Islam and Terrorism

By Mirza Mohammad Athar

(Translated by Yoginder Sikand)

Allah, Farid, juhdi hamesha

Au Shaikh Farid, juhdi Allah Allah.

Acquiring Allah’s grace is the aim of my jihad, 0 Farid!

Come Shaikh Farid! Allah, Allah’s grace alone is ever the aim of
my jihad

(Baba Guru Nanak Sahib to Baba Shaikh Farid Sahib)

For my wife Nigar
Translator’s Introduction

Throughout the history of humankind, religion has played a dual role—

promoting justice, solidarity, kindness and compassion in some contexts, and
injustice, conflict, hatred and violence in others. Every religion can be
construed in a multiplicity of ways in order to suit different, indeed conflicting,
agendas. Each religion can be understood and interpreted as a Divine mandate
for peace and justice, on the one hand, and for terror and war, on the other. It is
not so much religion, but, rather, the interpretation of it, that is the fundamental
issue in this regard.

Much has been written about the Islamic notion of jihad. Recent years have
seen a veritable flood of books and other writings on the subject. This owes
principally to the emergence of numerous Muslim outfits and movements in
various parts of the world that claim to be engaged in jihad. Most of them see
jihad as synonymous with armed conflict or war between Muslims and others.
Often, these conflicts are, at root, not about religion per se. Many of them are
national liberation movements launched by Muslim groups against occupying
and oppressive non-Muslim forces or states (as in Palestine, the Southern
Philippines, South Thailand, Iraq and so on). In such cases, Islam serves as a
mobilizing force, as well as a source of inspiration, for such struggles. In
certain other cases, self-styled jihadist outfits are propelled not simply by the
desire for national liberation, but also by a visceral hatred of non-Muslims.
These groups, as well as some national liberation movements that use an
Islamic language, have, in recent years, been responsible for acts of violence
directed against innocent civilians that have taken a major toll. Such acts, that
far exceed the limits that must guide national liberation movements and even
legitimate jihads, as many Islamic scholars would stress, have played a major
role in fanning anti-Islamic sentiments, or what is now known as Islamophobia,
across the world. In turn, this further fuels the fire of Muslim alienation.

The excesses committed by certain Muslim groups and movements in the name
of jihad as well as the mounting wave of global Islamophobia have generated
much misunderstanding about the Islamic concept of jihad. Both radical
Islamists as well as hardcore Islamophobes seem to understand jihad in the very
same way—as a hate-driven doctrine that justifies terrorism and war against
non-Muslims and that aims to establish Muslim supremacy throughout the
world.

As I mentioned earlier, all religions can, and have, been interpreted by those
who claim to follow them to promote peace as well as conflict. It is thus not
surprising that, contrary to what radical Islamists and diehard Islamophobes
might argue, there is no unanimity among Muslim scholars or ulema about the
exact details, rules and laws concerning the doctrine of jihad. Unlike
Catholicism, for instance, there is no established Church in Islam that can lay
down official doctrine. Islamic discourse, as articulated by Muslim scholars
has, therefore, been characterized by considerable diversity, debate and
difference on even many basic issues, including the subject of jihad.
Interestingly, the ulema who provide different, and, on some points, completely
mutually contradictory, understandings of jihad all base these on their own
reading of the same set of texts—principally the Quran, but also the Hadith,
sayings attributed to or about the Prophet, and the books of classical fiqh or
Muslim jurisprudence.

The ulema of different schools of thought who provide divergent interpretations

of the doctrine claim that their respective interpretations alone are truly Islamic,
the corollary being that other interpretations are defective or wholly false. The
question thus arises as to whose interpretation of jihad is truly authentic in
Islamic terms. This is, admittedly, an insoluble problem from outside the realm
of faith. Ultimately, being essentially a question of interpretation, it is
impossible, outside the framework of Islamic belief, to argue that one
interpretation of the many is the sole authentic one and that the rest are faulty.

Notwithstanding the impossibility of deciding from outside the realm of faith

what precisely is the single authentic Islamic understanding of jihad, it is
imperative for those committed to a vision of social justice, communal
harmony, peace and solidarity to understand and highlight those understandings
of the concept of jihad that might conduce to this project and undermine the
appeal of radical Islamists. This is the reason why I decided to translate this
fascinating book, Islam Aur Dehshatgardi (‘Islam and Terrorism’), by Mirza
Mohammad Athar.

It was simply by chance, while visiting a Shia shrine in Lucknow three years
ago, that I came across the book. I skimmed through it, found it interesting, and
bought it. It lay in my library unread till just a few months ago, when I finally
got down to reading it. Once I started, I did not put it down until I had finished.
I decided that this was one book that certainly deserved to be translated into
English, for the benefit of readers who do not know Urdu. I contacted the
author, and he was gracious enough to grant me permission to translate and
publish this text.

Mirza Mohammad Athar, the author of this book, is a popular and highly
regarded Shia scholar and preacher from Lucknow. He is the President of the
newly-formed All-India Shia Personal Law Board. A widely-travelled man, he
is well-known for his public speeches on religious issues, which have earned
him the title of Khatib-e Akbar or ‘The Great Preacher’ in Indian Shia circles.
He is regularly invited by Shia groups in India and abroad during the mourning
month of Muharram to deliver speeches, called majalis, to commemorate the
sufferings (masa‘ib) and martyrdom (shahadat) of the grandson of the Prophet
Muhammad, Imam Husain, and his followers. This incident took place on the
tenth day (Ashura) of Muharram in the year 680 C.E. at Karbala, now in Iraq,
when the Imam and his devotees were slain by the forces of the tyrannical
Caliph Yazid.

Every Muharram, Shias observe the martyrdom of Imam Husain by public and
private expressions of grief and lamentation, including by organising majalis
where the dastardly events of the Battle of Karbala are recounted. In the
Muharram of 2002, Mirza Muhammad Athar was invited to deliver a ten-day
majlis session at the Masjid Iraniyan in Mumbai. The topic he chose to focus
on for this majlis session was ‘Islam and Terrorism’. These majalis were then
put together and published in the form of a book in Urdu by the Hyderi
Kutubkhana, Mumbai, in 2003, which I have translated, with some minor
editing, below. In order to maintain the focus of the book essentially on the
subject that it purports to discuss—the misuse of Islam to legitimise terrorism
and what Mirza Mohammad Athar regards as the authentic understanding of
jihad—I have left out the lengthy sections of each majlis that deal with the
details of the masa‘ib of Imam Husain and his followers.

Delivered a year after the attacks in New York in September 2001, these
majalis seek to deal with an issue that has now assumed central importance in
discussions about Islam and Muslims the world over: the doctrine of jihad, the
Islamic conception of peace and war, and Islamic teachings about the relations
between Muslims and people of other faiths. Cognizant of the alarming
phenomenon of rapidly mounting Islamophobia, Mirza Mohammad Athar
argues that jihad, as he understands it, has nothing at all to do with terrorism.
His critique is directed against both non-Muslims who often equate jihad and
terrorism and, equally, Muslim self-styled jihadists who, through their words
and actions, seem only to confirm the opinion and prejudices of non-Muslim
critics of the doctrine of jihad. He argues that the mistaken conflation of Islam
and terrorism by some Muslims, as exemplified, for instance, in the form of Al-
Qaeda and the Taliban today, is not a new phenomenon. He refers in this regard
to the martyrdom of Imam Husain at the hands of Yazid’s army to argue that
Yazid was one of the first to cynically deploy a devious misinterpretation of
Islam in order to justify tyranny and terrorism that ultimately resulted in the
death of the Imam. Yazid claimed to be engaged in a jihad, but, in actual fact,
says Mirza Mohammad Athar, he was the progenitor of terrorism in the name
of Islam. In contrast, he insists, the true jihad was the valiant defiance put up by
the Imam and his followers against Yazid’s forces for the sake of justice and the
ending of oppression.

Using the persona of Yazid and Imam Husain and the Muharram event as
paradigmatic of a wider struggle among Muslims over the understanding rue
Islam and authentic jihad, Mirza Mohammad Athar develops a fascinating
Islamic critique of terrorism in the name of Islam itself, one, I am sure, that
would find ready appeal among people of all faiths.

Yoginder Sikand

Bangalore

August 2009
 The First Majlis

A series of recent tragic developments have given Islam a bad name, causing
many people to imagine that Muslims as a whole are bad people who have
no respect whatsoever for human life and peace. It is true that behind these
developments as well as the mounting anti-Islamic sentiments the world
over are the hands of sinister politicians, personal interests, international
political machinations and so on. Yet, simply to state the problem is not to
solve it. We must recognize that many people now see Muslims as their
enemies, and that Islamophobia, based on erroneous claims, has rapidly
escalated throughout the world. These are among the various problems that
we are now suddenly afflicted with, and we must seriously consider possible
solutions to them.

We generally take great interest in describing or recounting our problems but

focus little attention to their solutions. For this, we must clearly understand
what Islam really is, what it has forbidden us from, what it teaches us to do,
and what path we must adopt so that we can succeed in solving the
challenges that we are faced with. In this context, we must examine if the
great personages we claim to follow and in whom we have faith have left
behind any guidance for us that is applicable to such a situation as we are
faced with today.

For this year’s 10-day majalis in the month of Muharram, I will deal with
the issue of Islam and terrorism. All religions teach the need for human
beings to seek to understand God. Obviously, for us to fully comprehend
God is impossible. Even if we were to spend a thousand years seeking to
understand God, we would not be able to go beyond a mere drop in an entire
ocean. Naturally, then, God will not ask us if we could fully understand Him
as He is. Rather, what He will ask is if we have understood Him as much as
we could possibly as human beings. In the same way, I recognize that my
voice is feeble and cannot be heard throughout the world. Yet, I should try
and make it be heard as far as I possibly can. For this purpose, I feel it
imperative to present the true Islamic position on the issue of terrorism, for I
feel that Islam, a glorious religion, is being wrongly vilified.

As far as terrorism is concerned, we Shia Muslims have been victims of

brutal terrorism for the last fourteen hundred years. Throughout this long
period, we have been cruelly oppressed. Indeed, we cannot even recount the
stories of many of the heinous crimes that have been committed against us,
for by doing so we might fall prey to those crimes once again.

Today, I will simply introduce the subject, focusing on the following points:
the crimes that have been committed against Islam; the teachings of Islam as
regards war and peace and dealing with people of other faiths; the basic
mission of Islam; and, how politics has subverted that mission.

The month of Muharram is when the name of the great martyr Imam Husain
and his companions are commemorated, and, naturally, it is essential that I
focus on them in my lecture. This is also because it is through the light
kindled by these noble and valiant people that we can truly understand what
Islam is, for without this light we cannot see through the darkness that
characterized the last fourteen hundred years.
The issue of terrorism has an inextricable relationship with the events of
Muharram, for the martyrdom of our heroes at Karbala in the month of
Muharram was a result of terrorism. This incident highlights what religion is
and what politics is. Had these heroes not been martyred we would have
been left without the light to understand the truth. It is this incident that has
provided us proper guidance to understand what true Islam or true religion
is, and to appreciate the teachings of religion and the principles of politics.

Today, I wish to deal with the truth of Islam. From this you can gauge what
true Islam has done for humankind, and how people have sought to twist it
to serve their own personal interests and how rulers and false mullahs have
tried to misinterpret it. You will be shocked to learn how the very spirit of
Islam has thereby been sought to be subverted and used for legitimizing
gross oppression, thereby completely undermining its universal message,
which has been confined owing to the proliferation of numerous sects. God
does not belong to any particular sect. It is not that God has made only some
people and that others have been made by Satan. No, all humans have been
created by God alone. This means that they all belong to God. This is the
universal message of Islam, which has been narrowly confined by the
mullahs for their own political motives.

In actual fact, Islam’s message is for all human beings. It is not restricted by
sect, region, ethnicity, language, race or colour. However, people have not
understood it properly. They have not seen its true face. Instead, for the last
several hundred years, people have seen a sort of ‘Islam’ through the lens of
Monarchy, and so they have not been able to see its reality. Hence, my focus
will be on the true Islam, the Islam that is compatible with human nature and
life, and on how, over the last fourteen hundred years, Islam has been
grossly misused for political purposes. We must identify and recognize the
faces of those who have misused Islam for their political ends. It was this
that led to the oppression, and, finally, the martyrdom, of Imam Husain in
Karbala in the month of Muharram.

As I had mentioned earlier, the topic for this year’s Muharram majlis is
‘Islam and Terrorism’. I have chosen this theme so that our children and
youth do not fall prey to the wrong propaganda about Islam that is so
widespread all over the world today. At the very outset, I must clarify that
my intention is not to abuse or belittle anyone.

The word Islam is related to the world taslim, which means peace. Islam is
peace. It also means submission, to bow one’s head and completely and
unconditionally to submit to God. In other words, Islam’s message is that of
peace as well as total surrender to God. The religion of Islam, the religion of
peace and submission to God, has been taught by all the prophets of God,
from the first of them, the Prophet Adam, to the last, the Prophet
Muhammad. Its focus is on how human beings should lead a proper life,
how to live in peace and security, and how to serve and obey God.

