KARBALA: Truth and Lies

 

KARBALA: Truth and Lies

 

 

 

 

 

GIASUDDIN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Translated by

SRIJIB BISWAS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blessings of MAHASVETA DEVI

 

 

 

 

MAHASVETA DEVI                   GD 3O, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata - 700107

This book of “AMARA EK SACHETAN PRAYAS” should be kept by the reader. He will benefit. He will benefit.

The book is titled “Karbala: Myth O Mithya”. Author: Giasuddin

This book needs to be well received in the reading community.

                                                          Mahasveta Devi

                                                                     6.1.2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION by Taslima Nasrin

I have heard many stories and read many books about Islam. Qur’an, Hadith was read in that childhood. But while talking to Giasuddin, I realized that my knowledge of the history of Islam is much less than his knowledge. I don't know many things. When I was a teenager, I read 'Bishad Sindhu' written by Mir Mosharraf Hossain and cried and wet my pillow, but I didn't know that there was a lot of wrong information in the book. I was busy discovering Mohammed's tricks, I didn't even think that his grandsons were also very power hungry. Although the entire Muslim empire welcomed Yazid, the sixth caliph or emperor, nearly fifty years after Muhammad's death, Muhammad's grandson did not. He himself wanted to be the caliph. He therefore proceeded from Mecca to the city of Kufa to remove Yazid from power. On that journey, he was intercepted by Yazid's army at a place called Karbala, where he was killed in battle. This is the case. But various false stories have been created to sing the praises of Muhammad's descendants, in other words to exonerate Islam from tarnish. For centuries people have closed their eyes and ears and believed them.

Let people know the true history. Lies are perpetuated to perpetuate religion. For thousands of years people have known falsehood as truth. People have also considered the fairy tales of the Qur’an to be true. Today, if true history is given to people to know, who wrote and why the Qur’an was written, then this so-called religion of peace, Islam, will collapse.

Giasuddin will remove the darkness of our mistakes and lies and shed some light on history. He will enlighten us.

                                                      TASLIMA NASRIN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Writer’s words

 

Karbala war is not a mythological war like Kurukshetra of Mahabharata or Rama-Ravana battle of Ramayana. It is a historical battle. The battle took place more than thirteen hundred years ago in the desert of Karbala on the banks of the Euphrates River in Iraq. There have been many wars in the world in this thirteen hundred year history. As the most notable two terrible world wars are there, there are so many wars in the history of Islam. Few people except students of history know about these wars. But the battle of Karbala is still on the lips of Muslims. The battle has practically acquired the status of a mythical war.

The battle was fought between the army of the sixth Caliph Yazid and Imam Hossain, the grandson of Prophet Muhammad. Hossain was defeated and killed in the battle.

There is no idea how many histories and stories, novels, plays, rhymes, poems; Murcia, Zarigan, etc. have been written about the battle of Karbala. That writing has not stopped even today. All writings are tied to one tune, one rhythm, one thread. Yazid's father was the 5th caliph Muawiya, the main figure of the battle of Karbala. He deprived Imam Hossain of the rightful heirship to the Caliphate of the Islamic Empire and appointed his ineligible son Yazid as Caliph. Through this, he established the monarchy and created the tomb of Islamic democracy and the real Islamic Caliphate. Hossain was an honest, devoted and fearless Muslim; He sacrificed himself fighting against the deviant, lustful and despotic Yazid to protect the Islamic Caliphate and Islam. Hossain is therefore the epitome of an idealistic, self-sacrificing and true Muslim. Yazid, on the other hand, is a power-hungry, lustful, cruel, merciless and despotic ruler and a disgrace to Muslims. This is the essence of all history written about the battle of Karbala.

This history written about the battle of Karbala is not a true history at all. This history is completely one sided and distorted history. Muslim historians have shown amenableness to Muhammad, not to history. So the real history of the battle of Karbala is buried under false and distorted history. I have tried to present the true and impartial history of the battle of Karbala in my book.

 

                                                            WRITER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONTENTS

 

1. Chapter one :    Background of the Battle of Karbala

2. Chapter Two :   The Umayyad also embraced Islam, but

                 Muhammad did not believe in them.

3. Chapter Three :  Ali's desire to become Caliph was the main                                                    

                   reason for the rebellion against Othman    

4. Chapter Four :   Imam Hassan voluntarily left the responsibility

of caliphate to Muawiya

5. Chapter Five :   Ali was killed either by the hostages (Jimmi) or by the Kharijites

6. Chapter Six :     Despite Hossain's objections, Yazid's ascension to the 6th Caliphate was smooth

7. Chapter Seven : Effects and consequences of the Battle of    Karbala   

8. Chapter Eight :  Baseless allegations against Muawiya

9. Chapter Nine :   It was not a war, it was actually a rebellion

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter one

Background of the Battle of Karbala

The history of war in world history is huge in all aspects. No matter how many wars have been fought all over the world. Of course, very few wars have been fought in the interests and needs of people. But in all wars, people have been killed and injured, people means ordinary people. In the pre-capitalist social system wars happened, better to say wars were made to happen, for the expansion of power, or the seizure of power or the restoration of power. All those wars were between kings and kings or between kings and emperors. The nature of war changed when world civilization entered the capitalist social system. The Battle of Karbala took place in the Middle Ages, far before human civilization entered the capitalist era. Of course that war had no special characteristics. But the history we read gives this war a completely different character.

One more thing must be mentioned here about war. We hear about many wars which were not actually happened. Those wars are mythical wars. People talk about these wars. On the other hand far from talking about them, people are not even aware of the wars that have actually taken place. But the only exception in this case is the battle of Karbala. The story of this war is still on the lips of the people of Muslim society. Not only this, this war day is also commemorated every year. A real war has turned into a mythical war. So this war has a different significance in history. But the sad thing is that there is a stark difference between the history of this war as it is written and what actually happened. In fact, its original history has been lost and replaced by a completely distorted, half-truthed and false history that we have been carrying for ages.

Needless to say, the history I am talking about is the history written by Muslim historians. A lot in the field of literature has been written about Karbala war beyond history. There is no account of how many poems, rhymes, Murcia, Zarigan, stories, dramas, novels etc. have been written. It continues even today. In all these works the same trend, which is followed in history, continues. The Battle of Karbala took place in a desert called Karbala on the banks of the Euphrates (Furat) River in present-day Iraq. That is why it is known in history as the Battle of Karbala. It is also known as Muharram. Because the day the battle took place was the 10th day of the month of Muharram in the Arabic year. So every year the 10th of Muharram is celebrated in the Muslim community all over the world. It is celebrated, however, as a day of mourning, because Imam Hossain, grandson of Muhammad and son of the fourth Caliph Ali, was killed in this battle. It is beyond saying, that it is the only reason why this war is like a mythical war in the mouth of Muslims. And it is for this reason that Muslim historians, in writing the history of this war, show amenableness to Muhammad and his descendants rather than to history. The same is the case with those who have created literature on Karbala. The battle was fought with the troops of Hossain and Yazid, the sixth caliph of the Islamic Empire. Yazid and his father, Muawiya, the fifth Caliph of Islam, have been under attack by the pen of Muslim historians and writers. On the other hand, all the praises have been lavished on Hossain and the descendants of the Prophet. Hossain is shown as innocent as a milk-fed child and a world-renowned great man of sacrifice who sacrificed himself for Allah, Islam, ideals and humanity.

The battle took place on October 10, 680 AD. The previous year, Muawiya nominated his son Yazid as the next caliph. Muslim historians say that this was the beginning of the Battle of Karbala. That is, according to them the duration of the Battle of Karbala is limited to a period of about two years. But the history of this war has a long history. Its origin mainly centered on the election of Muhammad's successor immediately after his death. As Muslim historians have written history to prove that Hossain sacrificed himself in the desert of Karbala to protect Islamic kingdom and Islam; that is why they have limited the duration of the war of Karbala to a very short period of two years and a much smaller scope.

The factors that have been attributed to the Battle of Karbala are: - When Muawiya assumed the post of caliph, it was said that after him Imam Hossain should be nominated for the post of caliph. Such an agreement was made between Muawiya and Imam Hassan (Muhammad's eldest grandson and Ali's eldest son). Muawiya violated this agreement and nominated his son Yazid as caliph. By this, Muawiya not only betrayed Hossain, but actually betrayed Islam, Muhammad and the entire Muslim society. This is how the matter is portrayed. It is mentioned that Yazid's caliphate could not be accepted for another reason. That is, Yazid was a despotic, riotous, drunken and lascivious young man. Transferring the caliphate to him means the death of Islam. So there was no other option but to remove Yazid from power to save Islam. For that Hossain had to come against Yazid. Why did Muawiya betray? Is it only due to blind love for son? Historians say, no, it is not. They also blamed the clan of Muawiya for this. In pre-Islamic period, there was a great conflict between the Hashemite dynasty and Umayyad dynasties in Mecca. Muhammad was the representative of the Hashemite dynasty. When he started preaching, he faced the greatest obstacles from the Umayyad dynasty. A particularly notable figure among Muhammad's main opponents was Abu Sufyan, a representative of the Umayyad dynasty. This Abu Sufyan was forced to submit to Muhammad and became a Muslim after Muhammad conquered Mecca. Muawiya was the son of that Abu Sufyan. Muslim historians therefore say that it was to avenge his father's defeat that Muawiya transferred the power of the Islamic empire to his own descendants and not to Muhammad's descendants. They therefore identified Muawiya and not Yazid as the main conspirator and mastermind of the Karbala incident.

Some say Yazid is the main mastermind, not Muawiya. They say that a widow named Zainab but also an extraordinary beauty acted as a major factor behind this war. Impressed with Zainab's beauty, Imam Hassan sent her a marriage proposal. Yazid also sent the same proposal. Zainab agreed on Hassan's behalf. But Yazid was obtrusive. He wanted to get Zainab at any cost. And to make this possible, it became inevitable for him to acquire the power of the Islamic Empire. That is why he exerted great pressure on his father to nominate him as Caliph. Muawiya was compelled to submit to the pressure. Meanwhile, Hassan had the last laugh at Zainab's question. Then Yazid poisoned Hassan with the help of a woman. Yazid did not stop there; he took the ultimate revenge by killing his next brother Hossain.

Judging from an open-minded and impartial standpoint, however, Muawiya cannot be blamed in any way for the events of Karbala, and Yazid cannot be blamed much. It is nothing but an over simplification of history that Muslim historians say that the background of Karbala was created on the day Muawiya chose his son as his successor. I have already said that the background to this war was created immediately after the death of Muhammad. Yes, that's right. Because after Muhammad's death, great strife arose in the election of the next caliph. Many aspired to be the caliph of the Islamic empire and the position of unlimited power. The decision could not be reached on that question. The situation was such that the work of burial and cremation had to be postponed for one day (according to others three days). A decision was eventually reached, but the solution was not universally agreed upon. After much commotion Abu Bakr was chosen as Muhammad's successor. Ali (Muhammad's son-in-law) was the most aggrieved at this election. Ali was also Muhammad's cousin, meaning he was Muhammad's only living descendant at the time. He was the shadow companion of Muhammad's life. He was the first among men to embrace Islam, That is, he is the first Muslim after Muhammad. Ali was still a minor when he accepted Islam and became a Muslim. Therefore, according to him, he was the only rightful successor of Muhammad and in every respect the most qualified person for the office of Caliph. So he was on the one hand surprised by Abu Bakr's election as Caliph and on the other hand he was very angry. And needless to say, Ali's followers were also surprised and angry. And just then the history of Karbala started unnoticed. It can also be said that the seed of the Battle of Karbala was sown that day through the election of Abu Bakr as Caliph. That seed germinated and gradually turned into the poisonous tree called Karbala war.

Ali's wife Bibi Fatima was more angry than Ali was disappointed and angry without getting the post of caliph and power. Fatima was Muhammad's most beloved only daughter. It is beyond words how enraged she became. On being informed of the anger of Ali and Fatima, Abu Bakr without delay went to their house to appease their anger. He took with him another very close and faithful Sahabi (follower and accomplice) of Muhammad Omar Farooq. Before they entered Ali's house, they stood at the door and greeted Bibi Fatima. Fatima is a very lovely and ideal woman in the eyes of Muslims. She had the rare honor of being conferred the title of 'Khatune Jannat' and is still honored with that title. 'Khatune Jannat' means heavenly lady or leader of the women of Jannat (Paradise). That Fatima did not show Abu Bakr and Omar the courtesy of inviting them inside her house. What needs to be noted in this context is that Abu Bakr was not just a person, he was the head of a powerful state on the one hand and the most beloved, closest and most trusted of her (Fatima) father on the other hand. Omar was also a very beloved and trusted companion of Muhammad. Yet, Bibi Fatima did not show them a mole of courtesy and respect. Instead, she insulted them and chased them away from the door of the house with many harsh words. Fatima said to them in a very harsh tone, "You have shown partiality in the election of the Caliph. Even after that you have accepted Bayat from the people.” (See. Abu Bakr (R), Dr. Othman Ghani, p. 64). At that time, many people of Medina gathered there, she said to them in the tone of complaint, "You are the Ummah of the Messenger, you yourselves tell whether justice and principles have been followed in the election of the Caliph! Isn't Sher-i-Khoda Hazrat Ali very close to Mahanabi? Moreover, are his qualities less than anyone? Who does not know the story of his merit, skill, knowledge-glory, heroism? What did Abbajan (the Holy Prophet) say about him in Farewell Hajj? (See: ibid). Fatima never acknowledged Abu Bakr as Caliph during her lifetime and did not accept. Ali also did not take Bayat (i.e. did not accept as Caliph) to him. Much later, however, Ali took Bayat to Abu Bakr. That was at least six months later. Fatima died six months after Muhammad's death. During Fatimah's lifetime, Ali did not take Bayat to Abu Bakr. Though he took Bayat, the anger in his mind did never disappear. Circumstances forced him to take Bayat, and there seems to have been a special purpose behind taking Bayat. There are many proofs that he did not accept Bayat from his mind at all. I will discuss about that later. Now let us see why and under what circumstances he took Bayat to Caliph Abu Bakr. After the death of Muhammad, Abu Bakr became the first caliph, at that time the Islamic empire found itself in a difficult situation. Abu Bakr handled the situation with a firm hand and was able to put the Islamic Empire on a much firmer footing, free from danger. When the crisis after Muhammad's death was over, Abu Bakr turned his attention to the expansion of the Islamic empire and in this too he was able to achieve one success after another. At that time Ali's role was disappointing. As a result, on the one hand, Abu Bakr's leadership over Muhammad's companions and general ummah continued to strengthen, while on the other hand, the passion and sympathy for Ali as Muhammad's son-in-law and descendant began to fade. Abu Bakr and Omar Farooq took advantage of this opportunity. They possessed great power now, and began to use that power to win over Ali's followers to their side. Ali's followers also gradually left the company of their beloved Prophet's favorite son-in-law and descendant and started leaning towards Abu Bakr for the sake of power. At one point, Ali discovered that he was lonely, no one wanted to keep in touch with him and everyone was avoiding him. Again, to distance himself from Abu Bakr, his earnings (getting a share of the booty) also stopped, resulting in a financial crisis. Another thing Ali was thinking about was the idea of ​​becoming the next caliph of the Islamic Empire. Staying away from Abu Bakr, it will not be possible to capture that position and power. So finally he decided that it was better to accept Abu Bakr's allegiance and take Bayat. So Ali surrendered to Abu Bakr out of desperation and out of greed to become the next caliph. But a very unfortunate incident happened to Ali. Mainly the purpose for which he surrendered to Abu Bakr was not fulfilled. Abu Bakr lived only two years after becoming Caliph. He died in 634 AD. When he realized that his death was near, he called everyone together and announced that he was nominating Omar Farooq as the next caliph. All present welcomed and supported his decision. Only Ali expected Muhammad's most beloved and trusted friend and companion, Abu Bakr, to show his respect and gratitude to Muhammad by handing over the empire built by Muhammad to his son-in-law and descendant Ali. But Ali was deeply disappointed to hear that Omar Farooq had been nominated as the second Caliph of the Islamic Empire. This incident was unexpected and unwanted for him, but he had to listen and accept it in silence. Because he saw with his own eyes that everyone present unanimously accepted Omar as the caliph. This is because in the two years after Muhammad's death Ali's role was very disappointing and hopeless in the endless crises and calamities faced by Muhammad's Companions and Ummah. As a result, the passion and sympathy they had for Ali gradually turned into resentment. Ali had no choice but to shut up and accept everything. Therefore, after Abu Bakr's death, he did not hesitate to go to Omar and take Bayat without saying anything.

Ali's loyalty to Omar was only superficial; he could not accept him as caliph from his heart. There is abundant evidence of this during Omar's ten-year caliphate. Here is an example of that. Omar is indeed credited by history as the builder of the Islamic Empire. Because the empire that Abu Bakr had built on a solid foundation, protecting it from attacks from all around, Omar expanded the Islamic empire from there and gave the infant Islamic state the appearance of an empire in a real sense. He accomplished that task by conquering the Roman and Persian empires. That is why he is called the builder of the Islamic Empire. The event that I want to mention is the event before the invasion of the Persian Empire. It is an event between 638 and 642 AD. The Battle of Qadisiyya has a special place in Islamic history. The objective of this war was to attack the Persian Empire. The Battle of Qadisiyya has been described by Muslim historians as a turning point in history, as the defeat of Omar's forces in this battle spelled the inevitable collapse of the Islamic Empire. And if that happened, Islam would have been lost forever from the pages of history. Judging the importance of war, Omar devised some new strategies and tactics. One of them is that he took the position and responsibility of the Supreme Commander on his shoulders. Another is that he formed a powerful military council. It was this military council that proposed a change in Omar's strategy which Omar accepted on very rational and practical considerations. The proposal was like this. If the battle is defeated, the enemy will attack Medina (the capital of the Islamic State) from all sides, so it is not advisable for the Caliph to leave Medina, he should stay in Medina with some troops to protect Medina from the enemy's attack. And in that case, Ali is the most suitable person to carry out the important responsibility of the commander-in-chief, so let Ali be the commander-in-chief of this war. When this decision was taken in the military council with the consent of Omar and unanimous consent Ali did not agree. To everyone's surprise, he announced his disapproval and inability. It is not difficult to understand why Ali rejected the decision of the Caliph and the military council. Not being able to accept Omar as the Caliph from within his heart, he did not feel anxious for the victory of Islam in this war, nor was he perturbed by the fear of defeat and extinction of Islam. Caliph Omar eventually appointed Muhammad's cousin and distinguished companion Sa'd bin Aqqash as commander-in-chief and ordered for the war expedition. Making such a decision, however, was risky. It is needless to say that Omar smiled the victor's smile in this battle and it is easy to imagine what Ali's state of mind was then.

Omar Farooq's reign spanned ten years. During this period the emotional distance between Omar and Ali naturally increased and it goes without saying that Ali was responsible for this. Omar was a very pious and strict man. He governed according to the instructions of Muhammad and the words of the Qur'an, and did not make any compromises. Muhammad's order was to make all of Arabia free from polytheists (free from non-Muslims). Since Muhammad died suddenly only two years after the conquest of Mecca, he could not complete this work himself. On the eve of his death, he ordered his companions to perform this task. Abu Bakr did not have time either. Omar completed it one hundred percent. As a result of this, many people who had abandoned their own religion and became Muslims accepting Islam in the hope of survival became very naturally angry against Omar. One of them stabbed Omar to kill him and the injury resulted in his death. Before his death he also wanted to follow in the footsteps of Abu Bakr and nominate a prominent Companion as Caliph. His choice in this regard was a distinguished companion named Abdur Rahman. There were many claimants to the post of caliph, among whom Ali had the highest aspirations and hopes. Omar had no trust and faith in any of the claimants; meanwhile Abdur Rahman also disagreed with the responsibility of caliphate. Omar then formed a committee and entrusted the responsibility of choosing the next Caliph to that committee. The task of electing a caliph became difficult for this committee, as both Ali and Othman Ghani, among the contenders for the post of caliph, remained steadfast in their claim to the end. The caliph then expanded the committee. Ultimately this committee had to vote to elect one to the post of Caliph. Ali was defeated in the vote and Othman was elected as the next caliph i.e. the third caliph of the Islamic Empire by majority vote. Few followers, who were still with Ali, became angry and left the meeting, telling that they would not obey Othman. Caliph Omar, however, declared the committee's decision to be final, and handed over the responsibility of Caliphate to Othman Ghani. Othman Ghani, the third caliph, was another son-in-law of Muhammad. Ali could not accept Othman Ghani as the third caliph at all. During the caliphate of Othman Ghani, Ali engaged himself in trying to trouble Othman in various ways. This resulted in a revolt against Othman and eventually he died at the hands of the rebels. It was the revolt against the third caliph Othman and the death of the caliph in that revolt that made inevitable the events of Karbala. Before discussing how the situation was rapidly progressing towards the Battle of Karbala Desert, I would like to discuss a very important point here which is very relevant. It is clear from the previous discussion that after the death of Muhammad, the election of the caliph was never done in a fair, beautiful and smooth manner. Each time a very difficult problem had arisen. The first caliph Abu Bakr did not walk the path of negotiation for the election of the next caliph, considering his own bitter experience of becoming the caliph, with the power of the caliphate imposed Omar Farooq on the Muslim Ummah. Since he was the Caliph, no one dared to oppose him. Caliph Omar also wanted to complete the election of the third Caliph along that route before his death, but could not, as described in the above discussion. The crisis in the election of the fourth caliph was more intensified which made the situation of Karbala incident inevitable and more imminent. It is not difficult to understand the reasons why such problems arose. The main reasons are two. 1) Muhammad did not set any policy in the election of the Caliph. It may be due to his lack of far-sightedness. He could not think that his death was so near. 2) Muhammad's companions were extremely power-hungry. It is mainly due to these two reasons that the crisis arose during the election of the Caliph. This fact is not recognized by any Muslim historian and has been carefully concealed. But it was they who made a serious accusation against the fifth caliph, Muawiya, that he had violated the democratic system of Islam in the election of his next caliph. And they identified it as a major reason for the Battle of Karbala. Muslim historians have accused Muawiya as the mastermind of the Battle of Karbala and have made many other accusations against him which are highly biased. That will be discussed later, now let's discuss Othman Ghani's post-election events.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

          

 

Chapter Two

The Umayyad also embraced Islam, but Muhammad did not believe in them.

