-
The Martyrdom Of Hujr Ibn Adi (rta)
Assalamu Alaikum,
How Ustad-e-Muhtaram (ha) sees the martyrdom of Hazrat Hujr ibn Adi (rta).
-
11 Replies
-
The Martyrdom Of Hujr Ibn Adi (rta)
updated 4 months ago
3 Members
·
11
Replies
-
Hijr bin adi was politically very enthusiastic. He was involved in instigating people against the government. He was found involves in launching a war against the rulers. He opposed Hazrat Hassan when he made peace with Hazrat Muawiah. After his trail he was found guilty of insurgency so he was executed.
-
Why did Muawiyah (rta) continue the Sabb on Sayyiduna Ali (rta), even after the Hasan–Mu’awiya treaty? And what is the source of this claim? Thanks.
-
Sabb is not all names as it is usually understood now. Sabb also means to criticize someone. Since it was a political dispute, both parties used to criticize each other for their political stance. You may find severe criticism by Hazrat Ali on Muwaiah, Amr Ibn Aas, Abu Musa al Ashari, Abdull bin Jarir, etc, these are all Sahabi. Hazrat Ali was criticized for favoring the Kofians and murderers of Usman and making them his counselors, governors, and generals.
-
Why did he continue the Sabb (I know that Sabb does not mean abusing someone) on Maula Ali (rta), after Sayyiduna Hasan (rta) handed the caliphate to Ameer-e-Shaam (rta)? This is not the opinion of Ghamidi Sahab that you are telling. According to Ghamidi Sahab, Sayyiduna Ali (rta) tried to give justice to Sayyiduna Usman (rta) after establishing peace.
-
There is no record in the history which tells any thing that Hazrat Muawiah criticized Ali. There no not a single sentence on his behalf. On the contrary, He was known for his forbearance and forgiveness and every unlikely that he wasted hia time in it. However criticising one’s political opinions or position, especially when Hazrat Ali favoured the murderers and sided with them is probable. But there is nothing on the record. He was rather busy in other things like jihad against Byzantine and the welfare projects for the Muslims and administering justice which he is knowing for.
However the people who got defeated in these battles, And their political aspirations failed, I mean the Iraqis, they started vehement propaganda against him, put a large bundle of false accusations on him, which the history recorded and our people read. If you want to understand this phenomenon. See how politics behave today. Politics is blame game, propaganda and false accusations and hyperbolism.
-
-
Please watch,
-
If this is the case, then we also know even from today’s politics that some people make a narrative and use it for themselves as a justification for their war and rivalry. Actually, they have some other purpose. I don’t want to debate this topic. You can disagree with me if you want. The point is, that we also have some non-Muslim historians and authors (including Madelung) who have said that the criticism on Sayyiduna Ali (rta) continued, until the era of Umar b. Abd al-Aziz (ra). He also said that the policy likely served as a propaganda measure, and also helped provoke, identify, and then crush the supporters of Sayyiduna Ali (rta), whom the Umayyads considered a threat.
According to Tarikh-e-Tabari and the Shi’ite A’yan al-Shi’a, when different groups gathered to protest against Sayyiduna Usman (rta) and his commanders, Malik al-Ashtar was the head of Kufan protesters. However, when the caliph (rta) was surrounded and threatened to death, Malik al-Ashtar and Hukaym b. Jabala (head of the protesters of Basra) resigned but Ibn ‘Udays and his Egyptian followers, insisted to continue the offense.
