Karbala Series Part 2: Was Husayn upon falsehood?
- Anonymous
- Oct 12
- 31 min read
Updated: Oct 18
« Previous Part: Why is Karbala Important? »
« Next Part: What was Husayn's goal? »
بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ
Sunni scholarship has historically framed Karbala in a negative light interpreting it as an act of rebellion that brought harm to the Muslim ummah. Al-Husayn’s story in their eyes is an example of evil that occurs by standing against a ruler rather than an example of a stand against oppression and injustice.
This is because for them, the political legitimacy of the ruling authority, no matter how unjust, was to be obeyed and preserved, and rebellion against any ruler was seen as a source of fitna. In this article, we will explore these claims by first presenting them, and then go on to refute them.
Status of Husayn in Sunnnism
This Sunni perspective is derived from many Hadith’s they’ve fabricated on Rasulullah (SAW) such as in Sahih Muslim 1852:
Anyone who tries to disrupt the affairs of this Umma while they are united you should strike him with the sword whoever he be.
Another fabricated Hadith which proves the permissibility in killing al-Husayn (AS) is in Sahih Muslim 1853:
When oath of allegiance has been taken for two caliphs, kill the one for whom the oath was taken later.
Scholars who agree with this point include Ahmad b. Hanbal who is recorded to say in Sharh Usul al-Sunnah of Ahmad b. Hanbal, pg. 100 - 102 by Ibn Jibrin:
[Ahmad b. Hanbal said:] Whoever rises against an imam from among the leaders of the Muslims, after they have come together upon him and acknowledged his caliphate by any means, whether by consent or by force, then this rebel has broken the unity of the Muslims and opposed the traditions of the Messenger of God (SAW) and if the rebel dies in that state, he dies a death of jahiliyya. It is not permissible for anyone among the people to fight the ruler or to rise against him; whoever does so is an innovator, outside the Sunnah and the right path.
[Commentary by author:] Rebelling against the imams brings about many grave harms: it produces trials, killing, and persecution of the people of goodness, and it results in the humiliation of the people of religion, the people of faith, the people of knowledge, and the people of righteous deeds.
In any case, it is not permissible to revolt against the imams because of the humiliation and disgrace that ensues for the people of goodness. It is known that the imams hold authority and the like, so obedience to them is obligatory except in what the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “except that you see manifest disbelief in which there is a clear proof from God.” And when it was asked, “Shall we fight them?” he said, “No, so long as they establish the prayer among you.” As long as they establish the prayer and manifest the rites of Islam, then even if a defect or shortcoming is observed in some of them, or some sins or shortcomings are noticed, that does not justify rebelling against them.
We further read in Sharh al-Tahawiyyah, pg. 371 - 374 by Ibn Abi al-’Izz al-Hanafi:
We do not consider rebellion against our Imams, our rulers, even if they act unjustly, nor do we pray against them, nor do we withhold a hand from obeying them. We view their obedience as part of obedience to Allah, as long as they do not command disobedience, and we pray for their guidance and well-being.
As for the necessity of obeying them even if they act unjustly, it is because the corruption that results from rebelling against them is many times greater than the harm caused by their injustice. Rather, enduring their injustice serves as expiation for sins and a cause for multiplied rewards. For indeed, Allah, exalted is He, has not given them authority over us except due to the corruption of our own deeds and recompense is of the same nature as one’s actions. Therefore, we must strive in seeking forgiveness, repentance, and reforming our conduct. Allah says: {And whatever affliction strikes you, it is because of what your hands have earned, and He pardons much}, and He says: {And when a misfortune strikes you, and you have struck similarly, you say, “How is this?” Say, “It is from yourselves”}, and He says: {Whatever good befalls you is from Allah, and whatever evil befalls you is from yourselves}, and He says: {Thus We give some of the wrongdoers power over others because of what they used to earn}. So, if the subjects wish to rid themselves of the injustice of a tyrannical ruler, they should abandon wrongdoing themselves.
Imam al-Nawawi claims consensus for these views in his Sharh Sahih Muslim Vol. 12, pg 229:
As for rebelling against them and fighting them, it is forbidden by the consensus of the Muslims, even if they are sinful wrongdoers. The hadiths clearly support this meaning, and the Sunni scholars agree that authority is not nullified by sin.
[Qadhi ‘Ayyadh says:] The majority of Sunni jurists, hadith scholars, and theologians hold that authority is not nullified by sin, injustice, or violation of rights, nor should the ruler be deposed, nor is rebellion against him permissible on that basis. Rather, it is obligatory to advise him and warn him, according to the relevant hadiths. The judge said that Abu Bakr ibn Mujahid claimed this consensus.
Abu Bakr al-Baqilani writes in his Al-Tamhid, pg. 486:
If someone asks, “What necessitates the Imam’s dismissal according to you?” it is said: this occurs in matters such as apostasy after faith, abandoning the establishment of prayer and the call to it, and among many people, his immorality and oppression, seizing wealth, striking others, violating protected lives, neglecting rights, and suspending legal limits.
The majority of the people of affirmation and the scholars of hadith said: A ruler does not lose his authority because of such matters, nor is it obligatory to revolt against him. Rather, he must be advised, admonished, and disobeyed only in whatever he calls toward of disobedience to Allah.
They support this with numerous clear reports from the Prophet ﷺ and his companions on the obligation to obey the Imams, even if they act unjustly or monopolize wealth. It is narrated that he ﷺ said: “Listen and obey, even if it is a slave of great stature or a slave of Abyssinian origin; pray behind every righteous or wicked person.” And it is narrated that he said: “Obey them even if they consume your wealth and strike your back, as long as they establish prayer,” in numerous reports.
