By: Prof. Syed Farid Alatas
TEHRAN (MNA) – While Imam Husain
PBUH is among Imams of the Shia Islam, the majority of Sunni Muslims, and even
many non-Muslims believe in him and respect him and contribute to and
participate in processions marking his martyrdom on Day of Ashura.
The slaying of Imam Husain along
with dozens of his family members and followers at Karbala on 10 Muharram, 61
A.H. (Ashura) is an event that has the greatest of significance for humanity
for several reasons. Here, I would like to highlight the connection between the
massacre of Karbala with the problem of leadership in the Muslim world today
In the hierarchy of factors that
explain the relative underdevelopment and backwardness of many Muslim and other
Third World societies, leadership occupies the top position. What is it that we
need to say to our leaders? What are the lessons from our history that we can
draw and use to advise our leaders? One of the first questions that we must ask
of our leaders is whether they have the ideals of excellence that deter- mine
the value required for just rule.
The values of leadership required
for just Islamic rule, in fact, can be understood and derived from many of the
great personalities of Islam, including the Prophet Muhammad himself. In this
article, however, we focus on the struggle and heroism of the Prophet’s
grandson, Imam Husain.
The Ideal of Excellence
The late Syed Hussein Alatas had
discussed the concept of the ideal of excellence in a lecture at a workshop in
Singapore in 1978. The ideal of excellence was defined as “the conception of a
decent, just and dignified life”. It is in contrast to “misery, backwardness,
exploitation, ignorance, and disrespect for the dignity of the human
individual”. [1]
This problem was discussed in a
number of his works including Kita dengan Islam [2] and Cita Sempurna Warisan
Sejarah [3]. In Cita Sempurna four types of leadership based on the ideals of
excellence are discussed. The characteristics of these types of leadership are
derived from historical personalities such as Sayyidina Ali karramallah wajhhu,
Khalifah Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz and Sultan Salah al-Din Ayyubi.
These are contrasted with the ideals
of destruction that are exemplified in personalities such as the Caliph
Al-Kahir, Sultan Ghiyasuddin Balban and Muhammad Tughluk. In today’s society,
there are types of leaders that are guided by the ideals of excellence as well
as those that are founded on the trait of jadong [4], and are guided by the
ideals of destruction [5].
Sayyidina Ali bin Ibn Abu Talib is
an example of a leader guided by the ideal of excellence. His life was an
example for others to follow. Leaders such as Sayyidina Ali display various
traits that are crucial for just rule. In their personal lives, they never
accumulated wealth, abused power, oppressed the weak or acted arbitrarily.
Their actions were informed by the ideal of excellence and the form of their
rule was republican, guided by the Quran [6].
Imam Husain at Karbala
The opposite of the ideal of
excellence is the ideal of destruction that obstructs the ideal of excellence
to grow and thrive. Any examination of the caliphate of Yazid bin Muawiyah bin
Aby Sufyan (645-683 A.D.) would reveal that he belonged to that group of
leaders guided by the ideals of destruction. The atrocities committed in the
desert of Karbala on Ashura were instances of the conflict between good and
evil. In this conflict, Imam Husain and his followers displayed their ideals of
excellence founded on religion while the ideals of destruction were represented
by Yazid.
3295_Battle-of-KarbalaWhen Yazid
became the caliph upon the death of his father, Muawiyah bin Abu Sufyan, the
inhabitants of Syria gave their oath of allegiance to him. But, among the
inhabitants of Medina who refused to do so were Imam Husain. Upon being
promised support by the people of Kufah and their request for the Imam to join
them, he set out for Kufah on 10 Zul Hijjah 60 A.H. with members of his family
and followers. While on the way to Kufah, he received news that the people of
Kufah had withdrawn their support for him, due to pressure exerted by Yazid.
Meanwhile, the governor of Kufah, Ubaydillah ibn Ziyad, with instructions from
Yazid, sent a force of four thousand men under Umar ibn Sa’ad to intercept and
move against the Imam at Karbala.
