The Event of Kerbela.

[SahEmre]

Multifarious dissonant stories roam the literature assigned to the history of the event of Kerbelâ. Exploiting this turbidity, some books fabricate and present tragic tales, whereby to mislead their readers, to confuse their minds and to undermine their beliefs. With those mendacious and concocted tales they try to coax their readers into their own aberrant credo. This muddy-waters tactics has given rise to a state of affairs wherein different people hold different opinions concerning the event of Kerbelâ and everyone believes that their opinion is the only true knowledge. Muhammad Abd-ush-shekûr Mirzâpûrî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, a great Indian scholar of history, dedicated long years of his life to research on the subject, learned the facts, and wrote a book entirely allotted to the subject, entitling it Shahâdat-i-Husayn (Martyrdom of Husayn). Ghulâm Haydar Fârûqî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, one of Mirzâpûrî’s disciples in the Madrasa-i-islâmiyya in Karachi, Pakistan, translated the book from Urdu into Persian and the new Persian version, entitled Rafâqat-i-Husayn, was printed in Karachi. A passage from the introduction to the book reads as follows:

Islam suffered the first disruptive blow from a fitna, which inflicted irreparable damage on the religion and caused millions of Muslims to deviate from the true course of Islam, and which gave birth to superstitions and whimsical speculations quite contrary to Islam and concocted for special purposes. The fitna was on the verge of extinction, when it was rekindled by Ya’qûb Kulaynî’s son, one of the unfortunate boys who had fallen victim to the misguidance invented by the Jew named Abdullah bin Saba’. In order to demolish the Islamic religion from the interior and to mislead Muslims, the wretched miscreant fibbed quite a number of lies and compiled his lies in a book which he entitled Kâfî. Ferocious heretics such as TÛSÎ and MEJLÎSÎ, who appeared later, fanned the fire of sedition and discord among Muslims by trying to spread the principles in the book Kâfî. They based their religion on a double-faced policy which they called Taqiyya, and used it as a cloak under which to carry on all their subversive and inimical activities. Simulated love of the Ahl-i-Bayt is their most widely known taqiyya. With this simulation they have caused millions of Muslims to deviate from the right course and led them to perdition. The first thing to do to protect Muslims from falling into their trap, therefore, is to reveal the inner nature of the Muhabbat-i-Ahl-i-Bayt (love of Ahl-i-Bayt).

True Muslims who adhere to the path guided by Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ and who follow in the footsteps of the Sahâba are called Ahl as-Sunnat (Sunnî Muslims). Not only have the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat explained the meaning of Muhabbat-i-Ahl-i-Bayt as something good, but they have also stated that love of Ahl-i-Bayt is a component part of îmân. The heretics, on the other hand, reiterate that love of Ahl-i-Bayt is the basis of their religion, although all their actions and attitudes betray their hostility against the Ahl-i-Bayt. A thorough probe into the historical facts to elucidate the matter whether Hadrat Husayn was martyred by the Sunnî Muslims or by the heretics will incidentally clarify what we mean in the final part of our statement. A reasonable person who reads their books is quite unlikely to believe that the martyrdom was perpetrated by the Sunnî Muslims. They adroitly interpose the names of Hadrat Mu’âwiya and Yazîd in a manner as to misinform the ignorant. However, none of the books relating the tragic event contains a single expression clearly stating that those two Khalîfas were smeared with the blessed blood of Hadrat Husayn. Not even the vaguest implication that Hadrat Mu’âwiya might have had to do with the martyrdom of Hadrat Husayn has been witnessed throughout the literature assigned to the event, let alone a clear statement that it was done by his order. What is unanimously stated (by all books and scholars) is that the martyrdom of Hadrat Husayn did not take place during the caliphate of Hadrat Mu’âwiya. Molla Bâqir Mejlîsî, whose name is mentioned above, relates Hadrat Mu’âwiya’s last advice to his son Yazîd as he was dying, as follows:

