Shah ast Hussain (as)

 

 article courtesy

On the day, when the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) expired, there was not a single minor or major who was not overtaken by grief. Everybody was sob­bing and weeping. Friends, relatives and kinsmen all were grief stricken and crying. There was a thick pall of gloom everywhere. But the most shocked personality on the face of earth was the daughter of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

A week had elapsed since the death of the Prophet yet, she (s.a.) was continuously and profusely crying and grieving. She had confined herself in her house.

On the eighth day, she could not control her emotions, and broke down sobbing. The ladies around came out hearing her laments to console her. Janabe Siddiqa Tahera (s.a.) had extinguished all lamps of her house, and was sitting in darkness to avoid recognition. Janabe Siddiqa Tahera (s.a.) overwhelmed with grief addressed her father (s.a.w.a.) as follows :

O’ Father!

O’ Messenger of Allah!

O’ Mohammed Mustafa!

O’ Abul Qasim!

O’ The anchor and shelter of orphans!

Who is there to hear the complaints of your dear daughter who is on the verge of death and who is there to do justice to her.

So saying, she started to wear her dress in the same manner as the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) used to wear. Her gait of walking was exactly similar to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). Her dress was long enveloping her feet and her vision was blurred due to continuous downpour of tears. She was unable to find her path through them. However, she reached to the sacred grave of her father (s.a.w.a.). When she caught sight of the place from where the call of prayer (Azaan) used to be sounded, she swooned and passed out. Women who were there rushed up to her and applied water to her face. She then regained conscious­ness and sat up, and again began to cry saying the following:

Father! my strength is failing me;

I have lost my stamina and bearing;

Enemies are torturing me;

I am being eaten away insidiously by sorrow and grief,

Father! I am lonely;

My personal affairs are causing concern to me;

Father! My voice is being subdued by brute force;

My back is broken;

An upheaval has taken place in my life;

The world has become a living hell;

O’ Father! After you, there is no one who could offer me solace and to stand by me in these trying times;

I am crying for you, but there is no one who could sympathize with me and stop me from crying; In the present state of my physical weakness, there is no one to look towards to;

O’ Father! After you, the place of descendence of Qur’an, and arrival of Jibraeel and Michael looks deserted and abandoned.

Father! People have turned their eyes from me and all doors were closed on me.

Father! After you I hate this world,

But as long as I would be breathing, I will go on crying for you;

Father! My love towards you knows no bounds, and my sorrow will be immense.

Then she started reciting an elegy, as under:

For you my sorrow is always with me. By Allah, I say that my heart is full of your love. Day after day, my sorrow goes on increasing. O’ Father! I will be forever sorrowful for you. The sad event of your death is very shocking to me. A heart which willy nilly accepts a solace, is indeed an enduring and a patient heart.

Fatiier! With you, went the light of the world, and the blossoming flowers have withered.

Since you and I were parted it is not possible for me to forget what has happened.

Father! After you, who would lend his ear and time to the injustices done to the widows and orphans.

Father! After you nobody would take care and bother for Ummah till the Day of Rising.

Father! After you Ahle Bait were made weak and oppressed.

Father! After you everybody had started shun­ning us; Father! by your august presence we were not counted among oppressed.

Father! What tears have not been shed for you? Father! What misfortune and grief were there, which have not been continuously borne by me;

Father! Which eyelid was there that was in­clined towards sleep;

Father! You were the spring of religion and were the beacon light of the messengers of Allah.

Father! Why mountains did not disintegrate into pieces, and why oceans did not get dry?

Father! Why on your death, the earth did not have an earthquake?

Father! Soon after your departure, we became prone to all sorts of hardships and miseries.

Father! In fact your demise was a major calamity that has befallen mankind;

Father! After your demise ugliest misfortunes had fallen on my house;

Father! On your demise angels of Allah have wept;

Father! Since your departure, skies have stopped their rotation;

Father! After you, your Mimbar has become empty and presented a desolate sight;

Father! Your grave was happy to have you inside;

Father! Paradise was looking forward to your supplications and prayers;

Father! Without your presence, your meeting places have worn a deserted look;

Father! On your death, I shall ever grieve, till I join you;

Father! All who was your trusted secretary and an associate, and who was the father of your children has been deprived of your presence;

Yes, father the same Ali who was your brother, confidante and friend, whom you have brought up and groomed since childhood. The same Ali, who was your dearest friend and a close associate. The same Ali, who was first to embrace Islam, and was the first Muslim to migrate, has now lost his brother, his most precious possession.

