The essence of Imam Hussain’s movement

All events in the world, from fossils to plants and animals, have their own state and essence. The same is true of social phenomena. If we want to understand the meaning of any uprising or movement, we must first investigate the causes that gave rise to it. Without finding out these causes (generating causes), we will not be able to understand the meaning of the phenomenon. Then we must find out the purpose of the movement, that is, we must know in general, what was the purpose of the movement? If there was a goal, what was it? Thirdly, we must find out the driving forces of the movement and its maintenance, which factors and processes contributed to it. Finally, fourthly, we must see what form individual processes and factors took as a whole, merging.

In connection with the movement of Imam Hussain (a), another question arises: did this uprising have the nature of an explosion? That is, was it planned and prepared, or did it arise spontaneously? For example, when a pot is put on fire, the water inside it boils and turns into steam. If this steam is not allowed to escape, an explosion will occur. Sometimes people also have a psychological explosion. Due to various circumstances, a person, when he is in trouble, begins to feel anger and anxiety against his will, and without wanting to, utters words that he did not want to say. This is called an explosion. Most social movements and uprisings have the nature of an explosion.

One of the differences between the Islamic idea and the school of materialists is that materialists, based on the principles of dialectics, propose to oppose real reforms in order to increase contradictions, anxiety, and deepen cracks, in order to cause society to revolution (but not to a meaningful revolution, but to an explosion). . But Islam does not at all approve of revolutions of this nature. Revolution. Predicted by Islam, it is completely based on determination, choice and consciousness.

I wonder if the movement of Imam Hussain (a) was an explosion? I wonder if, in fact, during the reign of Muawiyah, the pressure directed at the people and the Imam’s family intensified under the rule of Yezid to such an extent that the patience of Imam Husayn (a) ran out and he said: whatever will happen?! No and no! The words spoken by Imam Husain before and after the rebellion, the letters he sent to Muawiyah, his speeches in various circumstances, especially his famous speech at Mina before the companions of the Prophet prove that his movement was carried out deliberately. It was an Islamic revolution, not an explosion.

Imam Husayn (a) during conversations with his companions strove to ensure that the movement started by him would not find the nature of an explosion. Why did Imam Husayn (a) try in every way to let go of his companions, to distance them from him? The imam constantly called for vigilance, reminded them that this would not be peace for them, that this was not a feast, that they were in danger. On the night of Ashura, Imam Husain (a) said to his companions: “I do not know better companions than mine, I do not know relatives, wonderful, mine. I thank all of them, I am satisfied with all of them. They (the followers of Yezid) are at enmity with me personally. Everyone those of you who want to go, let them go. The enemies will know that you have gone yourselves and will not harm you. My family does not know anyone in this desert, does not know these places. Let each of you go with one of my family members I’ll stay here alone.”

The leader, willing to take advantage of the indignation and indignation of the people, does not utter such words. Some explain it as a religious obligation. Undoubtedly, the fulfillment of a religious duty must take place. Imam Hussein (a) also mentions the religious debt. But Imam Husain (a) wanted the religious duty to be performed quite consciously, in conditions of complete freedom. The Imam wanted to say to his followers: “The enemy has not yet surrounded you. If you go, taking advantage of the darkness of the night, no one will hinder you. You will not be held back even by your friends. If you think that you are bound by your oath of allegiance (bey’ at), given to me, then I take it from you. You are free in your choice. You must choose me consciously, in conditions of complete freedom, without coercion from enemies and friends.”

This is precisely the advantage of the martyrs of Karbala. Compare: when the famous Muslim commander Tarigh ibn Ziyad conquered Spain, he ordered to leave provisions only for one day, and to burn everything else. Following this, he ordered to burn even the ships on which they arrived. Then he gathered his soldiers and, pointing to the endless ocean behind them, said: “In front of you is the enemy, and behind you is the sea. If you try to escape, you have no choice but to drown in the sea. There is no food left , no ships. If you, being lazy, do not join the battle, you will die of hunger, ‘as there is only one day’s food left. Your only salvation lies in the destruction of the enemy. Your provisions are in the hands of the enemy. You have no other way out.’ Tarig forced his warriors to fight the enemy. What is a warrior to do in such a case, but not to fight to the last drop of blood?

