Hussain’s martyrdom according to Dr. Khalifa.
Dr. Rashad Khalifa sees the tragedy of Karbala as marking
the final stage of the “50” year war. This war according to Rashad’s
revisionist, incoherent, history, was part of the chronologically-problematic
conspiracy theory to add the “false” verses to the Qur’an. Naturally, Dr.
Khalifa must have something to say about Imam Hussain and the tragedy of
Karbala. This paper will explore how Dr. Khalifa will make Karbala fit into the
revisionist history. Since Dr. Khalifa does not say much we can limit the
length of this article.
Dr. Rashad Khalifa mentions Imam Hussain twice in his
Final Testament, Qur’an translation. A reference is made to the grandson of the
Prophet in the Appendix 24 and the Proclamation at the beginning pages of the
translation. In both parts of the book Dr. Khalifa states that the battle of
Karbala marked the end of the 50 year struggle to preserve the Qur’an. He does not tell us more information.
However, Dr. Khalifa has a little more to say (but not much) in an old issue of
the Muslim Perspective from May of 1987. The
front page of the newsletter is titled "THE RESTORATION OF AN
IMPORTANT ISLAMIC TRUTH: IMAM ALI & IMAM HUSSEIN DID NOT FIGHT FOR POWER
They were Martyred Trying To Protect Qur'an."
What “Islamic truth” does Dr. Khalifa have in mind? We
need to summarize what Dr. Khalifa has
to say. The article begins:
“Ali and Hussein gave their lives attempting to remove
two false sentences falsely added at the end of the last Sura revealed in
Medina, namely, Sura Tawbah (No. 9).” Rashad attributed the insertion of 9:128-129
to Uthman’s committee. The insertion of the “false” verses brought about ,”Tremendous turmoil, the Great
Fitnah, followed the injection of the two false verses, and ‘Uthman’s
assassination.”
As we learned earlier, Dr. Khalifa stated that the war
(fitnah) lasted 50 years and culminated in Hussain’s death. It was after this time that Marwan ibn Hakam
destroyed the “original” Qur’an. As Dr.
Khalifa writes in the newsletter, “After the war was settled, and Hussein had
been martyred, the Umayyad Khalifa Marwan Ibn Al-Hakam (who died in the year 65
AH) destroyed the Prophet’s Qur’an” The
rest of the article then asks questions related to the two verses and we do not
hear anything more about Imam Hussain.
Dr. Khalifa commits multiple errors here. Marwan ibn
Hakam died 66 AH and not 65 AH. This error is not a big deal in itself but I
refer the readers the earlier section of this series in which we discussed Dr.
Khalifa’s chronology of events, which we found to be so incoherent that it is
barely refutable. We also listed the problems
with Imam Hussain and Karbala as part of Rashad’s version of events on the spin-doctored
time line. But here in this issue Dr. Khalifa said that the war “was settled”
with Imam Hussain’s martyrdom. As we discussed earlier, the war was far from
settled and Imam Hussain’s martyrdom was the beginning of a second fitnah that
would last another six years. Marwan ibn Hakam would die before the second
fitnah ended. But Dr. Khalifa only mentioned
one fitnah which he claimed began with Uthman’s committee to produce Qur’ans
(but actually began with Uthman’s own assassination.)
Dr. Rashad Khalifa wants us to believe that Imam Hussain’s
martyrdom was a result of the Prophet’s grandson’s attempt to “save” the Qur’an.
How does Dr. Khalifa try to reframe the known history? The only thing Dr.
Khalifa tells us is what he mentions in the title of the newsletter, that Imam
Hussain’s calling was not based on a “fight for power.” But Dr. Khalifa does not tell us any more information.
So by denying that Imam Hussain was fighting for power, Dr. Khalifa thinks that
this will suffice to convince us Imam Hussain was fighting to preserve the Qur’an.
One can legitimately ask if Imam Hussain’s struggle was based on his desire for power. Of course Muslims raised to honor the grandson
of the Prophet, both among the Sunni and Shia, would deny such a conception.
