Revolution of Imam Hussain(as)

[Janwar]

Our aim is not to create fitnah with any other group we try our utmost to steer away from controversy. We do however feel it is important to make comment when remarks are made aimed at questioning the role of the Ahlulbayt. This tends to occur particularly during Moharrum, this year has of course been no different but since our main opponents on the issue of Imam Hussain (as) are the Wahabie’s rather than attacking the opinion of any particular group we will simply seek to rebut the verdict of their leading Imam Ibn Taimiyya:

“Hussain was not justified in his revolt. He was advised by men of learning and piety not to take up arms against the Government, but he did not listen. And the events proved that their opinion was correct, because no good came out of his rebellion either for religion or for the world”.
(The political thought of Ibn Taymiyah, by Prof. Qamaraddin Khan, p 168).

In order to understand the martyrdom of Imam Hussain (as), we need to understand what he was fighting for. What was the form of Islam he was seeking to represent and protect? Let’s start with a brief overview of Islam. This religion of Islam passed through 124,000 Prophets, it came bit by bit, imagine a jigsaw each Prophet brought a piece of the puzzle starting Hadhrath Adam (as) until the final piece of the puzzle came in to the hand of Hadhrath Mohammed (saws) with his last sermon came down the following verse:

“Today, I have perfected your religion and completed my bounty upon you, and I was satisfied that your religion be Islam” (Quran 5:3 ).

So the role of each Prophet was to convey the teachings of Islam, to call people to submit to their Lord. This role of Prophethood was explained beautifully by the Prophet (saws) himself through the following parable, you can find this tradition in Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari:

“My relation to the long chain of Prophets can be understood by the parable of a Palace. The Palace was most beautifully built. Everything was complete therein except the place for one brick. I have filled in that place and now the Palace has been completed”.
Taken from towards understanding Islam Syed Abu Ala Maudidi, quoting Sahih Bokhari and Muslim, Page 49, footnnote 14

So each brick was brought by a Prophet Mohammed (saws) the Prophet being the final brick, the religion was therefore complete. So, here is the Palace, it stands erect with all its majesty and beauty, it is there for people to look at and admire. But with the completion of the Palace and the passing of the final piece, i.e. the Prophet (saws) there exist a number of forseeable risks which the Palace can quite easily be exposed to. Unwanted guests may seek to break in to the palace, sit on seats they have no right to sit on.

They have no right to enter the Palace yet they have come in without any one’s permission and now they refuse to leave…Worse still you might get the scenario of what has been coined as ‘Cowboy builders’ coming in to the Palace. When they enter the Palace they have their own machinations, their own distorted image of what the Palace should look like. So what to they do? Once inside the Palace they start moving things around, putting things where they should not be, changing the designs of the Palace, bringing new things in to the Palace, doing away with things which they do not like, things they see as not beneficial in his opinion. Worse still you might get intruders whose sole objective is to ransack and destroy the foundations of the Palace so it collapses. This is why Rasul (saws) left a protector / guardian of the Palace in the guise of Maula Hadhrath Ali ibne Talib (as). That is why the verse declaring the completion of the faith was declared following the declaration of Ali (as) Wilayat at Ghadhir Khumm.

Yes the Guide to that Palace was Ali (as) why else do you think the Seal of all Prophets said “I am the City of Knowledge and Ali is its gate, to attain knowledge you must enter the Gate”. To enter any place you must go through the door / the Gate, the entry Point and who stands at the Palace of Islam, its Gate, Hadhrath Ali (as). If you enter through a means other than the Gate, if for example you go through the window, or squeeze through the cat flap, or climb the walls, or any type of forceful entry you will be deemed a trespasser, an unlawful visitor.

The Greatest risk the Place has if from that unlawful entrant who occupies the Place illegally, and then seeks to damage the foundation of the Palace…it is here that one comes to understand the role of Imamate of the Imam e Muttliqa, Allah’s Imam is he who seeks to protect the foundation of Islam…of the Place, acts as a lock to ensure that the foundation can not be damaged in any way.

After the Prophet (saws) this responsibility was vested in the hands of Hadhrath Ali (as) and the Prophet (saws) had vouched for this fact for during the battle of Khunduq when the Imam went to fight Amr bin Wudd, the Prophet (saws) declared that “Complete Iman and Complete Kufr are doing battle today”.

