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 Killed Imam Husain (Alayhe Al Salam) ?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Shias did not Kill Imam Hussain (AS), but rather it was the ignorance and arrogance of the contemporary people. The Shia's of Kufa invited Imam (AS) but failed to assist him, but Other than that, we all know who killed our Beloved Master Hussain (AS), who sat on the chest of Imam and whose army stood against Imam Hussain (AS). 

 

Shia means follower but not every can call themselves Shia

 

Imam Al-Hasan (as) said in answear to a man who said to him, 'Verily I am one of your Shia,  Imam (AS) replied, ' O Aabdallah, if you are truly obedient to us in our commands and prohibitions, then you are telling the truth. But if not, then do not add to your sins by falsely claiming such a dignified position that you are not worthy of. Do not say, ' I am one of your Shia, but say rather, ' I am one of your adherents and one of your lovers and an enemy to your enemies.'  You are doing good and aiming towards good.' [Tanbih al-Khawatir, V. 2 P. 106] 

 

Ya Ali

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

tell your friend to start reading newspaper and he will find that Shias flock to burial site of Imam Hussein to remember him and have blessings via ibne Rasool Allah and prince of the youth of paradise. This whike the Sunni groups tirelessly and indiscriminately bomb these lovers of Hussein. So which camp are Sunnis in really?

Edited by abbas110
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I'm married into a sunni family and this is something i get a lot - and honestly i dont have much of an answer considering i had shunned religion about 10 years back and have just reverted.

 

from what i remember, it was the shi'ites in kufa who wrote endless letters to Him right? so why did they back off? in some way, that does hold shi'ites liable for His murder, right? sunnis argue that we mourn as repentance for playing such a major role in His death and the trouble caused to His family - im not sure how to respond to this.

 

And dont go the 'shia = follower' path - sunnis simply dont understand that, and having already tried this out with my in-laws, i know how many more questions it tends to raise. 

 

Also, please dont go bashing on me - im just trying to understand things all over again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

Tell you Sunni friends, the real killer of Imam Hussein (a.s) were Abu Bakr and  Umar! who had laid the seeds of destruction..... 

 

I am new on this site and on the whole the manners I have seen so far are a lot better than on some sunni and especially salafi sites. Having said that its comments like these that drive away Sunni's that genuinely want to know the shia perspective as we are not told it or are told a very biased version.  Besides, how can you hold people that died so many years prior as responsible for the actions of others?  If that's the case you can start with Allah SWT for creating humans and end it with God knows what......

 

From what I have independently studied so far its very confusing as shimr (la) as well as a few others were fighting with Maula Ali (as) at siffeen prior to Karbala and he was one of the ones involved in the murder.  I know the kuffans invited Imam Hussain (as) but were they the ones that fought against him or was it the Syrians with a few Iraqi's that had been bribed?  Also weren't a lot of them terrorised into staying away by ibn ziyad. 

 

Besides, Sayedina Hussain (as) purpose of going to Iraq was not just the letters. Islam and the Sunnah were blatantly being destroyed by yazeed pleed. These are facts from our (Sunni) books and classical scholars. He had to go out as a form of protest, he couldn't just sit it out being the Grandson of RasulAllah (SAW)>

 

If any of my comments have offended anyone then this was not my intention. I only joined this forum to learn and research as its harder to do form Sunni side as literature is so biased and the views are classical scholars are not told anymore or are changed by the heavily funded Saudi publishing houses.  

 

 

 

Wassalaamu Alaikum

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Salam Aleykom,

 

I heared from Sunni brothers that Kuffi Shias killed Imam Husain (as)  not sunnies. 

 

What do you think about this Claim ?

 

Of course I can answer too but I want to hear from you first...

 

They are wrong ! what nowadays we call Shia and Sunni is something new. At that time, rafidies were very little. Many Shias were not rafidies.

Moreover Those who killed Hussain (as) were Uthmanies. Some of them killed Hussain (as) just because they thought he and his father was guilty over killing of Uthman and other issues. 

I'm married into a sunni family and this is something i get a lot - and honestly i dont have much of an answer considering i had shunned religion about 10 years back and have just reverted.

