedented step through which Allah spared the Ummah sedition." The second Rightly-Guided Caliph, `Umar, was chosen in another way. Then, before his death, `Umar devised a new way for choosing the caliph that was to succeed him.

Accordingly, `Umar's successor was to be chosen from among six persons, those who had been given the glad tidings of entering Paradise. Thus, `Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) was chosen to be the third Rightly-Guided Caliph. After the assassination of `Uthman, `Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was chosen by the Muhajirun and the Ansar to be the fourth Rightly-Guided Caliph. After that, choosing the caliphs democratically came to an end; and since then, the hereditary ruling started in the Muslim Ummah and continued until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in the early decades of the twentieth century.

The supporters of the theory that there are twelve Imams for the Muslim Ummah believe that the twelfth Imam will be Al-Mahdi. They have been waiting for his emergence for more than twelve hundred years now. We do not know when Al-Mahdi may appear. Should the Muslims, depending on the possibility of his emergence, remain passive towards the absolutism and dictatorship practiced against them ?! The eminent Shiite scholars have reviewed the question of the Imamate, and the majority of them have agreed that it is up to the Muslim Ummah to choose who can rule it by Allah's Law.

(Source)

[Jon]

Hey what happen to all the people who said we went to war with Iraq just for oil? I am not seeing the price cut! Arghhhhhhhhh

[Jim]

Hey what happen to all the people who said we went to war with Iraq just for oil? I am not seeing the price cut! Arghhhhhhhhh

Going to war for oil doesn't mean USING the oil But perhaps that is another thread. This is the Imam Hussein thread not the Sadam Hussein thread

[NEWUSER]

BrJimC is this a joke?

You were talking about how hate-filled the message was - by this person "Sheikh Faysal Mawlawi" - and now you posting a text from him about Imam Hussein?

I'm not day dreaming, right? You did use his text in another thread and you found it hate-filled against Americans?

[Jon]

I think Imam Hussien's Brobdignagian imagination is clearly spinning out of control.

[Jim]

BrJimC is this a joke?

You were talking about how hate-filled the message was - by this person "Sheikh Faysal Mawlawi" - and now you posting a text from him about Imam Hussein?

I'm not day dreaming, right? You did use his text in another thread and you found it hate-filled against Americans?

lol. yes, i did.

I think he addressed two topics in the one fatwah. Of course, posting this doesnt mean I agree with all of it. Just a topic for discussion.

Of importance to me is the portion that indicates Imam Hussein saw a need for revolution and reform in the Ummah to get back to the Prophet's way of running the Islamic state.

[NEWUSER]

lol. yes, i did.

I think he addressed two topics in the one fatwah. Of course, posting this doesnt mean I agree with all of it. Just a topic for discussion.

Of importance to me is the portion that indicates Imam Hussein saw a need for revolution and reform in the Ummah to get back to the Prophet's way of running the Islamic state.

Okay you off the hook; no beating required.

[Honu]

Okay you off the hook; no beating required.

OK, so address this point:

Of importance to me is the portion that indicates Imam Hussein saw a need for revolution and reform in the Ummah to get back to the Prophet's way of running the Islamic state.

[NEWUSER]

OK, so address this point:

You should direct your question to the person that wrote the sentence. I did not.

[aladdin]

Wow, this is a new revolution I have heard of!

Or, rebellion whatever one wants to call it!

An army of 10,000 vs. an army of 72 only!

Some might call it suicidal!

[aladdin]

Every good or bad action is based on our knowledge of Allah. The objectors should first recognize Allah, and then they should acknowledge the divine book, the Qur'an. From that acknowledgement it follows that we recognize that whatever is in that book is praise. Anyone who believes that Husain Ibn Ali was motivated by worldly goals denies the truth of the Holy Qur'an. Allah Almighty has given evidence of Husain's purity in the Holy Qur'an. He says: "Allah desires only to keep away uncleanness from you, O people of the house! And to purify you with a thorough purifying." (33:33)