Our critics say that the Shi’a always focus on Ali (as) and ignore the other Sahaba. To this our reply is direct, Ali (as) is Complete Iman, no one amongst us has complete Iman it is partial, it goes up and down, it is natural that when something is partial it will run to gain benefit from the complete source. In the same way that every drop of water from a stream rushes to the complete source i.e. the river, every individual with partial Iman will rush to that individual with Complete Iman, Hadhrath Imam Ali (as).

This is the role of Allah’s appointed Imam he has complete Iman and is therefore the Protector of the Palace, he is firmly placed at the foundation to ensure that it is not harmed in any way. The Imam protects the foundation, the Imams are those who have knowledge of every inch of the Palace, they can provide a commentary on every aspect of the Palace, they can guide you through the Palace, and ensure you don’t get lost inside it. If you are an unlawful occupant they will remind you of that fact, as is recorded by Suyuti:

“Al Hassan Ibn Ali came to Abu Bakr when he was upon the mimbar of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and said ‘Come down from my father’s seat’. He said ‘You have told the truth, it is your father’s seat,’ and he placed him in his lap and wept’. Ali said ‘By Allah this was not from my command’.
History of the Khalifahs who took the right away, by: Al Hafiz Jalaludin Suyuti. English translation by Abdasamat Clark Page 71. Taha Publishers.

[Janwar]

The renowned Sunni scholar Allamah Shibli Numani in his biography of Imam Abu Hanifah is correct when he makes this comment:

“Abu Hanifah sat for a long time at Imam Baqir’s feet and acquired from him much valuable knowledge of Fiqh and Hadith not available anywhere else. Shia’s and Sunni’s are agreed that Abu Hanifah derived much of his learning from Baqir. He learned a great deal from the imam’s son, Jafar sadiq also, which fact is generally mentioned in the history books. Ibn Taimiyya, however, denies this on the ground that Abu Hanifah and Jafar Sadiq were contemporaries and equals, which ruled out the probability of the former being the latter’s pupil. But I consider this sheer imprudence and lack of comprehension on Ibn Taiymiyyah’s part. For all his greatness as an original thinker and master of Fiqh, Abu Hanifah could not compare in learning with Imam Jafar Sadiq. The Ahl-i-bait were the fountainhead of Fiqh and Hadith and, in fact, all religious learning. “The master of the house knows best what is in it”, to quote a well known Arabic saying”.
(Imam Abu Hanifah, by Allamah Shibli Numani page 24)

This was the role entrusted on the Ahlulbait to protect the Palace, to invite and aid those seeking guidance through the Palace and to defend the Palace from individuals seeking to force their way in and destroy it. Fifty years after the death of the Prophet (saws) that duty of protector of the Palace was borne on to the shoulders of Imam Hussain ibne Ali (as).

When Yazid the man appointed by the Ummah as the Imam over the Muslims had sought to damage the foundations of Islam, and demanded that subjects submit to his authority and not Allah (swt)’s Hussain (as) was forced to come out and declare that his submission lay only towards Allah (swt) and he would never place his hand in Yazid’s hand, whatever there consequences. Why did he refuse? Because he sought to provide to protect the definition of Islam.

Imam Hussain (as) was fighting to protect Islam, so what is Islam? Islam means “submission to the will of Allah”.

The adherent of this faith ‘the Muslim’ is he who submits not partially but gives his everything for Allah (swt) - 100% submission.

Throughout the history of man, pious men have called people to the worship of Allah (swt), they called people to submit themselves to the teachings of the one true God, many individuals went through trials and tribulations in their efforts to convey this message, many were tortured, countless lost their lives.

Allah (swt)’s Prophet’s were not exempt from these tests, Ibrahim (as) whom Allah in his glorious Book calls “Khalilullah” (Friend of Allah), was ordered by Allah to sacrifice his beloved son, in his (Allah’s) name. Although Allah (swt) transferred the sacrifice with that of an animal, it was Hazrat Ibrahim (as)’s niyat (intention) which Allah was testing, Ibrahim (as) had shown his complete submission to Allah by complying with the order, he passed the test, and was then declared an Imam. Had Allah (swt) allowed for Ismael to be sacrificed then it would have been incumbent upon every father to do likewise and sacrifice, and Islam would have been viewed as a religion of barbarism... but Allah substituted the sacrifice with that of an animal, despite the substitution the aim behind the sacrifice has not changed. When the haji’s sacrifice the lamb it is a symbolic action, the Muslim is showing his niyat before Allah (swt) yes this is an animal, but if it were necessary I like Prophet Ibrahim (as) would be willing to sacrifice my son for Allah (swt).

