Can We Hope For More?

Last night in Tysons Corner, I had to patiently sit by, while a gaggle of Arab girls, one by one, told me they hated Jews, thought Muslims and Jews could never be friends, and that they did not mind killing large swathes of people who supported Israel.

Following a very tragic situation in Israel and Gaza, I think we can understand the anger and frustration felt by so many Arabs today.

Across the river, a gathering of Pakistani elites and intelligentsia were having dinner. One by one they all agreed that Hamas' provocation of Israel was mindless, and that any nation (and especially Pakistan, which has a history of violently putting down rebellion) would have reacted in a similar fashion, especially when faced with terrorism on a daily basis.

What made it easier for the Pakistanis to see an Israeli perspective on the conflict is that most Pakistani elites hail from the Punjab, which just this past year was hit for the first time by suicide bombers. They know how it feels to not be safe at home.

But the Arab girls, many dressed in designer clothing and are part-time hijabis (though not this night), were relentless. When the topic of substantive peace was broached, it was shot down not once, not twice, but a total of four times. Emotional and hailing from a mere 1300 miles from the actual theater of war, these Yemenis went on to describe the horrors Palestinians suffer.

Several times, different girls explained to me that it was an Islamic duty to fight and kill Israelis, citing Quranic references. Each time I managed a climb down, explaining in a context where neither side has been Islamic before, it was impossible to inject God into the mix just to garner my support for either Palestine or Israel.

Frustrated, the leader of the gaggle asked me, "Do you believe in Islam?"
A lot of people would think this logical since I didn't seem to be associating with a legitimate Muslim struggle. But, with her eyes bulging and a cackle-like grin that made me think she was about to turn me into a toad, I knew she was asking something else: how long will it take for me to offend you?

She wanted to see if I would crack, and start yelling at an "honest question". I didn't.
The same ring-leader said in defense of Bin Laden that no one could say he's not a real Muslim. This was just after asking me if I was.


I did not once raise the issue, or claim the obvious higher moral ground that Israel is defending herself against heedless terrorists. Instead I spoke about non-violence, the Muslim experience with Gandhi, and the Imam Hassan, whose non-violence saved the Islamic world from falling apart 1300 years ago. I suggested, while certain Arabs present suggested Muslims would, and should, never make peace with Jews, that it might be more reasonable to focus on really working to change stereotypes at home and focus on working closely with Jewish Americans so that a more "just peace" might be possible.

The leader of the group said no, and in the end after calmly using conflict mediation techniques I had just learned in class, I was able to solicit from these fairly intelligent 20 somethings, agreement to think harder about more than hate and violence, and to try look beyond their own callous prejudices.

I left the mall that night feeling tired and exhausted. In the back seat of my car, a former friend had told me vociferously, while incensed at rage over so many innocent deaths in Gaza, that she hated all Jews. All Jews.

She needed a ride home to some obscure part of Virginia at 11 at night.
That leaves anyone in a difficult position.
Do you let the anti-Semite into a Zionist's car?

I was exhausted from having to play peacemaker, and was thankful no one Jewish had been with us while these glitzy Arab American Princesses shopped till they dropped at Tyson's. A run-in with a clique of Jewish American Princesses would have left this entire mediation process impossible.

I might have been cowardly enough not to stop these Arab girls, but I doubt that any well-read Zionist Jewish American would have been able to stomach what I went through (even though I tried to change topics a few times), and have lost their cool.

All of this a few weeks before returning to school, to gain backing for a host of Muslim-Jewish co-sponsored events on campus, and to try and convince those same Jews that, Muslims are not a people of hate.

Aaron Sorkin's political irony.


<$Progressive Muslim$>

Hamas v. Israel

No one takes pleasure in the gory images coming out of Gaza for the last few weeks since the Israeli response to rocket fire. Least of all me, since I've been trying for a while to avoid the mind rotting dispute between Arabs and Israelis.

I have been asked to explain my lackadaisical defense of Israel's actions, and have received the usual barrage of criticisms for not actively supporting the innocents of Gaza as they die.

