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


imamia

Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, TryHard said:

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

Please do not try to feed the words in my mouth, as by the grace of almighty Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) i can get the information when i need.

If the supporter of imams from kufa  were in majority then we could have found a large number of persons (like in thousands) in imam Hussain (عليه السلام) army from kufa or martyrs at  kerbela in the hussaini camp but they were only a few ie 72 or about 100 thus well proving the minority of shia of imams ie Shia khalsa that has already been proved by the words of imam Hassan (عليه السلام) too.

wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Muslim2010 said:

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.

There is a difference between majority and All . I never said all of Ahlul Kufa were Shiaqoute me once were I said they were all shia?

My argument was technically speaking in a sense you could consider the majority Shia but I never said they were all Shia

1 hour ago, Muslim2010 said:

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.

No it is not. political Shias cant be Shia Muawiyah as they rejected Muawiyah that was the point and majority of Ahlul kufa seem to be the political Shia of Ali (عليه السلام) if not also Imami Shia in faith. Where the Imami Shia in minority? it is likely but imami Shia and poltical Shais both supported imam Hussayn (عليه السلام) and they were the majority in Kufa. So no contradiction. Rather you have failed to disprove what I said.

Edited by TryHard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
42 minutes ago, Muslim2010 said:

If the supporter of imams from kufa  were in majority then we could have found a large number of persons (like in thousands) in imam Hussain (عليه السلام) army from kufa or martyrs at  kerbela in the hussaini camp but they were only a few ie 72 or about 100 thus well proving the minority of shia of imams ie Shia khalsa that has already been proved by the words of imam Hassan (عليه السلام) too.

Nonsense you are assuming all the Imami Shias went on his side without any evidence. The reason the imam (عليه السلام) did not have that large army from ahlul kufa is because they abandoned him.

Do you read English? What language do you speak? As I have repeated my points and brought evidence from Shia pen and other places. I have repeated many times they abondened him over and over again and only some imami Shia stayed with imam Husayn the rest of the imami Shia and political Shia abandoned Muslim ibn Aqeel and imam Hussayn (عليه السلام). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Muslim2010 said:

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.”

I said Shia Khas. Does he say they are a minority? The hadith you posted does not say that. It simply says he wanted to save his Shia Khas not that they are a minority.

Also the word Khas can mean especially. So he wanted to protect his Shia ahead of anyone else. This can also extend to his political Shia as I do not really see a reason for him(عليه السلام) to not include them as part of that condition of Shia. 

1 hour ago, Muslim2010 said:

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

1. There were people who knew who the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was and disobeyed him and there were people who supported the Imams(عليه السلام) and and believed in their imamah then deviated and betrayed them and this could have happened to imam Ali (عليه السلام) but we know it happened to imam Hussayn (عليه السلام) and I have already put a lot of evidence for people to see.

2. This does not mention shia anywhere he seems to be comparing his army size to the enemy or the disobedient ones in his army. In any case no mention of shias.

Edited by TryHard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Muslim2010 said:

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)

the way you see things is a stupid black and white way at looking at things. 

Yes in spirit they are not Shia if they betray the imam (عليه السلام) no one is arguing that. The point is ideologically they consider themselves shia and they betrayed the imam (عليه السلام). There is plenty of evidence that these betrayals happened you are just too ignorant to know of them plenty of people deviated and created their own sects who were once Shia like the waqifis. And in Karbala people betrayed imam Hussayn by abandoning him like Sulayman and Muhammad ibn Hanifiyeh

 

And the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) are you stupid or something? you do realize people betrayed him at Saqifa and stole the Khalifa these were also people who claimed to follow him. 

1 hour ago, Muslim2010 said:

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?

The political shia with the imami Shia were in majority. and they betrayed the imam (عليه السلام) that has been my point all along the only one diverting things is you. 

