Why do the Shi’a deem the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (as) a tragedy, when it should be a happy occasion?
The slain leader of the Nasibi organization Sipah Sahaba, Azam Tariq in his famed ‘Khutbah Jail’ sets out a detailed attack on the Shi’a commemorating Imam Husayn (as)’s Shahadath by asserting that Muslims deem martyrdom to be a happy honour whilst Shi’a deem it a tragedy. Below, we will set out a vast array of responses.
Whilst there is no doubt that Imam Husayn (as) should be praised for his exceptional bravery, patience and character at Karbala, the hardships he faced and sacrifices that he presented in the way of Allah (swt), is something worth crying and It is natural that commiserate with someone for his suffering and praise him for his success. Our Azadari fulfils both the requirements. It gives credit and appreciation for the success of the mission of Karbala and on the other hand we mourn the adversities and hardships faced by the progeny of the Holy Prophet (s) and their faithful companions.
All schools of thoughts unanimously agree that if a persfon faces hardships, persecution or death whilst carrying out a noble deed, his service should not be forgotten. The martyrdom of Imam Husayn (as) does not mean that the Shi’a should be happy rather than sad in Muharam.
During the Indo / Pak wars of 1965 and 1971 the entire Pakistani nation offered their respects to those killed. At the same time televised pictures of these ceremonies depicted images of relatives crying at the loss of their loved ones. This doesn’t mean that they were unhappy at their bravery and success. The media showered praise on their bravery but also expressed grief at the huge sacrifice / loss of life that was undertaken in attaining this objective.
The Ahl’ul Sunnah believe that Umar was martyred, did the Sahaba rejoice at this happy occasion? Let us see the vivid picture painted by Ibn Abbas (ra) as recorded in Tareekh e Baghdad, volume 12, page 357:
“When Umar was assassinated, the people were so grieved that they left eating.” Abbas [Ibn Abdul Mutalib] said ‘The deaths of the Holy Prophet(s) and Abu Bakr were also great losses but we didn’t leave eating, so even now we should eat’ and after that he himself started eating and so did the other people.”
Such was the tragedy that befell the Sahaba that the people abandoned eating, and it took the efforts of Ibn Abbas to console them and get them back into the eating mode again.
Along the same lines Wahaby scholar Waheed uz Zaman Haiderabadi stated:
“After the death of Umar, Uways Qarni mourned by saying Oh! Umar Oh! Umar Oh! Umar”
Hadiya tul Mahdi, volume 1, page 23, Published in Delhi
If crying and mourning for a martyr is wrong then why did the Sahaba (including) Uways Qarani (ra) mourn for Umar?
Traditions record that Hajra fainted when she visited the spot where her husband intended to slaughter his son. Some of the narrators say that it was this very grief that gradually caused her death. Nasibi logic would dictate that Hajra should have been doubly happy because her son was alive and also got the rewards for succeeding in the examination – she should have kept praising Ismail (as), however, she was a mother and not a foe, the latter would have been happy at the hardships faced by her son and husband. It is natural that whenever a loved one is in trouble, or if he has faced hardships, it always causes pain and sorrow, hence those who love Imam Husayn (as) will mourn and cry and his enemies will praise their persecutors.
Worthy of note are the comments of Sunni scholar Khwaja Hassan Nizami who answered this question as follows:
“A very important question arises that if martyrdom is a blessing and it is something necessary then why cry and mourn for a martyr? What does it have to do with wailing and crying?” But this is not something which has no answer, A person who laying down his life for a noble cause feels no disappointment or grief at his death. However, its effect on the hearts of his relatives is a natural phenomenon provided they possess humanitarian instincts”
An Extract from journal of Shaheed e Karbala, arranged and compiled by Ibrar Ahmed Siddique.
Many companions were martyred in the battles that took place during the time of the Holy Prophet (s) and of course all of them succeeded in their respective examinations. Hamza was named as the Lord of the Martyrs, and hence received a larger but rather than express joy at what his uncle had attained he cried and lamented over him and asked that the women of Quraysh to likewise.
1) Seerat un Nabi, volume 1, page 345.
2) Ma’arij al Nabuwat, Rukn 4, chapter (Bab) 6, page 123
Similarly we have already cited the incident where Holy Prophet (s) wept over the martyrdom of Jaffar Ibn Abi Talib (as). If mourning for a martyr is incorrect than what do Nawasib think about Holy Prophet (s)? The fact of the matter is that Prophet (s) himself gave best reply of the pathetic Nasibi belief for celeberating the martyrdom rather to mourn it.
The Holy Prophet (s) said : “Yes, Today Jafar has been martyred there, but the troubles and the plight that he went through before being martyred are very grieving.”
Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihaya, Volume 4 page 673
This proves that mourning and lamenting for a martyr was practiced by the Holy Prophet (s) and hence it is Sunnah of the Prophet whilst celebrating the loss of a martyr has no textual proof.
Whilst martyrdom is the sign of a great individual, it is also a time of reflection / sadness at an individual’s suffering.