So I will try to balance myself, and reply to all sides with what little courage I have.

Firstly, Hamas is a terrorist organization, who like the Black Panthers and other ultra-nationalist organizations, perform a menagerie of humanitarian services for the people of Gaza. Many members of Hamas in the Palestinian Assembly were not firebrands, calling for the murder and pillaging of Jews, although the organization's charter essentially does, and so does, of course, its military wing. Therefore, we can understand Hamas to have a corporatist structure,

Hamas suffers from the unique problem of NEEDING to anger Israel, of needing to annoy and induce a fervent response from the Israelis, in order to solicit what Dershowitz terms the "CNN effect", where media coverage of the loss of innocents will overwhelm any moral or sovereignty arguments Israel might muster against the Arab terrorist organization. This is reprehensible, and quite sickening to the vast majority of humankind--the exception being probably satanists.

However, those protesting and rallying against the loss of innocents in Gaza are NOT Satanists, or evil-minded schemers with anti-Semitic plots (at least I hope not). What they are instead are anxious and humanitarian individuals (mostly) who think that the injustice in "Palestine" is wholly unforgivable and deceitful, since Israel views itself as a free and open democratic state. They just want "justice" for the Palestinians, who they see suffering from an unholy barrage of bullets, steel, and mettle in the Israeli cause. Zionists might not be murderers by default, but are guilty of massive crimes against humanity in Gaza, goes the argument.

On the other side, is Israel. Israel has blossomed in a region where nothing uplifting takes flight without great difficulty. Surrounded by hostile states on all sides, Israelis feel that if even for a moment they shudder or appear weak, all of Arabia will rise to slay her, rape her, and abolish her. The unfortunate truth of this is that, I too, believe that Israel would perish if the Arabs were offered the chance.

Israel has no intention of murdering civilians for some sick enjoyment. I have friends who have lost loved ones in the past two decades to suicide bombers and Arab fanatics, and although the rage is unbearable, many have commuted it to ending the conflict that have plagued their children for 60 years.

Israel is like any other nation in the world, it will defend its young and its people to a staggering degree, if afforded that chance. No Sabra I know wants to kill Palestinians for pleasure, and many more object wildly to the use of force, rallying against it like the one million Israelis who rallied against Sabra and Shatila in the 1980's.To many of my Jewish and Israeli friends, the astounding use of force against Hamas is beginning to seem staggeringly too much. Not to me.

The reason I have not been more active or more visible in my support for Israel's mission in Gaza is because I lament the loss of innocent life--which I still hold to be accidental on the part of the security-minded IDF. I resent that so many non-combatant civilians have died in a battle between good and evil--which is essentially what I think it is.

Hamas has corrupted Islam, my religion, and poisoned the minds of Muslims towards hate. As an organization what poses to have an Islamic mission, its primary and singular focus should be to feed and house the people of Gaza. Resentment for Israel is expected, but to melodramatically call for the destruction of the Jewish State, and to brainwash children to murder Jews, is the real cause for this conflict. Israel's rather over-effective quarantine might not be the best way to go about things, but since the Gazan people deemed it prudent to put into power a hostile and dangerous terrorist group and over throw their own government, it seems clear to me that perhaps we should re-investigate the causes of conflict in the region.

Let me be clear, I am as angry as anyone else that innocent people have died. But I am just as angry Hamas' militant vision of Islam is so popular, and as an orthodox Sunni, believe that there might be Divine Providence in defeating Hamas, by all means available.

Israeli and Palestinian civilians must soon use Second-Track Diplomacy to re-engage each other, and end their bitter rage. No one is without blame, and everyone is without guilt in their hearts for what is happening in Gaza, and what has happened for so many years in Israel. Lives have been ruined again and again because of extremities. Israel is right: rocket fire aimed to kill is just as bad as killing, but Gaza ns are helpless now against the twin swords of Satanic Hamas versus IDF troops who just want to protect their homes, too.

Pray for Gaza, Pray for Israel.

That's all for now.

