اندیشهفلسفهخردگفتگوحکمتمعناپرسشفرهنگ
Religion
Husseini Conduct: Aggression or Defense
An examination of Imam Hussein’s last will and conduct shows that his uprising was not for armed rebellion, but to reform the community and refuse allegiance to a tyrannical ruler. His actions were a defensive response to the threat of death and the suppression of critical dissent, not an act of aggression.
In the Name of God, the Creator of the Soul / The Wise One of Speech in the Tongue of Creation
... I did not come out in insolence, nor in arrogance, nor to cause corruption, nor as an oppressor; rather, I came out seeking reform in the community of my grandfather. I intend to enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong, and to follow the conduct of my grandfather and my father, Ali ibn Abi Talib. So whoever accepts me by accepting the truth, God is more worthy of the truth; and whoever rejects this from me, I will be patient until God judges between me and the people with truth, and He is the best of judges.
The aforementioned text is the main and concluding part of the written testament of the Lord of Martyrs, Husayn ibn Ali (AS), whose opening passages have drawn the attention of orators and analysts of the history of Ashura, yet its concluding part has been less subject to analysis and examination. Even the common interpretations of this text have been presented contrary to and in contradiction with its concluding part. That is, where it says: "... and whoever rejects this from me, I will be patient... = ...if someone does not accept my enjoining of good and forbidding of wrong and my reform proposals, I will be patient until God judges between me and the group of Muslims, and He is the best of judges." ( 1 ).
In other words, there has been and is no mention of "Husayni patience" in the event that his criticisms and proposals regarding the reform of policies in the form of "enjoining good and forbidding wrong" are not accepted.
The practical reflection of this passage from the Imam's (AS) testament can be clearly demonstrated in his conduct, from the time of his departure from Medina through his stay in Mecca and his journey toward Kufa, and the incidents along the way and the painful event of Ashura, which was repeatedly emphasized and reiterated by him. At times, he explicitly addressed "the negation of violent and armed actions," and at other times, he utilized all practical strategies to "prevent armed conflict and bloodshed among Muslims" and displayed complete practical flexibility.
Of course, for a Shia community that for many centuries has heard and become accustomed to a different analysis from its traditional scholars and intellectuals, it is very difficult to distance itself from terms like "Husayni uprising," which carries the meaning and concept of "an initial and armed action" and "a rebellion against the central oppressive government," or to adopt another interpretation that ultimately depicts "a reformer falling into the clutches of an oppressive government" and seeks to prove that: "The oppressive government launched a widespread assault against a reformist and peace-seeking critic, and by threatening him with death and disrupting his security, tried to force him to endorse its illegitimate policies and government and to forcibly extract an oath of allegiance (a vote of approval) from him, in order to exploit his acceptability to consolidate its own power, or else he would rise in defense of the basic human rights of himself, his companions, and his family in an unequal and imposed battle and be killed."
While adhering to "preserving the tranquility of society on his part" (I did not come out in insolence, nor in arrogance, nor to cause corruption, nor as an oppressor...), Husayn ibn Ali (AS) was, of course, "not willing to invest his social standing to consolidate a power that lacked political acceptability and ruled through oppressive methods." He would never accept, due to the force and threats of the government, to lose his "right to freedom of criticism (enjoining good and forbidding wrong) and freedom of choice and vote" and be compelled to "endorse oppressive policies." He did not consider the path of not endorsing the oppressive government and opposing its unjust policies to be confined to "undertaking an armed rebellion and overthrow."
To further clarify this interpretation, I will undertake an analytical (though concise) re-reading of this event and explain it within the context of several points:
1- In the matter of the peace treaty of Imam Hasan (AS), which was realized as a "necessity to preserve the lives and property of Muslims," Husayn ibn Ali (AS) ultimately consented to it and remained faithful to it throughout his life, never contemplating or undertaking its violation for a single moment.
