Talk:Husayn ibn Ali

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]



Contents

[edit] family life

should we not remove the family life section as it is a repeat of the introduction?--prashidi 03:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move

Ali is listed as "Ali ibn Abi Talib", yet, when we come to this name, despite the page being called "Husayn bin Ali", we end up having to have the name bolded as "Husayn ibn Ali ibn Talib". I think we should move this for consistency's sake since it seems ibn is the more popular in scholarly, and well, most literature I've seen recently. gren グレン 00:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Dragons flight 00:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Husayn's head

My Syrian guidebooks claim that Husayn's head is still burried in the Damascus Umayyad Mosque. Kalif Yazid of the Umayyad dynasty (Sunni) joined the battle in Karbala and brought the head to Damascus in order to be humiliated. Today this shrine is one of the most crowded of the mosque, full of Shia pilgrims (most women wearing black clothes) crying (or yelling or whatever) at the shrine.

I believe that is trueKadhumia flo 00:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


Isn't it buried in Cairo? I'm pretty sure it is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.116.70 (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The picture

Would someone please make a legacy section like the one we have on the Ali page, so that we can move the imaginary portrait of Hussein to there?--Zereshk 16:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


people to go the shrine to pray for imam husayn and his family and for mankind

poeple weep/cry/lament for the tradegys occured at kerbala

see kerbala

and the form of expression of greif is is by way of crying and weeping

thnk you

[edit] Major revision

I did my best to make the article neutral rather than Shi'a hagiography. That included removing the purely imaginary picture, the bright green template, etc. Zora 04:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh heck -- I though I'd saved it, but apparently my 3-hours-labor is lost. Dang. At it again. Zora 04:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Aha, edit conflict. Got it. Zora 04:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Penitents

Someone came and changed the text to read that only Sunnis believed in the Penitents. I went back to my books and found several academic references to the Penitents. However, I couldn't confirm the detail re the first Ashurah commemoration. Momen, in his history of Shi'a Islam, says that they were a group of proto-Shi'a who organized in secret and mounted a failed rebellion four years after Husayn's death.

This material belongs in a history of Shi'a Islam (no good article at present), so I'm removing it from this article. Perhaps that will short-cut some argument. Zora 00:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Pentitent MuslimGuy

Ok, I think I'm getting how this works. "ZORRRRAAAAA, ZORRRRAAAAA. Can you hear me out there????" Well, if this somehow gets to you, I wanted to let you know that all the stuff you took out of "Penitents", I can cite...todos, toute le monde, and all of it, cited. Just let me know what you prefer, Arab sources, Western sources? Does the Publishing Company have to be from New England? Whatever basically;)--Muslimguy 77 03:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


Actually forget about all this stuff. I just read your argument with Zereshk regarding Misconceptions about the Shi'a. I have all the sources I need for anything about Shi'a Islam, since I have a library full of material. However, I don't have the fight to nitpick all the little things like Zereshk had to do just to move the needle a little - and not liberal enough to say anything at the risk of being called an "antisemite" - I was in the theology "business" in the Lutheran Church. I can tell you one thing though: Shi'a Islam stands out as an inarguable religion, one that puts a thorn in your side the closer you get to it. There's no beating it. Ask generations of bedouin arabs, jews, and turks...and they'll all tell you the same thing. Pain in the a$*. Shi'a Islam, welcome to the West. --Muslimguy 77 04:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't undestand what you're trying to say. Zora 07:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Because he is a Rafida idiot

Oh nothing really...I'm scandalous!--Muslimguy 77 06:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

... not to mention extremely rough. --Ciroa 23:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revised yet again

At some point in the past, someone removed a chunk of the narrative and replaced it with a badly written para claiming that Muawiya poisoned Hassan (Shi'a belief re Hassan, no historical foundation). I didn't notice this, as I was checking just the diffs, and it was part of the article for weeks! I just rewrote the section that had been trashed.

The claims re poisoning are (or should be) handled in the Hassan article, and they don't need to be given here. Zora 21:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting anon's edits

An anon spent a lot of time editing this article to make it conform to a pious Shi'a POV. I suspect that English was the anon's second language, since he/she/it mangled a lot of the prose in the process. I reverted to an earlier version that is not slanted and garbled. Zora 20:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely it does not look that way now. Ridiculously insulting and non-historical pictures, Shi'a POV still present 5:47, 18 May 2008 (EST)

Was Mu'awiya seeking Qisas for the death of Hadhrath Uthman?


Note

Since the field of history is mostly relied upon for revealing the detestable actions of Muawiyah and Co, the present day Nawasib try their utmost to exihibt their treachous nature and cast doubts on the authneticty of certain notable narrators of historical text. Abu Mukhnaf Lut bin Yahyah and Waqidi are two such narrators who shall appear in the texts we will quote throughout this article. The Nawasib shall no doubt bring objections against both narrators accompanied with deceitfulness. We shall therefore direct our readers to these two links right at the start of the article that contains the refutation to all objections the Nawasib raise against both of these Sunni figures:

1. Muhammad bin Umar al-Waqidi

2. Abu Mukhnaf Lut bin Yahyah


Mawla Ali (as) did not deem Uthman to have been killed innocently

Before we analyse Muawiya's claim that he was seeking to avenge the blood of Uthman, it is essential to highlight the conditions under which Uthman was killed. Firstly, Uthman was not killed innocently. The facts are clear:

Uthman contributed towards his demise due to his transgressions as well as those of his relatives.

His alleged killers (the people of Kufa, Basra and Egypt) came only for his correction and demanded that he put an end to his evil and cruel innovations. This was there initial claim, but Uthman decieved them (as well as Ali and other Madinan Sahaba) on several occasions by making false promises whilst conspiring against them.

Historical facts are very clear that when the Madinans failed to support Uthman against them, he sent letters to his governors in other provinces (including Mu'awiya) to send armies in order to kill these innocent people.


Allah (swt) saved these people from all these conspiracies of Uthman Ibn Affan, and they came to know of them at the right time, and killed Uthman in order to quell those problems. Uthman's killing was a direct consequence of his unjust corrupt reign.

Prior to discussing Mu'awiya, it is essential that we first look at all the historical events which corroborate the fact that Uthman was killed on account of his transgressions. We therefore strongly recommend that our readers first read out our article on Uthman:

Who Killed Uthman?


The Opinion of Mawla Ali (as) upon Uthman and Mu'awiya

We read in Tarikh Tabari:

People of delegation asked Ali Ibn Talib) Do you bear witness that Uthman has been killed Innocent? Upon this Ali responded:

لا اقول انہ قتل مظلوماً ولا انہ قتل ظالما

Neither do I say he was killed as an innocent, nor as an oppressor. History of Tabari, Arabic Edition, volume 4, page 4 and 5


Mu'awiya's refusal to help Uthman during the Seige

Mu'awiya was the master of deception and his sole aim was to reap the pleasures of the world. Just look at his role during Uthman's life:

Imam Tabari says, it was related to me by Ja'far- 'Amr and 'Ali- Husayn- his father- Muhammad bin Sa'ib Kalbi: When Uthman saw what happened to him and how many of people had been sent against him, he wrote Mu'awiyah bin Abi Sufyan in Syria: "In name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. To proceed: The Medinese (i.e. Uthman reffering to People of Madina and not of Egypt) have become unbelievers (Kafirs), they have abandoned obedience and renounced their oath of allegiance. Therfore send to me the Syrian soldiers who are at your disposal, on every camel you have, whether docile or stubborn". When Mu'awiya got the letter, he delayed action on it, for he did not wish to differ openly with the Companions of Messenger of God, since he knew that they concurred [on this matter]. When Uthman became aware of the delay, he wrote to seek and from Yazid bin Asad bin Kurz and the Syrians, he stressed his rightful claims upon them, and mentioned Almighty God's commandment to obey the Caliphs. History of Tabari, English Edition, vol. 15, page 185 (Translated by R. Stephan Humphreys)

Therefore it becomes very clear from the above narration (and many others) that:

Outsiders and the Madinans opposed Uthman and ultimately deemed him a Kaafir (infidel).