When our fourth Imam Zayn ul Abideen (as) was asked that which incident was of most pain to you during and after the Karbala? Imam (as) replied “Shaam! Shaam! Shaam!”
Although martyrdom is a high status a fact recognised by our Imams, the unveiling the daughters of Muhammad (s), making them prisoners and parading then bare head and foot through the streets of Damascus, is not a happy occasion, is this something that the Bani Hashim should be proud of? Should they rejoice at such humiliation?
Imam Husayn (as) is alive so why do you do participate in mourning rituals for the living?
Herein lies clear proof of Nasibi contradictions. When we debate on the concept of using the Imams (as) as a means of approach the same Nasibi object saying that you can’t seek help from the dead!
Is this not a blatant contradiction! For these Nasibi Mullah there example is like that of a dog in Surah Araf 007.176
“His similitude is that of a dog: if you attack him, he lolls out his tongue, or if you leave him alone, he (still) lolls out his tongue. That is the similitude of those who reject Our signs; So relate the story; perchance they may reflect.”
Shi’a waste money and blood on this Day – why?
At Mina on one day hundreds of thousands of goats are slaughtered and there meat often goes to waste, if its okay for such a waste of money on that day then why the objection to mourning for Imam Husayn (as)? If such spending at Mina is remember the event of Ismail (as) the Shi’a can also do the same on Ashura.
Allah has forbidden us to visit graves, as is clear from Surah Tauba, so why do the Shi’a create image depicting the grave of Imam Husayn (as)?
In this verse Allah has forbidden the holy Prophet (s) to go to the grave of a Munafiq. Hence a person who thinks that his parents or Imams are Munafiq should abstain from going to their graves and making their images.
The Shi’a population give a lot of money to Ulama and Zakireen, that’s why they are not speaking against this. If they don’t get this money, then this Azadari will also come to an end.
[Shakir 9:74] … because Allah and His Messenger enriched them out of His grace; therefore if they repent, it will be good for them; and if they turn back, Allah will chastise them with a painful chastisement in this world and the hereafter, and they shall not have in the land any guardian or a helper.
Look at how these people are getting jealous. These Mullahs receive no grace for implementing the of bidah of Tarawih, whereas the Shi’a Ulama and Zakireen praise Ali (as) and his family, and Allah blesses them with His grace in this world and in the next. The Nasibi Mullahs are people who keep burning in jealousy here, and also in the next world. Inshallah.
The Shi/’a processions depict false Blood and False Arrows, the blood and arrows is placed over the Zuljanah, upon which Shi’as weep is false.
When the brothers of Yusuf (as) came to Yaqub (as) and told him that their brother Yusuf (as) had been eaten by a wolf, and that all that remained was his bloodied shirt, the blood was not that of Yusuf (as), but was kept by Yaqub (as) as a symbol over his suffering. Yaqub (as) would weep bitterly when looking at that replica. The cradle of six month old Asghar (as) is not the real cradle, but it symbolises the suffering of a six month old child, as such we think of him (as) when we look at the cradle, remembering that a child of such a tender age met a fate wherein an arrow used to hunt wild beasts was fired in to his neck. Yaqoob (as) placed the shirt over his eyes and bloodies his face with it.
We can see that the Sunnah of one Prophet was to look at the replica and mourn over it profusely.
Yaqub (as) started weeping bitterly after looking at that replica. If such symbols constitute Bidah or shirk, then the Nawasib should apply a Fatwa on the Nabi (as) in the first instance. All of these symbols serve as a reminder of the tragedy of Karbala, and the callous manner in which innocent men were killed, and their women folk taken prisoner. We weep in the same way that Yaqub (as) wept over the sufferings of his son
The Shi’a play musical instruments during mourning processions that is an act of bidah.
We read in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 15, Number 70:
Narrated Aisha:
Allah’s Apostle (p.b.u.h) came to my house while two girls were singing beside me the songs of Buath (a story about the war between the two tribes of the Ansar, the Khazraj and the Aus, before Islam). The Prophet (p.b.u.h) lay down and turned his face to the other side. Then Abu Bakr came and spoke to me harshly saying, “Musical instruments of Satan near the Prophet (p.b.u.h) ?” Allah’s Apostle (p.b.u.h) turned his face towards him and said, “Leave them.” When Abu Bakr became inattentive, I signalled to those girls to go out and they left.
This is a common argument advanced by todays moralistic Nawasib, who suggest that the presence of women Shi’a women in these processions, wherein men often removed their shirts, evidences a lack of morality on the part of the Shia, as this opens up the door to inappropriate contact.
According to Sunni reports, females watching male gatherings is the Sunnah of Aisha
We read in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 15, Number 70:
Narrated Aisha:
… It was the day of ‘Id, and the Black people were playing with shields and spears; so either I requested the Prophet (p.b.u.h) or he asked me whether I would like to see the display. I replied in the affirmative. Then the Prophet (p.b.u.h) made me stand behind him and my cheek was touching his cheek and he was saying, “Carry on! O Bani Arfida,” till I got tired. The Prophet (p.b.u.h) asked me, “Are you satisfied (Is that sufficient for you)?” I replied in the affirmative and he told me to leave.