It is clear therefore that both the Asha’ira and the Athariyyah have consensus on the fact that rebelling or going against the ruler is impermissible, as it opens the doorway of fitna and bloodshed. For this reason, someone should practice patience and endure the oppression they face under a tyrannical leader.
Scholarly Appraisals of al-Husayn
From the Sunni perspective, al-Husayn’s rise against Banu Umayyah fundamentally contradicts their creed as they do not believe in rising against the ruler even if he is a tyrant. It follows then that the killing of the Grandson of Rasulullah (SAW) was a justified act and he is to be blamed for his own actions.
This viewpoint has been loudly expressed by a number of Sunni scholars such as Ibn Taymiyyah in his Minhaj al-Sunnah Vol. 4, pg. 530 - 531:
It became clear that the matter was as those people had said: in the uprising there was neither benefit for religion nor for worldly affairs. Rather, those tyrannical oppressors were able to overpower the grandson of the Messenger of God (SAW) until they killed him wrongfully as a martyr. In his uprising and his killing there occurred corruption that would not have taken place had he remained in his own land. What he sought in attaining good and repelling evil was not realized.
Instead, evil increased through his uprising and killing, and good was diminished thereby, and that became a cause for great evil. The killing of al-Husayn was one of the events that stirred up discord, just as the killing of Uthman had stirred up discord.
All of this demonstrates that what the Prophet (SAW) commanded—patience in the face of the tyranny of rulers, refraining from fighting them, rising against them, or breaking allegiance to them—was the most beneficial matter for people in their religious and worldly lives. Whoever deliberately or mistakenly opposes this gains no rectification through his action, but rather corruption.
For this reason, the Prophet praised al-Hasan by saying: “This son of mine is a chief, and through him Allah will reconcile two great factions among the Muslims.” He did not praise anyone for fighting in tribulation, nor for rising against rulers, nor for breaking allegiance, nor for separating from the community.
For Ibn Taymiyyah, the uprising of Imam al-Husayn (AS) spread nothing but evil in the lands, and had the Imam followed what he claims were the Prophet’s (SAW) commands not to rebel against the ruler, instead of “loosing patience”, it would have spared the Ummah from the tribulations and fitna Imam al-Husayn (AS) caused. This is a common opinion amongst Sunni scholars, that Husayn (AS)’s uprising was pointless and a source of fitna.
Ibn Khaldun in his Muqadimat Ibn Khaldun pg. 270 also says:
فَقَدْ تَبَيَّنَ لَكَ غَلَطُ الْحُسَيْنِ إِلَّا أَنَّهُ في أَمْر دُنْيَوِي لَا يُضِرُّهُ الْغَلَطُ فِيهِ
It has thus become clear to you that al-Husayn was mistaken, except that it was in a worldly matter in which a mistake does not harm him.
The scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah have therefore portrayed Yazid as justified and the Imam as culpable. They have no problem blaming Imam al-Husayn (AS) for his own death, it was his fault that he was killed! He should have remained at home and not shown any resistance by fighting against the tyrant Yazid, hence he was the one who erred by trying to rise up.
Their scholars are so brazen in their words about Yazid that Ibn al-’Arabi al-Maliki used to say the following recorded by al-Alusi in his Ruh al-Ma'ani, vol. 13, pg. 228:
وأبو بكر بن العربي المالكي عليه من الله تعالى ما يستحق أعظم الفرية فزعم أن الحسين قتل بسيف جده وله من الجهلة موافقون على ذلك كبرت كلمة تخرج من أفواههم إن يقولون إلا كذبا [الكهف: 5].
Abu Bakr b. al-Arabi al-Maliki has upon him from Allah what he truly deserves as the greatest slander, for he claimed that Husayn was killed by the sword of his grandfather, and among the ignorant there are those who agree with that. “Great is the word that comes out of their mouths; they say nothing but lies” [Al-Kahf: 5].
This statement of Ibn al-’Arabi is outrageous, for he asserts that Husayn (AS) opposed the ideology of his grandfather and was therefore killed in a rightful way. This was explained by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami in al-Manar al-Makkiyah, pg. 519:
And as for Ibn al-‘Arabi al-Maliki, it is reported from him that which makes the skin crawl. He said: Yazid did not kill Husayn except with the sword of his grandfather- meaning, according to his false belief that he was the rightful caliph and that Husayn was rebelling against him, and that Yazid’s bay‘a preceded.
Al-Shawkani also mentions this in Faydh al-Qadir Vol. 1, pg. 265:
وقد غلب على ابن العربي الغض من أهل البيت حتى قال : قتله بسيف جده
Ibn al-‘Arabī was so overtaken by his hatred towards the Ahl al-Bayt that he said: “He (Husayn) was killed by the sword of his grandfather.”
Yazid was a ‘legitimate caliph’ and so Husayn’s opposition to him was the fault of the Imam himself, and so his killing and death was the fault of himself. How will these people face Allah on the day of judgement saying such absurdities?
Ibn al-Qayyim’s statement is perhaps the most outrageous of them all, for he states the following in Al-Manar al-Manif, pg. 151:
The third statement is: He (al-Mahdi) is a man from the family of the Prophet, from the descendants of Hasan b. ‘Ali, who will appear at the end of times, when the earth is filled with oppression and injustice, and he will fill it with equity and justice. Most of the narrations indicate this.
Regarding his being from the descendants of Hasan, there is a subtle wisdom:
Hasan abandoned the caliphate, so God appointed from his offspring someone to uphold the true caliphate, encompassing the justice that will fill the earth. This is God’s law among His servants: whoever relinquishes something for His sake, God grants him—or grants his descendants—something better.
