Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Did Shias Kill Imam Hussain(as)?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Guest Psychological Warfare

Kindly, review and contemplate on 'Structured" questions. Not everything needs to be answered. 

This is a deflection. There were very very prominent people alive in Medina and Mecca. Their inability to support the Truth needs to stay under the cover of many structured questions. The army of Shayateen and their leaders and enablers are responsible along with all the ones who silently stayed away(meaning) were part of it. 

They get paid to flood the 'Media" of the time to distract shia's. 

Kindly, do not fall for it. Even if they are able to raise this slogan from every house under their domain. Still don't wait your time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 195
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The names and identities of the killers are known, and obviously they were not Shiites.  If one wants to discuss the role and participation of the kufans, by all means do so, but the statement 't

I suggest you kindly remain on topic instead of trying to speculate about the religious beliefs of the brother. The topic is open for everyone to discuss, as is our forum in general.  Thanks for

Kufa  was founded in the rule of second caliph and it was also promoted by wealthy persons during the rule of third caliph, thus it is obvious that the people of Kufa were followers of the caliphs and

  • Veteran Member
2 hours ago, TryHard said:

The reality is the majority of Ahlul Kufa were "Shia" and did not like Uthman and preffered Ali (عليه السلام) and these were the same people that went back on their letters of invitation and helped kill Imam Hussayn (عليه السلام)

I ask yourself to provide the evidence  of the claim that the majority of the people in Kufa were Shia of Imam Ali.

I await your reply and evidence please.

wasalam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Muslim2010 said:

I ask yourself to provide the evidence  of the claim that the majority of the people in Kufa were Shia of Imam Ali.

I await your reply and evidence please.

wasalam

They were definitely Shia in the sense that they preferred Imam Ali (عليه السلام) over Uthman and they had love for Imam Ali (عليه السلام) that is what I meant by majority of them were Shia.

As for if they are Shia who believe in Wilayah or not I am not sure but that is the point I am trying to make is that you cannot really tell or at least so far I can't. The point is it makes sense that many of them did believe in wilayah idk if I can say the majority but maybe a good portion of them but there were good Shia and bad Shia among them.

Either way if we are to accept that only a minority believed in Wilayah then there are still people from among them who abandoned imam Hussayn (عليه السلام).

Edited by TryHard
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Muslim2010 said:

I ask yourself to provide the evidence  of the claim that the majority of the people in Kufa were Shia of Imam Ali.

I await your reply and evidence please.

wasalam

 

20 minutes ago, TryHard said:

They were definitely Shia in the sense that they preferred Imam Ali (عليه السلام) over Uthman and they had love for Imam Ali (عليه السلام) that is what I meant by majority of them were Shia.

As for if they are Shia who believe in Wilayah or not I am not sure but that is the point I am trying to make is that you cannot really tell or at least so far I can't. The point is it makes sense that many of them did believe in wilayah idk if I can say the majority but maybe a good portion of them but there were good Shia and bad Shia among them.

Either way if we are to accept that only a minority believed in Wilayah then there are still people from among them who abandoned imam Hussayn (عليه السلام).

Salaams,

Shiism as a sect was not even establiahed by that time. The propaganda of nasibis is that the tawwaboon who left Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) alone, later became shias.

If you want to close there mouth, there is a simple counter and they will not bark again. The one who promoted the idea of writing letters and insisting Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) to come was Sulaymn ibn Surd. And Sulayman ibn Surd was amongst the Sahaba.

So, the fact of the matter is that:

1. It is not clear whether they were Shias or not.

2. It is definitely known as a fact that the leads in them included companions.

But we shias should ignore this bickering and move on as it is simply untrue and it is done in order to deviate us from the right path and to protect banu Umayya in some way. But if someone wants to know then he should know that those were companions who actually called Imam Hussain (عليه السلام). 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Zainuu said:

1. It is not clear whether they were Shias or not.

2. It is definitely known as a fact that the leads in them included companions.

Kufa  was founded in the rule of second caliph and it was also promoted by wealthy persons during the rule of third caliph, thus it is obvious that the people of Kufa were followers of the caliphs and their rule. During this period, the Umayyads had attained  domination in the politics of Kufa.

Seven months after taking charge of the government, Ali made Kufa his new capital. Following were some of the reasons that prompted this change:

1. The battle of Basra or the battle of the Camel was fought and was won with the aid of the people of Kufa. Ali made Kufa his capital, partly in recognition of this service by them.

2. Ali was anxious to save Medina from the havoc of civil strife like the one which had ended in the murder of Uthman. He did not want Medina to become the locale of political disturbances at any time, and he wanted to save the City of the Prophet from destruction or desecration in the possible wars of the future.

3. Kufa had a more central position in the empire. Administrative facility of the vast and sprawling territories dictated this change.

4. It was easier for Ali to watch the movements of Muawiya from Kufa than from Medina.” (The History of Islam)

The historical perspective described here makes it clear that a majority of the influentials in Kufa belonged to the group of self-seekers and those after status. They had old associations with the mutineers of Syria. Although they were with the leader of the faithful in the Siffin war, yet behind the scenes they had been intriguing against the Imam (عليه السلام). These aversive intrigues at first led to the Imam (as)'s outward set back in the Siffin war, the disobedience of his orders, and finally his martyrdom.

From the above facts it can be concluded that in addition to differences due to race, colour, ideas and beliefs, Kufa was also a hot bed of malice, mistrust and intrigue. The main aim of the intrigues was to weaken the truly Islamic Alavi government. So, these extended till the time of Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) and beyond. Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) also faced great danger due to these intrigues, as they had reached a crisis stage during the time of his caliphate.

It is a historical fact that the residents of Kufa used to say so many things emotionally, yet at the moment of trial they would run away from the battle field and lacked patience and steadfastness. This fact emerges more clearly at the time when Imam Husayn (عليه السلام) went to Kufa at the invitation of its nationals and wished them to participate in his revolution. Then the people advised him otherwise, explaining the nature of the residents of Kufa as follows:

"No doubt their hearts are with you, but their swords are with your enemy", which meant that those people were very emotional while expressing love, regard and respect for someone but would abandon him at the time of trial and tribulation. At that time they only worried about their personal interests.

https://www.al-islam.org/imam-hasan-and-caliphate-qurrat-ul-ain-abidiy/historical-background-kufa

How these people were Shia of imam Ali  in majority? It is Just a rejected and baseless claim.

wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Zainuu said:

 

Salaams,

Shiism as a sect was not even establiahed by that time. The propaganda of nasibis is that the tawwaboon who left Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) alone, later became shias.

If you want to close there mouth, there is a simple counter and they will not bark again. The one who promoted the idea of writing letters and insisting Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) to come was Sulaymn ibn Surd. And Sulayman ibn Surd was amongst the Sahaba.

So, the fact of the matter is that:

1. It is not clear whether they were Shias or not.

2. It is definitely known as a fact that the leads in them included companions.

But we shias should ignore this bickering and move on as it is simply untrue and it is done in order to deviate us from the right path and to protect banu Umayya in some way. But if someone wants to know then he should know that those were companions who actually called Imam Hussain (عليه السلام). 

 

I am not saying all the Shia were involved or that they actually went and killed him. But that many of them hold some responsibility for not helping the Imam (عليه السلام) when he needed it.

you are right 12'er Shiasm did not exist at this time this is why I did not believe in these arguments of "Shia khas" and "Shia Am". However were there shias that believed in the Imam's (عليه السلام) wilayah Solayman seems to be one of them and there were others yet the majority abandoned the Imam (عليه السلام). Did some of these type of Shias actually go and join the army of Umar ibn Said (La) I dont have the knowledge to say that for sure. 