The caliphate of the third Caliph Othman Ghani (644-656 AD) was very eventful and important. There was a public uprising against him and he was brutally murdered in his residence by the rebels. The reasons for which the revolt against him is said to have taken place (at least as stated by Muslim historians) are not at all objective and reliable. The real cause of the revolt has been cleverly suppressed by Muslim historians. I will discuss it very briefly because this article does not have the scope to discuss it in detail. Before going into the discussion of what is the main reason, let us state here that the battle of Karbala has a deep connection with the rebellion against Caliph Othman. Let us first look at some of the reasons attributed to the rebellion by Muslim historians. The reasons they cite are: 1) Othman Ghani’s burning of the Qur’an, 2) changes in Islamic land and agrarian policies, 3) changes in fiscal policy 4) corruption and nepotism, 5) biased role towards the Umayyad dynasty, etc. Caliph Othman Ghani was the first to compile the Qur'an as a book. He could have been remembered in history for this act alone, even if he had done nothing else. Because if he did not do this, the words of the Qur'an might have disappeared into the womb of time forever. He is called Jameul Qur'an ((compilator of Qur’an) for compiling the words of the Qur'an and publishing it as a book. Yet he had to pay a severe price for compiling the Qur'an. To do this, he formed a committee to gather together the verses of the Qur'an which had been scattered to many people in different places, and to compile an original Qur'an, excluding those verses that were spurious or distorted. Those considered by the committee to be fake and distorted were identified and burnt. Because of this, a section of Muslims in the Muslim world felt that the Caliph had committed a heinous and unforgivable crime by burning the words of Allah for his own benefit. Some of the Sahabis (Companions) instigated this idea, which was created among a section of Muslims, to serve their personal interests. But the majority of people around the world think that the allegations of burning the Qur'an are false and ill-motived. They have full faith and trust in that Qur'an. Caliph Othman had to take certain steps due to the peculiar circumstances of the time which created an atmosphere of confusion, mistrust and doubt among the Muslim masses. A vested interest group used that suspicion and doubt among the people to create public opinion against the Caliph. During the reign of Caliph Othman, the small Islamic state became an empire. The number of soldiers in the state army and the number of camels and horses grew enormous. That is why state pastures had become necessary. As the situation demanded, the Caliph had to acquire some lands, which resulted in the inevitable eviction of some peasants. On the other hand, after the establishment of the Islamic state, Jihad became a very profitable profession. Participants in Jihad received the share of booty (money, horses, camels, captive men and women, etc.). Spoiled goods in Islamic terms are booty. Islam legalized the use of captive women as booty in the name of Allah. Male captives are slaves and female captives are female slaves--this was Muhammad's decree in the name of Allah. For these reasons, people flocked to Medina from different parts of the country to enlist in the state army, including many of the pagans. On the other hand, the 2nd Caliph Omar Farooq enacted the law 'Land belongs to him who Plow it', the opportunity to buy and sell land was greatly reduced. Because of that, the interest of people to live in rural areas was greatly reduced. As a result, the population pressure in Medina increased so much that it caused a deep crisis. To get rid of this crisis, Othman introduced the system of zamindari. This new land policy was naturally against the land policy of Caliph Omar. The adoption of this new land policy, including the dispossession of peasants, led to complaints against Caliph Othman that he had deviated from Islamic principles and ideals. It is not that the Caliph took these decisions alone. However, those who opposed the Caliph misled the Muslims on these issues. Even minor lapses in administration were used as weapons against the Caliph. Added to this was the long-standing sensitive clan conflict among the people of Mecca. Muhammad was from the Hashemite dynasty dynasty and Othman was from the Umayyad dynasty. The feud between these two clans was very intense and old. After Muhammad's conquest of Mecca, the strife subsided due to his unilateral rule, which flared up again when Othman became the caliph. During the caliphate of Muhammad, Abu Bakr and Omar Farooq before Caliph Othman, the Hashemite dynasty dynasty was always dominant in the administration, while the Umayyad dynasty was deprived. During the period of Othman, an Umayyad, the Umayyads gained some relief from deprivation and their representation in the administration increased somewhat. This became a major source of anger for the Hashemite dynasty, descendants of Muhammad. Because of this, their anger against Othman on the soil of Medina continued to grow and the soil of the Caliph became increasingly loose. That opportunity was taken by the rebels who came from Kufa, Basra, Egypt etc. and gathered in Medina. At one point they were able to besiege the Caliph's palace and imprison him completely unhindered. The siege lasted forty consecutive days. At that time, none of the people of Medina stood by the Caliph. The Sahabis (Compsnions) like Ali, Talha, Zubayr (who played heroic roles in numerous jihads with Muhammad) were still alive, but all assumed the role of silent spectators. It is not normal for a caliph to have any faults, but because of that a group of Muslims revolted against the caliph, imprisoned him in his residence for 40 days. No food from outside, not even drinking water was allowed to enter the Caliph's palace, the Sahabis sit in silence for 40 days despite seeing such a situation in front of their eyes - such an event is completely rare in history. The Sahabis lost interest in defending the Caliph because he had no end of faults--that could never be credible. There must have been some reason behind their incredible and utterly astonishing silence which has been cleverly concealed by Muslim historians.

While writing the biography of Caliph Othman and the history of his caliphate, Muslim historians and scholars face a difficult problem. Because Muhammad's son-in-law Ali is closely related to his biography and caliphate, whose place is right after Muhammad for Muslims. Ali was the only major rival of Othman when he became Caliph. Ali and his followers could not accept his caliphate at all. During the caliphate of Othman, when the Islamic caliphate (empire) was in crisis or when the caliph himself was in trouble, Ali did not stand by his side, did not give him any kind of help. After the death of the 2nd Caliph Omar Farooq, the Islamic Caliphate was in dire straits. That crisis was mainly a crisis of strong leadership. Because Othman was a very soft person and that was well known. As a result, as soon as Othman became the caliph, the enemies of Islam started attacking the Islamic state from all around, and at the same time, rebellion started in different parts of the state. Ali's role in such a deep crisis was mysterious; he was not seen to play any role in dealing with the crisis. But in spite of this, Othman was able to successfully defeat all the rebellions and attacks of the foreign enemies and make the Islamic state safe. Not only that, he was also able to expand the Islamic state. It should be noted that Othman, despite being very unhappy with Ali's role, never misbehaved with him. Even he never failed to show Ali due respect. Despite this, Ali always kept his distance from the Caliph. Yet, in any problem or crisis of the caliphate, Caliph (Othman) generously sought Ali's advice and assistance. At the end of the caliphate, when the discontent and anger of the Companions (Sahabis) against him came to his attention, he informed Ali and sought his advice and assistance. He requested Ali to take the role to dispel any resentment or misunderstanding of disaffected Companions and dignitaries against him. Ali ignored that request on various pretexts, and wrapped himself completely in that difficult situation. Ali was similarly impassive when the caliph was besieged and imprisoned by rebels in his palace for 40 days. Muslim historians have had, and still have, problems in accurately recording these events. Because Muslim historians think that they are Muslims first and then historians. Although both Ali and Othman were Muhammad's sons-in-law and both were faithful Companions, they were not equal in Muhammad's eyes. Because Ali was his own cousin, descendant and a greater warrior than Othman. Othman, on the other hand, though son-in-law and companion, was a representative of the Umayyad dynasty, which Muhammad and his predecessors would never trust. These differences have always hindered Muslim historians from playing an impartial role. Instead of recording true history, they consider it their primary duty to place Ali above all blame. That is why the incidents and facts of Ali's faults and negative roles are not found in their writings. On the other hand, they criticized Caliph Othman more than they criticized those who rebelled against Othman. They blamed the rebellion on the faults of the Othman Caliphate regime and deviations from Islamic principles. They place onus of the rebellion against the caliph on the caliph's shoulders. As a result, the real reasons behind the rebellion against the Caliph and who played the role behind the rebellion have been lost to history or buried under false history. It feels like it's buried forever.

The accusations leveled against Othman of deviations from the principles and ideals of Islam were not deviations in actual judgment, but were in some cases merely reforms of state policy. As a caliph he had to make those reforms according to the needs of the actual situation in the interests of the Islamic state. And he was not the first to make such reforms. Reforms began during the reign of the second Caliph Omar. For example, Omar mainly brought about a major reform in the policy of Talaq. He reformed the law of triple Talaq in the three months provided by the Qur'an and made a new law that triple Talaq at once was a valid divorce. The land policy he formulated ('Land belongs to him who Plow it') was an extra-Qur'anic policy. He prohibited the practice of marrying Arabs and non-Arabs, which Muhammad did not do. He practiced giving large sums of money to Muhammad's close relatives from the Bait-ul-Mal (government treasury), which Muhammad and Abu Bakr did not. It had bad consequences in the socio-economic field of Arabia. It had bad consequences in the socio-economic field of Arabia. A group of rich people emerged which triggered the owner-labor conflict. This conflict gradually began to emerge during the reign of Caliph Othman.

To do what Muhammad did not do is to deviate from Muhammad's principles. Caliph Omar also made many reforms in religious worship. He introduced Tarabi prayer (extra prayer after Esha prayer during Ramadan) in congregation i.e. praying together behind an imam. At first eight raka’at Tarabi prayers were offered, he increased it to twenty raka’at. All these reforms that Omar made were outside the path shown by Muhammad. It is not that there were no questions and dissatisfaction among the Companions and ordinary Muslims about all these reforms of Omar. Although there was a lot of resentment and discontent among many, no one thought of rebelling against Omar. But on that same question, the rebellion against Caliph Othman was organized. Another thing to remember in this connection is that the reforms that Othman made were not at all contrary to the way shown and introduced by Muhammad. Because it turned out that the problems he faced were unprecedented. Therefore, there was no guidance or direction to solve those problems in the Qur'an or in the path shown by Muhammad. The allegation that he deviated from the path of Islam by introducing the system of zamindari cannot be said to be accurate and realistic. Because Muhammad did not or could not give any clear provisions on land policy, agricultural policy, production and distribution policy. That is why second caliph Omar had to formulate land policy. Because of his land policy, the land trade in Arabia was stopped, which later manifested as a deep crisis during the reign of Caliph Othman. To resolve the crisis, Othman abolished Omar's land policy and brought back the old system of buying and selling land. For this, the allegation that he deviated from the ideals and principles of Islam is not proved. Hence the claim becomes strengthened that some other reason lies behind the revolt against Caliph Othman. Those reasons are so clearly visible that hundreds of years of desperate efforts to hide or suppress them could not be erased or wiped out. We cannot avoid or deny the moral, social and historical responsibility to investigate and bring forth those real causes. Before delving into those reasons, a point must be mentioned. Otherwise, an important historical fact will remain hidden. The point is--Caliph Othman Ghani made an important reform in his caliphate regime which was clearly a violation of Qur’anic injunctions. Needless to say, this reform naturally caused a backlash among the Companions and ordinary Muslims. That reform will be discussed later. Let us now turn our attention to what were the real causes of the rebellion against the Caliph. Muslim historians and clerics criticized Othman but did not want to blame him entirely for his shortcomings. According to Sunni Muslims, Othman is one of only four people in Islamic history who have been awarded the title of 'Kholafaye Rashedin' (rightly guided caliphs). Therefore, he cannot be called a deviant from Islam. Therefore, the responsibility of all the faults and errors imposed on him is placed on his two subordinate administrators. They are his minister Marwan and the governor of Syria, Amir Muawiya. About Marwan Dr. Othman Ghani writes, Hazrat Othman's greatest misfortune was that his closest associate or chief secretary or adviser was his cousin and son-in-law Marwan. Marwan was a corrupt and cunning man and Caliph Othman was a just and upright man. So the Caliph fell victim easily to Marwan. (See: Hazrat Othman Ghani (R), p-183). Amir Ali, a prominent scholar of the Indian Muslim community, similarly wrote against Marwan--He (Caliph) was unconsciously and reluctantly under the influence of his family. The caliph was led by the secretary Marwan, one of the most unscrupulous of the Umayyads, once excommunicated by the Holy Prophet for disloyalty. (Source – ibid). However, Muawiya has been criticized much more than Marwan. That will be discussed later.

Muhammad gave his daughter in marriage to Othman Ghani and to the exclusion of Ali he (Othman) was chosen as the 3rd caliph as he was considered more qualified than Ali. These two incidents prove that Othman was not an ordinary companion. He must have been a faithful companion of Muhammad and a wise and personable man. The claim that such a caliph abandoned the path shown by Islam being guided by others like a puppet does not become credible. Moreover, he ruled the caliphate by rejecting Islamic principles; this is a baseless accusation that has been discussed earlier. And there is evidence from history that the charges leveled against Marwan and Muawiya are largely fabricated and purposeful. In fact their main faults (!) were two- 1) they were both Umayyad, and 2) they supported every reformist decision and move of the Caliph and implemented them wholeheartedly. They did not embarrass the Caliph by joining in the criticism and campaign of the other Companions. Now the question is why the Companions had so much anger, resentment and mistrust towards the Umayyad dynasty? The main reason behind the great distrust, suspicion, dissatisfaction, resentment and anger of the Companions towards the Umayyad dynasty is that, the greatest and most insurmountable obstacle to Muhammad's spread of Islam on the soil of Mecca was the people of the Umayyad dynasty. The original clan of the inhabitants of Mecca was the Quraysh clan. There were two gotras or clans of that clan one was Hashemite dynasty and the other was Umayyad clan. Dissensions and conflicts between these two groups were very intense. Muhammad received little response and support for Islam from Mecca. Rather, when preaching for Islam, Muhammad used to make adverse comments against the religion of the Quraysh, they mocked him. They even teased Muhammad in various ways at the end when Muhammad increased his insults to their religion. At one point the Quraysh even boycotted Muhammad and his disciples. Because of all these, at one point of time, Muhammad left Mecca and went to Medina. The few Quraysh who accepted Islam at that time were from the Hashemite clan. The only exception was Othman Ghani who belonged to the Umayyad dynasty. He was the only person who renounced his religion and became a Muslim and left his family, relatives and homeland to go to Medina with Muhammad. That is why Muhammad considered the entire Umayyad dynasty as his enemy. After the conquest of Mecca, the Quraysh all renounced their religion and surrendered to Muhammad for their lives, but he did never trust the Umayyads.

 

 

               

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter Three

Ali's desire to become Caliph was the main reason for the rebellion against Othman

 

After the death of Muhammad, distrust, suspicion and hostility towards the Umayyads did not decrease but increased. Distrust of the Umayyads and unwavering loyalty to the Hashemites then became the criteria of a true Muslim. During the caliphate of Othman, as the deprivation was somewhat reduced in favor of the Umayyads and given some importance in the administration, that hostility multiplied and reached almost pre-Islamic levels. A major reason behind the rebellion against Othman was that Othman was from the Umayyad dynasty.

The second major reason for the revolt against Othman was one of his very important and timely reforms. The principles of Islam are very narrow, hateful and vindictive towards the Gentiles. This attitude towards Jews and Christians is more severe and fierce. Before discussing exactly what Islam says about them, let's talk about the reforms that Othman went beyond this policy. The Islamic empire expanded a lot then. Naturally, the number of non-Muslim citizens is increasing, so it is no longer possible to treat them with the harsh, discriminatory, inhumane state dictatorship that was possible in the small Islamic state. Making realistic assessment of the situation, the caliph took a liberal attitude towards the infidels and was the first caliph to adopt a somewhat secular policy. On that principle, he granted a loan from Bait-ul- Mal to a Jewish poet Abdullah. This liberal attitude towards the Jews caused intense resentment and anger among the Hashemite Companions. Now let's see what Islam says about Jews. There are many verses or instructions in the Qur'an about Jews and Christians. Some of them are as follows- "Do not accept Jews, Christians and infidels as friends"(5/57); "...cursed are the Jews...I have instilled in them enmity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection....they will do destructive deeds until the Day of Resurrection"(5/64); "They are cursed; you catch and kill them mercilessly wherever they are found."(33/61). I would like to mention one very important thing in this context. Othman was succeeded by several other Umayyad caliphs, all of whom furthered and expanded the secular policy that Othman had initiated, a historic and groundbreaking reform. A caliph of the same dynasty, the fifth caliph Muawiya, who has been most attacked and maligned by Muslim historians, further developed that policy to an incredible height which is exemplified even in this age. And then the Abbasid dynasty i.e. the Hashemite dynasty dynasty i.e.  Some other caliphs of the descendants of Muhammad carried the principle even further and adopted the Muttazila principle as the policy of the state. The essence of this principle is that the state and society shall be governed by reason, science and philosophy, not by Allah or the Qur'an. It is a very sad event for the world human civilization that the other descendants of Muhammad later became caliphs and canceled the policy that was brilliant and revolutionary in the history of human civilization and took the Islamic Empire and the Muslim society of the world back to the Muhammadan Middle Ages. Again it was declared as the policy of the state - the Qur'an will be the main driving force of the state, no one will speak above the Qur'an. A nation (the Arab nation) and an empire which was progressing, prospering and developing itself with incredible rapidity and enriching itself and leading the world forward, suddenly collapsed at the hands of the orthodox descendants of Muhammad. Again from light to darkness, from the front to the back, the Islamic empire began to retreat. Needless to say, that retreat continues today in Muslim states and societies worldwide.

The third reason for the rebellion was that the Caliph (Othman) took strict administrative measures against three important Companions. They are Abujar Giffari, Ammar Ibn Yasar and Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud. All three were dear and faithful followers of Muhammad. They were so knowledgeable about Qur’an and Islam that they are called great revolutionaries. The first of these was sentenced to exile by the Caliph, the second was publicly beaten in the palace and the third was put under house arrest. There was a strong reaction among the people of Medina. Caliph Othman was indeed a man of very mild nature, yet he was reluctantly forced to take harsh measures against them, rather better to say that these Companions forced him to take measures. From the beginning, they used to openly criticize the Caliph on various issues. Yet mindful of their past contributions and being of a very soft nature himself, he ignored their open opposition to the Caliph. Considering the   generosity and magnanimity as weakness and incapacity of the Caliph they never thought of restraining themselves. They became more reckless. Going outside Medina they started campaigning and forming public opinion against the Caliph in different provinces. In this situation, the caliph had no choice but to be harsh, he had to take drastic measures against his own colleagues in order to preserve the order of the Islamic Empire.

The fourth reason behind rebellion is the unfulfilled personal aspirations of a few prominent individuals. They are Muhammad bin Abu Bakr, Muhammad bin Abu Huzaifa and Abdullah bin Saba. These three men had wide recognition and considerable influence on the Muslim community for their hereditary heritage and contribution to the arduous struggle of Islam. The first is the youngest son of Muhammad's closest friend and first caliph Abu Bakr, the second is a descendant of Hinda, the wife of Abu Sufyan, the influential leader of the Umayyad dynasty, one of Muhammad's main enemies. Huzaifa was one of the exceptions, as was Othman, who was an early disciple of Muhammad from the Umayyad dynasty and was among the first to migrate from Mecca to Abyssinia. And the third came from the Jewish community and converted to the religion of Muhammad. Abu Bakr's son Muhammad has another identity. After the death of Abu Bakr, Ali married his youngest widow. Muhammad was then a minor child; he was brought up by Ali. He therefore hoped to gain an important position and status in Othman's administration. His hope was not fulfilled. On the other hand, Huzaifa's contribution to the history of Islam is unforgettable. Not only was he a favorite companion of Muhammad, he died in a battle (jihad) during Abu Bakr's caliphate. Then his (Huzaifa) son Muhammad (this name was given by Prophet Muhammad himself) was a child. Othman Ghani then raised the orphan Muhammad by himself. He also hoped to get a big and powerful post. His hope was not fulfilled either. The third i.e. Abdullah son of Saba was a blind admirer of Ali. He considered Ali to be the Messenger of Allah like Muhammad. He (Abdullah) was angry from the beginning because Ali could not be the caliph. During the caliphate of Othman, he found many anti-caliph people and became very enthusiastic about organizing a rebellion against the caliph. The three went to Egypt and mobilized public opinion in favor of the rebellion because their interests and ambitions were not fulfilled. These three notables led the revolt against the Caliph. Many Muslim historians have accepted that they organized the revolt to remove Othman from the Caliphate in the hope of serving their personal interests. Dr. Othman Ghani wrote in this context - Muhammad, the youngest son of Abu Bakr and Muhammad, the son of the famous companion Abu Huzaifa, for their own petty interests, to acquire the state power, to enjoy the spoils of war, to occupy high positions, started to weave a web of conspiracy with the entire Egyptian people; Rebellion broke out. (Source – ibid). This later turned into a great disaster.

The fifth and main reason was the strong desire of Ali and two other prominent Companions (Zubayr and Talha) to become Caliph. All three of them supported the rebellion in the hope that if the caliph could be overthrown it would open the way for them to become caliph. When the fire of rebellion was burning all around, especially when the Caliph was besieged for forty days, the rebels were not allowing even drinking water to enter the palace; they forgot all the moral and human responsibility of protecting the Caliph and were busy thinking how to seize the Caliph's throne. Because they knew that the rebels were their people. There were three factions among the rebels and they were the followers of the three Companions. One group wanted Ali as the caliph, one group wanted Zubayr and one group wanted Talha. Ali's followers were the vast majority, so the internal conflict between them over the election of the Caliph was not very pronounced. After killing Othman, the rebels being all agreed informed the people of Medina that they wanted Ali to be the caliph. Needless to say, there was no atmosphere and situation to speak against the rebels. Ali thus ascended the throne of Caliph very easily and without hindrance. Thus, through the bloody path of rebellion and holding the blood-stained hands of the rebels, he was able to seize the much-desired Caliphate. Muslim historians have completely hidden this historical fact; instead they claim that Ali tried his best to save Othman Ghani from rebellion but could not save him because of Othman's mistakes. But many evidences of Ali's hand behind the rebellion can be seen even today. I would like to highlight only two proofs here. The rebels killed the Caliph after besieging him for 40 days. After the assassination, the Caliph's body was held back in the palace for three days until the next Caliph was elected. All the prominent people of Medina went one by one and begged and said first let the caliph's burial (last rites) be done and then we will take Bayat in the hands of whomever you choose. But they did not pay heed to anyone. Everyone then went and requested Ali, please go and request, maybe they will not be able to return you. Ali then went to the rebels and asked for the dead Caliph's body. The rebels handed over Othman's body to him. From this incident it is clearly proved - Ali had complete control over the rebels, and the rebels were also loyal to Ali. Even the children understand that these rebels would not have imagined rebelling against the great and powerful caliph without Ali's consent or permission.

Ali's covert hand behind the revolt is evidenced by the chronicles that followed the Caliph's death. When the caliph's funeral was over, the rebels called the people of Medina and said; now you have to elect the fourth caliph. We want to leave Medina, leaving the burden of the empire in the hands of the fourth caliph. It is pertinent to note that the rebels came from outside Medina, mainly from the provinces of Egypt, Kufa and Basra. The rebels themselves proposed the name of the fourth caliph. They said, we are proposing the name of Hazrat Haider Ali, the son-in-law and descendant of the beloved last Prophet. Tell us what your opinion is. Those who dare to kill the Caliph mercilessly, even an insane can understand the consequences of dissent against them. Naturally no alternative name was proposed and Ali was installed as the fourth caliph on the proposal (order) of the rebels. The rebels surrendered to the caliph after the process of taking over of Ali as fourth caliph was completed. The fact that the name of Ali as the fourth caliph was proposed and accepted unhindered after the assassination of the third caliph Othman is a created affair or premeditated event, is more obvious than daylight.

Muslim historians, however, claim in very clear terms that Ali was completely innocent. He could not do such a heinous act because he was innocent like a child. From all the flow of events where there is clear evidence that Ali was involved in the mutiny, it is nothing but a damning lie to judge Ali as completely innocent. Such an ugly attempt to cover a hard and cruel truth with a hideous lie is rare in history. This lie is done knowingly. And in doing so they had to say or comment many incoherent and contradictory things. They say Ali was innocent and Othman was misled by Marwan and Muawiya, hence the rebellion. Again, in another place, they blamed the silence and inaction of world-famous companions like Ali, Yubair and Abu Talha for the rebellion and the death of the Caliph. Dr. Othman Ghani wrote on page 158 of his above-mentioned book, "...They are many in number and rich in wealth, but they have accepted inferiority and subjugation to a few thousand manlike unruly monkeys! The people of Medina must have worn the clothes of cowards and became inferior to women. Especially what Talha and Zubayr were doing? Were they busy to arrange their treasures? Even more sad, when they interrupted 'Shere Khoda' Hazrat Ali, he accepted the interruption. Then did he forget that he is the 'Shere Khoda' of Islam. Even after that, when the second stage incident happened with the Prophet's wife, he still did not draw the historical sword of Khaybar for what reason, fear of what? Wise Ali, Great Scholar Ali, Great Warrior Ali, whatever he would do in the full face of the situation, would his valor and greatness  increased or decreased? How will the history of Islam forgive their attitude that day?”