Most of your ulema, like Muslim, Tirmidhi Tha'labi, Sijistani, Abu Nu'aim Isfahani, Abu Bakr Shirazi, Suyuti, Hamwaini, Ahmad Bin Hanbal, Zamakhshari, Baidhawi, Ibn Athir, and others have held that this verse was revealed in praise of the holy five, the Ahle Bait (people of the House): Muhammad, Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain. This verse is the greatest proof for the infallibility and purity of these holy people. The greatest impurity is love for worldly power. There are many hadith from the Prophet and the Imams condemning aspiration for worldly power and the fulfillment of our carnal desires. The Prophet said, "Love and friendship with the world is the root of all evil." Abu Abdullah Husain had no love for worldly power. He certainly did not risk his life and the lives of his family in order to attain transitory rule in this world.

If Imam Husain's stand against Yazid were merely for worldly power, the Prophet would not have ordered people to help him. Your own ulema confirm this point. Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in his Yanabiu'l-Mawadda from the histories of Bukhari, Baghawi, and Ibnu's-Sikkin from Zakha'iru'l-Uqba of Imamu'l-Haram Shafi'i, and Sirat-e-Mulla narrate from Anas Bin Harith Bin Bayya, who said that he heard the Holy Prophet say: "Verily, my son Husain will be killed on the soil of Karbala. Every one of you who is present at that time must help him."

The report continues: "Anas Bin Harith reached Karbala and, in obedience to the command of the Prophet, was martyred along with Imam Husain." It follows, therefore, that at Karbala Imam Husain stood for the cause of truth and not for love of this world. Imam Husain's undertaking the journey with a small group, including his women and small children, is another indication that he left his home not for the purpose of gaining rule. If that had been his intention, he would have gone to Yemen, where he had widespread support. Yemen would have been the logical base for launching military operations. In fact his friends repeatedly encouraged him to go to Yemen, but they were not aware of his purpose. But Imam Husain knew that there was no means of attaining apparent success. His journey, begun with 84 people, including women and children, aimed at a basic good. The holy tree - la ilaha ill'allah (there is no god except Allah) - was grown by his grandfather, nourished with his blood and the blood of the martyrs of Badr, Uhud, and Hunain. The tree was entrusted to an excellent gardener, Ali Bin Abu Talib, who was held back by threats of murder and arson. The result was that the spring of Tawhid (oneness of Allah) and prophethood had taken on an autumnal change. Gradually the administration of the garden fell into the hands of the malicious Bani Umayya.

Imam Husain's friends and relatives tried to dissuade him from going to Kufa, saying that the Kufans who had asked him to come were notoriously unreliable. Many people flocked to the Bani Umayya and received money and political favors in return for their support. Therefore, according to many of his supporters, Imam Husain had no chance to subdue them. They asked him to abandon the journey. They urged him to go to Yemen where he had many followers, and where he could live in peace. But Husain could not explain the reality of his situation. However, he satisfied each of them with a brief reply. He told close companions and relatives, like his brother, Muhammad Bin Hanafiyya: "You are saying the correct thing. I also know that I shall not achieve any apparent domination, but I am not going for worldly conquest. I am going in order to be killed. I wish that through the strength of my suffering tyranny, I may root out the very foundation of oppression and cruelty. I saw my grandfather, the Prophet, in a dream telling me: 'Make a journey to Iraq. Allah Almighty wants to see you murdered.'"