Uthman asked Mu'awiya for support by sending an army, but Mu'awiya didn't respond whilst he knew that the Sahaba had turned against the Ummayad Khalifa.


It is also appropriate at this point to highlight the fact that the leading antagonists in the killing of Uthman were Aisha, Talha and Zubair and other Sahaba such 'Amr bin al-Aas. Ultimatelty Mu'awiya's claim that he was avenging Uthman's blood was nothing more than a drama. He took on these actor skills when (at the beginning of his reign) Maula Ali (as) wanted to remove Mu'awiya from his post as Governor of Syria. Let's see the following tradition of Ibn Abbas:

According to Muhammad- Hisham b. Sa'd- Abu Hilal- Ibn Abbas: I went into Ali, and greeted him. He asked me: Did you meet al-Zubayr and Talhah? "I met them in al-Nawasif." "Who was with them?" He asked. "Abu Saìd bin al-Harith bin Hisham with a Quraishi force," I replied. 'Ali then said: 'I am sure they will never refrain from coming out and saying, 'We seek repayment for 'Uthman's blood.' By Allah! We know that they are the ones who killed 'Uthman". "Commander of faithful!" said Ibn Abbas. "Tell me about the business with al-Mughirah and why he had a private audience with you." He said: "He came to me two days after the murder of Uthman and said to me", May I have a private word with you?" I agreed, and he said: "Good advice costs nothing. You are the most excellent in thie community and I have some sincere advice for you. I advise you to return Uthmans's governers to office this year, so write to them confirming their governorships. When they have given you allegiance and things have settled down under your command, then you may remove or confirm whomever you wish". So I replied: "By Allah! I don't compromise my religion by cheating, nor do I give contemptible men [a say] in my command" . If you insist on rejecting this suggestion, 'he replied, 'then revove whomever you will, but leave Mu'awiya. Mu'awiya is daring, and Syrians listen to him. Moreover, you have good reason to keep him in office, for Umar bin al-Khattab made him governor of whole Syria.' "By Allah! no," I replied. "I would never appoint Mu'awiya as Governor, even for two days! " Al-Mughirah then left me without further suggestion. However, he came back again and said to me: 'I gave you some advice, but you didn`'t agree with me. So I thought about it and realized that your were right. You should not assume your authority deceitfully. There should be no fraud in your rule'". "So I said to Ali, said Ibn Abbas, "his first suggestion advised you well, his last deceived you. I advise you to confirm Mu'awiya. If he gives you allegiance, then I will undertake to topple him from his position. "Ali replied, "By Allah! No. I will give him nothing but the sword. " And he quoted the following verse: Death, if I die without weakness, is no disgrace when the sould meets its destruction. "Commander of Faithful! I replied, you are a courageous man, but you are not a warmonger. Didn't you hear the Messenger of Allah say, 'War is deceit'? "Indeed I did," said Ali. "By Allah! If you do as I say" replied Ibn Abbas, "I will take them back to the desert after a watering, and I will leave them staring at the backside of things whose front side they have no idea of, and you will incur neither loss nor guilt," Ibn Abbas, said Ali, "I don't want anything to do with these mean schemes of yours or of Mu'awiya's. You give me advice, and I consider it. If I go against you, then you do as I say." "I will," I replied. "Obedience is my first and foremost obligation to you." History of Tabari, English Edition, volume 16, page 23-24.(Translated by R. Stephan Humphreys)

This was the evil scheme of Mu'awiya, the claim that he was avenging Uthman's blood was just a farce. Maula Ali (as) vigorously criticised Uthman (during his siege) about the wrong doings of his governors (especially Mu'awiya). How could Khalifa Ali (as) allow Mu'awiya to continue such transgressions in the name of politics? If this background has become clear to our reders, then we can move forward and assess the quality of excuse offered by todays Nasibi to defend their father Mu'awiya.

Abu Sulaiman of ansar.org puts forward the common excuse:

Ansar.org states: Mu'awiyah did not want to rule, nor refused the leadership of Ali bin Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased at him, but Mu'awiyah requested from Ali was to give in Uthman's murderers, and only after that he would obey him (Ali).


The contradiction is evident in just this single sentence. On the one hand he states Mu'awiya did not "refuse the leadership of Ali bin Abi Talib" and yet then states it was not until Uthman's killers were handed over that "he would obey him". Hence he WAS refusing the Leadership. In other words Mu'awiya was indeed refusing the leadership of Ali (as) by placing a 'condition' for bay`a. We should also point out Abu Sulaiman's tactical use of the English language.

Ansar.org states: Mu'awiyah 'requested' from Ali was to give in Uthman's murderers, and only after that he would obey him Ali.


A request in English is simply when a person asks another as to whether such an option was available. Clearly Mu'awiya was NOT in any way making a request, since as Abu Sulaiman says, it was not UNTIL this so-called request was granted that he would give bay`a. So it was NOT a 'request' but a 'demand'.

Later on Abu Sulaiman passes the following comment:

Ansar.org states: Mu'awiyah did not fight Ali except for the matter of Uthman. Mu'awiyah saw himself as the guardian of Uthman's blood, and Uthman was one of his relatives"


Whilst Abu Sulaiman admires Muawiya's stance we ask ' is there any evidence from the Qur'an and Sunnah that entitles an individual to delay giving bay`a UNTIL Qisas is implemented?' If there is, why did Mu'awiya the alleged Mujtahid not cite a source to support his position and why did Imam Ali (as) not accept it? Or does Abu Sulaiman have more knowledge on the Shari`a than these two central characters?

Abu Sulaiman also seeks to defend Mu'awiya by saying:

Ansar.org states: "…and Mu'awiyah relied on some prophetic hadeeths that show and clear that Uthman would be killed as an innocent and describes the rebels as hypocrites… Mu'awiyah and his companions thought they were right according to this and that they were on guidance especially when we know that the hypocrite rebels against Uthman were in the army of Ali. Hence, Mu'awiyah and his companions thought them on astray and therefore they made it lawful for themselves to fight Ali and his faction.."


Could Abu Sulaiman show any reference as to when Mu'awiya cited these traditions to support his action? Or is Abu Sulaiman simply seeking to read Mu'awiya's mind? Do these ahadith (narrations) state that it will then be permissible for Uthman's relatives to rebel against the state and demand retribution forthwith?

We should also ask Abu Sulaiman 'was Mu'awiya's desire for revenge, more important than the smooth running of the Islamic State under the rule of the rightful caliph? Did Mu'awiya not consider the repercussions of such an action? Was there for example not a risk of Munafiqs (hypocrites) and the Kuffar (pagans) exploiting the situation and spread fitnah to further their own machinations? It is indeed interesting that when the same Abu Sulaiman seeks to read the mind of Mu'awiya later by pointing out that Mu'awiya killed Hujr to quell the risk of sedition and yet the same Mu'awiya saw no problem in himself opposing Imam Ali (as) actively participating in rebellion and sedition!

Clearly the risk was inherent - the third khalifa had been killed, so it was a time of upheaval. In light of such tense / delicate circumstances would it not have been better for Mu'awiya to allow the new Khalifa to settle down and then punish the killers of Uthman? What was the exact correlation between giving bay`a and Imam Ali (as) handing over Uthman's killers? How exactly was Mu'awiyas demand going to help the situation?

One also wonders how Mu'awiya had all of a sudden become the Waris of Uthman demanding Qisas. Hadhrath Uthmans was survived by sons all of who were baligh they were his Waris and they had the right to ask for Qisas not Mu'awiya.