The revolt against Othman was the terrible outcome of a deep conspiracy and his tragic death in that revolt was a very painful and tragic black chapter of that conspiracy. This tragic and scandalous event in history had far-reaching effects. It was this event that made the tragic episode of the Battle of Karbala inevitable and it was the main factor among the other factors behind the Battle of Karbala. Rebellion against Caliph Othman and his tragic death for this reason was by no means an ordinary event. The intense desire of the three Sahabis for power, particularly Ali's, led the petty grievances against the Caliph to rebellion. Had they not encouraged and indulged the discontent of other less influential Companions and the general Muslim masses due to various reasons, the revolt would never have taken root. On the other hand, if Caliph Othman had been deeply infatuated with the power like Ali, Zubayr and Talha, the conspiracy of rebellion would have failed. He was in power for an age, but still power could not consume him. So he did not exercise his power (the power of a caliph) to retain power. He was strangely apathetic, innocent and indifferent to his own life and power even in the last moments of his life. Amir Muawiya, the then governor of Syria, whom Muslim historians and clerics accuse of masterminding the battle of Karbala and against whom they accuse of heinous slander, was deeply concerned about the Caliph's life. Realizing that the rebellion was imminent and who was behind it, he made a desperate attempt to save the Caliph. He made two proposals to the Caliph. In the first proposal he requested to move the capital from Medina to Damascus (the capital of Syria). In the second and alternative proposal, he requested him to appoint security personnel from army for him. He wanted to save the Caliph's life by sending some loyal and expert troops from Syria. The Caliph rejected both the proposals. In response to the first proposal, he said, "My beloved Prophet is sleeping eternally in this city of Medina and it is he who gave this Medina the status of the capital. I can never leave Medina, the city blessed by the touch of the feet of my beloved Prophet and steeped in the memory of countless historical events, for my meager life and the more meager caliphate”. Regarding security guard, he said, "I don't want to trust anyone except Allah, only Allah will protect me. Deploying the army will cause inconvenience to the common people of Medina, I cannot cause inconvenience to the public for the sake of my life”. He could have suppressed the rebellion if he wanted to, he could have easily saved his life and the caliphate. If he had done that, maybe the battle of Karbala would not have happened. And if history had proceeded in this way, the Muslim society would not have been divided into two mutually hostile sects, the Shias and the Sunnis.

Ali took up the responsibility of the fourth caliph in a terrible unusual situation and instability. It is true that the people of Medina had some resentment against Caliph Othman, but they never imagined that their Caliph would be assassinated like this and then Ali would usurp the throne of Caliph holding the bloody hands of a bunch of murderers. So the situation in Medina and the entire Muslim world began to change rapidly. What was once some degree of resentment against Othman soon turned into sympathy and passion. And the respect for Ali and the passion for being a descendant of the Prophet began to wane. The whole Muslim world raised a voice that the killers of Othman should be arrested immediately and punished severely. Prominent companions like Zubayr and Talha also raised their voices. However, the most vocal was the governor of Syria, Muawiya. He did not take allegiance to Caliph Ali; He said, do not take Bayat until the killers of Othman are punished. Meanwhile, everyone expected that Caliph Ali would surely take appropriate steps to severely punish Othman's killers. But Ali disappointed everyone greatly. Instead of punishing the murderers, he rewarded them with important posts in the administration. The entire Muslim world, including the people of Medina, was surprised by this role of Ali, as well as angry with Ali. The rebels who had killed Othman started dancing with great joy and rioting and raging in the heart of Medina. Medina became virtually uninhabitable for gentlemen and peace-loving people. In order to protect their dignity, companions like Zubayr, Talha left Medina and went to Mecca for shelter. On the other hand, the governors of several provinces, including Muawiya, started revolting against Ali. They informed Ali that they would not accept Ali as Caliph of the Islamic Empire until Othman’s killers were arrested and properly punished. Ali did not listen to anyone. On the contrary, those governors who voiced their just demands for the punishment of Othman's murderers were removed from their governorship. As a result, civil war broke out throughout the empire. Ayesha, Muhammad's most beloved wife, also took part in this battle. He also led a battle against Ali known in history as the Battle of Jamal. However, Muawiya took a leading role in the rebellion against Ali. There were many and extensive battles between Ali and Muawiya. Thousands of Muslims lost their lives in these wars. Ali's caliphate lasted only four years. Like Omar, he was stabbed to death by an assassin. In the four-year war between Ali and Muawiya, no one was victorious or defeated.

         

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                      

Chapter Four

Imam Hassan voluntarily left the responsibility of caliphate to Muawiya

 

Ali's involvement in the revolt against Caliph Othman became somewhat evident when the rebels handed over the body of the slain caliph to Ali alone. And after Ali's caliphate, it became 100 percent clear. Those who, partly with good reason and partly misconceived, partly induced and enticed, were disaffected and angry against Othman (apart from a few scheming persons) never dreamed that there was a deeper conspiracy behind the revolt to kill Othman and make Ali the Caliph. As a result, they were deeply saddened by Othman’s murder as well as angry. They were even vocal in demanding severe punishment for Othman’s killers. But Ali overruled the demand and started to rule the caliphate with the murderers by his side and on the other hand ordered the expulsion of those, who demanded that punishment, from the governorship and high posts of the administration. As a result, rebellion against Ali started throughout the empire. Prophet Muhammad’s beloved wife and Ali's mother-in-law, Ayesha, joined in that rebellion. She did not hesitate to join the war against Caliph Ali, and even led a war herself. These words have been mentioned in the discussion above. Yet it has been repeated mainly because to remind: the indisputable truth - that Ali, Muhammad's most beloved son-in-law, was the main supporter behind the rebellion against Othman the 3rd Caliph - has been buried under a myriad of falsehoods of Muslim historians.

Those who rebelled against Ali were divided into two groups. One group included famous and distinguished Companions like Zubayr, Talha, Abujar Giffari led by Ayesha and the other group led by Amir Muawiya included a large Muslim population including some governors of various provinces. As a result, the civil war that broke out across the empire was fought on two fronts. As a result, Ali had to fight several battles to suppress the rebellion. Two of these battles were massive and horrific in terms of casualties and damages. One of those two wars is the war of Jamal. Ayesha, the Prophet's wife, led this battle against Ali as mentioned earlier. It is said that ten thousand Muslims were killed in that battle. The other battle is known in history as the Battle of Siffin led by Amir Muawiya against Ali. Heavy losses were incurred in that battle, and ninety thousand Muslims were killed. Ali won the battle of Jamal but there was no settlement in the battle of Siffin. In the end, both sides made a pact.

As civil wars raged throughout the Caliphate, Ali was becoming increasingly powerless. The main reason for this was that Muslims everywhere were becoming more and more vocal against Ali, unable to accept his role as Caliph. Medina, the abode of Ali and blessed with the Prophet's footsteps, took a similar form. So Ali could no longer trust the Muslims of Medina and moved the capital from Medina to the city of Kufa (now located in Iraq).

It gradually became clear to Ali that he would not be able to carry on the war much longer. So he did not want to continue the war due to heavy losses in the battle of Siffin. When a treaty proposal came from Muawiya, he immediately agreed to settle. Both Ali and Muawiya nominated representatives for settlement and both pledged to accept whatever they settled. The settlement determined that Ali was to step down as Caliph of the Islamic Empire and that Amir Muawiya would be the next Caliph in his place. It is pertinent to note that the governors of the major provinces of the Islamic Empire were called Amirs.

Not liking this settlement, Ali rejected it. He gave the excuse that his elected representative had betrayed him and joined hands with Muawiya. As a result, both sides started preparing for war again. Within a few days of this settlement attempt, Ali was seriously injured by the assassins and died from the injuries. Thus came the tragic end of Ali's four-year caliphate. When Ali agreed to make peace with Muawiya, a section of his troops rebelled against Ali, because they were determined to continue the war. They exerted great pressure on Ali to stop all attempts at reconciliation with Muawiya. But Ali did not listen to them. As a result they left Ali. Most historians believe that some of their side struck Ali with swords to kill him.

At the time of Ali's death, the state of the Islamic Empire was at a terrible situation due to civil war. As a result of massive loss of money and manpower, the empire has become much powerless; on the other hand, the whole Caliphate is directly divided into two parts. One part was led by Muawiya, and the other part was under the control of Caliph Ali. After Ali's death, naturally, the Islamic empire was literally torn in two. The caliph of the area under Ali's control was his eldest son Imam Hassan, the caliph of the area controlled by Muawiya was Muawiya himself. Ali was a great warrior and a huge personality with experience in many battles. It was he who failed to suppress the rebellion and was practically forced to accept defeat and make a treaty with Muawiya. And Ali's son Hassan is only an inexperienced and immature youth; he cannot be compared to Ali in any way. Hassan himself knew better. Hassan was a completely different person. He was not at all attracted to power, and disliked quarrels. When the fire of rebellion against Ali started to burn all around, Hassan asked him to give up the caliphate and spend the rest of his life in Dween (Religion) only. Such Hassan was naturally not happy to be the Caliph. Rather, he was quite disturbed by inheriting the caliphate, as he knew very well that when his father could not defeat Muawiya in battle, there was no question of his doing so. Instead, he was more concerned about protecting his own caliphate than defeating Muawiya. He was rather distraught thinking that it would be impossible for him to resist if Muawiya attacked his empire.

Hassan's character had another special feature. He had a strong passion for women. Except for one or two, all the Caliphs of Islam had this disease more or less. His maternal grandfather, Muhammad, had at least 14 marriages (there is considerable disagreement about exactly how many marriages Muhammad had. According to various opinions, his number of marriages was at least 14, and at most 22). Then the caliphs, who succeeded Muhammad, all practiced polygamy. The number of marriages of the first caliph, second caliph, third caliph and fourth caliph were 4, 7, 8 and 9 respectively. The number of marriages of the Caliphs would undoubtedly have been much higher had there no ban on having more than four wives at a time. Moreover, apart from the married wives of the Caliphs, there were many concubines and maidservants whom they enjoyed as wives according to the law of Allah. However, it is well known that Hassan's passion for women was much more intense than his predecessors. He did not spend long with a woman. Within a very few days his spouses would become old to him, and he would lose love and interest in them. Then he divorced them and remarried. He always wanted to get the touch and proximity of a new woman. And to get it he married 100. There was also precedent in his life that he divorced 4 wives on the same day and married 4 again on the same day. Marriage and divorce became a kind of fun game for him. Seeing this, his father Ali himself got upset and appealed to the Muslim community not to marry their daughters to Hassan. Enraged at the fact that the women were treated like this and thrown away one by one, one of his own wives killed him by poisoning him with food. Otherwise it is difficult to say or guess where the number of Hassan's marriages would have reached. Hassan's excessive passion for women also worried him when he became Caliph after his father's death. He did not find it difficult to understand that it is not possible to simultaneously protect the power of the Caliph and enjoying women in the presence of strong opponents and enemies like Muawiya. Considering these things, he decided to give up the responsibility of caliphate and handed over his caliphate to Muawiya after six months.

During the transfer of caliphate some understanding and agreement was reached between Muawiya and Hassan. What they were cannot be ascertained for sure. There are different opinions about this. In this case, the two understandings or agreements, whatever we say, that are heard are – 1) As long as Hassan lives, all expenses for his own and his family's maintenance shall be met from the Bait-ul-Mal i.e. the public treasury. After his death, the maintenance expenses of the surviving members of his family should also be met from the Bait-ul-Mal. 2) As long as Muawiya is alive, he will hold the position of caliph, but after his death Hossain will be the caliph and he (Muawiya) will have to make arrangements for that. There is no room for doubt that the first agreement was made, and Muawiya never hesitated to implement that agreement. Hassan's father, Ali, removed Muawiya as governor of Syria after he became caliph, and Muawiya was at war with Ali throughout his tenure as caliph. In this situation Hassan and many people were afraid that Muawiya might take revenge of his father on Hassan. But Muawiya proved everyone wrong. The kindness, dignity and compassion he showed to Hassan amazed everyone. In this case, the sign of Muawiya as a generous human being is still remembered in history. There is considerable doubt as to whether the second treaty took place at all. Even Muslim historians have not all agreed with this claim. In fact, when Hassan left the responsibility of the caliphate to Muawiya due to his own grieving and incapacity, it was not possible for him to impose any strong demands or conditions on Muawiya that his younger brother Hossain should be the next caliph after Muawiya. In fact, when Hassan left the responsibility of the caliphate to Muawiya for his own urge and incapacity, it was not possible for him to impose any strong demands or conditions on Muawiya that his younger brother Hossain should be the next caliph after Muawiya. And apart from that, one more thing to be noted in this context is that Hassan himself had no special attraction and interest in the post of caliph. He advised his father to abdicate the Caliphate and establish peace in the Islamic Empire. When he suddenly ascended the Caliphate after his father's death, the inherited empire was on the brink of collapse. It is unbelievable that he would pressurize to place his brother in a position he has no interest in such dire straits.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

         

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter Five

Ali was killed either by the hostages (Jimmi) or by the Kharijites

 

After Imam Hassan voluntarily handed over the caliphate of his own part to Muawiya, Muawiya became the caliph of the entire Islamic empire, as the Muslims of the rest part had already accepted him as the caliph. When Muawiya (661 AD) was entrusted with the great responsibility of the Islamic Empire as the fifth caliph, the state of the empire was plunged into a deep crisis and uncertainty. The empire was devastated by a five-year civil war and was on the verge of collapsing from within. All the strength within was almost exhausted and all that was left of it was a skeletal structure of an empire. Not only was it a dire situation of internal strife, disunity and financial distress, but already external enemies had become active and the nations and countries that were conquered and brought under the Islamic empire were also eager to become independent and free again. The bottom line is that when Muawiya took over the caliphate of the Islamic Empire, the empire was like a terminally ill patient admitted to the intensive care unit. Muawiya had to take control of the Islamic empire in such difficult times. After becoming the caliph, his biggest challenge naturally was to save the Islamic Empire from its imminent destruction. He was certainly able to meet that challenge with great success. He not only protected, but also expanded the Islamic empire more widely.

The death of the fourth Caliph Ali had far-reaching effects. Ali's death at the hands of the assassins affected the history of Islam in two ways. On the one hand, his son Hossain was forced to die in the war with the army of the sixth Caliph Yazid, the son of Muawiya, in the desert of Karbala, and on the other Islam and the Islamic empire was saved from the sure destruction and being erased from the pages of history forever. Judging from that aspect, Ali's army of assassins killed Ali and saved Islam. Naturally, historians and students of history have a deep curiosity and interest in knowing the identity of the members of Ali's army of assassins. They collected the identity of those murderers from various historical sources. But they could not agree on their identity, there are different opinions among them. One view is this – when Ali called a truce during the terrible Battle of Siffin and agreed to a negotiated settlement, not all of his followers accepted it. A section strongly opposed and rebelled against this role of Ali. These rebels are known in history as Kharijites. They put great pressure on Ali to withdraw from the settlement and resume war with Muawiya. But Ali did not agree to their words, because he had become so weak and powerless from the constant fighting that it was not possible for him to continue fighting at that time. He needed a breather at any cost. So he did not yield to the pressure to withdraw from the path of settlement through dialogue. As a result, those who were against negotiations declared rebellion against Ali. One opinion is that they killed Ali. This view is mainly held by Muslim historians. But there are two other opinions about the identity of the assassins. One of those views is this - A section of the mutineers were Muslim converts who had to renounce their religion to save their lives and become Muslims. Someone from their side took advantage of the situation and killed Ali. They killed Ali not because Ali had agreed to a settlement with Muawiya. Actually they killed Ali out of personal anger. Another view is that the hostages killed Ali. Their reason behind killing was the same. The killers were either necessarily Muslims or hostages, and it is highly probable that either of these two, because the treatment with unbelievers (Jimmi) in the Islamic regime was so dishonorable and humiliating that no self-respecting person could accept it. It is impossible to express in words how inhumane the hostages had to live. Sad and miserable pictures of their life of that time are still recorded in Hadith and Qur'anic Tafsir. Let's see what Ibn Kathir wrote in Tafsir of verses 9/28 and 29 of the Qur'an about the subject. Abdur Rahman Ibn Ghanam Ash'ari said, I wrote a contract with my own hand and sent it to Caliph Omar (R) that,

I begin in the name of Allah, the Most Merciful

These are the pledges written by the inhabitants of such and such a city in the country of Sham to the servant of God, Amirul Mu'minin Omar - 'When you came to us, we prayed to you for ourselves, for our children, for our wealth and for all the people of our religion. In return for the said security we pledge, that we will not build any new church or place of worship in our city, or anywhere in its vicinity; No old churches or synagogues will be repaired; Churches and places of worship that have previously become the property of Muslims will not be re-established as churches and places of worship; We will not prevent any Muslim who wants to stay in any of our churches, night or day; We shall keep the doors of our churches open to passers-by and travelers; If a Muslim traveler passes by our residence, we will entertain him for three days; We will harbor no spies in our churches or dwellings; We will not treat Muslims in any way fraudulently; We will not teach our children the Qur’an; We will not promulgate any kind of 'Shirk'; We will not call anyone to 'Shirk'; If any of our relatives wants to accept Islam, We will not prevent him from accepting it; We will show respect to Muslims; If any Muslim wants to sit in our Majlis, We will move aside and make room for him; We will not wear any clothes like the clothes of the Muslims; We will not wear hats; We will not use a turban; We will not wear shoes and We will not comb our head; We will not use language like the language of Muslims; We will not accept aliases like the aliases of Muslims; We will not use mattresses on horses; We will not walk around with a sword around our neck; Will not keep any kind of weapon; will not carry weapons of any kind; will not inscribe anything in Arabic on the ring; will not buy and sell alcohol; Trim the hair on the front of the head; Wherever we are, We will have ‘TIKI’ (a bunch of hair) on the head everywhere and always; We will wear ‘PAITA’ (a few threads) on the body; Will not place crosses in public places in churches; We will not display crosses or our religious books in the streets of Muslims or in their markets; Will not ring bells loudly in churches; shall not read our religious books aloud in churches in the presence of Muslims; We will not take out any kind of procession on the occasion of religious festival; Will not cry loudly while carrying the corpse, and we will not take the fire with the dead body on the way of the Muslims; We will not carry the dead body through the streets or markets of Muslims; We will not use a slave used by a Muslim; We will guide a wayfaring Muslim in his need and will not peep into any Muslim's house. Abdur Rahman Ibn Ghanam Ash'ari said: When I reached Omar (R) with the above pledge, he added the following words to it: And we will not beat any Muslim. By agreeing to these conditions, we got safety. If we break any of these conditions, there will be no responsibility on you (Muslims) regarding our safety. In such a situation it will become legal and permissible for you to treat us as enemies. (See Ibn Kathir's Tafsir, Volumes 8-11, pp. 676, 677)

A clear picture of how hostages, polytheists, unbelievers, infidels, and non-Muslims had to live in the Islamic empire is revealed in the Tafsir. This life cannot be called human life. Needless to say, such a life is miserable and unbearable for people. Such a non-humane way of life was not the end; moreover they had to pay a high jizya tax. Such a non-human way of life was not the end; moreover they had to pay a high jizya tax. This kind of living makes people rebellious, vindictive and violent. Where public protest is barred, people resort to assassination. People seek redemption along that path or become desperate for revenge. During the caliphate of Islam, such incidents happened again and again. The arms of the hostages have burned again and again against the Caliphs. The second caliph Omar died at the hands of those hostage assassins. Umayyad Caliph Omar II was killed by poisoning his food. They even tried to kill Prophet Muhammad by poisoning food by inviting him to house. Although he became seriously ill after eating that food, he survived somehow. So it is very likely that those who killed Ali were from the hostage community. However, some of the mutineers among Ali's army who were Muslim converts may have been Ali's killers. Because, unbelievers renounced their own religion and embraced Islam but would not receive equal status and faith as Muslims, they were treated as second-class Muslims and were called necessarily Muslims. They were spared only the Jizya tax, but would deprive of all dignity, honor, freedom and rights as human beings. As a result, some people among them may have killed Ali to relieve their long accumulated anger. The main point in this context is that those who killed Ali were a group of people who were humiliated, oppressed and irritated by the Islamic regime. Not for want or gain, they killed Ali to avenge the steamroller of tyranny and oppression, humiliation and slavery, subjugation and exploitation that was being inflicted upon them. By killing Ali, they unknowingly saved Islam and the Islamic Empire. Had Ali lived a few more years, the collapse of the Islamic Empire would have been inevitable. And if that happened then the religion of Islam would have gradually gone towards extinction.

Yes, such an outcome was likely. Because the age of the Islamic state was only thirty years then. The expansion of Islam and the expansion of its state were happening with the power of the state. It goes without saying that if that state was destroyed, the power of Islam would have been destroyed. What needs to be noted in this context is that till then those who accepted Islam and became Muslims were faithful and fond of the (own) religion they had left, and they pretended to be Muslims to defend their lives. The Qur'an-Hadith is the proof that the Quraysh of Mecca became Muslims out of fear of their lives. Muhammad preached Islam in Mecca for about thirteen years, but when the people of Mecca rejected his religion, he left for Medina. At that time his followers were only a handful. After going to Medina, he gradually started to change his opinion and path. He started robbery and looting. He named it Jihad (in the way of Allah). He used to share what he got from robbery and looting among everyone. Muhammad carried out the first successful robbery and pillage against the Quraysh of Mecca under the guise of jihad. In history it is known as Badr War. After that the number of members in his group (religion) started increasing. The Jews of Medina were also looted and deported from Medina, because they did not accept Islam and did not support the work of Muhammad. He brutally killed a group (Banu Qurayzah) of them (700/800) together. As a result Muslims became rich quickly and the number of Muslims also increased rapidly. So within eight years of his departure to Medina, he attacked Mecca with ten thousand armed and well-organized soldiers in the name of Hajj. Unprepared and disorganized, the Quraysh of Mecca were forced to surrender to Muhammad and saved their lives. After Muhammad's conquest of Mecca (630 AD), the conquest of Islam beyond Mecca-Medina and Arabia began. Muhammad and his caliphs became obsessed with expanding the boundaries of the Islamic state by raiding and occupying one country after another. The religion of Islam was imposed on the people of the country that came under occupation. Those who refused to renounce their religion despite the fear of their lives were called hostages (Jimmi) and subjected to discriminatory and inhumane conditions. How vile and nefarious those terms literally are has been described above. It is easy to imagine that those who became Muslims in the thirty years prior to Ali's death did not instill confidence, loyalty, faith and respect towards Islam, rather resentment, disgust, anger and hatred were stored in their minds. It is certainly not difficult to imagine what would have been the consequences of the destruction of the Islamic Empire under such circumstances. In droves the Muslims who had necessarily converted would return to their own religion and they would surely jump to take revenge against the oppressors. No one but fanatical Muslims would believe that Islam could have survived in its glory and power in the face of such conditions.

The period of the Caliphate of Muawiya was very important in all respects. Before he breathed his last after ruling the caliphate for twenty long years (661-680), Muawiya consolidated the Islamic empire on such a strong foundation that it became invincible and unchallenged. Islam was the second largest religion in the world then, this would not have been possible unless the caliphate of Ali had ended and the responsibility of the caliphate had been entrusted to Muawiya. The Abbasid era of the Islamic Empire is called the Golden Age of Islam, and it is Muawiya who laid the foundation of that Golden Age.

There is no space here to shed light on these matters. Yet it is mentioned as Muslim historians have done great injustice to this Muawiya. They have criticized him recklessly. They marked the Caliphate of Muawiya as the beginning of the decline of the Islamic Caliphate. They describe Ali's caliphate as the last true Islamic caliphate, who instigated a rebellion against Othman and killed him and achieved the caliphate. They have always been reluctant to show Muawiya the courtesy of expressing gratitude to him by openly acknowledging his contribution to the Islamic Empire and Islam. But non-Muslim historians have freely acknowledged the success of Muawiya. "Muawiya brought order to chaos and established a strong Muslim society," Hitti writes. He also wrote, "During the reign of Muawiya, the Caliphate of Islam was not only consolidated, but also expanded manifold." Some Muslim historians also admit that it was during Ali's time that parts of the Islamic Empire were annexed by the Roman emperors. Dr. Othman Ghani wrote in the book 'Umayya Caliphate', "But during the Caliphate of Othman, taking the golden opportunity of civil war and great confusion, the Roman emperor recaptured the abandoned areas and started unspeakable oppression on the Muslim inhabitants there." (P-19) Despite admitting this, Dr. Othman Ghani and other Muslim historians have not hesitated to tarnish Muawiya's reign and his character, even in criticizing him they have violated the rules of etiquette and decency that should be displayed as a historian. How and why they brutally pierced Muawiya will be discussed later in the appropriate place. The battle of Karbala took place immediately after the death of Muawiya; now let's take a look at that context.