2- Throughout Muawiyah's reign, as an outspoken and sincere critic, he voiced the sharpest criticisms and, in response to the slander of ill-wishers claiming that "Hussein was dangerous and seeking to overthrow the government," he reassured Muawiyah that he would never violate the pact, yet at the same time he engaged in "enjoining good and forbidding evil and proposing policy reforms" and never shirked this divine and human responsibility.
In his last letter to Muawiyah, with unparalleled courage and frankness, he employed the most stinging words to humiliate Muawiyah and his oppressive policies, and denied all the false reports that his ill-wishers had fabricated to disturb Muawiyah's mind and incite him to take armed action against the Imam (AS) by stating, "I swear by God." He explicitly states that he does not fear Muawiyah and his actions, but he strongly avoids being introduced before God and truth-seeking people as a "breaker of pacts." ( 2 ).
3- Muawiyah passes away. Hussein (AS), while continuing his normal and political life (which the Umayyad government, even during Muawiyah's time, had accepted him as a peace-loving yet courageous and outspoken critic), receives an order from the new ruler delivered to his representative in Medina, stating that "the era of tolerance with Hussein is over, and he must be forced to submit to one of two options: death or endorsement of the regime's policies."
This new approach of the oppressive ruling power of the time called Hussein ibn Ali to a new course of action. Hussein ibn Ali's (AS) new course of action consisted of: "the decision to leave Medina with all members of his family and seek refuge in the divine sanctuary of God, namely the honored Mecca."
The Imam (AS), in response to his brother Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyya, who had asked about the Imam's decision and its reason, says: "I intend to go to Mecca. If I find security, I will reside there; otherwise, I will head into the valleys and deserts to see what transpires" ( 3 ).
This decision stemmed from an examination of the circumstances and the government's approaches in similar cases. A government that did not refrain from taking relatives hostage and massacring them to force opponents into submission, as a tactic for suppressing dissent. Under such conditions, any rational person familiar with the rival's policies would take no decision other than the one Hussein (AS) reached. An indication that shows the political situation and the shared view of opposition politicians of that era can be seen in the action taken by another political opponent of the government (Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr), who also set out for Mecca.
It is noteworthy that historians have pointed to a valuable detail at this historical juncture: "Hussein (AS) left Medina while repeatedly reciting the verse, 'So he left it, fearful and vigilant = So he left the city while he was fearful and anticipating danger.' This verse describes the state of Moses (AS) when fleeing from the danger of the Copts (after one of them was killed by Moses). The very flight that led to his presence before Shuaib and the rest of the events.
Therefore, the reformist critic, whose endurance was no longer tolerated and whom the oppressive regime sought to kill, removes himself from the regime's reach to preserve his own security and that of his family and to reach a "safe haven," so as to have more time to reflect and await events. Hussein knew that the passage of time could also help clarify the atmosphere and enhance the capacity for correct decision-making.
Mecca, as the "divine sanctuary of God," was established in the belief of the general Muslim populace, and the Umayyad regime was apparently more constrained socially and religiously from taking action to "violate the sanctity of the sanctuary" there than in other places. Two constraints that were observed "as much as possible" by the government, though of course, after Yazid came to power, even these appearances were no longer observed.
Therefore, from the perspective of a political opponent, Mecca was the best option for residence. Although there was no longer any certainty regarding further conspiracies and illegitimate actions, and it was preferred only in comparison with other cases. An opponent whose “primary reason for leaving Medina and taking refuge in Mecca was to preserve his life, security, and the freedom of himself and his family to carry out peaceful, reformist, human and divine responsibilities” and nothing else.
