[Hasan Ilyas] We conversed with you about a particular topic over 20 sessions.
It was about the political conflict and struggle between Ali (r) and Muawiya (r).
It is a part of Islamic history and its effects are felt even today among Muslims.
You gave a detailed analysis of the events and the upshot of our conversation was,
it is not our place, in today's era, to condemn a group as traitorous.
Political conflicts must be contextualized in the political movements and factors
of the time and seen from the perspective of the contesting parties.
Only then would their respective positions come to relief.
It is the month of Muharram. And you are familiar, in our society,
every year in Muharram brings with it the discussion of these historical topics.
Please enlighten us, that Hussain (r) was unjustly murdered.
It is a heart-rending event of the martyrdom of the Prophet's grandson.
The gravity of the event, usually, pushes people to hold extreme opinions.
Some seem to hold that Hussain (r) committed treason against the caliphate
and brought Ibn Ziyad's barbarous wrath upon his own head.
I want you to provide us with your views on this point too.
Please tell us, insofar as Hussain's (r) actions are concerned,
does anyone have the right to claim that he committed treason
and consequences followed from it?
[Javed Ahmad Ghamidi] I have commented on the point in the same conversation.
Since it was a detailed conversation, it is possible I may not have
provided a brief commentary on the point. I had mentioned a few basic principles.
I had observed, one, we have the directive of the Prophet (pbuh)
that we must never spread 'corruption' and destroy civic peace.
It is not permissible for us to endanger people's life, property, and honor.
The Prophet (pbuh) stated that you have the right to criticize a collective order.
As an oppressed group, you can struggle against the established order.
And if, while criticizing an evil or a wrong, you are killed,
it is the best jihad. However, taking someone else's life,
attacking someone else's honor, spreading 'corruption' in the world,
creating anarchy in the political order. There is no scope for these things.
Both the Prophet (pbuh) and the Quran are explicit on this point.
The Quran has declared that "spreading corruption on earth" as a major crime.
And 'spreading corruption on earth' (fasad fil ard) means nothing other than when,
without Allah's permission, a person or a group becomes intent upon
endangering people's life, property, and honor.
In this backdrop, the Prophet (pbuh) has stated a limit situation as well.
If, in a Muslim collective order, the ruler is, both, governing tyrannically
and committing open acts of disbelief. It has been referred to as 'kufr-i-bavaa'.
In such a scenario, people can refuse to obey the ruler.
However, even then, if you seek to make a move against the oppressive regime,
there would be certain conditions and boundaries.
And no measures can legitimately be taken without fulfilling them.
They are the conditions and boundaries of war against an oppressive order.
A number of rules, regulations and laws have been specified in Islam
for waging war against oppression. And when someone rises
against oppression on their own, they must also abide by the same laws.
Thus, it is absolutely clear, for us, if there is an oppressive regime.
In the contemporary era, there are democratic regimes in many countries.
In democratic societies, there is no moral justification for creating disorder,
or challenging the political order, or threatening civil disobedience,
or leading the masses out into the open and blocking the roadways, etc.
In other words, creating social upheaval. There is no scope for these measures.
The only recourse, in a democracy, is election.
And things would pan out in accordance with the people's will.
The struggle to shape the people's will would have to be peaceful
and based upon democratic principles. These moral limits mustn't be transgressed
However, in the case of despotic regimes, democratic methods are ineffective,
because the government itself is based upon the force of the sword.
Now, what must be done? We have been told to strive for reform,
strive through our speech, condemn the falsehood, raise consciousness in people.
And even if this space is not available and you are forced to take drastic steps,
if the regime has committed open acts of disbelief or rebellion against Allah,
then you must abide by all the rules and regulations of jihad and warfare
that have been specified in Islam.
In other words, the measures would be taken from within a proper political order
and they must conform to the laws of Islam This is one aspect of the problem.
The second aspect is that if, under certain circumstances,
a courageous individual feels that he can run the affairs of the state more properly
And the folks who are already in power, whether it is a family which is ruling,
or a monarchy, or a dictatorship, etc. And someone else gets up and claims
that he can run the state in a better way. In a democracy, you can form a party,
contest elections, and may even be able to convince people to follow your lead.
Consequently, it is possible that people would be convinced of your leadership.
And, you can rise to power peacefully. This is the real beauty of democracy.
It has established a peaceful method of transfer of power.
Transfer of power must be based on the will of the people.
If they dislike someone or if they like you, they can elect you to power.
However, if such is not the case. If there are no democratic principles.
If peaceful modes are unavailable.
And for transfer of power, there is no alternative.