 

I personally think it is important to consider. As if some where Shia or at least we can agree that they abondened the Imam (عليه السلام) many of them like Muhammad ibn Hanifiyah then we can see that mistakes were made and try and learn from them as Shia today. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Muslim2010 said:

How these people were Shia of imam Ali  in majority? It is Just a rejected and baseless claim.

wasalam

you copied and pasted an article that simply trashed on a lot of the people of ahlul kufa for the most part. First off I already read that before I even came on here. Second to say that all people in Kufa were in it for themselves and after dunya is ridiculous as Imam Ali (عليه السلام) praises them in Nahjul Balagha and you have the likes of Malik Ibn Ashtar (رضي الله عنه) and Maytham Al Tamar (رضي الله عنه) who came from Kufa. 

So we know they were not all bad. Besides this was during the time of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) it is likely that the imam's (عليه السلام) followers grew by the time Imam Husayn (عليه السلام) became the Imam.

Edited by TryHard
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, TryHard said:

But that many of them hold some responsibility for not helping the Imam (عليه السلام) when he needed it.

Some of them who were left behind were even left due to many reasons. For example, Ibn Ziyad kept a strict eye on every supporter of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) and was making sure that no one appears for the help of Imam (عليه السلام). People were there who were willingto join Imam (عليه السلام) but were unable to do so. Also, there were those who went but were too late and ashura happened. Some were thrown into prison like Hazrat Mukhtar (رضي الله عنه) and some were killed hanged on the trees like Mesum Tammar (رضي الله عنه). Some were a bit scared.  So, they all satisfied themselves by Tawwaboon movement and by joining Hazrat Mukhtar (رضي الله عنه). 

I don't think responsibility should be on these people I mentioned. In Mecca and in Medina from where Imam (عليه السلام) started his journey. Great companions like Abdullah ibn Abbas (رضي الله عنه), Abdullah ibn Umar, Ibn Zubayr, Zayd ibn al Arqam etc. They all were unable to join though, Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) started his journey from Mecca and Medina. 

In Kufa, the one who invited Imam Husayn (عليه السلام) was Sulayman ibn Surd. I agree that we should learn from all of them so that we don't repeat it. But all this blame game that 'Shias killed Imam Husayn (AS)' or 'Shias left him alone' or 'Shias betrayed him' is incorrect. In a similar tone and by the same logic all the companions of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and even some of Banu Hashim can be accused for the same thing.

But is it right? And the leader of the uprising in Kufa was Sulayman ibn Surd (رضي الله عنه), a companion. He was also a shia of Imam Ali (عليه السلام). But the 'advocates of sahaba' should stay careful while making such accusations on Shias.

1 hour ago, TryHard said:

abondened the Imam (عليه السلام) many of them like Muhammad ibn Hanifiyah

This is an extremely baseless argument. Hazrat Muhammad Hanifiyyah adviced against going Karbala. Every person did that. That doesn't justify your blame against them. Hz Muhammad Hanifiyyah was unable to go to Karbala because his leg was paralyzed. He was handicapped and it is well known. Secondly, there were womenfolks left in Medina. This was a journey, not migration. So, a man was needed to stay in Medina to take care of Women and children left behind. 

You can simply verify this by seeing thr case of Hazrat Abdullah ibn Jafar. He also adviced against going to Karbala but he himself brought Hazrat Aun and Hazrat Muhammad on a landmark so that they both can join in Karbala. 

 

Edited by Zainuu
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

Some of them who were left behind were even left due to many reasons. For example, Ibn Ziyad kept a strict eye on every supporter of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) and was making sure that no one appears for the help of Imam (عليه السلام). People were there who were willingto join Imam (عليه السلام) but were unable to do so. Also, there were those who went but were too late and ashura happened. Some were thrown into prison like Hazrat Mukhtar (رضي الله عنه) and some were killed hanged on the trees like Mesum Tammar (رضي الله عنه). Some were a bit scared.  So, they all satisfied themselves by Tawwaboon movement and by joining Hazrat Mukhtar (رضي الله عنه). 

I don't think responsibility should be on these people I mentioned. In Mecca and in Medina from where Imam (عليه السلام) started his journey. Great companions like Abdullah ibn Abbas (رضي الله عنه), Abdullah ibn Umar, Ibn Zubayr, Zayd ibn al Arqam etc. They all were unable to join though, Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) started his journey from Mecca and Medina. 

In Kufa, the one who invited Imam Husayn (عليه السلام) was Sulayman ibn Surd. I agree that we should learn from all of them so that we don't repeat it. But all this blame game that 'Shias killed Imam Husayn (AS)' or 'Shias left him alone' or 'Shias betrayed him' is incorrect. In a similar tone and by the same logic all the companions of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and even some of Banu Hashim can be accused for the same thing.

But is it right? And the leader of the uprising in Kufa was Sulayman ibn Surd (رضي الله عنه), a companion. He was also a shia of Imam Ali (عليه السلام). But the 'advocates of sahaba' should stay careful while making such accusations on Shias.

Bro I am not a Sunni first off and I do not care for their arguments. I am looking at this as a Shia. I think we are making the same mistake as sunnis make with the sahaba of the holy prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in the same way they consider all of them to be "Just" we are sort of the same with "Shia". 

AS you said her some were a "bit scared" that is my problem. I do not believe all shia are to blame but to say they are all good and no Shia did anything wrong is my problem.

Many of them did betray Imam Hussayn (عليه السلام) and Sulayman was partly responsible. As for ibn Abbass and these other people why didn't they join the Imam (عليه السلام) what is their excuse? serious questiuon. Do we just do what sunnis do and say they are all adil? 

50 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

This is an extremely baseless argument. Hazrat Muhammad Hanifiyyah adviced against going Karbala. Every person did that. That doesn't justify your blame against them. Hz Muhammad Hanifiyyah was unable to go to Karbala because his leg was paralyzed. He was handicapped and it is well known. Secondly, there were womenfolks left in Medina. This was a journey, not migration. So, a man was needed to stay in Medina to take care of Women and children left behind. 

You can simply verify this by seeing thr case of Hazrat Abdullah ibn Jafar. He also adviced against going to Karbala but he himself brought Hazrat Aun and Hazrat Muhammad on a landmark so that they both can join in Karbala. 

What are the sources he was paralyzed? Second the very fact he "advised Hussayn (as)" against it is exactly my problem. Who has any right to "advise" Imam Hussayn (عليه السلام) against something. All the people that "advised" the Imam (عليه السلام) against it were wrong and that is already my problem. You see already that the "Shia" are making mistakes. 

"Also someone needs to protect the women" what about the women of Karbala? And how is a paralyzed man supposed to look after those women in Medina? You see how it falls apart? 

Also I think Abdullah ibn Jaffaar should have came along too. 

Edited by TryHard
spelling, clarification
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
24 minutes ago, TryHard said:

Bro I am not a Sunni first off and I do not care for their arguments. I am looking at this as a Shia. I think we are making the same mistake as sunnis make with the sahaba of the holy prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in the same way they consider all of them to be "Just" we are sort of the same with "Shia". 

AS you said her some were a "bit scared" that is my problem. I do not believe all shia are to blame but to say they are all good and no Shia did anything wrong is my problem.

They did betray the Imam Hussayn (عليه السلام) and Sulayman was partly responsible. As for ibn Abbass and these other people why did they join the Imam (عليه السلام) what is their excuse? serious questiuon. Do we just do what sunnis do and say they are all adil? 

This is exactly what I said and I agree except that 'scared' part. 

