In the name of ALLAH, the Merciful the Compassionate

Quarterly magazine Vol. V. No. 3 and 4 Muharram 1400/November 1979

Page Verses from The Holy Qur’an ... 2

Al-Husayn, The Ideal of the Hero in the Swahili Epic ...... Dr. Jan Knappert 3

The Illustrious Imamat — period of Imam Zaynal ‘Abidin ...... S. Saeed Akhtar Rizvi ... 16

Al-Husayn — The Truest Demon- stration of Faith ...... Dr. I. K. A. Howard ... 22

Al-Husayn, the Martyr and his Ideology ...... Mirza ... Ali Azhar ...... 27

Western Attitudes to Islam ... Prof. C. F. Beckingham ...... 34

Imams — Clear and Coherent Policy ...... S. ... J. Hussain ...... 33

EDITED AND PUBLISHED BY THE MUHAMMADI TRUST OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND 9 MOUNT PLEASANT ROAD, LONDON NW10 3EG, ENGLAND TELEPHONE: 01-451 1562 1 In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

Our Lord, we have heard a caller calling us to belief, saying, “Believe you in your Lord !” And we believe. Our Lord, forgive Thou us our sins and acquit us of our evil deeds, and take us to Thee with the pious. Our Lord, give us what Thou hast promised us by Thy Messengers, and abase us not on the Day of Resurrection; Thou wilt not fail the tryst. And their Lord answers them: ‘I waste not the labour of any that labours among you, be you male or female — the one of you is as the other. And those who emigrated, and were expelled from their habitations, those who suffered hurt in My way, and fought, and were slain — them I shall surely acquit of their evil deeds, and I shall admit them to gardens underneath which rivers flow.’ A reward from God! And God — with Him is the fairest reward.

Sura III v. 190-195 the Koran interpreted by A. J. Arberry

Contributions to Alserat express the views of their authors and not necessarily the views of the Editorial Board or the Trustees.

2 AL-HUSAYN (HUSENI), THE IDEAL OF THE HERO IN THE SWAHILI EPIC

Dr. Jan Knappert

After publishing an article in Al-Serat about a well-known Swahili epic on the death of Al-Husayn,1 I discovered another manuscript in Arabic script, containing a totally different version which had never come to light before. In this study I can only give a selection of the best stanzas with, English translations, adding a few appraising or critical notes on the contents and the imagery of the poem.

This manuscript opens with the scene of the encircling of al-Husayn’s army by the Umayyad troops, and ends with the death of al-Husayn. The article on al-Husayn in the Encyclopaedia of Islam (Vol. 3, p. 610-611) gives a good summary of the final stages of the battle of Karbala’, which I will summarise here, so that the reader may follow the thread of the story in the selected stanzas that are given below. After Al-Husayn’s speech the community of the Talibiyya perform the noon prayers. It was later on that afternoon of the 10th of Muharram that Husayn’s party became narrowly encircled, and the massacre began. The first to fall at the sacrilegious hands of Shamir, Ibn Sa’d and Ibn Ziyad, was ‘Ali al-Akbar, the son of al-Husayn, then the sons of ‘Abd Allah b. Jafar, then Qasim, the son of al-Hasan, the senior male descendent of the Prophet. He was a handsome lad. When he was mortally wounded, he called to his unde, al-Husayn. As the dust deared, al-Husayn could be seen taking his nephew’s body in his arms, cursing the murderers, and laying it gently down in front of his tent, next to ‘Ali’s body. Then al-Husayn, overcome by thirst, made his way towards the Euphrates but was prevented from reaching it; wounded in the mouth and chin, he sent up a fervent prayer to God. There, his brother, al-‘Abbas, trying to join him; was surrounded by the enemy and killed after fighting courageously to the end. (His tomb was erected on that spot later). Finally, Malik b. Nusayr al-Kindi wounded al-Husayn on the head so that his hood was filled with blood. (God cursed Malik with poverty for the rest of his life.) Al-Husayn withdrew to the tents where a child had just been born. The child was placed in his arms and he walked out with it. In his arms, the child was hit by an arrow, so that it died. Al-Husayn poured its blood on the ground, cursing the attackers. Shamir came up and cursed al-Husayn, but he did not dare to attack him. Al-Husayn was assisted by a boy, whose hand was cut off in the fighting. There were only three men left now. They fought to the death. Al-Husayn’s body was left naked on the battlefield, despoiled after he had fallen on his face, wounded several times. Sinan b. Anas cut off his head.

More than any other hero in the rich tradition of the Islamic literatures it is al-Husayn who has been sung by the bards in Arabic, Persian, Urdu and Swahili. His tragic death at the hands of the Caliph Yazid’s soldiers has been the subject of many books, historical, moral and theological. At least two Swahili utenzis have

3 been written on al-Husayn.2 In the following pages passages will be quoted from the unpublished short version which is really not more than a fragment. However, in many ways these stanzas stand out as poetically more powerful than those of the published version. There is more concentration on the tragic aspect of the story, one might say it is intended to be more “tear-jerking”. In reality it seems that a different theological conviction was the motivation for writing it. Al-Husayn’s death at Karbala’ was exploited by the partisans of his family, the descendants of ’Ali, to organise themselves into a powerful party which fought the reigning caliphs and sultans of Islam until it founded a state of its own, Persia, in 1501.3

The influence of this sect, the Ithna ashari branch of the Shi’a, on Swahili literature is still an open field for research. This book, however, is more concerned with literature than with the history of religions, so the question can be left here.

The Utenzi Wa Kufa Kwa Huseni, “the Epic of al-Husayn’s Death” is available in a manuscript now in S.O.A.S. in the handwriting of Yahya Ali Omar. It contains only 93 stanzas, so short that one must conclude either that it is only a fragment of the whole epic or, alternatively, that this text was used for liturgical purposes. We know that the Ithna ashari prayer-leaders recite the history of al-Husayn’s life and death during and after the procession on ‘Ashura-day on the 10th of Muharram.4

The utenzi opens with the central point of the Shi’a doctrine concerning al-Husayn i.e. that a grandson of the Holy Prophet is more than an ordinary human being and that killing him is thus more than murder: it is sacrilege. The scene of theutenzi is set for Islam’s worst tragedy: The great disaster in the month of Muharram (which befell) the seed of our honoured Prophet when he entered the region erf Karbala’ (Although) the sacred tradition had told them (the enemies) that the Holy Prophet had charged his followers: “Love my offspring” — they had followed the opposite principle.

After 661 A.D.5 the government of the State of Islam i.e. its Caliph Mu’awiya and his party, endeavoured to destroy the party of the family of the Prophet since they constituted a threat to his political hegemony. The question as to what extent this view is an exaggeration of the historical reality can here be left unanswered. For the Shi’a party there is no doubt that their view is the correct one. And for the purpose of studying the utenzi as epic literature, that view is a suitable point of departure since it is the essential part of the myth that the Shi’a belief is based on. And the contents of epics are myths, not necessarily historical facts, which are accidental to the kernel of a religion. History has revealed many heroes as irresolute men of weak character, but myth has made them into heroes who die for the sake of their faith

4 and are thus worthy of imitation. Epic poetry is about these heroic characters, not about the weaklings of history, for the listeners need shining examples. Here is al-Husayn then, on his way to defend the faith, conscious of his duty: Husayn was on the way hoping to protect the religion of Islam, to thwart the Satans, and restore peace on Earth.

Al-Husayn, the hero, is surrounded by enemies who are hatching evil:

Wakamwandalia vita They prepared a war against him’ na mengi mno matata and many other pitfalls, uwovu na usalata evil and hostile acts, for husuda ikadmia their jealousy was complete. Kwa moyo uso imani They had no faith in: their hearts majeshi washika kani they readied their armies for the hostilities... na damu waitamani for they lusted after the blood ya thuriya ya Nabiya of Husayn, the Holy Prophet’s grandson!

Some of the Swahili words that express feelings of hatred in general are extremely difficult to translate. Matata literally means “entanglements”, here it means intrigues, plots, schemes hatched out by evil minds to prepare the hero’s fall. Uwovu literally means “rottenness”, in Swahili (as in Indonesian busuk) the idea of evil is associated with the mind having “gone bad”. Usalata also means intrigues; its original meaning is “power”, domination” more than “hostility”. Husuda means intense jealousy (much stronger than ngowa), it is the type of feeling that makes murderers, the type of men who will want to kill their brother because he is God’s favourite; the reason why Cain killed Abel. The hero is called to his task by people in distress. He does not go into battle willingly, he has to be reminded of his destiny in this life: Wakawa wajikakata The people were anxious imamu hawakupata they had no leader na Huseni wakamwita so they called Husayn mjini mwao kungia to come to their city (Kufa). Akijuzwa mambo hayo When he was told this amekaza wake moyo he steadied his heart ashayafahamu ndiyo he already foresaw that this was mauti yamungojea. death waiting for him.

The hero knows that this will be his last battle. He cannot escape his duty. That makes him a hero; and that makes his history a tragedy. Akijuzwa kwa yakini When he was told with certainty kanuia kwa makini he quickly made up his mind pasipo matumaini without hope or desire Iraki kayekelea and took the direction of Iraq.

5 The hero is not nervous. He does not waste time since he wants nothing for himself. So, al-Husayn travels to Kufa, then the capital of Iraq, where the Shi’a, the dissidents who opposed the Caliph Yazid, son of Mu’awiya, had their centre.

As an imam, a leader of the faithful, al-Husayn’s function is comparable to a Christian bishop: be blesses the community of the faithful before they set off on the crusade. He was on his way, marching on, he called his people; men and women and gave them his blessing.

First, before setting out from Medina where he lives in his grandfather’s house, he invites all those who always called themselves his faithful followers, explains to them the situation and tells them they are free to go home with his blessing if they are afraid of joining him.

There are only “few real men” on Earth. Many people are like animals. After he had spoken many could not tolerate (the idea of war) and, like cattle, they went back home.

Most people are not heroes. Many are called, few are chosen. Husayn was left, he, the scion of the Prophet’s houses and some of his intimate friends, only a few, remained.

The hero is basically alone, with his few friends, to face the enemy. When al-Husayn arrived at Iraq, there were people waiting for him. When he arrived in Iraq all the people were jubiliant and full of joy and the warriors rushed to meet him.

Al-Husayn was made to realise even more strongly there was no possible escape from duty. He is surrounded by the people who need him as their leader in worship and in war. He did not ask to be a leader of men but God had “written” this task for him. Akaona buda hana He saw there was no other way pande zote wamubana they pressed him on all sides pamwe na wake vijana together with his young friends hana ilia kwendelea he could only go forward.