And if you are confident that you can provide better governance.
In such a scenario, what must you do? You would have to adopt such methods
which avoid shedding people's blood and committing injustices against them.
You would try to find a way. . . And it has happened in human history
that such ways out were found wherein rebellion broke out from within a family
or the ruling elite and it resulted in the toppling of an 'ancient regime'.
Consequently, people would repose their trust in a different ruling group.
These things keep happening.
In such a situation, you have the right to take measures against the regime.
Although it's not necessary, you can do it because the ruling regime is despotic.
Now, if you go back, Hussain (r) did express the desire to rule.
He planned for it. And, he also decided to move to Kufa
in response to the letters of support he had gotten from the city's residents.
However, the decision was merely meant to assess the situation in Kufa.
There were different people and different cities in the empire.
In the tradition of the Rashidun Caliphs, there is no scope for banning people
from moving across cities, meeting people and conversing with them.
The scenario would have been different if Hussain (r) had gathered an army
and was on his way to sack Kufa. Hussain (r) took none of those steps.
He simply decided to move to Kufa with his family members.
The city had been his father's capital. He had a lot of supporters in the city.
And many people thought if Hussain (r) moved to Kufa, it could create an opening.
It was, of course, a big garrison city. And if some sort of 'collective order'
were to be established in Kufa, it could open the way for further progress.
It is a general picture of the scenario.
It is, of course, not the case that everything about it is documented.
But, we can infer from the circumstances that it was nothing more than that.
Every government has the right, in case it anticipates rebellion against itself,
to preemptively block those attempts.
Nonetheless, this response ought to be proportional to the nature of opposition.
Thus, if the opposition has not launched an insurrection or an armed rebellion.
It was simply that a great man decided to move from one city to another.
Suppose, for a moment, it was obvious to everyone, including the government,
that Hussain (r) has supporters in Kufa and it is highly probable
that if he manages to enter the city, it would lead to insurrection.
In such a case, the government would have had the right to stop him.
However, 'stopping' must not involve measures that threaten the person's life.
At most, you can arrest the person. Or, you could have turned him back.
Therefore, the events that transpired and the demands that were made of him
were absolutely unacceptable and meaningless and foolish.
It is clear a great crime was committed in the intoxication of power
without anticipating its consequences.
Therefore, from every angle, it was a grievously wrong measure.
None of the steps Hussain (r) had taken till Karbala merited the kind of response
against his person and his family that was deployed by the Umayyad state.
The only measure that could have been justified in that scenario was that
he would have been blocked from entering Kufa.
Even if it needed great mobilization of troops to halt Hussain's (r) advance
and even if it took a number of days, it would have been politically better.
For these reasons, it turned into a heart-rending event for everybody.
It may have been different had Hussain (r) actually come to fight.
In the Battle of Siffin and the Battle of the Camel,
both sides faced each other and fought. People were killed on both sides.
Or, there were martyrs on both sides.
However, in in this case, it was a totally unilateral move.
In other words, there is this person carrying nothing but a sword,
as was customary among the Arabs, and he is accompanied by his family.
What kind of a measure was Hussain (r) really taking?
In my view, although a new governor was appointed for the fear of insurrection.
He did not consider the significance of Hussain's (r) personality.
Or, his relation with the Prophet (pbuh), and the emotions such a relationship,
legitimately, evokes among the people.
Any steps taken by the government ought to have taken these factors into view.
Since these factors weren't kept in view, you are familiar with the result.
For centuries now, the event has divided Muslims into two camps.
When extreme measures are taken in politics they always result in catastrophic results
Even today, it has a lesson for us that we must refrain from extreme measures.
And, in the case of political leaders, we must avoid such measures.
You can't get rid of political leaders either through the law or by the sword.
[Hasan Ilyas] Ghamidi Sahab, you made some very important points.
If a courageous man struggles peacefully against despotism,
and if he doesn't proclaim open rebellion.
So, there is no doubt about what was done to Hussain (r)
It was an act of injustice and barbarity.
Please enlighten us. You just mentioned, the options given to him were foolish.
We all know that one of the options was to pledge allegiance to Yazid b. Muawiya.
When it comes to political leaders from influential families and clans,
if they are pushed against the wall, or if attempts are made to destroy them.
It's usually thought by those in power that they can just destroy these leaders.
However, in this case, the results turned out to be completely opposite.
Today, it is the killers of Hussain (r) who receive criticism and reproach.
And the person who was killed is still alive in people's hearts.
[Ghamidi] Hussain (r) wasn't given any option except one.
That he must immediately surrender and pledge allegiance to Yazid b. Muawiya.
