If there is one event which is central to the entire ethos of Shia Islam it is the martyrdom of Imam Husayn ibn Ali (a grandson of Muhammad the founder of Islam) and 72 of his followers at the hands of a 40’000-strong army of Yazid Ibn Muawiyah Ibn Abu Sufyan in 680 AD at the battle of Kerbala. Here is how these events are recounted on the website of the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon:
IMAM HUSSEIN’S UPRISING:
Prophet Mohammed’s grandson Hussein (peace be upon them), was martyred along with his household and companions in the land of Karbala more than 1400 years ago. Imam Hussein stressed that the reason for his uprising against Yazid son of Moawiya was to revive the noble teachings of Islam and the genuine practice of his grandfather Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him and his household). Muslims, whether Sunnis or Shiites, say that Yazid who wanted to force Imam Hussein to acknowledge him as Caliphate, was a corrupt and incompetent person who practiced all sorts of wrongdoings contrary to the teachings of Islam.
IMAM HUSSEIN IN MEDINA:
The martyr of Karbala, while at his grand¬father’s grave in Medina got his reassurances in dreams where the Messenger of God spoke to him in words of affection and great sorrow;
“Oh Hussein my beloved, I see thee soon spattered in thy blood, slain in the spot of Karbala, the spot of karb (sorrow) and bala (calamity) by a wicked gang of my community (ummah), thirsty with no one to give thee water to drink. Will they nonetheless seek my intercession nay, may God not grant them my intercess¬ion on the Day of Judgment.” The Imam confronted Yazid for his open corruption and incompetence. The issue was so important for the Imam that although he could have saved himself by compromising with the oppressive government of Yazid, he rose for the interest of Islam and Muslims and sacrificed his life and that of his near and dear ones so that humanity could have an eternal model. Thus, the movement of Imam Hussein is not confined to his times. It is for every era and every place.
IMAM REACHES KARBALA:
Imam Hussein reached the spot of Karbala on the second of Muharram 61 A.H. The father of free men (Imam Hussein) asked his companions what the place was called and they answered Naynawa. He asked again whether it was known by any other name. He was told that it was also known as al-Ghadiriyya. Is there any other name by which it was known? he asked. This time the answer came: “Karbala”. He then remarked: “We are God’s and to Him we return. This is the spot of Karb (sorrow) and Bala (calamity). This is the last station of our journey; this is the place wherein our blood will be shed.”
THE TRAGEDY OF THE 10TH OF MUHARRAM:
So, after nine days of attempts by the Imam to move the hearts of his enemies and reproach to them for their cruelty, came Friday or Saturday, the 10th of Muharram, 61 A.H. . This was when the greatest tragedy in Islam took place. Ibn Sa’d, the chief of Yazid’s army, ordered his men to prepare for battle. He himself shot an arrow in the direction of Imam Hussein’s camp saying: “Bear witness for me with the Amir (Ibn Ziyad, the ruler of Kufa) that I was the first to shoot an arrow.” The battle started and Imam Hussein’s valor and devoted companions were martyred one after another, mostly in single combat.
The first to die of Imam Hussein’s own family was his eldest son ‘Ali al-Akbar. Then Abul Fadl al-Abbas, his brother seeing the suffering of the women and children from thirst made his way to the water among swords and spears, and under a barrage of arrows. He got the water for the thirsty ones, but on his way back he was attacked and killed after a desperate and courageous fight.
Imam Hussein called the enemy camp for a drink of water for his newborn son Abdullah. A man shot an arrow into the child’s neck which slew him in his father’s lap.