Ansar.org states: Al-Thahabi narrated in "Sayr A'alam Al-Nubala'a" from Ya'ali bin Ubayd from his father who says: (Abu Muslim Al-Khulani and some others went to Mu'awiyah and asked him: "Do you dispute Ali or are you equal to him? Mu'awiyah answered: "By Allah no. I know he is better than I am, and he has the right to rule, but do not you know that Uthman was killed as an innocent? And I am his cousin and the seeker of his revenge? Therefore go to Ali and tell him to send me Uthman's murderers then I will obey him." They went to Ali and talked to him, but Ali refused to hand in Uthman's murderers to Mu'awiyah.) [Sayr A'alam Al-Nubala'a, vol.3, p.140, the examiner of the book said that its narrators are trustworthy]


Abu Sulaiman's use of this reference is indeed disturbing. It is implying that Imam Ali (as) was AWARE who the killers of Uthman were, despite this he let these killers roam free. Does Abu Sulaiman not understand the serious implication of this viewpoint? The Ahl'ul Sunnah have never espoused the view that Imam Ali (as) knew and protected Uthman's killers, they absolve him of any such slander and yet Abu Sulaiman is seeking to offer a new approach casting doubts on Imam Ali (as). This is a subtle and devious method used by Abu Sulaiman, he has consciously cited this reference, implicating Imam Ali (as) as the wrongdoer and Mu'awiya as the distraught sincere relative. It is clear that the majority Ahl'ul Sunnah do NOT believe such slander against Imam Ali (as) but they should be warned of the risks of infiltration by Nasibis seeking protection for their comments under the Sunni garb.


Mu'awiya and his supporters


Abu Sulaiman extols the cosy relationship between Mu'awiya and the people of Sham at several points in his article.

Ansar.org states: "Mu'awiyah ruled Al-Sham for forty years, and his relationship with Al-Sham's people was a relationship of love and loyalty to a degree that the people of Al-Sham agreed strongly with him when Mu'awiyah wanted to avenge Uthman's murder".

When Mu'awiyah took the governship of Al-Sham, his policy with his people was one of the best policies. His people loved him, and he loved them too… his people supported him when Mu'awiyah wanted to take Uthman's revenge. They gave him allegiance on that and promised him that they will spend their lives and money for the cause of Uthman, take Uthman's revenge, or Allah take their souls before that. [Al Bidaya Volume 8 p.131]


So we learn:


Mu'awiya loved the people of Sham and vice versa

Such was their love they supported him in his decision to avenge Uthman's murder


It should be made clear than the Shari`a is NOT based on the opinions of the Sahaba. The legitimacy of any stance is only valid if it is supported by the dictates of the Qur'an and Sunnah. The premise that the love of the people constitutes legitimacy of a stance is indeed a very faulty logic. The German people had a deep seated love for Adolph Hitler, this does not in any way mean that this support and his subsequent actions were sanctioned by Allah (swt). To love a person and follow him accordingly does not in any way mean that an individual's action is correct. On the contrary the correct approach is to follow Allah (swt)'s Deen. Had he been sincere, Abu Sulaiman would have informed his admiring public as to who should have been followed in those circumstances, the Khalifa Ali (as) or Mu'awiya?

Even if for arguments sake we were to accept this, i.e. love for Mu'awiya constitutes legitimacy to rebel, what is Abu Sulaiman's verdict on those that opposed Mu'awiya and fought him, were they not also the Prophet's Sahaba (companions)?


Mu'awiya exploited people's ignorance and greed to attain support


The reality is that Mu'awiya was indeed a 'master politician' with the ability to use any method to get his way, like the Leaders of Arab nations today, he used methods of maintaining leadership - 'by any means necessary'. This included courting and bribing people and subduing opposition through intimidation and violence.

Ibne Maghazli states in his Manaqib page 128 "Dhikr Sifeen"

"Imam 'Ali wrote a letter to Mu'awiya stating 'Makka and Madina have given bayya to me you should do the same so as to avoid a war between the people of Iraq and Syria'. Mu'awiya used Uthman's blood as an excuse not to give bayya and he used this excuse to mislead the ignorant Arabs, bribing people with money and land".

The issue that Abu Sulaiman intentionally avoids throughout the article is not that they loved and supported Mu'awiya the actual issue that he should answer is 'does The Shari`a permit them to act in the way that they did?' This is a question Abu Sulaiman knows he has no answer to which is why he has failed to cite even a single verse to defend Mu'awiya. Mu'awiya was an individual deviated from the truth and had likewise led others into misguidance.


Abu Sulaiman's attempts to misinterpret the words of Imam Ali (as) as a means of defending Mu'awiya


Ansar.org states: Al-Shareef Al-Ridi narrated in Nahjul Balagha a speech delivered by Ali where Ali says: "In the beginning of our matter, the people of Sham and us met. It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one. We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do. Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman's blood, and we are innocent from his murder." [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648] Hence, Ali is confirming that the conflict between him and Mu'awiyah is about the murder of Uthman, not for the sake of leadership or to take control of the Muslims"


If anything Imam Ali (as) is expressing his concern at, is the 'mentality' of the people of the time, both believed in the principles of Deen and yet despite this fact they sought it fit to rebel against the Ul'il 'Amr whilst such an act contradicts the Qur'an. Whilst the spilt was linked to over allegation that Mu'awiya sought retribution for`Uthman's killers, there is no edict in Islam for an individual to rebel against the rightful Khalifa in order to his own way, and that was what Imam Ali (as) had set out here. He was questioning the legality of Mu'awiya's actions.


Imam Ali (as) questions Mu'awiya's motives


Since Abu Sulaiman's sought to defend his Imam Mu'awiya by misinterpreting the words of Imam 'Ali (as)'s, we present proof that Imam Ali (as) was openly sceptical about Mu'awiya's motives. Coupled with the sermon cited by Abu Sulaiman, one is able to get a true picture of how Hadhrath Ali (as) saw and interpreted his opponent's actions:

This sermon is taken from Ahl'ul Sunnah's authority work al-Akhbar al-Tiwal, page 173 by Ahmed Bin Daud Abu Hanifa Dinwari:

"From the Servant of Allah, Ali Ammerul Momineen to Mu'awiya ibn Abi Sufyan. Khaulani has brought your letter to me. You have claimed that I deserted Uthman and instigated people against him. In fact I did no such thing, when people got annoyed with the late Caliph some withdrew their support of him whilst others killed him. I chose to remain in my home keeping aloof from the matter….As regards to your demand that I hand over the killers of Uthman I shall not. I am fully aware that you wish to exploit this as a means to fulfil your own ambitions, which has no aim to avenge the blood of Uthman. By my life if you refuse to abandon your rebellion and opposition, this same chastisement will fall on you as has fallen on every tyrant, sinner and rebel".

Here Imam 'Ali (as) exposes the treachery of Mu'awiya making clear that he has no interest in avenging Uthman's murder rather he had ulterior motives. The harsh reality is that the demand of Qisas was in fact a smokescreen by which Mu'awiya sought to catapult his ambitions of power.


The Imam can only implement Qisas


Even if his motives were sincere Mu'awiya's very demand that the killers of Uthman are handed over to him contradicts the Shari`a since the Head of State can ONLY enforce the Law of Qisas.

Zameer Sayyid Sharred in Sharra Muwaffaq page 530 comments:

"The Imam's duty is to implement the Shari'a, rules on Qisas, nikah jihad, Eid, the rules cannot be implemented without an Imam".

In Sharh al Maqasid page 251 we read:

"The appointment of the Imam is an absolute necessity, he implements the Shari'a and places the required limits upon man".

If one was to accept Mu'awiya's stance, then this in effect gives a green light for blood feuds and vigilantism - the law of the land is a mockery since citizens have the right to kill to avenge the murder of a relative. Does Abu Sulaiman represent this viewpoint, that not only undermines a Khalifa's authority but in effect creates a state of anarchy and violence? If he does not deem this as the correct way for a citizen to behave when there is a rightful Khalifa at the helm, then on what premise is he seeking to defend Mu'awiya's demand?