 

from what i remember, it was the shi'ites in kufa who wrote endless letters to Him right? so why did they back off? in some way, that does hold shi'ites liable for His murder, right? sunnis argue that we mourn as repentance for playing such a major role in His death and the trouble caused to His family - im not sure how to respond to this.

 

And dont go the 'shia = follower' path - sunnis simply dont understand that, and having already tried this out with my in-laws, i know how many more questions it tends to raise. 

 

Also, please dont go bashing on me - im just trying to understand things all over again.

As I have read, I think they feared. And after that they were surrounded by military. Again I insist that you are an ithna ashari Shia, it means you are a rafidhi ! but we should pay attention that only a minority of armies and supporters of Ahlul Bait were rafidies. Most of them also did agree with Abubakr and Umar, but they did disagree with Uthman, they were somehow similar to what nowadays are called Sunni, but still there is a difference, nowadays Sunnies respect Uthman too !

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

Salam :)

Well, that's a very old question, but I'll try to answer, anyway.

Whom are we talking about? Shia of Hussain or those who were opposed to Yazid and thus, sided with Hussain (as) (and were among the people who wrote the letters)? This should be clarified first because no, those who wrote the letters were not all Shia as understood today.

Then: If Shia of Hussain were responsible for his death, I truly wonder who those men were who refused to leave their Imam alone in Karbala (when the Imam told them to leave) and died on the plains of Karbala for him. Who was Hur who changed the sides and was amongst the first martyrs if not a Shia? And all the others?

It is also a fact that when Ibn Zyad became governor of Kufa, he had many Shias killed or imprisoned (like Mukhtar, about whom history tells us what he did once he was free) before they could have set out to meet Imam Hussain (as). Are they to be blamed to have been killed or imprisoned, thus unable to reach Karbala? Or are the Shias who found out too late or were unable to reach on time to be blamed?

I think the answer is no.

Now, coming to the 'Kufi Shias killed Hussain' - first of all, it's stupid to say 'Kufi' Shia. There are Shia of Ali (Followers of Ali) or Shia of Yazid, for example, but you can't be Shia of a location. And in this regard, Shia of Yazid killed Imam Hussain (as), no doubt.

But if your friends or family mean Shia of Ali - that's pure ignorance. Shimr, Ibn Saad, Ibn Zyad and the lot were Shia of Ali? Wow, that's new! -.- Only idiots would believe that. Besides Hur (who changed sides, mind you) was anyone from Kufa who had written a letter in Yazid's army?

@apofomysback: Well, I understand that it can be tiresome, but that's the first step- defining the word Shia. Because it simply means follower so anyone can be called a Shia. In Kufa, there were two type of people: those who were true Shias of their Imam and those who only supported him because they dispised Yazid. How much loyalty can you expect from the latter group? Would they have been ready to shed their blood for their Imam as the martyrs of Karbala did?

Besides, many of those who had wirtten the letters and then, backed off, tried to repent for it, like Tawwabeen (though, I'm not sure if they were Shia or just wanted to avenge the blood of their prophet's (pbuh) son). So, it's idiotic to accuse us of mourning because of repentence- the people responsible already did it. And were we there? Are we to be blamed? What should we repent for, then? Or were the sisters of Hussain or his son/family mourning because they were to be blamed (astaghfirulla!)? What kind of logic is that? We mourn because we love Hussain (as) but that's apparently too strange a concept for some people.

Wa salam.

Edited by Noor al-Batul
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Can they name these people? Atleast their leaders that would solve this problem

I doubt that (you were talking about the supposed Shia of Kufa, right? Not that I'm misunderstanding something :P)

My theory is that since Kufa was Imam Ali's (as) main residence, people conclude that the inhabitants of Kufa were mostly Shia. Or they believe that since letters were written from Kufa, it must have been Shias.

Or they just want to throw some dirt on Shias - which doesn't work, anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I doubt that (you were talking about the supposed Shia of Kufa, right? Not that I'm misunderstanding something :P)

My theory is that since Kufa was Imam Ali's (as) main residence, people conclude that the inhabitants of Kufa were mostly Shia. Or they believe that since letters were written from Kufa, it must have been Shias.