This differs from Husayn for he was eager for it (i.e. power) and fought over it, yet did not attain it, and God knows best.
When people abandon something for the sake of Allah (SWT), He grants them something greater than what they relinquished. But Imam al-Husayn (AS)? He sought the caliphate and power for himself, did not relinquish it for the sake of Allah, and in the end, did not attain what he sought.
For this reason, Imam al-Mahdi (AS) will not emerge from his lineage, unlike al-Hasan (AS), who relinquished worldly authority for the sake of Allah and established peace within the Ummah, for which Allah blessed him. Al-Husayn brought about fitna, tried to cause division in the Ummah by seeking power.
Subhan’Allah, are these the great scholars that people look up to? The ones that degrade the grandson of the Holy Prophet (SAW)? So what about Mu’awiyah and Ashab al-Jamal? Why does Ibn al-Jawzi not say the same thing about them while they sought power and shed blood for it?
Ibn Hajar al-Haythami himself in the quote before is distraught at such a view that the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah had about the death of Imam al-Husayn (AS), but why should he be?
It is a well established position amongst Sunnis that the caliphate of Yazid was a legitimate one. Even the likes of Farid al-Bahrani concurred with this view in his Sahih Maqtal al-Husayn pg. 33:
As for the pledges of allegiance for Yazid, it is correct according to Islamic law because the people have pledged it, and it isn't a condition that all the leaders of the community need to pledge, and this is the opinion of the majority of the scholars to make such.
Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin al-Zamil, teacher and lecturer at Mecca & Medina, says there is agreement that al-Husayn (AS) erred in his uprising against Yazid:
Shaykh Uthman al-Khamis claims that Husayn (AS) should not have risen against Yazid and his act was contrary to the shari’a, can not be used as evidence for uprising as al-Husayn's actions were not praiseworthy and contrary to the shari'a:
Shaykh Abdul-Aziz Aale Shaykh, who was the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia that has recently passed away, says that Husayn (AS) made a mistake and should’ve pledged to Yazid:
Al-Shaykh Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut goes as far to say that he would have joined Ibn Sa'ad if he lived in the time of Imam al-Husayn (AS):
At the end of day, for Sunnis, Karbala is just like any other issue in early Islamic history, like Maqtal of Uthman, Battle of Jamal, Battle of Siffen and their likes. Their instructions are: do not discuss them. This stance was so severe that al-Ghazali even issued a fatwa to prohibit people from talking about Karbala.
This was quoted by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami in his Sawa’iq al-Muhriqa, vol. 1, pg. 640:
Al-Ghazali and others have said that it is prohibited for a preacher or anyone else to narrate the killing of Al-Hussein and his stories, as well as what happened between the companions in terms of arguments and disputes. This is because it can provoke some people to attack and criticize some of the companions, who are the pillars of religion. The Imams, who are the authorities of religion, received narrations from them, and we have received them from the Imams with knowledge. Therefore, anyone who criticizes them is actually criticizing himself and his own religion.
This is the Sunni view of Karbala, a tragedy Imam Husayn (AS) brought upon himself due to his unwillingness to obey the ruler as per the commands of the shari’a, therefore we should remain quiet about it and do our best to erase it from history.
When you ask yourself why we commemorate Karbala every year, just remember that if it were not for this commemoration, it would have been erased from history to the extent that no one would know of it. But Allah (SWT) is far too Just and Honourable to allow such oppression to befall one of his most beloved servants, only for it to be forgotten without meaning.
Hypocrisy of Ahl al-Sunnah
Sunnis are quick to accuse rebellions against the caliphs as inciting fitna, such as with the case of Ibn al-Ash’ath against Hajjaj b. Yusuf al-Thaqafi (LA), or with Marwan b. al-Hakam against Abdullah b. Zubayr, and so-on. The same goes for al-Husayn b. ‘Ali (AS), since Yazid was the caliph, he should’ve endorsed this and advised Yazid about his corruption and not rebelled against him.
However, the hypocrisy behind these statements is that they will never be attributed to A’isha in the Battle of Jamal or Mu’awiyah in the Battle of Siffen. What’s shocking is that this double standard is not even due to being a companion, for Husayn was a companion of Rasulullah (SAW) as well, yet he is not given the same excuses that A’isha and Mu’awiyah are with their rebellion against Ali (AS). The hypocrisy of Sunnis in regards to Ahl al-Bayt (AS) always ceases to amaze us.
These companions dragged tens of thousands of Muslims to war and spread so much fitna in the lands, yet they are justified and excused for their actions. However, when Husayn (AS) dragged only himself and his close ones towards martyrdom, in line with the commandments of the Qur’an, he was somehow labelled as a rebel and attacked for his stand.
The nawasib will try to justify this double standard by claiming there was ijma on Yazid, while there was no ijma on Ali (AS). There is no greater lie than this statement. We will later on present decisive evidence for how little to no-one agreed to the caliphate of Yazid b. Mu’awiyah, but as for Ali (AS), his caliphate had more than the majority of the companions.
This was confirmed in Tarikh Khalifa b. Khayyat, pg. 118:
It was narrated by Abu Ghassan who said: ʽAbd al-Salām b. Harb narrated to us, from Yazīd b. ʽAbd al-Raḥmān, from Jaʽfar – I think he is Ibn Abī al-Mughīrah – from ʽAbd Allāh b. ʽAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abzā, from his father, who said:
“We were with ʽAlī, eight hundred of those who had pledged the pledge of al-Riḍwān, and sixty-three of them were killed from among us, among them ʽAmmār b. Yāsir.”
