 | | Introduction | | The beliefs of the people of Kufa | | Analysing the comments of S.M.A Jafri | | The participation of the Sahaba and their sons in killing Hadhrath Muslim bin Aqeel (as) | | Naming and shaming the Nasibi killers of Imam Hussain (as) | | So who supports the Nasibi killers of Imam Hussain (as)? | | Did the tragedy of Karbala highlight the Shi’a / Sunni schism? | | The Imams criticism of ‘their’ Shi’a | | Conclusion |
| |  | | | | You can email the details of this article to a friend. | |  |
| So who supports the Nasibi killers of Imam Hussain (as)?
It is quite logical that those that deemed Yazeed to be the rightful khalifa, were the same individuals that killed Imam Hussain (as). We the Shi’a distance ourselves from Yazeed and his supporters. So Ansar, kindly tell us, do you? Do the Ahl’ul Sunnah and Nasibi express hatred towards those that supported Yazeed and killed Imam Hussain (as)? Unfortunately this is not the case. Nasibi claiming to adhere to the Sunni faith have written, praised and defended Yazeed as a pious man. We have Pakistani Hanafi scholar Mahmood Abadi who wrote "Khilafath Muawiya aur Yazeed”- where he praised Yazeed, deeming the method of ruling used by Hadhrath Umar and Yazeed to be the same.
Had the matter stopped there then no doubt that would be proof in itself, but what Ansar are hiding from their followers is the fact that their Salaf Imam took ahadith from those that killed Imam Hussain (as). Proof of guilt lies with ‘association’ those with blood on their hands will have no shame / guilt in taking hadith from the killers of Hussain (as) since these are their descendants. Those who had no part in killing the Imam (as) would naturally revile his killers and have no association with these killers on matters pertaining to Deen. The ultimate criterion for determining WHOM the actual killers of Hussain (as) lies in hadith. No doubt a group whose Salaf ancestors supported the Khilafath of Yazeed and killed Imam Hussain (as) will have no shame in taking hadith from those same individuals.
Whilst we deem the cursing of Yazeed, Ibn Sad, Ibn Ziyad etc to be a compulsory act, compare this to the respect afforded to Imam Hussain (as)’s killers by the Ahl’ul Sunnah Ulema…
Umar bin Sad bin Abi Waqqas
Dhahabi whilst writing on the life of Ibn Sa’d states in Siyar Al-Aalam al-Nubla Volume 4 page 349:
“Umar bin Sa’d lead the army that killed Imam Hussain (as), the Mukhthar killed him…Imam Nasai has narrated traditions from him”.
Ibn Hajr Asqalani writes:
“Umar Ibn Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas Zuhri Abu Hafs Madani lived in Kufa .He narrated traditions from his father and Abu Said al Khudri. His son Ibraheem and grandson Abu Bakr bin Hafs, Abu Isaac Al Subay'ee, Ayzaar bin Harees, Yazeed bin Abi Maryam , Qathadha, Zuhri and Yazeed bin Habeeb and others have narrated hadith from him. Ajli commented that he narrated hadith from his father, many took narrations from him, he is counted amongst the Tabieen, and he is Thiqah (highly reliable), he killed Al Hussain”
Tahdeeb al Tahdeeb Volume 7 page 450-451
The book can also be downloaded from a Wahabi/Salafi website:
 Tahzeb al-Tahzeb, Vol 7 No. 747 - (Cached)
Another Sunni scholar Jamalalddin Abi al Hajaj Yusuf al Mizzi in his detailed and esteemed Rijal book “Tahdeeb al Kamal” under under the topic “Umar ibn Sa’d” records:
“Ahmed ibn Abdullah al’Ajli said: He is the one that killed Hussain, and he is a thiqah (trustworthy) Tabiee.”