The problem is that you are saying that no excuse should be accepted from those who did not join. By 'scared' I don't mean they were in terror. But by scared I mean that Kufa was entirely in a state of emergency. All the doors for escape were closed. So, it might be the case that many of them stood behind because they knew that attempt to escape would end up being caught and killed or imprisoned.

I am not saying that they were all correct, accurate and pure. There were many who didn't show up. But many were also who were unable to show up. Or forced to stay back. Sulayman ibn Surd himself had an assumption that Imam Husayn (عليه السلام) will enter Kufa and then the revolt will start. So, he kept his sword down for that time. But Imam never came. This is called a lack of vision. He was wrong, no doubt and definitely so because he didn't show up to protect Hazrat Muslim also. 

So, yes I agree with some part and my address in the post above was to the nasibis, not shias. Because the topic goes like that. Attempts are made to completely destroy tashayyu everytime. This is wrong. 

47 minutes ago, TryHard said:

What are the sources he was paralyzed?

Sorry for my mistake here. Not paralysis but it was sickness related to eyes.

 

Quote

 

Muhammad was not present in the battle of Karbala. Shi'a scholars have mentioned several reasons for his absence; they believe that his absence was not out of disobedience or disagreement with Imam al-Husayn (a). These reasons include:

  • Muhammad's sickness when Imam al-Husayn (a) left Medina for Mecca, which is mentioned by al-Allama al-Hilli in response to Muhanna b. Sinan.[12] According to some scholars, the sickness was related to his eyes.
  • The Imam (a) had told Muhammad to stay in Medina. Ibn A'tham al-Kufi mentions that when Muhamad b. al-Hanafiyya could not convince Imam al-Husayn (a) to stay in Medina, the Imam (a) told him, "It is alright for you to stay in Medina so that you be my informant among them."
  • Following to Imam al-Husayn's (a) refusal to swear allegiance to Yazid, Muhammad b. al-Hanafiyya suggested his brother to set off for Mecca to protect his life, and to Yemen if he was also threatened in Mecca, and to take shelter in deserts or mountains in case he was even troubled in Yemen. Imam al-Husayn (a) appreciated his suggestion and said; 'Dear brother, you are free to remain in Medina, so that you can keep your eyes on my enemy and report me of their affairs.'

 

  • https://en.wikishia.net/view/Muhammad_b._al-Hanafiyya
  •  
  • 51 minutes ago, TryHard said:

    Also someone needs to protect the women" what about the women of Karbala? And how is a paralyzed man supposed to look after those women? You see how it falls apart? 

    I don't know what kind of logic makes you think like this.

It is my opinion and it is not that weak. On the expedition of Tabuk, don't you know that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was asked to left behind and when he started weeping, the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said what is known as Hadith al Manzila. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was left back to take care of the affairs in Medina behind the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Because entire Medina was empty except women folks.

54 minutes ago, TryHard said:

Also Abdullah ibn Jaffaar should have came along too. 

Again I would say that it is so inaccurate and wrong to put this blame on Hazrat Abdullah ibn Jafar (ra):

Quote

Dhat-el-Irq: Here Imam's cousin Abdullah Ibn Jafar brought his two sons Auwn and Mohammed to their mother Hazrat Zainab and to help the imam. He tried to persuade the Imam to return to Madina but Imam replied, 'my destiny is in the hands of Allah.

https://www.al-islam.org/articles/route-imam-husayn-makkah-karbala

Further, almost every scholar has said this that those of the house of Imam Husayn (عليه السلام) who were unable to join Imam (عليه السلام) should not be considered sinners and you can check that in the above source.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, TryHard said:

So we know they were not all bad. Besides this was during the time of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) it is likely that the imam's (عليه السلام) followers grew by the time Imam Husayn (عليه السلام) became the Imam.

I have already asked you for the evidence of your claim but i have not received any evidence by my earlier posts except further claims.

11 hours ago, Muslim2010 said:

I ask yourself to provide the evidence  of the claim that the majority of the people in Kufa were Shia of Imam Ali.

I await your reply and evidence please.

wasalam

Yes there were few Shia / True followers / Shia khasa of Imam Ali, Imam Hassan and Imam Husain AS considering them imams as successors of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) but they were only a few not in majority.

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Zainuu said:

This is exactly what I said and I agree except that 'scared' part. 

The problem is that you are saying that no excuse should be accepted from those who did not join. By 'scared' I don't mean they were in terror. But by scared I mean that Kufa was entirely in a state of emergency. All the doors for escape were closed. So, it might be the case that many of them stood behind because they knew that attempt to escape would end up being caught and killed or imprisoned.

Except Muslim ibn Aqeel called these people to fight before all this happened and they abandoned him that is my problem. Also I find it wrong personally that the Imam (عليه السلام) is being killed and these people want to preserve their own life. I know it feels like I am passing a harsh judgement and to be honest I do not think I would have one ay better but my thing is we need to see things for what they are not what we want them to be.

Soleman's choice to stay was wrong but I am glad you agree. The Shia do have some responisbility here.

2 hours ago, Zainuu said:

Sorry for my mistake here. Not paralysis but it was sickness related to eyes.

 

The logic is easy Akh if he has an "Eye Sickness" (before you said paralyzed) how can he protect women and children let alone LOOK after them? If you say he can look after them and defend people then that contradicts the whole narrative. 

1. Also I checked Al Majlisi God Bless him it says that it was said he was sick but no source is provided and I personally doubt that was true. In any case Imam Zaynul Abideen (عليه السلام) was sick too yet he came. Also fun fact the same source source said he denied the Imamat of Imam Zaynul abideen (عليه السلام) same with abdullah bin jaafar it seem. It says they left Faith

محمد بن الحنفية؟ هل كان يقول بإمامة زين العابدين عليه السلام؟ وكيف تخلف عن الحسين عليه السلام؟ وكذلك عبد الله بن جعفر، فأجاب العلامة رحمه الله: قد ثبت في أصل الإمامة أن أركان الايمان التوحيد والعدل والنبوة والإمامة، والسيد محمد بن الحنفية و عبد الله بن جعفر وأمثالهم أجل قدرا وأعظم شأنا من اعتقادهم خلاف الحق، و خروجهم عن الايمان الذي يحصل به اكتساب الثواب الدائم والخلاص من العقاب وأما تخلفه عن نصرة الحسين عليه السلام فقد نقل أنه كان مريضا، ويحتمل في غيره عدم العلم بما وقع على مولانا الحسين عليه السلام من القتل وغيره، وبنوا على ما وصل من كتب الغدرة إليه وتوهموا نصرتهم له.

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/1473_بحار-الأنوار-العلامة-المجلسي-ج-٤٢/الصفحة_112#top

it even says on WikiShia "Al-Mamaqani dated his sickness after the martyrdom of Imam al-Husayn (a), but still did not find fault with his absence in Karbala"

so the sickness itself is uncertainty. 

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Muhammad_b._al-Hanafiyya

2. All the source that say that Imam Hussayn (عليه السلام) told him to stay behind come from questionable sources to say the least definitely not sound authentic ones and this contradicts Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) hadith here 

mam Ja’far as Sadiq ((عليه السلام).) regarding the uprising of Imam Husayn ((عليه السلام).) and the lagging behind of Muhammad ibn Hanafiyah in Madina. Imam replied, “O Hamza! I shall relate to you a report after which you will never put forward such questions to me in any gathering. When Imam Husayn ((عليه السلام).) intended to leave Madina, he called for the paper and wrote therein: In the Name of Allah the Beneficent, the Merciful. This is from Husayn bin Ali bin Abi Talib to the Bani Hashim. Now then! The one who accompanies me shall be martyred, while the one who separates from me will not attain success and peace. Salutations.”