Proof Husayn was upon Truth
As we have seen, Sunnis try to discredit al-Husayn (AS)’s stand by claiming he was mistaken. Their main argument is that al-Husayn (AS) caused fitna and violated Islamic law by going against the caliph of his time. We will show four different proofs that illustrate that al-Husayn (AS) was in fact upon the truth and then end off with Husayn’s own testimony that he believed he was upon the truth.
Uprising against Tyrants in the Qur’an
The Sunnis have reached consensus that the caliph cannot be dismissed and removed from office, even if he is corrupt and perverted. Therefore, they say it is not permissible to revolt against him. The only thing Muslims can do is to advise him to change his corrupt ways.
In contrast, the Imamate Shi‘ahs not only regard obeying a tyrannical and corrupt ruler not to be incumbent, but consider it to be forbidden by the Islamic law to submit to such a leader, and in certain circumstances, it is even obligatory to rise up against a tyrannical ruler.
This was explained to us by al-Muhaqiq al-’Ardabili in Zubdat al-Bayan pg. 861 - 862, discussing the verse 4:59:
Regarding those in authority, scholars and jurists differ- some interpret it as referring to the leaders of the Muslims and rulers, even if they are unjust. This is the view prevalent among the Sunni scholars: they mandate obedience to tyrannical rulers even if they are sinful and unjust, even if they are extremely wicked and corrupt. They do not require anything beyond Islam, as obedience to Allah and His Messenger is also obligatory.
And herein lies a clear point, and its corruption is evident: how can Allah command obedience to the sinful and equate their obedience with obedience to Him and His Messenger, when He first commanded the fulfillment of trusts, judgment with justice, and complete distinction between them and Allah and His Messenger?
He forbade listening to the report of the wicked by His words, "If a sinner comes to you with news," and obligated their emigration in the verses, narrations, and by consensus. He threatened the oppressor with the Fire of Hell, severely censured them, so that scarcely any page of the Noble Qur’an is free of such mention. He intensified this to the extent of stating that even slight inclination toward them incurs the Fire: "Do not incline toward those who do wrong, lest the Fire touch you."
Since tyrannical rulers are numerous and may differ in their actions, following any of them becomes questionable, especially since it is incumbent upon the subjects to prevent them from committing wrongdoing and abandoning right, in accordance with the command to enjoin good and forbid evil. How, then, could following them be obligatory?
Furthermore, whatever they command, if it is a matter that should be commanded, it is not exclusive to them; otherwise, obedience would not be required, which is evident. In summary, the corruption of this position is clearer than can be fully stated.
Al-Ardabili (RH) summarises these points perfectly; how can obedience to a corrupt person be enjoined when the Qur’an clearly condemns following wicked sinners? And if obedience to a corrupt person is referring to obedience of commands of the shari’a, then this applies to any human being. Hence by that logic, we should obey all muslims, for what they command by the shari’a, so what is unique about saying ‘obey the tyrannical rulers’?
The Qur’an in numerous passages clearly condemns following the ways of tyrants:
﴿ وَلاَ تُطِيعُوا أَمْرَ المُسرِفِينَ الَّذِينَ يفْسِدُونَ فِي الأَرْضِ وَلاَ يُصْلِحُونَ ﴾
And do not obey the order of the transgressors, who causes corruption in the land and do not amend. [26:151-152]
﴿ فَاصْبِر لِحُكمِ رَبِّك وَلاَ تُطِعْ مِنْهُمْ آثمِاً أَوْ كفُوراً ﴾
So be patient for the decision of your Lord and do not obey from among them a sinner or ungrateful [disbeliever]. [76:24]
﴿ وَلا تُطِعْ مَنْ أَغْفَلْنَا قَلْبَهُ عَنْ ذِكرِنَا وَاتَّبَعَ هَوَاهُ وَكانَ أَمْرُهُ فُرُطاًَ ﴾
…And do not obey one whose heart We have made heedless of Our remembrance and who follows his desire and whose affair is ever [in] neglect. [18:28]
﴿ وَلاَ تُطِعْ كلَّ حَلّاَّفٍ مَهِينٍ ﴾
And do not obey every worthless habitual swearer. [68:10]
﴿ وَلاَ تُطِعِ الكافِرِينَ وَالمُنَافِقِينَ ﴾
And do not obey the disbelievers and the hypocrites… [33:48]
So the Qur’an clearly highlights its objection to the Sunni creed, in which they demand obedience even to tyrannical leaders, while it calls for disobedience for sinners and evil rulers. On the contrary, the Qur’an describes some of the people of Hell-fire as those who claimed to obey their corrupt rulers:
﴿يومَ تُقَلَّبُ وُجُوهُهُمْ فِي النَّارِ يقُولُونَ يا لَيْتَنَا أَطَعْنَا اللهِ وَأَطَعْنَا الرَّسُولا وَقَالُوا رَبَّنَا إِنَّا أَطَعْنَا سَادَتَنَا وَكبَرَاءَنَا فَأَضَلُّونَا السَّبِيلا رَبَّنَا آتِهِمْ ضِعْفَيْنِ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ وَالْعَنْهُمْ لَعْناً كبِيراً ﴾
The Day their faces will be turned about in the Fire, they will say, "How we wish we had obeyed Allah and obeyed the Messenger." And they will say, "Our Lord, indeed we obeyed our masters and our dignitaries, and they led us astray from the [right] way. [33:66-7]
So the Hadiths that Sunnis bring to discredit Husayn’s revolt are in clear violation of the Qur’an. As for al-Husayn (AS)’s stand against Yazid, this was in line with the teachings of the Holy Qur’an & the Prophet (SAW) for he was doing Amr bi’l Ma’ruf wa-Nahi ‘an al-Munkar (enjoining the good & forbidding the evil).