<$Progressive Muslim$>

Israel and Obama

<$Progressive Muslim$>

President-elect Obama is doing the right thing thing by being so vague about where he stands on foreign policy. It keeps the rest of the world, and us Americans, guessing as to what he will exactly do when President. Personally, this reminds me of the Nixon approach: Pragmatism, that led to d'etente and the opening of China. Though I doubt the President-elect will expand the War on Terror into Iran and Syria, in an effort to mimic Nixon's bombing of Laos and Cambodia, I do think that we can expect the not-so implicit recognition that working through First Track Diplomacy alone is a mistake, and that our resources as a nation can be better spent speaking to the real movers and shakers.

This might, possibly, include Hamas. I am no expert on this, and my speculation is meaningless. But, to make clear: I strongly abhor Hamas, its corruption of Islam, and its wildly anti-Semitic and anti-Israel stances. Furthermore, I believe all members of Hamas, regardless of moderation or focus on civil-society-building, are guilty of Kufr, and should be punished as apostates to Islam. Terror has no place in God's Kingdom, and so neither does Hamas.

However evil Hamas is, and I perceive they are quite evil, they are now a legitimate player in the region, thanks to the idiotic push by George W. Bush (he does not deserve to be referred to as the title we blindly elected him to) to have "democracy" in the territories.

Moving on though, we might see a noticeable shift in our dealings with much ignored Latin America, as the "devil" (as Chavez refers to the "idiot") returns to pretending to be a cowboy in Crawford.

We might also (finally) see an administration that realizes what is wrong with Pakistan, and be willing to fix it: the problem being is that Pakistan exists in the first place.

Just a few thoughts.

Knesset, Majles, and the Power of Unity.

<$Progressive Muslim$>
A Knesset is a large, Jewish consultative body, made of 120 members. Today it is the name of the secular Israeli Legislature. Laws are usually created through a greater consensus with minority and plurality-holding parties.

A Majles is a large, Muslim consultative body, made up of any number of individuals. It is today the name of both secular and theocratic legislatures throughout the Islamic world. Laws are theoretically passed through created 'Ijma , or gradual and comprehensive consensus by the community and parties.

Zainab and I would like to take the time display to you our fairly different approaches to the ensuing conflict between Gazans and Israel. Zainab's photo reflects the debilitating poverty and aftermath of Israel's response to Rocket fire from Hamas, and my profile photo reflects my unflinching resolve to support an American ally as her children are targeted by these rockets.

As Muslims, both of us resent and loathe the loss of innocent life, and as Muslims both of us are sworn Democrats and supporters of civil liberties and civil service. Yet, we have fairly different understandings of the Middle East. We both understand and know exactly why the other one supports the opposite "side" or "cause" in the Middle East. We also both encourage the other to keep at it, in order to help lobby our constituencies to a more wholesome solution. International Affairs is not personal, it is professional. It is not emotional, it is academic. And as mature political scientists, neither of us feel a reason to see it any other way.

This does not mean, however, that when I receive a phone call from an anxious friend, telling me our mutual pal is missing after a rocket attack on the kibbutz they went to work on in Israel that I will not be in hysterics, and make it clear I stand firmly, and solely, with Israel. It is also does not mean Zainab will not angrily speak about the sufferings of extended relatives and friends at checkpoints, or following Israeli responses to terror. It means, that although we are passionate about the topic, we know where to draw the line. I won't be wearing a Zionist teeshirt to dinner at her house, and she will never dawn the infamous Falasteeni Keffiyeh at high tea at my home. We are more than willing to talk about Israel, or "Palestine", but with controlled, calm voices.

I consider it a moral imperative that Muslims oppose Hamas, and smite terrorism without flinching.
Zainab considers it an Islamic necessity that the poor be fed, and coaxed into trusting the West and Israel before any lasting peace can be realized.

We both might be right, or we both might be wrong.
But what we are regardless, are Muslim Americans (not the other way around).
Our faith defines what kind of Americans we are, not what kind of Muslims we pose to be.

