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
Sign in to follow this  
Ethics

Bbc Article For Arbaeen Does Injustice!

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

An estimated 17 million people celebrated the event

 

Huge numbers of Shia Muslim pilgrims have gathered in the Iraqi city of Karbala for the climax of a key festival, despite threats of violence.

Iraq says up to 17 million made the pilgrimage over 40 days this year, more than a million from Iran, and many remain for the ceremony of Arbaeen.

Tight security aimed to prevent attacks by Islamic State and other Sunni militant groups.

Arbaeen commemorates the death of a grandson of the Prophet Mohammed.

The ceremony is held to mark the death of Imam Hussain, who died in battle at Karbala.

 

Read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30462820

 

One part that sincerely angered me was the white washing of the true purpose of Imam Hussain and Karbala. It states twice!: "He was killed in a 7th Century battle for the leadership of the Muslim world,"

 

Imam Hussain did not fight for leadership!! No! He defended Islam, and was attacked. He fought for Justice, for Allah, for the religion of his grandfather, Muhammad A.S! What kind of man fights for leadership with women, children, and the elderly?!

 

Clearly, this writer had propaganda...

Edited by PureEthics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's "injustice," not unjustice. 

 

If Imam Hussain had won the battle he would have obviously assumed leadership.  But it's not the BBC's fault for not knowing that the purpose of the battle was sacrifice to begin with.  Naturally, it would lead every non-Muslim to immediately question:

 

Then what did the sacrifice achieve exactly?

Are we unable to value justice without the sacrifice?

What justice does Islam convey that convention on human rights hasn't already established?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's "injustice," not unjustice. 

 

Thank you for the correction.

 

 

If Imam Hussain had won the battle he would have obviously assumed leadership.  But it's not the BBC's fault for not knowing that the purpose of the battle was sacrifice to begin with.  Naturally, it would lead every non-Muslim to immediately question:

 

Oh, is it that obvious? You have future telling powers? Or... Oh you are just assuming it, okay.

 

 

Then what did the sacrifice achieve exactly?

 

Did you read the history of Karbala, after the battle of Karbala? If not, as it is clearly shown, then please do so.

 

 

Are we unable to value justice without the sacrifice?

 

No, there is always value in justice, the sacrifice made it absolute.

 

 

What justice does Islam convey that convention on human rights hasn't already established?

 

There was human rights 100 years ago? 50 years ago? Really now.  :lol:  You have not read history my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was human rights 100 years ago? 50 years ago? Really now. :lol: You have not read history my friend.

The establishment of human rights was a gradual evolution, of course. But it wasn't caused by Islam, let alone by the event of Ashura if that's what you're implying [edited out].

Edited by hameedeh
accusation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Battle of Karbala was never about taking leadership, it was a lesson for humanity to stand up for truth even when numbers of truthful people are scarce.

Am I meant to applaud? Why is it that people who have never heard of Ashura understand this as a general principle?

In all seriousness, though, that aphorism isn't a practical message for every circumstance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we want to know about Imam Husain (a.s)' aims, we should refer to his words he was preparing himself for the battle of Karbala.


When Imam Hussain (A) was preparing to leave on his longest journey, he wrote a legacy addressing his brother Mohammed Bin Hanafiyyah in which he explained the aims and objectives of his uprising. We are quoting from the same legacy.


He wrote thus:


"And surely the aim of my stand is not inspired by vain exultation and it is also not for the quest of kingdom, Neither it is to cause dissension and corruption nor it is to wrong anybody unjustly."


in this sentence Imam clearly mentions that he isn't seeking the kingdom. These sentences of Imam Hussain (A) are sufficient enough to beat all the criticisms and accusation leveled against him by the enemies of Islam and the enemies of Imam Hussain (A) Now the question arises if these were not the motives of Imam's uprising than why did he took stand? What were the aims of his uprising? Thus continued Imam Hussain (A)


"The purpose of my stand is the reformation of my grandfather's nation. I intend to enjoin goodness and forbid evil. I want to emulate my grandfather, the Holy Prophet (S)and my father Alt Bin Abu Talib (A). Whosoever accepts me by accepting the truth, then Allah is higher than the truth. And whosoever rejects me then I will bear patiently until Allah adjudges between me and them and He is the best Judge."


In this legacy the chief of martyrs has explained three purposes for his stand:


  1. The reformation of his grandfather's nation
  2. Enjoining Good and Forbidding Evil

  3. Renewal and Revival of the tradition of the Holy Prophet (S) and Imam Ali (A).



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The establishment of human rights was a gradual evolution, of course. But it wasn't caused by Islam, let alone by the event of Ashura if that's what you're implying [edited out].

 

establishment? More like trial and error. It will never be perfect because the foundation is relative. Morality is relative, in this secular world. The only perfect form of "human rights" is with Al Islam. Now it may seem like we are going in the right direction but who knows? No, I am not saying it was caused by Islam or Ashura, it has always existed as mankind existed with Allah's religion. Of course I believe that, I am a Muslim. Therefore, the event of Karbala, is THE symbol of and for human rights.

