Search the Community

On a very serious note, Sunni brothers really need to check the works Im posting in the comments below. These works identify SUFYANI I, predict the rise of SUFYANI II in this decade and more importantly notify the already over first coming of DAJJAL and warn against the more dangerous second coming of DAJJAL masquerading as Mahdi, ALL FROM SUNNI PROPHECIES ONLY. More than just theories, most of the matter in these works consists of almost ascertained facts, fulfilled prophecies and prophecies very close to being fulfilled.

Assalamalekum Brothers and Sisters, It's the holy month of Muharram and the great Ashura has already passed. I would like to draw and topic to you and share my findings on the context. Kindly guide me on the issue if required. Fasting on 10th of Muharram is a common practice all over the world. However, I'd like to dissect the issue based on a lecture of Syed Ammar Nakshwani below: 1. Hadith of Fasting in Ashura Narrated Ibn `Abbas: The Prophet (ﷺ) came to Medina and saw the Jews fasting on the day of Ashura. He asked them about that. They replied, "This is a good day, the day on which Allah rescued Bani Israel from their enemy. So, Moses fasted this day." The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "We have more claim over Moses than you." So, the Prophet fasted on that day and ordered (the Muslims) to fast (on that day). Sahih Bukhari: Book of Fasting, Hadith# 222 Narrated Abu Musa: The day of 'Ashura' was considered as `Id day by the Jews. So the Prophet (ﷺ) ordered, "I recommend you (Muslims) to fast on this day." Sahih Bukhari: Book of Fasting, Hadith# 223 Narrated Ibn `Abbas: When Allah’s Messenger (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) came to Medina, he found the Jews observing the fast on the day of Ashura. They (the Jews) were asked about it and they said: It is the day on which Allaah granted victory to Moses and (his people) Bani Isra'il over the Pharaoh and we observe fast out of gratitude to Him. Upon this the Prophet of Allaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) said: We have a closer connection with Moses than you have, and he commanded to observe fast on this day. Sahih Muslim: Book of Fasting, Hadith# 2518 Narrated Ibn `Abbas: The Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) arrived in Medina and found the Jews observing fast on the day of 'Ashura. The Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) said to them: What is the (significance) of this day that you observe fast on it? They said: It is the day of great (significance) when Allaah delivered Moses and his people, and drowned the Pharaoh and his people, and Moses observed fast out of gratitude and we also observe it. Upon this the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) said: We have more right, and we have a closer connection with Moses than you have; so Allaah's Messenger (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) observed fast (on the day of 'Ashura), and gave orders that it should be observed. Sahih Muslim: Book of Fasting, Hadith# 2520 2. Narrators of the Hadith Now let’s dissect this issue in the light of the narrators of the Hadith: Ibn `Abbas: Abd Allah ibn Abbas or ′Abd Allah ibn al-′Abbas otherwise called (Ibn Abbas; Al-Habr; Al-Bahr; The Doctor; The Sea) was born c. 619 CE. He was the son of Al-‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib, an uncle of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, and a nephew of the Maymunah bint al-Harith, who later became Muhammad's wife. He was one of Muhammad's cousins and one of the early Qur'an scholars. Since Ibn Abbas was only approx. 3-4 years old (as our Prophet (SAW) migrated on 622 CE), it’s quite ironic that a child of such age experienced the event of Jewish fasting and can explain the whole event such accurately later on. Abu Musa: Abu-Musa Abd-Allah Ibn Qays al-Ash'ari, better known as Abu Musa al-Ashari (d.ca. 662 or 672) was a companion of Muhammad and an important figure in early Islamic history. He was at various times governor of Basra and Kufa and was involved in the early Muslim conquests of Persia. Abu Musa came originally from Zabid, region of Yemen, where his tribe, the Ashar, lived in the pre-Islamic period. He accepted Islam at Mecca prior to the hijra and returned to his native Yemen to propagate the faith. There was no news of him for more than a decade until following the conquest of Khaybar in 628 when he came to Muhammad in Medina with more than fifty converts from Yemen including his two brothers Abu Ruhm and Abu Burdah. Since Abu Musa returned in Khaybar on 628 CE, it can be seen that he was not also present during the Jewish Fasting issue. 3. Meaning of Ashura Although the term Ashura is considered as the 10th of Muharram, but according to the explanation of Arabic language scholar Ali-Ibn Al Athir (1160-1233), the word Ashura has two meanings, an old meaning and a new meaning. Ashura came from ‘Ashrah’ which means ten in Arabic, so according to the old meaning- the 10th day of any month is known as Ashura, and according to the new meaning- after the martyrdom of Hussain bin Ali (AS) the term Ashura refers to 10th day of Muharram month. So if for the sake of argument if we believe that the Jewish fasting was on Ashura, it’s not necessary that it was the 10th of Muharram. 4. Arabic Calendar VS Jewish Calendar It’s quite ironic that Jews of medina were following the Arabic calendar that time, whereas they had their own calendar. It’s assumed that the day they referred that time could be the 10th of Tishri or 15th of Nisan according to the Jewish calendar. 10th of Tishri in Judaism is known as YOM KEPOOR or Ayiam e Kaffara (Year of Attonment) was the date when Moses (AS) came back from mount Sinai and saw his followers worshiping the golden calf. And 15th of Nisan was the date when the Jews were saved from being drowned in Nile. Now let’s peep into the miscalculations of dates for the event: 1. If the event referred to 10th of Tishri, the only year that time when 10th Muharram and 10th Tishri collided, was on 40th Year of Hijrah. So it could not be the Year when Prophet (SAW) entered Medina. 2. If it was 15th of Nisan, then it should have been the 23rd of Ramadan of the Year of Hijrah, not 10th of Muharram. 3. Last but not the least, Prophet (SAW) entered Medina on Rabiul Awwal, not Muharram!! Considering the discussed facts we can conclude that the Hadith of Jewish fasting is a fabrication and should not be let supersede the greatness of the Martyrdom of Imam Hussain (AS) and his holy family. Jazakullah Khairan.

