Imam Husayn's Revolution: An Analytical Review

Ziyaratu Ashura: An Analytical Study of the Reports of the Pilgrimage to Imam al-Husayn (a.s.) on the Day of Ashura

Arbaeen of Imam Husayn

What follows in this piece is a brief look at the “Arba‘een” [the commemoration of 40 days after the tragic events of Karbala] of Imam al-Husayn, peace be upon him. The article concludes with the Arabic text of Ziyarat Arba‘een with full English translation and a brief exposition on certain passages of this powerful and moving visitation. Insha-Allah, a more comprehensive understanding of this ziyarat will be presented in the future.

*****

The Sermon of Mina, Al- 'Imam al Husayn's Everlasting Message to Religious Leaders

The Sermon of Mina, Al- 'Imam al Husayn's Everlasting Message to Religious Leaders

In the year 60/680, al-'Imam al-Husayn (A) stayed for about three months at Makkah in the course of his movement against the succession of Yazid, the degenerate son of Mu'awiah, to the Caliphate. Yazid had assumed the leadership of the Islamic world on Mu'awiah's death in Rajab 60/ March 680. his way of life

was representative of the common among the youth of the Umayyad aristocracy during 'Jahiliyyah'.

 

---

 

His un-Islamic conduct and practices were well known throughout the Muslim world and had earned for him contempt and disfavour amongst the religious. Nevertheless, Mu'awiyah's arrangements, ensured the succession of his son.

In order to secure undisputed possession of the Caliphate, the first task undertaken by Yazid was to order al-Walid ibn 'Utbah, the governor of al-Madinah, to exact allegiance (bay'ah) from the refractory, especially from al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali and Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, who were among the few who had refused to recognize Yazid's heir apparency during Mu'awiyah's life. In his letter to the governor, Yazid gave strict orders that they should not be allowed to delay, and if they refused al-walid should beheaded them at once.

Al-'Imam al-Husayn (A) avoided the demand for bay'ah for two days and finally left for Makkah at night with his family and most of the Hashimites. It was at al-Madinah that al-'Imam al-Husayn (A) received repeated appeals and hundreds of letters sent by the kufans, pledging support to him in his movement against Yazid's rule. He also received reports that the government had sent some soldiers disguised as pilgrims to assassinate him in the sacred precincts of Makkah during the rituals of hajj, which was drawing near.

On 8 Dhu -al-hijjah/10 september 680, al-'Imam al-Husayn left Makkah for Kufah, after performing umrah, foregoing hajj in order to safeguard the sanctity of the haram of Makkah and to avoid bloodshed in the holy precincts.

Makkah was at the time full of pilgrims, who were pouring in from all parts of the Muslim world . There, at Mina, he delivered the famous sermon addressing the people, especially the learned in religion. This sermon is recorded in “Tuhaf al 'uqul “, a collection of sermons and aphorisms of the Imams (A) compiled by al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali ibn al-Husayn ibn Subah al Harrani (d. 381/ 991).

The above sermon besides being an eye-opener for all of us, who should study the contemporary scene around us in the light of the genuine teachings of Islam, also reveals the sorry state of affairs that prevailed in the Muslim society of those days, just a generation after the holy Prophet (S) and his committed Companions had established a just Islamic society after a lifetime of unimaginable hardship and struggle. The following points emerge from this noble sermon:

1. It shows the state of Muslim society during and after Muawiyah's twenty-year rule, a matter which prompts every concerned muslim to study and investigate how it came to prevail in the not too long a period, a single generation or nearly fifty years, after the demise of the Noble Messenger (S).

2. It shows that 'ulama' then, as today, enjoyed the people's respect and veneration, but having aligned themselves with the rulers they neglected their duties with respect to God and His laws and in regard to the people and their divine duty to strive to protect their rights.

3. It shows the state of the common people, especially the society's poor and weak, who lived in complete neglect on the part of the rulers, contrary to the Prophet's practice and his great concern for their welfare and rights.

4. The 'Ulama ' were not only silent vis-à-vis the oppression of the people, they failed to speak out against the anti-Islamic conduct of the rulers or to condemn their propagandists who misguided the people from their pulpits in every town.

5. It shows the people's indifference in regard to the Prophet's Ahlul Bayt (A) and their obliviousness to the Prophet's earnest and oft repeated advice and persuasions regarding them . It was this general indifference towards the Ahl-ul Bayt (A) and the common ignorance regarding their sublime station in Islam that emboldened a profligate like Yazid to kill the Prophet's only living grandson in such a barbaric manner and to imprison the women and children of his noble family. History shows that this indifference had causes that lay in the past.

6. Had it not been for the heroic struggle of al-'Imam al-Husayn (A), nothing would have remained of the genuine teachings of Islam, even Yazid, with the help of hired historians, would have gone into history as a respectable Islamic ruler and as a deserving successor of the Messenger of Allah (S). Of course, some court historians and fuqaha tried to justify even the blackest crimes of Yazid as errors of ijtihad. But such justifications did not succeed in convincing honourable or aware Muslim. All that such historians and fuqaha could succeed in achieving was everlasting ignominy for themselves.

Al-Imam al-Husayn (A) through his tragic martyrdom revived Islam and preserved its authentic teachings from the hands of tyrants. hence the Islamic world is indebted to this brave son of Fatimah al-Zahra (A) and shall remain indebted to him to the Day of Resurrection.

Imam Khomeini, a true son of al-Imam al-Husayn (A), in the course of his lectures on the topic of wilayat al-faqih, which were published in the form of a book with that name, expounds this hadith in the context of the tradition-based part of his discussion about the responsibilities of the scholars of religion.

The sermon of al-Imam al-Husayn (A) is last of the traditions discussed by him in that context. The entire exposition has as its backdrop the conditions of Iran during the rule of the Shah in early 1970's.

The Sermon of Mina

from al Tawhid, p. 34, Vol. VII No. 4 Shawwal Dhu al Hijjah 1410

O people, take lesson from the counsel God gave to His friends when He rebuked the rabbis by saying:

“Why do the scholars and rabbis not forbid their sinful talk and consumption of what is unlawful ? Truly what they have done is evil.” (5:63)

And God says:

“Cursed by the tongue of David and Jesus, son of Mary are those among the Children of Israel who disbelieved on account of their rebellion and transgression. They did not prevent each other from committing vile and corrupt acts; surely what they did was abominable” (5:78-79).

God reproached them because they saw with their own eyes the oppressors committing vile and corrupt acts, but did not stop them, out of love for the favours they received from them as well as fear of persecution and injury. However, God says:

“Fear not men, but fear Me.” (5:44)

And He says:

“The believing men and women are friends and protectors to each other; they enjoin the good and forbid the evil; they perform the prayer, and pay the alms, and obey God and His messenger. Upon them God shall have mercy; God is Almighty, All-wise.” (9:71)

God mentions the duty of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil (al- 'amr bi al-ma'ruf wa al-nahy 'an al-munkar) before all other duties, because He knows that if it is performed and is established in the society all other duties, the easy and the difficult, will also become established.

The reason for this is that al-'amr bi al ma'ruf wa al-nahy 'an al-munkar means summoning people to Islam, as well as resistance against injustice, opposing and struggling against oppressors, and endeavoring to ensure that public wealth and income derived from war are distributed in accordance with the just laws of Islam, and that taxes are collected, levied and expended in due and proper form.

O scholars, who are celebrated and enjoy good repute on account of your learning! You have achieved a good name in society because of your good will. It is on account of God that men venerate you and stand in awe of you, so that even powerful fear you and the weak honour you, and those who are not subject to you and over whom you hold no authority grant you favours they deny themselves . When the people do not receive their due. they seek your intercession, and you walk in the street with the majesty of kings and princes.

Have you not earned all this respect and prestige because of the people's hopes that you will implement God's laws, even though in most instances you have failed to do so?

You have taken lightly your duties as leaders. You have neglected the rights of the oppressed and the lowly, but have assiduously pursued what you regard as your personal rights. You have not spent your money or risked your life for the sake of the One Who gave you life, nor have you fought against any group or tribe for the sake of God.

Nevertheless, you desire - and regard it as your due - that He should grant you paradise, the company of the prophet, and security from chastisement in the hereafter. You have such expectations of God, I fear that the full weight of His wrath descend upon you, for although it is by His might and glory that you have achieved high rank, you show no respect to those who truly know god, while you yourselves enjoy respect among God's creatures on His account.

(I am also afraid for you for another reason:) you see the covenant enacted with God being violated and trampled under foot, yet you show no anxiety, when it comes to the covenants enacted with your fathers, you become greatly disturbed and anxious if they are only violated in part, but the pledges you have given to the most noble Messenger are a matter of complete indifference to you.

The blind, the dumb, and chronically ill everywhere lack protection in towns and no mercy is shown them. But you neither behave in accordance with your function and rank, nor you support or pay any regard to those who do. You purchase your safety from the oppressive ruling powers with flattery cajolery, and compromise.

All these activities have been forbidden you by God, and He has, more over, command you to forbid each other to engage in them, but you pay no attention.