Therefore, Father, it is the loss of your valuable personality that affected us and has saddened us. Distress and sorrow have overtaken us. It is your sorrow that has killed us. Grief has now become one constant companion.

O’ The last Apostle, after your death, my patience was lost, and my strength was sagged, and the bliss of tranquility has left us.

O’ Eye! Weep to your heart’s content. I would be highly regrettable if you do not shed the tears of blood;

O’ Messenger of Allah! The selected one of Allah! O’ the Anchor of weak persons and orphans; Mountains, animals, birds and earth, all have mourned for you, before the sky could express its grief;

O’ My Master! Hajoor, Rukun and Moishu, and the land Bathha, all are crying for you;

The Arch and lessons of Qur’an weep daily for you.

Islam, itself has become a foreign in the land of its origin;

The light of your Mimbar, which you used to occupy it has been overpowered by darkness;

O’ Allah! Call me soon, O’ my Master, I am now fed up with life, and hate it.

Then Fatema Zahra (s.a.) went to the grave of her father (s.a.w.a.), took some dust from it, kissed it and smelt its fragrance, and started reciting an elegy:

Whoever has smelt the dust of Ahmed’s (Holy Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.)) grave need have to smell any fragrance in his life, as it will be of no conse­quence.

Tell that man (Prophet), who has gone out of sight and has now hidden himself under the layers of the earth that “Is he not hearing my wailings?”

A great misfortune has fallen on me, that if it had fallen on a lucid day, it would have turned into a gloomy night.

Uptill now, I was passing my life under the tender care of Mohammed (s.a.w.a..). I was neither afraid of anybody’s enmity nor care for those who used to harbor malice against me. I was sure of myself because be (Prophet) was my guide and protector. Today, I stand disgraced in front of the people of mean mentality. The dread of their atrocities is ever present in my mind, but I try to wave it away with a move of my cloak.

If a pigeon raises a note of melancholy in the stillness of night it does so seeing me weeping my heart out.

Father! Be assured, I will make sadness and melancholy my sympathizers. I will use my tears as a headgear and veil.

Allama Vahelaan, in his book titled “Seraye Nalenviya”, has quoted the following poetry of Fatema Zahra (s.a.) that she has recited after the burial of her father (s.a.w.a.)

All the Horizons of the world have become dusty and dark. Now one cannot distinguish be­tween the lucidity of a morning sun and a setting sun, they had lost shimmering brightness and luster.

After the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) the earth was drowned in sorrow and sadness. It is trembling for the loss of the light of both the worlds.

On the death of the Prophet of Islam (s.a.w.a.) West and East should weep, and for the clans of Mazer and Yamaan, it is a MUST to weep for the Prophet.

Similarly, Bait-ul-Muqqadas and its environ­ment and Ka’aba which is shrouded - should weep.

O’ The Last Apostle of Allah, your light is auspicious, and Allah the omnipotent and the mightiest, sends his blessings to you and salutes you.

Then she (s.a.) turned back to her house, weeping. Her face was veiled, and every part of her body was trembling due to weakness. A stream of tears was flowing. Her heart was burn­ing. Due to severe swooning sensation, she had forgotten herself and was lapsing into uncon­sciousness. When a wave of consciousness used to come to her she used to put questions to her sons, saying Oh my dearest sons where is your grandfather who used to respect and love you very much and used to allow you to ride on his back. Your grandfather, who was most kind to both of you, what has happened to him? That grandfather who never allowed you to walk simply on the ground? Now, you will not be able to ride on his back or climb on his shoulders. Now, on whose back and shoulders you will ride? From now on, the door will not be opened for him.