Recently, I was asked to read Tarikh Al-Tabari's Volume 19 related to Karbala. I made a comment that I was not a fan of Tabari and was told: I even listed my reason (Ibn Saba) as a main reason. I also wrote that history is always written from the perspective of the historian and was given grief over it by another member. Full disclosure: When I read Tabari's Volume 19 related to Yazid's reign several years ago, I had focused primarily on the account of Karbala. I read it this time from a more critical angle and realized how Pro-Yazid or pro-Ummayya Tabari was. Then I read the Translator's Foreword that re-affirmed my theory. Here are some excerpts from Tabari related to Yazid: There may, however, have been a little more to it than that. According to both Balidhuri and Ibn A`tham, Mu`iwiyah had agreed, in the treaty he made with al-Hasan b. `All on the latter's abdication, that there should be a consultative council (shard) to decide the succession after him. However, Tabari fails to mention this. Translator's Foreword For this Ibn al-Kalbi's account, or Tabari's version of it, leaves the main source, Abu Mikhnaf, and adopts the account of `Awanah b. al-Hakam. In this account, Yazid's appointment of Ubaydallah is as the result of advice from his Christian adviser Sarjun, who presents it as Mu`awiyah's advice. Clearly the appointment of `Ubaydallah is being laid at the door of the Christian Sarjun and blame for what ensues is in some way removed from Yazid. Translator's Foreword It is `Awinah, too, who reports the three choices given by Yazid of dealing with Muslim b. `Agil: (a) the first to imprison him; (b) the second to kill him; (c) and the third to banish him. The fact that Ubaydallah chooses to kill him again in some way diminishes the responsibility of Yazid for that action. Translator's Foreword The Baran historian Wahb b. lair (d. 2o7/82s) has Muslim, before he is killed, declare at the behest of `Ubaydallah that he is a leader of rebels, in this way detracting from any heroism Muslim may have shown. This historical report is completely ignored by Tabari. Translator's Foreword According to Abu Mikhnaf, the consensus of historians at this time was that al-Husayn had offered `Omar b. Sad, `Ubaydallah's commander of his forces against al-Husayn at Karbala', three options: (a) he would go back; (b) he would go to a frontier post; or (c) he would go to Yazid and put his hand in his and see what his view was. If these were really offered, then `Ubaydallah's task was over. All he had to do was send al-Husayn to Yazid. However, Ubaydallah insisted that al-Husayn must submit to him; this was too much for al-Husayn. He, his followers, and his family accepted death. The blame for al-Husayn's death according to this is clearly the responsibility of `Ubaydallah, and not Yazid. The purpose of this version originally may have been merely intended to transfer the blame for al-Husayn's death from Yazid to'Ubaydallah. Translator's Foreword Abu Mikhnaf himself has reports for both Yazid and Ubaydallah, poking at the teeth in al-Husayn's head. In'Awanah's version, when the surviving prisoners are sent to Yazid, he treats them well and declares that if he had been there he would never have killed a1-Husayn. From the extracts we have from `Awanah's account, it seems that he is transferring all the blame he can from Yazid to `Ubaydallah. Translator's Foreword There is the same tendency in the sources to try to mitigate the responsibility of Yazid for these crimes against Islam by thrusting the blame on his generals, in this case, Muslim b. Ugbah and Hugayn b. Numayr al-Sakuni. Translator's Foreword When the letters reached Yazid-and there were only two days between their letters-he summoned Sarjun, a mawli of Mu'iwiyah and asked him, "What is your view of the fact that Husayn has directed his attention toward al-Knfah, and Muslim b. 'Agil is in al-KUfah receiving the oath of allegiance on his behalf? I have also learnt that al-Nu'man is weak, I have had other bad reports of him." Then he read him their letters land asked), "Whom do you think that I should appoint as governor of al-Kufah ?" Now Yazid was angry with 'Ubaydallah b. Ziyad, so Sarjun answered him, "Do you think, if Mu' awiyah were recalled to life for you, that you would take his advicel " He answered, "Yes." Sarjun produced a letter of appointment for'Ubaydallah b. Ziyad as governor of al- Kufah and said, " This is the advice of Mteiwiyah written before he died." So he took his advice, joined the two cities under the authority of'Ubaydallah, and sent him his letter of appointment. PG30-31 Yazid's eyes filled with tears , and he said, "I would have been satisfied with your obedience without killing al-Husayn. May God curse Ibn Sumayyah. By God! If it had been I who had accompanied him, I would have let him off. May God have mercy on al-Husayn." Yaziid gave the messenger nothing. PG 169 When the heads were put in front of Yazid-the head of al-Husayn and those of his family and his followers-Yazid recited: [Swords] split the skulls of men who are dear to us, but they were more disobedient and oppressive.547 [Then he added,) "Yet, by God, Husayn, if I had been to fight you, I would not have killed you." PG170 Yazid summoned the women and the children and they were made to sit in front of him. He saw a dreadful sight. He said, "May God detest Ibn Marjinah. If there had been any kinship between him and you, he would not have done this to you; he would not have sent you thus." PG171 According to Abu Mikhnaf-al-Harith b. Ka'b-Fitimah, daughter of `All-:554 When we were made to sit before Yazid, he showed pity to us, ordered things for us and was kind to us. PG171 Yazid never ate lunch or dinner without inviting All b. al-Husayn to join him . PG172 When they were about to leave, he summoned `All b. al -Husayn and said, "God curse Ibn Marjanah , if I had been with your father, he would never have asked a favor from me without my granting it to him; I would have protected him from death with all my power, even through the destruction of some of my own children. But God has decreed what you have seen . Write to me from Medina and report everything that you need." PG172 Then the womenfolk of al-Husayn were brought in to Yazid. The womenfolk of Yazid's family, the daughters of Mu`awiyah and his family, shrieked with grief and lamentation. Falimah, daughter of al-Husayn--she was older than Sukaynah-asked, "Are the daughters of the Apostle of God prisoners , Yazid?" Yazid replied, "Cousin, I was unwilling for this to happen." She said , "By God! Not even an earring has been left to us " He answered, "Cousin, what will be given to you will be greater than what has been taken from you." Then they were taken out and taken to the house of Yazid b. Mu`awiyah. There was not a woman of Yazid's family who did not begin to lament and grieve . Yazid sent to each of the women, "What has been taken from you ?" No woman claimed anything, however expensive, without his giving double its value. Sukaynah used to say, "I never saw a man who did not believe in God who was better than Yazid b. Mu'awiyah." PG173 Tabari mentions the events of Karbala in great detail. Then he lays blame of it on Ibn ZIyad. When Yazi'd forces attacked Medina and Makkah, Tabari has a chapter on it with very limited details. He doesnt mention the plunder, pillage and rape of Medina, the desecration of the Prophet's mosque, etc. So now I have to ask this question: How many of you are fans of Tabari? The choice presented to me was that if I am not a fan of Tabari, then I should throw out 80% of my knowledge of Islamic history. If accepting 80% of Islamic knowledge comes with the price of absolving Yazid for his crimes as Tabari has done, then call me ignorant, uneducated, illiterate, narrow-minded, close-minded, jahil, brain-washed BUT I throw out 80% KNOWLEDGE OF Islamic HISTORY.

Can you please help with these doubts that I've met recently and since then i feel like all of the waqia e karbala is twisted . 1. Was imam hussain going to koofa to build an army if yes then it was a good strategy by opponents to kill them when they were alone. 2. Why the opponents didn't kill imam sajjad in karbala as without him there would've been no shias and eventually everybody would've obeyed yazid. 3. Imam hussain was forced to leave madina but he left a daughter there to whom no harm was made. Please help me clear my concepts