The Qur’an repeatedly praises this act, and so permits al-Husayn (AS)’s uprises, for it states:
فَلْيُقَاتِلْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يَشْرُونَ الْحَيَاةَ الدُّنْيَا بِالْآخِرَةِ ۚوَمَن يُقَاتِلْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَيُقْتَلْ أَوْ يَغْلِبْ فَسَوْفَ نُؤْتِيهِ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا وَمَا لَكُمْ لَا تُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَالْمُسْتَضْعَفِينَ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ وَالنِّسَاءِ وَالْوِلْدَانِ الَّذِينَ يَقُولُونَ رَبَّنَا أَخْرِجْنَا مِنْ هَٰذِهِ الْقَرْيَةِ الظَّالِمِ أَهْلُهَا وَاجْعَل لَّنَا مِن لَّدُنكَ وَلِيًّا وَاجْعَل لَّنَا مِن لَّدُنكَ نَصِيرًا
So let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. And he who fights in the cause of Allah and is killed or achieves victory - We will bestow upon him a great reward. And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, "Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?" [4:74-75]
This was even al-Husayn’s own explanation that he offered in Tarikh al-Tabari Vol. 19, pg. 95 - 96:
Al-Husayn preached to his followers and the followers of al-Hurr at al-Bidah. After praising and glorifying God, he said:
"People, the Apostle of God said: 'When anyone sees the authorities make permissible what God had forbidden, violating God's covenant, and opposing the Sunnah of the Apostle of God by acting against the servants of God sinfully and with hostility, when anyone sees all these incidents and does not upbraid them by deed or by word, it is God's decree to make that person subject to fortune.'
Indeed, these authorities have cleaved to obedience to Satan and have abandoned obedience to the Merciful, they have made corruption visible; they have neglected the punishment (hudüd) laid down by God, they have appropriated the fay' exclusively to themselves; they have permitted what God has forbidden, and they have for-bidden what He has permitted. I have the right to change more than anyone else.
In a letter he wrote to Amr b. Sa’id in Tabaqat Ibn Sa'ad Vol. 6, pg. 426 - 427:
Amr ibn Sa’id ibn al-‘As wrote to him: "I ask Allah to grant you guidance and to avert you from that which would bring you harm. I have heard that you intend to go to Iraq, and I seek Allah’s protection for you from discord. If you are fearful, come to me; with me you will find safety, kindness, and maintained ties."
Husayn wrote back to him: "If your letter was intended to maintain my welfare and our ties, may you be rewarded in this world and the Hereafter. Indeed, one does not fall into discord who calls to Allah and acts righteously. I am among the Muslims, and the best security is the security granted by Allah. Whoever does not fear Allah in this world is not truly secure. We ask Allah for a fear in this world that will grant us safety in the Hereafter with Him."
In another report from Hilyat al-Awliya Vol. 1, pg. 509, he says:
As was related from Husayn b. Ali, expressing his weariness with life among those who oppose their way, it is narrated by Sulayman b. Ahmad, who said: Ali b. Abd al-Aziz narrated to us, who said: al-Zubayr b. Bakkar narrated to us, who said: Muhammad b. al-Hasan told me:
When the people encamped against Husayn and he was certain that they would kill him, he stood among his companions delivering a sermon. He praised Allah and glorified Him, then said:
“The matter has come to what you see. The world has changed and turned away, its goodness has withdrawn and departed, so that nothing remains of it except the dregs of a vessel, nothing but a base life like a barren pasture. Do you not see that the truth is not acted upon, and falsehood is not restrained? Let the believer then desire to meet Allah. Indeed, I see death as nothing but happiness, and life with the oppressors as nothing but a burden.”
It is clear his intentions once again is Amr bi’l Ma’ruf and not creating discord.
The Prophet’s support for al-Husayn
If someone were to say: Al-Husayn (AS) committed a mistake and so no one should join him, for he was upon falsehood. Then the answer is: If that were to be the case, then why did the Prophet (SAW) support his uprising, would he ever support falsehood?
As for the evidence for this, numerous reports highlight this. For example, we read in Tafsir al-Tha'labi Vol. 5, pg. 310 - 312 with a Hasan (reliable) chain;
Abu Muhammad al-Mukhaldi narrated to us, who said: Abu Imran al-Juwayni narrated to me, who said: Muhammad b. Abd al-Rahman al-Mustalimi narrated to us, who said: Abdullah b. al-Rabi‘ narrated to us, who said: Hakim b. Zayd narrated to us, from Ibrahim al-Sa’igh, from Ata b. Abi Rabah, from Jabir b. Abdullah, who said:
The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said "The master of martyrs on the Day of Resurrection is Hamza b. Abd al-Muttalib, and a man who rose up to a tyrannical ruler, enjoined him [to good] and forbade him [from evil], and so he killed him.”
The report was also reported in:
Tarikh Baghdad Vol. 7, pg. 406 with a Hasan chain.
Kitab al-Mihan, pg. 128 by Abu ‘Arab al-Tamimi.
Mustadrak ‘ala al-Sahihayn Vol. 3, pg. 215, where al-Dhahabi weakens one of the narrators. (Note: the other chains above do not contain this narrator).
Here the Prophet (SAW) says al-Husayn (AS) was practicing Amr bi’l Ma’ruf, but the tyrant of his time (Yazid) refused to listen to it and for that reason was killed.
In another report from Tarikh Dimashq, vol. 14, pg. 223 by Ibn Asakir, we read:
Anas Ibn al-Harith said, 'I heard Rasulullah (s) say, "Verily my son - meaning al-Hussain - will be killed in a land called Karbala, whoever amongst you is alive at that time must go and help him”'.
