Asghar Ali Engineer is a rights activist and heads the two organisations, Institute of Islamic Studies and Centre for Study of Society and Secularism. He has authored or edited 44 books on such  issues  as  Islam and communal and ethnic problems in India and South Asia in general.  For links to his other articles, please go to the top page of this site.

            Imam Husain, who laid down his life in Kerbala on 10th of Muharram along with several members of his family to save Islamic revolution, is considered as the greatest martyr in the world of Islam. He is referred to as  shahid-e-Azam (the greatest martyr) in Islamic literature. There is near unanimity on this question among all Muslims – Sunnis as well as Shi`as. Both Sunnis and Shi`as observe 10th of Muharram as yaum-e-shahadat (i.e. the day of martyrdom). However, the Shai`a Muslims observe it somewhat differently than the Sunni Muslims. For the Shi`as it is the greatest tragedy of Islam which occurred within the few decades of the death of the Holy Prophet and so they observe it with the greatest degree of solemnity and weep and do matam (beat their breasts), often with chains and knives. Blood oozes out of their bodies. But some other shi`as do matam with their hands and do not use any external object. 

            There are some controversies about the martyrdom of Imam Husain in the world of Islam which are of general interest also. Some Muslims (a minuscule section, of course) have argued that the Imam should not have challenged the authority of Yazid who had usurped power illegitimately and became ruler of the Muslims. According to this argument Husain was in no position to challenge Yazid who was very powerful and challenging him amounted to throwing oneself into peril. These people base their argument on a Qur’anic verse 2:195 which says, “ Do not throw yourselves into destruction with your own hands”. 

            These Muslims argue that Imam Husain threw himself into destruction with his own hands by challenging a powerful ruler like Yazid. He should have kept silent and thus saved himself and his friends and relatives from sure death. Firstly, the argument is flawed as the verse was revealed in a very different context. According to all commentators of the Qur’an this verse was revealed when some Muslims during the Prophet’s time hesitated to contribute money for preparation for defensive measures against impending battle Allah warned them that by not contributing for preparations for proper defense they are throwing themselves into destruction. Thus the verse is quoted out of context by these people. 

            Now let us examine the argument itself whether it has any merit. If a person feels strongly that something wrong is being done by powerful vested interests or those who wield political power should one silently submit to it just because one is too weak to challenge it and suppress ones own voice of conscience? Or should one challenge the wrong even if it results in sacrificing ones life for the purpose? Do we fight against the wrong after weighing pros and cons or do we fight against the wrong just because it is wrong.? People do draw up strategy with a view to maximise the chances of victory. But that is when the question of gaining or loosing is uppermost in the mind. 

            But if victory is the ultimate aim morality is lost. When one fights for the truth one does not fight for any gain and martyrs are highly valued because they fight for truth and not for any material gain. One has to lay down ones life in defence of truth, otherwise martyrdom will loose all significance. Yazid, like Ravana, represented the forces of evil and it was necessary to challenge him, come what may. Yazid was destroying all that Islam stood for. Islam had given a new morality to humanity, it had restored the sense of dignity among all human beings, had done away with the discrimination of the rulers and the ruled. It had given the message of equality of all human beings and rejected the distinctions between Arabs and non-Arabs, black and white, belonging to this ethnic or that ethnic group. 

            Yazid was restoring all that prevailed before Islam in Arabia, a period referred to as jahiliyah i.e. a period of ignorance. Should the Imam who was grandson of the Prophet (PBUH) have witnessed all this corruption of Islamic teachings and restoration of pre-Islamic practices silently? Should he have allowed pre-Islamic ethnic and tribal pride restored again? Islam had given great importance to weaker sections of society, to the oppressed (mustad`ifun) and Yazid was oppressing the people. Could any person of conscience keep silent? Yazid represented stark materialism and consumerism and
Husain represented spiritualism. Could challenging Yazid in these circumstaces amount to throwing oneself in self-destruction? Is there any difference between self-destruction and sacrifice? Those who keep on calculating the chances of victory and defeat will never appreciate the spirit of sacrifice. Martyrdom, according to the Qur’an ensures eternal life and Husain chose eternal life by defending the truth in Kerbala. And Yazid could opt for eternal damnation.