 

2 hours ago, Zainuu said:

 On the expedition of Tabuk, don't you know that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was asked to left behind and when he started weeping, the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said what is known as Hadith al Manzila. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was left back to take care of the affairs in Medina behind the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Because entire Medina was empty except women folks.

This is weak because Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is not sick or anything. Plus he is Imam Ali (عليه السلام) he actually had the ability to look after these people. How does it make sense that one sick elderly man whose sickness according to some is so bad that he could not attend battle at karbala is able to protect a whole city of women and Children? Let alone LOOK after them with his "eye sickness"

2 hours ago, Zainuu said:

Again I would say that it is so inaccurate and wrong to put this blame on Hazrat Abdullah ibn Jafar (ra):

It is right though if we read the hadith of Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام)

2 hours ago, Zainuu said:

 

https://www.al-islam.org/articles/route-imam-husayn-makkah-karbala

Further, almost every scholar has said this that those of the house of Imam Husayn (عليه السلام) who were unable to join Imam (عليه السلام) should not be considered sinners and you can check that in the above source.

This sounds like Adalat Sahaba but for Shia. Regardless just because they think they should not be considered sinners does not mean I have too think the same way. Other scholars opinions are not hujjah on me accept my marja.

Edited by TryHard
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, Muslim2010 said:

I have already asked you for the evidence of your claim but i have not received any evidence by my earlier posts except further claims.

Yes there were few Shia / True followers / Shia khasa of Imam Ali, Imam Hassan and Imam Husain AS considering them imams as successors of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) but they were only a few not in majority.

First I don't need to provide anything if I don't want to. 

Second I already explained what I meant by majority were Shia go back and read that.

Third no he did not consider them successors of prophet's  (عليه السلام) were does he say those shia of ahlul kufa were successors of prophets (عليه السلام)? 

fourth follow this discussion we are having there were "Shia Khas" that betrayed Imam Hussayn (عليه السلام) by betraying Muslim ibn Aqeel (رضي الله عنه)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
1 minute ago, TryHard said:

First I don't need to provide anything if I don't want to. 

Second I already explained what I meant by majority were Shia go back and read that.

Third no he did not consider them successors of prophet's  (عليه السلام) were does he say those shia of ahlul kufa were successors of prophets (عليه السلام)? 

fourth follow this discussion we are having there were "Shia Khas" that betrayed Imam Hussayn (عليه السلام) by betraying Muslim ibn Aqeel (رضي الله عنه)

Thanks for your reply since i have found it baseless and without any evidence then i say Qalu Salama and i am not willing to waste my precious time in responding to suppositions of any fellow that is ignoring the facts and accepting the baseless claims.

wasalam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, TryHard said:

The logic is easy Akh if he has an "Eye Sickness" (before you said paralyzed) how can he protect women and children let alone LOOK after them? If you say he can look after them and defend people then that contradicts the whole narrative. 

1. Also I checked Al Majlisi God Bless him it says that it was said he was sick but no source is provided and I personally doubt that was true. In any case Imam Zaynul Abideen (عليه السلام) was sick too yet he came. Also fun fact the same source source said he denied the Imamat of Imam Zaynul abideen (عليه السلام) same with abdullah bin jaafar it seem. It says they left Faith

1. The logic is baseless (I repeat the second time). The reason being that a man (even with sickness) can be left behind to take care for women and children. It has been the way everywhere. 

Part 2: Imam Zain ul Abideen got ill in Karbala and not in Mecca or Medina.

And Allama Majlisi's opinion on this is just his own opinion. Opinions are not a proof to anything.

And Allama Majlisi in same Bihar al Anwar says this:

Quote

Regarding this hadith of Imam al-Husayn (a), al-'Allama al-Majlisi has said; 'his holiness gave them the choice whether or not to join him, and it was not a sin to neglect to join him, since it was not an obligation, but an option.

So, contradictory opinions with all due respect to Allama al Majlisi. 

8 hours ago, TryHard said:

All the source that say that Imam Hussayn (عليه السلام) told him to stay behind come from questionable sources

This you can keep it to yourself as I don't think those sources are unauthentic unless proven.

8 hours ago, TryHard said:

It is right though if we read the hadith of Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام)

That just means that you didn't read what I shared. 

And I seriously doubt that narration of Imam Jafar (عليه السلام) because Hazrat Zainab (SA) being a wife of Abdullah ibn Jafar (رضي الله عنه) came to Karbala by his permission. The source I mentioned said that Hazrat Abdullah brought Hazrat Aun and Hazrat Muhammad on the journey of Karbala. So, there is no reason for that hadith to be authentic because all the proofs indicate that Hazrat Abdullah ibn Jafar (رضي الله عنه) was supporting Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) through his entire family.

Or maybe the hadith meant something else.

8 hours ago, TryHard said:

This sounds like Adalat Sahaba but for Shia. Regardless just because they think they should not be considered sinners does not mean I have too think the same way. Other scholars opinions are not hujjah on me accept my marja.

This you can say that it was there own stance. But as far as the narrations are concerned I don't feel any need to accuse these men of betrayal or something for not joining Imam (عليه السلام). Only some of them, not all as Banu Hashim was a huge tribe and many were left behind. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Psychological Warfare

Just as an FYI to Shia's. 

DID THE SHIA KILL IMAM HUSSAIN (عليه السلام)? | Sayed Ammar Nakshawani ( appox 5min)

&

Quote

The Martyrdom of Hani’ bin ‘Urwah

After the martyrdom of Muslim bin ‘Aqil, [Ibn Ziyad] declined to fulfil his promise [to Muhammad bin al-Ash’ath that he would return Hani’ to him in order to avoid the enmity of [Hani’s] tribesmen; for it was him who took him to Ibn Ziyad]. ‘Ubaidullah then ordered for Hani’ bin ‘Urwah and said: “Take him to the market place and cut off his head.”

So Hani’ was taken -while he his hands were tied behind his back- to a place in the market where sheep were sold. Hani’ began to shout: “O Madhhij! There is no one from Madhhij for me today! O Madhhij! Where are the Madhhij to help me!”

When he saw that no one is helping him, he pulled his hand and wrenched it free of the handcuff, saying: “Is there no stick, knife, stone or bone with which one can defend himself!” [At this] they jumped on him and tied him [more] tightly. Then it was said to him: “Stretch your neck forward.” Hani’ said: “I am not so generous with my life, I will not help you against myself.”

Then a Turkish slave of ‘Ubaidullah by the name of Rashid108 struck him with [his] sword to no avail. So Hani’ said: “To Allah is the return. O Allah, to Your mercy and pleasure [do I return]!” Then he struck him again and killed him.109 [May Allah’s mercy and pleasure be upon him. Then they took his head to Ibn Ziyad].110

Those Who Were Killed After Muslim and Hani’

After killing Muslim and Hani’, ‘Ubaidullah bin Ziyad ordered for ‘Abd al-A’ala al-Kalbi, the one arrested by Kathir bin Shihab at Banu Fityan. So he was brought [before Ibn Ziyad]. Ibn Ziyad said to him: “Tell me about your case.”

He said: “May Allah make you among the righteous! I had [just] come out to see what the people were doing when Kathir bin Shihab arrested me.”

[Ibn Ziyad said]: “You must heavily swear that you did not come out for some other reason”, but al-Kalbi refused to do so [and ‘Ubaidullah got convinced that he had come out in support of Muslim].

Then, Ibn Ziyad ordered [saying]: “Take this man to the cemetery of Sabi’ and behead him there.” So they took him and killed him.

Then ‘Umarah bin Salkhab al-Azdi was brought before ‘Ubaidullah. He was among those who intended to mobilize people in support of Muslim bin ‘Aqil.

[Ibn Ziyad] asked him: “From which clan are you?”