And that is the most important stance of all: Unity through consensus.

Karbala (Part III)

It is often said even today amongst the Arabs, that the Bedouin, the nomadic travelers of Arabia's vast deserts, are the truest of their kind to their heritage and religion. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was raised by Bedouin, and felt most at home when apart from the hustle and bustle of Makkah, retired to the lonely, star-struck nights of the mountains above the Hijazi trading post.

That is why it is so significant, that the largest and fullest group of Arabs to endorse the Imam Husayn as the true Successor as the secular head of the civilization of Islam were indeed the Bedouins. He encountered many on his journey to Kufa.

~~~

In 680 CE, after being cornered by emissaries of Yazid I, and having received a request from veteran supporters of his father's tenure as Caliph, Husayn son of Ali had come to an impasse. His brother had abdicated the Caliphate to avoid the creation of a dynasty, and to swerve Islam away from the years of violence now sweeping the lands of the religion of Peace. Yet, at the same time, the Imam Hassan had reached an agreement with Damascus, and the Ummayad clan: democracy would return after emergency rule, and no hereditary rule would be established--by anyone. Now, Persians, and Blacks were subject to an Arab-imposed apartheid, taxes were higher and higher, turmoil gripped the land, and Yazid I had declared himself Emperor of all Islam--ignoring both his father's treaty with Hazrat Husayn's brother, and forgetting that, God alone is the sovereign over the Islamic faith.

Yazid lacked any real legitimacy, except in his home turf of the Levant. The Caliph Umar's son, Abdullah, refused to endorse him. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)'s closest aides also declared his rule illegitimate, and many of Muhammad (PBUH)'s companions did the same, while the others remained neutral. So little support existed amongst the original Islamic elites, that aides of the de-facto king wildly invented couplets and stories to tell their short-tempered master, of the wild adoration Muslims throughout the lands had for the Ummayad usurper.

Yazid I, most likely humiliated and angry with the lack of respect shown to the man who had single-handedly professionalized the first Islamic navy, set about trying to destroy any and all opposition to his rule. One has to understand from a completely tribal Arab perspective that Yazid had been a brave and relentless warrior. He had set about silencing oppositon to Islam most of his life, and had the battle wounds to prove it. His grandfather had been blinded--twice--fighting infidels across Arabia, in honor of Islam's might as a religious power. How could anyone deny his right to rule? Who would dare offer such an insult to one of the egos who made it possible for the fledgling religion of black slaves, misfit Persians cast out into a desert, and goat herders from Hijaz into a formidable regional power?
What Yazid failed to grasp is it was JUST THAT obsession with militant glory that put him at such odds with a religion built around the idea of instilling peace and harmony in a world of greedy desire.

Unfortunately, his bullying tactics dissuaded even the ever-tolerant Banu Hashim clan from agreeing to let him rule. Muhammad (PBUH) and his immediate kinsmen were all Banu Hashim,and therefore so was the Imam Husayn.

Husayn, annoyed with the extra-constitutionality of Yazid's accession, and further angered by the ruthless techniques used by a man claiming to be both Emperor and Successor to the Prophet of Islam (PBUH), decided to accept a request to speak to Mesopotamian Muslims in Kufa about the future of the religion. This "lecture circuit" would have been more than a few sweetened words speaking about harmony and unity in faith. More likely, the Imam Husayn would probably have declared himself in opposition to the Caliphate, and demand a grand council to convene, and restore balance to the Ummah, or Muslim people--singular here as to refer to one single whole, rather than the fragmented bits that had emerged in the post-Muhammad (PBUH) experience.

The reasons for Husayn's marked departure from his brother's pacifism need to be made clear. Towards the end of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)'s life, it was made clear to the Islamic people that not only were all equal in the mosque, but in the home, in the marketplace, and in the mind, as well. Slavery was an economic condition, and Muhammad specifically addressed Racism (an enduring Arab value), declaring that Arab and non-Arab were equal--in the eyes of the Law and of the Lord who provided the Law.

