History lifts the lid and exposes the true killers of Imam Hussain (as). On route to Kufa Imam Hussain (as) met Al Farazdaq and asked him about the situation in Kufa, he assessed the matter saying:
“The people’s hearts are with you but their swords are with the Banu Ummayya”.
Tabari English translation Volume 19 pages 70-71)
When the people had swords raised against Imam Hussain (as) there is then no basis to conclude that these individuals were Shi’a, rather they were Nasibi hiding in the midst of the people.
As mentioned earlier Shia Aama may have switched sides in light of their assessing the situation at the time, but when it comes to locating those with the blood of Imam Hussain (as) on their hands then another group of the Shia of Uthman were proud that they had committed such a deed, a fact that Nawasib always suppress from their adherents.
We have the example of Nafi bin Hilal who entered the battlefield of Karbala, in Imam Hussain (as)’s army declaring:
“I am al-Jamali. I believe in the religion of Ali. A man called Muzahim al Hurayth came against him crying “I follow the religion of Uthman”. Nafi replied, “Rather you follow the religion of Satan”. Then he attacked and killed him
Tabari Volume 19 pages 136-137
So here we see Yazeed’s army was not Shi’a in the sense that Ansar.Org would like its readers to believe rather it was Uthmani.
Azrar bin Qays taunted Zuhayr bin al-Qayn (History of al-Tabari Volume 19 page 113):
“Zuhayr according to us you were not the Shi’ah from this family (bayt). You used to be a supporter of the party of Uthman. Zuhayr said, ‘Aren’t you presuming from my position that I am one of them?”
Note in the reply Zuhayr admitted that he was Uthmani Nasibi but we ask Afriki, ‘what was his position now?’ Clearly his position with the Imam (as) meant that he was a Shi’a of Ahl’ul bayt (as).
From here the truth has been separated from falsehood, the true Sect has been distinguished from the false Sect – Yazeed’s army were not Shi’a, but were in fact Nasibi / Uthmani whilst the army of Hussain comprised of the Shi’a of Ahl’ul bayt (as).
When Yazeed’s forces encircled Imam Hussain (as) and his Sahaba, Ibn Ziyad sent a letter to Ibn Sad in which he stated:
“Stop the water of Hussain in the same way that Ameer’ul Momineen Uthman was treated”.
Tabari Volume 19 page 107)
Ibn Kathir similarly records that Ibn Ziyad gave the order:
“Become an obstacle between Hussain and water and treat them in the same way that the pious, righteous and oppressed Amee’rul Momineen Uthman was treated”.
Al Bidayah wal Nihayah (Urdu), Volume 8 page 1058
It is as clear as day that those that killed Imam Hussain (as) were those that deemed Uthman to be Ameer’ul Momineen. In Shia aqeedah we do not deem anyone other than Imam Ali (as) to be Ameer’ul Momineen, we do not even bestow this title to any of the other Imams. But the army of Yazeed considered Yazeed to be Ameerul Momineen, contrary to Shi’a Aqeeda.
Ibn Kathir further records:
“Ibn Ziyad wrote to Ameer al Harmain Umro bin Saeed and informed him “ Convey the glad tidings of Hussain’s death”, he asked a caller who then made its announcement . When a Banu Hashim women heard the announcement their they voices raised in lamentation, and Umro bin Saeed said: “ This is the revenge for the lamentation of the wives of Uthman bin Affan”
Al Bidayah wal Nihayah (Urdu), Volume 8 page 1097
Those in Yazeed’s army were not the Shi’a of Ali, rather they were Uthmani / Nasibis. If Ansar.Org are going to plead with us and claim that these are different terms then allow us to present the views of one of their own beloved Imams, Ibn Taymiyya:
“If Nasibi deem Ibn Sad to be an Uthmani it is on account his taking avenge for Uthman and praising him”
Minhajj al Sunnah Volume 1 page 164
Ibn Taymiyya had also written that:
وقد كان من شيعة عثمان من يسب عليا ويجهر بذلك على المنابر
“Uthman’s Shi’a would openly curse Ali from the Mosque pulpits”.
Minhajj al Sunnah Volume 3 page 178
So we learn that those that martyred Imam Hussain (as) were NOT the Shi’a of ‘Ali (as) but were the Shi’a of Uthman – the Nasibi forces loyal to Yazeed. Ibn Kathir (who was a student of Ibn Taymiyya) and other historians have shed light on the fact that amongst the killers were the sons of the Sahaba. Even prominent Sahaba such as Umar bin Harith and his family joined the ranks of Yazeed’s army. As we have already proven Umar bin Harith was Ibn Ziyad’s, Chief of police, who arrested Muslim bin Aqeel (as) and presented him to Ibn Ziyad, who subsequently had him executed.
Yazeed had given a free hand to Ibn Ziyad, and Marwan’s letter to Ibn Ziyad demonstrated that the aim was for Imam Hussain (as) to give bayya – if he refused then he was to be killed. It is ironic that the Ansar.Org state that the Shi’a of Ali (as) killed Imam Hussain (as) by inviting him to Kufa – the reality is the Nasibi Shi’a of Uthman had pre planned his murder before he even reached Kufa. If we were to accept that these individuals were the Shi’a of Ali (as), their very entry on to the battlefield in Yazeed’s camp meant that they were now Shi’a of Uthman i.e. Nasibi.
We read in Sahih Bukhari Book 73 Volume 8 Hadith Number 23:
Narrated By Ibn Abi Na’m : I was present when a man asked Ibn ‘Umar about the blood of mosquitoes. Ibn Umar said, “From where are you?” The man replied. “From Iraq.” Ibn ‘Umar said, “Look at that! he is asking me about the blood of Mosquitoes while they (the Iraqis) have killed the (grand) son of the Prophet. I have heard the Prophet saying, “They (Hasan and Husain) are my two sweet-smelling flowers in this world.”
Here we see that an Iraqi man approached Ibn Umar to acquire a fatwa on the blood of mosquitoes, when Ibn Umar discovers the said individual frequents fromIraqhe attacks him as the Iraqis killed Imam Hussain (as). Now Ibn Umar has sought to implicate the Iraqis for killing the Imam (as), of which the inquisitor was one. The question that we would like to know is what was the exact aqeedah that the Iraqis (as exemplified by this man) had? Was it that of the Shia Imams or that or of the State? If it was that of the Shia Imams, then there would have been no need for a resident of Iraq to seek out the opinion of Ibn Umar, as the Shia Imams and many of their close supporters like the Sahabi Abu Tufayl (ra) resided therein. Rather than seek the counsel of the Ahl’ul bayt Imams he sought that of Ibn Umar, who was an open advocate of the Caliphate of Yazeed, who deemed those that opposed him to be hell bound. This man’s seeking a fatwa from a Madinan resident who was the leading advocate of Yazeed in itself demonstrates that those that killed Imam Hussain (as) were not Shia of Ali (as), rather they were the Shia of Uthman, that supported the Ummayad rule, which is why this Iraqi man deemed it apt to seek out a fatwa from that individual that deemed the Caliphate of Yazeed to be lawful and condemned those that that either broke bayya or died having refused to accept his leadership!