Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The simple question that comes in mind of a common person is why the  companions of the prophet saww (famous in sunnis)  or their sons/ tabiyeen did neither participate in the battle of Kerbela along with Imam Hussain AS against yazeed (LA) nor they were martyred?

What kind of support these companions (famous in sunnis) or their sons provide to Imam Hussain AS against yazeed and his army?

The discussion should be conducted in an academic manner free of insults please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple answer.

Because Imam was not going for a battle there with his family but to settle in kufa with the expectation that people of kufa will support and defend him as they had claimed in their letters. For that purpose Imam also sent Muslim bin Aqeel to kufa. Things changed due to his sudden unexpected killing and betrayal by kufans.

Imam did not send muslim bin aqeel purposefully to be killed in kufa. No one including Imam was aware of the fact that they are going to die in karbala and will not be able to reach kufa. But they all were aware of the high risk they were taking by going to kufa, the famous land of disloyal and coward people. Thats why many including ibn abbas, ibn umar, ibn zubair tried to stop them from going there. 

And it was not the era of media and technology so that news may reach within seconds to people. After many days people heard this tragic news. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2017 at 1:28 AM, Munzir Ahmed said:

Simple answer.

Because Imam was not going for a battle there with his family but to settle in kufa with the expectation that people of kufa will support and defend him as they had claimed in their letters. For that purpose Imam also sent Muslim bin Aqeel to kufa. Things changed due to his sudden unexpected killing and betrayal by kufans.

Imam did not send muslim bin aqeel purposefully to be killed in kufa. No one including Imam was aware of the fact that they are going to die in karbala and will not be able to reach kufa. But they all were aware of the high risk they were taking by going to kufa, the famous land of disloyal and coward people. Thats why many including ibn abbas, ibn umar, ibn zubair tried to stop them from going there. 

And it was not the era of media and technology so that news may reach within seconds to people. After many days people heard this tragic news. 

The answer is not simple . This answer completely neglects what the sons of companions played their role in favor of Yazeed.  I present few glimpses for information:

Ibne Umar paid allegiance to yazeed ,the history tells us:

We read in Fatah ul Bar, Volume 13 page 80:

Nafee narrated that Mu’awiya wanted Ibn Umar to give Bayya to Yazid, but he (Ibn Umar) refused and said: ‘I don’t give bayya to two princes’. Then Mu’awyia sent 100,000 Dirham to him and he (ibn Umar) received it. Then he (Mu’awiya) sent a man to him (Ibn Umar) and he (the man) said to him (ibn Umar): ‘What is stopping you from giving bayya?’ He (ibn Umar) replied: ‘If this (money) is for that (bayya) then my faith is of low price’. When Mu’awyia died Ibn Umar gave bayya to Yazid.

Narrated Nafi’:
When the people of Medina dethroned Yazeed bin Muawiya, Ibn ‘Umar gathered his special friends and children and said, “I heard the Prophet saying, ‘A flag will be fixed for every betrayer on the Day of Resurrection,’ and we have given the oath of allegiance to this person (Yazeed) in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle and I do not know of anything more faithless than fighting a person who has been given the oath of allegiance in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle , and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone Yazeed, by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me.”
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 227

Some misguided traditionalists and historians have attempted to portray Yazid’s caliphate and government as legitimate according to Islam. They have endeavored to demonstrate that the people pledged allegiance to Yazid ibn Mu‘awiyah.

By doing so, they try to make Yazid’s government appear acceptable. At the same time, they try to show Imam al-Husayn’s (as) uprising against Yazid to be an illegitimate rebellion that was against the common will of the people. In this section, we substantiate the falsity of these claims, but first we mention some of the statements made in support of Yazid.

Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi writes, “The allegiance paid to Yazid was legally concluded, because one man paid allegiance to him, even though that one man was his father, Mu‘awiyah ibn Abu Sufiyan.”1

Muhibb al-Din Khatib writes, “Yazid was just, vigilant and perseverant in prayer. He used to perform good deeds. He always enforced the Prophet’s (S) Sunnah and was very attached to it.”2

Ibn al-‘Arabi also writes, “Anyone who went to war against al-Husayn did so with the emphatic recommendation of his ancestor the Prophet (S). They say that the Prophet (S) said, ‘Kill by the sword anyone who wants to sow discord and division in the Islamic community [ummah], no matter whom it may be’.”3

Ibn Khaldun has said, “Al-Husayn was killed by his grandfather’s sword.”4

Muhammad Abu al-Yasr ‘Abidin, the Mufti of Sham, says, “The Allegiance paid to Yazid was legal and legitimate. Therefore, whoever rebelled against him was an insurgent.”5

Abul Khayr Shafi‘i Qazvini writes, “Yazid was an imam and a supreme religious jurisprudent [mujtahid].”6

https://www.al-islam.org/uprising-ashura-and-responses-doubts-ali-asghar-ridwani/illegitimacy-yazid’s-caliphate#evidence-regarding-illegitimacy-yazid’s-caliphate

Also Umar Ibne Saad the commander of the army of yazeed was the son of Saad bin Abi  Waqas who was the  companion of the prophet saww .