He replied: “From Azd.”

[Ibn Ziyad] then said: “Take him to his people [and kill him there].” So he was taken and beheaded amidst his people.111

The Imprisonment of Mukhtar.....

https://www.al-islam.org/event-taff-earliest-historical-account-tragedy-karbala-abu-mikhnaf/events-kufah-after-arrival-muslim#martyrdom-hani-bin-urwah

-----

People are politically aligned or support, one candidate against the other because they find the one better, does not mean they are their True followers. This is called Political party people. If the things change they may align with someone else. They are Not True Followers. 

People in times of ease ,social and political awareness may join the "Crowd'" of a politically correct band wagon, but they will abandon it in the face of adversity. 

People who may identify with certain theology, depending on their conviction may abandon in the face of adversity. 

People who are convinced or made to fear  by their women( Mothers/Sister/wives) or are concerned with their family and fortune may abandon.

People may be weak and abandon due to what will happen to their families after them , will they be punished. 

Some may be true followers but did not have insight or full comprehension of the situation - they may think this will never result in bloodshed. 

Some may have hesitated, due to various reason(s) 

Other people who were True, were either killed, imprisoned, or they made efforts to join some were successful and some may not have been successful. 

The   Explicit call for Help- on the day of Ashura, was implicit since the demand of allegiance was made,  started in Medina.  Except for Those who were informed to stay back by the Imam(عليه السلام), others needed to respond to the Call of the Imam(عليه السلام) of the time . 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)

The matter discussed with sunni brothers about companions  and Kerbela can be seen at the link given below:

 

The faith of those killers (of imam Hussain (عليه السلام)) and kufans was that they were Shia of Uhtman, Maviya and yazeed.

wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Zainuu said:

1. The logic is baseless (I repeat the second time). The reason being that a man (even with sickness) can be left behind to take care for women and children. It has been the way everywhere. 

Part 2: Imam Zain ul Abideen got ill in Karbala and not in Mecca or Medina.

regardless the evidence muhammad ibn hanifiyah was sick is weak and I still find that illogical where else is it the case that you leave a sick weak person to look after kids. It does not make sense. 

"Al-Mamaqani dated his sickness after the martyrdom of Imam al-Husayn (a), but still did not find fault with his absence in Karbala"

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Muhammad_b._al-Hanafiyya

 

16 hours ago, Zainuu said:

And Allama Majlisi's opinion on this is just his own opinion. Opinions are not a proof to anything.

And Allama Majlisi in same Bihar al Anwar says this:

So, contradictory opinions with all due respect to Allama al Majlisi. 

no they are not allama al majlisi does not say that. That was a wiki shia article says it is allama al hilli's opinion not majlisis yet the source they give is Majlisi's book. the book simply says what the excuse given for ibn hanifiyeh not that it is their opinion. The text I copied and pasted was the reference they gave. It says the allamah was asked (either majlisi or Hili was asked)

محمد بن الحنفية؟ هل كان يقول بإمامة زين العابدين عليه السلام؟ وكيف تخلف عن الحسين عليه السلام؟ وكذلك عبد الله بن جعفر، فأجاب العلامة رحمه الله: قد ثبت في أصل الإمامة أن أركان الايمان التوحيد والعدل والنبوة والإمامة، والسيد محمد بن الحنفية و عبد الله بن جعفر وأمثالهم أجل قدرا وأعظم شأنا من اعتقادهم خلاف الحق، و خروجهم عن الايمان الذي يحصل به اكتساب الثواب الدائم والخلاص من العقاب وأما تخلفه عن نصرة الحسين عليه السلام فقد نقل أنه كان مريضا، ويحتمل في غيره عدم العلم بما وقع على مولانا الحسين عليه السلام من القتل وغيره، وبنوا على ما وصل من كتب الغدرة إليه وتوهموا نصرتهم له.

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/1473_بحار-الأنوار-العلامة-المجلسي-ج-٤٢/الصفحة_112#top

They left the faith they had been on reffering to muhammad ibn hanifiyeh and abdullah ibn jaafar. 

And he left the help of Imam Hussayn (عليه السلام) because it is said  he was sick.

Bihar al anwar page 110 volume 42. The reference wiki shia gives to Allama al Hilli's opinion is the book by allama al majlisi (رضي الله عنه) where it says alama was asked.

16 hours ago, Zainuu said:

This you can keep it to yourself as I don't think those sources are unauthentic unless proven.

They are all unauthentic. Go and check for yourself. I checked each one wiki shia gave none had a sanad to them. Even the other that I did check had the hadith of Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) with the Sanad. Find me one authentic narration/hadith where the Imam (عليه السلام) told him stay behind?

second all the hadith they mentioned (which were only 3 by the way.) did not make any mention of him being sick or looking after children or women. so where did that come from?

16 hours ago, Zainuu said:

That just means that you didn't read what I shared. 

And I seriously doubt that narration of Imam Jafar (عليه السلام) because Hazrat Zainab (SA) being a wife of Abdullah ibn Jafar (رضي الله عنه) came to Karbala by his permission. The source I mentioned said that Hazrat Abdullah brought Hazrat Aun and Hazrat Muhammad on the journey of Karbala. So, there is no reason for that hadith to be authentic because all the proofs indicate that Hazrat Abdullah ibn Jafar (رضي الله عنه) was supporting Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) through his entire family.

Or maybe the hadith meant something else.

 Sending your kids to battle is not proof someone is good when they should be participating themselves. There were people whose kids were in the battle fighting alongside the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) against there own family yet their fathers were Kuffar. 

The hadith is clear brother It even has a sanad idk on how good it is but it leads back to the Imam (عليه السلام) unlike the other sources which say ibn hanifiyeh was supposed to stay behind. 

Muhammad bin Abu Talib says that Muhammad bin Ya’qoob has related in Wasael from Muhammad bin Yahya, from Muhammad bin Husayn, from Ayyub bin Nuh, from Safwaan, from Marwan bin Isma’il, from Hamza bin Humran who says that we questioned Imam Ja’far as Sadiq ((عليه السلام).) regarding the uprising of Imam Husayn ((عليه السلام).) and the lagging behind of Muhammad ibn Hanafiyah in Madina. Imam replied, “O Hamza! I shall relate to you a report after which you will never put forward such questions to me in any gathering. When Imam Husayn ((عليه السلام).) intended to leave Madina, he called for the paper and wrote therein: In the Name of Allah the Beneficent, the Merciful. This is from Husayn bin Ali bin Abi Talib to the Bani Hashim. Now then! The one who accompanies me shall be martyred, while the one who separates from me will not attain success and peace. Salutations.”

 

16 hours ago, Zainuu said:

This you can say that it was there own stance. But as far as the narrations are concerned I don't feel any need to accuse these men of betrayal or something for not joining Imam (عليه السلام). Only some of them, not all as Banu Hashim was a huge tribe and many were left behind. 

 

I am not saying all of Banu Hashim betrayed that is not the case there were martyrs alongside Imam Hussayn (عليه السلام) but what I am saying is the Shia did not do their job as they should have and we should try and learn from that instead of going out of our way to give people excuses. Especially ones that are contradictory and don't hold up well to scrutiny. We do not behave this way when it comes to the who claimed to be sahaba of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) so we should not behave this way when it comes to the people who claimed to be sahaba of Imam Hussayn (عليه السلام). Some people were clearly good and others were not. 

Edited by TryHard
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Muslim2010 said:

The matter discussed with sunni brothers about companions  and Kerbela can be seen at the link given below:

 

The faith of those killers (of imam Hussain (عليه السلام)) and kufans was that they were Shia of Uhtman, Maviya and yazeed.

wasalam

The faith of those killers (of imam Hussain (عليه السلام)) and kufans was that they were Shia of Uhtman, Maviya and yazeed.

