Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
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

  • Advanced Member

Dear reader(s), assalamualaikum, one of the propagandas against shi`as is that we killed imam hussain(as). we shall analyse the facts of history to expose the falsely of such a claim. Their argument can be summarised as follows:

The Shia invited Imam Hussain (as) by writing letters and requesting that he come to Kufa so that they can recognise him as their Imam.

Imam Hussain (as) sent Muslim bin Aqeel (as) as his representative to assess the situation

The Shi’a gave bayya to Imam Hussain via Hadhrat Muslim bin Aqeel (as).

The same Shi’a subsequently abandoned him following Abdullah ibn Ziyad’s entry into Kufa.

The Shi’a failed to support Imam Hussain (as) that in consequence caused his martyrdom.

The approach we have taken is to focus on the historical sources in detail and then identify and expose the beliefs of the Kufan people.

It is a part of the nasibi propaganda to insist that the ancestors of shia imamia were the people that consistently abandoned Imam Ali, Imam Hasan, Imam Hussain and the remainder Ahlulbayt Imams (Peace be upon them) and in some cases killed them. They seek to corroborate their claims by citing unknown texts by unknown authors as a mechanism for duping ordinary unsuspecting Muslims that do not possess a strong background on Islamic history. the definition of the term ‘Shia’ did not carry same meaning back then as it does today. This was an all-encompassing term that referred to everyone including those who are called Sunnis today. The reality is the term Shia was not a homogenous term, and essentially incorporated the affiliates of Ali (as) with differing political and religious views; we have therefore from this point on sought to distinguish the key groupings as follows:

The minority Shia that believed that Ali (as) had a divine mandate to rule as he had been appointed as Caliph by the Prophet (s) (hereafter referred to as Shia al-Khasa)

The majority Shia that believed that Ali (as) had the legal mandate to rule as he had been appointed as fourth Caliph by the Ummah, like the earlier Caliphs (hereafter referred to as Aama).

With this fact in mind, the real question that should be addressed is:

Which segment of what made up the generic term ‘Shia’ perpetrated these heinous actions that today’s Nawasib attribute to today’s Shia Imami (twelver) Sect?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You can also answer them to read the maghtal when imam Hussain a.s talked with them and called them: فَصَاحَ‏ وَیْلَکُمْ یَا شِیعَةَ آلِ أَبِی سُفْیَانَ إِنْ لَمْ یَکُنْ لَکُمْ دِینٌ وَ کُنْتُمْ

The famous anti-shia writer Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehalvi substantiates our claim by conceding that in the early days the term Shia was a generic one that incorporated everyone: "It should be know

  • Advanced Member

The famous anti-shia writer Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehalvi substantiates our claim by conceding that in the early days the term Shia was a generic one that incorporated everyone:

"It should be known that the first Shias (who are the Sunnis and the Tafdiliyyah) were known in the old days as Shias. When the Ghulat and the Rawafid Zaydiyyah and Ismailiyyah took the name for themselves, Sunnis and Tafdiliyyah did not like this name for them and so hence adopted the name of Ahlu's-Sunnah wa’l Jamaah."

Tauhfa Athna Ashari (Urdu) page 16, published in Karachi

The twelver Imami Shia were called ‘Rafidhi’ (Rejectors) back in those days. The term ‘Shia’ means, ‘a group’ or ‘helpers’ or ‘followers’. Since the people of Kufa supported Imam Ali during the Battle of Jamal and Siffeen, their political affiliation placed them in the grouping of ‘The Shias (followers) of Ali (as)’. It was again, a political term used for the helpers of Ali or group of Ali. Similarly the opposing army i.e. the army Muawiyah was called ‘the Shias of Muawiyah’ or ‘Shias of Uthman’. The word ‘Shia’ was used for these two groups for pure political reasons and the same term also referred to those that adhered to the teachings of Ahlulbayt (as) and attested to their status as the rightful Imams that succeeded the Holy Prophet (s). The twelver Imami Shia were called ‘Rafidhi’ (Rejectors) back in those days. The term ‘Shia’ means, ‘a group’ or ‘helpers’ or ‘followers’. Since the people of Kufa supported Imam Ali during the Battle of Jamal and Siffeen, their political affiliation placed them in the grouping of ‘The Shias (followers) of Ali (as)’. It was again, a political term used for the helpers of Ali or group of Ali. Similarly the opposing army i.e. the army Muawiyah was called ‘the Shias of Muawiyah’ or ‘Shias of Uthman’. The word ‘Shia’ was used for these two groups for pure political reasons and the same term also referred to those that adhered to the teachings of Ahlulbayt (as) and attested to their status as the rightful Imams that succeeded the Holy Prophet (s).

Whilst today’s Nawasib continue to peddle the same lie that the Kufis were Imamis or twever Shias, the scholars of Ahle Sunnah have made it abundantly clear in their writings that the term ‘Shia’ back did not carry the same connotation that it does today. Let us quote the opinion of the renowned Sunni scholar Imam al-Dhahabi from his book Mizan al-Eitidal, Volume 3 page 552:

'Yes, most of the Syrian populations from the days of (the battle of) Siffeen rejected the Caliphate of Amir-al-Momineen Ali and considered themselves and their ancestors righteous for doing so. The Kufans likewise deviated from Uthman and loved Ali over him because their ancestors were the Shias and helpers whilst we, the Ahle Sunnah love all four of the Caliphs. There was also a third group of Shias in Iraq who loved both Ali and Uthman but still preferred Ali over Uthman and had an extreme dislike of those that fought Ali at the same time they would supplicate, asking forgiveness of those that fought Ali. This was a softer version of Shia.

Similarly another legendry Sunni Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani wrote in his book Tahdeeb al-Tahdeeb, Volume 1 page 82:

“According to the early scholars, Shiat meant to have faith on Ali having preference over Uthman….although they preferred the Shaykhayn over them (Uthman and Ali)”

Thus, if we summarise the above writings of al-Dhahabi and Ibn Hajar we learn that:

the Shias of Kufa accepted the Caliphate of the Shaykhayn (Abu Bakr and Umar).

there were a group of Kufan Shias that rejected the Caliphate of Uthman bin Affan in the same manner that the people of Syria rejected the Caliphate of Ali (as).

another group of Kufan Shia had a soft heart towards Uthman bin Affan but still preferred Ali (as) over him. This particular group of Kufan Shias not only believed in the Caliphate of the first three Caliphs but also prayed for forgiveness of all of those who fought against Ali such as Ayesha, Talha, Zubair, Muawiyah etc.

These were therefore the beliefs of the politicized Kufan Shia and this reality completely debases the propaganda of the Nawasib. It is fascinating that today’s Sunnis and Nawasib follow those Ulema that fell under the ambit of political Shia and rely on their works, but despite their political leanings they are categorised as ‘Ahle Sunnah’. The only difference is during their lifetimes they preferred Ali (as) over Uthman. Among such scholars is the famed scholar of Tafsir Imam Sufyan Thawri (d. 161 H). Writing about him Allamah Imtiaz Ali Al-Arishi writes on page 15:

"Back in those days the term Shia was exclusively used for those who preferred Ali over Uthman and we cannot rule out the possibility that Thawri preferred Ali over Uthman."