Vol 21 No. 4240
This ‘reliable’ Umar bin Sad was the son of the Sahabi Sa'd bin Waqqas, about him Imam Bukhari wrote in Tareekh al Sagheer:
“When Imam Hussain arrived in Kerbala, Umar bin Sa'd was the first individual that cut the tent ropes”
Tareekh al Sagheer, Volume 1, page 75
From here it should have dawned on Ansar that the killers of Imam Hussain (as) were Nasibis. Your Salaf followed their way and deemed these figures to be reliable / respected personalities, basing the cornerstone of Deen – hadith in accordance with traditions that had been passed down by them.
Ubaydullah bin Ziyad
On Ibn Ziyad, Ibn Hajr Asqalani states:
“He is 'UbaydAllah bin Ziad , the prince of Kufa for Mu'awiyah and his son Yazid , and he is the one who prepared the armies from Al Kufa to fight Al Hussain until he was killed in Karbala . He was known as Ibn Marjanah and she is his mother (Marjanah) .
Ibn Asakir has mentioned for him a "translation" in "Tarikh Dimashq" and he was mentioned in Sunan Abi Dawood… And he narrated from Sa'ed bin Abi Waqas and Mu'awiyah and Ma'qel bin Yasar and Ibn Umayyah the brother of Bani Ja'dah . And from those who narrated from him are Al HAsan al Basri and Abu al MAlih bin Usama.”
T`ajeel al Munfa Bazawaid Rijal al Aimah al Arbah, page 180
The book can also be downloaded from one of the favourite website of Wahabies/Salafies:
No. 647
Ibn Kathir in Al Bidayah wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 page 1252 Under the topic ‘Ibn Ziyad’ also recorded the place of Ibn Ziyad in the Sunni Hadith works.
 Al Bidayah wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 page 1252
If the Ansar claim that they bear enmity towards the Shi’a as they killed Imam Hussain (as) could they be so kind to comment on why their madhab take hadith from those that killed him? This proves that their leading recorders were at peace with taking hadith from the killers of Imam Hussain (as). Ansar, you claim to be the true adherents of Ahl’ul bayt (as) tell us, would true lovers of Ahl’ul bayt (as) take traditions from their killers?
If some ignorant Nasibi is still going to assert their ancestor Ibn Ziyad as Shia then allow us to present the words of Ibn ziyad which clearly proves that just like other Nasibis Ibn Ziyad also deemed Yazid as his Imam. Ibn Kathir records that Ibn Ziyad wrote to Umar Ibn Sa`d:
“Become obstacle between Hussain and water, treat them in the way Ameer al Momineen Uthman was treated and ask him and his companions to give byah to Ameer al Momineen Yazid bin Muawiyah”
al Bidayah wal Nihayah (Urdu) Volume 8 page 1058
Ahmed Bin Daud Abu Hanifa Dinwari records the statement of Ibn Ziyad:
“I killed Al Hussain due to the reason that he revolted against our Imam [Yazid] and the very Imam[Yazid] sent me the message to kill Al Hussain. Now if the murder of Hussain is a sin then Yazid is responsible for it”
Akhbaar Tawaal, page 279 (Egypt) by Ahmed Bin Daud Abu Hanifa Dinwari
Hence we came to know that Ibn Ziyad likewise prominent Sunni scholars deemed Yazid as one of the caliphs of Islam or Ameer al Momineen. We will inshallah elaborate on this in our Seventh Chapter.
“I killed Al Hussain on the orders of Yazid to kill him otherwise he would kill me therefore I chose to kill Hussain”
Tareekh Kamil, Volume 4 page 55 (Egypt)
Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti writes in Tareekh Khulfa, page 140:
“Yazid wrote his ruler in Iraq Ibn Ziyad for the murder of Hussain”
We read that it was Yazid who gave orders to Ibn Ziyad for the murder of Imam Hussain[as] and those people who deemed Yazid as their caliph and Ibn Ziyad as their ruler made the instructions of Yazid practical. The case is clear like mirror. The army which Abu Bakar sent during his caliphate deemed him as their caliph not somebody else, same was the case with Umar when he send troops to Iraq, Iran and Syria.Those armies followed the instructions of their respective caliphs because they deemed them their caliphs or Imams and suppose if there was someone who didn’t deem Umar or Abu Bakar as his caliph, he could have easily refused to follow the instructions what ever the result might have been. Thus we see that Ibn Ziyad & Co. thoroughly obeyed Yazid without any hesitation.