For this reason, Anas b. al-Harith ends up joining al-Husayn (AS) as al-Bukhari notes in Tarikh al-Kabir, Vol. 2, pg. 124.
Note: Al-Bukhari tries to discredit Sa’id b. Abd al-Malik, but he only mentions that there is disagreement upon him, and scholars like Ibn Hibban authenticate him in their Kitab al-Thiqat. His report is accepted because it corroborates with the historical fact that Anas b. al-Harith (RA) was at Karbala, and nothing contradicts this narrative.
Ibn al-Shajari also records in his Amali Vol. 1, pg. 240:
Mūsā b. Ibrāhīm al-Marwazī al-Aʿwar said: Mūsā b. Jaʿfar (al-Kadhim) related to me from Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad (al-Sadiq), from his father Muḥammad b. ʿAlī (al-Baqir), from his father ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn, from his father, from ʿAlī (as), who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
“My son al-Ḥusayn will be killed at the outskirts of Kūfa. Woe to his killer, his abandoner, and the one who abandons his support.”
As we saw earlier, the Prophet told Umm Salamah (SA) that al-Husayn (AS) will be killed, and so she was informed about who was in truth between Husayn & his killers. We find that her reaction is as follows in Kitab al-Mihan pg. 138:
Yahya narrated to me, from his father, from his grandfather, from Qurra b. Khalid, from Amir b. Abd al-Wahid, from Shahr b. Hawshab, who said:
While we were with Umm Salama, the Mother of the Believers, a woman entered crying out loudly. She said, “Al-Husayn has been killed.” Umm Salama said, “They have done it! O Allah, fill their houses and their graves with fire.” Then she fell unconscious.
After Karbala unfolded, Ibn Abbas had a dream which has the Prophet (SAW) crying over al-Husayn (AS), and this is evidence for the Prophet’s support for al-Husayn for he would not be carrying his blood and mourning him, unless he believed he was oppressed. This report has been transmitted in Musnad Ahmad b. Hanbal. Vol. 4, pg. 59 - 60, Hadith # 2165:
‘Abd al-Rahman narrated to us, Hammad b. Salamah narrated to us, from ‘Ammar b. Abi ‘Ammar, from Ibn ‘Abbas, who said:
“I saw the Prophet ﷺ in a dream at midday, disheveled and covered in dust. In his hand was a vial filled with blood which he was collecting, or into which he was gathering something. I said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, what is this?’ He replied: ‘This is the blood of Husayn and his companions. I have been collecting it since this very day.’” ‘Ammar said: “We remembered that day, and we found it to be exactly the same day (as the martyrdom of Husayn).”
This was also recorded in:
Tabarani's al-Mu’jam al-Kabir Vol 2, pg. 235, Hadith # 2753,
It was certified by al-Haythami in Majma’ al-Zawa’id Vol 9, pg. 225 - 226, Hadith # 15141.
It's also al-Mustadrak ala al-Sahihain. Vol. 4, pg. 439 - 440, Hadith # 8201, where both al-Hakim and al-Dhahabi both agreed the report is authentic.
Allah’s vengeance for al-Husayn
The fact that Allah (SWT) caused miracles to appear after the martyrdom of al-Husayn (AS), as we mentioned earlier and it is mutawatir, clearly shows Allah’s (SWT) disapproval of the killing of al-Husayn (AS).
In addition, there are even authentic reports found in Sunni sources which explicitly say that Allah will avenge the blood of al-Husayn. It is impossible for Allah to take vengeance on behalf of someone unless that person was wronged, for if Husayn had been killed justly, then for God to punish his killers would be an act of injustice, and Allah is far above injustice.
Al-Hakim recorded several chains for this Hadith in his Mustadrak ‘ala al-Sahihayn Vol. 3, pg. 195 - 196, Hadith. # 4822 and al-Dhahabi authenticates it:
And Ahmad b. Kamil al-Qadi narrated to us, Abdullah b. Ibrahim al-Bazzar narrated to us, Kathir b. Muhammad Abu Anas al-Kufi narrated to us, Abu Nu‘aym narrated to us, Abdullah b. Habib b. Abi Thabit, from his father, from Sa‘id b. Jubayr, from Ibn Abbas (RA), who said:
Allah, the Exalted, revealed to Muhammad ﷺ: “I killed, for the blood of Yahya b. Zakariya, seventy thousand, and I shall kill, for the blood of your daughter’s son, seventy thousand and seventy thousand.”
Note: This is not the only chain that al-Hakim provides, he gives 5 different chains back to Abu Nu’aym. Some may take issue with Habib b. Abi Thabit in the chain as he is recorded as being a mudalis, but Dr. Abdullah b. Abdul-Rahman al-Si’ad refutes this matter in his Minhaj al-Mutaqadamin Fi al-Tadlis, pg. 123 - 126:
"Abū Bakr ibn ʿAyyāsh reported from al-Aʿmash that he (Habib) used to say: If a man narrated to me from you, I would not mind attributing it to you - meaning that he would omit the intermediary."
There are a few points to mention [regarding Habib]:
First: Those who described him with tadlis did not mention that he did it much; rather, in Ibn Hibban’s statement "there is tadlis in him" is an indication of its rarity.
Second: That their description of him with tadlis makes it more likely that what is meant by it is irsal, because most of the scholars who spoke about him only spoke about his irsal, especially from Urwah b. al-Zubayr, and he only has two hadiths from him. [...]
Thirdly: The phrase “meaning, he omitted the intermediary” is al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar’s interpretation of Ḥabīb’s words. This interpretation is possible, but not definitive, it could also mean, for example, that he narrated it without going back to al-Aʿmash to verify it.