But Imam Husain (a) and his followers did the opposite, unlike Tarigh ibn Ziyad. After all, the Imam did not say that “there is no other way, that the enemy kills everyone. And if there is no way to avoid death, then let them kill you together with me.” No, the Imam did not say that. Because such a death is worthy of a martyr

and. A politician could say these words, but not an Imam. That is why we must first of all know that the revolution of Imam Hussain (a) had a comprehensively realized character. From the point of view of the Imam himself, his family, his friends, this revolution was not an explosion.

The difference between natural phenomena and social events is that the processes occurring in nature cannot have multiple meanings, they are unambiguous. A certain ore can have either the properties of gold or the properties of . copper But social events can have several meanings.

Man himself is such an amazing creature that can take on different essences at the same time. Sartre’s statement: “The spirit of man determines his individuality” is true precisely in this sense. A person can have the characteristics of an angel, a pig, a tiger at the same time. (This is one of the deepest sections of Islamic enlightenment).

The uprising of Imam Hussein (a) is a significant event, as many factors took part in its emergence. For example, movement may occur as an appropriate response. In addition, it can have the meaning of a push. If the movement arose as a reaction to certain processes, then this reaction can be both positive and negative. All this was inherent in the movement of Imam Hussain (a).

The first factor was the requirement of bay’at. Before his death, Muawiyah wanted to be sure of Yezid’s governorship. So he came to Madinah to get bay’at from Imam Husain (a), but he was not successful in doing so. After the death of Muawiyah, Yezid himself wished to receive Bay’at from Imam Husayn (a). Bey’at meant not only the recognition of Yezid as ruler, it would also mean agreement with the new traditions established by Muawiyah and Yezid. And these new traditions consisted in the fact that the previous caliph himself appointed his successor. While the caliph had to be chosen either by the people (from the point of view of the Sunni Meshab) or the people, following the Prophet’s instructions, should obey the caliph presented to them (according to the Shiite belief). That is, the new tradition did not correspond to the beliefs of either Sunnis or Shiites. According to the rule established by Muawiya and Ezid, the caliph himself appoints the head of the Muslims before his death,

In this sense, bay’at meant not only the recognition of the supremacy of such an unworthy man as Yezid, and signed an agreement with several people in the tradition that Mu’awiya sought to establish.

Yezid’s followers demanded bay’at from Imam Husain (a) and Husain (a) expressed his disapproval of this. They demanded: “Make bay’at!”, but the Imam rejected their demands, They insisted, Hussein (a) replied: “I would rather agree to die, but I will not give bay’at!”

The essence of the struggle at this stage was a negative attitude towards demands that contradicted the Sharia. But this was not the only factor that influenced the struggle of Imam Hussain (a). Another factor was the call to express a positive attitude.

20 years before the death of Muawiya, Imam Ali (a) lived in the city of Kufa for five years. The population of Kufa has not yet forgotten what Ali (a) taught. After the death of Muawiyah, having gathered and consulted together, the people said: “We must take advantage of the opportunity and not give Yezid the opportunity to take advantage of him. We have Hussein, he is our real leader. We must prepare and invite him to Kufa, first under his leadership we will create a nucleus ( center) in Kufa, then we will turn the entire caliphate into an Islamic caliphate.”

Kufe was essentially a military camp. This city was founded during the reign of Caliph Omar Sa’d ibn Weggas. The Muslim warriors stationed here built houses for themselves, made a living, and these places gradually turned into the strongest city of the caliphate.

The population of such a city invited Imam Hussein (a). And the number invited was not one or two, not a thousand and not even ten thousand. 18,000 letters were sent to the imam. Each letter sometimes had up to 100 signatures. Based on these calculations, approximately 100,000 people addressed the Imam.

How did the Imam react to this? The Muslims revolted, and the Imam had to rush to their aid. The Imam’s actions in this case were essentially not negative, but positive.

From the very beginning, Imam Husayn (a) saw that the population of Kufa was not ready, he recognized the indecision and timidity of the people of Kufa. But, refusing to go, what would he answer to history? Of course, if he had not responded to the invitation of the people of Kufa, we would be asking today: “Why did Imam Husayn (a) not respond positively to the invitation?”