In an Islamic State Individuals are entitled to voice their concerns / opinions to those in authority. Concerns are only permitted to go as far as 'silent protest' not armed rebellion. There exists no verse in the Qur'an or hadith that entitles individuals to rebel and fight the rightful khalifa if their demands are not met. If this was the case then all Governments would be held to ransom, a 'its my way or the highway' approach - leaders would be constantly watching over their shoulders wondering when the next opposition rebellion would take place. If Mu'awiya was indeed correct in rebelling to get his way, then this sets a clear precedent, if you don't get your way and the rightful khalifa does not listen to your demands then you can rebel. Is this option set out in any of the sources of Shari`a? Clearly it is not as we have stated already Allah deems obedience to Ulil 'Amr unconditional, and with regards to 'Ali (as) Rasulullah (s) said:

"Whoever obeys 'Ali, obeys me, whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, whoever disobeys 'Ali disobeys me, whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah" [Kanz ul Ummal, hadith numbers 32973]

Kanz ul Ummal, Page 614, Hadith numbers 32974 & 32977
Mustadrak al Hakim, Vol. 3, Page 128
Riyadh ul Nadira, Vol. 3, Page 110

This hadith is absolutely explicit, obedience to 'Ali (as) is unconditional, it is on par with obedience to Rasulullah (s) and Allah (swt).


Fatwa of Shah Abdul Aziz - one that fights 'Ali (as) is a kaafir


Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz comments in - Hadiyyah Majeediyyah page 813

"One who fights 'Ali [r] with enmity is a kaafir according to the ijma of Ahl'ul Sunnah"

On that same page he seeks to protect Mu'awiya citing the Ansar line of defence namely:

"Whoever deems 'Ali [r] to be a kaafir or opposes his khilafath is a kaafir, this trait was evident amongst the Khawaarij at Naharwaan".

Also on the same page Shah Abdul Aziz seeks to protect Mu'awiya by pointing out that Mu'awiya does NOT come within this definition since:

"Mu'awiya and the people of Syria sought revenge for the killing of Uthman".

As we shall prove if this is the defence by which the majority seek to prevent Mu'awiya then this motive is also without any comprehensive proof….


Mu'awiya's actual motive was power

Since Mu'awiya had decided to take it on himself to avenge `Uthman's death, perhaps Abu Sulaiman could inform us what efforts Mu'awiya had taken to protect `Uthman while he was alive? Had Mu'awiya had any love for his relative he would have sought to protect him, and protect he could, after all he had command over the army of greater Syria (Syria and Damascus). With the largest army in the Empire at his disposal, what action did Mu'awiya adopt? In Ahl'ul Sunnah's authority work al-Nasa'ih al-Kaafiyah page 19 we learn that:

"Hadhrath Uthman asked Mu'awiya for assistance, but Mu'awiya did not listen to him. When the situation got worse and there remained little chance that Uthman would survive Mu'awiya sent Yazeed bin Asand ul Kasheeree with an army and told him to reach the point of Zeekush and remain there. The officer followed this order and when Uthman was killed Mu'awiya ordered his army to return. This was done in order to show the people that he had sent an army but in reality this was just a trick, so that he could exploit Uthman's death as a means of taking power".

The following reference recorded by Ibn Katheer also makes it clear that the main motive of Muawiya was not to avenge the murder of Uthman rather he was interested to become the ruler over various key geographical areas like that of Egypt. Ibn Kathir records:

"When Ali came to know that people of Egypt have deemed Muhammad bin Abu Bakar as inferior due to his tender age of 26, he thought of giving Egypt back to Qais bin Sa`d who was the head of his police during that time or give Egypt to Ashtar Nakhi who was his vicegerent over Mosul and Nasibain. Thus, after Sifeeen Ali wrote to him, called him and made him the ruler of Egypt. When Muawiyah came to know that instead of Muhammad bin Abu Bakar, Ali had made Ashtar Nakhi the ruler of Egypt, this thing went harsh on him because he was interested in Egypt and he wanted to snatch it from Muhammad bin Abi Bakar and he knew that Ashtar bin Nakhi would save Egypt from his hands due to his intelligence and bravery."

Al Badayah wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 7 page 612, Events of 38 H, [Nafees Academy Karachi].


The agreement between Mu'awiya and Amr bin Aas is clear proof that the motive was power not avenging Uthman's murder

Perhaps the advocates of Mu'awiya will not be convinced, well let us hear the testimony from the mouth of their Imam Mu'awiya. In Iqd al Fareed page 113 Volume 1 Chapter "Yaum Sifeen" a detailed conversation is cited between Amr bin Aas and Mu'awiya.

"Mu'awiya told Amr bin Aas to give him bayya. Amr replied 'if its with regards to the next world, then Allah (swt) will not be with you, if its in connection with this world then I would like a share". Mu'awiya replied, "in my world there is an equal share". Amr said, "I would like you to put into writing that you will give me Egypt and its surrounding suburbs". Mu'awiya did so adding (in the agreement) that Amr give him bayya. Amr replied that it should also be written (in the agreement) that it (bayya) will be subject to the conditions being met. Mu'awiya replied "people will not look at this" but Amr said "Do this". At this point Utba bin Abi Sufiyan attended and Amr said "Mu'awiya I have sold my religion at your hands". Utba said "Verily give him the full agreed amount as he was a Sahaba of the Prophet".

Iqd al Fareed, Volume 1 page 113

Notice how the killing of Uthman is missing from the entire conversation. The discussion is about power and Mu'awiya's bribing of Amr with land to get him on board. Despite Abu Sulaiman's excuses, the words used by Amr bin Aas "Mu'awiya I have sold my religion at your hands", stand as clear testimony that even he felt that he had abandoned his religion by siding with Mu'awiya, but alas for bin Aas his lust for power was so great that it outweighed his iman. Power was the name of the game not the enforcement "revenge for Uthman" was the war cry via which Mu'awiya sought to enhance his ambitions.

We read in al-Akhbar al-Tiwal page 158 "Dhikr Siffeen" that Amr said to Mu'awiya "Give me Egypt to eat from as long as you are a ruler". Tareekh Abu Fida Volume 2 page 238 "Dhikr Siffeen" likewise states that Amr placed a condition that to join Mu'awiya he would be given the power to govern Egypt. It is indeed interesting to note how the promise of power and authority was the factor that 'moved' Amr bin Aas over to the noble cause of avenging the blood of Uthman.

Power was the name of the game not the enforcement "revenge for Uthman" was the war cry via which Mu'awiya sought to enhance his ambitions.

What greater proof of the deviance of Mu'awiya can there be than the admission of his key supporter Amr bin Aas. We read in in Ta'rikh Kamil Volume 2 page 139 "Dhikr Siffeen" that Amr bin Aas said the following to Mu'awiya:

"Avenging Uthman's blood was just an excuse, we are desirous of worldly power, upon hearing this Mu'awiya agreed to hand over Egypt to Amr".

Do the defenders of Mu'awiya need to be convinced any further? This is the testimony of one of the key central characters in this episode admitting to Mu'awiya that Uthman's revenge was an excuse, the real motive was just power. If Mu'awiya disagreed with this assertion then why did he not admonish him and set the record straight?


Mu'awiya's testimony further proves his real motive was power not vengeance for the slain Uthman

Advocate of Mu'awiya, Ibn Kathir records two interesting references that further exposes the real reason for Mu'awiya's opposition. One who these references is about Muawiya's first sermon to the people of Kufa that has also been quoted by Syed Qutub Shaheed in his famous book 'Social justice in Islam':

"Men of Kufa, do you think I fought against you on account of prayers or Zakar or pilgrimage? I knew that you said the prayers, that you paid the Zakar and that you performed the pilgrimage. I fought you in order to have control and mastery over you, now Allah has granted me that mastery, though you may not like it. Now, therefore, all the money and all the blood that I have had to expend in this war is still to be repaid, and all the promises that I made in the truce are under my feet here" 1. Social justice in Islam, page 237 2. Al-Bidayah (Urdu), Vol 8 page 974, under the topic of Merits and virtuous of Muawiyah

Before the above cited episode, we read in Al-Bidayah (Urdu), Vol 8 pages 967-968, under the topic of Merits and virtuous of Muawiyah:

Ibn Asakir has narrated from Amir Shu'bi that prior to the battle of Siffeen…Ali sent Jareer bin Abdullah al-Bajli to Muawiyah with a letter which contained the text: 'It is compulsory on you to give allegiance (bayyah) to me since Muhajir and Ansar have already given their allegiance to me and if you don't give it, I will seek Allah's help against you...' Muawiyah read the letter before the public and Jareer got up and addressed the people and in his speech he advised Muawiyah to listen and obey (Ali) and warned him from opposing and prevented him from spreading mischief (fitna) among the people…Muawiyah told Jareer: 'If Ali makes me Governor over Syria and Egypt, on the condition that after him it will not be obligatory on me to give bayah to someone else, I will give him bayyah.'