The Imam arrives in Mecca and takes up residence there. Some politicians and well-wishers, such as “Ibn Abbas,” ask about the reason for leaving Medina and residing in Mecca, consider it an incorrect decision, and criticize the Imam. The Imam (AS) replies: “Ibn Abbas! What do you say about a group who have driven the son of their Prophet’s daughter from his home, his place of settlement, his birthplace, the sanctuary of the Prophet, the neighborhood of his grave and mosque, and his place of migration (akhrajūhu), and have left him frightened and threatened (khā’ifan mar‘ūban), such that he can neither settle in a place nor take refuge in a location; they have resolved to kill him and shed his blood, while he has neither associated partners with God, nor accepted the guardianship of other than God, nor acted contrary to the way of the Messenger of God... This group will not leave me alone until I either pledge allegiance to them against my will, or they kill me... So I make Mecca my seat and will remain in it forever, until I see that the people of Mecca love me and support me; then, whenever they seek my destruction or humiliation, I will go to another place and to other people... (4).
4- During the four months and some days of Husayn’s (AS) stay in Mecca, distressing news of various government conspiracies to assassinate the Imam was heard, disturbing his peace of mind and that of his family, which would call any human being to newer decisions.
Meanwhile, opponents of the government in Kufa, under the impression of “Husayn’s uprising against the government,” began writing various letters, repeatedly inviting him to come to Kufa and form a government, promising unstinting support.
Husayn ibn Ali (AS), more than others (such as Abdullah ibn Abbas, Abdullah ibn Umar, Abdullah ibn Zubayr, and Abdullah ibn Ja’far), considered the likelihood of the inviters not adhering to their claims, and had before his eyes the experience of what had happened to his noble father and dear brother in Kufa, but if, logically and rationally, there was even a slight possibility of those promises being fulfilled (which there was), Husayn had to take it seriously and think about it, because on one side was the seriousness of the assassination attempt in God’s Sacred Sanctuary (meaning the violation of the Sanctuary’s sanctity because of Husayn), and on the other side was the possibility of “finding a refuge and shelter for himself and his family and achieving pure goals”.
The Imam (AS), for greater assurance of the seriousness of the Kufans’ claims, first sent Muslim ibn Aqil and then Qays ibn Mushir to Kufa. Muslim’s letter to the Imam, confirming the Kufans’ resolve and their pledge of allegiance to Husayn, strengthened the possibility of attaining a “safe environment” for Husayn (AS) and his companions, and for this reason, after learning of the seriousness of the plot to assassinate him during the ceremonies of Arafat or Mina, he was compelled to leave Mecca, and in response to others’ advice not to leave, he said: “La’an uqtala ‘alā tallin a‘fara, ahabbu ilayya min an uqtala bihā = If I am killed on a mound of reddish sand or desert gravel, it is more beloved to me than being killed in God’s Sacred Sanctuary” (5). This same statement, with different wording, is also narrated in “Tarikh al-Tabari 3/295. Tarikh Ibn Asakir/212” (6).
This statement can only come from a person like Husayn, who is willing to endanger his own security but not endanger the security of a place that his God has made a secure sanctuary for all creatures for the sake of preserving his own life, so that it may remain a secure sanctuary for God’s servants, even if Husayn (AS) is killed in the deserts.
Another point is that, despite the advisors' knowledge of the letter from the people of Kufa to the Imam, Husayn ibn Ali did not say, "Since the people of Kufa have asked me, I intend to move towards Kufa"; rather, he spoke of assassination, being killed, and becoming a wanderer in deserts, plains, valleys, and mountains. That is, he had little hope for the realization of the Kufans' claims.
In truth, the only authorization that compelled Husayn to leave Mecca (on the eve of the Hajj rituals) was to preserve the sanctity of God's secure sanctuary, and not to answer the invitation of the people of Kufa (which, even if it were the case, would admit no interpretation other than an effort to secure safety for himself and his companions).
In response to another well-wisher, he says: "The Umayyads seized my property and I was patient; they insulted my honor and I endured; and they sought my blood, so I fled. By God... the transgressing faction will surely kill me" ( 7 ).
