Get Even More Visitors To Your Blog, Upgrade To A Business Listing >>

Who killed Imam Hussain (as)?

Work file:

who_killed_imam_hussain.pdf

Project:

Answering-Ansar.org Articles

Contents

1. SO WHO KILLED Imam Hussain (AS)? – LETS INVESTIGATE HISTORY 4

2. THE BELIEFS OF THE PEOPLE OF KUFA 5

2.1

THE MASS EXTERMINATION OF THE K UFAN SHI'A BY MU'AWIYA' S GOVERNOR ZIYAD 5

2.2

SAHABA AND TABIEEN LIVING IN KUFA WROTE TO IMAM HUSSAIN (AS) AND BECAME THE TAWABUN 7

2.3

THE SAHABI SULAYMAN BIN SURAD AND AL MUSSAYAB BIN NAJABAH LED THE T AWABUN 7

3. ANALYSING THE COMMENTS OF S.M.A JAFRI 10

4. THE PARTICIPATION OF THE SAHABA AND THEIR SONS IN KILLING HADHRATH MUSLIM BIN AQEEL (AS) 12

4.1

THE SHI 'A OF UTHMAN / N ASIBIS KILLED IMAM HUSSAIN (AS) 13

5. NAMING AND SHAMING THE NASIBI KILLERS OF Imam HUSSAIN (AS) 16

5.1

YAZEED'S ADVISER MARWAN WAS A NASIBI 16

5.2

YAZEED BIN MU 'AWIYA WAS A NASIBI 16

5.3

UBAYDULLAH BIN Z IYAD'S FATHER WAS A NASIBI 16

6. SO WHO SUPPORTS THE NASIBI KILLERS OF IMAM HUSSAIN (AS)? 17

6.1

UMAR BIN SAD BIN ABI WAQQAS 17

6.2

UBAYDULLAH BIN Z IYAD 18

6.3

SHABATH BIN RIB 'I 19

6.4

SOME MORE PROOFS OF THE KILLERS OF I MAM HUSSAIN [AS ] BEING NASIBIS WHILE SUPPORTERS OF I MAM HUSSAIN [ AS] BEING SHIA 20

P

ROOF ONE 20

P

ROOF TWO 21

P

ROOF THREE 21

P

ROOF FOUR 22

P

ROOF FIVE 23

P

ROOF SIX 24

7. DID THE TRAGEDY OF KARBALA HIGHLIGHT THE SHI'A / SUNNI SCHISM? 26

7.1

AHL'UL SUNNAH DEEM YAZEED TO BE THE LEGITIMATE KHALIFA OF RASULULLAH ( S) 26
Copyright © 2002-2006 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

Page 3 of 47

7.2

THE HANAFI FIQH DEEMS YAZEED TO BE THE SIXTH KHALIFA OF R ASULULLAH (S) 28

7.3

IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON ALL M USLIMS TO SUPPORT IMAM HUSSAIN (AS) 30

7.4

NASIBI SUPPORT FOR Y AZEED 30

7.5

YAZEED WAS A SUNNI MUSLIM 33

7.6

SOME QUESTIONS FOR A NSAR AND THEIR NASIBI BRETHREN 34

8. THE IMAMS CRITICISM OF 'THEIR' SHI'A 36

R

EPLY ONE 39

R

EPLY TWO - T HE AHL' UL SUNNAH FALSELY CLAIMED THAT THEY WERE S HI'AS 39

8.1

THE SHI 'A WILL ENTER HEAVEN WITH THE P ROPHET (S), IMAMS ALI (AS) H ASAN (AS) AND HUSYAN (AS) 43

9. CONCLUSION 45

10. COPYRIGHT 47

Copyright © 2002-2006 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

Page 4 of 47

1.

So who killed Imam Hussain (as)? – Lets investigate history

Ansar had perpetuated the common lie that the Shia killed Imam Hussain (as). In this refutation we shall analyse the facts of history to expose the fallacy of such a claim. Their argument can be summarised as follows

1. The Shi'a invited Imam Hussain (as) by writing letters and requesting that he come to Kufa so that they can recognise him as their Imam.

2. Imam Hussain (as) sent Muslim bin Aqeel (as) as his representative to assess the situation

3. The Shi'a gave bayya to Imam Hussain via Hadhrath Muslim bin Aqeel (as).

4. The same Shi'a subsequently abandoned him following the entry of Abdullah ibn Ziyad.

5. The Shi'a failed to support Imam Hussain (as) as a result he was killed.

The approach we have taken is to focus on the historical sources in detail and then identify and expose the beliefs of the Kufan people.

Copyright © 2002-2006 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

Page 5 of 47

2.