Al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah [Arabic], Volume 8 page 138

Allamah Khawarzmi in his "Manaqib" page 255 Chapter "Dhikr Siffeen" states that:

"Mu'awiya wrote a letter to 'Ali which he sent via the hand of 'Abdullah bin Uqbah. In the letter he stated 'I asked you about my ruling Syria, and placed an additional condition that neither I give you bay'a nor do I obey you, but you rejected this. But Allah gave me what you rejected to give me, I continue to hold the same view about what I had invited you before (about Syria and not giving you bay'a)."

This and the previous reference from al Bidaya proves he had NO INTEREST in the killing Uthman rather his interest was one - gaining power. Mu'awiya simply used Uthman's murder as an 'excuse' not to give bay`a to Imam 'Ali (as). If he was indeed sincere perhaps Abu Sulaiman can explain why Mu'awiya did not ask for the killers to be handed following arbitration between the two sides at Sifeen? After all as Abu Sulaiman states the Syrians loved him and Mu'awiya was so determined to avenge Uthman's death that he deemed it appropriate to go to war. This being the case how is it that he totally abandoned this determination when the two sides were negotiating, if Uthman's death was so important that thousands of lives could be lost, why did he all of a sudden abandon this resolve? If he was sincere would this not have been the very first thing that he demanded? This was clearly a farce and Deobandi scholar Sayyid Ahmad Raza Bijnori in his commentary of Sahih al Bukhari "Anwar ul Bari" states on Volume 12 page 73:

"Mu'awiya fought out of a personal desire for power and was motivated by his pro Umayya bias".

Anwar-ul-Bari Sharah Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol. 12 page 73

Moreover Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi in his Fatwa Azizi page 161 Chapter 8 under the chapter "Marwan" in answer to question 5 makes the admission:

"The scholars of Ahl'ul hadith having relied on narration's have concluded that Mu'awiya's actions were based on his personal grudge and desire and it was not on account of the enmity that had been borne our between the Quraysh and Banu Umayya following the murder of the possessor of two lights [Uthman], the truth is that he was guilty of a great sin, was a baghi (rebel) and a fasiq (transgressor)".

Fatwa Azizi page 161 Chapter 8


Mu'awiya Thaneeh's condemnation of his grandfather eludes the fact that he fought Imam 'Ali (as) for power

When Mu'awiya ibn Yazeed became khalifa he gave the following sermon:

"Verily Khilafath is Allah (swt)'s. My grandfather fought one that was more deserving of the khilafath and that was 'Ali ibne abi Talib and he performed such acts that you are all aware of, and in consequence he is suffering for these acts"

A number of leading Sunni Ulama have recorded this sermons (Tareekh Khamees Volume 2 page 301; Hayatul Hayawan Volume page 88; Tareekh Ya'qubi Volume 2 page 241; Sawaiq al Muhriqa page 134; Yanabi al Mawaddah Volume page 325).

This sermon by Mu'awiya's own grandson destroys the notion that he sought Uthman's revenge. He clearly pointed out that his opposition was without any basis rather he just fought for attaining power.


Abu Sulaiman questions the justice of Imam 'Ali (as)

In his defence of Mu'awiya Abu Sulaiman further uses his psychic abilities citing the opinions of Mu'awiyas supporters:

Ansar.org states: "Mu'awiyah's supporters would say: "We cannot give allegiance to anyone except the one who would act with justice and does not oppress us…Ali is unable to act justly and we do not have to give allegiance to such a person".


On the one hand the Ansar passionately use every method in the Book to stir emotions to the masses, namely Shi'a don't respect the Sahaba, and here Abu Sulaiman's Nasibi mentality shines so clear that he is even supporting the view that Ali was unjust. Does this Nasibi really believe Mu'awiya was more interested in justice than 'Ali (as)? This when we have 'Abu Bakr narrating this hadith:

"Verily Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s) spoke the truth, I heard Rasulullah (s) say on the night of Hijrah as we left Makka 'My hand and Ali's hand are EQUAL in dispensing justice" (Taken from Manaqib by Ibne Maghazli al Shaafi page 98, this hadith can also be found in Kanz al Ammal Volume 11 page 604)

Interestingly whilst also defending the rebellious group, Abu Sulaiman manages to travel back in his imaginary time machine and state on their behalf that they would justify their opposition saying:

Ansar.org states: "Uthman's murderers are in the army of Ali, and these murderers are unjust".


Mu'awiya did not apply Qisas against Amr bin Aas

Now perhaps Abu Sulaiman could inform us how Mu'awiya dealt with the killers of Uthman in his own side, did he implement Qisas, as he demanded? He did not and in fact the clearest evidence that Mu'awiya's approach was nothing but a façade, comes from the very fact that he failed to take any action against the killers of `Uthman who were also in his army. Is it not logical that the first thing he would do would be to get his own house in order and 'avenge' `Uthman's murders by slaying the killers hiding in his army? His trusted general at Sifeen was none other than `Amr bin al-`Aas who openly admitted his role in the killing of `Uthman proudly declaring:

"I am Abu Abdullah. When I scratch an ulcer, I cut it. I used to campaign against him vehemently. I even instigated the shepherds at the top of the mountains to revolt against him." (Al-Tabari Volume 4, pages 356-57) This can also be found in English version.

Al-Tabari Volume 14, pages 171-172

Despite this, not only did Mu'awiya not kill him, he promoted him to his second in command - would he really have acted in this way if he sincerely wanted to avenge Uthman's murder? Demanding the killers from Ali's side and promoting the killers to Commanders on his own?

The comments of modern day Sunni academic Professor Masudul Hasan in his book Hadrat Ali Murtada (R.A.A) page 248 are indeed worthy of note:

"Mu'awiya in spite of his cry for vengeance for the blood of Hadrat Othman found no harm in making an alliance with a man who had in fact incited the rebellion against Hadrat Othman. 'Amr bin Al-Aas in spite of his bitter opposition to Hadrat Othman during his lifetime saw nothing wrong in joining the chorus for vengeance for the blood of the man in whose murder he was indirectly if not directly involved"

Hadrat Ali Murtada (R.A.A) by Professor Masudul Hasan. page 248


Misuse of a Shia tradition by the Nawasib to support Uthman

Since Nawasib like Abu Sulaiman do not find any justification for the deviations committed by their Imam Mu'awiya, they are often left with misuing Shia texts and interpreting them in a way that suits them.

Ansar.org states: If Al-Tijani haven't had enough of this, then I would be compelled to give him something from his guides, the Imamiyah, what proves that Ali and Mu'awiyah are both rightful in their interpretation. Al-Kulayni mentioned in his book, Al-Rawdah min Al-Kafi – which represents the basis and branches of the Imamiyah sect – from Muhammad Bin Yahya who says: (I heard Abu Abdullah peace be upon him saying: "Disagreement of Bani Al-Abbas is unavoidable, the calling is unavoidable, and the coming of the twelfth Imam is unavoidable." I said: "And how is the calling?" He answered: 'Someone will call from the heaven in the beginning of the day: "Ali and his party are the winners."' He also said: "And someone will call in the end of the day: "Uthman and his party are the winners!"') [Al-Rawdah min Al-Kafi, p.177, vol.8] And here is Ali bin Abi Talib makes a resolution that Uthman and his party are people of Islam and faith, but the case is a matter of interpretation, every person seeing himself on the right path in the matter of Uthman.