The calamity that has befallen you is greater than what has befallen others, for true rank and degree of “Ulama” has been taken away from you. The administration of the country and the issuing of decrees and ordinances should actually be trusted to religious scholars who are guardians of God's ordinances concerning what is permitted and what is forbidden. But your position has been usurped from you, for no other reason than that you have abandoned the truth (al-haqq), and have disagreed about the nature of the sunnah, despite the existence of clear proofs.

Had you the forbearance to endure adversities and hardships for the sake of God, then all proposed regulations (God's affairs) would be brought to you for your approval and for you to issue; authority would lie in your hands. But you allowed the oppressors to take away your functions and God's affairs (i.e. government) to fall into their hands, so that they administer them by resorting to ambiguities and make arbitrariness and the satisfaction of lust their consistent practice.

What enabled them to gain control of government was your fleeing in panic from (inevitable) death and your love of life, which shall in all certainty depart from you. As a consequence of that mentality, you have delivered the powerless masses into the clutches of the oppressors.

While some cringe like slaves under the yoke of oppressors, and others have been reduced to destitution in regard to their livelihood, the rulers run the affairs of the government in accordance with their whims, earning ignominy and disgrace for themselves with their licentiousness, following evil counselors, and showing impudence toward God.

One of their appointed spokesmen mounts the pulpit (minbar) in each city. The country is defenseless before them, and their hands grab freely whatever they want of it. The people are their slaves and are powerless to defend themselves. One of the governors is a dictator by nature, malevolent and rancorous; another represses to recognize either God or the Day of Resurrection!

It is not strange - how can one think it strange, that society is the clutches of a cunning oppressor whose tax collectors are oppressors and whose governers feel no compassion or mercy towards the believers under rule.

It is God who will judge concerning what is dispute among us and deliver a decisive verdict concerning all that occurs among us.

O God! You know that everything we did was not prompted by rivalry for political power, nor for a search for wealth and abundance; rather it was done to demonstrate to men the shining principles and values of Your religion, to reform the affairs of Your land, to protect and secure the indisputable rights of Your oppressed servants, and to act in accordance with the duties You have established and the norms, laws, and ordinances You have decreed.

So (O scholars of religion!) You are to help us reach this goal, win back our rights from those powers who have considered it acceptable to wrong you and who have attempted to put out the light kindled by your Prophet. God suffices us, upon Him do we rely, to Him do we return, and to Him shall we return.

Imam Khumayni's Exposition

The tradition consists of two parts. The first is a tradition transmitted by Imam Husayn (peace be upon him) from the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali (peace be upon him), and concerns the enjoining of the good and the prohibition of the evil.

The second part is the speech of Imam Husayn concerning the governance of the faqih and the duties that are incumbent upon the fuqaha' such as the struggle against oppressors and tyrannical governments in order to establish an Islamic government and implement the ordinances of Islam. In the course of this celebrated speech, which he delivered at Mina, he set forth the reasons for his own jihad against the tyrannical Umayyad state.

Two important themes may be deduced from this tradition. The first is the principle of the governance of the faqih, and the second is that the fuqaha' by means of jihad and enjoining the good and forbidding the evil, must expose and overthrow tyrannical rules and rouse the people so that the universal movement of all alert Muslims can establish Islamic government in place of tyrannical regimes.

This is the tradition. Imam Husayn (upon whom be peace) said:

O people, take heed of the counsel God gave His friends when He rebuked the rabbis by saying,

“Why do their scholars and rabbis not forbid their sinful talk and consumption of what is forbidden [that is, such talk and consumption on the part of the Jews]? Truly what they have done is evil' (5:63).

Again God says:

'Cursed by the tongue of David and Jesus, son of Mary, are those among the Children of Israel who have failed to believe on account of their rebellion and transgression. They did not prevent each other from committing vile and corrupt acts; what they did was abominable!' (5:78-79).

God blamed and reproached them because they saw with their own eyes the oppressors committing vile and corrupt acts, but did not stop them, out of love for the income they received from them as well as fear of persecution and injury. However, God orders us to fear Him, not men, and He says:

The believing men and women are friends and protectors to each other; they enjoin the good and forbid the evil. (9:71).

We see that in this verse, in the course of enumerating the attributes of the believers, the attributes that indicate mutual affection, solicitude and the desire to guide each other, God begins with enjoining the good and forbidding the evil, considering this the prime duty.

For He knows that if this duty is performed and is established within society, performance of all other duties will follow, from the easiest to the most difficult.

The reason for this is that enjoining the good and forbidding the evil means summoning people to Islam, which is a struggle to establish correct belief in the face of external opposition, while at the same time vindicating the rights of the oppressed; opposing and struggling against oppressors within the community; and endeavouring to ensure that public wealth and the income derived from war are distributed in accordance with the just laws of Islam, and that taxes [zakat and all other forms of fiscal income, whether compulsory or voluntary ] are collected, levied, and expended in due and proper form.

O scholars, you who are celebrated and enjoy good repute on account of your learning! You have achieved fame in society because of your devotion, the good counsel you impart, and the guidance you dispense. It is on account of God that men venerate and stand in awe of you, so that even the Powerful fear you and feel compelled to rise respectfully before you, and men who are not subject to you and over whom you hold no authority willingly regard themselves as your subordinates and grant you favours they deny themselves.

When the people do not receive their due from the public treasury, you intervene and act with the awesomeness and imperiousness of monarchs and the stature of the great. Have you not earned all these forms of respect and prestige because of men's hopes that you will implement God's laws, even though in most instances you have failed to do so?

You have failed to enforce most of the rights you were entrusted to preserve. You have neglected the rights of the oppressed and the lowly, squandered the rights of the weak and the powerless, but pursued assiduously what you regard as your personal rights. You have not spent your money or risked your lives for the sake of the One who gave you life, nor have you fought against any group or tribe for be sake of God.

You desire, and regard it as your due, that He should want you paradise, the company of the Prophet, and security from hellfire in the hereafter. You who have such expectations of God, I fear that the full weight of His wrath will descend upon you, for although it is by His might and glory that you have achieved high rank, you show no respect to those who truly know God and wish to disseminate their knowledge while you yourselves enjoy respect among God's bondsmen on His account.

I am also afraid for you for another reason: you see the covenants enacted with God being violated and trampled underfoot, yet you show no anxiety. When it comes to the covenants enacted with your fathers, you become greatly disturbed and anxious if they are only violated in part, but the pledges you have given to the Most Noble Messenger are a matter of complete indifference to you.

The blind, the dumb, and the chronically sick everywhere lack protectors and no mercy is shown them. You do not behave in accordance with your function and rank, nor do you support or pay any regard to those who do so behave and who strive to promote the standing of the religious scholars. You purchase your safety from the oppressive ruling powers with flattery, cajolery, and compromise.

All these activities have been forbidden-you by God, and He has, more over, commanded you to forbid each other to engage in them, but you pay no attention. The disaster that has befallen you is greater than what has befallen others, for the true rank and degree of 'ulama' has been taken away from you.

The administration of the country, the issuing of judicial decrees, and the approving of legislative programmes should actually be entrusted to religious scholars who are guardians of the rights of God and knowledgeable about God's ordinances concerning what is permitted and what is forbidden. But your position has been usurped from you, for no other reason than that you have abandoned the pivot of truth, the law of Islam and God's decree, and have disagreed about the nature of the Sunnah, despite the existence of clear proofs.

If you were true men, strong in the face of torture and suffering and prepared to endure hardship for God's sake, then all proposed regulations would be brought to you for your approval and for you to issue; authority would lie in your hands.

But you allowed the oppressors to take away your functions and permitted government, which is supposed to be regulated by the provisions of the Shari'ah, to fall into their hands, so that they administer it on the shaky basis of their own conjectures and suppositions and make arbitrariness and the satisfaction of lust their consistent practice.

What enabled them to gain control of government was your fleeing in panic from being killed, your attachment to the transitory life of this world. With that mentality and the conduct it inspires, you have delivered the powerless masses into the clutches of the oppressors. While some cringe like slaves under the blows of the oppressors, and others search in misery and desperation for bread and water, the rulers are entirely absorbed in the pleasures of kingship, earning shame and disgrace for themselves with their licentiousness following evil counselling, and showing impudence toward God. One of their appointed spokesmen mounts the minbar in each city.

The soil of the homeland is defenceless before them, and they grab freely whatever they want of it. The people are their slaves and are powerless to defend themselves. One ruler is a dictator by nature, malevolent and rancorous; another represses his wretched subjects ruthlessly plundering by imposing on them all kinds of burdens; and still another refuses in his absolutism to recognize either God or the Day of Judgment!

Is it not strange, how can one not think it strange, that society is in the clutches of a cunning oppressor whose tax collectors are oppressors and whose governors feel no compassion or mercy toward the believers under their rule?

It is God Who will judge concerning what is at dispute among us and deliver a decisive verdict concerning all that occurs among us.

O God! You know that everything we did [ that is, the struggle in Which they had recently engaged against the Umayyads] was not prompted by rivalry for political power, nor by a search for wealth and abundance; rather it was done in order to demonstrate to men the shinning principles and values of Your religion, to reform the affairs of your land, to protect and secure the indisputable rights of Your oppressed servants, and to act in accordance with the duties You have established and the norms, laws, and ordinances You have decreed.