Complete submission is not a simple concept, it involves sacrificing everything to please Allah (swt), and man comes across all sorts of obstacles / diversions in his attempts to submit himself to Allah (swt) it is a difficult uphill struggle.

The ultimate act of submission is of course a willingness to lay down your life in the name of Allah, those who do so are “Shaheed” (martyrs). Shaheed comes from the root word “Shahada”, which means to witness / testify to the truth, a Shaheed is he who sacrifices his life in his struggle for the truth. A person who fights in the cause of Allah (swt) is he whose intention is to “uphold the truth”, and this is what Imam Hussain (as) sought to achieve when he entered the barren plain of Karbala.

[Janwar]

As mentioned earlier, every Prophet (saws) had brought Allah (swt)’s message and the faith (Islam) was completed with the coming of the Seal of all Prophet, Hazrat Mohammed (saws). Islam was the religion of Truth, and Imam Hussain (as) sought to protect the religion from deviation. Here stood Imam Hussain (as) the grandson of the Prophet (saws) standing up against evil, tyranny and corruption. Had Imam Hussain (as) chosen to remain silent, then there would have been no trace of the teaching’s brought down by his grandfather, we would have followed the path of previous nations, and had a faith endorsing, oppression, tyranny, corruption and perversion...this is what Imam Hussain (as) was fighting against.

True there must have existed many in the Ummah who despised Yazid, but then as is the case now few will ever rise to openly oppose corrupt rulers. This is what has come to be deemed as the “Silent majority” those in their hearts are opposed to their leaders by remain silent fearing the consequences of open opposition. You will only get a handful of strong minded courageous individuals who are willing to challenge despots such as Pharaoh, Abu Sufyan and Yazid. True a person might well feel strongly in cause, he might even have a desire to be a hero, but then he will think to him “what will be the consequences of my actions?” “I might get put in prison”, “I might be killed” “and if this happens, who will support feed and clothe my wife and children”. These are thoughts, which leave the majority in the realms of the silent majority.

The only person who can take a stand is that individual who is selfless, who cares nothing of this world, but seeks only the pleasure of Allah (swt) and is willing to give everything he has to save and defend his beliefs. No ordinary person can do this, you need a 100% conviction in submission to Allah (swt) and 100% conviction on the cause you are fighting for.

When the Muslim Ummah has pledged its allegiance with Yazid Ibn Muawiyah it was left to Allah’s Khalifa to come out and voice his objections openly, it was left to Hussain (as) to demonstrate his 100% conviction in Allah (swt) and Allah (swt)’s din.

Allah (swt) says in his Glorious Book, that no one is allowed to overrule a decision made by Allah and his Messenger (saws). The decisions of Allah and Hadhrath Mohammed (saws) are binding upon the Muslims until the Day of Judgement. As mentioned earlier the duty of the Imam is to secure the foundations of the Palace to ensure it does not go in to any type of disrepair. A person who enters the Palace and seeks to damage the Palace can not be the Imam over the people, he can not make decisions in opposition to those made by Allah (swt) and the Prophet (saws). When there exists a time when this scenario occurs when a man occupies the Palace and seeks to destroy it from within, then it becomes incumbent upon the true Imam, Allah’s appointed Imam to come out and oppose him...and if he does not, then Islam becomes a farce, it sets a precedent that the Imam of the Ummah can do whatever he likes, he has complete jurisdiction to behave in any way he likes, he can mock Allah’s rulings and can even make changes in the Sharia.

Imam Hussain (as) stood to demonstrate to the people that such an individual can never occupy the position of Imam ul Muslimeen. He was willing to sacrifice everything he had to ensure that the Palace the religion brought by every Prophet was not damaged in any way.

