The teachings of moharrum
The teachings of moharrum
Moharrum days are here, and muffy gang has invariably coaxed us into a mud slinging match. Can I request all the members to use this thread to increase our knowledge about Molana hussain, his life, his character and his last journey. Not all of us so well read and some on this forum are highly learned. If any teenager or youngster happens to go through this forum he will be happy to gain knowledge and understand all that he needs to know in simple words.i hope u understand what I mean to say.
-
WiththenameofAllah
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Sat May 24, 2014 9:13 am
Re: The teachings of moharrum
Thomas Carlyle has relayed this about the Tragedy of Karbala:
"The best lesson which we get from the tragedy of Karbala is that Hussain and his companions were the rigid believers of God. They illustrated that numerical superiority does not count when it comes to truth and falsehood. The victory of Hussain despite his minority marvels me!"
"The best lesson which we get from the tragedy of Karbala is that Hussain and his companions were the rigid believers of God. They illustrated that numerical superiority does not count when it comes to truth and falsehood. The victory of Hussain despite his minority marvels me!"
-
ghulam muhammed
- Posts: 11653
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm
Re: The teachings of moharrum
Shakespeare said in Macbeth, “...a tale/ Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,/ Signifying nothing."
If abdes raise any logical questions, they will be denounced as "dawat no dushman". The abdes who gather at Masjids for Mohurrum sermons display a mob mentality that has been accurately described by Shakespeare in Julius Caesar.
After Caesar’s murder, Mark Antony stirred up the Roman mob, which went around seeking revenge on the conspirators. One of the conspirators was named Cinna. The mob caught hold of another man, also named Cinna, who protested that he was Cinna the poet and not Cinna the conspirator. Despite his protests, the mob said, “tear him for his bad verses”, and lynched him. In the same manner, abdes dont know head or tail as to WHY Imam Hussain (a.s.) chose Shahadat and what are the true lessons one has to learn from this entire episode except beating chests and feasting on 2 kharas 2 mithas immediately after the bayans.
If abdes raise any logical questions, they will be denounced as "dawat no dushman". The abdes who gather at Masjids for Mohurrum sermons display a mob mentality that has been accurately described by Shakespeare in Julius Caesar.
After Caesar’s murder, Mark Antony stirred up the Roman mob, which went around seeking revenge on the conspirators. One of the conspirators was named Cinna. The mob caught hold of another man, also named Cinna, who protested that he was Cinna the poet and not Cinna the conspirator. Despite his protests, the mob said, “tear him for his bad verses”, and lynched him. In the same manner, abdes dont know head or tail as to WHY Imam Hussain (a.s.) chose Shahadat and what are the true lessons one has to learn from this entire episode except beating chests and feasting on 2 kharas 2 mithas immediately after the bayans.
-
ghulam muhammed
- Posts: 11653
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm
Re: The teachings of moharrum
I recollect the days when utmost care was taken by the elders to preserve the sanctity of this solemn month. Radios and movies were a strict no, sabils and its organisors were honest in maintaning the sanctity and true purpose of sabil i.e. to give water from a modest enclosure. As years passed by, sabils became a status symbol and every organisor did his best to outshine the other sabils by decorating it with chandeliers, by keeping pigeons and even deers in the sabils and by serving lavish foods in niyaz.
Many bohras and mostly the youngsters never missed the shia vayez at Moghul Masjid which was from 9pm to 10pm presided by Molana Mirza Athar. The Moghul Masjid was almost 50% full of bohras. Here it is interesting to note that Molana Athar never called the bohras to his vayez but they came willingly and full heartedly whereas bohras attended their own vayez out of compulsion due to which they slept most of the time and were even forced to close their business.
With passage of time Mohurrum lost its purpose within the bohras as it was reduced to a celebration rather then commemoration. I remember that there was one bohra commitee which did niyaz at the biggest bohra hall i.e. Najam Baug and the entry passes were sold at a premium. The reason being that, HOLD YOUR BREADTH.... Almost 7 thaals were changed during the course of dinner and every thaal had almost 5 different types of kharas and mithas i.e. the first thaal would be filled with 5 different bowls of icecream, 2nd thaal with 5 different types of chicken, 3rd thaal with 5 different types of mithai, another thaal with different types of pulao and the last thaal with only dryfruits. After sometime, this lavish display of food in this solemn month invited lots of criticism due to which after a few years instructions were issued by the then mukasir Salehbhai saab to stop this niyaz altogether. Although one evil was eradicated but in its place various other innumerable evils in the form of devising new methods of collecting huge sums of money started.
Many bohras and mostly the youngsters never missed the shia vayez at Moghul Masjid which was from 9pm to 10pm presided by Molana Mirza Athar. The Moghul Masjid was almost 50% full of bohras. Here it is interesting to note that Molana Athar never called the bohras to his vayez but they came willingly and full heartedly whereas bohras attended their own vayez out of compulsion due to which they slept most of the time and were even forced to close their business.
