Al-Husayn as Caliph

When people saw Yazid’s wickedness, the Shi’ah in al-Kufah invited al-Husayn to come to them. They said that they would take his side. Al-Husayn thought that a revolt against Yazid was his duty.

He felt that he was qualified for that moral duty.

But, regrettably enough, he was mistaken with regard to his strength.

The group feeling of the Mudar was in the Quraysh, that of the Quraysh in Abd-Manaf, and that of ‘Abd-Manaf in the Umayyads.

The Quraysh and all the others conceded this fact and were not ignorant of it. At the beginning of Islam, it had been forgotten.

People were diverted by fearful wonders and by the Revelation, and by frequent visitations of angels in aid of the Muslims.

Thus, they had neglectedtheir customary affairs, and the group feeling and aspirations of pre-Islamic times had disappeared and were forgotten.

Only the natural group feeling, serving the purpose of military protection and defense, had remained and was used to advantage in the establishment of Islam and the fight against the polytheists. The religion became well established in (this situation).

The customary course of affairs was inoperative, until prophecy and the terrifying wonders stopped. Then, the customary course of affairs resumed to some degree. Group feeling reverted to its former status and came back to those to whom it had formerly belonged.

In consequence of their previous state of obedience, the Mudar became more obedient to the Umayyads than to others.

Thus, al-Husayn’s error has become clear. It was, however, an error with respect to a worldly matter, where an error does not do any harm. 347 From the point of view of the religious law, he did not err, because here everything depended on what he thought, which was that he had the power to (revolt against Yazid).

Ibn Abbas, Ibn az-Zubayr, Ibn ‘Umar, (al-Husayn’s) brother Ibn al-Hanafiyah, and others, criticized (al-Husayn) because of his trip to al-Kufah. They realized his mistake, but he did not desist from the enterprise he had begun, because God wanted it to be so.

The men around Muhammad other than al-Husayn, in the Hijaz and with Yazid in Syria and in the ‘Iraq, and their followers, were of the opinion that a revolt against Yazid, even though he was wicked, would not be permissible, because such a revolt would result in trouble and bloodshed.

They refrained from it and did not follow al-Husayn (in his opinion), but they also did not disapprove of him and did not consider him at fault. For he had independent judgment, being the model of all who ever had independent judgment.

One should not fall into the error of declaring these people to be at fault because they opposed al-Husayn and did not come to his aid. They constituted the majority of the men around Muhammad. They were with Yazid, and they were of the opinion that they should not revolt against him. Al- Husayn, fighting at Kerbela’, asked them to attest to his excellence and the correctness of his position.

He said:

“Ask Jabir b. ‘Abdallah, Abu Sa’id (al-Khudri), Anas b. Malik, Sahl b. Sa’d, Zayd b. Arqam, and others.”

Thus, he did not disapprove of their not coming to his help. He did not interfere in this matter, because he knew that they were acting according to their own independent judgment. For his part, he also acted according to independent judgment.

Likewise, one should not fall into the error of declaring that his murder was justified because (it also) was the result of independent judgment, even if (one grants that) he (on his part) exercised the (correct) 349 independent judgment.

This, then, would be a situation comparable to that of Shafi’ites and Malikites applying their legal punishment for drinking date liquor (nabhdh) 350 to Hanafites. The matter is not so.

The independent judgment of those men did not involve fighting against al-Husayn, even if it involved opposition to his revolt.

Yazid and the men around him 351 were the only ones who (actually) fought against (al-Husayn). It should not be said that if Yazid was wicked and yet these (men around Muhammad) did not consider it permissible to revolt against him, his actions were in their opinion binding and right.

Only those actions of the wicked are binding that are legal. The (authorities) consider it a condition of fighting evildoers that any such fighting be undertaken with a just (‘adil) imam.

This does not apply to the question under consideration. Thus, it was not permissible to fight against al-Husayn with Yazid or on Yazid’s behalf. In matter of fact, (Yazid’s fight against al-Husayn) was one of the actions that confirmed his wickedness. Al-Husayn, therefore, was a martyr who will receive his reward. Hewas right, and he exercised independent judgment.

The men around Muhammad who were with Yazid were also right. They exercised independent judgment.

Judge Abu Bakr b. al-‘Arabi al-Maliki 353 erred when he made the following statement in his book alQawasim wa-l-‘Awasim= “Al-Husayn was killed according to the law of his grandfather (Muhammad).” Ibn al-‘Arabi fell into that error because he overlooked the condition of the “just (‘adil) imam” which governs the fighting against sectarians.

3. Ibn az-Zubayr felt about his revolt as al-Husayn had (about his).

He was under the same impression (as alHusayn regarding his qualifications). But his error with regard to his power was greater (than that of al-Husayn). The Bane Asad were no match for the Umayyads in either pre-Islamic or Islamic times.

It does not apply in the case of Ibn Zubayr, as it does in the case of Mu’awiyah against ‘Ali, that the error is expressly indicated to lie on his opponent’s side. In (the case of Mu’awiyah against ‘Ali), the general consensus has decided the question for us.

In (the case of Ibn az-Zubayr), we do not have (a general consensus). The fact that Yazid was in error was expressly indicated by the fact of Yazid’s wickedness, but ‘Abd-al-Malik, who had to deal with Ibn az-Zubayr, possessed greater probity than anybody else.

It is sufficient proof of his probity that Malik used ‘Abd-al-Malik’s actions as proof,355 and that Ibn ‘Abbas and Ibn ‘Umar rendered the oath of allegiance to ‘Abd-al-Malik and left Ibn az-Zubayr with whom they had been together in the IHijaz. Furthermore, many of the men around Muhammad were of the opinion that the oath of allegiance rendered to Ibn az-Zubayr was not binding, because the men who held the executive power were not present, as (they had been) when it was rendered to (‘Abd-alMalik’s father) Marwan. Ibn az-Zubayr held the opposite opinion. However, all of them were using independent judgment and were evidently motivated by the truth, even though it is not expressly indicated to have been on one side. Our discussion shows that the killing of Ibn az-Zubayr did not conflict with the basic principles and norms of jurisprudence. Nonetheless, he is a martyr and will receive his reward, because of his (good) intentions and the fact that he chose the truth.

This is how the actions of the ancient Muslims, the men around Muhammad and the men of the second generation, have to be judged. They were the best Muslims.

If we permitted them to be the target of slander, who could claim probity! The Prophet said= “The best men are those of my generation, then those who follow them,“repeating the latter sentence two or three times-“Then, falsehood will spread.” 356 Thus, he considered goodness, that is, probity, a quality peculiar to the first period and to the one that followed it.

One should beware of letting one’s mind or tongue become used to criticizing any of (the ancient Muslims). One’s heart should not be tempted by doubts concerning anything that happened in connection with them.

One should be as truthful as possible in their behalf. They deserve it most. They never differed among themselves except for good reasons. They never killed or were killed except in a holy war, or in helping to make some truth victorious.

It should further be believed that their differences were a source of divine mercy for later Muslims, so that every (later Muslim) can take as his model the old Muslim of his choice and make him his imam, guide, and leader. If this is understood, God’s wise plans with regard to His creation and creatures will become clear.