Hey all, I'm doing research on how (Shia) Muslims perceive the Karbala narrative in relation to the Syrian Civil War. I've seen that there are already many threads that mention Yazid and Husayn in relation to the Syrian Civil War, but I want to see if its possible to start an organized discussion about this topic. What I am interested in is: How do you understand, perceive and explain the events at Karbala? Often the Karbala narrative is analysed by researchers as a narrative about: ''What is right versus wrong, belief versus disbelief, and the oppressed versus the oppressor, faith against brute force. Karbala was about standing in the face of oppression, regardless no matter the cost''. Is this definition correct to you? Hamid Dabashi notes: Yazid is the personification of evil and injustice in the Shi’i historical memory’ while Hossein ''represents the ideal type: a revolutionary hero who revolts against zulm (tyranny)'' (Hamid Dabashi, A religion of protest (2011)) How do you perceive the story of Karbala in relation to the Syrian Civil War? Is it a conflict between right and wrong, as often displayed in the media? Do you perceive it as a revolution by the oppressed versus an oppressor? Is it right to compare Assad to Yazid or Assad to Husayn, and if so; does it even matter? What is your opinion on politicians using the Karbala narrative in the Syrian Civil War? Do you agree with them, is it correct to use it this way, and does it influence your perception of the war? Political actors in the Syrian Civil War have evoked the narrative as following: ‘We need to prevent another Karbala from happening’ - Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah leader in late 2011 ‘We are facing monsters, the grandsons of Yazid and Muawiyah, and the grandsons of those who carried out the Karbala massacres – and today they want to repeat them’ - Akram al-Kaabi from Iraqi Ḥaraka Ḥizballāh an-Nujabā in a speech for Iraqi militia troops in Aleppo late 2016 ‘What is happening in Syria is similar to what happened in Karbala, but the oppressed and the oppressors are different’ -Turkish president Recip Erdogan at Arab Awakening conference in Istanbul 2012 ‘Karbala is in Aleppo this year, and the infant of Imam Hussain is under the rubble of its houses’ - Subhi al-Tufayli, formal leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah-movement, at Friday sermon in Beirut 2016 I think its only fair to give some info on myself and on why I am doing this research. Lets start with saying I'm Dutch and not religious. First time I encountered Shiism and the story of Hussain was when I was young and playing with my Lebanese (shia) friends. After my trip to Iran in 2014 and speaking to many Iranians, I found the story of Husayn very interesting and I continued to do more research on how the story and life of Hussain became so influential in the collective memory of Iranian Muslims. This research can be read here, but note its in Dutch; https://www.academia.edu/26035771/Labbayk_YaHussain_collective_Muharram-rituals_the_conversion_of_Iran_by_the_Safavids_and_the_creation_of_a_Iranian_identity_Dutch_ Thank you already for taking time and reading (and thinking about this) and possibly already for contributing to this discussion, I'm looking forward to hear of you!

The following video is the first episode of the Hussein of Era series, I hope you to learn things and find a way to change your life for the real purpose of shi'ism.

Yazeed Grave, Yazeed ki Qabar ka Haal, Allah ki La'anat us par aur us ki Qabar par yazeed ki qabar par kanch ki bhatti, maqam e ibrat, jable qasun, syria mein qabar hai us lanati shaks ki, jitna zyada se zyada ho sake uski qabar ko share karein aur batadein yazid ke chahnewaloan ko, Allah ka azab yazid ki qabar par, take wo ibrat hasil karke hidayat pa kar, imam hussain zindabad keh sakein. yazid ki qabar

(salam) (bismillah) One of our brothers from the HCY forum ([url Edited]) has complied a number of refutations of the RevisitingTheSalaf group (99% refuted apparently) and has asked for the link to this website to be distributed to Shi'a websites and circles for reading. www.twelvershia.net Enjoy. (salam)

Dear Shia brothers and sisters, I am new here and am posting for the first time. I hope this post will be shown. When I talk to my sunni class fellows and try to convince them that shi'ism is good. It works and they are almost convinced but I get stuck at one point. They say that the kufis who joined Yazid after writting Imam Hussain (A.s) so many letters were also Shia and ask me what I have to say about that. Can someone Please help me so i can reply to them and strengthen my Faith. Your help would be deeply appreciated

This is an extremely important topic, and I don't want to be controversial; but it is important to discuss in my opinion, and the reasons why we are seeing a plague in Muslim societies today. I won't go into the specifics of what happened right after the death of the Prophet(S) to avoid sounding controversial. Let us say that Hazrat Umar was a good administrator of the Islamic empire, and kept a tight lid/control over affairs. The empire grew very rapidly after the death of Prophet(S), in fact, too rapidly, which caused a lot of problems. However, after the death of Hazrat Umar, rifts based on tribal affiliations and families started taking place within the Muslim community. The Ummayads started to influence matters, and challenged the writ of the state. I would say that the problem with the Muslim community even during the time of Prophet(S) was that the people that had directly fought Muslims in the Battles of Badr and Uhad, people/munafiqs such as Abu Sufyan and Khalid bin Waleed, started gaining prominence in the Muslim Ummah once they entered the realm of Islam, and after the life of the Prophet(S) during the caliph's times. It were these people, and their progeny (Muawiya was the son of Abu Sufyan, Yazid was the son of Muawiya) that caused the destruction of Muslim society, and caused tremendous pain and suffering to the family of the Prophet(S). It was clear from the death of Hazrat Umar, that the Muslim community started disintegrating rapidly, with the Ummayads (and Abbasids later on) trying to grab power at the expense of the state. Imam Ali (AS) saw Muawiya responsible for the first great fitna, and in-fighting between Muslims in the Battle of Jamal and Siffin. Imam Hasan (AS) had to settle with Muawiya through a peace treaty, and was then poisoned to death. It was abundantly clear that under Yazid, and bloodthirsty, power grabbing people; Islam would have gone undergone total destruction, and Imam Hussain (AS) made the ultimate sacrifice in Karbala. However, with the rise of ISIS and other militant groups throughout the world, we can see all this emanated after the life of Prophet(S), with the gradual disintegration of the Muslim Ummah. Green - Region under the control of Imam Ali (AS) Red - Region under the control of Muawiya Blue - Region under the control of Amr bin Aas It absolutely boggles me how anyone can call the progeny of Abu Sufyan (Muawiya, Yazid), and Abu Sufyan companions of the Prophet(S), when they were responsible for creating fitna in the Muslim society for their thirst for power; and are the reason why we see the plague in the Muslim world today. There are more and more Wahabi and Deobandi scholars coming out today, praising Yazid (calling him Yazeed ® nauzibillah) and claiming Imam Hussain (AS) was wrong. Calling Yazid the rightful caliph, and Imam Hussain (AS) a rebel. This is the reason why the Muslim world, and especially the Arab world, has its plague.