Muhammad Bin Hanifiyya and Ibn Abbas said: "If this is so, why are you taking women with you?" He replied: "My grandfather said that Allah wants to see them captives. So, according to the command of the Holy Prophet, I am taking them with me." The captivity of the women would be the conclusive part of his martyrdom. They would demonstrate to the world the Umayyad cruelty to the Prophet's descendants. Bibi Zainab, the daughter of Ali and Fatima, made an eloquent protest in Yazid's crowded court, where hundreds of people, including the nobility, the great men of the Bani Umayya, and foreign ambassadors celebrated their victory. The fourth Imam, Zainu'l-Abidin Ali Ibn Husain, also made an eloquent appeal for justice from the pulpit of the Umayyad mosque, in Yazid's presence. After extolling the merits and attributes of Allah, Zainu'l-Abidin said: "O people! We, the descendants of Muhammad, have been endowed by Allah with six qualities and have been made superior to the whole creation by being granted seven virtues. We have been given knowledge, forbearance, valor, beautiful appearance, eloquence, bravery, and are loved by the believers. We are superior to every man in that the Prophet Muhammad is from us; the Siddiq Ali Bin Abu Talib is from us; Ja'far-e-Tayyar is from us; Hamza is from us, two grandsons of the Prophet, Hasan and Husain, are from us; and the Mahdi (the guided one) of this People (Imam-e-Hujjat Bin Hasan) is from us. One who does not know me should know about my family and family status; I am the son of the most exalted and virtuous Prophet of Allah, Muhammad Mustafa!"

http://www.al-islam.org/peshawar/7.5.html

[aladdin]

I think Imam Hussien's Brobdignagian imagination is clearly spinning out of control.

Salam brother,

So true, so true!

1. Who you think is spinning it out of control?

2. What is being spun out of control?

3. And, for what reason?

This post has been edited by aladdin: Oct 12 2008, 08:00 AM

[aladdin]

Here is some more on the Kerbala! Kerb w'bala!

Imam Husain knew that he would not reach Kufa, the capital of Syria. He knew that he would be killed by men who were like ferocious beasts, cutting his body to pieces. He undertook the journey for the purpose of martyrdom and not for political reasons. Along the way he told people of his impending death. He told his companions and relatives that one instance was sufficient to prove the worthlessness of this world. He said that after the beheading of the Prophet John, the head was presented to an adulteress. He said that his own head would soon be taken to the drunkard, Yazid.

Consider the matter for a moment. Hurr Bin Yazid Riyahi with a cavalry of 1,000 soldiers obstructed Husain's way. Kufa was only thirty miles away. Hur had been appointed by Ubaidullah Ibn Ziyad to detain Imam Husain. Hur would neither let him proceed to Kufa, nor leave his company without further orders. Why did the Imam surrender himself to Hur? If Husain had sought political power, he certainly would never have been stopped by Hur, who had not more than 1,000 soldiers. The Imam had 1,300 soldiers. Having defeated them, the Imam could have reached Kufa, where he had widespread support. From there, being reinforced, he could have confronted the enemy and gained domination. But he accepted Hur's order, stopped there in the desert surrounded by the enemy. After four days enemy reinforcements arrived there, and the Prophet's son was forced to endure cruel suffering.

The best evidence in support of my view is the Imam's address on the night before The Day of Ashura. Until that night 1,300 soldiers were ready to fight for him. Husain gathered the people together and told them: "Those who have come here for worldly gain should know that tomorrow whoever remains on this soil will be killed. The enemy is after me alone; I lift the binding force of allegiance from your necks. It is night, and you can depart in the darkness." Many accepted his proposal and departed. Only 42 people remained, 18 Bani Hashim and 24 companions. After midnight, 30 enemy soldiers moved toward the Imam's camp for a night attack, but when they heard Husain reciting the Holy Qur'an, they were filled with emotion and joined the Imam. These were the 72 people who sacrificed their lives on the Day of Ashura. Most of them were pious people, and many were reciters of the Holy Qur'an.

Husain's noble sacrifices are acknowledged today by friend and foe alike. Even those alien to our religion are impressed by his heroism. In the French Da'iratu'l-Ma'arif, there is a lengthy article entitled "Three Martyrs" written by a learned British woman. Her theme is that in all of history there have been three martyrs who, by sacrificing their lives, have been most influential in advancing the cause of truth. The first was Socrates, and the second was Jesus (the writer was a Christian). We Muslims, of course, believe that Jesus was not crucified. The Holy Qur'an clearly says: "And they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Jesus) and most surely those who differ therein are only in doubt about it. They have no knowledge concerning it, but only follow conjecture. They did not kill him for certain. Nay! Allah took him up to Himself." (4:157-158)

The third martyr she writes, was Husain, the grandson of Muhammad. She writes: "When we take stock of historical events and assess the circumstances under which these three persons offered their lives, we acknowledge that the sacrifices of Husain excelled those two. The fact was that Socrates and Christ offered only their own lives for sacrifice in the way of God, but Husain left his home for a distant desert land to be surrounded by the enemy. He and his entire family were martyred for the cause of truth. He sent his friends and relations to confront the enemy and to sacrifice their lives for the religion of Allah. This was in fact harder than giving up his own life."