6 Theimam , the religious leader’s first task is to preach to his flock. Akasema kwa lafudhi He spoke in beautiful language kwa fasaha na mahadhi with eloquence and the right intonation umati kawapa radhi he blessed the congregation kawatajia Jalia. and preached to them about God’s glory. Akaweleza mifano And he explained parables to them neno baada ya neno word for word kwa hekima no usono with wisdom and peace of mind wote wakashikilia. and they all understood. Kisha kenua mkono Finally he raised his hand kasema hukuna neno and said: “No word la kuyafaa hayano is of any use for this mauti alonolea. death which He has written’ for me.” Akizinena tongozi When he spoke these words wakayangua matozi they shed tears ndiwe wetu mkombozi “You are our saviour!” wote pamwe makalia. they cried, all together.

Then al-Husayn rereived reports that the enrney was advancing. Hastily his men and the citizens of Kufa armed themselves and al-Husayn led this small but determined army out to give battle. The engagement took place at Karbala, near the River Euphrates. There al-Husayn and his men were surrounded and cut off from the river. Karubala wakafika They arrived at Karbala Furati wakaishika the enemy seized the Euphrates pasi nafasi kutoka there was no room to escape wala maji kupatia. nor to get water for themselves.

The enemies of epic heroes are always cowards, of course, whose only strength is their multitude. Soy instead of attacking, they left al-Husayn and his people a prey of thirst. The enemy water their animals, but when al-Husayn’s women try to go near the river with their water jars the enemy aim their arrows at them and the women have to withdraw. Real warriors, of course, would never prevent women from doing their work. Women are hors combat, they are neutral and only cowards would harm them. Not only women are there but children as well, among al-Husayn’s relatives. One baby in particular suffers from severe thirst. Dhiki ilipowazidi When the need became unbearable kamtukua waladi Husayn picked the child up asifanye ukaidi swallowed his pride adui akawendea. and went up to the enemy.

The hero is humble as well as brave. He will expose himself to danger for the sake of saving a little babe from death, although his own life is, of course, infinitely more vital

7 to the community he leads. He is a real father to his peopley ready to sacrifice his life for that of a litde child. The enemy, however, see him and aim their arrows again, the cowards. Obviously a man with a sick child in his arms cannot shoot back. It was only a little child. Our leader and commando did not give up all hope of getting water for him. The enemy did not agree even for two drops they said “It is impossible!” No compassion entered their hearts. They had removed all compassion they were like animals ignoring the oppression (to which they subjected their victims) their hearts were burning.

The ruthlessness of the enemy causes the nobility of the hero to shine witheven greater splendour. The little child was crying an arrow hit him in the flesh blood gushed all over his body he died in Husayn’s arms. The arms of the leader of Islam were full of blood as the litde boy’s soul said goodbye to this world.

As al-Husayn and his faithful followers are surrounded, the enemy keep the pressure on, narrowing the circle further day by day. Adui wakawabana The enemy pressed them hard kwa usiku na mchana by night as well as by day Huseni na wavulana Husayn and the men hawana pakukimbia. had no place to run!

Yet it is not the fighting that depresses heroes as much as their enemies’ wickedness! The truth became evident: they were faced with evil.... it was no longer a secret their plight was bitter indeed!

The enemy’s main weapon was the heroes’ thirst which, of course, caused more suffering to the children than to the grown men who were used to long periods in

8 the desert without waiter. Women who do not enough to drink will find their milk drying up, so that the babies suffered not only thirst but hunger as well, and this in turn upset the men, the brothers and husbands of the women. Al-Husayh perceived this, so he called them together and addressed them. He spoke to them in gentle tones without ever raising his voice addressing his companions: “Whoever wants to flee.” “Tonight in the dark” (he said to them) “flee! I will forgive you in my heart and pray a prayer for you!” He said to them “Flee! for him who wants to do so, forgiveness! But leave me here for me it is impossible to flee!”

The hero permits all his brothers-in-arms to escape from disaster. He alone will stay to face the enemy in a last fight. Like Roland, like Hector, al-Husayn faces the enemy alone if necessary, but he will never run away from a battle. His companions, however, are heroes in their own right: They all refused: they felt it was better for them to die than to try and escape death to which they were already reconciled.

The enemy, feeling the heroes’ weakness, double their efforts. Boldness increased in the army of the criminals there was now no more escape, for Husayn’s men, their Lives were wasting away This was the beginning of the end the enemy increased their pressure without so much as a thought for the children’s suffering. Zikazidishwa sulubu Their sufferings were increased mno, na nyingi taabu very much, and great was the pain rafikize wakaghibu Husayn’s friends vanished mauti wayandamia. following the call of death.

The hero’s passion is drawn out by the poets and painted in vivid colours. Rafiki wakaanguka His friends fell, adui wakamzunguka the enemies surrounded him

9 imamu damu zamtoka Husayn, their leader, was bleeding ikawa wayogelea. so much that it was as if he was swimming. Katika kutoka damu While his blood was trickling down adui watakalamu the enemies said to him: katu yako haitotimu “Your suffering is not ety over mauti yakungojea. your death is waiting!” Mauti yenya taabu “A painful death, usumbufu na adhabu suffering and punishment yatakufika karibu will be your lot: kaa ukifahamia. pause and think it over!” Ndio leo! Ndio leo “Yes today, it is today utaona uweleo that you will meet your destiny na wote wao watuo with all your people wote tuta walemea. we will crush than all!”

Thus the enemy harass the hero with taunts and threats. He is tempted to give up his hopeless struggle to escape pain and death, but such a response to a challenge is unworthy of a true hero. He does not even condescend to answer. Instead al-Husayn offers a prayer to God. Kakalimu Muungwana The noble Husayn spoke kumshukuru Rabana thanking our Lord no Mola akalingana and to Him he directed na dua kajiombea. a prayer, praying intensely. Akatamka Huseni Husayn pronounced these words akimwambia Mannani addressing the Giver: kwako wewe Shukurani “I give thanks to Thee nyoyo zimefurahia. our hearts are rejoicing!” Hatuna katu huzuni “We are not sad at all! janna tunatumaini We hope for Paradise mauti twayatamani we long for death kuliko kuwangukia. rather than to kneel for them”.

After this prayer in which he expresses his innermost feelings, the hero resumes the fighting, undaunted by the death of his men. The battle wore on remorselessly the fighters did not speak to each other. Husayn the leader fought without turning back Lakini ifae nini But what was the use of it kwa adui alufeni with two thousand enemies? na ziyada zaideni and many more .... Huseni akalegea. Husayn’s strength was diminishing. Akalegea kwa dhiki He became weaker with exhaustion

10 aliikuta halaki he was facing the end asimpate rafiki there was no friend left to him huruma kumnonea. to show him commiseration.

What was the use of fighting an overwhelming majority? Thus the poet is wondering, but the hero had no doubts in his mind. He was being tested by God who would, if he persevered, grant him access to Paradise where he would be re-united with his loved ones. Apparently al-Husayn fought this last battle single-handed since there was no friend left to console him, but in other accounts some of his brothers-in-arms fought by his side until the very end.

Like Roland, al-Husayn finds his strength in the fact that he is fighting the enemies of his faith and, like Roland, he has a long battle to fight before he is allowed to die.

Finally the fateful day arrives, the day that is still commemorated; this day is called ‘Ashura, the 10th of the Muhammadan month of Muharram. (It lasted) Hata siku ya Ashura Until the day of Ashura kwa mwezi kumi dhahira the tenth of the illustrious month Muharamu ndio mara Muharram, then suddenly wakaanza kuuawa. they began to be killed.

The dramatic moment has come: the enemy is moving in for the final kill, confident that the physical strength of al-Husayn and his men is now sufficiently weakened by thirst and their morale exhausted by the long siege. Kwanza wafuasi wake First his followers (were killed) kwisha wa nyumbani kwake in the end the members of his house .... akabaki ye na chake there he remained kijitoto kikilia. with his little son who cried all the tune.

There they are, the hero with his youngest son who should have continued the line, like the last of the Mohicans, surrounded by enemies. The hero does not surrender in spite of the hopelessness of the situation. He tries to protect his child in his arms, but to no avail. The poet stops the narrative to report that the child is still quite healthy: Umuri miezi sita He was only six months of age ye hakuwa na matata he had no problems whatsoever: lau maji alipata if he could get water yangelimsaidia. it would have helped him. Adui kawazunguka The enemy surrounded them na Huseni akashuka but Husayn began to descend (towards the river) kijana akamshika holding the child hali mtoto alia that was crying. Machozi yamiminika Tears were trickling down

11 Imamu akimshika while the Commander was holding him. Huseni akatamka Husayn talked to him kijana kumunswia. warning the child (about his future Life). Amempiga pambaja Then he embraced the baby .... huku adawapija at that moment the enemy came. Huseni akawapija Husayn beat them back hata unwisho kufikia. until the end arrived.

The two versions of the story are not entirely in agreement about the deathof al-Husayn himself. If he was actually fighting the enemies while holding the baby he cannot have been shooting arrows, although he may have been throwing javelins. If, however, he was fighting them at close range with sword or sabre, one wonders why both he and the child died from the arrows that hit them. An attempt is made here to reconcile the two versions and give a coherent account. Mtoto mchanga yule That young child wakampiga mshale they hit him with an arrow na kijana palepale and there in Husayn’s arms akaiaga dunia. the child left this world. Kisha wakamzunguka Finally they surrounded him Huseni mwenye baraka the blessed prince Husayn wakamupiga hakika and they hit him forsooth chembe kikamwingilia. and arrowhead entered his body.

The listeners are spared no detail. Indeed they have probably asked to hear even the smallest fact of the hero’s death agony. The arrow hit his open mouth. Panting and gasping for breath, the hero was also thirst-stricken. Kikamwingia imamu It entered the commander’s body chembe chao mahasimu the arrow of those criminals kanwanimwe kikadumu. it stuck in his mouth na damu ikamnaenea and blood spread all over him. Huku chembe kimembika There the arrow hit him damu yamtiririka blood trickled down his body mswiba umemfika misfortune had struck him hana pa kukimbilia. he had no place to flee.

An injured man ought to be left in peace to nurse his wound, he is hors combat. But al-Husayn is not given any respite from his enemies. While knowing that it is ultimately God who sends him all this suffering, he praises Him as he tries to remove the deadly weapon. Kakishika kukizua He seized the arrow to bring it to the surface kwa nguvu akakitoa then with force he pulled it out kamshukuru Moliwa he thanked God: “My Lord Muumba wa waja pia ... Creator of all mortal beings ....”