Reply One: The authenticity of the tradtion

The hadith cited by Ansar.org can be read at:

Al-Kafi, Volume 8 page 209 Chapter 25 Hadith 253

It is indeed unfortunate that our opponents stoop so low in order to absolve their ancestors sins, to the point that they feel no shame in attributing a tradition to one of our Imams, namely Imam Abu Abdullah Jafar al-Sadiq [as], in this age of internet when anyone can browse a relevant library and check the chain of any tradition along with its 'Matan' (text). If one reads the complete chain of narration, we see that there is no mention of Imam Jafar [as] in the text, rather it has been narrated by a narrator namely Dawood bin Farqad who heard this tradition from an unknown man belonging to the tribe of Al-Ejlia. That is why Muhaqiq Ali Akbar Ghaffari who wrote the margin/column of Furu al-Kafi has written about this tradition:

"This tradition is Muzamir and Musquf"

Hashiya Kitab Raudah, page 209

Maquf is a type of tradition whose chain does not go back to the infallible ones.


Reply Two: The actual 'Uthman' mentioned in the tradition and the Nasibi distortion

Unsuprisingly, Nawasib have adopted such distortion to evidence the merits of their ancestors in Shia books, such as the misuse of the tradition but such dissection has placed them in a rather awkward situation. How did they conclude that the Uthman mentioned in the above tradition is their caliph Uthman bin Affan? Who told these lunatics that the second caller mentioned in the tradition will be the caller of glad-tidings?

Let us first reveal the identity of the second caller mentioned in the traditions as commented upon by Shaykh Ali Khorani al-Amili in 'Al-Entisar' Volume 9 page 145:

"The first call is the call of truth because it is the voice of Gabriel from the sky, the second call is of the falsehood because it is the voice of Iblis from the earth."

Coming to the person mentioned in the tradition by the name of Uthman, we shall point out that Nawasib have committed deceit by making it Uthman bin Affan while in reality the Uthman mentioned in the tradition is one is often mentioned as Sufyani, who will be from the Nasibi progeny of Abu Sufyan and will eventually be shown the path of hell by the Imam of the time [aj]. Imam Ali [as] narrated:

"The son of the liver eater shall appear from the dry valley, he is a man of average height, an ugly face, big head, there is trace of smallpox on his face, if you see him you will think he is one-eyed, his name is Uthman, his fathers name is Anbesa and he is from the descendants of Abu Sufyan." Kamal al-Deen, by Sheikh Seduq, page 651

We also read the testimony of Imam Jafar Sadiq [as] in this regard:

Abu Hamza al-Thumali narrated: I said to Abu Abdullah [as] that Abu Jafar [as] used to say: 'The Sufyani is unavoidable'. He (Abu Abdullah) replied: 'Yes, Bani al-Abbas disagreement is unavoidable, the death of Nafs al-Zakia is unavoidable, the coming of the twelfth Imam is unavoidable.' I asked: 'How that be?' He (Abu Abdullah) replied: 'Someone will call from the heaven in the beginning of the day 'the truth is with Ali and his party', then Iblis may Allah curse him will call at the end of the day 'The truth is with Sufyani and his party' then the followers of falsehood will have doubts'. Kamal al-Deen, by Sheikh Seduq, page 652


Reply Three: The actual attributes of the followers of Uthman bin Affan recoded in Sunni texts

We have cited the dishonesty of the Nasibi author who tried to use the above cited Shia tradition in order to prove Uthman and his followers to be on right path. We would like to know why thet don't they reveal the actual attributes of the followers of Uthman bin Affan recorded in authentic Sunni texts? Dear readers, let us reveal the attributes of the followers of Uthman whom the author of Ansar.org suggesyed were on the right path, but were infact Nawasib according to the testimonies of Sunni scholars. The favorite scholar of the Nawasib, Ibn Tamiyah recorded:


وقد كان من شيعة عثمان من يسب عليا ويجهر بذلك على المنابر


"The followers (shias) of Uthman used to do abuse Ali openly from the pulpits of mosques" Minhaj al Sunnah, Volume 6 page 201

We all know that one who abuses Ali bin Abi Talib [as] is hypocrite according to the prophetic traditions, yet the author of Ansar.org is keen to give glad tidings to the perpetrators of this very sin!

If this does not suffice, let us point out an Uthmani individual namely Abul Ghaya and then check the 'virtuous' act he committed. Imam Ibn Abdul Barr while writing on Abul Ghaya records:

"He was a lover of Uthman and was the killer of Ammar bin Yasir"

Al-Istiab, Volume 2 page 153

Imam Ibn Athir records in 'Asad al-Ghaba' Volume 5 page 267:


وكان من شيعة عثمان رضي الله عنه وهو قاتل عمار بن ياسر

"He (abu al-Ghadya) was among the followers (Shia) of Uthman [ra] and he is the killer of Ammar bin Yasir"

Asad al-Ghaba, Volume 5 page 267

According to the prediction of Holy Prophet [s] regarding Ammar Yasir [ra], "He will be killed by a rebellious aggressive group. 'Ammar will invite them to (obey) Allah and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire." (Bukhari, v4 Hadith 67). Thus, there shall remain no confusion in the mind of the present day Nawasib regarding the Uthmani killers of Ammar Yasir [ra] being the people of Hell fire, yet we see author like Abu Sulaiman suggesting that Uthmanies are the people of heaven contrary to the prediction of Holy Prophet [s]!

Let us conclude the topic by gifting the following reference to the Nawasib recorded by one of their esteemed Imams, Dhahabi:


إن خرج الدجال تبعه من كان يحب عثمان

"When Dajjal appears, his followers will be the lovers of Uthman" Mizan al-Eitadal, Volume 2 page 107 Translation No. 3031

Sunni scholar Yaqub Fasawi tried to cast doubts on the authenticity of the chain of narration of this tradition which sparked the grand Sunni Imam Dhahabi to refute him, stating:

"That is what al-Fasawi rejected from the hadiths, no one did so before him, and if we follow such scruples we would be rejecting many correct Sunnah just due to wrong illusions"

[edit] Changes

I have made some changes today be the article was poorly structured and on some places there were some spelling mistakes. But someone needs to fix the pictures the right way. Thank You Salman

Salman, I reverted your changes. You, and an anon, rewrote the article so that it read like a Shi'a-POV biography. This is a secular encyclopedia. We cannot state Shi'a beliefs as fact, or use loaded, emotive terms like "martyr" for Husayn. We are also keeping Husayn for the name, as that is the one used in all the scholarly texts I consulted. Zora 01:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WHY ZORA

What was wrong with the changes i made to Imam Hussain's article? The information was basically the same i did not add in anything from the point of view of the shi'as. I just made some Grammar corrections and corrected the way some names were spelled. Okay you know what Zora you can keep the article the way you want it but as far the the shi's sections of the article is concerned that is going to be written in the point of view of the shi'as. You said that Imam Hussain (AS) can not be a martyr, i have the proofs that he is a martye, but do u have nay proofs that he is not a martyr. When u get the proofs u can edit it then.

I have changed the article the way Zora felt confortable with. But someone still has to put up some pictures and the Islamic Stuff on the right side of the article! OKAY Thank You Salman

Yes, the Shi'a section can say he was a martyr. As long as the Shi'a section stays in proportion, it IS fine to explain who the Shi'a believe him to be. That is useful knowledge for people who aren't Shi'as. It's just that you shouldn't rewrite the top section (which tries to be neutral, and just state what is accepted by all sides) so that it is Shi'a POV too. It is also useful to know that not everyone shares the Shi'a views. Zora 02:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay Zora, i am going to change the top section of the article to neutral, even though it is. But i am going to double check to make sure it is neutral.

[edit] More Shi'a edits

Someone put the title "Bibi" in front of all the women's names. WP doesn't use honorifics. Also, Muhammad was rendered as Prophet Muhammad, which again assumes a Muslim POV.