Doubt A section of the Muslims who find themselves in a spot while defending Yazid’s role in killing Imam Husain (a.s.) make lame excuses and indulge in Shia-bashing as if maligning Shias is the answer to all their woes. Among their most ludicrous claims is that the Shias themselves killed Imam Husain (a.s.) and are now repenting for the same. Reply1. Who killed Hamzah? 2. Role of companions 3. Yazid’s role 4. Who are the Shias? 5. Yazid’s forces were not Shias Back to TopWho killed Hamzah (a.s.)?Who killed Ammar? This lame excuse reminds one of the argument advanced by Yazid’s father nearly 1,400 years ago when he found himself similarly cornered in Siffeen on the count of being responsible for Ammar’s (r.a.) death, a fact prophesied by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). To deflect blame for killing Ammar b. Yasir (r.a.), one of the greatest companions for whom Paradise was assured, Muawiyah conveniently shifted the blame for the crime of murdering Ammar to Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) by suggesting that since Ali (a.s.) had got Ammar to the Battle of Siffeen, he was the one responsible for killing Ammaar and not Muawiyah. Going by Muawiyah’s rationale the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) is likewise responsible for killing his own uncle Hamzah who came to the Battlefield of Ohad on his (s.a.w.a.) instruction! Apparently, shifting the blame from the perpetrator of the crime to those who are the farthest in committing it is the most favored response of these Muslims. Let us see how we can identify the perpetrators of other crimes using the rationale of these Muslims. Who killed Hamzah (a.s.)? 1. Of course, conventional wisdom suggests as backed by history that the responsibility for killing Hamzah (a.s.) lies with the infidels of Mecca who waged war against the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and Muslims. 2. And we have also seen that according to Muawiyah’s rationale, the responsibility for killing Hamzah (a.s.) was with the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). 3. According to the rationale of these Muslims, the responsibility for Hamzah’s death lies with another group altogether. Let’s refer to the 153rd verse of Surah Aale Imran (3) to find the answer: ‘When you ran off precipitately and did not wait for anyone, the Apostle was calling you from your rear…’ Since according to these Muslims, the treachery of the Shias killed Imam Husain (a.s.), it follows that the treachery of the companions in the Battle of Ohad killed Hamzah (a.s.). However, for obvious reasons these Muslims won’t admit this fact and will apply their rationale selectively against the Shias. Who killed Usman? 1. Conventional wisdom suggests that Usman was killed by the Muslims who laid siege to his house and ultimately killed him for his misguided policies. 2. But according to the rationale of these Muslims who put the blame squarely on those who act treacherously, the blame for killing Usman lies with his cousin – Muawiyah b. Abu Sufyan. It is not a secret that the siege on Usman’s house lasted for over a month during which time he sent SOS to, among others, his cousin Muawiyah. However, for the period Usman was under siege which was considerable, Muawiyah did not send in his army to bail out Usman. This despite the fact that Muawiyah had a huge army at his disposal which only two years later took on the might of the entire Muslim army in Siffeen. If Muawiyah had shown the same alacrity and enthusiasm in sending help to Medina to rescue Usman, that his son Yazid showed after ascending the throne to demand allegiance from Imam Husain (a.s.) in Medina, Usman’s life could well have been saved. Regardless, does this mean that Usman was a victim of Muawiyah’s treachery rather than the Muslims who actually killed him? Going by the argument of these Muslims, the answer is yes – Muawiyah killed Usman. VISIT SERATONLINE.COM FOR MORE ARTICLES Back to TopRole of companionsWho killed Imam Husain (a.s.)? According to this group of Muslims, Imam Husain (a.s.) was a victim of treachery by the Shias. First and foremost if blame must be placed based on treachery, the companions and taabe’een displayed it in ample measure by not supporting Imam Husain (a.s.) against Yazid. Treachery of the companions and taabe’een In order to show Yazid in a positive light, these Muslims themselves claim that: ‘Several hundreds of companions despite being alive at the time kept aloof from the battle at Karbala to save the nation from entanglement and bloodshed. Had it been an encounter between good and evil, the companions who throughout their lives had not shirked jihad would have definitely thrown all their weight behind Imam Husain (a.s.).’ So the companions stayed away from Karbala citing confusion between truth and falsehood and not wanting to create bloodshed. If the companions and taabe’een were indeed confused, then it is despite the fact that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had often declared that Imam Husain (a.s.) is the Lamp of Guidance and the Ark of Salvation. And that Imam Husain (a.s.) and his brother Imam Hasan (a.s.) were the Chiefs of the Youths of Paradise. And that both of them were his sons according to the Verse of Mubahelah in Surah Aale Imran (3): 61 when they along with the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and their parents Ali (a.s.) and Fatima (s.a.) confronted the Christians of Najraan for malediction and drove them into submission. Moreover, the Quran, which was a sufficient recourse for the Muslims after the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) demise, has prescribed a solution for confusion: ‘…so ask the People of the Reminder if you do not know.’ (Surah Nahl (16): Verse 43) It is a common fact recorded by Sunni commentators of the Noble Quran that Imam Husain (a.s.) was among the People of the Reminder (Ahle Zikr). Scores of Sunni scholars over the years have recorded these and other virtues of Imam Husain (a.s.) in their books. Why did the companions and taabe’een, who were present in the time of Imam Husain (a.s.) and were witness to many of these narrations and incidents, lack the judgment to distinguish between Imam Husain (a.s.) and Yazid? More so when we find clear instructions from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) urging the Muslims to support Imam Husain (a.s.) as evident from the following narration: The Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) companion Anas b. Haaris relates – I heard Allah’s Prophet (s.a.w.a.) say: ‘Verily my son, (Husain), will be killed in a land called Karbala; whoever amongst you is alive at that time must go and help him.’ Tarikh-o-Damishq vol 14 p 223 Are these Muslims suggesting that Umar b. Saad b. Abi Waqqas, who led Yazid’s army in Karbala and was among the leading taabe’een, and the son of a leading companion, had never heard of Imam Husain’s (a.s.) virtues? This despite the fact that Imam Husain (a.s.) was also his cousin? Then why did he fight Imam Husain (a.s.)? If this is not an example of treachery by the companions and taabe’een then what is? It follows that the confusion between truth and falsehood was not the reason for the companions abandoning support to Imam Husain (a.s.) in Karbala. It was plain treachery which we saw in ample measure in Ohod and Hunain despite the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) presence in their midst. Obviously when the companions did not support the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in his life time, it is too much to expect them to support his grandson (a.s.) 50 years after his (s.a.w.a.) demise. Therefore we hold the companions responsible for abandoning their duty in supporting Imam Husain (a.s.) in Karbala and in this way being responsible for killing him. Back to TopYazid’s roleYazid’s role in killing Imam Husain (a.s.) Of course, notwithstanding everyone else who contributed to the turn of events in Karbala, Yazid’s role is unmistakable. He is the one who sought to subjugate Imam Husain (a.s.) into giving him allegiance as various historical records testify. We read in Maqtal al-Husain of Khaarazmi: Yazid wrote: ‘Force Husain, Abdullah b. Umar and Abdullah b. Zubair to give allegiance and don’t spare them.’ We also find in the same source: When he (Waleed) read Yazid’s letter for him (Marwan) and consulted him in the matter and said: ‘What do you think we shall do?’ He (Marwan) replied: ‘Send for them now and ask them to give allegiance and obey us. If they accept, we will let them go but if they reject you should arrest them and strike off their heads. This is clearly Yazid demanding allegiance and triggering the chain of events culminating in Imam Husain’s (a.s.) martyrdom. All other excuses like Shias killing Imam Husain (a.s.) and Imam Husain (a.s.) revolting against Yazid etc. have no merit and are only advanced to hide the real culprit – Yazid b. Muawiyah. Yazid’s letter to Ubaidullah b. Ziyad (l.a.) We read in Mataalib al-So’l: Ibn Ziyad wrote to Husain – I have received information that you have arrived in Karbala, and Yazid has told me not to kill you, provided you accept his authority and mine. Jalaluddin Suyuti records in Taarikh al-Khulafaa: Yazid wrote to his governor in Iraq, Ubaidullah b. Ziyad, ordering him to fight him (Husain). Therefore, he (Ibn Ziyad) sent an army consisting of four thousand people led by Umar b. Saad b. Abi Waqaas. Zahabi records in Siyar Aalam al-Nobala, vol.3 p. 305: Muhammad Ibn al-Dahak narrated from his father: When Husain marched, Yazid wrote to his governor Ibn Ziyad: Husain is marching to Kufa and he is a problem of your time not of other times, your state not of other states and you not for the other governors. At that time you might be free or be slaved.’ Therefore Ibn Ziyad killed him (on Yazid’s beckoning) and sent his head to him (Yazid). Ibn Ziyad’s own admission that he killed Imam Husain (a.s.) on Yazid’s orders In Taarikh al-Kaamil, vol.4 p. 112, we find: He (Yazid) wrote to Ubaidullah b. Ziyad ordering him to march towards Medina and surround (Abdullah) Ibn Zubair in Mecca. He (Ibn Ziyad) replied: I can’t give both these things to this transgressor (Yazid), after killing the grandson of Allah’s Prophet (s.a.w.a.), I am not now going to assault the Ka’bah. Testimony of Ibn Abbas that Yazid killed Imam Husain (a.s.) We read in Tareekh al-Kaamil: Ibn Abbas replied to Yazid’s letter stating: ‘… you killed Husain as well as the youths from Bani Abdul Muttalib who were beacons of guidance and famed stars; your troops marched towards them on your orders.’ Testimony of Abdullah b. Umar that Yazid killed Imam Husain (a.s.) We read in Maqtal al-Husain: Ibn Umar wrote to Yazid: Hasn’t your heart gone black yet? You murdered thefamily of the Prophet? Muawiyah b. Yazid’s testimony that his father Yazid killed Imam Husain (a.s.) We read in Hayaat al-Hayawaan: When Yazid’s son Muawiyah ascended the throne, in his very first sermon he confessed: We are certain about Yazid’s wrongdoing; he killed the family of the Prophet, deemed alcohol permissible, and tormented the Ka’bah. Yazid’s own admission that he killed the family of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) We read in Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar: Following the murder of Imam Husain (a.s.), Yazid declared: I avenged the killing of my relatives in Badr through killing of the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) family. The testimony of Shah Abdul Aziz that Yazid killed Imam Husain (a.s.) When the cruel people of Syria and Iraq upon Yazid’s orders and with the efforts of the chief of hatred and corruption, Ibn Ziyad, martyred Imam Husain… (Tohfah Ithnaa Ashari (Urdu), p. 8 published in Karachi) The testimony of Shah Abdul Haqq al-Dehlavi that Yazid killed Imam Husain (a.s.): We read in Al Shiaath al Lamaat vol 4 p 623 Bab Manaqib Quraysh: It is unusual that some say Yazid did not kill Husain when he instructed Ibn Ziyad to carry out the killing. The testimony of Imam Zahabi that Yazid killed Imam Husain (a.s.) Imam Zahabi in his authoritative work Taarikh al-Islam vol 5 p 30 states: I say: When Yazid did to the people of Medina what he did and killed Husain and his brothers and progeny, and Yazid drank alcohol, and performed abominable things, the people hated him and rose up against him more than once. Allah didn’t bless his life and Abu Bilal Mirdas b. Adya al-Hanzali rose against him. The testimony of Ibn Khaldun that Yazid killed Imam Husain (a.s.): It is impermissible to support Yazid in the matter of killing Husain; nay (Husain’s) murder is Yazid’s deed that proves him to be a transgressor (faasiq) and Husain a martyr. (Al-Muqaddimah by Ibn Khaldun, p. 254) The testimony of Ibn Kathir that Yazid killed Imam Husain (a.s.) While discussing the events of 63 AH, Ibn Kathir, a student of Ibn Taymiyyah, states: It is already mentioned that he (Yazid) killed Husain and his companions through Ubaidullah b. Ziyad. Al Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah, vol.8 p. 243 Testimony of Qaazi Thanaaullah Panipati that Yazid killed Imam Husain (a.s.) Qaazi Thaanaullah Panipati (exp. 1225 AH) was a Sunni scholar of the thirteenth century, who studied under Shah Waliullah Muhaddith-e-Dehlavi (exp. 1176 AH) while his son Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddith-e-Dehlavi (exp. 1239 AH) would call Qaazi Thaanaullah the ‘Baihaqi of his time’. He was also the caliph of Mirza Mazhar Jaan-e-Jaanaan (exp. 1195 AH) who would refer to Qaazi Thanaaullah as ‘Alam al-Huda’ (the standard of guidance). His commentary of the Holy Quran, Tafseer-e-Mazhari, is very popular among these Muslims. Hence, his views about Yazid are extremely pertinent. Under the commentary of Surah Noor (24): Verse 55, (“…and whoever is ungrateful after this, these it is who are the transgressors…”) he records: It is possible that this verse refers to Yazid b. Muawiyah who martyred the grandson of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and his companions; companions who were actually the members of the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) family. Tafsee-e-Mazhari (Urdu), vol.8 p. 268 He also writes: Yazid and his associates did Kufr with the bounties of Allah. They deemed it as their aim to have a grudge against the progeny of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), murdered Husain (a.s.) unjustly. Yazid did Kufr with the religion of Prophet (s.a.w.a.) to the extent that Yazid recited the following couplets over the killing of Husain (r.a.): ‘Where are my ancestors, they should come and see that I have taken revenge from the progeny of the Prophet and Bani Hashim’. And the last verse was: ‘I would not be from the progeny of Jandab had I not taken revenge from the progeny of Ahmad for whatever they had done.’ Tafseer-e-Mazhari (Urdu), vol.5 p. 271, commentary of Surah Ibrahim (14):29 Yazid’s pride at killing Imam Husain (a.s.) Ibn Asaakir writes: ….when Husain’s head was brought before Yazid, he recited the couplets of Ibn Zubairi: I wish my ancestors of Badr were here to see the fright of al-Khazraj (tribe) as the spears hit. (Al-Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah, vol.8 p. 204) Moreover, we read: Al-Qasim b. Bakt said: When the head of Husain was placed in front of Yazid b. Muawiyah, he struck his (Husain’s) teeth with his stick and remarked: His (Husain’s) and my example is same as the saying of Husain b al-Hamaam al-Mari: These swords split the heads of those men who pose harm to us and they were very disobedient and oppressors. Al-Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah, vol.8 p. 209 Consensus states that Yazid killed Imam Husain (a.s.) Although the Muslims favoring Yazid would have us believe us otherwise, there can be no doubt in the minds of the unbiased student of history that the responsibility for Imam Husain’s (a.s.) killing lies with Yazid alone. No amount of false propaganda and Shia-bashing is going to change this fact. The following renowned Sunni books firmly establish that Yazid killed Imam Husain (a.s.): 1. Maqtal al-Husain al Khaarazmi, vol.2 p. 80 chap 9 2. Tareekh Yaqoobi, vol.2 p. 299 Dhikr Yazid 3. Mataalib al-So’l, vol.2 p. 26 4. Nur al Absaar p. 139 5. Al Bidayah wa al Nihaayah, p. 219 Zikr 63 Hijri 6. Tareekh al-Kaamil vol.4 p. 69 7. Tareekh al-Tabari p. 408 Zikr Ibn Ziyad 8. Akhbaar al Tiwaal p. 384 9. Tazkirah al-Khawaas p. 159 10. Hayaat al Haywaan vol.1 p. 88 11. Tareekh al-Khamees, vol.2 p. 301 12. Al-Sawaaiq al Muhriqah p. 134 13. Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar p. 73 14. Tohfah aI-Ithna al-Ashariyyah, p. 6 vol.1 15. Al Shiaath al Lamaat vol.4 p. 623 Bab Manaqib Quraysh 16. Shazarath al Dhahab, vol.1 p. 69 Zikr 61 Hijri 17. Tafseer-e-Mazhari vol.5 p. 21 Part 13 Surah Ibrahim 18. Aqaid al-Islam, p. 232 by Maulana Abdul Haqq Haqqaani 19. Imam-e-Paak aur Yazid-e-Paleed, p. 88 20. Aqaid-e-Nafsee, p. 113 21. Sharh al-Maqaasid, vol.2, p. 309 22. Nuzul al Abraar p. 97 23. Irfan al-Shariah, vol.2 p. 21 24. Al-Fataawaa by Maulana Abdul Hai p. 79 25. Shaheed-e-Karbala pp. 11-12 by Mufti Muhammad Shaafi In Irfan-e-Shariat, Yazid’s role is exposed: Yazid tore away a piece of the Prophet’s heart, starving him for three days and then killing him, together with his companions. Thereafter, he ordered for horses to trample his body after his martyrdom, as a result of which his body was ripped to shreds. His head was then mounted on a spear; this was a head that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) would kiss. The head was (shamelessly) exhibited at various places; people of the household were arrested and brought before the evil Yazid. Cursed is he who does not deem such acts as atrocious! Cursing Yazid is permissible for his role in killing Imam Husain (a.s.) If Yazid was not responsible for killing Imam Husain (a.s.), so many Muslim scholars including the noted Sunni Imams like Imam Ahmed b. Hanbal, Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik b. Anas and Imam Shaafe’ee would not have permitted cursing him. Yazid’s role before and after Karbala The killing of Imam Husain (a.s.) was not a one week affair that began and ended in Karbala. Demand for allegiance in Medina, Marwan’s threat, Yazid’s replacing Noman b. Basheer with Ibn Ziyad along with clear instructions to subdue and kill Imam Husain (a.s.) if necessary, etc. suggest that killing Imam Husain (a.s.) was pre-determined and well-planned. Even if we accept the argument that Imam Husain (a.s.) was a victim of Shiite treachery rather than the oppression and tyranny of the progenies of Abu Sufyan, Marwan and Ziyad, this only explains the events of Karbala and Kufa. The events in the first and last legs of the journey in Medina and Syria respectively belie the claim that Shias killed Imam Husain (a.s.). The following events that transpired in Syria clearly underscore the role of Yazid in killing Imam Husain (a.s.) as there is no sign of any Shiite element over here: 1. Insulting Imam Husain’s (a.s.) head Ibn Jauzi records in his book Al-Radd alaa al-Mutassib al-Aneed al-Maane’ le zamme Yazid, p. 58: Ibn Abi Dunya recorded from Salamah b. Shabib from Al-Humaidi from Sufyan from Salim b. Abi Hafsah from Hasan (al-Basri): Yazid Ibn Muawiyah was prodding with a stick the place that Allah’s Messenger (s.a.w.a.) himself used to kiss. How shameful! 2. Disrespect to the Prophet’s (a.s.) household Ibn Imaad Hanbali records in his famed work Shazarat al-Dahab vol. 1 p. 61: When he (Imam Husain (a.s.)) was killed, his head, his women-folk and (his son) Imam Zain al-Aabedeen were taken to Damascus as slaves. May Allah destroy and disgrace whoever did this, whoever issued the orders and whoever was pleased with it! 3. Eid-like celebrations History is replete with narrations of Eid-like celebrations in Syria on the killing of Imam Husain (a.s.) and cheering on the parading of the children and women of Imam’s (a.s.) household. All the events of Syria, particularly those that transpired in Yazid’s court viz. insulting Imam Husain’s (a.s.) head and mistreatment of Imam’s (a.s.) household members are Yazid’s doing and there is not even a remote sign of a Shiite element over here, just as there is no sign of Shias in the events of Medina and Karbala. Back to TopWho are the Shias?Since these Muslims will not desist from accusing and blaming Shias for the blunders of their leaders, it is important to answer this question in a manner that will put to rest all accusations. A Shia is the one who believes in Allah’s Oneness (Tauheed), the Prophethood of the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) and the leadership of the divinely appointed Imams (a.s.). So long as he is steadfast on these cornerstones of belief he is a Shia. If he denies any one tenet he is outside the realm of belief and cannot be called a Shia. Those who betrayed Imam Husain (a.s.) in Karbala cannot be called as Shias any more than those who turned against Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) in the battle of Siffeen and were later branded as Khaarijis can be called Shias. So, it is erroneous to claim that Imam Husain (a.s.) was killed by his Shias. These were his Shias until the time they were steadfast on their allegiance to him. When they severed their allegiance and fought against him they lost their identity as Shias and were just like the other Muslims in Yazid’s forces. Perhaps one of the more defining traditions about a Shia is from the Master himself – Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.): Even if I strike the nose of a believer (momin/Shia) with this sword for hating me, he will not hate me, and even if I pile all the wealth of the world before a hypocrite (munafiq) for loving me he will not love. This is because it is pronounced by the tongue of the beloved Prophet. O Ali, a believer will never hate you and a hypocrite (Muslim) will never love you. (Nahjul Balaghah Saying no. 45) According to this and other traditions of this nature, a Shia with even an iota of doubt about his Imam is outside the realm of faith (imaan) and in the realm of hypocrisy (nifaaq). Leave alone fighting the Imam, according to this tradition of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.), the Shia will not even bear the slightest of hatred and indifference towards the Imam, even under the most trying of circumstances and attacks. Since the so-called Shias of Kufa carried a full-fledged frontal assault on Imam Husain (a.s.) and his companions, they do not qualify as Shias. Rather they are hypocrites and to call them anything else is nothing but an attempt to spread mischief and confusion. The lovers of Ahle Bait (a.s.) know better who is a Shia and do not need others to identify Shias for them. Muslims of Kufa Being the center of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) Ali b. Abi Talib’s (a.s.) government after the Battle of Jamal, Kufa was identified as a Shia hub and epicenter of resistance to Bani Ummayah. However, there were many Muslims who did not owe allegiance to any particular disposition – Alawi or Usmani. They were go-with-the-flow Muslims with a strong herd mentality guiding their disposition. They were the ones who paid allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar and Usman and followed up by giving allegiance to Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) as