In sum, the total of what has been mentioned does not indicate that he practiced tadlis frequently, but rather that he was little involved in tadlis, as appears from his biographies and narrations. And Allah, exalted is He, knows best.
And the answer to these questions is not found by returning to the writings of the later scholars, but rather by referring back to the words of the early authorities, examining their expressions carefully, and tracing the narrations of the one described with tadlīs. In this way, the researcher is safeguarded from error, by the help and power of Allah.
Proof Husayn believed he was upon Truth
A major objection surrounding Karbala is the claim that Imam al-Husayn (AS) ended up regretting being at Karbala and tried leaving the Battle at the last moments, but was prevented by Ibn Ziyad who was adamant to kill him, and hence the whole battle is in his fault.
However, this claim is historically inaccurate, as all the sources unanimously agree that al-Husayn (AS) believed until the very end that he was upon the truth. This claim that he offered to give allegiance to Yazid at the last moment is a fabricated lie that is contradicted by more reliable sources.
The origin of this fabrication can be read from Tarikh al-Tabari Vol. 19, pg. 108 - 109:
According to Abū Mikhnaf - Abū Janāb-Hani' b. Thubayt al-Hadrami, who was an eyewitness of the killing of al-Husayn:
Al-Husayn sent Amr b. Qarazah b. Ka'b al-Ansari to 'Umar b. Sa'd to say that he wanted to meet him at night between the two camps… We stayed away from them insofar as we could not hear their voices and their conversation. They talked together for a long time until a (great) part of the night had gone.
Then each of them went back to his own camp with his followers. The people made guesses about what had occurred between them. The suggestion that they put forward was that Husayn had said to 'Umar b. Sa'd, "Come with me to Yazid b. Muawiyah, and let us leave the two armies."
Umar replied, "Then my house will be destroyed." Al-Husayn said, "I will rebuild it for you." 'Umar answered, "Then my estates will be seized." Al-Husayn said, "I will give you better property than that in Hijāz."
However, Umar was still unwilling to go with Husayn. The people talked about this event; it spread among the people without their ever having heard the conversation or knowing anything about what actually was discussed.
So we see that the source of this report comes from assumptions and no actual direct witnesses. Tabari then names another report in which Husayn offered the three famous choices which included going back to Mecca, pledging to Yazid or going to jihad. However, it is refuted by the next report by Uqba b. Sim’an (RA):
According to Abū Mikhnaf-'Abd al-Rahman b. Jundab-'Uqbah b. Sim'an:
I accompanied Husayn (all the time). I left Medina for Mecca with him, and Mecca for Iraq. I did not leave him until he died. There was no one who addressed a word to him, either in Medina, in Mecca, on the road, in Iraq, or in the camp, until the day of his death, without my hearing the conversation. By God!
He neither gave the promise, which the people claim to recall when they allege that he would put his hand in the hand of Yazid b. Mu'awiyah or that they should send him to any one of the Muslims' border stations. Rather he said, "Leave me, and I will travel this broad land so that we may see how the people's affair develops."
So here we can clearly see Imam al-Husayn (AS) offered to not fight the people, but never did he say that he would ally with Yazid (LA) or that he’d give bay’ah to him, otherwise this would completely contradict his whole opposition to Yazid since Medina.
As for his words that said to ‘leave me’, it means Husayn (AS) offered a choice for them to not kill him, where he won’t rise against them so long they do not demand a pledge of allegiance from him. However, they refused, and for that reason, he was killed.
Husayn’s own testimony
It is clear from many sources that Imam al-Husayn (AS) believed he was upon the truth until the last day in fighting against Yazid’s army. In his talk with Imam al-Sajjad (AS), it is recorded in Tarikh Tabari Vol. 19, pg. 101 and referenced in Tabaqat Ibn Sa’ad Vol. 6, pg. 435:
According to Abū Mikhnaf from ʿAbd al-Rahman b. Jundab, from ʿUqbah b. Simʿan:
Toward the end of the night, he ordered his attendants to get provisions of water. Then he ordered us to depart. We did. When we had left Qaṣr Bani Muqatil and had gone on for a time, his head began to nod with drowsiness. He woke up, saying, “We belong to God and to Him we shall return. Praise be to God, Lord of the universe!”
He did that twice or three times. Then his son, ʿAli b. al-Husayn, approached him and said, “We belong to God and to Him we shall return. Praise be to God, Lord of the world. Father, may I be a sacrifice for you, why are you praising God and repeating the verse of returning to Him?”
He replied, “My son, I nodded off, and a horseman appeared to me, riding a horse, and he said: ‘Men are traveling and the fates travel toward them.’
Then I knew it was our death being announced to us.” ʿAli said, “Father, may God not show you any evil. Are we not in the right?”
He said, “Indeed, by Him to Whom all servants must return!”
ʿAli said, “Then, father, we need have no concern, if we are going to die righteously.”
Al-Husayn replied, “May God give you the best reward a son can receive from his father.”
This report shows al-Husayn’s foreknowledge that he will die, but continued towards Karbala regardless. It also shows how the Imam (AS) had no doubt about the fact they were upon truth, until the last moments.
In his encounter with al-Hurr b. Yazid al-Riyahi, al-Husayn (AS) has the following conversation with him on pg. 95 - 97:
Al-Hurr started to travel alongside him, while saying to him, "Husayn, I remind you of God with regard to your life, for I testify that if you fight, you will be fought, and if you are fought, you will be killed."
He replied, "Do you think that you can frighten me with death? Could a worse disaster happen to you than killing me? I do not know what to say to you. I can only address you as the brother of al-Aws addressed his cousin when he met the latter as he was going to help the Apostle of God. His cousin said to him: 'Where are you going, for you will be killed?'
