Jump to content
Aabiss_Shakari

How the tragedy of Karbala is well documented?

Recommended Posts

Asslamoalaikum brothers and sisters

I have been thinking to discuss this topic to counter the propaganda of Nasibis that nauzbillah the "Tragedy of Karbala" is not well documented or authentic and that there are many exaggerations in the events occurring in Karbala. Although, it is admitted fact that it is not possible to document an incident in exactly the same way it happened but Allah almighty preserved the incidents of tragedy of Karbala so that Karbala becomes an inspiration and guide to all truth seekers in the world.My basic queries about this topic are following:-

1. Who was Hameed bin Muslim and how authentic his reports are?

2. There are historical proofs that the criminals of Karbala went to Yazeed/Ibn e Zayad and told the oppression they committed in Karbala?

3. Is there any book or document which is based on reports of Imam Zainul Abideen a.s and Syeda Zainab a.s or Imam Muhammad Baqir a.s regarding the tragedy of Karbala/

4. Did Mukhtar Saqafi (r.a) made arrangements for recording of crimes committed by the criminal forces of Yazeed in Karbala?

Or any more points you can add. So that we can prove that Karbala is well documented and authentic incident of history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Abul Hussain Hassani said:

The documentation of Karbala in the original and in the earliest sources:

http://www.twelvershia. net/2017/10/11/did-al-hussain-willingly-sacrifice-himself/

Wa Alaikum Salam,


 The shear fact that Imam Hussain A.S brought his family (ladies and children) with him is enough to conclude that he did not intend to fight, what the article has tried to do so hard we openly say in majalis. But the point you are trying to make in your article is negating the basic definition of Imamat.

Anyways this link does not remotely answers the original question. 
_______________________________________________________________________________
YA QAEM A.S ALAJAL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Aabiss_Shakari said:

Asslamoalaikum brothers and sisters

I have been thinking to discuss this topic to counter the propaganda of Nasibis that nauzbillah the "Tragedy of Karbala" is not well documented or authentic and that there are many exaggerations in the events occurring in Karbala. Although, it is admitted fact that it is not possible to document an incident in exactly the same way it happened but Allah almighty preserved the incidents of tragedy of Karbala so that Karbala becomes an inspiration and guide to all truth seekers in the world.My basic queries about this topic are following:-

1. Who was Hameed bin Muslim and how authentic his reports are?

2. There are historical proofs that the criminals of Karbala went to Yazeed/Ibn e Zayad and told the oppression they committed in Karbala?

3. Is there any book or document which is based on reports of Imam Zainul Abideen a.s and Syeda Zainab a.s or Imam Muhammad Baqir a.s regarding the tragedy of Karbala/

4. Did Mukhtar Saqafi (r.a) made arrangements for recording of crimes committed by the criminal forces of Yazeed in Karbala?

Or any more points you can add. So that we can prove that Karbala is well documented and authentic incident of history. 

Bro, it is well known fact that Imam Ali a.s prophesied about Mukhtar Saqafi that he will take revenge from killers of Imam Hussain a.s. so, he was one among those who recorded crimes of criminals of Karbala.

As for sources, there are numerous sources including sources in Yazidi army, Sources in house of Ahlebait that included Imam Muhammad al Baqir, Imam Sajjad a.s and ladies of house of Ahlebait and many children. 

So, it's impossible to cover whole sources here but you can read many books for it to collect a new book of sources.

As for Salafis, they even don't declare Yazid as unbeliever for whom their own sources say that he was morally corrupt and even not equal of animals.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. He was in ‘Umar Ibn Sa'ad's army in Karbala. Hameed Ibn Muslim quarreled with Shimr after the battle was over and asked him not to not burn the tents of the Imam. He was among the Tawabeen who repented fighting against Imam Husayn and took part in the uprising against the Umayyads. 
I don't know if his reports are considered authentic or not.

2.In the earliest books known to me Tabari Vol 19 [375] it is reported that 

According to Hisham (b. Muhammad al-Kalbi)-'Abdallah b.
Yazid b. Rawh b. Zinba' al-JudhamiTM2-his father-al-Ghaz b. Rabi'ah al-Jurashi of I;iimyar:

By God! I was with Yazid b. Mu`awiyah in Damascus when Zabr b. Qays came to see Yazid b. Mu`awiyah . Yazid declared,
"Woe upon you! What (have you left] behind youl What have you got?" He replied, "0 Commander of the Faithful, I bring good news of God's victory and support. Al-Husayn b. `Ali came against us with eighteen men of his House and sixty of his Shi ah. We went out to meet them and we asked them to surrender and submit to the authority of the governor, Ubaydallah b. Ziyid, or to fight. They chose to fight rather than to surrender. We attacked them as the sun rose and surrounded them on every side. Eventually our swords took their toll of the heads of the people, they began to flee without having any refuge ; they sought refuge from us on the hills and in the hollows like the doves seek refuge from a hawk. By God! Commander of the Faithful, it was only a time for the slaughtering of animals, or for a man to take his siesta before we had come upon the last of them . There were their naked bodies, their bloodstained clothes, their faces thrown in the dust. The sun burst down on them ; the wind scattered (dust) over them; their visitors in this deserted and desolate place were eagles and vultures ." Yazid's eyes filled with tears , and he said, "I would have been satisfied with your obedience without killing al- Husayn. May God curse Ibn Sumayyah. By God! If it had been I who had accompanied him, I would have let him off. May God have mercy on al-Husayn." Yaziid gave the messenger nothing."

(this above report shows that yazid l.a showed mercy but this is narrated by his own people as he said "i was with him" . thus the sympathy part could  be true or false Walah Alim) 

In compilations from recent centuries it is reported:
 
“If my venerable ancestors who fell at Badr fighting Muhammad had witnessed how the supporters of Muhammad's faith were thrown into confusion with thrusts given with my spears, they would be blessing me today. The Banu Hashim played a trick to win power. There was never any wahi to them nor did they receive any revelation. Today the souls of my ancestors and friends killed by Muhammad at Badr will rest in peace!”

And then there are reports about Khutbas of Bibi Zainab S.A and Yazid l.a trying to counter them.

3. I  haven't come across any  book comilation till now that is solely based on reports from Imam Ali b. Hussain A.S and Bibi Zainab S.A .

4.No Mukhtar Sqafi did not make efforts for compilation of events of Karbla. His efforts were more to in name of "Kisas" .

_________________________________________________________________________________________

YA QAEM A.S ALAJL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Abul Hussain Hassani said:

:salam:

The documentation of Karbala in the original and in the earliest sources:

http://www.twelvershia. net/2017/10/11/did-al-hussain-willingly-sacrifice-himself/

What exactly does original mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

I take it you did not read the jokes in his signature?

Nope i did not, just did now, Well as per Sunni ulma " Agr Muhammad S.A.W k bad koe nabi hota to Umar hotay" even abu bakar does not qualify. 

And surprisingly this point was raised by  one of my Ahle Sunnat friend.He said that as we are not going to judge any Sahabi R.A then why ashra mubashra, why khulfa rasshideen are above all other sahabis, why Umar is only one that would have been Nabi after Muhammad  S.A.W. Why abu bakar was the only one allowed to lead prayer in presence  of Muhammad S.A.W.
____________________________________________________________________
YA QAEM A.S ALAJAL

Share this post


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

The text that has no ORIGIN or Source is possibly termed as Original (by this link or text)

Could you please clarify what exactly you mean? If I'm understanding you right, that @Abul Hussain Hassani and you mean to say that Abu Mikhnaf's (fragmentary) maqtal has no sources of its own, then that couldn't possibly be true. As I've shown before, that isn't at all true. Abu Mikhnaf extensively cites his informers in his work and doesn't include a report unless he can verify the witnesses. If you mean that it isn't the original work written on Karbala and used as a primary source about the events which took place at Karbala, then that also isn't true. The earliest extant work on Karbala al-Fadhil b. al-Zubayr's Tasmiyah, the author died either about 50 or 10 years before Abu Mikhnaf. And Abu Mikhnaf's Maqtal certainly wasn't the only source used by later historians, though it was heavily relied upon. For example, al-Tabari uses one other major informer aside from Abu Mikhnaf in his Tarikh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

al-Haithami said in Majma' az-Zawai'd" : An from Umm Salma she narrated: Rasoolullah (S) was sitting one day at my house, he said: "No one enters at me", so I waited, then Hussain [a] entered, so I heard a crying and grieving voice of too much sorrow, so I entered till I saw Hussain [a] sitting at Rasoolullahs' (S) lap and the prophet (S) is wiping his forhead, so I said: By Allah! I didn't know when to enter", so the Prophet (S) said: Gibreel [a] was with us at the house, and he asked me "do you love him", I answered: "Yes(I didn't know how to translate it but the answer was positive)". Then Gibreel [a] said your nation will kill him(Hussain [a]) at a land called "Karbala'",   Gibreel took soil/dirt and showed it to the Prophet (S) where Hussain will be killed, he said: "What is the name of this land?". Gibreel said: "Karbala'" And more that they said "Rasulullah was on truthhood!" It is a land of sadness and scourge.