Shabath bin Rib’i
The Ansar had claimed that the Shi’a of Kufa had written letters to Imam Hussain (as) inviting him to join them in Kufa. One of the leading figures who no doubt Ansar will claim was Shi’a was Shabath bin Rib’i. His writing to Imam Hussain (as) is stated clearly in History of Tabari English translation, Volume 10 pages 25-26 and Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu) Vol 8 page 1013.
We should point out that neither do we take hadith from this individual, nor do we praise him. He had no link to the Shi’a madhab. This ‘betrayer’ whom the Ansar would no doubt label as Shi’a is actually an authority narrator in the eyes of Ahl’ul Sunnah.
Dhahabi writes on him in Siyar Al-Aalam al-Nubla, Volume 4 page 150:
“This is the individual that rebelled against Imam Ali, he rejected the arbitration, and then subsequently repented…he narrated hadith on the authority of ‘Ali, Hudhaifa. Muhammad bin Ka’b Kurdhee and Sulayman Timee took hadith from him in Sunan Daud”
Ibn Hajr writes in Tahdeeb al Tahdeeb, Volume 4 page 303:
“Shabath bin Rb'i al Tamimi AL Yurbo'i Abu 'Abd al Quddous Al Kufi, narrated from Hudayfa and Ali, and from those who narrated on him Mhammad bin Ka'eb Al Qarzi and Sulayman A Tamimi …. DarQutni states that he (Shabath) was a caller (Mu'azzen) for Sajah. Ibn Habban mentioned him among the truthworthy (Thiqa) and states that he committed wrongs, Bukhari and Muslim have narrated hadith on his authority where Fatima [r] had asked to be given a Servant۔ Al 'Ajali said that this is the first individual that assisted in the killing of ‘Uthman and also participated in the killing of Hussain [r].”
Tahzeb al-Tahzeb - (Cached)
We appeal to justice. Examine the life of this Nasibi / Khwaarijee. No rational person would ever conclude that he was a Shi’a of Ahl’ul bayt (as). This so called ‘Shi’a” Kufan that wrote letters to Imam Hussain (as) is a narrator of your Saha Sittah – Sunan Nasai and Abu Daud – you deem him to be an authority figure. Despite his writing to the Imam (as) he can never be defined as Shi’a – he never was a true Shi’a – simply a troublemaker who dedicated his entire life to playing an integral role in dissension. Despite this Imams of Ahl’ul Sunnah Nasai and Abu Daud deemed him to be a reliable source – tell us Afriki should we deem the killers of Imam Hussain (as) to be reliable honest individuals – or should we distance ourselves from such personalities? We should point out to Nasibi al Afriki that the harsh reality is it was your Salaf that invited Imam Hussain (as) and then subsequently killed him – that is why you still love the individuals and prove your appreciation for them by narrating hadith on their authority. Would you respect and rely on the words of an individual that murdered your grandson? If not, then why do you respect and accept the word of those that killed the grandson of Rasulullah (s)? Is such behaviour not an insult to the memory of Imam Hussain (as) and Rasulullah (s)? Would true followers of Ahl’ul bayt (as) behave in such a manner?
