.

.

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE BENEFICENT, THE MERCIFUL
-------------- --------------- -------------- --------


"O you who believe! Be careful of your duty to Allah, and be with the truthful." [Noble Quran 9:119]

"If you obeyed most of those on earth they would mislead you far from Allah's way." [Noble Quran 6:116]

Return to the QURAN only - the complete and final STAND-ALONE Divine Message which also contains the authentic sunnah of the beloved Prophet Muhammad (SAAW)

-----------------

I bear witness that NONE is worthy of worship except ALLAH, He has NO partner nor partners, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the slave and Final Messenger of Allah.

--------


Zainabs Lounge blog tracker

Friday, October 14, 2011

"If Imam Hussein isn't in the Quran, how can we accept his martyrdom?"

This sarcastic question has recently become a hot topic for 'combat' by Salafist Hadithists to antagonize ones like myself who don't accept Hadith.   However, I have no problem putting up the facts.  As a truth-seeker, it's a pleasure to expose the truth.

WHY ISN'T THE MARTYRDOM OF IMAM HUSSEIN OR THE INCIDENT OF KARBALA  MENTIONED IN THE QURAN?

To begin with, I'm neither a Shiia nor a Sunni and I dislike sectarianism.  I am just MUSLIM and Alhumdulilah, I'm proud of it.  Having said that, surely I accept ONLY the Noble Quran as my guide and NO other book or books.  And this, your question dear Hadithists, is one of the most irrational ones I've ever been asked.  It's not worth my precious time.  Nonetheless, I will put up a response owing to my passion for the Glorious Quran.

Proof of Imam Hussein in the Quran?  From that view point, no one should believe in the existence of the sahabas.  Are any one of them mentioned in the Quran?   Most importantly, the "bright" idea of calling oneself a Sunni or a Shiia is NOT mentioned in the Quran.  In fact, I can quote at least half a dozen verses which flatly condemn sectarianism.  So why do you guys indulge in sectarianism and sub-sectarianism as the foundation of your Faith?

However, coming back to the topic and based on the question you put, 90% of Islamic history ought be trashed.  But here is the important and indispensable point few reflect upon.  The Noble Quran narrates only selected aspects of history that are necessary for acquiring guidance and moral lessons.  Otherwise, the Quran is NOT a Book of history, prophecy, arithmetic or science etc. (even though it contains many amazing prophecies as well as scientific facts, some discovered as recently as the 20th century).  The Quran is a Book of Divine Guidance firmly based on Monotheism and a complete code of practical life. 

This isn't about the senseless wranglings between Shiias and Sunnis.  It's about logic and principles. Nor is Imam Hussein a sole 'property' of the Shiias alone.  The incident of Imam Hussein dominates world history as a symbol of resistance against injustice and oppression.  The Noble Quran has already mentioned similar past events when injustice and tyranny did not survive nor were they appreciated by Allah The Almighty.  I'm sure I don't need to quote any examples concerning it.   Indeed, Allah knew at the time He revealed the Quran that many more incidents of injustice would arise in future including the one involving Imam Hussein.  But that does NOT mean every one of those future events must be contained in the Quran.  Why?  As mentioned, the Divine Power has already highlighted this vital aspect along with the moral lesson it involves in His Final Message, loud and clear, with direct references to several events in ancient times .... all of which make up the group of allegorical verses, separating them from the substance.   For allegorical verses and verses of substance, refer to Verse 3:7.   If we still cannot get the moral behind those allegorical Quranic narrations, that's our problem .. though not mine.  I do understand them as well as their moral lessons.  But unfortunately many of my brethren don't and hence the sub-standard queries.

Although Allah Almighty has mentioned some remarkable prophecies in the Glorious Quran,  they are of a different category specifically for benefiting, helping and encouraging the Prophet (S) in his mission to spread the message of Monotheism.   Therefore, additional future incidents which do not play a direct role in the Prophet's mission are not included in the Quran.  That again doesn't mean these future events aren't important in the Sight of Allah.