The beliefs of the people of Kufa

Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Allamah Shibli Numani in al Faruq states that Hadhrath Umar established Kufa city:

"The city was founded in 17AH and, as Omar had expressly commanded, houses sufficient to lodge forty thousand persons were built. Arab tribes were allotted separate quarters under the supervision of Hayaj ibn Malik. Omar had given clear instructions with regard to the plan of the city as well as its construction... The Jami Masjid was built on a raised square plateform and was so big that forty thousand persons could pray in it at one time." Omar the great (Al Faruq) Volume 2 page 95 "Besides the Jami Masjid, separate mosques were built for each quarter of the city. Among the people settled in Kufah were twelve thousand from Yemen and eight thousand of the Nazar Clan. Bahilah, Nim-ul Lat, Taghlab, Bani Asad, Nakha, Kindah, Azd, Mazainah, Tamim, Muharab, Asad and Amirm Bajalah, Jadilah and Akhlat, Juhaina, Muhjaz, Hawazin, etc". "In Omar's lifetime the city came to attain such greatness and splendour that the Caliph called it the head of Islam". Omar the great (Al Faruq) Volume 2 page 96 Kufa was a city that was founded by the second khalifa, Arab tribes settled there. No doubt they were loyal to him. They deemed him to be the legitimate khalifa, so much so that Umar deemed Kufa to be the head of Islam. Accordingly they accepted the Caliphate of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. Umar's building a Jami Masjid having accommodation of 40,000 worshippers and many other mosques further proves the fact that the majority of the population were his followers or Nawasib want to suggest that their caliph made a mosque for 40,000 Shias? The people of Kufa believed firmly in Khailafath of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and 'Ali (as). This is clearly proven by the fact that we read in al-Tabari (Egypt Ed) p189 Volume 5 Chapter 19, that when a group including Malik bin Ashthar spoke out against Uthman in Kufa they were set upon and attacked. The Kufan Arabs accepted the concept of khilafath that had been established at Saqifa, and expanded by Hadhrath Umar. The Kufans were those that deemed Ali (as) to be the fourth khailfa, which is not the belief espoused by the Shi'a who deem him (as) to be the rightful khalifa after Rasulullah (s). We do not learn from any authentic text of history that the vast bulk of the people of Kufa were Shi'a, on the contrary we learn that the majority were adherents of Uthman.

2.1

The mass extermination of the Kufan Shi'a by Mu'awiya's Governor Ziyad

Afriki had posed this question regarding the situation Imam Hussain (as) faced:

Ansar.org states:

There are also the numerous references to the people of Kûfah as the followers (albeit capricious followers) of his father and brother. And were we to assume that many, or even most of them were not Shî'ah in the "religious" sense, the question

Copyright © 2002-2006 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

Page 6 of 47

which next presents itself is: Where were the real Shî'ah when their Imâm required their help? Were they only that handful who emerged from Kûfah?

One should also point out that any trace of Shi'a presence that existed in Kufa was in effect eliminated with the coming to power of Ansar.org's Imam Mu'awiya. When Ziyad bin Sumayya became Governor of Kufa he slaughtered the vast bulk of the Shi'a of Ali, to the extent that only a few were left.

see: 1. Al Bidayah wa al Nihaya Volume 3 P502. Al Kamil Volume 3 page 245, 3. Nasai al Kafiya page 70, 4. al Istiab Volume 1 p138 and 5. Tarikh al Tabari Volume 6 page 155 Allamah Muhammad Bin Aqeel writes in Nisaih Kafia, page 70 (published in Bombay): "Muwiyah made Ziyad Bin Sumaya governor over the people of Kufa and linked it with Basrah. As Ziyad had lived in Kufa during the time of Ali[ra], he was aware of all Shias living there. He dragged Shias from every stone and mount and murdered them, threatened them, cut off their hands and legs, made needles pierce their eyes, hanged them over trees, exiled them from Iraq and made them homeless to the extent that no renowned Shia remained there in Iraq" This was the treatment afforded to the adherents of Ali (as) under Mu'awiya. Such was its severity that when Ibn Ziyad become Governor of Kufa, he said to Hani bin Urwa (who was Shi'a): "Didn't you know Hani, when my father came to this land, he did not spare the life of any one of this Shi'a except for your father and Hujr? You know what happened to Hujr". ;

History of Tabari, English translation - Volume 19 page 38

In such circumstances how can we accept that the vast bulk of Kufans were Shi'a? How can it be believed that the Shi'a, that had been obliterated by Ziyad all of a sudden appeared again and were strong and confident enough to summon Imam Hussain (as) to them. No doubt Ansar will claim that Imam Ali (as) making Kufa his centre of administration was due to the Shi'a Majority there. We would ask Ansar: "Did Imam Ali spread Imami Shia'ism in Kufa at the time? If yes then this proves Imami Shi'aism is the true sect that was propagated by Maula Ali (as) to he masses. If there answer is no, then it not somewhat unusual that another Sect was propagating their beliefs, and the yet the Shi'a Madhab spread everywhere? Whatever answer Ansar give, the fact is that it cannot be proven that the majority was Shia. When Ziyad and his son had successfully adopted every method to exterminate the Shia then it is logical that vast bulk of those individuals who invited Imam Hussain (as) to Kufa were not Shi'a. The words of Abdullah Ibn Abbas which he spoked to Imam Hussain[as] serves another proof that there were just a few Shias left in Kufa. When Imam Hussain[as] decided to leave Makkah to Kufa Ibn Abaas suggested him not to go Kufa. When Ibn Abbas came to Imam Hussain[as] for the second time he said: t