Muawiya was a man of great foresight. He did not fail to recognize or understand the end of his life. Shortly before his death, he nominated his only son, Ezid or Yazid as his next caliph. It is true that he nominated his own son as the caliph, but he traveled around the empire to present his proposal to the courts of the Muslim people and seek their opinions. With the power of the Caliph, he could have imposed his son Yazid as the Caliph at the head of the entire Muslim nation, but he did not. Perhaps he wanted to understand whether the entire Muslim community was willing or ready to accept Yazid as Caliph. Muawiya was a rare gifted man with sharp intellect and deep insight. He was incredibly good at knowing people and understanding people's minds. He used to select and appoint qualified, efficient and suitable people everywhere in the administration; in this case he strictly applied the principle of neutrality irrespective of religion, caste or relative. Perhaps in his old age he accepted with a smile the hardships of circumambulating the entire empire to see if he had done right or wrong by electing Yazid as the next caliph. There are different opinions and various accusations against him about appointing his son as caliph. The exact reason or why he chose his own son is a matter of research for historians, but everyone is interested to know what the Muslim historians have said about this and how accurate their statements are. But that will be discussed a little later at the appropriate place. Before that, let us now shed light on the reaction of the entire Muslim world to the nomination of Yazid as Caliph. As I have already said, to see and understand whether the whole Muslim world was willing and ready to accept Yazid as the next caliph, Muawiya began a tour of the whole empire, visiting the capital cities of every province and exchanging views with the officials of the administration, and other prominent citizens in addition to the rank-and-file officials of the administration. He explained to everyone why he wanted to entrust his own son with the responsibility of the next caliphate of a vast empire and invited their opinions and reactions. On the whole, his visit was quite satisfactory and satisfying to him. Because all the other provinces except Medina were standing by him. The massive support he garnered for him probably exceeded even his expectations. A handful of people in the city of Medina criticized and opposed his proposal. This, however, did not surprise him, for he knew for sure that they would not accept Yazid. He knew that they would not accept not only Yazid, but anyone else. They never and in any way extended a helping hand to him during his (Muawiya) rule; rather their role was always to criticize him (Muawiya). They were never well-wishers of Muawiya. Their opposition to Muawiya was purely blind opposition and indignation, never thinking that opposition to Caliph Muawiya could endanger the Islamic Empire. It is well known that people's natural sense-intelligence is destroyed as a result of blind opposition and blind outrage. Greed for money, fame and power and revenge and vindictiveness trap people in blind opposition and blind outrage. The main reason behind the battle of Karbala was the insatiable greed for power and fame.

The notables who protested the nomination of Yazid as Caliph in Medina were only four in number. They are Ali's son Imam Hossain, the first caliph Abu Bakr's son Abdur Rahman, the second caliph Omar's son Abdullah and the distinguished companion Zubayr's son Abdullah. As soon as Muawiya proposed the name of Yazid as the next caliph before the people of Medina, the four stood up and protested against him. But the rest of the Muslim people present in the meeting expressed their support and consent to Muawiya’s proposal, then they left the meeting place. They expected the support of the people of Medina to be theirs, because they believed that the Muslims of Medina could not support anyone other than the grandsons of Muhammad and the sons of Abu Bakr and Omar. But the people of Medina proved them wrong and openly stood by Muawiya and Yazid. The people of Medina probably could not forget the pain they felt when they saw the role they played when Othman was killed by the rebels. Hossain and his other three companions felt great emotional distress and became depressed in this role of the people of Medina. So they not only left the meeting place, but soon left Medina and went to Mecca. What a cruel irony of history, 56/57 years ago Muhammad, Ali, Abu Bakr, Omar and Abu Zubayr had to leave Mecca and come to Medina to take refuge due to the great disappointment of not getting the support of the people, and today their successors lost the support of the people and left Medina and crossed the road to Mecca. That day Hossain and his three companions did not realize their mistake; they accused the people of Medina of being corrupt and becoming agents of Muawiya, the same mistake is still being carried by Muslim historians today. Just as Hossain insulted the people of Medina as agents, Muslim historians continue to insult the people of Medina in the same language. Dr. Othman Ghani said in this regard: ‘As soon as he put his proposal in front of the people of Medina, the main people there--Husain son of Hazrat Ali, Abdur Rahman son of Abu Bakr, Abdullah son of Omar and Abdullah son of Zubayr left Medina for Mecca in defiance of Muawiya; then some agents stood up on behalf of the rest of the common people and announced the loyalty of all. (The Umayyad Caliphate, p. 22). Dr. Gani's group does not want to end by insulting only the people of Medina as brokers; they have insulted all the Muslims in the whole Muslim world of that era as brokers in their pen. Let's see how much low taste has been shown by Mr. Gani in his own language calling all Muslim communities in a vast empire as agents—‘In 676 A.D. he expressed his opinion before the people, but before that he had secretly cultivated some public opinion of the broker class. So there was no problem. By brokers (though not in trucks) hired men on camels came and paid artificial allegiance to him.' (See-The Umayyad Caliphate)

Muawiya nominated his son Yazid as caliph a year before his death in 679 AD. He died in April 680 AD. Then the situation quickly advanced towards the Battle of Karbala. The battle of Karbala took place just six months after Yazid took over as caliph.

 

 

 

 

 

 

               

 

 

 

Chapter Six

Despite Hossain's objections, Yazid's ascension to the 6th Caliphate was smooth

 

After the death of Muawiya, Yazid was appointed the sixth caliph of the Islamic Empire in 680 AD. Since he was pre-designated for the position, his ascension to the Caliphate was peaceful and smooth. Even the Muslims of Medina did not hesitate to accept Yazid as Caliph. The only exception was Imam Hossain and a handful of his companions. They refused to accept Yazid as Caliph. It is pertinent to note that Hossain was staying in Medina when the process of taking Bayat (Oath of Allegiance) was going on in the entire Muslim world at the hands of Yazid. When Muawiya came to Medina with the proposal to nominate the Yazid and was exchanging views with the people of Medina, Hossain walking out of the meeting left Medina and went to Mecca. However, there are two opinions about it. According to one opinion, he returned to Medina from Mecca before the death of Muawiya, another view is that he came to Medina on hearing the news of Muawiya's death to observe Medina's reaction to the situation after Muawiya's death. But the situation he saw with his own eyes (almost everyone in Medina accepting Yazid as caliph as a matter of course) left him deeply disappointed once again. Meanwhile in Damascus (the then capital of the Islamic Empire) news reached Yazid as usual that Hossain and a handful of his companions or followers refused to accept him as caliph. Yazid was mentally prepared to hear the news; he was just waiting for the news to arrive. As soon as the news reached Yazid, he sent an urgent message to Walid, the Governor of Medina, instructing Walid to arrange for those who refused to take the oath of allegiance to the Caliph to be sworn in immediately. The governor of Medina naturally conveyed the Caliph's message to Hossain and requested him to accept the Caliph's allegiance, and likewise his followers (Omar's son, Abu Bakr's son, Zubayr's son, and two sons of Abbas, a prominent companion). Upon receiving the Caliph's orders, the son of Omar, the son of Abu Bakr, and the two sons of Abbas took an oath of allegiance to Yazid, the sixth Caliph, ignoring Imam Hossain. Only Hosssain and Zubayr's son Abdullah remained. When Hosssain saw with his own eyes that he was completely alone, even the few who had been with him a year ago had abandoned him and accepted Yazid as the Caliph, he thought it inadvisable to stay in Medina even a moment longer, so he left Medina without delay. Naturally he found only Abdullah Ibn Zubayr as a companion. The governor conveyed the news to the court of Caliph Yazid as usual. On the other hand, since there was no order from the Caliph to force Hossain to obey, he also thought it best and expedient to remain silent on the matter. So Hossain and Abdullah Ibn Zubayr went to Mecca without any hindrance and took refuge.

Going to Mecca Hossain started discussions with his relatives and well-wishers about what to decide about the caliphate of Yazid. They concluded that the only legitimate successor to the Caliphate of the Islamic Empire was Imam Hosssain, Muhammad's grandson and descendant, and since Muawiya has appointed his son as Caliph in a completely unjust and immoral and anti-Islamic way, then Yazid is not a legitimate Caliph in any way. And in the end they also decided that not only refraining from taking Bayat at the hands of the Yazid, public opinion should be formed against his (Yazid's) caliphate, whose aim would be to oust Yazid and hand over the caliphate of the Islamic Empire to Hosssain. It is heard that Zubayr's son Abdullah was the one who influenced or persuaded the most in making such a decision. There is considerable doubt as to how much basis there is in this statement. But what is most surprising is how Hossain and his relatives got the idea of ​​doing the difficult and risky job of deposing a caliph of a huge empire. They were probably hoping that the Muslims would take to the streets to express their support for Hosssain as a descendant of Muhammad. But none of them could understand that there was no element of hope left then. However, they decided to inform him (Yazid) in writing that they would not recognize Yazid as the rightful caliph. According to that decision, some people under the leadership of Hossain sent a letter to Yazid through an envoy that, Muawiya has committed gross injustice and sin by appointing you as Caliph, so you are nothing but an invalid Caliph. Imam Hossain is the only fair and legal heir of the Islamic empire. We therefore do not accept you as the Caliph.

Sending that letter to Yazid, Hossain got down to the task of forming public opinion on his behalf. First he planned to go to Kufa province himself to create public opinion. His father Ali had more followers in this province. His father Ali himself also trusted the people of Kufa. When he (Ali) ascended the throne of the Caliph by holding hands of the murderers of Othman, the people of Medina were very disgusted and angry with him and stayed away from him. So he moved the capital of the Islamic Empire from Medina to Kufa shortly after becoming Caliph. However, Ali's descendants and followers have strongly claimed that since Ali is the descendant of Muhammad, the last prophet of Allah, then only Ali is the rightful heir to the Caliphate of the Islamic Empire, and no one else can be. Ali has repeatedly made the same claim. Ali's wife Fatima also made the same claim and did not accept Abu Bakr (the first caliph after Muhammad's death) as caliph. But it was Ali who did not hesitate to move the capital to city of Kufa from Medina, where Muhammad is lying in eternal sleep. Such a respect, passion and love Ali had for the last prophet of Allah and his father-in-law and cousin! But Othman, knowing his life was in danger, did not leave Medina or shift the capital from Medina. He said, "My life and the throne of the Caliph are very insignificant compared to the soil on which my beloved Prophet is lying in eternal sleep, I cannot leave Medina for anything." How deep and how sincere the love and respect for the last Prophet was in Othman's heart, he has shown with his own life. Othman, however, was not the heir or descendant of the Prophet, nor even a member of his tribe. Ali, on the other hand, was a very dear cousin of the Prophet. The Prophet loved and cherished Ali so much that he married him (Ali) to his own daughter Fatima, however, both Abu Bakr and Omar had already proposed to the Prophet for marriage to Fatima. Muhammad bestowed on Ali the two outstanding titles of 'Sword of Allah' (Saifullah) and 'Door of Knowledge'. It was Ali who left Medina, Muhammad's most beloved city, to Kufa to protect his own interests. Hossain first chose the city of Kufa to form public opinion in his favor. Before going to Kufa, he sent his cousin ‘Muslim’ there to inquire about the situation there.

There is different opinion about why Hossain decided to go to the city of Kufa in the first place. That opinion is as follows: The people of Kufa could not accept Yazid as caliph at all. They thought that 'Yazid was a wanton, licentious and drunken youth, and wholly unfit for the Caliphate. They were ready to revolt against Yazid, and they wanted Hossain, son of Ali, the greatest hero of all time, to lead that revolt. For that they invited Hossain to come to Kufa city. The people of Kufa sent numerous letters to Hossain writing about their opinions, calls and plans. After receiving these letters from the people of Kufa, Hossain felt strongly encouraged to build public opinion against Yazid and for himself and that is why he first decided to go to Kufa to fulfill his desired goal. Hossain soon became anxious to go to Kufa and could not bear any delay to go there. But his relatives and well-wishers forbade him to go to Kufa. They said that it would not be appropriate for Hossain to go there by believing the words of some people of Kufa, because they betrayed Ali in the battle of Siffin. Therefore, they advised Hossain that it is necessary to send someone there to conduct an on-site investigation and get to know the situation there before Hossain himself goes there. They said that Hossain should go only after receiving certain news that the situation is favorable. In the end Hossain accepted everyone's advice and decided to secretly send his cousin Muslim to Kufa.

Muslim traveled to Kufa in great secrecy and stayed there at the house of a certain Hani, a close confidant of Ali, and gathered from him information about the attitude of the people of Kufa. It was well known in Kufa that Hani was a great fan of Ali, and therefore those who sympathized with Ali and Ali's family but did not see fit to publicly oppose or criticize Muawiya were not happy with Yazid as caliph. Those people used to secretly express their thoughts to Hani whenever they got a chance. Hani did not have an accurate estimate of the exact number of these people or what part of the population of Kufa they were. But after hearing their attitude from some people, he believed that this was the mind of the people of Kufa. Hani told that very encouragingly to Muslim, he said that none of the people of Kufa wanted Yazid; they all wanted to see Hossain as Caliph. Believing in these words, Muslim immediately sent a letter to Hossain that the people of Kufa wanted him as their caliph. They were very angry with Yazid, so he should leave for Kufa as soon as he received the letter. Hossain was very eager for this very letter from Muslim, so he set out for Kufa as soon as he received the letter. He took with him some loyal people including family members.

Meanwhile, the news reached Yazid that Hossain had decided to go to Kufa with plans to rebel against him. Muslim has been sent to Kufa to understand the situation there - this news also reached Yazid as usual. On receiving all these news, he took initiative to thwart Hossain's plan of rebellion with great initiative. And in this work, he thought that it would not be appropriate to trust and rely on the then governor of Kufa and removed him and sent Obaidullah Ibn Ziyad as the governor. He sent Obaidullah, son of Ziyad, with orders that Husain be detained before entering Kufa. Ziyad was a very trusted and highly capable, skilled and shrewd politician, administrator and warrior of Muawiya. Obaidullah was also a worthy successor to his father and very loyal and loyal to the Yazid. Obaidullah quickly reached Kufa and assumed the responsibility of the governor there. Then, before describing what happened in Kufa, it is important to say a few words about Ziyad. Because, just as it has relevance in discussing the history of the battle of Karbala, many Muslim historians have discussed Ziyad in very awkward terms, which is very immoral and full of malice, which must be answered. Ziyad is known in history as Ziyad-Ibn-Abih. Muawiya, the fifth caliph, called Ziyad by this name, and since then he has been known by this name in history. There is a great context for Muawiya's calling Ziyad by that name. It is like this: Ziyad was by birth very dishonored, ignored, and scorned man. It is equally applicable to the modern and so-called civilized society of this time as it was applicable to the society of that time. Because Ziyad's mother was a native of Taif and a concubine of Abu Sufyan. Abu Sufyan was the son of a noble family in Mecca and a well-known figure. He was a rich merchant also. It was the custom of the time for rich people to have many concubines. Muhammad, the self-proclaimed last prophet of Allah, also had many concubines. Among his concubines, the name Maria is very well known. Prophet Muhammad also had many concubines – it is important to mention that keeping concubines was not a sin at that time. And the girls who lived as concubines in a man's harem were not at all bad girls or characterless girls. Either they were slaves or children of poor parents. No woman would have chosen that life of her own free will. In those days, if a child was born to a concubine, the child would grow up in that society, but the man to whom he was born did not take responsibility for his paternity and did not consider him as his inheritance. No matter how unjust, immoral and inhumane this policy or custom is, still the self-proclaimed prophet of Allah, Muhammad, upheld that policy. Not only that, he also goes on to say that a man can have as many concubines as he likes - this is Allah's decree. As concubines who were forced to be sexual partners of a man had no control over their cursed lives, their children had no control over their own unwanted lives. Yet they had to pay the price for their unwanted life. In the society, they did not get recognition like other people, concubines did not get the recognition of their husbands and their children did not get the recognition of their fathers. Even in this era, if a woman is deceived by a man and gives birth to a child before marriage, the people of this so-called civilized society abuse that woman and her new-born child with rude, dirty and ugly language and banish them from the society. As Ziyad was the child of Abu Sufyan's concubine, he was deprived of paternal identity and despised, ignored and pitied by society. That was the social custom of that period, but if the historians of present period attack them with foul language, it would surely be an unforgivable offence. Yes, many Muslim historians are guilty of that crime. They have unnecessarily attacked Ziyad's innocent mother as a harlot woman and innocent Ziyad as a bastard and his son Obaidullah as a son of a bastard. These historians are proof that no matter how highly educated a person may be, if he does not succeed in acquiring real education, his mind will remain a huge reservoir of the poison of superstitions, bad practices and religious sectarianism. Although Ziyad was infamous and despised by birth, he was able to win the admiration and respect of all by his keen intellect and hard work, unparalleled integrity and sense of responsibility. For this quality of his, Muawiya highly valued him and assigned him many important duties in the administration. Impressed by his ability and prudence to carry out his duties, Muawiya entrusted him first with the governorship of Basra and later with the sole responsibility of the governorship of Basra as well as the governorship of Kufa. Gradually he became Muawiya's most trusted person. Muawiya not only honored and rewarded him by appointing him to high posts in the administration, but bestowed on him greater honor than these great honors which is incomparable. Muawiya's father Abu Sufyan did not acknowledge Ziyad as his own son, but Muawiya has established an immortal feat by recognizing Ziyad as his father's son. He took Ziyad to his bosom as 'my brother' even as a caliph. He used to call Ziyad as 'Ziyad my brother'. "Ziyad is my brother" - this word is "Ziyad-Ibn-Abih" in Arabic. In the eyes of Muslim historians, Muawiya was an enemy of Muslims and a most despicable person. Because, Muawiya did not pledge allegiance to Ali and rebelled against Ali, insisting on the punishment of Othman's killers. And since Ziyad had become very loyal and affectionate to Muawiya by fulfilling the duties entrusted to him, he was also an enemy of the Muslims in their eyes. Therefore, these historians attacked Ziyad and his son with ugly language by mentioning his birth identity and satiated their heart's burning. Let us now see what happened after Obaidullah went to Kufa.

Obaidullah came to know the news of Muslim when he went to Kufa. It was only natural to know. Because even though Muslim went there and secretly carried out the work of forming public opinion against Yazid and for Hossain, it did not remain secret. Yazid's people came to know about it and they informed Obaidullah. He then summoned Muslim and Hani without delay and asked them about the allegations against them. Muslim made it clear that everything he heard was true. He arrogantly said that Muawiya had violated and insulted Islamic principles by appointing Yazid as the Caliph of the Islamic Empire. Apart from that, Yazid is not a suitable person for the post of Caliph. So we don't consider him as Caliph. Hossain is the sole heir to the Caliphate of the Islamic Empire, as he is the Grandson and descendant of Muhammad, the last prophet of Islam, and the rightful person to be the Caliph. Upon hearing this, the governor of Kufa, Obaidullah, executed him and his patron and aide Hani for plotting to rebel against the Caliph. The news that Hossain had set off for Kufa with his force, had already reached Yazid and Obaidullah, and after hearing the truth from Muslim, even the last bit of doubt was removed. After the execution of Muslim and Hani, Obaidullah sent a large army under the command of Omar Ibn Sa'd to stop Hossain outside the city of Kufa. Later Obaidullah himself joined that force.

Meanwhile, when Hossain was advancing on the way to Kufa in great joy, news reached him like a thunderbolt on the way that the governor of Kufa had killed Muslim. Quite naturally, a shadow of deep grief descended on Hossain's camp and they were bewildered. In this situation, the camp demanded to cancel the Kufa journey. Everyone looked at Hossain to hear what he had to say. Hossain thought for a while and announced that he would not cancel the journey to Kufa. Everyone was shocked by Hossain's announcement. Because in this situation; everyone clearly understood the meaning of going to Kufa. Even those who were Hossain's own descendants and close relatives who also did not find any sense in going to Kufa to sacrifice themselves for no reason and needlessly. But they could not say that on Hossain's face. And not all of Hossain's fellow-men knowingly joined him in jumping into the death pit for Hossain; many hoped that the people of Kufa would surely be with Hossain. They were extremely disturbed by the news of Muslim's death and repeatedly requested Hossain to cancel the journey to Kufa. But Hossain remained steadfast and adamant in his decision. In this situation, those who were pressuring Hossain to cancel the Kufa journey returned to Mecca. Hossain then left for Kufa with the rest of his companions. At that time he had very few soldiers with him. It is not possible to say exactly how many soldiers there were. There are different opinions about that number, but it is beyond doubt that the number was very small compared to the requirement. It is clear from the different opinions that the number is between 70 (seventy) and 110 (one hundred and ten). Of the seventy only 30 (thirty) were cavalry and 40 (forty) infantry. On the other hand, the army sent by Obaidullah under the leadership of Omar consisted of 400 (four hundred) cavalry. Hossain's army was first stopped at a place about 40 (forty) kilometers away from the city of Kufa by the people of the tribe of Tamim. The name of the place is 'Karbala' which is famous in history. Under compulsion Hossain pitched his tent and set up camp in the desert of Karbala. The desert of Karbala is located very little away from the Euphrates or Forat River. After that Omar's army arrived there. Hossain did not understand at first that they were the forces of Caliph Yazid. He thought they had come from Kufa to support him. When Omar reached there with his army, Hossain felt very excited and enthusiastically asked Omar, who are you? Have you come to join me? Omar introduced himself and expressed his purpose to go there. Then, within a moment, the look of hope disappeared from Husain's face, and his face became black with uncertainty and apprehension. The cloud of despair and apprehension overshadowed Hossain's camp in no time.

Omar also encamped with his army some distance from Hossain's camp on the banks of the Euphrates. Obaidullah joined him later with a large army. Their conversation started with Hossain. Complete accurate information on exactly what was discussed, who made what proposals or conditions, exactly when Hossain arrived, how many troops were in Obaidullah's army, and when negotiations broke down, when the war began, how long the war lasted, how many casualties there were on both sides, etc. nowhere to be found, history writing was not in vogue at that time. The work of writing history began long after that. It goes beyond saying that for centuries people have been talking about the battle of Karbala and history has been distorted to a large extent when the work of writing history began. And the majority of the authors of its history or the countless stories-novels-poems that have been written about it are Muslims who wrote to prove that Yazid was destroying the flag of Islam by becoming the caliph in an immoral way, Hossain accepted martyrdom while raising the flag of Islam. Naturally, all those writings are colored by the imagination of the writers. Therefore, in all these writings, there are different views on informational, statistical and other matters. Muslim historians and clerics also admit that. Professor Haji Maulana Mirza Golam Abbas of Government College Madras (Chennai) has written in this context,

·        Several authors have attempted to give vivid pictures of stories, whose chronology is not yet traceable and whose antiquity has led many to doubt the reality and genuineness of the stories themselves and to suspect them as of the production of intelligent heads for the inculcation of high moral and ethical principles of the common folk in the most appealing and dramatic fashion. (source: Wikipedia)

Naturally, if you want to write about the history of Karbala war with a neutral point of view, you have to rely mainly on the history or stories written by Muslim authors. According to many of them, Hossain offered three acceptable proposals to avoid war, but Obaidullah rejected them.

