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

What was achieved out of Karbala?

Rate this topic


Leibniz

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

they were in different situation but their nature were same as each other

it was not because their difference in nature the difference was in conditions of their time if Imam Hasan (as) was in condition of Imam Hussain (as) he would act completly same as Imam Hussain (as) with no difference , Imams (as) didn't rise again because condition of their time & condition of their followers  was different each time all of them had & have same agenda but they were acting like as prophets did in Quran prophet Musa (as) bring something higher than magic but prophet Isa (as) was rising dead to lifeagainst medicine of physicians his time & prophet Muhammd (pbu) bring book against poetry of his time.

Their nature was very much different and one can easily sense that skimming through history. Every human has a distinct nature and the Imams were human beings 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Unregistered
Quote

 Imam Husayn (a) as a personality was different from other Imams. His personality sees to be more confrontational than any of the other Imams. Of course, while saying this I do not presume the theological view that every Imam would have done exactly the same thing as another Imam if they were in their position which I find to be relatively baseless. If you do accept that theological view, that is when you are going to run into numerous interpretative issues and pretty much have to make things up regarding historical contexts that are simply not true.

Establishing Confrontational personality- will imply and put the burden on the instigator, and conveniently  will relief ALL Muslims( including the other VIPs) of the responsibility/burden /Shame/ of joining the Cause of Son of Sayeda Fatima Az Zahra(sa). It will paint an very rosy picture of the Muslims at that time, and cover up the disbelief / lack of true faith of the VIPs who were alive at that time.

Very talented stuff. 

Prove it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Unregistered
Quote

Of course, while saying this I do not presume the theological view that every Imam would have done exactly the same thing as another Imam if they were in their position which I find to be relatively baseless. If you do accept that theological view, that is when you are going to run into numerous interpretative issues and pretty much have to make things up regarding historical contexts that are simply not true.

Which Theological View is this? They All had the same purpose, Protecting the Religion. Time and place is what dictates what their Lord commands them to do. 

Above is your projection, and conjecture. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Unregistered
Quote

Imam Husayn (a) did not agree with the truce Imam Hasan (a) made with Mu'awiyah

You are implying that the Imam(as) made a mistake. Treaty was a mistake. Sure if your world view is land/Treasury control and this what Glory means. 

Remember the Treaty of Hudaibiyah. People who questioned the Wisdom, had doubts in their fundamental belief in Prophethood, Plus We did not inherit the gene of questioning our Mawla. History proves you wrong. War would have been classified as some political game-(like here)  The reality of Hypocrites were exposed till the day of judgement-through the acceptance of the Terms and the violation of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
23 minutes ago, S.M.H.A. said:

Religion is irrelevant to the Topic. Good luck to you and you beloved friends. 

Religion is not irrelevant to the topic but its very much evident that you want to look at the history from the lenses of dogmatic creed and you want everyone to put on those lenses while reading history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
13 hours ago, Leibniz said:

Yazid was an unpopular figure in Madinah after Karbala and Karbala did have an impact on Harrah uprising but these were mainly Zubairi brothers and some other Madinah residents who set the stage for it.

This is what I am pondering about. Al-Hussain wanted to over throw Yazid by leading the Kufan uprising and that failed. Al-Hussain had far better options to make alliances and if he would have undertaken some efforts most of the ashraf  of Hejjaz would have joined him. Basra was left untouched as well. I find his decision to counter Yazid the way he did , an emotional decision which did not yeild into anything significant politically.

I simple throw such materialistic  wahhabi mind and its false assumptions on the wall.

The extremists cannot learn the truth as eyes and hearts are filled with the hate of Ahl alabayt AS of the prophet saaw. 

فِي قُلُوبِهِم مَّرَضٌ فَزَادَهُمُ اللَّهُ مَرَضًا ۖ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ بِمَا كَانُوا يَكْذِبُونَ

Shakir:

There is a disease in their hearts, so Allah added to their disease and they shall have a painful chastisement because they lied.

