[Reader-list] Fwd: Intizar Husain on Husaini Brahmins

[yasir ~يا سر]

Thanks Kshmendra,

This statement helps. I'll quote two well known couplets/rubaaee

1. here is iqbal, somewhat modernist:

nehaayat rangeen o saadaa hai daastaan e haram
intiha hai jis ki hussain, ibtidaa hai ismail  (urdu)

this the reference to the sacrifice of Ibrahim of his son Ismail (marking
bakr eid) - the beginning of the story of the house (kaabaa / house of
Abraham) - being brought to completion by the sacrifice of hussain, family
and friends - that it is colorful with blood and simple in its
connection/intent.

2. here is khwaja moeen uddin chishti ajmeri

shaah ast hussain, baadshaah ast hussain
deen ast hussain, deen panaah ast hussain
sar daad na daad dast dar dast e yazid
haqqa ke binaa e la ilah ast hussain  (farsi)

hussain is king, correct belief and saviour of the faith / gave his head but
not his hand in yazid's / true (haqqa) it is that hussain is not without
(binaa) no god (la ilah)

these two gentlemen are well known sunnis although liable to be labeled
shia. among sufis as i mentioned in the earlier email, certain naqshbandi
strains are anti-shia" - others are sympathetic, and take their spiritual
line directly from Ali, while being sunni. some take it to Abu bakr, the
naqshbandi admit their violence'/rashness in thought may be due to Umar's
'vein'. Shah Wali ullah a naqshbandi sunni accepted the shias as a school of
thought among muslims along with the sunni schools. so tolerance and
spiritual affiliation are the determinants.

Although it is true that a group formed around Ali (later shian e ali)
during the prophets lifetime - while Ali prepared the prophet''s body for
burial, the other fellows were meeting to appoint the 1st caliph - there is
also the reverence for the ahle-baith (people of the house) - around which
the controversy was spread about which wives/families were included in the
prophet's house reference. most sunni sources (such as tabari) also point to
ali, fatima, hasan and hussain (never in doubt), while some give the
alternatives which include umme salma, or even aisha.

With reference to your other interesting mail about the non-existence of
mohammad, because the first biography was much later, and authencity of
versions were then pinned around the 'science of men'(ilm ur rijal) or
really the science of the geneologies and characters of transmitters of
knowledge. it was during this time that Muwayia acccelerated his campaign to
sway opinion in his favour through a proliferation of hadiths. Yazid's
father's (Muawiya) father was Abu sufyan, a meccan chief who sought to
regain the power he had lost to muslims and mohammad, by accepting islam a
little later after giving up the city of mecca peacefully. Ali and Mohammad,
first cousins belonged to the Hashim clan which abu sufyan and later muawiya
sought to displace and make the caliphate their own - which they did. In the
sunni traditional narrative the chapter of the pious caliphs (khulafa e
rashideen) closes at the 4th, Ali.

With Muawiya and later Yazid it is clear that the state, now no longer led
by pious men, in which there is much chaos and dissension, is no longer a
caliphate in spirit. This was also hussains refusal' to yazid. Maududi, the
well known but non-traditional scholar (and founder of Jamaat e Islaami, the
political party) makes a similar point in his book Khilafat aur Malookiat.

On the other hand, Ibne Khaldun's argument is for continuity of state and
the challenge to it. In this light Hussain is a rebel to challenge yazid and
the state, and so meets his end. this is the only argument i have come
across which can be argued aginst hussain, and it finds its adherents. there
are also arguments against shia common practices from which retrogressive
heresy is argued. that is a problem for the shias themselves too, as many
shia scholars argue against harming oneself, bloodletting, etc, and against
some rituals which taunt the sunnis...

so basically what i am saying is that most sunnis also own hussain, in which
the relative importance of karbala to islam is put to question (as compared
to the shias), with the exception of that school of thought within sunnis
which considers hussain a rebel and shias apostates. what are their numbers,
i dont know.

aslo, I have'nt heard the Naik and Israr statements myself, but i know this
generates heat, also Ghamdi on geo tv. where would they fit exactly is also
difficult, without actual views i have seen/heard in some detail. There is
no question about respect for Ali among Sunnis.