So, O scholars of religion! You are to help us reach this goal, win back our rights from those powers who have considered it acceptable to wrong You and who have attempted to put out the light kindled by your Prophet. God the One suffices us, upon Him do we rely, to Him do we turn, in His hands lies our fate, and to Him shall we return.

When Imam Husayn said at the beginning of this sermon:

'O people, take heed of the counsel God gave His friends when He rebuked the rabbis,

his address was not restricted to a particular group of people, those present in the assembly, the inhabitants of a certain city, town, or country, or even all people alive in the world at the time. Rather it embraces all who hear the summons at whatever time, for it begins with the expression “O people” (ya ayyuha al-nas), which occurs in the Qur'an with the same universal meaning.

When God rebukes the rabbis, the Jewish scholars, and condemns their behaviour, He is at the same time addressing His friends (awliya') and advising them. The word awliya means here those who have set their faces toward God and hold responsible positions in society, not the Twelve Imams.

God says in the verse we are examining: “Why do their scholars and rabbis not forbid their sinful talk and consumption of what is forbidden? Truly what they have done is evil.” Thus He reproaches the rabbis and Jewish religious scholars for failing to prevent the oppressors' sinful talk, a term that includes lying, slander, distorting the truth, and so forth, and consumption of what is forbidden. It is obvious that this reproach and upbraiding is not confined to the scholars of the Jews, nor for that matter to those of the Christians; it applies also to the religious scholars in Islamic society, or indeed, any other society.

If the religious scholars of Islamic society are silent, therefore, in the face of the policies of the oppressors, they too are reproached and condemned by God; and here there is no distinction between scholars of the past, present, and future, they are equal in this regard. Imam Husayn (upon whom be peace) made reference to this verse of the Qur'an so that the religious scholars of Islamic society would take heed, awaken and no longer neglect their duty of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil or stay silent in the face of the oppressive and deviant ruling classes.

There are two points to which he draws attention by citing this verse. First, the religious scholars' neglect of their duties is more harmful than the failure of others to perform their normal duties. If a bazaar merchant, for example, does something wrong, it is only he who suffers the harm that results.

But if the religious scholars fail in fulfilling their duties, by keeping silent, let us say, in the face of tyranny, Islam itself suffers as a result. But if, on the contrary, they act in accordance with their duty and speak out when they should, eschewing silence, then Islam itself will benefit.

Secondly, although all things contrary to the Shari'ah must be forbidden, emphasis has been placed on sinful talk and consumption of what is forbidden, implying that these two evils are more dangerous than all others and must therefore be more diligently combated.

Sometimes the statements and propaganda put forth by oppressive regimes are more harmful to Islam and the Muslims than their actions and policy, endangering the whole repute of Islam and the Muslims. God reproaches the religious scholars, therefore, for failing to prevent the oppressors from uttering dishonest words and spreading sinful propaganda. He says in effect:

Why did they not denounce the man who falsely claimed to be God's vicegerent on earth and the instrument of His will, who claimed to be enforcing God's laws in the right way and to have a correct understanding and practice of Islamic justice, even though he was incapable of comprehending what justice is? Claims like these are a form of sinful talk that is extremely harmful to society. Why did the religious scholars not prevent them from being made? The tyrants who uttered this nonsense committed treason and brought evil innovations into Islam; why did the religious scholars not stand in their way and make them desist from these sins?

If someone interprets God's ordinances in a way displeasing to Him, thus introducing an evil innovation in Islam, or executes laws that are anti Islamic, claiming to be acting in accordance with the requirements of Islamic justice, it is the duty of the religious scholars to proclaim their opposition. If they fail to do so, they will be cursed by God, as is apparent both from the verse under discussion and from this tradition:

When evil innovations appear, it is the duty of the scholar to bring forth his knowledge [ by condemning them ]; otherwise, God's curse will be upon him.

In such cases, the expression of opposition and the expounding of God's teachings and ordinances that stand in contradiction to innovation, oppression, and sin are also useful in themselves, for they make the masses aware of the corruption of society and the wrongdoing of the treacherous, sinful, and irreligious rulers.

The people will then rise up in revolt and refuse to collaborate any longer with the tyrants or to obey corrupt and treacherous ruling powers. The expression of opposition by religious scholars is a form of “forbidding the evil” on the part of the religious leadership, which creates in its wake a wave of broad opposition and “forbidding the evil” on the part of all religiously inclined and honourable people.

If the oppressive and deviant rulers do not bow to the wishes of such an oppositional movement by returning to the straight path of Islam and obedience to God's laws, but attempt to silence it by force of arms, they will, in effect, have engaged in armed aggression against the Muslims and acquired the status of a rebellious group (fi'ah baghiyah). It will then be the duty of the Muslims to engage in an armed jihad against that ruling group in order to make the policies ruling society and the norms of government conform to the principles and ordinances of Islam.

It is true that at present you do not have the power to prevent the innovative practices of the rulers or to halt the corruption in which they are engaged. But at least do not stay silent. If they strike you on the head, cry out in protest!

Do not submit to oppression; such submission is worse than oppression itself. In order to counteract their press and propaganda apparatus, we must create our own apparatus to refute whatever lies they issue and to proclaim that Islamic justice is not what they claim it is, but on the contrary, has a complete and coherent programme for ordering the affairs of the family and all Muslim society.

All these matters must be made clear so that people can come to know the truth and coming generations will not take the silence of the religious readers as proof that the deeds and policies of the oppressors conform to' the Shari'ah and that the perspicuous religion of Islam allows them to “consume what is forbidden,” or in other words, to plunder the wealth of the people.

Since the range of thought of some people is confined to the mosque we are now sitting in and is incapable of extending any further, when they hear the expression “consumption of what is forbidden,” they can only think of some corner grocer who is (God forbid) selling his customers short.

They never think of the whole range of more important forms of “consuming what is forbidden,” of plunder. Huge amounts of capital are being swallowed up; our public funds are being embezzled; our oil is being plundered; and our country is being turned into a market for expensive, unnecessary goods by the representatives of foreign companies, which makes it possible for foreign capitalists and their local agents to pocket the people's money.

A number of foreign states carry off our oil after drawing it out of the ground, and the negligible sum they pay to the regime they have installed returns to their pockets by other routes. As for the small amount that goes into the treasury, God only knows what it is spent on. All of this is a form of “consumption of what is forbidden” that takes place on an enormous scale, in fact on an international scale. It is not merely an evil, but a hideous and most dangerous evil.

Examine carefully the conditions of society and the actions of the government and its component organs, and then you will understand what hideous “consumption of what is forbidden” is taking place now. If an earthquake occurs in some corner of the country, it too becomes a means for the ruling profiteers to increase their illegal income: they fill their pockets with the money that is supposed to go to the victims of the earthquake.

Whenever our oppressive, anti-national rulers enter into agreements with foreign states or companies, they pocket huge amounts of our people's money and lavish additional huge sums on their foreign masters. It is a veritable flood of forbidden consumption that sweeps past us, right before our eyes.

All this misappropriation of wealth goes on and on: in our foreign trade and in the contracts made for the exploitation of our mineral wealth, the utilization of our forests and other natural resources, construction work, road building, and the purchase of arms from the imperialists, both Western and communist.

We must end all this plundering and usurpation of wealth. The people as a whole have a responsibility in this respect, but the responsibility of the religious scholars is graver and more critical. We must take the lead over other Muslims in embarking on this sacred jihad, this heavy undertaking; because of our rank and positions we must be in the forefront.

If we do not have the power today to prevent these misdeeds from happening and to punish these embezzlers and traitors, these powerful thieves that rule over us, then we must work to gain that power. At the same time, to fulfill our minimum obligation, we must not fail to expound the truth and expose the thievery and mendacity of our rulers. When we come to power, we will not only put the country's political life, economy, and administration in order, we will also whip and chastise the thieves and the liars. They set fire to the al-Masjid al-'Aqsa. We cry out:

Leave the al-Masjid al-'Aqsa half-burned to the ground, do not erase all traces of the crime!

But the Shah's regime opens an account, sets up a fund, and starts collecting money from the people supposedly to rebuild the al-Masjid al Aqsa, but really to fill the pockets of our rulers while also covering up the crime committed by Israel.

These are the disasters that are afflicting the nation of Islam and that have brought us to our present state. Is it not the duty of the scholar, of Islam to speak out about all this? “Why do their rabbis not forbid their consumption of what is forbidden?” Why do our Muslim scholars not protest? Why do they say nothing about all this plundering? To return to the sermon of Imam Husayn (upon whom be peace), he continues with a reference to the verse:

“Cursed are those among the Children of Israel who have failed to believe” (5:78).

This is not relevant to our present discussion. Then he says: “God reproached and blamed them [the rabbis] because they saw with their own eyes the oppressors committing vile and corrupt acts but did not stop them.” According to Imam Husayn, their silence was due to two factors: greed and baseness.