The section of quotes seems to have expanded greatly. All of them are attributed to "Imam Hussein", which assumes a Shi'a POV, and none of them are sourced. If any of the Shi'a editors want to edit down the quotes, source them, and remove POV references to "Imam", that would be fine. Otherwise, I will do it. This article should not be a soapbox for Shi'a Islam. Zora 10:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I just removed all of the other honorifics (s.a.w.). This article is so biased that it makes Soviet propaganda seem like good journalism ... - Wikigeek

What do you know about Soviet propaganda, pathetic idiot Wikigeek? Did you ever see Muslims coming into houses of homosexuals, polytheists, and other scam checking what they are doing? In Soviet times those atheist scumbags whose views you are propagating here in Wikipedia, as NPOV, you pathetic secularist scambags of the Earth whose destination is eternal Hellfire, in soviet times those atheist scumbags woke up (drunken bastards had some will to do that in the early morning) in the early mornings during Ramadhan to check the houses of the Believers if they had smokes coming from their chimneys. The Believers, of course, did that to prepare food for Suhur before fasting the whole cold winter day in Russia. Those scumbags, may ALlah curse them, put out those fires, and you, Wikiscum of the day, have a nerve to compare anything Soviet to anything Muslims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.99.35 (talk) 09:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Latest edits

An anon was at work on the article, turning even the neutral, non-sectarian portion into Shi'a hagiography. Portions were also excised. I restored an older version, but incorporated edits by Cunardo. I also removed all the quotes, which were too many, too long, and completely unreferenced. I found the Encyclopedia Iranica article on Shahrbanu, which dismisses her as a myth, and added that to the article. Zora 15:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Karbala section edited. "Even his six-month-old son Ali Asghar was not spared,Husayn fought the evil opressors with ultimate courage till his last breath, he had unshakable faith in ALMIGHTY GOD , he never never surrendered to the evil army" is now edited to: "Even his six-month-old son Ali Asghar was not spared, Husayn fought the opponent with courage till his last breath, he had unshakable faith in God, he never surrendered to the enemy." And i feel that it is still too emotional and subjective for encyclopedia.

[edit] Salman edits

Salman, I reverted most of your edits. Please stop trying to turn this into Shi'apedia! We give a fair, neutral version and there are links to various Shi'a sites if people want a fuller version of the Shi'a POV.

I found the website from which the sayings were copied, originally, and picked two of the sayings to put up. These are the sayings that display Husayn in the best light. If you put up the others, people are just going to refuse to read them. (MEGO -- My Eyes Glaze Over.) I also took the liberty of editing the sayings slightly, to make them read better in English. Whoever put them up on that site was not a native speaker of English and was putting up clumsy translations. Zora 22:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


Salman, you have been very enthusiastic and active on wikipedia, and your desire to contribute is greatly appreciated. However, it seems clear that you've not given much consideration (or not been exposed to) the range of opinions wikipedia must reflect. Non-muslims, for example, do not generally consider Muhammad to have been a prophet, as per your comments on Zora's talk page.

Similarly, non-Muslims do not use "martyred" in this way. By saying he was martyred, you say he died for God. Okay, perhaps. I am no defender of the Umayyads. But it's POV, and doesn't belong on wikipedia. I suggest you take some time reading through articles about other religions, and other articles about Islam, to see the measure of neutrality and distance we're expected to apply.Timothy Usher 22:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The argument for not using the word 'martyr' or 'martyrdom' is flawed. Merriam Webster Online Dictionary defines martyrdom as "the suffering of death on account of adherence to a cause and especially to one's religious faith". I think everyone agrees that this person was killed because of his beliefs. Therefore, the usage of the word martyrdom seems accurate. The argument that using the word martyrdom implies being in killed for God, therefore is biased, is irrelevant. The word martyrdom is a much more accurate word to use because of its definition - even if it goes against preconceived notions about the words connotations. --aliasad 04:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I can not change the way ignorant think. But as far as the Shi’a section is concerned of this article. Shi’a people believe that Imam Hussain AS and his 72 companions were martyred not killed. Right cuz that’s what Shi’a community believes right, so I guess that if I put that Imam Hussain and his 72 companions were martyred in the battle of Karbala, then no one is going to have any problem with it right, regardless if they are Sunnis (even Sunni people say that he was martyred, even they consider Yazid as there Caliph), and non-Muslims. And as far as the sayings of Imam Hussain AS’s are concerned, I accept the fact that I copied it from another website but I also refereed the section to the website I go it from. I didn’t take the credit of writing the sayings I gave it to the website I got it from. Thank You Salman

Well, some martyrs are not for anybody: there are "conflicting martyrs", people that is a martyr for somebody and an enemy for some others. I believe that martyrdom meaning is clear: to be killed only (or mainly) for your religious beliefs. I believe that as the article on Martyr explicitely states, Husayn bin Ali is "an archetypal martyr for the Shi'a". Look how easily, by adding "for the Shia" you elliminate disputes about POV: you are accurately describing whom the man is a martyr for. --Ciroa 23:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Family Section of Hazrat Imam Hussain AS's article

I don’t understand whey Zora is providing an outside link for Bibi Shahrbanu, when wikipedia has an article for her already. And even the link is corrupted, I visited that link and there is nothing on that page for Bibi Shahrbanu. So I don’t know why Zora is adding the outside link for Bibi Shahrbanu in the family section of Hazrat Imam Hussain AS. And she is even misspelling the name of Bibi Shahrbanu father’s name, Zora spells it (Yazdjard III) but if you do research on the father of Bibi Shahrbanu, the correct way to spell his name is Yazdegerd III, and even wikipedia has an article on him. Whenever I try to fix these things Zora just keeps on reverting it. So I told Zora not to change the family section until the matter is discussed on the talk page. So I hope we are going to hear her side of story pretty soon. Thank You Salman

You're right -- the link isn't working. I don't know why. I have rewritten the Shahrbanu article, and will now add clarifying material to this article. Salman, we're willing to allow you to include your Shi'a versions of things, if they aren't stated as fact, but you mustn't remove critical material. Zora 22:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bibi Shahrbanu VS a Myth

1. “Academics regard this story as a myth, intended to give a Persian heritage to the Shi'a Imams”. Now according to Zora’s sources, Bibi Shahrbanu is a myth. In other words a woman by that name did not exit, and a woman by that name did not marry Hazrat Imam Ali ibn Hussain ibn Ali ibn Abu Talib. I told her that she can not say this unless she can provide us with some proof (a link to the website where she got the information from, or the name of the author, or the title of the book she got the information from). I also told her that I will take off the sentence that she wrote about Bibi Shahrbanu being a myth ACCORDING TO SOME HISTORIANS. And Zora what “critical material” are you talking about, can you please be clearer. Thank You (05/06/06)

2. Zora provided some statements, that she said proofs that Bibi Shahrbanu is a myth .But those three statements were saying that Bibi Shahrbanu was the daughter of Yazdgerd III, Bibi Shahrbanu married the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad SAW, and Bibi Shahrbanu was the mother of Imam Ali ibn Hussain ibn Ali ibn Abu Talib AS. So I don’t know how these three statements prove that the wife of my 3rd Imam and the mother of my 4th Imam (Bibi Shahrbanu) was a myth. When the statements that she provided on the page, clearly states, that se was the wife (of the 3rd Imam of Shi’as), mother (of the 4th Imam of the Shi’as), and the grandmother of all the Shi’a Imams after Hazrat Imam Ali ibn Hussain ibn Ali ibn Abu Talib. So I told her that she will have to provide some statements that clearly states that according to her sources, Bibi Shahrbanu did not exit, as far as her connection is concerned with our Imams. Thank You (05/07/06) Salman


[edit] pic

Why is [[Image:Imam_Hussain.jpg|frame|right|Zarih-e-Imam Hussain]] not added? --Striver 14:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Any hint on the name-linked abbreviations? (RA, A.S., S.A.W)

Ay yi yi! This seems to be a contentious article all around, but I have a simple, naive question: What do all those abbreviations mean? (A.S.? S.A.W.?) I'm unfamiliar with them, would like to know what they stand for. Cheers,

timbo 02:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

S.A.W. means "salla Allahu alayhi wa sallam" or "sallalahu aleyhi wasallam", which means "Peace be upon him" or if you wish "May God bless him and grant him peace". This is called salawat. Is a phrase that Muslims are required to say after mentioning the name of the Islamic prophets such as Muhammad, Jesus Christ, Abraham and all the other prophets cited in the Qur'an.
Shia Muslims mention a similar salutation (aleyhi salaam - upon him be peace, I believe this is the A.S. of the text) after mentioning Ali ibn Abi Talib or one of the imams that followed Ali. Shia also uses this for Imams, particularly Ali: "Alayh wa 'ala Ahlehi-es-salat-u wa-s-Salam", meaning: "Upon him and his family be the exaltations and peace of God". --Ciroa 00:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. —Mets501 (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