It was a devastatingly foolish demand. It had absolutely no justification.
If he wanted to go and see Yazid himself, he should have been allowed to go.
Certain books of history also say that he also offered to move to the borderlands
It was also a reasonable suggestion. It would have diffused the tensions.
It is also said that Hussain (r) offered to go back to Medina.
If we accept these historical accounts, these options were offered by Hussain (r).
They were quite conciliatory options. And from all these, we can safely infer,
he did not seek any such action that would endanger people's life, property and honor
The Umayyad army, however, did not even give him a choice.
They insisted on a single demand.
And, of course, Hussain (r) found it insultingly beneath his status and honor.
Thus, he refused to accept the demand. The gesture of refusal has its own status.
And everything that happened afterward was horrendously painful.
It should not have happened. It should not have happened to anyone,
let alone the grandchild of the Prophet, who belonged to the Prophet's family,
and with whom the sentiments of Muslims were and still are associated.
And Hussain's (r) life before the event was itself an embodiment of piety.
In this sense, if you treat a person of Hussain's (r) stature in such a way,
it is an anti-political, an irrational, and a deeply immoral act.
Such a thing must not be done, no matter the circumstances.
Now, the question you asked about political leaders. . .
Again, if someone has committed a crime, Islam's instructions are totally clear.
There cannot be any concessions.
But, if you make such laws in the country which block political participation.
It violates the principles of, both, democracy as well as political psychology.
You might be familiar, many years back, I criticized certain laws in Pakistan
through which the courts decide upon the eligibility of political leaders.
They are totally unjustified. If someone commits a crime,
and it carries a specific punishment, they must, of course, be punished.
You might put one in jail, or impose a fine on them, or any other punishment.
Just as others face punishment for crimes, the guilty leader too would face it.
It is possible because of it, people would also remove him from political leadership.
However, in a democratic society, the decision of removing someone
from leadership belongs to the people. It ought to belong to the people.
Political affiliation cannot be destroyed through such undemocratic laws.
Its upshot is a radical incompatibility between the law and the people.
In other words, a rift emerges between appearance and reality.
It must be avoided. They are totally foolish policies.
Through such stratagems, we should neither try to elevate anyone,
not try to push anyone down, in the political realm.
[Hasan Ilyas] Ghamidi Sahab, one last question about this topic.
Please guide us about it.
It is argued, that the event of Karbala was a locally organized military action.
In other words, we are told that it was the upshot of the governor's hot temper.
Thus, you cannot blame the whole regime of Yazid or the entire Umayyad dynasty.
Now, what is the balanced position here? How must we see this argument?
[Ghamidi] It does appear that there weren't any explicit orders,
or that it was pre-planned, or that it was applauded afterwards.
Everyone immediately seems to have realized it was a severe transgression.
However, you are aware when someone is appointed to an influential political post
like governorship, or top police post, or a top job in the army, etc.
In general, such people are not punished even when they transgress severely.
The reason is that if you begin to punish such people for their transgressions,
then it would be very hard to find people willing to enforce the state's writ.
And in monarchy, especially, there is no scope for such measures.
Monarchy pivots around the principle that any political disagreement is intolerable.
In fact, if a monarchy begins to tolerate political dissent, it would be undermined.
Even today, the monarchies of the world.
The case of constitutional monarchies, like the UK or some other European nations
is completely different. It is a new idea.
However, in a monarchy in its real sense, as it exists in Saudi Arabia,
there is no scope for anyone to criticize the policies of the king,
such that it threatens the foundations of the monarchy itself.
Thus, in monarchies, harsh measures are taken against the opponents.
Nonetheless, upon reading historical texts it seems the action against Hussain (r)
was planned and executed at the local level.
Of course, it transgressed the limits.
However, it was not the present era, with digital cameras and live updates,
where orders could be communicated instantaneously.
You are aware that in your own country, on a couple of occasions,
similar events transpired on live TV and they couldn't be stopped.
[Hasan Ilyas] The event of the Lal Masjid.
[Ghamidi] About that too, people kept expressing remorse,
kept repeating that they made a mistake, and this and that.
Unfortunately, these things keep happening in political life.
It does seem, however, it was neither preplanned nor was it welcomed.
But, once it happened, nobody could do anything about it.
[Hasan Ilyas] Ghamidi Sahab, we had a brief conversation
about the steps taken by Hussain (r). The viewers who want to understand
the background of the entire conflict should watch our twenty-part series
about the conflict between Syedna Ali (r) and Amir Muawiya (r).
[Translated by Waseem Malik Edited by Faizan Rashid]