Either they were covetous persons who profited materially from the oppressors, accepting payment to keep quiet, or they were faint-hearted cowards who were afraid of them. Consult the traditions referring to enjoining the good and forbidding the evil. There the conduct of those who constantly invent excuses in order to escape from doing their duty is condemned and their silence is considered shameful.

God says:

'Do not fear men, but fear Me' (2:150).

This verge means roughly: 'Why do you fear men? Our friends (awliya') have given up their lives for the sake of Islam; you should be prepared to do the same.' “Elsewhere in the Qur'an God also says:

The believing, men and women, are friends and protectors to each other; they enjoin the good and forbid the evil; ... they establish the prayer, pay the zakat, and obey God and His messenger' (9:71).

In this verse, God mentioning the duty of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil first because He knows that if this duty is correctly performed, all other duties, whether easy or difficult, will fall into place. For enjoining the good and forbidding the evil means summoning men to Islam while at the same time remedying oppression, opposing the oppressor, making just distribution of the ghana'im, and levying and spending taxes in just and due form.”

If the duty of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil is properly performed, all other duties will automatically fall into place. If the good is enjoined and the evil forbidden, the oppressors and their agents will be unable to usurp the people's property and dispose of it according to their own whims; they will be unable to squander the taxes taken from the people.

For he who enjoins the good and forbids the evil actively calls men to Islam by remedying injustice and opposing the oppressor.

Enjoining the good and forbidding the evil has been made a duty primarily for the sake of accomplishing these high aims. We have restricted it, how ever, to a narrow category of affairs where harm is suffered chiefly by the individual who is guilty of a sin by deed or by omission.

We have the idea firmly, in our heads that the instances of evil we are called upon to combat (munkarat) are only the things we encounter or hear about in every day life. For example, if someone plays music while we are riding on the bus, or the owner of a coffee house does something wrong, or someone eats in the middle of the bazaar during Ramadhan. an, we regard all these things as instances of evil we must denounce. Meanwhile, we remain totally oblivious to far greater evils.

Those who are destroying the welfare of Islam and trampling on the rights of the weak, it is they whom we must force to desist from evil. If a collective protest were made against the oppressors who commit an improper act or crime, if several thousand telegrams were sent to them from all the Islamic countries telling them to desist, to relinquish their errors, they certainly would desist.

If every time a step were taken or a speech given against the interests of Islam and the welfare of the people, those responsible were condemned throughout the country, in every single village and hamlet, they would be obliged to retreat. Could they possibly do other wise? Never! I know them; I know what kind of people they are. They are very cowardly and would retreat very quickly. But if they see that we are more gutless than they are, they will give themselves airs and do whatever they want.

When the 'ulama' of Qumm met and banded together on one occasion, and the provinces supported them by sending delegations and delivering speeches to show their solidarity, the regime retreated and cancelled the measure we were objecting to.

Afterwards they were able to cool our enthusiasm and weaken us; they divided us up and invented a separate “religious duty” for each of us. As a result of the differing opinions that appeared among us, they grew bold again, and now they do whatever they want with the Muslims and this Islamic country of ours.

Imam Husayn (upon whom be peace) speaks of 'summoning men to Islam while at the same time remedying oppression and opposing the oppressors”; it is for the sake of these great aims that enjoining the good and forbidding the evil has been made a duty. If some poor grocer does something wrong, he has not harmed Islam, but only himself. In performing our duty of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil, we must pay closest attention to those who harm Islam and those who, under various pretexts, plunder the people's means of livelihood.

On occasion we read in the paper, sometimes it is stated humorously, some times seriously, that many of the items collected for the victims of floods or earthquakes are picked up by our rulers for their own use. One of the 'ulam'a' of Malayer told me that the people had wanted to send a truckload of shrouds for the victims of some disaster, but the police refused to let them through and even tried to confiscate the lead! “Enjoining the good and forbidding the evil” is most imperative in such cases.

Now let me ask you, were the subjects mentioned by Imam Husayn in his sermon addressed only to his companions who were gathered around him listening to his words? Does not the phrase “O people, take heed” address us too? Are we not included in “people”? Should we not profit from this address of Imam Husayn? As I stated at the beginning of this discussion, the subjects contained in the sermon of Imam Husayn were not intended for a single group or class.

His address was more in the nature of a circular directed to all commanders, ministers, rulers, fuqaha', in short, to the whole world, particularly those who are alive and fully conscious. The circulars he issued belong together with the Qur'an in the sense that they demand our obedience until the Day of Resurrection.

The verse referred to in the address speaks only of the Jewish scholars and rabbis, but its purport is universal. The Jewish scholars and rabbis were condemned by God because fear or covetousness made them keep silent in the face of the misdeeds of the oppressors, where as if they had spoken or cried out in protest, they could have prevented oppression from occurring. If the 'ulama' of Islam likewise fail to rise up against the oppressors and remain silent instead, they too will be condemned.

After addressing the people in general, Imam Husayn then turns to a particular group, the 'ulama' of Islam, and tells them:

You enjoy prestige and standing in society; the nation of Islam respects and venerates you. You are held in awe and have high standing in society because you are expected to rise up against the oppressors in defence of the truth and to compel the oppressor to enforce the rights of the oppressed. Men have placed their hopes in you for the establishment of justice and the prevention of transgression by the oppressors.

Thus you have reached a certain station and rank. But you have failed to perform the duties of your station. If some harm were to befall the father of one of you, or if, God forbid, someone were to insult him, you would be greatly distressed and would cry out in protest. But now that God's covenants are being violated before your very eyes and Islam is being dishonoured, you keep silent and are not distressed even in your hearts, for if you were distressed, you would be bound to raise your voices in protest. The blind, the dumb, and the bed-ridden are being destroyed and nobody shows any concern; no one is concerned for the wretched, barefooted people.

Do you imagine all that pompous propaganda being broadcast on the radio is true? Go see for yourself at first hand what state our people are living in. Not even one out of every two hundred villages has a clinic. No one is concerned about the poor and the hungry, and they do not allow the measures Islam has devised for the sake of the poor to be implemented.

Islam has solved the problem of poverty and inscribed it at the very top of its programme: “Sadaqat is for the poor.” Islam is aware that first, the conditions of the poor must be remedied, the conditions of the deprived must be remedied. But they do not allow the plans of Islam to be implemented.

Our wretched people subsist in conditions of poverty and hunger, while the taxes that the ruling class extorts from them are squandered. They buy Phantom jets so that pilots from Israel and its agents can come and train in them in our country. So extensive is the influence of Israel in our country, Israel, which is in a state of war with the Muslims, so that those who support it are likewise in a state of war with the Muslims, and so great is the support the regime gives it, that Israeli soldiers come to our country for training!

Our country has become a base for them! The markets of our country are also in their hands. If matters go on this way, and the Muslims continue to be apathetic, the Muslims will lose all say in the commercial life of the country.

To return to the address of Imam Husayn (upon whom be peace):

You have not made proper use of your station. Not only do you do nothing yourselves; you fail to support the person who does want to do his duty. The only source of concern and satisfaction for you is that you have the support and respect of the oppressor, that he addresses you as 'Noble Shaikh'!

What the nation suffers at the hands of the government is of no concern to you. The disaster that has befallen you is greater than what has befallen others for the true rank and degree of 'ulama' have been taken away from you. The administration of affairs and the implementation of law ought to be undertaken by those who are knowledgeable concerning God and are trustees of God's ordinances concerning what is permitted and what is forbidden. But that rank has been taken away from you.

The Imam (upon whom be peace) could have said at this point: “What is my right has been taken away from me, but you do not come to my aid,” or, “The rights of the Imams have been taken away, but you have kept silent.” Instead, he spoke of those “knowledgeable con-cerning God” (al-ulama bi Allah'), meaning the religious scholars, (rabbaniyyun) or leaders.

Here he is not referring to the philosophers or mystics, for the person knowledgeable concerning God is the one who is learned in God's ordinances. It is such a person who is designated a religious scholar (ruhani or rabbani), naturally on condition that spirituality (ruhuniyyat) and orientation to God Almighty be fully apparent in the Imam went on:

But your position has been usurped from you for no other reason but that you have abandoned the pivot of truth and have disagreed about the nature of the Sunnah, despite the existence of clear proofs, But if you were to show strength in the face of hardship and suffering for God's sake, then the conduct of affairs, as willed by God Would be restored to you; command and authority would be yours.

If you were to act correctly and perform your duty, you would see that the conduct of affairs would be bound over to you. If the form of government willed by Islam were to come into being, none of the governments now existing in the world would be able to resist it; they would all capitulate.

But unfortunately, we have failed to establish such a government. Even in the earliest age of Islam, its opponents hindered its establishment and prevented government from being entrusted to the person chosen by God and His Messenger precisely in order to prevent what has happened. “You allowed the oppressors to take away your functions.”

When you failed to perform your duties and abandoned the task of government, it became possible for the oppressors to take over the position that was legitimately yours. “You allowed the affairs of God to fall into, their hands so they came to conduct them on the basis of their suppositions and arbitrary desires.

What enabled them to win this control was your panic stricken flight from being killed, and your attachment to the life of this world. You have delivered the powerless into their clutches, so that Some of the people are now subjugated like slaves and others are deprived of even their livelihood.” All of this applies to the age we live in; in fact, it applies more fully to the present than to the time of the Imam (upon whom be peace).