Up until now we only discussed the ordinary Shias political groups that were thought to have different opinions about the four Caliphs but what is interesting is that apart from ordinary Shias, al-Dhahabi also mentioned that those who were called ‘Ghulat Shia’ (extremist Shias) had beliefs that differed to the Ghulat of later times. He mentions in his book Mizan al-Eitidal, Volume 1 page 6:

"In those days (the early centuries of Islam) ‘Ghulat Shia’ were those that identified faults and abuses Uthman, Talha, Zubair, Muawiyah and all those that fought against Ali. They did not hold a good opinion about them. But nowadays ‘Ghulat’ are those that issue Takfeer against the above high ranking personalities and disassociate themselves from the Shaykhayn”.

The majority of Kufans were avid supporters of the Khilafat of the Shaikhain. The famous Sunni scholar Allamah Shibli Naumani in his world famous book Al-Farooq had credited the second caliph Omar for the construction of city of Kufa by writing:

"When a number of cities were conquered, Saad bin Waqqas wrote to Omer that Arabs are becoming spoiled (with all the successes), Omer wrote back to find a spot that has both land and sea strategic importance. Hence Suleiman Hazeefah choose the land of Kufa and named it such.

The city was founded in 17 AH and, as Omar had expressly commanded, houses sufficient to lodge forty thousand persons were constructed. Arab tribes were allotted separate quarters under the supervision of Hayaj ibn Malik. Omar had given explicit instructions with regard to the planning of the city as well as its construction....... The Jami Masjid was built on a raised squared platform and was so spacious that forty thousand persons could pray in it at one time."

Omar the great (Al Faruq), Volume 2 page 95

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Besides the Jami Masjid, separate mosques were built for each tribe based quarter of the city. Among the settled tribes in Kufah were twelve thousand men from Yemen and eight thousand from the Nazar Clan. There were numerous other tribes settled such as Saleem, Saqeef, Humdaan, Bajablah, Nim-ul Lat, Taghlab, Bani Asad, Nakha, Kindah, Azd, Mazainah, Tamim Muharab, Asad and Amirm Jadilah and Akhlat, Juhaina, Muhjaz, Hawazin, etc".

"In Omar's lifetime the city came to attain such greatness and splendor that the Caliph called it the head of Islam. It had indeed become a center of Arab power".

Omar the great (Al Faruq), Volume 2 page 96

We are not able to find any valid sources from the history of Islam that affirm that at the time of Martyrdom of Imam Hussain (as) the majority of Kufans were Imami Shias on the contrary we find numerous sources that tell us clearly that the majority of Kufans were followers of Uthman bin Affan. Allamah Yaqoot Hamawi is a famous Sunni scholar who wrote ‘Majma ul Buldaan'. This book contains a detailed history of different cities under Islamic rule. It contains a history of Kufa in its Volume 7 pages 295 – 300. He does not mention a single instance, that would suggest that Kufa was a Shia Imami city.

The letters written to Hussain [as] by the Aama of Kufa followed by the activities of the minority Shia: The minority Kufan Shia began to spread their movement among the Aama of Kufa. The people of Kufa who were already boring resentment against the Bani Umayah, this scenario took the resentment to the maximum level and hence, a number of letters began to be written to Imam Hussain [as] by the majority and minority Shia Kufans and within the short span of two days, fifty three petitions were prepared. There were up to three or four names of the people mentioned as the senders of those letters and all of them were delivered through Qays bin Masher, Abdulrehman bin Abdullah and Ammara bin Ubayd Saloli. When the Shia al-Kahsa observed such a enthusiasm from amongst the Aama of Kufa, the former began to believe that public opinion was against Yazid and success in this regard was inevitable, but that was actually a totally wrong assessment as the level of interest by the general public in that campaign was similar to the interest of birds flying in the direction of wind during a storm. The end result of such shortsightedness was that the initial letters written contained wordings like ‘’ which were showing the tantalization and consensus in the form of expectation while in the subsequent letters; the approach was changed to show firm commitment and absolute faith:

“Come quickly because people are awaiting you and are not ready to deem anyone as their leader but you,. Therefore, make it fast, hasty.”

This letters was sent through Hani bin Urwah and Saeed bin Hanafi.

The martyrdom of those Shia al-Khasa that had written letters to Imam Hussain [as]: To suggest that none of the Shia al-Khasa that wrote letters to Imam Hussain [as] participated in the battle against the enemies of Imam Hussain [as], is a lie for we have:

Habib Ibn Mazahir [as] gave away his life for Imam Hussain [as] and left his name to be counted amongst the blessed ones.

Saeed bin Abdullah Hanfi who was the messenger whose martyrdom was unprecedented. After Zuhr when battle got fierce, he stood infront of Imam Hussain [as] and received on his chest all the arrows that were about to his Imam Hussain [as]. See Tarikh Tabari, page 227.

Abdulrehman bin Abdullah who sought Imam Hussain [as] ’ permission and entered the battlefield reciting couplets and fought until he lost his life. See Absar al-Ayn, page 78.

Qays bin Masher who laid down his life for Imam Hussain [as] in a manner that will always be remembered by the lovers of Ahlulhbayt [as]. Imam Hussain [as] had sent a latter to the people of Kufa through Qays bin Masher but he was intercepted at Qadsiya. Qays bin Masher was then brought before Ibn Ziyad who instructed him to abuse Hussain bin Ali [as] whilst standing on a roof top. Qays deemed it an opportunity to spread the truth hence he went on the directed place and said:

‘O people! Without any doubt this man Hussain bin Ali is the best of among all creations of Allah and he is the son of Fatima the daughter of Holy Prophet and I am his messenger towards you and I have been separated from you from the valley of Zulramt, respond to him, be obedient and pay heed to him’.

Then he cursed Ubaidullah Ibn Ziyad and his father and supplicated for the salvation of Ali and Hussain [as]. He was then hurled from the top of the palace on the orders of Ibn Ziyad.

These were the Shia al-Khasa of Kufa who laid down their lives for Imam Hussain [as]. It was in fact the letter penned by the opportunist signatories that included, Shabath bin Rab’i, Hajaj bin al-Jabar, Yazid bin Haritth, Azrah bin Qays and Umro bin al-Hajaj al-Zubaydi that switched allegiance and aided and abetted in the murder of the Imam [as] . Whilst the name of the other two cannot be found in the annals of history, one can deduce that they would have joined their five friends in the murder of Imam Hussain [as]. These people were amongst the Aama of Kufa who had initially written letters by observing the trend of general populous but later when switched allegiance when the sword of Ibn Ziyad seemed to be triumphant, they hence raised their swords against Imam Hussain [as].

The disassociation of the Shia al-Khasa from the murder of Imam Hussain [as]: While returning from Makka, Imam Hussain [as] received letters from the people of Kufa. Upon receipt Imam Hussain [as] dispatched Muslim bin Aqeel to Kufa to assess the situation ion the ground and report back. When Muslim bin Aqeel arrived in Kufa, the fire of hatred against Yazid was burning within the hearts of the Kufan and the Shia al-Khasa and Aama of Kufa welcomed him and pledged their support in their scores. At that time, Nauman bin Bashir was the ruler of Kufa who was a shrewd diplomat, he did not offer much resistance or obstacles to Muslim bin Aqeel apart from one sermon in which he warned the public of sedition and asked them to remain loyal in their bayya to Yazid. See Al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah, Volume 8 page 1002.