All such events are expected to be preserved as history and heritages by the people namely the learned and conscientious ones, to further enhance the standard of human perception.  Whether we perceive them correctly to benefit our souls with the lessons they teach or squabble over them to divide ourselves is up to us.  In either case, Allah is a constant Witness and will surely question the ones He considers to be the transgressors on the Day of the Tryst.

Though many smaller details of Islamic history have been tampered with by both traditional Sunnis and Shiias, the major incidents remain intact by and large .. one of them being the incident of Karbala.  It's quite definitely one of the most significant ones in Islamic History owing to its far-reaching consequences that exacerbated the future spilt within the pan-Islamic world to the advantage of its enemies.



WHY IS THE INCIDENT OF KARBALA 'HISTORY' AND NOT 'HADITH?'

Though the Shiias might have constructed several interpolations in regard to the incident of Karbala in the form of stories called Hadith (just as the Sunnis have done with their side of the events), when I say that Imam Hussein's martyrdom (or the incident of Karbala) is History and not Hadith, I simply mean the very incident itself .. NOT the plenteous interpolations that have followed in the shape of Hadith.  These interpolations are simply Hadith, NOT the broad and basic event itself which is history.  I repeat .. while I do discard those many little stories on Karbala that fill Shiia Hadith collections, the precise event of Karbala is a historical data and cannot be rejected.   Similarly, many stories and gossips might have been constructed about Muawiyah bin Abu Sufyan and Yazid bin Muawiyah (neither of whom are mentioned in the Quran either) - positive ones in the Sunni Hadith collections and negative ones in the Shiia collections - the precise authenticity of all of which are unconfirmed, the exact truth known to God Almighty only.  But the existence of Muawiyah and Yazid, the introduction of a dynasty rule (first ever in Islam against the principles of the Quran) and their political ideology constitute a vital segment of Islamic history (NOT hadith) which cannot be denied nor overlooked.


WHY IS HISTORY DIFFERENT FROM HADITH?

The reason why History is totally different from Hadith is because the compilation of History involves a very different approach with a completely different set of rules mandatory for authentication.  Yet, History can falter to some extent but because it involves a far more thorough research, it doesn't go as baloney as the bizarre Hadith institution.  Unlike History, Hadith has preserved nothing because it contained nothing to preserve except its own constructions from generation to generation.  That big talk to impress naive about the "science" of Hadith is nothing beyond the notorious "isnad." It is anything but a foolproof evidence of authenticity.  Establishing a fraudulent 'isnad' is no tough job.  An "isnad" that cleverly connects family or social links as a chain of narrators may appear acceptable on the face of it, yet it could be a purely phoney construction.  There is NO research involved in Hadith. 

Many of our jurists boast endlessly about the "science" of Hadith.  But their own boasts have landed them in a strange dilemma.  Many Ahadith may comprise of a seeminlgy correct 'isnad' (or chain of narrators) yet their contents have been found absurd or offensive.  Thus, their entire argument on the authenticity of the "science" of Hadith falls flat on the ground.  Yes, I do not accept Hadith as the sayings of our beloved Prophet (S), not for a minute.  Hadith is the same man-written, unauthentic annexation as the altered Old and New Testaments.  Those of our Sunni and Shiia brethren who believe in the Hadith as being "totally authentic" need to be rational, not hyped.  As justice and fair play demands, they must not indulge in double standards while judging an ideology.  If they reject the altered Bible and Torah for being tampered with human hands (and surely the altered Bible and Torah are NO more authentic), then they should also reject the Hadith on the same criteria.  Hadith has precisely the same problems as the Old and New Testaments. Hadith does not represent the words of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) just as the altered Bibles do not represent the words of Jesus son of Virgin Mary (pbu them).  There's MUCH MORE to say on this which can be found in the extensive Hadith boards of our website.

Conclusion

If anyone still cannot understand or accept the above, the only plausible explanation can be that their heads are filled with clumps of horse feces .  Thus, no need badgering me any more.  Instead visit a neurosurgeon to replace that offensive stuff with some gray matter. Excuse me for forgetting my manners.  But those who insult others shouldn't expect anything different.  What goes around comes around.

Goodbye.  As-salaam Alaikum.