The rulers are entirely absorbed in the pleasures of kingship, earning shame and disgrace for themselves with their licentiousness, following evil counsellors, and showing impudence toward God One of their appointed spokesmen mounts the minbar in each city to tell lies.” In those days, preachers would praise the oppressors it from the minbar. Today, radio stations fill the air with propaganda on their behalf and maliciously misrepresent the ordinances of Islam.

“The earth is defenceless against them.” Now, too, the oppressors can freely exploit the earth, without any obstruction; there is no one to stand in their way, “They grab freely whatever they want [of the earth”. The people are their slaves and are powerless to defend themselves. One ruler is an obstinate tyrant, while another represses his wretched subjects ruthlessly, and still another refuses in his absolutism to recognize God as the beginning and end of all things. Is it not strange how could one not think it strange, that the world is in the clutches of cunning tyrants, oppressive tax collectors, and governors who have no compassion for the believers under their rule?

It is God Who will judge concerning what is at dispute among us, and deliver a decisive verdict concerning all that occurs among us. O God! You know that everything we did was not prompted by rivalry for political power, nor by desire for the chattels of this world. Rather it was done in order to demonstrate the signs of Your religion, to reform the affairs of Your land, to protect the oppressed among Your servants, and to act in accordance with the duties, norms, and ordinances You have established. So, O scholars of religion! Help us reach our goal and obtain our rights. The oppressors will wax strong in their efforts against you and will attempt to put out the light kindled by your Beloved [the Prophet] . But God suffices us; upon Him do we rely, to Him do we turn, and to Him is our journeying.

As we said, the entire address from beginning to end is addressed to the 'ulama'. There is no indication that the persons intended by the expression “those knowledgeable about God” are the Imams (upon whom be peace). They are the scholars of Islam, the rabbaniyyun. The designation rabbani refers to one who believes in God, fulfils God's ordinances, and is knowledgeable concerning those ordinances, as a trustee of God's decrees concerning what is permitted and what is forbidden.

When the Imam (upon whom be peace) said that the conduct of affairs belongs to the 'ulama', he did not mean to restrict this function to a period of ten or twenty years, or simply to the city and people of Medina. It is apparent from the whole speech that his meaning was more universal, that he had in mind a vast community that would undertake the establishment of justice.

If the 'ulama', who are the trustees of God's decrees concerning what is permitted and what is forbidden and who possess the two characteristics of knowledge and justice as set forth above, if they were to implement God's ordinances, to execute the penal provisions of the law, and generally to conduct and administer the affairs of the Muslims, the people would no longer be hungry and wretched and the laws of Islam would no longer be in abeyance.

The tradition containing this noble speech, then, is part of the evidence supporting our thesis, the governance of the faqih. Were its chain of transmission not weak, we could cite it as a direct proof. Even as it stands, we might say that the content of the tradition, being veracious, bears witness that it was

uttered by one of the Masumeen.

Language

English

The truth about Al-Husayn’s Revolt

Husayn, the Universalist

Excerpts from the Introduction to “Sunshine at Midnight (The Karbala’ Epic)”, a rhymed version of the story of Karbala’ in English, by the late S.A. Mahdi, 1985.

*****

 

---

 

It is in the very nature of great reformers that they belong to everybody, everywhere. Husayn’s noble deed is so relevant to the entire human race that I am sure there is a far bigger audience waiting for him somewhere than the one he already has. All that is required is to draw people’s attention.

Contemporary society, irrespective of race and religion, would do well to have a closer look at the Hero of Karbala’ as his message transcends the barriers of caste creed, race and religion. Advocates of human rights, sociologists, reformers, theologians, all included, will find “delightful wisdom, sweet instructions, and a meaning suited to their mind”, in his story. His message is certainly not an exclusive preserve of any particular group. It embraces the entire human race.

It was not a power struggle. Husayn persistently and explicitly expounded, “ What matters to me is to “correct not conquer” – An affirmation that he would die in the firm belief that a despot’s idiosyncrasies could never be an effective instrument of religious policies.

Yazid became too big for his boots and assumed the characteristics of a despot who, almost as a condition of his position, made boastful and frivolous claims that he alone could lead the nation [ummah].

Husayn was, however, committed to redeeming Islam and maintaining the faith intact.

He hoped that matters would improve and kept a low profile to preserve amity. He had a clear choice: stand aside and let Yazid act according to his whims; (and thus join in and implicitly justify his abominable escapades) or counter his devious bluster. Husayn had to decide: to take the situation in its stride as a price worth paying for the “status quo”; or view it as an ominous foretaste of the consequences of the extensive damage done by the far-reaching anti-Islamic activities of Yazid, the mammon of unrighteousness, whose lust for power prompted him to beat the nation into the mould he favoured. He and his profane crew conspired to scuttle the ship of Islam by worse than heinous deeds, violating the aims for which Islam was born.

Husayn had no desire to live under such a corrupt Caliph. He wanted to act as quietly and as “spontaneously” as possible so as to limit the possibilities of an open clash with the Calip. But Yazid bargained hard. Husayn could not take his effervescent nonsense perpetually and did what was right.

If the moral standards of human behaviour were as high as they were in the person of Husayn the world would be a better place to live in, is the obvious inference. His incredible cool and superhuman moral courage to achieve his mission stirs our deepest emotions. His exemplary conduct, throughout, and adorable conscience tore Yazid’s monstrous designs to shreds.

The virtuous people will continue to do their duty to maintain righteousness in this world and in this they are entitled to universal recognition and support. Husayn’s acceptance of persecution in the cause of humanity was most convincing and moving proof of God’s immanence in men. He was a man par excellence who maintained the highest standards set by the martyrs and heroes of all ages.

With a courage that was more than human he managed to leave a message for the entire world, “Do not submit to exploitation, of any kind; maintain a tenacious grip on veracity; better die with honour than live in shame”. He surely deserves universal recognition. “He is an immortal heir of universal praise”.

More than Fourteen hundred years have passed but the memory of that adorable hero, who resolutely faced the soul-searching trials and tribulations, has not diminished. On the contrary, it has grown in intensity. Imbued with exemplary fortitude, moral fibre and aplomb, Husayn has emerged as the most revered and meritorious martyr the world has produced, who established the highest standards of excellence of which humanity prides itself.

The Truth about Al-Husayn’s Revolt

Different phenomena vary as to their realities. Similarly, every uprising or revolt is unique as to the truth/s underlying its eruption [and eventual success or otherwise].

In order to understand a particular matter, or a state of affairs, you should know the deeper reasons underling its existing form and the characteristics that gave it that specific appearance. You should also be conscious of the material causes of that matter, or issue, i.e. its constituents or ingredients. In other words:

The forces/causes that produced the revolt or uprising, which signify its truth are called “the causes at work”.

The nature of the revolt and its goals represent “its intents and purposes”.

The actual action plan, implementing it, and all what goes with it represent “its material causes”.

The end result that the revolt has come to produce represents its “overall picture”.

[Applying these parameters], was Imam Husayn’s uprising a result of an angry outburst?

Islam is different from some other movements for change or reform that took place as a result of certain circumstances that in turn led to eruptions. Dialectics, for example, encourages heightening disagreements, inciting discontent, and showing opposition even for genuine reforms in order to bring things to a head on collision, i.e. an explosive revolution, not a conscious one.

Islam does not subscribe to these types of revolutions. The history of most Islamic revolts or uprisings speaks of the rationale behind such revolts, in that they came as a result of a complete understanding of the status quo they were determined to change. Thus, Imam Husayn’s revolt was not a result of an angry outburst, prompted by the pressures exerted by the Umayyad rule, especially during the reigns of Mu’aawiyah [the founder of the dynastic rule], and his son, Yazid.

Rather, it was a very well calculated move.

What substantiates the position the Imam (a.s.) took in this regard was the letters he exchanged with both the men; and the sermons he gave on different occasions, especially that one he addressed the Companions of the Prophet (s.a.w.) in Mina, [in present day Saudi Arabia] with. All this evidence points in the direction of one conclusion. That is, the Imam was fully aware of what he was intending to do, viz. taking on the ruling establishment. His revolt was free from any angry reaction; rather, it was a purely Islamic uprising.

Looking at Imam Husayn’s revolt from another perspective, i.e. the way he was treating his followers, one can only come out with one conclusion. He was determined not to let the feelings of his companions run high, in a bid to avoid his revolt’s earning any description of an explosive one. Of this strategy was his repeated attempts to appeal to his companions to leave his company, with a view to sparing them the fate that was awaiting them all, i.e. him included. He used to remind them every now and then that they should not expect any materialistic gain in their march, other than definite death.

After he commended his companions, describing them as among the best of friends, he pleaded with them one last time, i.e. on the eve of the 10th of Muharram, [62 AH, 680 CE], to leave if they so wished, making it clear to them that they would be safe, for the Umayyad’s were after his head alone.