These and alike are obvious reasons that had kept the sons of the companions of the prophet saww unable to make support or help of Imam Hussain AS against yazeed La.

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2017 at 1:28 AM, Munzir Ahmed said:

Simple answer.

Because Imam was not going for a battle there with his family but to settle in kufa with the expectation that people of kufa will support and defend him as they had claimed in their letters. For that purpose Imam also sent Muslim bin Aqeel to kufa. Things changed due to his sudden unexpected killing and betrayal by kufans.

Imam did not send muslim bin aqeel purposefully to be killed in kufa. No one including Imam was aware of the fact that they are going to die in karbala and will not be able to reach kufa. But they all were aware of the high risk they were taking by going to kufa, the famous land of disloyal and coward people. Thats why many including ibn abbas, ibn umar, ibn zubair tried to stop them from going there. 

And it was not the era of media and technology so that news may reach within seconds to people. After many days people heard this tragic news. 

History has recorded sermons of Imam Hussain (a.s) which he (a.s) gave in Madina before moving towards Kufa. Actually, Imam Hussain a.s left no stone un turned and invited people for Jihad against tyrannic regime of Yazeed Bin Muawvia. This is theological dilemma in Sunni concept of Khilafah. I believe if Yazeed bin Muawvia had been smart enough like his father Muawvia and had not challenged/killed Imam Hussain a.s, he would have been as good for Sunnis as is Muawvia bin Abu Sufyan. In that eventuality, he may have been a character less and drinker person but still be respectable before Sunni branch of Islam. The khilafah concept among Sunni theology is based on geographical occupation and control over the land. It has nothing to do with religious expertise or knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, skyweb1987 said:

The answer is not simple . This answer completely neglects what the sons of companions played their role in favor of Yazeed.  I present few glimpses for information:

Ibne Umar paid allegiance to yazeed ,the history tells us:

Question was also biased in nature. Read my answer again:

Quote

Because Imam was not going for a battle there with his family but to settle in kufa with the expectation that people of kufa will support and defend him as they had claimed in their letters. For that purpose Imam also sent Muslim bin Aqeel to kufa. Things changed due to his sudden unexpected killing and betrayal by kufans.

They were kufans actually who betrayed and disowned Imam. First they invited him to Kufa then left him all alone. They could have easily saved Muslim bin Aqeel. Because Ibn ZIyad came to Kufa with only a dozen or two of people and kufans number who gave bayah to Imam were in thousands. This number is even more than the army of ibn saad. Later they became tawabun but at crucial time they did not support ahlebayt. Because of them situation became worse. A journey to Kufa turned into a battle of karbala.

Many gave their bayah to yazid before karbala but after this tragic incident many also withdrew from his bayah. Hence the event of hara happened. Ibn Zubair even revolted against Yazid after Karbala and established his caliphate over a vast area.

You are knowingly hiding or ignoring many other facts, thus giving the readers a biased picture.

btw: what was the nature of kufans at that time. were they asna ashri shias? or just muslims who used to love ahlebayt? or cowards as mentioned in sermons of Imam Ali? or sth else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2017 at 7:47 PM, Aabiss_Shakari said:

History has recorded sermons of Imam Hussain (a.s) which he (a.s) gave in Madina before moving towards Kufa. Actually, Imam Hussain a.s left no stone un turned and invited people for Jihad against tyrannic regime of Yazeed Bin Muawvia. This is theological dilemma in Sunni concept of Khilafah. I believe if Yazeed bin Muawvia had been smart enough like his father Muawvia and had not challenged/killed Imam Hussain a.s, he would have been as good for Sunnis as is Muawvia bin Abu Sufyan. In that eventuality, he may have been a character less and drinker person but still be respectable before Sunni branch of Islam. The khilafah concept among Sunni theology is based on geographical occupation and control over the land. It has nothing to do with religious expertise or knowledge.

 

Sunni concept of khilafah is very much clear.

That after prophet rightly guided caliphate will be for 30 years.

That there will be both good and bad caliphs and they will be more in number, not just 12.