Or they just want to throw some dirt on Shias - which doesn't work, anyway.

For sure Shias were in Kufa as well as those who hate Ali (AS) but they were not what nowadays are called Shia ! From political point of view they were not rafidhi. Rafidhies were an absolute minority.

Abubakr and Umar and then Uthman became the caliph. Uthman ruled with injustice and people rebelled against him, while Ali (AS) tried to prevent people from killing Uthman. 

But after that society became two groups, one pro Ali (Shias) and one pro Muawiah.

Those Shias were not rafidhies. If Ali ibn abi Talib (AS) had so much rafidhi followers, never Abubakr and Umar could have made that coup and become caliphs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Alright now from one of the replies, what's a rafidhi? 

:)

Have not you ever heard this word from Wahhabies !?

Majority of Shias are Ithna Ashari nowadays and they never accept Abubakr and Umar as the caliphs, they believe Ali (as) should have become the first caliph according to the command of Allah and his prophet (PBUH). They believe that Ali  (as) is the first Imam.

Sunnies and specially Wahhabies call these Shias as rafidhies, it means they have rejected the beliefs of Sunnies and Abubakr and Umar ....

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

Shia of Uthman killed the Imam Hussain as and his companions in karbela. Shia of Imam Ali were very few in kufa. They were in prison or either killed in Karbela.

 

Also it is recorded in history that Shia of Maviya who were followers of the Uthman, killed Imam Hussein in Karbela. The leader of the syrian army was Umar ibne Sa'ad who was the son of Sa'ad bin Ibi Waqas,, a companion of the prophet. Ibne Ziyad was a governor of Kufa.  Yazeed bin maviya was the king of syria ordered the killing of Imam hussain as and these all were notorious enemies of Ahl albayat as. No one was Shia of Imam Ali.

 

 

Regards

Edited by skamran110
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I am very glad from your powerful answers.

The answer which I wanted to tell is inside your answers and from all the answers the one which is very strong is that:

 

Of course the one who really killed Imam husain (as) was Caliphs and the one who did it was Shimr Lanatollah Alayh BUT we can not ignor that Kuffies (which they were Shia) caused this and helped the army and even killed some.

 

--------

 

BUT, the answer is just a WORD MEANING:

Kuffies were Shia

Now We are Shia too.

 

But, 1360 Years ago:  Shia word meaned: The people who beleived in Abubakr, Omar, (and most) Othman and THEY accepted Imam Ali (as)  as fourth Caliph. 

 

1360 Years ago, Rafidie meaned: The People who DIDN'T beleive in first and second and third Caliph AT ALL, and they beleived that the First Caliph after Rasoolollah (pbuh)  was Imam Ali (as) 

 

This Rafidie word is exactly the meaning of Shia NOW but not 1360 Years ago.

 

1360 Years ago: Most Rafidie word: The people who beleived that they also should curse the 3 first Caliphs because of their guilt to get the place of Velayat ( اشد رفضا

 

So, Yes, Shias invited Imam Husain (as)   BUT THEY WERE ACTUALLY SUNNIES in our current word meanings.

 

----------------

FYI: Rafidie doesn't have a good meaning, this naming came from Sunnies. We say it just to make the things Clear. Not to accept it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Alright I'm going to add to the questions here. From what I know, there were people living around Karbala, the people who Imam Hussain (A;S) acquired the land or something from. Why didnt they fight with Him? Did they just sit around and watch the entire battle? what was their role? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

So, Yes, Shias invited Imam Husain (as)   BUT THEY WERE ACTUALLY SUNNIES in our current word meanings.

 

----------------

FYI: Rafidie doesn't have a good meaning, this naming came from Sunnies. We say it just to make the things Clear. Not to accept it.

 

If answer of Blame is Blame then it will not going to solve issues, and things will become complex and will not solve, may be you will loose your friends.

 

First thing is meaning of words like : Sahaba, Shia  etc which is not properly answered. Instead many react differently and make things worst instead of good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

This issue has caused a great deal of confusion.  My understanding is that the word "shi'a" means the party of or the follower.  In the modern sense, we typically use the word interchangeably with the followers of the Ithna Ashari or Ja'fari school of thought.  This is most commonly known as the Twelver or 12 Imam Shi'a.  Shi'a is more expansive, though than that.  There are also Zaydis and Isma'ilis who would be considered Shi'a as well.

