The Islamic community in the year the event of Karbalā took place, had greatly differed from that in the last year of Prophet’s life. The trend of deviation has been however gradual, according to many of researchers, the basis thereof was established from the first years after the Prophet’s departure. The foregoing deviations were in such a way that the politicians could avail themselves of them to not only delude the people but also justify their despotism. The ones who played a crucial role in the origination and the development of such deviations were the Umayyads. The power notably secured by Yazīd revealed the fact that neverever had the Umayya believed in a genuine Islam and their belief was merely a covering people had spread in order to justify and concede their sovereignty.
Having accused the Umayya of oppression and enmity,[1] Imām Husayn (a) had described them as those who “obey Satan, disobey Allāh, propagate misdeeds, disregard Allāh’s specified rules and also encrouch upon Bayt al-Māl (public treasury)”.[2] In addition to creating corruption and ignoring divine limits, they had distorted a large number of religious concepts and misused them. Here let’s discuss a few of them which had impacts in the course of Karbalā according to historical evidence.
“Obedience to Imāms, the necessity of Community and unlawfulness of breach of allegiance was three common political terms used by caliphs. It may be claimed that the above-mentioned terms could have guaranteed the base and the persistence of the caliphate. Anyhow, these three terms were right principles among the religious, political and Islamic concepts of which observing for the sake of the community was reasonably incumbent. Obeying an Imām denotes obeying the ruling system. The question raised is that to what extent the ruler should be complied with. Is it imperative that a just Imām be followed or an unjust monarch ought to be obeyed too? Earlier we discussed it in detail while considering ‘Uthmān’s caliphate.
Upholding Community implies avoiding disturbance or taking no action to undermine the unity or pave the ground for the emergence of a shaky Islamic community. The considerable question is whether silence should be kept before despotic monarchism or a libertine ruler under any circumstances in other words, should any objection be suppressed relying on the fact that it spoils “Community” and causes “disunion”?
Unlawfulness of breach of allegiance, namely fulfilling a pledge is heavily underlined in Islam. Since breaking a pledge or an allegiance is prohibited seriously, it stands to reason how much the role of which in political affairs can be positive. But if the allegiance were not sworn to caliphs like Yazīd or it were breached and consequently Community was spoiled, would it again follow the principle of unlawfulness of breach of allegiance or would it basically be an exception to the rule? As already alluded to the Umayya caliphs and later those of Banū ‘Abbās by manipulating such concepts, however distorted and unconditional, compelled the people to acquiesce their sovereignty.
After Mu‘āwiya had secured allegiance for his son, Yazīd, he went to Medina to coerce the opponents to swear. ‘Āyisha was among in view of the fact that his brother, Muhammad Ibn Abū Bakr, had been martyred by Mu‘āwiya.
When the issue of allegiance was propounded, Mu‘āwiya told her, “I have secured allegiance for Yazīd from all Muslims, if you will, اني لا أري ذلك ولكن عليك بالرفق والتأني “Never do I pronounce it lawful but act moderately toward people instead.”[3]
This case in point demonstrates how ‘Āyisha was ever convinced. Let’s consider one other instance. As stated by Ibn Ishāq, they were doing prayers (perhaps in al-Harām mosque) they noticed that Shimr Ibn Dhi l-Djawshan, being with them, had raised his hands saying “O Allāh! You are well-aware of my nobleness, so forgive me.”
“I told him, added Ibn Ishāq, how could you ever be forgiven whereas you have aided and abetted in murdering the Prophet’s son?”
“What have we preformed?” Shimr reacted.
“It was the mandates of our commanders and we could in no way defy them”. If disobeyed, [كنا شراَ من هذه الحمر السقا[4 “We would be far more inferior to water carrier beasts.”
Apprehending him, Ibn Ziyād told Muslim Ibn ‘Aqīl,
[يا شاق! خرجت علي امامك وشقفت عصا المسلمين[5 “O outlaw! You have seceded from your Imām and have sowed the seeds of discord among Muslims.”
Muslim who never yielded to such a digression, riposted that Mu‘āwiya not only did not procure the caliphate through the consensus of opinions of the nation at all, but he overcame the Holy Prophet’s successor through deception and usurped his caliphate.
When Imām Husayn was about to leave Mecca, the deputies of ‘Amr Ibn Sa‘īd Ibn ‘Ās, the governor, said,
[الا تتقي الله تخرج عن الجماعة بين هذه الامّه[6 “Do you not fear from Allāh for seceding from the Muslim congregation and for causing disunion among the nation?”
“We have neverever ignored disobeying Imām, nor have we seceded from Community” affirmed ‘Amr Ibn Hadjdjādj, a commander of Ibn Ziyād’s.[7]
Advising Ibn Ziyād’s army, he added,
[ألزموا طاعتكم وجماعتكم ولاترتابوا في قتل من مرق عن الدين وخالف الامام[8 “Not ever fail to remember obedience and union and at no time do you doubt about killing the one seceding from the religion and being at variance with Imām (ruler).”