If one inspects the tradition carefully, it is clear that Aisha watched the entire display whilst seated upon the shoulders of the Prophet (s). Our claim can be evidenced by the fact that we are informed from Aisha’s testimony that she was standing behind the Prophet (s) so how was she then capable of observing the entire spectacle cheek to cheek with the Prophet (s)? Did she take some growth hormone that enabled her to rise in height to such dramatic proportions, to the point that she was cheek to cheek with the Prophet (s)? Or did she climb on to some cushions. Or was she riding on the back of the Prophet (s)? Just contemplate the ages of the spouses. Aisha (was had not yet attained majority age whilst the Prophet (s) was in his fifties. Was Aisha taller, shorter or the same size as the Prophet (s)? If Aisha was of the same height or shorter she would have only been able to observe the spectacle cheek to cheek with the Prophet (s), unless of course if she was on his (s) shoulders.
The history books suggest that the middle aged Prophet (s) was of medium height. Aisha had not yet hit puberty so was bound to increase in height, but it is unlikely that at that time she would have been the same height as the Prophet (s). This being the case, precisely how could her taller husband have enabled her to see the event by telling her to stand behind him (s)? How was she then able to stand behind the Prophet (s) and observe the event cheek to cheek? The only possible way that this could have happened was if she was watching the event on the shoulders of the Prophet (s).
Since Salafis always insist that their married lives should be a mirror image of that of the Prophet (s) and Aisha we would urge them to accordingly implement this Sunnah forthwith. It is essential they avers such traditions and accordingly accompany their wives to male displays of bravado and wrestling. Naturally to ensure complete compliance with the Sunnah of the Prophet (s) the Salafi brothers should ensure that their wives are raised either through physical carrying or via lift supports (for the heavier Salafi female) so that she is accordingly positioned cheek to cheek with her spouse, that way both spouses can enjoy the display and ensure complete conformity with the Sunnah of the Prophet (s)!
Returning to the objection, Shia men never place their women on their shoulders during mourning gatherings! If they attend there is a separation between males and females, in that they are with their gender and men with their own. Sadly the Nawasib have applied their own perverted intentions behind Salafi Islamic circles co-ordinated in Universities, wherein the ‘brothers’ ogle at sisters during lectures to our mourning processions. The intention of our women folk at such processions is to mourn the suffering of Hussain (as) and the subsequent persecution of his women folk.
If the Nawasib point out that women are within close proximity and hence can easily observe the male mourning rituals, we will point out that (as per your books), Aisha was also within close proximity of the Ethiopians that were practicing their combat skills in the mosque of the Prophet (s)! Whilst Shia women clad in black would remain circumspect hidden amongst similarly dressed women, one wonders how Aisha would have remained so discreet when she was positioned upon the shoulders of the Prophet (s) for all to see!
When Shi’a do Azadari, they seem to be running.
We are quoting from authentic work of Ahl’ul Sunnah Sahih Bukhari Book 14, Number 2572:
Narrated Ayesha, Ummul Mu’minin:
While she was on a journey along with the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him): I had a race with him (the Prophet) and I outstripped him on my feet. When I became fleshy, (again) I had a race with him (the Prophet) and he outstripped me. He said: This is for that outstripping.
During Azadari, Shi’as stop the roads by taking processions out, and they also cut the trees.
[Shakir 59:5] Whatever palm-tree you cut down or leave standing upon its roots, it is by Allah’s command, and that He may abase the transgressors.
Ibn al Hashimi:
We find it interesting that the Shia do not celebrate the death of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) or any of their other heroes. Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was stabbed to death, and he suffered a horrendous death. So what is the reason that the Shia make such a big deal about the death of Hussain (رضّى الله عنه) but not of Ali (رضّى الله عنه)? Ali (رضّى الله عنه) is in fact considered superior to Hussain (رضّى الله عنه) by the Shia. So why the death of Hussain (رضّى الله عنه) and not of Ali (رضّى الله عنه)? The reason is obvious: the Shia celebrate Ashura to spite the Sunni Muslims.
Ibn al Hashimi has through these words exposed himself. He constantly stresses that he is an ex Shia from Iran. Had he ever been a Shia he would have know that the Shia mourn all of their heroes and participate in mourning gathering for all eleven of their slain Imams. This includes mosque gathering and marches. Any Sunni exposed to Shia communities would have known this reality, and for Ibn al Hashimi an Iranian national not to have known this proves that he is a liar, had he even been a Sunni Iranian he would have known that the Shia mourn the martyrdom of all of their Imams! We should not underestimate this level of deception, its like a Muslim living in the West, without any knowledge that Christians celebrate the birthday of Isa (as) during Christmas!
Ibn al Hashimi:
Shia celebrate Ashura to spite the Sunni Muslims.