5- For a caravan leader who says, "In the deserts... I wander to see what God wills and ordains," it is not fitting to lead the caravan aimlessly through the deserts. Hence, Husayn (AS) resolves to go to Kufa to test that slim remaining possibility. A test which, had he not undertaken, he would have been reproached until the Day of Judgment: "Why did he not test it? Perhaps this time would have been different from the previous ones" (just as, a short while after the event of Ashura, in the "Uprising of the Tawwabun," these very Kufans revolted against Yazid's rule, punished those responsible for the great crimes of Ashura, and brought about different outcomes). But that memorable statement reveals that Husayn had the slightest hope in the Kufans of that time and their invitation, and he assessed the real political and social conditions as being against him.
This choice, born of necessity (as long as he had not received news of Muslim's martyrdom), was the only rational and possible option, but after Muslim's martyrdom, this was no longer the case, and for this reason he consults with his companions on what should be done? And the majority's decision is to continue on the path, until they encounter Hurr ibn Yazid al-Riyahi.
6- In the first encounter with Hurr's army, during both the noon and afternoon prayers (which were performed separately by the Imams of Guidance), he addresses Hurr's army, saying: "... and if you do not do so and are averse to my coming to you, I will turn away from you to the place from which I came to you" and he repeats: "If you have retracted your view regarding your invitation to me and now do not agree with it, I will turn away from you" ( 8 ). This repetition and reiteration within half a day indicates Imam Husayn's (AS) serious resolve to avoid confrontation and bloodshed among Muslims and revealed the Imam's true objective .
He also shares these words in a private conversation with Hurr ibn Yazid al-Riyahi, which Hurr does not accept, and the Imam, upset, rebukes him.
I do not think anyone doubts the sincerity and seriousness of the Imam regarding this proposal (to turn back and go to a place where his own and his family's safety would be secured), and it is clear that the proposer is not seeking to deceive or trick the opponent, and his proposal indicates a serious resolve to return and shape history in a different way, even though the other side of the choice did not consent to this, and what should not have happened, came to pass.
7- In the negotiations that the Imam (AS) had with Umar ibn Sa'd, they agreed that the Imam would head towards the frontiers and not go to Medina or Kufa, and the government would not harass him. This agreement was reflected in Umar ibn Sa'd's letter to Ibn Ziyad and was initially accepted by him, but Shimr ibn Dhi al-Jawshan dissuaded him from this decision and sent the proposal of "either war and death or allegiance" with Shimr to Karbala. For free men like Husayn (AS) and his devoted and chivalrous companions, this was tantamount to the rejection of their peaceful proposal and "compulsion to accept a bloody confrontation," which they were forced to accept.
In response to Umar ibn Sa'd's envoy, he says: "... فإن کرهونی انصرفت عنهم من حیث جئت = If the people of Kufa have no affection for me, I will return to the place from which I came" ( 9 ).
Umar ibn Sa'd, in his letter to Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad, cites this statement of the Imam (AS): "... فأما اذ کرهونی فبدا لهم غیر ما اتتنی به رسلهم ، فانا منصرف عنهم = If they have no desire for me to go to Kufa and their view has changed from what was in their letters and messages, I will distance myself from them" ( 10 )
8- Among the first statements of Husayn ibn Ali (AS) on the morning of Ashura were his relatively loud words before the army of the oppressive government. After recalling the invitation of the Kufans, his relation to the Messenger of God, and other necessary points, arguing for his own peace-seeking and the government's warmongering, he clearly says: "... فدعونی انصرف عنکم الی مأمنی من الأرض = ... Leave me so that I may depart from you (and have nothing to do with you) and go to a safe refuge on this earth."
On this same day and with this same logic, he says: "أ أنا جئت الی محاربتکم ام انتم جئتمونی الی محاربتی = Have I come to fight you, or have you come to fight me? Did I block the road against you, or did you block the road against me?" and...
If the Imam's movement, from the beginning of his departure from Medina or from the time of his departure from Mecca towards Kufa, was for military action and rebellion against the oppressive government, could he, with this honesty and firmness, introduce the government officials as warmongers and himself as a peace-seeker, especially in the final hours of his life and its most serious scenes?!! Are these statements, full of bitter truths that awaken the opposing army from the slumber of negligence and place them before their own conscience (and cause the return of individuals like Hurr ibn Yazid al-Riyahi), devoid of truth?!!