With passage of time Mohurrum lost its purpose within the bohras as it was reduced to a celebration rather then commemoration. I remember that there was one bohra commitee which did niyaz at the biggest bohra hall i.e. Najam Baug and the entry passes were sold at a premium. The reason being that, HOLD YOUR BREADTH.... Almost 7 thaals were changed during the course of dinner and every thaal had almost 5 different types of kharas and mithas i.e. the first thaal would be filled with 5 different bowls of icecream, 2nd thaal with 5 different types of chicken, 3rd thaal with 5 different types of mithai, another thaal with different types of pulao and the last thaal with only dryfruits. After sometime, this lavish display of food in this solemn month invited lots of criticism due to which after a few years instructions were issued by the then mukasir Salehbhai saab to stop this niyaz altogether. Although one evil was eradicated but in its place various other innumerable evils in the form of devising new methods of collecting huge sums of money started.
-
ghulam muhammed
- Posts: 11653
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm
Re: The teachings of moharrum
What lessons can we derive from the remembrance of the Day of `Ashura’ and the assassination of Imam Al-Hussein? How can the Muslim Ummah use a review of the attitude of Imam Al-Hussein in an attempt to enjoin the right, forbid the wrong and resist corruption? How can we apply the lessons derived from what happened to Imam Al-Hussein to our contemporary situation, especially with America’s domination on the Arab region?
Responding to the question, Sheikh Faysal Mawlawi, deputy chairman of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, issued the following fatwa on 29/2/2004:
The revolution that Imam Al-Hussein made was not a rebellion against a legal ruler; it was a revolution against a tyrant dictator, Yazid Ibn Mu`awiyah, who deprived the Ummah of its right to choose its rulers [by succeeding his father to the caliphate]. Besides, he was notorious for being corrupt and dissolute. The majority of the Sunni scholars and others agreed to that, and Ibn Hajar mentioned so in his book As-Sawa`iq Al-Muhriqah. By his revolution, Imam Al-Hussein's aim was not at all to support the Shiites, though the tragedy of Karbala’ was a turning point in the history of the Shiites, for since then they were no longer a mere political group supporting the People of the House (Prophet Muhammad's descendents), but rather they became an independent school that had its own beliefs, jurisprudents, social organizations and system of rule.
The aim of Imam Al-Hussein behind such a revolution, as he declared it, was: "To reform the nation of my grandfather (Prophet Muhammad, s.a.w.).” This would imply putting an end to all kinds of corruption and deviation from the right path so that the nation could be united again. Uniting the nation would not be achieved in the existence of corruption; Allah's Messenger (s.a.w.), is reported to have said: "My Ummah would not unite in supporting corruption."
Here, I would like to refer to the fact that Muslims at that time were not divided into Sunnis and Shiites in the way it is known nowadays. Anyway, all Muslims then believed that transferring the caliphate from Mu`awiyah to his son Yazid by means of inheritance was unlawful and that Al-Hussein, being a pious, honest and courageous person, was worthier of being the caliph then. However, they did not go to fight with him against Yazid's army. Besides, those who sent for Al-Hussein and urged him to go to war against Yazid let him down and did not fight with him. The senior Companions of the Prophet (s.a.w.) advised Al-Hussein not to go to war, but Allah's Will was that he would go and the tragedy of his martyrdom would take place to remain a disgraceful stain on our glorious history
Al-Hussein was an Imam for all the Muslims, Sunnis and Shiites. It is true that only a minority defended him while the majority of the Muslims, including the Shiites, who had urged him to confront Yazid, did not go to fight with him.
But a fair look at what happened thereafter shows that the Muslims became united. They did so in supporting Ibn Az-Zubayr in his revolution against Yazid. The Companions and their true followers remained in their houses in Madinah, refusing to pledge allegiance to Yazid, and Muslims too rejected Yazid's violating the sanctity of Madinah and its people. The Muslims also showed unity in supporting Imam Abu Hanifah and Imam Malik in their ordeals because of their love for the People of the House and their support of those among them who revolted against the tyrant rulers.
The Muslims expressed their support of the people of the House. For example, Imam Ash-Shafi`i said, "If loving the People of Prophet Muhammad's House would be regarded a rebellion, then, let humankind and jinn bear witness that I am a rebel."
The call for Muslim unity today is not a motto; it is a duty that Allah has ordained on us and a necessary requirement to confront our enemy, whose sole aim is to uproot Islam and Muslims. Our enemy makes every effort in that regard.
Thus, we need an initiative to be taken by all movements and scholars in uniting our Muslim Ummah and establishing Allah's Law, so that we can confront our enemy.
