Karbala Series Part 4: Husayn’s stance on Mu’awiyah
- Anonymous
- Oct 12
- 17 min read
« Previous Part: What was Husayn's goal? »
« Next Part: Vices of Yazid »
بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ
In this article, we'll be refuting Mu'awiyah's allegedly having good relations with Imam al-Husayn (AS).
Husayn’s letter to Mu’awiyah
After Imam al-Hasan (AS) passed away, a number of the Kufans wrote to al-Husayn (AS) stating that they were willing to support him in his struggle against the Umayyads. Mu’awiyah got hold of this information and became worried, and his words with al-Husayn (AS) was exchanged through letters.
This was recorded for us in Ansab al-Ashraf, Vol. 5, pg 128 - 130:
They (al-Mada’ini and others) said: Mu’awiya wrote to al-Husayn b. Ali: “As for what follows, reports have reached me about you, matters that I dislike for you. If they are true, I will not tolerate them from you. By my life, one who gives the pledge of his right hand, the covenant of God, and His binding agreement, is most worthy of fulfilling it. If they are false, then you are the happiest of people with that, and it is for your own soul that you begin, and with the covenant of God that you fulfill.
So do not drive me to cut you off and treat you badly. For if you deny me, I will deny you; if you strain me, I will strain you. So beware of splitting the unity of this community, and that they should return by your hand to strife. For I have tested and tried people. And your father was better than you, and yet those who rally around you had united upon him, and I do not think that what failed for him will succeed for you. So look to yourself and your religion, and let not those who lack certainty carry you away.”
Al-Husayn wrote back to him:
“As for what follows, your letter has reached me in which you mention that reports have come to you about me that you dislike. If they are true, you would not tolerate them from me. But no one guides to good deeds or grants success to them except God.
As for what has been carried to you, it was only raised by the meet and greeters, the tale-carriers, those who walk with slanders and sow division among the community. I do not seek war with you nor opposition against you.
By God, I have refrained from that while fearing God in refraining. Yet I do not think that God will be pleased with me if I refrain from referring you to Him, nor will He excuse me without offering excuse before Him regarding you and your partisans, the wrongdoers, the deviants, the party of the oppressors and the allies of the devils.
Are you not the killer of Hujr b. Adi and his companions, the praying, worshipping men, who denounced injustice and abhorred innovations, fearing no blame for God’s sake? You killed them wrongfully and aggressively, after giving them security through covenants and solemn oaths.
Are you not the killer of Amr b. al-Hamiq, the companion of the Messenger of God ﷺ, whom worship wore down, whose color was yellowed, and whose body was wasted away?
Are you not the one who claimed Ziyad b. Sumayya, born upon the bed of Ubayd, the slave of Thaqif, and alleged that he was your father’s son, though the Messenger of God ﷺ said: ‘The child belongs to the bed, and for the fornicator is the stone’?
You abandoned the sunnah of the Messenger of God ﷺ, opposed his command deliberately, and followed your desire falsely without guidance from God. Then you empowered him over the two Iraqs, (Basra and Kufa) and he cut off the hands of Muslims, gouged out their eyes, and crucified them on trunks of palm, as if you are not of the community and it is not of you.
The Messenger of God ﷺ said: ‘Whoever attributes himself to people not his own is cursed.’
Are you not the one concerning the Hadramites, about whom Ibn Sumayya wrote to you that they were upon the religion of Ali? You wrote back to him: ‘Kill whoever is upon the religion of Ali and his view.’ So he killed them and mutilated them by your command. T
he religion of Ali is the religion of Muhammad ﷺ, the very one for which he struck your father, and it is that same religion whose adoption seated you in this place. Were it not for him, your greatest honor would have been the hardship of the two journeys in search of wine.
And you wrote: ‘Look to yourself and your religion and the community, and beware of splitting their unity and returning them to strife.’ I know of no strife upon this community greater than your rule over it. I know of no concern for myself and my religion greater than striving against you. If I do it, it is a means of nearness to my Lord.
If I leave it, it is a sin for which I seek God’s forgiveness, for much of my shortcomings. I ask God to guide me to the most righteous of my affairs.