Copyright © 2002-2006 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

Page 7 of 47

" O my brother! I want to be patient but what shall I do since the problem is serious that I cannot maintain patience. I fear your death and destruction during this journey because the people of Iraq are the group of deceitful people hence you should not go near them and if the people of Iraq really want your caliphate as they claim, then you should write to them that they should first drag their enemies out of Iraq only then you should go there. And if you are adamant to leave Makkah then (instead of Iraq) you should go Yamen that there are huge forts and mountains and there are Shias of your father and you will remain safe there from people (Banuy Umayah)"

Tareekh Tabari, Volume 6 page 217 (Arabic) Ibn Abbas suggested Imam Hussain[as] not to go Iraq as its dwellers were deceitful rather he should go Yemen as there are Shias of Ali. This proves that there were almost no Shia in Kufa otherwise Ibn Abbas would not have mentioned this feature of Yemen. If there were really Shias in Kufa then anyone could have easily refuted Ibn Abbass view by saying that if there are Shias in Yemen then there are Shias in Kufa as well. Letters were written by those people with differing aqeedas, the majority of which were not Shi'a, but adhered to an aqeedah that in later times came to be coined as the beliefs of Ahlul Sunnah. They considered all 4 to be Khalifas of Rasulullah (s). The fact is the People of Kufa were tired of the repressive policies that Yazeed had subjected them to, and hence they turned to Imam Hussain (as) for help.

2.2

Sahaba and Tabieen living in Kufa wrote to Imam Hussain (as) and became the Tawabun

Ansar.org states:

Four years later the Shî'ah of Kûfah attempted to make amends for their desertion of the family of Rasûlullâh sallallâhu 'alayhi wa-âlihî wasallam. There emerged a group of Kûfans calling themselves the Tawwâbûn (Penitents) who made it their duty to wreak vengeance upon the killers of Hussain.

It is an established fact that those that wrote to Imam Hussain (as) and then failed to support him became the force of the tawabun. Where Afriki's logic falls apart is the fact that he assumes that ALL those who wrote to Imam Hussain (as) adhered to Shi'a aqeedah, a fact that cannot be supported by the fact that the Shi'a had in effect been ethnically cleansed of Kufa under Nasibi Ziyad's Leadership. Afriki has tactically avoided this, preferring to describe ALL the writers of letters as Shi'a. The reality is amongst those leading figures that led the calls for the Imam (as) to join them in Kufa WERE Sahaba such as Sulayman bin Surad and Mussayab bin Najabah (see History of Tabari – English translation Volume 19, page 24) and Tabieen. Afriki has failed to comment on this fact, preferring to simply copy and paste from his Nasibi Imams. For the benefit of Afriki and his fellow adherents we shall inshallah delve into this matter by examining the lives of two Sahaba that lead the invites to Imam Hussain (as) and then led the Tawabun.

2.3

The Sahabi Sulayman bin Surad and al Mussayab bin Najabah led the Tawabun

Sulayman bin Surad was a Sahabi of Rasulullah (s), not only that – he was an individual from

Copyright © 2002-2006 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

Page 8 of 47

whom hadith have been narrated on his authority in the Saha Sittah of Ahl'ul Sunnah. As evidence on can consult al Jamaah Bayyan Rijaal, Sahah Sittah Volume 1 page 176 (Published in Dekkan). We read in al Aqd al Shameen fi Tareekh al Jildh al Kameen Volume 4 page 607 that:

"Sulayman bin Surad al Khuza'i benefited from the companionship of Rasulullah (s) and narrated hadith from him". Imam Abu Muhammad Abdullah bin As`ad al Yameni also known as Al Yaf`ee states: "Sulayman (ra) was a Sahabi of the Prophet (s) hadith have been narrated on his authority". Miraat al Janaan Volume 1 page 141 – Hyderabad edition Dhahabi writes as follows: "Sulayman bin Surad, the Leader of the al Khuza'i in Kufa, the Sahabi, he has a small narration from Ubayy and Jubayr bin Mut'im from Yahya bin Ya'mar and Uday bin Thabet and Abu Ishaq and others. Ibn Barr states 'He (Sulayman) was amongst those that wrote to Imam Hussain [r] and gave him bayya. They were unable to support him and greatly regretted this, and subsequently waged war. I am of the opinion that he was a pious religious individual, he joined the army on account of his sin of failing to support Hussain [r], he made tauba (asked for forgiveness) and left to avenge the shedding of his (Hussain's) blood, this army was known as the army of the Tawabun" Siyar al-Aalam al-Nubla Volume 3 page 394 -395 (Beirut edition) This book can also be downloaded from a Salafi/Wahabi website: [url]http://www.almeshkat.net/books/archive/books/hh.zip[/url] - (Cached) So from here it is clear that a Sahaba was a lead figure that deserted Imam Hussain (as). Whilst Afriki is seeking to attack the Shi'a for allegedly deserting the Imam, Ibn Barr a leading Sunni scholar despite Sulayman bin Surad's inability to support the Imam, praises him and deems him religious and pious. Mussayab bin Najabah was another Sahabi that joined Sulayman in the Tawabun. Although he did not side with the Nasibi army of Yazeed, they (despite their promise) failed to support Imam Hussain (as), they regretted this sin, made tauba and led a movement to avenge the slaughter of Imam Hussain (as), his family and supporters. When they left for battle and confronted Abdullah Ibn Ziyad, Sulayman…. "Gave an order to commence Jihad against Ibn Ziyad. Backed by a one thousand strong army, Sulayman stated 'If I am killed your leader is Mussayab". Siyar al-Aalam al-Nubla Volume 3 page 395 Ibn Barr writing on Sulayman bin Surad states: "Sulayman bin Surad was a good, pious and religious man. During jahiliyya his name was 'Laseer' – Rasulullah (s) changed it to Sulayman. He was amongst those that wrote to Hussain ibn 'Ali [r] and invited him to Kufa. When he [Hussain] arrived he was killed, although they did not participate in his murder, Sulayman bin Surad, Mussayib bin Najbah, Najab Furdhee and others expressed regret for having failed aid Hussain [r] and die with him". al Istiab Volume 2 pages 43-44 It is clear from this source that whilst these individuals did not join Yazeed's army, they felt