Edited by TryHard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, TryHard said:

Yes in spirit they are not Shia if they betray the imam (عليه السلام) no one is arguing that. The point is ideologically they consider themselves shia and they betrayed the imam (عليه السلام). 

Thanks to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)  we are in agreement here except the foolish word of ignorant.

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, TryHard said:

And the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) are you stupid or something? you do realize people betrayed him at Saqifa and stole the Khalifa these were also people who claimed to follow him. 

Messenger means:

mes·sen·ger
/ˈmes(ə)njər/

noun

  • 1.a person who carries a message or is employed to carry messages.Why you are confused with the term Prophet here? It looks very sad.
  • 21 minutes ago, TryHard said:

    The political shia with the imami Shia were in majority. and they betrayed the imam (عليه السلام) that has been my point all along the only one diverting things is you. 

    Certainly this is a move on the part of non imami shia or non shia elements at SC and i have  rejected such thoughts, yes you may not like it as you seem an ally of those elements . No shia betrayed imams except they were not shia of imams but political shia. wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Muslim2010 said:

Certainly this is a move on the part of non imami shia or non shia elements at SC and i have  rejected such thoughts, yes you my not like it as you seem an ally of those elements . No shia betrayed imams except they were not shia of imams but political shia. wasalam

That is against the facts clearly presented the fact is there were Shia that betrayed Imam Hussayn (عليه السلام) and tried to repent after and other like ibn hanifiyeh became kafir.

Also As I said practically speaking political shias can be seen as Shia as they like Imam Ali (as0 more than Uthman and you said they were majority Shia Uthman which is not true based on the evidence

 

Edited by TryHard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
13 minutes ago, Muslim2010 said:

Thanks to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)  we are in agreement here except the foolish word of ignorant.

many of us today are not really true shia in spirit. That is the point some of those Shia were not spiritually as strong as they should have been so when the test of karbala came they failed it. 

Allah protect us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 minutes ago, Muslim2010 said:

1.a person who carries a message or is employed to carry messages.Why you are confused with the term Prophet here? It looks very sad

I meant the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) I am sure you know what I meant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
3 minutes ago, TryHard said:

I meant the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) I am sure you know what I meant. 

I have mentioned a messenger in general term who carries a message, not prophet so i am very clear about my words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, TryHard said:

 

This is the section of SC forums for discussion among Shia-Sunni for dialogue and not for Shia-Shia dialogue if yourself is a supporter of sunni thoughts like the one whose posts have been widely liked by you (as those suites your self minded thoughts) i have no objection then otherwise this discussion among Shia should be a part of General Islamic Discussion forum.

wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Just now, Muslim2010 said:

I have mentioned a messenger in general term who carries a message, not prophet so i am very clear about my words.

Well in any case the messenger is still a good example as people believed in him and then betrayed him and the same happened with Imam Hussayn (عليه السلام)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Muslim2010 said:

This is the section of SC forums for discussion among Shia-Sunni for dialogue and not four Shia-shia dialogue if yourself is a supporter of sunni thoughts like the one whose posts have been widely liked by you (as those suites your self minded thoughts) i have no objection then otherwise this discussion among Shia should be a part of General Islamic Discussion forum.

wasalam

loll again your baseless assumption that I am not Shia astaghfirullah. Again read the Quran those kinds of assumptions are wrong 

O  believers! Avoid many suspicions, ˹for˺ indeed, some suspicions are sinful. And do not spy, nor backbite one another. Would any of you like to eat the flesh of their dead brother? You would despise that!1 And fear Allah. Surely Allah is ˹the˺ Accepter of Repentance, Most Merciful.

— Dr. Mustafa Khattab, the Clear Quran

49[12]

also just curious which posts did I widely like? and are you stalking me?