12 The implication is that al-Husayn the hero stifles a cry of pain in a prayer tothe Creator who sends all pain and pleasure. Death has to come anyway since He has made all lives perishable. Now the end is rapidly drawing near. Yakamzidi machungu His pain increased akamsabihi Mungu and he praised God akaaga ulimwengu be took his leave of this world mjukuu wa Nabia. he, the graundson of the Holy Prophet. Ghafula akajiliwa Unconsciousness overcame him roho yake ikajiliwa and his soul was taken (by Death). na adui wa Moliwa An enemy of God imamu akamwendea. came up to the dying commander. Akamwendea kwa dhati He went up to him intentionally akamwondesha mauti to make him experience death .... jiadui afiriti that big enemy! that evil demon! dharubu kamwemezea. he heaved the deathblow on Husayn. Alipokufa Huseni When Husayn died, yalitimu thalathini there were thirty three na tatu yaliyo ndani wounds in his body mafumo yalomwingia. of spearblades that had hit him. Kuna tena thalathini Then there erew another thirty four na nne mwake mwilimi wounds in his body panga za hao wnahui which the swords of those criminals mwilini zimesalia. had left behind. Mbali mengi majaraha There erew even other wounds kuyataja ni karaha which are too horrible to mention. moyo hauna furaha My heart will nevermore feel joy kwa imamu kujifia. since our leader died in this way.

As is the tradition, the poet puts himself in the place of the original Muhadithi, the surviving witness who first recounted this sad tale for posterity.

In these last seven stanzas all the elements of the heroic song are united. Like the Cid, al-Husayn tears out the lethal arrow, from his mouth, knowing that it will mean his end and praising God by whose will it all happened as he does so. As he faints the angel of Death comes to take his soul and carry it upwards to Paradise, for thus the Holy Prophet had promised him. The poet rages against the enemy commander who gives al-Husayn the death blow, calling him an evil spirit, an efreet, coining a new word jiadui “a big bad enemy”.

Like the divine hero Bhima in the Indian epic Mahabharata, al-Husayn died after having sustained innumerable wounds in his tender body. The audience is encouraged to weep during the recital of this protected death scene. Ameuliwa Huseni Husayn has been killed

13 ni jambo lenye huzuni it is a sorrowful tale katu haiwezekani it is impossible machozi kuyazuia. to stop one’s tears. Chozi sharuti kutoka The tears must come out na watu kuhuzunika as the people feel grief kwa kipenzi mswafika over the innocent beloved prince kinyume alofanyiwa. after all they have done to him.

It is well known that the listeners do shed tears every time they hear this story. They are encouraged not only to listen but also to read it. The majority of the listeners have been followers of the Shi’a, for whom the story was like the Passion tale for Christians. Ndio huo mwisho wake This then is his end hiki ndicho kisa chake and this is the story of the leader cha imamu tusichoke let us never tire of all the time milele kujisomea. reading this tale for ourselves.

One of the poets inserts here a prayer addressed to al-Husayn himself. Ewe Sayidi Huseni Oh thou, Lord Husayn ulitoka duniani thou hast left this world kwa kuipendawe dini for the sake of the love for our religion peponi wenda ingia and now you have gone to Paradise.

This stanza is repeated with a slight variation in the third line:kwa kupigania dini “to fight for the faith”. This version of al-Husayn’s history ends here with two concluding stanzas, an appropriate conclusion to the epic. Amekufa ni Sayidi He died a martyr hiyo ni kama zawadi he was as a gift from God Allhu Mola Wadudi Our beloved Lord shahada kamwandikia. had predestined him for martyrdom.

God by whose will all things happen, had created al-Husayn a hero, to be a shining example for all who lived after him, to try and emulate his virtue, his nobility and his bravery.

Notes; 1. cf. Alserat Vol. II No. 1, March 1976 pp20-27. 2. See Knappert, note 1 above. 3. See the Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. IV, p. 186. 4. Knappert “Islam in Mombasa”, Dutch Oriental Society. 5. The year in which Ali, al-Husayn’s father, was murdered. See the Encyclopaedia of Islam under Ali b. Abi Talib.

14 SALUTATION

“Peace be upon thee, O Imam Husayn, and upon the souls who laid down their lives for thee. Unto thee, from me, be peace eternal, so long as I live, and so long as the days and nights of this world endure. And I pray to God for sake of the glory that you enjoy from Him, That He may bestow upon me the best recompense that He has bestowed upon the sufferers of sorrow, For no sorrow and no calamity can be greater than this in the world O God, make me, as I stand in this, place, one of those who receive Thy Blessings, Mercy and Forgiveness. Peace be upon thee O Imam Husayn and on thy compan- ions, and the Mercy of God and His Bounties.”

15 THE ILLUSTRIOUS IMAMAT — PERIOD OF IMAM ZAYNAL ‘ABIDIN

Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi

No Imam began his Imamat in a more tragic atmosphere. The first day of his Imamat saw him seriously ill and a captive of the army of Yazid in Karbala. His father and predecessor had sacrificed all he had on the altar of truth; and Imam Zaynal ‘Abidin found himself with a group of helpless widows and orphans being led from place to place, from the durbar of Ibn Ziyad to the court of Yazid. Finally they were thrown into a prison, where the Imam spent the first year of his Imamat, cut off from the followers of his father and unable to look after their affairs.

Understandably, the tragedy of Karbala had created a chaos in the Shi‘a world. Shi‘as were in the throes of a dark pessimism; and the community was in disarray. A movement had already begun to accept Muhammad al-Hanafiyah, son of Amir-ul- Mu’minin ‘Ali as the 4th Imam. Muhammad al-Hanafiyah himself had no such design. But the problem was: how to stop that movement without putting the life of Imam Zaynal ‘Abidin in danger?

Yazid had not hesitated to murder Imam Husayn in spite of the highest prestige the Imam had in the Muslims’ eyes. It would have been far mote easier for him to kill Imam Zaynal ‘Abidin a young man of 23 years of age, whose divine virtues were yet to shine before the Muslim community. And it was not in the interest of Islam that Imam Zaynal ‘Abidin be martyred so soon after Imam Husayn.

Altogether, Imam Zaynal ‘Abidin had three difficult tasks before him:— 1. To announce his Imamat publicly without seeming to oppose out-siders. 2. To weld the community together, making a “tasbih” (rosary) out of the scattered beads — doing it in such a way as not to give Yazid and Yazidites an excuse to retaliate. 3. To expand true faith, providing a beacon of light to guide the seekers of truth to the safety of true faith and virtuous deeds — doing it without attracting untoward attention of his enemies.

Any of these Himalayan tasks would have defeated a lesser being. But Imam Zaynal ‘Abidin under divine guidance did achieve all these aims in such a beautiful and unobstrusive way that even his followers — who tremendously benefited, and are benefiting, from his superb leadership — did not consciously realize how they were being guided.

(1) Announcement of His Imamat

This took the form of a family dispute:

16 Muhammad al-Hanafiyah claimed that he was the Imam after his brother, Imam Husayn (as Imam Husayn had become Imam after the eldest brother, Imam Hasan). Imam Zayral ‘Abidin said that his uncle’s claim was wrong; that he (i.e. Imam Zaynal ‘Abidin) was Imam after his father, by divine appointment. This family “feud” apparently could not be resolved; and ultimately Imam Zaynal ‘Abidin suggested that the “Black Stone” (al-Hajarul-aswad) of Ka‘bah be approached for its judgement. Muhammad al-Hanafiyah readily agreed and both parties went to Mecca during Hajj season, when thousands of pilgrims had assembled for the pilgrimage.

The stranger than fiction news must have spread like wild fire that ‘Alibin al-Husayn and Muhammad al-Hanafiyah wanted the Black Stone to judge between them. Everyone must have wondered how could a stone judge between two persons. They must have eagerly waited to see the outcome when the two parties would approach the Stone. What would they say when the Stone —being a stone — would not respond to their arguments!

This must have been the feeling of the crowd when the unde and the nephew slowly advanced towards the Black Stone. First Muhammad al-Hanafiyah talked to the Stone; there was no response. Imam Zaynal ‘Abidin said: “Had you, O Uncle, been the Wasi and Imam; it would certainly have answered you.”

Muhammad al-Hanafiyah said: “Now, O Nephew, you pray and ask it.” Imam Zaynal ‘Abidin prayed to Allah and then asked the Black Stone to declare in clear Arabic as to who was the Wasi and Imam after al-Husayn bin ‘Ali.

There was a tremor in the Stone and then Allah made it speak in clear Arabic: O“ Allah, verily Wisayah and Imamah, after al-Husayn bin ‘Ali is for Zaynal ‘Abidin ‘Ali bin al-Husayn, son of ‘Ali bin Abi Talib and Fatimah bint Rasulillah.”

Muhammad al-Hanafiyah accepted the verdict and declared his allegiance for Imam Zaynl ‘Abidin. (al-Ihtijaj of al-Tabrasi, al-Kafi of al-Kulaini, Basa’-erud-Darajat, A’lamul-wara, Manaqib of Ibn Shahr ‘Ashob, Biharul-Anwar, Vol. XI, of Majlisi).

This “dispute” was the beginning of the end of the Kaisaniyah movement, which wanted to accept Muhammad al-Hanafiyah as Imam. The schism in the Shi‘a rank was arrested; and as it was only a “family feud”, Yazid could not object to it in any way.

But the miraculous nature of the episode and the timing served its purpose. The pilgrims on returning to their homes must have felt compelled to narrate this strange story; and thus the Shi‘as throughout the Muslim world came to know — without any formal proclamation — that Imam Zaynal ‘Abidin was their divinely-appointed Leader and Guide.

17 (2) Uniting The Shi‘a Community

This is an even more fascinating aspect of his Imamat.

How was he to unite all the Shi‘as in an ever-lasting bond? What was the factor which could join them permanently?

Philosophical exhortations? But they have effect on only small group of intellectuals; man-in-the-street is not influenced by them. Moreover, it cannot influence the “feelings”; and “unity” is a feeling of oneness.

Some joyous aspects of religion? Joy and happiness is a “feeling”, no doubt. But it does not necessarily “unite” the people. Many is the time when a man celebrates a joyous function and his brother refuses to join him, because of some minor misunderstandings. But let there be a tragedy in that house, and the same brother would rush therein to share that sorrow.

This tendancy of human nature brings us to the third alternative: Sorrow.

