al-Husayn & the Massacre of Karbala’:

Standard

Author’s note:
It’s a must that I mention that the events, known today as the Massacre of Karbala’, which caused the execution of the maternal-grandson of Muhammad (Peace be upon him), al-Husayn ibn-`Ali ibn Abi-Talib (May Allah be pleased with him), was indeed a true tragedy, and is globally, Islamically, recognized, among all Muslim sectarian-lines, as something that should not have happened, and as well, didn’t even have to happen; but, unfortunately, it did happen, and we, as Muslims have to acknowledge this, objectively examine why it happened & move on in order to move forward, and unify one another, and to cease & desist some of the many unnecessary divisions between the Muslims, because of this issue alone.

Now, obviously, this subject has caused great controversy, both historically, as well as in the present-day still, because of the magnitude of this event, even to the extent as to how this event should or should not be commemorated, among Muslims from various & all sectarian-persuasions-This event has grabbed the attention, emotions, and guilt of so many Muslims, that there are even celebrations, literally around the world, commemorating this event, with people doing things which are completely contrary to Islamic-Teachings. What I attempt to do is to bring some unbiased-light, as a Muslim, loyal to no religious-sect, to this event & the events surrounding & influencing it.

The following is based (primarily but not exclusively) upon the historical writings of Maqtal-il-Husayn/The Murder of al-Husayn, by Abi-Mikhnaf Lut ibn-Yahya ibn-Sa`id ibn-Mikhnaf al-Kufi & Tarikh-il-Rusul wal-Muluk/The History of Messengers & Rulers, by Abi-Ja`far Muhammad ibn-Jarir at-Tabari, two of some of the foremost Islamic-Historians of their time, as well as al-Khulafa’-ir-Rashidin/The Rightly-Guided Islamic-Rulers, by the famous Islamic-Historian, Jalal-id-din as-Suyuti, which chronicles the Khilafat/Islamic-Rulerships of the following persons: `Abdullah ibn Abi-Quhafah/Abu-Bakr as-Siddiq, `Umar ibn-il-Khattab, `Uthman ibn-`Affan, `Ali ibn Abi-Talib, al-Hasan ibn-`Ali, Mu`awiyah ibn Abi-Sufyan (May Allah be pleased with them).

`Uthman ibn-`Affan: His assassination & Civil-War-
Realistically, it would be unfair to mention the Massacre of Karbala’, without first mentioning & examining, with an unbiased-lens, all of the events which not only influenced what happened at Karbala’, but, what had directly caused it. Let’s start with the martyrdom of `Uthman ibn-`Affan (a Companion, twice Son-in-Law of Muhammad [making him a legitimate-member of Ahl-il-Bayt/Members of the Prophetic-Household of Muhammad] and 3rd-Khalifah [the globally-recognized/accepted leader of the Muslims] of Islam); after the vicious torture/assassination of `Uthman, at the hands of three cowardly assailants, from among the Khawarij (the 1st recognized sectarian-group from among the Muslims, thus personally prophesied by Muhammad, during his own lifetime [al-Bukhari & ibn-Majah]), `Ali ibn Abi-Talib (a Companion, paternal 1st-cousin, son-in-law of Muhammad [making him a legitimate-member of Ahl-il-Bayt ] and 4th-Khalifah) had been selected & nominated, by the senior-leadership of the Companions of Muhammad, to succeed `Uthman, as the Khalifah; he accepted the appointment.

Upon this confirmation of `Ali’s ascension to the helm of the Muslim-World, immediately, Mu`awiyah ibn Abi-Sufyan (a Companion, brother-in-law [making him a legitimate-member of Ahl-il-Bayt] and 6th Khalifah of Islam, known historically as Mu`awiyah I) had petitioned that the murderers of `Uthman be brought to justice. However, `Ali had thought it wiser to suspend the pursuit of the assassins of `Uthman and bring political-stability back to the Islamic-Empire first. Unfortunately, that wasn’t good enough for Mu`awiyah & as a direct-result, when `Ali had commanded all the current governors of the provinces, of the Islamic-Empire, serving under `Uthman, to resign from their positions, he refused to step-down from his current position as the governor of Syria.

Now, of course, this was a major-problem-At this particular time, Syria was the wealthiest province, with the largest army within the Islamic-Empire; so, as we all know, unfortunate, bloody civil-war took place. The most historically famous military confrontation during this period was none other than the Battle of Siffin-The painful, shameful, irony is that even many of the Companions of Muhammad (May Allah be pleased with them all-together), who had all fought together, side-by-side, nearly 40-years prior, had taken sides between `Ali & Mu`awiyah, and were fighting, even killing one another. After the Battle of Siffin, a much-need peace-treaty, as well as territorial-partition, was established, between `Ali & Mu`awiyah: basically, as a result of this treaty & partition, all of the territories north & west of the Arabian-Peninsula went under the jurisdiction of Mu`awiyah & all of the territories south & east of the Levant went under the jurisdiction of `Ali.(For more info. concerning the true members of Ahl-il-Bayt: http://www.garethbryant.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/theperfectsolutiontothewholeahlulbaytissue)

`Ali is betrayed & slain, and Mu`awiyah stands alone-
There is immediate dissent, as a result of `Ali agreeing to the terms of this treaty with Mu`awiyah, and many of his supporters turn-tail on him & defect to the already-established sectarian-group, the Khawarij, who end up plotting, and unfortunately are successful in their assassination-attempt upon him. So, after the assassination of `Ali, naturally, the still-loyal-supporters of `Ali, looked to al-Hasan ibn-`Ali (the eldest maternal grandchild of Muhammad & older-brother of al-Husayn) for leadership & to lay claim to head the Khilafah (the Islamic ruling position & government over the Muslim-World). With the support of his followers, he in fact was nominated/selected and confirmed to be the 5th-Khalifah.

However, al-Hasan (very shortly after becoming the next Khalifah) made a very noble decision: he decided to completely end this political/military stalemate with Mu`awiyah, and in the same year as the death of his father (which was actually `Ali’s 6th & final year as the Khalifah), popularly known as “The Year of Unity”, al-Hasan had abdicated his power & claim as the Khalifah & there was a legitimate transfer of power from al-Hasan to Mu`awiyah, thereby making Mu`awiayh the 6th-Khalifah-Shortly after this abdication, al-Hasan ends up dead, in a very straight-forward, sad, manner. It has long be eluded, assumed, speculated, believed, etc., that Mu`awiyah had a direct-hand in the death of al-Hasan; yet, to date, there is no standing, surviving, legitimate, credible, evidence supporting this (controversial) claim. At any rate, as a result of all that went down, Mu`awiyah was the last-man-standing, in this first of many unfortunate political-upheavals within the 1400 year-old history of the Khilafah.

al-Husayn, Yazid, and Karbala’-
Now, to our main point of discussion: Mu`awiyah by this time is dead, after surviving one of the bloodiest in-house political-periods the Muslim-World had ever known, having been the Khalifah for the last 2-decades of his life; his son, upon his request, Yazid (known historically as Yazid I) becomes nominated/appointed as the Khalifah, which sets a trend, that had remained until the end of the `Uthmani-Period/Ottoman-Empire, of having one’s family member (typically father-to-son) be a succeeding Khalifah, thus replacing a former Khalifah. There were still a great deal of understandable animosity between Bani-Hashim (the sub-tribe of `Ali ibn Abi-Talib) & Bani-Umayyah (the sub-tribe of Mu`awiyah ibn Abi-Sufyan). However, the consolidation of the Umayyi-Period/Umayyad-Dynasty was set, and, honestly, there were no serious military-threat to the authority of the rule of Yazid.