Edited by skyweb1987
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, Leibniz said:

Does anyone have access to "Hassan Mu'aviya treaty" from the primary sources? 

So you accept that breach of the treaty by Muawiya has led the Kerbela event to occur in history?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Unregistered
Quote

2. When Yazid came into power, he had officially broken the last article in the treaty between Imam Hasan (a) and Mu'awiyah

"The one, who deceived you and imposed you as the head of Muslims, will soon know that how bad has been his selection of succession! And whose place and position is worse and weaker!"

https://www.al-islam.org/lohoof-sighs-sorrow-sayyid-ibn-tawus/after-martyrdom-husayn

Mal'oon was appointed by another Mal'oon. That Mal'oon voilated the Treaty- and exposed his disbelief.  You beginning is questionable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Unregistered
Quote

In any case, he left and I believe the sole reason for him going to Kufa at this point was to gather their support and to overthrow Yazid and take the caliphate. Now whether in hindsight you believe it was a smart move or not, or better options were available - 

Have the Shia's of Imam Ali(as) pondered over this conjecture. Which Shia of Imam Ali(as) do you know - will question his Mawla? .

When it is said that Imam Ali(as) is the to the city of Knowledge/Wisdom. It implies the "Ali "of your time. 

I am leaving among you the Two Weighty Things: the Book of Allah and my `Itrat(Progeny), my Ahlul Bayt. So long as you (simultaneously) uphold both of them, you will never be misled after me; so, do not go ahead of them else you should perish, and do not lag behind them else you should perish; do not teach them, for they are more knowledgeable than you.1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Unregistered
Quote

When he gets to Makkah, this is when he begins to receive numerous letters from Kufans. This is also where a lot of deliberation happens between the Imam and his companions, where essentially everyone tells him not to leave for Kufa. All these conversations are worth reading and pondering over. In any case, he left and

I believe the sole reason for him going to Kufa at this point was to gather their support and to overthrow Yazid and take the caliphate.

Your belief, is nothing more than your projection and conjecture and your lack of understanding of Religion and facts do not support your conjecture and misinformation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Unregistered
Quote

If you believe that the Imams are also completely infallible in the application of certain laws (which is a theological dispute amongst Shi'a scholars), then you will have to presume that this decision was the best decision and will have to figure out justifications for it or tell yourself that there was something the Imam knew which we simply do not know (the latter is completely plausible). 

Is the Prophet Infallible? 

You real issue is the infallibility. 

With out the belief in  Infallibility- You can be assured to stay Agnostic all your life. and a weak wind will throw you in Atheism. Without infallibility of the source and role model. There is nothing in what you call religion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
21 minutes ago, skyweb1987 said:

So you accept that breach of the treaty by Muawiya has led the Kerbela event to occur in history?

I could not find the treaty in the primary sources so I don't know. If you have a reference for it to the primary sources , I shall look it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, S.M.H.A. said:

Is the Prophet Infallible? 

You real issue is the infallibility. 

With out the belief in  Infallibility- You can be assured to stay Agnostic all your life. and a weak wind will throw you in Atheism. Without infallibility of the source and role model. There is nothing in what you call religion. 

"Infallibility" is a later day myth. I am reading some sources about itself and am going to open a thread about it after completing my study of the sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
11 minutes ago, Leibniz said:

I could not find the treaty in the primary sources so I don't know. If you have a reference for it to the primary sources , I shall look it up.

Checkmate  :clap:

Edited by skyweb1987
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Unregistered
Quote

Of course, in both situations I am presuming that the Imam did not have knowledge of the unseen here, nor was he aware of what exactly would happen. 

The Knowledge Of The Unseen

https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia-ahlul-bayt-dilp-team/knowledge-unseen-knowledge-book#knowledge-unseen

*****

The Knowledge Of The Book

https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia-ahlul-bayt-dilp-team/knowledge-unseen-knowledge-book#knowledge-book

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
2 hours ago, Leibniz said:

Does anyone have access to "Hassan Mu'aviya treaty" from the primary sources? 