The Shia attest that it was Yezid who killed Hussain (رضّى الله عنه), and they say that Yezid was a Sunni. This is the reason that they mourn Hussain (رضّى الله عنه), because they blame the Ahlus Sunnah for this tragic event. The Shia mourning on Ashura is therefore a spiteful fist in the air against the Sunni majority. The Shia leave no stone unturned in their defamation of the Ahlus Sunnah, and thus they want everyone to remember that it was “Yezid the big bad Sunni” who was responsible.
As can be seen, the Shia mourning on Ashura has little do with their love for Hussain (رضّى الله عنه), but rather has more to do with their hatred of the Sunnis.
This is an objection that has become all the more popular of late thanks to modern day Nawasib rekindling their love for the Ummayads. We will respond by pointing out to such people that the public cursing of tyrants is pursuant to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s)
Imam of Ahlul Sunnah Muhammad Ismail Bukhari records two interesting narrations:
حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ حَكِيمٍ الأَوْدِيُّ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا شَرِيكٌ، عَنْ أَبِي عُمَرَ، عَنْ أَبِي جُحَيْفَةَ قَالَ: شَكَا رَجُلٌ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم جَارَهُ، فَقَالَ: احْمِلْ مَتَاعَكَ فَضَعْهُ عَلَى الطَّرِيقِ، فَمَنْ مَرَّ بِهِ يَلْعَنُهُ، فَجَعَلَ كُلُّ مَنْ مَرَّ بِهِ يَلْعَنُهُ، فَجَاءَ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ: مَا لَقِيتُ مِنَ النَّاسِ؟ فَقَالَ: إِنَّ لَعْنَةَ اللهِ فَوْقَ لَعْنَتِهِمْ، ثُمَّ قَالَ لِلَّذِي شَكَا: كُفِيتَ أَوْ نَحْوَهُ.
"Abu Juhayfa said, "A man complained to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, about his neighbour. The Prophet said, 'Take your bags and put them in the road and whoever passes them will curse him.' Everyone who passed him began to curse that neighbour. Then he went to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and said, 'How many people I met!' He said, 'The curse of Allah is on top of their curse!' Then he told the one who had complained, 'You have enough,' or words to that effect."
Grade: Grade: Hasan Sahih (Al-Albani)
(Al-Adab Al-Mufrad Book 6, Hadith 125)
حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللهِ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا صَفْوَانُ بْنُ عِيسَى، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَجْلاَنَ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ قَالَ: قَالَ رَجُلٌ: يَا رَسُولَ اللهِ، إِنَّ لِي جَارًا يُؤْذِينِي، فَقَالَ: انْطَلِقْ فَأَخْرِجْ مَتَاعَكَ إِلَى الطَّرِيقِ، فَانْطَلَقَ فَأَخْرِجَ مَتَاعَهُ، فَاجْتَمَعَ النَّاسُ عَلَيْهِ، فَقَالُوا: مَا شَأْنُكَ؟ قَالَ: لِي جَارٌ يُؤْذِينِي، فَذَكَرْتُ لِلنَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم، فَقَالَ: انْطَلِقْ فَأَخْرِجْ مَتَاعَكَ إِلَى الطَّرِيقِ، فَجَعَلُوا يَقُولُونَ: اللَّهُمَّ الْعَنْهُ، اللَّهُمَّ أَخْزِهِ. فَبَلَغَهُ، فَأَتَاهُ فَقَالَ: ارْجِعْ إِلَى مَنْزِلِكَ، فَوَاللَّهِ لاَ أُؤْذِيكَ.
"Abu Hurayra said, "A man said, 'Messenger of Allah, I have a neighbour who does me harm.' He said, 'Go and take your things out into the road.' He took his things out into the road. People gathered around him and asked, 'What's the matter?' He replied, 'A neighbour of mine injures me and I mentioned it to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. He told me, "Take your things out into the road."' They began to say, 'O Allah, curse him! O Allah, disgrace him!' When the man heard that, he came out to him and said, 'Go back to your home. By Allah, I will not harm you.'"
Grade: Hasan Sahih (Al-Albani) حسن صحيح (الألباني)حكم :
(Adab Al-Mufrad Book 6, Hadith 124)
Observation
What is clear is that one Sahabi complained about the conduct of another Sahabi, Rasulullah (s) directed that the unjust Sahabi be publicly exposed about his conduct before the people, so that they are outraged and they openly curse him for his unjust conduct. From this incident it is clear that cursing the oppressor in support of the oppressed is the essence of Islam and this practice is also the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) and the Sahaba. This is a hadith in which the status of the complainant is not discussed nor that of the oppressor despite their being neighbours. We also don't know what faith (or lack of faith) the neighbours ascribed to. We also can't pinpoint the era in which this incident occurred
With this in mind when the Shia take out mourning processions displaying imagery as a reminder of what befell the oppressed Imam Hussain (as) such as his bloodied coffin or the cradle of his infant son, it acts as a way to invite non Shias to ask us what happened that thus enables us to retell the events of Karbala and curse Yazid and those who aided and abetted the slaughter of Imam Hussain (as). Just like the Hadith wherein Rasulullah (s) sought to publicity humiliate and condemn an oppressor we seek to expose the supporters of Yazeed to reassess their loyalty with the Umayyads and disassociate themselves from Yazeed and his acolytes by publicly reviling him. There is nothing unreasonable with that, afterall no sane individual wants to be associated with a tyrant that partakes in oppression. Verily the public exposure and cursing of tyrants like Yazeed (la) is pursuant to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) as adhered to by the Sahaba.