Hossain's three proposals were - 1) Let him return to Mecca or Medina, or 2) Be allowed to go to Damascus to negotiate with Yazid, or 3) Allow fighting against the enemy of the Muslims on the Turkish border. The governor of Kufa rejected all three proposals and asked him to surrender to him. As Hossain refused to surrender, war became inevitable. There is considerable room for doubt about the accuracy of the three propositions given by Hossain, as claimed by Muslim historians. It is easy to see that proposition number three is unrealistic and contrived. Because there is no evidence that Hossain participated in any campaign against the enemies of the Muslims during the long twenty-year rule of Muawiya. It is not even heard that he cooperated with Caliph Muawiya in any other way. So the proposal of seeking permission to fight against the enemies of the Muslims on the Turkish side is irrelevant. And the proposal to let Hossain go to Yazid to negotiate with does not seem credible enough. Because there was no opportunity to discuss who would be the caliph of the Islamic Empire. The question of negotiation between Yazid and Hossain would arise only if Hossain agreed to accept Yazid as caliph. If there were any demands or conditions on other matters after accepting Yazid as the caliph, the question for negotiation could have been arise. But since Husain was by no means ready to accept Yazid as Caliph, the second proposal is nothing but the brainchild of Muslim historians. So the first proposition can only be true. But it is needless to say that that proposal is impossible for any caliph to accept.

Naturally, the situation in the desert of Karbala became increasingly complicated. Obaidullah continued to pressurize Husain to accept Yazid as the caliph and take oath of allegiance to him; on the other hand, Hossain flatly rejected the proposal and demanded that he be allowed to return to Mecca or Medina. In this situation Obaidullah adopted the strategy of creating mental pressure on Hossain. He ordered Omar to stop the water of Euphrates for Hossain's men and to deploy troops along the river for him. Omar then stationed several thousand soldiers along the banks of the river. Obaidullah may have hoped that when all would be about to die for water, Hossain would agree to accept Yazid as caliph, not for his own life, but for the sake of others, especially the children. But Obaidullah's hopes were proved wrong. Hossain repeatedly ran to the riverside for water, made many requests to the soldiers, requested Omar, Obaidullah and made repeated appeals, but still could not arrange a single drop of water. Even in this situation, he did not compromise; he did not agree to accept Yazid as Caliph. Hossain then thought that if he had to die, it would be better to die fighting for Jihad than to suffer the unbearable pain of thirst for water. He decided to wage Jihad (war) with the forces of Yazid. The war began.

 

Battle of Karbala Begins and Hossain's death

That day was 10th October 680 AD (10th Muharram 61 Hijri according to Arabic calendar). Another view is that the date was not 10th October but 13th October. There is also much disagreement about the number of soldiers in the Yazid's army. But all agree that the number of troops was at least three thousand and at most ten thousand. Regardless of the number of soldiers on both sides, the battle of Karbala desert was a very unequal battle. Naturally, Hossain was defeated in that battle and all the soldiers on his side were killed. It has already been mentioned that the number of soldiers with Hossain ranged from seventy to one hundred and ten men. When Hossain's strength to resist was exhausted and he lay bruised and bleeding on the ground, a General named Seemar decapitated him with the stroke of a sword and with his death the battle of Karbala ended. A tragic chapter in history ended.

In all the narratives of the battle of Karbala that are heard, it can be noted that there is a stark difference between one narrative and another. From that it is proved that most of the cruelty, ruthlessness, brutality, fiendishness, barbarity and inhumanity that Muslim historians and narrators have written about the battle of Karbala against the forces of Yazid are fabricated by them. The reason for this is that these writers are not writing in the spirit of writing the history of the Karbala war, they have written to establish that Imam Hossain sacrificed his life fighting in the Karbala desert against the greatest enemy of the Muslims, Yazid, to protect the principles and ideals of Islam. Naturally, as there are many inconsistencies in the history and stories written by them, in their writings instead of the true history of Karbala war, distorted, half-truthed and untrue and false history has emerged. A few details from the two texts are quoted here to make it easier to understand how much they have mixed the sweetness of their own minds to create a fabricated history of the Karbala war.

• “... the beloved grandson of the Prophet repeatedly requested - do not close the river banks. Give us water. We are all very thirsty, our souls are dying, we will succumb to extreme thirst in no time. You give us water. ... He made touching prayer – you may not give water to me and my men, save our women, give them some water. ... They are as innocent as your mothers and sisters. Give them some water, they are panting with thirst. Give some water to survive. ... Give our children a little water, they are crying in their mother's arms with extreme thirst. They will fall into the lap of death in no time. ...Great Hossain was piercing the heavens and the earth with a longing voice and a broken heart, still not a single drop of pity arose in the corner of the miscreants' heart, then they were busy laughing. ...

After the Imam sought a little water for the children from the enemy side, countless arrows of the enemy side started falling on the Imam's camp and the people. This time Imam Hossain's 10-year-old nephew Kasem was martyred. Later, Asgar was shot by an arrow as soon as the thirsty imam took his son Asgar in his arms and went a little further for water. In this way, one by one, almost everyone in the camp fell into the lap of death. When the thirsty imam finally tried to go to the river bank, the enemies surrounded him. When he too fell half dead from hunger and thirst, the cruel sinner Seemar tried to behead the Imam, but the Imam ordered him to strike on his hind head instead of his neck. Thus on 10 Muharram 70 people were martyred one by one by the infamous Seemar.” (See – Umayyad Khilafat/Dr. Othman Ghani, p. 48-52).

Another account of the same incident written about Imam Hossain is as follows:

… Hossain ibn Ali told Yazid’s army to offer him single battle, they gave his request. He killed everybody that fought him in single battles. He frequently forced his enemy into retreat, killing a great number of opponents. Hussein and earlier his son Ali al – Akbar ibn Husayn were the two warriors who penetrated and dispersed the core of ibn Sa’ad army (Qualb–e-Lashkar), a sign of extreme chaos in traditional warfare. Hussein advanced very deep in the back ranks in the Syrian army when the enemies stood between him and the tents he shouted: ‘woe betide you oh followers Abu Sufyan ibn Harb’s dynasty! If no religion ever been accepted by you and you have not feared the resurrection day then be noble in your world that is if you were Arabs you claim.

Then his enemies evaded back toward him. They continuously attacked each other until his numerous injuries caused him to stay a moment. At this time he was hit on his forehead with a stone. He was cleaning blood from his face while he was hit on the heart with arrow and said: In the name of Allah and by Allah and on the messenger of Allah.’  Then he raised his head up and said: ‘Oh my God! You know that they are killing a man that there is son of daughter of a prophet on the earth except him.’ He then grasped and pulled the arrow out of his chest, which caused heavy bleeding.

He became very weak and stopped fighting. The soldiers approaching him give up confrontation, seeing his position. One soldier, however, walked up to Hussein and hit him on his head with his sword.

… Hussein got on his horse and tried to leave, but Yazid’s army continued to pursuit. …

Omar bin Sa’ad ordered a man to dismount and finish the job. … then Shimr ibn Dhiljawshan dismounted his horse and cut Hussein’s throat with his sword while Hussein was prostrating to God. Just before his throat was about to be cut, Hussein asked Shimr ibn Dhiljawshan, “Have you done your prayers today? (Source: Wikipedia).

The above two narratives focus on Hossain's role on the 10th of Muharram in the desert of Karbala. But what a difference is between the two descriptions! In fact there is no match. Numerous such examples could be given. It is about an incident after the Battle of Karbala. Dr. Othman Ghani writes in his book,

• “Later 70 severed heads and women and children were sent as captives to Obaidullah in Kufa. When the bloody head of Imam Hossain, the son of Rasul-e-Akram, was presented at the feet of Obaidullah, then only one cry was echoing in the air of Kufa - Hai Hossain, Hai Hossain. The son of Ziyad, the bastard son of an unchaste woman, Satan Iblis of all mankind—Obaidullah very casually while moving the sacred severed head of the Imam with a stick, Then an old companion cried out to the heavens and said-‘Slowly, oh slowly! This is the grandson of Hazrat, by Allah; I have seen with my own eyes the holy mouth of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (S) repeatedly kissing these lips.' As soon as this word was uttered by the old man's mouth, the body of the poor Obaidullah shook like an earthquake, the declaration of the truth is so inevitable. So even today, the curse of the whole human world is pouring down like a torrent of rain on Yazid, Obaidullah, Omar and Seemar. ... Later the miscreant Obaidullah, sent the severed head of Hossain and other relatives to the capital Damascus, Yazid quickly returned the severed head in a state of fear and terror, and all were buried in the desert of Karbala. Yazid sent the surviving children and women safely to Medina.' (p-52).

In another text, the description of the scene after the tragic incident on the 10th of Muharram in the desert of Karbala is as follows: When Hossain's family members and the severed head of Hossain reached Kufa, Zainab, daughter of Ali i.e. Hossain's sister, told the people of Kufa –

·        ‘Oh! People of Kufa! Oh deceitful renege people! Do you weep? So let tears not be dried and let groans not be finished. … Beware, such a bad preparation you have made for yourself that Allah became furious of you and you will be at punishment for ever. Do you weep and cry?  Yes, by Allah, do weep numerously and do laugh less! Since you brought its shame and fault on yourself and you will not be cleanse forever.

After the prisoners were taken to Damascus, the source writes,

·        ‘(Zaynab) gave a famous speech in which she denounced Yazid’s claim to be the caliphate and eulogized Hussein’s uprising.’

The account given of how long the prisoners were kept in the palace of Yazid and how the prisoners behaved is as follows:

·        ‘The prisoners were held in Damascus for a year, some prisoners died of grief, most notably Sukayna bint Husayn. The people of Damascus began to visit the prison frequently, and Zaynab and Ali ibn al-Husayn used that as opportunity to further propagate the message of Huseein and explain to the people the reason for Hussein’s uprising. As public opinion against Yazid began to foment in Syria and part of Iraq, Yazid ordered their release and return to Medina, where they continued to tell the Hussein’s cause. (Wikipedia). 

Needless to say, there is no agreement between the two accounts of the events that followed the Battle of Karbala. It is common sense that the information recorded by Wikipedia is almost entirely fabricated. It is necessary to keep in mind that those who had deep love and respect for the Prophet's Grandson Hossain also had a deep fear of Yazid's soldiers. It is not believable that ignoring that fear, many people gathered to see Hossain's severed head and family members. The second claim is that Muslims thronged the prisons in the capital city of Damascus to see Husain's family members and in front of those people, Hossain's family members have criticized Yazid with happiness or sadness and praised Hossain while Yazid and his vassals all watched in silence. The account also states that the campaigning of Hossain's family members from prison led to growing discontent and public anger against Yazid in Syria and various parts of Iraq, Yazid became very frightened and released them to Medina. All these claims are not only frivolous but also as ridiculous and imaginary as the story of the cow climbing the tree. However, there is some truth in Dr. Gani's account about transportation of Hossain's family members, including severed head of Hossain, from Karbala to Kufa and from Kufa to Damascus; and the role of Yazid. Although his epithets about Obaidullah violate the bounds of decency, what he says about Yazid's role has some sense of responsibility to history. Yazid showed his magnanimity in the way he treated Hossain's family members. If any Muslim historian admits it, it causes great discomfort to the Muslims. But what Dr. Gani wrote about Obaidullah is completely false and outrageous. Obaidullah's demonic treatment of Hossain's cut head, which he claims, proves that Obaidullah's anger and hatred towards Hossain had been stored for ages. But there is considerable doubt as to how true this is. Rather, he was very generous and sympathetic towards Hossain, according to another source which is conducted by Muslims. The source writes:

·        ‘... Upon learning that his army had succeeded to lay a siege around the Imam's camp, Governor Ibn Ziyad sent additional military units to Karbala and appointed Umar Ibn Sa'ad in charge. Imam Husain (a.s.) opened a dialogue with Umar Ibn Sa'ad and convinced him to lift the siege so that the Imam with his family and companions could leave Iraq. Umar Ibn Sa'ad liked the Imam's proposal and sent a message to Governor Ibn Ziyad notifying him about the results of the talks with Imam Husain (a.s.). Ibn Ziyad also found the Imam's proposal acceptable. However before agreeing to it officially, Shimr Bin Dhil-Jawshan opposed it strongly. As a result Ziyad wrote a letter to Umar Ibn Sa'ad commanding him to either go to war with Imam Husain (a.s.) or be relieved of his duties as commander of the army and Shimr would not only replace him but despatch Ibn Sa'ad's head to Kufa. (www.al-islam.org/short/karbala.htm).  

The Ibn Ziyad referred to here is Obaidullah, the newly appointed governor of Kufa. The source says that he was willing to allow Hossain to return to Mecca, but could not give him (Hossain) the opportunity because of Seemar's strong objection. From this incident it is evident that Obaidullah did not entertain the mean spirit of disrespecting and humiliating Hossain's cut head. Hossain was brutally killed by the forces led by Obaidullah, so Obaidullah is a man of inferior and low instincts-this information comforts fanatical Muslims as much as its opposite information put them in equal discomfort. So what Dr. Gani wrote about Yazid and what the said website wrote about Obaidullah is very offensive to fanatical Muslims. These uncomfortable facts modern Muslim historians and writers try their best to hide or conceal or refute. But that is not possible because the historians of the early period of Arabia did not hide any information in the history that they wrote, no matter how uncomfortable it was for the Muslims. Al Tabari is one of those historians. Al-Tabari writes that Yazid was shocked to see Hossain's severed head. He ordered that all the other heads, including Hossain's severed head, be buried with dignity and arranged for the family members of Hossain to be sent to Medina with dignity. Historians of that era, including al-Tabari, who wrote as true a history as possible, were later destroyed. Many histories and criticisms have been written refuting the history written by them. From these books and critical writings, much of the information written by early historians is available. As a result, despite many centuries of efforts to portray Ali as great and Muawiya as inferior and Hossain as great and Yazid as inferior, the good qualities that existed in Muawiya and Yazid could not be erased. And for that reason, even with thousands of efforts, the widespread use of force, murder-terror, women rape and looting that occurred in the establishment and expansion of Islam and the Islamic Empire could not be suppressed. Let's go back to the history of Karbala.

Before proceeding to the aftermath of the Battle of Karbala, it is necessary to look once more at the events leading up to the battle. There has already been some discussion of the situation at that time. In that discussion, we have seen that Dr. Othman Ghani claimed that Hossain tried his best to avoid war. He writes that Hossain made three acceptable proposals to the Generals of Yazid which, if accepted, would not have created a war situation in the desert of Karbala. Rejecting those offers, when Yazid's army blocked the Euphrates water and blockaded Hossain's forces, Hossain repeatedly begged and prayed for a drop of water for the thirsty children and women, but not a single drop was given. Yazid's army shot arrows towards them and brutally killed everyone. In this case, the fiendish miscreants did not spare the children either. What is said in all these accounts is that Yazid's plan and order was to kill Hossain and by nature Yazid and his appointed governor Obaidullah and chief commander Omar bin Sa'd were all terribly cruel, barbaric and fiendish. Mir Mosharraf Hossain, the author of 'Bishad Sindhu', has claimed that Yazid had planned long ago to kill Hossain. He wrote,

• 'If I am the son of Muawiya, then I will not leave the world without destroying the family of Hassan-Hossain. Seeing the dead body of only Hassan does not mean that the great fire will be extinguished; it is not even that Yazid will end by dividing all the heads in Hassan's clan. Yazid shall not cease till a single creature of the progeny of Muhammad remains alive; His mental-pain will not be dispelled.' (p. 32)

If all these claims were true, they would have been supported or mentioned in every written history or novel. But no, not found. Not only that, we can see the opposite details in the writings of various sources. We have seen some evidence of this in other cases discussed above. Now we will see how vain and fabricated the claims of Dr. Gani and Mir Sahib are from the details of other sources which also have blind faith and loyalty to Muhammad and Hossain. This source claims that when Yazid's army stopped Hossain, he said two things - I am going to Kufa at the call of the people of Kufa, you let me go, if the people of Kufa don't want me I will come back. And if you do not allow me to go to Kufa, then lift the siege; I am going back to Mecca from here. He didn't say anything or offer anything beyond that. Let's see what the source says,

·        ‘The enemy army blocked the camps of Imam Husain (a.s.) from advancing. Tension started to rise between the two. The Imam addressed the enemy explaining to them his motives for going to Kufa, that it was in response to the invitation of the people. He even showed them a bagful of letters he received from Kufa. Hur said that he and his men were not the writers of those letters. Imam told them that if they did not like him to advance with the journey, he was prepared to return to Hijaz. (source:  www.al-islam.org/short/karbala.htm )

Hearing this from the Imam, the head of the army, 'Hur', told the Imam in a hoarse language what the Governor Obaidullah had ordered for him. There was no order to kill him (Hossain). Let us hear what 'Hur' said to the Imam:

·        ‘Hur replied, "We are commissioned to follow you until we take you to Governor Ibn Ziyad, and suggested to the Imam to go towards a station which is neither Kufa nor Medina." Imam Husain found the proposal fair and turned the caravan away from Kufa. Hur and his army marched parallel to the Imam. The two sides reached a village called Nainawa where Ibn Ziyad's messenger (Yazid's governor over Kufa) delivered a message to Hur. The message read, “... force Husain to a halt. But let him stop in an open space, without vegetation or water." Hur conveyed the contents of the letter to Imam Husain. The Imam, his family and companions defiantly resumed their journey and reached a place where another enemy force blocked their move and forced them to stop. When Imam Husain learned that the place was called Karbala, he felt he reached the destination and ordered his camp to be setup. That day was 2nd of Muharram, Hijri 61.

The language and tone of Army Chief Hur's reply was not at all arrogant and outrageous and Husain himself saw nothing wrong with his reply and behaviour as is very clear from the above account. It is needless to say that Hur did not behave in the same manner as the generals do with the one who is ordered to be killed. Dr. Gani and many Muslim historians like him claim that the forces of Yazid were so cruel and heartless that when Hossain reached out to them in desperation for a drop of water and ran like a madman from one to the other, they burst into laughter and in succession Killed Hossain and his people by throwing arrows. But it is such a big lie that it is difficult to find a comparison. This claim has been refuted in Wikipedia's history. (Mentioned earlier).

If someone is not great in his own qualities, to establish him as such by force, one has to make others small and inferior - this is the rule. While proving Ali and Ali's sons as great, Muslim historians have presented Muawiya and Yazid and their followers as very low and inferior in the pages of history. But in spite of this, the great qualities that Muawiya and Yazid had as human beings, along with their faults and shortcomings, could not be erased from the pages of history. On the contrary, those who deny and destroy the good and noble aspects of their character and try to smear them with ugly language, have themselves unknowingly exposed their own smallness and baseness.

 

 

 

 

 

            

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

             

 

 

 

Chapter Seven

Effects and results of the Battle of Karbala

 

The war that took place 1332 years ago still has an impact on Muslim society. Every year this day is celebrated all over the world as 'Muharram'. The date of the battle was the 10th of the month of Muharram in the Arabic calendar, hence this day is known as the 'Muharram' day. The day is a day of mourning. But the manner in which Muharram is celebrated leaves no trace of mourning among the celebrants. They celebrate the day with great joy. They become crazy with joy along with the boisterous dance to the rhythm of playing drums and various musical instruments. Many of those who participate in this type of Muharram event drink alcohol to enjoy it to the fullest. From this celebration of Muharram Day, it is clear that most of the Muslims do not know the true or false history of the Battle of Karbala. A very insignificant part remembers Hossain on the day of Muharram with a heart full of pain. There is also a smaller section among them who want to share the physical pain that Hossain suffered at the time of his death by hitting their chests with their hooves. This scene is really heartbreaking. It is also a perfect example of how bigotry can make people emotional and downright stupid. This passionate fanatical Muslim crowd is a victim of the blatantly biased and untruthful and distorted history that Muslim historians and clerics propagate in favor of Ali and his sons Hassan and Hossain about the Battle of Karbala.

The Battle of Karbala was the first direct division of the Muslim community. The world Muslim community is now literally divided. But the main two groups are Shia and Sunni. Apart from Shia and Sunni, there is 'Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat'. Again there are many divisions within the Shias and Sunnis. The divisions or conflicts between different groups are so sharp and obvious that one group considers another group as enemies. The two major divisions among Muslims originated around the Battle of Karbala. One side held (and still does) that none but Muhammad's descendants had the right to adorn the title of Caliph of the Islamic Empire. According to them - the first, second and third caliphs assumed the office of caliphs unjustly, depriving Ali who was the only rightful and worthy successor at that time, hence they were illegitimate caliphs. Shia Muslims follow this view. The rest are Sunni Muslims. They believe that prophets and messengers cannot have inheritance. They also believe that the three caliphs before Ali had attained the caliphate in an Islamic manner and were definitely legitimate caliphs. Shia Muslims do not believe that the Qur'an compiled during the Caliphate of the Third Caliph (the Qur'an that Sunni Muslims now believe to have been sent by Allah) is the true and pure Qur’an; they consider this Quran as 'Khilafati Quran' i.e. fake Quran. The people of the Shia community believe that those who cheated Ali and became caliphs abrogated some parts of the Qur'an, corrected some parts and added some parts to the Qur'an by themselves to suppress their injustice. Sunni Muslims, on the other hand, strongly believe that this Qur’an is authentic and also believe that this Qur’an is preserved by Allah in heaven. Due to such strong differences, both sides consider each other as adversaries and one side does not consider the other as a Muslim. During the battle of Karbala, the Muslims were divided into two groups, one of them was in favor of Yazid, and the other was in favor of Hossain. Those who were in favor of Hossain were only an insignificant part. The vast majority of Muslims were on the side of Caliph Yazid, who later came to be known as Sunni Muslims. That trend continues today, with Shia Muslims still relatively insignificant in the world, only ten percent. However, now Sunni Muslims also think that Hossain was the only legitimate claimant to the caliphate after Muawiya, that Yazid was an illegitimate caliph, who became caliph in an un-Islamic way.

In the wake of the Karbala war, the Muslim world was divided into two parts, but it did not have a significant impact on the Islamic empire. What little influence there was was largely confined to the cities of Mecca and Medina. Abdullah bin Zubayr eventually did not accept Yazid as caliph and declared himself as caliph. Yazid suppressed Abdullah's rebellion very easily and established peace and order in Mecca and Medina. Yazid did not live long; he breathed his last at the age of 43 after running the caliphate for three and a half years. Then his second son Muawiya II became Caliph, but he was very ill and within 3/4 months he also breathed his last. Then the Caliph became the first Marwan who, after becoming the Caliph, whatever disaffection and disorder still remained in the empire soon ceased, and the expansion of the empire, which had been at a standstill, was resumed with renewed vigour. Marwan entrusted the caliphate to his son Abdul Malik, a very capable man. After Ali, first Muawiya and then Marwan I brought the Islamic Empire from the brink of destruction and put it on such a strong and solid foundation that the Islamic Empire and its caliphate lasted for almost 600 years (until 1258 AD) even after the Battle of Karbala. During this period, the Umayyad period (661-750 AD) is called the golden age of Islamic expansion. Muawiya belonged to the Umayyad dynasty, so the period from his caliphate to the last caliph of that dynasty (Marwan II, 744-750) is called the Umayyad period. It would never have been possible if there had been sufficient public support for Ali and Hossain, or the absolute support of the Muslim world for Muawiya and Yazid.

It can be said with certainty that the Islamic empire introduced by Muhammad was almost dying under Ali and his son Hossain. Muawiya saved the Islamic Empire from that self-murder. That is why the Muslims of the whole world should have been grateful to Muawiya. But it is a very sad fact that Muawiya is now the most inferior person to the Muslim Ummah. The discussion was about the impact of the battle of Karbala. The last and main point in this context is that after the battle of Karbala, the strength and size of the Islamic empire had increased and expanded, it is proved that the battle of Karbala did not have any negative effect on the Muslim society and the Islamic empire.

 

The alleged cause of the Battle of Karbala

The questions of why the battle of Karbala took place, what are the reasons behind it and who is responsible for this battle are very important. Almost all of us who have read or heard the history of this war know more or less that only two people were responsible for this war - the fifth caliph Muawiya and his son the sixth caliph Yazid. Muslim historians, however, identify Muawiya as the main culprit. And on the other hand, according to them Hossain was completely innocent, he tried to save Islam, the Islamic Empire and the real Islamic Caliphate from the hands of a disgraced, drunken and lustful person of Muslim society named Yazid. This was Hossain’s crime in Yazid's eyes and that is why he cruelly and brutally killed Hossain in the desert of Karbala by imposing an extremely unfair and unequal war.