However, al-Husayn, based upon his conviction, as well as tension between the himself & Yazid, fueled by the deaths of both his father & brother, caused him to rebel against Yazid, a decision which cost him his life. Yazid being the new Khalifah & all (the 7th Khalifah generally & the 2nd Umayyi-Khalifah), in my opinion handled the situation between himself & al-Husayn very prematurely, as well as foolishly. Likewise, I also view al-Husayn’s decision to pursue a military confrontation against Yazid, against the advice of many still-surviving Companions, including his own cousin, `Abdullah ibn-`Abbas, one of, if not the single most respected religious figure of his lifetime, after the death of Muhammad, equally as foolish & reckless.

He was out-manned, out-weaponed and out-supported. Even as he had made preparations to meet the forces of Yazid, headed by the then governor of `Iraq, `Ubaydullah ibn-Ziyad, it was very clear that from the start, it would’ve been a losing-battle, even before it had began. However, like his father & brother before him, he stuck to ideals that he had deep-conviction in, and was not fearful of the consequences thereof. He was initially welcomed by some factions in `Iraq to establish resistance beginning in Kufa & make this city his base. However, this plan was immediately scrapped, as a result of `Ubaydullah executing several messengers of al-Husayn, including one of the sons of `Aqil ibn Abi-Talib, one of the brothers of `Ali, Muslim ibn-`Aqil-Muslim was savagely executed at the hands of `Ubaydullah, after even Yazid had ordered that the rebellion stirring up in `Iraq be quelled without bloodshed, particularly, without the bloodshed of either al-Husayn or Muslim. By this point, al-Husayn had officially made up his mind that he would descend upon Kufa and lead his insurrection against Yazid from there.

Unfortunately, what he did not expect was for the people of Kufa to abandon him, when he needed them the most. In fact, one of the most (notoriously) infamous statements of the betrayal of al-Husayn, by the people of Kufa particularly, was the following, “Our hearts are with you; but, our swords are not with you.”. This was a most devastating blow to the morale of what was left of the ever-dwindling forces of al-Husayn, and there was no turning back: he couldn’t get any help, from anyone else in `Iraq, by virtue of them either being too cowardly to support al-Husayn & stand-up to Yazid, too far away to reach him in time, turned-tail on al-Husayn, or were just tired of fighting other Muslims generally & wanted this on-going conflict to come to an immediate end.

For whatever the reasons, for people bailing on al-Husayn last-minute, it happened; also, there was no way that he could’ve went back to Makkah or Madinah, to get support or refuge, because he was just too far away. Alas, his fate was sealed, and his life came to a tragic end. His final-stand, against Yazid, was at Karbala’, this was truly about one of the most unfairly matched military battles ever: the official accounts of the attendees of this battle vary greatly; but, it’s safe to assume that the forces of al-Husayn were outnumbered by at least 1,000-1; not only was al-Husayn slain at this battle, in a most inhuman way, but, also a whole slew of his own family-members, whom were with him, at Karbala’. along with his entire (what was left of that is) army. This was truly a sad event indeed.

Now, how can we learn & heal from this?
One particular suggestion is to not deny that the atrocities of this day actually happened: these events actually happened, to people beloved by Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah. At the same time, we must also keep this event in its proper context: this was purly politically-driven, power & control were the ultimate prize, let’s not be blinded by this fact, let’s not deny this. People wanted power, and others got it; people pursued what they deemed as justice, and ended up causing more harm than good; there were a lot of betrayals, sides-switching, loyalty-changing, and the like. However, as Muslims, we must not embody these political-events as though they are our burdens to bear: one, we weren’t there to prevent or promote any various political-agendas; if we were there we have absolutely no idea whose side we’d actually be on; it’s really easy to say, “Yea…yea…Ahl-ul-Bayt…all-day!!!”, outside of reality. But, in all reality, many of us may have very well been from among those who wanted `Uthman dead, `Ali dead, al-Hasan & al-Huasayn dead, we really don’t have a clue what conditions our hearts would’ve been in or what decisions that we would’ve made as a result of that.

So, in conclusion, before you attend any Muharram festival, any Muharram event, visit any gravesites of any members of Ahl-il-Bayt: one, make sure that your heart is right with Allah, by making sure that you’re not participating in any celebration, commemoration, festival, act of worship, which is completely against what Allah & His Messenger has allowed for us, as Muslims to partake in; two, make sure that you heart is right with Allah, in regards to your criticisms of either `Uthman, `Ali, Mu`awiyah, al-Hasan or al-Husayn or any other Companion of Muhammad involved in this conflict, leading up to the Massacre of Karbala’, because for whatever they may have did wrong, they are still among the Companions of Muhammad, the greatest generation of Humans to ever walk the face of this earth(al-Kaba’ir), those whom Allah is pleased with & they are pleased with him(Noble Qur’an: Chpt.98, V.8), and many of those who were a part of these conflicts were even promised paradise during their own lifetimes by Muhammad, personally(at-Tirmidhi, Abu-Dawud, ibn-Majah), as well as by virtue of the fact that they had given all that the had for Allah’s service by preserving Islam for us to inherit today, just so that we can have something to debate/argue about, concerning who was more right than who, or who was more wrong than who.(al-Bukhari)

Gareth Bryant/2012

54 responses »

  1. Brother,

    You compared Yazid LA and Muaewiyya LA with Imam Ali AS and Imam Hussain AS? And then you consider them to be of the Ahle Bait AS?

    Ill have what you smoke!!

    Lets just forget the Free Syrian Army, and support Bashar Al Assad, at the end of the day the FSA is causing a huge fitnah, and lets forget Palestine, as they are fighting for Political and Power gains within Israel too.

    i strongly urge you to read a whole book, rather than the quotes in a certain book given to you. First of all it will clarify for you as to who is the Ahle Bait AS, and second of all you need to read the Quran again. Then you will come to a conclusion that, war is forbidden on women and children. Then you will realise that Imam Hussain AS, did not set out for war. Rather he was simply massacred whilst defending his camp along with his 72 companions.

    It is clear after reading your posts, that you wasnt looking at the event of Karbala through a neutral perspective, as you hold Yazid LA and Muaewiyya LA status the same as Imam Hussain AS.

    If you wish to discuss this further with me, and have an open minded to seek the truth, then i will leave my email address below.