It was at that time, that a letter was received by Yazid which stated:

“Muslim bin Aqeel has come to Kufa and the Shia have given the oath of allegiance to him on behalf of al Hussain bin Ali. If you have any need of Kufah then send a strong man there who will carry out your orders and act in the same way as you would against your enemy. Al Nauman bin Bashir is a weak man or he is acting like a weak man”

History of al Tabari, Volume 19 page 30

Those who wrote this letter were:

Abdullah bin Muslim bin Saeed Hadharmi

Ammarah bin Uqbah

Umar bin Saad bin Abi Waqas

Dear readers, you must have recognized Umar bin Saad. This was same cursed individual who was sent as an army chief for the murder of Imam Hussain [as] and he was the one who fired the first arrow at Imam al Hussain [as], see History of al Tabari, Volume 19 page 129. On the top of it he is a Thiqa narrator of Sunni Hadith works.

His words i.e “Shia have given the oath of allegiance to him on behalf of al Hussain bin Ali” clearly shows that he did not have any connection with the the Shia al-Khasa. Moreover, Yazid’s words i.e “My Shia among the people of Kufa have written to me” strengthen our stance that Umar bin Saad was the Shia of Yazid and from the group/sect that deemed him to be their Imam. Moreover the belief that Hussain rebelled against Yazid accurately tallies with that of the later generation Nawasib like Ibn Arabi etc. Are the Nawasib still going to show their stubbornness and remain shouting that the “killers of al Hussain were his own Shias [i.e. al-Khasa]” while we have already made the sect of His [as] killers known to everyone?

Yazid on receiving this letter wrote to Ibn Ziyad, the son of Ziyad bin Sumaya who during the reign of Muawiya had committed slaughter of Shia al-Khasa in Kufa and hence the government’s army had arrvied and settlled in Kufa from Syria :

“My followers [shia] among the people of Kufa have written to me to inform me that Ibn al Aqeel is in Kufa gathering units in order to spread rebellion among the Muslims. Therefore when you read this letter of mine go to Kufa and search for Ibn Aqeel as if you were looking for a bead until you find him. Then bind him in chains, kill him or expel him”

History of al Tabari, Volume 19 page 31

The arrest of those who aided Muslim bin Aqeel [as]: Later, one of the tactics used by Ibn Ziyad was apprehend those that supported Muslim bin Aqeel, he gave this task to the Yemeni tribal leader Kathir b. Shibab and Muhammad b. al-Ashath. We read in the History of Tabari Volume 19 page 49:

“Kathir met a man from Kalb called Abd al-Ala b. Yazid. He was carrying arms with the intention of joining Ibn Aqil with his fellow youths. He seized him and took him to Ibn Ziyad. Kathir told Ibn Ziyad about the man, but the man told Ibn Ziyad that he had been intending to come to him. Ibn Ziyad retorted “Sure, sure! I remember that you promised me that!” Ibn Ziyad ordered the man to be imprisoned.

Muhammad b. al-Ashath went out until he reached the houses of the Banu Umarah. Umarah b. Salkhan al-Azdi came to him; he was on his way to Ibn Aqil and was carrying arms. Muhammad b. al-Ashath seized him and sent him to Ibn Ziyad who imprisoned him”

It is also worth noting that Muhammad bin al-Ashath cited above, was from amongst the the Aama i.e. the ancestors of present day Ahle Sunnah and not from the Shia al-Khasa. The very Muhammad bin al-Ashath is a narrator of those principle Hadith books of Ahle Sunnah that have been deemed reliable enough to take the guidance from in shape of Hadith. The books that contain his narrations can be found in:

1. Mu'wata, v2, p519

2. Sunnan Abu Dawoud, v2, p146

3. Sunnan al-Nisai, v7, p302

4. Sunnan Kubra, by Bayhaqi, v5, p332

Imam Ibn Haban included him in his collection of Thiqa narrators i.e. al-Thiqat as recorded in Tahdib al-Kamal, Volume 24 page 496 whilst Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb, Volume 2 page 57 biography 5760 counted him amongst the Tabayeen and when it comes to his rank as a narrator of Sunni Hadith he has been graded as ‘Maqbool’ by him. The tradition narrated by him in one of the six principle Hadith books of Ahle Sunnah namely Sunnan Abu Dawoud has been graded ‘Sahih’ by the Imam of Salafies Nasiruddin Al-Albaani in his book Sahih Sunnan Abu Dawud, Vol 2 page 670 Hadith 2997.

The arrest of those Kufans that did not want to fight Hussain bin Ali [as]: The reality is the Shia al-Khasa were either murdered or imprisoned whilst on the orders of Ibn Ziyad, the Aama of Kufa were being forced to go Karbala and fight Hussain bin Ali [as]. Such Aama of Kufa did not want to fight the Imam [as], which is why they fled back to Kufa if they got the opportunity. Ibn Ziyad sought to counter their efforts through the dispatching of Suwayd bin Abdulrehman Munqari and other men to Kufa who would apprehend such people and return them back to the army against the Imam [as] . On one occasion Suwayd arrested a Syrian man on personal business in Kufa he sent him to Ibn Ziyad who sought to create an example of him by having him executed, thus all those Aama who had sought to avoid the pending battle were returned to Karbala, see Akhbar Tawal, page 252.

All this proves the following points:

The majority of Shia al-Khasa of Kufa who were the proven helpers and supporters of Imam Hussain [as] were brutally murdered with the remainder imprisoned, in this way, a great number of those who might have otherwise reached the Imam [as], were deprived of that opportunity.

For the non Shia al-Khasa of Kufa who could have shown a determination and willingness to help Hussain bin Ali [as], the surveillance and barricade system leading upto to Kufa made it impossible for them. Had they sought to come out, they would have been arrested either at al-Nukhaylah which was situated between Kufa and Karbala or somewhere after al-Nukhaylah such as Khaffan and the area of al-Qadisiyyah to al-Qutqutanah or La’la.

Ibn Ziyad introduced military conscription for all Kufans of fighting age that required them to join the forces against Hussain bin Ali [as] and in this way, as a way of protecting their lives, those of their families and their material possessions.

Imam Ibn Jarir Tabari recorded:

“When Hussain was killed and Ibn Ziyad returned to Kufa from al-Nukhaylah, the Shias met and maligned one another and expressed regret at their weaknesses, they thoght that they had committed a big crime as they had invited Hussain by promising him their support upon his arrival, they did not go and he was killed in their neighbourhood and they didn’t help him at all and they thought that this mistake cannot be removed from them except by killing those who participated in his murder or lay down their lives in this”

Tarikh Tabari, Volume 7 page 27

This further debases Nasibi claims and proves that whilst some Shia al-Khasa of Kufa might have failed to help Imam Hussain [as] they certainly played no role in his murder. Two key points can be gauged from the

This group of Shias failed to come to the aid of Imam Hussain [as]

They sought vengeance from that group that had partaken in the murder of Imam Hussain [as].