If, in truth, the Imam (AS) had undertaken jihad and armed action to overthrow Yazid's government, could he have stirred the conscience of his opponents with these statements, leading to the repentance of some of them?! Would not individuals like Hurr ibn Yazid al-Riyahi, Umar ibn Sa'd, and others present in the opposing army have said in response to him: "You blocked the road against the government and started the war"!!
Is it not the word of his present-day supporters that "It was Husayn ibn Ali who did not tolerate the oppression and injustice of Yazid and the Umayyads, and rose up in armed rebellion against them, and to disgrace them, he and his companions were martyred and his family was taken captive so that the message of the Husayni uprising would reach the ears of the Syrians and the world"? Do they not say that "the Imam (AS), with knowledge of his martyrdom and being killed in the path of defending God's religion, began this journey"? Does the meaning of these claims not imply that "Husayn's words on the day of Ashura are a pretense and a display of victimhood, otherwise, in truth, he was commissioned for this task and undertook armed action to carry out his mission?!!"
From the perspective of impartial observers, do not such analyses indicate the Imam's (AS) lack of honesty? Will non-Muslim researchers of Islamic history not side with the Imam's (AS) opponents and accuse him of deception?!!
Do the supporters of that Imam doubt, even for a moment, the honesty and the bitter truth that indicates the intensity of the oppression embedded in these statements? Does the honesty and oppressed state of the Imam (AS) not indicate the correctness of the claim of "the Imam's peace-seeking and the warmongering of his oppressive rival"?
If Hurr ibn Yazid al-Riyahi, or Umar ibn Sa‘d, or Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad had accepted the Imam’s proposal and the ruling government had let him go to a safe place, would the Imam and his companions have left Karbala or not? Would any motive have remained for the Imam to confront the government or not?
The answer of the proponents of the prevailing theory must be negative, for in that case, neither would the Imam have been martyred in Karbala (on this occasion), nor would the Husseini uprising against Yazid’s government have taken place (at least at this point in time), nor would his family have been taken captive; whereas the prevailing theory assumes all of these events to have been foretold “by the Messenger of God (PBUH) or through the Imam’s truthful dream,” and therefore evaluates any action to prevent their realization as contrary to the divine will and the Imam’s unalterable duty.
They ask: “What do you do with the narrations concerning his knowledge of his martyrdom and its location, his writing letters to the people of Basra and seeking their aid (after the Kufans’ invitation and the Imam’s acceptance), and certain other statements that are consistent with the prevailing analysis?”
In response, one can say: “Many of the aforementioned narrations lack reliable chains of transmission, and if a specific case is found whose chain of transmission is complete, it must be consistent with the totality of authentic statements and history; otherwise, it will not be admissible as evidence.”
It must be noted that in accepting fateful historical events, one cannot be as lenient as one is regarding recommended religious matters and accept every uninvestigated matter, for historical events create paradigms, generate affections and hatreds, and impart positive and negative lessons to individuals and human societies. Any leniency in this matter can lead to the creation of persistent enmities and various, lasting seditions, dragging societies into decline, or lead to the distortion of events and incorrect judgments, causing rights to be lost and oppression to be perpetuated. For this reason, history must be examined with complete precision (as much as possible), the genuine distinguished from the spurious, and evaluations made based on scholarly results, so that truth may be realized and falsehood may vanish.
Regarding the letter to the people of Basra (if its existence is proven), the same analysis presented concerning the letters and the possibilities related to the Kufans’ claim and the Imam’s perception of the totality of events and occurrences is repeated, and it poses no problem for the interpretation and analysis of “the Imam’s peace-seeking and refuge-seeking.”