During the rule of the Abbasids, known as “Vizier of Ali Muhammad (a)” – Abu Salama ibn Hallal quarreled with the Abbasid caliph. Abu Salama immediately wrote two letters: one to Imam Jafar Sadiga (a), the other to the grandson of Imam Hassan (a) – Abdullah Mehdi, and invited each of them to the throne at the same time. The letter read: “Until now I have served the caliph, but from now on I will serve you. Let us unite and overthrow the caliph together.” First, by writing a letter with the same content to two at the same time, he showed his insincerity. Secondly, he wrote these letters, taking offense at the caliph. Imam Jafar Sadigh (a), after receiving and reading the letter, burned it in the presence of the messenger. The messenger asked, “What is the answer?” The imam said: “The answer to the letter is the action seen just now.” Abu Salam was killed before he returned

i am a messenger At the same time, many still ask the question: “Why did Imam Jafar Sadigh (a) not accept Abu Salam’s invitation and gave a negative answer?” Firstly, Abu Salam ibn Hallal is one person, secondly, he is insincere in his invitation, thirdly, when he wrote the letter, he already knew that his fate was decided, Caliph Abbasi knows about his betrayal.

If Imam Hussain (a), being in Mecca and receiving 18,000 letters from the people of Kufa, had not given them a positive answer, then history would have reproached him for not rooting out the followers of Yezid. In this case, all the lawlessness and oppression that the Amavids created, they put the blame on Imam Husayn (a), they would invent that if the Imam raised a rebellion, then the Amavids would be destroyed and the oppression would be eradicated.

I wonder which of the two factors was the first in time? I wonder what happened earlier: Imam Husayn (a) refused to give bay’at, and the people of Kufa, having learned about it, invited him? Or did everything happen the other way around: that is, first the population of Kufa sent him an invitation, and the Imam accepted it? Undoubtedly, from a historical point of view, the first assumption is correct, Muawiyah personally came to Medina during his lifetime and tried to obtain bay’at for Yezid from Imam Husayn (a) and two or three other people. But they categorically refused it,

After Muawiyah’s death, Ezid himself urgently sends a new moon to Medina. The messenger arrives in Medina, delivers Ezid’s letter to the governor of Medina. In the letter, Ezid informs the governor about the death of Muawiya and demands to obtain bay’at from Imam Husayn (a) by any means. The population of Kufa did not yet know about the death of Muawiyah.

Imam Husain (a) refused to give bay’at. Two or three days passed like this. For several days, the governor’s men sometimes warned and threatened the Imam, demanding from him the Confession of Yezid. Finally, on the 27th day of the month of Rajab, Imam Husayn (a) left Madinah and arrived in Makkah on the 3rd day of the month of Sha’ban. The first letters from the people of Kufa were received by the Imam on the 15th day of the month of Ramazan. By this time, a month and a half had already passed since the day when Yezid’s supporters demanded bay’at. Imam Hussain (a) rejected their demands a month and a half ago.

Along with the two factors mentioned, there is a third factor of Ashura’s rebellion. It is “to call to virtue and abstinence from bad actions.” From the very first days when Imam Husayn (a) left Medina, these words became a slogan. Imam Husain did not rise up in rebellion only with the aim of rejecting the Bey’at of Ezid. Even if Imam Husayn (a) was not required to pledge allegiance, then again, following this motto: “call to virtue and refrain from bad actions”, he should have rebelled. Furthermore, the call of the people of Kufa was only a pretext for Imam Husain (a) to start a rebellion. Even if they had not written these letters, the Imam would still have started the struggle, because his goal was to “call to virtue and refrain from bad actions.”

From the position of the first factor, Imam Hussain (a) is a defender, he was asked to take bay’at, but he refused and thereby stood on his own defense. From the position of the second factor. Imam Hussein (a) is a savior, because he was called to help and he agreed. From the position of the third factor. Imam Hussain (a) is a fighter because he rebelled against a cruel tyrant. From this point of view. Imam Hussein (a) is a revolutionary.