Copyright © 2002-2006 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

Page 9 of 47

remorse having invited the Imam (as) and then not supported him in his hour of need. Ibn Kathir states as follows:

"And the people gathered in the home of Sulayman bin Surad, this gathering comprised of the great righteous Sahaba". ibid Volume 8 page 2 Ibn Kathir also records a letter of Mussayab bin Najabah that states clearly that whilst not siding with Yazeed, the Tawabun failed to support Imam Hussain (as) having themselves invited him: "Allah (swt) has tested us, in relation to supporting the son of Rasulullah's daughter. We were exposed as liars, he relied on our support and we failed to provide it, we broke our promise, we shall kill those that killed him and his family". al Bidayah Volume 8 page 247 Among those who wrote letters to Imam Hussain [as] also includes Shabath bin Rabi * who later on also participated in his murder. Those Nawasib who accuse that it was Shias who wrote letters to Imam Hussain [as] shall check their prominent hadith books in which we can find hadeeth narrated by this beloved killer of Imam Hussain [as]. We will prove the Sunnism (Nasibism to be correct) of this man in another chapter. * Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu) Vol 8 page 1013 Here is a list of those Sunni scholars and hadith scholars that have referred to Sulayman bin Surad leader of the Lashkar Tawabun as a Sahaba:

1. Kitab al Muhajir page 691 by Muhammad bin Habeeb al Baghdadi

2. Tahdeeb al Ithidab page 187 by Ibn Hajr Asqalani

3. Tareekh Baghdad Volume 1 page 200-201 by Abu Bakr Khateeb Baghdadi

4. Tajheed al Isma al Sahaba Volume 1 page 255 by Dhahabi

5. Jamaadath Nasab al Arab page 238 by Ibn Hazm Andalusi

6. Al Tabaqat al Kubra Volume 4, part 1 page 30 by Ibn Sa'd

7. Al Kashaf Volume 1 page 316, footnote 2122 by Dhahabi

8. Al Ahbar fi Khabar Volume 1 page 53 by Dhahabi

9. Al Jama bayyan al Rijaal al Saha Sittah by al Hafidh Muhammad bin Tahir Volume 1 page 174 footnote 673

10. Tahkeeb al Takreeb page 187 by Ameer 'Ali Barelvi

Copyright © 2002-2006 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

Page 10 of 47

3.

Analysing the comments of S.M.A Jafri

Ansar.org states:

There is also the tendency of claiming that those who deserted Sayyidunâ Husayn were not of the Shî'ah. Jafri writes:… of those who invited Husayn to Kûfa, and then those 18,000 who paid homage to his envoy Muslim b. 'Aqîl, not all were Shî'îs in the religious sense of the term, but were rather supporters of the house of 'Alî for political reasons - a distinction which must be kept clearly in mind in order to understand the early history of Shî'î Islam.4 Jafri' s motive in excluding the deserters of Sayyidunâ Husayn from the ranks of the "religious" (as opposed to the "political") supporters of the house of Sayyidunâ 'Alî is quite transparent. He is clearly embarrassed by the fact that it was the Shî'ah themselves who abandoned their Imâm and his family after inviting him to lead them in revolt. What leads us to reject this distinction between "religious" and "political" supporters is the fact that Sayyidunâ Husayn himself, on more than one occasion, referred to the Kûfans as his Shî'ah. It is strange that while there is so much reluctance on the part of the Shî'ah to accept the deseof Kûfah as their own, they are quite proud and eager to identify themselves with the movement of the Tawwâbûn. The speeches made at the inception of the movement of the Tawwâbûn very clearly prove that they were the same people who invited Sayyidunâ Husayn and then deserted him.5 Their very name is indicative of their guilt in this regard. The attempt by the Shî'ah to absolve themselves from the crime of deserting Sayyidunâ Husayn is therefore at best nothing more than pathetic.