 

اللَّهُ الَّذِي أَنْزَلَ الْكِتَابَ بِالْحَقِّ وَالْمِيزَانَ ۗ وَمَا يُدْرِيكَ لَعَلَّ السَّاعَةَ قَرِيبٌ

Allah it is Who revealed the Book with truth, and the balance, and what shall make you know that haply the hour be nigh? 42:17

Edited by PureEthics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The establishment of human rights was a gradual evolution, of course. But it wasn't caused by Islam, let alone by the event of Ashura if that's what you're implying [edited out].

Really? ESTABLISHMENT of human rights? the evolution of what?

you think western colonizers have ESTABLISHED human rights by writing down some hypocratic statements?

they don't know what truly human is to begin with, let alone his/her rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you think western colonizers have ESTABLISHED human rights by writing down some hypocratic statements?

 

Foreign affairs aside, basic human rights form the basis of a secular country in its domestic capacity. Of course there is always a need for improvement, but the point is that human rights were not founded by Islam or Ashura. In fact, Islam is at loggerheads with human rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foreign affairs aside, basic human rights form the basis of a secular country in its domestic capacity. Of course there is always a need for improvement, but the point is that human rights were not founded by Islam or Ashura. In fact, Islam is at loggerheads with human rights.

 

"Human rights" is just a buzzword.

 

It has no more substance than "blast processing" or "mega-cleaning power" or whatever terms marketers use these days.

 

In every society, people have rights and obligations. In every society, people are given the right to do certain things and prohibitions against doing certain other things. The term "human rights" only serves to condemn any society or state which prohibits what the current prevailing world order does not wish to prohibit.

 

For example, right now it is among the "human rights" of the Rothschild family to own everything in the world. The only countries who deprive them of these rights? Iran, Syria, and the DPRK. Coincidence?

 

The "human rights" buzzword is also used to condemn those governments who prohibit something that EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD ALSO PROHIBITS, so long as this government is against the existing global power structure. For example: the murder trial of Reyhaneh Jabbari. Or that supposed punk rock band in Russia which is known for something other than music. (I won't mention the band name or what they are famous for; I hope the shiachat users are already familiar with this issue because the subject may be inappropriate for an Islamic forum).

 

So, does Islam embrace or reject human rights? Who the hell cares. We might as well ask if Islam embraces guerrilla marketing or other such nonsense. Save that for business class. Any serious political discussion cannot be on the basis of a mindless, meaningless slogan.

Edited by baradar_jackson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, does Islam embrace or reject human rights? Who the hell cares. We might as well ask if Islam embraces guerrilla marketing or other such nonsense. Save that for business class. Any serious political discussion cannot be on the basis of a mindless, meaningless slogan.

 

It can be used as a soundbite (like "freedom and democracy") and it does get abused. But, as a concept, it tangibly exists nonetheless. The point is that the battle of Kerbala did not cause, for example, plurality of thought to be accepted.

The opening post cries that the Imam fought for "justice." Well, sure, but who doesn't? The word justice can be just as meaningless, but it exists nonetheless, and Islam did not enable the realisation of justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

It wasn't at all about the leadership? The whole point of moving to Kufa at the request of the thousands of letters was to declare a government. It didn't pan out that way and the Imam knew it wouldn't and, so, he made his sacrifice but that doesn't mean he wasn't concerned about the leadership of the Ummah. Wanting to be the leader doesn't mean coveting power; Imam Ali and Imam Hassan fought wars in order to eliminate Muaviyah as the leader because he was a horrible ruler and because it was not his right. The same goes for Imam Hussain. If the people had actually supported him, then he would have also fought Yazid because he was a tyrant but since they didn't, he instead chose another means of reviving the Muslims and to try and deal with why they didn't help.


Yes, the article doesn't elucidate all the finer points of, and philosophy behind, the martyrdom of Imam Hussain but that doesn't mean that the author is a bigoted Zionist spy out to poison the minds of people against Shi'as. You can't expect a non-Muslim to know all the finer points and underlying philosophies of our ethos, especially since we are the minority anyways and if someone were to research Islam, even in depth, they'd probably be more exposed to the Sunni side of things that our views. So, yes, perhaps we could point the finer details out to him and try to educate him but accusing him of spreading propaganda?

 

I mean, a lot of us here argue with Christians about their beliefs. Do you think you know all the finer points about how they justify and understand their beliefs? The fact is, we probably don't and, yet, every one of us argues like we're the Pope himself! We should learn that people's belief are extremely complex and convoluted; it is often the case that you don't really know the other point of view if you haven't really experienced it and we should give others a room for error based on this too.

Edited by Khadim uz Zahra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

It wasn't at all about the leadership? The whole point of moving to Kufa at the request of the thousands of letters was to declare a government. It didn't pan out that way and the Imam knew it wouldn't and, so, he made his sacrifice but that doesn't mean he wasn't concerned about the leadership of the Ummah. Wanting to be the leader doesn't mean coveting power; Imam Ali and Imam Hassan fought wars in order to eliminate Muaviyah as the leader because he was a horrible ruler and because it was not his right. The same goes for Imam Hussain. If the people had actually supported him, then he would have also fought Yazid because he was a tyrant but since they didn't, he instead chose another means of reviving the Muslims and to try and deal with why they didn't help.