Each of the listed factors imposed certain duties on Imam Hussein. Therefore, it can be said that the Ashur rebellion has several aspects. From the standpoint of the fact that Imam Husain (a) had renounced the Bay’at of Ezid, he could not have done otherwise. Even if he, following the advice of Abdullah ibn Abbas, went to the mountains. anyway, he should not have given bayat. From the point of view that the people of Kufa had invited the Imam, it was the duty of Imam Husain (a) to support them until they kept their word. From the moment they renounced their words, this debt was removed from the Imam. But the goal of Imam Hussain (a) was not only this. The Kufintsev invitation factor, starting from the 15th day of the month of Ramazan, is considered temporary. This factor operated in the period of time from the moment when the constant correspondence stopped until the moment when the Imam learned about the events in Kufa. This factor has lost its force since the encounter with the Hurra detachment, when the Imam received the news of the killing of Muslim. All this freed the Imam from the debt of the savior. Therefore, rushing with the population of Kufa, and addressing these traitors, he spoke the following words; “You invited me, I came. But if you don’t want me to stay here, I’m coming back. You put a debt on me with your invitation. But if you repent of it, then I’m leaving.” Here we must not confuse the two factors: the non-recognition of Yezid is a different matter and the Imam strongly rejected suggestions of bay’ati. He said: “Even if there is no refuge for me the size of a fingernail in the whole Earth, I will still not bring bay’at.”

I think that some researchers, the great importance of inviting the population of Kufa and putting it first, are wrong. On the contrary, this factor is the least significant among all others. Because if he was the main one, then the Imam, having learned about the change in the attitude of the population of Kufa, would have said: “If everyone turned away from me and gave bey’

at Ezid, then I will have to do the same.” But events developed in the opposite direction. The most fiery speeches were delivered by the Imam precisely after the betrayal of the population of Kufa. All this proves the importance of the words “call to virtue and refrain from bad actions” and precisely under the influence of this factor, Imam Hussain (a) rose up against the immoral government.

On the way, the Imam saw two people coming from the direction of Kufa. He stopped and wanted to talk to them. But they, knowing Imam Hussain (a), went astray. The imam, realizing that they were avoiding meeting him, continued on his way. One of the Companions of the Imam also met these two people and spoke to them. They told about the riots in Kufa, about the fact that Muslim and Hani had died as martyrs and said: “We are ashamed to inform Imam Husayn (a) of this news.”

This companion of the Imam entered the tent where the Imam was sitting with his followers and said: “I have heard one message. How should I convey it to you: right now or privately?” The imam replied: “I have no secrets from my friends. We do not hide anything from each other.” The Companion then said: “Those two who cowered when they saw you spoke to me, told me that Kufa was conquered, Muslim and Hani were killed.” After hearing this news. The imam burst into tears and read the following verses: “There are among the believers who are faithful to their oath before Allah. Some of them became martyrs, and some will become martyrs. The word given by them will not change” (sura “Ahzab”, verse 23).

Here, the image of the Imam as an angry fighter, a revolutionary, differs from the position of a helper and defender in terms of the image of thoughts. The logic of the defender is to protect, but the logic of the fighter is that he does not think only about his defense, And even knowing that the death of a martyr awaits him, he does not retreat from his goal, rebels and protests – the motto of Hussein (a) “call to virtues and refrain from bad actions,” makes his logic similar to the logic of the martyr. And the logic of the martyr is different from all the others.

Only those people who, in order to fulfill the debt requirement to their contemporaries, pay with nothing but their blood have the logic of a martyr. Many people in the world spoke out, demanding something from history. In all corners of the Earth, during archaeological excavations, writings of the owners on stones are found, which usually say: “I, the son of such and such, captured such a territory, lived for so many years, had so much fun”… All this is written on stones so that it will not be erased from time And yet these words live only on stones. Time erases them from people’s memory and the earth absorbs them. After thousands of years, these words come to the surface and are kept in the museum.

Imam Husain (a) wrote the demands addressed to history with his blood on the ephemeral pages of the air, but since these demands were sealed with his blood, they penetrated the hearts of people. Today, both Arabs and other people, millions of people remember these words of Imam Hussain (a): “I consider it happiness to die with honor, and I call life subject to a tyrant a misfortune.” If a person lives in oppression and oppression, obeying despots only in order to eat and sleep, then death is much higher than such an existence. This is the philosophy of the martyr. Every year, when Maharram comes, Imam Hussain (a) comes to life in people’s memory and as it were says “Accursed Yezid makes me choose one of two paths: death or oppression. But oppression is far from us (belonging to the family of the Prophet). Allah forbid it is pious to live in oppression.”

Imam leaving Medina. stood up against oppression as a fighter. On the same day in the will. addressed to the brother of Muhammad ibn Hanafia, wrote: “I started the struggle not in order to show myself and not in order to sow evil and flour. The purpose of my struggle is to correct and guide the true society of my grandfather Muhammad (z) , to call people to good deeds and to protect them from bad deeds. I follow the path of my grandfather Muhammad (s) and my father Ali ibn Abu Talib (a).”