To counter this we should point to Ansar that your very own great Anti Shi'a scholar al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz stated that at that time, all Muslims were known as Shi'a! He wrote:

"It should be known that the first Shias (who are the Sunnis and the Tafdiliyyah) in old days were known as Shias. When the Ghulat and the Rawafid Zaydiyyah and Ismailiyyah took the name for themselves, Sunnis and Tafdiliyyah did not like this name for themselves and so they took the name of Ahlu's-Sunnah wa'l Jamaah." Tuhfa Athna Ashari (Urdu) page 16, published in Karachi So at this particular time yes the Shi'a did kill Imam Hussain (as) but that is only because all Muslims were known by the title Shi'a. But as Shah Abdul Aziz states this Shi'aism developed in to the beliefs of the Rafidi (Imami Shi'a) and Ahl'ul Sunnah. Being Shi'a of Ali (as) meant a different thing to different people. Identifying the true Shi'a, Shah Abdul Aziz states:

Copyright © 2002-2006 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

Page 11 of 47

"The title Shi'a was first given to those Muhajireen and Ansar who gave allegiance (bay'ah) to Ali (may Allah enlighten his face). They were his steadfast faithful followers during his (Ali's) caliphate. They remained close to him; they always fought his enemies, and kept on following Ali's commands and prohibitions. The true Shi'a are these who came in 37 Hijri" (NB 37 Hijri -the year Imam Ali (as) fought Mu'awiya at Sifeen).

Tuhfa Athna Ashari (Urdu) page 27, published in Karachi Here those that stood at Sifeen with Imam Ali (as) were his Shi'a. But to say their views on Imam Ali (as) were one and the same is completely incorrect. There were those that were:

1. Loyal to Imam Ali (as) because they deemed him to be the khalifa after Rasulullah (s) e.g. Amar bin Yasir (ra).

2. Loyal to Imam Ali (as) because his khailafath was legitimate in accordance to the principles of ijma, bayya had been given hence it was compulsory to obey him e.g. Ubayy bin Kab (ra).

3. Loyal to Imam Ali (as) as long as he fought Mu'awiya once arbitration was accepted these same Shi'a turned their backs on the Imam and became Khwaarijee.

From these three groups three schools have developed the Imami Shia, Ahl ul Sunnah, Khwaarji. All groups were called Shi'a despite their differing beliefs. And then what of Ansar forefathers the camp of Mu'awiya, by what belief system were they known? The answer is they were known as the Shi'a of Uthman – the title Shi'a also identified this group. So Ansar in light of this fact, tell us which of these groups of Shia killed Imam Hussain (as)? Were they:

1. Those that deemed Ali to be the Imam after Rasulullah (s) appointed by Allah (swt) Shi'a that developed today in to what is known as Shi'a Ithna Ashari?

2. Those Shi'a that deemed Imamate to be the right of the Ummah, and that Imam 'Ai WAS the rightful khalifa due to the people of Madina giving him bayya? The belief that developed into Ahl'ul Sunnah?

3. Those that had become his enemies (following the Sifeen arbitration) who are today's Khwaarij?

4. Those that stood opposite Imam Ali (as) as his enemies right from the start – the Shi'a of Uthman?

These are the 4 categories of Shi'a that existed at that time, so which group shed the blood of Imam Hussain (as)? Was it just one group, or did all of these Shi'a collude collectively? History tells us that two groups of people played a role in Imam Hussain (as) killing, they were:

1. Those that vocally supported Yazeed and hence deemed his Khalifa to be legitimate.

2. Those that physically supported Yazeed by fighting in his army against Imam Hussain (as).

Copyright © 2002-2006 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

Page 12 of 47

4.

The participation of the Sahaba and their sons in killing Hadhrath Muslim bin Aqeel (as)

We have clear proof that prior to his invitation to come to Kufa Yazeed had resolved to take whatever steps were necessary to extract bayya from Imam Hussain (as). When Mu'awiya died Yazeed wrote to his Governor in Madina, Waleed bin Utbah:

"Adopt a tough attitude in obtaining bayya from Hussain, Abdullah Ibn Umar, Abdullah Ibn Zubayr, do not delay, nor display any signs of weakness, do not leave them until they give bayya". Al Bidaya wal Nihayah (Urdu) Vol 8 page 1004, Nafees Acadmy Karachi In this connection Waleed summoned Marwan and asked his opinion on which he said: "They are aware that Mu'awiya has died, invite them to give bayya, should they refuse then strike off their necks". Al Bidaya wal Nihayah (Urdu) Vol 8 page 1004, Nafees Acadmy Karachi Upon returning to Makka he [Hussain] received letters from the people of Kufa, He sent Muslim bin Aqeel to go and assess the situation. Outwardly the people portrayed their support for Muslim bin Aqeel and in turn for Hussain – 1000 people gave bayya. Spies notified Numan bin Basheer, he did not openly adopt tough measures, but in this regard gave a sermon warning people against sedition and urged the people to remain loyal in the bayya that been afforded to Yazeed. One man stood up and said to Numan 'This matter cannot be curtailed without adopting force, the approach that you have adopted is like that of weak people". …Yazeed said to Ibn Ziyad 'When in Kufa find Muslim bin Aqeel and then kill him. Ibn Ziyad arrived in Kufa with 17 men having assessed the situation he spoke to the respectable people in his palace and queried the whereabouts of Muslim bin Aqeel. There was some opposition but Ubaydullah abducted these notables and deterred people from supporting Muslim. So much so that by Maghrib prayers only thirty people remained with him, by night fall they also deserted him. That night Muslim stayed in the home of an elderly lady, her son notified Abdul Rahman bin Asheesh. Abdul Rahman told his father at that same time who was in Ubaydullah's house, Ibn Ziyad asked why the secrecy, they told him and Ibn Ziyad immediately sent 70-80 men headed by Ibn Harith Makhzomi who was the head of police. Muhammad bin Asheesh and Abdul Rahman were with them. They collectively captured [Muslim] and sent him to Ibn Ziyad residence. Upon reaching the doors of the residence (he was met by) some of the sons of the Sahaba standing there. Muslim did not recognise them although they recognised him. They were waiting to meet Ibn Ziyad, Muslim's face and clothes were covered in blood, whilst in that state he made a request for water, one of the group said, 'You will not be able to drink this until you taste the hot water of Hell'. Muslim replied 'Son of Hell you are more entitled to drink the fire of Hell; than me'. Al Bidaya Volume 7 page 154 Ibn Katheer fails to name the group of Sahaba and tabieen that had taunted Muslim (as), Tabari identifies some names including one 'Umro bin Harith Makhzoomi". Dhahabi states "Umar bin Harith is counted amongst the Sahaba of Rasulullah (s) that had settled in Kufa… he is a Sahabi who narrated hadith from Rasulullah (s). Siyar Al-Aalam al-Nubla, Volume 3 page 417 Later Ibn Kathir informs us about Umar bin Harith:

Copyright © 2002-2006 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

Page 13 of 47

"Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad arrested Muslim bin Aqeel and sent him to Umro bin Harith Makhzoomi, who was the Chief of Police".

al Bidaya Volume 7 page 155; Tabari Volume 6 page 198 Those waiting to meet Ibn Ziyad in his Palace were Kathir bin Shahab, we learn of him in Tabaqat ibn Sa'd Volume 6 page 103: "He narrated traditions from Umar bin Khattab and was one of Mu'awiya bin Abu Sufyan's Governors". This can also be read in the Online Tabaqat Ibn Sa`d at the website of Salafies/Wahabies: [url]http://www.al- eman.com/Islamlib/viewchp.asp?BID=185&CID=75#s48[/url] Upon receiving the news that Imam Hussain (as) was making his way for Kufa Marwan bin Hakam wrote to Ibn Ziyad, stating: "Hussain ibn Ali is heading in your direction. He is Fatima's son and she is the daughter of Rasulullah (s). By Allah! We deserve nothing greater than bringing him into our possession". al Bidayah Volume 8 page 165 As Imam Hussain (as) made his way to Kufa, Yazeed also wrote to Ibn Ziyad stating: "I have heard Hussain is making his way to Kufa. From amongst my Governors it is you that is being tested, freedom shall depend on successful completion of this mission, or you could be enslaved again, in the same way that slaves are freed, or freemen are made slaves" al Bidayah Volume 8 page 165

4.1

The Shi'a of Uthman / Nasibis killed Imam Hussain (as)

History lifts the lid and exposes the true killers of Imam Hussain (as). On route to Kufa Imam Hussain (as) met Al Farazdaq and asked him about the situation in Kufa, he assessed the matter saying:

"The people's hearts are with you but their swords are with the Banu Ummayya". Tabari English translation Volume 19 pages 70-71) When the people had swords raised against Imam Hussain (as) there is then no basis to conclude that these individuals were Shi'a, rather they were Nasibi hiding in the midst of the people. It is clear that when Ibn Ziyad began his terror campaign it was the second group of "Shi'a" that were brought to heel – not the first group since as mentioned earlier they has already been exterminated in Kufa. This second group of Shi'a whilst unhappy with Yazeed's behaviour, still deemed his position as Khailfa to be legitimate as he had obtained the bayya of the people, if they had any doubts these were laid to rest by advocates of Yazeed such as the sahaba Abdullah Ibn Umar (as we shall expand on later). This group therefore set aside their personal views and abandoned support for Imam Hussain (as) and joined hands with Yazeed as he in their eyes had obtained the ijma of the people. These individuals were Shi'a when they gave bayya and sided with Ali (as) following the death of Uthman. They deemed Imam 'Ali (as) to be the legitimate fourth khalifa as he had obtained the ijma of the people. Their being Shi'a of 'Ali (as) was only as long as Imam 'Ali (as) was khalifa. These same individuals therefore had no hesitation in supporting Yazeed as they likewise deemed his succession as Khalifa to be based on ijma. The Kufans may have had sympathies towards Imam Hussain (as) that influenced their

Copyright © 2002-2006 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

Page 14 of 47

decision to write to him, but influential words of support for Yazeed's right to rule from notables such as Ibn Umar, ensured that their faltering loyalty to Khalifa Yazeed was restored. They were NOT the Shi'a of 'Ali rather they were the Shi'a of Uthman. We have the example of Nafi bin Hilal who entered the battlefield of Karbala, in Imam Hussain (as)'s army declaring:

"I am al-Jamali. I believe in the religion of Ali. A man called Muzahim al Hurayth came against him crying "I follow the religion of Uthman". Nafi replied, "Rather you follow the religion of Satan". Then he attacked and killed him Tabari Volume 19 pages 136-137 So here we see Yazeed's army was not Shi'a in the sense that Ansar would like to lead its readers to believe rather it was Uthmani. Azrar bin Qays taunted Zuhayr bin al-Qayn (History of al-Tabari Volume 19 page 113): "Zuhayr according to us you were not the Shi'ah from this family (bayt). You used to be a supporter of the party of Uthman. Zuhayr said, 'Aren't you presuming from my position that I am one of them?" Note the reply Zuhayr admitted that he was Uthmani Nasibi but we ask Afriki, 'what was his position now?' Clearly his position with the Imam (as) meant that he was a Shi'a of Ahl'ul bayt (as). From here the truth has been separated from falsehood, the true Sect has been distinguished from the false Sect – Yazeed's army were not Shi'a, but were in fact Nasibi / Uthmani the army of Hussain were the Shi'a of Ahl'ul bayt (as). When Yazeed's forces encircled Imam Hussain (as) and his Sahaba, Ibn Ziyad sent a letter to Ibn Sad in which he stated: "Stop the water of Hussain in same way that Ameer'ul Momineen Uthman was treated". Tabari Volume 19 page 107) Ibn Kathir similarly records that Ibn Ziyad gave the order: "Become obstacle between Hussain and water and treat them in the same way that pious, righteous and oppressed Amee'rul Momineen Uthman was treated". Al Bidayah wal Nihayah (Urdu), Volume 8 page 1058 It is clear as day that those that killed Imam Hussain (as) were those that deemed Uthman to be Ameer'ul Momineen. In Shia aqeedah we do not deem anyone other than Imam Ali (as) to be Ameer'ul Momineen, we do not even bestow this title to any of the other Imams. But the army of Yazeed considered Yazeed to be Ameerul Momineen, contrary to Shi'a Aqeeda. Ibn Kathir further records: "Ibn Ziyad wrote Ameer al Harmain Umro bin Saeed and informed him about about the glad news of Hussain's death, he asked a caller who then made its announcement and when the woman of Banu Hashim heard that announcement their voices of lamentation raised and Umro bin Saeed said: " This is the revenge for the lamentation of the wives of Uthman bin Affan" Al Bidayah wal Nihayah (Urdu), Volume 8 page 1097 Those in Yazeed's army were not the Shi'a of Ali, rather they were Uthmani / Nasibis. If Ansar Copyright © 2002-2006 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

Page 15 of 47

are going to plead with us and claim that these are different terms then allow us to present the views of one of their own beloved Imams, Ibn Taymiyya:

"If Nasibi deem Ibn Sad to be an Uthmani it is on account his taking avenge for Uthman and praising him" Minhajj al Sunnah Volume 1 page 164 Ibn Taymiyya had also written that: "Uthman's Shi'a would openly curse 'Ali from the Mosque pulpits". Minhajj al Sunnah Volume 3 page 178 So we learn that those that martyred Imam Hussain (as) were NOT the Shi'a of 'Ali (as) but were the Shi'a of Uthman – the Nasibi forces loyal to Yazeed. Ibn Kathir (who was a student of Ibn Taymiyya) and other historians have shed light on the fact that amongst the killers were the sons of the Sahaba. Even prominent Sahaba such as Umar bin Harith and his family joined the ranks of Yazeed's army. As we have already proven Umar bin Harith was Ibn Ziyad's, Chief of police, who arrested Muslim bin Aqeel (as) and presented him to Ibn Ziyad, who subsequently had him executed. Yazeed had given a free hand to Ibn Ziyad, and Marwan's letter to Ibn Ziyad demonstrated that the aim was for Imam Hussain (as) to give bayya – if he refused then he was to be killed. It is ironic that the Ansar Nasibi claim that the Shi'a of Ali (as) killed Imam Hussain (as) by inviting him to Kufa – the reality is the Nasibi Shi'a of Uthman had pre planned his murder before he even reached Kufa. If we were to accept that these individuals were the Shi'a of Ali (as), their very entry on to the battlefield in Yazeed's camp meant that they were now Shi'a of Uthman i.e. Nasibi.

Copyright © 2002-2006 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

Page 16 of 47

5.

Naming and shaming the Nasibi killers of Imam Hussain (as)

5.1

Yazeed's adviser Marwan was a Nasibi

Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi states in Tuhfa Ithna Ashari page 97:

"Hadith narrated by Marwan can be found in al Bukhari, even though he was a Nasibi, rather he was leader of that wicked cult." Tuhfa Ithna Ashari (Urdu), page 97 Published in Karachi Shah Waliyullah Dehlavio had also written similarly: "Mu'awiya's rebellion and Marwan's being a Nasibi are proven facts" Sharh Ahfaq Tasneef page 270

5.2

Yazeed bin Mu'awiya was a Nasibi

Shah Abdul Aziz states in Tuhfa Ithna Ashari page 8:

"When the cruel people of Syria and Iraq upon orders of impure Yazeed and due to the efforts of chief of hatred and fitnah Ibn Ziyad martyred Imam Hussain.." Tuhfa Ithna Ashari (Urdu), page 8 Published in Karachi Founder of Dar al Ulum Deoband, Muhammad Qasim Nanotwi writing on Yazeed stated: "Yazeed was a fasiq, he was irregular in Salat, committed Bidah and was Chief of the Nasibi". Qasim al Ulum page 221 The presence of Yazeed, Marwan and Ibn Ziyad proves that this was a Nasibi Government, that took hatred of Ahl'ul bayt (as) as part of their deen. If Yazeed's advocates are going to absolve him of the killing of Imam Hussain (as) we would like to know why he faiuled to adopt steps to protect Imam Hussain (as)? Is the protection of life and property of subjects not the duty of an Imam? Did Yazeed send his army to protect Imam Hussain (as) from the Kufan Shi'a who (as Ansar attest) had deserted him – or did he send the army to corner and kill him?