    Fee emanillah

    • Firstly, I know what LA means: it means “La`nahullah” or “La`natullahu `alayhi”. But, who are you, to ask Allah to curse a Companion of Muhammad (Peace be upon him)? Mu`awiyah (May Allah be pleased with him) was first & foremost, a Muslim, regardless of his errors; Mu`awiyah was also a Companion of Muhammad, this is proven, by the mere fact that he became a Muslim during the lifetime of Muhammad, met him, learned from him, narrated about him, and died as a Muslim.

      • Gareth someone needs to lesson you in Arabic. .

        A. Lana allah means.. to remove Allahs Blessing. . Doesnt mean that im invoking Allah’s curse upon those filthy dogs (muaewiyya and Yazeed LA)

        History gives us a clear lesson.. on their character.. nothing more needs to be said regarding them.

        Also do you know who killed Ummul momineen Aisha??

        What would you say about the one who killed the mother of all Muslims? ?

      • 1. La`naallah literally means “May Allah curse”…So, yeah, that’s what it means. And, also, if it did not mean that, then why would you always abbreviate this phrase, after the mentioning of both Mu`awiyah (May Allah be pleased with him) & Yazid?!!!

        2. Who gives you the entitlement to refer to people who died as Muslims as “filthy-dogs”, especially those who died as Companions of Muhammad (Peace be upon him)?!!! Who do you think you are?!!!

        3. Who killed `A’ishah (May Allah be pleased with her)?!!! Where do you get this from?!!!

      • I am sorry, but I totally disagree with your idea of the Ahlulbayt. Kindly read the Quran where it reads;

        Say [Oh Muhammad]! Let us call upon our children and your children, our ladies and your ladies, ourselves and yourselves, then we pray so that Allah’s wrath be upon those who are false. (Quran 3:16)

        Who did the Prophet (SAWW) take with him? It was Fatimah-Zahra (AS), Imam Ali (AS), Imam Hassan (AS), Imam Hussein (AS) and that was it! No one was even considered within this group.

        The Ahlulbayt were sorry are Pure and ALLAH(SWT) made them such, NO ONE else can be considered within this group and their chosen progeny (Imams following), Not even close.

        Allah desires but to remove filth from you Oh Ahl al-Bayt and purify you thoroughly. (Quran 33:33)

        You really believe that these characters Mu’awiyah, Yazid and likes can be mentioned in the same breath as the Prophet and His Beloved Family? If you even remotely think that is true, I strongly suggest you dig a lot deeper and read and listen to the sermons that will educate you otherwise.

        I do not doubt that you are well read, educated and extremely bright person. In fact I have very little knowledge and do not claim otherwise.

        But these facts about the Ahlulbayt are very clear to me. They were The Chosen Ones by ALLAH(SWT), the companions were just that nothing more. Yes some were close, but the very close ones, the special ones obeyed the Prophet and His Family, did not rise against Them, did not kill them, did not murder them, but even those who always obeyed were NEVER considered part of the Ahlulbayt. That sir, is a distinction and Honour
        given only to Them to The Chosen Ones – The True Ahlulbayt, The Direct Descendants Of The Holy Prophet.(SAWW).

        Enough Said.

      • 1. You quoted the wrong verse from the Qur’an, it’s not Chpt.3, V.16, it’s actually Chpt.3, V.61. And, also, in the verse, itself, it mentions the wives of Muhammad (Peace be upon him). The proof of this is simply the fact that the verse starts off by mentioning the situation at Najran, where Allah commands Muhammad to confront the Christians at Najran, to take an oath against them, for them disbelieving in the legitimacy of his Prophethood. Allah starts off by commanding Muhammad to call upon his own children to be supporters & witnesses to his Prophethood. Then, He commands Muhammad to call upon his own wives to be supporters & witnesses to his Prophethood. Finally, He commands Muhammad to call himself as a supporter & witness to his own Prophethood. Now, the word “women” is referring to whom? Obviously, it can’t be referring to the children of Muhammad, because the word “children” are already mentioned for both his children & grandchildren. It’s obviously not referring to `Ali (May Allah be pleased with him), and it’s obviously not referring to Muhammad, himself. So, who could this word “women” be possibly referring to? According to the Arabic-Langauge, the word “Woman” also means “Spouse”. And, any & every time that Allah speaks about the Wives of Muhammad, in the Qur’an, the word “women” are used. So, it’s very obvious that just from a linguistic-perspective, that Allah is also referring to the Wives of Muhammad.

    • Then, also, al-Husayn (May Allah be pleased with him) did in fact go to `Iraq, for militarily confrontation, to oppose Yazid, against the staunch advice of the many other surviving Companions, including his very own cousin, `Abdullah ibn`Abbas (May Allah be pleased with them all-together). And, not only was al-Husayn strongly advised not to go to `Iraq, but, he was also advised not to take any of his family-members with him either.

  2. Gareth Bryant, you need to give me strong sources stating as such which you claim.

    And please don’t claim infront of the illiterate audiences that you are a just a muslim belonging to now SECT. Why dont you happily confirm you are a Salafi.

    First of all where did you derive the rule of being an Ahle Bait AS? Through marriage? Then why wasn’t Hazrat Noah AS and Hadhrat Lot AS, wives known as Ahle Bait, in the Quran?

    The only wife that has been considered part of the Ahle Bait AS in the Quran, was Sarah.. Will you like me to quote references?

    [Yusufali 11:73] They said: “Dost thou wonder at Allah’s decree? The grace of Allah and His blessings on you, o ye people of the house! for He is indeed worthy of all praise, full of all glory.

    Now this was not used for the rest of the Prophets AS.

    Now where does it state in the Quran and hadeeth that the Ahle Bait, includes the men who have married into the family?

    This claim is also absurd.

    Gareth Bryant, you stated that Imam Hussain AS, went to Iraq for military confrontation. You know i seriously think that you have made an err, at some point. Question is did Yazeed La nullah, did he take his wife and children with him to Karbala? And what did it mean by Imam Hussain AS taking his women and children with him? Surely anyone in their right sense, would never take their family to war.

    Also you state “Firstly, I know what LA means: it means “La`nahullah” or “La`natullahu `alayhi”. But, who are you, to ask Allah to curse a Companion of Muhammad (Peace be upon him)? Mu`awiyah (May Allah be pleased with him) was first & foremost, a Muslim, regardless of his errors; Mu`awiyah was also a Companion of Muhammad, this is proven, by the mere fact that he became a Muslim during the lifetime of Muhammad, met him, learned from him, narrated about him, and died as a Muslim.”

    Well lets see a few hadeeth regarding the position of the companions, and do all companions deserve to be respected?

    But i wont go to deep into the rest of the companions lets just highlight Muaewiyya La nullahi..

    al-Hasan al-Basri said:

    Muawiyah had four flaws, and any one of them would have been a serious
    offense:

    1. His appointment of trouble makers for this community so that he
    stole its rule without consultation with its members, while there
    was a remnant of the Companions and possessors of virtue among
    them.