Figures like ‘Abd Allāh Ibn ‘Umar who was among the Sunnites religious jurisprudents and hadith-narrators, had imagined that if entire people acquiesced to swear the oath of allegiance to Yazīd, they would consent too.
He had given his assurance to Mu‘āwiya,
[فاذا اجتمع النّاس على ابنك يزيد لم أخالف[9 “I shall oppose you unless people all swear allegiance to your son, Yazīd. He also had addressed Imām as saying, “Do cause not disunion among Muslims!”[10]
Such individuals as ‘Umar and ‘Abd al-Rahmān Ibn ‘Awf’s daughter had written to Imām to regard obedience with reverence and treat Community and its upholding as urgent.[11]
Another religious deviation in the Islamic community was “belief in fatalism”. Previous to the event of Karbalā this belief has been misused. In Early Islamic Era, however, Mu‘āwiya had been the reviver of which or according to Abū Hilāl ‘Askarī he was the initiator of which.[12] Referring to the fact that Mu‘āwiya is the founder of “fatalism”, Qādī ‘Abd al-Djabbār has quoted Mu‘āwiya making as remarkable remarks[13] as follows,
[ان أمر يزيد قضاء من القضاء وليس للقضاء الخيرة من أمرهم[14 “This matter concerning Yazīd is a destiny from among Divine destinies and no one has any volition in this regard.”
‘Ubayd Allāh Ibn Ziyād asked Imām Sadjdjād (a), أو لم يقتل الله علياَ؟ “Was Allāh not the One who killed ‘Alī Akbar?”
Imām’s response was, كان لي أخ يقال له علي، اكبر مني قتله الناس “I had an elder brother whom people killed.”[15]
Once ‘Umar Ibn Sa‘d was objected why he killed Imām Husayn solely for the sake of Riy governorship, he replied that such an affair had been predestined.[16]
When alive, Ka‘b al-Ahbār had been foretelling that under no conditions would authority be secured by the Hāshimites, (although later both the ‘Abbāsids and ‘Alawites could secure it as an instance in Tabaristān). It has been quoted from ‘Abd Allāh Ibn ‘Umar as well, as saying,
[فاذا رأيت الهاشمي قد ملك الزمان فقد هلك الزمان[17 “Any time you realized that one from the Hāshimites has secured the authority, conclude that it is that end of the world.”
The consequences of these kinds of deviations for the future generations were that Imām Husayn’s movement has never been considered as an uprising against immorality in Sunnism but an illegal insurgency.[18]
[1] al-Futūh, vol.V, p. 137
[2] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.III, p. 171; al-Futūh, vol.V, pp. 144-15; Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.304; elsewhere, Imām had stated, الا ترون أن الحق لا يعمل به وأن الباطل لا يتناهي عنه Not you see how the gospel is not practiced but the credal error is endlessly practiced?
Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.305; Ibn ‘Asākir, Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn,p. 214. Also Imām had said, فان السنة قد أميتت وان البدعة قد أحييت The Prophet’s Sunnah is dissolved while heresies are revived
Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p. 266
[3] al-Futūh, vol.IV, p. 237; al-Imāma wa l-siyāsa, vol.I, p. 183
[4] Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn, p.197; al-Imāma wa l-siyāsa, Lisān al-mīzān, vol.III, p.151 (Al-Humayr al-saqqā’āt)
[5] al-Futūh, bol.5, p.98
[6] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p. 289; such adverse publicity had made, the majority of people specially those from Damascus to consider Imām Husayn as an outsider (the one seceding) and to accuse him of heresy.
[7] Tārīkh al-tabarī, p. 275
[8] Ibid. p. 331
[9] Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn, p. 167, as described by Mu‘āwiya, Ibn ‘Umar was a coward (Ibn A‘tham, vol.IV, p. 260). He advised Imām Husayn saying “Do not rise up, be patient, compromise as others did. See also al-Futūh, vol.V, p. 39; Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn, p. 166.
