Every Day is Ashura, and Every Land Kerbala
To understand the Shi'a, and I am thinking specifically about the Shi'a of Iraq though I am sure it is equally applicable everywhere, to understand their norms, their values, and yes, their laws and rules, you must understand Ashura. As a Shi'i growing up, nearly every single moral lesson I learned could be traced to the death, on the 10th day of the first month of the Islamic calendar, Muharram, of the Prophet Muhammad's grandson Hussein and his loyal band of followers at the hands of the Umayyad caliph Yazid on the plains of Iraq now referred to as Kerbala, roughtly translated as the place of tragedy and distress.
How did I learn loyalty? The half brother of Hussein, Abu Fadl el Abbas, a cousin of the Ummayyad army's captain, who stood steadfastly by his brother, fighting to reach the Euphrates to bring water to the anguished troops and their wives and children suffering from thirst, continuing to fight with his left hand after his right had been severed by the army. And so do the Shi'a swear on the right hand of Abbas when making allegiance to a particular cause.
Materialism that hollows a man's soul? The army commander Umar ibn Sa'ad, who agreed against his own conscience to take on the grandson of Muhammad, in exchange for fertile land known as the Rayy. Our Judas, bought with the Rayy, rather than twenty pieces of silver. And so do the Shi'a urge one not to sell themselves out, for the control of the Rayy.
Persistence in a hopeless cause, for no reason other than that it is right? Hussein's oldest son Ali the Elder, taunted by the Umayyad troops to come and fight like a man, resembling more than any other the visage of the Holy Prophet, raising his sword before them and shouting, "I am Ali, the son of Hussein, the son of Ali, WE are the nearest to the Prophet of God", and fighting to his death. And so do the Shi'a, when speaking of right over might, invoke the name of Ali the Elder.
Redemption? Ibn Sa'ad's lieutenant Hurr, hearing Hussein speak of the evil that would be wrought if he were killed, and shaking with fear, not, said he, at a man and his 70 companions faced with several thousand Umayyad troops, but because as Hussein spoke, Hurr saw his soul fluttering between the Gardens and the Fire. Choosing the former and defecting to Hussein's side, dying in his cause, his head in Hussein's lap, he heard Hussein say to him, "your name is Hurr (Arabic for free), and so you are free, free from this world, and free forever in the Everlasting." And so do the Shi'a, when talking of the potential to make everything right, tell the story of he who served in an army of evil, and lives now free in the Everlasting.
Thuggery, of the basest kind? Shimr Ibn Jawshan, he "with the hair of a dog and the tongue of a pig" who sat on Hussein's chest and decapitated him, without an inkling of regret or conscience. And so are Blackwater's personnel described by the Shi'a as the children of Shimr.
If you don't understand Kerbala, and I don't mean the historical event, I can't think of anything more pointless than trying to figure out what actually happened during Ashura those many centuries ago, as if that reality has anything to do with modern Shi'a perceptions, I mean that if you can't internalize the wrong, the hurt, the anguish, the beating, the crying, the intense and frenzed emotion of that day, then you can never understand the Shi'a.
Which brings me to a central lesson of Ashura, a central one that might help those less aware of Shi'i perceptions and convictions exactly why the Shi'a, as Iraq's majority, are so suspicious of a Sunni minority that simply has no reasonable opportunity to regain its status as a significant power broker and that has to, though it has not yet, understand as the Kurds have, that it is consigned to minority status for the indefinite future. If the world sees this, then why can't the Iraqis? Specifically for this post, why can't the Shi'a see that their hold on power is permanent, and Sunni control a thing of the past?
I bring us back to Ashura to answer the question, and how Hussein found himself in the predicament he was in on that day in those fields. Muhammad, under Shi'i lore, left leadership of his community on his death to his son in law Ali. There was no doubt of this, it was publicly announced on a Shi'i holiday known as Eid al Ghadeer. Then, while Ali was washing the Holy Prophet's body, his own community betrayed him, and annointed another, the usurper Abu Bakr, to replace him. Only Ali and his loyal partisans (partisans in Arabic is "Shi'a") opposed the usurpation, albeit quietly, and unsuccessfully. The one outrage was followed by two others, the appointment of Omar the second usurper, and Uthman the third, before Ali was finally named caliph, upon which the Umayyad dynasty's founder immediately began a war against him, which he implicitly won when Ali was assassinated by someone unrelated to either side (and I can't introduce that group, the Khawarij, here, another time though). Yazid simply finished the job by killing Ali's son Hussein, on Ashura, at Kerbala.