    2. His appointment of his son as his successor after him, a drunkard
    and a winebibber who wears silk and plays tunburs.

    3. His claim about Ziyad (as his son), while the Messenger of God
    (PBUH&HF) has said: ‘The child belongs to the bed, and the
    adulterer should be stoned.’

    4. His killing of Hujr and his companions. Woe unto him twice for Hujr
    and his companions.

    Sunni references :
    – History of al-Tabari, English version, The Events of Year 51 AH, v8, p154
    – History of Ibn al-Athir, v3, p242
    – al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, by Ibn Kathir, v8, p130 who mentions the first
    crime as: “His fighting Ali.”
    – History of Ibn Kathir, v3, p242
    – Khilafat Mulukiyat, Syed Abul Ala Maududi, pp 165-166

    And here is the Ahlul Bait AS, narrated by Ummul Momineen Aisha,

    Narrated Aisha:

    One day the Prophet (PBUH&HF) came out afternoon wearing a black cloak (upper garment or gown; long coat), then al-Hasan Ibn Ali came and the Prophet accommodated him under the cloak, then al-Husain came and entered the cloak, then Fatimah came and the Prophet entered her under the cloak, then Ali came and the Prophet entered him to the cloak as well. Then the Prophet recited: “Verily Allah intends to keep off from you every kind of uncleanness O’ People of the House (Ahlul-Bayt), and purify you a perfect purification (the last sentence of Verse 33:33).”

    Sunni reference:

    Sahih Muslim, Chapter of virtues of companions, section of the virtues of the Ahlul-Bayt of the Prophet (PBUH&HF), 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, Arabic version, v4, p1883, Tradition #61.

    Narrated by Umme Salma:

    Another version of the “Tradition of Cloak” is written in Sahih al-Tirmidhi, which is narrated in the authority of Umar Ibn Abi Salama, the son of Umm Salama (another wife of Prophet), which is as follows:

    The verse “Verily Allah intends to … (33:33)” was revealed to the Prophet (PBUH&HF) in the house of Umm Salama. Upon that, the Prophet gathered Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husain, and covered them with a cloak, and he also covered Ali who was behind him. Then the Prophet said: “O’ Allah! These are the Members of my House (Ahlul-Bayt). Keep them away from every impurity and purify them with a perfect purification.” Umm Salama (the wife of Prophet) asked: “Am I also included among them O Apostle of Allah?” the Prophet replied: “You remain in your position and you are toward a good ending.”

    Sunni reference: Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 351,663

    In the tradition of al-Hakim the wording the last question and answer is as follows:

    Umm Salama said: “O Prophet of Allah! Am I not one of the members of your family?” The Holy Prophet replied: “You have a good future but only these are the members of my family. O Lord! The members of my family are more deserving.”

    Sunni reference: al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v2, p416

    Umm Salama said to the Holy Prophet: “Am I also one of them?” He replied: “No. You have your own special position and your future is good.”

    Sunni reference:

    Usdul Ghabah, by Ibn al-Athir, v2, p289
    Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthoor, by al-Suyuti, v5, p198

    I said, “O Prophet of Allah! Am I not also one of your Ahlul-Bayt?” I swear by the Almighty that the Holy Prophet did NOT grant me any distinction and said: “You have a good future.”

    Sunni reference: Tafsir al-Tabari, v22, p7 under the commentary of verse 33:33

    Beside Sahih Muslim and Sahih al-Tirmidhi from which we quoted the Tradition of Cloak on the authority of Aisha and Umm Salama respectively, below are more Sunni references of the Tradition of Cloak who reported both versions of the traditions:

    (3) Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v6, pp 323,292,298; v1, pp 330-331; v3, p252; v4, p107 from Abu Sa’id al-Khudri

    (4) Fadha’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p578, Tradition #978

    (5) al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v2, p416 (two traditions) from Ibn Abi Salama, v3, pp 146-148 (five traditions), pp 158,172

    (6) al-Khasa’is, by an-Nisa’i, pp 4,8

    (7) al-Sunan, by al-Bayhaqi, narrated from Aisha and Umm Salama

    (8) Tafsir al-Kabir, by al-Bukhari (the author of Sahih), v1, part 2, p69

    (9) Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v2, p700 (Istanbul), from Aisha

    (10) Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthoor, by al-Suyuti, v5, pp 198,605 from Aisha and Umm Salama

    (11) Tafsir Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, v22, pp 5-8 (from Aisha and Abu Sa’id al-Khudri), pp 6,8 (from Ibn Abi Salama) (10 traditions)

    (12) Tafsir al-Qurtubi, under the commentary of verse 33:33 from Umm Salama

    (13) Tafsir Ibn Kathir, v3, p485 (Complete version) from Aisha and Umar Ibn Abi Salama

    (14) Usdul Ghabah, by Ibn al-Athir, v2, p12; v4, p79 narrated from Ibn Abi Salama

    (15) Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 11, sec. 1, p221 from Umm Salama

    (16) Tarikh, by al-Khateeb Baghdadi, v10, narrated from Ibn Abi Salama

    (17) Tafsir al-Kashshaf, by al-Zamakhshari, v1, p193 narrated from Aisha

    (18) Mushkil al-Athar, by al-Tahawi, v1, pp 332-336 (seven traditions)

    (19) Dhakha’ir al-Uqba, by Muhibb al-Tabari, pp21-26, from Abu Sa’id Khudri

    (20) Majma’ al-Zawa’id, by al-Haythami, v9, p166 (by several transmitters)

    Here is another authentic variation of “The Tradition of Cloak” which is related to Safiyya who was another wife of the Prophet (PBUH&HF). Ja’far Ibn Abi Talib narrated:

    When the Messenger of Allah noticed that a blessing from Allah was to descent, he told Safiyya (one of his wives): “Call for me! Call for me!” Safiyya said: “Call who, O the Messenger of Allah?” He said: “Call for me my Ahlul-Bayt who are Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husain.” Thus we sent for them and they came to him. Then the Prophet (PBUH&HF) spread his cloak over them, and raised his hand (toward sky) saying: “O Allah! These are my family (Aalee), so bless Muhammad and the family (Aal) of Muhammad.” And Allah, to whom belong Might and Majesty, revealed: “Verily Allah intends to keep off from you every kind of uncleanness O’ People of the House (Ahlul-Bayt), and purify you a thorough purification (Quran, the last sentence of Verse 33:33)”.

    Sunni references:

    al-Mustadrak by al-Hakim, Chapter of “Understanding (the virtues) of Companions, v3, p148. The author then wrote: “This tradition is authentic (Sahih) based on the criteria of the two Shaikhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim).”
    Talkhis of al-Mustadrak, by al-Dhahabi, v3, p148
    Usdul Ghabah, by Ibn al-Athir, v3, p33

    The fact that the gender in later part of Verse 33:33 is switched from feminine to masculine, has led the majority of Sunni commentators to believe that the last part was revealed for Imam Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan and al-Husain, as Ibn Hajar al-Haythami indicated:

    Based on the opinion of the majority of (Sunni) commentators, the saying of Allah :”Verily Allah intends to … (the last sentence of the verse 33:33)” was revealed for Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husain, because of the usage of masculine gender in the word “Ankum” and after that.