Sorrow and grief succeeds in binding the mourners together, while intellectual arguments and joyous functions fail to achieve that object. Have not you seen how at the time of a national tragedy all political differences are genuinely forgotten and how the whole nation unites together to share the sorrow and shoulder the resulting responsibilities? Imam Zaynal ‘Abidin under divine command selected this method to unite the community.

And again it was adopted apparently just as a personal way of life, without its being aimed against anyone. Majlisi (in Bihraul-Anwar, Vol. XI) has written a chapter, “His mourning and Weeping on the Martyrdom of his Father, May Grace of Allah be on Both”, in which he, inter alia, writes:— “And it is said that he (i.e. Imam Zaynal ‘Abidin) continued to weep till his eyes were endangered. And whenever he took water to drink, he wept till the tears filled the pot. Someone talked to him about it and he replied: ‘Why should not I cry, when my father was denied the water which was free to the beasts and animals?’

“And never was food brought to him but that he wept, so much so that a servant told him: ‘May I be your ransom, O Son of the Messenger of Allah! I am afraid that you would die (of this weeping)’. The Imam said: ‘I only complain of my distraction and anguish to Allah and I do not know. Never do I remember the massacre of the children of Fatimah but that tears strangle me.’ ”

Naturally, this example set by their Imam was followed by the Shi‘as everywhere;

18 and they joined hands to esatblish mourning of Imam Husayn whenever possible. This created a feeling of oneness and unity in all persons attending those mourning-sessions.

And how could Yazid or Yazidites tell Imam Zaynal ‘Abidin not to remember his father?

This institution of mourning became the focal-point of all religious activities of the Shi‘a community and the life-line of their faith.

In later periods, the enemies of the faith realized the vital role which the “mourning” plays in religious education and character-building of the Shi'as, and they tried to stop it by the force of their “Fatwa”. Now they have changed their tactics. Now they ask: Why should one mourn for an event which occurred more than 1300 years ago? They ask it while they are fully aware that these mourning sessions (Majalis) are the best-organised, well-attended religious schools^ where the participants willingly learn the basic tenets of faith, are exhorted to emulate the way of life of Ahl-i-Bayt; and thus their Islamic outlook on the life and the world is fortified.

This seat of learning was given to the Shi‘a community by Imam Zaynal ‘Abidin so unobtrusively that even the community did not realise its importance and significance in the beginning.

(3) Teaching True Islam

The previuos two tasks were stepping-stones to reach this most important of his responsibilities. We have seen how the Imam announced his Imamat by means of a “family feud”, and how he gave his followers a platform of unity in the form of his mourning for his father. In neither instance he addressed any out-sider; still the message got through. Likewise, in meeting this third and most important of his tasks, he did not address any human being. He selected the form of Du‘a (invocation) for this purpose. He recorded his Du‘as in a book form and asked his two sons to make copies of the book. This recording itself is an indication that these invocations were not just a prayer, but also a means of guidance for the Muslims.

How could anyone tell him not to ask his wants from Allah? How could anyone come between Allah and His servant, when raising his hands he called his Lord in a heart-rending voice to come to his aid and to help him out of his difficulties — But those recorded Du‘as are a treasure of Islamic knowledge. One finds in them almost all theological and ethical questions answered eloquendy and eruditely. Reading them, the heart is filled with true belief and sincere love of Allah; and the light of virtue and nobleness illuminates the character.

19 It is not possible to give here even a short review of this sacred book, generally known as “As-Sahifatus-Sajjadiyah” and “As-Sahifatul- Kamilah”; and also called “Psalm of ‘Ale Muhammad” and “Injil of Ahlul Bait.”

When this book was shown to Egyptian scholars, they were thunder-struck and awed by its beauty. They were amazed and stunned by the purity of thought and perfection of character to which this book irresistibly leads its reader. The renowned scholar, late AI-Tantawi wrote:— “I have studied this book with utmost care. I have gone through the Du‘as (invocations) and Munajats (supplications) with a searching eye. I was stunned by the lofty meanings and deep sense contained therein. I was deeply impressed by the value and magnificence of these invocations. I wonder how the Muslims all along been ignorant of such valuable treasure. They have been in deep slumber all these centuries. They could not even feel that Allah had supplied them with such a precious store of knowledge.”

“The invocations in this book have two distinct approaches: the one seeks forthe knowledge and guidance to keep away from sins and evil things, while the other persuades and exhorts one to enable one’s ‘self’ by performance of virtuous deeds. We may say that these Invocations, full of knowledge and guidance, are a wonderful treasure of secrets, and contain hints regarding self-reproachment, admission of shortcomings, with tears and self-purification, warding off vicissitudes and difficulties, safe-guarding oneself from the tyrannies ofthe enemy, recovery from various diseases and so on. All such Du‘as are found mostly in the first part of the book, while the later part consists of the loftiness and grandeur of Allah, His creation and other wonders of His power and might.

“Is it not wonderful? Does not it show that these holy personages are unveiling many secrets of learning and unravelling many mysteries of knowledge for Muslims, who happen to be completely ignorant of it. It is a fact that the affairs of human beings are divided into two parts: The one is to keep away from evil, the other to acquire good traits together with the knowledge of Divine existence, which is essential for self-purification and spiritual perfection.”

Then he goes on expounding these points with help of many invocations. In another article, he compares an invocation of Imam Zaynal ‘Abidin with the prayer of the Prophet Nuh (Noah).

Just to give an example of the high religious and ethical standard taught by our Holy Imam, I am quoting here extracts from a Du‘a, known as “Makerim-ul-Akhlaq” (Noble Character). This Du’a is enough to lead the reciter on the right path, making him a perfect Muslim and a virtuous believer. O Lord, Thou art my shelter if I grow sad, and Thou art my resource if I am in need and unto Thee I cry for help, when deeply afflicted, and with Thee

20 is recompense for what is lost, and reformation for what is corrupted, and alteration for what Thou disapprovest:

Therefore, favour me with security before calamity, and bounty before begging (for it) and right direction before error and spare me from bearing me peace on the day of resurrection and favour me with handsome guidance.

O Lord, bless Muhammad and his Al (family) and ward off (evil) from me with Thy grace, and nourish me with Thy blessing — and reform me with Thy graciousness and cure me with Thy goodness and hide me in the shelter of Thy mercy and clothe me with Thy approbation, and help me, when matters grow difficult about me, (to choose) the most righteous of them, and when actions become dubious, (to select) the purest of them, and when the creeds conflict, (to adopt) the most praiseworthy of them.

O Lord, bless Muhammad and his Al (family) and crown me with sufficiency and adorn me with the grace of Thy love and gant me true guidance and do not try me with prosperity and confer on me the beauty of comfort and do not make my life a succession of trials, and do not reject my prayer with repulsion; for, I do not recognize any as Thy rival, and I do not call upon any as Thy equal.

O Lord, bless Muhammad and his Al (family) and restrain me from extravagance and preserve my subsistence from waste and increase my possessions by giving blessing therein and let me walk along the path of benevolence; in whatever I spend my (wealth).

In this way Imam Zaynal ‘Abidin spent his life providing guidance not only for the Muslims of his time, but also for the generations to come. When he left this world, he had more than accomplished all that he was entrusted with by Allah.

21 AL-HUSAYN — THE TRUEST DEMONSTRATION OF FAITH

Dr. I. K. A. Howard

We all know that the ideal Islamic government would combine the offices of politcal and religious leadership. For Ithna ‘Ashari Muslims — indeed for all Muslims — this ideal was attained during the period of the Prophet’s residence in Medina. At that time the Prophet combined the role of political and religious leader. For according to Ithna ‘Ashari doctrine, Prophethood has implicit within it the Imamate; for both prophet and imam are God’s hujja to the world: that is, God’s demonstration of his continuing love and concern for the world.

In the Ithna ‘Ashari Muslim view, this combination of political and religious leadership was not attained again until Imam ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, the Amir al-Mu’minm (Commander of the Faithful) became Caliph after the death of ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan. It was continued briefly under Imam al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali. After that, there has been no repetition of this ideal form of Islamic government; and now, it cannot occur until the end of time and the return of the Qa’im, the Mahdi, who will bring an end to injustice and lead his people to their heavenly rewards.

From the historical period of the first three Imams, two important religious lessons are publicly demonstrated.. Their relevance extends far beyond the Ithna ‘Ashari community, and beyond the Islamic peoples of the world; it has profound importance for all men and women of honour and principle in every part of this world of ours.

From all the early historical records, it is clear that Imam ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib did not rise against the political leadership of the first three caliphs, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab and ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan. In his action ‘Ali was teaching his followers, and the world, the need for precautionary dissimulation, taqiyya. No one who has read the accounts of ‘Ali’s career could ever accuse him of cowardice. He risked his life in innumerable battles for the Prophet and for Islam — sometimes the physical odds against survival were considerable. In keeping his own counsel during the political leadership of these three men, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib was demonstrating to the world that; although he was al-afdal i.e. the best and most appropriate person to hold political leadership, it was in the interests! of Islam that it should not be rent by any internal dispute at this early, formative stage in its development.

In the same way al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali taught the same lesson to his followers and the world. He, like his father before him, gave the bay’a to someone he knew to be inferior to himself. Again his primary concern may be seen as a concern for the integrity of the Islamic community which ambition and power-seeking were threatening. The lesson, again, emphasized to his followers and the world, the need

22 for taqiyya in the things of the world. This was a lesson which is emphasized and re-emphasized by the Imams after Imam al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali. In that lesson the stress is on the religion of God and eschewing the world and worldly politics. Its true signifi- cance is implicit in the phrase in the call to prayer which is preserved only by Shi‘ites: Hayya ‘ala khayr al-amal Come to the best of works — ie. come to prayer, come to the sublimation of the self in God.

From Imam al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali a different lesson is to be learnt, albeit a lesson with the same end result of the sublimation of the self in God. But the approach is different. We learn from the historians that al-Husayn never gave the bay’a to Mu‘awiya. He was constant and consistent in his objection to this. One historian reports that it was al-Hasan who persuaded Mu‘awiya not to attempt to intimidate al-Husayn into giving him that pledge for allegiance. It is quite clear from the events of Karbala’ that any attempt by Mu‘awiya to intimidate al-Husayn would have been useless. It is clear that al-Husayn would have accepted martyrdom at that moment rather than pay allegiance to Mu‘awiya.