You can hardly find a leader who aspires to utilize the dissatisfaction of his people to push them to revolt who talks in the same way Imam Husayn (a.s.) was talking to his companions. It is true that he was responsible for outlining to them their religious duty to rise against the despotic rule, in that resisting injustice and repression is such an obligation they have to discharge, yet he was seeking that his companions would discharge their responsibility of their own accord, i.e. without coercion.

That was why he reiterated to them to melt away from the battlefield under the cover of darkness because the enemy was not going to pursue them had they taken flight, nor had he wanted to force them to fight. He further advised them that he would absolve them from their oath of allegiance to him, should they have chosen to forsake him, in that he left it to their own consciences.

That is, whichever way they decided, it had to be dictated by siding with the right, i.e. without compulsion, either from him or from the enemy. It would be their own choice alone. However, their decision to remain with the Imam gave the martyrs of Karbala’ the high regard they are held with.

To draw a comparison between the position taken by Imam Husayn (a.s.) and Tariq bin Ziyad in the battle of Jabal Tariq [the Rock of Gibraltar], we would say that what Ibn Ziyad resorted to of action is symptomatic of a leader with a politician’s mentality, whereas Imam Husayn was conscious not to force the fight on his comrades in arms.

What Ibn Ziyad did was to burn all the food supplies save that which could sustain his troops for twenty-four hours. He then addressed them in a sermon to the effect that they had no choice but to win the battle, making it clear that if they did not win, the result would be one of two: They would either be routed by the army of the enemy or got drowned in the sea, should they have chosen to flee. In contrast, Imam Husayn (a.s.) left the choice to the small band of his followers to engage the enemy in combat or turn back, for neither the enemy nor he were coercing them to fight.

Indeed, the Imam’s revolt had its roots in the complete understanding, by all parties of his camp, of its inevitability. Thus, it should not be described as though it were brought about by a disgruntled man. This responsible revolt had a multiplicity of factors, in that it was neither a single entity nor a single-aim movement.

Among the differences that exist between matters of the physical world and the social one is that in the material world minerals always demonstrate a single essence. For instance, you cannot find, as a raw material, gold and copper in a single entity. In contrast, in social phenomena, it is quite possible that a single phenomenon might demonstrate a variety of realities and essences. Man is such a wonder because he can boast several essences at the same time.

Jean-Paul Sartre, [1905 - 1980], the French existentialist philosopher and writer, maintained that the existence of man precedes his essence. He is right in this part of his statement. In addition to that, man could possess different semblances at the same time. For example, he could demonstrate a semblance of an angel, a pig, and a tiger.

[‘Existentialism’ is a loose term for the reaction led by Kierkegaard, against the abstract rationalism of Hegel’s philosophy. As against Hegel’s conception of ‘abstract consciousness’ within which all oppositions are supposedly reconciled, Kierkegaard insisted on the irreducibility of the subjective, personal dimension of human life. He characterized this in terms of the perspective of the ‘existing individual’. Kierkegaard rejected the claim that we can look forward to a time when the different interests and concerns of people can be satisfied through their comprehension within an all-embracing objective understanding of the universe.]

According to this, it can be said that social phenomena might exhibit multi-dimensional realities. Imam Husayn’s revolt is such a multi-faceted event, not least because several factors were jointly at work to produce it. For example, there might erupt a revolt in reaction to a particular occurrence, i.e. under the spur of the moment. It might as well be a positive reaction to a certain trend and a negative one in the face of another trend. All these factors were present in Imam Husayn’s revolt, hence the description, “a multi-character revolt”.

Historically, the first factor in the Imam’s uprising was the Umayyad’s demand of him to swear allegiance to Yazid, [their second Caliph]. In a bid to secure the following of the generality of Muslims to his son, Yazid, Mu’aawiyah sent an emissary to Medina to secure the pledging of such allegiance from Imam Husayn (a.s.). In so doing, Mu’aawiyah had aimed to set a precedent for those rulers who would follow him to appoint their successors, turning the caliphate into a dynastic rule.

It is noteworthy that insisting on securing the Imam’s swearing of allegiance meant giving legitimacy to the caliphate. What was Imam Husayn’s response to that demand? Naturally, it was turned down, not least because Husayn (a.s.) was the grandson of the Prophet (s.a.w.) and was widely known for his piety and scant regard for worldly pleasures.

Upon receiving the news of the Imam’s rejection, the ruling establishment issued threats to him. His response was that he would rather die than endorse Yazid’s succession to the caliphate. Up to that point in time, the Imam’s reaction was of the passive type to an unlawful demand. In other words, a reaction based on piety and a reality stemming from the slogan, “There is no god but God”, which makes it incumbent on the believer to say no to any illegitimate demand.

That rejection was not the only reason for the Imam’s revolt. There was another issue, which demonstrated the underlying principle of his revolt; it was a positive reaction. That is, after the demise of Mu’aawiyah, the people of Kufa, [Iraq] cast their memories some twenty years back, i.e. to the days of the caliphate of Imam Ali (a.s.). Despite the fact that many of Ali’s disciples were liquidated by the Umayyad terror machine, such as Hijr bin Adi, Amr bin Hamq al-Khuza’ie, Rashid al-Hijri, and Maytham at-Tammar, just to render Medina bereft of the heavyweights among the companions of the Prophet, the people called to mind how Ali (a.s.) was the example of the true Muslim and his rule a just one.

Thus, they convened in Kufa and agreed among themselves to reject the endorsement of Yazid as caliph, turning their attention to Imam Husayn (a.s.) with the offer to become their Islamic caliph. They wrote to the Imam to this effect, expressing their readiness to welcome him to re-establish the Islamic rule in Kufa. Some one hundred thousand people signed those letters.

As a result, those people did not leave the Imam with any choice other than to accede to their request. That was the positive reaction. In conclusion, it can be safely said that the true nature of the Imam’s movement was a legitimate one, in that a group of Muslims initiated the action and the Imam had to provide them with his positive response.

Upholding his religious obligation, the Imam had no choice but to announce his outright rejection to sanctioning Yazid’s appointment [by his father] as Caliph, not least for raising his pure self above that blemish they wanted to stain him with. However, had he agreed to Abdullah bin Abbas’s proposition to retire to the mountains of Yemen to escape the troops of Yazid, he would have secured his safety.

On the other hand, he would have absolved himself from condoning the appointment of Yazid as Caliph. And yet, since the issue was one which related to the appeal to him by those hundred thousand people, he had no alternative but to agree to that appeal out of a religious obligation.

That is, despite the fact that all the indications were telling him that the Kufans were not up to the task and that they were both inactive and apprehensive. Nevertheless, his sense of responsibility made it incumbent on him to respond to their call and thus provide the right answer to history. Had he chosen to ignore the plea of the Kufans, we would have stood today criticising him for “not doing so”.

Imam Husayn’s revolt, the causes

As we have already mentioned the invitation of the Kufans to Imam Husayn (a.s.) to come to Kufa and set up an Islamic government there represented the third side [of the triangle] of causes of his revolt. The request of the Umayyad’s from the Imam that he endorsed Yazid’s appointment to the office of the caliphate epitomized the “defensive strategy”.

However, as is known, the Imam consequently turned that request down, and set out to oppose the corrupt ruling establishment with all means at his disposal out of upholding the religious duty of “enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil”. This ingredient, [or the third side of the triangle], should be dubbed “the attacking strategy” of the Imam’s revolt.

Let us now dwell a while on those factors to examine which of them carried more weight than the others. It goes without saying that each of the three factors is different from the others in its cumulative value and importance to the revolt. That is, each of the contributory causes added, in its own right, a unique and significant dimension to the revolt.

For example, the Imam’s acceptance of the Kufans’ invitation to go to Kufa is as significant as the other two factors, and yet in accordance with their importance and impact on the [overall result] of the revolt. Among the factors is that which enhances the significance of a certain [reformist] movement. Similarly, the leader of the movement can influence that particular factor, by way of raising its profile.

The human being, for instance, is well aware of many things that he attaches importance to. For example, his appearance could be regarded as an asset; his coveting jewellery could be deemed another valuable experience. There are as well other material and abstract things which man would wish to acquire as they are considered exhibits of beauty. And no doubt, power and high profile, especially divine positions, are viewed by man as sources of pride, splendour and value. Even the external material appearances, which denote these added values, confer on man an added value.

To illustrate this, take a person who has put on the special garb of the clergy. Although, in itself, the attire is not indicative of the godliness of the one who wore it, in that it is not a criterion by which one can measure erudition of the wearer, nor the level of his piety, yet it can be seen as giving such an impression to the person putting on such garb.

Likewise, the person who wears such clothes could earn the respect and regard of others. By the same token, such attire becomes a source of pride for the person who is dressed up in it. The parable of this is the jewellery worn by women, in that how items of jewellery can adorn women and how the latter can derive satisfaction from and pride in wearing them.

The same comparison can be applied to revolutions, in that there may be factors that are capable of enhancing their richness and appeal. This is the result of the theoretical differences between one revolution and the other. Some are bereft of the moral dimension and characterized by bigotry, instead; others may be purely materialistic, giving them their distinctive features. And yet, if a revolution is characterized by the moral, human, and divine aspects, it should stand head and shoulders above all other revolutions.