That neither muawiya nor yazid was among the rightly guided caliphs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2017 at 1:17 AM, Munzir Ahmed said:

You are knowingly hiding or ignoring many other facts, thus giving the readers a biased picture.

i have mentioned question very clearly in OP. 

I have provided evidences from history recorded in sunni books.

Why are you trying to blame me?

You are just making baseless and false claims..

Waslam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2017 at 12:16 PM, skyweb1987 said:

i have mentioned question very clearly in OP. 

I have provided evidences from history recorded in sunni books.

Why are you trying to blame me?

You are just making baseless and false claims..

Waslam

The same ibn umar had supported and helped Mukhtar from Yazid (LA) and got him free from prison otherwise Mukhtar would have been killed and will not be able to take revenge of Karbala Martyrs. His paying of allegiance to Yazid (LA) was his choice for reasons he know better. This do not prove that he was Yazid lover and a hater of Hussain. Similarly during the caliphate of Imam Ali, many including Hassan bin Thabit, Usama bin Zayd did not pay allegiance to Imam Ali but at the same time were very close to him and had narrated many reports in his praise.

Likewise, a son of Imam Ali (AS), Muhammad bin Hanafiyyah was also not physically present in Karbala but he played his role in another way.

And Ibn Zubair even revolted against Yazid (LA) and established his khilafah on a vast area. Later became a martyr.

So, I think everyone played their part based on their situation and capability except umar bin saad and his likes.

The main reason for battle of Karbala was cowardliness and betrayal by kufans. As initially Imam was going for Kufa and Muslim bin Aqeel was already there. Later some of them became tawabun.

What's your take on those kufans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2017 at 1:17 AM, Munzir Ahmed said:

btw: what was the nature of kufans at that time. were they asna ashri shias? or just muslims who used to love ahlebayt? or cowards as mentioned in sermons of Imam Ali? or sth else?

 

On 10/12/2017 at 5:47 AM, Munzir Ahmed said:

The main reason for battle of Karbala was cowardliness and betrayal by kufans. As initially Imam was going for Kufa and Muslim bin Aqeel was already there. Later some of them became tawabun.

What's your take on those kufans?

The following links are sufficient about the killers of imam Hussain AS who were the Shia of Uthman, ie Shia of Maviya and yazeed.

http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/who-killed-imam-hussain/uthmani-nawasib-killed-hussain.html

http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/who-killed-imam-hussain/sahaba-sons-killing-muslim-bin-aqeel.html

The majority of Kufans were avid supporters of the Khilafat of the Shaikhain ie Early caliphs:

http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/who-killed-imam-hussain/kufans-beliefs.html

The companions and taabe’een
In order to show Yazid in a positive light, some Muslims themselves claim that:

‘Several hundreds of companions despite being alive at the time kept aloof from the battle at Karbala to save the nation from entanglement and bloodshed. Had it been an encounter between good and evil, the companions who throughout their lives had not shirked jihad would have definitely thrown all their weight behind Imam Husain (a.s.).’

If the companions and taabe’een were indeed confused, then it is despite the fact that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had often declared that Imam Husain (a.s.) is the Lamp of Guidance and the Ark of Salvation. And that Imam Husain (a.s.) and his brother Imam Hasan (a.s.) were the Chiefs of the Youths of Paradise. And that both of them were his sons according to the Verse of Mubahelah in Surah Aale Imran (3): 61 when they along with the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and their parents Ali (a.s.) and Fatima (s.a.) confronted the Christians of Najraan for malediction and drove them into submission.

Moreover, the Quran, which was a sufficient recourse for the Muslims after the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) demise, has prescribed a solution for confusion:

‘…so ask the People of the Reminder if you do not know.’ (Surah Nahl (16): Verse 43)

It is a common fact recorded by Sunni commentators of the Noble Quran that Imam Husain (a.s.) was among the People of the Reminder (Ahle Zikr).

Scores of Sunni scholars over the years have recorded these and other virtues of Imam Husain (a.s.) in their books.

Why did the companions and taabe’een, who were present in the time of Imam Husain (a.s.) and were witness to many of these narrations and incidents, lack the judgment to distinguish between Imam Husain (a.s.) and Yazid?

More so when we find clear instructions from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) urging the Muslims to support Imam Husain (a.s.) as evident from the following narration:

The Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) companion Anas b. Haaris relates –

I heard Allah’s Prophet (s.a.w.a.) say: ‘Verily my son, (Husain), will be killed in a land called Karbala; whoever amongst you is alive at that time must go and help him.’
Tarikh-o-Damishq vol 14 p 223

Are these Muslims suggesting that Umar b. Saad b. Abi Waqqas, who led Yazid’s army in Karbala and was among the leading taabe’een, and the son of a leading companion, had never heard of Imam Husain’s (a.s.) virtues? This despite the fact that Imam Husain (a.s.) was also his cousin? Then why did he fight Imam Husain (a.s.)? If this is not an example of treachery by the companions and taabe’een then what is?