This is a blatant lie! The Shia objective behind Azadari is not to stick a proverbial V sign up at Sunnis as this Nasibi suggests, it is linked to our love for our Imam (as) and nothing else. We will evidence this by citing this example:
“One picks up the Newspaper in the morning to read a headline about a young boy killed in a car accident. The natural reaction will be to read this story and be saddened by it. Those that don’t reside in the same city as the boy and have no link with the victim or the area wherein he resided will move on to the next column. Those that live in the same city will stop and think about the area, and wonder if they might know the victims family. Those that live within the same district of the city will think harder, and will ask questions of friends to see if they know the family of the deceased. Those that live within the same locality as the victim, will be saddened and will seek to share in the loss of the bereaved parents, they will attend their home, express their condolences and shall seek to share in their grief, as they sympathize and will share in their loss”
One can explain mourning for Imam Husayn (as) from this example. The closer you are to the Imam, to his family the more hurt you feel by his loss, the greater the desire to express your grief art his loss, by joining in his grief, by participating ion gatherings wherein his loss is remembered. It is linked to one’s closeness and affinity with him. For us as Shias the tenth of Muhurrum is a deeply personal day wherein the believer seeks to create a spiritual bond with his beloved Imam (as). We certainly do not spend hours barefoot in scorching heat marching ths streets just to upset Sunni sensibilities! Why would Sunnis be upset at our cursing Yazeed when the vast bulk of Sunnis hate him like, just like the Shia? The only ‘Sunnis’ that would be upset with comments of Yazid are those that love him and uphold his Khilafath, now if our marching upsets such people then that is their problem linked to the manner in which they were conceived, not ours.
Ibn al Hashimi:
Do the Shia really think that Hussain (رضّى الله عنه) would appreciate people engaging in self-flagellation and self-mutilation? If Hussain (رضّى الله عنه) were alive today, he would think that these people have lost their minds. We ask the reader if he would want his family to commemorate his own death in such a manner? No sane person would want his death commemorated in such a manner, no matter how unfair or how violent his own death was. So why do the Shia assume that Hussain (رضّى الله عنه) would want his death to be remembered in such a barbaric way?
To bring up a more relevant example, let us assume for the moment that a boy likes a certain girl. In order to impress her, he decides to beat himself up for her to show his undying love for her. Do we think that she would actually be impressed with a boy who beats himself up? Surely not! Rather, the girl would be frightened out of her wits and she would likely call the police to control this boy. Indeed, only mentally insane people beat themselves up. It is a recognized psychological disorder, and there is much medical literature on this topic.
Ibn al Hashimi has in this paragraph shifted from his role as prolific polemical writer to mind reader, and has sought to inform his readers of the intention of those that indulge in self flagellation. This Nasabi’s psychic abilities have failed him for the Shia do not seek to ‘impress’ our fallen Imam (as) they are merely expressing grief over his suffering. The act of self flagellation is a deeply personal one wherein the mourner is pondering over the suffering of his Imam (as), imagining what he would have felt like on that tragic day, thinking about the battle scene and trying to place himself in the midst of the heat of battle at that time. It is a deeply personal emotional ritual wherein the believer seeks to attain a nexus with his fallen Imam (as) by seeking to focus his mind on his suffering. Ultimately, such acts of grief are conducted on account of love that transcends all boundaries and if such love is unacceptable to this Nasabi, then we invite him to issue takfeer against Uways Qarni’s violent removal of his teeth that that we shall expand on in the next objection.
Ibn al Hashimi:
Because the faith of Islam is perfect, it does not allow for any innovations to the religion. However, the Shia have added many innovations to the faith, and this is why they are called Ahlel Bidah (the People of Bidah). One such Bidah (innovation) is the practise of Matam, in which the Shia beat themselves in Muharram on the day of Ashura. The Shia will slap their chests, beat their backs, and involve themselves in other practises in order to “commemorate” the dead.
.
As for the Ahlus Sunnah, they are saddened by the wrongful death of Hussain (رضّى الله عنه). He is one of the many great heroes of Islam that died in the Name of Allah. However, the Ahlus Sunnah does not engage in self-flagellation or self-mutilation, which are both considered strictly Haram (forbidden). The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) forbade barbaric practises like such, and he said: “No harm may be inflicted on oneself.”
In another article the author points the negative perception that self flagellation gives to non Muslims:
Ibn al Hashimi:
As can be seen, the Shia are giving Islam a bad name; the non-Muslims will see this and think that Muslims are nothing but uncivilized barbarians. This is definitely not Islam. Such ridicolous practises are reminiscent of pagan rituals of the most crude design!