a matter of routine, with no particular love or admiration for Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) that would mark them as Shias. Even those who could be described as Shias did not invoke the confidence of the Imams (a.s.) as they were very fickle in their faith just like other Muslims. Their faith was up for grabs to the highest bidder and since Muawiyah bid the highest these so-called Shias remained in Kufa but acted according to Muawiyah’s bidding and later according to the bidding of Yazid/Ubaidullah b. Ziyad. This was the biggest challenge faced by Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) and his son – Imam Hasan b. Ali (a.s.) as all their attempts to rally these so-called Shias against Muawiyah came to naught. So to accuse these Shias of treachery and blame them for the calamity that befell on Imam Husain (a.s.) is missing the point. These Shias were never part of the equation as they did not invoke any confidence and Imam Husain (a.s.) was well-aware of the events unfolding in Kufa even as he was approaching it. Shias of Karbala These Muslims who talk of Shiite treachery conveniently ignore that Imam Husain (a.s.) had a small band of true Shia supporters who fought valiantly against Yazid’s forces in Karbala. These were the ones worthy of being Shias and were even called as such by Imam Husain (a.s.) and other Imams (a.s.) of the Ahle Bait (a.s.). If we go by the treachery argument advanced by these Muslims and consider that Shias were present in Yazid’s forces and Shias were also present in Karbala in Imam Husain’s (a.s.) army, then it was nothing but a battle between two Shia groups! However, no historian has concluded as such and to suggest it shows extreme bias against Shias and very poor understanding of Islamic history. Faith is based on the present not the past A person is labeled based on his current inclination and not his previous belief. Having disobeyed Allah, Iblis is no longer referred to as Allah’s worshipper in the Holy Quran and the blessed Sunnah, although he was once ranked alongside the angels. Nor do common Muslims refer to companions like Abu Bakr, Umar and Usman as infidels although they were the leading idol-worshippers of the time before the advent of Islam. As we find in the incident of Talut and Jalut in Surah Baqarah (2): Verse 249 “So when Talut departed with the forces, he said: Surely Allah will try you with a river; whoever then drinks from it, he is not of me, and whoever does not taste of it, he is surely of me, except he who takes with his hand as much of it as fills the hand; but with the exception of a few of them they drank from it…” All those who drank from the river and they were in the majority, were no longer among Talut’s companions and cannot be referred to as such. Likewise those who abandoned Imam Husain (a.s.) in Kufa and joined Yazid’s ranks cannot be called as Shias. They were ranked alongside Yazid’s forces and all attributes used for Yazid’s forces applies to these so-called Shias as well. We do not see Muslims accusing Talha and Zubair of treachery after they severed their allegiance and waged a ferocious battle against their Master and Imam – Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) resulting in the death of thousands of Muslims. Therefore singling out the Shias for their role in the events of Kufa and Karbala is nothing but a lame attempt to misguide the Muslims with regards Yazid’s role in Imam Husain’s (a.s.) murder. Back to TopYazid’s forces were not ShiasTo conclude the matter, it’s best to refer to the faith of the killers of Imam Husain (a.s.) both those directly and indirectly involved. If they were followers of the Ahle Bait (a.s.) then they were the Shias, else they were Muslims claiming to follow the Sunnah. 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 b. Muawiyah. And there can be no two ways of his animosity and the animosity of his clansmen – the Bani Umayyah for the Bani Hashim. Under the circumstances, he was not a Shia of the Ahle Bait (a.s.) nor would he have liked to be referred to as such. 2. Ubaydillah b. Ziyaad Not having the courage to take on Imam Husain (a.s.) himself, Yazid got Ubaydillah to do the task for him just like his father Muawiyah got Ubaydillah’s father – Ziyaad to take on Imam Hasan (a.s.). The progeny of Ziyaad harboured extreme animosity against the Ahle Bait (a.s.), so there is no question of them being the Shias of Ahle Bait (a.s.). 3. Umar b. Saad Since Ubaydillah also lacked the courage to confront Imam Husain (a.s.) he appointed Umar b. Saad for the task. Umar b. Saad also cannot be called a Shia given his father Saad b. Abi Waqqaas’s ambivalence towards Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) Ali b. Abi Talib and his refraining from giving him allegiance at a time when the entire Muslim nation with a few exceptions had given Ali (a.s.) their allegiance. Umar b. Saad was a cousin of Imam Husain (a.s.) but then so was Yazid. It is widely reported that Umar b. Saad undertook the crime of killing Imam Husain (a.s.) for the governorship of Ray (Suburb of Teheran, Iran). So there is no question of Umar b. Saad being a Shia of the Ahle Bait (a.s.). After naming the three biggest names responsible for killing Imam Husain (a.s.) and establishing their religious credentials as so-called Muslims who practiced the Sunnah, we now turn to their henchmen who were involved in the battle of Karbala. For brevity we have highlighted only a few and interested readers can refer Tarikh-e-Tabair for more examples. 4. Ka’b b. Jaabir Ka’b b. Jaabir was a warrior in Umar b. Saad’s army in Karbala. He was the killer of Burair b. Khozair, one of Imam Husain’s (a.s.) respected companions. He recited several couplets after Karbala to the effect that he had submitted his faith to the children of Abu Sufyan and wished to claim his reward from Ibne Ziyaad. 4) Muzaahim b. Haaris While battling Naafe b. Hilaal Jamali, a companion of Imam Husain (a.s.), in Karbala he declared: I am on Usman’s religion. (Taarikh-e-Tabari vol 6, p 229) 5) Amr b. Hajjaaj Amr b. Hajjaaj from Umar b. Saad’s army urged his soldiers to remain firm against those who abandoned religion i.e. Imam Husain’s (a.s.) army. Imam Husain (a.s.) rebuked him for his audacity. (Taarikh-e-Tabari vol. 6, p. 249) 6) Shimr b. Ziljawshan It is widely documented that it was Shimr who eventually killed Imam Husain (a.s.) when none dared to commit the heinous crime. Long before that, he was commanded explicitly by Ibne Ziyaad to take over the reins of the army if Umar b. Saad showed weakness in executing the plan to kill Imam Husain (a.s.). Shimr was always a part of Ibne Ziyaad’s coterie in Kufa and there is no question of his being a Shia given his animosity for the Ahle Bait (a.s.), although he did fight on the side of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) against Muawiyah in Siffeen. He was among the majority of the Muslims who took Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) as the fourth caliph and did not have any particular inclination towards Ali’s (a.s.) Mastership – the hallmark of a Shia. Who killed Imam Husain (a.s.) We revisit this question to end the matter conclusively. It is clear from the evidences advanced that the responsibility of killing Imam Husain (a.s.) lies entirely on Yazid’s shoulders. For those who go by consensus (ijmaa), this is indeed the verdict of the ijmaa. Blaming Shias for the crimes of Yazid and Ubaydillah b. Ziyaad is not the verdict of the ijmaa, it is the verdict of a niche group of Muslims, who find themselves in a corner and have no place to look out of the sheer embarrassment of Imam Husain’s (a.s.) killing. The motley group of so-called Shias they hold responsible for the crime can hardly be described as such as we have proved.