It follows that the confusion between truth and falsehood was not the reason for the companions abandoning support to Imam Husain (a.s.) in Karbala. It was plain treachery which we saw in ample measure in Ohod and Hunain despite the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) presence in their midst. Obviously when the companions did not support the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in his life time, it is too much to expect them to support his grandson (a.s.) 50 years after his (s.a.w.a.) demise.

Therefore we hold the companions responsible for abandoning their duty in supporting Imam Husain (a.s.) in Karbala and in this way being responsible for killing him.

The history exposes the killers of Imam Hussain AS as given below:.:

1. Yazid ibn Muawiyah

Without doubt, the biggest contributor to the shedding of Imam Husain’s (a.s.) blood and its main proponent was Yazid b. Muawiyah. And there can be no two ways of his animosity and the animosity of his clansmen – the Bani Umayyah for the Bani Hashim. Under the circumstances, he was not a Shia of the Ahle Bait (a.s.) nor would he have liked to be referred to as such.

2. Ubaydillah b. Ziyaad
Not having the courage to take on Imam Husain (a.s.) himself, Yazid got Ubaydillah to do the task for him just like his father Muawiyah got Ubaydillah’s father – Ziyaad to take on Imam Hasan (a.s.).
The progeny of Ziyaad harboured extreme animosity against the Ahle Bait (a.s.), so there is no question of them being the Shias of Ahle Bait (a.s.).

3. Umar b. Saad
Since Ubaydillah also lacked the courage to confront Imam Husain (a.s.) he appointed Umar b. Saad for the task. His father Saad b. Abi Waqqaas’s ambivalence towards Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) Ali b. Abi Talib and his refraining from giving him allegiance at a time when the entire Muslim nation with a few exceptions had given Ali (a.s.) their allegiance. Umar b. Saad was a cousin of Imam Husain (a.s.) but then so was Yazid. It is widely reported that Umar b. Saad undertook the crime of killing Imam Husain (a.s.) for the governorship of Ray (Suburb of Teheran, Iran). So there is no question of Umar b. Saad being a Shia of the Ahle Bait (a.s.).

After naming the three biggest names responsible for killing Imam Husain (a.s.) and establishing their religious credentials as so-called Muslims who practiced the Sunnah, we now turn to their henchmen who were involved in the battle of Karbala. For brevity we have highlighted only a few and interested readers can refer Tarikh-e-Tabair for more examples.

4. Ka’b b. Jaabir
Ka’b b. Jaabir was a warrior in Umar b. Saad’s army in Karbala. He was the killer of Burair b. Khozair, one of Imam Husain’s (a.s.) respected companions.

He recited several couplets after Karbala to the effect that he had submitted his faith to the children of Abu Sufyan and wished to claim his reward from Ibne Ziyaad.

4) Muzaahim b. Haaris
While battling Naafe b. Hilaal Jamali, a companion of Imam Husain (a.s.), in Karbala he declared:
I am on Usman’s religion.
(Taarikh-e-Tabari vol 6, p 229)

5) Amr b. Hajjaaj
Amr b. Hajjaaj from Umar b. Saad’s army urged his soldiers to remain firm against those who abandoned religion i.e. Imam Husain’s (a.s.) army. Imam Husain (a.s.) rebuked him for his audacity.
(Taarikh-e-Tabari vol. 6, p. 249)

6) Shimr b. Ziljawshan
It is widely documented that it was Shimr who eventually killed Imam Husain (a.s.) when none dared to commit the heinous crime. Long before that, he was commanded explicitly by Ibne Ziyaad to take over the reins of the army if Umar b. Saad showed weakness in executing the plan to kill Imam Husain (a.s.).

Shimr was always a part of Ibne Ziyaad’s coterie in Kufa and there is no question of his animosity for the Ahle Bait (a.s.), although he did fight on the side of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) against Muawiyah in Siffeen. He was among the majority of the Muslims who took Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) as the fourth caliph and did not have any particular inclination towards Ali’s (a.s.) Mastership – the hallmark of a Shia.

http://www.seratonline.com/22938/was-imam-husain-a-s-killed-by-yazid-or-his-shias/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2017 at 10:21 AM, skyweb1987 said:

Are these Muslims suggesting that Umar b. Saad b. Abi Waqqas, who led Yazid’s army in Karbala and was among the leading taabe’een, and the son of a leading companion, had never heard of Imam Husain’s (a.s.) virtues? This despite the fact that Imam Husain (a.s.) was also his cousin? Then why did he fight Imam Husain (a.s.)? If this is not an example of treachery by the companions and taabe’een then what is?