Since the day the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) died, Bilal left sounding the call of prayer (Azaan). He used to say that after his (Prophet) passing away, I will not perform that duty. Once Janabe Siddiqa Tahera (s.a.) said that I wish to hear Bilal sounding the Azaan. When the news reached Bilal, he started sounding the call.

When he uttered the words of “Allaho Akbar, Ashaduanna Mohammed-ar Rasoolullah she shrieked, fainted and fell on the ground. People around then told Bilal to stop it and said that the daughter of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) has breathed her last. On hearing this Bilal stopped sounding the call, and did not complete it. When Fatema Zahra (s.a.) regained consciousness, she told Bilal to proceed with it. Bilal replied if you hear me, I am afraid that you will no more be alive and will go back to the Creator. Therefore, I seek your pardon that I may kindly be excused. Janabe Fatema Zahra (s.a.) then granted him par­don.

Hazrat Ali (a.s.) says, I gave bath to the Prophet in his own clothes. Janabe Fatema Zahra (s.a.) wished to see her father’s garments. When I showed her the dress, she smelt it and while doing so she became unconscious. This was the reason that I had to hide that dress from her.

(Maqtalul Husain - Quranzanu).

1. Yazid ibn Muawiyah

Without doubt, the biggest contributor to the shedding of Imam Husain’s (a.s.) blood and its main proponent was Yazid ibn Muawiyah. And that is not exactly surprising when we consider that Yazid is the one who inherited apostasy, tyranny and blasphemy from his father. He was the grandson of Abu Sufyan and the son of Muawiyah. The vicissitudes of time and his father’s political machinations played important roles in pivoting an unlikely Yazid to the highest religious position in the Islamic world. Yazid’s actions and words were unbecoming of a human being, let alone a Caliph of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). His actions were so deplorable that they repelled everyone associated with him. Waaqedi narrates on the authority of Abdullah ibn Hanzalah - who enjoyed the epithet of Ghaseel al-Malaaekah (the one given the ritual bath by the angels) - page 11,

‘I swear by Allah, there came a time when we feared that stones would soon rain down upon us in Yazid’s reign. He was a man who did not even spare his own mother, daughters and sisters from his lecherous disposition. He drank wine freely and neglected praying (Namaz).’

(al-Sawaaeq al-Muhreqah by Ibn Hajar Makki p. 125, Egyptian edition)

2. Ubaydillah ibn Ziyaad

Another criminal who ranks high in the list of Imam Husain’s (a.s.) murderers is Ubaydillah ibn Ziyaad. He shares the position and status with Yazid in the perpetration of this heinous crime. He is the very person who Yazid has spoken of highly, as his treasured friend, helper, confidante and ardent supporter in the battlefield.

Ubaydillah’s disbelief, apostasy, infidelity and complete disregard for divine laws and edicts were not a secret. All and sundry in Kufa were aware of his disposition towards evil and falsehood. That is why Haani Ibn Urwah (r.a) tells Muslim ibn Aqeel (a.s.) ruefully (when the latter refused to kill Ubaydillah in a surprise attack):

‘By Allah, (you must know) that if you had killed him, (you would not have killed a Muslim), (rather) you would have killed a sinner, transgressor, apostate and rebel’.

(Tarikh-e-Tabari vol. 6, p. 204)

3. Umar ibn Sa’d

The third person who is directly responsible for the murder of Imam Husain (a.s.) is Umar ibn Sa’d. In fact, in Umar’s case, the association with this crime is most evident and the responsibility lies largely with him. His faith and religion are exposed with these couplets that he recited when Ibne Ziyaad short-listed him with the task of murdering Imam Husain (a.s.).

‘Should I let the opportunity to govern Ray (Suburb of Teheran, Iran) slip by, while it is my most ardent desire?

Or should I become accursed forever for killing Husain (a.s.)?’

‘The world is but a house of goodness and wealth.

‘Then the intelligent one never trades the wealth for debt.’

He then recites some more couplets, the essence of which is:

‘The people claim that Allah has created something called Paradise and likewise He has also created the Fire and Chastisement. If these people are true in their claims, then there is no problem. I intend to repent for my sin (of killing Imam Husain) within two years. However, if these people are proved wrong and there is no Paradise and Hell, then there is no absolutely no problem, for in that case we will have amassed a kingdom in this world whose bounties shall remain forever.’