I agree the controversy over Mohammad/hussain's hair would be serious and
would generate heat, not because hussain is not liked but because the
versions are so different. but i have no idea. The origins of Laal Shahbaaz
in Sehwan are also differently told: historians say it is central asia
(transoxania, mawra un nahr oxus), but pop belief among shias says that he
is descended from the imams (obviously an attempt to make him their own),
unlike abdullah shah in Karachi, who actually (probably) is.

btw i heard that the prophets hair in the baadshahi mosque in lahore was
loaned to the shah of brunei or somewhere to take to his country and then
bring it back after some time. it came back but since then it has gone
missing .... needless to say it is a commentary on the state of affairs in
pakistan.....

best

ps: have been busy elsewhere getting educated   :)





On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com>wrote:

>  Dear Yasir
>
> Perhaps I should have put it differently and said that "Hussain is one of
> the most important personages for Shias and carries a significance in Shia
> Islamic annals much greater than in the Sunni ones"
>
> Consequently it would be quite a comedown for the Sunni control over
> Hazratbal to be told that the "Hair Relic" is of Hussain and not Mohammed.
> The Shias would want 'control' over it.
>
> Of course you know that 'Ashura' (10th day of the month Muharram when
> Hussain was killed in Karbala) carries distinctly separate significance for
> the Shias and Sunnis. That in no small means is because of the separate
> significance Hussain himself carries for the Shias and the Sunnis.
>
> You would also know about the controversies surrounding the comments of Dr
> Zakir Naik and Dr Israr Ahmed about Yazid and Ali. Would you add the 2 to
> your "jihadist / extremist" list?
>
> The divide between the Shias and Sunnis runs much deeper than Hussain.
> With Ali at the fonthead of that divide, would you argue over (subsequent to
> various struggles over who should be the Khalifa) the divide
> getting concretised in the Battle of Karbala between Yazid and Hussain and
> Hussain's death?
>
> If that is so, and with Yazid (alongwith Muaviyah sworn enemy of Hussain's
> father Ali) as Sunni and Hussain as Shian-e-Ali how could one possibly
> conclude that Hussain is not firmly on tha Shia side of the Sunni/Shia
> divide?
>
> Perhaps you know better.
>
> I totally agree with you that (perhaps) most Muslims are in the 'consensual
> middle' and that is how it should be.
>
> Since the thread started over the "Hair Relic", it was not farfetched to
> look at the passions any such controversy would evoke from the 'extreme
> positions'.
>
> Wish you would participate oftener. I have the selfish motive of wanting to
> get educated.
>
> Take care
>
> Kshmendra
>
>
>
>
> On *Fri, 12/12/08, yasir ~يا سر <yasir.media at gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> From: yasir ~يا سر <yasir.media at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Fwd: Intizar Husain on Husaini Brahmins
> To: kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com
> Cc: reader-list at sarai.net, "prabhat kumar" <prabhatkumar250 at gmail.com>
> Date: Friday, December 12, 2008, 11:33 AM
>
>
> Dear Kashmendra,
>
> I dont know the the history of the Hazratbal hair. but you are overstating
> or even misstating the shia sunni divide on the question of Hussain.
>
> Most sunnis revere Hussain and his fight to death against Yazid son of
> Muawiya. During the Muharram month/s you will hear Sunni sermons eulogizing
> the sacrifice and mourning the deaths of the prophet's family and friends.
> The account of the events by Zainul abedin (the next Imam, and Hussain's
> son) of the events is read as a text in sunni religious seminaries. Sunnis
> may also participate with Taziyas and attend 'Shia' Majalis, or just watch
> them on TV etc. They may or may not accord the same level of reverence to
> karbala as shias, some of whom also go overboard with the case.
>
> That said, there are certain sunni sub-sects, among them particularly the
> ahle Hadith (aka wahhabi), and certain historical naqshbandis (mujaddid alf
> saani) who may consider shias heretics, kaafirs etc, virtually on par with
> deniers such as 'hindus'. I dont think this strain is the most common
> although occasionally one runs into them - most are in the consensual
> middle. Not surprisingly this strain (the tendency you have described) is
> around in jihadist / extremist outfits.
>
> best
>
>