Closest thing I could find was on Al-Islam.org. Not sure if you would consider that as a Primary source.

https://www.al-islam.org/sulh-peace-treaty-imam-al-hasan-shaykh-radi-aal-yasin/peace-treaty

The form of the Peace Treaty the two parties signed is as follows:

Quote

 

Item One:

Handing over authority to Mu'awiya provided that he should act according to the Book of Allah, the Sunna (practices) of His Apostle, may Allah bless him and his family,2 and the Sire (behavior) of the righteous Caliphs.3

Item Two:

Authority should be for al-Hasan after him.4 If an accident happened to him, authority should be for his brother al-Husayn.5 Mu'awiya has no right to entrust anybody to it.6

Item Three:

He (Mu`awiya) should abandon cursing the Commander of the faithful and the practice of using the personal prayer (qunut) in the ritual formal prayer (salat) (as prayer) against him,7 and that he should not mention 'Ali except in a good manner.8

Item Four:

He (Mu'awiya) should excluded what is in the treasury of Kufa, that is five million (dirhams). So handing over authority does not include it (i.e., this sum of money). Mu'awiya should send al-Husayn one million dirhams a year, he should prefer the banu (children) of Hashim in giving and gifts to the banu `Abd Shams, and should divide one million (dirhams) among the sons of those who were killed with the Commander of the faithful at the Battle of the Camel and the Battle of Siffin, and should spend that from the taxes of Dar Abjard.9

Item Five:

"The people should be safe wherever they are in the earth of Allah; in Sham (Syria), Iraq, Hijaz, the Yemen, etc. He should give security to the black and the red (ones). He (Mu'awiya) should bear their slips, should not follow some of them for the bygone nor should he punish the Iraqis for their hostility."10

"The companions of 'Ali should be given security wherever they are, that he (Mu'awiya) should not expose the Shi'a of 'Ali to any evil, that the companions and the Shi'a of 'Ali should be given security over their lives, their properties, their women, and their children, nor should he pursue them for a certain thing, nor should he expose them to any evil, and that he should give them their rights.11

"He (i.e., Mu'awiya) should not seek a calamity secretly or openly for al-Hasan b. 'Ali, nor for his brother al-Husayn, nor for anyone from the family of the Apostle of Allah, nor should he frighten them in any country of the countries."12

 

Sources for the bullet points in that post.

Quote

 

1. Al-Tabari, Ta'rikh, vol. 6, p. 93. Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Ta'rikh, vol. 3, p. 162.

2. Ibn Abu al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, vol. 4, p. 6.

3. Ibn `Aqil, al-Nasa'ih al-Kafiya, p. 156. Al-Majfsi, Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 10, p. 115.

4. Al-Sayuf, Ta'rikh al-Khulafa', p. 194. Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaya wa alNahaya, vol. 8, p. 41. Ahmad Shahab al-Din al-`Asqalani, al-Isaba fi Tamiiz al-Sahaba, vol. 2, pp. 12- 13. Ibn Qutayba al-Dinawari, al-Imama wa al-Siyasa, p. 150. Farid Wajdi, Da'irat al-Ma'arif al-Islamiya, vol. 3, p. 443.

5. Ibn al-Muhanna, `Umdat al-Talib, p. 52.

6. Ibn Abu al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, vol. 4, p. 8
Al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 10, p. 115. Ibn al-Sabbagh, al-FusW al Muhimma.

7. Muhsin al-Amin al-`Amili, A'yan al-Shi'a, vol. 4, p. 43.

8. Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani, Maqatil al-Talibiyyin, p. 26. Ibn Abu al Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, vol. 4, p. 15.
Other than these two authors said: "Indeed, al-Hasan asked Mu'awiya not to curse 'Ali. However, Mu'awiya disagreed with him on refraining from cursing him, and agreed with him on that 'Ali should not be cursed while he (i.e., Mu'awiya) hears that." Ibn al-Athir said: "Then Mu'awiya broke that, too."