Since all the prophets of God taught the same religion, of peace and
submission to God, it is wrong to brand many of those who follow earlier
religious traditions as taught by prophets prior to the Prophet Muhammad as
kafirs. The image of Islam has been grossly distorted by politics. This is the
main problem that Islam has been faced with, because it is politics that led to
some people being branded as kafirs or disbelievers and others as Muslims
or true believers, some as good and others as evil. And, because the image of
Islam has been thus distorted, people have been unable to appreciate its
reality. Islam became a prisoner of the interpretation of the fake mullahs.
And the fake mullahs were puppets in the hands of monarchs. In the Arabic
language a mullah means one who is knowledgeable, a highly qualified
scholar. But, those who simply dress up like scholars of religion and act as
intermediaries between religion and rulers are derisively referred to in Urdu
as kath mullahs or fake mullahs. Such people do not have proper knowledge
about Islam although they claim to. They simply serve as agents of
monarchs. From its very inception, Islam has had to face the calamity of
such people.

Religion insists that its place comes first and that it must be obeyed at all
costs. Rulers make the same claim. Inevitably, therefore, there is almost
always a clash between religion and politics. Religion sees all human beings
as equal. It makes no special concessions for the rich or for rulers. On the
other hand, rulers want to make exceptions to the rules of religion to suit
themselves, but this true religion will never accept. In this situation appears
the fake mullah, whose task is to twist religion to suit the rulers. Islam has
suffered from this malady from its very first day. In this way, the fake
mullahs have sought to narrow it down, destroying its universal appeal and
message, and sundering it into different sects.

The fake mullahs tried to restrict the message of Islam. But, then, God is not
the Lord of Muslims alone. He is not just the Lord of those who worship in
mosques. God’s true slaves are found throughout the world. But the fake
mullahs sought to conceal this fact. The Quran refers to God as the rab or
Sustainer of all the worlds. But the narrow-minded, fake mullahs sought to
present Him as the Sustainer only of the Muslims. Similarly, the Quran
refers to the Prophet Muhammad as a mercy (rahmat) to all the worlds, but,
sadly, Muslims claim him as theirs alone.

I have, until now, been unable to understand this mentality of claiming God
and the Prophet as belonging only to one’s own community and seeking to
deny access to them to others. This is a reflection of how Islam has sought to
be narrowed down. One factor for this has been the role of Monarchy and
despotism, causing Islam to get a bad name. When Islam was dressed in the
garb of mullahdom, it appeared as badly stained. This was caused by the
nefarious nexus between fake mullahs and despotic rulers.

True religion stresses Absolute Truth, while politics is based on sheer

opportunism. Religion is based on Truth, while rulers typically regard their
own aims as truth. A monarch will never accept being turned into a slave and
sold in the market. But a truly religious person will accept even that, if,
under duress and oppression, he is turned into slave, just as the Prophet
Joseph allowed himself to be sold in the slave-market in Egypt. This did not
make a difference to his prophethood. A ruler will never agree to be tied up
and thrown into a fire. A person who is subjected to this sort of treatment
will not be called a king. But the Prophet Abraham passed through even this
deadly torment and still retained his status of ‘friend of God’. To tire of the
oppression of one’s opponents and flee one’s land in the dark of night is not
something that a king would do. But this is precisely what the Prophet
Muhammad did, despite which he remained an exalted prophet. From these
examples you can understand that while these are not things that rulers will
ever accept, true religion has no problems with them.
This shows that the mentality of religion and politics are diametrically
opposed to each other. There have been very few cases of truly religious
people serving as rulers, and in such cases politics has always had to bow
down before religion. This was the case with prophets who were also rulers,
such as David, Solomon and Muhammad. It characterised the last years in
the life of Imam Ali and a few months in the life of his elder son, Imam
Hasan.

Islam is religion, not government. If Islam meant governmental power, then

the Prophet Muhammad had the greatest right to be conferred with the title
of Emperor. Yet, he was not given such a title. Rather, as we testify when we
pray, the title that he was given was that of ‘slave of God’. This proves that
true religion takes pride in servitude, in humble submission to God, not in
power and ruler-ship. And servitude, or total submission to God, was a
defining characteristic of the Prophet and his family. This servitude reaches
higher and higher stages till such a time comes when God Himself addresses
His slave, instructing the soul that rests in a peaceful state to return to Him
and join the ranks of His true servants. This is precisely what happened
when Imam Husain was martyred in Karbala.
The Second Majlis

As I had mentioned earlier, Islam is a religion of peace. It teaches human

beings to live with each other in peace and to help one another. In fact, it
even exhorts its followers to respect the rights of animals, trees and
inanimate objects. As I had explained yesterday, the greatest tragedy is that
people have failed to understand the reality of Islam. That religion which is
today being accused of fomenting terrorism is not the real Islam, for Islam
has nothing to do with terrorism.

The true Islam is that which is taught in the Quran, and which was explained
by the Prophet Muhammad and Imam Ali.1 Only if we seek to understand
Islam through these sources can we realise what it truly is. While today
governments might rate the life of a single human being as being equal to a
few hundred thousand rupees, Islam assess its value as equal to that of the
whole of humanity. As the Quran says:

We ordained […] that if anyone slew a person—unless it be for murder or

for spreading mischief in the land—it would be as if he slew the whole
people: and if anyone saved a life it would be as if he saved the life of the
whole people (5:32).

Likewise, the Prophet Muhammad declared that he alone can be considered

a Muslim or true submitter to God whose hands and tongue cause no harm to
anyone. He does not oppress anyone, nor does he say bad things about

1
In contrast to Sunnis, Shia Muslims believe that the Prophet should have been
succeeded in his role as leader of the Muslims by Ali, son-in-law and cousin of the
Prophet. According to Shia belief, Ali was the first Imam of the Muslims, and the line of
Imams carried on through his direct descendants.
others. In other words, a true Muslim is he who controls his hands and his
tongue. A person whose hands or tongue are not under control is not a
Muslim.

Imam Ali expressed a similar view. In a letter to Malik Ashtar, whom he had
appointed as Governor of Egypt, he wrote that he would find in Egypt two
types of people: his brethren in faith or fellow Muslims, and others. He was
to help both of them, the former on account of their common faith, the latter
on account of their common humanity. Imam Ali taught us to cooperate with
other human beings on account of our common humanity. This is what true
Islam, as understood from the Quran, the Hadith and the Nahj al-Balagha2 of
Imam Ali, teaches.

But Islam goes beyond this. Today, there are a number of groups working for
the cause of animals, but this was taught by Islam fourteen hundred years
ago. It taught us that we should rather offer water to a thirsty animal than
using it for ablutions before prayers if need be so that the life of that creature
could be saved. In the same spirit, Imam Ali sent letters to his agents
appointed to collect the zakat levy, which also applied to cattle, to treat the
animals under their charge kindly. Some of our Shia Imams even mentioned
animals in their wills, instructing their inheritors to look after their animals
well and feed them properly. Just before being martyred, our fourth Imam,
Zain ul-Abidin, instructed his son and successor Muhammad al-Baqir, to

2
The Nahj al-Balagha (‘Peak of Eloquence’) is the most famous collections of Shiah
Hadith attributed to Imam Ali. It was collected by Seyyed Razi in the 10th century. It is
considered by many to be the epitome of eloquence, a masterpiece of Arabic literature
and, for Shia Muslims, is second only to the Quran.
take good care of his horse, for he had travelled on it 25 times to perform the
Haj, adding that he had never hit it hard.

Islam also respects the life of plants. According to a statement attributed to

the Prophet Muhammad, if a person plants a tree, this action will be entered
into the record of his deeds as a source of merit because a tree provides
benefit to people. Likewise, Imam Ali encouraged people to develop
gardens. He forbade people from cutting down green trees. He also insisted
on due concern for the earth. He instructed that when revenue is being levied
on land, the portion of the revenue that is the due of the land should be given
to it so that it can retain its fertility.

By mentioning all this I want to convey to you what the basic teachings of
Islam are, and what it lays down with regard to human and animal life and
even the earth. These are far as the teachings of the Quran, the Prophet
Muhammad and the Noble Imams are concerned. However, as I mentioned
before, the great tragedy that struck Islam was that it was captured by the
forces of Monarchy and despotism. Hence, the evils of Monarchy were
wrongly attributed to Islam. Islam was captured by those whose aim was to
rule. In this way, those who hungered after power gave Islam a bad name.

After the Prophet Muhammad shifted to Medina, he was blessed with

leadership of the city. But this was not equivalent to governance of the sort
exercised by the despotic Emperors of those times, such as the neighbouring
Sassanian rulers in Iran and the Byzantine kings in the Eastern Roman
Empire. The mosque of the Prophet was built over a small patch of earth. It
had no trace of regal pomp and wealth. Yet, its religious majesty was such
that Monarchy was forced to bow before it. People who visited the mosque
from other lands would go back and report about the Prophet that they had
met a simple and pure soul who wore ordinary clothes and who would sit on
the floor, like any ordinary person, but who had won the hearts of vast
numbers of people, in striking contrast to worldly rulers.

When, at the head of an army some ten thousand strong, the Prophet took
over Mecca, which was then populated mainly by non-believers, he
proclaimed a general amnesty. It was evening when the Muslim army
arrived near Mecca, and so it was decided to spend the night out of the city
and enter it the next morning. To get a view of the army, the Prophet’s long-
standing enemy and chief of the Banu Umaiyya clan, Abu Sufiyan, climbed
up a hillock with the uncle of the Prophet, Abbas ibn Abdul Mutalib of the
Banu Hashim clan, who was a Muslim. Surveying the vast army of the
Muslims that had spread out below, Abu Sufiyan, who was a hardened
unbeliever, addressed Abbas, saying that his nephew, the Prophet, had
become a powerful king. At once Abbas retorted that his nephew was not a
king but a prophet. This is to say that the unbeliever Abu Sufiyan described
as Monarchy what the pious believer Abbas saw as prophethood.

The next morning, when the Prophet and his companions entered Mecca in
victory, Abu Sufiyan hypocritically recited the kalima, the Islamic creed of
confession, to save his life and pass off as a Muslim for his own selfish
political purposes. I am not alone in saying this. This claim has been made
even by well-known Sunni scholars. That marked a major turning point in
Muslim history, when two types of Muslims emerged: those, like Abu
Sufiyan, who sought to use and misinterpret Islam for their own political
interests; and others, like Abbas, who were genuinely and sincerely
committed to Islam’s prophetic mission.
Unless we carefully examine this phenomenon we will continue to fall prey
to numerous misunderstandings. True religion insists that one should not
take to the wrong path under any circumstances, while for those who hanker
after political power whatever enables them to achieve their goals is
considered to be right. Hence, self-styled Muslims who considered Islam to
be all about power and used it as a means to acquire power spared no effort
in twisting it to suit their nefarious purposes. On the other hand, those who
rightly understood its mission refrained from any such actions. In other
words, the moment Monarchy and the lust for power entered Islam, the
moment those whose mission was to grab power began wrongly interpreting
Islam to achieve their sinister goals, the image of Islam began to deteriorate.
This has continued till this day so much so that many people mistakenly
accuse Islam of being synonymous with terrorism.

To counter this image, Muslims must develop and present before others such
character as would win their hearts, and desist from any sort of terrorism.
Till such time as Muslims remain wedded to the history of Muslim kings,
they will not be able to openly denounce terrorism. They must remember
that the period of Muslim monarchies has gone. They must now desist from
identifying themselves with them. Let them live in the real world. Islam has
all the solutions, but provided it is the true type of Islam, not political Islam.
The genuine Islam is that which has no conception of ‘mine’ and ‘yours’,
and is a law and a means to make human beings truly human and to
encourage people to be of service to others and destroy their own egos.

How long will Muslims continue to remain stuck in the memory of Muslim
kings? Till when will they go on taking delight in harping on the history of
Muslim rulers? This is gravely damaging the true Islamic mission.
Extricating themselves from the clutches of the history and the legacy of
Muslim monarchs, Muslims must internalize and present to others, through
their personal example, the noble character of the Prophet.

Islam, as I mentioned earlier, is a religion of peace. When the Prophet

entered Mecca victorious, he held a white flag in his hand. In the past, when
a monarch conquered a city, its inhabitants would hold up white flags to beg
for peace, while the conqueror would vent his anger on the people and
reduce the city to ruins. The Prophet could easily have done that when he
captured Mecca, especially since the Meccans had so brutally persecuted
him and his followers, unleashed numerous wars against them and had slain
many Muslims, including members of the Prophet’s family. Yet, when the
Prophet entered Mecca in triumph, he did not set about taking revenge.
Rather, holding a white flag in his hand he entered the city and declared a
general amnesty for the Meccans, including even for those who had taken
shelter in the house of his inveterate foe, Abu Sufiyan.