The conclusion drawn from this examination is that: Hussein ibn Ali (AS) undertook no aggressive action against Yazid’s government; rather, after their aggression and assault (and the Imam’s extensive efforts to reassure the oppressive rulers that he had no resolve for violent and subversive action, and the deadlock of his negotiations due to the opponent’s obstinacy) and the restriction of the Imam’s options, because of the government’s approach, to “battle or submission to force and oppression and endorsing illegitimate and tyrannical policies,” he submitted to that unequal, imposed, and oppressed battle in personal defense of his and his family’s basic human rights, so as to affirm this truth that at the crossroads of “honor or humiliation,” one must choose honor and not fear its heavy cost, even if it leads to a person’s death and a family’s captivity.
The honor of “freedom and truth-seeking,” and peace and reform-seeking in social and political relations, and the continuous critique and criticism of rulers in the form of “enjoining good and forbidding evil” to culturally prevent the wicked from dominating the destiny of human society, is, in the logic of all truth-seekers, and especially Hussein ibn Ali (AS), not exchangeable for any alternative.
Certainly, Imam Hussein (AS) had not deprived himself of the right to critique and to enjoin good and forbid evil in his negotiations, and was only seeking to create assurance and trust for the government regarding the absence of armed action on his part.
This “peaceful and reformist approach, grounded in moral principles and fidelity to the rulings of the Muhammadan Sharia (PBUH), was the most manifest principle governing Husseini conduct,” and even if only one of the aforementioned widely transmitted narrations was issued by him, it refutes the common perception that presents a “warlike” image of the Imam (AS).
Uqbah ibn Sam‘an narrates: “I accompanied Husayn from Medina to Mecca and from Mecca to Iraq, and I heard all of his words in Mecca, Iraq, and along the way. By God, he never accepted allegiance to Yazid, nor did he offer the proposal of frontier-guardianship to his government. Rather, his words were that he would say: ‘Leave me to go in this vast land and see what the people will do.’” ( 11 ).
Therefore, had the Imam (AS) reached a safe place, he would have continued to enjoin the good and criticize policies in a peaceful manner, and would have refrained from pledging allegiance to Yazid and his like. In other words, carrying out the enjoining of good and forbidding of evil, reforming the path of the Islamic Ummah, and striving to realize the conduct of the Prophet of God (PBUH) and the Commander of the Faithful Ali (AS) was not, and is not, confined to armed uprising. Husayn ibn Ali (AS) was aware of this truth, and for this reason, no one can deny the Imam’s (AS) fulfillment of this human and divine responsibility during the reign of Mu‘awiyah (which never led to armed action).
Certainly, the possibility of realizing the same policy and method of the Imam’s (AS) past also existed during the reign of Yazid, but it was the decision of Yazid and his warlike advisors that led to a fate contrary to the time of Mu‘awiyah, and compelled the peace-seeking, dignified, freedom-loving, critical, reformist Husayn—who shunned physical conflict and bloodshed among human beings, especially Muslims—to submit to an “imposed and severely unequal war” whose outcome was known to all. An outcome that any analyst would arrive at, requiring no complex calculations to predict events; rather, Husayn, Husayn’s companions, and the well-wishers who counseled him had all contemplated it and loudly warned against its realization. Yet, like many tragic events in the history of human life, this heart-wrenching and deeply grievous scene of Islamic history also occurred, and the warnings proved ineffective.
.
.
1_ Bihar al-Anwar 44/329. Mawsu‘at al-Husayn /291.
2_ Maqtal Abi Mikhnaf /11. Mawsu‘at al-Husayn / 239 “... wa ma‘adh Allah an anqud ‘ahdan ‘ahadahu ilayya akhi al-Hasan (AS) wa amma ma dhakarta min al-kalam, fa innahu awsalahu ilayka al-wushat al-mulaqqun bi al-nama’im wa al-mufarriqun bayn al-jama‘at, fa innahum wallah yakdhibun.”