The main charges against Muawiya are arranged as follows: 1) In his desire to become the Caliph he rebelled against Ali, the honest and pious Caliph. 2) Unable to defeat Ali in a direct battle, he assassinated him and seized the caliphate by dishonest and immoral means. 3) In the nomination of the next caliph he violated and dishonoured the agreement made with the Prophet's eldest grandson, Imam Hassan. 4) Deviating from Islamic principles and the revealed path of the Prophet of Allah, he nominated and installed his unworthy son as Caliph. 5) The caliphate that he established by destroying all the principles and ideals of Islam to strengthen and consolidate his power as a caliph is not a proper Islamic caliphate. After Ali's caliphate, the true caliphate era of Islam ended at the hands of Muawiya.

The allegations raised against Yazid are:

1) Yazid was totally incompetent. 2) He was drunk, lascivious, rowdy and self-willed. 3) He ordered to kill Imam Hossain to keep his throne intact. In other words, Hossain was killed on his orders. 4) Sent an army to quell the revolt and looted Medina and grossly dishonored and desecrated the graves of Muhammad and prominent Companions, including the Prophet's Mosque. 5) He committed an unprecedented heinous crime by attacking Mecca and setting fire to the Kaaba, the House of Allah.

 

Muawiya as a man and administrator

 

Before discussing the allegations leveled against Muawiya and Yazid, two particular points must be highlighted. Those two points are: one). In general, in which light Muslim historians and intellectuals view Muawiya and two). How was Muawiya as a person and as an administrator? To understand the attitude of highly educated Muslims of the modern age towards Muawiya, one can look to the comments of some prominent figures in the Muslim community. Syed Amir Ali says,

‘After the abdication of Imam Hassan, Muawiya became a self-proclaimed ruler of Islam, the undisputed, unchallenged leader who ended Imam Hassan's life with the help of a nefarious conspiracy.' He also said, 'He was cunning, dishonest, miserly with sharp intellect but unusually generous in his self-interest.' (The quotations are from the Bengali translation of Amir Ali's book "The Spirit of Islam").

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad said,

‘I believe that on the Day of Judgment, if the wrongdoers are separated from the righteous, Banu Umayyah will be in the first row. It was the oppressors who turned this principle of Azadi (democracy) into tyranny. ...trampled this ideal for personal gain. …Not only have they left the democratic system of Islam into a monarchy; it is nothing but kufr in the eyes of the Qur'an. But the greatest oppression is that by the force of the sword they wanted to destroy the vitality of Islam which seeks to reveal the truth and establish. It destroyed the motivation of Muslims to tell the truth.’ (See - Maulana Abul Kalam Azad: Truth never dies).

It should be noted that Muawiya was a representative of the Umayyad dynasty and the era of the Umayyad Caliphate in the Islamic Empire was started by his hand. Dr. Othman Ghani wrote,

"In 661 AD, Muawiya I, the personal secretary of the Holy Prophet (S) and son of Abu Sufyan, stopped the progress of Islamic democracy. Muawiya I established the Umayyad Empire, giving birth to the Umayyad dynasty. It is doubtful whether the political sins of the entire Muslim world will be equal to the amount of sins that Muawiya himself accumulated by establishing the monarchy and burying the democracy   established by the Holy Prophet (S). ... He had no distinction between right and wrong in establishing this monarchy. For his own self-interest, there was no such heinous act in the world that Muawiya hesitated to accept to remove the thorn (no matter how great he was) in the path. Here he was only a slave to desire. In this context, Muawiya cannot be called anything other than an infamous Muslim in the Muslim world and an initiator of un-Islamic practices and the founder of monarchy, the killer of democracy and the great destroyer of the Islamic world.” (See: Umayyad period, preface)

This is the general attitude of the Muslim world towards Muawiya, brimming with rage and hatred. Muawiya is only a king in their eyes, not a caliph at all. Such propaganda about Muawiya has been around for hundreds of years, influencing non-Muslim historians and writers as well. Historian Arnold wrote in "Caesar of the Arabs",

"When Muawiya established the Umayyad Empire, the ancient pagan Arab ideologies were revived. Unrighteousness took the place of religion - falsehood took the place of truth - and dishonesty took the place of righteousness. Neutrality was replaced by nepotism; Monarchy took the place of 'Majlis - Us - Shura'. Hence Muawiya's title on that day was - Caesar of the Arabs."

The idea and attitude that Muslims hold and constantly promote about Muawiya, whether Muawiya the person or the administrator, in any case that does not match the signature he left on the pages of history. In Muawiya's long life, he was sometimes a colleague and companion of Prophet Muhammad, sometimes he was a subordinate high-ranking official or bureaucrat of the first three caliphs, the three closest and most trusted companions of Muhammad and sometime he was the main leader i.e. caliph of the Islamic Empire. The recognition of his colorful life in the pages of history is, in a word, extraordinary, incomparable, instructive, enviable and certainly exemplary. Let's shed some light on that colorful life. Abu Sufyan was one of Muhammad's enemies in early days. Until the day before Muhammad's conquest of Mecca, he was adamant and determined to wipe Muhammad and Islam from the pages of history. After Muhammad conquered and occupied Mecca; he (Abu Sufyan) necessarily surrendered to him (Muhammad) and accepted the religion of Islam and became a Muslim. That's why even today Muslims taunt Abu Sufyan as 'necessarily Muslim'. Muawiya was the son of that Abu Sufyan. Muhammad's reputation for knowing people is well known. After the conquest of Mecca, he did not take any revenge against Abu Sufyan for strategic reasons, he also tried to build good relations with him in various ways, but he never trusted him from his heart. But Abu Sufyan's son Muawiya became a very faithful and beloved companion (Sahabi) of Muhammad. Muhammad appointed Muawiya as his personal secretary. Not only that, he assigned the most important and responsible task of writing down the Qur'an to Muawiya. Muslims claim that Muhammad was illiterate; an illiterate person could only delegate the responsibility of recording his oral message to someone whom he trusted most. Having such senior companions as Abu Bakr, Omar Farooq, Ali, etc., placing so much trust and confidence in Muawiya is undoubtedly of special significance. Afterwards Muawiya was able to prove that Muhammad had made no mistake in placing deep trust and faith in him. Muawiya's honesty, trustworthiness, devotion, sense of responsibility and expertise left a deep impression on everyone. So those who became caliphs in the post-Muhammad era did not hesitate at all to have deep trust in him. They all appointed him to high posts in the administration. From the mouth of Dr. Othman Ghani, one of those who abused Muawiya as the most notorious Muslim in the world, let's hear how great and important responsibility Muawiya played in the administration of the Islamic Empire from Muhammad to the caliphate of the third Caliph Othman Ghani. He wrote in the book 'Umayya Khilafat' –

After the conquest of Mecca in 630 AD, helpless Abu Sufyan was forced to convert to Islam, along with his son Muawiya. Since then, their relationship with the Prophet became closer. Muawiya also obtained the post of private secretary to Rasul Akram (S), and was engaged in writing the 'Revelation'. ... Subsequently, Muawiya's brother Yazid was appointed governor of Syria and Muawiya was given the post of district governor.

It was the era of Caliph Omar. After the martyrdom of Yazid Yarmouk, the ruler of Syria, Caliph Omar appointed Muawiya as the ruler of Syria. After Caliph Omar, Caliph Othman appointed Muawiya to this post. Muawiya established good governance in Syria by virtue of his talent. He was able to gain a reputation for good governance from all people, starting with the Caliph. One day, due to his extreme fearlessness and military skill, Syria was saved from the Byzantine invasion.” (p-10)

First the private secretary of Muhammad, then the district governor under the first caliph Abu Bakr, then the temporary governor of Syria under the second caliph Omar Farooq, then the permanent governor of the same province during the caliphate of the third caliph Othman Ghani – thus successively holding important responsibilities and performing them smoothly; this glorious crown was in Muawiya's possession. It is certainly a valid measure of how much honesty and trustworthiness he had and how loyal he was to Muhammad and his elder caliphs. When accusations of betrayal, dishonesty and fraud are raised against Muawiya, it is natural to question the veracity of those accusations. Honesty towards one's duties, trustworthiness and loyalty to the Caliph continued during the reign of Caliph Othman. Before the rebellion against Othman began, no one had ever accused Muawiya of dishonesty, credulity and deceit. During the rebellion against Caliph Othman, various accusations began to be made against him (Muawiya). At this stage, Ali's conflict with the Caliph became increasingly intense. Muawiya, as usual, stood firmly on the side of the Caliph. He advised the Caliph to take drastic action against the rebels first and, seeing the situation getting out of hand, suggested the Caliph to move the capital from Medina to Damascus or take a bodyguard. Judged from a neutral point of view, there should be no question about the role of the Syrian governor Muawiya. Muawiya did exactly what an honest, responsible and fearless governor should have done in such dire times and deep crisis for the caliph and the empire. However, those who criticize Muawiya's integrity and credibility must answer the question of how impartial and responsible they are to history. If an honest governor is responsible for his honesty and trustworthiness, he stands by his employer, the Caliph, in deep danger, and helps him to the best of his ability in situations where those who want to accuse him of being the Caliph's ill-adviser and power-hungry; it is not difficult to understand that they are addicted to his criticism to achieve some particular objective.

Muawiya's real test began after his actual accession to the Caliphate. Then he was not a high-ranking bureaucrat under Muhammad or his representatives, the caliphs, who only needs to work to gain the credibility and trust of his employers. Then he had no one above him to whom he was accountable. Moreover, the empire was on the brink of collapse after a long civil war. It is very natural for any ruler to make mistakes in times of crisis like this. In such a difficult time, he had to face an unprecedented and difficult test. The extreme and absolute success he achieved in that test is well known today. What helped him achieve this enviable success were his administrative skill and ability and the policies he adopted in running the empire. By suppressing internal and external rebellions and expanding the empire, he was able to establish such a beautiful peace and order in the vast empire that it became almost a fairy tale. It became impossible for his enemies to deny this. Let's take a look at what his biggest and harshest critic historian Dr. Othman Ghani has described about that peace and order. He wrote,-

"Drum of good governance rang throughout the country; victory song of good policy was announced. Along with that several people were placed in prison. As a result, men and women of the country breathed a sigh of relief. There is no theft from one end of the country to the other - No killing or any damage. As if the country is a quiet ocean. Muawiya is like a blossom lotus in the lake there. Even in the dead of night, a supreme beautiful lady could walk a long way alone; no wretched villain had the strength or ability to lift a finger. Such a system of governance was formulated and introduced by him. As a result, Muawiya gained the respect of an angel from the people. Such strict regimes have never been observed in the entire Arab society. He turned the stormy waves of the ocean into calm waters. He was able to transform the horrors of Baisakhi into the gentle breeze of spring, channeling the torrential floods of the monsoons into well-defined channels. After the assassination of Hazrat Othman till Hazrat Ali, the anarchy and unrest that occurred in the entire country, was not only forever calmed and suppressed, there appeared the harmony of peace in administration. Removed all the weeds, all the anarchy." (See Aforesaid book, p. 33, 34)

The feather of the greatest Arab hero in history still adorns the crown of Muawiya's head for setting the rare example of eradicating all anarchy and tyranny from an empire. All historians irrespective of religion, caste have called him by this term. The magic behind this almost unbelievable and unimaginable feat of precedent and success was the principles he (Muawiya) followed. He took a timely, liberal, progressive and rational approach to the administration of the empire, eschewing the rigid religious narrowness of Islam and blind adherence to the path prescribed by the Qur'an. Among the principles that brought him to the pinnacle of success were secularism, eschewing caste narrowness and looking outside the Qur'an for solutions to problems and ways of improvement. The secular policy he adopted is universally recognized. In this context, a Muslim believer and historian Al Masoudi wrote,

“...tolerance towards other religions was considered a merit of Muawiya's character. He was as cruel and harsh as he was generous and kind. He left a mark of modesty and restraint throughout his life. He saw all people as equal regardless of caste and religion. Other religions lived happily and peacefully during his reign. Once the Christian church ‘Edessar’ was destroyed in an earthquake, he rebuilt it at his own expense. He never hesitated to appoint a worthy person of any religion to any high office. He established a secular state instead of an orthodox religious state and fostered a cordial relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims.” (See that, p-25)

Let us give some examples of how large-scale secular caliph Muawiya was. He raised the first secular army in the Islamic Empire. He honored a famous Christian poet, al-Akhtal, as poet laureate at his court. He appointed the famous Christian physician Ibn Asal as an economic adviser to the province of Hims. The narrow mindedness of clans and feuds and bloodshed between different clans was the tradition and essence of the Quraysh of Arabia. He established himself as an impartial administrator, ridding himself of those terrible vices and traditions that even his enemies could not but acknowledge. In this context, Dr. Gani wrote on page 38 of his book,

• “... He himself, being a Mudariya tribe, maintained good relations with the rival Himariya tribe. In this case, he introduced the best ruler or just judge by adopting neutral principles. ...

• Muawiya established his clan-based kingdom but to keep the administration neutral, he did not appoint any of his clansmen to any high administrative or social position, except to appoint Marwan, the son-in-law of Caliph Othman, as the governor of the Hejaz.”

No one could ever accuse Muawiya of any wrongdoing in his personal life. In this case too, we see the praise of Muawiya's character in the pen of Muslim historians. Historian Al-Masudi describes Caliph Muawiya's simple and unpretentious daily life,

• "After Fajr prayer in the morning, he used to listen to the news of the city from the mayor. Then the Qur'an Sharif was recited. After reading he would took a small breakfast. .. Later he used to sit inside the maqsurah (an enclosure) in the mosque and listen to the public complaints. At this time he would again take a little breakfast, and during that time the secretary would read him various letters. Then poor people were fed. After the Zohar (midday) prayer, special people were allowed to enter, who would come with valuable gifts. ... After the ASR (afternoon) prayer, he used to sit again in the court for the general public. Then there was the evening meal, and the Maghrib (evening) prayer. ... After the Esha (night) prayer, he used to go to the court once more. Later, for 1/3 of the night, listened to the stories of the various kings and concentrated on studying. And would eat a little sweet and go to sleep. His daily conduct seems to have been very orderly, due to which law and order were observed throughout the empire.” (Source – ibid, p. 24, 25)

There is another very bright side to Muawiya's character. It is also recognized in the writings of Muslim historians. What has been written in this context in Dr. Gani's history is as follows:

• “At the time of Caliph Ali, Muawiya was a scheming, aspirant person to be caliph. As a ruler he was harsh, as a politician he was visionary, cunning, hypocrite, a promise-breaker and even a murderer and traitor. However, in his life, there was never any entry of alcohol, gambling and illegal girls. In this respect his personal life was not tainted. He has done a lot of things due to his great ambition; he has achieved the success of his desires with his indomitable efforts. In this regard, the character without alcohol and girls helped him a lot. (Source – ibid, p-26)

The identity of the fifth caliph Muawiya's personal life or caliphate-life is, in a word, incomparable. The honesty, generosity, caste-impartiality, interfaith tolerance, efficiency, ability, foresight, morality, devotion and as subordinates as high-ranking bureaucrats or administrators, towards the employers (Muhammad and the first three caliphs Abu Bakr, Omar Farooq and Othman Ghani) he set a precedent of trustworthiness, responsibility, dutifulness and loyalty that cannot be seen in any other Caliph. As all these qualities gave him a distinct personality, they also earned him the rare honor of Arab-supreme leader (Caliph). Muslim historians and clerics, although acknowledging all these positive and good qualities of his personal life and administrative life, did not recognize him as a good caliph, moreover, he was slandered as a traitor, a deceiver, a murderer, a swindler and a bad Muslim. They pour curses on him by abusive and filthy languages day and night. There are so many glaring contradictions in the assessment of Muawiya by Muslim historians that it leaves us confused. Needless to say, this assessment is an extreme example of unprecedented duplicity. Why the entire Muslim world is simultaneously maddened with duplicity against one of their own Caliphs is both astonishing and intriguing. I will focus on what that mystery is at the end of this book. At this stage, we will focus on the main discussion of this chapter, namely the discussion of how accurate or not at all the responsibility that has been imposed on Muawiya and Yazid as responsible and guilty for the battle of Karbala.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter Eight

Baseless allegations against Muawiya

The allegations leveled against the fifth caliph Muawiya, who attributed the battle of Karbala to him, and the veracity of the allegations which have been accepted in history for ages, are not at all unquestionable and beyond doubt. The main complaint of Muslim historians is that the Battle of Karbala would not have happened if Muawiya had not rebelled against Ali and taken Bayat (oath of allegiance) to Ali when he became the fourth Caliph after the third Caliph Othman was killed. Why Muawiya did not take oath in the hands of Ali? Because, they say that Muawiya had a strong rapacity to become Caliph. For that he made an excuse for not taking Bayat that first the killers of Othman should be severely punished. But historians have not been able to produce any reasonable evidence for this serious charge leveled against Muawiya. So it is not difficult to understand that this serious allegation has been leveled against Muawiya only to smear him. The timeline and course of events during the rebellion against Othman and the events of Othman's murder and then Ali's caliphate - when analyzed from an impartial point of view, it never seems that Muawiya's demand to Ali for the punishment of Othman's killers was just an excuse. An important fact may be recalled in this connection. That is, the demand (first of all to punish the killers of Caliph Othman) was not Muawiya's alone. The demand was of all Muslims in the Islamic Empire. All the companions who were alive at that time were also vocal in that demand. But Ali rejected the demand on various pretexts. As a result, they were so disappointed and angry that they finally left the city of Medina and went to Mecca. Muhammad's most beloved wife, Ayesha, was furious and called for a jihad against Ali to punish Othman's murderers. On her call, the Companions did not go to Mecca but returned midway and joined Ayesha. Thousands of devout Muslims also responded. As a result, war broke out against Ali. Ayesha led the war. This battle is known in history as the Battle of Jamal. It appears that the Battle of Jamal was faught because of Ali's refusal to punish the killers of Caliph Othman forced the Companions, including Ayesha, to wage jihad against Ali. A similar thing happened with Muawiya. So it is very clear that Muawiya had no qualms in demanding the arrest and punishment of Othman's killers, which was the correct, ethical, just and fearless action of a conscientious and idealistic governor. It is beyond doubt that if Ali, after becoming Caliph, had taken the initiative to punish the murderers of Othman, no one would have gone against him. Instead of doing that, he started ruling with killers. To devout Muslims this may sound unbelievable. But no, there is no room for disbelief. Because even the devout Muslim historians, who are always ready to certify Ali as innocent as a child, did not deny this. Dr. Othman Ghani also admitted this in his book. He wrote,

• "On the other hand, those who were with Caliph Ali were all companions of saintly character, some simple people and some people who were directly or indirectly involved in killing Othman." (Dr. Hazrat Ali [R], p-98)

So it is clear that the attempt of Muslim historians to prove Ali's innocence is not only ridiculous but quite shameful. Muslim historians and writers have inserted many falsehoods into the history of the Battle of Karbala to make this shameful attempt credible. As Dr. Gani claimed that,

• 'Those who were with Ali were all Companions of saintly character, some simple folk ...'.

We have already found evidence that this claim is not true. It is seen that several senior and first class Companions and Muhammad's beloved wife Ayesha fought against Ali. Muslim historians did not hesitate to resort to unfair and immoral tactics to exonerate Ali. One such dastardly tactic is to portray Muawiya as inferior in order to make Ali appear superior. It's nothing but a mean trick. Apart from Muawiya, many other honest and sincere Companions have been slandered as selfish, opportunistic and power-hungry. As Dr. Gani said in one place, "Although it is bad to say, Amir Muawiya tied the Arab intellectuals in the darkness of the night with the help of greed and temptation, rank and title, and money." (See- ibid) While portraying Ali as noble and innocent, Muslim historians thus did not hesitate to vilify not only Muawiya but also those who opposed Ali. Those who set an example of such depravity, lowliness and meanness in history are unforgivable.

Many accused Muawiya of having committed two brutal murders. The first is the assassination of Ali and the second is the assassination of Imam Hassan, the eldest son of Ali and the eldest grandson of Muhammad. In the context of killing Ali, it is said that Muawiya could not fight in the front and assassinated him to remove the main thorn in the path of becoming Caliph. But there is no basis for this complaint. The purpose of making this complaint is the same that is to publicly humiliate Muawiya. Those who have raised allegations have not fulfilled the minimum obligation to provide any evidence in support of their allegations. On the other hand, they also say that a section of Ali's followers rebelled and fought against him when he declared a truce during the Battle of Siffin, and it was they who killed Ali. These rebels of Ali are known in history as Kharijites. Some historians have a different opinion in this regard. The theory is that Ali was killed by the hostages (Jimmi). Dr. Othman Ghani identified the Kharijites as Ali's killers. He wrote in this regard,

• “And the Kharijites sat in Mecca on the land of Hejaz and planned how to kill the three people namely Hazrat Ali, Amir Muawiya and Amr.

Oath to kill: First Amr Ibn Bakr took an oath and said - "I take responsibility to kill Amr, the ruler of Egypt". ... Abdur Rahman ... said with a trembling heart - "I take responsibility for Ali.”... The three Arabian swords flashed and roared together over Sher-e-Khoda's head. ... Sher-e-Khoda fell on the ground by the sword. (ibid: p 160-165)

But it is Dr. Gani who has once again put the blame on the shoulders of Muawiya in the case of Ali's death. He writes,

"Muawiya was trying hard to sit on the soil of Syria...Hazrat Ali must be removed from the Caliphate, if necessary, removed from the world." (Source: ibid, p. 161)

After saying that it was the Kharijite Muslims who killed Ali, he immediately turned the accusation towards Muawiya. There are many other such instances from which it is clear that the Muslim historians have purposefully made Ali the great and superior and wanted to scapegoat Muawiya. Those who wrote the history of Islam impartially did not see any connection between Muawiya and the killing of Ali. They said that Ali was killed by the Kharijites. Reynolds Alan Nixon states that clearly. He wrote, “Ali's plans to conquer Syria in 666 AD were ultimately aborted. Ali made peace with Muawiya. After some time he was killed in the mosque of Kufa. Ali's capital was in Kufa in his later life. A Kharijite conspirator Ibl Mulzam killed Ali." (See: History of Arabic Literature, p. 189). Historian Philip K. Hitti also says the same without doubt. He wrote, “On 24th January 661 AD, while going to the mosque in Al-Kufah, Ali was struck on the forehead with a poisoned sword. The blow of the weapon reached the brain. That sword was made by a Khariji. His name was Abd-al-Rahman Ibn Muljam. Relatives of one of his friend Nahrawan were killed in an attack. He was motivated to do so to avenge the murder. Besides, that Muljan was also a part of another big conspiracy. Mulzam was among the three who took an oath on the Kaa’ba to free the Muslim community from the three leaders, Ali, Muawiya and Amr ibn al-As” (See: History of the Arab Nations, p; 173). Imam Hassan also died at the hands of assassin like the 2nd Caliph Omar Farooq, the 3rd Caliph Othman Ghani and the 4th Caliph Ali. But in Hassan's case, the murderer was one of his wives named Zayeda. Zayeda killed him by mixing poison with his food. The blame has been put on Muawiya for that too. However, many have pointed the finger at Muawiya's son, the sixth Caliph Yazid. Others have alleged that both Muawiya and his son Yazid conspired to kill Hassan. Dr. Othman Ghani is in the latter group. He wrote a charge sheet against them in the book 'Hazrat Ali (R)'.