    Sunni reference: al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar, Ch. 11, section 1, p220

    Where did you get your Ahle Bait from Gareth Bryant?

    • 1. Well, again, if you would’ve read the article link that I sent in one of my comments (which you didn’t), you would’ve seen that I clearly quoted verses from the Qur’an, as well as quoted authenticated Prophetic-Statements, from reliable collections.

    • 3. Referring to my sources, I’ve extracted my sources from the leading Shi`i, historical, scholar, commonly known as Abu-Minkhaf, from his work, “Maqtal-al-Husayn” & the Sunni, historical, scholar, at-Tabari, who actually used “Maqtal-al–Husayn” as a base for his own historical-work, “Tarikh-ur-Rusul wal-Muluk”.

    • And, as for the opinion of al-Hasan al-Basri (May Allah mercify him): 1. That’s his religious-opinion about Mu`awiyah, and Malik ibn-Anas (May Allah mercify him) said, “The Religious-Opinion of anyone can be freely accepted or rejected, accept the one who occupies this grave (pointing to the grave of Muhammad [Peace be upon him])”. 2. Muhammad (Peace beupon him) had said, “Don’t speak ill my Companions; because if one of you were to give charity, the size of (Mt.) Uhud it wouldn’t equate to one of them giving charity, the size of a Madd (2-handfuls).”.(al-Kaba’ir/The Major-Sins, by Muhammad ibn-`Uthman adh-Dhahabi). Muhammad had used charity as an example that in regards to merits of deeds, no matter how great our deeds may be, our good-actions could never be equal to the good-actions of any of the Companions (May Allah be pleased with them altogether).

    • Moreover, referring to the conflict, itself, it’s very easy to just sit back & pontificate about who was right & who was wrong: we weren’t there to directly witness what had happened, so the result of who was truly right & wrong is with Allah. Regrading the Massacre of Karbala’, obviously, this is Islamically, universally recognized & accepted as being something that shouldn’t have happened & didn’t have to happen, but unfortunately, sadly, it did happen. Also, regarding to these conflicts, particularly between both `Ali & Mu`awiyah, we have no clue as to whose side we would’ve been on. Even the Companions were almost 50/50 split on this issue. Even Sa`d ibn Abi-Waqqas ([May Allah be pleased with him] one of the ten Companions promised Paradise, by name, during their lifetimes, during the lifetime of Muhammad[at-Tirmidhi, Abu-Dawud, ibn-Majah]), the maternal-uncle of Muhammad, thus qualifying Sa`d, himself, as being a legitimate-member of Ahl-il-Bayt, took the side of Mu`awiyah, in this conflict; so, what do you have to say about that?

    • Assalam Ashiq Bhai and Hannah sister,

      I totally agree with both of you, in order to refute the Salafi ( Gareth Bryant ) . He knows nothing on Kalbala and also on Islam, he pretends to but he doesn’t.
      May Allah Azzawajal pour His Blessings on both of you, and increase your knowledge

      Khuda Hafiz

      • 1. Don’t slander me…You’ve just accused me of being a “Salafi”, which I’m not. And, the only reason why you’re accusing me of being a Salafi is because I have an opposing-view & am not Shi`i, which is dead-wrong.

        2. This article is based primarily upon the famous historical-work, “Tarikh-ur-Rusul wal-Muluk”, of at-Tabari, who purposely used the work, “Maqtal-ul-Husayn”, of Abi-Minkhaf, a well-known, probably the most well-known, classic Shi`i-Histroian, as a main-ingredient for his own work.

        So, if you have a problem with my article, by definition, it means that you have a problem with at-Tabari, and by extension, it means that you even have a problem with one of the most respected scholars from among the Shi`i.

      • What’s the point of you each using your own books to argue your own perspectives? You need common ground, and when it comes to polemics, there is no common ground besides the Qur’an. And since the discussion up for debate isn’t laid out in the Qur’an, then I don’t see the point of a debate at all. What will it prove? Will either of you change your opinion?

      • Accidentally posted this ^ reply on the wrong comment.

        Regarding this comment, brother Mukhtar, you don’t need to be so aggressive. It only makes others more defensive and less willing to accept your perspective.

        Brother Gareth, while it’s true that many points in Tabari’s chapter on Yazeed/Karbala are based on Minkhaf’s Maqtal al-Husayn, not all of it is. I’ve read both and Tabari leaves out things Minkhaf relates and adds in things that are not mentioned in Minkhaf at all. So you can’t really make that argument that if we have a problem with Tabari’s version of history then we have a problem with Shi’i scholars. At that, Minkhaf isn’t a *highly respected* Shi’i scholar – especially not in comparison to foundational Shi’i scholars like al-Tusi, al-Saduq, al-Mufeed, etc.

  3. Brother,

    You have to respond with clear sources, and cite references form the books you are quoting.

    I have seen that you have given no Tafseer and have not provided as much proof as i have regarding to who Ahlul Bait AS actually is.
    You using the quranic Surah Al Ahzab 33:33, it addresses two groups, and it addresses as such:

    33:32 O wives of the Prophet, you are not like anyone among women. If you fear Allah , then do not be soft in speech [to men], lest he in whose heart is disease should covet, but speak with appropriate speech.

    33:33 And abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance. And establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet’s] household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification.

    You see the difference? O Wives of the Prophet SAWAS and O people of the house ?

    Or are you going to ignore this fact and go with what you desire to believe?

    • There is no desire involved. In fact, two of the wives of Muhammad, Umm-Salamah Hind bint-Umayyah & Zaynab bint-Jash (May Allah be pleased with both of them), were both cousins of Muhammad; so, what do you have to say about that?

      • My brother refer to the references i have cited for you above.
        If you are under the misconception that the shia only hold the Family of the Prophet SAWAS dear, then you are greatly misinformed.

        Was the Prophet SAWAS, uncle Abu Lahab, not his uncle? What abbas his uncle Abbas? What about Imam Ali AS brother Aqeel? Imam Ali AS brother Jaffar?

        Infact shia believe that Allah SWT named those under the cloak Ahlul Bait AS, nothing added or subtracted.

        But what you are doing is nothing but an act of deperation my brother, you need to view the Ahle Sunnah references I have given you and you will inshallah seek the truth.

        One day the Prophet (PBUH&HF) came out afternoon wearing a black cloak (upper garment or gown; long coat), then al-Hasan Ibn Ali came and the Prophet accommodated him under the cloak, then al-Husain came and entered the cloak, then Fatimah came and the Prophet entered her under the cloak, then Ali came and the Prophet entered him to the cloak as well. Then the Prophet recited: “Verily Allah intends to keep off from you every kind of uncleanness O’ People of the House (Ahlul-Bayt), and purify you a perfect purification (the last sentence of Verse 33:33).”