Verily, this group of Shias who were Shias al-Khasa did not play any role in the murder of Imam Hussain [as] and the maximum wrong committed by them was that they were unable to reach to Imam Hussain [as] and help him, and that may have been due to the preventative methods that had been employed by Ibn Ziyad that we cited earlier. It was then that a gathering was convened in Suleman bin Surd al-Khuzai’s house wherein Musayib bin Najba addressed them:

“We used to be proud of our truthfulness and would praise our Shia party but Allah tested us and it was at that time that we came to know that our claims were wrong. We invited Hussain, sent messages to come and we would help him, but when he came we hid ourselves to the extent that he got killed in our neighborhood, neither did we physically help him nor did we support him through our tongues, nor did we afford him protection in our properties, nor did we send our tribe to aid him. Now how will be respond to Allah and his Prophet when the grandson of the Prophet was killed in our country? Verily, our mistake is not worth hearing. But now we have an opportunity to kill all those who participated in his murder or we can at least lay down our lives in this task”

Tarikh Tabari, Volume 7 page 48

Following Yazid’s death a group of Shias came to Suleman bin Surd and suggested that it was the right time to rise up and take vengeance from the state officials during what were uncertain times, Suleman bin Surd responded with this sermon:

“Having analyzed the situation, I have found that the killers of Hussain are the tribal leaders of Kufa and they are responsible for his murder by the time that they learn of your plans and know that it is going to affect them, they will get prepared to vehemently oppose you. And having analyzed those that are prepared to be my supporters, I found that they are in a number from whom avenge could neither be acquired nor could the aim be achieved, nor could any damage be caused to the enemy, on the contrary, these people will be cut down like anything. Thus the best thing is that you dispatch your men around and have them convince people to join us”

Tarikh Tabari, Volume 7 page 52

This proves that the killers of Imam Hussain [as] were the Shaykhs and tribal leaders of Aama and they had nothing to do with this group of Shia. Moreover, the reality regarding the number of Shia al-Khasa residing in Kufa is also clarified from this sermon, they did not possess a distinct number and could have been eliminated quites easily before the Aama of Kufa. Later, the speech given by Ubaidullah bin Abdullah was:

“The enemies were determined to kill the grandson of the Prophet whilst friends did not assist him. Verily, his killers deserve wrath and those who abandoned him deserve to be admonished, Neither will his killer have any grounds before Allah nor will there be any reasoning worth hearing by those that abandoned him, except if they sincerely repent and conduct Jihad against his killers and fight the oppressors”

Tarikh Tabari, Volume 7 page 52

When people arrived in Karbala from Kufa with the intention of avenging the murder of Imam Hussain [as], Mathna bin Makhbariya gave a speech that contained the following important sentence:

“Hussain and and his Ansar were killed by a group that we deem them as our enemies and we dissociate ourselves from them, we have now left our homes in order to destroy every one of them”

Tarikh Tabari, Volume 7 page 221

All of these historical evidences make it clear that not a single Shia al-Khasa was the army that killed Imam Hussain [as]

History lifts the lid and exposes the true killers of Imam Hussain (as). On route to Kufa Imam Hussain (as) met Al Farazdaq and asked him about the situation in Kufa, he assessed the matter saying:

“The people’s hearts are with you but their swords are with the Banu Ummayya”.

Tabari English translation Volume 19 pages 70-71)

When the people had swords raised against Imam Hussain (as) there is then no basis to conclude that these individuals were Shi’a, rather they were Nasibi hiding in the midst of the people.

As mentioned earlier Shia Aama may have switched sides in light of their assessing the situation at the time, but when it comes to locating those with the blood of Imam Hussain (as) on their hands then another group of the Shia of Uthman were proud that they had committed such a deed, a fact that Nawasib always suppress from their adherents.

We have the example of Nafi bin Hilal who entered the battlefield of Karbala, in Imam Hussain (as)’s army declaring:

“I am al-Jamali. I believe in the religion of Ali. A man called Muzahim al Hurayth came against him crying “I follow the religion of Uthman”. Nafi replied, “Rather you follow the religion of Satan”. Then he attacked and killed him

Tabari Volume 19 pages 136-137

Azrar bin Qays taunted Zuhayr bin al-Qayn (History of al-Tabari Volume 19 page 113):

“Zuhayr according to us you were not the Shi’ah from this family (bayt). You used to be a supporter of the party of Uthman. Zuhayr said, ‘Aren’t you presuming from my position that I am one of them?”

Note in the reply Zuhayr admitted that he was Uthmani Nasibi but we ask Afriki, ‘what was his position now?’ Clearly his position with the Imam (as) meant that he was a Shi’a of Ahl’ul bayt (as).

From here the truth has been separated from falsehood– Yazid’s army were not Shi’a, but were in fact Nasibi / Uthmani whilst the army of Hussain comprised of the Shi’a of Ahl’ul bayt (as).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

When Yazid’s forces encircled Imam Hussain (as) and his Sahaba, Ibn Ziyad sent a letter to Ibn Sad in which he stated:

“Stop the water of Hussain in the same way that Ameer’ul Momineen Uthman was treated”.

Tabari Volume 19 page 107)

Ibn Kathir similarly records that Ibn Ziyad gave the order:

“Become an obstacle between Hussain and water and treat them in the same way that the pious, righteous and oppressed Amee’rul Momineen Uthman was treated”.

Al Bidayah wal Nihayah (Urdu), Volume 8 page 1058

It is as clear as day that those that killed Imam Hussain (as) were those that deemed Uthman to be Ameer’ul Momineen. In Shia aqeedah we do not deem anyone other than Imam Ali (as) to be Ameer’ul Momineen, we do not even bestow this title to any of the other Imams. But the army of Yazid considered Yazid to be Ameerul Momineen, contrary to Shi’a Aqeeda.

Ibn Taymiyya had also written that:

“Uthman’s Shi’a would openly curse Ali from the Mosque pulpits”.

Minhajj al Sunnah Volume 3 page 178

So we learn that those that martyred Imam Hussain (as) were NOT the Shi’a of ‘Ali (as) but were the Shi’a of Uthman – the Nasibi forces loyal to Yazid. Ibn Kathir (who was a student of Ibn Taymiyya) and other historians have shed light on the fact that amongst the killers were the sons of the Sahaba. Even prominent Sahaba such as Umar bin Harith and his family joined the ranks of Yazid’s army. As we have already proven Umar bin Harith was Ibn Ziyad’s, Chief of police, who arrested Muslim bin Aqeel (as) and presented him to Ibn Ziyad, who subsequently had him executed.

Yazid had given a free hand to Ibn Ziyad, and Marwan’s letter to Ibn Ziyad demonstrated that the aim was for Imam Hussain (as) to give bayya – if he refused then he was to be killed.

Following the martyrdom of Imam Hussain (as) Ibn Ziyad said as follows:

"Praise be to God, who revealed the truth and the followers of truth. He has given victory to the Commander of the Faithful Yazeed ibn Mu'awiyah, and his party. He has killed the liar who is the son of a liar, al Hussain bin Ali and his Shiah".

The History of al-Tabari, English translation by I.K.A. Howard, Volume 19 page 167

Those that killed Imam Hussain (as) were Nasibis, today’s Nasibis love these killers to the extent that they take the core component of Deen (hadith) from them. These are the same Nasibi that oppose the mourning of Imam Hussain (as) deeming such practices to be bidath.

Thankyou for reading. wassalamualaikom

like who ? can u name some and what evidence is there that their beliefs were different

Those that heard Muslim bin Aqeel [as] read out the letter of Imam Hussain [as], and pledged their support included Abis b. Abbi Shabab al Shakiri, Said b. Abdallah al Hanafi and Habib bin Muzahir al Faqasi, (History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 29) all three reached the Imam [as] and were martyred defending him.