It follows that the confusion between truth and falsehood was not the reason for the companions abandoning support to Imam Husain (a.s.) in Karbala. It was plain treachery which we saw in ample measure in Ohod and Hunain despite the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) presence in their midst. Obviously when the companions did not support the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in his life time, it is too much to expect them to support his grandson (a.s.) 50 years after his (s.a.w.a.) demise.

You had mentioned tabieen (misguided ones) - who were also the real killers of Imam Hussain no doubt - but then you are attacking the true companions of prophet saw in general. And saying that I am not biased. 

Ahlul sunnah also do not love and rely upon the killers of Imam. READ THIS

Imam Hussain (AS) was betrayed by the kufans but his killers are those you mentioned by name. If kufans would have shown some bravery they could have easily destroyed ibn ziyad and umar bin sad's army as they were more in number.

Dont know why but you are missing/ignoring the main point from my first post. Read again.

On 10/8/2017 at 10:59 AM, skyweb1987 said:

The simple question that comes in mind of a common person is why the  companions of the prophet saww (famous in sunnis)  or their sons/ tabiyeen did neither participate in the battle of Kerbela along with Imam Hussain AS against yazeed (LA) nor they were martyred?

On 10/10/2017 at 1:28 AM, Munzir Ahmed said:

Simple answer.

Because Imam was not going for a battle there with his family but to settle in kufa with the expectation that people of kufa will support and defend him as they had claimed in their letters. For that purpose Imam also sent Muslim bin Aqeel to kufa. Things changed due to his sudden unexpected killing and betrayal by kufans.

Imam did not send muslim bin aqeel purposefully to be killed in kufa. No one including Imam was aware of the fact that they are going to die in karbala and will not be able to reach kufa. But they all were aware of the high risk they were taking by going to kufa, the famous land of disloyal and coward people. Thats why many including ibn abbas, ibn umar, ibn zubair tried to stop them from going there. 

And it was not the era of media and technology so that news may reach within seconds to people. After many days people heard this tragic news. 

Initially Imam's journey was for kufa from makkah, not for karbala. But he was forced to stop at karbala. If Imam's intention while leaving makkah was to sacrifice his and his family's life at karbala then why he sent muslim bin aqeel to kufa to assess the situation there. After getting the positive response from muslim bin aqeel Imam left for kufa (where kufans were supposed to help him but they even not helped his cousin muslim bin aqeel while they could have easily done) with his family and close companions. You are missing the context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Munzir Ahmed said:

You had mentioned tabieen (misguided ones) - who were also the real killers of Imam Hussain no doubt - but then you are attacking the true companions of prophet saw in general. And saying that I am not biased. 

Imam Hussain (AS) was betrayed by the kufans but his killers are those you mentioned by name. If kufans would have shown some bravery they could have easily destroyed ibn ziyad and umar bin sad's army as they were more in number.

Thanks for accepting the truth. 

The faith of those killers and kufans was that they were Shia of Uhtman, Maviya and yazeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assalaamun 'alaikum,

This is a loaded question that solves no problems;  I'm calling it for what it is to be quite blunt.

Sunnis today have no connection to what "Sunnis" were back then, neither do you who call yourselves Shia'.

The people back then had a completely different perspective with a different set of lies and truths to believe, while you, me, and the rest of the world have a new set of lies/truths to believe in the historical narrative.

Dwelling and debating and arguing these subjects of debate without knowing truth is 100% the way Shaytan wants of all muslims to be.  There's no room for an academic discussion of what is nearly pure conjecture.

You're advertently (or inadvertently) calling to question the integrity of a branch of muslim's who have little to no understanding of historical events, while you yourselves purport that you have a better understanding of the events, when you in fact do not (which is subject to opinion, but some hadith written on paper isn't enough ground water to hold the world which is why asking loaded questions like these are uncalled for).

When Shia' want to do tatbir/mataam and mourn over the death of Imam Hussain AS and his family, do they do it because they're responsible or that their ancestors were responsible for betraying/not assisting the Imam? 

Or because they just feel hurting themselves will show God they care; i.e. because they can't fathom other productive actions?