Imam Hussain is considered to be an infallible morally or at least very pious with
no trace of ego according to many people.
Dr. Khalifa may argue (but he does not bother to do so) implicitly based
on the little he has to say that if Imam Hussain fought for power that this
would imply the Prophet’s grandson was hungry for power and egotistical. The
fact is that the historical sources say that Imam Hussain saw the appointed
Caliph, Yazid ibn Muawiya as illegitimate. He also saw himself as the rightful successor
for the Muslim world. In fact Yazid was
viewed as extremely corrupted by many people and illegitimate since he did not
have the backing of important Islamic leader (Hussain being among them.) What would someone concerned about justice
and saving Islam do in such a scenario?
Imam Hussain was a pious Muslim and seen as a legitimate successor because
of his knowledge and relation to the Prophet. Imam
Hussain truly believed that Yazid’s continued rule would mean the death of
Islam and he saw himself as the only one who could religion in such a terrible
state. Anyone is free to disagree with my opinion and
historians are welcome to derive what they want from history. But the mere fact
that someone fought for power does not necessarily imply that they had a hunger
for power any more than it implies they had a true desire to reform society.
Dr. Khalifa’s assertion that Imam Hussain fought power
(which he sees as the reason according to standard history) is stupid and hypocritical.
Earlier, in the June 1986 issue of MuslimPerspective (as we learned in Slander against Ayesha and Rashad’s debacle) Dr. Khalifa tries to defend Abu Bakr based on the slander
made against Ayesha. Here, Dr. Khalifa writes “Abu Bakr was the servant of God,
and closest friend of the Prophet, who was hated most by the early Shi’as.” The whole article was devoted to Ayesha, which
has nothing to do with Abu Bakr. If Dr. Khalifa really believes that Abu Bakr was
the “servant of God” and the “closest friend” of the Prophet then why does he
not try to defend Abu Bakr in his role in the events of banu Saqifah or the so-called
“murtad” wars? Among the Shia, there is
an argument that Abu Bakr was seeking power after the Prophet’s death, at the
expense of Ali, who is viewed as the rightful heir to the Prophet. The event of the banu Saqifah is viewed as
problematic in the Sunni-Shia polemics because it appears Abu Bakr and Umar
were fighting for power. If Dr. Khalifa feels
it is so important to deny the assertion that Imam Hussain was power hungry
then why did Rashad not make such as
argument with regards to Abu Bakr, the man he calls a “servant of God” and “best
friend” of the Prophet? It is evident that Dr. Khalifa lets his unconscious Sunnism
come to light in his veneration towards Abu Bakr at the expense of Imam
Hussain.
Dr. Rashad Khalifa wants us to believe that Imam Hussain’s
fight was about purifying the Qur’an of the two “false” verses. If this is what Dr. Khalifa really believes then
how would Dr. Khalifa explain the recorded history in general? How would Dr. Khalifa explain Imam Hussain’s
problem with Yazid? What was Hussain’s motive to travel to Kufa and why did the
residents of Kufa ask Hussain to go there in the first place? In what way would
we explain the betrayal by the people of Kufa?
What was the motive for Yazid in destroying Hussain and his followers at
Karbala? Would Dr. Khalifa’s followers
argue that Yazid was trying to prevent Imam Hussain from taking
out the two verses (9:128-129) from the
Qur’an manuscripts? Dr. Khalifa is free
to argue his case about the versions of events in history but he has a responsibility
to answer all of these questions above dealing with Imam Hussain. If Dr. Khalifa wants to deny all of the events
he needs to tell us why. Dr. Khalifa has
very little to say and only wants people to believe him at his word as a “messenger
of the covenant.” Dr. Khalifa’s version
of events probably should not even be considered “revisionist” because he
revises nothing and merely makes assertions. Indeed, Dr. Khalifa’s history is almost too
incoherent to even refute.
No comments:
Post a Comment