These couplets clearly highlight the ridicule that Umar ibn Sa’d had for well-established Islamic beliefs regarding Paradise and Hell. If this was the condition of the governors and chiefs, then it is anyone’s guess as to how the commonality perceived Paradise and Hell! After all, the masses were deeply influenced by the views of the rulers. Calling theses governors as Muslims is akin to insulting to Islam. These are facts of history and there is no denying them. There is no question of debating whether these personalities were Sunnis or Shiites because a discussion on that can happen only after these personalities accept the fundamental Islamic principles of Paradise and Hell.

To which sect of Islam did the killers of Imam Husain (a.s.) belong to?

But the question remains that even if for argument’s sake we consider them as Muslims to which Islamic sect did the killers of Imam Husain (a.s.) belong to? To answer this question it is important to address the following queries:

a)       What was the basis of Imam Husain’s (a.s.) murder?

b)       The principles and teachings of which Islamic sect did the killers of Imam Husain (a.s.) embrace?

Once we answer these two questions, it should be fairly evident with which Islamic sect the murderers of Imam Husain (a.s.) were associated.

It is an undisputed fact of history that the only cause of Imam Husain’s (a.s.) assassination was the Emir of Syria, Yazid Ibn Muawiyah, demanding Imam’s (a.s.) explicit allegiance. Imam (a.s.) refused to give in to his demands and rejected his Caliphate and in the process endured the most telling hardships at the hands of Yazid and his cronies.

Ibne Hajar-e-Makki chronicles, “The Emir of Syria, Muawiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan, was blinded by the love for his son, Yazid. In order to appoint his son as the Emir after him, he undertook a huge campaign to extract the allegiance of all Muslims for his son. He employed all the wealth of Syria and Iraq and resorted to the dirtiest of tricks to buy the allegiance of Muslims. However, five persons remained firm in their commitment not to pay allegiance to Yazid. The foremost in this group was Husain Ibn Ali (a.s.) and the other four took a cue from him and also withdrew from paying allegiance.”

(Tatheerul Jinaan, A Commentary on the al-Sawaaeq al-Muhreqah, Old Egyptian Edition, p. 50)

Muawiyah died at the age of 75-80 years, in Rajab 60 A.H. Yazid ascended the throne. The Syrians paid their allegiance to him and accepted him as their Emir. He had all the comforts and luxuries of the world at his disposal. Apparently, this was not enough to satisfy his gluttonous appetite. One thought persistently irked him, ‘Why did Husain ibn Ali (a.s.) reject his allegiance?’ He dispatched a stern letter addressed to his governor in Madinah - Walid ibn Utbah ibn Abi Sufyan. He informed Walid about Muawiyah’s death and then ordered him:

‘Compel Husain (a.s.), Abdullah ibn Umar and Abdullah ibn Zubair to pay allegiance to me and be very exacting and forceful with them in this regard. Bear in mind that the only way out for them to pay allegiance to me. Peace be upon you.’

Walid was chicken-hearted and indecisive. He was not sure how Yazid’s explicit command could be obeyed in a manner without raising a controversy.

In this moment of uncertainty, Marwan ibn Hakam, the sworn enemy of the AhleBait (a.s.), who had been described by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) as ‘the accursed son of the accursed (father)’ (Hayaat al-Haywaan Damiri vol. 1, p. 55 from Mustadrakul Hakim) had some typical words of advice. He counseled Walid that he must extract the pledge of allegiance from Imam Husain (a.s.) and if he refused, he must behead him and dispatch his head to Yazid.

Walid summoned Imam Husain (a.s.) to inform him about the developments in Syria. Imam (a.s.) was quick to perceive the repercussions of Yazid’s letter; he quickly vacated Madinah so as not to make it a theatre of assault and bloodshed.

(Tarikh-e-Tabari, vol. 6, p. 106-188)

Imam Husain (a.s.) embarked for Mecca. He instructed his cousin - Hazrat Muslim ibn Aqeel (a.s.) to proceed to Kufa to assess the situation there. Yazid was advised by his counselors that if he wished to secure Kufa, he would have to appoint an authoritarian governor.