IMAM HUSSEIN ADDRESSES KUFANS:
Just before the battle, he addressed the Kufans saying:
Do therefore remember who my ancestors were and know who I am, then return to your own consciences and reprimand them. Behold whether it is lawful for you to kill me and violate my sanctity. Am I not the son of your Prophet, the son of his legate and cousin who was the first to believe in God and confirm His Apostle in what He revealed to him. Is not Hamzah the first of martyrs my father’s uncle and is not Ja’far al-Tayyar of the two wings flying in Paradise my uncle? Did no good man among you relate to you the saying of the Apostle of God concerning me and my brother ‘these two are the masters of the youths of the people of Paradise’? So if you believe not what I say, and it is the truth; for by God I never told a lie since I knew that God (exalted be He) loathes lying and harms by it only those who abide in it. But if you belie me, there are those among you whom you could ask . . . (here he enumerates most of the still living companions of the Prophet and then continues) they can tell you that they heard this saying from the Prophet concerning me and my brother. Is there not in this a cause to prevent you from shedding my blood?
Among the people whose hearts were indeed moved was al-Hurr al-Amili, the man first sent by Ibn Ziyad to compel Imam Hussein to surrender.
IMAM HUSSEIN THE MASTER OF ALL MARTYRS:
At the end of the day Shimr Ibn-Thee el-Jawshan urged men to kill Imam Hussein who had already received many arrows and stabs by sword and spear. The Imam lay dying on the ground spattered with his blood. It was Shimr who came forward, knelt on his chest, stabbed him many times with his sword, while the other laughed saying: “Praise God who had sent the most evil of his creatures to kill him,” and then cut off his head. The head was sent with the other heads of Imam Hussein’s companions first to Ibn Ziyad who dispatched them along with the women (Sabaya) including Imam Hussein’s sister Sayyida Zeinab (pbuh), and children as captives to Yazid in Damascus. Only Imam Ali, Zayn al-Abidin son of Imam Hussein, then a sick boy, survived this tragedy.
BLOOD TRIUMPHS OVER SWORD
Be that as it may the martyrdom of Imam has provided food for thought and devotion for many generations up to this day. It has received countless interpretations, and every generation sees its struggle in the light of his struggle. In this sense blood triumphed over the sword and Imam Hussein peace be upon him gained victory and Yazid lost.
Now I can well imagine some of my readers, in particular the agnostics/atheists, rolling their eyes at all this wondering how all this relevant to the modern times. The answer is that it would be a huge mistake to overlook the faith and piety of others simply because one cannot understand, or does not share, them.
The Shia, who have been oppressed for many centuries, have built their entire spiritual lives on the heroic example of the martydom of Imam Husayn ibn Ali and an unbreakable resolve never to allow such an event (the murder of a pious servant of God in the indifference of everybody) to happen again.
It is hardly possible to overemphasize the importance of martyrdom for the Shia (Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord; Qur’an, 2:214). Interestingly, the Arabic word Shaheed has exactly the same meaning as the Greek word μάρτυς (martis, or martyr): it means “witness”. In other words, both Islam and original (Orthodox) Christianity believe that being a martyr is being a true witness of God, in the former case through the example of Imam Ali and in the latter through the example of Christ.
The “Hollywood educated” western mind has somehow accepted the fallacy that wars are won by fancy technologies, that when the next war comes, it shall be “US stealth fighters versus old Iranian F4s” or “Israeli F16s versus Hezbollah katuishas”. This is an extremely naive and ignorant view of warfare. Future wars will oppose two kind of combattants: one who believes that his fancy hardware will win the battle for him against a deeply pious opponent who, above all else, is determined not to ever allow the truth to be trampled by evil again and who views martyrdoom as the highest blessing one can ever hope for.
I should here that it would be equally wrong the believe the nonsense about the Muslim fighters as going into battle for some 72 virgins: this is a myth propagated by an ignorant western propaganda which projects its own crude fantasies upon a culture it cannot understand. Unlike some Wahabis, the Shias do not seek death in battle at all. They, in fact, will go to great lenghts to avoid it. They do so, however, with a full willingness to accept it if circumstances require it.
