Alleged Last will of Ghazi and Karbala - I

K H U R R A M wrote:

now they r against busharraf on their personal matters same as bfr they were against Mualana Abdul Rashid Ghazi Shaheed. although Mualana agreed on all terms in end and was about to leave the place but still sudden strike and killed all! so whos criminal and on whoms behave that brutal strike took place?!?!?!? ?

=======================================

Dear Sir,

Quite a tragedy with Pakistani Religious Class who at the drop of hat declare any adversary as Yazeed without going into details. For Mawdoodi General Ayub was Yazeed, For PPP General Zia was Yazeed and for these Anarchic Mullahs [whose once biggest supporter was Musharraf and Establishment before 911] Musharraf iz Yazeed.


In his alleged Last will Mualana Abdul Rashid Ghazi said by making Incident of Karbala a Hujjat [Proof] had said;

If our Amir Sayyidina Hussein R.A. was martyred in helplessness then we are proud to be part of the same caravan. Insha Allah, the Islamic revolution will come to this country.[1]

Pakistan Mullahs are also unaware of Islamic History as well because Islam was never in danger at the time of Karbala nor any Islamic Revolution came after the Martyrdom of Hazrat Hussain Ibn Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] rather Aal-e-Marwan took over the government after Ummayyads i.e. after the death of Yazeed Ibn-e-Muawiyah and even after that Abbassids took over the government and life goes on. These Deobandi Mullahs never accept Shias but at the drop of hat start quoting Karbala to spread anarchy without bothering about the fact that several such Khurooj [Rebellion] like Karbala after the Martyrdom of Hazrat Hussain [May Allah be pleased with him] were lead by several leading family members of Aal-e-Ali [May Allah be pleased with him and have mercy on the souls of his Ahl Al Bayt] but they were ruthlessly butchered by the then government and lateron several Shia Imams became the Court members of Abbassi Caliphate.

Abdul Rasheed Ghazi and several such other Deobandi Anarchists are Hanafi in their School of Thought and they blindly follow their early scholars and they should also keep this in mind that Imam al-Alusi al-Hanafi al-Baghdadi in his “Ruh al-Ma’ani”, had opined

"QUOTE"

Concerning the murder of Husayn (radhy Allahu ‘anhu) by Yazeed b. Mu’awiyah and the apparent position of Qadhi Abu Bakr that it was effectively Husayn’s fault, Imam al-Alusi says about him (26/74):


ذلك لعمري هو الضلال البعيد، الذي يكاد يزيد على ضلال يزيد



Maliki scholar Qadhi Abu Bakr ibn al-’Arabi in AL-`AWASIM MIN AL-QAWASIM [DEFENCE AGAINST DISASTER] says


“He was killed by the sword of his Grandfather”. Yet, ibn al-Arabi did say something very similar. See the text below taken from al-Awasim min al-Qawasim, (pg 231-236, Maktaba al-Asriyyah, Beirut, 2004).