In Kufa, Muslim bin Aqeel, gave positions of responsibility to Muslim b. Awsaja al Asadi and Abu Thumamah al Saidi (History of Tabari Volume 19 page 98) both men fought alongside the Imam [as] and laid down their lives in his path (History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 137 and 142)

Those that never flinched from their support for Imam Hussain [as] until their corpses were strewn before Imam Hussain [as] included the Shia al-Khasa of Kufa such as:

Burayr b. Hudayr, about whom, Professor Howard writes in the footnote of History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 119 “From his position among the followers of al-Husayn, he seems to have been a leading member of the Kufan Shias. He died fighting for al-Husayn”. Burayr knew the Holy Quran by heart, a fact testified by one of Ibn Sa’d’s very own soldiers who said: “This man Burayr b. Hudayr is the reciter of the Quran (qari). He often recited the Quran to us in the mosque” History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 133

Anas bin Harith, one of the companions of the Holy Prophet who has been mentioned by Ibn Athir in his book Asdal Ghaba and Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his book Al-Isaba. Ibn Athir stated “He was among the people of Kufa and had gone to help Hussain when he had arrived in Karbala”

Nafi bin Hilal al Jamali al Muradi (History of Tabari Volume 19 page 145) who was from the Madh-haj tribe of Kufa

Hanzala bin Asad al-Shibami (History of Tabari Volume 19 pages pages 146-7)

Mujammi b. Abdallah al Aidhi (History of Tabari Volume 19 page 150)

al Murraqa Asadi (History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 162-3)

Sayf bin al Harith (History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 146)

Malik b. Abd b. Suray (History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 146)

Abdullah b. Umayr al Kalbi (History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 129-130)

al Qasim bin Habib Azdi (History of Tabari Volume 19 page 143)

Zuhayr b. al-Qaun al Bajali (History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 126)

Yazid bin Ziyad al Musahir (History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 126)

Aiz bin Majma

Umar bin Khalid Sedadi

Janada bin Harith Salmani

Muwaid bin Umro

Sawar bin Munam Hamdani

Umar Qarza Ansari

Naseem bin Ejlan Ansari

Abdullah bin Bashar Khash’ami

Saalim bin Umro Kalbi

Muslim bin Kathir Azdi

Harith bin Amra al-Qays Kindi

Bashar bin Umar Kindi

Dafi’ bin Abdullah Azdi

Nauman bin Umro

Masud bin Hajaj Tamimi

Juwain bin Malik Taimi

Umar bin Zabi’ya Taimi

Habab bin Aamir Taimi

Umya bin Saad Taiyee

Zarzam bin Malik Thalabi

Kanan bin Attique Thalabi

Qasit bin Zuhair Kardus bin Zuhair Thalabin

Jibla bin Ali Shebani

^ can u plz not copypaste from AA and answer my question

Bro, i have already typed these in my computer, and now i wanna use them. Did you get your answer bro?

Edited by imamia
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

^ these are names of the people who were loyal to hussain b ali

thats not my question, the question is what is the proof that these people held the same beleifs as 12er imamis of today

well of course they were shias of ali, shia al-khasa, but some of them converted to shia imamia on tasuaa. no doubt that those who were hashimites were all shias of ali(as). Thats all i know. and though i have already proven the real killers if you read till end. one of the biggest signs that killers of imam hussain(as) were not shias of ali is that they raised against their imam, whereas the prophet of islam had already mentioned (the hadith of cloak) , that whoever fights them,fights me, and whoever is at peace with them is at peace with me. Sunni reference:

Sahih Muslim, Chapter of virtues of companions, section of the virtues of the Ahlul-Bayt of the Prophet (PBUH&HF), 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, Arabic version, v4, p1883, Tradition #61.

note: i have not mentioned the whole hadith. i have mentioned a part of it.

Edited by imamia
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

well of course they were shias of ali, shia al-khasa, but some of them converted to shia imamia on tasuaa. no doubt that those who were hashimites were all shias of ali(as). Thats all i know. and though i have already proven the real killers if you read till end. one of the biggest signs that killers of imam hussain(as) were not shias of ali is that they raised against their imam, whereas the prophet of islam had already mentioned (the hadith of cloak) , that whoever fights them,fights me, and whoever is at peace with them is at peace with me. Sunni reference:

Sahih Muslim, Chapter of virtues of companions, section of the virtues of the Ahlul-Bayt of the Prophet (PBUH&HF), 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, Arabic version, v4, p1883, Tradition #61.

note: i have not mentioned the whole hadith. i have mentioned a part of it.

what is the historical proof that "shia al-khasa" were following a different fiqah than other "shias" or even other followers e.g of yazid

i am not interested in who killed hussain b ali

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

what is the historical proof that "shia al-khasa" were following a different fiqah than other "shias" or even other followers e.g of yazid

i am not interested in who killed hussain b ali

The fiqh of rasulullah(pbuh&f) is the same and will be the same till the day of resurrection.Yazeed was a muslim,They were all muslims, what was different at that time was to who you give your oath of allegiance. The prophet of islam(pbuh&f) said clearly many times that after me is my ahlulbayt not anyone else, he has never ever mentioned any other persons name, i will give you some historical events :

1. On route to Kufa Imam Hussain (as) met Al Farazdaq and asked him about the situation in Kufa, he said:

“The people’s hearts are with you but their swords are with the Banu Ummayya”.

Tabari English translation Volume 19 pages 70-71)

2.Ibn Ziyad sent a letter to Ibn Sad in which he stated:

“Stop the water of Hussain in the same way that Ameer’ul Momineen Uthman was treated”.

Tabari Volume 19 page 107)

Ibn Kathir similarly records that Ibn Ziyad gave the order:

“Become an obstacle between Hussain and water and treat them in the same way that the pious, righteous and oppressed Amee’rul Momineen Uthman was treated”.

Al Bidayah wal Nihayah (Urdu), Volume 8 page 1058

It is as clear as day that those that killed Imam Hussain (as) were those that deemed Uthman to be Ameer’ul Momineen. In Shia aqeedah we do not deem anyone other than Imam Ali (as) to be Ameer’ul Momineen, we do not even bestow this title to any of the other Imams. But the army of Yazid considered Yazid to be Ameerul Momineen, contrary to Shi’a Aqeeda.

3.“Ibn Ziyad wrote to Ameer al Harmain Umro bin Saeed and informed him “ Convey the glad tidings of Hussain’s death”, he asked a caller who then made its announcement . When a Banu Hashim women heard the announcement their they voices raised in lamentation, and Umro bin Saeed said: “ This is the revenge for the lamentation of the wives of Uthman bin Affan”

Al Bidayah wal Nihayah (Urdu), Volume 8 page 1097

Those in Yazid’s army were not the Shi’a of Ali, rather they were Uthmani . They were those who gave allegiance to the caliphs,whereas true shias of ali had neither given alligeance to them,nor to muawiyah and nor to yazid. i hope i have answered your question brother.

Edited by imamia
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

The fiqh of rasulullah(pbuh&f) is the same and will be the same till the day of resurrection.Yazeed was a muslim,They were all muslims, what was different at that time was to who you give your oath of allegiance. The prophet of islam(pbuh&f) said clearly many times that after me is my ahlulbayt not anyone else, he has never ever mentioned any other persons name, i will give you some historical events :

1. On route to Kufa Imam Hussain (as) met Al Farazdaq and asked him about the situation in Kufa, he said:

“The people’s hearts are with you but their swords are with the Banu Ummayya”.