[burningmoon]

Wow, this is a new revolution I have heard of!

Or, rebellion whatever one wants to call it!

An army of 10,000 vs. an army of 72 only!

Some might call it suicidal!

Imam Hussayn radhiallahu ta'la anhu was decieved by shias of karbala who formed the army which martyred the family of the ahlul bayt. It was expected that the people of karbala would accept Imam Hussayn radhiallahu ta'la anhu as their Khalifah and thus would join
Imam Hussayn radhiallahu ta'la anhu. But as usual shias of karbala did taqiyyah and decieved Imam Hussayn radhiallahu ta'la anhu and martyred Imam Hussayn radhiallahu ta'la anhu and the ahlul bayt.

Imam Hussayn radhiallahu ta'la anhu also tried to leave karbala, but there was a sand storm in the night and in the morning the enemy was found face to face and thus the shia army of yazid from karbala started the brutal massacre.

[aladdin]

Imam Hussayn radhiallahu ta'la anhu was decieved by shias of karbala who formed the army which martyred the family of the ahlul bayt. It was expected that the people of karbala would accept Imam Hussayn radhiallahu ta'la anhu as their Khalifah and thus would join
Imam Hussayn radhiallahu ta'la anhu. But as usual shias of karbala did taqiyyah and decieved Imam Hussayn radhiallahu ta'la anhu and martyred Imam Hussayn radhiallahu ta'la anhu and the ahlul bayt.

Imam Hussayn radhiallahu ta'la anhu also tried to leave karbala, but there was a sand storm in the night and in the morning the enemy was found face to face and thus the shia army of yazid from karbala started the brutal massacre.

The above post is very interesting and very misleading!

The Shia means followers, so the followers of Yazid were none other than the Sunni themselves!

The spinning goes on as the spinning in the first post of this thread!

The martyrdom of imam Hussain, is spun in the justification of rules of Abu Bakr, Omar, Usman and Muawiyah the father of Yazid. Muawiyah the head of the Omayyad dynasty and the father of Yazid. It is the Sunni who follow the dynasties of Omayyad, Abbasaid and Ottoman and not the Shia!

Read HISTORY! The history is witness to these atrocities. The Shia were percecuted from the death of rasool Allah Mohammad (saws) until 1940!

See the link here: http://islamfactor.org/index.php?showtopic...amp;#entry51822

The spinning keeps on continuing!

[aladdin]

The supporters of the theory that there are twelve Imams for the Muslim Ummah believe that the twelfth Imam will be Al-Mahdi. They have been waiting for his emergence for more than twelve hundred years now. We do not know when Al-Mahdi may appear. Should the Muslims, depending on the possibility of his emergence, remain passive towards the absolutism and dictatorship practiced against them ?! The eminent Shiite scholars have reviewed the question of the Imamate, and the majority of them have agreed that it is up to the Muslim Ummah to choose who can rule it by Allah's Law.

The above is paramount to what is floating in the toilets of all homes and offices!

[Murteza]

this is sometimes beyond me if some shias instead stand against opressor, they're co-operating with them. they dont have imam husein's spirit

[aladdin]

this is sometimes beyond me if some shias instead stand against oppressor, they're co-operating with them. they dont have imam husein's spirit

Survival is very important and if not than all the Shia will be wiped out!

Their are times to cooperate when Islam is not threatened to be completely wiped out, and there are times to take stand when the Islam is threatened to be completely wiped out.

Thus, the story of two brothers. The older brother Hassan cooperated, along with all the ahl-Bayt including his younger brother Hussain and their supporters.