We are one Ummah that testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is His Messenger. So, let our actions and efforts be an expression of the unity in that regard; let our guiding principle be, (And hold fast, all of you together, to the cable of Allah, and do not separate …) (Aal-`Imran 3: 103)
Responding to the question, Sheikh Faysal Mawlawi, deputy chairman of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, issued the following fatwa on 29/2/2004:
The revolution that Imam Al-Hussein made was not a rebellion against a legal ruler; it was a revolution against a tyrant dictator, Yazid Ibn Mu`awiyah, who deprived the Ummah of its right to choose its rulers [by succeeding his father to the caliphate]. Besides, he was notorious for being corrupt and dissolute. The majority of the Sunni scholars and others agreed to that, and Ibn Hajar mentioned so in his book As-Sawa`iq Al-Muhriqah. By his revolution, Imam Al-Hussein's aim was not at all to support the Shiites, though the tragedy of Karbala’ was a turning point in the history of the Shiites, for since then they were no longer a mere political group supporting the People of the House (Prophet Muhammad's descendents), but rather they became an independent school that had its own beliefs, jurisprudents, social organizations and system of rule.
The aim of Imam Al-Hussein behind such a revolution, as he declared it, was: "To reform the nation of my grandfather (Prophet Muhammad, s.a.w.).” This would imply putting an end to all kinds of corruption and deviation from the right path so that the nation could be united again. Uniting the nation would not be achieved in the existence of corruption; Allah's Messenger (s.a.w.), is reported to have said: "My Ummah would not unite in supporting corruption."
Here, I would like to refer to the fact that Muslims at that time were not divided into Sunnis and Shiites in the way it is known nowadays. Anyway, all Muslims then believed that transferring the caliphate from Mu`awiyah to his son Yazid by means of inheritance was unlawful and that Al-Hussein, being a pious, honest and courageous person, was worthier of being the caliph then. However, they did not go to fight with him against Yazid's army. Besides, those who sent for Al-Hussein and urged him to go to war against Yazid let him down and did not fight with him. The senior Companions of the Prophet (s.a.w.) advised Al-Hussein not to go to war, but Allah's Will was that he would go and the tragedy of his martyrdom would take place to remain a disgraceful stain on our glorious history
Al-Hussein was an Imam for all the Muslims, Sunnis and Shiites. It is true that only a minority defended him while the majority of the Muslims, including the Shiites, who had urged him to confront Yazid, did not go to fight with him.
But a fair look at what happened thereafter shows that the Muslims became united. They did so in supporting Ibn Az-Zubayr in his revolution against Yazid. The Companions and their true followers remained in their houses in Madinah, refusing to pledge allegiance to Yazid, and Muslims too rejected Yazid's violating the sanctity of Madinah and its people. The Muslims also showed unity in supporting Imam Abu Hanifah and Imam Malik in their ordeals because of their love for the People of the House and their support of those among them who revolted against the tyrant rulers.
The Muslims expressed their support of the people of the House. For example, Imam Ash-Shafi`i said, "If loving the People of Prophet Muhammad's House would be regarded a rebellion, then, let humankind and jinn bear witness that I am a rebel."
The call for Muslim unity today is not a motto; it is a duty that Allah has ordained on us and a necessary requirement to confront our enemy, whose sole aim is to uproot Islam and Muslims. Our enemy makes every effort in that regard.
Thus, we need an initiative to be taken by all movements and scholars in uniting our Muslim Ummah and establishing Allah's Law, so that we can confront our enemy.
We are one Ummah that testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is His Messenger. So, let our actions and efforts be an expression of the unity in that regard; let our guiding principle be, (And hold fast, all of you together, to the cable of Allah, and do not separate …) (Aal-`Imran 3: 103)
-
ghulam muhammed
- Posts: 11653
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm
Re: The teachings of moharrum
Excerpts of an article found on the net :-
What the Shi’ah do on ‘Ashoora’ of beating their chests, slapping their cheeks, striking their shoulders with chains and cutting their heads with swords to let the blood flow are all innovations that have no basis in Islam. These things are evils that were forbidden by the Prophet (s.a.w.), who did not prescribe for his ummah to do any of these things or anything similar to them to mark the death of a leader or the loss of a martyr, no matter what his status. During his lifetime (s.a.w.) a number of senior Sahaabah were martyred and he mourned their loss, such as Hamzah ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib, Zayd ibn Haarithah, Ja’far ibn Abi Taalib and ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Rawaahah, but he did not do any of the things that these people do. If it was good, he (s.a.w.) would have done it before us.
Ya’qoob (a.s.) did not strike his chest or scratch his face, or shed blood or take the day of the loss of Yoosuf as a festival or day of mourning. Rather he remembered his missing loved one and felt sad and distressed because of that. This is something no one can be blamed for. What is forbidden is these actions that have been inherited from the Jaahiliyyah, and which Islam forbids
These reprehensible actions that the Shi’ah do on the day of ‘Ashoora’ have no basis in Islam. The Prophet (s.a.w.) did not do them, nor did any of his companions. None of his companions did them when he or anyone else died, although the loss of Muhammad (s.a.w.) was greater than the death of al-Husayn (a.s.).