Tabari English translation Volume 19 pages 70-71)

2.Ibn Ziyad sent a letter to Ibn Sad in which he stated:

“Stop the water of Hussain in the same way that Ameer’ul Momineen Uthman was treated”.

Tabari Volume 19 page 107)

Ibn Kathir similarly records that Ibn Ziyad gave the order:

“Become an obstacle between Hussain and water and treat them in the same way that the pious, righteous and oppressed Amee’rul Momineen Uthman was treated”.

Al Bidayah wal Nihayah (Urdu), Volume 8 page 1058

It is as clear as day that those that killed Imam Hussain (as) were those that deemed Uthman to be Ameer’ul Momineen. In Shia aqeedah we do not deem anyone other than Imam Ali (as) to be Ameer’ul Momineen, we do not even bestow this title to any of the other Imams. But the army of Yazid considered Yazid to be Ameerul Momineen, contrary to Shi’a Aqeeda.

3.“Ibn Ziyad wrote to Ameer al Harmain Umro bin Saeed and informed him “ Convey the glad tidings of Hussain’s death”, he asked a caller who then made its announcement . When a Banu Hashim women heard the announcement their they voices raised in lamentation, and Umro bin Saeed said: “ This is the revenge for the lamentation of the wives of Uthman bin Affan”

Al Bidayah wal Nihayah (Urdu), Volume 8 page 1097

Those in Yazid’s army were not the Shi’a of Ali, rather they were Uthmani . They were those who gave allegiance to the caliphs,whereas true shias of ali had neither given alligeance to them,nor to muawiyah and nor to yazid. i hope i have answered your question brother.

there were many opponents of uthman so can we assume all of them were "shia of ali" ?

the quotes u have given only prove that those who killed hussain were uthmani and those who were with hussian didnt have a good opinion of uthman this was exactly the difference between shia of ali and shia of uthman who were participants of the first civil war

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

there were many opponents of uthman so can we assume all of them were "shia of ali" ?

the quotes u have given only prove that those who killed hussain were uthmani and those who were with hussian didnt have a good opinion of uthman this was exactly the difference between shia of ali and shia of uthman who were participants of the first civil war

The shia of ali were not only opponents of uthman but they were also opponents of abubakr ibn qahafa and umar ibn khattab and muawiyah bin abusofian and all those who were with them,and thats why muawiyah started making fake hadiths about the first three caliphs and he killed shias of ali who used to praise the ahlulbayt(as). those who were enemies of uthman ibn affan were not all shias of ahlulbayt. Infact those who killed uthman were the sahaba themselves.

Ibn Katheer records the following incident in Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 7 page 353 (published by Nafees Academy, Karachi):

“Imam Ahmed stated: Ishaq bin Sulaiman told us that he heard Muawiyah bin Aslam that Salmah narrated from Mutraf from Nafi’e from Ibn Umair that Uthman during his siege looked at his companions and said: ‘Why do you people want to kill me? I have heard Holy Prophet that the blood of a person becomes Halal only in three conditions i.e. if he committed adultery after marriage, such a man should be stoned to death, or someone deliberately killed another person, his punishment is death or if someone becomes apostate, his punishment is death as well. By Allah! I neither committed adultery during the days of ignorance nor during the days of Islam, nor have I killed someone that I may give Qasas via my life, also I didn’t become apostate after becoming Muslim. I testify that there is no God except Allah and Muhammad is His prophet and Messenger’. Nasai has narrated it Ahmed bin Al-Azahar from Ishaq bin Sulaiman.”

Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Arabic), Vol 7 page 202

This tradition is recoreded in Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Volume 1 page 63 while the margin writers of the book such as Shaykh Shuaib al-Arnaout declared it ‘Hasan’ and Shaykh Ahmad Shakir declared it ‘Sahih’ (Musnad Ahmad, v2 p358).

Kanz al Ummal, Volume 13 page 82:

“When the Egyptian forces landed at Jahafa and began to talk ill of Uthman, he got to know about it and climbed on the pulpit and said, “O Sahaba of Prophet Muhammad (s), May Allah curse you for bad mouthing me. You advertised my shortcomings and concealed my virtues. You have also provoked people against me. Kanz al Ummal, Volume 13 page 82 Tradition 36293

Many of the books of Ahle Sunnah record that Aisha had declared Uthman a Nathal that should be killed. Amongst those texts are the following:

Al Nahaya, Volume 5 page 80

Qamus, page 500 "lughut Nathal" by Firozabadi

Lisan al Arab, Volume 11 Chapter "Lughuth Nathal" page 670

Sharh Nahjul Balagha Ibn al Hadeed Volume 2 page 122

Sheikh al-Mudhira, by Mahmoud Abu Raya, p170 (foot note)

Al-Imama wa al-Siyasa, Volume 1 page 52

Tarikh Mukhtasar al-Duwal, by Ibn Al-Ebrei, v1 p55

Al-Razi records in Al-Mahsol, Volume 4 page 343:

Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) did her best to incite people against Uthman, and she used to say: ‘Oh people! This is the cloth of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) still not ragged, while his Sunnah is ragged, kill Nathal, may Allah kill Nathal.’

There are still more evidences, but i think this should be enough to prove that those who killed uthmna ibn affan were not shias of ali, they were those who hated imam ali(as) and fought with him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

how do u know that ? did anyone from shia of ali fight against or curse abubakr/umar ?

No bro, not even imam ali(as) fought abubakr and umar, but this does not mean that we ignore that facts of history and hadiths in authentic sunni books. and also, if the prophet of islam himself mentioned that his ssuccessor is imam ali(as), why should someone else claim to be his successor? other than that, abubakr and umar were killers of lady fatimah zahra(sa),(daughter of prophet of islam)(pbuh&f). Ibn Abbas (ra) narrated: The Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) said: Four women are the mistress of the worlds: Mary, Asiya (the wife of Pharaoh), Khadija, and Fatimah.And the most excellent one among them in the world is Fatimah." Sunni references: Ibn Asakir, as quoted in Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthoor

Allah, Exalted He is, said in Quran:"(O Prophet) tell (people) I don't ask you any wage except to love my family." (Quran 42:23).

Ali and Abbas were sitting inside the house of Fatimah, Abu Bakr told Umar: "Go and bring them; if they refuse, kill them." Umar brought fire to burn the house. Fatimah came near the door and said: "O son of Khattab, have you come to burn our house on me and my children?" Umar replied: "Yes I will, by Allah, until they come out and pay allegiance to the Prophet's Caliph."

Sunni reference:

- Iqd al-Fareed, by Ibn Abd Rabb, Part 3, Pg. 63

- al-Ghurar, by Ibn Khazaben, related from Zayd Ibn Aslam

Also it is reported that:

Umar said to Fatimah (who was behind the door of her house): "I know that the Prophet of God did not love any one more than you, but this will not stop me to carry out my decision. If these people stay in your house, I will burn the door in front of you."

Sunni reference: Kanz al-Ummal, v3, p140

Umar Ibn al-Khattab came to the house of Ali. Talha and Zubair and some of the immigrants were also in the house. Umar cried out:"By God, either you come out to render the oath of allegiance, or I will set the house on fire." al-Zubair came out with his sword drawn. As he stumbled (upon something), the sword fell from his hand so they jumped over him and seized him."