وذكر المؤرخون أن كتب أهل الكوفة وردت على الحسين ، وأنه أرسل مسلم بن عقيل ابن عمه – إليهم ليأخذ عليهم البيعة وينظر هو في أتباعه ، فنهاه ابن عباس وأعلمه أنهم خذلوا اباه وأخاه ، واشار عليه ابن الزبير بالخروج فخرج ، فلم يبلغ الكوفة إلا ومسلم ابن عقيل قد قتل واسلمه من كان استدعاه ! ويكفيك بهذا عظة لمن اتعظ . فتمادى واستمر غضباً للدين وقياماً بالحق . ولكنه –  - لم يقبل نصيحة أعلم أهل زمانه ابن عباس ، وعدل عن راى شيخ الصحابة ابن عمر وطلب الابتداء في الانتهاء ، والاستقامة في الإعوجاج ، ونضارة الشبيبة في هشيم المشيخة . ليس حوله مثله ولا له من
الأنصار من يرعى حقه ، ولا من يبذل نفسه دونه ، فأردنا أن نطهر الأرض من خمر يزيد فأرقنا دم الحسين ، فجاءتنا مصيبة لا يحبرها سرور الدهر .
وما خرج إليه أحد إلا بتأويل ، ولا قاتلوه إلا بما سمعوا من جده المهيمن على الرسل ، المخبر بفساد الحال ، المحذر من الدخول في الفتن . وأقواله في ذلك كثيرة : منها قوله  (( إنه ستكون هنات وهنات ، فمن أراد أن يفرق امر هذه الأمة وهي جميع فاضربوه بالسيف كائناً من كان )) . فما خرج الناس إلا بهذا وأمثاله . ولو أن عظيمها وابن عظيمها وشريفها وابن شريفها الحسين وسعة بيته أو ضيعته أو إبله – ولو جاء الخلق يطلبونه ليقوم بالحق ، وفي جملتهم ابن عباس وابن عمر – لم يلتفت إليهم ، وحضره ما انذر به النبي  وما قال في أخيه ، ورأى أنها خرجت عن أخيه ومعه جيوش
الأرض وكبار الخلق يطلبونه ، فكيف ترجع إليه باوباش الكوفة ، وكبار الصحابة ينهونه وينأون عنه ؟ وما أدرى في هذا إلا التسليم لقضاء الله ، والحزن على ابن بنت رسول الله  بقية الدهر . ولو لا معرفة أشياخ وأعيان الأمة بأنه أمر صرفه الله عن اهل البيت وحال من الفتنة لا ينبغى لأحد أن يدخلها ، ما أسلموه أبدا .

وهذا احمد بن حنبل – على تقشفه وعظيم منزلته في الدين وورعه – قد أدخل عن يزيد بن معاوية في ( كتاب الزهد ) أنه كان يقول في خطبته : (( إذا مرض أحدكم مرضاً فأشفى ثم تماثل ، فليظهر عمل عنده فليلزمه ولينظر إلى أسوإ في جملة الزهاد من الصحابة والتابعين الذين يقتدى بقولهم ويرعون من وعظهم ، ونعم . وما أدخله إلا في جملة الصحابة ، قبل أن يخرج إلى ذكر التابعين . فاين هذا من ذكر المؤرخين له في الخمر وانواع الفجور ، ألا تستحيون ؟ ! وغذ سلبهم الله المروءة والحياء ، ألا ترعوون انتم وتزدجرون ، وتقتدون بالأخبار والرهبان من فضلاء المة ، وترفضون الملحدة
والمجان من المنتمين إلى الملة  هذا بيان للناس وهدى وموعظة للمتقين  والحمد لله رب العالمين .
وانظر إلى ابن الزبير بعد ذلك وما دخل فيه من البيعة له بمكة ، والأرض كلها عليه . وانظروا إلى ابن عباس وعقله وإقباله على نفسه . وانظروا إلى ابن عمر وسنة وتسليمه للدنيا ونبذة لها . ولو كان للقيام وجه لكان اولى بذلك ابن عباس ، فإن ولدى أخيه عبيد الله قد ذكر أنهما قتلا ظلماً. ولكن راى بعقله ان دم عثمان لم يخلص إليه ، فكيف بدم ولدى عبيد الله ! وغن المر راهق ، وقد خرجا عنه حفظاً للأصل ، وهو اجتماع امر الأمة وحقن دمائها وائتلاف كلمتها . ودع الأمر يتولاه أسود مجدع حسبما أمر به صاحب الشرع صلوات الله عليه وسلامه . وكل منهم عظيم القدر مجتهد ، وفيما
دخل فيه مصيب ماجور ، والله فيه حكم قد انفذه ، وحكم في الآخرة قد أحكمه وفرغ منه . فاقدروا هذه الأمة مقاديرها ، وانظروا بما قابلها ابن عباس وابن عمر فقابلوها ، ولا تكونوا من السفهاء الذين يرسلون ألسنتهم واقلامهم بما لا فائدة لهم فيه ، ولا يغنى من الله من دنياهم شيئاً عنهم .
وانظروا إلى الأئمة الخيار وفقهاء الأمصار ، هل أقبلوا على هذه الخرافات وتكلموا في مثل هذه الحماقات ؟ بل علموا انها عصبيات جاهلية وحمية باطلة ، ولا تفيد إلا قطع الحبل بين الخلق ، وتشتيت الشمل واختلاف الأهواء – وقد كان ما كان ، وقال الأخباريون ما قالوا فإما سكوت ، وإما اقتداء باهل العلم وطرح لسخافات المؤرخين والأدباء والله يكمل علينا وعليكم النعماء برحمته.


