Karbala: A "Bloody" Consipracy and the Secrets Behind It

Jihad during the era of Mu'awiyah Radiyallahu 'anhu

Jihad during the era of Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu)

One of the salient features of the truthful Caliphs of Islam was that they strove to keep Jihad alive. In the era of turmoil, i.e. from the death of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) until the appointing of Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) as Caliph, this fundamental pillar of Islam came to a temporary halt, which was just what the enemy desired. Then too, the desire to send out the Muslim armies to all the corners of the world, for the spreading of the truth, remained the burning desire of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), but due to the cirmustances he was unable to do so.

When Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) ascended, and the Muslims once again gathered under one flag, he immediately re-ignited the process of having armies continuously on the move.

Describing this virtue, Saeed ibn Abdul Aziz said:

After the assassination of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu), the sending out of armies came to an halt, and was only re-initiated when the Ummah united on the appointment of Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) as the Caliph, in the forthieth year after Hijri, which was called 'The year of Unity'. Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) began sending armies into the Roman lands. A group og sixteen armies woul spend the entire year there, and upon there return another group would take there place. Then in the fifty-second year after hijri, he appointed his son (Yazid) as Amir over an army, which included many Sahaba (radhiyallahu anhuma), (amongst them were Hadhrat Abu Ayyub Ansari and Hadhrat Hussain radhiyallahu anhuma) to attack the Romans by land and by sea. This army finally managed to cross the gulf and lay an attack on Constantinople, from its very doorstep, the army thereafter returned.

Had there been no virtue to mention about Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) except this one, it would have been sufficient for his status to be realized, since the upholding of the fundamental of Jihad has always been the hallmark of the truthful leaders of Islam. Evil elements have always tried to lay criticism on the rule of Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and the Ummayyad Empire that he established, by citing incidents feom the personal lives of some of its members, incidents which have no real sanad and can thus never be verified. The one aspect which they could not manage to cover was the fact that Jihad and Islamic conquests thrived during this era, with its armies spreading out from Sham in all directions.

Due to the great conquests that occurrwd during this dynasty, some historians have stated:

It would not be anything amazing if one were to say that the Ummayyad empire played one of the most important roles in Islamic History, with regards to the conquests made!

As for the dynasty that followed, known as the 'Banu Abbas' which hailed from the lands of Iraq/Iran, this dynasty, despite opening wide its doors for all deviant groups, allowing the establishment of the first Shia empire in Muslim lands, i.e. the Fatimid empire, and bringing to a practical halt all Islamic Jihad movements, despite delivering these and many other terrible blows to the Muslim world, yet one finds the books of history silent when it comes to criticizing it. Why? The reason is what has been mentioned from the very beginning, i.e. Jewish/satanic/hypocrite forces
have always attacked the books of history, and endeavoured that the truth remains stained.

As for the oft-repeated narrations and historical incidents in which some form of criticism against Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and his family, the Banu Ummayyah, can be discerned, Allama ibn Taymiyyah, after proving in length that the Rafawidh (Shiites) have always emerged as the greatest liars and deceivers of every era, summarised the answers to all the objections raised against Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and the Ummayyad dynasty in the following words:

'The Shia' rejects rhat which is clear-cut, and whose truth is evident. As for that which has no basis, and whose falsehood is manifest, those are the narrations which they strive to revive, an example of which is what they narrate regarding Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu)' [Majmu-al-Fatawa]

When fabricated Ahadith, concerning Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), can be found with made-up-chains of narrators, what could one then expect to be the case with historical incidents, which have no chain of narrators whatsoever?

Shaykh Mahmood Shakir, while discussing the issue of Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), his family, Banu Ummayyah, and all its Caliphs, wrote most decisively:

The accusations levelled against the Banu Ummayyah have no sound chains. In fact, in the majority of these narrations there is no mention of who first narrated it, which clearly indicates of it being baseless. Thus, no consideration could ever be given to it. If one were to adopt here the method used for scrutinizing Ahadith, which is of course the best method for ascertaining the teuth of any matter, then majority, if not all, of the accusations levelled against the Banu Ummayyah shall be found unreliable and shall be disposed off.

A common accusation levelled against Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) from hypocrite quarters is that he had made many promises to Hadhrat Hasan and Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhuma) to entice them to hand over the Caliphate, but failed to fulfil those conditions afterwards. Anyone with a little knowledge of Islamic history shall know that deception and lying were never the traits of the noble Arabs, neither before Islam and of course not after.

Together with that, not a single incident can be found wherein Hadhrat Hasan or Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhuma) stands up to complain to the people of Makkah Mukarramah or Madinah Munawwarah that Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) had eeceived them and broken his promise. When the generosity of Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) would not miss the commoner, could one ever think that the noble grandsons of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) would ever find him unwilling to give? Yes, if what they had asked was found out of his reach, due to promises and pacts which he could not breaks, then in those situations, Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) would ensure that they be given a much better substitute.

Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) had a lot of respect for Hadhrat Hasan and Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhuma) and would try his utmost best to fulfil their every request. This remained his trait throughout his life and he departed with this very bequest that their rank and status always be considered.

Haafidh al Deenawari has quoted the following in Akhbaar al-Tiwaal:

Historians have mentioned that throughout the life of Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), Hadhrat Hasan and Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhuma) never experienced any such act from him, which caused them inconvenience and difficulty, nor did they ever harbour any sort of anger or malice against him. Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) ensured that they receive whatever has been promised to them, and he never witheld his favour and kindness to them.

Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) in fact, performed the nikah of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) to Aa'isha, the daughter of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) and himself paid the mahr (dowry) of ten thousand dinaars on behalf of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu). Aa'isha thereafter remained in the marriage of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) till his death.