|
| |
The Martyrdom of Hadhrat
Al-Imam Sayyidina Husayn
(Radhi Allahu Ta'ala Anhu)
In Islam, it is binding on every Muslim to acknowledge
Allah as the Sovereign, the Master, the King and the Absolute overlord
in his moral, social, cultural, economic and political spheres of life.
The Holy Qur'an reiterates this fundamental doctrine repeatedly.
I will quote only a few short verses:
"Say: I seek refuge in the Rabb (Lord) of mankind,
the King of mankind." (114:1-2)
"Say: O Allah! Master of all the Kingship" (3:26)
"Is not Allah the best of all judges" (95:8)
"No one has the authority to pass judgment except Allah"
(6:57)
"To Him belongs whatever is in the Heavens and in the Earth,
and all that lies between them, and all that is beneath the soil"
(20:6)
According to this principle, then, it follows that anyone who holds
power and rules in accordance with the laws of Allah could undoubtedly
be viceregent of the Supreme Ruler. In such a capacity, i.e., by virtue
of his delegated authority, he will not be authorized to exercise any powers
other than those delegated to him.
"It is He Who had made you viceregent on the earth"
(35:39)
The Khaliphate granted by Allah to the faithful is the popular viceregency
and it is not limited to any family, clan or race etc. And even in this
context, the guiding principle that determines superiority of one individual
over the other depends solely on his piousness and good moral character
(taqwa) which serves as the sole criterion.
"Surely the noblest of you in the sight of Allah is he who
is the most righteous" (49:13)
In view of this limitation on his authority and powers, the head
of the state shall not function in an autocratic but in a consultative
(shura) manner. He is required to discharge his duties in consultation
with persons holding responsible positions in the government and with the
elected representatives of the people. This fundamental principle that
in an Islamic State, the government should be constituted and run in mutual
consultation with people is clearly set out in the Qur'an. The Chapter
which contains this verse is itself given the designated title/name of
'Al-shura'. Allah says in Ayat 38:
"Conduct their affairs with mutual consultation" (42:38)
This injunction has come to be known popularly in our times as the
basic democratic principle of Islam. In his book, Introduction to Islam,
Dr. M. Hamidullah elaborates this point in the following words:
"Islam attaches no importance to the external forms of government.
It is satisfied if two conditions are fulfilled:
-
the well-being of man in both worlds is aimed at, and
-
the Shari'ah (Divine Law) is applied."
To further clarify, he states that "the constitutional question
takes a secondary place and a republic, a monarchy, or a joint-rule, among
other forms of government, are all valid in the Islamic Community."
When discussing the background and the turmoil that lead to the
declaration by Amir Muawiya to appoint his son Yazid as his successor,
we must bear this in mind that it was not the external form of government
per se which alone caused Hazrat El-Imam Husain (Radhi Allahu Ta'ala Anhu)
to take exception and vehemently oppose Yazid's succession after his father's
death which occurred four years after his appointment as an heir-apparent
or crown-prince was initially made.
It was the abuse of power by Yazid which made it impossible for
Hazrat Imam Husain (Radhi Allahu Ta'ala Anhu)to put up with the prevailing
state of affairs. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely!
It was indeed the absolutely corrupt power of hereditary monarchy which
became the bone of contention because the indications and signs of such
corruption had already become quite apparent. The beginning of the gradual
decline of the moral fibre of the Islamic society was gaining a rapid momentum.
As a matter of fact later developments proved it to be so. The tragic consequence
was that Islam never recovered from that political epidemic and the creeping
moral cancer.