9. Ibn Qutayba al-Dinawari, al-Imama wa al-Siyasa, p. 200. Al-Tabari, Ta'rikh, vol. 6, p. 92. Ibn Babawayh, `Ilal al-Sharaiya`, p. 81. Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, vol. 8, p. 14.
Dar Abjard is a town on the borders of Ahwaz in Persia (Iran).

10. Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani, Maqata al-Talibiyyin, p. 26. Ibn Abu al Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, vol. 4, p. 15. Al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 10, pp. 101 and 115. Ibn Qutayba al-Dinawari, al-Imama wa al Siyasa, p. 200. We have quoted each paragraph letter by letter from its source.

11. Al-Tabari, Ta'rikh, vol. 6, p. 97. Ibn al-Aft, al-Kamil fi al-Ta'rikh, vol. 3, p. 166. Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani, Maqatil al-Talibiyyin, p. 26. Ibn Abu al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, vol. 4, p. 15. Al-Majlisi, Bihar alAnwir, vol. 10, p. 115. Muhammad b. 'Ali b. Babawayh, 'Ilal al-Sharaiya', p. 81. Muhammad b. 'Aqil, al-Nasa'ih al-Kafiya, p. 115.

12. Al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 10, p. 115. Muhammad b. `Aqil, al-Nasa'ih al-Kufiya, p. 156.

13. Ibn Qutayba al-Dinawari, al-Imama wa al-Siyasa, p. 200.

14. Al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, VOL 10, p. 115.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
5 minutes ago, Akbar673 said:

Closest thing I could find was on Al-Islam.org. Not sure if you would consider that as a Primary source.

https://www.al-islam.org/sulh-peace-treaty-imam-al-hasan-shaykh-radi-aal-yasin/peace-treaty

The form of the Peace Treaty the two parties signed is as follows:

Sources for the bullet points in that post.

Brother, The term devised to deny the truth is Primary source otherwise truth is evident even to a common man 

Edited by skyweb1987
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Unregistered
Quote

If this was the case, then this needs to be understood as a complete change of mind and decision. This is no longer about trying to establish a government, rather it is about reconciliation. Later steps should be interpreted in this light, and not in light of someone trying to overthrow the caliph. This seems to be the stage when the Imam (a) would have realized his immense restrictive situation. He is blocked from all ways, and eventually, we realize that he is being treated as a transgressor against the caliphate, whose penalty is death

Source of this Conjecture? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Unregistered
Quote

Thereafter both of them returned to [‘Umar bin Sa’id]. They said: “We read the letter to him and tried our best [to convince him to return]. Among the excuses he put forward to us was that:

“I have seen the Messenger of Allah (S) in a dream and I have been commanded in it with a task which I am [now] advancing to carry it out, be it against me or in my favour.”

They asked him: “What was the dream about?”

[Al-Husayn (as)] replied: “I have not told anyone of it and I am not going to tell anyone until I meet my Lord!”21,22

https://www.al-islam.org/event-taff-earliest-historical-account-tragedy-karbala-abu-mikhnaf/al-husayns-departure-makkah#stand-amru-bin-said-al-ashdaq

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
15 minutes ago, Akbar673 said:

Closest thing I could find was on Al-Islam.org. Not sure if you would consider that as a Primary source.

https://www.al-islam.org/sulh-peace-treaty-imam-al-hasan-shaykh-radi-aal-yasin/peace-treaty

The form of the Peace Treaty the two parties signed is as follows:

Sources for the bullet points in that post.

 

Thank you. I shall check out the given references 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Unregistered

An hour after we left Qasr Bani Muqatil al-Husayn (as) dropped his head drowsily and then woke up saying: “Verily, we belong to Allah and to Him do we indeed return. All praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds.” He repeated this twice or three times.

His son, ‘Ali bin al-Husayn (as) approached him [while he was] on his horse and said: “Indeed, we belong to Allah and to Him shall we return, and all praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the worlds. O my father! May I be sacrificed for you. Why have you praised Allah and [pronounced] the verse of returning (istirja’)?”

