|
Mu’awiya appointed Bisr bin Artat to seek out and kill Imam Ali’s partisans. Bisr played havoc in Mecca, Medina, Yemen, and other towns. It is reported that he had killed more than 30,000 Shia.[1] When he could not locate Ubeidullah ibn Abbas, he killed his little children in front of their mother.[2] When Abu Sufyan saw that Abu Bakr had been installed as the Caliph, he went to Imam Ali (a.s) and said, “You have been deprived of your right by those who do not deserve the post of caliph. If only you assent, I will fill Medina with cavalry and soldiers to unseat the usurpers of the seat of caliphate.” [1] Masa’ibush Shia, vol. 1 p. 247 [2001 Edition] quoting Sharh Nahjol Balagha of Ibn Abil Hadid, vol. 1 p. 121.
[2] Masa’ibush Shia, vol. 1 p. 245 [2001 Edition] quoting al-Isti’ab and al-Isaba. |
|
Imam Ali (a.s] was fully aware that Abu Sufyan, who fought the Prophet (s) all his life, was a hypocrite and that all he wanted was dissension and discord in Islam. Imam Ali (a.s) refused to be dragged into the trap. Rebuked and rebutted by Imam Ali (a.s), Abu Sufyan planned to join the opponents of Ali. Umar, who received the news of what transpired between Abu Sufyan and Ali, realized that if left to himself, Abu Sufyan would cause great mischief. Umar thought it best to purchase Abu Sufyan’s loyalty rather than to face his mischief. Umar sent for Abu Sufyan and told him that he and Abu Bakr had decided to appoint his (Abu Sufyan) son Yazid as the governor of Syria. Abu Sufyan was immensely pleased. In the year 11 AH, Yazid bin Abu Sufyan became the governor of Syria. Very soon, he died and in his place, the caliph appointed Mu’awiya as the governor of Syria and Iraq. Though, on becoming the second caliph, Umar removed several governors on various charges, Mu’awiya was not disturbed from his post in spite that his misrule was the cause of the uprising and the ultimate assassination of Uthman.[1] In his letter to Mohammad bin Abu Bakr, Mu’awiya wrote, “Even during the lifetime of the messenger of Allah, we (the Umayyads) were together with your father in contesting against Ali’s right (of leadership). We were certainly aware of his superiority and supremacy over all others. But, when God chose to take away the messenger of Allah from this world, it was your father and his friend Umar who were the foremost in snatching the caliphate from Ali by opposing him at all costs. In this, both of them (Abu Bakr and Umar) were in perfect consonance with each other.”[2] Mu’awiya’s rule of Syria, Egypt, and Palestine actually commenced from the year 11 AH, and lasted for fifty years, when he died in 60 AH. Thus, the areas under his domain were far away from Mecca and Medina, the centers of Islam, and the population there believed only what was taught to them by Mu’awiya’s henchmen. The public had no idea who were the relatives of the Prophet (s) or who were his companions. Mu’awiya made the people there believe that he alone was the heir of the Prophet (s), that Ali was a dacoit, and Husain a reactionary opposed to Islam. People were made to believe that [1] Masa’ibush Shia, vol. 2 p. 13, First Edition, Publisher Idara-e-Nasirul Uloom, Luknow, UP.
[2] Ibid., p. 3-4 quoting Ibn Abil Hadid’s Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol. 1 p. 284. |
|
anybody who praised Ali must himself be a dacoit or at least of low morality, and that anybody who praised Husain in fact sowed the seeds of sedition. Fifty years were more than enough to achieve this goal. From the year 11 to 35 AH, Mu’awiya apprehended no danger from the ruling caliph. He had Syria, Iraq, and Egypt under his control. These areas were far away from Medina, the then capital of Islam. Except for the essentials, the public had no idea about the thought and philosophy of Islam. In fact, Mu’awiya wanted the people to be ignorant of Islam so that nobody might point out that Mu’awiya himself was acting against Islam in his daily life. In order to win over the public, he allowed them to lead a life without any reference to the prohibitions and recommendations made in Islam. The public found that their rulers provided them jobs and food. Beyond that, they had no need or desire to consider any aspect of Islam or its true proponents. As a result, al-Hajjaj bin Yousuf asked people from on the pulpit, “Who provides you food and jobs?” People replied, “The Caliph.” He then asked, “Who is better, the Prophet or the Caliph?”[1] The foundation for the thought that the Caliph, in the least, was next only to God was strongly and truly laid by Mu’awiya. Because of this, in the year 96 AH When al-Waleed bin Abdul Melik bin Marwan became the king, he contended that the caliph was superior to past Prophets. Ibnul Athir records that in 98 AH, al-Waleed bin Abdul Malik asked while giving a sermon in Mecca, “Who is more important for you; the Caliph or Abraham the Prophet? How I wish you realized the superiority of your caliph who provided sweet drinking water for you whereas Abraham the Prophet only provided brackish water (Zamzam). By God, al-Waleed is dearer in the eyes of God than any Prophet.”[2] Al-Waleed was referring to the well he had dug up in Mecca, which provided sweet water for some time, but later it dried up. Initially, Mu’awiya was engaged in consolidating his own position by lavishly bribing amenable persons and killing or at least confiscating the properties of those who were even suspected to sympathise with [1] Masa’ibush Shia, vol. 4 p. 54 quoting al-Mas’udi’s Murooj ath-thahab, vol. 2, p. 164.