It is, I think, relevant to reflect once more on the difference in the policy of the two Imam brothers, to try to discern in however limited a way the different facets of the lesson of life which we can learn from their varying policies. Al-Hasan made peace with Mu‘awiya because further fighting would have caused considerable bloodshed and the end result would probably still have been a political victory for Mu’awiya. In making peace with Mu‘awiya, al-Hasan secured terms which allowed his followers, his Shi‘a, to live a more or less unmolested life. Certainly Mu‘awiya did not observe all the terms of this treaty but he does seem to have left the Shi‘a fairly undisturbed as long as they did not endeavour to make any open representation of themselves as a threat to his political supremacy. Thus al-Hasan, by concluding peace, preserved the Shi‘a from possible annihilation while at the same time exposing the bankruptcy of Mu‘awiya’s claims to be seeking vengeance for the death of ‘Uthman. By the terms of the treaty concluded, no reprisals could be taken; and we hear of no immediate attempts by Mu‘awiya to avenge ‘Uthman. In fact the peace treaty exposes the total falsity of this claim as Mu‘awiya’s causus belli — reason for war.

Imam al-Hasan, then, made peace with Mu'awiya and gave him the pledge of allegiance to preserve the Umma of Muhammad and his own Shi‘a. Why did not his brother follow his example and also pledge allegiance to Mu‘awiya? Al-Hasan was Imam at this time and al-Husayn was not. As Imam, it was necessary for al-Hasan to show that the political struggle was over, at least temporarily. If he had embarked on a course which would have inevitably led to his death, his own death would also have led to the death of a countless number of his followers. Al-Husayn, although the brother of the Imam, was not then the Imam. His action was the personal action of an individual. It was an action of passive protest not a cry for war. He accepted

23 the peace treaty concluded by his brother and observed all its terms. But he did not give the bay’a; in other words, he accepted Mu‘awiya’s political supremacy without giving it recognition. He did not follow the policy of taqiyya which his brother and most of the other members of the Shi‘a did. This isolation is strange and wonderful. Without belittling his brother’s necessary policy as Imam, al-Husayn’s refusal to pledge allegiance to Mu‘awiya stands out as a great example to this modem age of ours. In al-Husayn’s attitude we can see the pattern of other great resisters of despotism — we can see the example of Solzhenitsyn, of Bukovsky and other so-called dissidents — men who love their country but refuse to acknowledge tyranny.

In the case of al-Husayn during the twenty years of Mu‘awiya’s rule, for the last ten or so years of which he was Imam, his attitude was that of total adherence to the terms of the peace treaty and refusal to give recognition to Mu‘awiya through the bay’a or pledge of allegiance. Mu‘awiya, himself broke the terms of the treaty. In particular he broke the term which required that ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib should not be cursed. This cursing of ‘Ali caused some concern in al-Kufa and led to the martyrdom of Hujr ibn ‘Adi. One may ask was this breach of the treaty sufficient to warrant al-Husayn taking up arms against Mu‘awiya? The answer, by al-Husayn’s own action, is that it was not. Why was it not? The cursing of ‘Ah was part of a propaganda campaign launched by Mu‘awiya to discredit ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and undermine the support for Ahl al- bayt — the family of the Prophet. However, this was a test which, it appears, was not meant to be resolved by armed conflict. This was the time for resolute resistance — in a more passive way — a resistance which showed itself in the refusal to curse ‘Ali, in the refusal to accept the anti-Ahl al-bayt propaganda. Hujr ibn ‘Adi’s resistance in al-Kufa was a fine example of such resistance. Whenever the governor denounced ‘Ali from the pulpit, Hujr ibn ‘Adi would make his objections publicly known. It was unfortunate that, through the pressure of circumstances, Hujr ibn ‘Adi took to arms. It was an attempt which was short-lived and doomed to failure from the start. Hujr ibn ‘Adi died a martyr refusing to his last breath to denounce ‘Ali b. Abi Talib. Al-Husayn made dear that the use of arms in resisting Mu‘awiya’s propaganda was no part of his policy in a letter he wrote to some of the Kufans after the death of his brother.

Al-Husayn in these twenty years honoured the treaty made by his brother but refused to give Mu‘awiya recognition. On the death of Mu‘awiya, the political situation changed. Mu‘awiya’s attempt to get his son Yazid to succeed him asthe political ruler of the Islamic world was in absolute contradiction to one of the major clauses of the peace treaty he had made with al-Hasan. As was only natural to the man, this was something Imam al-Husayn would not accept. He avoided being apprehended and went from Medina to Mecca. Why did he not stay in Medina and maintain his resistance to giving the pledge of allegiance there in Medina? I think it is fair to say that if al-Husayn had remained in Medina, he would quickly have been removed from the stage. He may have been killed there but more probably, he would

24 have been incarcerated by Yazid, and killed when public attention was not focussed on him. Certainly al-Husayn felt that it was better for him to leave Medina. Although he left at night, he did not journey by any minor road to Mecca. Much to the consternation of some of those who went with him, he took the main road. I consider that this was a symbolic gesture, a gesture intended to show the world that al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib would not give any pledge of allegiance to Yazid ibn Mu‘awiya and was calling on all Muslims and in particular, the Shi‘a of Ahl al-bayt to give him support in his claim for leadership of the Islamic Umma. Certainly this is the effect reported by the historians which the news of his arrival in Mecca had on the Kufan Shi‘a.

We all know the tragedy in which the affair ended. Yet Imam al-Husayn did not act as if he was embarking upon his own martyrdom. The Kufan letters, some coming even from tribal leaders who were not members of the Shi‘a, all gave clear indication of a readiness by the Kufans to take up arms against any continuation of Umayyad despotism, and furthermore to take up arms on behalf of al-Husayn. But these letters were not regarded as sufficient evidence for al-Husayn. He sent his cousin, Muslim ibn ‘Aqil, to check the reports and act on his behalf in Kufa. What Muslim ibn ‘Aqil discovered seemed to confirm the reports and al-Husayn set out for Kufa with most of his family. As he went tribesmen from various parts joined him in his journey towards Kufa.

At this point, the matter still hung in the balance. If al-Husayn had arrived in Kufa before ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad, if Muslim’s followers had been more resolute in their attack on the governor’s palace, if these conditions had been observed the course of Islamic history might have been quite different. Yet this was not to be. For a moment in the course of his journey, al-Husayn, himself, seems to have had second thoughts. When he gets news of the disaster that has befallen Muslim, the historians tell us that he momentarily considers returning to the Hijaz. Again, we can guess at the reflections which concerned the Imam. Was it in the interests of Islam that he should die or was it better for Islam that he, the grandson of the Prophet, should remain alive? The decision is death and the small group journeys on. These are people journeying to inevitable death; those who joined him to enter Kufa as conquerors are told to leave. Again when al-Husayn is confronted by the opposing army, he gives them a chance to avoid the heinous crime of shedding the blood of the Prophet’s grandson. He tells them to let him go somewhere, wherever they like but he refuses the only terms they offer, those of pledging allegiance to Yazid.

What was the point of al-Husayn’s death? What relevance does it have for Islam? What lessons can modern man learn from it? As an outsider, it may seem impertinent for me to comment on the first two points. However, in all humility, I will endeavour to make a few suggestions. The significance of al-Husayn’s death was the death itself. The public spectacle of the Prophet’s grandson dying did not get rid of the despotism

25 of Yazid. Nor did it remove the Umayyad usurpation of political authority. But it did underline the importance of martyrdom in the face of oppression to countless people throughout the ages who are prepared to put principle before self-gratification. It is a religious lesson to people of all religions, a lesson that teaches men that sometimes life, as precious as it is, is better sacrificed than compromised.

It is hardly necessary for me to point out to this gathering here, the relevance of the death of al-Husayn to Islam. In particular Ithna ‘Ashari Shi‘ites commemorate that event in such a way that its re-enactment serves to strengthen and re-invigorate their faith in their religion. An outsider, like myself, is brought face to face with that sad event so many hundreds of years ago through being asked to attend such a gathering as this and so bear witness to the strengthening of faith, which the death of al-Husayn achieved. In the wider circles of Islam, the martyrdom of al-Husayn seems to serve the same end among all who pause to think about it.

From the two brothers al-Hasan and al-Husayn, men can learn two lessons. From al-Hasan, we learn to act responsibly in certain situations and accept compromise, particularly when we have the responsibility for others. From al-Husayn, we learn that there comes a time in the course of man’s affairs when the only righteous path is resistance and refusal, even when that path leads to death.

Finally, as a scholar, it seems to me that al-Husayn’s martyrdom had a profound effect on Islam. For it kindled in the hearts of all religious Muslims — and they with the help of God are the people who keep Islam alive; a great love, desire and spirit of sacrifice. This, in the last resort, means the martyrdom of al-Husayn preserved the spirit, the soul and the being of the Islamic Faith.

26 AL-HUSAYN, THE MARTYR AND HIS IDEOLOGY

Mirza Ali Azhar

Certain events have stirred humanity to its very depths and the tragedy of Karbala occupies the pride of place among them. The sanguinary drama enacted on the sandy plains of Iraq has revealed the best traits of human character attracting the best minds throughout the ages irrespective of any barrier — racial, social or religious.

To appreciate fully why al-Husayn courted certain death, and spurned the offer of Yazid, to lead a life of peace and pleasure, we should cast a cursory glance on the events preceding the unequal battle fought in the year 61 A.H.

Since the removal by death of the dominating personality of Muhammed, the newly reared edifice of Islam began to lose its glamour and the old ingrained habits of the pagan Arabs asserted themselves. Bani Omayyah, who had not sincerely taken to the new religion, began to show themselves in their true colours. The principle of election so ostentatiously preached at the beginning was conveniendy shelved by some device or the other till its complete repudiation by Mu’awiya who openly canvassed for the succession of his son as Caliph.

Mu’awiya was the first to sow the seed of discord and ‘consolidated the power he had so fondly coveted but so dishonourably won.’ Such was the person who had taken all possible pains in his life-time to ensure that his son and heir Yazid should succeed to the mantle of Caliphate after him. Neither respect for the principles of Islam nor the fear of public opinion deterred the son of Abu Sufian from persuing the course he had chalked out for himself and continuing the intrigues for a person who was by no means fit for the high pontifical office.

“There is only one event in the life of Mu’awiya which a historian cannot fully explain: it is the succession of Yazid. How a wise father, conversant with the follies of his son, could have elected him as his successor is one of the anomalies which history has often presented. We need not be reminded that the philosophic Emperor Marcus Aurelius fell into an error which he would have condemned in others. He, like Mu’awiya, adorned his profligate son with the purple, despite the fact that he trampled upon the virtue of manhood and shed a lurid light on the purity of his father”. At least this act of Mu’awiya was an indiscretion too much even for my late lamented Prof. Salahuddin Khuda Bakhsh who has always sung the praises and extolled the glories of the house of Omayyah and for whatever it stood. Nevertheless even in this passage the learned writer has subdy tried to minimise the far-reaching effects of Yazid’s succession by attributing it to parental folly and citing the example of Marcus Aurelius. True, parental love is blind but Islam can never forget the deep wound inflicted on its body politic by Mu’awiya through the succession of Yazid.