As for your plotting against me, it will harm none more than yourself- just as your action harmed you with those men whom you killed and mutilated after reconciliation, without them having killed you or broken your covenant, but only for fear of something that, had you not killed them, you would have died before they did it- or they would have died before realizing it.
So rejoice, Mu’awiya, in retribution, and be certain of reckoning. Know that God has a Book that leaves neither small nor great without recording it. God will not forget your taking by suspicion, your killing of His allies on mere doubts and charges, your forcing people to pledge allegiance to your son—a foolish youth who drinks wine and plays with dogs. I do not think you have done anything but ruin yourself, destroy your religion, devour your trust, betray your subjects, and secure for yourself a seat in the Fire. So away with the wrongdoers.”
From this letter we see that al-Husayn (AS) condemned Mu’awiya for the following reasons:
Mu’awiya and his party were oppressors and allies of Shaytan (LA).
The murder of Hujr b. ‘Adi (RA).
The murder of ‘Amr b. al-Hamaq al-Khuzaa’i (RA).
Mu’awiya’s claiming of Ziyad b. Abih (LA) as his bastard brother.
Mu’awiya and Ziyad’s targeting killing of the Shia in Iraq was a serious crime
Mu’awiya’s government was the greatest strife plaguing the ummah.
The appointment of Yazid, a deviant and an open sinner.
He concludes that Mu’awiya was condemned to hellfire.
This all shows how Imam al-Husayn (AS) was not on good terms with Mu'awiyah, but rather despised him and called him out for all these crimes which are well-established facts of Islamic history.
He said: Ali b. Muhammad narrated to us, from Juwayriya b. Asma, from Musafi‘ b. Shayba, who said:
Al-Husayn met Mu‘awiya in Makkah at al-Raddm. He (al-Husayn) took hold of the halter of his camel, so he (Mu‘awiya) made it kneel, and al-Husayn spoke with him at length, then departed.
Mu‘awiya then urged his camel forward, so Yazid said to him: “A man will not cease to come to you, confront you, and make you halt.”
Mu‘awiya replied: “Leave him. Perhaps he will demand it (i.e., his right) from someone other than me who will not allow it, and will kill him.”
If someone were to look at this evidence and say that Husayn (AS) was on good terms with Mu’awiya, then this person is either ignorant, or dishonest. Al-Husyan clearly opposed Mu’awiya’s government, but could not fight him due to lack of support, and Mu’awiya knew this and feared him because he knew he was capable of doing him serious harm if he intended.
Nonetheless, Mu'awiyah never demanded the bay'ah of al-Husayn, unlike Yazid, who was ready to kill him for it. Husayn (AS) also had supporters during the time of Yazid, but as we mentioned, they were killed and persecuted when he arrived to Kufa hence dispersed.
Husayn’s meeting with Mu’awiyah
Imam al-Husayn (AS) had rejected Yazid’s succession since the beginning of its announcement made by Mu’awiya. When Mu’awiya came to Medina to demand the bay’ah of al-Husayn (AS) to Yazid alongside the others that opposed Yazid’s appointment, such as Ibn al-Zubayr, Mu’awiya threatened his life.
If Mu’awiya intended to bring peace and stability to the region, he would not threaten the lives of the companions of the Prophet (SAW) in order to secure Yazid’s caliphate.
We read this narrative in Abu Hilal al-Askari’s al-Awa’il, pg. 235 - 236:
Abu Ahmad narrated to us from Al-Jawhari, from Abu Zayd, from Sa‘id b. ‘Amir, from Juwayriya b. Asma, who said:
And Marwan wrote to Mu’awiya about this, so he proceeded. When he approached Medina, its people came out to meet him, among them Abdullah ibn Umar, Abdullah b. al-Zubayr, Husayn b. Ali, and Abd al-Rahman b. Abi Bakr. When he saw them, he reviled each one individually.
He then entered Medina, and these men departed for Umrah. Afterwards, Mu’awiya went for Hajj, and they received him. When they entered, he welcomed them and treated them kindly. Then one day he sent for them and they said to Ibn al-Zubayr: “You are his companion; speak to him.”
When they entered, he called them to pledge allegiance to Yazid, but they remained silent. He said: “Answer me.”
Ibn al-Zubayr replied: “Choose one of three approaches: either act as the Messenger of God (SAW) did- without appointing a successor; or as Abu Bakr did- considering a man from the notable Quraysh; or as Umar did- forming a shura (council) of six.