salam wa aliakum, i watched mukthar nama serial on youtube. i couldnt understand some of his actions (as per the serial mukthar nama) 1st thing - is the serial authentic? why did mukthar al thaqafi lie? he claimed that ibn hanafeya gave him a verdict declaring jihad and that ibn hanafeya made him the leader of the uprising why did he forge the seal of ibn hanafeya? and in his verdict it is inscribed as "mahdi" did he believe that ibn hanafeya was the mahdi? was his aim to secure power (reign over iraq) in disguise of "revenge for hossein a.s." ? he took the help of abudullah ibn omer ibn al khattab to escape from prison twice.why did he do so? in the serial they also show that the shiites respected the 2 caliphs. is it true that the hatred towards them came only much later in the shiite communities? what is the opinion of scholars on him?

Salaamu'Alaikum Brothers and Sisters, My question is: Is there a record of the surviving lineage of Yazid (Lanti)? If so, does anyone have information of where they are, what they're called. For example, Syed have that tile. Do they also (though I imagine that's not something people would necessariy want to flaunt). Thanks!

Salam, Please view and share this video with your friends and contacts. Thanks!

Dear reader..this article may contain some mistakes, please help me to change them before its being published.. many thanks The evils armies crawling towards Karbala When Alhur made barred the path of the caravan of Imam Hussain AS, and forced them to stay in a place, where there was no water or a town, he sent to Ibn Zeiad informing him about the arrival of Imam Hussain AS to Karbala. Ibn Ziyad sent a letter to Imam Hussain AS"O Hussain, I have heard that you have settled in Karbala'. The leader of the faithful Yazid has written and ordered me not to sleep or be full with drink until I send you to your Lord or you accept my rule and the rule of Yazid."Â The Imam read the letter and let it fall to the ground. After he dropped it he said, "People who want to please anyone but God will not be successful." Ibn Ziyad's messenger asked for a reply and the Imam said, "He has no reply from me because the punishment of God is certain for him." When the messenger came back to Ibn Ziyad and told him what happened, he became very angry. He stood up and ordered 'Omar Ibn Sa'd to march towards Karbala' with an army of 4,000 troops. He even wrote a promise for 'Omar Ibn Sa'd to appoint him as governor of Raiy in Persia if he goes to Karbala' and kills Imam Hussain. Omar Ibn Sa’d thanked him, but Ibn Ziyad concluded,” Yes, but under the condition of doing the promise!” when he said that Omar Ibn Sa’d said, ”Give me a day to think”. He stayed his night thinking about it. During the night someone heard him reciting, “Should I leave the thought of governing Raiy, or shall I commit the crime of killing Hussain. While his killer will be doomed to hell and nothing can save him, and the state of Raiy is the comfort of my eyes. They declares that Allah created heaven, hell, and torturing If they were right then I will repent to the merciful in two years If they were lying then I won great life, and endless properties, which will be lasting forever.” The next day, he went to Ibn Ziyad and told him,” Send a man from the heads of Kufa, whose better than me in wars to Hussain AS” and he mentioned names. Ibn Ziyad may Allah curse him, replied "I am not asking you to tell me whom to send to fight. If you do not want to go, you will not be the governor of Raiy.” He said,” Then I will go” In the third of Muharam, ‘Omar b. Sa’d went to Karbala, leading four thousands soldier, and the Alhur joined him with his army too. Qurra went back to 'Omar and 'Omar wrote to Ibn Ziyad telling him what Imam Hussain said. Ibn Ziyad wrote a reply saying, "Tell Hussain and his followers to pay allegiance to Yazid. If he does so, we will think about what to do with him."Then katheer b. Abdullah Alsho’bi raised up who was fearless and savage, and said,” I will do it, and if you want me to kill him then I will do it”. Ibn sa’d (la) said to him,” No!, Just ask him what brought him to here?” Later, Katheer arrived to Karbala. Abu Thomama Alsaedi who was one of the companions of Imam Hussain AS recognized him then stopped on his way and said,” Put down your sword then enter to Hussain AS!” Katheer refused then returned back. Therefore, Omar called after Qurrah bin Qais Alhanthali to ask Imam Hussain AS. Then after he brought the letter to Imam Hussain AS, Imam Hussain AS replied "The people of this land wrote to me and their messengers came to me asking me to come and I have done so. However if (now) they have some to dislike me and (the position) now appears different to them from what their messengers brought to me, I will go away from them." When he finished reading the letter to Ibn Ziyad he recited (poem): “Now when our claws cling to him, he hopes for escape but he will be prevented (now) from (getting) any refuge.” Ibn Ziyad wrote a reply to Omar bin Sa’d stating, “Tell Hussain and his followers to pay allegiance to Yazid. If he does so, we will think about what to do with him.” Then, Ibn Ziyad announced a public meeting in the main Masjid of Kufah and made a speech. He said, “O people! You know the clan of Abi Sufyan and you know how they have served you, and you know this leader of the faithful Yazid. You know how helpful he is to his people. He serves them and gives them what they need; all of the roads are safe under his leadership as they were during his father’s rule. His son, Yazid, honors people. He makes them rich! He has increased your salaries by a hundred times, and he has ordered me to increase them even more if you go to fight his enemy Hussain. Listen to him and obey him.” He immediately distributed money among the soldiers and then went to Nukhaylah. He camped there, and ordered Ibn Namr al-Tamimi and Hajjaj Ibn Abjar and Shimr Ibn Dhil-Jawshan and Shibth Ibn Rab’i to go and join ‘Omar Ibn Sa’d. Shibth (one of those who wrote letters inviting the Imam) announced that he was sick. Ibn Ziyad called him and told him, “You want to play a double trick. If we succeed, you will tell us you were sick and could not help us. To Hussain’s people you will say you helped them. Come here so I can see for myself. My people tell me you are not sick.” When Ibn Ziyad saw him, he did not see any sign of sickness and ordered him to go immediately. After that, He ordered five hundred troops under the leadership of Zijr Ibn Qays at the gate of Kufah to prevent other people from leaving and helping the Imam. Ibn Ziyad sent a brief letter to Omar ibn Sa'd that commanded, "Prevent Hussain and his followers from accessing water and do not allow them to drink a drop of water.” Ibn Sa'ad followed the orders, and 500 horsemen led by Amro bin Alhajaj blockaded the Euphrates . Imam Hussain AS sent Borair b. Khodhaier, one of his companions who was martyred with him in the day of Altaf (10th Muharam), to Omar b sa’d. when he met him he said,” O Omar bin Sa’d! How could you leave the Householders of prophecy dying of thirst? Also, you blocked the way between them and Euphrates to prevent them from drinking, while in the other hand you assumed that you know Allah and His Messenger!” On hearing this, Omar bin Sa’d felt in shame, he looked down for while then he raised his head and said,” By Allah, O Borair, I know very well that everyone fight them and violate their rights will be in hell necessarily. But, Woe to you Borair! Are you telling me to leave governing of the Raiy to someone else? I cannot think about it!” After, Borair returned back to Imam Hussain AS and said,” O son of the daughter of Messenger of Allah! Omar bin Sa’d accepted to kill to be the governor of the Raiy” By this time, Shimr left for Karbala’ with 4,000 troops, Yazid Ibn Rikab with 2,000, Hosayn Ibn Numayr with 4,000, Shibth Ibn Rab’i with 1,000, Kalb Ibn Talha with 3,000, Hajjaj Ibn Abjar with 1,000, Madhair Ibn Rahinah with 3,000, and Nasr Ibn Harshah with 2,000 fighters. By the 5th day of the month of Muharram, there were 20,000 troops under the leadership of ‘Omar Ibn Sa’d, and Ibn Ziyad kept sending more troops until the total was 30,000 soldiers.

http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter5a/2.html http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter5a/1.html http://www.al-islam.org/short/karbala.htm#peace%20agreement http://www.al-islam.org/restatement/64.htm MUST SEE

what do you think about this issue? i have heard a saying that "even a leaf of a tree doesnot move without the will of Allah swt" how much is that true? i vote for free will i think so because on the judgement day nobody can question Allah swt that why he is going to hell when everything he had done was already written by Allah swt and Allah's will we know that Allah swt is just so doesnt it contradict predestination (Allah decided who will commit sins and later he is punishing them - something illogical isnt it?) [for ex - yazid] and my understanding of islam so far (as i am a convert) is that life is a test Allah is the judge prophets saww are teachers we are students life is test who ever passes it go to heaven who ever fails goes to hell so what do you guys think free will or predestination and also about hidayat now when Allah swt didnot give hidayat to abu jahl for example and also Allah swt had destined and written that abu jahl is going to die as a disbeliever so on the day of judgement wont he and others of such kind, question Allah swt that why are they being punished for it is Allah swt who had predestined and not given hidayat??? also how yazid is lanatullah when karbala was predestined?????? thats why i strongly believe FREE WILL so please share your views and also any authentic hadiths and verses of holy quran sharif salaams

Salaamu'Alaikum Brothers and Sisters, My question is: Is there a record of the surviving lineage of Yazid (Lanti)? If so, does anyone have information of where they are, what they're called. For example, Syed have that tile. Do they also (though I imagine that's not something people would necessariy want to flaunt). Thanks!

http://youtu.be/_dIagZaG3O4 Riot police chased some protesters on the roof of a building in the village of Shakhura and abused them following the funeral of a man who was killed yesterday. Al-Khalifa needs to understand that the will of the government to protect ordinary people is measured by action, ”As far as protecting the Shia is concerned, Bahrain’s government has been all talk and no action.”. Raza Mehkeri American Shia Muslims

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. http://www.almuntazar.com/ 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.).