A typical reason for such writings against the practice of self-flagellation is a frequently a deep-seated jealousy that the Shias love God, His Prophet and the Ahlu’l bayt with such ardent devotion that it causes them to be prepared to lay down their bodies and their lives for Him, His Prophet (s) and his Ahl’ul bayt (as). There is an obvious feeling in the hearts of those who cannot stand such forms of mourning – a poisonous jealousy which they articulate in semi-religious language. That is this feeling – Ali (as)’s Shias are prepared to lay down their lives for him and his sons (the Imams) to this day, a fact correctly sensed from the acts of self-flagellation. Yet Mu’awiya’s alleged lovers cannot find within themselves anything like this level of devotion – like a man who sees his neighbour’s house is better but will not admit to it. Above all, since love for these iconic religious figures is a manifestation of love for Allah (swt), it implies Ali (as) and the Imams from the Ahl’ul bayt (as) inspire the love of Allah (swt) to a degree that is unthinkable of when it comes to the barren, sterile and paradoxical figures of Sunni Islam. We refer the seeker of deep knowledge to the example that we had cited earlier in this same chapter, that of the revered Sahaba Uways al-Qarni (ra) who upon hearing that the Holy Prophet (s) had lost a tooth at the hands of the Kaffirs (in the Battle of Uhud, mourned this loss by smashing out all of his own teeth with a rock. He did this with his own hands owing to his devotion to the Prophet (s). To extract one of one’s own teeth in grief may be an act of raw emotion, but to remove them all out with a blunt instrument is a calculated and well thought through religious mourning ritual. The Shias originate from such men like Oways (ra) who followed Ali (as). Tell us Ibn al Hashimi whose love and devotion was greater for the injured Prophet (s) the extreme bloody act of Uways (ra) or that of Uthman who evidenced his devotion by deserting the army in the midst of battle only to return after 3 days?
The author has failed to provide any reference in the context of self-flagellation and has but highlighted his gross ignorance of the fact that such rituals are permissible in the Qur’an and Sunnah. Famously the former mentions that Hadhrath Yaqub (as) wept so much for Yusuf (as) that he went blind. Further, in the Qur’an Allah (sawt) lauds this as a virtue of Yacoub (as) and a hallmark of his capacity for love for Yusuf (as) who was unlike his brothers a Proof of God. What is more injurious to the body – a few cuts on a back and scalp, or injury to the eyes? Would Ibn al Hashimi not place the act of mourning leading to diasability within the definition of an irreligious, extreme form of mourning?
Obviously, in view of these strong evidences from the Qur’an, Sunnah and Sunni texts which support the Shia ritual self-flagellation (as we have cited), Ibn al Hashimi has had to resort to ridiculous analogies instead. The currency of the latter is flawed logic about sex and barbarism, all of which have nothing to do with the issue and seem pointedly absurd. His mind is pervaded by watching global television and internet sites wherein the following acts are portrayed as barbaric:
Curiously here we have an alleged Muslim extending this mode of indoctrination and brainwashing about Islam to self-flagellation by Shias which he wants you to say is barbaric – while in earnest these Muslims are mourning for the tragedies that befell the Supreme Guides to Truth and Salvation, Muhammad (s) and his family, on account of their love of Allah (swt). In doing so Ibn Hashimi has proved that he is no friend of Islam or of Muslims, his mind has simply been moulded in a dysfunctional way by the British-founded Wahabi ideology, which is no friend of Islam or Muslims despite its pretensions. His Islam is full of self-evident contradictions like those just cited. And he fails to note the deeper and horrible truths – that true barbarism is the religion of Hinda and Mu’awiya he signs up to and endorses a belief wherein:
1. To quote Imam Nawawi from his book “Al-Majmo’a Shrah al-Mahdab” Volume 1 page 348 Kitab al-Taharah states:
“Circumcision is obligatory for men and women and many of the Salaf have said so”
The mutilation of the genitals of innocent female girls through female circumcision
wherein the followers of Mu’awiya are happy to cut off their innocent infant daughter’s clitoris then stitch her vulva up making her urinate through a hole the size of a pea until her husband rips it open when he penetrates her on her wedding night . This despicable act of mutilation is criticised the world over, and is banned in many Western countries, yet this should not unhinge Ibn al Hashimi as it is the Sunnah of the Salaf that he venerates. It is interesting that:
Ibn al Hashimi:
the Ahlus Sunnah does not engage in self-flagellation or self-mutilation, which are both considered strictly Haram (forbidden). The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) forbade barbaric practises like such, and he said: “No harm may be inflicted on oneself.”
If self mutilation is ‘strictly Haram’ and the Prophet said “No harm may be inflicted on oneself” why is the mutilation of female genitalia a Sunnah in your School of thought?