For this task, Yazid aptly chose the vicious Ibne Yazid and commanded him to head for Kufa immediately with the clear mandate to apprehend Muslim ibn Aqeel (a.s.).

(Tarikh-e-Tabari, vol. 6, p. 199-200)

Imam Husain (a.s.) arrived at Karbala on 2nd Muharram 61 A.H. Thereafter Umar ibn Sa’d also reached Karbala with clear instructions from Ibne Ziyaad to kill Imam Husain (a.s.). He surrounded Imam (a.s.) from all sides, but sensed no evil or danger from him (a.s.). He wrote to Ibne Ziyaad that he did not find anything sinister in Imam Husain’s (a.s.) motives and therefore wished to return to Kufa. Ibne Ziyaad would have nothing of this - he ordered Umar ibn Sa’d to stay put in Karbala and extract the allegiance for Yazid from Imam Husain (a.s.). Umar replied that Imam Husain (a.s.) would never give his allegiance. Ibne Ziyaad replied that he would not have it any other way except that he puts Imam Husain (a.s.) and his small army to sword.

(Tarikh-e-Tabari, vol. 6, p. 234)

At long last, the world witnessed Imam Husain’s (a.s.) mettle and his steely resolve in the face of hardships and the most inhuman pressure tactics ever employed on a battlefield. He along with his family members and companions were massacred in the most barbaric manner by the evening of Ashoora.

By now the motives behind Imam Husain’s (a.s.) murder must be crystal clear to our readers. Yazid’s ascension to the throne of Syria and his unnecessary pursuit of Imam’s allegiance were the chief circumstances responsible for this tragedy.

Which Islamic sect advocates Yazid’s Caliphate

It is now time to address the more meaningful question - in the realm of Islam which sect considers Yazid’s Caliphate legitimate? As far as the Shias are concerned, they do not accord any worth to Yazid and his Caliphate; let alone Yazid, others far senior to him are not considered worthy of the caliphate that they assumed for themselves. Right from the first link in the chain of caliphate, the Shias have voiced their dissent making it abundantly evident that they have nothing to do with the Caliphs and their actions.

This fact has been adequately highlighted by the esteemed Ahle Sunnah historian - Hafiz Jalaluddin Suyuti in Tarikh al-Khulafa. At the beginning, he states clearly the reasons for compiling the book:

‘In this historical work I have recorded the biographies of those Caliphs who were known as Ameerul Momineen (Commander of the believers) and who were the Caliphs over the Muslims right from the era of Abu Bakr Siddiq (upto now).’

It is apparent from Hafiz Jalaaluddin’s comments that he considered the Caliphate of these individuals as legitimate and the title of Ameeerul Momineen (which they had sought for themselves although it was exclusively for Hazrat Ali (a.s.)) appropriate for them. Surprisingly, in his work, he does not list down the Egyptian Caliphs of Bani Fatimah (Fatimids), because he considers their Caliphate illegitimate:

‘Because their Caliphate was not legitimate for the following reasons.’

He enumerates the main reasons behind omitting their names from the list of legitimate Caliphs:

a)       They were not Quraishi

b)       Many among them were inclined towards apostates, oppressors and atheists i.e. they were not Muslims.

c)       Some of them considered alcohol as permissible.

d)       Even if they were sinless, they commanded the people to abuse the companions.

When such persons assume the mantle of Caliphate, paying allegiance to them cannot be considered correct and their leadership is without any basis.

By exposing his reasons and criteria for rejecting the Caliphs of Bani Fatimid, Hafiz Jalaaluddin Suyuti has opened the proverbial Pandora’s Box. His criteria must now stand scrutiny while enumerating the Caliphs of Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas. Were these Caliphs not guilty of perpetrating some of the crimes that Hafiz Jalaaluddin Suyuti has listed above?

a)       Did their rule not mark the advent of apostasy, oppression and atheism, thanks to their implicit and often explicit support?

b)       Were alcohol, and even worse homosexuality, not a part of their lifestyles?

c)       Didn’t they consider maligning the companions and even killing them (as in the incident of Harra) as perfectly legitimate?