About two million Shia Muslims marched in Kerbala today, and another million gathered around Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut to commemorate the Ashura. These huge crowds are gathering while their leaders warn them that the risks of war are extremely high (see Hassan Nasrallah’s speech posted here yesterday). The next wars can take many forms: Israel can invade Gaza, Israel can invade Lebanon, Israel can strike at Iran, the USA can strike at Iran or a combination of any or all of the above. What the leaders of the Empire should understand is that the Shia world is more than ready to taken them on. They should also remember Mark Twain’s words that ‘it is not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog‘ which determines the outcome.
Do they really believe that they have more “fight in their guts” than the Shia commemorating the Ashura today?
——-
NB: Although I tried to understand and outline the importance of the Ashura the best I can, I am necessarily limited in my understanding of this day by the fact that I am not a Muslim myself. I therefore apologize for any mistakes or omissions I might have made in my description above, and I strongly urge any Shia Muslim reading this to add his/her commentary or criticisms here for the benefit of all. Many thanks in advance! VS
88888888888888888888888888888888888
the saker
Dont you worry , im a Muslim and i dont know much about Ashoura , may because im a Sunni so in North Africa we mainly give donations to the poor and we have nuts and dates and fruits at home after a special meal . but i dont know much about the death of Imam Hussein or very little .
I , as a muslim , find it wrong to mourn another human being who has been dead hundreds of years , (especially all that beating that makes me cringe as it is shown on CNN ) the Prophet Mohamed when he was dying told his people Do not cry and do not mourn me , death is normal for all living , if you worship ALLAH , he is still there , you did not worship me you worshipped ALLAH , im just a human being , so do not mourn me . so when i see shias hurting themselves and mourning for hundreds of years , i feel like telling them , seriously guys move on , try and stop this mourning thing and do something about the living . i hope i have not upset any shia over here but this is how i feel .
I , as a muslim , find it wrong to mourn another human being who has been dead hundreds of years , (especially all that beating that makes me cringe as it is shown on CNN )
Allow me to suggest a hypothesis here: could it be that the Shia do not so much mourn the death of Imam Hussein as the manner in which it occured and, in particular, that even though many knew that he was facing death almost alone – nobody came to his assistance?
As far as I understand, the feeling expressed in the self-flagellation is one of contrition for the collective guilt of the pious for not having stood by Imam Hussein (though I might be wrong here).
The self-flagellation is rather impressive, but the blood pooring down is caused by superficial cuts and, as far as I know, does no real harm.
Lastly, I know for a fact that Hezbollah does not approve of such expressions of popular piety and bans them for its members.
I can only repeat here that not being a Muslim myself, much less so a Shia, it is possibly inappropriate for me to comment on all this “from the outside” and I very much wish a pious Shia would post here to shed some light on these issues. But the external observer than I am is deeply impressed by the truly phenomenal courage and piety of the Shia Muslims, often in the face of unbearable odds.
So, unlike you, I hope that the Shias do *not* “stop mourning and move on”; I hope that their example will inspire every oppressed person in a world in which courage, honor, justice and piety are so lacking. If Hezbollah could defeat the Empire’s forces with less than 1000 men, imagine what the Middle-East could do if its people followed the example of Hezbollah!
Lastly, I know for a fact that Hezbollah does not approve of such expressions of popular piety and bans them for its members
It belongs to Shia’s culture, so I would not be that sure to make a positive statement on the self-flagelaton issue with Hizbullah. These are religious rituals: walking bare feet, chest twumping (like in Iran), using a machette to cut the scalp, and using chains on your back. The cuts and bleeding are usually minor, but it happens that people are sent to the hospital (contusions, unconsciousness, and hemoragies). These are important religious rituals to symbolize martyrdom and injustice in the Middle-East; without these tools the religious phenomena would lose all its importance. It was banned under Saddam Hussein for sure for evident political reasons but I don’t think it has been done under Hizbullah. Culturally and sociologically, despite US insistance, it is going to be hard to separate Iran from Iraq since those countries share lots of shia’s traditions.