Hanafi School of thought on Khurooj:



Hazrat Hussain Ibn-e-Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] going against Ameer Yazid [May Allah have mercy on his soul] and the Sunni view on Yazid:

يَـأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ أَطِيعُواْ اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُواْ الرَّسُولَ وَأُوْلِى الاٌّمْرِ مِنْكُمْ فَإِن تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِى شَىْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الاٌّخِرِ ذلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلاً

English Translation:

1) O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and those of you who are in authority; and if ye have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and the messenger if ye are (in truth) believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end.[AN-NISA (WOMEN) Chapter 4 Verse 59]


2) Sayyiduna Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah. And whoever obeys my ruler (amir), obeys me, and whoever disobeys my ruler, disobeys me” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6718 & Sahih Muslim, no. 1835).


3) Sayyiduna Anas ibn Malik (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “Listen to and obey your ruler, even if he is an Abyssinian slave whose head looks like a raisin” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6723 & Sahih Muslim).


4) Sayyiduna Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “Whoever sees his ruler doing something he disapproves of, he should be patient, for no one separates from the (Muslim) group even for a span and then dies, except that he will die a death of (pre-Islamic) ignorance. (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6724 & Sahih Muslim, no. 1849).


5) Sayyiduna Abd Allah (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “A Muslim must listen to and obey (the order of his ruler) in things that he likes or dislikes, as long as he is not ordered to commit a sin. If he is ordered to disobey Allah, then there is no listening and no obedience. (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6725 & Sahih Muslim, no. 1839).


The above evidences are clear in establishing the fact that one must obey the ruler even if he is corrupt or a sinner (fasiq). The reason for this, in the words of Allama al-Ghunaymi, is that, there have been many corrupt rulers in Islamic history and never did the predecessors (salaf) rebel against them, rather they used to submit to their rule and establish Jumu’ah and Eid prayers with their permission. Also, piety is not a pre-requisite for leadership. (Sharh al-Ghunaymi, p. 110).


Other scholars emphasize that uprising against corrupt leadership results in more tribulation and destruction then the initial oppression of the ruler. With forbearance and tolerance, one’s sins will be forgiven. And in reality, the corrupt ruler is imposed by Allah due to our own wrongdoings, thus it becomes necessary that we repent and seek Allah’s forgiveness coupled with good actions, as Allah Most High says: “Whatever misfortune happens to you, is because of the things your hands have wrought” (42:30)…….. And He says: “Thus do we make the wrongdoers turn to each other, because of what they earn” (6:129). Therefore, if a nation wants to free themselves from the oppression of their leader, they must refrain themselves from oppressing others.


Imam al-Tahawi (Allah have mercy on him) states in his famous al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya:


“We do not recognize uprising against our Imam or those in charge of our affairs even if they are unjust, nor do we wish evil on them, nor do we withdraw from following them. We hold that obedience to them is part of obedience to Allah, The Glorified, and is therefore obligatory as long as they do not order us to commit sins. We pray for their guidance and their wrongdoings to be pardoned”. (al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya with the Sharh of al-Ghunaymi, P. 110-111).