He replied: “O my son! I nodded off and a horseman appeared to me, riding a horse, and he said: “The people are advancing and death is advancing towards them!” So I understood that it is our own souls announcing our deaths to us.”

He said to him: “O father! May Allah never let you see evil! Are not we on the right?”

He replied: “Indeed [we are], by Him to Whom all his servants will return.”

He then said: “O father! Then we need have no concern. We will die righteously.”

He said to him: “May Allah reward you with the best of what he has rewarded a son on account of his father.”

https://www.al-islam.org/event-taff-earliest-historical-account-tragedy-karbala-abu-mikhnaf/stations-way-kufah#qasr-bani-muqatil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

@Akbar673 I just checked Tabari and he has not given any details about "Hassan Mu'aviya treaty". He has quoted (From Abi mikhnaf most probably) that Mu'aviya sent Hassan a blank paper telling him that he would sanction any of Hassan's conditions. Hassan penned down some. When Hassan met Mu'aviya , Hassan wanted to change or add a few conditions but Mu'aviya refused by saying that whatever has been decided earlier has been decided. The narrator does add " but Mu'aviya did not fulfil any of the conditions". 

I want an explicit document agreed by Mu'aviya stating that he would not appoint his son as the next Caliph. I have heard from Sunnis that Mu'aviya agreed to appoint Hassan as the next caliph but Hassan died during Mu'aviya rule. But again that's just hearsay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
1 minute ago, Leibniz said:

I want an explicit document agreed by Mu'aviya stating that he would not appoint his son as the next Caliph. I have heard from Sunnis that Mu'aviya agreed to appoint Hassan as the next caliph but Hassan died during Mu'aviya rule.

On that note, you will have to do this research on your own and present the findings.

If Tabari does not satisfy your requirements as a valid scholar then you will need to look up the original treaty (not sure where you will be able to find it in all honesty).

The Shia here have presented their points but at the end of the day the final research falls upon you to complete from scholarly sources and not an internet forum. Best of luck to you on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
39 minutes ago, Leibniz said:

I want an explicit document agreed by Mu'aviya stating that he would not appoint his son as the next Caliph. I have heard from Sunnis that Mu'aviya agreed to appoint Hassan as the next caliph but Hassan died during Mu'aviya rule. But again that's just hearsay.

The simple solution could be go to 1400 years back with time machine and ask your leader so called secular as per Wahhabi thought and ask him for the original paper signed by both Muawiya and imam Hassan as. I certainly would like to see that. :grin:

What a nice joke, my expectations have come already true.

Edited by skyweb1987
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
42 minutes ago, skyweb1987 said:

The simple solution could be go to 1400 years back with time machine and ask your leader so called secular as per Wahhabi thought and ask him for the original paper signed by both Muawiya and imam Hassan as. I certainly would like to see that. :grin:

What a nice joke, my expectations have come already true.

I am not asking for a photocopy of the document. I am just asking for the conditions and details of the treaty mentioned in primary sources 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

@Ibn al-Hussain lots of interesting points as always.

I think we should look at the Imam's actions in the context of his desire for Islah - betterment of the Ummah of the Prophet (s).  After all this is what the Imam told us he was doing.

This betterment can be achieved by many different routes, although they are not all equally effective.  One route to the betterment is to overthrow Yazid.  When the Kufans betrayed him, this route was blocked.

Another route to betterment is to influence Yazid by meeting him and addressing him directly.  The Imam coming with his family and close companions would likely attract the attention of people in Shaam and may put some pressure on Yazid to make some changes.  Or Yazid may just kill the Imam and his family and make them martyrs.  And this brings me to the third way to achieve betterment, which is through self sacrifice.  In the end, it was the third way that was realised.

The Imam offered to go elsewhere - this is a fourth way to achieve betterment.  To go to another community and influence them, and perhaps try again when he builds up enough support there.

The Imam had one goal - Islah - but had to alter his plans based on the changing situation he found himself in.  But the ultimate goal was always the same.