Yes, the article doesn't elucidate all the finer points of, and philosophy behind, the martyrdom of Imam Hussain but that doesn't mean that the author is a bigoted Zionist spy out to poison the minds of people against Shi'as. You can't expect a non-Muslim to know all the finer points and underlying philosophies of our ethos, especially since we are the minority anyways and if someone were to research Islam, even in depth, they'd probably be more exposed to the Sunni side of things that our views. So, yes, perhaps we could point the finer details out to him and try to educate him but accusing him of spreading propaganda?

 

I mean, a lot of us here argue with Christians about their beliefs. Do you think you know all the finer points about how they justify and understand their beliefs? The fact is, we probably don't and, yet, every one of us argues like we're the Pope himself! We should learn that people's belief are extremely complex and convoluted; it is often the case that you don't really know the other point of view if you haven't really experienced it and we should give others a room for error based on this too.

 

Brother I dont think you understood the point. Imam Hussain A.S, did NOT go to Karbala to fight Yazid l.a for rule ship. There is a difference in what you are trying to say. Imam Hussain A.S, does not want rule-ship for himself. He is the Imam A.S of that time, and it is only plausible if the people wanted him, hence he went to kufa. Whether or not, any of our Imams A.S were "caliphs" doesnt negate their leadership and actual caliphate in the eyes of Allah. They were/are caliphs regardless if whether they are sitting on that chair. It is the people who are sore losers. Of course, every single Imam A.S stood up against all the tyrants, again, not because they wanted rule ship, but because that tyrant exceeded their boundary, in that they are evil beings tainting the religion of Islam. Hence the Imams A.S were assassinated and killed for not giving allegiance. I understand what you are trying to say, and I agree to some extent, but you have to realize, even in sunni history, it does not state that Imam Hussain A.S fought yazid l.a for leadership. The picture that this paints is power hungry, worldly desire kingship. Which is far from the case.

 

I never said bbc was spies, just clearly spewing falsehood and misinformation. As for any other topic, they can do extensive research and speak much clearly about a historic event, but when it comes to this, "17 Million went to Karbala..... Hussain fought for leadership....the end" 17 Million are journeying to karbala for what exactly and why?!?!?

Edited by PureEthics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imam Hussain A.S, did NOT go to Karbala to fight Yazid 

 

Indeed true

 

Imam Ali was literally pushed into office at the death of caliph Uthman. 

 

Likewise, Imam Hussain too had no worldly ambitions.

 

No one in the family did.

 

Otherwise Imam Hasan would not have passed the caliphate on to Muawiyah. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess Abu Baker and Umar usurped nothing then.

 

Faulty logic. The usurpation is the position Allah endowed upon His chosen beings, which no one has the right to take. There is a difference between the role given unto you by God, and you desiring power and position all for evil and desire. The Imams A.S never declined to uphold their duty upon mankind! They are chosen to be caliphs upon earth. Its just that the people allowed for tyrants to take the political position, thus making loss upon their own selves. The Imams A.S we always willing to partake as a political ruler, and we see proof of that, no matter the situation, they sacrificed their selves for the people, such that they saved the face of Islam, by helping the caliphs whom took their positions unjustly, while the people did not budge an eye. Read the Najul Balagha and you will see the political aspect of a divinely appoint, infallible being.

Edited by PureEthics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is God wants that position for Imams (it's their right) so why wouldn't Imams want it. It makes no sense. And if you read the Sermon of Mina of Imam Hussain, Imam Hussain was asking help to overthrow the government.

 

Again, you seem to be mistaking two things. Of course an Imam A.S wants to help mankind, thus they must rule, for it was the prophets command. IF they show no opposition one can argue maybe it was because they didnt care. What I am saying is, they did not care for the seat of power, of position, of throne ship. Regardless they were still caliphs on earth. I am not saying they did not care for being political leaders, I am saying they didnt care for power like the opposition against them.

 

For example, Imam Ali A.S:

 

Famous Sermon of ash-Shiqshiqiyah, it is deep with knowledge. Very long and must read sermon: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-3-Allah-son-abu-quhafah

 

Beware! By Allah, the son of Abu Quhafah (Abu Bakr)2 dressed himself with it (the caliphate) and he certainly knew that my position in relation to it was the same as the position of the axis in relation to the hand-mill. The flood water flows down from me and the bird cannot fly upto me. I put a curtain against the caliphate and kept myself detached from it.

Then I began to think whether I should assault or endure calmly the blinding darkness of tribulations wherein the grown up are made feeble and the young grow old and the true believer acts under strain till he meets Allah (on his death).

 

Or in this sermon

 

By Allah, I shall not be like the badger, that feigns sleep on continuous (sound of) stone-throwing till he who is in search of it finds it or he who is on the look out for it overpowers it. Rather, I shall ever strike the deviators from truth with the help of those who advance towards it, and the sinners and doubters with the help of those who listen to me and obey, till my day (of death) comes. By Allah I have been continually deprived of my right, with others being given preference to me, from the day the Prophet died till today.

 

http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-6-Allah-i-shall-not-be-badger

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...