Some more proofs of the killers of Imam Hussain [as] being Nasibis while supporters of Imam Hussain [as] being Shia
Proof one
When Imam Hussain [as] left Makka and arrived at a place near Kufa, upon the orders of Hasees bin Tamim he was met by Hur bin Yazid who was accompanied by 1000 of his army men. Hur bin Yazid remained with Imam Hussain [as] so that he could not let Hussain [as] go to Madina and then both of those groups reached at Nainawa. Suddenly there appeared a rider on a fast mount coming from Kufa. He was bearing weapons and carrying a bow on his shoulder. They all stopped and watched him. When he reached there he greeted Hur and his followers but did not greet al Hussain and his followers. He handed Hur a letter from Ibn Ziyad. It said the following:
“… When this letter reaches you and my messenger comes to you, make al Hussain come to a halt. Let him stop at an open place without protection and water…”
History of Tabari, Volume 19 page 102
Yazid bin Ziyad bin al Muhasir Abu al-Sha`tha al Kindi who was with al Hussain [as] looked at the messenger of Ibn Ziyad and recognized him. He asked him:
“Are you Malik bin Nusayr al Baddi? The other replied: “Yes”. He was the member of the tribe of Kindah. Yazid bin Ziyad exclaimed: “May your mother be deprived of you! What is the business you have brought!”. The other man retorted: “What is this that I have brought, I have obeyed my Imam and have remained faithful to my oath of allegiance”. Abu al-Sha`tha responded: You have been disobedient to your Lord and have obeyed your imam in bringing about the distruction of your soul. You have aquired shame and punishment of Hell-fire.Indeed God has said: “ We have made them imams, who summon people to the Hell-fire and on the Day of Resurrection they will not be helped”. You imam is one of those”
History of Tabari, Volume 19 page 102
Dear readers, who was this messenger of Ibn Ziyad Malik bin Nusayr? This was the same individual who approached Imam Husasin (as) on the day of Ashur when he [as] fell from his horse suffering from severely injuries and struck him [as] on the head with his sword. The sword cut the hood of his (as) cloak and injured his head.
See: History of al Tabari, Volume 19 page 153
The words of that brutal person i.e “I have obeyed my Imam and have remained faithful to my oath of allegiance” clearly shows that he deemed Yazeed [la] to be his imam which is a conclusive proof of him being aloof from the madhab of Ali/Hussain [as], and his association with the Sunni madhab that deems Yazeed [la] to be their 6th imam a belief that Sahih Bukhari proves that Abdullah bin Umar the son of second caliph adhered to.
Proof Two
When Muslim bin Aqeel [as] was taking bayah from the Kufans who had gathered there on account of their disaffection with with the tyranny that the Bani Umayyah were subjecting them to, Yazeed [la] received a letter from Kufa written by Abdullah bin Muslim al Hadrami which contained the following text:
“Muslim bin Aqeel has come to Kufa and the Shia have given the oath of allegiance to him on behalf of al Hussain bin Ali. If you have any need of Kufah then send a strong man there who will carry out your orders and act in the same way as you would against your enemy. Al Numan bin Bashir is a weak man or he is acting like a weak man”
History of al Tabari, Volume 19 page 30
He was the first man who wrote to Yazeed [la] and then Umarrah bin Uqbah and Umar bin Sa`ad also wrote along the same lines to Yazeed. Yazeed on receiving this letter wrote to Ibn Ziyad:
“My followers [Shia] among the people of Kufa have written to me to inform me that Ibn al Aqeel is in Kufa gathering units in order to spread rebellion among the Muslims. Therefore when you read this letter of mine go to Kufa and search for Ibn Aqeel as if you were looking for a bead until you find him. Then bind him in chains, kill him or expel him”
History of al Tabari, Volume 19 page 31
Yazeed [la] used the word “Shia” for his adherents in Kufa which has been translated as “followers” in English version but can be read in its original Arabic and Urdu version.
Tarikh Tabari (Urdu), Volume 4 part 1 page 154, Nafees Academy Karachi
Dear readers, you must have recognized the writer of this letter Umar bin Sa`d. This was same cursed individual who was sent as an army chief for the murder of Imam Hussain [as] and he was the one who fired the first arrow at Imam al Hussain [as].
See: History of al Tabari, Volume 19 page 129
His words i.e “Shia have given the oath of allegiance to him on behalf of al Hussain bin Ali” clearly shows that he did not have any connection with the the Shia of Ali/Hussain [as] in fact we have already highlighted the prestigious place this individual enjoys among the hadith works of the Ahl’ul Sunnah. Crucially, the words of Yazeed [la] i.e “My Shia among the people of Kufa have written to me” strengthen our stance that Umar bin Sa`d was the Shia of Yazeed [la] and from the group/sect that deemed him [la] to be their Imam. Moreover the belief that Hussain rebelled against Yazeed accurately tallies with that of the present age Nasibis like Ibn Arabi etc. Are the Nasibis still going to show their stubbornness and remain shouting that the “killers of al Hussain were his own Shias” while we have already made the sect of His [as] killers known to everyone?