The appointment of Yazid as Imam over the people is the direct consequence of the Ahlul Sunnah belief that the Prophet (saws) left no successor and that the issue of appointment is the exclusive right of the public. Even if we were to accept he left no successor don’t you think he would have at least left some guidelines with regards to the a criteria of an Imam, the type qualifications he should possess, should he be knowledgeable, pious, good? It is unfortunate that the majority view is that the Prophet did not bother to do that either, the net result of this is plain for us all too see, 50 years after the death of the Prophet (saws) this same majority acknowledged the Imamate of Yazid Ibn Muawiyah.

Whilst those in majority today feel that majority constitutes the truth, strength in numbers etc and that the majority endorsement of Yazid proved that he was the rightful Imam, we would simply quote the verdict on the majority from the Quran:

“Indeed we have created hell for the majority of jinn and men; They have hearts but cannot understand with it; They have eyes but they cannot see with it; and they have ears but they cannot hear with it; they are like cattle; no more astray they are like the heedless ones” (Surah Araf, verse 179)

It is absolutely incumbent on the public to pay allegiance to an Imam who will rule by the dictates of the Quran and Sunnah, not to one who violates the two criterion, it does not matter how rich he is or how well he dresses, if he ignores the two he is worse than an animal. And yet 50 years following the death of Rasullullah there sat occupying his seat an irreligious man, who assumed the role of Imam over the Muslim Ummah, rather than oppose him the Ummah rushed to support his position Suyuti in Tarikh ul Khulafa states that there was a complete ijma in Yazid’s khilafat.

When such a man now sat on the Prophet (saws)’s pulpit seeking to weaken Islam’s foundation and not only that prominent Sahaba such as Abdullah Ibne Umar sought to justify his position through misinterpreting the concept of ‘Ul il Amr’ in the Quran Imam Hussain had no other choice but to leave his home, and through the shedding of his blood he sought to show the dormant Ummah that this false ijma can never be tolerated in Islam. When Yazid’s governor demanded that Hussain (as) enter in to what the community had entered Imam Hussain gave a clear signal of his intention, and made it clear that Allah’s appointed Imam can never bayya to the people’s appointed Imam, he said “A man like me can never give bayya to a man like Yazid”.

[Janwar]

Hussain stood up and refused to enter with the community he refused to enter in to the folds of the majority, he refused to enter the fold of unity. Why? Imam Hussain (as) knew the consequences of his giving bayya, the entire shape of Islam that Palace would have changed, and every part of Islam would have been dismantled. What would have remained today would be a distorted, perverse, corrupt form of Islam, which would have been laughed by Non Muslims. We would have a form of Islam in which any man can lead the Muslims, irrelevant of his character, he could be irreligious, a transgressor, a tyrant, an alcoholic and supporters of this thesis would have simply pointed to Yazid’s khilafat and said the whole community gave bayya to Yazid, this included both the Sahaba and Ahlulbait...but Hussain’s rejection of this ijma is testament to the difference between those desirous of this world and those desirous of the next world.

We are sure that there must have been people who despised Yazid. As is the normal case such individuals are reduced to the ranks of the ‘Silent majority’ - they despise their tyrannical leaders but remain silent fearing the consequences of open opposition. You will only get a handful of strong minded courageous individuals who are willing to fight for what they believe in, not fearing the repercussions, however serious they might be.

Imam Hussain (as) was willing to stand alone against insurmountable odds, supported by less than a hundred men, many of them were too old to fight. Imam Hussain (as) considered his life insignificant, he and his followers were willing to face any type of obstacle, be it thirst, oppression, pain, torture and death, as long as the religion of truth was protected from corruption, and they encountered every one of these obstacles.

Imam Hussain (as) was the embodiment of truth, his stand to keep pure the nascent religion brought by his grandfather, stands as testament to the words uttered by his father Imam Ali (as) “Truth will always overcome falsehood”, the struggle and sacrifice of Hussain (as) symbolises the struggle between truth and falsehood, and had shown us that truth will always win the day no matter what the cost, no matter what the stakes, no matter what the price.

We would like to stress to those who seek to play down, and in some cases not talk about these tragic events one clear point: You can never separate Moharrum from Karbala...You can never separate Karbala from the Jihad of Hussain ibne Abi Talib (as). If you do then the net result is that you disregard everything Islam stands for, Islamic principles, every aspect of Din, every aspect of history...If you take Hussain out of the equation then 1400 years after the death of Rasullullah (saws), the religion of Islam would have been replaced by the religion of Yazid.