But, this noble face of Islam was later distorted by self-styled Muslim
monarchs. This is a tragic story. Monarchs who claimed to be Muslims
started constructing minarets filled with the heads of people they had slain,
laid to waste entire cities, drowned their streets in human blood and turned
human lives into mere playthings. They were wrongly lionized as great
conquerors and heroes, and because of this Islam got a bad name.

As I had mentioned earlier, Abu Sufiyan twisted Islam to project it as a

means for acquiring political power, while Abbas remained faithful to
Islam’s actual prophetic mission. The same issue was played out in the
battlefield in Karbala. By this time, there had emerged two groups among
the Muslims —those who used Islam to grab power, and those who were
firmly wedded to its true spirit and mission. These two groups were
represented at Karbala in the form of the Banu Umaiyya and the Banu
Hashim respectively.3 The tyrant Yazid was from the Banu Umaiyya and
Imam Husain from the Banu Hashim. Yazid was the grandson of Abu
Sufiyan, while Husain was the grandson of the Prophet. Those who
hungered for power, who were vaster in number, were solidly behind Yazid.
Those who remained true to the Prophet’s mission numbered only 72, and
they were with the Imam Husain. But, hundreds of years after the Battle of
Karbala, the former have now all been forgotten, condemned by history,
while the latter, who were cruelly martyred, are still remembered, loved and
commemorated till this very day.

3
According to tradition, the Umayyad family (also known as the Banu Abd-Shams) and
the Prophet Muhammad both descended from a common ancestor, Abd Manaf. The
Prophet descended from Abd Manaf via his son Hashim, while the Umayyads descended
from Abd Manaf via a different son, Abd-Shams, whose son was Umayya. The two
families are therefore considered to be different clans (those of Hashim and Umayya,
respectively) of the same tribe (that of the Quraish). However Shia historians claim that
Umayya was an adopted son of Abd Shams, and so he was not a blood relative of Abd
Manaf and that he was later discarded from the family. The bitterness between the
Umayyad and Hashimite clans carried on throughout the Prophet’s life, and the Meccans’
opposition to the Prophet was led by Abu Sufiyan, leader of the Umayyads, father of
Muwaiyah, who is said to have hypocritically converted to Islam to save his life and was
later to become the first hereditary Sunni Caliph. The Prophet’s conquest of Mecca, while
overwhelming for the Umayyads for the time being, further fuelled their hatred towards
the Hashmites; this would later result in battles between Muawiyah and Imam Ali, and
then the martyrdom of Imam Husain along with his relatives and friends on the orders of
Yazid at Karbala.
The Third Majlis

Islam is a religion, or what in Hindi is called dharam, but, unfortunately,

some people converted it into government, power and despotism for their
own vested interests. When these people grabbed power they wrongly
claimed that their rule was synonymous with Islam. And, when they went to
war they wrongly declared that they were engaging in jihad. Because of this,
they were spared any blame, while Islam got a bad name.

To repeat a point I had made earlier, Islam is the religion that was preached
by all the 1,24,000 prophets that God had sent to various peoples all over the
world, beginning with the Prophet Adam and ending with the Prophet
Muhammad. The aim of this religion was to establish peace and security in
the world, to make people proper human beings and to establish a virtuous
society free from oppression. But this mission was sabotaged by those who
used a distorted version of what they wrongly called ‘Islam’ to bless and
legitimize their tyrannical rule. And so, when their political empires began
expanding, when they began building opulent palaces and tall towers and
filling their coffers, people were falsely led to imagine that it was Islam that
was thereby being strengthened and glorified. And, when these empires fell,
historians wrongly described this as the fall or decline of Islam.

But, in actual fact, this was no decline of Islam at all, for Islam remained the
same. The prescribed number of daily prayers, the number of days specified
for fasting in the month of Ramzan, the rules governing Haj, the number of
chapters in the Quran and so on remained the same. So did the truth of the
Prophet and the Unity of God. All these did not change or decline in the
least. How, then, can it be said that the collapse of the Muslim empires
represented the decline of Islam? This false claim is made because people
wrongly equated the rise and flourishing of Islam with the emergence and
spread of Muslim political power and Muslim dynasties. Islam cannot
decline, for it is a truth, and truth never declines. If all the human beings of
the world were to become good Muslims, it would not represent the rise of
truth or of Islam, but, rather, the rise of human character. Similarly, if all
humans turn immoral, it would not represent the decline of Islam or of the
truth, but, rather, the decline of human character. Thus, one can neither say
that Islam experienced a rise nor a fall.

It is wrongly claimed that the Prophet spread Islam with the Quran in one
hand and an unsheathed sword in the other. But, undoubtedly, there were
monarchs who wrongly claimed to be Muslims and misinterpreted Islam to
expand their political realms. In actual fact, the Prophet spread Islam
through the Quran, and his mission was carried forward by the Ahl ul-Bayt,
his family. When people let go off the Ahl ul-Bayt, their hands grasped
naked swords and wrongly shed the blood of innocents, including of the Ahl
ul-Bayt themselves.4

The basic problem is that the actions of self-styled Muslims were mistakenly
taken to represent Islam. True Islam did not spread by the sword, but, rather,
through the character of the Prophet and the Ahl ul-Bayt. They won the
hearts of people through their character. True religion aims at changing
people’s hearts and minds, and this cannot come about through force. The

4
This is perhaps an oblique reference to the Sunnis in general or to some extremely anti-
Shias among the Sunnis.
mission of religion can never be to change anyone through force. The Quran
very clearly states that there can be no compulsion in matters of religion.
People can be guided only by convincing them of the difference between
right and wrong. This is what Islam teaches. After distinguishing between
right and wrong, Islam leaves it to the free will of every individual to choose
which path he or she wishes to adopt.

Since Islam does not countenance coercion in matters of religion, wherever

such coercion exists one can be sure that this is not as a result of true Islamic
teachings. True religion exists where freedom of conscience exists. This
principle was well illustrated in the battle of Karbala. On the one hand was
the tyrant Yazid, who had assembled an entire army to seek to force Imam
Husain and his followers to accept him as the leader of the Muslims. On the
other hand was Imam Husain, who granted his followers to freely go where
they wanted, and even to leave him if they so desired. The former
represented irreligiousness, the latter the spirit of true Islam.

Friends! There is no question of any sort of force being used in Islam to

compel people to believe. Islam cannot be identified with tyrannical Muslim
monarchies or the lust for power. Yet, and unfortunately, tyrannical
monarchs have routinely raised the banner of Islam for their own protection.
By using a religious garb, they were able to instill fear in the hearts of
people, and scare them with the threat of hell-fire if they disobeyed them.
They falsely claimed to be the ‘Shadow of God on Earth’, and instructed
people not to go against them, for this, they claimed, would earn for them
God’s wrath. All this was because these rulers wanted to protect their own
selves.
Friends! You will find in Islamic history two types of characters: one, those
who, when Islam is being attacked, stand up to take the blows on themselves
in order to protect the faith; the other, those who, when faced with attack or
threat, shield themselves with Islam, so that Islam is attacked but they are
saved.

Numerous descendants of the Prophet were brutally slain while trying to

defend Islam. Their killers, who resorted to terror in the name of Islam, did
so simply in order to save themselves. Why was the noble Imam Ali, who
was faithful to God and the Prophet, and who served the needy and the poor,
killed? Why did many people bear enmity and hatred towards him? This was
because he was a faithful follower of the Prophet and foiled the attempts of
the Prophet’s enemies to kill or harm him simply because he exhorted people
to give up idolatry and to worship the one God instead. The truth of the
matter is that people began opposing Ali because he had protected the
Prophet from their attacks. Those people sought to attack the Prophet simply
because he proclaimed the one God, He alone who is worthy of worship.
And, to stir up hatred against Ali, the friend of God, these people began
delivering speeches against him in the mosques, in Friday sermons and in
public gatherings.

This is the crux of a long and bloody story. Islam is viscerally opposed to
Monarchy and despotism. And that is why many members of the family of
the Prophet were brutally slain by tyrannical rulers who falsely claimed to be
Muslims. These members of the Prophet’s family were noble people of high
character, who dealt kindly even with their enemies. But they were
slaughtered simply because, following true Islamic teachings, they opposed
monarchical despotism, which tyrannical rulers wrongly sought to legitimize
as Islamic. This is the tragedy that Islam has for long faced.

If Yazid, the murderer of the Imam Husain, had simply called himself an
Emperor, it would have been an entirely different matter. An Emperor can
claim to follow any religion. He can belong to any community. He who
grabs power can call himself an Emperor. The character of an Emperor is not
taken as a model for people to emulate. Even today there are numerous
Muslim monarchs, but no Muslim considers them models to follow or
imitate. The question arises as to why Yazid, who had become a monarch,
went on to declare himself to be the Leader of the Believers (amir ul-
muminin) and the Caliph of the Muslims (khalifat ul-muslimin) and
demanded that his name be taken in the Friday sermons in the mosques.
Why did he want to force Imam Husain to accept him as the amir ul-
muminin and the khalifat ul-muslimin, as the leader of Islam and the deputy
of the Prophet? Had Yazid been accepted as such, what would have
happened to Islam?

In actual fact, it was Ali who was the amir ul-muminin and the khalifat ul-
muslimin, because he was designated as such by the Prophet himself.5 He
had made great sacrifices for Islam and served the Prophet faithfully. But, in
a short span of fifty years after the passing away of the Prophet, the
tyrannical forces of monarchical despotism, represented by Yazid, played a
cruel game. Yazid was known for his irreligious ways, for his regular bouts
of drinking, for grabbing the wealth of the poor, and so on. When such a
5
Shias believe that Ali was robbed of his legitimate right of being the first successor to
the Prophet, his place having been taken by Abu Bakr, whom the Sunnis regard as their
first Caliph.
debauch and cruel tyrant claimed to be the leader of the Muslims, you can
imagine what others might think about ordinary Muslims. How can we ever
accept the sort of Islam that Yazid stood for and represented? If the shariah
was what Yazid championed, how can anyone ever hope for salvation? We
must rise above the party-line and critically examine this issue. How could
anyone ever consider Yazid to be the amir ul-muminin, the khalifat ul-
muslimin, the successor of the Prophet? How can one consider the sort of
Islam that he championed to be the true Islam? No, the true Islam was that
championed by the men he was so viscerally opposed to, Imam Husain and
his followers, who numbered just 72, and who were brutally slain by Yazid
and his army for championing the truth and speaking out against Yazid.
The Fourth Majlis

As I had earlier mentioned, some ambitious people sought to convert Islam

into a doctrine of despotism in order to suit their own purposes and even
resorted to terror, for which Islam was wrongly blamed. These people falsely
claimed to be working for the cause of Islam. When they grabbed power
they blessed it as ‘Islamic’, and when they set out to wage war they falsely
claimed to be engaged in jihad. This represented a gross misuse of religion
for promoting the personal interests of these tyrants.

Lamentably, this tradition continues even today. Consider, for instance, the
wrong uses of the term and concept of jihad. Many people have misused the
notion of jihad for promoting their own interests. When some countries went
to war with others they labeled their wars as jihads. And there are those
foolish ones who constantly raise slogans of jihad, thereby giving Islam a
bad name. It is tragic that the Muslim world remains silent on this misuse of
the concept of jihad. It is the duty of the leading Muslim ulema to openly
declare that this is not jihad at all but, rather, actually a means for some
selfish people to promote their own interests. Yet, sadly, even these leading
ulema remain silent.

Friends! Sometimes one thing gets so muddled up or mixed with another

that is becomes very difficult for people to understand a particular matter.
When a person fights against another, he seeks an excuse or a support for his
action. For instance, suppose I have a plot of land, and my neighbour starts
building a wall along the line dividing my land from his. I begin to fear that
the wall might take up six inches of my land, and so I start fighting with
him. I cannot garner much support if I fight in my own name. At the most, in
that way I can get the help of a few family members and some friends. Many
of my friends might refuse to come to my assistance, thinking it to be none
of their concern. So, at once I change my strategy. It so happens that my
neighbour is a non-Muslim and I am a Muslim, so I immediately start raising
Islamic slogans. I start crying out hoarse, ‘Oh Muslim brothers! A non-
Muslim is grabbing the land that belongs to a Muslim.’ And, in this way, I at
once succeed in turning the matter into a religious battle. Because of my
appeals to Islam, Muslims rush to my rescue. Then, they start shouting
Islamic slogans and in a short while they come to imagine that Islam itself is
under threat. And so, what started off as a dispute over six inches of land
becomes a massive battle involving Islam. All because my six inches of land
were under threat, and I converted it into an issue of Islam being allegedly
under threat. I dragged Islam into the whole affair simply to save those
measly six inches of land! And, in this way, I was able to attract hordes of
Muslims to rush to my assistance.

In precisely the same way, people have converted their own personal
conflicts, disputes over property, power, politics and governance, into what
they project as Islamic causes or issues. Islam has earned a bad name in
exactly this unfortunate way.