• "It is a matter of great regret that in the deep conspiracy of necessarily Muslim Islam Amir Muawiya and his infamous son Yazid; the beloved grandson of the Holy Prophet, the apple of Hazrat Ali and Bibi Fatima's eyes and the most respected person of the entire Muslim world, Imam Hassan travelled to other world after poisoning by his wife Zayeda. (See p-22)

Zayeda killed her husband – it was certainly an unjust, inhuman and despicable act. But Hassan was no less responsible for this abomination. He was a very woman-greedy man and women were, as it were, the only goal in his life. His attraction to women was so intense and unusual that it is impossible to describe. He could not be satisfied with married life with one or two or such number of women. He used to go crazy to get in touch with new women. And he married a hundred to get it. It is not possible for anyone to guess where that number i.e. the number of his marriages would have reached had he not died prematurely at the hands of his wife. There have also been cases where four wives were divorced in one day and four marriages were completed on the same day. It is easy to imagine the emotional irritation of such a man's wives. Zayeda finally chose that path to get relief from the unbearable burning in her mind. The names of Muawiya and Yazid have been added to Zayeda to hide this great (!) character of Imam Hassan, who is the most respected of the entire Muslim world. With the help of this they want to kill two birds with one stone. Hassan's character has been glossed over and at the same time Muawiya has been shown to be a bad guy. It's nothing but a nefarious trick. Hassan is highly revered by Muslims because he is Muhammad's grandson. Muslim society in general is totally ignorant of the character aspect of that revered man. He married many (about a hundred) to touch new young and beautiful women. It was his life philosophy to get the company of new women. He even handed over the highly valuable and powerful post of the Caliph of the Islamic Empire inherited by inheritance to his father and brother's arch-enemy, Muawiya, to spend his entire life in extreme luxury. Almost no Muslims know about this scandalous dark side of Hassan's character. They don't even know that his untimely death was due to that characteristic rashness. It does not seem that Hassan's place of honor and respect in the Muslim community will remain intact if this becomes known. So Muslim historians and fanatical highly educated Muslim intellectuals always hide this dark and fetid side of Hassan's character. Not only do they hide, they always portray him as a great person. Such shameless flattery is unmatched in the whole world. In order to make this naked flattery believable, on the one hand Hassan's bad character is hidden, on the other hand they have to make up a story that he died in the conspiracy of Muawiya and Yazid. But is it possible to erase the truth forever despite a thousand attempts? So it was not possible to erase that ugly character of Hassan from the pages of history. The historical account of Hassan's abominable attachment to women and how he had to die untimely is as follows: "Al-Hassan was more interested in the domestic harem than the throne. He was not very enthusiastic about running the state. He abdicated the throne to his rival to lead a carefree and contented life in al-Medina. But before that he arranged for himself a hefty amount of grants and pensions with the approval of Muawiya. Its total amount was a sum of 5 lakhs or 50 lakhs of dirhams for life from the treasury of Kufa and the revenue collected from a district in Persia. He died at the age of only 45 (AD 669) as a result of some harem conspiracy, possibly poisoned. But before that Al-Hassan's marriages and divorces are said to have reached 100. For this he was called Mitlak (Great Divorcer). The Shias blamed Muawiya for this conspiracy.” (See: History of the Arab Nations, Philip K. Hitti, pp. 181, 182). Hitti collects this history from Tabari, 2nd Kajhand and Yaqubi 2nd vol.

A third charge against Muawiya is that he violated the agreement he had made with Hassan regarding the nomination of the caliph by appointing Yazid as caliph, which made the battle of Karbala inevitable. The agreement that is being talked about is as it is heard in history: Muawiya would nominate Imam Hassan's younger brother Imam Hossain (Imam Hossain) as caliph and hand over the caliphate of the Islamic Empire to him before his death. History does not provide strong evidence for the claim that this alleged agreement actually took place. In this context, Imam Hassan's abandonment of the caliphate can be recalled. Some of these have already been discussed. There we note that under absolute compulsion and certainly willingly, Imam Hassan left the responsibility of caliphate in the hands of Muawiya. He loved to live in luxury with women and wealth. While handling the huge responsibility of caliphate, his peaceful, beautiful and smooth life was repeatedly disrupted. He was sure of one more thing that he would never win by fighting Muawiya. So he came to the firm conclusion that it would be the right thing to give up the weighty responsibility of the Caliphate off his shoulders. This was the main reason behind the handing over of the Caliphate by Hassan to Muawiya. In such circumstances, the claim that Hassan imposed a condition on Muawiya that his brother should be made Caliph and was adamant on that condition does not seem credible. Hassan left the caliphate on his own accord to be relieved from responsibility. So it seems more plausible that he was not in a position to hold on to any conditions before abdicating or handing over the Caliphate. All that was possible for him at that time was to ask for something from Muawiya, to make some requests to him. Yes, it may be that all he wanted from Muawiya included the want to make Hossain the next caliph. It is impossible to say with 100 percent accuracy after so long what was discussed or given between Muawiya and Hassan. However, one thing can be said for sure in this case, that on the eve of relinquishing and handing over the caliphate, both of them (Muawiya and Hassan) agreed on the matter that Muawiya as the caliph should take responsibility for the sustenance and security of Hassan and his family. There is evidence in history also that such conditions or agreements were made. Such as Dr. Othman Ghani wrote,

• Imam Hassan was the first child of Hazrat Ali. He was very calm. After his father's martyrdom, he managed the caliphate for six months and left the caliphate instead of a specific allowance, avoiding night and day murders, quarrels with Amir Muawiya. And left Kufa, the capital of his father, and returned to Medina. (See. - Hazrat Ali (R), p-204)

The fourth and biggest charge against Muawiya is that Muawiya undermined Islamic principles and Islamic-democracy in the nomination of the next Caliph and established a monarchy instead of Islamic-democracy i.e. Caliphate by appointing his own son as Caliph. Killing of Islamic-principles and Islamic-democracy, and establishing a monarchy instead of a caliphate. These two allegations are not only unrealistic and baseless but also ridiculous. Because, 'Islamic-democracy' is nothing but a completely unrealistic theory and an illusion. No religion has left even an iota of ground in favor of democracy. Democracy, socialism, liberalism, secularism, communal-harmony, etc., are in eternal enmity with political terms of all religions. And it goes without saying that in Islam, Allahism and Muhammadism are the last word. Making or enacting any law outside of Quran-Hadith (which is a democratic act) is totally against Islam. Now let's come to the question of Islamic principles in the election of the caliph in an Islamic state. The charge against Muawiya is that he trampled on this policy to make his son the caliph. This allegation seems true and reasonable on the face of it. But this allegation also has no basis in reality. Because, in the Islamic, state there is no such thing as the principle and method of electing a caliph. Muhammad did not lay down any policy on this matter, nor did he get time to do so. In fact, he did not get time to think about the matter, because after only a few days of fever and unbearable headache, he suddenly breathed his last. Since there were no guidelines on how to elect a caliph, the election of the first caliph after Muhammad's death resulted in great disagreement and strife among his followers. Abu Bakr was somehow elected as the first caliph in that strife-ridden environment and circumstances, but great dissatisfaction and anger remained among the Companions. Ali and his wife (Muhammad's beloved daughter Fatima) did not accept Abu Bakr as Caliph and did not pledge allegiance to him. Fatima remained firm on that decision until the day she died. This incident has already been somewhat discussed. In that discussion we have seen that the first caliph Abu Bakr did not fix any policy on the question of caliph election before nominating the second caliph. It may not have been possible for him to do so. Because he knew very well that the greed and lust of the Companions to be the caliph was intense. That is probably why he did not want to take any risk in the question of electing a second Caliph. Calling the Sahabi and others to his residence, he announced that he had nominated Omar Farooq as the second Caliph. However, before making this announcement, it can be assumed that he discussed with all the Companions and got to know their opinion. Omar Farooq also ventured to nominate the third caliph along the same lines. He wanted to nominate the distinguished companion Abdur Rahman as the third caliph. But Abdur Rahman refused to take that responsibility. He then formed a small committee and entrusted the responsibility of electing the third caliph to that committee. There was intense debate and disagreement in that committee for several days and eventually Othman Ghani was elected caliph by voting. This is very briefly the process and history of the nomination or election of the Caliph of the Islamic state. This history testifies that there was no policy of electing a caliph in the Islamic state. Therefore, the allegation that Muawiya violated Islamic principles is completely baseless and motivated. The allegation that Muawiya established a monarchy instead of a caliphate is also not substantiated. He nominated his son as the next caliph – it cannot be an irrefutable proof that he established a monarchy instead of a caliphate in the Islamic empire. Rather, there is no denying that he followed the path shown by his predecessors in nominating the Caliph. The only difference is that his earlier caliphs did not appoint their sons as caliphs as he did. Why his predecessors did not appoint their sons as caliphs, or why Muawiya chose his son as caliph, there is ample room for discussion, and that discussion will be dealt with later in its proper place. The current topic of discussion is the establishment of the Muawiya-dominated monarchy in the Islamic Empire, let's come to that discussion. When Yazid became the caliph, only then the caliph's son will be the caliph, such a chapter was suggested, but it did not happen that any state policy that the son of the caliph would be the caliph was declared by Muawiya. Muawiya did not enact any such policy, nor did he instruct Yazid to nominate his son as caliph. So the claim that Muawiya established a monarchy in the Islamic Empire has no historical basis. Leaving aside the issue of establishing a monarchy, the question is very important that why Muawiya nominated his own son as Caliph? The question is very important for at least two special reasons. The first reason is that none of the predecessors of Muawiya did that until the third caliphate, they all nominated one of the Companions as the next caliph. Why Muawiya broke the conventional rules or tables? The second reason is that soon after Yazid became the caliph, the situation quickly began to move towards the Battle of Karbala, and the battle did take place. This has led to the general assumption that the Battle of Karbala would not have happened if Muawiya had not nominated his son as Caliph. But in this context it is also necessary to remember that the battle of Karbala was not fought for electing Yazid as Caliph. In fact, there was a war for not making Imam Hossain the caliph. So, not only because of Yazid, but even if any other person except Hossain was made the caliph, the battle of Karbala would have happened. The battle might not have happened in the desert of Karbala and on the 10th of Muharram; it would must have happen at another time and in another desert. Muslim historians have also created a simple equation to lend credence to the allegations leveled against Muawiya. That is – Muawiya was not a Muslim by heart; he was necessarily a Muslim and was an extremely unscrupulous and selfish person. So he put his son on the seat of the Caliph. But the pictures of Muawiya's personal life and various aspects of his life as the administrator holding various high positions of power as we have seen such an easy and simple equation cannot be drawn about him. The matter deserves a deep consideration and a decision. To understand exactly why Muawiya nominated Yazid as Caliph, we must first look closely at the circumstances of the time. Muawiya nominated Yazid as caliph in 679 AD, some fifty years after Muhammad's death. Then the age of the Companions is almost over. Some of the Companions who were alive were counting their last day. So the actual situation was such that there was not a single person alive before Muawiya who had unquestioned acceptance of being the caliph. At that time, most of the distinguished people who were close to the companions of Muhammad, who were called Tabeyis, lived in Medina. But the capital of the Islamic empire was then in Damascus, which is now in Syria. Ali first moved the capital to the city of Kufa, then Muawiya moved it to the city of Damascus. Naturally, the connection between the Caliph and the administration was very weak with the Tabeyis. On the other hand, the one who (Hossain) could be thought of as Muhammad's grandson for the position of caliph did not support Muawiya during his twenty-year long rule, instead he always criticized and opposed Muawiya as the murderer of his father and elder brother. Despite this behavior, Muawiya did not treat him badly and unkindly at all, rather he treated Hossain and his family members politely and courteously, lest he show disrespect to the Prophet of Allah. A picture of Muawiya's relationship with Ali's family and how they behaved towards each other can be found in A. Nicholson's writings. He wrote,

• “Muawiya's kind behaviour was proverbial. But he did not hesitate to be strict when necessary. Once, Ali's family members came to meet him in Damascus. At that time Muawiya gave them the status of honored guests. He had no shortage of hospitality for them. He was always alert to what they needed. But it is heard that they treated him harshly. They confronted with him contemptuously. Muawiya never took their unnatural behavior seriously. He pretended not to hear. He always answered them with modestly. He did not hesitate to give a lot of gifts and money.” (See: History of Arabic Literature, p. 190). Incidentally, Nicholson stated that he collected this information from the book al-Fakhri, edited by Derenberg.

 Muawiya was able to display such unprecedented behavior only because of the sky-high generosity of his heart and the absence of jealousy and hatred towards Hossain and his family. If there is generosity in the heart, even hostile people can be forgiven, which Muawiya showed to Hossain! But to forgive is one thing; and to make a caliph is another. A person who behaves inimical to the caliph out of personal grudge and malice cannot be made caliph. Moreover, by constantly opposing the caliphs and caliphates, Hossain lost his acceptance to all the high-ranking bureaucrats and ordinary Muslims. Even if it is assumed that the agreement between Muawiya and Imam Hassan to appoint Imam Hossain as caliph was indeed made, it is easy to imagine that the conditions for the implementation of that agreement no longer existed because of Hossain's hostile and irresponsible behavior towards the Islamic caliphate. At that time, the situation for Hossain's anti-Muawiya behavior was such that it was not at all possible for the governors of various provinces and the incumbent bureaucrats holding high positions in the Muawiya court to accept Hossain as the caliph. The situation at the time when Muawiya nominated his successor is very important for the consideration of historians and curious students and readers of history. Muawiya has seen the shameless factionalism and rivalry that took place in the era of the Sahabi to fulfill the desire to become a caliph, even revolting against the caliph. It was not difficult for the experienced, far-sighted and prudent Muawiya to understand that factions, rivalries and assassinations were more apprehended to become the caliph during the Tabeyis era. So he had to think deeply about nominating someone who would be the next Caliph so that he would be popular and another civil war situation would not arise. Exactly why Muawiya nominated his son Yazid as caliph is difficult to say with certainty now more than a thousand years later. However, as a human being and as an administrator, governor and caliph; the wisdom, prudence, responsibility, loyalty, patriotism and liberal character and values ​​that Muawiya has left behind in all areas makes it more credible and acceptable that not for just out of narrow interests, he nominated his son Yazid as the caliph keeping in mind the larger interests of the Islamic empire. And he probably had to consider making Yazid the caliph so that the Islamic Empire would not fall into another civil war after his death, as it did after Ali's caliphate. Some non-Muslim historians have said exactly this. It is worth remembering what the historian Kenneth W. Morgan said in this context. He said,

• “There was no alternative but to enforce the hereditary policy to avoid civil war regarding the succession and election of the caliphate.” (Source: Umayya Khilafat, Dr. Othman Ghani, p. 39)

Another serious charge against Muawiya is that he deviated from all principles and ideals of Islam and established a completely un-Islamic caliphate to consolidate his power. Muslim historians therefore do not recognize the Caliphate of Muawiya as a true Islamic Caliphate. They recognize only those caliphates that were established before the Muawiya caliphate as true caliphates. According to them Abu Bakr, Omar Farooq, Othman Ghani and Ali - only these four were 'Kholafaye Rashedin' i.e. 'Rightly Guided Caliphs'. This accusation against Muawiya is partially correct, but overall, it is nothing but a one-sided and malicious assessment. Because, all those who ruled the caliphate before Muawiya, had reformed some Islamic principles which were not approved by the Qur'an. But Muawiya played a major role in the reforms. He made several major reforms which were clearly against the Qur’an and Islam. That discussion has already been done, albeit briefly. There we have noticed that some of the reforms he made in the principles and ways that Muhammad had instructed and demonstrated were undoubtedly original, groundbreaking and revolutionary. The most significant reform in this regard is the abolition of the Islamic one-party rule in the administration of the state and the introduction of secular policies in its place, albeit in limited cases. For example, during the caliphate of Khulafay Rashedin, there was no place for non-Muslims except Muslims in the state army and administration. Needless to say that is the principle of Islam. In fact, it is a brutal fact that Islam's attitude towards non-Muslims is completely hostile and vengeful. The Qur'an repeatedly warns Muslims not to trust non-Muslims at all, because they are the ultimate enemies of Muslims. In very clear terms, the Qur'an instructs Muslims not to make friendship with non-Muslims. This has been said not once or twice, nor lightly, but seriously many times. One of the Qur'anic commentaries on the dire command of hatred and strong poison is:

• “O believers! Do not take anyone as your intimate friend except your own people. They will not make any mistake to mislead you. They desire that which endangers you, hatred is expressed on their faces and what their hearts conceal is more serious.” (Surah Al-Imran, 3/118).

Here 'own people' means Muslims and 'anyone' means non-believers, this is explained in plain language in the Tafsir of the Qur'an. Tafsirkar Ibn Kathir wrote in his Tafsir of this verse,

• “Here Allah has forbidden the Muslims to make friends with the infidels and the hypocrites” He also said, “They are your enemies. … Do not fall into the trap of their deception, or they will take the opportunity and harm you greatly …” (See. Vol. 4-7, p. 152)

Allah did not finish his duty with this strict instruction only. Those who disobey or ignore it are also ordered to be abandoned. Even if the disobedient is father, mother or brother, they must also be abandoned. Allah's commentary is:

• “O believers! If your fathers and brothers prefer unbelief to faith, do not take them as guardians. Those of you who take them as guardians are transgressors.” (Surah Tawba, 9/23)

Ibn Kathir wrote in his Tafsir of this verse,

• Here Allah Ta'ala forbids the believers to make friends with the disbelievers, whether they be their fathers, mothers, brothers, or sisters, if they choose disbelief over Islam”. (See Vol. 8-10, p. 662)

As the Qur'an dictates the relationship of Muslims with infidels, there are similar instructions in the instructions and conduct of Muhammad and his companions. The second caliph Omar Farooq left a clear sign of this. He made a law which is famous or infamous in history as the 'Covenant of Omar' regarding the inhumane life of the infidels in the Islamic state. This agreement has been quoted in its entirety earlier.

Not only that, the Qur'an says to wage an all-out war against non-Muslims and wipe them out of the world. Muawiya rejected this strict policy of Islam and employed many Jews and Christians in the army and administration. The main principle of Islam is to observe Muslims and suppress non-Muslims. Muawiya's policy was just the opposite - suppression of evil and observance of virtue. According to the philosophy of Islam, the religious places of worship of non-Muslims such as churches-monasteries-temples are against Allah. Therefore, the establishment of these places of worship in the Islamic Empire is prohibited and a punishable crime. This policy is still strictly followed in Saudi Arabia still today. Muawiya abandoned this rigid policy also. He was even seen rebuilding churches damaged by natural calamities at state expense. These principles are certainly a major reform in Islamic principles and are also against Islamic principles. In the judgment of Shariat, they are a terrible deviation. So the allegation of Muawiya's deviance from Islam is not baseless at all. But what is a baseless and highly fabricated charge against him is that he made these reforms to ax his own power. No, he doesn't seem to have any intention of axing his power. The fact is that there was no alternative to these reforms open to him in order to save the Islamic empire from destruction and to make it more consolidated and expanded. Many of the later caliphs of Muawiya continued his reform process. Many of them even took the reform process much further. During the Abbasid period, some caliphs completely rejected the principles of the Qur'an in governing the state and adopted the Muttazila principle instead. The Qur'an and Muslim religious leaders had no place in the Muttazila system. But these caliphs were not accused of abandoning Islamic principles in order to ax their power. Let us take the case of Caliph Omar II, who was a representative of the Umayyad dynasty against which the pen of Muslim historians is still a sword. That caliph Omar II also did not destroy the secular policy of Muawiya. Instead, he advanced that principle further. Let us hear some account of how he took those secular principles further from the Muslim historians. Dr. Othman Ghani narrates –

• ‘… peacekeeping and coexistence instead of imperialist imperialism. ... The main goal of Omar's state rule was to serve the people regardless of caste and religion, serving people and serving humanity. ... He carefully guarded the holy places of non-Muslims or heathens. ... His policy was not to expand the kingdom, but to establish peace in the conquered states. ... Annulled all military campaigns of the previous caliphs. All commanders who were engaged in expansion of the kingdom abroad ordered them to return home. ... In 718-19 AD he promulgated a law prohibiting the purchase of land by Muslims from non-Muslims.' (See: Umayya Khilafat, pp. 124-131)

These principles of Caliph Omar II are revolutionary on the one hand, but also contrary to Islamic principles on the other. Yet Muslim historians have awarded Omar II the rare distinction of being the fifth caliph of the 'Kholafay Rashedin'. However, the Muslim world gave the opposite title to Caliph Muawiya. People called Muawiya 'the worst Muslim' and Caliph Muawiya as 'Kholafay Zalemun' i.e. dishonest and tyrannical caliph. It is an understatement to say that it is a horrible and vile duplicity. Hatred and anger towards Muawiya worked behind this duplicity. Why the Muslim world harbors so much hatred and resentment towards Muawiya is a big question. This is highlighted in the last part of this book. Now let us discuss how accurate the accusations against the sixth Caliph Yazid, the son of Muawiya, are recorded in the history of the Karbala war, and he has been identified and portrayed as a notorious villain of history. 

Complaints brought against Yazid

Five main charges have been leveled against the Yazid. The most serious of which is that he sent Obaidullah as the governor of Kufa with the advice of killing Imam Hossain to keep his throne safe and secure. But history does not provide any documentary evidence for this charge. In the history narrated by Muslim historians, we have seen that Umar, the general of Obaidullah, had a series of discussions with Imam Hossain in the desert of Karbala. The discussion shows that Hossain made a three-point proposal to avoid war. Some say otherwise, that Hossain proposed a duel and his proposal was accepted. Some also say that on the 2nd of Muharram (the second day of the month of Muharram), Hossain pitched his tent in the desert of Karbala and the battle of Karbala was fought for seven days. Those who have given such various statements but almost all of them spoke in the same tone about one thing. That is, the number of Hossain's soldiers was at best seventy to one hundred and ten, and Obaidullah's army had at least four thousand to ten thousand soldiers. Now the question is, if the order to kill Hossain is given, why will Obaidullah's commander go to sit in discussion with Omar Hossain? Or why go to agree to Hossain's proposal for a duel? Or why it will take seven days to end the battle of a huge army of ten thousand soldiers with a very small army of seventy to one hundred and ten people? Had the order to kill Hossain been given, ten thousand soldiers would surely have jumped on Hossain's army and in no time would have slaughtered Hossain and his small army - wouldn't that have been realistic and believable? So from the accounts given by Muslim historians, it appears that whatever instructions Obaidullah may have had about Hossain, there was at least no instruction to kill him. Incidentally, it is noteworthy that the city of Damascus was a few days' journey from Karbala desert in that era. As a result, it can also be assumed that at that moment it was not possible for Yazid to know anything about the killings that took place in the desert of Karbala. In this connection it is necessary to mention here that Muslim historians have contradicted each other in making the allegation that Yazid had sent Obaidullah, the governor of Kufa, with orders to kill. For example, let's take the case of Dr. Othman Ghani. In his book 'Umayya Khilafat', on the one hand, Yazid has been identified as the killer of Hossain; again he said that Yazid was probably not connected with the murder of Hossain in Karbala desert. Ghani's contradictory description is as follows:

• “However, he does not seem to have been directly involved in the Karbala massacre, because the capital Damascus is located at a distance of about 200 miles from Kufa. He may not have been fully aware of what was happening in such a short span of time. So when the severed head of the Imam arrived in Damascus, he was stunned for a while.'' (See: page 58)

A little later, Dr. Ghani writes again,

• “In any case, he cannot be proved completely innocent in the tragedy of Karbala. Because, without his silent support, demon Obaidullah would never have had the courage to do this. (See: p. 59)

The second serious charge against Yazid is that he insulted and dishonored the graves of Muhammad and his famous Companions and the Prophet's Mosque by sending an army to attack Medina. He did not even hesitate to send an army to plunder Medina. What is true in this context is this: A group of Yazid's army went to Medina under his orders. But the allegation that he ordered troops to plunder Medina or desecrate the graves of Muhammad and the Companions and the Prophet's Mosque is completely fabricated and intentional. His purpose behind sending the army was to restore peace and order there and ensure the safety of the lives and property of the people there. Because when the news of Hossain's death reached Medina, the reaction was so intense that the people of the Hashemi clan attacked the people of the Umayyad clan including the governor of Medina. In this situation, he sent a group of soldiers to bring the situation under control. There may have been some excesses of the army in bringing the situation under control, but the allegation that Yazid sent troops to plunder Medina is completely baseless.