We ask our opponents “Why do you want to eliminate Hussain (as) from Moharrum? How do you benefit? What hurts you if we commemorate the Shahadat of Imam Hussain (as)? Why do you seek to label crying for Hussain (as) as an act of Bidah? This when you fail to call bidah those tears shed by countless Muslim intellectuals who since the demise of the Khilafa system have all cried about the hapless state of the Muslim Ummah? Yes, countless scholars from Hassan al Banna to Sir Sayyid Ahmed Khan have all cried the same tune, they have all expressed concerns that the Muslim Ummah is not advancing anywhere. These Rahmatullah alayha’s have never bothered to find out why we are in this rut. They’ve all been looking to the future, they’ve never so much as considered looking at things retrospectively. They’ve failed to develop an overall strategy, rather they have only formulated tactics. Why? Because in order to develop an overall strategy, you need to delve in to your history books and distinguish right from wrong. Oh Muslims look at your history directly in the face, and then reach your conclusions. When you say that you are proud of your history, then why are you so afraid to open those books, dig up the past and declare who in history was a tyrant and who was the saviour?

You’re happy living the lie believing that you had a glorious history, but at the same time you fear reading books of history just in case that romantic image is blurred. But exactly what do you fear? What they want is to be proud of their history and think no further, in other words “Have your cake and eat it”, but you can’t have both. If your desire is to reach to Sitar Mustaqim then you will have to do some thinking and decide “Who was who?”, “What was what?” and “Who did what?”

I’m sure that you are all aware of the findings of the South African Truth Commission, which took place earlier this year. What was the aim of the Commission, to collect records of criminals and victims during the Apartheid era. At no point during the inquiry did victims express reluctance in having their names disclosed, no victim proclaimed “Oh they might publish my name”. On the other side well before the Commission started the perpetrators of these heinous crimes started cooking up a furore, “Why do we need this investigation?”, “Who are you investigating?”, they were watching anxiously at the developing situation. “Why?” Well its obvious the culprit, aswell as his friends and relatives were worried that their names might come out. So what were they arguing “There’s no point in digging up the past, what’s past is past, let’s leave it where it is, dead and buried”, “Let by gone’s be by gone’s”. This is the thinking of the guilty party, what’s the best tactic...Don’t name the Victim...Why? If you don’t name the Victim, then you don’t name his assailants either. The reality is people who refuse to talk about justice have some association with that Party which perpetuated injustice...That’s why they will go out of there way to ensure history is not dug up, because they are affiliated with that Party.

If you’re so proud of your glorious past then open up your history books...but you don’t want to do that, do you? Why because you know, when you open them you’ll see the name of the victim, and on that same page you’ll see the name of his attacker. Why else do you think these people are so worried when we go over those tragic events.

But that’s not all, you see it’s quite natural when people discover who the victim was the next thing that automatically comes to the mind is “Who was he linked to? Who was he related to? Who was his father? Who was his brother? Who was his Grand father?”. Exactly the same questions are then posed about the perpetrators.

When there is a risk of the truth coming out, then the reaction of the adherents of the Guilty Party is a common one, do whatever it takes to hide history...by any means necessary. Fearing exposure they will discourage the ignorant masses from attending rallies supporting the victim ‘Don’t go there, don’t you know its illegal to attend such a rally?’. A perfect example is the one commonly propagated in Pakistan, don’t go to an Imambargha and listen to the Martyrdom of Imam Hussain (as) because if you do, your nikah will break. The sole aim is to ensure that no one hears about the suffering of the victim, indeed this worried Imam Ghazzali to such an extent that this esteemed Sunni theologian even passed a fatwa, widely propagated amongst the Nasibi’s
‘It is haram to talk about the events of Karbala’.

Fawaiq Al Muhriqa, by: Ahmad Ibne Hajr Al Makki, Page 223.
He further stated, that there are 4 things which are banned:
1. Rasul's Death
2. Events of Saqifah
3. The was between Sahaba &
4. Karbala
His explanation to this is, "It creates hatered of Shaba."

When this message starts to loose its influence and masses choose to ignore the warning, then the Guilty Party will resort to more extreme measures, banning gatherings, dispersing rallies, interfering in gatherings and oppressing the victims supporters.