[2] Masa’ibush Shia, vol. 4 p. 174-175. |
|
Ali. But, from 11 to 30 AH, we do not find any interference by Mu’awiya with the Caliph. When Uthman was killed, Mu’awiya apprehended a contender and feared that he might lose power, and therefore, he took these steps:[1] [i] He sent his army commander Bisr bin Artat who killed 30,000 Shia and slaughtered two young sons of Abdullah Ibn Abbas in their mother’s lap. [ii] He sent Sufyan bin Ouf whose contingent of six thousand strong men created terror by looting and destructing the houses of the Shia in al-Mada’in. [iii] He sent Abdullah bin Sa’dah al-Fazari with a contingent to loot and harass the people who sympathized with Imam Ali (a.s.). [iv] He sent ad-Dhahhak bin Qais with 30000 men to loot, terrorize, and kill Ali’s adherents in Waqisa, Thalabiya, and Qatqat. [v] He sent an-No’man bin Basheer to eliminate Ali’s adherents in Ayn at-Tamr. [vi] He removed the names of the Shia from the citizenship registers.[2] [vi] He stopped the state pensions to any one suspected to be a Shia. [vii] He ordered that the testimony of anyone suspected to be a Shia should not be admitted in evidence. In his rule of about half a century, Mu’awiya laid a solid foundation for the extreme hatred toward Imam Ali (a.s) and anybody even remotely linked or sympathetic to him. In the course of time, the Shia along with their Imams inherited the legacy of blind persecution by their opponents. The Abbasids gained power on the basis of a popular and widespread perception that the Umayyads were usurpers of Power and that the Caliphate rightly belonged to Ali and his offspring. After gaining power, the Abbasids became much crueler out of the unfounded fear that if not persecuted, the Imams would wrest the power from them. Sa’eed Akbarabadi, a Sunni historian, writes, “Every act forbidden and disapproved by Islam was done to build up and stabilise the government. There is an Arabic proverb that the Umayyads were ‘the [1] Ibid., vol. 2 p. 14.
[2] Masa’ibush Shia, vol. 2 p. 120. |
|
First Diggers of buried bodies’ and the Abbasids were ‘the Second Diggers of buried bodies’.” Then, the writer’s personal preference comes to the fore and he makes his choice by adding, “Perhaps the first group of gravediggers were less cursed.” The writer gives the reason for the downfall of the Umayyads as follows, “The fall of the Umayyads was largely due to their excessiveness, repression, and tyranny and also due to their nomination of successors within the life period of the working caliph. The Abbasids also committed the same blunders and they never cared to change their attitude and conduct.”[1] The writer forgets that the precedent of nominating the successor was set by Abu Bakr when he nominated Umar as his successor, and the example was scrupulously followed by Mu’awiya and his successors. Elsewhere Sa’eed Akbarabadi gives the following reasons for the development of apostatic trends in Islam:“The apostatic trends that developed among Muslims were largely due to the following two factors; the false and morbid system of government founded by the Umayyads, and the patronage and propagation of rational branches of knowledge and dogmatic theology by the Abbasids [2]” We may recall here what we noted in earlier pages that firstly, the Umayyads were invested with the governorship of Syria and Iraq by the first two caliphs, and that the third caliph only expanded the hold of the Umayyads by filling up every position of power with his relatives or tribesman; secondly, when the first three caliphs prohibited the narration ofHadith, they had to perforce open the doors for Ijtihad.[3] When the unwanted effects ofIjtihad were noticed, the doors of Ijtihad were suddenly and unceremoniously closed down, but only after when Islam came to be divided into four sects. The ‘unwanted effects’ that the writer bemoans are but the fruits of the seeds sown immediately after the death of the Prophet (s). To be fair to the writer, who describes in detail the atrocities committed by the Abbasids, we quote this passage:“Besides the Umayyads, people who were suspected of supporting the progeny of Ali were also similarly maltreated.”[4] [1] The Rise and Fall of Muslims, p. 82, Adam Publishers [2005].