The Raafidis went to extremes in the state of Bani Buwayh in the year 400 and thereabouts. The drums were beaten in Baghdad and other cities on the day of ‘Ashoora’, and sand and straw was strewn in the streets and marketplaces, and sackcloth was hung on the shops, and the people expressed grief and wept. Many of them did not drink water that night, in sympathy with al-Husayn, because he was killed when he was thirsty. Then the women went out barefaced, wailing and slapping their faces and chests, walking barefoot in the marketplaces, and other reprehensible innovations… What they intended by these and similar actions is to impugn the state of Banu Umayyah (the Umayyads), because he was killed during their era.
On the day of ‘Ashoora', the Naasibis of Syria do the opposite of what the Raafidis and Shi’ah do. They used to cook grains on the day of ‘Ashoora' and do ghusl and perfume themselves, and wear their finest garments, and they took that day as an Eid for which they made all kinds of food, and expressed happiness and joy, intending thereby to annoy the Raafidis and be different from them.
It should be noted that these reprehensible actions are encouraged by the enemies of Islam, so that they can achieve their evil aims of distorting the image of Islam and its followers.
What the Shi’ah do on ‘Ashoora’ of beating their chests, slapping their cheeks, striking their shoulders with chains and cutting their heads with swords to let the blood flow are all innovations that have no basis in Islam. These things are evils that were forbidden by the Prophet (s.a.w.), who did not prescribe for his ummah to do any of these things or anything similar to them to mark the death of a leader or the loss of a martyr, no matter what his status. During his lifetime (s.a.w.) a number of senior Sahaabah were martyred and he mourned their loss, such as Hamzah ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib, Zayd ibn Haarithah, Ja’far ibn Abi Taalib and ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Rawaahah, but he did not do any of the things that these people do. If it was good, he (s.a.w.) would have done it before us.
Ya’qoob (a.s.) did not strike his chest or scratch his face, or shed blood or take the day of the loss of Yoosuf as a festival or day of mourning. Rather he remembered his missing loved one and felt sad and distressed because of that. This is something no one can be blamed for. What is forbidden is these actions that have been inherited from the Jaahiliyyah, and which Islam forbids
These reprehensible actions that the Shi’ah do on the day of ‘Ashoora’ have no basis in Islam. The Prophet (s.a.w.) did not do them, nor did any of his companions. None of his companions did them when he or anyone else died, although the loss of Muhammad (s.a.w.) was greater than the death of al-Husayn (a.s.).
The Raafidis went to extremes in the state of Bani Buwayh in the year 400 and thereabouts. The drums were beaten in Baghdad and other cities on the day of ‘Ashoora’, and sand and straw was strewn in the streets and marketplaces, and sackcloth was hung on the shops, and the people expressed grief and wept. Many of them did not drink water that night, in sympathy with al-Husayn, because he was killed when he was thirsty. Then the women went out barefaced, wailing and slapping their faces and chests, walking barefoot in the marketplaces, and other reprehensible innovations… What they intended by these and similar actions is to impugn the state of Banu Umayyah (the Umayyads), because he was killed during their era.
On the day of ‘Ashoora', the Naasibis of Syria do the opposite of what the Raafidis and Shi’ah do. They used to cook grains on the day of ‘Ashoora' and do ghusl and perfume themselves, and wear their finest garments, and they took that day as an Eid for which they made all kinds of food, and expressed happiness and joy, intending thereby to annoy the Raafidis and be different from them.
It should be noted that these reprehensible actions are encouraged by the enemies of Islam, so that they can achieve their evil aims of distorting the image of Islam and its followers.
Re: The teachings of moharrum
Can someone please elaborate , what was the political situation after death of Ali Saheb and Imam Hassan, why did Ali Saheb leave Medina and why did Imam Hussain go back to medina?.
Re: The teachings of moharrum
Fully agreed by what bro GM had written here. Only thing I want to add is apart from clergy/ Kothar / bohra establishment adna Amtes/Abdes are equally to blame for this .
ghulam muhammed wrote:I recollect the days when utmost care was taken by the elders to preserve the sanctity of this solemn month. Radios and movies were a strict no, sabils and its organisors were honest in maintaning the sanctity and true purpose of sabil i.e. to give water from a modest enclosure. As years passed by, sabils became a status symbol and every organisor did his best to outshine the other sabils by decorating it with chandeliers, by keeping pigeons and even deers in the sabils and by serving lavish foods in niyaz.
Many bohras and mostly the youngsters never missed the shia vayez at Moghul Masjid which was from 9pm to 10pm presided by Molana Mirza Athar. The Moghul Masjid was almost 50% full of bohras. Here it is interesting to note that Molana Athar never called the bohras to his vayez but they came willingly and full heartedly whereas bohras attended their own vayez out of compulsion due to which they slept most of the time and were even forced to close their business.