5.3

Ubaydullah bin Ziyad's father was a Nasibi

Writing on Ubaydullah's father Ziyad, Shah Abdul Aziz states in Tuhfa Ithna Ashari page 484:

"We need to mention Ziyad the product of fornication, upon receiving power from Mu'awiya the first thing that he demonstrated was his enmity towards the family of Ali". Tuhfa Ithna Ashari (Urdu), page 484 Published in Karachi If Ziyad was a Nasibi on account of his hatred of Imam 'Ali (as)'s children then his son continued this Nasibi mantle playing a lead role in the oppression of Imam Hussain (as).

Copyright © 2002-2006 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

Page 17 of 47

6.

So who supports the Nasibi killers of Imam Hussain (as)?

It is quite logical that those that deemed Yazeed to be the rightful khalifa, were the same individuals that killed Imam Hussain (as). We the Shi'a distance ourselves from Yazeed and his supporters. So Ansar, kindly tell us, do you? Do the Ahl'ul Sunnah and Nasibi express hatred towards those that supported Yazeed and killed Imam Hussain (as)? Unfortunately this is not the case. Nasibi claiming to adhere to the Sunni faith have written, praised and defended Yazeed as a pious man. We have Pakistani Hanafi scholar Mahmood Abadi who wrote "Khilafath Muawiya aur Yazeed"- where he praised Yazeed, deeming the method of ruling used by Hadhrath Umar and Yazeed to be the same. Had the matter stopped there then no doubt that would be proof in itself, but what Ansar are hiding from their followers is the fact that their Salaf Imam took ahadith from those that killed Imam Hussain (as). Proof of guilt lies with 'association' those with blood on their hands will have no shame / guilt in taking hadith from the killers of Hussain (as) since these are their descendants. Those who had no part in killing the Imam (as) would naturally revile his killers and have no association with these killers on matters pertaining to Deen. The ultimate criterion for determining WHOM the actual killers of Hussain (as) lies in hadith. No doubt a group whose Salaf ancestors supported the Khilafath of Yazeed and killed Imam Hussain (as) will have no shame in taking hadith from those same individuals. Whilst we deem the cursing of Yazeed, Ibn Sad, Ibn Ziyad etc to be a compulsory act, compare this to the respect afforded to Imam Hussain (as)'s killers by the Ahl'ul Sunnah Ulema…

6.1

Umar bin Sad bin Abi Waqqas

Dhahabi whilst writing on the life of Ibn Sa'd states in Siyar Al-Aalam al-Nubla Volume 4 page 349:

"Umar bin Sa'd lead the army that killed Imam Hussain (as), the Mukhthar killed him…Imam Nasai has narrated traditions from him". Ibn Hajr Asqalani writes: "Umar Ibn Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas Zuhri Abu Hafs Madani lived in Kufa .He narrated traditions from his father and Abu Said al Khudri. His son Ibraheem and grandson Abu Bakr bin Hafs, Abu Isaac Al Subay'ee, Ayzaar bin Harees, Yazeed bin Abi Maryam , Qathadha, Zuhri and Yazeed bin Habeeb and others have narrated hadith from him. Ajli commented that he narrated hadith from his father, many took narrations from him, he is counted amongst the Tabieen, and he is Thiqah (highly reliable), he killed Al Hussain" Tahdeeb al Tahdeeb Volume 7 page 450-451 The book can also be downloaded from a Wahabi/Salafi website: Tahzeb al-Tahzeb, Vol 7 No. 747 - (Cached) Another Sunni scholar Jamalalddin Abi al Hajaj Yusuf al Mizzi in his detailed and esteemed Rijal book "Tahdeeb al Kamal" under under the topic "Umar ibn Sa'd" records: "Ahmed ibn Abdullah al'Ajli said: He is the one that killed Hussain, and he is a thiqah (trustworthy) Tabiee." Vol 21 No. 4240 This 'reliable' Umar bin Sad was the son of the Sahabi Sa'd bin Waqqas, about him Imam Bukhari wrote in Tareekh al Sagheer:

Copyright © 2002-2006 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

Page 18 of 47

"When Imam Hussain arrived in Kerbala, Umar bin Sa'd was the first individual that cut the tent ropes"

Tareekh al Sagheer, Volume 1, page 75 From here it should have dawned on Ansar that the killers of Imam Hussain (as) were Nasibis. Your Salaf followed their way and deemed these figures to be reliable / respected personalities, basing the cornerstone of Deen – hadith in accordance with traditions that had been passed down by them.

6.2

Ubaydullah bin Ziyad

On Ibn Ziyad, Ibn Hajr Asqalani states:

"He is 'UbaydAllah bin Ziad , the prince of Kufa f


This post first appeared on Azadars, please read the originial post: here

Share the post

Who killed Imam Hussain (as)?

×

Subscribe to Azadars

Get updates delivered right to your inbox!

Thank you for your subscription

×