27 The pagan virtues and the “grossly sensuous and epicurean life” of the Omayyahs struck a sympathetic chord in the learned Professor, and he pleads guilty to the charge: — “I confess to a strange predilection for the Omayyahs. True-tinged with paganism, un- orthodox, fond of pleasure, lovers of wine, women and sports, full of life and fun, they sough to live up to the gay old traditions of Arab Heathenism, untrandled by religion, undeterred by hell. All this and more, if you please”.

Yazid could not find a better champion-well-versed in the secrets of the sparkling and frothy beverage and an adept in winning the shady favours of the softer sex. And he has tried to plead the cause of Yazid, with his wide erudition and legal acumen, at the bar of public opinion and has buttressed his arguments by quotations from Dr. Brunnow and Dr. Wustenfeld. First he extolls the literary qualities of this ‘universally condemned’ Caliph and after painting the poetical efforts of Yazid in somewhat rosy colours Prof. Khuda Bakhsh, with consummate skill, marshals the facts relating to the battle of Kerbela as follows:— “The facts are briefly these: Yazid undisputed Caliph was resisted by abandof Muslims headed by Al-Husayn, the son of Ali and the grand-son of the Prophet.

“What the Caliph asked for was allegiance and allegiance was refused to him. The ‘defacto’ Government of Yazid tried persuation, and that proving unavailing, it ultimately used force to suppress the rebellion in its initial stage, but force to be sure, to no greater extent than was absolutely necessary for putting the offending tend under arrest”.

In quoting at length I crave the indulgence of the learned reader. But that is the only way of laying bare the imperceptible snare spread for misleading the unwary. The learned Prof, has, to begin with, naively assumed Yazid to be undisputed Caliph to resist whom was nothing short of rebellion against the established government of the day with the people’s sanction behind it. But it was not so. All the contemporary authors and Arab historians admit that when Mu’awiya, with an eye on the future, wanted to secure allegiance for Yazid, he was met with opposition. All his attempts having proved futile he left directions with Yazid as to how to win over the favours of his chief opponents, i.e. Abdullah Ibn Omar, Abdullah Ibn Zubair, Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr. But Yazid was specially warned by Mu’awiya, the cunning diplomat, not to molest Husayn, the grandson of the Prophet. This vlearly proves that even during the life time of Mu’awiya, when the Khilafat of Yazid was first mooted, the four leading notables were opposed to the idea.

“The rule of the Omayyahs was regarded by their contemporaries in no wayasa continuation of the rule of Prophet and his companions, inasmuch as it rested, not upon Islam which was the mainstay and strength of the first two Caliphs, but upon Conquering force”. Fortunately we can gauge the feelings of contemporary

28 Muslims, as voiced by Husayn Ibn Ali, the universally respected grandson of the Prophet, against the unislamic rule of Mu’awiya and his future intentions. Ibn Qutaiba, the famous historian, has quoted the following letter of Husaynto Mu’awiya: — “Your letter has readied me in which you speak of evil reports about me that have come to your knowledge and which, you say, you would never have expected as being beneath my dignity. Well, God alone leads people to good actions, — I fear that God will hold me responsible for leaving you alone (and not fighting you) and your unjust party, the party of tyrants and the help-mates of the accursed one. Are you not the murderer of Hujr, the devotee and the companions of Hujr, the pious and God-fearing? — who were averse to heresies and who exhorted people to good and forbade them from evil? Yet you killed them wrongly and unjustly after giving them faithful and inviolate promises of immunity and safety. In this act you defied God and thought lightliy of His name. Are you not also the murderer of Amr Ibnu-I-Hamiq whose face was worn out by long devotion? You killed him after holding out promises to him, which would have brought down even the mountain goats from their lairs ....

By God! Mu’awiya, you behave in a manner that would lead people to think that you are not one of the Muslims and they have no part or lot in you. Are you not again the murderer of Al Hadhrami, concerning whom Ziyad wrote to you that he was of the same religion as Ali Ibn Abi Talib? Well then, the religion of Ali is no other than the religion of his cousin (the Prophet) through whose instrumentality you are occupying the position you now hold. Were it not for Islam, your highest nobility and that of your ancestors would have consisted in your making the two journeys in summer and winter (for purposes of trade) . . . And you have said among other things ‘Guard the interest of your own self, your religion, and of the followers of the Prophet’. Verily I know nothing that safeguards better my interest and the interest of my religion and the followers of Muhammad than waging holy war against you. If I do this I will be doing a pious duty. Fear God, O Mu’awiya, and know that God has a book which fails not to record the largest or the smallest sin, and know also that God will never forgive your killing men on mere suspicion and punishing them on false charges and your appointing as your successor a youth who drinks wine and hunts with dogs”.

No wonder Husayn did not give allegiance to Yazid when he felt that Yazid was an embodiment of everything anti-Islamic. The refusal assumes all the more importance when we realise that allegiance asked for by Yazid was not identical with what we are accustomed to in modern times. It was no allegiance to a secular state only. The real significance of allegiance or Baya then was the acceptance of Yazid “who was almost always in a state of intoxication” as the Commander of the Faithful or the Spiritual Head of the entire Muslim community. Husayn gave the right lead in saying an emphatic ‘No’ to the demand. An oath of allegiance might be a matter of indifference to us moderns but anyone who has taken the least trouble in studying the early history of the theocratic state of Arabia will realise what special

29 weight was attached to Baya. Had Husayn taken the oath of fealty this very act would have been cited by the partisans of Yazid, as the proper justification of his conduct and his rule. Husayn wuold have failed in his duty if he had acted otherwise. Islam demanded the true observance of its principles and spirit from the members of the Prophet’s Family more than from the ordinary members of the Faith. The gullible masses would have tolerated him but Yazid with his anti-Islamic Principles stunk in their nostrils. He with his heathen habits revelled in drinking parties and everything that was against the tenets of Islam. The rumblings grew and gradually gathered momentum till the storm burst forth on the scorching sands of Kerbala. Husayn became the universal hero while Yazid, the then victor, has ever since been condemned as the chief villain of the piece and rightly too.

To say that no more force was used than was “absolutely necessary” is an historical falsehood unworthy of the learned writer. The way in which 72 persons, including children, were murdered and women were arrested and molested by thousands, is sufficient to refute the contention of the minimum force.

“It is nowhere stated that the ruling Caliph Yazid gave his generals Ibn Ziyad, Shimr and the resit of them orders to molest or to kill the grandson of the Prophet. What they were bidden to do was to put him under arrest, in case of his refusing to do homage to the Caliph. In slaying Husayn, therefore, they acted without authority. In fact, they acted in contravention of the order issued to them”. This is again a clever ruse. To lift the stigma off him, his minions are made to shoulder the blame. But the world can no longer be deceived when Yazid himself in an unguarded moment, with the cup in his hand and the vintage in him and with a babbling tongue, has addressed the severed head of Husayn and expressed satisfaction at avenging the deaths of his ancestors at the battles of Badr and Ohad. Although his grandmother (Mu’wiya’s mother) Hinda had sucked the blood and chewed the liver of Muhammad’s uncle Hamza at Ohad (for killing her father Atba) and committed other indecent brutalities which my pen refuse to record, this rising hope of the Omayyads with the blood of Akilat-ul-Akbad (Liver-eateress-the nick-name given to Hinda in Muslim history) running in his veins, could not rest in peace till he saw the bleeding head of his traditional enemy Husayn before him.

A devotee to the gurgling liquor cannot keep up false pretences for long — the only redeming feature of the forbidden liquid. Statecraft or consideration for the masses may muzzle him for a time but one who hails the Saqi and entreats him for the constant circulation of the cup ‘untrammelled by religion, undeterred by hell’ cannot for long keep a silent tongue. The veneer of civilisation being washed away by ‘Bint-ul-Inab’ Yazid speaks out the naked truth. He has taken the revenge of his ancestors — in true old Arab style — killed by Ali under the orders of Muhammad. Yazid does not charge Husayn for non-allegiance. To him it does not count, only left for his advocates to put up in defence. The thought uppermost in his mind was, ‘to

30 feed fat the ancient grudge’. To give the Devil his due let us admire the frankness of his blunt but true statement. But Khuda Baksh in his zeal to present Yazid as the much maligned ruler, conveniently forgot to consult the famous historians Tabari and Bilazuri. Even if it is a fact that Ibn-i-Ziyad and Shimr exceeded the express ordere, what punishment was meted out to them? History cannot furnish a better testimony than the conduct of the famous son of the infamous father i.e. Mu’awiya Ibn Yazid. After the close of the hectic reign of Yazid, his son Mu’awiya II was acclaimed as Caliph but he soon freed himself (after a month) from the unenviable position and passed his life in penance for the misdeeds of his father. Surely Prof. Khuda Baksh cannot claim to be better qualified to sit in judgement on Yazid than his Mu’awiya II passes an adverse judgement on his own father, then the enormity of the sins must be great indeed.

Prof. K. Baksh says “Dr. Wustenfeld points out that Abu Mikhnaf is the first to speak of the tragedy of Kerbala . . . and must be treated as ‘a coffee house gossip, unworthy of credit’. It is rather strange to find Dr. Wustenfeld or his admirer Khuda Baksh could show such gross ignorance of historical facts. Abu Mikhnaf is not the first. His authority is Hameed bin Muslim, the news-writer in Yazid’s army and surely Wustenfeld could not say a word against Hamid who was an eye-witness to the tragedy of Kerbala.

Each and every Arab historian, Ibn Qutaiha, Asim Kufi, Tabari, Abul Faraj, Ibn Abd Rubb of Spain, Waqidi etc. has related the woeful tale. Al-Fakhri the eminent historian, describing Yazid’s reign says:— “His reign, according to the more correct statement, lasted three years and six months. In the first year he slew Al-Husayn, the son of Ali; and in the second year he sacked Medina, and looted it for three days; and in the third year he attacked Kaaba”.

Such being the undisputed record of Yazid it is the writer’s (K, Baksh’s) penchant for heathenic virtues rather than his love for historical truth that prompted him to put up a defence for Yazid.

No doubt Prof. Khuda Baksh would have, with Mirza Hairat of Delhi, denied the event itself if he could; but probably he thought he chose the more subtle method of achieving his end by casting doubt on the whole episode and surrounding it with so many half-truths and false-hoods that the whole picture should be blurred to make it difficult to distinguish the true from the false.