With passage of time Mohurrum lost its purpose within the bohras as it was reduced to a celebration rather then commemoration. I remember that there was one bohra commitee which did niyaz at the biggest bohra hall i.e. Najam Baug and the entry passes were sold at a premium. The reason being that, HOLD YOUR BREADTH.... Almost 7 thaals were changed during the course of dinner and every thaal had almost 5 different types of kharas and mithas i.e. the first thaal would be filled with 5 different bowls of icecream, 2nd thaal with 5 different types of chicken, 3rd thaal with 5 different types of mithai, another thaal with different types of pulao and the last thaal with only dryfruits. After sometime, this lavish display of food in this solemn month invited lots of criticism due to which after a few years instructions were issued by the then mukasir Salehbhai saab to stop this niyaz altogether. Although one evil was eradicated but in its place various other innumerable evils in the form of devising new methods of collecting huge sums of money started.
-
ghulam muhammed
- Posts: 11653
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm
Re: The teachings of moharrum
I too agree with you on this statement because the clergy fools you as you are ready to be fooled. You allow them to exploit you and that's the reason they exploit you, just put your foot down or else be ready to be exploited financially and spiritually.Dr Fatema wrote:Only thing I want to add is apart from clergy/ Kothar / bohra establishment adna Amtes/Abdes are equally to blame for this .
Re: The teachings of moharrum
I wish the gullible members of Dawoodi bohra community understand the gravity of situation and stop themselves being exploited by corrupt religious leaders. Sadly no one is coming forward to lead the reform movement once started in Udaipur.
ghulam muhammed wrote:I too agree with you on this statement because the clergy fools you as you are ready to be fooled. You allow them to exploit you and that's the reason they exploit you, just put your foot down or else be ready to be exploited financially and spiritually.Dr Fatema wrote:Only thing I want to add is apart from clergy/ Kothar / bohra establishment adna Amtes/Abdes are equally to blame for this .
-
WiththenameofAllah
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Sat May 24, 2014 9:13 am
Re: The teachings of moharrum
Please post some saying of Imam Hussain A.S or life events from which we could learn and become a better Muslim.
Re: The teachings of moharrum
Brother the most basic teaching of Imam Hussain A.S. is that he fought with the corrupt & tyrant regime of Yazid L.A. to save Islam. And for this noble cause he with his 72 Shohadas sacrificed their lives. If we cannot fight the injustice/ zulm then we cannot be better muslim.
WiththenameofAllah wrote:Please post some saying of Imam Hussain A.S or life events from which we could learn and become a better Muslim.
-
WiththenameofAllah
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Sat May 24, 2014 9:13 am
Re: The teachings of moharrum
i am a sister Dr Fatema, yes he did but he also gave His life to save Islam. I believe our actions should be to save Islam and yes that also includes fighting corrupt leaders.
It is easy to say fight but it is very difficult to run out of this community.
It is easy to say fight but it is very difficult to run out of this community.
Re: The teachings of moharrum
My learnings from Aqa Hussain's (AS) sacrifice:
1) Even if your enemy asks for water, give it to him. He did this when Hoor AS stopped his kafelo.
2) Break tawaaf of Kaaba if a mumin calls for your help. Such is the significance of a mumin. This is eloquently narrated in Nasihat "Kabatullah si mumin che behtar, samjhu te samjho..."
3) Be firm on your principles and beliefs. He sacrificed his whole family to show us who was on Haqq
4) Submit to the will of Allah. When Jibrael said Allah's wish was for him to acquire Shahadat, he immediately lay down his sword
Looking at the current situation in dawat, here is what is happening:
1) Hussain AS gave pani to Hoor AS but our guys are hurling laanats on SKQ
2) Mumins worth today is based on how much wajebat he pays and how much ass he kisses.
3) Principles go out the door when it comes to money grabbing.
4) Allah is an after thought, Moula's khushi is everything even if it directly contradicts what previous dai preached. I remember Burhanuddin Moula RA always wanted maximum people to be able to attend majlis of Imam Hussain. Hence the waaz was held in the west in the evenings. Now they want you to leave everything and attend waaz in morning cause it is more important to keep MS happy than ensure no one is left mehroom
Today's religious thugs could not be farther from the path Imam Hussain was on. God bless the Bohras
1) Even if your enemy asks for water, give it to him. He did this when Hoor AS stopped his kafelo.
2) Break tawaaf of Kaaba if a mumin calls for your help. Such is the significance of a mumin. This is eloquently narrated in Nasihat "Kabatullah si mumin che behtar, samjhu te samjho..."