Some actions of Imam Hussain (a) were subordinated only to the logic of a martyr and a fighter, they cannot be explained otherwise. Yes, if he acted from the position of a defender, then on the night of Ashura he should have returned all his companions home by force, removed them from him. He should have ordered them without giving them a chance to answer, “Your lives are in danger while you are here. This is not permissible according to the Sharia!” But he did it wrong. Because he, following the logic of a revolutionary, had to fight and expand the fight. That is why, when his friends and family announced that they were ready to stay with him, Imam Husain (a) prayed for them and gave them such permission.

On the night of Ashura, Imam Husayn (a) sent Habib ibn Mazahir to the Lazni-Asad tribe to find a believer among them and bring him with him. How many supporters could Habib bring? Suppose he brought 100 armed men. What would this hundred do against an army of 30,000? Could it have any influence on the course of events? Not to any extent! Imam Husayn (a) wanted to expand the scope of the event by spreading the logic of the fighter, martyr and revolutionary. The fact that the Imam brought his family to Karbala also followed this goal. After all, members of his family Mr

were guilty of spreading those actions that he inscribed in history with his blood. Imam Husayn (a) wanted the events to acquire a more massive, more effective, more vivid character and thus be fixed in the memory of human history.

Now let’s come to a conclusion, which of the 3 listed factors is the most significant and valuable in the Ashura rebellion. Of course, their weight is not the same. Each of them has a corresponding essence and value. Many moral and material goods are accepted by a person as pride, value and wealth. For example, science is the wealth of man. Even external signs of these benefits increase the importance of a person and his power, for example, wearing the clothes of a religious minister – pride for him. The clothes of a university teacher are his pride. For a woman, jewelry is wealth. In movements that have the character of struggle. several factors combining. form its value. The value of Ashura’s rebellion consists of the value of all three factors, but the third factor is the most significant.

But the opposite also happens. There are high personalities who bring honor and glory to the cause. whom they serve, themselves. For example, every religious scientist is proud of his clothes, but sometimes a scientist reaches high goals with his actions, and then it is not the clothes that decorate him, but he – the clothes. For example, if you ask a modern religious figure: “What does your aba and ammame on your head symbolize?” They will answer “The pride of the entire Islamic world Abu Ali ibn Sina wore such clothes.” Thus, the name of Abu Ali ibn Sina adorns this outfit. Sheikh Murtaza, Haju Nasreddin Tuyami and many others earned the honor of wearing the garb of a religious figure, while at the same time they brought glory to this garb. Women love gold jewelry. But there are women who themselves are a decoration. Sasaa ibn Suhan – a faithful companion of Hazrat Ali (a) was a wonderful orator. He possessed the gift of concise speech. The famous Arab writer Jahiz wrote about him: “Sa’saa was a powerful orator. The best proof of this is that Api ibn Abu Talib (a) often said to him: ‘Get up and give a speech.'” On the day when Ali (a) was elected caliph, Sa’saa addressed him with words of congratulations: “About Ali (a), it was not the caliphate that beautified you, it was you who accepted the caliphate that beautified it. It was not the caliphate that glorified you, but you raised him! Ali (a), the caliphate needs you more than you in it!”

The motto of Imam Hussain (a) “to call to virtue and refrain from bad actions” deepened the meaning of his movement, just as the Imam glorified these words. The Ashura uprising raised the motto “call to virtue and refrain from bad actions”, and Imam Husain (a) crowned it with the death of a martyr.

Many people call for virtue and refrain from bad actions, but not only do not deepen the meaning of these words, but on the contrary, they even devalue them. For example, in Saudi Arabia, whipping those who kiss the Kaaba or the Prophet’s grave with love is considered to “keep away from bad deeds” (“nahyy anil-munkar”).

All the actions of Imam Hussain (a) from the beginning to the end were to “call to virtue and refrain from bad actions.” He drew attention to all the good traditions of the Islamic world and its flaws. He said: “The first and greatest “munkar” (bad, bad) of the Islamic world is Yezid. The leader must first follow the Koran, observe its justice and bow to the religion of Allah.” Adhering to this path, Imam Husain (a) sincerely gave up everything he had, and in the name of the slogan “call to virtue and refrain from bad actions” sacrificed his life, glorified and immortalized his death.

Murtaza Mutahkhara