How about instead of making stupid baseless remarks you actually use your brain and argue against my points. Let me guess you won't do that cause that requires too much thinking for you. I understand

Edited by TryHard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Muslim2010 said:

This is the section of SC forums for discussion among Shia-Sunni for dialogue and not four Shia-shia dialogue if yourself is a supporter of sunni thoughts like the one whose posts have been widely liked by you (as those suites your self minded thoughts) i have no objection then otherwise this discussion among Shia should be a part of General Islamic Discussion forum.

wasalam

Request for consideration of Mods please with the request to close down of the thread as it does not seem any more remaining  from members. wasalam

@Abu Nur

  @Mahdavist  @starlight

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On 5/13/2021 at 3:24 PM, Muslim2010 said:

Request for consideration of Mods please with the request to close down of the thread as it does not seem any more remaining  from members. wasalam

@Abu Nur

  @Mahdavist  @starlight

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 your understanding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interesting thing about sunnis is they can’t pinpoint who actually killed imam Hussein nothing in historical reference form their side about who killed the prophets grandsons no commentary from Yazid the administrator of the time , no response for Yazid ,in their records doesn’t exist , shouldn’t that make them question the situation? They reject what we say but they don’t have an answer to what happened 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

One may need to ask very basic definition of Shia here. If anyone think that shias have killed Imam Hussain (عليه السلام), who is a shia in their point of view? 

Perhaps they will point out to Shimr Laeen, who was an ally of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) in Siffin & fought against Muawiya (L). 

Technically, can you call the killers & enemies of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) as their Shia's?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Cool said:

One may need to ask very basic definition of Shia here. If anyone think that shias have killed Imam Hussain (عليه السلام), who is a shia in their point of view? 

Ibn Taymiyyah states in Minhaj al-Sunnah: “In the Early Islamic era, a person was called Shia Muslim who preferred Abu Bakr and Umar over Imam Ali ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)); the only dispute was over Uthman, and they considered Imam Ali ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) superior to him.”

(Minhaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah v. 2 p. 96.)

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani also states: “Shia Muslims are those who love Imam Ali ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and consider him superior to other Companions; but if they consider him superior to Abu Bakr and Umar, they are not considered Shia Muslims; rather they should be called exaggerator Shia and Rafidha (rejectors).

(Huda Al-Sari, Preface of the book “Fath al-Bari: Commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari”, p. 483, Published by: Maktab al-Mulk Fahd – Researcher: Abdul Qadir Sheba Al-Hamad- Riyadh(

Thus in early islamic era they were the majority of Ahle Sunnah who believed in the affection of Imam Ali ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and the superiority of Abu Bakr and Umar over him!

Thus killers of Ahl albayt (عليه السلام) does not belong to True Shia / Shia of imams. wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
On 5/16/2021 at 8:47 AM, Muslim2010 said:

Ibn Taymiyyah states in Minhaj al-Sunnah: “In the Early Islamic era, a person was called Shia Muslim who preferred Abu Bakr and Umar over Imam Ali ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)); the only dispute was over Uthman, and they considered Imam Ali ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) superior to him.”

(Minhaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah v. 2 p. 96.)

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani also states: “Shia Muslims are those who love Imam Ali ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and consider him superior to other Companions; but if they consider him superior to Abu Bakr and Umar, they are not considered Shia Muslims; rather they should be called exaggerator Shia and Rafidha (rejectors).

(Huda Al-Sari, Preface of the book “Fath al-Bari: Commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari”, p. 483, Published by: Maktab al-Mulk Fahd – Researcher: Abdul Qadir Sheba Al-Hamad- Riyadh(

Thus in early islamic era they were the majority of Ahle Sunnah who believed in the affection of Imam Ali ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and the superiority of Abu Bakr and Umar over him!

Thus killers of Ahl albayt (عليه السلام) does not belong to True Shia / Shia of imams. wasalam

It is also well proven that killers of Ahl albayt (عليه السلام) does not belong to True Shia / Shia of imams (despite their few numbers) as No one of them betrayed Imam. wasalam

@Cool

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to comment
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...