(Mu’awiya) said: Do you not know that I have accustomed you to my own self, a practice I dislike preventing, until I make it clear to you? I used to speak and you would intervene and oppose me. Do not return to that. I am now standing and speaking, and no one among you may oppose me, lest I strike his neck.”
Then he appointed two men over each of them and stood up to deliver a sermon, saying: “Abdullah b. Umar, Ibn al-Zubayr, Husayn b. Ali, and Abd al-Rahman b. Abi Bakr have pledged allegiance, so pledge allegiance.”
The people began to pledge one by one, and when they finished, he mounted his camel and proceeded to Syria. The people turned to those four, blaming them, saying: “By God, we did not pledge allegiance, but he did to us what he did.”
This is the meaning (ma’na) of the narration.
The narration is, as Abu Hilal states, a summary of the full narration because he only transmits its meaning and not how it’s exactly like. However, due to this, he ended up missing some important details.
Ahmad b. Yahya al-Shaybani (d. 291) (a reliable scholar of Hadith per Siyar A’lam al-Nubala, vol. 14, pg. 5) records further details in Majalis Tha'lab, Ch. 10, pg. 451 - 453:
Abu al-Abbas (i.e. the author of the book) narrated: Umar ibn Shabbah told me, saying: Sa'id b. 'Amir narrated to me from Juwayriya b. Asma', who said: […]
He turned to Ibn Abi Bakr and reviled him. Ibn Abi Bakr responded: "No welcome to you, nor hospitality." When al-Husayn entered, he said: "No welcome to you, nor hospitality, a sacrificial beast whose blood ripples; by Allah, it shall be spilled." When Ibn al-Zubayr entered, he said: "No welcome to a lizard of the hollow, who tucks his head beneath his tail." When Ibn Umar entered, he said: "No welcome, nor hospitality," and insulted him. Mu’awiyah said: "I am not deserving of these words." He replied: "Indeed, and for a reason that justifies saying it." […]
Then he (Mu'awiyah) said: “Do you not hear? I have accustomed you to a certain way, and I dislike depriving you of it before clarifying. I used to speak and you would object to me and challenge me. Beware that you do not do so again, for I will now stand and speak. If I speak the truth, then the truth is mine. If I lie, then the lie is upon me. By Allah, if any one of you interrupts me in my speech, I shall strike off his head!” Then he ordered that for every man, two men should guard him so that he could not speak.
Then he stood and delivered a sermon, saying: “Indeed, ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUmar, ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Zubayr, al-Husayn ibn Ali, and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Bakr have pledged allegiance. So pledge allegiance (yourselves)!” So the people rushed and pledged allegiance. When he had finished taking the pledge, he mounted his horse and headed toward al-Shām (Syria), leaving them behind. The people then turned on that group (the four mentioned), blaming them. But they replied: “By Allah, we did not pledge allegiance! Rather, he did such and such to us (forcing us).”
At the end, there is censorship as to what was said, but Ibn al-Athir fills in this detail for us in Kamil Fil Tarikh, Vol. 3, pg, 101 - 103:
ثُمَّ رَكِبَ رَوَاحِلَهُ وَانْصَرَفَ إِلَى الْمَدِينَةِ، فَلَقِيَ النَّاسُ أُولَئِكَ النَّفَرَ فَقَالُوا لَهُمْ: زَعَمْتُمْ أَنَّكُمْ لَا تُبَايِعُونَ فَلِمَ؟ أَرَضِيتُمْ وَأَعْطَيْتُمْ وَبَايَعْتُمْ؟ قَالُوا: وَاللَّهِ مَا فَعَلْنَا: فَقَالُوا: مَا مَنَعَكُمْ أَنْ تَرُدُّوا عَلَى الرَّجُلِ؟ قَالُوا: كَادَنَا وَخِفْنَا الْقَتْلَ.
Then Muʿāwiya mounted his ride and departed for Madinah. Later, the people went to those (four) noble men and said: “You claimed you would not pledge allegiance, so why did you? Did you agree, submit, and pledge allegiance?” They replied: “By Allah, we did not!” The people said: “Then what stopped you from opposing the man?” They said: “He deceived us, and we feared being killed.”