He replied:
I will depart, for there is no shame in death for a young man whenever he intends right and strives as a Muslim,
And has supported righteous men through (the sacrifice of) his life, abandoned the cursed and made alliance with the consecrated.
It shows very clearly al-Husayn (AS) again believed that he was upon truth. For those who try to dismiss these reports due to the presence of Abi Mikhnaf, they can refer to other sources that say the same thing without him in the chain.
For example, he tells his brother al-’Abbas (AS) the following in Kitab al-Mihan, pg. 133:
Muhammad b. Sahnun, from his father- may Allah have mercy on him- from Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Tamim who said: ‘Amr b. Yusuf and Muhammad b. Usama narrated to me, they said: ‘Ali b. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Baghdadi narrated to us, he said: Abu ‘Ubayd al-Qasim b. Sallam narrated to us, he said: Hajjaj narrated to us, from Abu Ma‘shar, from a group of his shaykhs: …
Then Shimr b. Dhī al-Jawshan said, “You will never drink until you drink from boiling water (in Hell).” Al-ʿAbbās asked al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī, “Abā ʿAbd Allāh, are we upon the truth, so that we fight?”
He replied, “Yes.”
So he mounted his horse, and some of his companions mounted as well, and they charged upon the enemy, drove them back from the water, then drank and drew water. Then ʿUbayd Allāh b. Ziyād dispatched ʿUmar b. Saʿd to fight them.
Here al-Husayn (AS) clearly tells his brother that he is upon the truth and so permitted to fight the Umayyad.
In another report from Ansab al-Ashraf Vol. 3, pg. 393 he also says:
Al-Ḥusayn proposed to his family and those with him that they disperse and use the night to their advantage.
He said: “They seek only me, and they have found me. And the letters sent to me, as I suspect, were nothing but a plot against me and an attempt to ingratiate themselves with Ibn Muʿāwiyah.”
They replied: “May Allah curse life after you.”
A similar report is in Tabaqat Ibn Sa’ad Vol. 6, pg. 437:
Husayn gathered his companions on the night of Ashura, which was a Friday night. He praised God, exalted Him, and mentioned the Prophet ﷺ, recalling the honor God had granted him with prophethood and His blessings upon his nation.
He said: "I consider the people tomorrow only as your opponents. I have released you all from obligation; this night has covered you, so whoever among you has strength, let him take a man from my household with him, and disperse among your ranks until God brings about victory or His command, so that you may regret in yourselves what you conceal." [Surah Al-Ma’idah: 52]
He added: "The people seek me alone; if they see me, they will turn away from seeking you." His household said: "May God never leave us after you; we will not separate from you until we share your fate." His companions all said the same. Husayn replied: "May God reward you for your intention toward Paradise."
Husayn (AS) giving his companions permission to leave him is clear proof that he believed in his right to fight and his desire to stand, even if it meant being all alone. This is why al-Tabari writes in Tarikh al-Tabari Vol. 19, pg. 89:
That news came to Husayn while he was at Zubalah. He took out a written statement to the people and read it to them: "In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate, dreadful news of the murder of Muslim b. Aqil, Hani' b. 'Urwah and 'Abdallah b. Yuqţur has reached us. Our Shi'ah has deserted us. Those of you who would prefer to leave us may leave freely without guilt."
The people began to disperse from him to the right and left. The only followers left with him were those who had come with him from Medina. Al-Husayn had done that because he realized that the Bedouin had only followed him because they thought that he was going to a land where the inhabitants' obedience to him had already been established.
He did not want them to accompany him without being aware of what they were undertaking. He knew that when he had explained to them the possibilities, only those would accompany him who wanted to share his fate and die with him. At dawn, he ordered his attendants to provide them-selves with water and some extra. Then he set out until he passed Baţn al-'Aqabah. He stopped there.
So al-Tabari confirms that Husayn’s permitting his companions to leave the journey was only to prevent possibly deceiving them as he knew his fate lies with death, and he did not want them to die for his sake if they were not intending to do so.
The case of Hurr al-Riyahi
Al-Hurr b. Yazid b. Najiya al-Tamimi al-Riyahi was a general of the Umayyad army as stated in Tarikh al-Tabari Vol 19, pg. 93. For this reason, it’s obvious that he pledged allegiance to Yazid b. Mu’awiyah.
He intercepted al-Husayn’s journey to Kufa and forced him to take the route to Karbala out of the command of Ibn Ziyad, but he explicitly says that he was not ordered to kill al-Husayn (AS) on Tarikh al-Tabari Vol. 19, pg. 94 - 95.
However, when he discovered that Ibn Sa’ad wanted to kill al-Husayn (AS), he ended up switching sides and requested forgiveness for al-Husayn (AS), to which the Imam forgave him. The full encounter can be read in Tarikh al-Tabari Vol. 19, pg. 127 - 128.
As we see, Imam al-Husayn (AS) believes Hurr died a righteous death and as a free-man. If Husayn believed he was on the wrong he wouldn’t have done so. Hurr as well shows his belief of the falsehood of others, for he says “I chose heaven over hell”, which means he believed the whole army of Ibn Sa’ad is going to hell.
His case should be concerning the Aqeedah of Ahlus Sunnah, because he rejected his allegiance to the Umayyads after previously pledging. According to Sunni theology, when someone changes their bay’ah, they must be killed. So was the killing of al-Hurr al-Riyahi justified in Sunni beliefs? It should be, but al-Husayn endorsed his actions which means he rejected Sunni theology of imamate.
« Previous Part: Why is Karbala Important? »
« Next Part: What was Husayn's goal? »