3) Be firm on your principles and beliefs. He sacrificed his whole family to show us who was on Haqq
4) Submit to the will of Allah. When Jibrael said Allah's wish was for him to acquire Shahadat, he immediately lay down his sword
Looking at the current situation in dawat, here is what is happening:
1) Hussain AS gave pani to Hoor AS but our guys are hurling laanats on SKQ
2) Mumins worth today is based on how much wajebat he pays and how much ass he kisses.
3) Principles go out the door when it comes to money grabbing.
4) Allah is an after thought, Moula's khushi is everything even if it directly contradicts what previous dai preached. I remember Burhanuddin Moula RA always wanted maximum people to be able to attend majlis of Imam Hussain. Hence the waaz was held in the west in the evenings. Now they want you to leave everything and attend waaz in morning cause it is more important to keep MS happy than ensure no one is left mehroom
Today's religious thugs could not be farther from the path Imam Hussain was on. God bless the Bohras
-
dal-chaval-palidu
- Posts: 766
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:46 am
Re: The teachings of moharrum
A few months back I had posted this write-up as my understanding of the most important contribution of Imam Husain to Islam. As it is relevant to this topic and thread, I am posting the link below.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9797&p=137742&hilit ... da#p137742
In the coming days of Moharram Ihope you find it worthwhile. The full article is posted below.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I am sharing on this forum my thoughts on why I think the statement “Islam jinda hota hai har Karbala ke baad” has truth, and why the sacrifice at Karbala is considered Imam Hussein’s seminal contribution to Islam - one that in my mind probably had the most long-lasting impact. If you disagree with me, I urge you to correct me, and I will gladly welcome that. I am hoping for a good discussion.
This post is somewhat long (more like an article) and is broken up into 3 parts. Part 3 will wrap up the information provided in Part 1 and 2 to complete the argument. And I have provided publicly accessible reference below.
Part 1: The events in Karbala and the Muslim community in the first 50 years after the Prophet’s [PBUH] death.
What was the essence of the contribution of Imam Hussein (AS) which we mention to this date as “saving the religion of Islam?” To answer that question, we have to understand the reason why Imam Hussein (AS) was protesting the elevation of Yazid to the caliphate. It had been just about 50 years since the death of the Prophet of Islam, and the caliphs were very much thought of as representatives of Islam and were considered as the leaders of the community. To put it very soberly, Yazid’s careless temperament and his whole life, had many things in direct contrast to an Islamic way of living. What kind of an example would such a leader set for the world to see? The seminal contribution of Imam Hussein to Islam is best explained as a direct quote of the relevant text from [1] that I reproduce below:
“It is in this light that we should read Husayn’s replies to those well-wishers who advised him not to go to Iraq. It also explains why Husayn took with him his women and children, though advised by Ibn’ Abbas [his father’s cousin] that should he insist on the project, at least he should not take his family with him. Aware of the extent of the brutal nature of the reactionary forces, Husayn knew that after killing him, the Umayyads would make his women and children captives and take them all the way from Kufa to Damascus. This caravan of captives of Muhammad’s immediate family would publicize Husayn’s message and would force the Muslims’ hearts to ponder on the tragedy. It would make the Muslims think of the whole affair and would awaken their consciousness. This is exactly what happened. Husayn succeeded in his purpose. It is difficult today to evaluate exactly the impact of Husayn’s action on Islamic morality and way of thinking because it prevailed. Had Husayn not shaken and awakened Muslim consciousness by this method, who knows whether Yazid’s way of life would have become standard behavior in the Muslim community, endorsed and accepted by the grandson of the Prophet. No doubt, even after Yazid kingship did prevail in Islam, and the character and behavior in the personal lives of kings was not very different from that of Yazid, but the change of thinking which prevailed after the sacrifice of Husayn always served as a line of distinction between Islamic norms and the personal character of the rulers”] [all emphasis is mine - Dal-chaval-palidu]
For me, when I read this passage, it was like a light turned ON and I understood the impact of Imam Hussein’s sacrifice.
Part 2: Where we talk of the behavior of Muslims currently and over the past 14 centuries.
Throughout history, including many examples from modern times, kings/rulers/(even despotic dictators) have claimed that they represented the true spirit of Islam – mostly done for their own convenience. In current times, the Saudi Arabian monarchy, Iran, Iraq (yes, Saddam claimed that he was the representative of Islam), Libya (so did Ghaddafi), Pakistan, Al-Qaeda, and a host of others have claimed that they represent Islam. Consider a very current event, the war and killings going on in Iraq by ISIS. ISIS would probably be claiming that they are the true Muslims and that they represent the true Islam.
Non-Muslims and Muslims alike ask the question: What kind of religion is this where Muslims kill Muslims all the time and with so much brutality. And they would have also asked the question: How can such despots (take your pick: Ghaddafi, Saddam, Saudi ruling family, Al-Qaeda) claim to be the leaders of your religion?