"UNQUOTE"


Since History is quoted here by Late. Ghazi but the same History also says this:

"QUOTE"

Excerpts from DEFENCE AGAINST DISASTER by QADI ABU BAKR IBN AL-`ARABI
Accurately Determining The Position Of The Companions After The Death Of The Prophet, May Allah Bless Him And Grant Him Peace AL-`AWASIM MIN AL-QAWASIM


The first to write to him from the shaykhs of the party, according to what their historian Lut b. Yahya related, were Salman b. Surad, al-Musayyib b. Najba, Rif’a b. Shaddad and Habib b. Muzahir. They sent their letter with `Abdullah b. Sab’ al-Hamdani, and `Abdullah b. Wali. They came to Husayn in Makka on the tenth of Ramadan, 60 A.H. After two days, Qays b. Mushir al-Saydawi, `Abdu’r-Rahman b. `Abdullah b. al-Kadn al-Arhaji and `Umara as-Saluli went to him with fifty-three pages. After another two days, Hani’ b. Hani’ as-Subay’i and Sa`id b. `Abdullah al-Hanafi hurried to him. (at-Tabari, 6:197 has the texts of some of their letters and the names of some of its people). This continued until they would not meet with their Amir, an-Nu`man b. Bashir on Friday. They called al-Husayn to them. Then when he came, they would expel their Amir and hold him in Syria. They said to one of them, "So the fruits will grow. If you so wish, you will find a large army for you." Al-Husayn sent them his nephew Muslim b. `Uqayl to see if they would be loyal and gather so that he could come to them later. Muslim b. `Uqayl got lost on the way and those with him died of thirst. He wrote to al-Husayn asking him to relieve him of this task. He answered him, "I fear that only cowardice has led you to ask to be excused." Muslim continued until he reached Kufa and twelve thousand of them offered homage to him.

The Amir of Kufa, an-Nu`man b. Bashir, became aware of their movements. He spoke to them and forbade sedition and division. He told them, "I only fight the one who fights me. I will not punish by supposition or suspicion. If you show me your page and you break your pledge of homage, then I will strike you with my sword as long as it is firm in my hand." Yazid knew that an-Nu`man b. Bashir was a forbearing man of piety not suited to opposing a movement like this. He therefore wrote to `Ubaydullah b. Ziyad, his governor over Basra ordering him to take charge of Kufa as well. He commanded him to go to Kufa and to seek out Ibn `Uqayl as the pearl is sought until it is found. Then he should bind him and kill or exile him. `Ubaydullah appointed his brother over Basra and went to Kufa. He met its leaders and took hold of the crisis. It was not long before Muslim b. `Uqayl saw that the opinion of the twelve thousand who had given him allegiance was as thin as air. He found himself alone and cast out. Then he was taken and executed.

Al-Husayn had received the letters of Muslim b. `Uqayl before that, saying that twelve thousand had offered homage to him until death. At the end of the Hajj `Id, he left for Kufa. Ibn az-Zubayr was the only one to encourage him to go out because he knew that the people of the Hijaz would not give him homage as long as al-Husayn was with them. Al-Husayn was the heaviest of people for Ibn az-Zubayr, (At-Tabari, 6:196-197 and look at 6:216-217) and his nephew `Abdullah b. Ja`far b. Abi Talib (2:219). `Abdullah b. Ja`far asked the governor of Yazid over Makka, `Amr b. Sa`id b. al-`As, to write a letter of safe-conduct for al-Husayn to give him hopes of kindness and connection and to ask him to come back. The Governor of Makka granted all that he sought. He told him, "Write whatever you wish and I will seal the letter." He wrote to him and the governor sealed it. He sent it to al-Husayn with his brother Yahya b. Sa`id b. `Is. `Abdullah b. Ja`far went with Yahya. They tried to dissuade al-Husayn from travelling. He refused. (The Governor’s letter is in ‘The History’ of at-Tabari, 6:219-220). No one was above these counsellors in their intellect, knowledge, position and sincerity. `Abdullah b. Muti`, the agent of Ibn az-Zubayr, was one of his advisers who had intellect and sincerity (at-Tabari, 6:196). `Umar b. `Abdu’r-Rahman b. al-Harith b. Hishan al-Makhzumi held this opinion (at-Tabari, 6125-126), and al-Harith b. Khalid b. al-`As b. Hisham did not neglect to give him counsel (6:216). Even al-Farazdaq the poet told him, "The hearts of the people are with you, but their swords are with the Banu Umayya." (at-Tabari, 6:218). None of this effort turned al-Husayn from this journey which was ill-omened for him, for Islam, and for the Islamic community until this very day and will be until the Last Day.