Better yet why would any Sunni be able to answer this question or be qualified, what are you looking to gain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, wmehar2 said:

You're advertently (or inadvertently) calling to question the integrity of a branch of muslim's who have little to no understanding of historical events, while you yourselves purport that you have a better understanding of the events, when you in fact do not (which is subject to opinion, but some hadith written on paper isn't enough ground water to hold the world which is why asking loaded questions like these are uncalled for).

When Shia' want to do tatbir/mataam and mourn over the death of Imam Hussain AS and his family, do they do it because they're responsible or that their ancestors were responsible for betraying/not assisting the Imam? 

Or because they just feel hurting themselves will show God they care; i.e. because they can't fathom other productive actions?

Better yet why would any Sunni be able to answer this question or be qualified, what are you looking to gain?

I have already mentioned that discussion may be conducted free of insults please but i have found you guilty of making such non sense  full of insults.

No  comments  needed on your BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, skyweb1987 said:

I have already mentioned that discussion may be conducted free of insults please but i have found you guilty of making such non sense  full of insults.

No  comments  needed on your BS.

Then do not ask insulting questions.

The question you asked is something Allah Swt may or may not ask to those it may need to be asked of.

It simply isn't your place, which is why I countered, what benefit for everyone is there to gain from that question being answered by "Sunnis"  given the reality that no one was alive back then to witness these events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, wmehar2 said:

Then do not ask insulting questions.

I have certainly not asked you  to Add your BS in this thread.  add only else where needed.  This does not seems your fit place, you should keep yourself out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, skyweb1987 said:

I have certainly not asked you  to Add your BS in this thread.  add only else where needed.  This does not seems your fit place, you should keep yourself out of it.

Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr and Abdul Rahman ibn Abu Bakr were Tabi'un, Sons/descendants of Abu Bakr, and both of which openly opposed Muawiyah and Yazid, the first of which were brutally murdered by.

"Ibn Abu Bakr was eventually defeated by 'Amr ibn al-'As. 'Amr's soldiers were ordered to capture him and bring him alive, to Muawiyah I. However, a soldier named Mu'awiya ibn Hudayj is said to have quarreled with the prisoner and killed him out of hand. Ibn Hudayj was so incensed at Ibn Abu Bakr that he put his body into the skin of a dead donkey and burned both corpses together, so that nothing should survive of his enemy.[2] However, Shi'a accounts say that the Muawiyah I who later became the first Umayyad Caliph was the actual killer of Ibn Abu Bakr.[3] His grave is located in a mosque in Cairo, Egypt."

They didn't die at Karbala, but they were fighting for the cause, which completely nullifies your insulting question, "why the  companions of the prophet saww (famous in sunnis)  or their sons/ tabiyeen did neither participate in the battle of Kerbela along with Imam Hussain AS against yazeed (LA) nor they were martyred? "

The Sunnis revere these figures and considers the likes of Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr and Qasim ibn Muhammad abu Bakr.

"Almost all the subjects offered their allegiance, with the exception of Abdur Rahman bin Abu Bakr (the son of Abu Bakr), Abdullah ibn Umar (the son of Umar), al-Husain bin Ali (the son of Ali), Abdullah bin Az-Zubair (The grandson of Abu Bakr) and Abdullah ibn Abbas (Ali's cousin). Because of this Muawiyah passed through al-Madinah on his way back from Makkah upon completion of his Umrah Pilgrimage where he summoned each one of the five aforementioned individuals and threatened them. The speaker who addressed Muawiyah sharply with the greatest firmness amongst them was Abdurrahman bin Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq, while Abdullah bin Umar bin al-Khattab was the most soft-spoken amongst them."

"Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr was finally defeated by Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, who sent Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf. Hajjaj was from Ta’if, as were those who had killed Hussein. In his last hour, Abdullah asked his mother Asma what he should do. Asma replied to her son:[9]"

As @Munzir Ahmed put it there were tabieen who had struggles for a just cause.

You should have kept yourself out of your own question/discussion as it was loaded, how are you going to justify that your' question is not designed to start a fitna?  Rather than admit the question you're posing was incorrect, you're still going on and on like you have an agenda and a narrative you want to lead towards rather than be sincerely inquisitive in this discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sunni and shia nowadays are not the shia and sunni from back then. True.

Still one of the sunni beliefs is to accept any ruler even when he took the rule with the sword or is unjust as long he prays and does not orders the people to be unjust or something like that.

I can't accept that.

And I know there are sunni who love imam Hussain a.s. and condemn Yazid. It's just these strange beliefs that were invented to maintain the status quo and justify illegitimate rulership.

There are still traces left sunni's didn't dealt with and got rid of. Same counts for shia ofcourse.