And so do the Shi'a, on Ashura, curse "the First, and the Second, and the Third, and the Fourth, and Yazid the son of Mua'wiyah Fifth" (As to why the other four, Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman and Mu'awiyah are not named, the answer is quite simple, they are revered Sunni figures, and the idea is to stifle dissent with the majority Sunni world. As an academic, I prefer to describe it as it is.)
And thus does Hussein, in Shi'i lore, deplore the actions of those who have misread the law of the Prophet Moses, those who have falsely declared the Prophet Jesus to be a god in a Trinity, those (the Magi) who worship the sun and the moon, and those who engage in the killing of the son of God's Apostle. Note the equivalence, rendering the Sunni ultimately one of the People of the Book, one who has taken an entirely legitimate message from a Prophet of God (for the Jews, Moses, for the Christians, Jesus, for the Muslims, Muhammad) and distorted it beyond recognition.
So what is the point? Certainly not to engage in a creatively pointless debate about which version is "actually" correct, did Muhammad leave the community in Ali's hands, or did he, as Sunnis would argue, do no such thing and let the community decide on its leader? You may as well argue whether or not Jesus did or did not walk on water--it's a matter of faith, an ideological, ethical, religious choice, and you take your pick (or consider yourself born into one or the other, whatever).
Rather, the point is, consider the implications if one accepts this story. Even when the Prophet speaks, the community stands ready to mangle his message. Even when the community finally chooses the right person, the Prophet's successor Ali, war is made against him by a usurper, and even when Ali dies, his son is then finished off by the caliph. Hussein, wearing the mantle of the Prophet, on his head the turban of the Prophet, carrying the sword of the Prophet, left decapitated on the fields of Kerbala.
Right can't win on its own, in fact it's ready at every turn to be replaced by manglers and usurpers, thieves ready to thwart it, turn it to their advantage and kill its partisans, it's Shi'a. History is replete with these examples, and eternal vigilance, against the Hypocrites, against the thieves, against the community of Muslims ready to destroy Muhammad's message.
What surprises me is less why the Shi'a remain fearful and suspicious of the Sunnis in Iraq, or why they remain concerned that the latter may return to power. Rather, in listening to the commemorations this past weekend of Ashura, in seeing the lamenting, the frenzied cursing of Shimr and Umar Ibn Sa'ad, the dedication to the wronged leader Hussein himself (shouts of "we stand by you!" even as the story is related of Hussein, crying alone on the fields why there is nobody ready to defend his cause), what surprises me is not at all why the Shi'a are fearful, but why anyone who understands this legend, who internalizes it, who begins to grasp it, would ever think that the Shi'a might see it any differently than they do.
HAH
How did I learn loyalty? The half brother of Hussein, Abu Fadl el Abbas, a cousin of the Ummayyad army's captain, who stood steadfastly by his brother, fighting to reach the Euphrates to bring water to the anguished troops and their wives and children suffering from thirst, continuing to fight with his left hand after his right had been severed by the army. And so do the Shi'a swear on the right hand of Abbas when making allegiance to a particular cause.
Materialism that hollows a man's soul? The army commander Umar ibn Sa'ad, who agreed against his own conscience to take on the grandson of Muhammad, in exchange for fertile land known as the Rayy. Our Judas, bought with the Rayy, rather than twenty pieces of silver. And so do the Shi'a urge one not to sell themselves out, for the control of the Rayy.
Persistence in a hopeless cause, for no reason other than that it is right? Hussein's oldest son Ali the Elder, taunted by the Umayyad troops to come and fight like a man, resembling more than any other the visage of the Holy Prophet, raising his sword before them and shouting, "I am Ali, the son of Hussein, the son of Ali, WE are the nearest to the Prophet of God", and fighting to his death. And so do the Shi'a, when speaking of right over might, invoke the name of Ali the Elder.
Redemption? Ibn Sa'ad's lieutenant Hurr, hearing Hussein speak of the evil that would be wrought if he were killed, and shaking with fear, not, said he, at a man and his 70 companions faced with several thousand Umayyad troops, but because as Hussein spoke, Hurr saw his soul fluttering between the Gardens and the Fire. Choosing the former and defecting to Hussein's side, dying in his cause, his head in Hussein's lap, he heard Hussein say to him, "your name is Hurr (Arabic for free), and so you are free, free from this world, and free forever in the Everlasting." And so do the Shi'a, when talking of the potential to make everything right, tell the story of he who served in an army of evil, and lives now free in the Everlasting.
Thuggery, of the basest kind? Shimr Ibn Jawshan, he "with the hair of a dog and the tongue of a pig" who sat on Hussein's chest and decapitated him, without an inkling of regret or conscience. And so are Blackwater's personnel described by the Shi'a as the children of Shimr.