Under particularly Yazid I, usury returned to marketplaces, racism and chauvinism was widespread against non-Arabs, and Yazid even attempted to have both the Qur'an and records of Muhammad's life changed, to reflect claims to legitimacy for Ummayad rule.

All of these reasons were enough for any God-fearing man to refuse the suzerainty of an obvious brute and bully. But particularly for the grandson of a prophet, the son of a Caliph, and the brother of a recent martyr, the feeling that something had to be done would have been inescapable.

Before setting out towards the city, Hazrat Husayn sent his cousin, Muslim son of Aqeel, out towards Kufa. Aqeel was to meet up with former supporters of the Imams Ali and Hassan, and see if there was a workable chance to oppose, albeit politically and intellectually, the reign of Yazid.

Muslim scouted the city, and was moved around by allies of the Shiat'ul Ali from house to house, in a vain attempt to cover his movements from Damascus-loyal troops and governors. By the time his mission in the city was done, he had collected an impressive 16,000 signatures of support from every ethnicity, class, and background across the city. He hurriedly wrote to his cousin, back in Makkah, to sojourn to Kufa, where he would be safer (Yazid's ministers had ordered Hazrat Husayn be murdered during the Hajj), and could appeal to all parties present, Arab and non-Arab.

Muslim would soon find however, that most of the Arab clans who had sworn allegiance to the Imam Husayn if he were arrive, were bribed by Kufan governor, Ibn Ziyad. The tribes had switched their allegiances, leaving only clan-less freed slaves and the already much-despised Persian emigres as the only large constituencies to support the Imam Husayn.

Sensing the collapse of the pro-Husayn movement looming ahead, Muslim ibn Aqeel acted swiftly, and called for a popular-uprising in the city of Kufa. His calls would fall upon deaf ears, and he would be tortured and beheaded the same night he called for rebellion, after throngs of worshipers abandoned him in the city's main mosque during mid-evening prayers. The betrayal was complete.

Meanwhile, Hazrat Husayn met with his relatives and retainers stationed in the Hijaz. It was agreed, though with much apprehension from friends and his only surviving brother, Muhammad (ibn-ul-Haniffiyah), reminding him that Kufa was something of a wild city--no man holds sway there for long.
However, the Imam Husayn disagreed, not only was he under the impression from their cousin Muslim that Kufa had done some soul-searching, but more importantly all of Islam was at stake. If he did not publicly make clear from Kufa, Husayn argued, that Islam was not the province of any particular clan or tribe, but the birthright of a global humanity, then those who stood for Truth would be guilty of the greatest of falsehoods: Indifference.

So then, the Imam Husayn gathered 103 of his closest aides, family and retainers, and set out for Kufa. He would, on the third day of Muharram, be stopped by a Levantine Arab army, at a place just north of Kufa, forever known as Karbala . The soft earth.
<$Progressive Muslim$>

"...and Ali is His Executor."

When I walk into the Islamic Education Center, right outside my native Potomac, I see a collection of tiny clay bricks with what appears to be Arabic or Farsi inscribed on each of them. I watch as Iranian men grab a brick, make an intention to worship the one God, and place the tiny brick where their foreheads will touch the ground when they prostate to the Lord.

These bricks are known as Turbah , and are used primarily by Shiites adhering to the Twelver (Jafr'i) tradition of Shiism. Jafr'is are in majority across Iran, and are the largest tradition of Shiites in South Asia and Iraq. They are utilized for two important reasons: 1) because according to Twelver jurisprudence, a person should pray on pure earth (as long as it is not polluted), and 2) because the rocks are made from "the soft earth", from Karbala.

In 661, after preventing a veritable civil war between the fragmented factions of Islam, the fourth of the Sunni Rashidun , or Rightly Guided "Caliphs" (from the Arabic word for "successor") was assassinated by (sadly and unsurprisingly) religious extremists. The Shi'at-ul-Ali (Party of Ali) would come to know Ali as the first Imam , or infallible leader of the Islamic Faith. This is a BIG distinction from the Sunni understanding of the Caliph, who was the temporal leader of all Muslims, not a theological successor to the final Prophet of God (PBUH).