Having discovered the reason of Yazid’s implacable hatred (the killing of his ancestors by Ali at Badr and Ohad) towards Husayn after sweeping aside the cobwebs spun by his apologists let us find out the motive power and the ideal which prompted Husayn to be butchered. We need but listen to the words whispered by Husayn, under the brutal sword of Shimr, and the mission of his life will be revealed to us:—

31 “God! I have fulfilled the promise of my infancy, fulfill Thee Thine. Forgive the sins of my Grandfather’s Community (ummat),” Neither the lure of the worldly power nor the attraction of the filthy pelf could draw Husayn towards itself. He sacrified his all and even exposed his family — the utmost that Husayn could do — to the ‘slings and arrows of Fortune’ to do his duty by his nation and so save his countrymen from external perdition. History does not present a nobler example of self-sacrifice nor a better instance of patriotic love under a more trying set of circumstances.

Socrates drank the cup of hemlock to its dregs and Jesus was put on the cross but none had a thought to bestow beyond himself. But Husayn was greater than they. In the blistering sun of an Arabian summer, without a grain of food or a drop of water, Husayn carried the dead and the dying. The slashed body of a son or the trampled corpse of a nephew was carried from the field to the camp with equal fortitude and resignation. Sometimes he checked the onslaughts of the Syrian hosts and sometimes he returned to the camp to give what little encouragement he could to his widowed sisters and thirsting children, who with their last look gazed at the Head of the Family, emaciated and worn, wending to the field never to return dead or alive. But not a sigh escaped the parched lips, nor a thought did violence to the self- imposed duty.

No wonder that Prof. Khuda Baksh with his hedonistic outlook on life and sensuous habits was too materialistic to understand Husayn. Husayn was too much beyond him. His unbending loyalty to the principles of Islam and his unflagging courage to uphold the teachings of the Prophet shine through the centuries with undiminished brilliance. His is the unique personality to stir the feelings of love and reverence even in the crudest forms of humanity. Caste or creed does not stand in the way of paying homage to this grandson of the Prophet of Arabia.

An embodiment of virtue and all that was noble and chivalrous in the Arab he was an antithesis to Yazid. Each of them represented a mode of life diametrically opposed to each other. The battle of Kerbala presented before the world the two opposing camps of Islam and Heathenism. And that’s why throughout the thirteen hundred years the name of Husayn has been a clarion call to all that is good and virtuous.

Yazid “was a man without faith, a slave to drink and dancing girls, fond of dogs and riotous revelry” and ‘sought to live up to the gay, old traditions of Arab Heathenism, untramelled by religion, undeterred by hell’. Husayn brought up and trained under the loving care of Muhammad had imbibed the religious fervour of the Prophet and the chivalrous spirit of his father. Suckled by Fatima and educated by Ali, his character was formed in the company of the Messenger of God. Husayn was too faithful to the traditions of his family to swerve an inch from the path of his duty. Ever since the Day of Ashura the hero of Kerbala has stood unchallenged across the ages. A hand was found to put a flower on the grave of Nero, so a pen may be found, now and then, to make a halting defence for Yazid but Husayn stands out as the beacon-light throwing

32 his pure and lustrous effulgence, through the Surrounding Darkness, attracting the votaries of Truth and Self-Sacrifice.

BEFORE HIS MARTYRDOM ق ن ن ی وتہنہہک �ےکس ہک ہش ی وہں رشم� ومال ےن رساکھج ےک اہک ی م ی سحوہ ں He who could have said he was the Lord of the East, Merely bowed his head and said, “I am Husayn”.

33 WESTERN ATTITUDES TO ISLAM

Prof. C. F. Beckingham

The image of Islam in the West has sometimes been affected by distortion and misunderstanding. Of course such misunderstandings have been mutual and there is a sense in which they are unavoidable. It can be claimed that religion is something so intimate and personal that nobody, however well-informed and even sympathetic he may be, can hope to appreciate the effect of beliefs he does not himself hold, and that in consequence no religion can be properly understood by anyone who does not accept it. There are, however, some misapprehensions of fact which do no credit to those who accept and propagate them, being based on a measure of ignorance which in present conditions becomes ever less excusable.

If we take account of the whole period of nearly fifteen centuries during which Muslims and Christians have been in contact, it is evident that in general Muslims, at least educated Muslims, have usually been much better informed about Christianity than Christians of comparable intellectual and social standing have been about Islam. There are good reasons for this. There were Christian communities living under Muslim rule from the very beginning of Islam. There were Christians in Arabia in the lifetime of the Prophet, and the vast conquests made by his followers in the decade after his death brought under the suzerainty of the Caliphs countries in all of which the population was predominantly Christian. In fact for perhaps two centuries or more the Caliphs must have had more Christian than Muslim subjects. We do not have enough evidence to enable us to reconstruct the process of conversion to Islam in any detail, but it was certainly gradual and lengthy. There are scholars who consider that there was still a Christian majority in Syria and Palestine when the Crusaders arrived at the end of the eleventh Christian century.

Even after a majority of the population had been converted to Islam there were still in many Muslim countries, as there are today, large numbers of Christians. Individual members of these communities sometimes acquired great wealth or distinguished themselves in the learned professions, sometimes even in the administration. In consequence well-informed and intelligent Muslims were often in close contact with Christians who could disabuse them of misconceptions about their beliefs and practices. In contrast, except in Sicily and parts of Spain and Portugal, there were very few Muslims in Western Europe, and even learned men entertained and propagated the most preposterous notions about Islam. Indeed, Dr. Norman Daniel has shown in the careful and erudite studies which he has made of this subject, that the works of scholars, who in medieval Europe were nearly always priests, often displayed a malevolent hostility to Islam which was lacking in the popular literature of the time, grossly ignorant though it might be of the truth about what Muslims believe and practise.

34 My own impression is that ordinary Christians in Europe were obsessed — a few of them still are — by two Things which they had heard about Islam, that Muslims were permitted to marry more than one wife at a time, and that they were not allowed to drink intoxicating liquors. The first seemed to medieval Europeans an intelligible, if reprehensible precept, one which they often envied, if we can judge by their own lives. But the prohibition of drinking wine or beer seemed to them utterly incomprehensible, for before either tea or coffee was known in the West, everyone, even schoolboys, partook at least of mild ale. The consequence was that the most ludicrous stories were in circulation to explain why the Prophet had found it necessary to prohibit it. In the course of the Renaissance, with the academic study of Arabic in universities and with increasing commercial contact with the Levant, the more ridiculous of these stories became discredited. The misapprehensions which did persist were more insidious, and there are several which have still not been eliminated. I should like to concentrate on one of the most prevalent. It is even now often maintained, though no longer by any scholar worthy of the name, that Islam was spread by the sword and that it is essentially a religion of domination, compulsion and force. However false this may be, it is not difficult to see how it came to be accepted. While there is no evidence that Muslim conquests were accompanied by forced conversion except in a few isolated instances, indeed there is ample evidence to the contrary, it is nevertheless true that conquest almost always preceded conversion, and there have not been many examples of peoples becoming Muslim before coming under Muslim rule.

There was an important consequence of this, the significance of which has not always been appreciated. It has meant that Muslims have had very little experience of being a subject community. Islam has often been the religion of a minority, as it certainly was in the early days of the Arab conquests, but when this has been so, it has almost always been the ruling minority, so that the status of those of other faiths, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, or Buddhists, has been determined in accordance with Islamic law. These people enjoyed a very large measure of autonomy in certain respects. They usually paid higher taxes, did not serve in the army, and could not give legal testimony against a Muslim, but were free to practise their religion, to educate their children in its precepts, and to regulate their lives by it in all matters of personal law. The historical experience of Islam was thus utterly different from that of either Judaism or Christianity. Judaism as we know it is the product of exile, of a conscious effort to preserve the faith after the fall of the Jewish states. Christianity, however much it may have been associated with imperial dominance in modern times, began as the religion of a small and socially despised group, and was for some three hunderd years liable to fierce though intermittent persecution. Neither Jewish nor Christian thinkers had any reason to concern themselves with the position to be accorded to those of different beliefs living under their government. They were not exercising any government. Certainly many Christians in early times looked not for the conversion of the Roman Emperor but for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and the end of the present order in the world.

35 Islam by contrast was independent from the day of the Hijra. Already in Medina the Prophet was deciding on the terms upon which Jews and Christians were to live among Muslims. Hardly anywhere have significant numbers of Muslims been subject to the rule of people of another faith until modern times. In China, of course, there was a Muslim community already in the first century of the Hijra. The rulers of China were never Muslims but this community, however large it may have become in its greatest days, has been somewhat peripheral to the development of Islam. So far as I know there has been no Chinese Muslim whose teaching has had an important influence on the development of Islamic theology or social or political ideas. Again, the Mongol conquests brought a very large part of the Muslim community under pagan rule for a few generations but two facts operated to minimise the effect of this. At the height of their power the Mongols did not adhere to a religion other than Islam; they were eclectic shamanists with some respect for any and every religion as a way of trying to influence supernatural forces in their favour. Moreover, after a relatively short time those Mongols who remained in western Asia and eastern Europe themselves became Muslims. The rule of the Crusaders in Palestine and parts of Syria and the role of Muslim communities which remained behind after the Christian reconquest of Spain and Sicily were transient phenomena and were not experiences which left any trace on Muslim thinking about the state and the structure of society.

It was not until the great and rapid expansion of the territories of the great powers of Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that very large numbers, and eventually the majority of Muslims found themselves governed, or at least dominat- ed, by non-Muslims, almost always either Christians or former Christians who had lapsed into secularism of some kind. This was a traumatic experience for it was felt that the practice of Islam presupposed the existence of an Islamic state. I think one may say that Muslims responded in one of two ways. The first was to revert to the ideals and practices of the Rashidun, rejecting everything originating in the West and regarding the decline of the power of the Muslims as divine punishment for their religious laxity. The other was to accept from the West all in the way of technical and scientific knowledge and social organisation that seemed necessary to enable them to regain their effective independence. The difficulty has of course been to decide how far Muslims could go in adopting Western methods and organisation without compromising Islam itself. There were many who came to believe that Muslims would not achieve real freedom until they reorganised them traditional plural societies as industrialised and centralised national states. Naturally they encountered bitter opposition and the changes they were attempting to make were profound. It is grossly unfair but understandable that the resulting struggle should usually have been seen in the West as one between political ambition and religious obscurantism. It has really been an attempt, in the face of immense difficulties, to enable Islam to fulfil itself.