Friends! Let me clarify the distinction between war and jihad. Jihad is a
form of Islamic worship and service of God. Jihad does not simply mean
wielding a sword and attacking the enemy. The first stage of jihad is to
engage in battle against one’s baser self or ego. This sort of jihad should
happen on a daily basis, from the moment one awakes to the moment one
goes to sleep at night. Early in the morning, one is woken up from slumber
by the muezzin’s call to prayer. One’s heart says, ‘Go back to sleep’, but
one’s inner voice insists, ‘Get up and say your prayers.’ At once a jihad
starts. What the heart says is the utterance of the army of the disbelievers;
what the inner voice suggests is the suggestion of the army of Islam. The
battlefield of this jihad is one’s body. The jihad continues. If one goes back
to sleep, the Muslim is defeated and disbelief is victorious. If one gets up
and prays, the flag of Islam flies high and disbelief is vanquished.

Islam tells us that Muslims must first engage in jihad against the evils within
our own selves, against bad habits, against the habit of lying, against the
habit of not praying regularly, against engaging in acts that God and the
Prophet have forbidden. This jihad is called the jihad al-nafs or the struggle
against the baser self. First vanquish your own baser self and become a true
Muslim. After this, you can ascend to the second stage of jihad, that of
sacrificing one’s wealth, the jihad-e maal. Human beings love wealth and
money. Give up that love, and spend your money instead on building
mosques and Imambargahs6, water fountains for the public, assisting orphans
and widows and the poor. This is the second type of jihad. If you sacrifice
your wealth in this jihad-e maal for causes such as these you have
succeeded. If you do not, you have failed in your jihad.
The third jihad is the ‘jihad of the sword’ or jihad ba-saif. A true jihad of this
sort can never be offensive. It can only be defensive, fought in defence when
one’s religion is being attacked. If the attack is not on Islam as such or if the
attack does not pose any threat to Islam, fighting back in defence cannot be
called a jihad.

6
Also called a Hussainiyah, an Imambargah is a congregation hall for Shia ceremonies,
especially those associated with the remembrance of Muharram.
One must here make a crucial distinction between an action that might be a
threat to Muslims and that which might threaten Islam. The two are very
different. Islam is the name of a religion, and Muslims are those who follow
that religion. Always maintain and recognize the difference and distinction
between these two words ‘Islam’ and ‘Muslims’. As an Indian, I can say that
if all the Muslims of India were to be slaughtered, it is true that Muslims
would thereby be under threat, but even after this it would be wrong to claim
that Islam was under threat.

Friends! Jihad of the sword can only be waged when Islam, as distinct from
Muslims, is under threat. Islam is the religion preached by the Prophet
Muhammad. If we Muslims all die, still the religion of Islam will remain. It
can never die. Hence, one must use the phrase ‘Islam is in danger’ very
carefully, and not in a loose manner, as is often the case. And, it must not be
forgotten, jihad by the sword can be engaged in only to defend Islam, if the
need so arises, and not for any offensive purpose.

Let me illustrate my point with the help of some examples from the life of
the Prophet. The Prophet engaged in several jihads, the most famous of
which are the jihads of Badr, Uhud, Khandaq and Khaibar.7 The norms
governing jihad must be based on these four major jihads in which the
Prophet participated, because the Prophet’s actions exemplify Islamic
teachings. Now, as emerges from his conduct in the course of these jihads,
true Islamic jihad does not allow for killing innocent people or for
humankind to be disgraced. Jihad is not a naked display of raw power.

7
These are various battles fought by the Meccan pagans against the Muslims, led by the
Prophet.
Before every jihad the Prophet explicitly commanded his followers never to
initiate the fighting, and to restrain from war as long as their opponents
remained peaceful. He ordered them that in the course of jihad they must
never hunt down any opponent fleeing from the battlefield, never kill the
injured, never rob woman of their modesty, and never harm children. He
instructed them to provide protection to their opponents if they sued for
peace, and not to kill them. A true Islamic jihad must abide by all these rules.

Look at the matter from another angle. Carefully examine the jihads of Badr,
Uhud and Khandaq. These three jihads were fought in the vicinity of
Medina. In these instances, the disbelieving Meccans had marched all the
way towards Medina in order to attack the Muslims. This clearly shows that
these jihads were fought by Muslims in defence, in the face of the offensive
actions of the disbelieving enemies. They were by no means offensive wars.
The case of the battle of Khaibar was slightly different. In this case, the
Muslims went all the way to Khaibar from Medina because the disbelieving
enemies had holed themselves up there and had started killing Muslims one
by one. If the Muslims had not marched to Khaibar, the disbelievers would
have continued killing Muslims. In other words, in order to quash this
challenge to peace, the Muslims were forced to head to Khaibar to take on
their enemies. This cannot be considered an offensive war unleashed by the
Muslims.

In order to properly appreciate the philosophy of jihad, one must consider

various developments that occurred in the course of these battles. In the
aftermath of the Battle of Badr, the Prophet agreed to release the Meccan
prisoners of war if they were able to pay a certain sum for their freedom.
Those who were unable to pay this sum but were educated were to be
granted freedom if they could spend a year teaching Muslim children how to
read and write. The job of a teacher carries much prestige. A teacher can
even beat his students. A teacher exercises an enormous influence on his
students’ minds. It is a mark of the great importance placed on education in
Islam that the Prophet allowed for even non-Muslim enemies to teach
Muslim children and gave them the honored status of teachers. In fact, these
non-Muslims had physically engaged in war against Islam and the Prophet.
Those prisoners of war who could neither afford the ransom nor teach
children were to be given freedom after a year doing physical labour.

The Battle of Uhud also powerfully highlights the fact that jihad does not
mean to wield a sword in one’s hand and go about indiscriminately killing
others. During the battle, Ali, who was then a young man of a little more
than 26 years of age, confronted a powerful enemy. Ali asked him to accept
Islam, but the man refused. Yet, Ali did not draw out his sword. This shows
that religion is not another name for emotionalism. Rather, true religion is
based on reason and careful thought and deliberation. Wild emotionalism has
no place in true religion. Hence, when the man refused to accept Islam, Ali
did not rush to kill him, for the Quran very clearly states that there can be no
compulsion in religion. Had Ali slain the man on the spot, it would have
meant going against this Quranic dictum.

In response to the man’s reply, Ali said that he was free to accept or reject
Islam. That was a matter of his own concern. Then, he offered the man a
second option—that he and Ali both would desist from fighting or
oppressing each other, that they would both continue to freely follow the
religion of their choice and that, if the man’s heart refused to accept the
Prophet, he was free to do so. But the man refused even this offer, and
insisted that he would slay Ali. This man was a member of an army that had
waged an offensive war against the Muslims. He consistently rebuffed Ali’s
offer of what, to use a contemporary phrase, can be called a no-war pact.
After this, naturally, the time came for the man and Ali to physically
confront each other.

It so happened that Ali was seated on a horse while the man was standing on
the ground. The man said that they could not fight in this way and that Ali
must dismount from his steed. Ali willingly did so. Then, the two began
fighting. In a short while, Ali lopped off the man’s legs with his sword.
Then, when the man fell on the ground, Ali pounced on his chest. Just then,
the man spat on Ali. Instead of retaliating at once, Ali got up from the man’s
chest, although one might have thought that he should have chopped the
man’s head off at that very moment.

The people who had gathered around were surprised at Ali’s behaviour. They
were shocked that although Ali had succeeded in overpowering such a
powerful enemy, he had released his hold on him by lifting himself up from
his chest. They complained to the Prophet, saying that Ali had made a very
grave mistake. The Prophet replied to them saying that they should ask Ali
to explain his action himself when he returned.

The people saw Ali walking around, but, after some time, he went back and
slew the man. Later, when he was asked why he had jumped off the man’s
chest when the man had spat on him, he replied that the man had insulted
him by spitting on him, and that this had kindled his anger. He leapt off the
man’s chest at once, for if he had slain him then the action might have been
motivated by his own personal desire or emotion. That would have nullified
the jihad that he was engaged in as a form of worship and service to God, for
if worship gets tainted by the urgings of the baser self it is no longer engaged
in for the sake of God alone. And, if war is engaged in for the sake of
exacting personal revenge it does not qualify to be considered as jihad. What
Ali was engaged in was jihad, not war. He leapt up from the man’s chest so
that his jihad was not tainted by the urgings of the self. This clearly explains
the philosophy of jihad. The man whom Ali killed was armed with costly
armaments, but Ali did not carry these off with him, or even touch them,
because this was not a war, but a jihad fought in God’s way, in order to earn
His pleasure. That is what a true jihad is, not a war that aims at amassing
wealth and power.

Friends! The battles engaged in by the Prophet and Imam Ali were true
Islamic jihads, not the wars blessed as jihads by fake, self-styled ulema.
Those who slaughtered Imam Husain were not engaged in any jihad
whatsoever, contrary to what they claimed, for the Islam that Yazid stood for
was not the true Islam.
The Fifth Majlis

Friends! A true Islamic jihad is one that is fought solely in the path of God.
It is a form of worship. It is regulated by certain rules and regulations, as is
specified in the Quran. In our Shia community, a declaration of jihad can be
made only by the Infallible Imam (imam-e ma‘sum), and, if the Imam is in
occultation (ghayba)8, the leading living Islamic jurisprudent (marja-e
taqlid) has the prerogative of doing so. Thus, not everyone has the right to
declare jihad. And, then, those who have the right to do so can do so only at
the right time. Thus, the Prophet felt it was not advisable to engage in jihad
while he was still in Mecca, and so he refrained from it. Later on, in Medina,
he felt the time for engaging in jihad had come, and he did so. On the
occasion of the Treaty of Hudaibiyah9, he felt that the time for jihad was not
ripe, so he put his sword aside. In the Battle of Hunain, he felt jihad was
required, and so he unsheathed his sword. After the demise of the Prophet,
Imam Ali felt that it was not the time for jihad, so he put his sword back in
its scabbard, but when, at the Battle of Siffin, he felt the time for jihad had
come, he took out his sword. Similarly, when, after Imam Ali, Imam Husain
felt the time for jihad had passed he desisted from fighting, but when, at
Karbala, he knew the time for jihad had come, he drew out his sword.

Not every war fought by Muslims is a jihad, despite what may have been

8
The Ithna Ashari Shias, the branch which most Shias, including Maulana Mirza
Muhammad Athar, belong to, believe in a chain of twelve Imams from the family of the
Prophet starting with Imam Ali, the last of who, Muhammad Ibn al-Hasan, is believed to
have gone into occultation in 872, and will return as the Imam Mahdi, along with Jesus
Christ, towards the end of times to establish peace and justice throughout the world.
9
The treaty took place between the Muslims of Medina and the Quraish of Mecca in 628.
claimed about them. Wars fought for political power, for wealth and status,
cannot be considered to be jihads. Weapons and violence are used both in
war and in jihad, but there is a crucial difference between the two. Some
things are illegitimate in jihad but are permissible in war, and vice versa.
Thus, when Ali got up from the chest of his opponent, it was something
demanded by religion but not by the rules of ordinary war. It is crucial to
understand the difference between war and jihad so that the minds of those
who constantly raise slogans of jihad can be cleansed and cleared. In this
way, they can realize that not all wars that Muslims engage in are legitimate
jihads.

True mujahidin participate in jihad in the hope of martyrdom, not for the
sake of saving their lives. Such a true mujahid was Ja‘far, elder brother of
Imam Ali, who participated in the Battle of Muta’ and was martyred. When
his body was found it was discovered that he had received deadly numerous
blows on his chest, but none at all on his back. As long as he remained on
the battlefield he kept advancing forward, never turning back. This is how a
true mujahid is, a man who does not escape in order to save his own life,
but, rather, actively searches for his own martyrdom. I am making this point
because my heart is heavy at the thought that very often people raise fiery
slogans of jihad but do not observe its rules. If he was truly engaged in jihad,
why did he flee from the battlefield so that even now people are still
searching for him?10

Jihad is that battle wherein the mujahid offers his own life to God. Swords
are wielded both in war and in jihad. People lose their lives in both. When a
Probably a reference here to Osama bin Laden, who, along with his Deobandi Taliban
10

and Wahhabi supporters, is said to be notoriously anti-Shia.

man stabs another with a knife, he tears his body, causing loss of blood.
When a doctor performs an operation he also uses a knife-like object and
cuts the body of the patient, who loses some blood. Yet, the two actions are
entirely different. The former action is illegal, the latter legal. The former is
a punishable crime, while the latter is something laudable.

Friends! War can be likened to stabbing someone with a knife, and jihad can
be compared to an operation or surgery performed by a doctor on a patient.
When an attacker stabs an innocent person, he does not care to ensure that
the knife he wields is sterilized and that it will not cause his victim to fall
prey to tetanus or that his wound will not become septic. Rather, he stabs
simply in order that his victim should die. He will not hesitate to use an old,
rusted knife for this purpose. On the other hand, when a doctor operates a
patient, he makes sure that the scissor or knife that he uses is properly
sterilized. He undertakes to operate the patient only when he feels there is no
other way to cure him. Only a qualified surgeon can decide whether a patient
needs to be operated upon or not. Ordinary people, who have no proper
medical knowledge, no matter how many they may be, cannot decide this,
but this single qualified person can.