2. The brutal murder of Hujr bin Adi (ra), wherein one of his companions was buried alive is completely acceptable since to quote Ansar.org:
“Muawiya’s severity in killing Hijr was because Hijr tried to transgress against the Islamic nation and to break the bond of the Muslims and Mu’awiyah considered it as an endeavor to corrupt the earth especially in Kufah where some groups of the affliction first appeared against Uthman. If Uthman were lenient in this matter, which ultimately lead to his death and lead the Islamic nation to the greatest affliction and caused blood to run like rivers, then Mu’awiyah wanted to cut this affliction from its roots by killing Hijr”
3. The attack on the companions of the Holy Prophet (s) in Madina by Yazeed, when quote Ibn al Kathir from Al-Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 Page 1146; Nafees Academy Karachi:
“Yazeed committed a major sin by ordering Muslim bin Utbah to make Medina Mubah for three days. This was a most horrible mistake. Many Sahaba and their children were slaughtered”.
This was undoubtedly a despicable barbaric act, but no criticisms should be levelled at the commander in Chief Yazeed, as to quote
Azam Tariq:
YAZID WAS THE COMMANDER OF MUSLIM FORCES WHO MARCHED TO CAESAR’S CITY. THIS EXPEDITION WAS SENT DURING THE REIGN OF HAZRAT MUAWIYAH AND IN THIS TASK FORCE WERE INCLUDED ELDERLY AND ILLUSTRIOUS SAHABA LIKE HAZRAT ABU AYYUB ANSARI WHOSE FUNERAL PRAYER WAS LED BY YAZID ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF HAZRAT AYYUB ANSARI HIMSELF. THIS EXPEDITION TOOK PLACE IN 51 H IN WHICH HAZRAT HUSAYN FOUGHT UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF YAZID. THIS WAS THE PIONEERING MUSLIM FORCE WHICH LANDED IN CAESAR’S CITY AND ACCORDING TO A HADITH NARRATED BY ABDULLAH BIN UMAR WHICH HAS BEEN RECORDED BY BUKHARI, RASUL-ALLAH SAID:
“THE ARMY WHICH WILL FIRST EMBARK ON THE EXPEDITION OF CONTANTINOPLE WILL BLESSED.” (BUKHARI).
YAZID WAS THE COMMANDER OF MUSLIM FORCES ON THIS EXPEDITION WHO WAGED JIHAD IN CAESAR’S CITY AND AS SUCH HE FALLS WITHIN THE PARAMETER OF ABOVE HADITH OF THE PROPHET (SAW). IN VIEW OF THIS IT IS NOT BECOMING ON ANY MUSLIM TO CAST ASPERIONS ON YAZID AS THE ENTIRE ARMY WHICH TOOK PART IN THIS COMPAIGN HAS BEEN BLESSED BY ALLAH IN THE CONTEXT OF ABOVE HADITH.
4. The murder of Malik bin Nuwayra and rape of his wife by Khalid bin Walid is completely acceptable, the perpetrator of such acts is immune from punishment in this world and in the next.
5. The slaughter of the infant sons of Ubaydullah ibn Abbas, by Mu’awiya’s general as we find in Tarikh ibn Asakir, Volume 10 page 146 merits no punishment from Mu’awiya or criticism by his advocates.
6. He provides self-implicit support, for the militant wing of Wahabism – the Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists who have nothing better to do prove their devotion to God than mutilate, torture and murder innocent men, women and children in supreme acts of barbarism anyone can watch on the Internet such as decapitating civilians simply for driving trucks with food in them for grocers (and admitting that that was the person’s only ‘crime’) and nailing boy’s heads to walls with 10 inch nails, as a mechanism to obtain the satisfaction of God and with it a great deal of course, base sexual activity with 70 virgins in the next world.
7. Attacking Shia places of worship, and killing those inside them is not a cause for concern.
8. The Taleban practice of throwing acid at girls seeking to attend school, permanently disfiguring them in the process
9. Conducting mass killings on spectacular scale such as those on September 11 and the murder of countless Muslims and non-Muslims the world over are in complete conformity with the fundamentalist Wahabi mindset.
The above are all examples of barbarism that are part and parcel of the Nawasib faith and the forefathers they revere. Such acts attract far greater level revulsion and hatred on account of their barbarity; they are far more brutal than the Shia acts of self flagellation. If despite this reality all of the above Sunni administered acts are noble deeds committed by noble Sunni men, then Ibn al Hashimi has no right to attack the Shia practice of self flagellation. One only needs to trawl through the internet and television to find graphic, violent, detestable and upsetting images showing:
Tell us Ibn al Hashimi do such images create an appreciation of Islam and Muslims?
In light of this to paraphrase Ibn al Hashimi:
As can be seen, the Sunnis are giving Islam a bad name; the non-Muslims will see this and think that Muslims are nothing but uncivilized barbarians. This is definitely not Islam. Such ridiculous practises are reminiscent of pagan rituals of the most crude design!