[2] Ibid, p. 94. [3] To form one’s own judgment on questions concerning the Sharia. [4] The Rise and Fall of Muslims, p. 80. |
|
As non-Muslim governments came to power, there was a slackening in the torture and the killing of the Shia. Among the Indian Rulers, except the two kingdoms of Bijapur and Golconda, all were Sunnis. Where the Shia ruled, there was communal harmony, but in places like Luknow, Benaras…etc., with the connivance of the rulers, the Shia were singled out for persecution. With the passage of time, the Shia have slowly forgiven and forgotten the persecution and torture they suffered for centuries. I remember as a youth that during the 60’s in Madras, we dreaded to wear our ‘Alfi’ (a black scarf traditionally worn by the Shia during the first ten days of Muharram) while passing a road called the Jane Jehan Khan Road. If anyone was found wearing the Alfi, he was derided, spat upon, and abused by the inhabitants of that road who were staunchSunnis. We had to perform our Majlises (ritual meetings) quietly within specific localities thickly populated by Shia. During the procession on the seventh of Muharram, on Triplicane High Road, disturbance was sought to be created by throwing silver and gold coins on the breast-beating processionists. Fortunately, advance information was passed on by some well-wisher and the elders of the community decided that from the junction at Pyecrofts Road and Triplicane High Road, to the junction at Chowk (a square Bazaar) and Triplicane High Road, there would not be any breast-beating and that the processionists would only recite “Nadi Aliyyan Aliyyan Ya Ali” and that nobody would stoop to pick up anything, even if it be silver or gold coin which might be thrown on the processionists from the surrounding buildings. People who planned the conspiracy are dead, the throwing of the coins has stopped, but processions commemorating Imam Husain’s martyrdom continue until now. To perpetuate the memories of the great sacrifice at Karbala, the Shia contributed their own blood. Be it Umayyad, Abbasid, or any other, the successive regimes spared no effort to erase the graves and memories of the sacrifice made by Imam Husain (a.s) and his companions. The rulers imposed severe penalties by way of taxes for visiting the tombs of the martyrs at Karbala. The Shia never hesitated to pay the huge levies to visit Imam Husain’s shrine at Karbala. Leaving the old and the sick, the Abbasids killed the young Shia, so that the Shia population might dwindle. |
|
Quite often, they ordered the tombs of the martyrs at Karbala to be destroyed and erased completely. Ibnul Athir, in his al-Kamil, relates that in the year 236 AH, the Abbasid caliphal-Mutawakkil ordered the tomb of Imam Husain (a.s) and the surrounding houses to be demolished without leaving any trace.[1] Allama al-Majlisi quotes that Ibn Babwayh narrates through reliable authorities from Abdullah Neishapuri that he had some dealing with Hameed bin Atiyya at-Toosi, and he went to meet him in his house. It was the month of Ramadan, but Atiyya had his food. When questioned why he did not observe the fasting, Atiyya said, “I beheaded sixty young men from the progeny of Ali and Fatima. The last of them was an old man. He cursed me for killing the innocent progeny of Ali and Fatima and that I would certainly be punished in the Hell. What use would prayer and fasting make to me with the murderer of the innocent progeny of Ali and Fatima? It is because of that that I neither pray nor fast.” Mu’awiya appointed the following governors who were notorious for committing cruelty and torture: [1] al-Mugheera bin Shu’ba [2] Ziyad bin Sumayya (bin Abeeh) [3] Samura bin Jundab[4] Amr bin al-Aas [5] Muslim bin Uqba [6] Ubaidullah bin Ziyad who was the commander in chief of the army that fought against Imam Husain and [7] Hussayn bin Numair who guarded the banks of the Euphrates and prevented Imam Husain (a.s.) from getting any water...etc.[2] The following persons were friends of Imam Ali. They were killed when they refused to curse the Imam in Mu’awiya’s presence: [1] Hujr bin Adiy [2] Mohammad bin abi Huthaifa [3] Shaddad bin Aws [4] Sa’sa’a bin Souhan al-Abdi [5] Abdullah bin Hashim bin Utba bin Abi Waqqas [6] Jameel bin Ka’b ath-Tha’labi [7] Jariya bin Qudama at-Tamimi [8] Shareek bin Shaddad al-Hadhrami [9]Saifi bin Faseel ash-Shaibani [10] Qabeesa bin Dhubay’ah al-Absi [11] Kiram bin Habban al-Anzi [12] Muhriz bin Shihab at-Tamimi [13] Abdurrahman bin Hassan al-Anzi [14] Amr bin al-Humq al-Khuza’iy [15] Juwairiya ibn Musshir al-Abdi… etc.[3] [1] Nafasul Mahmoom,] p. 280, Pub Ja’fari Propagation Center, Mumbai [2006.
[2] Masa’ibush Shia, vol. 2 p. 144 quoting an-Nasa’ihul Kafia, p.64. [3] Ibid., p. 155-161. |
|
Sumara bin Jundab killed eight thousand innocent persons.[1] Ziyad bin Sumayya (bin Abeeh) was a bastard appointed by Mu’awiya as governor of Basra. Ziyad knew every Shia and every one from Imam Ali’s progeny in Basra. He killed over a hundred thousand of them.[2] Al-Mughira bin Shu’ba cunningly told Shareek bin al-A’war al-Harithi to collect people in order to fight against the Kharijites. Shareek collected about three thousand Shia from the tribe of Rabi’a. When they gathered outside Basra, al-Mughira surrounded and killed them all. Ibn Ziyad, as the governor of Basra first and later as the governor of Basra and Kufa, killed hundreds of thousands of Shia from the two cities [1] Masa’ibush Shia, vol. 2 p. 166 quoting an-Nasa’ihul Kafia, p. 52.
[2] Ibid., p. 169 quoting Sharh Nahjul Balagha. |
source : http://www.maaref-foundation.com