        Sunni reference:

        Sahih Muslim, Chapter of virtues of companions, section of the virtues of the Ahlul-Bayt of the Prophet (PBUH&HF), 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, Arabic version, v4, p1883, Tradition #61.

        Umm Salamah asks this question by herself and is recorded

        Another version of the “Tradition of Cloak” is written in Sahih al-Tirmidhi, which is narrated in the authority of Umar Ibn Abi Salama, the son of Umm Salama (another wife of Prophet), which is as follows:

        The verse “Verily Allah intends to … (33:33)” was revealed to the Prophet (PBUH&HF) in the house of Umm Salama. Upon that, the Prophet gathered Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husain, and covered them with a cloak, and he also covered Ali who was behind him. Then the Prophet said: “O’ Allah! These are the Members of my House (Ahlul-Bayt). Keep them away from every impurity and purify them with a perfect purification.” Umm Salama (the wife of Prophet) asked: “Am I also included among them O Apostle of Allah?” the Prophet replied: “You remain in your position and you are toward a good ending.”

        Sunni reference: Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 351,66

        My best dua with you.

        And do you wish to be given more refernces regarding the unlawful Amir Muaewiyya LA?

  4. Any how i cited tantamount of references regarding who the Ahlul Bait AS were according to the Ahle Sunnah books, i havent touched the shia sources yet. As i dont deem it necessarily to someone debate using shia sources when the brother im debating belongs to the Salaf School.

    Answer my question, you said you dont belong to any sects.. Forgive me if offended you, but do you cross your arms and pray? Do you roll your trousers up, do you wash you feet whilst performing wudhu? Do you believe the Prophet SAWAS had a black seed in his heart which was washed, before he ascended? Do you believe Hadhrat Abu Talib AS was a Kaffir and Abu Sufyan LA a muslim?

    If the answer is yes to the above questions, then my dear brother you are Definitely a Salafi.

    • Your statement, “…do you cross your arms and pray? Do you roll your trousers up, do you wash you feet whilst performing wudhu? Do you believe the Prophet SAWAS had a black seed in his heart which was washed, before he ascended? Do you believe Hadhrat Abu Talib AS was a Kaffir and Abu Sufyan LA a muslim?
      If the answer is yes to the above questions, then my dear brother you are Definitely a Salafi.”, is by far, one of the dumbest things that I’ve ever read, as a response to any argument, religious or secular.

      How does “crossing one’s arms, on one’s chest, in Salah”, “having one’s pants upon or above one’s ankles”, “washing one’s feet for Wudhu'”, “acknowledging that Abu-Talib died as a Disbeliever”, and that Abu-Sufyan & Mu`awiyah were Believers/Companions”, make one a member of the Salafi-Movement?!!! Even when I used to smoke weed, I had never gotten as high as you were, when you made that statement. You’re smoking something that’s oh…so serious, right now!!! Wow…you’re really religiously-ignorant!!!

      1. Making Salah/praying with one’s hands upon one’s chest is something directly from the religious-practices of Muhammad (Peace be upon him).(Abu-Dawud, Sifat Salat-in-Nabi/The Description of the Prophet’s Prayer [Muhammad Nasruddin al-Albani])

      2. The obligation to keep one’s from being below the ankles is a direct order from Muhammad.(an-Nasa’i)

      3. Washing one’s feet in Wudu’ is from the Qur’an, itself (Noble Qur’an: Chpt.5, V.6); also, it’s something directly from the actions of Muhammad.(ibn-Majah)

      4. The death of Abi-Talib, as a Disbeliever, is mentioned in the Qur’an itself, as well as by Muhammad.(Noble Qur’an: Chpt.9, V.113, Asbab-un-Nuzul/The Reasons of Revealed-Texts [Jalaluddin as-Suyuti], al-Bukhari)

      5. The two-times in which the heart of Muhammad was physically purified.(ar-Rahiq-ul-Makhtum/The Sealed-Nectar [Safiyy-ur-Rahman al-Mubarakfuri], al-Muslim)

  5. there is a hadith to back up what brother sayed ashiq is saying about surah ali Imran verse sixty one. In sahi al-muslim under the merits of Ali ibn Abu Talib: “This hadith has been narrated.on the authority of Shu’ba with the same chain of transmitters. Amir b. Sa’d b. Abi Waqqas reported on the authority of his father that Muawiya b. Abi Sufyin appointed Sa’d as the Governor and said: What prevents you from abusing Abu Turab (Hadrat ‘Ali), whereupon be said : It is because of three things which I remember Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) having said about him that I would not abuse him and even if I find one of those three things for me, it would be more dear to me than the red camelg. I heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) say about ‘Ali as he left behind hrin in one of his campaigns (that was Tabuk). ‘All said to him: Allah’s Messenger, you leave me behind along with women and children. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to him: Aren’t you satisfied with being unto me what Aaron was unto Moses but with this exception that there is no prophethood after me. And I (also) heard him say on the Day of Khaibar: I would certainly give this standard to a person who loves Allah and his Messenger and Allah and his Messenger love him too. He (the narrator) said: We have been anxiously waiting for it, when he (the Holy Prophet) said: Call ‘Ali. He was called and his eyes were inflamed. He applied saliva to his eyes and handed over the standard to him, and Allah gave him victory. (The third occasion is this) when the (following) verse was revealed: “Let us summon our children and your children.” Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) called ‘Ali, Fitima, Hasan and Husain and said: O Allah, they are my family.”

    The complete verse is: “Then whoever argues with you about it after [this] knowledge has come to you – say, “Come, let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves, then supplicate earnestly [together] and invoke the curse of Allah upon the liars [among us]. ”

    This type of trial through prayer is known as Mubahala in Islamic terminology. In this trial both the parties are required to bring their near and dear ones and then invoke the wrath of God upon the liars. The above-mentioned verse was revealed in the year 10 Hijrah on the occasion of a dispute between the Prophet Muhammad (alayhi salatu was salaam) and the Christians of Najran, who like other Christians, maintained that Jesus was the son of god, and therefore god incarnate. when the most convincing arguments could not bring them round, Allah proposed trial by prayer. In this trial the Prophet (alayhi salatu was salaam) summoned the most dear ones of his kith and kin they “Ali, Fatimah, Hassan and Husayn. This shows the love of the Prophet (alayhi salatu was salaam) and his feeling of close relationship with them.