If you don't understand Kerbala, and I don't mean the historical event, I can't think of anything more pointless than trying to figure out what actually happened during Ashura those many centuries ago, as if that reality has anything to do with modern Shi'a perceptions, I mean that if you can't internalize the wrong, the hurt, the anguish, the beating, the crying, the intense and frenzed emotion of that day, then you can never understand the Shi'a.
Which brings me to a central lesson of Ashura, a central one that might help those less aware of Shi'i perceptions and convictions exactly why the Shi'a, as Iraq's majority, are so suspicious of a Sunni minority that simply has no reasonable opportunity to regain its status as a significant power broker and that has to, though it has not yet, understand as the Kurds have, that it is consigned to minority status for the indefinite future. If the world sees this, then why can't the Iraqis? Specifically for this post, why can't the Shi'a see that their hold on power is permanent, and Sunni control a thing of the past?
I bring us back to Ashura to answer the question, and how Hussein found himself in the predicament he was in on that day in those fields. Muhammad, under Shi'i lore, left leadership of his community on his death to his son in law Ali. There was no doubt of this, it was publicly announced on a Shi'i holiday known as Eid al Ghadeer. Then, while Ali was washing the Holy Prophet's body, his own community betrayed him, and annointed another, the usurper Abu Bakr, to replace him. Only Ali and his loyal partisans (partisans in Arabic is "Shi'a") opposed the usurpation, albeit quietly, and unsuccessfully. The one outrage was followed by two others, the appointment of Omar the second usurper, and Uthman the third, before Ali was finally named caliph, upon which the Umayyad dynasty's founder immediately began a war against him, which he implicitly won when Ali was assassinated by someone unrelated to either side (and I can't introduce that group, the Khawarij, here, another time though). Yazid simply finished the job by killing Ali's son Hussein, on Ashura, at Kerbala.
And so do the Shi'a, on Ashura, curse "the First, and the Second, and the Third, and the Fourth, and Yazid the son of Mua'wiyah Fifth" (As to why the other four, Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman and Mu'awiyah are not named, the answer is quite simple, they are revered Sunni figures, and the idea is to stifle dissent with the majority Sunni world. As an academic, I prefer to describe it as it is.)
And thus does Hussein, in Shi'i lore, deplore the actions of those who have misread the law of the Prophet Moses, those who have falsely declared the Prophet Jesus to be a god in a Trinity, those (the Magi) who worship the sun and the moon, and those who engage in the killing of the son of God's Apostle. Note the equivalence, rendering the Sunni ultimately one of the People of the Book, one who has taken an entirely legitimate message from a Prophet of God (for the Jews, Moses, for the Christians, Jesus, for the Muslims, Muhammad) and distorted it beyond recognition.
So what is the point? Certainly not to engage in a creatively pointless debate about which version is "actually" correct, did Muhammad leave the community in Ali's hands, or did he, as Sunnis would argue, do no such thing and let the community decide on its leader? You may as well argue whether or not Jesus did or did not walk on water--it's a matter of faith, an ideological, ethical, religious choice, and you take your pick (or consider yourself born into one or the other, whatever).
Rather, the point is, consider the implications if one accepts this story. Even when the Prophet speaks, the community stands ready to mangle his message. Even when the community finally chooses the right person, the Prophet's successor Ali, war is made against him by a usurper, and even when Ali dies, his son is then finished off by the caliph. Hussein, wearing the mantle of the Prophet, on his head the turban of the Prophet, carrying the sword of the Prophet, left decapitated on the fields of Kerbala.
Right can't win on its own, in fact it's ready at every turn to be replaced by manglers and usurpers, thieves ready to thwart it, turn it to their advantage and kill its partisans, it's Shi'a. History is replete with these examples, and eternal vigilance, against the Hypocrites, against the thieves, against the community of Muslims ready to destroy Muhammad's message.
What surprises me is less why the Shi'a remain fearful and suspicious of the Sunnis in Iraq, or why they remain concerned that the latter may return to power. Rather, in listening to the commemorations this past weekend of Ashura, in seeing the lamenting, the frenzied cursing of Shimr and Umar Ibn Sa'ad, the dedication to the wronged leader Hussein himself (shouts of "we stand by you!" even as the story is related of Hussein, crying alone on the fields why there is nobody ready to defend his cause), what surprises me is not at all why the Shi'a are fearful, but why anyone who understands this legend, who internalizes it, who begins to grasp it, would ever think that the Shi'a might see it any differently than they do.
HAH
Comments