I respectfully disagree with Ustad e Muhtaram (ha) on his opinion that Sayyiduna Ali (rta) kept them all close to him only because he did not have the people to run his caliphate. History shows that Sayyiduna Ali had a very close relationship with Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr and Malik al-Ashtar. Many historians have highlighted some reasons why these people look completely innocent in the martyrdom of Sayyiduna Usman. Among them, the work of Dr. Yahya Al-yahya is very commendable. Moreover, Malik al-Ashtar was the commander of Sayyiduna Ali. Malik was so devout to Sayyidna Ali that his sons were also devoted to Sayyidna Ali’s sons. For example, Malik’s son Ishaq gave his life in Karbala while fighting for Syedna Hussain. And another son, Ibrahim, together with Mukhtar Thaqfi (who was the son of Sahabi Sayyidna Abu Ubaidah Thaqfi rta, and brother-in-law of Abdullah bin Umar rta), avenged the martyrdom of Sayyidna Husain and his companions, by killing those who were involved in the martyrdom of Sayyiduna Husayn. Malik himself, was such a devout Muslim that even he got his title of Al-Ashtar due to an eyelid injury he received during the Battle of Yarmouk, the battle between Muslims and Byzantines. Obviously he disagreed with the policies of Sayyiduna Usman (rta), for the sake of Muslim caliphate. Moreover, Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr also met the Messenger of Allah (saw) in his infancy. His son, Qasim was taught by his aunt Sayyidah Aisha (rta), and he is among the seven Fuqaha of Medina, though whom we have got the Sunnah of our Holy Prophet (saw). His daughter Umm Farwa married Muhammad al-Baqir (who was the son of Zayn ul-Abidin, and the grandson of Sayyiduna Husayn).
So this relationship of Sayyiduna Ali with Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr and Malik al-Ashtar (and their family members), was of living and dying together and of family relations. And most importantly, it is necessary to know the character of someone before considering him guilty of any crime or accusing him.
NOTE:- These all facts are the established history, which are not derived from narrations.
-
Since the Iraqis had their narrative so had the Syrians theirs. When one displays his narrative the other counters. This way, the two way criticism ran. Since most of the narrators of history are Iraqis their narrative dominated in the history.
You opened other avenues of debate. It is hard to respond to them here. Just a short comment.
Malike Ashtar’s and Muhammad bin Abu Baker’s political aspirations appeared way before these events. The way Malik misbehaved the people especially the companions of the prophet, even those who were with Hazrat Ali, is well recorded by the history. He was one the leaders of the rebels who brought them there and got the caliph killed. This was fasad fi alrd. And the punishment in Shariah for culprits of Fasad that they all without discriminate will receive the same punishment. In such cases investigation to find the real murderer is not done. Everyone one is an equal criminal.
Once a man from the tribe banu fazara dared to disagree with Ali on his war policy, Malik asked his gang to lynch him to his death openly in a market. And when the case was brough to Ali, he paid the diyat from the Bait ul Maal but did not punish anyone.
The political affiliation is not a proof how good Muslims a person is. Political whims have their own way to show ardency.
The kufians used to abuse Usman openly in kufa so much so a peaceful tribe had to leave kufa so that they might not listen people abusing Usman.
Even Ali eventually got frustrated with them as they didn’t listen to him.
This was how the state of kifa ran.
This is a never ending debate. I just showed you the other side of the picture.
I close the debate here.
Thanks
-
Sir, you are asking to end the debate. But, there are some very important facts, which you need to know. Maulana Maududi writes in his book Khilafat o Malookiyat, that the difference between Khilafah (or Shooraai system for us) and Monarchy is that, in Khilafah, it is allowed to disagree, like Syedna Uthman himself was martyred but he never wanted to spread bloodshed. Whereas in Monarchy, if someone disagrees rightly or wrongly, he is killed, like what happened to Sayyiduna Hussain. And for the narrative of Syedna Usman on this, you should see Bukhari 695. We cannot completely ignore traditions and hadiths, saying that they are not that credible.
I also do not fully agree with this book of Maulana Maududi because in it political and historical matters have been made religion. But, It is the golden quote of Maulana Maududi here.
I do not know the source of what you told me about a man from Banu Fazara. I request you to refer the source of it to me. Because many narratives have also been made by the Syrians. I also request you to read about the martyrdom of Imam Nasa’i, and also read why he wrote the book, ‘Khasais-e-Ali’.
-
Also, by studying history, we find that many people had no idea that Syedna Usman would be martyred in the end. This was the reason why many of the Sahabis did not stand outside Sayyiduna Uthman’s home and defend him. Except for a few, including Sayyidna Ali, Sayyidna Abu Hurairah, etc.
-
This discussion cannot continue because it has deviated from the primary question of Hujr bin Adi (rta). You can always post new questions for matters which are not directly related to the main question.
-
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
The discussion "The Martyrdom Of Hujr Ibn Adi (rta)" is closed to new replies.