Sunni Reference: History of Tabari, English version, v9, pp 186-187

Sunni historians reported that:

When Umar came to the door of the house of Fatimah, he said:"By Allah, I shall burn down (the house) over you unless you come out and give the oath of allegiance (to Abu Bakr)." Sunni References:

- History of Tabari (Arabic), v1, pp 1118-1120

- History of Ibn Athir, v2, p325

- al-Isti'ab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, v3, p975

- Tarikh al-Kulafa, by Ibn Qutaybah, v1, p20

- al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, by Ibn Qutaybah, v1, pp 19-20

It is also reported that:

Abu Bakr said (on his death bed): "I wish I had not searched for Fatimah's house, and had not sent men to harass her, though it would have caused a war if her house would have continued to be used as a shelter."

Sunni references:

- History of Ya'qubi, v2, pp 115-116

- Ansab Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri, v1, pp 582,586

Another Sunni historian, al-Baladhuri, reported that:

Abu Bakr asked Ali to support him, but Ali refused, then Umar went toward the Ali's house with a burning torch. At the door he met Fatimah who said to him: "Do you intend to burn the door of my house?" Umar said: "Yes, because this act will strengthen the faith brought to us by your father."

Sunni reference: al-Ansab Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri, v1, pp 582,586

You see brother, abubakr and umar were those who killed lady fatimah(sa), and loving such caliphs is equivalent to have committed the same crimes as they did. The prophet of islam said about his successor infront of everyone, which is also quoted in many sunni books, if you want i will type them for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Basic Members

No bro, not even imam ali(as) fought abubakr and umar, but this does not mean that we ignore that facts of history and hadiths in authentic sunni books. and also, if the prophet of islam himself mentioned that his ssuccessor is imam ali(as), why should someone else claim to be his successor? other than that, abubakr and umar were killers of lady fatimah zahra(sa),(daughter of prophet of islam)(pbuh&f). Ibn Abbas (ra) narrated: The Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) said: Four women are the mistress of the worlds: Mary, Asiya (the wife of Pharaoh), Khadija, and Fatimah.And the most excellent one among them in the world is Fatimah." Sunni references: Ibn Asakir, as quoted in Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthoor

Allah, Exalted He is, said in Quran:"(O Prophet) tell (people) I don't ask you any wage except to love my family." (Quran 42:23).

Ali and Abbas were sitting inside the house of Fatimah, Abu Bakr told Umar: "Go and bring them; if they refuse, kill them." Umar brought fire to burn the house. Fatimah came near the door and said: "O son of Khattab, have you come to burn our house on me and my children?" Umar replied: "Yes I will, by Allah, until they come out and pay allegiance to the Prophet's Caliph."

Sunni reference:

- Iqd al-Fareed, by Ibn Abd Rabb, Part 3, Pg. 63

- al-Ghurar, by Ibn Khazaben, related from Zayd Ibn Aslam

Also it is reported that:

Umar said to Fatimah (who was behind the door of her house): "I know that the Prophet of God did not love any one more than you, but this will not stop me to carry out my decision. If these people stay in your house, I will burn the door in front of you."

Sunni reference: Kanz al-Ummal, v3, p140

Umar Ibn al-Khattab came to the house of Ali. Talha and Zubair and some of the immigrants were also in the house. Umar cried out:"By God, either you come out to render the oath of allegiance, or I will set the house on fire." al-Zubair came out with his sword drawn. As he stumbled (upon something), the sword fell from his hand so they jumped over him and seized him."

Sunni Reference: History of Tabari, English version, v9, pp 186-187

Sunni historians reported that:

When Umar came to the door of the house of Fatimah, he said:"By Allah, I shall burn down (the house) over you unless you come out and give the oath of allegiance (to Abu Bakr)." Sunni References:

- History of Tabari (Arabic), v1, pp 1118-1120

- History of Ibn Athir, v2, p325

- al-Isti'ab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, v3, p975

- Tarikh al-Kulafa, by Ibn Qutaybah, v1, p20

- al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, by Ibn Qutaybah, v1, pp 19-20

It is also reported that:

Abu Bakr said (on his death bed): "I wish I had not searched for Fatimah's house, and had not sent men to harass her, though it would have caused a war if her house would have continued to be used as a shelter."

Sunni references:

- History of Ya'qubi, v2, pp 115-116

- Ansab Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri, v1, pp 582,586

Another Sunni historian, al-Baladhuri, reported that:

Abu Bakr asked Ali to support him, but Ali refused, then Umar went toward the Ali's house with a burning torch. At the door he met Fatimah who said to him: "Do you intend to burn the door of my house?" Umar said: "Yes, because this act will strengthen the faith brought to us by your father."

Sunni reference: al-Ansab Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri, v1, pp 582,586

You see brother, abubakr and umar were those who killed lady fatimah(sa), and loving such caliphs is equivalent to have committed the same crimes as they did. The prophet of islam said about his successor infront of everyone, which is also quoted in many sunni books, if you want i will type them for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Can you answer in Yes or No. Did Shia kill Hussain or not?

Killer of Imam Hussain (as) is Shimr (LA) who was appointed by Ibne Ziyad (LA) who is the governor of Kufa appointed by Yezid ibne Mawiya (LA) who was the Muslim king or Caliph appointed by Mawiya (LA), who was the King caliph of Muslims who was appointed by Umar (..) who was appointed by Abu Bakr (..) who was appointed by the idea of Satan (LA) to create fitna after Prophet (pbuh) death and not choosing the appointed Caliph that is Imam Ali (as).

Did that answer your question?

Edited by zakzaki
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Killer of Imam Hussain (as) is Shimr (LA) who was appointed by Ibne Ziyad (LA) who is the governor of Kufa appointed by Yezid ibne Mawiya (LA) who was the Muslim king or Caliph appointed by Mawiya (LA), who was the King caliph of Muslims who was appointed by Umar (..) who was appointed by Abu Bakr (..) who was appointed by the idea of Satan (LA) to create fitna after Prophet (pbuh) death and not choosing the appointed Caliph that is Imam Ali (as).

Did that answer your question?

LOL, beautifully put.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Can you answer in Yes or No. Did Shia kill Hussain or not?

i have already answered the question, those who killed imam hussain(as) and other imams(as) were the anscestors of the present day nasibi deobandis and sunnis.

Can you answer in Yes or No. Did Shia kill Hussain or not?

salaam.

killers of imam hussain(as) were the ancestors of todays nasibis and all those who oppose the school of ahlulbayt(as).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

salam ya they were shia but no shea ali but shia usmaan if u know histery in kofa when imam ali went they have taravi .imam ali stoped them but they dont heared imam ali .ali,s shia not have taravi so they were usmani shia sunnas missed it and blamed that ali,s shia kill imam husain

salam ya they were shia but no shea ali but shia usmaan if u know histery in kofa when imam ali went they have taravi .imam ali stoped them but they dont heared imam ali .ali,s shia not have taravi so they were usmani shia sunnas missed it and blamed that ali,s shia kill imam husain

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

I just want to say that tonight I attended Sayed Ammar Naskhawanis lecture here in sydney Australia, the topic was about the "myth that the shia killed imam hussein (a.s)", so it would be interesting for yous to have a listen to it when it becomes available on the net InshAllah.

Wa'Salam!

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Shi’a failed to support Imam Hussain that in consequence caused his martyrdom."

Why didn't you continue after that?

I'll continue then...