Truth can never be denied whether many undercover non-shia try at the best to ignore the facts. :grin:

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, Muslim2010 said:

The faith of those killers (of imam Hussain (عليه السلام)) and kufans was that they were Shia of Uhtman, Maviya and yazeed.

you do not have any proof that all ahlul kufa were "shia Uthman" in fact I brought evidence that says otherwise. In fact Kufa was known back than to be anti Uthman so that is just silly. Yes the killers of Imam Hussayn (عليه السلام) like Shimr (la) were followers of Yazeed (la) that does not mean the Shia did not abandon Muslim ibn aqeel (رضي الله عنه) and Imam Hussayn (عليه السلام).

28 minutes ago, Muslim2010 said:

Truth can never be denied whether many undercover non-shia try at the best to ignore the facts. :grin:

Astaghfirullah you accuse me of being non shia? What Low blow. Instead of disputing the facts I presented you insult me. I can assure you that you are making a false assumption or lying about me not being Shia. The Quran says to avoid this kind of suspicion "O you who have believed, avoid much [negative] assumption. Indeed, some assumption is sin." Quran [49:12]

Look at all my posts in the past what kind of non Shia argues for Shia Islam and Wiliyat al Faqeeh? 

 

Edited by TryHard
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, TryHard said:

you do not have any proof that all ahlul kufa were "shia Uthman" in fact I brought evidence that says otherwise. In fact Kufa was known back than to be anti Uthman so that is just silly. Yes the killers of Imam Hussayn (عليه السلام) like Shimr (la) were followers of Yazeed (la) that does not mean the Shia did not abandon Muslim ibn aqeel (رضي الله عنه) and Imam Hussayn (عليه السلام).

You are on my Ignore List as i do not like to respond to the one who has been ignoring the facts described so far in mine & others posts and just continue spreading baseless claims. The same has already been informed to yourself in this thread:

For my evidences i have already referred the link of thread as given below that exposes the true faith of kufans as Shia of Uthman ie shia of Maviya & yazeed who killed Imam Hussain .(عليه السلام) and his companions:

wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Muslim2010 said:

You are on my Ignore List as i do not like to respond to the one who has been ignoring the facts described so far in mine & others posts and just continue spreading baseless claims. The same has already been informed to yourself in this thread:

For my evidences i have already referred the link of thread as given below that exposes the true faith of kufans as Shia of Uthman ie shia of Maviya & yazeed who killed Imam Hussain .(عليه السلام) and his companions:

wasalam

Ignore me if you like but saying I am not Shia is itself a baseless claim and a wrong assumption.

second I have read that stuff before not only on ShiaPen but I read the posts here and others they do not tell me anything I don't already know.

The only thing they show is there were some Shia who accepted the khalifat of Abu Bakr and maybe uthman but they were not Shia Uthman, ahlul kufa were know to hate Uthman it even says so in the Shia pen link you provided 

from that link 

Now the question arises why did the Kufans help Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) when the ascribed to the legitimate caliphates of the first three Caliphs but not that of Imam Hasan (عليه السلام)? There are some reasons for that:

  1. The Kufans had already turned against the governors of Bani Ummayah during the reign of Uthman bin Affan.
  2. Whilst deeming him to be a legitimate Caliph they nevertheless sent forces out against him.

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

The ahlul Kufa were clearly against Uthman many of them were. They clearly liked Imam Ali (عليه السلام) better then  Uthman and definitely better than Muawiyah (LA) to say they are all Shia Muawiyah is completely baseless. Yes Muawiyah (LA) had some people in every city who supported him because they were his spies. The rest of Ahlul Kufa hated him for the massacres he did to the Shia there and his mistreatment of them. 

Lastly none of this disproves the fact that the Shia in ahlul Kufa did not support Imam Hussayn (عليه السلام) I am talking about the Imami Shia like Sulayman ibn Surd who Abondened Muslim Ibn Aqeel instead of supporting him. Same with others in Ahlul Kufa who abondend Muslim Ibn Aqeel. The fact of the matter is Shia did have a hand in the killing of Imam Hussayn (عليه السلام), yes they were not the ones to actually kill him but they Abandoned him and left the Imam (عليه السلام) defenseless when he needed it. 

This is why the Imam (عليه السلام) asks HAL MIN NASIRIN YANSOORANI

who is he talking too? Nawasib? Or his "Shia" and other Muslims that left him?

Edited by TryHard
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Posted (edited)

It is same of repeating of changing sides, like what happened with Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and khawarij. Anyone who betrays the Imams (عليه السلام) are not anymore shia of the Imam, so calling them his Shias is wrong. Expect if they repent then that would be different.

Edited by Abu Nur
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, TryHard said:

Now the question arises why did the Kufans help Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) when the ascribed to the legitimate caliphates of the first three Caliphs but not that of Imam Hasan (عليه السلام)? There are some reasons for that:

  1. The Kufans had already turned against the governors of Bani Ummayah during the reign of Uthman bin Affan.
  2. Whilst deeming him to be a legitimate Caliph they nevertheless sent forces out against him.

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

Identifying someone as shia does not provide the license to spread false and baseless claims that has been observed by your posts at SC in this thread so far.

Your are just making contradictory statements in your own words thus these are rejected. The established truth based on evidence from history is that the majority of kufans was not Shia of imam Ali, the examples of the life of imam Ali for the withdrawing the support by kufans for material gain after siffin, similar withdrawing of their support from imam Hassan (عليه السلام) after his caliphate and similarly withdrawing their support of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) by kufans before the event of Karbala is completely neglected by yourself. That is considered a Sad / intentional negligence.

Thus the presence of kufans who were actually shia of uthman, maviya and yazeed is a bitter truth in history and no mindful can keep his eyes closed from it. However the presence of few Shia of Imam Ali as minority in kufa is agreed.

Abdallah b. Muslim. B. Said al hadrami,  Umarah b. Uqbah and Umer Ibne Saad son of Saad bin Abi waqas are clear examples of shia of muaviya recorded in history present in kufa.

أما بعد فإنه كتب إلي شيعتي من أهل الكوفة يخبرونني أن ابن عقيل بالكوفة يجمع الجموع لشق عصا المسلمين فسر حين تقرأ

Do you do deny the statement of letter written by yazeed? 

The statements under 1 & 2 above do not provide any evidence that the Shia of imam Ali were not in minority but rather the second point proves my point that the majority of kufans were Shia of Uthman, Shia of Maviya & yazeed and they killed Imam Hussain (عليه السلام). as they took Uthman, Maviya and then yazeed as legitimate caliphs.

The statement is only agreed upto the extent that political shia who consider early caliphs, Imam Ali (عليه السلام), then imam Hassan (عليه السلام) as caliphs (other than few true followers of imam Ali and Ah-lul bayt (عليه السلام) who were in minority in kufa and they were martyred in Kerbela including habib ibne Mazahir, and others alike or few of them who were in prison of ummayad ).

The statements are just baseless as the killers had faith to be a followers / Shia of Uthman Maviya and yazeed, your oversight and negligence from the facts is rejected.

Sulayman ibne Sard is a famous companion of the prophet and hadith can be found narrated by him in sunni works, But there is no evidence that he was an Imami Shia, This false claim and conjecture is rejected being baseless in nature and ridiculous.

wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
4 hours ago, TryHard said:

This is why the Imam (عليه السلام) asks HAL MIN NASIRIN YANSOORANI

who is he talking too? Nawasib? Or his "Shia" and other Muslims that left him?