Following Ali's untimely demise, Muslims were again thrown into chaos. Ali had two sons, Hassan (whose name means "Beautiful One"), and Husayn (whose name means "the little beautiful one"). Both brothers were fairly robust men, both had spent most of their lives in Medina, and both would have an enduring impact on Islamic behavior.

The powerful Umayya clan of the Levant, and loosely related to the Imam Ali's predecessor, Uthman, demanded Hassan surrender all pretense to the position of Successor (i.e. Caliph), and that he live a quiet and humble life in Medina or Makkah. The alternative was all out war: Muslim slaying Muslim, across Arabia.

The Imam Hassan set the tone for all future Muslim leaders who chose to embrace Islam over worldly power. He acquiesced to the Ummayad demand around 662, although more than half of the Islamic world had endorsed his premiership.

The Imam Hassan abhored the idea of violence consuming his grandfather's newly created community, and moreover probably had some respect for the Ummayad potentate, Mu'waiyya, who had been a companion of his grandfather, the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) (albeit for only the last two years of the Prophet's life). He realized without a doubt that although opposing Mu'waiyyah's quest for power would ensure that his progeny, and that of the Prophet's (PBUH) would come to rule Islam again, it would have fractured the Islamic faith even more, and destroyed the delicate system of electoral college that had developed to succeed the Prophet (PBUH) out of the tradition of 'ijma , or general consensus amongst the Prophet's (PBUH) companions.

Hazrat Hassan understood the cataclysm awaiting the Islamic peoples if civil war continued, and if no singular leader was to emerge. Therefore, starting a tradition that till this day represents to many a Muslim the better man, the grandson stood down, and the Ummayad clan took power. Hazrat Hassan did not show much bitterness, and retired to Medina, where he remained an active member of the community, until he was murdered, reportedly by his Persian wife in 670 CE, after (according to Shia sources) being offered gold and fame by enemies of Mohammadan Line.

But Hassan also enshrined another Islamic belief, one that his grandfather and father had had to relinquish in order to save Islam from hordes of Pagans and Heretics. When asked to assist in the fight against rebellious tribes by Mu'waiya, the Imam Hassan refused. Partly on the grounds he had just given up a possible political birthright to lead Islam to better days to avoid just such warfare, and partly because he identified with Islam's most central human mantra: "May Peace Be Upon You." Hazrat Hassan was a pacifist.

In 680 CE, Mu'waiya's son, Yazid, usurped power, ignoring both stipulations his father made with the Imam Hassan, and what had become to be accepted as the tradition of an electoral college of elders of clans and important tribes deciding the who the next Temporal head of Islam should be.

Yazid was unable to secure either a popular vote, or endorsements of the families of the Caliphs Abu Bakr, Umar and Ali, and many of the companions of the prophets also declared his usurpation of power to be illegitimate. This vexed Yazid, who believed his military career and capturing of Smyrna and Chalcedon qualified him to lead the Islamic peoples. Unfortunately, even though it is plausible he had the best interests of Islam at heart, his blatant refusal to consult the greater Islamic community, and his brutal supression of revolts--one of which led to the damaging of the Kab'aa, has won him no favor in the eyes of Muslim scholars, across the Sunni-Shia divide. Imam Hanbali, one of the major Sunni jurists, is even quoted as saying no good Muslim could ever associate themselves with Yazid, ever.

It was in this politically charged environment, with his brother and father murdered, his religion in serious threat, and Islam's experiment with limited democracy in tatters, that Hazrat Husayn, so of Ali, was approached by two parties. One part-demanded, part-pleaded he endorse the crown (as it was to become a monarachy) of Yazid I in Damascus, the other a delegation from his father's former capital of Kufa, asking that he speak to them in person, about what the future of Islam's temporal leadership should be.