So, as I was saying, it is only a surgeon who can decide about undertaking
an operation on a patient. But, before he begins the operation, he checks
several things, such as the patient’s general condition, whether or not he is
suffering from diabetes and various other problems, and so on. Both the man
who stabs another person as well as the doctor cause slits in a person’s body,
but while the former stabs indiscriminately, so as to cause his victim to die,
the latter wields his instrument carefully, gently tearing only that much skin
on the patient’s body as is needed to make the operation successful and
enable the patient to survive and be healthy. While the murderer uses an
instrument to kill a person, the doctor uses it to save a person by cutting off
that part of his body that has caused his illness.

From this analogy it will be clear that true jihad is like the work of a doctor.
It aims at saving humanity, not destroying it. It aims at removing that part of
the body that causes the entire body to suffer grievous illness and threatens it
with death. By removing that part, the rest of the body can survive and
thrive. From this analogy you can understand that true Islam does not aim at
destroying innocent people in the name of jihad, but, rather, to provide relief
and succor to humanity, like a doctor does. And, just as only a qualified
surgeon can decide whether to operate upon a patient or not, in the Shia
tradition only one of the Noble Imams can decide whether or not jihad
should be waged.

The model jihad is that fought by Imam Husain at the Battle of Karbala in
the month of Muharram. In this battle, the grandson of the Prophet fought
till his death to save Islam. Imam Husain explained, in practical terms, the
philosophy of true jihad at Karbala, when he and his small band of followers
valiantly fought the huge army of the tyrant Yazid, the despotic ruler of a
vast empire. The night before the war began, Imam Husain told his followers
that they were free to leave him and go wherever they wanted to. But, they
refused, saying that they were ready to sacrifice even their lives for the
cause. After the war of Karbala, Yazid was dumped in the dust-bin of history,
and everyone now recognizes him as a monster. The world has not witnessed
a true jihad again after the jihad of Karbala waged by Imam Husain and his
followers. The wars that were waged thereafter in the name of jihad were
mainly for the sake of acquiring power and for conquest and territorial
expansion, and so these were not legitimate jihads.

My message to the Muslims is that if they truly love Islam, they must not
behave in a controversial manner. Instead, they must present and abide by
Islam as taught by the descendants of the Prophet. To non-Muslims, my
appeal is that if they sincerely wish to understand true Islam they should
search for it not in the Islam of monarchs and despots, but, rather, in the
Islam of the martyrs of Karbala. My message to both Muslims and others is
that the Battle of Karbala in the month of Muharram represents nothing but a
war against terrorism. For, thousands of terrorists had gathered together
under the banner of Yazid at Karbala in the name of Islam, and they were
exposed by Imam Husain. He proved to the world that the Islam that they
championed was not the true Islam. This Yazid’s soldiers also proved
through their brutal actions on the battlefield, including against members of
the family of the Prophet, the cruelties of which are still recounted by people
fourteen hundred years after the event.
The Sixth Majlis

At the battlefield of Karbala, Imam Husain’s innocent six month-old child,

Ali Asghar, was dying of thirst. He had not had even a drop of water to drink
for three days. The small band of Imam Husain and his followers had been
cut off from water supplies by the enemy army. Taking him in his arms,
Imam Husain approached Yazid’s forces, asking them to let him get some
water for the baby otherwise it would perish. But, those brutal tyrants
refused, and one of them, a man called Harmala, pierced the innocent child’s
throat with a deadly arrow and he died.

It is one thing for a single individual to be bad, but it is an entirely different

matter if an entire society supports him. When Harmala killed the baby Ali
Asghar, the entire army of Yazid remained silent. They did not protest. This
shows that Imam Husain was not set against just a single Harmala but,
rather, an entire vast army of terrorists identical to Harmala who had
camouflaged their faces under the veil of Islam. They falsely called
themselves the Army of Islam, but their actions had actually nothing at all to
do with Islam. That is why Ima Husain’s struggle in the Battle of Karbala
constituted a jihad, because if the religion upheld by Yazid and his followers
was accepted as Islam and this claim went unchallenged, Islam itself would
have been in grave danger. That is why Imam Husain sacrificed his life, in
order to explain to the world the true philosophy of jihad as struggle in the
path of God and against brutal oppression and terrorism as represented by
Yazid and his followers. The Imam was willing to even face the death of his
infant son but would not allow Yazid and his supporters to give Islam and
jihad a bad name. Through his practical example at Karbala, Imam Husain
taught us that jihad is not a war for wealth, power and booty, not a means for
instilling fear and terror in people, not a path for territorial expansion and
conquest. Rather, as the Imam showed, jihad is a means for upholding the
supremacy of God’s way, to sacrifice one’s life for God, to defend oneself
when under attack but not to engage in any form of oppression while doing
so.

Islam does not permit or approve of oppression and terrorism. It does not
allow for people to be terrorized by fear. Instead, Islam strives to establish
peace. People have been subjected to terror on account of many things—
poverty, colour of their skin or whatever—but Islam declares itself the
protector of all, including slaves, the poor, the weak and people of dark skin.
It boldly announces that the strong cannot oppress and terrorise the weak,
that free men cannot terrorise slaves, that white men cannot terrorise black
men. But, when monarchical despotism sought to twist Islam to serve its
nefarious ends, the situation underwent a drastic transformation.

Friends! Let me elaborate, based on the teachings of the Quran, as to how

Islam has forbidden terrorism. A crucial distinction must be made here
between terrorism, punishment in retaliation and struggling for one’s rights.
Terrorism is oppressing innocent people. Revenge or retaliatory punishment
is to give the criminal the punishment that is due to him for his actions. So,
if I murder an innocent person I should be punished for the crime. This is
what the Islamic law of qisas or retaliation says. But, if my brother is
punished instead of me for the crime that I have committed, it would
constitute terrorism, oppression and injustice. Islam stresses that the
oppressor must be suitably punished for his actions, but in no way should
innocent people be punished for them. That is why the Quran says that no
person can bear the burden of another’s actions. That is to say, if I have
murdered somebody, my brother cannot be held responsible for the crime
that I have committed. If I am killed because I have killed someone else, that
is to be considered as the punishment that I deserve. But, if my brother is
killed because of my action, it would be tantamount to terrorism.

This point is also made by Imam Ali in the Nahj al-Balagha. When Imam
Ali was brutally attacked while praying in the mosque, because of which he
later succumbed to his wounds, he made out a will, which is included in the
Nahj al-Balagha. Addressing the sons of his grandfather Abdul Mutalib, he
wrote, ‘O people of Banu Abdul Mutalib. If I do not survive this wound and
I meet my death, do not take up the sword against innocent people, saying
that the leader of the believers has been martyred. Beware! Do not touch any
innocent people. In retaliation for my death, take action only against the
person who attacked me and no one else’.

This is the true Islamic approach, which Imam Ali announced to the world
fourteen hundred years ago. To kill innocent people was the way of the
inveterate foes of Imam Ali, of despotic rulers, not of true Muslims.

To his son, Hasan, Imam Ali instructed on his death-bed, ‘My son, Hasan! If
I survive this attack I have the right to deal with my attacker in any which
way I deem fit, and if I die then you should slay my attacker with just one
blow. Do not administer two blows, because he has delivered just a single
blow on my head, not two.’
This well exemplifies the Islamic principle of justice and fair-dealing, even
for a murderer.

I wish Muslim thinkers would present all these facts about true Islam before
the world so that the misunderstandings that many people have about Islam
could thereby be dispelled. It is time for Muslims to decide whether they
want to remain faithful to Islam or to mere human beings. They have to
choose one of them. As a result of various developments, including the
emergence of various terrorist movements in the name of Islam, we Muslims
have earned a bad name, and others look at us with hatred. Muslims
constantly repeat and claim that they have been made the target of
conspiracies hatched by others. My point is that this is because Muslims
have abandoned the path of Imam Ali, the ‘Lion of God’.11

All the religions of the world teach good values. They aim at moulding good
human beings. Yet, bad qualities inhere in most persons, even though most
people claim to follow some religion or the other. But this does not mean
that if a Muslim commits a robbery, the action should be called ‘Muslim
robbery’. If a Hindu commits a robbery it will not be called ‘Hindu robbery’.
That is to say, robbery has no religion, and nor does a robber or a murderer.
A robber is a robber, a murderer is a murderer. If a Muslim commits a
murder, the act will not be called ‘Islamic murder’. If a Hindu commits a
murder, the act will not be called ‘Hindu murder’. No, a murderer is a
murderer, and it is wrong to associate his act with the religion that he claims
to follow. The same applies in the case of terrorism. A terrorist is a terrorist,
and to associate him with any religion is wrong. Everybody who commits

11
A reference probably to the Sunnis in general or, at least, to extreme anti-Shias among
them.
terrorism must be condemned, but terrorism should not be associated with
any religion. But, then, the question arises as to why people so often use the
phrase ‘Islamic terrorist’.

The international media routinely refers to what it calls ‘Islamic terrorism’.

Muslims cannot evade the issue simply by claiming that this is because the
media is an enemy of the Muslims and that is why it uses such terms. Of
course, it is true that this could be one factor. I do not deny this. But there
could be something else behind it. While looking out for external causes, we
also need to introspect and search within to see if there is something wrong
with Muslims that lends weight to the anti-Islamic propaganda. We must
admit that we, too, have committed certain wrongs that have given an
opportunity to others to criticize and condemn us. It is an undeniable fact
that some self-styled Muslim organizations and movements that are indeed
engaged in terrorism use the name of our Prophet Muhammad or some other
such Islamic terms as part of their names, in order to falsely claim Islamic
sanction for their acts and thereby bring into their fold potential supporters.
They resort to Islamic-sounding labels and false religious arguments to win
support for themselves. Consequently, Islam gets blamed for their misdeeds
and earns a bad name. This is something that we Muslims must deeply
ponder over.

Besides this, Muslims must reflect on what sort of character they actually
present before others. We must not get swayed by passionate emotionalism,
heated rhetoric and empty sloganeering by self-styled mujahidin. To do that
would reflect a lack of serious understanding of Islam.
Friends! It is true that the Indian Muslims suffer several problems, which
may be different from those faced by Muslims at the global level. For this,
we must seek guidance from the character of the family of the Prophet, the
Ahl ul-Bayt. If some people12 on account of a long-standing dispute13, do not
wish to do this, let them instead emulate the example of the Sufis, who
preached the message of love. We all have noble role models to emulate
such as these. Present and follow the models of renowned Muslim scholars
and intellectuals. But why do Muslims take such interest in the character of
Muslim conquerors instead of such personages?

Friends! My complaint is that, unfortunately, Muslims have accepted as their

heroes conquerors like Mahmud Ghaznavi, Salahuddin Ayubi, and
Aurangzeb. These people were concerned with acquiring political power for
themselves. Mahmud of Ghaznavi, who attacked India several times, did not
engage in any sort of jihad in the path of God, although he might have
claimed so. Rather, he was motivated simply by the desire to conquer India
for himself. Nor did Salahuddin Ayubi walk the path of jihad for the sake of
God, for he was responsible for the destruction of the Shia Fatimids in
Egypt. Likewise, the Indian Mughal ruler Aurangzeb was responsible for the
destruction of the Shia kingdoms of Golconda and of the Shia Qutbshahis in
the Deccan. So, my appeal to Muslims is that they must seriously ponder on
this issue of who they have wrongly come to consider as their heroes. It is
wrong to accept people like these as heroes, getting swayed by spurious
claims and arguments, which then forces Muslims to later regret their
foolishness. So, Saddam Husain, who was responsible for the death of

A reference probably to some Sunnis.

12

A reference probably to Sunni differences with the Shias on the matter of the Ahl ul-
13

Bayt.
literally thousands of Muslims and Islamic activists, suddenly became the
‘hero’ of the Muslims!14 Is this not absurd? Where are the Muslim
intellectuals who should explain these issues to the people? Islam is not so
cheap that those who claim to follow it should blindly consider just about
anybody who speaks in its name to be its hero.

The true Islamic philosophy cannot be understood from those who have little
grounding in it. So, how can just anybody who claims to speak in the name
of Islam be considered a hero of the faith? And, then, is it not stupid that
when this person himself faces a threat, Muslims start imagining that it is
actually Islam that is threatened? Does this not greatly tarnish the fair name
of Islam? Does this not cause Muslims to hang their heads in shame? My
appeal to Islamic scholars, the ulema, is that they must come forward and
reform the thinking of the Muslims, and teach them the true principles of
Islam. Sadly, today Islam has become so cheap that in a cricket match if a
Muslim batsman scores a six, Muslims start raising Islamic slogans to
celebrate! Today, things have fallen to such deplorable levels that the truth of
Islam is seen as being decided through a mere cricket or hockey match! We
must admit, with full honesty, this nefarious game that is being played with
Islam. We must seriously introspect as to how Muslim thought has so badly
deviated. To get ourselves out of this situation, Muslims must seek
inspiration from the Quran, from the life and teachings of the Prophet, from
the character of true men of God who related with love and compassion with
non-Muslims too.