So it's not about the historical details and names and such. It's about inherited beliefs from unjust rulers back then.

 

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, wmehar2 said:

The Sunnis revere these figures and considers the likes of Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr and Qasim ibn Muhammad abu Bakr.

"Almost all the subjects offered their allegiance, with the exception of Abdur Rahman bin Abu Bakr (the son of Abu Bakr), Abdullah ibn Umar (the son of Umar), al-Husain bin Ali (the son of Ali), Abdullah bin Az-Zubair (The grandson of Abu Bakr) and Abdullah ibn Abbas (Ali's cousin). Because of this Muawiyah passed through al-Madinah on his way back from Makkah upon completion of his Umrah Pilgrimage where he summoned each one of the five aforementioned individuals and threatened them. The speaker who addressed Muawiyah sharply with the greatest firmness amongst them was Abdurrahman bin Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq, while Abdullah bin Umar bin al-Khattab was the most soft-spoken amongst them."

Already replied in earlier posts no need of repeating those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, wmehar2 said:

You should have kept yourself out of your own question/discussion as it was loaded, how are you going to justify that your' question is not designed to start a fitna?  Rather than admit the question you're posing was incorrect, you're still going on and on like you have an agenda and a narrative you want to lead towards rather than be sincerely inquisitive in this discussion. 

If you do not like the thread then why do you intend to feed it with baseless claims?

Is it not hypocrisy? Are you not spreading fitna by adding BS since last 3 posts?

I would like to see the evidence of authority you have at SC to decide the question as correct or incorrect, (favorable to sunnis is correct and against them is incorrect)? 

I have already suggested you that this thread is not your fit place.

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Faruk said:

Still one of the sunni beliefs is to accept any ruler even when he took the rule with the sword or is unjust as long he prays and does not orders the people to be unjust or something like that.

I can't accept that.

And I know there are sunni who love imam Hussain a.s. and condemn Yazid. It's just these strange beliefs that were invented to maintain the status quo and justify illegitimate rulership.

There are still traces left sunni's didn't dealt with and got rid of. Same counts for shia ofcourse.

So it's not about the historical details and names and such. It's about inherited beliefs from unjust rulers back then.

This is main problem with sunni system of man made caliphate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Faruk said:

Still one of the sunni beliefs is to accept any ruler even when he took the rule with the sword or is unjust as long he prays and does not orders the people to be unjust or something like that.

Given Arabia was just recently united, its not quite stable.  Had they all fought, likely many would have lost their lives in an inevitable battle.  

Worse off, dissention within the newly formed Arabian state would have been exploited by both Byzantines and Persians, to the extent Islam was at risk to be obliterated, memorizers of the Quran were being slain in high number from combat and written copies were hardly made at risk of being destroyed conditioned upon totap loss by Muslims to these forces.

Concept of Unification and not dividing was emphasized in Quran, and Hadith  (Najul balagha and Sunni Hadith, where muslims were advised to side with the majority). Also survival was a priority in Quran.

Many "Sunnis" despised Yazid. And coerced to accept Baya3 of Yazid.  should they Risk Sunnis and Shias being elimated all together so Yazid and their likes can pervert Islam more than they have? Imams themselves were in hiding, which similar to sunnis are forced/coerced acceptance of the Khalifah for the sake of Survival.

Early Sunni movements were against the Ummayya tyranny such as Mutazlites, and the major fiqh reps.

Otherwise, cause dissention and risk outward forces to take over Islam and Arabia. 

Furthermore,  Sunnis do not all agree the sameway and cannot be looked at as one uniform consensus of the historic events and acceptance of it.

Even among muslims there exist people who sin grievously and make errors in judgement.  Hypoctites, plotters and schemers were inevitable to don the muslim mask and make chaos. 

Perhaps the sequence of events transpired was a necessary evil like many other tragic events.

Before Imam Hussein AS,  Ali ibn Abi Talib AS, and Imam Hassan AS,  followed the example of peace to avoid dissention, stragically understanding the Risks. 

 

Edited by wmehar2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, skyweb1987 said:

If you do not like the thread then why do you intend to feed it with baseless claims?

Is it not hypocrisy? Are you not spreading fitna by adding BS since last 3 posts?

I would like to see the evidence of authority you have at SC to decide the question as correct or incorrect, (favorable to sunnis is correct and against them is incorrect)? 

I have already suggested you that this thread is not your fit place.

One doesn't need authority in a place that needs only reason.   I disagree with your suggestion.

You can disagree or counter more, I've made my points and see no need to add towards it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, wmehar2 said:

Given Arabia was just recently united, its not quite stable.  Had they all fought, likely many would have lost their lives in an inevitable battle.  