Ibn al Hashimi:
In any case, there are better avenues of channeling grief, including reading Quran and being a good Muslim. What better way to commemorate the loss of Hussain (رضّى الله عنه) than by trying to rid the world of evil and barbarity? A person could donate money to the poor, create a trust fund in the name of the deceased, etc etc….the options for channeling grief are almost infinite, so why beat oneself up? What does it accomplish? We can only wonder why the Shia follow a faith that advocates such barbarity.
This argument is based on some absurd assumption that this method of ‘channelling grief’ precludes one from indulging in all of the above cited acts. This is indeed an absurd argument, there is no reason why someone cannot do all of the above acts. A Shia could for example could donate to the poor, set up a direct debit in a trust fund and perform self flagellation, so there really should no objection. As for ‘trying to rid the world of evil and barbarity’ this is one of objectives behind commemorating the tragedy of Karbala, for when we recollect the martyrdom of Imam Hussain (as) his family and disciples, their acts of bravery and resolve against evil and barbarity are cited by our Ulema as a mechanism with which to encourage people to rid the world of tyranny and oppression! When we take out street processions we let the world know that we are at one with all the oppressed peoples of the world whether that be in Chechnya, Kashmir, Burma, Iraq and are one voice against evil and barbarity whether it caused by Muslims or Non Muslims. It were these mourning rituals that have acted as the focal point for socio-political change, to quote Wikipedia:
“According to the prevailing conditions at the time of the commemoration, such reminiscences may become a framework for implicit dissent or explicit protest. It was, for instance, used during the Islamic Revolution of Iran , the Lebanese Civil War, the Lebanese resistance against the Israeli occupation and in the 1990s Uprising in Bahrain. Sometimes the `Ashura’ celebrations associate the memory of Al-Husayn’s martyrdom with the conditions of Islam and Muslims (both of which have been historically continually put down by the world powers) in referance to Imam Hussain’s famous quote on the day of Ashura: “Every day is Ashura, every land is Karbala”.[29]
From the period of the Iranian Constitutional Revolution (1905-11) onward, mourning gatherings increasingly assumed a political aspect. Following an old established tradition, preachers compared the oppressors of the time with Imam Hosayn’s enemies, the umayyads.[30]
The political function of commemoration was very marked in the years leading up to the Islamic Revolution of 1978-79, as well as during the revolution itself. In addition, the implicit self-identification of the Muslim revolutionaries with Imam Hosayn led to a blossoming of the cult of the martyr, expressed most vividly, perhaps, in the vast cemetery of Behesht-e Zahra, to the south of Tehran, where the martyrs of the revolution and the war against Iraq are buried”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_Ashura
Sixteenth Objection – Processions disrupt daily life
The typical objection that the Shia community face every Muhurrum from those opposed to mourning for Imam Hussain (as) is that by partaking in mourning rituals, wherein people take to the streets, reciting eulogies is unacceptable and should be brought to an end as it interrupts daily life, causes shops to shut down etc.
Reply One – This sums up the hypocrisy of our opponents
We also find it odd that this objections are not raised when Sunnis take out annual processions to celebrate the birthday of the Prophet (s) or commemorations in memory of Umar. It seems the only angst is towards mourning ceremonies for Imam Husayn (as). In stark comparison to our approach, allow us to evidence how the Ahul Sunnah of the past reacted when "one of their own" breathed his last.
Reply Two – Anarchy and mayhem following the death of a revered fight is a practice of the Ahlul Sunnah
Whilst we don't seek to paralyse society, we also don't seek to force others to mourn with us, nor do we seek to partake in any forms of anti social behaviour or public disorder that will negatively impact on peoples lives.
Imam Dhia' ul-Dīn 'Abd al-Malik ibn Yūsuf al-Juwaynī al-Shafi'ī was a Persian Sunni Shafi'i jurist known as "Al-Juwayni"; and was also commonly referred to as Imam al Haramayn, ("Imam the two holy sites"). Shams ad-Dīn adh-Dhahabī records the following details relat-ing to the aftermath of his death:
فدفن بجنب والده، وكسروا منبره، *وغلقت الأسواق،* ورثي بقصائد، و *كان له نحو من أربع مائه تلميذ،* كسروا محابرهم وأقلامهم، وأقاموا حولا، ووضعت المناديل عن الرؤوس عاما، بحيث ما اجترأ أحد علي ستر رأسه، وكانت الطلبه يطوفون في البلد نائحين عليه، مبالغين في الصياح والجزع
“When he died he was laid to rest alongside his father's graveside. Grief was vented by his pulpit being destroyed, market places were forcibly shut down. Eulogies were recited in his honor. His grief stricken students smashed up books and writing materials. The people mourned on the roads and market places for an entire year
(Siyar a`lam al-nubala Volume 18 page 476)”
We appeal to justice, observe how people descend into such extreme reactions when those they love die, yet are unmoved when it comes to mourning the martyrdom of Imam Hussain (as), worse they vocally oppose it, insisting it disturbs people!
May Allah (swt) grant us all the ability to utilise the tragedy of Karbala as the mechanism to rid the world of evil and tyranny – Ameen.