The Shi'a that abandoned him later repented

The Shi'a that abandoned him pledged allegiance to Al-Mukhtar Al-Thakafi who ordered the killing of all of the killers of Imam Al-Hussain the same way they killed him and his family

The Shi'a that abandoned him killed Ubaid'Allah ibn Ziyad, Shimr ibn Thul'jawshan, and every person who killed Imam Al-Hussain and his family

The Shi'a that abandoned him conquered much of the Ummayad lands

The Shi'a that abandoned him went to al-janaa

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

I just want to say that tonight I attended Sayed Ammar Naskhawanis lecture here in sydney Australia, the topic was about the "myth that the shia killed imam hussein (a.s)", so it would be interesting for yous to have a listen to it when it becomes available on the net InshAllah.

Wa'Salam!

http://www.alemaan.net/audio/lecture/SayedAmmar2010_03.mp3

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

nakhswani twists the fact

muhammad b abihudhayfa a killer of uthman cousin of muawiyah but he was in the army of ali b abitalib

similarly one of the "theological shias" according to him amr b hamiq, is a known opponent and killer of uthman

shuryah b hani who he says abandoned sons of ibn aqeel ! was a known companion of ali, he is said to have protested and opposed killing of hujr b adi

cheap sensationalism thats what garners supports

(bismillah)

(salam)

if i am not mistaken bro

rijal books make mention of rafidis

(wasalam)

yes, but almost exclusively Tabeeen, even many of them are highly regarded in sunni rijal works like Al-Ashtar, Zayd b Suhan.

why does nakhswani sings towards the end of his lectures ? its kinda childish and idiotic

"The Shi’a failed to support Imam Hussain that in consequence caused his martyrdom."

The Shi'a that abandoned him went to al-janaa

jazakallah Tawwabun were momineen and indeed are in heaven

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

why does nakhswani sings towards the end of his lectures ? its kinda childish and idiotic

I think it is you who is making this kinda childish and idiotic comment

Quran 42:23

That is of which Allah gives the good news to His servants, (to) those who believe and do good deeds. Say: I do not ask of you any reward for it but love for my near relatives; and whoever earns good, We give him more of good therein; surely Allah is Forgiving, Grateful.

Narrated Salma(S):

"I went to visit Umm Salamah and found her weeping. I asked her what was making her weep and she replied that she had seen Allah' Messenger (S) (meaning in a dream) with dust on his head and beard. She asked him what was the matter and he replied, `I have just been present at the slaying of al-Husayn.'"

- Sahih Tirmidhi, per:

- Mishkat al-Masabih, by Khatib al-Tabrizi, English Version, Tdadition #6157

Ummul momineen Um Salama(S) said: I heard the Jinns mourning for al-Husain."

references:

(1) Tarikh al-Kabir, by al-Bukhari (the author of Sahih), v4, part 1, p26

(2) Fada'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p776, Tradition #1373

(3) Tabarani, v3, pp 130-131

(4) Tahdhib, v7, p404

The Messenger of Allah said:

He who dies with love of the family of Muhammad is a Martyr.

and many more sayings

check The Reward of Loving Ahlul-Bayt

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

I think it is you who is making this kinda childish and idiotic comment

Quran 42:23

That is of which Allah gives the good news to His servants, (to) those who believe and do good deeds. Say: I do not ask of you any reward for it but love for my near relatives; and whoever earns good, We give him more of good therein; surely Allah is Forgiving, Grateful.

Narrated Salma(S):

"I went to visit Umm Salamah and found her weeping. I asked her what was making her weep and she replied that she had seen Allah' Messenger (S) (meaning in a dream) with dust on his head and beard. She asked him what was the matter and he replied, `I have just been present at the slaying of al-Husayn.'"

- Sahih Tirmidhi, per:

- Mishkat al-Masabih, by Khatib al-Tabrizi, English Version, Tdadition #6157

Ummul momineen Um Salama(S) said: I heard the Jinns mourning for al-Husain."

references:

(1) Tarikh al-Kabir, by al-Bukhari (the author of Sahih), v4, part 1, p26

(2) Fada'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p776, Tradition #1373

(3) Tabarani, v3, pp 130-131

(4) Tahdhib, v7, p404

The Messenger of Allah said:

He who dies with love of the family of Muhammad is a Martyr.

and many more sayings

check The Reward of Loving Ahlul-Bayt

ur reply has nothing to do with the topic at hand, think for moment before u shoot from the hip

he does sing at the end of his lectures trying to pretend as if hes mourning

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

ur reply has nothing to do with the topic at hand, think for moment before u shoot from the hip

he does sing at the end of his lectures trying to pretend as if hes mourning

Yeah I was just answering your question and that singing which you think is not singing but mourning and it is not pretending. How do you know something inside one's heart?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

^ when somebody lies so blatantly as nakhswani does then they hide the truth and propogate falsehood, what respect cud we have for such people ?

Could you please provide any evidence or proofs of your accusation towards nakhswani? He is coming down to our town on the weekend for a series of lectures and I would love to ask him about these accusations.

Thanks,

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

^ refer to post #25

for refs see biography of ibn abihudhayfa/ibnhamiq/ in Usdul Ghaba and Al-Isaba

and events around murder of uthman and its participants listed in Tabari, muhammad b abibakrs role is wellknown in it

for shurayah b hanis loyalty to ali see the events around arbitration at siffin in Tabari or Minqari waqat sifffin

He mentions Abul Hasan Mazani as killer of uthman,its true but I wasnt able to locate any of his participation in the later civil war

but Rifa'a b Rifea Zuraqi another Badri is one of those who assaulted the house of ibn affan and he is listed in all his biographies as a participant in all wars of ali on his side

should we begin to name the opponents of uthman who were in ali's army

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

^ refer to post #25

for refs see biography of ibn abihudhayfa/ibnhamiq/ in Usdul Ghaba and Al-Isaba

and events around murder of uthman and its participants listed in Tabari, muhammad b abibakrs role is wellknown in it

for shurayah b hanis loyalty to ali see the events around arbitration at siffin in Tabari or Minqari waqat sifffin

He mentions Abul Hasan Mazani as killer of uthman,its true but I wasnt able to locate any of his participation in the later civil war

but Rifa'a b Rifea Zuraqi another Badri is one of those who assaulted the house of ibn affan and he is listed in all his biographies as a participant in all wars of ali on his side

should we begin to name the opponents of uthman who were in ali's army

Uthman was killed in a mass murder by his own people who were not satisfied with his corrupted policies, which you have not denied so far.

Aisha was also a foreleader in inciting violence to kill Uthman.

but what has that to do with Imam Ali (as)?

^ when somebody lies so blatantly as nakhswani does then they hide the truth and propogate falsehood, what respect cud we have for such people ?

all you have done is typed a few statements without backing. This is not ethics of a debate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Uthman was killed in a mass murder by his own people who were not satisfied with his corrupted policies, which you have not denied so far.Aisha was also a foreleader in inciting violence to kill Uthman.

but what has that to do with Imam Ali (as)?

all you have done is typed a few statements without backing. This is not ethics of a debate.

ur delibrately trying to avoid talking about the issues i raised in my earlier posts

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

i am not interested in who killed hussain b ali

Please if you are not interested in who killed Imam Hussain (as), please open another topic because here the topic is Did Shias Kill Imam Hussain(as)?

ur delibrately trying to avoid talking about the issues i raised in my earlier posts

You are deliberately going off track.

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...