 

Before the various splittings away of the Zaydis and the Isma'ilis, the term Shi'a was used to describe those who believed that Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (AS) was the rightful successor to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

 

There are some weird arguments that say that the Shi'a were responsible for the death of Imam Hussein (AS), but this is refuted by plain sense.  The Shi'a of Kufa may not have turned out in support of Imam Hussain (AS), but they certainly did not kill him.  He was killed by the soldiers of Yazid. 

 

Saying that the Sunnis killed him isn't really a great way to explain it because I don't believe the schools had really crystalized at that point.  My readings and enquiries lead me to believe that the split between Sunni and Shi'a was much more political then and that the crystalization of differences doesn't really take place until the time of Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (AS). 

 

In the broadest sense, the killers of Imam Hussein (AS) are from the army that followed Yazid, and as such, that army followed people who preached that succession of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) went through Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman and so on.  So since our Sunni brothers and sisters accept Mu'awiya and his son Yazid as being successors to the Prophet (PBUH) then they say "may Allah SWT be pleased with..." about men who have done horrendous and unislamic things to the family of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and who are still revered by some.  I seek refuge in Allah SWT from that.

 

(wasalam)

R

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

I am very glad from your powerful answers.

The answer which I wanted to tell is inside your answers and from all the answers the one which is very strong is that:

Of course the one who really killed Imam husain (as) was Caliphs and the one who did it was Shimr Lanatollah Alayh BUT we can not ignor that Kuffies (which they were Shia) caused this and helped the army and even killed some.

--------

BUT, the answer is just a WORD MEANING:

Kuffies were Shia

Now We are Shia too.

But, 1360 Years ago: Shia word meaned: The people who beleived in Abubakr, Omar, (and most) Othman and THEY accepted Imam Ali (as) as fourth Caliph.

1360 Years ago, Rafidie meaned: The People who DIDN'T beleive in first and second and third Caliph AT ALL, and they beleived that the First Caliph after Rasoolollah (pbuh) was Imam Ali (as)

This Rafidie word is exactly the meaning of Shia NOW but not 1360 Years ago.

1360 Years ago: Most Rafidie word: The people who beleived that they also should curse the 3 first Caliphs because of their guilt to get the place of Velayat ( اشد رفضا

So, Yes, Shias invited Imam Husain (as) BUT THEY WERE ACTUALLY SUNNIES in our current word meanings.

----------------

FYI: Rafidie doesn't have a good meaning, this naming came from Sunnies. We say it just to make the things Clear. Not to accept it.

My brother there were no imami shias at the time of Karbala this sect is a later invention

Yes many former companions of Ali were part of Kufa army under umar b sad but allegiances were fluid for most of these tribal leaders in 7th century

By the same logic we can argue sunnis killed abdullah b zubair who was left helpless in the end abandoned by most?

This is a retarded logic nothing but mudslinging and equally ridiculous counter arguments by shia when they try to prove these former companions of Ali were "sunnis"

Please name some "rafidi" followers of imam Ali ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

 

BUT, the answer is just a WORD MEANING:

Kuffies were Shia

Now We are Shia too.

 

 

Shia alone means a follower in singular from, When we describe the name of leader whom we are following the meaning is clear. From the history we have, Shia of Noah as, Shia of Musa as, Shia of Uthman , Shia of Imam Ali, and Shia of Maviya.

 

But the fact is that the name was given by the prophet saww  to the followers of Imam Ali as Shia of Ali. and we are follower of Ahl albayat and 12 Imams we have not changed our name even though we have faced many terrible incidents to save our lives.

 

But the other groups have changed their names over the period of history, and they do not  exist presently under the name Shia. however they have adopted other names.

 

Regards.

Edited by skamran110
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

In this thread, I didn't try to mention the philosophy of naming or why changes happened to Islamic group names.

Of course I was trying to see what was the FAMOUS usage of SHIA word between the people that time.