14
The reference here is to many Sunni Muslims who regarded Saddam Husain, who was
responsible for the death of a large number of Iraqi Shia, including leading Shia ulema, as
a hero.
We have two aspects of the Prophet Muhammad’s life before us. The first
relates to the Meccan period of his life, when his followers were few in
number, vastly outnumbered by his opponents. The second relates to the
Medinan period of his life, when his followers greatly outnumbered his
opponents in Medina. The Prophet’s behaviour in both phases of his life are
a model and inspiration for Muslims. If Muslims live in a country where
they are in a minority, they must seek inspiration and guidance from the
Meccan phase of his life. Where Muslims are in a majority, they should
emulate the Medinan phase of his life. The Meccan phase of the Prophet’s
life teaches us not to change or dilute our faith despite being marginalized
and bereft of political power. The Medinan phase of the Prophet’s life
teaches us that having political power must not lead us to oppress others.

Let me cite an instance from the life of the Prophet in Mecca, when his
supporters were much less in number than his opponents. An old woman
would throw garbage on top of the Prophet every day when he passed under
her house. The Prophet did not react. He would simply lower his gaze and
walk ahead. He did not fight with her. Nor did he change his route. It could
be argued that fighting with her was not possible given the precarious
situation that the Muslims were faced with then. But, had he chosen to, he
could have changed his route. Yet, he did not do this. If he had done this,
how would he have succeeded in finally guiding that woman? So, he took
the same route, day after day, and met with the same treatment at the
woman’s hands.

It so happened that, one day, when the Prophet was passing under the
woman’s house, she did not throw garbage on him. The next day and the day
after that, too, the woman failed to appear. Surprised, the Prophet asked
someone what had happened to the woman, and was told that she was sick.
At once, the Prophet went to her house to enquire about her health.
When the woman saw the Prophet coming to her house, she feared that he
was set on taking revenge on her, and said so to him. Putting her fears at
rest, the Prophet replied that he had come to find out how she was doing.
The woman doubted what he said, but, when she saw that he was not
scolding or beating her, she believed him. She felt ashamed of how she had
treated the Prophet for so many days. Her heart melted, and she pleaded with
him to instruct her in the faith of Islam, for she had realised from his
behaviour towards her that he was indeed true.

Friends! The reason why I cited this instance from the life of the Prophet
was to impress upon you that true religion spreads only through noble
actions and character, through tolerance and large-heartedness, not through
anger and hatred. Let the Muslims of India learn from this example from the
life of the Prophet in Mecca.

Let me cite another instance, this time from the life of the Prophet in
Medina. This was a time when the Prophet had made numerous disciples and
had won numerous victories. At this time, it so happened that a group of
Muslims came across a poet who used to write poems mocking the Prophet.
They bound him up and brought him before the Prophet, telling him that
they had caught a man who routinely vilified him. Thereupon, several
Companions of the Prophet offered to slice the man’s tongue off, but this the
Prophet refused to allow.

Just then, Ali appeared on the scene, and the Prophet instructed him to cut
the man’s tongue off. Ali took the man out of the mosque and untied his
hands and feet. A camel belonging to Ali was standing nearby. He told the
man to mount the camel and escape as soon as he possibly could. The man
did so, fleeing in a hurry. Some people then went to the Prophet and
complained to him about Ali’s action, saying that he did not cut off the
man’s tongue, but, instead, had given him a camel and enabled him to
escape. They wanted the Prophet to get furious with Ali. However, the
Prophet smiled, and said to them that they would not be able to understand
what he had actually instructed Ali to do, although Ali had properly
comprehended his order and had rightly acted upon it.

So touched was the poet by the treatment meted out to him by the Prophet
that he appeared before him the next day and accepted Islam at his hands. He
told the Prophet that he had not been able to sleep for even a moment the
previous night, having spent the entire night writing a poem in praise of the
Prophet. He asked the Prophet for permission to read out the poem. The
Prophet gave his consent. The man stood up and read out the poem. That is
how that tongue of his that used to vilify the Prophet was ‘cut’, and, in its
place, the man ‘received’ the tongue that praised the Prophet.

Friends! These examples that I have cited should inspire you to follow the
noble example of the Prophet. Muslims should present and reflect good
morals and character, rather than dreaming of or recounting conquests made
by past Muslim rulers. These conquests were, in actual fact, not made for the
sake of Islam, but, rather, for promoting the personal interests of these rulers.
These conquests did not promote or help Islam at all. Rather, they promoted
or helped only despotic Monarchy. If Muslims have any concern for Islam,
they should be inspired by, and reflect in their own lives, the example of the
oppressed, the most noble instance of which was the martyrdom of Imam
Husain and his followers at Karbala.
The Seventh Majlis

Friends! As I mentioned earlier, Islam is a religion of peace and security. It

insists on respect for the life and property of all human beings. It has no
relation whatsoever with oppression, injustice and terrorism. Please
understand Islam as a religion. Understand it through the Quran, through the
teachings of the Prophet and the character of the Ahl ul-Bayt. Only then can
you understand and appreciate true Islam.

The biggest tragedy that Islam has faced is that rulers have routinely referred
to their regimes as ‘Islamic’. They tried to justify all their deeds, even
heinous actions, through appeals to Islam. Naturally, then, Islam earned a
bad name. And, this sinister political game of manipulation of Islam
continues unabated even today, causing Muslims and Islam to be vilified.
The only way out of this is for Muslims to understand and abide by the true
teachings of Islam. It is their duty for them to communicate true Islamic
teachings to others through noble character. That is what Islamic mission
really is. It is not, contrary to what some groups believe, to wear a cap and to
keep one’s pants above one’s ankles and set out on tours to do missionary
work.15 No, Islam should be communicated to others through one’s own
personal example, by impressing them by one’s noble character, by
trustworthiness in one’s dealings and work, by always upholding the truth.
Then only will people begin to admire you, and so you can explain to them
that you abstain from wrongdoings because the Prophet also abstained from
them. You can then tell them that your good deeds and noble character are

15
Probably a reference to the Sunni Deobandi Tablighi Jama‘at movement, known for its
hostility towards Shias.
because the Prophet whom you follow always performed good deeds and led
a noble life.

Respected Friends! If you truly want to serve Islam, then serve it through
noble character and actions. Islam is not a religion of terrorism. Islam is not
a religion of obstinacy, fanaticism and polemical wars. Islam is not a religion
of anger and hatred. Unfortunately, however, the actions of Muslims have
given Islam a bad name. This has given the enemies of Islam an opportunity
to vilify Islam. Please think seriously over what I have just said.

Friends! There is no room for extremism or compulsion in religion. The

Quran very clearly states, ‘There shall be no compulsion in religion’. The
path of true guidance has been clearly distinguished from that which leads
people astray. The role of religion is to inform people that a certain path
leads to goodness and another path to evil. It then leaves it entirely up to
people to freely decide which path they want to choose. This clearly means
that no one can be forced to accept Islam. No one’s house can be burnt down
in order to prove the superiority of Islam. No one can be shot dead in order
to prove the truth of Islam. Those who commit such deeds in the name of
Islam are grossly misusing Islam. They are defaming Islam.

Friends! Whether it be Islam or any other religion, the moment extremism

and compulsion creep into a religion it blows up into a major danger, an
enormous threat. Politicians then begin to work in tandem with people who
regard themselves as religious leaders in order to cynically misuse religion
for their nefarious purposes. We have seen this tragedy repeatedly taking
place all over the world. This still continues even today. Extremism in the
name of Islam, oppressing innocent people in the name of Islam, is not true
religion. It is not Islam. It is politics, pure and simple. It is the lust for power.
We must remember that whenever extremism and oppression have been
sought to be legitimized by unscrupulous, power-hungry people in the name
of Islam, our religion has received a bad name.

In recent years, some groups have been engaged in acts of terrorism in the
name of Islam. We must be clear that this is not true Islam. Is prohibiting
education Islam? Is imprisoning women Islam? Is oppressing people Islam?
Is dealing harshly and cruelly with people Islam? 16 No! Definitely not! How
can this be when the Prophet Muhammad is himself referred to as rahmat al
il alamin or ‘mercy unto all the worlds’?

Friends! This is the complex problem that we are today confronted with. I
am constantly repeating the same points because I want Muslims to realize
that it is their duty to present the glories and truth of Islam before the entire
world, to impress upon them that Islam does not sanction oppression,
coercion, extremism and terrorism. We must recognize, as some important
Sunni scholars also have, that, following the death of Imam Ali, despotic
monarchism consistently sought to infiltrate into Islam, posing a grave
danger to it.

Friends! When Islam was turned into an instrument for bolstering Sultanic
despotism it was the duty of Islamic religious leaders17 to openly declare that
Islam had nothing whatsoever to do with the actions and behaviour of these
16
Probably a reference to the fiercely anti-Shia Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
17
Obviously, what is meant here are the Sunni ulema.
Muslim Sultans. However, for some strange reason that I cannot fathom,
they did not care to distinguish the actions of rulers, like the Umayyads, the
Abbasids and other Muslim kings and Sultans, from Islam.

The Prophet Muhammad engaged in missionary work for several years. He

announced his prophethood at the age of 40, and continued his missionary
work till he passed away at the age of 63. This means that he spent 23 years
doing missionary work, at the end of which the whole of Arabia turned
Muslim in his own life time. He won over the hard-hearted Arabs in such a
short time. On the other hand, Muslims ruled India for almost a thousand
years. Yet, the majority of Indians did not accept Islam. Why was this so?
This was because what was spread in Arabia by the Prophet in those 23
years was true Islam, and what did not manage to spread much in India in a
thousand years was because it was politics in a pseudo-religious garb that
was sought to be spread by Sultans. If you read history you will realize that
some Muslim rulers engaged in terror and oppression and even built tall
minarets filled with the skulls of people whom they killed. We Shias are the
worst victims of this sort of terrorism in history. Was not the murder of
Imam Ali while he was praying in a mosque terrorism? Was not the brutal
slaying of children and women by soldiers, who were enemies of Imam Ali,
terrorism?

When the image of religion becomes unduly harsh and people begin to think
in a very narrow and restricted way, it becomes a grave danger to that
religion. Religion is supposed to create gentleness, not harshness. But, when
religion is misinterpreted, it causes people to become harsh and cruel. They
become selfish and insular, even hostile to others. This happened early in the
history of Islam, starting with the emergence of the Khawarij 18, who upheld
an extremely distorted vision of Islam. They took the name of God and the
Prophet and they also read the Quran. But theirs was a distorted form of
Islam. They considered everyone but themselves to be kafirs, including even
Imam Ali himself. Imam Ali tried to reason with them but they refused to
listen, and, after that, they fought against him at the Battle of Nahrwan. The
Imam fought them because they proved themselves to be a danger to Islam,
for, in actual fact, what they upheld was not religion. Rather, they were
enemies of religion who had donned a religious garb.

When Imam Ali ordered his followers to fight the Khawarij, some of them
stopped and said to him that those whom he had commanded them to fight
were reading the Quran. See how the Quran and the Hadith can also be
misused! Imam Ali answered his followers, saying that it was true that the
Khawarij were reading the Quran, but that the Quran had got stuck in their
necks and would not go further down than that. In this way, Imam Ali
highlighted the fact of how some people will not hesitate to misinterpret
Islam for their own nefarious purposes.

Friends! Try and objectively survey the present conditions of the Muslim
world. If you honestly do so, you will have to admit that today the entire
worldwide Muslim community is drenched in blood. There is bloodshed and
war going on in Palestine, in Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Yet, despite the
fact that we Muslims are ourselves drenched in blood, we continue to blame
only others for our plight. We must now also introspect and look within our
own selves to honestly gauge to what extent we, too, are responsible for this
18
The Khawarij (literally ‘Those who Went Out’) is a general term embracing various
Muslims who, while initially supporting Imam Ali, later rejected him. They first emerged
in the late 7th century, concentrated in today’s southern Iraq.
tragic fate. We need to identify and admit our weaknesses. We need to
understand the mistakes we have made and continue to make.

Friends! My intention in saying all this is to inspire us Muslims to reform

ourselves, not to promote strife. I want the message to go out to the world
that Islam is spotless. If anyone is to blame, it is the Muslim rulers, who, in
actual fact, have nothing to do with Islam. How long will Muslims continue
to go along with political manipulations that are actually destroying their
religious objectives and responsibilities? How long will they continue to
remain toys in the hands of those who manipulate them? It is true, as I said
earlier, that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism, so it is tragic when one
hears of Muslims condemning other Muslims as kafirs19 or even killing other
Muslims. They do not even desist from slaughtering other Muslims while
they are praying in mosques simply because they follow a different sect,
stupidly imagining this to be a great service to Islam. What sort of Islam is
this? What sort of religion is this? Today, the Muslim world is passing
through a very dangerous phase. Yet, despite all these dastardly acts,
people’s eyes have not yet opened.