Worse off, dissention within the newly formed Arabian state would have been exploited by both Byzantines and Persians, to the extent Islam was at risk to be obliterated, memorizers of the Quran were being slain in high number from combat and written copies were hardly made at risk of being destroyed conditioned upon totap loss by Muslims to these forces.

Concept of Unification and not dividing was emphasized in Quran, and Hadith  (Najul balagha and Sunni Hadith, where muslims were advised to side with the majority). Also survival was a priority in Quran.

Many "Sunnis" despised Yazid. And coerced to accept Baya3 of Yazid.  should they Risk Sunnis and Shias being elimated all together so Yazid and their likes can pervert Islam more than they have? Imams themselves were in hiding, which similar to sunnis are forced/coerced acceptance of the Khalifah for the sake of Survival.

Early Sunni movements were against the Ummayya tyranny such as Mutazlites, and the major fiqh reps.

Otherwise, cause dissention and risk outward forces to take over Islam and Arabia. 

Furthermore,  Sunnis do not all agree the sameway and cannot be looked at as one uniform consensus of the historic events and acceptance of it.

Even among muslims there exist people who sin grievously and make errors in judgement.  Hypoctites, plotters and schemers were inevitable to don the muslim mask and make chaos. 

Perhaps the sequence of events transpired was a necessary evil like many other tragic events.

Before Imam Hussein AS,  Ali ibn Abi Talib AS, and Imam Hassan AS,  followed the example of peace to avoid dissention, stragically understanding the Risks. 

 

Salam, 

It's a long story but unfortunately to accept unjust rulership is not in line with  the Quran nor with the Ahl al-Bayt a.s. 

 Unless you believe imam Hussain a.s. was wrong. 

What's the use of an Islamic State that despises the Ahl al-Bayt a.s., the majority of the Forerunners, the Hufaz of the Quran and the sanctity of al-Haramayn anyway? 

That's not an Islamic State. It's merely a political entity with an islamic outlook.

 

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, skyweb1987 said:

This is main problem with sunni system of man made caliphate.

I accept or oppose those caliphs that were accepted or opposed by the imams a.s.  

 

And I am not in a state of enmity with those who the imams a.s. reconciled with.

 

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Allahumma sallay ala Muhammad, wa Aal-e-Muhammad, wa ajjil farajahum.
    • Shaitan or Iblis is also a hypocrite & a zalim. Surah Al-Hashr, Verse 16:
      كَمَثَلِ الشَّيْطَانِ إِذْ قَالَ لِلْإِنسَانِ اكْفُرْ فَلَمَّا كَفَرَ قَالَ إِنِّي بَرِيءٌ مِّنكَ إِنِّي أَخَافُ اللَّهَ رَبَّ الْعَالَمِينَ Like the Shaitan when he says to man: Disbelieve, but when he disbelieves, he says: I am surely clear of you; surely I fear Allah, the Lord of the worlds.
      (English - Shakir) And the next verse again mentions his final place and the one who obeys him. Surah Al-Hashr, Verse 17:
      فَكَانَ عَاقِبَتَهُمَا أَنَّهُمَا فِي النَّارِ خَالِدَيْنِ فِيهَا وَذَٰلِكَ جَزَاءُ الظَّالِمِينَ Therefore the end of both of them is that they are both in the fire to abide therein, and that is the reward of the unjust.
      (English - Shakir)
    • Is there some reasonable idea to block corporate interests from getting into politics? When you also look at pictures like this I uploaded it makes you think whether these groups are unstoppable. Did Bernie Sanders have any policy to help end corporate money from getting into politics? I know he talked a lot about campaign finance system but I am sure that isn’t the only way money gets into politics.  What about breaking banks up by ownership to ensure that not only an oligarchy is destroyed but also consumer competitiveness starts to become a thing again. Or maybe we just need everything to collapse so we can get to rebuilding and not waste any more time? America has been doing nothing to limit their deficit because I’m sure they know there is absolutely no credible way to pay a sum like they owe back. Sit back, relax and watch it all burn to the ground. Maybe another communist revolution or two and see how it all goes. Income equality is already making the masses angry if you tell them one day you don’t know where their next salary is going to come from...kaboom.  Im more of a centralisation kind of guy.
    • How old is she? Do you know her friends? Buy some beautiful modest dresses and tell her that she looks more beautiful when she wears them. Ask your mother to do the same.
    • Shirazi and his muqallids are not part of a cult, I don't agree with him but I do notice that a lot of people say things about him that aren't true.
×