“You know what relation Imâm Husayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ is to the Messenger of Allah. He is a part from the beloved Prophet’s blessed body. He is an offspring from the flesh and blood of that most honourable person. I understand that the inhabitants of Iraq invite him to go there and be with them. But they will not help him; they will leave him alone. If he should fall into your hands, behave in appreciation of his value! Remember the closeness and affection of the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ to him! Do not get back at him for his behaviour! Mind you don’t break the substantial ties I have established between him and us! Be extra careful lest you should hurt or offend him!” This advice of Hadrat Mu’âwiya’s to (his son) Yazîd is written in the three hundred and twenty-first (321) page of the book Jilâ-ul’uyûn, which was written by Muhammad Bâqir bin Murtadâ Fayzî Khorasânî, a Shiite leader, who is better known with his nickname Molla Muhsin. He died in 1091 [1679 A.D.]. According to a book entitled Nâsikh-ut-tawârîh, written by a Shiite theologian named Muhammad Taqî Khân, Mu’âwiya also wrote the following will for his son Yazîd: “My son, do not succumb to your sensuous indulgences or temptations! Protect yourself from the slightest wrongful behaviour towards Husayn! Be extra careful not to have the blood of Husayn bin Alî around your neck when you stand (for the last judgement) before Haqq ta’âlâ on the morrow! Otherwise, you will never attain comfort and peace on that day; you will suffer endless torments!” Moreover, the author quotes a hadîth-i-sherîf, which he ascribes to Abdullah ibn Abbâs, in the hundred and eleventh (111) page of the sixth volume of the book: “Yâ Rabbî! Do not give barakat to a person who is slack in observing the reverence and honour due to Husayn!” Hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ always behaved politely and respectfully towards Hadrat Husayn both in speech and in writing and never showed disrespect towards him. Imâm Husayn, in contrast, was rather harsh towards him, especially in the letters that he wrote to him. In fact, when Hadrat Mu’âwiya’s sons Yazîd and Abdullah, told their father to answer in kind when they saw the reproachful language that Hadrat Husayn used in his letters, he placated them, saying, “You two are wrong, saying so. How can I ever blame Husayn bin Alî? A person like me blames another person and tries to convince others to agree with him, and still no one believes him. No. A discreet person wouldn’t do that. How can I ever blame Husayn? I swear in the name of Allah that there is nothing blameworthy about him. I will write to him. Yet I will not write anything that will imply a browbeating air or which will hurt him in the least.” The Shiite author of the book Nâsikh-ut-tawârîh concludes as follows in the seventy-eighth (78) page of the sixth volume of the book: “In short, he did not do anything to hurt Husayn.”

Hadrat Mu’âwiya not only always behaved kindly and respectfully towards Hadrat Husayn, but also served him. This fact is acknowledged in a smooth language in the book Nâsikh-ut-tawârîh: “He made a habit of sending Hadrat Husayn thousands of dirhams of silver yearly. That was only additional to other valuable goods and various gifts.” And the insults and annoyances that Hadrat Husayn held out in return for all those kindnesses and services were received with tolerant detachment on the part of the compassionate benefactor.

Goods of kharâj[60] were dispatched to Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ from Yemen. The caravan (carrying the goods) was passing through Medîna en route for Damascus, when it was apprehended by Hadrat Husayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’, who took all the goods and dispensed them to the Ahl-i-Bayt and to other people whom he liked, writing the following message for Hadrat Mu’âwiya: “Camels laden with goods and perfumes were being herded en route from Yemen to Damascus. I knew that the goods that were being taken to you were to be put into the Bayt-ul-mâl. I took them because I needed them. Wa-s-salâm!” Hadrat Mu’âwiya’s acknowledgement of Hadrat Husayn’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ message was appended with the following note: “I would not have withheld your share from the goods that would have been brought to me had you allowed the caravan of camels to get through. However, o my brother, I know that you are not the kind of person to deign to simulation or flattery. In my time, no one shall harm you. For I know your value and your high grade. I shall receive all your behaviour with gratification.” These reciprocations are written in the fifty-seventh (57) page of the book Nâsikh-ut-tawârîh.