    So for his sons the prophet Muhammad (alayhi salatu was salaam) brought Hassan and Hussayn may allah be please with them both, and for his women he (alayhi salatu was salaam) brought Fatimah Rayhanatur Rasulillah, and for himself he brought Ali Ibn Abu Talib may allah enoble his face

    Furthermore in Tafsir Al-Jalalayn; The Prophet (alayhi salatu was salaam) had called upon the Najrān delegation to do this when they disputed with him about Jesus. They said, ‘Let us think about it and we will come back to you’. The judicious one among them said, ‘You know that he is a prophet, and that every people that has ever challenged a prophet to a mutual imprecation has been destroyed’. They left him and departed. When they went to see the Prophet (alayhi salatu was salaam) , who had set out with al-Hasan, al-Husayn, Fātima and ‘Alī, he said to them [the Najrān delegation], ‘When I supplicate, you say ‘Amen’; but they refrained from this mutual imprecation and made peace with the Prophet (alayhi salatu was salaam) on the condition that they pay the jizya, as reported by Abū Nu‘aym. According to Ibn ‘Abbās [the Prophet (alayhi salatu was salaam) ] said, ‘Had they set out and performed the mutual cursing, they would have gone home and found neither possessions nor family’. It is also reported that had they set out with this intention, they would have been consumed by fire.

    • Okay, but, still, let’s not forget, that in spite of this narration by Sa`d ibn-Abi-Waqqas (May Allah be pleased with him), he still, during the conflict between `Ali & Mu`awiyah (May Allah be pleased with bot of them), had chosen the side of Mu`awiyah. So, how does that even validate Syed Ashiq’s position, to take a narration of someone, to propagate a biased-defense of `Ali, when this same person (the narrator, Sa`d ibn Abi-Waqqas) took the side of the person he opposed (Mu`awiyah), in the exact same conflict? That doesn’t make any sense.

      • There was a very interesting lecture last night by one of our sheikhs.

        He said you can only distinguish the truth because of the existent of falsehood, and the day by the night, good through the bad, and the right through wrong.

        Hence the entire Ulema report about the actions of Yazeed LA and Muaweiyyah LA, they were the wrong ends!! It’s simple by touching history briefly, you conclude that swiftly.

      • In regards to verse 61 in Surah Ali-Imran, according to what Jabir Ibn Abdillah al-Ansari (the great companion of the Prophet) said, the word “sons” refers to al-Hasan and al-Husain, the word “women” refers to Fatimah, and the word “our selves” refer to the Prophet and Ali. Thus Ali is referred as “the self” of the Prophet (Nafs of the Prophet).
        Reference: al-Durr al-Manthoor by al-Hafidh Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, v2, p38

  6. Okay, but, by `Ulama’, who do you mean? Do you mean a group or contingency of scholars who have a very biased-view of Islam, generally, as well as this particular historical-event, and who unwarrantly curse Companions of Muhammad (Peace be upon him), those whom Allah is pleased with & are pleased with Him? Do you mean those groups, or contingencies, of scholars who unfairly favor one person, or groups, in a conflict, over others, when both persons & groups were responsible for the general disunity of the Ummah at that time?

    • I agree with you Gareth I am not saying the wives are not from the family of the prophet (alayhi salatu wa salaam) , I am just saying that verse 61 chapter 3 refers only to Hassan and Husayn (may allah be pleased with them both leaders of the youth in paradise) , as his children, and only Fatimah Az-zahra (may allah be pleased with her the chief mistress of the women of paradise) as his women, and only Muhammad (alayhi salatu wa salaam) and Ali (may allah enoble his face) as himslef thats all I am saying.

  7. But, that’s just one opinion. And, also, we have to look at the continuity of certain terms in the Qur’an. Almost always, when Allah mentions the term “Women”, in the Qur’an, He’s referring to someone’s wives. For example, any & every time at Allah mentions the wives of Muhammad (Peace be upon him), He uses the term “Women”; likewise, whenever Allah mentions the term “Banu or Bani or Bana (Arabic for children)”, it’s almost always used to refer to both male & female simultaneously.

    So, to just break the rank of linguistic-continuity of the Qur’an, to just take isolated opinions of certain scholars, regardless of how great these scholars were, just to attempt to prove a point.

  8. It seems like you put a lot of work into your article. Btw I haven’t read any of the above comments so my points may have already been addressed.

    But in regards to Muawiya:
    1) Marriage does not make someone ahlul bayt. Otherwise 2 of the first 3 caliphs would also be ahlul bayt since the married the daughters of Ali b. Abi Talib. There are specific ahadith that mentioned who are “ahlul bayt.” Example: http://www.sunnah.org/msaec/articles/ahl_albayt.htm Go about half way down (or search for “Abbas” and you’ll see the ahadith I’m referring to).
    2) You should mention ‘Aisha along with Muawiya in fighting against Ali b. Abi Talib after Ali did not pursue the assassins of Uthman. She played a key role in that battle (the battle of Jamal). Not saying you need to say anything else about her, but her participation is a historically accepted fact.

    Regarding Ali’s death:
    His “supporters” that turned on him were the khawarij. That’s how they originated. It’s not accurate to label his assassins as used-to-be-supporters that joined the khawarij movement.

    Regarding transfer of power to Yazid:
    There was a treaty signed between Muawiya and Hassan that when Muawiya died he would pass the caliphate back to ahlul bayt (Hassan or Husayn if Hassan was already dead) rather than passing it on to Yazid. When Hassan was poisoned and dead, Muawiya went back on the treaty and passed it on to his son instead. This is also a historically accepted fact.

    Husayn did not fight Yazid because he wanted revenge. He also did not leave Medina with plans to fight Yazid’s army. The people of Kufa told him they would support him. He was on his way to Kufa when a messenger met him coming back and told him the people of Kufa betrayed him. It was not as simple as them not being willing to fight for him. They told him to come to Kufa and they would defend him, but when he was on his way they planned instead to turn him over to Yazid. Husayn arrived at the land of Karbala, and Yazid’s army was there. That’s where the battle ensued. Husayn would not submit to Yazid’s authority out of principle, but tried his best to avoid a battle between the two groups.
    From your perspective, Husayn’s choice to go to Karbala may have been foolish, but I believe that is only because you do not fully understand the situation historically and you do not have all the evidence available to you that would show you otherwise.

    The events of Karbala and the motives of Husayn were NOT politically driven. Remember, Shi’at Ali believe that Husayn had a legitimate right to not only political leadership, but spiritual leadership of the ummah as well.

    A side note – to tell a Shi’a to respect the companions of the prophet based on Sunni books of ahadith is a waste of time. if you want to prove a point to someone, use references that they consider legitimate. And using the Qur’an of course is legitimate, but double check with Shi’a sources on if the tafseer of those ayat are even the same. They usually aren’t (since the ahadith are often difference as well).

    • 1. Regarding the beginning of your comment, I’ve actually covered this in another article:

      https://garethbryant.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/theperfectsolutiontothewholeahlulbaytissue

      This article explains, in detail how expansive Ahl-ul-Bayt truly is.

      2. The reason why I did not mention `A’ishah (May Allah be pleased with her) is because her significance in the conflict between `Ali & Mu`awiayh (May Allah be pleased with both of them) was drowned-out & donw-played, for two main reasons: one, in this conflict, she & her army were just a minor force to contend to in comparison to the army of Mu`awiyah; two, her army was very easily defeated by the army of `Ali.

