The Martyrdom of Imam Hussain (as) and protection of the Islamic Institution.

Today is the first day of the sacred Moharram and the respectable persons gathered before me include both Shias and Sunnis. They have gathered here because they have deep and heart-felt love for Ahl-ul-Bait, Hussain (as) and Islam. They are desirous to know the very purpose, or goal, for which the exalted Imam Hussain (as) not only offered his own life but let his kith and kin be slain at Karbala. Now the most important question is: What made Imam Hussain (as) to choose this line of action? Was it because the religion (Deen) of the Millat had changed? Had it (Millat) given up Islam and reverted back to Kufr Had people declined to believe the Unity of God or had they stopped accepting the Nubuwat of Prophet Mohammad (saw)? No, there was nothing like that! What had happened was that the Constitution, the Islamic system of the country, its very spirit was altered; its basic purpose was changed and given up altogether. The exalted Imam had risen to rectify it.

The Constitution on which Prophet Mohammad (saw) established the Islamic state and on which the government was being run during the period of Khilafat-e-Rashida, was based on (these tenants): The country (the government or the state) belongs to Almighty God. He is the one to give laws. He is the real Master, the Supreme Lord. The ruler, who has the reins of government in his hands, is in fact entrusted with the job of establishing the supremacy and governance of God and make His laws operative. The law of the country is to be applied not only to the people alone it is to be enforced with equal weightage on both the governor and the governed, the herd and the shepherd, alike.

The second principle of it was that the ruler should come to power by the consensus of the subjects. The people should appoint him as their ruler (Hakim and Ameer) before he has assumed the power and after it they pay their allegiance (Bai-at) to him. He is not to seek their vote when he has already assumed power. Obvi­ously, who is going to oppose him and not offer Bai-at to him when he is already ruling? Apparently, any pious and God-fearing man with a sense of responsibility would not accept it in a hurry. To come to power through Bai-at isentirely different from obtaining it after coming to power. Imam Hussain (as) felt that the cart was being harnessed before the horse of that time.

Now what was happening was that first the rulers grabbed power and then obtained Bai-at from the people.

The third principle of Islamic constitution is 'Shoora' (the Counsel). The Qur'an as advised 'do your jobs with counseling between yourself. The correct Islamic way of 'Shoora' is that those persons who are considered reliable on the basis of their sound judgement, trust, learning (Ilm) and virtuousness (Taqwa), are taken into confidence for all actions (of the ruler). This was the method adopted by Prophet Mohammad (saw). But there is a wrong way too of the 'shoora'. That is shoora (the advisory committee) is composed of 'Yes' men and flatterers (of the ruler). Imam Hussain (as) felt that the wrong way has been adopted in place of right way. The 'shoora' is present, no doubt, but it is formed of the people of (ruler's) own clan, from his own hangers-on, military generals and government officials appointed by him: meaning that a few men of vested interests have come to power and they have chosen their advisers such persons who themselves were men of vested interests. It was evident that when the men in power and their advisers, both, have vested interest they would do nothing but conspiracy against the Umma.

Further, the Islamic concept of Bait-ul-Maal (treasury) in the constitution is that all wealth belongs to God. It is only in the trust of the ruler. The ruler, his officials and all concerned are nothing but its trustees; they have been appointed to spend it on the nation and they have to render its account, to the last penny, to God.

The wealth of the Bait-ul-Maal is not the personal property of the ruler, his governors, officials, courtiers and the members of his family; and it is not meant to be spent over their person. But the exalted Imam saw that the nation's treasury has been taken for granted as the personal property of the ruler's family. As if, the nation is their tax-payer; it has only to pay its dues but is not entitled to ask for their accounts. It is not supposed to ask anything about as to from where the wealth came; how it was acquired; and how and where it was spent. The status of the nation had been reduced to merely a milk cow from which the maximum amount can be milked with whatever twists and turns and tyranny it could be possible.

The concept of law and justice in the Constitution, besides the above tenets, was that every one is subordinate to, and not above the law. No family, no clan, no group, not a single person has a status on which the law is not applicable. The justice is undaunted and uniform for all, and the judge, after being appointed, should be entirely free in giving his judgments in the light of knowledge (Ilm) and according to his own discretion.

There should be none to put any sort of pressure on him.

The situation was just as mentioned above, in the preceding period. But now in the changed milieu two concepts had been developed for the law and judiciary:

Firstly; that the king and the members of his family, his governors, officials and his entourage were for the law, the law was not for them; and secondly, that such judges were not appointed who were free to do justice. They were sent letters from above asking them to give such and such judgement. In fact, the judiciary had become subservient to the administrative wing of the government.

This was the scenario, the exalted Imam felt, being established about the Islamic constitution.

If it was a question of personalities only it could be endured, since the individual's life is after all less (or limited). But he felt that the entire system was changing, and if a wrong system is established it will be impossible to revert it and the reality (truth) will be lost for ever.”