Nor would all the invective addressed to the Amîr Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ by visitors to Damascus bear on his liberality. He would requite their curses with goods and monetary gifts. Here is an example from the aforesaid Shiite book: “Visitors to Damascus from Hadrat Alî’s surroundings would swear at Mu’âwiya and hurt him. He would give them presents from the Bayt-ul-mâl. Thus they would return home without having suffered any harm or annoyance.” (p:38) As is understood from these writings, it is an abominable slander and a blatant lie to blame Hadrat Mu’âwiya for the martyrdom of Hadrat Husayn and to malign him on account of a wrongful accusation.

For that matter, it is out of the question to attempt to vilify Hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ on account of the allegation that he poisoned Hadrat Hasan ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’. As is written in the three hundred and twenty-third (323) page of the Shiite book Jilâ-ul-’uyûn, Hadrat Hasan said, “I swear in the name of Allah that Mu’âwiya is better than these people. These people claim to be Shiites. Yet they have attempted to kill me and they have stolen my property.”

It is written in various forms in Shiite books that Yazîd did not have a hand in the murders, either, and that, contrary to a prevalent opinion, he was not a bad person. He never forgot his father’s advice about Hadrat Husayn. He did not write anything to invite Hadrat Husayn to the city of Kûfa. He did not attempt to kill him. Nor did he give an order to kill him. He did not rejoice at his death. On the contrary, he felt extremely sad and wept bitterly. He declared a period of mourning for him. He castigated those who had martyred him very harshly. He showed deep respect towards the Ahl-i-Bayt (household, family) of Hadrat Husayn, and fulfilled their wish to leave Damascus and go to Medîna, treating them with great honour and kindness and seeing them off under the protection of a detachment of bodyguards. Shiite books enlarge on these facts.

The famous Shiite theologian Molla Bâqir Mejlîsî relates as follows in the four hundred and twenty-fourth (424) page of his book Jilâ-ul ’uyûn: “Yazîd appointed Walîd bin ’Uqba bin Abî Sufyân, who was known for his kindnesses towards the Ahl-i-Bayt, governor of Medîna. He dismissed Merwan bin Hakem, an enemy of Imâm Husayn and his progeny ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’, from duty.” He goes on in the four hundred and thirty-second page: “If Yazîd had been Imâm Husayn’s enemy, he would not have replaced a governor inimical towards him with one friendly with him.” He says in the four hundred and twenty-fourth page: “One night, Walîd sent for Imâm Husayn and showed him a letter that he had received from Yazîd. The letter said that Hadrat Mu’âwiya was dead and Yazîd was the new Khalîfa. Upon this Imâm Husayn recited the âyat, ‘Innâ-lillah...’.” This written statement shows that Hadrat Husayn was not hostile to Hadrat Mu’âwiya and that he knew him as a true Muslim. Otherwise, he would not have recited the âyat, “Innâ-lillâh...,” upon hearing about his death.

When Zajîr bin Qays reported Hadrat Husayn’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ martyrdom to Yazîd, he bowed his head and said nothing. Then, raising his head, he said, “I wanted you to obey him, not to kill him. I would have forgiven Husayn if I had been there.” This fact is written in the two hundred and sixty-ninth (269) page of the book Nâsikh-ut-tawârîh. It is written as follows in the three hundred and twenty-first (321) page of the Shiite book Nahj-ul-ahzân, which was printed in Iran: “Someone came along with what he considered to be glad tidings and said to Yazîd, ‘Congratulations! Husayn’s head has arrived.’ This exasperated Yazîd. He berated the man angrily, saying, “May you never get glad tidings!’ ” It is stated as follows in the two hundred and twenty-ninth (229) page of the book Nâsikh-ut-tawârîh: “Shimir-zil-jawshan put Imâm Husayn’s blessed head with pride before Yazîd and boasted, ‘Fill the saddle-bags of my camel with gold and silver, for I have killed the best of people with respect to parents.’ ‘Never expect any prize from me,’ was Yazîd’s answer. Terrified and disappointed, the man went back. His share was a mere nothing both in this world and the next.” It is written in the two hundred and seventy-second (272) page of the (same) book that he (Yazîd) pronounced the malediction, “May his murderer be doomed to the wrath of Allah!”