The South African Truth Commission made it clear at the start, that the aim was to ensure that future generations were able to know who the victims were and who the perpetrators were, as they said to ensure that future generations don’t forget the criminals and the crimes they committed.

Oh ‘People who call us Kaffirs’, it is sheer immature mentality, to decide not to face the dark history of your past. Those who are mature, stare at history in the face. The facts are that those who fail to face history are immature, why should we waste our time talking to a bunch of kids. These people either lack mental maturity, or there related to the perpetrators.

The mentally immature are those who don’t understand anything, they don’t accept anything, there stubborn, immature and talking to them is a waste of time. And you know something it’s the immature who always have pathetic excuses, they don’t believe in logic, they possess a childish mentality...they are of ‘Teletubbie Mentality’. These are those individuals who remain stubborn on their beliefs, if history is analysed and the truth does come out, rather than blame the oppressor they will blame others, they will plead his innocence ‘He had nothing to do with it’, in the same way a father protects his son ‘Don’t blame Yazid, he was a good man - he had nothing to do with the killing of Hussain - rather it was the fault of his Ziyad his governor, he’s to blame, don’t speak ill of Yazid’. But when it becomes clear that you can’t pull the wool over the people’s eyes.. then comes the common defence don’t blame the oppressor - blame the victim...‘he was asking for it’, ‘what was he doing there?’, ‘who told him to go’...as is the widely propagated Nasibi answer currently being publicised in Pakistan, epitomised by the new book ‘Imam al Konain Yazid ibn Muawiyah’ which declares Yazid as the Khalifa al Haqq and Imam Hussain a mazallah a Baghi (rebel) he and he alone was the cause of his martyrdom.

[Janwar]

Conclusion

So we can reach two conclusions:
They either have a childish mentality
OR
They are related to the perpetrators. But, they never admit that do they?...

Why? Because Injustice is such a despised concept that when it comes out even those related to the perpetrators deny that they are.

Whereas Muzlumiat (the Victim of such injustice) is such a concept that whether you’re related to the Victim or not, we all through our crying and mourning rituals for the victim declare ‘Yes’ We are Hussaini, we are related to the Victim Hussain Ibne Hayder, and our association is with him’.

It is from this example that we can instantly define Tawalla and Tabarra. Tabarra does not mean swearing. Not at all, our relatives never taught us to swear that are more applicable to our opposition Party, why should we tire out our vocal chords? Tabbara is a clear declaration that we have no association with Tyrant’s, we distance ourselves from such individuals, and Tawalla is that act in which we openly declare our affiliation with the Adil Imam, our association to our Muzlum Hussain (as).

It was Hussain who defended Islam, it was Hussain (as) who showed the people how to distinguish between Halal and Haram. Khawaja Ajmeri put it most beautifully when he said:

Shah ast Hussain, Badshah ast Hussain,
Deen ast Hussain, Deen e Panah ast Hussain,
Sar daad, na daad dast, Dar dast e Yazid,
Haqa'a ke bina La'ilah ast Hussain.

Translation from Farsi to English:
King is Hussain, King is Hussain,
Religion is Hussain, The protector of Religion is Hussain,
Who gave his head, and not his hand to hand of Yazid,
Verily Hussain is the foundation of "La'ilah"

Din started from Adam (as) and was completed at Ghadhir Khumm, 50 years after the death of the Prophet, Yazid ibn Muawiyah sort to destroy that foundation sought to disregard la ila ha ilallah, but it was Hussain (as) who through the shedding of his blood protected that foundation.

The spirit of Hussain sets a fire in the hearts of all those people suffering at the hands of oppressors. It teaches us that victory is only welcome if it is a moral victory and that self-sacrifice is a noble trait. Imam Hussain through the shedding / sacrificing of his blood had sought to ensure that the religion of truth would not be turned in to the religion of tyranny. It is this sacrifice that was foretold by God in the Old Testament:

“For this is the day of the Lord God of Hosts, a day of vengeance, that he may avenge his adversaries and the sword shall devour, and it shall be satiated and made drunk with their blood, for the Lord God of Hosts holds a sacrifice in the northern land by the river Euphrates” (Jeremiah 46:10)

So from the massacre at Karbala came the victory of truth over falsehood, an eternal principal that still holds true today. For as long as Muslims dwell on this earth we will never abandon our belief in justice and the dignity of humanity.

ALLAH HAFIZ.