Thus, all the three factors which contributed to the initiation of Imam Husayn’s revolt, gave it the significance it boasts, especially the third factor. Sometimes, a particular person with a particular significance in a particular uprising could add a new value to it, i.e. a special added value and significance.

In as much as a certain factor adds a new value to the value of the person, he in return gives a boost to this value. For example, the attire of a spiritual person (cleric) or a university professor could exude pride and aesthetic appearance to those who wear those uniforms. The opposite is also true, in that the person in those garbs is the source of pride and aestheticism due to their impeccable character, probity, and knowledge.

Sa’sa’a bin Sawhan was one of Imam Ali’s companions and a renowned and consummate orator; he was commended by the famous man of letters, al-Jahidh. When he wanted to congratulate the Imam on his election to the office of Caliphate, he said something to the Imam that was different from what all the other people said, thus, “O Ali! You adorned the caliphate with splendour. You are the source of its pride. It granted you neither grandeur nor pride. The caliphate was in need of a person of your calibre, and yet you were not in need of its [allure]. I, therefore, congratulate the caliphate because your name has become synonymous with it; I do not applaud you because you have become the Caliph!”

As a result, it can be said that the factor of “enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil” had given Imam Husayn’s revolt an added significance. And by his, his family’s and companions’ ultimate sacrifice, the Imam has raised the profile of this institution. There are many people who might claim the upholding of this religious obligation.

Imam Husayn (a.s.) demonstrated this on the ground, “I seek to enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil and follow the traditions of my grandfather and my father.” This is the parable of Islam that might be a source of pride for many a man. And yet, there have been Muslims whom Islam holds dear and feels proud of.

The various titles, which were earned by many luminaries, such as “Fakhrul Islam – the Pride of Islam”, “Izzuddin – the Glory of Religion”, and “Sharafuddin – the Honour of Religion”, are indicative of this meaning. Abdu Thar, Ammar bin Yasir, [among the Companions of the Prophet (s.a.w.)], and Ibn Sina (Avicenna), [(980 – 1198 CE), the famous Muslim philosopher and physician], were brought up on the ideals of Islam and thus have become a source of pride for it.

Islam, in return, feels proud of some of its sons, who had been moulded in its image, so much so that they have earned an international renown, not least because they have left their mark on the human civilization.

The world cannot deny the contribution of Khawaja Nasiruddin at-Tusi, [(597 – 672 AH, 1201 – 1274 CE), the Muslim philosopher, vizier, and theologian], to the human civilization, because the credit goes to him for some discoveries relating to the moon.

So, it can be said that Imam Husayn bin Ali (a.s.) has indeed given the required momentum to the tradition of “enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil”. And when it is maintained that this institution raises the weight of Muslims, this does not come from a vacuum. The Holy Qur’an has stated this:

“You are the best of peoples evolved for mankind. Enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah..” (3:110).

Just ponder the couching of this verse, especially with regard to the quality bestowed on “the best people”. That is, it is merely by virtue of their upholding the religious duty of “enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong”, they have earned that sublime praise. So, the worth of this umma (community) is in its upholding this obligation.

However, insofar as Imam Husayn’s revolt is concerned, it is the Imam who has conferred that sublime honour on this obligation by the sacrifices he personally made, and those of his family and companions. However, it is not enough that we, Muslims, are not up to the responsibility of upholding this religious obligation, we are proving to be a liability to it. It is regrettable that people have paid much attention to not so important things, such as growing one’s beard and prohibiting the wearing of gold [for men], and paid lip service to significant matters that should be upheld.

In contrast, Imam Husayn (a.s.) revolted to keep the principle of “enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong” live in all spheres of life. He used to say that Yazid was the epitome of rejection and that he should be effaced from the world of Islam. He further affirmed that the Imam of Muslims must be the one who upholds the injunctions contained in the Book of God, [i.e. the Holy Qur’an], administer justice, and follow the true religion.

Imam Husayn sacrificed everything in the way of safeguarding this institution and enforcing it. The Imam gave a more sober meaning to death in this cause. It has become to imply grandeur and honour. Since he set out on his journey from Medina to Karbala’, he was always talking about death in dignity and honour, i.e. the death in the cause of right, truth, and justice. Such a death is akin to a beautiful necklace that adorns the neck of a young woman. The Imam often recited a line of poetry en route in his fateful journey to Karbala’.

The poem read something like this: Despite the fact that this life is sweet and beautiful, yet, the next life is sweeter and more beautiful. Since, in the end, man will leave behind, after death, all his worldly possessions, the good comes out of giving away one’s wealth in good causes, instead of hoarding it. By the same token, since the human body would turn to dust after death, why should not man die a sweet and honourable death? Thus, dying with the sword in the cause of God is much greater and lovelier.

On the other side of the equation, the example of Abu Salama al-Khallal, who used to be dubbed “the Minister of the Household of Mohammad” in the court of the Abbasid Caliph, serves the reverse of the above-mentioned honourable death.

His story goes like this: When he fell out of favour with the Abbasid Caliph, an incident which he later paid with his life for, he wrote two letters, one to Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.) and the other to Mohammad bin Abdullah al-Mahdh, offering them his services and those of Abu Muslim, [i.e. intending to stage a palace coup]. This was his message to them: Should you be prepared for this, [i.e. taking over the caliphate], and accept our offer, we will kill those, [i.e. the Abbasid rulers].

The immediate impression the contents of this letter gives is that the writer is disloyal because he addressed his letter to two different people, but only when his relationship with his masters turned sour.

As soon as Imam as-Sadiq received the letter and read it, he burned it before the eyes of the emissary who carried it to him. When the messenger asked the Imam as to his reply, the Imam informed him that he had nothing to add to what the messenger had just seen, [i.e. of burning the letter].

The Abbasid killed Abu Salama before he could meet with his messenger. Some people seem to raise the objection as why the Imam did not respond positively to the invitation of Abu Salama who called on him to rise to assume power with his help. That is, while the intension of Abu Salama was known; he was not sincere in his appeal as he wrote his letter immediately after he had fallen out favour with the Abbasid Caliph, who was sure that he could not be trusted any more. Thus, he met his violent death soon after.

Nevertheless, if Imam Husayn (a.s.) turned a blind eye to all those letters he had received from the Kufans, inviting him to go to them and set up an Islamic government there, he would have never escaped similar criticism. In Imam Husayn’s case, he responded positively to the Kufans’ appeals when he realized that they were genuine in their call for him to come to them. Thus, it became incumbent on him to respond.

Let us examine which of the following two matters came first and consequently had precedence over the other. Did the Imam’s rejection of the Umayyad’s call to him to endorse Yazid as Caliph come first, i.e. prior to the Kufans’ invitation to him to come to Kufa and form an Islamic government? It goes without saying that the former came first for demanding Imam Husayn’s swearing of allegiance to Yazid was made immediately after the demise of his father, Mu’aawiyah.

The messenger, who brought the news of Mu’aawiyah’s death to the governor of Medina, brought with him a letter containing a demand that Imam Husayn, and some other personalities, endorsed the succession of Yazid to the caliphate. It is quite probable that the Kufans did not know then of the news of the demise of Muaawiyah.

Historical events lend support to this theory. That is, many days had elapsed on Imam Husayn’s rejection of the demand from him to swear allegiance to Yazid before he was forced under pressure to leave Medina and embark on his opposition movement there and then, i.e. 27th Rajab on the way to Mecca, [in a sort of self-imposed exile]. He arrived in Mecca on 3rd Sha’ban. He received the letters from the Kufans on 15th Ramadhan. [In the Islamic Hijri Calendar, those three months run consecutively, thus, Rajab, Sha’ban, and Ramadha.].

That is, a month and a half after the Umayyad’s made their intention of demanding the Imam to swear allegiance known, and his subsequent flat rejection of the demand. Imam Husayn stayed in Mecca for forty days. Accordingly, he did not reject the Umayyad’s call for him to endorse Yazid as Caliph because of the Kufans’ appeals to him to head to Kufa to form the next Islamic government. He made his position manifestly known that he would not give in to Yazid, even if not a foothold in the entire globe was left for him. This is the second reason for the rising of al-Husayn (a.s.).

The third pillar of the Imam’s rising is the upholding of the Islamic duty of “enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil”. The Imam (a.s.) started his dissident movement from Medina determined to shoulder the responsibility of this duty.

However, even if he was not asked to pay allegiance to Yazid and there was no invitation for him to go to Kufa to set up a rival caliphate there, he was resolved that it was his duty to uphold that tradition, not least because corruption was about to take a stranglehold over the Islamic world then.

To recap, in each one of the three aspects of his revolt, the Imam (a.s.) had had a particular issue to address and a duty to discharge. As regards the first aspect, it was his decision to refuse the Umayyad’s demand to endorse Yazid’s succession to the caliphate. Regarding the second facet, he responded positively to the appeal of the Kufans for him to set up a rival caliphate in Kufa. In relation to the third aspect, he took the necessary action to take on the corrupt ruling establishment.