Athough Mu'waiyyah had probably seen no other way to keep united the ethnically diverse lands of Islam, he had began a tradition that is now a hallmark of Arab culture and society: Racism. Mu'waiyyah had patronized and empowered Arab elites as first-class citizens in the Islamic World Order. Persians, Africans, Turkic tribes and others were considered less-than-equal. Arabs were (just as in many Arab-dominated states today, such as Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and the gulf-states) the better people, the holy people.

A cult of Kohenism around the Arabs developed, exemplified by the frenzied burning of Persian libraries by the armies of the Ummayads, in direct contrast to the will of the Caliph Umar, who had conquered Persia. When his generals began to enrich themselves and buy up Persian land at windfall prices, the Caliph Umar hopped on his steed, and rode towards Makkah. "But 'Amir, where are you going?", asked a junior officer. "I did not come to enslave or to harm these people, but to deliver them the Truth." The generals quickly relinquished their holdings. Caliph Umar was known for a furious temper.

Considering Muhammad's (PBUH) original companions included Persians and Blacks, the very people the Ummayads were now oppressing in order to maintain order (and enrich themselves to ensure their continued rule), there was obvious tension. Kufa, the Imam Ali's capital while Caliph, was a Mesopotamian city chawk full of Persians and other non-Arab group. In utter disgust, and with the vocal support of Abu Bakr's, Umar's, and his own clansmen, Husayn refused to recognize the Ummayad King, Yazid I.

He set out for Kufa, hoping to restore equality to the races, democracy to the masses, and his political birthright as the Caliph--for the sake of Islam.

He would in the process, become the greatest protagonist of post-Muhammad (PBUH) times.

<$Progressive Muslim$>

The Ten Days: When We Fought for Truth

On Moharram 10, 061 AH a battle concluded in a place in southern Mesopotamia referred to locally as "Karbala", or "soft earth". The Imam Husayn, referred to by Sunnis as Hazrat (or "Sir") Husayn, and by the Shiites as the third infallible leader in faith, and most of his familly and aides-de-camp were killed (in the Universal Islamic view, Shaheed , or martyred).

Husayn's passing is one of the great theological and political coups of the then infant Islamic peoples. Regardless of personal affinities towards Sunnism, Shiism, or Ibadism, all Muslims concur that atleast temporally, Husayn's untimely death at the hands of Levantine Arabs bent on political control of Islam, was one of our greatest historical tragedies.

Many Sunnis and even some Shias alike are unaware of both the consequences and full effect of such a dramatic account as the slaying of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)'s grandson has on our conscience, and more importantly, the soul of the Muslim peoples. Regardless of one's attachment to Hazrat Husayn as a near-divine figure, or (in the more mundane Sunni view) as simply a martyr for just rule, the story of Karbala is a fixture in our collective memories--for once upon a time, We Fought for Truth.

For non-Muslims, it is a wondrous mystery why Iranians will carry 500 or more pounds on their backs of massive brass ornaments, or why in Pakistan many Shias in Sindh are cooking inordinate amounts of the Pashtun dish Haleem for ten days not too long after Eid-ul-Adha. Few understand why the Ayatollah Khomeini and Saudi Arabia's ruling family are so at odds, or the dangerous affinity Iran's current president has for the return of the "Hidden Imam". In fact, fewer Muslims probably know either.
That is why many of you will be seeing me write a lot in the coming few nights on Facebook.

Tonight marks the beginning of Islamic New Year, and with it the 10 days of traditional Jafr'i (Twelver) Shi'a memorials for the 72 who once stood against what is considered by many, if not all, Muslims to be the repressive and unjust rule of the Ummayad Caliphate.

Every night, I will try and post a note explaining the history that shook a Faith's people, and changed forever the paths of two lost brothers: Sunni and Shia't ul Ali.

I am no expert, and there are professional recounters of "The Day the Sky Wept Blood", and so if anyone wants to comment, or help me with misconceptions and inaccuracies, please please do. I just ask you do it respectfully, and realize others might disagree with the facts you know, or were taught.
This is a learning process.

Either way, I promise this to be an experience for everyone.


<$Progressive Muslim$>