Lastly, we read this same story in Tarikh Khalifa b. Khayyat, pg. 132 - 133 where it’s mentioned Juwayra b. Asma narrates his scholars:
He said: “If not, then I wish to inform you that the one who warns has given an excuse. There used to be among you one who would stand and contradict me publicly, and I would bear it and overlook it. But now I shall make a statement: if I speak the truth, it is to my credit; if I lie, it is against me. I swear by God, if anyone among you responds to me with a single word in this gathering, his word will not return to him until his head reaches me first. Let every man beware except upon himself.”
Then he called his chief of guards and said: “Place two of your guards over the head of each of these men. If any one of them attempts to respond to me in this gathering, truthfully or falsely, let them strike him with their swords.” Then he went out, and they went out with him. When he ascended the pulpit, he praised God and glorified Him, then said: “These men are the leaders and the best of the Muslims. We do not take decisions without them, nor do we decide any matter except after their consultation. They have consented and pledged allegiance to Yazid, son of the Commander of the Faithful, after him. So pledge allegiance, in the name of God.” The people struck their hands (in pledge), then he sat in his seat and departed.
The people met them and said: “You claimed and claimed, but when he pleased you and you loved what he said, you acted!” They replied: “By God, we did not do so.” They asked: “Then what prevented you from refuting the man when he lied?” After that, the people of Medina and the rest pledged allegiance, and then he returned to Syria.
According to Farid al-Bahrani, all these chains are deemed as authentic in his Sahih Maqtal al-Husayn, pg. 40.
Even Imam al-Dhahabi affirms this event in his Siyar A’lam al-Nubala Vol. 3, pg. 291 - 292:
وَكَانَ يَقبَلُ جَوَائِزَ مُعَاوِيَةَ، وَمُعَاوِيَةُ يَرَى لَهُ، وَيَحتَرِمُهُ، وَيُجِلُّهُ، فَلَمَّا أَنْ فَعلَ مُعَاوِيَةُ مَا فَعلَ بَعْدَ وَفَاةِ السَّيِّدِ الحَسَنِ مِنَ العَهْدِ بِالخِلاَفَةِ إِلَى وَلَدِهِ يَزِيْدَ، تَأَلَّمَ الحُسَيْنُ، وَحُقَّ لَهُ، وَامتنَعَ هُوَ وَابْنُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ وَابْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ مِنَ المُبَايعَةِ، حَتَّى قَهَرَهُم مُعَاوِيَةُ، وَأَخَذَ بَيْعتَهُم مُكْرَهِيْنَ، وَغُلِبُوا، وَعَجَزُوا عَنْ سُلْطَانِ الوَقْتِ. فَلَمَّا مَاتَ مُعَاوِيَةُ، تَسَلَّمَ الخِلاَفَةَ يَزِيْدُ، وَبَايَعَهُ أَكْثَرُ النَّاسِ، وَلَمْ يُبَايِعْ لَهُ ابْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ وَلاَ الحُسَيْنُ، وَأَنِفُوا مِنْ ذَلِكَ، وَرَامَ كُلُّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا الأَمْرَ لِنَفْسِهِ، وَسَارَا فِي اللَّيْلِ مِنَ المَدِيْنَةِ
He would accept the gifts of Muʿāwiyah, and Muʿāwiyah held him in esteem, honored him, and respected him. Yet when Muʿāwiyah, after the death of al-Hasan, designated the caliphate for his son Yazīd, al-Husayn was deeply grieved and rightly so. Along with Ibn Abi Bakr and Ibn al-Zubayr, he refused to pledge allegiance. Muʿāwiyah, however, subdued them and seized their pledge by compulsion, for they were overpowered and unable to resist the authority of the time. When Muʿāwiyah died, Yazīd assumed the caliphate, and most of the people gave him allegiance. But Ibn al-Zubayr and al-Husayn refused, disdaining such a pledge, each of them desiring the matter for himself. Thus, they departed Medina by night.
What shall we say about Mu’awiyah and his wickedness when he has threatened the companions of the Prophet (SAW), including al-Husayn b. ‘Ali (AS), simply because of the fact that they did not want to accept the appointment of Yazid! Shall we pray for Mu’awiyah’s forgiveness while he threatened the life of the Prophet’s grandson?!