Sovereignty of Allah was marginalised and the Rule of law was
openly jeopardised. These two fundamental concepts received lip-service,
and remained a mere theory. Everyone was aware of the fact that these human
characteristics have been commonplace among monarchies throughout human
history. Imam Husain (Radhi Allahu Ta'ala Anhu) had the wisdom, and the
deep insight deep inside to recognize that the trends of corruption and
gage the speed of the potential destruction. He felt he had to try to stop
it at any cost. He knew it was his religious duty to follow Allah's Commands
to try his best and leave the rest to Allah as the He clearly directs us
all:
"These are the people who, if We establish them in the land,
will establish Salah, (ritual service of worship) and pay Zakah, (religious
dues) enjoin justice and forbid evils; the final decision of all affairs
is in the hands of Allah" (22:41)
Hazrat Imam Husain (Radhi Allahu Ta'ala Anhu) had no difficulty
in recognizing the fact that the breach of a Divine Trust (of governing
people) placed in the hands of a ruler of an Islamic state was a very grave
matter that could cause much irreparable harm to the Community and future
generations.
Allah commands:
"Allah commands you to give back the trusts to their rightful
owners, and when you judge between people, judge with fairness" (4:58-59)
Let me explain: Just as a servant is entrusted with certain property
for which he is responsible to the master, the king or the ruler is entrusted
with the care of the people and guarding their rights. Accordingly, in
order to discharge his duties, he is responsible in the first place to
Allah Who is the Real Master, and then to people in relation to whom he
occupies a position of a servant.
The signs of grossly abusing the power and instances of nonchalant
disregard of the terms of the sacred trust were becoming apparent for anyone
to see.
For instance it was not difficult to observe that:
-
politics was getting more and more devoid of morality and ethics.
-
the king, the members of his family, the nobility and the governing class
were being given preferential treatment and were often exempt from many
routine religious or legal obligations.
-
the king was becoming the master of the life, property and honour of his
subjects - sovereignty of man was replacing sovereignty of Allah.
-
justice, law and order were being replaced by oppression, disorder and
injustice.
-
a life of luxury, pomp and splendour was becoming the norm and the cherished
goal.
-
instead of encouraging people to fear Allah and obey the laws, strengthen
their faith and conscience, they were being bought and sold through enticing
offers of power, position and gold.
-
distinctions between the haram and halal and the desirable and the doubtful
were getting blurred; undesirable social activities were spreading like
wildfire.
Granted that in the time under discussion these evils were not yet
as fully developed as they did in later years. Nevertheless the trends
were obvious to all those who cared about such things. The potential for
total destruction of the true spirit of Islamic life was so very apparent.
However it was clear that the rulers were not really functioning
as servants of humanity as they were supposed to. How then to deal with
the flagrant breach of the divine trust?
The answer to this question is to be found in the Holy Qur'an
which lays down the ground rules of a clear-cut policy:
"O you with Iman! Stand firmly for justice, giving
witness for Allah, maybe therein your own loss, or of your parents or of
your relations." (4:135)
And the basic philosophy of life, or philosophy of Shuhud (Martyrdom),
if you will, has never been a hidden secret:
"Say you, 'Undoubtedly, my prayer, and my sacrifices,
and my living and my dying are all for Allah, who is the Lord of all the
worlds'" (6:162)
Allah Ta'ala clearly declares that:
"their mischief is more grievous than killing" (2:191),
and also:
"And obey not him whose hearts We have made neglectful
of Our remembrance and who followed his own desires and whose affair exceeded
the trust." (18:28)
Such are the clear instructions and guidelines for those who care to stand
up to the bullies and try to reform the society. Evidently, to each according
to his capacity and merit and piety.
People are free to interpret history in the light of their own
conceptions of truth and fairness or in the darkness of their own narrow
and biased mental blind spots. Some people may and some have actually interpreted
Imam Husain's reactions and actions as mere acts of political nature. People
with such a non-ideological, materialistic mind-set may also consider Hazrat
El-Imam Husain's (Radhi Allahu Ta'ala Anhu) actions to be imprudent and
unwise bravado in view of the heavy odds stacked against him.
In order to bring a reasonably fairness to this discussion, it is important
to try to take into account some other relevant aspects of the total scenario.