Over the centuries, other people would have asked (directly or subtly) the Muslim community: What kind of religion is this (Islam) of yours that kings (or, alternatively dictators, thugs, or oppressors) claim to be representing it, or claim to be its vanguard? And as morality is the long-term basis of religion, it would have weakened people’s faith in the religion if “not so moral” people would have claimed to be its leaders.
Part 3: [Summing up the argument from Part 1 and Part 2]
And the reply to the above questions that kept faith in Islam going was along the following lines: No, these people are NOT the representatives of the religion of Islam. Look, within 50 years from the death of the Prophet (PBUH), Yazid [one of the kings, the then caliph (also translated/interpreted as representative of the Prophet) and an immoral character] claimed to be the leader of Muslims. And the most-righteous, noble, and courageous grandson of the prophet refused to accept that and laid down his, his family’s, and his companions’ lives as a defining line separating the righteous life from un-righteousness. Hussein and his actions are the true representation of Islam, and that is the religion of Islam and our faith. In that sense, Imam Hussein saved Islam by providing a “moral anchor” for the religion that has survived the vicissitudes of time and has been a source of solace for Muslims.
This, in my opinion, is one of the defining and most enduring contributions of Imam Hussein. He did not do it by winning a battle – the specific battle he lost; but the clear differentiation (between right and wrong) that he drew in not giving allegiance (bait/accepting authority) to an un-worthy caliph and paying the ultimate price, its moral impact provided a clear point of demarcation (between right and wrong) for the religion. At least that is what I think.
In recent times, around the world we have seen many instances of (anti-Muslim bigoted) people saying that Islam supports terrorism, Islam is not a religion of peace and justice, etc. etc. After 9/11/2001 I was asked directly by one of my colleagues at work: dal-chaval-palidu, how can this be a moral faith, a religion of peace with justice, when people like bin Laden are perceived (wrongly so) as its most visible symbol/leaders? Such times can test ones faith, and I am sure that those times must have happened over the past 14 centuries too. And it is at such times that the sacrifice of Imam Hussein served as a line of distinction between true Islamic norms and the behavior of its so called champions. His life and actions have provided the faith its “rock” and in that sense Imam Hussein saved the religion of Islam.
References:
[1] “An Introduction to Shia Islam”, Moojam Momen, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, USA, 1987.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And so what about current times..
Essentially, Imam Husain stood up for truth and against might and wrong. The true way to be a follower of Imam Husain would be to stand up for what is right in our times. There is injustice and wrong going on in each era, and to be a true follower of Imam Husain would be that we should stand up against whatever injustice and evil that is currently taking place.
As an example, if we claim to be the "spiritual heirs" of Imam Husain, we should have stood up against Modi (at least not get prominently in "bed" with him) as he basically was responsible for the killing of Muslims. This is just one example, there are others.
And I would think most Bohras (myself included) would not pass that test. That is just my opinion.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9797&p=137742&hilit ... da#p137742
In the coming days of Moharram Ihope you find it worthwhile. The full article is posted below.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I am sharing on this forum my thoughts on why I think the statement “Islam jinda hota hai har Karbala ke baad” has truth, and why the sacrifice at Karbala is considered Imam Hussein’s seminal contribution to Islam - one that in my mind probably had the most long-lasting impact. If you disagree with me, I urge you to correct me, and I will gladly welcome that. I am hoping for a good discussion.
This post is somewhat long (more like an article) and is broken up into 3 parts. Part 3 will wrap up the information provided in Part 1 and 2 to complete the argument. And I have provided publicly accessible reference below.
Part 1: The events in Karbala and the Muslim community in the first 50 years after the Prophet’s [PBUH] death.
What was the essence of the contribution of Imam Hussein (AS) which we mention to this date as “saving the religion of Islam?” To answer that question, we have to understand the reason why Imam Hussein (AS) was protesting the elevation of Yazid to the caliphate. It had been just about 50 years since the death of the Prophet of Islam, and the caliphs were very much thought of as representatives of Islam and were considered as the leaders of the community. To put it very soberly, Yazid’s careless temperament and his whole life, had many things in direct contrast to an Islamic way of living. What kind of an example would such a leader set for the world to see? The seminal contribution of Imam Hussein to Islam is best explained as a direct quote of the relevant text from [1] that I reproduce below:
“It is in this light that we should read Husayn’s replies to those well-wishers who advised him not to go to Iraq. It also explains why Husayn took with him his women and children, though advised by Ibn’ Abbas [his father’s cousin] that should he insist on the project, at least he should not take his family with him. Aware of the extent of the brutal nature of the reactionary forces, Husayn knew that after killing him, the Umayyads would make his women and children captives and take them all the way from Kufa to Damascus. This caravan of captives of Muhammad’s immediate family would publicize Husayn’s message and would force the Muslims’ hearts to ponder on the tragedy. It would make the Muslims think of the whole affair and would awaken their consciousness. This is exactly what happened. Husayn succeeded in his purpose. It is difficult today to evaluate exactly the impact of Husayn’s action on Islamic morality and way of thinking because it prevailed. Had Husayn not shaken and awakened Muslim consciousness by this method, who knows whether Yazid’s way of life would have become standard behavior in the Muslim community, endorsed and accepted by the grandson of the Prophet. No doubt, even after Yazid kingship did prevail in Islam, and the character and behavior in the personal lives of kings was not very different from that of Yazid, but the change of thinking which prevailed after the sacrifice of Husayn always served as a line of distinction between Islamic norms and the personal character of the rulers”] [all emphasis is mine - Dal-chaval-palidu]
For me, when I read this passage, it was like a light turned ON and I understood the impact of Imam Hussein’s sacrifice.