And as we can clearly see, Imam al-Husayn (AS) did not respect neither Mu’awiyah nor Yazid. To the point that Mu’awiyah threatened their lives to remain silent (i.e., they did taqiyya) while Mu’awiyah lied to the public that they gave him bay’ah, while in reality they were forced to remain silent. Therefore, from these sources we can confidently assert to the fact
Did Husayn accept gifts from Mu’awiyah?
Some individuals will try to argue that Husayn (AS) had a positive view of Mu’awiyah because he accepted gifts from him. This was mentioned in Qurb al-Isnad, pg. 92, Hadith # 308 by al-Himyari:
Al-Hasan b. Zurayf, from al-Husayn b. ‘Alwan, from Ja‘far, from his father:
Indeed, al-Hasan and al-Husayn (AS) used to criticize Mu‘awiyah, speak against him, yet accept his gifts.
The narration is muwathaq as al-Husayn b. ‘Alwan is a Sunni but nevertheless trustworthy. The narration, however, clearly does not show an alliance between them, as they are criticising him and speaking badly of him. This of course is not sinful as it reveals the sins of the transgressors and tyrants, which is Amr bil Ma’ruf (enjoining the good). So if anything, this report shows once again how Hasan and Husayn (AS) did not respect Mu’awiyah.
Why did they then accept gifts from him? The term ‘gifts’ is referring to allowances distributed by the ruler from the Islamic treasury. This treasury is entirely entitled to the right of the Imams, and not to the Umayyads even if they believed it was their right. For this reason, Imam al-Rida (AS) when asked about the wealth of the Banū Umayya said in Qutb al-Rwandi’s al-Da’wat, pg. 114:
وسئل الرضا عليه السلام عن مال بني أمية فقال عليه السلام: ولبني أمية مال؟!
Imam al-Riḍā (AS) was asked about the wealth of the Banū Umayya. He replied: “And do Banū Umayya have wealth of their own?!”
The wealth they obtained was not theirs rightfully, but rather belonged to the people, as the Islamic treasury is for the people to benefit off from and the state to distribute; it was an entitlement of the citizens. For this reason, jurists unanimously permitted accepting stipends and gifts from rulers, even if they were tyrants.
For Sunni scholars, this ruling is derived from Sahih al-Bukhari 7164:
I have heard 'Umar saying, "The Prophet (ﷺ) used to give me some money (grant) and I would say (to him), 'Give it to a more needy one than me.' Once he gave me some money and I said, 'Give it to a more needy one than me.' The Prophet (ﷺ) said (to me), 'Take it and keep it in your possession and then give it in charity. Take whatever comes to you of this money while you are not keen to have it and not asking for it; take it, but you should not seek to have what you are not given. ' "
The Prophet (SAW) in this hadith permits taking wealth when it was not sought out by the person, and this ruling was clarified to us by al-Ayni in his Umdat al-Qari, Vol. 9, pg. 68 - 69:
Al-Tabari said that scholars differed regarding the meaning of his words “Take it” after unanimously agreeing that it is a recommendation and guidance. Some said it is a recommendation for anyone who is given a gift to accept it, whether the giver is a ruler or not, righteous or sinful, provided that accepting the gift from them is permissible.
It is narrated from Abu Hurayra that he said: “No one gave me a gift except that I accepted it; as for asking, I did not.” The same is reported from Abu Darda. Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, accepted gifts from Muawiya. Habib ibn Abi Thabit said: “I saw the gifts of Al-Mukhtar coming to Ibn Umar and Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them, and they accepted them.” Uthman ibn Affan, may Allah be pleased with him, accepted the ruler’s gifts of fine venison. Sa’id ibn al-As was sent to Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, with gifts, and he accepted them, saying: “Take what they give you.” Muawiya allowed al-Husayn to receive 400,000.
Abu Ja’far Muhammad ibn Ali ibn al-Husayn was asked about accepting gifts from the ruler. He said: “If you know that it is from usurped or unlawful wealth, do not accept it; if you do not know, accept it.” He then mentioned the story of Barira, saying: “The lawgiver says it is a gift for us. What is sinful is upon them, and what is lawful is for you.” Alqama, Al-Aswad, Al-Nakha’i, Al-Hasan, and Al-Sha’bi accepted such gifts. [...]