 

More details:

All the words have Main Meanings (Veritable). ما وضع له  معنی

And have also Virtual meanings. معنای مجازی

 

Sometimes, the main meanings will spread between people and sometimes the Virtual meanings.

 

In both conditions, a word meaning can get change during the time.

The old meaning can be Virtual and The New Meaning can be Veritable or reverse or both can be Virtual or…

This happens a lot, So, it is not a big deal…

 

For example, Salat in Arabic was meaning "Prayer" before Islam and after islam converted to special verbs.

Or Zakat or Khoms or etc.

Or Sa'at was meaning: "the other world" and now means watch !

 

This happens in other languages too.

 

Shia Word has the same story,

Rasolollah (salawatollah alayh) set the Shia word for special follower of Velayat.

But the word, spread in the Arabs with another meaning.

and then converted to another meaning....

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

Everybody pledged allegiance to Imam Ali(as) on the day of Ghadeer--that would make them "Shias" in the technical sense. But they went back on their promise. To say shias killed Imam Husayn(as) is like saying Shias betrayed Imam Ali(as).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

My brother there were no imami shias at the time of Karbala this sect is a later invention

Yes many former companions of Ali were part of Kufa army under umar b sad but allegiances were fluid for most of these tribal leaders in 7th century

By the same logic we can argue sunnis killed abdullah b zubair who was left helpless in the end abandoned by most?

This is a retarded logic nothing but mudslinging and equally ridiculous counter arguments by shia when they try to prove these former companions of Ali were "sunnis"

Please name some "rafidi" followers of imam Ali ?

Brother, we are not speaking about sects. For sure rafidies existed at the time of Karbala and in Karbala. 

 

Salman, Abudar, Meghdad, Ammar, Malik Ashtar, ...... have you forgotten them ! they remained believers that Ali (AS) is the first imam appointed by God.

 

And of course there are people in Karbala that they were not rafidi, like Hur ibn Riahi, Zuhair, ......

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

My brother there were no imami shias at the time of Karbala this sect is a later invention

Yes many former companions of Ali were part of Kufa army under umar b sad but allegiances were fluid for most of these tribal leaders in 7th century

By the same logic we can argue sunnis killed abdullah b zubair who was left helpless in the end abandoned by most?

This is a retarded logic nothing but mudslinging and equally ridiculous counter arguments by shia when they try to prove these former companions of Ali were "sunnis"

Please name some "rafidi" followers of imam Ali ?

 

That's highly debateable - and will lead us probably off-topic :P

 

But I agree that saying that those who 'betrayed' Imam Hussain were "Sunnis" is probably not accurate. To be honest, I didn't completely understand what the brother was trying to say  :donno:

 

As I said before, we need to make a distinction between 'Shia of Ali' and those who were Shia out of personal need. Since many Muslims were displeased with Uthman and his government, they turned to Imam Ali (as) - this, by no means, meant that they were Shia as is understood today because Shia believe that Imam Ali (as) was appointed successor to the prophet (pbuh), thus an Imam. There were among Ali's (as) companions those who believed the latter and those who didn't- the last group was most probably that which was capable of swinging sides as they pleased, e.g. if they were pleased with how Ali reigned, they supported him otherwise not. Same in this case: If they found that supporting Yazid and thus, fighting under Umar ibn Sa'ad, was more beneficial for them than supporting Hussain (as), then they did it.

 

And those who wrote the letters: How many of them were actual Shia of Hussain? Many of them turned toward Hussain (as) because they dispised Yazid, not because they believed that the caliphate was truly his (as) right. So, is it any wonder that they, afraid of ibn Zyad and Yazid, turned their back on Hussain (as)? Obviously not. But unlike them, others have been killed in Kufa or imprisoned (wasn't Meesum also among those imprisoned?)- those had been Shia of Hussain.

 

So, yes, for many Muslims it was a political struggle, hence the word 'Shia' can be used politically for them. They supported those whom they could benefit most of, not those whom they thought were right. But obviously, not everyone was like that, for which there are good examples, too.

 

I think the question itself is simply misleading. Did Shia of Ali kill Hussain? No. Did Shia kill Hussain? Yes. As Shia means supporter/follower, everyone can see who those had been. If people don't understand the difference (more precisely: solely political or in terms of beliefs, thus mixing many factors), what use is it to discuss this topic with them?