3_ Inni aqsidu Makkah, fa in kanat bi amn aqamtu biha wa illa lahiqtu bi al-shi‘ab wa al-rimal hatta anzur ma yakun – Yanabi‘ al-Mawaddah /402. Mawsu‘at al-Husayn /290.
4_ Ya ibn ‘Abbas! Fa ma taqulu fi qawmin akhraju ibn bint Rasul Allah (S) min darihi wa qararihi wa mawlidihi wa haram rasulihi wa mujawarat qabrihi wa masjidihi wa mawdi‘ muhajarahi, fa tarakuhu kha’ifan mar‘uban la yastaqirru fi qarar wa la ya’wi fi mawtin yuriduna fi dhalika qatlahu wa safk damihi wa huwa lam yushrik billah shay’an wa la ittakhadha min dunihi waliyyan wa lam yataghayyar ‘amma kana ‘alayhi Rasul Allah (S) ... inna al-qawm la yatrukuni ... fa la yazalun hatta ubayi‘ wa ana karih aw yaqtuluni ... fa inni mustawtin hadha al-haram wa muqim fihi abadan ma ra’aytu ahlahu yuhibbuni wa yansuruni, fa idha hum khadhaluni istabdaltu bihim ghayrahum... – Maqtal al-Khwarazmi 1/19. Mawsu‘at al-Husayn /308.
5_ Kamil al-Ziyarat /72. Bihar al-Anwar 45/85. Mawsu‘at al-Husayn /325.
6_ Wallah la in uqtal kharijan minha bi shibr ahabbu ilayya min an uqtal dakhilan minha bi shibr, wa aym Allah law kuntu fi hijr hamatin min hadhihi al-hawamm la istakhrajuni hatta yaqdu fiyya hajatahum ... – Tarikh al-Tabari 3/295. Tarikh Ibn ‘Asakir /212. Mawsu‘at al-Husayn /324.
7_ Maqtal al-Khwarazmi 1/226. Bihar al-Anwar 44/368. Mawsu‘at al-Husayn /345.
8_ Maqtal al-Khwarazmi 1/231 and 232. Irshad /224. Bihar al-Anwar 44/376 and 377. Tarikh al-Tabari 3/306. Futuh al-Buldan 5/85 and 87. Mawsua al-Hussein /355. And if you refuse but to dislike us and be ignorant of our right, and your view now is other than what your letters brought to me and your messengers conveyed to me, I will turn away from you.
9_ Maqtal al-Khwarazmi 1/241. Tarikh al-Tabari 3/311. Irshad /227. Futuh al-Buldan 5/97. Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh by Ibn al-Athir 2/556. Mawsua al-Hussein /382.
10_ Tarikh al-Tabari 3/311.
11_ Tarikh al-Tabari 3/312. Tarikh Ibn Asakir /219. Maqatil al-Talibiyyin /113. Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh by Ibn al-Athir 2/557. Waqat al-Taff /186. "I accompanied Husayn and went out with him from Medina to Mecca, and from Mecca to Iraq, and I did not part from him until he was killed. And there is not a word of his addressing the people in Medina, nor in Mecca, nor on the road, nor in Iraq, nor in his camp up to the day of his death, except that I heard it. By God, he did not give them what people discuss and what they claim, that he would place his hand in the hand of Yazid ibn Muawiya, nor that they would send him to one of the frontiers of the Muslims. But he said: Leave me, so that I may go in this wide land until we see what becomes of the people's affair."
.
.
Husseini Conduct: Aggression or Defense
Author: Ahmad Qabel
.
.
Discussion3 comments
با سلام لطفا امکاناتی فراهم کنیم تا بشود مطالب بصورت پی دی اف دانلود بشه .سپاس
درست است ، حضرت امام حسین(ع) دفاع فرمودند ولی دفاع علنی با اتمام حجت و روشنگری برای تمام نسل ها تا همه را از حقیقت اسلام آگاه فرمایند.
خیلی عالی و به موقع بود ... ممنون از سایت بی نظیرتان ...