All of this was due to the crime of his party who encouraged him to rashness, delusion and desire for civil strife, division and evil. Then they disappointed him through their cowardice, baseness, treachery and perfidy. Their heirs were not content with what their ancestors did. They devoted themselves to clouding history and changing the truth and to reversing things. and he sent Muslim b. `Uqayl, his nephew, to them to take allegiance from them and to investigate his followers. Ibn `Abbas forbade him and told him that they had disappointed his father and his brother. Ibn az-Zubayr indicated to him that he should go out, so he went out. When he reached Kufa, Muslim b. `Uqayl had been slain and all of those who had invited him surrendered him. It is enough for you in this to have the warning of the one who is warned.

He persisted and continued out of anger for the deen and to establish the truth. But he, may Allah be pleased with him, did not accept the good advice of the man with the most knowledge among the people of his time. That was Ibn `Abbas. He turned away from the opinion of the shaykh of the Companions, Ibn `Umar.

Well-being lay in what he preferred and his encouraging the unity of the muslims and their devotion to the spread of the call and conquest. He sought the beginning in the end and the straight in the crooked and the greenness of youth in the white hair of old age. His power was not like that nor did he have any helpers who guarded his right or who expended themselves for him. We wanted to purify the earth of the wine of Yazid,

By the claim of those who provoked the sedition who testified to something which they did not know. so we shed the blood of al-Husayn. A calamity came to us which the happiness of time cannot heal. No one came out to him except by using interpretation. They all fought him with what they had heard from his grandfather, the master of the messengers who mentioned the corruption of the situation and warned about getting involved in seditions. He said a lot about that. They included his words, may Allah bless him and grant him peace,

From the hadith of `Arfaja in ‘The Book of the Amirate’ in the ‘Sahih’ of Muslim: The chapter of ‘The Judgments of the One who Divides the Muslims when they are United’ (book 33, hadith 59, pt. 6, p. 22). "There will be defects and flaws. Whoever wants to divide the business of this community when it is united should be struck with the sword, whoever he is." People only presented this and things like it. Even if their leader and the son of their noble al-Husayn expanded his house, his estate or his camels, and even if people came to him to establish the truth and they included Ibn `Abbas, and Ibn `Umar, one should not turn to them. He should remember what the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, warned about and what he said about his brother.

i.e "this son of mine is a master. Perhaps Allah will use him to make peace between two large groups of muslims." He saw that it had left his brother while the armies of the land and the great men were seeking him out. How then could it return to him by the dregs of Kufa while the great companions forbade him and held aloof from him? I do not think that this is anything other than submission to the decree of Allah and sorrow for the grandson of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, for all time. If it had not been for the fact that the shaykhs and notables of the community recognised that it was a matter which Allah had taken away from the people of the House and a state of civil strife which no one should become involved in, they would never have surrendered it.

Ahmad b. Hanbal, in spite of his asceticism and his immense position in the deen and his scrupulousness, still included Yazid b. Mu`awiya in ‘The Book of Zuhd’ and mentioned what he used to say in his khutba, "When one of you falls ill, is treated and recovers, he should look to the best action he has and cling to it. He should look to the worst thing he has done and leave it." This indicates his immense position with Ibn Hanbal since he included him among the men of Zuhd of the Companions and the Tabi`un whose words were followed and those who are not warned. Indeed, he included him in the group of companions before he proceeded to mention the Tabi`un. Where is this in relation to what the historians say about him and wine and types of corruption? Are they not ashamed? When Allah strips them of virtue and modesty, why do you not desist and hold back when they follow the rabbis and monks rather than the men of excellence of the community? You should reject the heretics and impudent men who are affiliated with the community. "This is a clarification for people and guidance and warning for the fearfully aware." Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds."

"UNQUOTE"


Reference:

1- The Last Will of ‘Abdul Rashid Ghazi (rahimahullah) [1]

http://noorulislam.wordpress.com/2007/07/21/the-last-will-of-%E2%80%98abdul-rashid-ghazi-rahimahullah/