Majmul Zawai'd Volume 9 Page 188-89. The same story is reported by Al Tabarani from Abi Tufayl (Al Assaas fis Sunnah wa Fiqhiha, Sa'eed al Hawa (1:1444))

Grading of hadith by isnad of Tabarani:

haadith.png.e1e5db06858646fafea1a69956e2ebbd.png

(Al Assas Fis Sunnah 1:1444)

 

A new trend is saying Shias killed Husayn (as) and Yazid (la) was not at fault. Sunnis are getting really low with their accusations, but alhamdulillah our ulema are better than to stoop to their level.

[Image removed]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

Could you please clarify what exactly you mean? 

I am just saying the text given at the above link has not mentioned any source in it.

Please do not exaggerate and interpret in a different way.

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2017 at 8:42 PM, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

Could you please clarify what exactly you mean? If I'm understanding you right, that @Abul Hussain Hassani and you mean to say that Abu Mikhnaf's (fragmentary) maqtal has no sources of its own, then that couldn't possibly be true. As I've shown before, that isn't at all true. Abu Mikhnaf extensively cites his informers in his work and doesn't include a report unless he can verify the witnesses. If you mean that it isn't the original work written on Karbala and used as a primary source about the events which took place at Karbala, then that also isn't true. The earliest extant work on Karbala al-Fadhil b. al-Zubayr's Tasmiyah, the author died either about 50 or 10 years before Abu Mikhnaf. And Abu Mikhnaf's Maqtal certainly wasn't the only source used by later historians, though it was heavily relied upon. For example, al-Tabari uses one other major informer aside from Abu Mikhnaf in his Tarikh.

:salam:

No, I didn't say that. I simply shared the link of article about the documentation of Karbala in the early and primary sources. Abi Makhnaf/Tabari etc and how the Shia version of the incident is so different from it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Abul Hussain Hassani said:

:salam:

No, I didn't say that. I simply shared the link of article about the documentation of Karbala in the early and primary sources. Abi Makhnaf/Tabari etc and how the Shia version of the incident is so different from it.

Alaykumussalam

It's been nearly two months since I last replied so I'm going solely off my memory what the articles you linked said.

Well you certainly did more than just share a link, you said about this link that it provides the documentation of Karbala in "the original and earliest sources".

None of the things you claimed are correct, and your implication is unfounded. For one, it isn't sources, it's source. Farid or whoever authored the twelvershia article looked at one source, in the singular, not sources in the plural. The author of the article looks one of the oldest sources -- as there are older sources, one of which is still in existence -- which itself exists only as a reconstruction based off of fragments existing in another text. Al-Tabari's transmission to Abu Mikhnaf's reports are through Hisham al-Kalbi, who supplements them with other reports, some via intermediaries. These are from Awanah b. al-Hakam (d. 147 -- 10 years  before Abu Mikhnaf), Jabir b. Yazid al-Ju'fi (d. 128 -- 19 years before Abu Mikhnaf), and al-Qasim b. al-Asbagh b. Nubatah (d. 1st century -- at least 57 years before Abu Mikhnaf). Awanah had written a K. al-Tarikh and a K. al-Sirah Mu'awiyah wa Bani Umayyah (Ibn al-Nadeem and al-Dhahabi). Jabir had a K. al-Maqtal al-Husayn (al-Najashi), which was apparently a hadith from Imam al-Baqir -- it has been quoted elsewhere as well with minor differences. And al-Qasim's father, al-Asbagh b. Nubatah (rh), had a K. al-Maqtal al-Husayn (al-Tusi) which he is possible quoting in his report. Al-Tabari could used these texts because he found their accounts to be more accurate than what Abu Mikhnaf wrote, or because Abu Mikhnaf didn't write about this. In either case Abu Mikhnaf's account clearly wasn't the definitive or comprehensive. And an earlier extant source -- not reconstructed, but extant -- exists, the Tasmiyah. Though it is a martyr list there is significant information about martyrs included.

Just because a report doesn't exist in Abu Mikhnaf, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Perhaps if you or the had any intellectual integrity in seriously engaging with history, you might have come across this. It'd be unreasonable to ask you to have any sincerity in actually trying to understand the suffering of the Imams, how could I ask for something that isn't there.

Anyways, can't wait to read the next reply you'll be posting around Easter.

Edited by Ibn Al-Ja'abi

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


×