      3. In reference to those who turned on `Ali, they were truly, initially the followers fo `Ali, but, they strongly disagreed with his agreement to divide the territories of the Ummah with Mu`awiyah. And, furthermore, the Khawarij existed way before this conflict even began. Muhammad (Peace be upon him) had already prophesied the emergence of the Khawarij, and they initially emerged during the Khilafah of `Uthman (May Allah be pleased with him).

      4. If al-Husayn (May Allah be pleased with him) didn’t want to confront Yazid/the forces of Yazid, then, why did he leave al-Madinah, to then go to Kufa, on a promissory-note that he would be given support & protection, from the people of Kufa? He was duly warned by many of the surviving Companions (May Allah be pleased with them all-together), including/especially his own cousin, Abdullah ibn`Abbas (May Allah be pleased with him). However, he went on his own accord, anyway. Whydid he go to Kufa, while he could’ve stayed in al-Madinah? It’s not like Yazid was going to send an army to kill-off al-Husayn in al-Madinah, because if he had really wanted to do that, he wouldn’t have waited until al-Husayn had reached Kufa to send an army against him.

  9. Great Answer Hannah I like it.. But I wish to clarify something.

    Gareth Bryant, my dear brother can you please tell what literature have you been reading, and what school of thought did that author belong to?

    You keep claiming that you ain’t a salafi or wahabbi or any other extremist self destructive Muslim.. And you are just a Muslim.. Then in that case you must be the line on a graph which best fits?!

    Where have you sourced your practises from?

    None of which you believe comes from strong Sunnah.. And check this out.. Ask your teachers this or better even open your literature up and read.

    According to your literature you will find the following

    Relatives of the prophet SAWAS:

    Abu Talib AS – Kaffir (uncle)
    Amina AS – Kaffir (mother)
    Abdullah AS – Kaffir (father)
    Abdul Mutallib AS – Kaffir (grandfather)

    Now lets look at the following:

    Abu Sufyan (Muslim)
    Muaewiyya (Muslim)
    Hind (Muslim)
    Yazeed I (Muslim)

    Now I ask you to study just each of their characters, and what they contributed for Islam and please use the Sunna source.. And give me a sound conclusion as to who was a kaffir and who was a Muslim..

    This time please quote the book it’s volume and page number….

    Ya Ali AS

    • All of the persons whom you’ve mentioned (`Abdullah, Aminah, `Abd-ul-Muttalib, Abu-Talib), respectively, did in fact die upon Shirk, which means they did in fact die as Disbelievers, and there is absolutely no record of any of them dying upon Tawhid. Allah clearly mentions in the Qur’an that, “Indeed, Allah has made the Paradise forbidden for whomever commits Shirk with Allah.”.(Noble Qur’an: Chpt.5, V.72; Asbab-un-Nuzuzl/The Reasons of Revelation, Jalal-ud-Din as-Suyti; Tafsir-ul-Jalalayn, Jalal-ud-Din al-Muhallali & Jalal-ud-Din as-Suyuti) And, even in the collections of Prophetic-Statements, it’s mentioned that Aba-Talib will receive the most-lenient punishment of the Fire, but that he will still be in the Fire, by virtue of the fact that he died as a Disbeliever, upon Shirk.(al-Muslim) Oh, and, by the way…you forgot to mention Abu-Lahab, one of the uncles of Muhammad, whom was also in the Fire, and he was promised the Fire, personally, by Allah, 10-years prior to his death.(Noble Qur’an: Chpt.111, Asbab-un-Nuzul, Tafsir-ul-Jalalayn)

      Now, referring to what you’ve mentioned about the Companions, (Abu-Sufyan, Hind, Mu`awiyah) respectively…well, it’s just that…they were Companions: they were people whom became Muslims during the lifetime of Muhammad (Peace be upon him), they knew him personally, met with him, and Mu`awiayh even narrated from him. So, be very careful when you choose to open your mouth about any of the Companions (May Allah be pleased with them all-together), because, speaking ill of any of the Companions, unfairly, to purposely discredit or mock them, is actually a Major-Sin.(al-Kaba’ir/The Major-Sins, Muhammad ibn-`Uthman adh-Dhahabi)

      • Gareth my brother… I dont really like to tangle myself into debates.. because its back breaking and time consuming.. depending on how ill informed and illiterate the subject is.

        But however you never answered my first questions.. regarding to where you get your teachings from.. which books.. and what school of thought your mentors adhere to?.

        Maybe the questions are too personal or direct. . But you continuously claim that you aint a salafi or a wahabi.. and you are just a Muslim. . Yet your whole aqidah has been derived from the Salafi school.

        How can you even call Abdullah Kaffir? Do you even know what his name means.. and prove it to me as how was Abu Jahl related to the Prophet SAWAS??

        Infact I openly challenge you to a debate. .. me the Shia of Imam Ali AS.. will wish to debate you in a civilised manner..

        You choose the topic.. but when you bring evidence or hadeeth it has to be from the shia sources. . And I will quote hadeeth from ahle sunnah..

        Inshallah you will accept.

      • 1. My sources of knowledge hail from texts & persons whom have lived at least 6-8-centuries before the usage of the word “Salafi” or the concept of the “Salafi-Movement” was ever incepted. It is ridiculously arrogant, ignorant & immature, on your part, to assume that I’m a member of a sectarian religious group, just because I don’t share your religious-views.

        2. I’ve never said that Abu-Jahl was a relative of Muhammad (Peace be upon him). However, what is in fact true is the fact that in all reality, all of the members of Qabilati-Quraysh/the Tribe of Qurasyh were, and still are, relatives of one another.

        3. Why should I use Shi`i-sources for any debate with you? Likewise, why should you have to use Sunni-sources in any debate with me? If you really believe that your sources are concrete, then, just use your own sources & I’ll use my sources.

      • Brother ok… on paltalk I will debate you.. my add there is syedali110..

        And be prepared.. I want the name of the book volume number and page number whenyou from them.

        See you there

      • What’s the point of you each using your own books to argue your own perspectives? You need common ground, and when it comes to polemics, there is no common ground besides the Qur’an. And since the discussion up for debate isn’t laid out in the Qur’an, then I don’t see the point of a debate at all. What will it prove? Will either of you change your opinion?

  10. I find it really ironic that the only reason why People are disagreeing with what I’ve written is simply because it doesn’t conform with a biased, monopolized persuasion of how these events took place. Had I written this article based upon that same biased & monopolized narrative, none of you who’ve disagreed with what I’ve written would have anything to say about my article.

  11. And, by the way @SyedAshiq: saying “Ya Fulan-Fulan/So-and-So” who is physically-dead is a form of Shirk. The Vocative Ya is only to be used in terms of calling upon Allah, when Allah refers to something within the Qur’an, requesting something from someone who’s actually physically-alive, because the dead cannot benefit anyone & they cannot hear what you request from them.(Noble-Qur’an: Chpt.27, V.80)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s