And, there is time to take a stand, just like the younger brother Hussain did with 72 men only. Hussain interest was not to win the war, as he had chance to do so, but his interest was martyrdom, thus shocking the Umma (the Muslims) to their core.

Consider the matter for a moment. Hurr Bin Yazid Riyahi with a cavalry of 1,000 soldiers obstructed Husain's way. Kufa was only thirty miles away. Hur had been appointed by Ubaidullah Ibn Ziyad to detain Imam Husain. Hur would neither let him proceed to Kufa, nor leave his company without further orders. Why did the Imam surrender himself to Hur? If Husain had sought political power, he certainly would never have been stopped by Hur, who had not more than 1,000 soldiers. The Imam had 1,300 soldiers. Having defeated them, the Imam could have reached Kufa, where he had widespread support. From there, being reinforced, he could have confronted the enemy and gained domination. But he accepted Hur's order, stopped there in the desert surrounded by the enemy. After four days enemy reinforcements arrived there, and the Prophet's son was forced to endure cruel suffering.

This post has been edited by aladdin: Oct 15 2008, 02:22 AM

[aladdin]

this is sometimes beyond me if some shias instead stand against oppressor, they're co-operating with them. they dont have imam husein's spirit

Salam brother,

Do you consider that it is only the Shia responsibility to stand against the oppressor?

No wonder the Sunni still today accuse the Shia about the Khawarij and the Wahhabis/Salafis. Even thought imam Hussain with 72 men stood against these outcasts, the Shia are still blamed by the Sunni. Their responsibility seems to be to co-operate with the oppressor and blame the Shia for not taking a stand!

Sayyiduna Imaam Hasan, Imaam Husein and many other eminent scholars hesitated because this group spent the entire night in Tahajjud and spent the day in the recitation of the Holy Quraan. They said: "How could we raise our swords on such people". On the contrary, Sayyiduna Rasoolullah (sallalahu alaihi wasallam) had already in the past informed Sayyiduna Ali (Karramallahu wajhahu) about this Sect that will revolt against Islam and they will be very staunch in their external duties, i.e. of Salaah, Fasting, etc. They will leave the Deen as an arrow leaves the bow for its target, never to return again, and they will recite the Holy Quraan but it will not go below their throats.

http://www.geocities.com/~abdulwahid/musli...bi_khariji.html

Such people enjoy the riches while filling their bellies with the oppressor and place the blame on the shoulders of others!

The hypocrisy!

http://islamfactor.org/index.php?showtopic...amp;#entry51822

This post has been edited by aladdin: Oct 15 2008, 02:36 AM

[Murteza]

Survival is very important and if not than all the Shia will be wiped out!

Their are times to cooperate when Islam is not threatened to be completely wiped out, and there are times to take stand when the Islam is threatened to be completely wiped out.

Thus, the story of two brothers. The older brother Hassan cooperated, along with all the ahl-Bayt including his younger brother Hussain and their supporters.

And, there is time to take a stand, just like the younger brother Hussain did with 72 men only. Hussain interest was not to win the war, as he had chance to do so, but his interest was martyrdom, thus shocking the Umma (the Muslims) to their core.

what should we care if we gonna be wiped out. do we believe ALlah ahlulbayt (as) teaching? if yes, we shouldn't scare.

we are allowed taqqiya, then why should our mouth are shut when we see many injustice around us. shiaism is not religion for mourner, but religion againts tyrant and liberation.

i think our aimmah not emrely about martyrdom, but it was the noble action beyond martyrdom. facing hundreds forces not only seek for martyrdom but goes far beyond that. this is why every ashura (even non-muslims) celebrate it. because it's divine reflection to people in the world that religion not only worshipping, dzikr, or any type observances. but in turn, it's liberation for humanity.

this is why i seldom visit ashura every 10th Muharram coz they only recognize the outer aspect instead inner meaning such as mourning, crying. but never done anything when people died in starvation in africa, corruption, stupidity. at least they'd done to my country sovereignity rather than fattened up their arse and neglecting people who facing difficulty