As is clearly stated in Shiite books, not only were Hadrat Mu’âwiya and Yazîd absolutely clear of the blessed blood of Hadrat Husayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’, but also ibn Ziyâd and ibn Sa’d and even Shimir were not among those who martyred the blessed person. It is stated as follows in the Shiite books written in the book Rafâqat-i-Husayn:

1) People who fought against Imâm Husayn were not Damascenes or Hijâzîs (people of Hedjaz). All of them were from Kûfa. (Khulâsa-t-ul-masâib, p. 201)

2) Imâm-i-Husayn was martyred by Irâqîs (people of Iraq). Not a single Damascene was among them. Those who perpetrated the notorious cruelty against the Ahl-i-Bayt were people of Kûfa. (Mas’ûdî)

3) It is an established fact that there were not any Damascenes among the people who martyred Imâm Husayn. (ibid, p. 21)

4) Abî Mahnaf informs that ibn Ziyâd’s army contained an eighty-thousand-strong cavalry, and that the entire number consisted of people from Kûfa. (Nâsikh-ut-tawârîh, v. 6; p. 173)

5) None of the Shiites who lived at places other than Kûfa came to help the Imâm. However, contemporaneously with an answer to the letter that he had received from the people of Kûfa, he had sent a letter to the people of Basra, asking for their support; and the Shiites living in Basra had written back that they would help. (Jilâ-ul ’uyûn)

People who martyred Imâm Husayn at Kerbelâ were the same people who had plotted treason and cruelty against Imâm Alî and Imâm Hasan. Twelve thousand people came together and wrote a letter to Imâm Husayn, inviting him to Kûfa and promising their support. They were the same people, however, who martyred Hadrat Husayn’s paternal first cousin Muslim bin Uqayl, a representative sent by the blessed imâm in acknowledgement of their invitation. The same people, again, disguised themselves as soldiers of Yazîd, anticipated Imâm Husayn’s arrival, and martyred him at Kerbelâ. It is written in the Shiite book Majâlis-ul-mu’minîn that a Shiite named Musayyib bin Nuhba and ’Umar bin Sa’d ibn Abî Waqqâs went to Kerbelâ.

6) Shîs bin Rabi’î, a commander under ’Umar bin Sa’d, and four thousand Shiites under his command attacked the blessed imâm. (Jilâ-ul ’uyûn)

7) Shîs bin Rabi’î was the first abhorrent person to alight from his horse to cut off the blessed head of the imâm. (Khulâsa-t-ul-masâib, p. 37)

8) When Imâm Husayn saw Mujâr bin Hajar and Yazîd bin Hâris among his assailants, he said, “Have you forgotten the letters of invitation you wrote to me?” (ibid, p. 138)

9) When the imâm attained martyrdom, Habîb bin Muzâhir, commander of the right wing of the imâm’s army, laughed and said, “The Ashûra day is the day of rejoicing and celebrating.”

10) Another person who acknowledges that Imâm Husayn was martyred by Shiites is Qâdî Nûrullah Shusterî, an eminent Shiite scholar.

Attention: Scholars of Ahl as-sunnat wrote myriads of books proving the fact that people who refuse Islam’s authentic Madhhabs are preaching heresy and trying to demolish Islam from the interior. Thirty-two of such valuable books, their titles and authors, were appended to the eightieth (80) letter, -written by Hadrat Imâm Rabbânî, whose biography is to follow,- which covers an entire chapter of this book, (immediately after a biography of Hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’).

[semra]

güzel paylaşımın için teşekkürler emre

[semra]

tekrar zamanı...