Proof Three
We read in history that on the day of Ashur when the war began and the majority if helpers of Imam Hussain [as]’s helpers were martyred a man namely Yazeed b. Maqil of the Banu Salimah of Abd Qays, came forward from the army of Umar bin Sa`d and called out to Burayr b. Hudayr who was the companion of Imam al Hussain [as]:
“How do you think God has treated you? Burayr replied, “By God! God has treated me well and treated you badly”. He answered “You are a liar. Even before today you were always a liar. Do you remember when I used to go with you among the Banu Lawdhan? Then you used to say that Uthman was a man who indulged himself excessively, that Mu’awiyah b. Abi Sufyan was one who was in error and who caused people to go astray, and that the Imam of guidance and truth was ‘Ali b. Abi Talib. Burayr retorted: “I testify that this is my opinion and belief”. Yazeed b. Maqil replied: “And I testify that you are one of those who are in error. Burayr called out: Then I challenge you to contest of curses. Let us call on God that the lair be cursed and the spreader of falsehoods be killed. Then come out for combat.” They both advanced and raised their hands to God, calling upon Him to curse the lair and the one who was truthful should kill the one who was false.
Each of them came advanced against the other. They exchanged blows. Yazeed b. Maqil struck Burayr b. Hudayr a light blow that did not do him any harm. Burayr b. Hudayr struck Yazeed b. Maqil a blow that cut through his halmet and penetrated his brain”.
History of al-Tabari Volume 19 pages 132-133
Dear readers, do we still need to prove the madhab of the killers of Imam al Hussain [as] and the madhab of his helpers? Burayr b. Hudayr deemed:
- Uthman a man who indulged himself excessively,
- Mu’awiyah a follower and a guide of wrong path
- ‘Ali b. Abi Talib as Imam of guidance and truth
The above three beliefs tally up with the belief of the Shia Athna Asharis. Compare this to Yazeed b. Maqil who was among the opponents of Imam Hussain [as] and deemed Burayr b. Hudayr misguided for having those three beliefs in the same way that modern day Sunnis deem the Shi’as misguided for adhereing to these three believes.
If the filthy Nasibis like that of Sipah e Sahaba still insist that Shi’a killed Imam Hussain [as] whilst that are the true lovers of Ahllubait [as] then we have a simple and straight question to them:
“Do you Nasibis like the helper of Imam Hussain [as] Burayr b. Hudayr deem Uthman a man who indulged himself excessively, Mu’awiyah a follower and a guide of wrong path and ‘Ali b. Abi Talib as Imam of guidance and truth ?”
If your answer is in positive only then you have every right to to call yourselves the lovers of Ahlulbait [as] oif you do not then you adhere to the school of thought followed by Yazeed b. Maqil who was among the killers of Imam Hussain [as].
Moreover the thing on which Mubahila took place between Burayr b. Hudayr and Yazeed b. Maqil along with its result is clear to all readers and that makes it clear as to which side adhered to the truth and which side adhered to misguidance.
Proof Four
After immense fighting that resulted in Burayr b. Hudayr being martyred his killer Ka`b bin Jabir Al Azdi left the scene, his wife or his sister said to him:
“You have given help against son of Fatimah and you have killed the leader of reciters of Quran. You have brought great disgrace. By God! I will never speak a word to you”
History of al-Tabari Volume 19 pages 134
Ka`b bin Jabir Al Azdi then proudly recited a poetry:
“Ask that you be told about me - and you are blameworthy
at the battle against Hussain, while the spears were pointed….
I had with me a spear from Yazan- whose joints had not betrayed it,
And white sword which was sharpened, and both edges of it were cutting.
I singled him out amoid a group whose religion was not my religion, for I am satisfied with Ibn Harb (i.e Yazid)…..