The third terrible accusation is against Yazid that he invaded Mecca and committed unforgivable crimes like setting fire to the Kaaba. This allegation, like the previous allegations, is totally distorted and motivated. We have noted in the previous discussion that only two notables did not take Bayat to Yazid in the end. They are Imam Hossain and Abdullah-Ibn-Zubair. After hearing the news of Hossain's death, this Abdullah declared himself the Caliph of the Islamic Empire in the city of Mecca and declared rebellion against Yazid. In such a situation it is the responsibility and duty of a Caliph to take strict measures to suppress the person and his companions rebel against the Caliph. Yazid did just that. When Yazid's army reached Mecca, Abdullah and his companions took shelter inside the Kaa’ba and started attacking Yazid's army from there. Yazid's army had to enter the Kaa’ba to suppress the rebels. If the Kaaba is dishonored by this, then the responsibility is on Abdullah Ibn Zubair, not on Yazid.

The serious allegations against Yazid of the looting of Medina and the burning of the Kaa’ba in Mecca are unfounded from the writings of impartial historians. What exactly happened in Medina after the Battle of Karbala can be found in the histories written by Nicholson and Hitti. Nicholson wrote in his book ‘History of Arabic Literature’,

• “The story of Yazid did not end even after Hossain's assassination. The Umayyad governor was then expelled from Muhammad's city of Medina. For that reason, the Syrian army carried out extensive looting in Medina. On the other hand, Abdullah bin Zubair started rival caliphate in Mecca. As a result, the siege of Mecca began. The Kaa’ba became a ruin. Muslim sentiments were hurt in the wake of these incidents. As a consequence, a fire of rebellion was ignited. Mukhtar came forward to avenge the killing of Hossain. Mukhtar captured Kufa and killed about 300 malefactor citizens there. Shamir was also killed. His army defeated and killed Ubaidullah bin Ziyad. History is such that Mukhtar himself was killed. He was killed by Ibn Zubair's brother Mus'ab. About 700 of his followers were killed in cold blood by the Musab army.” (See: p. 194)

Nicholson's account reveals at least three very important reliable historical facts that Muslim historians consciously suppress or hide. One of those three is that if Yazid looting in Medina really happened, then the responsibility does not fall entirely on Yazid alone. Because, after Hossain's defeat and death in the Karbala war; the governor of Medina was driven out by Ali and Hossain's followers. In addition to this, it is easy to imagine the horrible atrocities that the followers of Ali and Hossain carried out on the people of the Umayyad dynasty at that time. In such a situation, it is the responsibility of the Caliph to maintain peace and order in Medina and to ensure the safety of the tortured and oppressed people. Caliph Yazid did just that, he did not send an army to attack Medina. The second historical fact is that Abdullah, son of Zubair, a prominent companion of Muhammad, rebelled against the caliphate of Yazid and established a parallel caliphate by declaring himself the legitimate caliph of Mecca (al-Hejaz). He was the one who brought down brutal oppression on the people of the Umayyad dynasty of Mecca. Naturally, Caliph Yazid had no choice but to send an army to Mecca to suppress the rebellion of Abdullah and protect the lives and property of the Umayyads of Mecca. Unable to face the Caliph's army, Abdullah used the Kaa’ba as a shield. He took refuge inside the Kaa’ba to save his life and that of his people. So, Caliph Yazid's army was forced to enter the Kaa'ba. The third historical fact is that after the battle of Karbala, Yazid did not do any kind of torture or harassment to the common people in Mecca and Medina. Rather, the truth is that Ali's followers killed by persecuting the common Umayyads and the followers of Caliph Yazid and many of their people living in Mecca, Medina and Kufa. These are the real history after the battle of Karbala. By distorting this history, Muslim historians have shown Yazid as the accused. Now let's look at what Philip K. Hitti has described in his book ‘History of the Arab nation’.

• “When Yazid, well-known for his promiscuity and indulgence, ascended the throne, Abdullah openly opposed the new caliph and encouraged al-Hossain to take dangerous steps. And he had to die because of it. So Abdullah remained the only claimant to the Caliphate. Abdullah officially declared himself caliph in all of al-Hejaz. Yazid quickly sent an army to Al-Medina to eliminate opposition. In this army there were many Syrians who were Christians. They were led by a one-eyed man named Muslim Ibn Uqbah. He had to be carried all the way in a palanquin due to his old age and weak body. On August 26, 683 CE, this army engaged in a battle on the volcanic plain of Al-Haraba, east of Al-Medina, and won. The fact that the army of Damascus was plundering for three days is doubtful. Anyway, that victorious army then marched towards Mecca. Muslim died on the way. Al-Husayn ibn Numair al-Saquni took over. Mecca's Haram (Holy Mosque) – where Ibn-al-Zubayr took refuge. The new General of the Army attacked there as well. During the siege it caught fire and was completely burnt to the ground. The black stone split into three parts and the temple of Allah took the form of the wounded bosom of a grieving woman. Yazid died while this attack was going on.” (See: p. 183)

Hitti mentions that he took this information from Tabari's Book 1 and Yaqubi's Book 2.

Two more allegations against Yazid are – one). Yazid was a drunkard and a debauched man, and two). He was a totally unsuitable personality for the post of Caliph. Yazid was a drunkard and a debauchee – a charge not universally accepted at all. This complaint is heard only in the writings of Muslim historians. On the other hand, Imam Hassan (Muhammad's eldest grandson), who married a hundred times and finally died prematurely after being poisoned by his wife, is in their eyes 'the jewel in the eye of the Muslim world and a man of great character'. This Yazid, who is said by the Muslim world to be a drunkard and a debauch, showed incredible kindness and magnanimity to Hossain's detached head and his wife and other female members of the family. Imam Hossain did not recognize Yazid as Caliph, instead dishonoured and despised him, rebelled against him and planned to oust him from power, and was eventually killed in rebellion. It was natural for Yazid to have lost his soul in joy when he saw the lifeless severed head of that enemy and rebel Hossain and the female members of his family in captivity appearing in his court. Because the only thorn in the path of his caliphate is gone forever, the caliphate is now completely thorn less and before him is a group of helpless young women. When the severed head of that arch-enemy appears at the feet, then to avenge all the insults and neglect of the past, he is supposed to show disrespect and insult to that head. A lascivious king does treat the female prisoners of war of the enemy's family in the same manner as is usually done. But no, Yazid didn't behave like that. Seeing the severed head of Hossain and the women of his family in captivity did not make him happy, nor did his moral character slip. Instead, the shadow of intense sadness came down on his face. Not respecting this behaviour and body language of Yazid, Muslim historians have turned him around and sneered at him as 'frightened'. Muslim historians did not deny that Yazid was not happy to see Hossain's severed head, but rather pained and sad. But they could not even show the courage to acknowledge this great quality of Yazid's sadness and pain. Dr. Ghani wrote in the above book, while portraying the picture of that time.

• “Later rascal Ubaidullah sent the severed head of Hossain   and other family members to the capital Damascus, Yazid quickly returned the severed head in a state of fear and terror, and was buried in the desert of Karbala. Yazid respectfully sent the surviving children and women to Medina. (See: page 52)

Imam Hossain, who wanted to dethrone him from the throne of Caliph, got hold of the female members of his family, but instead of treating them inhumanly and ugly like prisoners, he sent them back to Mecca after showing them enough respect. Such an event is unprecedented in history. This incident testifies to what a big-hearted man the 'nasty', 'drunken', 'promiscuous' Yazid was.

Yazid was drunk, lecherous and disorderly – these are very serious charges. The entire Muslim community of the world, as well as the non-Muslim community, undoubtedly believes these serious allegations against Yazid to be true. While raising any allegation against a historical figure, it is the imperative duty of a historian to provide reliable, acceptable and authentic information on the matter. Muslim historians did not perform that duty in the case of Muawiya and Yazid. I have already mentioned this. In such a situation, the curious readers of history will surely want to know what Yazid really was like as a person. What almost all historians have said in this regard is that he (Yazid) must have drunk alcohol. But only Muslim historians have said that he was drunk, riotous and characterless, such serious character deviations are not found in the writings of other historians. We find a rather opposite description of Yazid. From their history it is known that he was honest and a kind hearted person. He was a lover of sports and music and highly educated and possessed of poetic talent. Nicholson wrote about Yazid,

• Judging the so-called judgment of history seems to be the judgment of religion, Islam or Arab imperialism. In this respect the Umayyads are rightly reprehensible. But it should be remembered that in the eyes of Muslims there is no difference between religion and state. Yazid was a wicked priest. So he is condemned, the tyrant. In this case, the two become one. From our neutral point of view, Yazid seems to have been a kind hearted prince. He inherited his mother's poetic talent. He was fond of drinking and music. He also liked sports. He rather disliked bothering about subjects. The people of Syria considered themselves to be the legitimate heirs of Umayyads. They had a high opinion of the Umayyads.” (Source: History of Arabic Literature, p. 193)

After the Karbala incident, we have experienced the generosity and kindness of Yazid. Yazid showed respect and honor to Hossain's family members. Nicholson also expressed this in his book. He wrote:

• “Yazid condemned the ill fate of the women and children of Hossain's family after the war. He tried to give them the respect they deserve. He sent them to Medina. (See: pp. 193-194)

Another charge against Yazid was that he was unfit for the Caliphate. It is indeed very difficult to say with certainty whether he was qualified or indeed unqualified. Because he lived only three and a half years after becoming Caliph. He died at the age of 43 after a serious illness. But he does not seem to have been wholly unworthy of some of the qualities which one hears of in the individual Yazid. And besides, Muawiya has never been as selfish and low-natured as to hand over the responsibility of the empire to   an unworthy man as Yazid was his own son. Muslim historians must stamp Yazid as unfit, because otherwise it cannot be proved that Imam Hossain was the only suitable and qualified person for the post of caliph. In the eyes of non-Muslim historians, however, Yazid was a qualified and suitable figure for the post of caliph. Bernard Lewis says,

• 'Yazid possessed noble qualities. He patronized literature, and his son Khalid collected numerous Greek books on science.'

Two things are clear from this quote of Lewis, that is - 1) Caliph Muawiya did not allow his son and grandson to be swept away in the glory and luxury of power. And he did not close all the windows and doors of education and knowledge of science and philosophy by keeping them imprisoned in the corner of backward Quran and Islamic education. Instead, he arranged to teach real knowledge in them. As a result, knowledge of science, philosophy and literature spread in them and they used their knowledge and education to improve the Arab civilization. A very important point to be noted here is that Muawiya opened the doors of knowledge not only to his own children, but to all the people of the entire empire. He was the first to bring the education system out of the closed reservoir of Quran and Islamic education and started the work of bringing literature, philosophy, science etc. subjects into the curriculum and in this way he took initiative to make the entire Arab nation engaged in the education and pursuit of science-philosophy-literature. 2) As Muslim Historians relentlessly preach that 'Yazid was a totally unfit and unworthy person' - this preaching is also nothing but a lie. The real story is quite the opposite, that is, Yazid was a man of noble qualities, a lover of science-philosophy-literature and a learned man. So it appears to us that Muawiya did not hand over the Islamic caliphate to his unworthy son.

Yazid has also been convicted for the death of Imam Hassan. Some say that it was Yazid who conspired and killed Hassan, not Muawiya. Literary Mir Mosharaf Hossain made this complaint in his novel 'Bishad Sindhu'. In this case the complaint is as follows - Both Imam Hassan and Yazid wanted to marry a very beautiful widow named Zainab. Zaynab married Hassan. Yazid could not accept it. He vowed to get Zainab at any cost. It was he who employed a woman named Maimuna to poison Zaynab's mind against Hassan and later kill Hassan by luring her to become the Caliph's wife. As a result of this, Hassan died at the hands of Zayeda. It goes without saying that this allegation is nothing but ridiculous and a gross script. Why Hassan was poisoned by his wife Zayeda has already been discussed. It would be very relevant and desirable to mention here a quote from an eminent Arabian historian about Yazid before concluding this chapter. The famous historian Ibn Kathir said,

• 'Yazid was liberal and eloquent.'

We get to know that Yazid was a generous and high-hearted man in the last chapter of the Battle of Karbala. It is relevant to note that the words of Bernard Lewis and Ibn Kathir are taken from the book 'Umayya Khilafat' by Othman Ghani. (See: page 59). Dr. Othman Ghani cites two quotes from Bernard Lewis and Ibn Kathir that refute their charges against Yazid. So is he not in favour of dismissing the praises of the non-Muslim historians about the character, teachings and other qualities of Yazid as exaggerated descriptions?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter Nine

It was not a war, it was actually a rebellion

In the historic battle of the desert of Karbala, Hossain's army consisted of seventy to one hundred and ten men, while the army sent by the governor of Kufa under the command of Omar Ibn Sa'd consisted of four thousand to ten thousand men. In other words, the Muslims did not rush in groups to respond to the call that Hossain gave to overthrow Caliph Yazid. Those who responded to his call were mainly his relatives and all were residents of Mecca and Medina. Again, this picture is clear that the handful of eminent personalities who were with him in the beginning were not by his side till the last moment. Only Abdullah Ibn Zubair was with him and he did not take Bayat at the hands of Yazid. So the overall picture we see is that it is no exaggeration to say that public opinion was almost overwhelmingly against Hossain and in favor of Yazid. Husain, however, was so desperate for power that he could not even realize this reality. He thought that since he was the grandson of the Prophet, the moral support of the entire Muslim community was with him. It would not be difficult to raise a large army by a bold call to overthrow Yazid. When he was overwhelmed with that false hope, many may have given him meaningless encouragement saying that Muslims are asking for you with all their heart, you go ahead. Literally several letters with such assurances reached him from Kufa. As a result, he became very optimistic and confident, dreaming of becoming the caliph of the Islamic Empire, and set out for Kufa to collect troops. As an inevitable result, a large army is a far cry, in fact he failed to raise even a small one, and after a few hours of futile resistance, he fell to his death. And thus ended a sad chapter. Why this tragic event of Karbala is given the status of a 'war' by history as the 'Battle of Karbala' does not make any sense. Actually it is nothing but a case of treason or rebellion.

Why was the war? Who is responsible?

Power was at the centre of what happened in the desert of Karbala, be it war or rebellion. Incidents, attacks and setbacks have all revolved around that power and the Caliph's throne. There have been countless other wars or rebellions and bloodshed in the history of Islam just to seize the throne of Caliph. As a result, not only Imam Hossain, but many caliphs lost their lives prematurely at the hands of assassins or rebels. Among them, the names of second Caliph Omar Farooq, third Caliph Othman Ghani, fourth Caliph Ali and Caliph Omar II are notable. But common people, even Muslims do not know about them. But all the Muslims know that Hossain was killed. Muslim historians have given special status and honour to Hossain in their history books, even acknowledging the incident that took place in the desert of Karbala and the death of Hossain in order to remove Yazid from the post of caliph or kill him. They say that Hossain sacrificed his life not just for power, but for an ideal, to save Islam from the hands of the wicked Yazid. What these histories claim is that the battle of Karbala took place only to install his incompetent and wayward son Yazid on the throne of Caliph as Muawiya deviated from Islamic ideals for blind filial love. Otherwise it wouldn't have happened. Some historians have spoken in a slightly different tone. They write that Yazid pressured his father to nominate him (Yazid) as Caliph. These histories also say that the battle in the desert of Karbala could have been avoided, but Yazid imposed the war on Hossain because he wanted to kill Hossain. So it is Yazid who is fully responsible for the war or rebellion of Karbala. The bottom line is that Muawiya and his son Yazid only were responsible for the Battle of Karbala, and Hossain was completely innocent – ​​this is the assessment of all history.

But this assessment of history is not accurate at all. Those, who wrote and continue to write this history, wrote and continue to write one-sided, half-truth, distorted and false history. An unbiased analysis of the events of Karbala from the pages of history and all the information we have about it gives us a different assessment.

Why Muawiya is said to be the main host of Karbala war? The main charges against him are – that he violated Islamic principles and procedures in nominating the next Caliph, deprived Imam Hossain of his rightful succession to the Caliphate and nominated his own unworthy son as Caliph. But from the information we get from the pages of history, it is clearly proved that there was no policy in Islam regarding the nomination or election of Caliphs. Therefore, the accusation of violation of Islamic principles in the election of the Caliph is baseless. Second complaint – Hossain was the only rightful heir to the Caliphate, he was deprived of that inheritance. The question that arises here is, was Hossain really the rightful heir to the Caliphate? Not at all. Because, only the Shia community believes in the theory of succession to the caliphate. They believe that the position of caliph of the Islamic state is reserved only for the descendants of the last Prophet; this is the decree of Allah. Therefore, they do not recognize those who became caliphs before Ali as the real caliphs. But the Sunni community rejected this theory as un-Islamic. Nowhere in the Qur'an and Hadith does it say that someone from among the descendants of the Prophet must be made a caliph. Rather, it is mentioned in the Hadith that Muhammad said that prophets and messengers do not have heirs. So the claim that Hossain was the rightful heir to the caliphate is also absurd. Sunni Muslims, therefore, otherwise claim that Hossain was the only legitimate claimant to the question of the post-Muawiya caliph. They believe that there was an agreement between Muawiya and Hassan that Hossain should succeed Muawiya as caliph. This has been discussed in detail above. There we have seen that the circumstances and reasons for which Imam Hassan resigned from the caliphate did not have the power to impose such a condition. Moreover, even assuming for the sake of argument that such a request was made by Hassan and Muawiya acceded to it, it is necessary for us to consider whether conditions favourable to its implementation existed twenty years after the conclusion of the treaty. We understood from the above discussion that such a situation did not exist at all. And we also saw that Hossain himself was responsible for that, not Muawiya. A caliph to whom I would claim that he would nominate me as caliph after him, while always being hostile to him, cannot happen. I will dream of becoming a caliph, but I will not try to become worthy of it, even then I will say that I must be the caliph - this is childish caprice. Therefore, the allegation that Muawiya breached the contract with Hassan is without substance. The third allegation was that Yazid was a wicked person and unfit for the post of caliph. Those who have raised this allegation have not been able to present any credible evidence to support their allegation. On the other hand, many historians have described Yazid as a well-educated, literate, eloquent, generous person and a personality with noble qualities. Therefore, there is no touch of truth in this allegation that Yazid was ineligible. Therefore, the allegation, that Muawiya installed an unworthy person on the throne of Caliph as he was his son, is nothing but fabricated, ill-conceived and purposeful.

Hossain was martyred (sacrificed) at the hands of Yazid's soldiers in the desert of Karbala while defending an ideal, raising the flag of Islam-there is no acceptable logic and evidence behind this claim, what is found is only blind passion and loyalty to the Prophet's lineage. It has never been observed that, at any time before or after becoming Caliph, Yazid renounced Islam, or denied Muhammad and his Prophethood. On the other hand, as soon as Husain heard that Yazid was going to be nominated as Caliph, he erupted in protest against him. It did not happen that Yazid became the caliph and began to govern the Islamic empire in a way that Hossain felt was an affront to Allah, Muhammad and Islam and seeing that, Hossain as a devout Muslim could not hold himself still and was forced to declare Jihad against Yazid with the intention of saving Islam. If this was the case, it would have been evident that Hossain, like a real hero, sacrificed his life with a smile while defending Islam. But this did not happen at all. So there is no room for doubt that Imam Hossain could not accept Yazid as Caliph because of greed for absolute power and not for any ideal or any larger interest. It was his unquenchable ambition and greed to become Caliph that dragged him from Mecca to the desert of Karbala. Therefore, it appears that on the whole this is the correct assessment of history that Hossain's untimely death in the Karbala desert was not just a particle of self-sacrifice ideals, what was there was only the intense greed and lust to gain power and become the caliph.

Hossain cannot be blamed alone for the intense desire and greed to become a caliph. Because the idea was created in him that he was the only rightful claimant to the post of caliph after Muawiya. He is the legitimate claimant because he is descendant of Muhammad, so he alone deserves the post of caliph of the Islamic state established by Muhammad. But according to the Sunni community, this idea of ​​his is completely wrong. Their point is that the Qur'an says nothing of the sort, and Muhammad himself never said such a thing. Rather, he made it clear during his lifetime that there is no inheritance for prophets and messengers. Abu Bakr was elected as the first caliph after his death because he said this. Had it been written in the Qur'an that the caliph should be chosen from the descendants of Muhammad, or had Muhammad himself said so, there would not have been much strife and confusion in the election of the first caliph, and Ali would have been elected the first caliph without a word. Now the question is how such a big misconception was created in Hossain. Hossain inherited this misconception. His father and mother had this misconception. Ali and Bibi Fatima could not accept Abu Bakr as caliph due to that misconception. And they complained directly to Abu Bakr's face that they all conspired together to deprive Ali of the Caliphate and drove Abu Bakr and Omar Farooq from the door of the house. It is noteworthy that Fatima did not recognize Abu Bakr as the real Caliph of Islam until the day of her death. And Ali also accepted Bayat at the hands of Abu Bakr after the death of Fatima. He, however, did not take Bayat sincerely, but took it to satisfy Abu Bakr so that he would nominate him (Ali) as the next Caliph before his death. Ali took allegiance to Abu Bakr only because of this, but he felt that as a descendant of Muhammad he was the rightful claimant to the Caliphate, Abu Bakr had conspired to deprive him of his rightful right. This misconception of Ali and Fatima was gradually transmitted to Hossain. So Ali and Bibi Fatima are also indirectly responsible for the heart-breaking tragedy that happened in Karbala desert. Their intense lust for power planted the seeds of the Battle of Karbala, which culminated as a giant tree by Ali's ascension to the Caliphate with the help of bloody hands of the rebels against Othman.

 

Regarding the distortion of history

 

No history seems to have been written in a completely neutral way. So in all history some bias is observed. There are also examples of not only partiality, but history has been largely distorted. But the extent to which history has been distorted in Islamic history, especially from the revolt against the third caliph Othman to the Battle of Karbala, is difficult to have any precedents. More particularly where Ali and Muawiya, Imam Hossain and Yazid are concerned, there is an unprecedented level of blatant bias and distortion in the writing of history. Muawiya was a man of very pure character as a person and as a Caliph he was very efficient and competent. As a result, he was able to rescue the Islamic Empire from a chaotic and anarchic situation and gift an orderly and well-organized Islamic Empire - In spite of admitting this, Muslim historians have labelled him cunning, dishonest, power-hungry, deceitful, murderer, arch-enemy of Islam etc. On the other hand, while admitting that Ali became the caliph in support of the assassins of Othman and shared power with those assassins, Muslim historians have given a blanket certificate of Ali's complete innocence of the rebellion against and assassination of Othman. On the other hand, in his fervent desire to become the caliph his immoral revolt against the 6th legitimate caliph Yazid is described as a great sacrifice for a great ideal. Again unnecessarily tarnished the character of Yazid and harshly criticized his attainment of caliphate as un-Islamic and illegal. The fact that all the Muslim historians of the world have recorded and continue to record such a blatantly biased and distorted history of the Battle of Karbala not only amazes me, but also intensely makes me think. Why such an unprecedented shameless lie about the history of Karbala war? This question makes me think. It seems to me that only one reason has worked and does behind it, namely, blind passion and loyalty to the progeny of Muhammad. Such passions and loyalties have probably completely destroyed the Muslim historians' sense of free judgment-intellect-deliberation, right-wrong, moral-immoral and humanity-inhumanity. But even then the question remains – why should Muslim historians be guided by such blind passion and loyalty to Muhammad and his progeny that it is capable of subverting all their high values? Where does the secret lie? Is it the fear of hell fire? For criticizing Muhammad and his progeny Allah will be very angry and cast them into the burning fire of Hell - this fear? What else could it be?

 

 

 

 

END