In this context, as the story unfolds according to various reports, two
developments deserve to be briefly mentioned with their necessary background:
-
According to Tabari in Volume 6, page 226 (d. 923, a polyhistor whose works
on the Holy Qur'an, the law and history are a marvel of erudition), El-Imam
Husain received the news on his way towards Kufa that his emissary Muslim
bin Aqeel was imprisoned and then slain by the authorities. This changed
the whole picture. Imam Husain felt it necessary to inform all his companions
about the devastating repercussions of this unexpected turn of events,
particularly to those Beduins who, with a view to support him, had joined
him on his way to Kufa. He then gave them all permission to leave him and
return back if they so chose. Taking advantage of this offer, almost all
the Beduins left and only those who had come with him all the way from
Mecca stayed with him.
-
Tabari (Vol. 6, pg. 220) gives us an account of how Hazrat Imam Husain
took the initiative at the appropriate time to offer the olive branch.
Tabari's account is based on the report by El-Imam Sayyid Muhammad al-Baqar,
the grandson of Hazrat El-Imam Husain (Radhi Allahu Ta'ala Anhu). According
to this report (assuming this to be an accurate and a more reliable version,
as there are other reports too), Imam Husain's offer contained three alternatives.
He made it clear that any of the three options would be acceptable to him.
The offer was:
-
Let me return back to where I came from, i.e., Mecca or Medina.
-
Let me go to Yazid.
-
Let me move out of here, out of your way, and proceed to the frontiers
(where Jihad activities were in progress). Imam Husain made this offer
to Umar bin Sa'd bin abi Waqqas, who accepted it and conveyed his acceptance
to his superior, Ibn Ziad. The response from Ibn Ziad was in the negative.
He insisted that Imam Husain must first take the oath of religions at his
hand and only then Imam Husain's proposal would be considered. Whereupon,
Imam Husain retorted: "No, by Allah No! This will never happen."
Now, the point to be born in mind is that Imam Husain did not hesitate
to a) take appropriate steps to face the music and let people go freely,
and b) explore reasonable, peaceful means of settling the dispute -- amicably
and at the appropriate time!
After taking this into consideration, let us now resume the discussion
of numerical superiority and the situation of tremendous odds which Imam
Husain (Radhi Allahu Ta'ala Anhu) faced. Suffice to say that those who
have high aims and lofty ideals know it very well that numerical superiority
has never been a deterring factor for those who stand for the Truth. Here
lies the greatness of Hazreat El-Imam Husain (Radhi Allahu Ta'ala Anhu)
who stands a head and shoulders above his contemporaries: he chose to follow
the most beautiful example of his own beloved grandfather, Sayyidina wa
Mawlana Muhammad (Sall Allahu alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallim) as well as the examples
of so many other great reformers who started off with an even smaller minority
-- a minority of no more than one!! As far as Hazrat Imam Husain (Radhi
Allahu Ta'ala Anhu) was concerned, it was nothing but a religious act,
a religious duty that had to be fulfilled even at the coast of his own
life and the lives of his dear ones. He felt strongly that the mischief
(fitnah) had to be nipped in the bud. This effort of his was quite in accord
with the very aim of human society which is none other than a) controlling
temptations towards mischief in an environment where it would be wiser
to diminish the occasions in which such evil could occur, and b) remedying
the damage already done.
Is it not an inherent human right of every child of Adam and
Eve to enjoy the liberty of conscience to choose their own ideology and
also defend their convictions? How then can Imam Husain (Radhi Allahu Ta'ala
Anhu) be denied his right to defend his convictions and also to establish
the fundamental Islamic doctrine of religious tolerance at the same time
-- all in obedience to Allah's commands? Is it also not the case that every
Muslim is duty bound to not only establish the Sovereignty of Allah on
earth, but also to make it possible for everyone to exercise their liberty
of conscience?
Let's all reiterate once again that there is no objective more
meaningful than the cherished dedication to establish on earth Allah's
Kingdom and His Sovereignty. Can anyone declare this philosophy of life
and death in words which are more comprehensive than the beautiful Qur'anic
exhortation:
"Say, my Salah (prayer) and my sacrifice and my living and
my dying are all for Allah Who is the Lord of all the worlds" (6:162)
Excerpted from the keynote address given by Syed Mumtaz Ali at the philosophy
of Martyrdom Conference held in Toronto, Canada in1998.
Back
|
1_small.jpg)