Al-Tabari said: The correct view, in my opinion, is that it is a recommendation from him to accept the gift of any giver, whether a ruler or not, according to the hadith of Umar, may Allah be pleased with him. He recommended accepting all that Allah grants in wealth from all sources without specification, except for what is explicitly forbidden and known to be unlawful.
Al-Ayni essentially explains that taking gifts from transgressors, so long as it is not proven that the wealth itself is haram (i.e. like usurped), then it's permissible to take it. Imam al-Husayn (AS) did not receive evidence to suggest Mu’awiyah’s particular gifts that he gave him were from an usurped source, hence it was permitted for him to take these gifts. This was the viewpoint of the Sahaba and the Ahl al-Bayt (AS), and al-’Ayni cites his sources even from Imam al-Baqir (AS) himself.
Ibn Umar taking gifts from Mukhtar was recorded in al-Fasawi’s al-Ma’rifa wal-Tarikh, vol. 2, pg. 771 - 772 with multiple chains.
In a similar way, al-Jassas states in Ahkam al-Qur’an, vol. 1, pg. 88:
Al Hasan, Sa‘id b. Jubayr, al Sha‘bi, and the rest of the Tabi‘in used to take their stipends from the hands of these tyrants, not because they held loyalty to them or recognized their authority, but rather because they considered it to be their rightful due in the hands of wicked men.
How could that possibly mean allegiance to them, when they struck al Hajjaj with the sword, and four thousand men from among the Qurra, the best of the Tabi‘in and their jurists, rose against him, fighting him with Abd al Rahman b. Muhammad b. al Ash‘ath in Ahwaz, then in Basra, then at Dayr al Jumajum near Kufa on the banks of the Euphrates, while they had denounced Abd al Malik b. Marwan, cursed him, and disassociated themselves from him?
The same was the case with those before them with Mu‘awiya when he seized power after the killing of Ali (as). Both al Hasan and al Husayn used to receive stipends, as did others from the Companions of that era, yet they were not supporters of him but rather disavowed him, just as Ali (as) himself had done until God took him to His Paradise and good pleasure.
Therefore, neither the acceptance of judicial appointments from them nor the taking of stipends indicates loyalty to them or recognition of their leadership.
For this reason, Imam al-Sadiq (as) says its permissible to take the gifts from a (corrupt) ruler, and the sins remain upon the giver and not the receiver; Man La Yahdhural Faqih, Vol. 3, Hadith # 97:
I said to Abu Abdullah, 'What do you think about a man who holds positions in the service of the Sultan and has no means of livelihood except through his work for them? I pass by him, and he hosts me, treats me kindly, and sometimes gives me dirhams and clothing. I feel uneasy about this.' Imam said to me: 'Take it and eat from it, for the benefit is yours, and the sin is upon him.'
The chain was authenticated by Asif al-Muhseni in his Buhuth Fi Ilm al-Rijal.
Thus, when Imam al-Baqir (AS) narrated this original tradition in Qurb al-Isnad, it was for the sake of highlighting this fiqh ruling. What reached Hasan and Husayn was their right, as these were the wealth of the Muslims, not personal property of the usurpers.
However, despite the legal permissibility of accepting such gifts, the Imams al-Hasan and al-Husayn (AS) did not use them for their own benefit. They did not spend even the smallest portion on themselves or their families. Rather, they would take these funds as a way of rescuing them from the ruler’s hand and would then distribute them to the needy.
Al-Shaykh Muhammad Sanqur (may God preserve him) states regarding this issue:
In conclusion, criticizing a tyrannical ruler is part of enjoining good and forbidding evil. As for accepting his gifts, it is legally permissible, since the wealth in his possession is in reality the wealth of the Muslim community, not his own. The purport of the narration in Qurb al-Isnād is that although Imams al-Hasan and al-Husayn (AS) regarded Mu‘āwiya as a tyrant, this did not prevent them from accepting his grants. The narration establishes the principle that it is permissible to accept the gifts of unjust rulers, and the proof lies in the practice of the two Imams (AS), whose actions are authoritative, for they are infallible and do nothing except what is lawful. [Source]
« Previous Part: What was Husayn's goal? »
« Next Part: Vices of Yazid »
Comments