The Birth
Anniversary of Imam Ali ibn Hossein (A.S.)
"Agreement in error is far worse than division
for the sake of truth."
By Ali Amin-Nia
The Imam after Hossein ibn Ali (AS) was his son Ali ibn Hossein Zayn
al-Abidin (AS). He was also known as Imam Sajjad. He was born in Medina
in the year 38 A.H. (659). He lived with his grandfather, the Commander
of the Faithful Imam Ali (AS), for two years, with his uncle, Imam
Hassan (AS), for twelve years, and with his father, for twenty-three
years. After his father, he lived a further year as an Imam.
His Imamate was confirmed in several ways. He was the most
meritorious of the creatures of God, after his father in traditional
knowledge and practices. He was more appropriate for authority by virtue
of his father and more entitled to his position after him through his
merit and lineage.
His grandfather designated him during the lifetime of his father. The
testamentary bequests were made by his father and they were deposited
with Umm Salama for him. He received them when his father was martyred.
Although any revelations of the official atrocities against his father
inevitably provoke a sense of disgust denouncing the horrifying and
shocking policies of the ruling elite as repugnant to the conscience of
man, I do not think that the fact of cruelty as such is any more
tolerable at any time. The circumstances of his father's martyrdom still
vivid in the minds of the people were crucially important for his
activities in the spreading of Islamic principles and expressing his
views of the incident.
Indeed, atrocity is a weapon of the weak or imbalanced authority.
This is a factual observation: it does not exonerate those who use
savagery as a weapon from any moral blame that may be put on them by
their victims or by anyone else. Nor does it imply that the victims are
morally inferior to the one who is perpetrating the barbarity. This is
particularly more so when involving the noble members of the Household
of the Prophet. All acts of enormity irrespective of its year are open
to severe criticism on moral grounds if on nothing else.
The extreme wickedness of the perpetrator can take to many forms and
shapes.The atrocious ruling elite are as an agent often miles away from
where the atrocity is taking place. The perpetrator of the evil
instruction is more often than not physically close to his victim. Often
enough, the victims of atrocity are the God-fearing members of the
community.
The one who commits a wrongdoing and he who is being wronged are
irreconcilable and unlikely partners. It seems that there will never be
any agreement about the morality or immorality of actions when involving
the ruling elite and the subjects. However, agreement in error is far
worse than division for the sake of truth. The atrocious ruling elite
justifies its use of anomalies and eradicating of its opponents by its
conviction of the absolute righteousness of its cause.
The innocent godly people justify their opposition and overt and
covert activities to entice people in their enjoining good and
forbidding the evil.Those who dispute the righteousness of the ruling
body or dismiss the relevance of the opposition will disagree without
the subjective judgments of those whose actions they disapprove.
Nevertheless, a cruel and atrocious power structure may indeed be
awesomely tyrannical and oppressive and an opposition may be absolutely
justified, yet people would still rather remain as passive observers.
Such is the eccentricity of human nature!
Of course, the ruling body has a right to defend itself -- implicit
in the absolute necessity of the power structure. A properly constituted
system of government, atrocious or not, nevertheless is threatened with
extinction. The idiosyncrasy of man often cannot tolerate any set of
standard for a long period of time. In the confusion of such
misunderstandings nothing can be helpful unless derived from the divine
constitution that is implicit in man.
Having objectives, for instance, is grand. Achieving these objectives
has nonetheless its limits. There are many things in life for which man
does not have to do anything or use ruthless methods but wait. These
will come to man tried or not. Here, it is only fair to add that man can
easily lose his remarkable tradition of seeking help from godly people
or the Almighty God in his private hours. Ruthlessness never pays in the
end. Is it not fairer to blame the shortcomings of man on man himself
and his whims?
It could be argued that if the godly people were to insist on
people's right to an honest life, the people themselves would have,
perhaps, revolted against these very same sincere people. These are the
peculiar In many ways, the time of Imam Ali ibn Hossein known as Imam
Sajjad in 659 was a classic case of post-insurgency and the response of
the ruling elite was conducted on classical counter-insurgency lines.
Suppressive measures of one kind or another were adopted and designed to
deprive the Imam of the popular support for his cause.
Against the advantage of this polity, there were serious
disadvantages. For one thing, the vivid memories of the incident of
Karbala and the people's ill-treatment of Imam Hossein and the fact that
the people did let him down at the most crucial moment of his effort to
uphold Islamic principles meant that the full glare of publicity was
permanently trained upon these events. Any departure from the
recommendations of Imam Sajjad and his standard of studying Islam and
performing prayers was immediately criticized by the public at large.
Moreover, for the first time in a situation of this kind involving
the Household of the Prophet, public support instead of the shame they
carried for their disappointing behaviors concerning Imam Hossein,
played a major role in the determination of public opinion, however
tacit. We all know that even in those days public opinion was never
impartial, and that it could have been easily marred. It can always be
conditioned to favor the atrocities of the ruling elite and place the
godly people at a disadvantage. A further disadvantage was of Imam's
experience of the people.
The excessive and unrestricted control of the unjust rulers of the
situation was undoubtedly a grave handicap to the efforts of Imam Sajjad
in spreading the Islamic codes of conduct, as any such restriction
always is in a situation of this kind. Moreover, the undoubted need for
a humane social behavior served to reduce the momentum of the official
ferocious drive, giving some form of advantage to the Household of the
Prophet. |