This Astighasa is not for any particular group and not limited for a particular time as it is for all humans and for all the time. You are just trying to put your oversight and suppositions about followers of ahlul bayt that is just unacceptable and again rejected.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Muslim2010 said:

Identifying someone as shia does not provide the license to spread false and baseless claims that has been observed by your posts at SC in this thread so far.

Nonsense. You are the one making baseless claims and these were from the Shiapen link you gave me. Now you want to deny your own evidence? funny. Anyways that shiaPen link itself proves they were not all Shia of Uthman that is just ludicrous you are denying history at this point. 

8 hours ago, TryHard said:

 from that link 

Now the question arises why did the Kufans help Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) when the ascribed to the legitimate caliphates of the first three Caliphs but not that of Imam Hasan (عليه السلام)? There are some reasons for that:

  1. The Kufans had already turned against the governors of Bani Ummayah during the reign of Uthman bin Affan.
  2. Whilst deeming him to be a legitimate Caliph they nevertheless sent forces out against him.

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

 

4 hours ago, Muslim2010 said:

Your are just making contradictory statements in your own words thus these are rejected. The established truth based on evidence from history is that the majority of kufans was not Shia of imam Ali, the examples of the life of imam Ali for the withdrawing the support by kufans for material gain after siffin, similar withdrawing of their support from imam Hassan (عليه السلام) after his caliphate and similarly withdrawing their support of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) by kufans before the event of Karbala is completely neglected by yourself. That is considered a Sad / intentional negligence.

You are the one sadly neglecting things I have actually brought proof and used your sources. You are clearly just being foolish at this point. 

If All of Imam Hassan and Muawiyah's followers were not Shia who did Muawiyah and Ziyah kill in Kufa during their reign? Why did Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) make it a part of the treaty not to kill Shias? 

You have brought no proof that the followers of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) were all not Shia. Yes many betrayed him but to say he had no loyal followers is foolish. And definitely his followers were not Shia Uthman I provided sources that categorically denied majority of Ahlul Kufa being Shia Uthman. 

4 hours ago, Muslim2010 said:

Thus the presence of kufans who were actually shia of uthman, maviya and yazeed is a bitter truth in history and no mindful can keep his eyes closed from it. However the presence of few Shia of Imam Ali as minority in kufa is agreed.

nonsense the Shia pen link I gave you clearly shows the majority of the people were not all Shia Uthman/yazid go do some reading http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/who-killed-imam-hussain/kufans-beliefs.html

Ya maybe the Imami Shia were a minority but there was enough of them for Muslim ibn Aqeel to rely on yet many abandoned him.

4 hours ago, Muslim2010 said:

abdallah b. Muslim. B. Said al hadrami,  Umarah b. Uqbah and Umer Ibne Saad son of Saad bin Abi waqas are clear examples of shia of muaviya recorded in history present in kufa.

أما بعد فإنه كتب إلي شيعتي من أهل الكوفة يخبرونني أن ابن عقيل بالكوفة يجمع الجموع لشق عصا المسلمين فسر حين تقرأ

Do you do deny the statement of letter written by yazeed? 

The statements under 1 & 2 above do not provide any evidence that the Shia of imam Ali were not in minority but rather the second point proves my point that the majority of kufans were Shia of Uthman, Shia of Maviya & yazeed and they killed Imam Hussain (عليه السلام). as they took Uthman, Maviya and then yazeed as legitimate caliphs.

The statement is only agreed upto the extent that political shia who consider early caliphs, Imam Ali (عليه السلام), then imam Hassan (عليه السلام) as caliphs (other than few true followers of imam Ali and Ah-lul bayt (عليه السلام) who were in minority in kufa and they were martyred in Kerbela including habib ibne Mazahir, and others alike or few of them who were in prison of ummayad ).

The statements are just baseless as the killers had faith to be a followers / Shia of Uthman Maviya and yazeed, your oversight and negligence from the facts is rejected.

Again I am wondering if you know how to read English properly.

1. Yazid says he has Shia in Kufa not that they are the majority. Don't simply assume silly things.

2. I never said the killers themselves were Shia. I am saying many Shia Abandoned him and Muslim Ibn Aqeel. 

4 hours ago, Muslim2010 said:

Sulayman ibne Sard is a famous companion of the prophet and hadith can be found narrated by him in sunni works, But there is no evidence that he was an Imami Shia, This false claim and conjecture is rejected being baseless in nature and ridiculous.

the one who is being ridiciloous is you. It is a fact there were no 12er imami Shia back then as we know them today but Sulayman ibn sard was definitely among the Shia Ali (عليه السلام) and not the Shia Utman you described. If he was not why would Muslim ibn Aqeel (رضي الله عنه) go to his house. Not to mention this is a fact of history. 

Again do some reading instead of being willfully ignorant here 

“Muawiya has died and Hussain has refused to pay to Yazid and has gone to Makkah from Madina. You people are his and his father’s Shia. If you people believe that there would be no negligence in his obedience and in fighting his enemies, then in the name of Allah, let us write letter to him but if there exists apprehension or weakness on your part then for God’s sake, do not endanger the life of a person by abandoning him”

These words of Suleman demonstrates that he did not want to achieve his goals by creating temporary enthusiasm, rather he wanted people to recognize the harsh realties that would be linked to this decision. This is a natural phenomenon that whilst running high in sentiments, one fails to truly assess his actual strength and in consequence makes a major error. The people were encouraged by his words evidenced their willingness to fight the enemies of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام).

The question which arises here is: how many minority Shia were there?

One can estimate the figure through the fact that the people had not gathered in an open field or a lavish palace but in the home of Suleman, a traditional Arab house that was small in size, a size similar to that found today. The above cited conversation between Suleman bin Surd and the people of Kufa shows that they were made aware of the consequences that were inevitable for siding with the blessed Imam (عليه السلام) ? Suleman had completed his duty, thus a letter was then written to Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) as follows:

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم لحسين بن علي من سليمان بن صرد والمسيب بن نجبة ورفاعة بن شداد وحبيب بن مظاهر وشيعته من المؤمنين والمسلمين من أهل الكوفة

This letter made it clear that there were groups were situate in Kufa and this letter was penned not by the common Kufan folk but by the minority Shia residing in Kufa. These individuals then cited their pleasure at the death of Muawiya by stating:

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

 

Soleman bin Sard was a Shia as you can clearly see by his writing he definitely did not like Muawiyah (la) 

and even the writer at Shia pen uses Soleman bin Sards house as criteria for determining how many "Imami" Shia there were. 

Just google Solemon and it will tell you he was a supporter of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) even on wikipedia. Yet this same person abandoned Muslim Ibn Aqeel (رضي الله عنه). Whatch the Mukhtar al Thuqafi series produced by Iran and you will see it.

Edited by TryHard
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Muslim2010 said:

This Astighasa is not for any particular group and not limited for a particular time as it is for all humans and for all the time. You are just trying to put your oversight and suppositions about followers of ahlul bayt that is just unacceptable and again rejected.

What you are saying is silly and taking things out of historical context. The Imam (عليه السلام) is clearly asking for help in the monet too. This is what makes it sad.

Yes it is meant for Shias and Muslims in the future as well but the Imam (عليه السلام) tried to convince people to join him and come to his aid and tried to convince the enemy army many times. 

Your opinion on this is simply blind and full of assumptions. You refuse to look at the facts. 

Who was writing what the Imam (a) was saying for people to see in the future? during this battle? The Imam (عليه السلام) is speaking to people in general for them to witness. He wants people to remember he was abandoned on Karbala by the people who claimed to support him people like you want to forget that but I wont forget it inshallah.