 

Wa salam.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those Kufis were not Shia!

 

Shia were those people who died in Karbala and Shias are those who sacrificed everything for their Imams. 

 

Shia became a Mazhab later on, even Shias today, most of them are not Shia.

 

 

Someone who is not aware of the history of his ancestors should really not indulge in debates like these,  for the sake of his own self respect & on the top; for his religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

The Shia of Yazid are responsible. The word Shia as reisiger said means the party of or follower of. 

 

At the end of the day in religion its either black or white. At that time your either from the Shia of Imam Al Hussain a.s or from the Shia of Yazid... If I was to call myself from the Shia of Hussain and then attack my beloved Imam, then how can I really be from the Shia of Imam Al Hussain a.s ?

 

In today's world the word Shia is only prescribed to the followers of the 12 Imams.

 

I leave this topic with the following example.

 

As a Muslim, If I was to sit down with an atheist and he was able to convince me that his was way  is correct then how can I have really been a Muslim ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Brother, we are not speaking about sects. For sure rafidies existed at the time of Karbala and in Karbala.

Salman, Abudar, Meghdad, Ammar, Malik Ashtar, ...... have you forgotten them ! they remained believers that Ali (AS) is the first imam appointed by God.

And of course there are people in Karbala that they were not rafidi, like Hur ibn Riahi, Zuhair, ......

Bro that's debatable. ..how is AL Ashtar an imami shia ?

Rest were personal friends of Ali who naturally favored him over Abubakr they even included the ummayyad Khalid b Saeed

Whether or not their beliefs were like imamis is a different issue

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member

One of the questions about 'Ashura is that who killed Imam Husain (pbuh) why the Islamic community first invited him to come to Kufa in order to defend him, but   finally rebelled against great descendant of the holy prophet just a short distance   after the demise of the holy prophet (pbuh). To analyze this historical fact it's important to take in to consideration the following question:

 

Who were the writers of those letters?

 

Study shows that the writers of the letters did not belong to a single and united group; rather, study shows different groups with different interest and multiple goals, we can divide them in to following groups:

  • Real shi'a and  righteous follower of  Ahlulbayt  like  Hany Ibn 'urwa , Habib ibn Mazaher and  Muslim Ibn 'awsaja

 

  • Ordinary people who had experience of both  Imam Ali's government and  unpleasant government of  Bani 'umayya , they have written letters  to Imam Husain  in order to get rid of  these  oppressors

 

  • People who wanted to  establish Islamic government  in  Kuffa , and introduce Kufa as heart ofIslamic community , because in that time there was   a serious rivalry between Kufa and Sham

 

  • Leader of different tribes like Shabth ibn Rab'y, Hajjar Ibn Abjar …. They were not in favor of Imam Husain himself, but instead they wanted to preserve their position among people, so, when they saw that other people sent letter to Imam Husain they also sent letters to him.

 

As a result, many of those who written litter to Imam Husain were not pure shia , they were seeking their worldly advantage through supporting Imam Husain( pbuh)

 

    

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Some thing interesting which i guess every one realize now. Even i too monitor whole life this word " Shia " make every other sect panic.

 

See this comment

 

Shia.png

 

Even in Majority. Those Ahle Shirk o Biddat ( Wahabis ) are putting blame on Sufism and Barelvy that , they are doing Shirk visiting Mazaars of Awliya same like Shias and then they put Takfir on them.

 

Same way Sufism and Barelvy are putting Takfir on Wahabis/Salafis/Deobandis blaming them , they are not considering Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) important same like Shias giving importance to Imam Ali (as) more then Prophet (pbuh).

 

So conclusion is simple .. every one need word " Shia " to start there Takfir on anything they hate or dislike. Only shia Fuqha not passing any Takfir on any sect. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

Tell your friend that at the time there was no shia or sunni so how could we have done it?! The split was the people that followed imam hussain a.s and then there was the people that followed yazid and umar ibn saad.If we did it why would we be stupid to blame ourselves.we cry and mourn every muharram to commemorate the thirst and pain everyone was in and we shia wish that we couldhv'e been there to help him.

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...