Who Killed Al-Hussain? (radiyAllâhu ‘anhu)
Part – 5
The Shiites seek to hide their Treachery – 3
It seems from this narration that the tragedy of Karbalâ taught Imâm Ja‘far as-Sâdiq something about those who claimed to be his followers which the Shî‘ah of today are still refusing to come to terms with: that in the trials and misfortunes of the Family of Rasûlullâh (grace, glory, blessings and peace be upon Him) the role of the Shî‘ah was as great, if not greater, than that of their physical enemies. It therefore does not come as a surprise that none of the supposed Imâms after Hussain (radiyAllâhu ‘anhu) ever attempted an armed insurrection against the rulers of their times. Karbalâ had taught them the fickleness and treacherousness of those who claimed to be their Shî‘ah.
It is about them that Imâm Ja‘far is reported to have said: “No one bears us greater hatred than those who claim to love us.” 
Imâm Ja‘far is also reported as having said: “No verse did Allâh reveal in connection with the Munâfiqîn, except that it is to be found in those who profess Shî‘ism.” 
Before Sayyidunâ Hussain (radiyAllâhu ‘anhu), his elder brother Sayyidunâ Hasan (radiyAllâhu ‘anhu) was the victim of the treacherousness of the Kûfans. In his book al-Ihtijâj the prominent Shî‘î author Abû Mansûr at-Tabarsî has preserved the following remark of Sayyidunâ Hasan (radiyAllâhu ‘anhu): “By Allâh, I think Mu‘âwiyah would be better for me than these people who claim that they are my Shî‘ah.” 
When Sayyidunâ Hasan (radiyAllâhu ‘anhu) eventually became exasperated at the fickleness of his so-called Shî‘ah, he decided to make peace with Mu‘âwiyah. When someone protested to him that he was bringing humiliation upon the Shî‘ah by concluding peace with Mu‘âwiyah, he responded by saying:
“By Allâh, I handed over power to him for no reason other than the fact that I could not find any supporters. Had I found supporters I would have fought him day and night until Allâh decides between us. But I know the people of Kûfah. I have experience of them. The bad ones of them are no good to me. They have no loyalty, nor any integrity in word or deed. They are in disagreement. They claim that their hearts are with us, but their swords are drawn against us.” 
Imâm Mûsâ al-Kâzim, the son of Imâm Ja‘far, and the seventh of the supposed Imâms of the Shî‘ah, describes them in the following words:
“If I had to truly distinguish my Shî‘ah I would find them nothing other than pretenders. If I had to put them to the test I would only find them to be apostates. If I were to scrutinize them I would be left with only one in a thousand. Were I to sift them thoroughly I would be left with only the handful that is truly mine. They have been sitting on cushions all along, saying: ” We are the Shî‘ah of ‘Alî (radiyAllâhu ‘anhu).”
If today ‘Âshûrâ will be commemorated as a day of struggle and sacrifice, let it also be remembered as a day of treachery and desertion.
When the names of Yazîd ibn Mu‘âwiyah, ‘Ubaydullâh ibn Ziyâd, ‘Umar ibn Sa‘d and Shamir ibn Dhil Jawshan are mentioned and curses invoked upon their memories, then let us not forget the treachery of the Shî‘ah of Kûfah. The time has long been due for the Shî‘ah to reintroduce into their ‘Âshûrâ ceremonies an aspect that was in fact part of the very first commemoration ceremony of the Tawwâbûn. That lost aspect is the admission of their own guilt, along with that of Ibn Ziyâd, Yazîd and others, in the shedding of the holy blood of Sayyidunâ Hussain ibn ‘Alî radiyallâhu ‘anhumâ.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. The historical material for this study has been taken largely from al-Bidâyah wan-Nihâyah of Ibn Kathîr. The Shî‘î source Maqtal al-Hussain by ‘Abd ar-Razzâq al-Mûsawî al-Muqarram (5th edition published by Maktabah Basîratî, Qum in 1382) was also consulted.
2. See S. H. M. Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shi’ah Islam p. 198 (Ansariyan Publications, Qum, n.d.)
3. The figure of 80 000, given in certain Shî‘î sources, and quoted recently on local radio, is clearly fictitious. Apart from contradicting reliable historical sources, its origin in the emotionally charged hyperbolism of the Shî‘ah is self-evident.
4. Jafri, p. 195
5. ibid. p. 223
6. Muhammad Abû Zahrah, Târîkh al-Madhâhib al-Islâmiyyah, p. 613 (Dâr al-Fikr al-‘Arabî, Cairo, n.d.)
7. al-Kulaynî, al-Kâfî (Usûl) vol. 2 p. 250-251 (Dâr al-Adwâ, Beiru1992)
8. ‘Abdullâh al-Mâmaqânî, Miqbâs al-Hidâyah vol. 2 p. 414 (Mu’assasat Âl al-Bayt li-Ihyâ’ at-Turâth, Beirut 1991) quoting from Rijâl al-Kashshî.
9. ibid. vol. 2 p. 407
10. Abû Mansûr at-Tabarsî, al-Ihtijâj vol. 2 p. 290-291 (Mu’assasat al-A‘lamî, Beirut 1989
11. al-Kulaynî, Rawdat al-Kâfî vol. 8 p. 288
Copied from Mu’uminīna Şādiqīna with thanks by Muhammad Sharif