Nonetheless, it is evident from Hafiz Jalaaluddin Suyuti’s rationale that all the Caliphs enumerated in his book are legitimate in the eyes of the Ahle Sunnah as it corresponds with their teachings and beliefs.

In addition to this, on the 9th page of his book, he records the famous prophetic saying:

‘This religion shall subsist till there exist 12 Caliphs.’

In his exegesis of this tradition, he asserts

‘The Muslims coincided in their view on Abu Bakr (i.e. there was a consensus), then Umar, then Usman, then Ali (a.s.). They then reached a consensus on Muawiya but only after the treaty with Hasan (a.s.), then they agreed upon his son - Yazid…’

As recorded in Sahih-e-Bukhaari, Ibn Hajar-e-Asqaalani has also advanced a similar exegesis of the Holy Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) tradition. It is apparent from the support that Yazid’s caliphate has received from all quarters in the Ahle Sunnah, that he was a legitimate caliph who had the consensus of the Muslims of his period.

This very Yazid was responsible for killing the beloved grandson of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) - Imam Husain (a.s.) - because he failed to submit to the ‘legitimate’ caliph of his time - Yazid. In other words, those who set out against Imam Husain (a.s.) and killed him and deemed this act to be legitimate are the same people who believed that Yazid was the rightful caliph of the Muslims since he met all the criteria of their religion. It is clear that the teachings of their religion not only raised Yazid to the position of Caliphate, but also brought about Imam Husain’s (a.s.) murder, both of which in their eyes are valid. As we have already reiterated, the Shias have nothing to do with both these events (Yazid’s caliphate and Imam Husain’s (a.s.) killing) and deem both acts to be heinous crimes.

The Creed of Imam Husain’s (a.s.) Killers

1) Umar ibn Sa’d

When Muslim ibn Aqeel (a.s.) arrived in Kufa to take the allegiance of the Shias on behalf of Imam Husain (a.s.), some residents of Kufa reported this development to Yazid. The authors of this letter were Abdullah ibn Muslim ibn Saeed Hazrami, Ammarah ibn Utbah and Umar ibn Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqaas. In the letter, they warned Yazid thus

‘Muslim ibn Aqeel (a.s.) has arrived in Kufa and the Shias have pledged allegiance on behalf of Imam Husain ibn Ali. If you wish to secure Kufa, appoint an authoritarian governor.’

It is with reference to this letter that Yazid wrote to Ibne Ziyaad. The text of the letter is noteworthy:

‘My Shias of Kufa have written to me…’

(Taarikh-e-Tabari vol. 6, p. 199-200)

Readers would have understood by now where Umar ibn Sa’d’s loyalties resided. By writing to Yazid that Shias were pledging allegiance to Imam Husain (a.s.), he had announced his disassociation from them. More importantly, Yazid, in his letter to Ibne Ziyaad proclaims Umar ibn Sa’d as one of his Shias i.e. Umar ibn Sa’d was among those who submitted to Yazid’s Caliphate. An objective analysis will tell the readers to which Islamic sect Umar ibn Sa’d belonged.

2) Ubaydillah ibn Ziyaad

Ibne Ziyaad’s role in Karbala is sufficiently highlighted by his letter to Umar ibn Sa’d:

‘Create obstacles between Husain and his companions on one side and water (i.e. the Euphrates) on the other so that not a single drop of water reaches them. Make them suffer the thirst that the pious, the pure, the oppressed Usman ibn Affan suffered…’

(Taarikh-e-Tabari vol. 6, p. 334)

The same letter with minor changes has been recorded by Abu Hanifa - Ahmad ibn Dawood in ‘Akhbaarut Tiwaal’ Egyptian Edition p. 352.

Now, where are those who consider Imam Husain’s (a.s.) killers Shias? Let them read the historical records of their own historian - Muhammad Ibn Jurair al-Tabari (in his Taarikh) and then determine whether Imam Husain’s (a.s.) killers were Shias.