There is also a modern political figure named Husayn ibn Ali. Should this page be moved to Husayn ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib, and replaced with a disambiguation page? Actually, the title of the article for the modern person is Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca, but the article internally refers to him more often as Hussein ibn Ali, and Hussein vs. Husayn is just a different way of transliterating Arabic as far as I know. It is currently difficult to find the modern Hussein ibn Ali, if you don't know he was the Sharif of Mecca. Morngnstar 23:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it should be renamed to: Husayn

  • Support per Ali, Umar, Muhammad, Uthman and all other prominent early Muslims. Say "Husayn" and everybody thinks of this person.--Striver - talk 04:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Say "Husayn" and I think you're misspelling Hussein. So not everybody thinks of this Husayn when you say "Husayn". Besides, using the more descriptive name doesn't hurt, does it? I mean, "everybody" knows who you mean when you say "Hillary", but that's no reason to move an article. :) However, I really don't know anything about Islamic history, so if a lot of scholars weigh in supporting the move, I won't object. Just piping up with the layman's perspective. --Quuxplusone 00:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per Quuxplusone. Patstuarttalk|edits 00:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


[edit] Correct Spelling Of Husayn is Hussain

i think correct spelling of "Husayn" is "Hussain".if any one have any thing to say ,beacuse i will make changes with Spelling Hussain.

Khalidkhoso 07:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I did a quick Google to check but it confirmed my memory -- in western English it's usually "Hussein". I noticed that in South Asia, it's often "Hussain" but it's rarely "Husayn" in any usage.
Unless I'm confused! It's all the same name, right? "Hussein" vs. Hussain" vs. "Husayn"?
In any regard, it should be consistent in the article. --Calan 05:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


Name of Husain in Arabic language
First: In Arabic, if anyone would speak of Husain ibn Ali they would say it "al-Husain" in Arabic, although Husain is an arabic name by itself, "al-Husain" is only used to refer to Husain ibn Ali. Second: The Name Husain in arabic is not written with the "Shadda" mark. "Shadda" mark in the arabic language is used to give the double letter pronounciaton insted of using the same letter twice. The "Shadda" mark looks like the number 3 in english, but it is lying on its back and is written over the letter. So, "Husain" is the correct way to write it and not with the double "S". comment added by: EmJay911 on 07/2/2007

[edit] Martyrdom details?

Shouldn't the article mention the fact that he was beheaded at the Battle of Karbala? The only reference is in the burial section: "Most accounts say that his head was later retrieved and interred with his body...." Actually, the Battle of Karbala section doesn't even mention that he was martyred there. That would seem to be important, no?

Joeknize 03:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias, Unprofessionalism

Read the last paragraph of the Battle of Karbala. I assume this needs correction/deletion. I'll leave that for someone better educated of the Battle than myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.8.89.251 (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't think you'd need to be a specialist to see that this sentence was completely biased. It struck me as soon as I read it. Also, even had what it said been an undisputed fact, here was not the correct place in the article to state it. Lastly, the sentence was full of typos. For all those reasons, I took the freedom to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.77.192.140 (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed biased paras, added historical facts

I've just edited this article, removed extreme opinions (both for and against) and added some history that was missed out. Will soon cite sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuhair naqvi (talk • contribs) 09:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewriting

This article was too weak and violated copyright as well as WP rules. Therefor I rewrote it.--Seyyed(t-c) 17:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral POV

There is a lot here that doesn't seem neutral to me. Beautiful, noble, and right maybe, but not neutral in an encyclopedic fashion. For example...

It thus becomes clear that the objective of Husayn's campaign was not caliphate. It was the honor of prophet Mohammad which he stood for.

I don't want to remove it myself. I'd really prefer if someone were able to rewrite this in a neutral way, as I cannot consider myself wholly detached and neutral on this issue. Peter Deer (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is hopeless. It's a shia hagiography, not an encyclopedia article. Giordaano (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a rather defeatist attitude. It can certainly be cleaned up. Peter Deer (talk) 07:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I tried to rewrite that part and removed that sentence.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Books on Imam Hussain

I moved irrelevant information to here--Seyyed(t-c) 04:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Qateel-e-Nainavah A Comprehensive Treatise about Karbala Based on Rational Argument Qateel-e-Nainavah, is a unique and a rare document, being a comprehensive and a detailed account of the life of Sayyad-u-Shuhada, Hazrat Imam Hussain (AS), right from his birth to his martyrdom. What sets the work apart is that it not only depicts the blessed life of Imam Hussain and the complete history of Karbala in Urdu but together with the philosophy of the martyrdom, unmasks the wickedness of the Umayyads, particularly Yazeed, giving a detailed reply to objections and questions related to the Hussaini revolution. It is not a mere recounting of the events of Karbala, but it forcefully refutes the concocted writings and misleading speeches of the present day acolytes of Yazid, Ibn-e-Ziyad, Umar-e-Sa’ad, and Shimr. By scripting a devastating reply to objections being raised, and the lies being purveyed, about the events of Karbala, the late Maulana has produced a masterpiece of 'jehad with the pen' by his bold and courageous scholarship, one that is a dangling sword over the heads of the Yazids of today. All these topics had not been brought together in a single volume till date, therefore Qateel-e-Nainavah meets all requirements and demands of present-day scholarship, and is a complete and a comprehensive historical document.

[edit] Shia POV concerns

The Shia are notorious for forging hadiths, making things up, passing along innovations and mixing in legends and outright lies and treating it like factual information. We must combat their efforts to put a Shia spin on every article relating to Ali, Hussein, Hassan (r.a) and so on. Therefore, check the citations they provide, and research the author and context. Many times you will find that it is nothing more than conjecture by one of their so called imams. This entire article reeks of being from a Shia point of view. I clicked on it, and without any prior knowledge of who wrote/edited it, I could tell just by the tone that it has been glossed over by the Shia. It is a joke that they add "Shia point of view" to the article, because the entire thing is a Shia point of view. I propose splitting the entire article up into two major sections, Shia view and Sunni view, so that people can get the facts from us normal Muslims, and the Shia wont constantly vandalize the article (hopefully).

HolyMuslimWarrior (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful about how you express your concerns. If you feel the article gives undue weight to the Shia viewpoint, that is okay. It is not okay to say that "Shia are notorious for...making things up", characterizing Sunnis as "us normal Muslims," etc.
Splitting every Islam-related article into a Shia view and Sunni view is thoroughly impractical, not to mention that it goes firmly against the spirit of consensus and neutrality. Where there are diverging viewpoints, this should be clearly explained, but the majority of the article should cover the topic as accurately and with as much historical veracity as possible.
Do you have specific concerns about Shia bias in this article? I have to admit, I know nothing about the subject. If you could point me to sentences that you feel are biased, maybe we can figure it out? --Jaysweet (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I would say I agree with the Shia school of thought and object to the incredibly biased statements made above, but nonetheless I will agree that there is much of this section that is biased in favor of a Shia viewpoint. Take, for example, certain parts such as "It thus becomes clear that the objective of Husayn's campaign was not caliphate. It was the honor of prophet Mohammad which he stood for." or "Secondly, Mu'awiyah and his aides made use of every possible means to put aside and move out of the way the Household of the Prophet and the lovers of Imam Ali and his sons and thus obliterate the name of Ali and his family" stated as fact rather than attributed. There's a lot of other examples, some subtle, some not. The whole article really needs an overhaul with some good historical sources, but of course the zealously disputed nature of the article's subject combined with its importance and being very well known in the east (and sadly not so much in the west) means that the article receives regular abuse and POV editing while not receiving the maintenance and care it requires. It could do with some copyediting and wikification too. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)