If Ahlul kufa were all "shia uthman" like you foolishly claim with no basis whatsoever. Then why did Muslim Ibn Aqeel (رضي الله عنه) think it was okay to ask Imam Hussayn (s) to come to Kufa after approving them? The reason is because the Majority supported Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and only a minority in Kufa were "Shia Uthman" claiming otherwise is illogically and you have provided no evidence to prove otherwise. 

The reality was Muslim ibn Aqeel (رضي الله عنه) and Hani (رضي الله عنه) were abandoned and betrayed by their "Shia"

Edited by TryHard
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, TryHard said:

 If All of Imam Hassan and Muawiyah's followers were not Shia who did Muawiyah and Ziyah kill in Kufa during their reign? Why did Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) make it a part of the treaty not to kill Shias? 

I made a mistake here sorry about this. I will correct it.

If All of Imam Hassan (as)'s followers were not Shia who did Muawiyah (la) and Ziyad (la) kill in Kufa during their reign? Why did Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) make it a part of the treaty not to kill Shias? 

Edited by TryHard
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, TryHard said:

You are the one sadly neglecting things I have actually brought proof and used your sources. You are clearly just being foolish at this point. 

If All of Imam Hassan and Muawiyah's followers were not Shia who did Muawiyah and Ziyah kill in Kufa during their reign? Why did Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) make it a part of the treaty not to kill Shias? 

Thanks for your reply, my question as asked still in first reply as given below:

On 5/9/2021 at 11:05 PM, Muslim2010 said:

I ask yourself to provide the evidence  of the claim that the majority of the people in Kufa were Shia of Imam Ali.

I await your reply and evidence please.

wasalam

This has remained unanswered as no evidence or historical record  has been presented so far to validate your claim claim that the majority / ALL of the people in Kufa were Shia of Imam Ali.

قُلْ هَاتُواْ بُرْهَانَكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ ﴿١١١﴾

Say: "Produce your proof if ye are truthful." (2:111)

wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, TryHard said:

I made a mistake here sorry about this. I will correct it.

If All of Imam Hassan (as)'s followers were not Shia who did Muawiyah (la) and Ziyad (la) kill in Kufa during their reign? Why did Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) make it a part of the treaty not to kill Shias? 

Shia of Ahlul bayt as. were in minority:

13 hours ago, TryHard said:

Ya maybe the Imami Shia were a minority but there was enough of them for Muslim ibn Aqeel to rely on yet many abandoned him.

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم لحسين بن علي من سليمان بن صرد والمسيب بن نجبة ورفاعة بن شداد وحبيب بن مظاهر وشيعته من المؤمنين والمسلمين من أهل الكوفة

This letter made it clear that there were groups were situate in Kufa and this letter was penned not by the common Kufan folk but by the minority Shia residing in Kufa. These individuals then cited their pleasure at the death of Muawiya by stating:

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

The same has been agreed by your statements and response. 

To save that minority of Shia Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) quoted the condition in the treaty.

wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Muslim2010 said:

Thanks for your reply, my question as asked still in first reply as given below:

This has remained unanswered as no evidence or historical record  has been presented so far to validate your claim claim that the majority / ALL of the people in Kufa were Shia of Imam Ali.

قُلْ هَاتُواْ بُرْهَانَكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ ﴿١١١﴾

Say: "Produce your proof if ye are truthful." (2:111)

wasalam

You did not prove they were all Shia uthman in Kufa you only showed that some existed there so the burden of proof is actually on you. As for me I showed the evidence of the letters and I gave you a link to go read 

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

I never said all Ahlu Kufa were Shia Ali only that the majority were in support of Ali (عليه السلام) not Uthman. At least politically according to the evidence. 

3 hours ago, Muslim2010 said:

Shia of Ahlul bayt as. were in minority:

The same has been agreed by your statements and response. 

To save that minority of Shia Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) quoted the condition in the treaty.

wasalam

That was not my response that was Shiapen here 

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

I was simply quoting what they said to prove Sulayman ibn Surd  was a "Shia" who Abandoned Muslim ibn Aqeel and in a way betrayed Imam Hussayn (عليه السلام)

Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) did not say they were the minority he said to avoid killing his shias that is all. 

If they were only a minority why would Imam Hussayn (عليه السلام) even go to Kufa and why would Muslim ibn Aqeel (رضي الله عنه) tell him to go to Kufa? The reality is the Imam (عليه السلام) had supporters there in the majority.

If you go read the Shiapen link he will differentiate between Shia uthman, Shia Ali political Shias, And Imami Shias

Were the political Shias Imami Shias? How do people know they were not? do people have proof they werent? Yes the Shia Uthman were bad but what about the political Shias who abandoned Muslim ibn Aqil (رضي الله عنه) ? they were clearly not Shia Uthman if you read the link. In fact some of those political Shias for all we know may have been Imami Shias. They definitely did not like Uthman. To call all those Shias simply political Shias EVERY SINGLE ONE without proof for each one is strange to say the least. The bare minimum we can say is the majority of ahlul kufa supported Imam Hussayn (عليه السلام) and even some of the ones who were Imami Shias abondend him like Muhammad ibn Hanifiyeh and Sulayman ibn Sard. 

Edited by TryHard
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, TryHard said:

I never said all Ahlu Kufa were Shia Ali only that the majority were in support of Ali (عليه السلام) not Uthman. At least politically according to the evidence.

This is your present stance.  Your earlier stance  with response when you mentioned me in the thread is given below:

 

"The reality is the majority of Ahlul Kufa were "Shia" and did not like Uthman and preffered Ali (عليه السلام) "

Thus this change of view is considered as rejection of your earlier view and proving that Shia of Imam Ali as (considering him successor of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) ie Shia Khasa in minority in Kufa is well proven.  The same is mentioned in the links at shiapen that your refer in your posts.

7 hours ago, TryHard said:

You did not prove they were all Shia uthman in Kufa you only showed that some existed there so the burden of proof is actually on you.

I have already mentioned and confirmed (by yourself) through statement of shiapen for political shias that includes the shia of uthman, shia of Maviya and shia of yazeed. The same has already confirmed above statement is just contradictory.

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, TryHard said:

That was not my response that was Shiapen here 

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

I was simply quoting what they said to prove Sulayman ibn Surd  was a "Shia" who Abandoned Muslim ibn Aqeel and in a way betrayed Imam Hussayn (عليه السلام)

Whatever is mentioned from your side is nothing but just to divert the attention from the truth that shia of Imams were in minority even you have mentioned it in your reply and now trying to twist its meaning?

There is no evidence that some one was shia and he betrayed some imam or his messenger. if some one betrays the imam he is no more a shia of imam but he is an opportunist ie political shia (unless he makes repentance then may be a difference)

 

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
6 hours ago, TryHard said:

Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) did not say they were the minority he said to avoid killing his shias that is all.

The words of imam Hassan (عليه السلام) about the matter quoted as given below:

فصالحت بقياً على شيعتنا خاصّة من القتل فرأيت دفع هذه الحروب الى يوم مّا، فانّ اللّه كل يوم هو في شأن “

I did compromise to save the Shi'ite Muslims' (Shia khasa) lives. I pondered over delaying these wars for every day Allah deals with an affair.”

Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 220; Manaqib Ibn Shahr Ashub, vol. IV, p. 35

When a number objected to Imam 'Ali why he accepted arbitration, he said,”You see how disobedient my army has become. In comparing to their population you are very few. If we fight, this vast majority of war opponents will turn more hostile towards you than the Damascus army. If they ally with the Damascus troops, all of you will be massacred. By Almighty Allah, I myself am never pleased with arbitration but I had to approve the majority decision for I was greatly worried about your lives”.

Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 338; Tarjamat al-Imam al-Hasan, Ibn ‘Asakir, p. 203

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...