Which sect mourns the death of Usman ibn Affan? Which sect considers Usman to be pious and pure and the rightful caliph? Which sect considers it legitimate to seek vengeance for Usman’s murder? If they are the Shias, then even we proclaim that the killers of Imam Husain (a.s.) were also the Shias?

3) Ka’b ibn Jaabir

Ka’b ibn Jaabir was a warrior from Umar ibn Sa’d’s army in Karbala. He was the killer of Burair ibn Khozair, one of Imam Husain’s (a.s.) respected companions. After the battle of Karbala, he returned to his house in Kufa with the hope of bagging a reward for his feat. His sister (or wife) - Nuwaar ibn Jaabir, rebuked him for battling against the son of Janabe Fatima Zahra (s.a.) and murdering the Chief of Reciters (Burair). She swore that she would never speak to him again.

At that moment, to explain his stand, Ka’b recited some couplets the meaning of which is worth noting:

‘Have I not executed the task, which grieves you, in the best possible manner? I have shown no slackness in the battlefield while engaging in this mission. I was equipped with a lance and arrow that did not desert me in the battlefield and I had a sword that was very sharp. I drew my sword to engage in battle with a group that practiced a faith different from mine. I have submitted (my faith) to the children of Abu Sufyan. I wish someone would convey my message to Ibne Ziyaad that I am a faithful and obedient servant of the Caliph.’

(Taarikh-e-Tabari vol. 6, p. 247-248)

The words in his poem - ‘that practiced a faith different from mine’ indicates that the religion of Imam Husain (a.s.) and his companions was very different from his own. He followed the creed of Ibne Ziyaad and the children of Abu Sufyan.

4) Muzaahim ibn Haaris

One of Imam Husain’s (a.s.) companions by the name of Naafe ibn Hilaal Jamali used to recite this verse while fighting:

‘I am from Bani Jamal and am on the religion of Ali (a.s.)’.

He soon ran into a wretched person from the other side - Muzaahim ibn Haaris who declared:

‘I am on Usman’s religion’.

Muzaahim gave further proof of his wretchedness by slaying Naafe’ and elevating him to the status of the martyrdom.

(Taarikh-e-Tabari vol. 6, p. 229)

This is another instance in history clearly demarcating the practitioners of both the creeds - those of Usman and those of Hazrat Ali (a.s.). It leaves no doubt in the mind of the student of history that both these paths were as distinct as chalk and cheese and the follower of one path can never be considered as the believer of the other.

5) Amr ibn Hajjaaj

While the Battle of Karbala was being waged, Amr ibn Hajjaaj from Umar ibn Sa’d’s army cried out - ‘O People of Kufa! Be steadfast on the commands of your chief and be firm on the consensus. Do not deviate from the view that we have formed on those who have abandoned the religion and thus disobey the Imam.’

When Imam Husain (a.s.) heard this presumptuous announcement, he retorted,

‘O Amr ibn Hajjaaj! Do you dare to invite the people to wage a battle against me? Have we abandoned the religion while you are firm on it? By Allah! When death overtakes you, you will know who has abandoned religion.’

(Taarikh-e-Tabari vol. 6, p. 249)

Let readers decide the creed denounced by Imam Husain (a.s.). Isn’t it the same creed that considers the transgressing Yazid as a legitimate caliph, opposition to whom resulted in Imam Husain (a.s.) being branded a rebel and a renegade (we seek refuge in Allah)?

These were but a few of the many historical records concerning Imam Husain’s (a.s.) murderers. If these records were penned by Shia historians they would have been subject to accusations of bias and prejudice. But Allah, the Almighty, in His Infinite Wisdom made falsehood itself submit to the truth and so we have the historians from Yazid’s creed penning these historical records that clearly establish the creed of Imam Husain’s (a.s.) killers. We invite those who consider Imam Husain’s (a.s.) killers as Shias, to read the Taarikhe-e-Tabari which is compiled by a follower of Yazid’s caliphate.

At the end, we beseech Allah to hasten the reappearance of Imam-e-Zamana (a.t.f.s.) and to give us the opportunity to join Imam’s (a.t.f.s.) army and avenge the unjust killing of Imam Husain (a.s.).