Because we Shias are in a minority, we have consistently been the victims of

terrorism and extremism for the last fourteen hundred years or so. Our story
is that of a people whose blood has been shed on a massive scale by
oppressors. I do not want to recount that tragic story here, but my question
is: Does Islam not have even that basic tolerance as to bear ideological and
sectarian differences?

19
A reference to the many Sunnis who consider Shia Muslims as ‘unbelievers’.
Friends! I do not want to delve into our history. I simply want to stress that if
anyone wants to know what true Islam is, he or she must not seek to do so
by looking at Muslims, because there are both good as well as bad Muslims.
There are murderers among Muslims as well as hapless victims of murder.
There are oppressors among Muslims as well as victims of oppression. If
anyone wants to understand Islam, he or she must not seek to do so by
examining the life and character of Muslim kings and rulers, past and
present, because kings and other rulers always seek to promote their own
interests. If you truly want to understand Islam, do not try to do so through
the actions, lives and behaviour of Muslim Sultans and conquerors, because
they used Islam for their own interests. They sought to legitimise their
despotism with a so-called ‘Islamic’ garb so as to prevent people from
opposing or rising up against them. It is just like if I want to commit a crime,
I capture a mosque and start living there. Outside the mosque, I put up a big
banner, announcing that this is a mosque. So, when Muslims see the banner
they will pass by the mosque with respect and awe. Hence, I can carry on
with my nefarious plans without any hindrance while sitting comfortably in
the mosque.

Friends! Many Muslim rulers unfurled banners of ‘Islam’ of this sort in

order to deceive people and win their loyalty, using this to carry on with
their dirty political intrigues. Consequently, Islam has received a bad name.
That is why it is now incumbent on the Muslims to themselves understand as
well as to explain to others what true Islam actually is. They must speak out
against the misuse of Islam, or other religions for that matter, for political
purposes, for it can only result in conflict, destruction and bloodshed. It is
wholly wrong to mix religion and politics. I do not suggest that Muslims
should stay away from politics altogether. Muslims must actively participate
in politics to ensure, protect and promote their rights. But, please do not mix
religion with politics. Do not play the religious card. Sadly, this practice
continues today unchecked, reducing religion into a mere plaything.

Friends! I must frankly state that many Muslims severely lack tolerance for
others. This is completely against the Quranic dictum that lays down, ‘Unto
you your religion and unto me my religion’. Islam thus clearly states that we
should respect the right of everyone to follow the religion of his or her
choice. This means that non-Muslims should not be troubled or oppressed on
account of their religion. If Muslim Sultans flouted this Quranic law, the
blame lies with them, not with Islam. Is it, then, not a cruel irony that despite
the fact that the Quran insists on religious tolerance, even for non-Muslims,
we Shia Muslims, who accept God and the Prophet Muhammad, are being
targeted and attacked by extremists?20

Friends! This terrifying persecution is sought to be justified by a particular

interpretation of Islam that first emerged in a holy land21 and that is now
taught in numerous madrasas in a country neighbouring India.22 This version
of Islam has caused much destruction throughout the world. Advocates of
this version of Islam inflict cruel punishments on other Muslims who
express their reverence for holy personages in a way that they do not
approve of. What sort of Islam is this that forbids people, Muslims and
others, from worshipping according to their religious precepts? The Prophet

20
A reference here to anti-Shia Sunni extremists.
21
The here is to Wahhabism, which is fanatically anti-Shia, and which owes its inspiration
to Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (1703-92), who was born in what is today Saudi
Arabia, where the Muslim holy cities Mecca and Medina are located.
22
A reference probably to Pakistan.
Muhammad allowed non-Muslims freedom to worship in accordance with
their beliefs. Then why do these Wahhabis not allow followers of the
Prophet, the Shias, who are Muslims, to pray according to their religious
rules? Muslims must reflect on this ideology that underpins much of the
conflict and strife that now prevails in large parts of the world today. Where
will this ideology take them? What must be done to combat this vicious
campaign of hatred launched against Shias that goes to the extent of even
branding them as ‘non-Muslims’ and ‘unbelievers’?23

We Shias do not need a certificate from these people to prove that we are
Muslims. They may keep declaring us to be kafirs. Okay, even if we are
really kafirs, when did we ever ask them to certify us as Muslims? Our
problem is really unique: Some people are angry with us because we are
Muslims. Others are angry with us because we are, in their view, kafirs. As
the saying goes:

The narrow-minded mullah thought me to be a kafir, while the Brahmin

thinks I am a Muslim.

We Shias are, as I said, victims of a strange tragedy. We are a minority that is

being attacked from both sides. We are those Muslims who refuse to believe
in terrorism in the name of religion. That is because our history is that of
spreading our faith by sacrificing our own lives rather than by taking the
lives of others.

Friends! Every year we commemorate the martyrdom of Imam Husain,

grandson of the Prophet and son of Ali and Fatima, the daughter of the
23
A reference to fiercely anti-Shia Sunni groups.
Prophet, in the month of Muharram. The Imam sacrificed his life to protect
the glory of Islam. By giving up his own life, Imam Husain saved Islam. He
did not do this by killing anyone. No, he saved Islam by sacrificing himself
and his 72 companions at the Battle of Karbala. Our Islam is one that leads
us to sacrifice our own selves, not one that exacts or causes the sacrifice of
others.

The criminal oppressors who fought Imam Husain and his companions at
Karbala heaped all sorts of barbarities on them, even on helpless infants.
They even blocked their drinking access to drinking water. Can this be
called Islamic behaviour at all? Was it not actually naked terrorism? Was not
the resistance put up by Imam Husain at Karbala a battle against extremism
and terrorism?
The Eighth Majlis

Friends! Religion and political domination are two different things.

Unfortunately, some Muslim rulers misused Islam for their own purposes.
Because of this, Islam got a bad name, as the crimes committed by these
rulers were wrongly attributed to Islam itself. Rulers have always used
religion as a shield to cover up their crimes and to protect themselves, their
power, privileges and status. This has been the story of Muslims for fourteen
hundred years. So, today how can we discern what true Islam is? How do we
distinguish between religion and political domination?

I have a very simple solution to this complex puzzle. And that is: true
religion is where there is tolerance, soft-heartedness and compassion for
other human beings. Contrarily, if innocent people are killed, if the weak are
oppressed, that is not true religion. Rather, it is political domination,
although it might use a religious garb to legitimize such crimes. It is not true
religion, although its proponents might claim it to be such, because true
religion can never tolerate oppression and exploitation. God wants people to
be secure, to preserve human life, freedom and peace. God does not seek the
destruction of human life.

God is our Creator, and true religion belongs to Him. First understand God
and then you can understand what Islam really is. God loves His creatures.
You can call Him by various names—Allah, Bhagwan, God, Parmatma or by
whatever other name you want, it is all the same. He has created us all, and
He is the maker of true religion. If you want to understand God, try and do
so by reflecting on your mother. A mother plays a similar role to that of God
in some ways. When a woman becomes a mother, she becomes a reflection
of some of the attributes of God. God is the creator of the newborn child,
and He uses the mother to bring the child into the world. God provides food
to the child, using the mother as the means for this. God is the Most
Merciful One, and the mother reflects some of this mercy in her behaviour
towards her child. God is the Sustainer, and the mother nourishes her child.
A mother is not just a woman. Rather, she is a character, a set of attributes.
She is the first to agree to the requests of her child, and the last to refuse and
get angry. Even if all other people in the neighbourhood and within the
family get cross with the child, the mother will not. She will continue to
shower her love on her child and protect it. Even if she loses her temper, her
heart soon melts and she embraces her child in her arms.

Now, the mother’s heart was made by God, and He has emptied an entire sea
of love into her heart. This being the case, will not God be even more
compassionate towards His creatures than a mother, who is also His
creation? Yes, certainly. Naturally, then, the religion that truly comes from
God must also be grounded in compassion, love and mercy. In contrast,
religion contrived or distorted by those who lust for worldly power will be
grounded in oppression, extremism and cruelty. Everyone must ponder on
this matter, not just Muslims alone. Let everyone choose whether to adopt
and follow the religion of Allah or Bhagwan or God or, otherwise, the
religion of politicians. If you want the religion of Allah or Bhagwan or God,
you will find it in the shade of compassion, mercy and love.

Friends! A major tragedy that struck Islam was that while it was the religion
of God, politics reduced it into the religion of the mullahs. God is Absolute
Mercy, an ocean of compassion that can never be emptied. But,
unfortunately, we Muslims completely lack this understanding in our
dealings with others. We doggedly refuse to tolerate any differences. We
want to impose our views and force others to hold the same opinions as we
do. And, if someone disagrees even very slightly with us we get inflamed.

Friends! One of the major reasons for the problems that Muslims are today
afflicted with is a certain strand of thinking that has developed in Islam that
is extremely intolerant. I do not want to hurt anyone’s sentiments. I respect
everyone’s feelings. But, still, I must respectfully submit that if you believe
something to be correct, you are free to follow it, but please do not try to
forcibly stop others from believing what they feel is right. I do not say that
you must do what I order. No, you do what you feel is right, but let me also
do what I feel is right. God has not appointed you as a ruler over me to
decide if what I am doing is right or wrong. If what I am doing is right, God
will reward and bless me for it. If what I am doing is wrong, I will be
punished by Him for it, not you. At the very most, you can simply suggest to
me that in your view what I am doing is wrong. Your responsibility stops
there. To seek to force people to agree to your religious views grossly
violates the Quranic dictum that there is no compulsion in religion.

Friends! Please ponder on the fact that true Islam upholds religious tolerance
and acceptance. It lays great stress on ethics and morals. Yet, some people
have invented an alien school of thought and have given it an ‘Islamic’
label,24 and an entire country25 is now devoted to promoting this school. And,

24
A reference to Wahhabism.
25
A reference here probably to Saudi Arabia.
in a second country,26 madrasa students are being reared on this ideology,
which insists that, besides its adherents, all people others are kafirs. This
tragic development is giving Muslims a bad name the world over.

To repeat a point I have made several times before, there is no room for
oppression, terrorism and extremism in true religion. A truly evolved person
is he who understands and appreciates the worth of human life. What is the
use of a religion that does not preach humanity? What is the use of a religion
that exhorts its followers to kill others, to wage war against others, to burn
others to death? Lamentably, in our age religion has come to be commonly
deployed as an instrument to protect rulers and help power-hungry
politicians. It is the poor who suffer most from this sinister manipulation of
religion. And, then, there are those who fervently believe that they alone are
following God’s path, and that the rest of humankind shall be thrown into
the fires of Hell so that just a few people —they themselves—can relax in
heaven.

Friends! This sort of mentality that has developed is proving to be a great

danger to Islam. This ideology is based on the belief that all those who do
not subscribe to it are kafirs, doomed to perdition in Hell. This reflects a
completely warped interpretation of Islam. The true religion of God, as I
said before, can be found only where there is love and goodwill towards
others. Where views are sought to be forced on others, through coercion,
extremism and oppression, it is definitely not God’s religion. Rather, it is a
political gimmick in the name of religion.

26
A reference probably to Pakistan.
This brings me back to the question of true jihad. The sword wielded by
truly religious people alone is qualified to be called jihad. Jihad is
inseparable from love. Jihad is like a mother who takes her child for
treatment to a doctor when he is ill. The child might even need to have an
operation. There is no enmity at all involved in this. The mother arranges for
the operation in order to save her child’s life. So, if some of the Infallibles—
the prophets and the Shia Imams—wielded the sword, it was because of
their concern for humanity, an expression of love, and not out of hatred.

Friends! If you want to truly understand the love that underlies true jihad,
consider the conduct of Imam Husain, who expressed love even for his foes
who fought with him at Karbala, who denied him and his followers water to
drink for three whole days, who slew his children and other members of his
family. This is a reflection of the fact that true religion is based on justice,
and so when a true jihad is waged it observes the principles and rules of
justice.
The Ninth Majlis

Friends! I have been constantly stressing the need to distinguish between

religion and politics, between Islam and the wrong interpretation of Islam.
We need to ponder over some crucial issues. What is true Islam? Does Islam
allow for the killing of innocent people? Does Islam consider human blood
like water? Does Islam exhort its followers to kill everyone who differs from
them? There is nothing at all to suggest that such heinous actions are
sanctioned by the Quran, the Prophet and the Ahl ul-Bayt. So, if anyone
commits such terrible deeds in the name of Islam, it means that he is
defaming Islam, that he is not a Muslim, and that he is excommunicated
from the Muslim fold. It is crucial that the ulema of Islam stand up and
announce this boldly to the world even if they feel that their voice may not
be heard by everyone. If thousands of such voices are put together, they will
surely make a major difference. The ulema must also work to provide the
Muslim public a correct understanding and vision of Islam, one that is based
on respect for human life, irrespective of religion. Islam exhorts its followers
to protect and save human lives. It does not say that they should protect only
the lives of Muslims. No, it says that they should protect all human lives,
because it values and respects all human life.