Tell Ubaydallah if you meet him,
That I am obedient and attentive to the Caliph…”
History of al-Tabari Volume 19 pages 134
His words “whose religion was not my religion” clearly shows that his religion was different than the relgion of the helpers and followers of Imam al Hussain [as] while the religion of Imam Hussain [as] and his followers was affiormed through the words of Burayr b. Hudayr. Yet again his belief of deeming Yazeed as his caliph corroborates Sunni ideologoy esposused by Abdullah ibn Umar in Sahih al Bukhari. If Nawasib like that of Sipah e Sahaba and ansar.org accept the religion and beliefs told by Burayr b. Hudayr only then they should rightly deem themselves the follower sof Ahl’lubait [as] otherwise they should be ashamed of sharuing the same religions as the killers of Imam al Hussain [as].
Proof Five
Ibn Kathir records that when Ubaidullah Ibn Ziyad caught Hani bin Urwah, he started to torture him. When the relatives of Hani gathered at his palace Ibn Ziyad through Qadi Shureh sought to turn them away by calming them:
“Ubaidullah Ibn Ziyad said to Hani: ‘Allah has made your blood Halal for me because you are Haroori’. Thus according to his orders he was locked up in next to a house and his tribe Banu Mazhaj came and stood at the door of the palace along with Umro bin al-Hajaj. They thought that Hani had been killed. When Ibn Ziyad heard their noise he asked Qadi Shureh who was near to him to go to the people and told them that the Ameer has detained him so that he could question him about Muslim bin Aqeeel. Therefore Qadi told them: ‘Your master is alive and our king has beaten him up to a extent where there was no danger to his life”
Al Bidayah wal Niihayah, (Urdu) Vol 8 page 1018-1019 topic "Incident of Hussain bin Ali, reason of his exit from Makkah and situation of his murder"
If Nawasib have not recognized this Qadi Shureh; yet another follower of Ibn Ziyad then allow us to reveal his revered place in the madhab of Ahl’ul Sunnah. This main is not only praised by the Sunni Ulema but he has also narrated hadiths in principle hadith books like Bukhari. Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani records:
البخاري في الأدب المفرد والنسائي شريح بن الحارث بن قيس بن الجهم بن معاوية بن عامر الكندي أبو أمية الكوفي القاضي ويقال شريح بن شرحبيل ويقال بن شراحيل۔۔۔ وقال حنبل بن إسحاق عن بن معين شريح بن هانئ وشريح بن أرطاة وشريح القاضي أقدم منهما وهو ثقة وقال العجلي كوفي تابعي ثقة۔۔۔ المفرد وقال بن سعد توفي سنة 79 وكان ثقة
Shureh bin Al-Harith bin Qais bin Al-Juham bin Muawya bin Amer Al-Kindi Abu Amuaya Al-Kufi the Qadi, he is called Shureh bin Sharhabil or Sherahil narrated in Bukhari, Sunan Al-Nesa'i … Hanbal bin Ishaq narrate that Ibn Meen said about him: ‘Thiqah’. Al-Ejli said: ‘Kofi Tabee Thiqah’… Ibn Sa`ad said: ‘He died in year 79 and he is Thiqah’.
Tahdeeb al Tahdeeb, Volume 4 No. 574
If any Nasibi still accuse Shias of being involved in the murder of Imam Hussain [as] then it is just pure stubbornness, for the truth is that Sunni Ulema not only praised the associate of Ibn Ziyad but also deemed him worthy enough to derive their religion from him. |
Original article by Ansar.org
Al Bidayah wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 page 1252
Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu) Vol 8 page 1013
History of Tabari, Volume 19 page 102
History of al Tabari, Volume 19 page 153
History of al Tabari, Volume 19 page 30
History of al Tabari, Volume 19 page 31
Tarikh Tabari (Urdu), Volume 4 part 1 page 154, Nafees Academy Karachi
History of al-Tabari Volume 19 pages 132-133
History of al-Tabari Volume 19 pages 134
Al Bidayah wal Niihayah, (Urdu) Vol 8 page 1018-1019 topic "Incident of Hussain bin Ali, reason of his exit from Makkah and situation of his murder"