[10] al-Kāmil fi l-tārīkh, vol.IV, p. 17
[11] Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn, p. 167
[12] al-Awā’íl, Askarī, vol.II, p. 125
[13] Fadl al-I‘tizāl wa tabaqāt al-mu‘tazila, p. 143
[14] al-Imāma wa l-siyāsa, vol.I, pp. 183, 187
[15] Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn, p. 188
[16] Tabaqāt al-kubrā, vol.V, p. 148
[17] Ibn ‘Asākir,Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn, p. 193
[18] Tārīkh Islām, Cambridge University, vol.I, p. 81 (Englisht text); See also al-Ikhtilāf fī l-laf¨, pp. 47-49
Political Impacts of the Event of Karbalā on Shi‘ism
The event of Karbalā is among the determining incidents in the process of Shi‘ites genesis in history. It was ealier mentioned that Shi‘ism theories in general and its most elementary principle namely Imāmat in particular can thoroughly be traced in the Holy Qur’ān and Sunna both. Notwithstanding, the historical separation of Shi‘ite Muslims from the other existing parties occurred quite gradually. Both lifestyle and the ideas left as memorials from Imām ‘Alī’s caliphate could to much extent cohere Shi‘ism intellectually. The Umayya advocating their self-fabricated Islam the nature and the discrepancy of which from the authentic Islam never revealed by Mu‘āwiya’s policies could evidently be unveiled in the course of Yazīd’s caliphate. Throughout the vent of Karbalā, the historical separation of Shi‘ite Muslims from others affected by the Islam backed by the Umayya finalized. From then onwards, distinguishing Shi‘ite Muslims as the followers of Sunna, ‘Alī and his successors seemed truly a simple task.
Amongst the Shi‘ite Muslims there, existed a number who were from all standpoint followers of Imām and regarded them as the Prophet’s successors elected by him. The limit of Shi‘ism, on the other hand, on the part of other groups from Iraq, etc was only the superiority they believed for ‘Alawites over Umayyads.[1] Those who achieved martyrdom beside Imām Husayn in Karbalā were among the Shi‘ite Muslims describing Imamate as the only prerogative of ‘Alī and his descendants. Imām himself on various occasions had frequently recommended people to leave the right to the rightful and contribute to him as well. The Umayyads were in truth the usurpers this very right.[2] Somewhere he had stated,
أيها الناس أنا ابن بنت رسول الله ونحن أولى بولاية هذه الامور عليكم من هولاء المدعين ما ليس لهم[3]
“O people! It is I, a son of Prophet’s daughter’s. We are superior in your guardianship to the false claimants.”
Elsewhere, [أنا أحقّ من غير لقرابتي من رسول اللّه[4 “And I deserve it more than any one else for my kinship with Allāh’s Messenger.”
Furthermore, Imām’s disciples had appreciated different opportunities by presenting such a belief either in verses of poem or prose. Said by Muslim Ibn Ziyād was that by Almighty Allāh on no accounts was it Mu‘āwiya’s right to be a caliph. He overcame the Prophet’s successor by deception and usurped his caliphate.[5] ‘Abd al-Rahmān Ibn ‘Abd Allāh Yazanī, one of Imām’s companions in Karbalā, had composed,
ديني على دين حسين وحسن[6]
أنا بن عبدالله من آل يزن
“I am ‘Abd Allāh’s son from Yazan family. My religion is the same as those of Husayn and Hasan.” Addressing Imām Husayn (a), Hadjdjādj Ibn Masrūq had composed,
ذاك الذي نعرفه الوصياّ[7]
ثم أباك ذا الندى عليّا
“You father, ‘Alī, is sportsmanlike. He is the one whom we consider as the Prophet’s successor.”
It was composed by Hilāl Ibn Nāfi‘ Badjalī,
ديني على دين حسين وعلي[8]
أنا الغلام التممي البجلي
“This is from Banū Tamīm and Badjalī and I believe in the religion Husayn and his father, ‘Alī believe.
In some verses ‘Uthmān Ibn ‘Alī Ibn Abī Tālib had composed,
شيخي علي ذو الفعال الطاهر
اني أنا عثمان ذو المناخر
أخو حسيـن خيـرة الاخائـر
و ابن عـم النبي الطاهر
بعد الرسول والوصي الناصر[9]
و سيد الكبار و الاصاغر
“The possessor of honor is no one but me. My master, ‘Alī, is the actor of all purely good deeds. The causin of the immaculate Prophet is me. I am the brother of Husayn, the most chosen of the chosen and the master of the youngest and the eldest after the Prophet and his successor.”
After Nafi‘ Ibn Hilāl had said, أنا الجملي أنا على دين علي “My religion is the religion of ‘Alī.”
A person from the rival army said, [أنا على دين عثمان[10 “My religion is that of ‘Uthmān.”
What can be easily discerned from these verses and others quoted from ‘Abbās Ibn ‘Alī and others is the Shi‘ites belief of Imām’s followers not only in political arena but also in ideological one.
[1] In "Tārīkh tashayyu‘ dar Irān" we have discussed in detail.
[2] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.III, p. 170; al-Futūh, vol.V, p. 135
[3] al-Futūh, vol.V, p. 137
[4] al-Futūh, vol.V, pp. 144-145
[5] Ibid. vol.V, p. 98
[6] Ibid. vol.V, p. 194
[7] Ibid. vol.V, p. 199
[8] Ibid. vol.V, p. 201
[9] Ibid. vol.V. P. 206
[10] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, pp. 331, 336
source : http://www.imfi.ir/