As suggested earlier it is probably not possible for any human being to appreciate

36 fully what a belief he does not himself hold means to someone else who does hold it. Confronted by this dilemma one may profitably recall a remark of Coleridge, which has always seemed to me profoundly sensible. “Until I understand a man’s ignorance”, he said, “I deem myself ignorant of his understanding.” By this I think he meant that we should not be content to satisfy ourselves that a particular belief we do not accept is mistaken. We should not rest until we understand how it has come about that it has appeared to be obviously right to intelligent people of unquestionable good will.

37 IMAMS — CLEAR AND COHERENT POLICY

S. J. Hussain

A question has puzzled some believers a great deal, namely why did al-Husayn fight with the sword, while his successors refrained from doing so, especially as all the Imams subscribed to a single and coherent ideology. For, if al-Husayn, in spite of the small number of his followers rose up against injustice, demanding his usurped rights, why did Imam al-Sadiq, for example, not rise up when the numbers of his partisans had increased.

This question necessitates knowledge of the circumstances faced by al-Husayn, compared to those which faced the other Imams, so that we can recognise our task today.

It is, naturally, well-known that the Prophet started his mission peace-fully and secretly, and that this continued for more than ten years. During these years he succeeded in forming a group of followers, who firmly believed in the new message and rejected everything which was connected with the time of the Jahiliyya. Eventually the Prophet felt that this group was capable of confronting the power of the Jahiliyya, and so raised the Jihad with the sword, and, after a bitter military struggle, succeeded in founding the Islamic state in Medina. This hard task which led to the Prophet’s establishment of a new society, was left, in its entirety, to Imam Ali, so that he could complete what the Prophet had initiated, as regards the complete elimination of the beliefs of the Jahiliyya, and then establish a society which would base its relationships upon the prescribed rule of God’s law.

However Imam Ali did not come to power immediately after the death of the Prophet. On the contrary he was prevented from achieving power, and had but a few loyal supporters, having discovered that many of those who had been converted to Islam had only embraced it externally, without true belief in their hearts, and acted according to the customs of the Jahiliyya, while covering it with a superficial belief in Islam. Such a situation confirmed the preductions of the Qur’anic verse which says, “If he dies or is killed you shall turn your backs” (Imran, 144), that is you shall return to your old beliefs. The Imam found that he could not rise to recover his rights, so he did not rebel, but strove throughout his life, to organise a group of sincere believers from among the Community, attentive to the objectives of the new religion, believing in the legitimacy of Ali’s claims to the Imamate, and applying the Sunna of the Prophet in their daily lives. When he finally came to power, after the death of Uthman, Imam Ali did not demand silence as regards economic and poltical corruption, but rather encouraged the Community to purify their hearts and their actions, and fought those Muslims who sought to exploit the Islamic expansion to thier own ends, or interpreted the laws of Islam according to their own desires and interests, at the expense of those of society at large.

38 Al-Hasan followed in the footsteps of his father in the fight against the power of the Jahiliyya, and against some of the Muslims, whose souls had not been purified by the fear of God, and who were exploiting the economic and political advantages of the Islamic expansion into Syria. For this reason he continued to fight and encourage his followers in their struggle, but some of his followers refused to obey his commands, and one even tried to assassinate him in al-Mada’in, which resulted in al-Hasan’s receiving a serious leg injury, which contributed to his later agreement to a truce.

The splits amongst the followers of al-Hasan, and the spread of the disturbances amongst his army on one hand, and the unity of the opposition and their insistence on continued hostilities on the other, forced al-Hasan to sign the truce with Mu’awiya. Some of the most important stipulations of this truce was that Mu’awiya would not endanger the life or the properties of al-Hasan’s followers, or curse the People of the House, in the mosques, and that al-Husayn should succeed Mu’awiya on the death of the latter.

Imam al-Husayn committed himself to acting according to the stipulations ofthis agreement, whereas the opposition, during the twenty years of Mu’awiya’s rule, systematically broke the points of agreement one after another. In the last years of his rule Mu’awiya designated Yazid as his successor, thus breaking his promise to al-Hasan, that al-Husayn would succeed him.

Al-Husayn had been keeping a careful watch on the activities of Mu’awiya during his rule, and had, accordingly, prepared his followers for any eventuality. In the light of what reached him from Iraq al-Husayn believed that the people were ripe for rebellion on one hand, while, on the other hand, he noticed that the Community as a whole had become stagnant and needed somebody to bring it back to life. Therefore he advanced towards Kufa and, in spite of the fact that the Kufans who had previously promised to help him, had withdrawn their support and listened to the overtures of the authorities, he determined to fight despite the fewness of his followers, until all of them perished at the Battle of Kerbala.

From this it is clear that al-Husayn’s decision to fight was by no means an innovation, but rather a continuation of the policy of his brother, father and grandfather, as regards opposition to the power of the Jahiliyya whenever possible. The assassination of al-Husayn led al-Sajjad and the other Imams to adopt their quiescent policy towards the authitories who had seized power, because he realised that: i. (Firstly) In spite of their numbers, the followers of al-Husayn did not possess sufficient loyalty to surrender themselves and their possessions in the path of God, according to the instructions of the Imam; ii. (and secondly) Many of the Community were unaware that al-Husayn was the rightful Imam and the leader of the Islamic community, by the Prophet’s designation, just as they were unaware that the existing authorities were illegal.

39 For this reason we find al-Sajjad following a policy of silence towards the authority of the Umayyads, however this silence did not indicate recognition of their authority, but rather that his own followers were few. Similarly his isolation from society was by no means an escape from reality, but was in fact tacit opposition to the corruption and tyranny which had brought about the assassination of al-Husayn, the burning of the Ka’ba, and the attacking and plundering of the City of the Prophet, which had lasted for three days.

Al-Sajjad, during the time of his Imamate, concentrated his efforts on purifying the souls of his people and encouraging fear of God in their acts and in their statements, giving priority to the purification of the soul by applying the rules of God firstly upon the individual, discouraging him from the self-interest which had contributed to al-Husayn’s death. Al-Sajjad’s intentions were to bring together a group of sincere Muslims, who adhered to the objectives of Islam and performed its rules, called people to obey God in their actions before their tongues, and followed the Imam in all things. Furthermore, al-Sajjad insisted that his followers understand that any war with the sword could only be a jihad, if the one who proclaimed it possessed the necessary quality of calling people to God through his acts rather than his statements. It is stated that he mentioned the following Qur’anic verse, They“ are the ones who turn to God in repentance, who worship him, who praise him, who go about in the land serving him, who bow down to God, who prostrate themselves in prayer, who enjoin good and forbid evil, and who watch the limits set by Allah. And give glad tidings to those who believe.” (113, Tawba). Thereafter he stated, “When we find those who possess these attributes, jihad with them is better than the Pilgrimage.” Kafi( , 5/22).

Imam al-Baqir followed his father’s policy and did not rebel against the Umayyads, and advised his brother, Zayd, not to rise in arms against the illegal authority of the Umayyads, because the Community was not sufficiently politically aware to rebel against the government. So al-Baqir began to disseminate political awareness in the Community, by means of Prophetical traditions, just as he commanded some of his followers to remind the people of al-Husayn’s struggle and his martyrdom during the Hajj each year, thereby hoping to kindle the feelings of the Community, to move their hearts and to inflame their emotions so that they could sympathise with the ideology of revolution for upright causes. For, the time of the Hajj is one of gathering for Muslims from all countries, and the dissemination of the objects of the struggle and martyrdom of al-Husayn, and the illustration of his close relationship to the Prophet, encouraged both complaint and doubt concerning the legitimacy of the authorities, which in turn created a fertile environment for a movement towards bring about their downfall.

Despite the fact that the cultural activities of al-Sajjad and al-Baqir drew a large number of followers to than, al-Baqir did not consider them suitable for rebellion, because they lacked the necessary loyalty and organisation. Al-Kulayni reports that

40 ‘Abd Allah b. al-‘Ata once said to al-Baqir, “Indeed your party is large in Iraq. By God, there is nobody amongst your people like you. So why do you not rise in arms?” So he replied, “O ‘Abd Allah b. al-‘Ata, you have taken to listening to the masses.” While it is also related that al-Sadiq himself did not count the large number of his followers an an integral part of his plans for revolt On the contrary, he gave precedence to their faith, their fear of God, their courage in standing by the truth, and their loyalty and obedience to the Imam.

The resolute policies of the Imams al-Baqir and al-Sadiq, were not unplanned, but were in fact based on bitter experience. Many reports state that the plans of the Imams involved a rebellion in 70 A.H., but the martyrdom of al-Husaym delayed these plans. There is also evidence in these plans of a revolt to be staged in 140 A.H. But due to the lack of organisation amongst the Imam’s followers, and their inability to keep the date of the revolution secret, their plans became known to their enemies, and so, the later Imams did not inform their followers of any subsequent intended uprising.

From this survey, it is clear that the Imams actually possessed a clear and coherent policy. For example Imam Ali made a truce with the contemporary rulers when he had only a few followers, but, when the numbers of his followers increased, he took arms openly, and similarly al-Hasan fought when he and his party were strong, but made a truce in the time of weakness. Al-Husayn did likewise, and rebelled in the way of God, depending upon the loyalty of the Kufans, while the other Imams refrained from doing so, until they had established a strong body of loyal followers, capable of transforming the ideology of the Community in favour of God’s law.

The main task of the faithful at the present time, is to cleanse themselves ofany act related to the era of the Jahiliyya, and this can be achieved by following the orders of God, as illustrated by the behaviour and daily life of the Prophet and his Household. Every believer who claims allegiance to the present Imam should present his allegiance and his loyalty to the Imam by performing the obligatory commands and rules, such as the prayers, fasting, the zakat, the Hajj, and by showing obedience to the legal ’Ulema of Ahl al-Bayt, following their instructions and calling people to good and forbidding evil acts.

Similarly they should perform actions which strengthen the social ties of society and establish it firmly and safely, such as obedience to parents and relations, respect towards neighbours, trustworthiness in agreements and contracts, loyalty in their occupations and in their dealings with people and to the country in which they live.

The one who is loyal to Ahl al-Bayt and the Imam of the Age, is the person who refrains from bad deeds, such as polytheism, disobedience to their parents, slandering women as adultresses, killing innocent people, tying, theft, the drinking of alcohol and any act which separates one from God.

41 If the faithful perform the obligatory deeds, refrain from what is forbidden and obey God loyally, this will lead to the establishment of a society free from complexity and corruption, in which the faithful can be sincerely loyal to the commands of the Imam of the Age.

42 Printed by Co-operative Press Ltd., Newcastle