In Iran, you could get married for a few hours or months with a woman (it’s called Mut’a) and now it is possible to do so in cities of Iraq such Najaf or Karbala.
As you’ve seen (Cf Fatima’s post) there is a cultural misunderstanding between Sunnis and Shias, and some names in the Sunnis culture are forbidden in the Shia culture and vice-et-versa, but it seems there has been an apeasement between Shias and Sunnis in lots of muslim countries when you look at the polls from Aljazerah (to the exception of middle-eastern countries caught in the war under US interference).
In Iran, you could get married for a few hours or months with a woman (it’s called Mut’a) and now it is possible to do so in cities of Iraq such Najaf or Karbala.
That’s a really interesting one. In college, after I finished all my required courses, I was left with one elective one and I took a course on Sharia law (-: no, that was not in Kabul or Riad, but in Washington, DC :-). When we covered this strange Shia ‘temporary marriage’ our teacher explained to us that it originated in an interesting feature of the history of Islam. According to our teacher, temporary marriages were introduced as a mechanism to protect the woman which Muslim soldiers would marry during their military campaigns. The risk was that Muslim men would take wives in garrison towns or occupied cities and then, when an order came to move somewhere else, they would abandon them. Temporary marriage was introduced as a way to make sure that 1) the wife left behind was not left destitute and 2) that she would be free to remarry or live in any way she wanted.
Of course, to our western ears this all sounded like a fantastic trick to legalize all kinds of romantic affairs. To be honest, I have no idea how and why such temporary marriages would be implemented in today’s Najaf or Kerbala, or whether such marriages are entered into in modern Iran.
I really hope a Shia visitor would post here to help us understand all this. I even posted a request to this effect on a Shia forum, but so far nobody has responded to my plea. I will keep waiting with great hope and anticipation though…
It is the interpretation of Shariah laws in the Q’ran and other writings that enters in contradiction with western point of views. What may be entirely natural in their way of life is not necessarly comprehended in our thinking, and vice-et-versa.
In Iran there are still short wedding practices, but I beleive the iranian government tried to crack down on this issue. Culturally through history, the human being often ignores the purpose of such activities but traditions are often kept centuries later.
For example in our western civilization, by tradition we have to buy a diamond ring to our soulmate to emphasize the virtues of the wedding. In reality the goal of this tradition can be traced all the way through the middle-age. During the medieval times, millions of people died of pest, this plague contributed in their beliefs that in order to be protected from this disease, they had to carry a diamond ring. Of course it was completely superstitious but this is how the “diamond” ring tradition started: origins of the purpose were lost through the centuries but the tradition still exists in a different fashion now.
For the iranian case, I don’t know how they kept this tradition, but I have a shia friend and I will send him an email, and if ever I find out something then I will let you know.
Politically, the shiahs from Iraq helped Saddam Hussein in the 80s during the war Iran/Iraq, and even if traditions were banned under the reign of Saddam Hussein, there is a cultural part that we should not deny between the relations of Iran and Iraq. Cultural traditions play an important role in our political system, especially in the tools of thinking in the US foreign policy model, but also for the Middle-East formula. It is also true that cultures can share global positions despite a different cultural identity: the iranians had played a big role in the construction of the OLP.
Best regards.
First of all , in islam , muslims are absolutely forbidden to harm their body so I can say those kind of acts are made by some fools and those acts are not approved by islam nor shia(I mean the harming part)
(some theories also claim that some countries created this conditions to stop shia)
second , I as a shia muslim have been raised by the sentence above and I have to admit that even some teenagers in my country (iran) wish to die for God`s sake(yet they dont desire to die easily at all) and I think it could helps us to win a possible war with empire.
if u think I’m just an idiot I suggest u to research about iran _iraq war some years ago
it was a realy big war that iran fought against 70 countries (including the empire) ( not directly with all 70 countries) and yet iran won the war
at last thank u saker for your amazing posts