Friends! I would like to cite to you a statement attributed to the Prophet that
suggests that under certain conditions a man has to think beyond his own
religion. The Prophet sternly forbade the burning to death of any living
being, including humans as well as animals. This hadith report goes on to
say that such an act can be legitimately committed by God alone, the Master
of the Fire. So, if any person burns to death any other human, no matter what
the latter’s religion, or an animal, he has committed treason against Islam.
From this one example, you can appreciate the fact that Islam stresses
universal brotherhood. It is our fault that we have not presented this true
Islamic perspective before the world, before people of other faiths. It is also
the fault of others that they have not sought to understand us properly. They
view or judge Islam on the basis of the actions of Muslim despots and rulers.
This is the warped understanding of Islam that the mass media continues to
highlight. They never approach us directly to know what Islam truly is.

Friends! The thing that Islam is most severely opposed to is strife, chaos and
conflict (fitna). Fitna is regarded as the worst possible act in Islam.
According to a statement attributed to the Prophet, fitna is even worse than
murder. This is because in a case of murder it is just one person who is
killed, while fitna can cause an entire city or even an entire country to go up
in flames. In this regard, I would like to appeal to all human beings,
irrespective of religion, to reconsider the way they view the entire
humankind. As regards their view of Muslims, I appeal to non-Muslims not
to judge Islam by the actions of Muslim despots who falsely used Islam as a
means to justify their wrong deeds. Their actions were in no way truly
Islamic.

The future of humankind critically depends on us all living together in

peace. The different communities in the world are like different parts of a
single body. If a thorn gets stuck in the foot, it causes the entire body to
writhe in pain. The head, the highest part of the body, bows down for the
sake of the foot, the body’s lowest part, and the hand removes the thorn from
the foot. The entire body focuses on the foot and shares its pain. Our human
body teaches us a valuable lesson—that no part of our body is superior or
inferior to any other. The whole of humankind is like a single body.
Naturally, then, for someone to kill innocent people and even rejoice in this
barbaric act is a horrendous crime. It becomes even more heinous if this
person claims that he was motivated by his religion to do so.

Let me repeat: There is no room for extremism and terrorism in Islam. I

want to elaborate on this point with reference to the Battle of Karbala, where
Imam Husain was brutally slain. This battle clearly brings out the distinction
between Islam and despotism. The Battle of Karbala was not fought between
Hindus and Muslims. It was not a war between Christians and Muslims. It
was not a conflict between Jews and Muslims. It was not a battle between
Zoroastrians and Muslims. Imam Husain did not fight against Zoroastrians
or Christians or Jews or Hindus or Buddhists or Jains, the major religious
communities of his times. Husain did not fight against any of these people.
Then, what was the religion of Yazid? Who was Yazid? He was a Muslim.
He was a king. Yazid was a Muslim king, while Husain was the religious
leader of the Muslims.

The battle between Yazid and Imam Husain was fought some fourteen
hundred years ago. It was a war between and among Muslims themselves.
Because of this, till the Day of Judgment non-Muslims will understand that
Muslims are of two types, who fight against each other on the battlefield.
These types are represented by Imam Husain, on the one hand, and Yazid, on
the other.
Compare the characters of Imam Husain and Yazid. Imam Husain entered
Iraq and advanced towards Kufa through the Iraqi desert. There, he was
confronted by Yazid’s army. He saw that the soldiers in the enemy army
were greatly distressed. Touched by their plight, he asked them the reason
for this. They answered that they were very thirsty, that they were dying of
thirst. Imam Husain ordered his followers to give water to the enemy
soldiers to slake their thirst as well as that of their animals. He himself gave
water, with his own hands, to some of these soldiers to drink. Such was the
noble character of Imam Husain, who even slaked the thirst of his enemy’s
soldiers in the desert. These were the very same soldiers who, when they
faced Imam Husain and his followers on the battlefield in Karbala, refused
to give them water to drink. Imam Husain’s six-month old child suffered
without water for three days. When Imam Husain asked Yazid’s army to give
his innocent child some water, one of Yazid’s soldiers shot dead the child
with his arrow.

You can now understand the stark difference in the character of these two
sets of Muslims. One group helps its enemies by slaking their thirst. The
other refuses to give its opponent’s six-month old child even a drop of water
for three days and then brutally slays it.

Friends! Both of these groups were Muslims. Yazid was a Muslim, and so
was Imam Husain. But, believe me, Islam definitely does not have room for
both types of characters. Only one of them can be considered Muslims. So,
now let the ulema of Islam decide if they want to consider Imam Husain a
Muslim or Yazid a Muslim.27

27
A reference to the Sunni ulema.
I have a serious complaint against the ulema of Islam.28 If they had
collectively issued a fatwa announcing that Yazid was out of the fold of
Islam, this major blot on Islam could have been removed. Yet, political
compulsions did not allow them to do so. Because of this, the despicable
character of Yazid came to be wrongly associated with Islam. So, if today
the whole world accuses Muslims of terrorism, it is the echo of their own
past actions that Muslims are being forced to hear.

For what purpose has the mission of Muharram been carried down for the
last fourteen hundred years? The answer is: So that the world comes to know
what the Islam of Muhammad is, what the Islam of the Ahl-e Bait is, what
the true Islam is, the Islam that teaches its followers to behave well even
with their foes, the Islam that exhorts its followers to even sacrifice their
lives for God and justice. Muharram is not a mere month. Rather, it is a
crucial lesson for those who uphold a wrong understanding of Islam. If you
want to truly understand Islam, understand it from the life and deeds of
Imam Ali, who respected humanity. If you want to understand Islam,
understand it from the lives of the Noble Shia Imams, who related with
compassion and love even with their foes.

Let me cite an instance in this regard. Once, a person who was opposed to
Imam Husain passed by him and uttered some bad words. Instead of getting
angry or striking him, Imam Husain stopped and addressed the man with
kindness, asking him what the matter was. Was he a traveller with no money
left, he asked? If so, he said, he could give him some money. Had anyone
28
By this the author means, of course, the Sunni ulema.
threatened him, he wanted to know? Was his life in danger? If so, he said, he
would place him in his shelter. Was he hungry? If so, he offered to provide
him food. If he was sick, he said, he would help cure him. He had no enmity
with the man, the Imam said to him. At once the man fell at his feet, and for
the rest of his life remained as his faithful follower.

This, my friends, is true religiosity. Religion’s purpose is to reform human

beings, to make them truly human. But, if that which was intended to reform
people and society itself gets corrupted, will it not it be the greatest possible
tragedy? Surely, the right way to bring people to the right path is not by
lopping off their heads, but to explain to them the philosophy and ideology
of true Islam.

Friends! I want to reiterate that as long as Muslims continue to love and

cling to the Islam of despotic rulers, they will continue to receive a bad
name. They will continue to be accused of wrong deeds. They will continue
to suffer. They will continue to be embroiled in conflicts. The day Muslims
see the light and accept the Islam of the Ahl ul-Bayt, peace can begin to be
established in the world on its own. This is because the Islam that we
express through Muharram is not the Islam of murderers. It is the Islam of
martyrs. It is not the Islam of oppressors. It is the Islam of the oppressed.
This Islam has no quarrels or conflicts with anyone. This Islam is large-
hearted. At the time of the Battle of Karbala, there were very few Muslims in
India. But, despite this, Imam Husain told Yazid’s forces that if they did not
like him they should not stand in his way. He would head for India, he said,
far away from them, to a land that was well beyond the reach of Yazid. If I
were present on that occasion, I might have folded my hands and said, ‘O
Master! There are no Muslims in India, why should you go there?’ To which
the Imam might have replied, ‘Muslims do not live there but surely human
beings do!’

But, later, other Muslims came to India, and there were conflicts and wars.
Muslim armies invaded the country. I do not wish to repeat the story of all
that happened. Everyone knows this story. But please note one thing—that
the practice of the lamentation (azadari) of Imam Husain’s martyrdom also
spread to India. Many non-Muslims also participated in azadari, mourning
the Imam’s tragic death. Even today many Hindus mourn the Imam’s
martyrdom in the month of Muharram. They also assist Shias in performing
azadari. Some people might cynically claim that in the past this was simply
a means for these non-Muslims to curry favour with Muslim rulers. But,
today these rulers are no more and their descendants live in pathetic poverty.
Yet, still the non-Muslims’ participation in azadari for Imam Husain
continues across India till this day. In this way, Imam Husain brought the
Hindus and Muslims of India closer together. Let Hindus and Muslims
continue to participate in the Muharram azadari together. In this way, they
will begin to understand each other better. I wish to state that in India non-
Muslims have never opposed our azadari. Wherever it has been opposed, the
opposition has been from some Muslims alone.29

The Muharram azadari recounts a bloody story of oppression. And, this

story has important lessons for India today. Our country has been faced, off
and on, by the threat of powerful external forces and some self-styled
religious groups. The Battle of Karbala provides a clue to help us battle both
these threats. Yazid had political power, and he also cynically manipulated
religion to bolster his power. Yet, Imam Husain valiantly defied him and
29
This is a veiled reference to many Sunnis who oppose azadari.
fought his army, so much so that today Yazid is widely remembered as a
cruel tyrant and a false claimant to religious authority. In fact, his name has
become a term of abuse. On the other hand, Imam Husain continues to be
deeply revered across the world. His life and his death powerfully exemplify
the true Islamic spirit. They boldly announce to the world that true religion
can never bow down before power and wealth. It cannot ever give up its
right to transform people’s lives. It insists on upholding the truth and what is
right in the face of even fierce odds. Imam Husain had a band of only 72
followers, but they valiantly fought against Yazid’s army, which numbered,
at the very least, thirty thousand men, according to writers vociferously
opposed to the Imam, or probably much more than that. By bravely fighting
the tyrannical Yazid and his army, Imam Husain sent out a message to the
entire world: Do not support oppression under any cost. When oppression
and tyranny cross all bounds, turn your face in the direction of the storm and
bravely fight.

In a very systematic way, Imam Husain expressed and explained before the
entire world the religion of the martyrs of Karbala. The brutal manner in
which Abbas, Ali Asghar, Imam Husain’s six-month old son, Imam Husain
himself, and his many companions were slain by the army of Yazid proved
before the world that Yazid’s soldiers were not Muslims at all. In fact, they
were not fit to be called human beings. They were fierce beasts in the garb
of Islam. Imam Husain saved Islam from those beasts.
The Tenth Majlis

Friends! Today is the last majlis in this series for this year’s Muharram. I
have, all this while, being trying to impress upon you that true Islam upholds
peace and security, and that it has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism,
oppression and strife. True Islam preaches respect for every human being,
crossing religious and other boundaries, based on recognition of our
common humanity. It seeks to stop conflicts and bloodshed, not to promote
them. The God of Islam is the Lord of all the worlds. He takes care of every
human being. He does not oppress anyone. The Prophet of Islam is called as
‘the mercy unto the worlds’ (rahmat al il-alamin). Mercy demands peace
and sharing, not shedding blood.

Friends! Islam has not even the remotest connection with the crimes that
Muslim rulers and governments have committed in its name order to
legitimize their power and greed. A false Islam has been invented in order to
support these tyrants. This false Islam has caused true Islam to earn a bad
name. Because this false Islam was championed by most Muslim rulers and
their armies, the world has seen largely only this sort of so-called Islam, and
even today continues to erroneously imagine that this is the real Islam. That
is why the martyrdom of Imam Husain and his followers took place at
Karbala—in order to highlight the distinction between false Islam and true
Islam. The two armies that fought each other at Karbala both claimed to be
Muslim. The soldiers of both armies said prayers according to the Islamic
fashion. Both raised the same sort of religious slogans. Both had studied the
Quran. Both considered God to be one. So, when they had so many beliefs
in common, why did they go to war?

The reason was that, in actual fact, their religions were totally different. One
group upheld the Islam of the Prophet, while the other represented the fake
Islam of tyrannical despots. Every year, commemorations continue to be
organized, even fourteen hundred years after the Battle of Karbala, in the
month of Muharram precisely so that people can understand the crucial
distinction between the Islam of the Prophet and the Islam of tyrannical
rulers.

Friends! Our country, India, is like a bouquet that contains a variety of

flowers of different colours. When many different types of flowers come
together, they form a bouquet. Why do some people want to destroy this
beautiful bouquet by setting the different flowers apart from or against each
other? These people are enemies of the nation, even if some of them may
claim to be great patriots.30

I appeal to Muslims to seek to understand the true Islam. I also call upon
non-Muslims and political parties and governments that routinely demonise
Muslims as terrorists to understand this true Islam. To repeat a point that I
have made many times before, if anyone wants to understand true Islam, it is
not the Islam of tyrannical despots that he should study. Nor should he seek
to understand Islam from the brutal actions of these rulers. Rather, it is in the
Islam of the martyrs of Karbala that one can find the real Islam. I am

30
Probably a reference to anti-Muslim Hindu extremists.
confident that those who do this will change their opinions about Islam, and
will disabuse themselves of the belief that true Islam legitimizes terrorism.