The sequence of events that make up
the massacre itself is well-known. Imam Husain and a small number of his family
members and followers of about 72 loyal men faced an army of a few thousand men
and were simply eliminated one by one in a cruel fashion. When it came to his
turn to fight, the Imam first appealed to the other side to allow his
six-month-old baby, dying from thirst, to drink some water. His appeal,
however, was met with a deadly poisoned arrow that struck the baby’s neck.
Finally, Imam Husain himself fought and gave his life in the fashion of a true
martyr. The army of Yazid, having killed him, cut off his head and raised it on
a lance [7].
A Conflict of Values
The conflict between Iman Husain and
Yazid was an historical manifestation of the conflict between two value
systems, the one based on the ideal of excellence and the other on the ideal of
destruction, with Yazid exemplifying the latter. It was impossible for the Imam
to give the oath of allegiance to Yazid, an immoral man who had blatantly
violated the teachings of Islam and of all religions. Ibn Kathir had said of
Yazid that he was often found drunk, was given to a decadent lifestyle, and was
also implicated in murders [8]. According to Al-Suyuthi, Yazid was responsible
for the Harrah incident in which several companions of the Prophet and their
children were killed [9]. For all these reasons it was impossible for Imam
Husain to give the oath of allegiance to a man like Yazid. Had Husain done so,
it would be said till today that the grandson of the Prophet caved in and
pledged allegiance to a corrupt man.
The massacre of Karbala is an event
that Muslims cannot be neutral about. We are either on the side of universal
moral values and align ourselves with Husain and his cause or we take a
position that is not only contrary to the teachings of Islam but all the great
religions and humanistic ideologies. Our position with regard to Ashura should
have nothing to do with the jurisprudential school of thought that we belong to
or the political philosophy that we subscribe to. Both Sunnis and Shias ought
to be united with regard to the position taken regarding Ashura. There may be
differences over how to commemorate Ashura, but this is a secondary issue.
It should also be pointed out that
what is significant about Ashura is not that Imam Husain was from the ahl
al-bayt but that he sacrificed his life for a noble cause. His sacrifice and
martyrdom would have been of no lesser importance had he been from any other
family.
Finally, if we are to make
productive use of the history of Ashura, of the shocking and deplorable actions
of those who claim to be Muslims, we should relate them to our present context.
We should ask Muslim politicians and other leaders to seriously think about
their ideals of excellence and decide if they wish to emulate Imam Husain or
the likes of Yazid.
“Imam Husain uprooted despotism
forever till the Day of Resurrection. He watered the dry garden of freedom with
the surging wave of his blood, and indeed he awakened the sleeping Muslim
nation. Husain weltered in blood and dust for the sake of truth. Verily he,
therefore, became the foundation of the Muslim creed; La ilaha illallah – There
is no god but Allah.” — Sir Muhammad Iqbal
Dr. Syed Farid Alatas is a Malaysian
Sunni Muslim and Head of Department of Malay Studies, National University of
Singapore. The essay was first published in al-Itrah, January 2011.
References
1 – Syed Hussein Alatas, “The Ideal
of Excellence”, Paper delivered to the Asian Youth Council 4th Advanced Youth
Leadership Training Workshop, 28 May – 9 June, 1978, Singapore.
2 – Alatas, Kita Dengan Islam:
Tumbuh tiada Berbuah, Singapore: Pustaka Nasional, 1979, chap. 8.
3 – Syed Hussein Alatas, Cita
Sempurna Warisan Sejarah, Bangi: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 2000.
Syarahan Perdana, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
4 – Alatas coined the term jadong.
It is derived from the Malay words jahat, bodoh and sombong.
5 – Alatas, Cita Sempurna, p. 46.
6 – Alatas, Cita Sempurna, p. 30. 7
7 – For details see Imam Al-Suyuthi,
Tarikh Khulafa`, Cairo: Dar al-Fajr Lilturath, 1999.
8 – Ibn Kathir, Al-Bidayah wa
al-Nihayah, Beirut: Dar Sadir, vol. 8, pp. 255, 259.
9 – Imam Al-Suyuthi, Tarikh
Khulafa`, p. 166. Cairo: Dar al-Fajr Lilturath, 1999.
0 Response to "Significance of the Massacre of Karbala"
Post a Comment