Part 2: Where we talk of the behavior of Muslims currently and over the past 14 centuries.
Throughout history, including many examples from modern times, kings/rulers/(even despotic dictators) have claimed that they represented the true spirit of Islam – mostly done for their own convenience. In current times, the Saudi Arabian monarchy, Iran, Iraq (yes, Saddam claimed that he was the representative of Islam), Libya (so did Ghaddafi), Pakistan, Al-Qaeda, and a host of others have claimed that they represent Islam. Consider a very current event, the war and killings going on in Iraq by ISIS. ISIS would probably be claiming that they are the true Muslims and that they represent the true Islam.
Non-Muslims and Muslims alike ask the question: What kind of religion is this where Muslims kill Muslims all the time and with so much brutality. And they would have also asked the question: How can such despots (take your pick: Ghaddafi, Saddam, Saudi ruling family, Al-Qaeda) claim to be the leaders of your religion?
Over the centuries, other people would have asked (directly or subtly) the Muslim community: What kind of religion is this (Islam) of yours that kings (or, alternatively dictators, thugs, or oppressors) claim to be representing it, or claim to be its vanguard? And as morality is the long-term basis of religion, it would have weakened people’s faith in the religion if “not so moral” people would have claimed to be its leaders.
Part 3: [Summing up the argument from Part 1 and Part 2]
And the reply to the above questions that kept faith in Islam going was along the following lines: No, these people are NOT the representatives of the religion of Islam. Look, within 50 years from the death of the Prophet (PBUH), Yazid [one of the kings, the then caliph (also translated/interpreted as representative of the Prophet) and an immoral character] claimed to be the leader of Muslims. And the most-righteous, noble, and courageous grandson of the prophet refused to accept that and laid down his, his family’s, and his companions’ lives as a defining line separating the righteous life from un-righteousness. Hussein and his actions are the true representation of Islam, and that is the religion of Islam and our faith. In that sense, Imam Hussein saved Islam by providing a “moral anchor” for the religion that has survived the vicissitudes of time and has been a source of solace for Muslims.
This, in my opinion, is one of the defining and most enduring contributions of Imam Hussein. He did not do it by winning a battle – the specific battle he lost; but the clear differentiation (between right and wrong) that he drew in not giving allegiance (bait/accepting authority) to an un-worthy caliph and paying the ultimate price, its moral impact provided a clear point of demarcation (between right and wrong) for the religion. At least that is what I think.
In recent times, around the world we have seen many instances of (anti-Muslim bigoted) people saying that Islam supports terrorism, Islam is not a religion of peace and justice, etc. etc. After 9/11/2001 I was asked directly by one of my colleagues at work: dal-chaval-palidu, how can this be a moral faith, a religion of peace with justice, when people like bin Laden are perceived (wrongly so) as its most visible symbol/leaders? Such times can test ones faith, and I am sure that those times must have happened over the past 14 centuries too. And it is at such times that the sacrifice of Imam Hussein served as a line of distinction between true Islamic norms and the behavior of its so called champions. His life and actions have provided the faith its “rock” and in that sense Imam Hussein saved the religion of Islam.
References:
[1] “An Introduction to Shia Islam”, Moojam Momen, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, USA, 1987.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And so what about current times..
Essentially, Imam Husain stood up for truth and against might and wrong. The true way to be a follower of Imam Husain would be to stand up for what is right in our times. There is injustice and wrong going on in each era, and to be a true follower of Imam Husain would be that we should stand up against whatever injustice and evil that is currently taking place.
As an example, if we claim to be the "spiritual heirs" of Imam Husain, we should have stood up against Modi (at least not get prominently in "bed" with him) as he basically was responsible for the killing of Muslims. This is just one example, there are others.
And I would think most Bohras (myself included) would not pass that test. That is just my opinion.
-
badrijanab
- Posts: 809
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 3:19 pm
Re: The teachings of moharrum
Correction: It is Moojan.dal-chaval-palidu wrote: [1] “An Introduction to Shia Islam”, Moojam Momen, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, USA, 1987.