Thus, he can be safely branded a revolutionary. So, when we dub Imam Husayn’s revolt as multifaceted, this is clearly manifested in the required positions he took vis-à-vis the three different issues. For example, the Imam’s duty towards pledging allegiance to Yazid was downright rejection; and should he have agreed to the proposition of Ibn Abbas to choose a self-imposed exile in the mountains of Yemen, such rejection would have materialized.

Thus, his was a personal decision, i.e. it was not incumbent on him to ask others to team up with him on this point. As for the Kufans’ appeal, there was no choice left for him but to respond to it, so long as they remained faithful to their word. If they broke it, the Imam would be absolved from any undertaking, as the issue of caliphate, [and who the caliph should be], would be no more, i.e. it would cease to remain a religious duty.

Yet, why did the Imam continue on that path? This is indicative of the fact that his religious obligation was not confined to the contentious issue of caliphate. The Kufans’ appeal proved to be a blip, as the news of the killing of Muslim bin Aqeel, his cousin and emissary to the Kufans, reached him while en route to Kufa, Iraq. Another development was that the Imam met before his arrival al-Hur bin Yazid ar-Riyahi, [during which it was revealed that the Kufans had changed their mind and no longer supported him in his bid to become caliph with their help].

So, with the Kufans’ appeal falling through, the Imam had become free from any obligation. To make it absolutely plain to them, he reminded them that he would return from where he came, in that he came to them in response to their appeal. This, though, did not mean that he had changed his mind regarding the caliphate of Yazid, which he still was adamant that he did not approve of. As far as he was concerned, his position of not recognizing Yazid as caliph was irreversible, hence the reference to not giving in to the ruling establishment’s demand, even if all routes were closed in his face. What other options did he have? The answer is his upholding the principle of “enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong”.

Among the mistakes the author of the book, “Ash-Shaheedul Khalid – The Immortal Martyr” did was that he over-exaggerated the factor of the “Kufans’ invitation”, so much so that he has given the impression that it was the overriding stimulant for Imam Husayn’s revolt. In fact, this factor was not the most important; rather, it was the least important among the contributory factors that led to the Imam’s revolt. Even if we assume that it was the principal cause of the revolt, the Imam, after knowing that the Kufans did not keep their word, could have resigned to the fact that there was no point in carrying on with his plans, contemplating swearing allegiance to Yazid and abandoning his bid to uphold the principle of “enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong”.

The opposite was precisely what had happened, in that the fieriest sermons by the Imam were those given in the aftermath of the fall of Kufa to the Umayyad’s. In that, there was a clear message that he was acting in accordance with the obligation of “enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong”, and that he was under no illusions that that was his prime motive for launching his revolt. For his part, it was an action of a revolutionary against the ruling establishment of that time.

On his way to Iraq, he met by chance two men coming from the direction of Kufa. He asked them to stop in order to have a conversation with them. The moment they knew it was al-Husayn (a.s.), they took a detour and disappeared, to avoid talking to him. Meanwhile, a man among the Imam’s companions, who happened to have met the two men, arrived at the scene.

He broke to the Imam the news of the killing of Muslim bin Aqeel and Hani bin Irwah, having received it from the two men he had met earlier. It was through the same men, although indirectly, that the Imam knew of the fall of Kufa to the Umayyad’s. His companion also informed al-Husayn that the two men felt ashamed to let the Imam know of the distressing news, especially the report about dragging the headless corpse of Muslim in the streets of Kufa. Upon hearing the news, the Imam’s eyes became filled with tears, reciting this Qur’anic verse,

“Among the Believers are men who have been true to their covenant with God: of them some have completed their vow (to the extreme), and some (still) wait: but they have never changed (their determination) in the least.” (33:23).

The Imam (a.s.) wanted to prove to the people that he did not come for Kufa alone. So, if that province fell to the enemy, it would not change anything. He did not launch his movement in response to the Kufans’ appeal per se. That appeal was among the factors that made him march to Iraq. Imam Husayn made it very clear that he saw himself responsible for discharging a more important duty.

So, if Muslim bin Aqeel got martyred, he would have honoured his covenant and passed away in the line of duty. Thus, the Imam must continue treading the same path he had mapped out for his movement.

Since the Imam had decided to take an attacking position against the Umayyad rule, and marched on that revolutionary path, his rationale for doing so was different from a person who was in a defensive position or that of an acquiescent one. The position of a person who is repelling an attacker, who has, for example, come to rob him of his possessions, would be getting what was stolen from him and protect it.

The person who is intent on taking on his rival is in a different league; he would not accept anything other than annihilating the enemy, and achieving his goal, even if they got killed in the process. Imam Husayn’s drive was that of upholding “enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong.” It was the mindset of a martyr and the path he decided to walk on.

He who wants his appeal to reach his community advocates the logic of the martyr. This appeal bears a signature made with his blood. Examples of people who wanted their message to reach others abound. In many a place all over the world, we come across relics of bygone personalities who wanted their exploits to be remembered, so much so that some of them had such accomplishments written as epitaph on their gravestones. Hundreds of years later such relics are excavated and displayed in museums to be kept as heritage for future generations.

In contrast, Imam Husayn (a.s.) wrote down with his own blood his epic on the airwaves of everlasting frequencies. His message is stamped on people’s hearts because it was laced with blood, thus leaving an indelible mark there.

The hearts of millions of people, be they Arab or non-Arab, who understood the message of the Imam, are conscious of the sincerity of his message, especially when he recited, “I look upon death as felicity and regard life in the shadows of the oppressors as nothing but unhappiness.”

That is, living in indignity in the doldrums of injustice and repression, and barely surviving is not the type of life a free man would want to live. Thus, “better die with honour than live in shame” was his motto, i.e. that of martyrs.

Imam Husayn (a.s.) chose the position from which he would attack the regime; his rationale was that of a person racing to martyrdom. From the inhospitable terrain of Karbala’, Iraq, he wanted the whole world to know his rejection of the ruler of his days, [who was not fit to rule]. He did not have the tools to write his call, and yet his message transcended the barriers of time, place, and race to rest in the hearts and minds of people.

As is customary each and every year, come Muharram and there the light of Imam Husayn shines on us like beams of light emanating from the sun. His message is heard loud and clear, “The similitude of the inevitability of man’s death is that of necklace worn by a young woman. I therefore yearn to have reunion with my predecessors in the same way Jacob was yearning to be reunited with [his son] Joseph”, and this glaring statement, “The bastard and the son of a bastard has left us but two choices, either resorting to the sword or capitulating. How preposterous! Humiliation is not our cup of tea! Allah shall never let this happen to us; so shall His Messenger, the believers, chaste and pure laps and proud souls. For the sake of these ideals we would rather die in honour and not give in to the ignoble.”

There is a reference in this sermon to Ibn Ziyad, who had offered the Imam one of two choices, either the sword or ignominious surrender.

That was the message the Imam wanted to live on through time and generations. That is, neither God nor His Messenger and the believers would let a pious believer experience the bitter taste of disgrace. The generations and believers would come to know about the resistance of the Imam when no one would accept the notion of the Imam’s surrendering to the enemy. It was inconceivable that a person, such as the Imam, who was purebred, under the wing of Fatima, the Prophet’s daughter, could give in to indignity.

When he left Medina, armed with his refusal to endorse Yazid’s succession to the caliphate as a reason for his attack on the repressive regime, he wrote a will and left it with his brother Mohammad bin al­Hanfiyah; among its contents was this statement, “I did not set out driven by arrogance, or recklessness, or a desire for spreading corruption, or injustice. All what I am intent on is seeking to reform the community of my grandfather. ”

This was the rationale behind the Imam’s movement.

In the letter he wrote to his brother, Bin al-Hanafiyah, the Imam mentioned the incident of the Umayyad’s demanding from him to pledge allegiance to Yazid, but not even a single reference to the call of the Kufans to him [to come over and form a rival caliphate in Kufa].

That unequivocal rejection underlined the Imam’s determination to walk the road of martyrdom to the end. Had his logic stemmed from the love for defending oneself alone, it would have been rational that he would not have given his companions the choice, on the eve of the tenth of Muharram, of either parting his company or sticking it out with him.

All along, he was clear in his mind and sincere with them that the army of Ibn Ziyad was after him alone, i.e. he either gave in and endorsed Yazid as caliph or got killed on the battlefield. In his judgement, his position, on not recognizing Yazid’s rule, was dictated by his sense of religious duty, as he did not think Yazid was fit to rule. Yet, his companions chose, of their own accord, to stay with him to the end, preferring to get martyred rather than part his company. For this noble stance, the Imam turned to his Lord and prayed for his companions, asking Him to reward them on his behalf.

This is reinforced by the fact that on that same night, the Imam requested that Habib bin Mudhahir al-Assadi go and ask for the help of members of his tribe. Suppose that Habib managed to galvanise some fifty or sixty combatants.

What difference would this number make in comparison to some thirty thousand soldiers on the other side? Certainly, it would have made no difference to tilt the impending battle in favour of the Imam’s side. So, what was the reason for this request?

The Imam wanted to win the ‘media’ war in order that the news of his revolt travelled far and wide. This is the rationalization of the revolutionaries and martyrs. That was why he started this move in his own immediate circle by bringing with him all members of his family for he wanted them to be messengers for his revolt.