He never did full blown taqiyya and give allegiance as this would have undermined his goal.  It would have legitimised Ibn Ziyad and Yazid in a way that was too damaging to his goal of Islah .  Just as there are actions that promote Islah, so too are there actions which undermine it.  

Edited by .InshAllah.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/27/2018 at 9:45 AM, Leibniz said:

I am talking about practical sociopolitical effects back then when the massacre happened.

What type of significant sociopolitical effects do you realistically expect for a "successful" sacrifice?

On 11/27/2018 at 9:45 AM, Leibniz said:

Hussain wanted a political change and that did not happen. What I mean is that his sacrifice contributed nothing to the political change he was looking for

On what basis do you assert that Imam Hussain (a.s) made his decisions for political change? How do you know what "he was looking for"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
20 hours ago, Leibniz said:

What was Al-Hussain going to Kufa for? 

The Kufians wanted an uprising. Imam Hussain left Medina because his life was under threat. Then, he left Makkah because his life was under threat.

If his goal was uprising, he would have raised an army in Medina, then gone to Makkah to add to his army, then to Basra to add more, then to Kufa to add even more and amass more people along the way from smaller cities/towns

But he didn't so the illogical, absurd and ignorant assumption has no basis. But you are at the right places to learn dear brother. 

Edited by ShiaMan14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, dragonxx said:

What type of significant sociopolitical effects do you realistically expect for a "successful" sacrifice?

On what basis do you assert that Imam Hussain (a.s) made his decisions for political change? How do you know what "he was looking for"?

We know that from his exchanges with the Kufans and his conversations with various people in Madina and Mecca. Hussain did want to over throw Yazid through Kufan uprising and I feel that's hardly arguable 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

The Kufians wanted an uprising. Imam Hussain left Medina because his life was under threat. Then, he left Makkah because his life was under threat.

If his goal was uprising, he would have raised an army in Medina, then gone to Makkah to add to his army, then to Basra to add more, then to Kufa to add even more and amass more people along the way from smaller cities/towns

But he didn't so the illogical, absurd and ignorant assumption has no basis. But you are at the right places to learn dear brother. 

It was impossible to raise an Army in Mecca and Madinah. The two cities were apolitical compared to Kufa and the Zubayrites had already captured the constituency there. Al-Hussain once told Ibn Abbas that Abdullah ibn Zubair wants me to leave Mecca because he knows that he may not get a popular support if I challenge him. Ibn Zubair told Al-Hussain "The kind of support you have in Kufa , if I had that I would have left for Kufa". Kufa was the heart of Shias of Ali and they wrote letters to Al-Hussain inviting him there. Hussain did not receive letters from Basara. Its very much self explanatory why Hussain opted for Kufa.

The argument that he left Mecca because his life was under threat makes no sense. If he just wanted to escape threat to life , Mecca and Madinah would have been better options , even Yemen. How could you escape a looming death by embarking on a weeks long journey to Kufa in broad day light? 

There are way too many narrations which shed light on the intents of Al-Hussain. Tabari states that Ibn Abbas and Ibn Omar were coming along in Mecca and they saw Abdullah ibn Zubair and Al-Hussain whispering. Ibn Abbas warned them that don't break out of unity and don't creat  a unmanageable trouble. In another instance , Ibn Abbas told Al-Hussain , that I fear you shall be killed like Uthman and and just like Uthman's your family shall witness your death.

Edited by Leibniz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
31 minutes ago, Leibniz said:

We know that from his exchanges with the Kufans and his conversations with various people in Madina and Mecca. Hussain did want to over throw Yazid through Kufan uprising and I feel that's hardly arguable 

Again, what sociopolitical changes were you expecting to realistically happen in the situation back then as a result of the sacrifice if indeed it was for political power? Do you really believe that was Imam Hussein's (a.s) goal? To force such changes upon the ummah?

 

But anyway, so his father (a.s) puts up a curtain against the politics/caliphate and dissociates himself from it for decades, but Imam Hussein (a.s), who is known to be just as wise as his father (a.s), learns nothing from that and wants to overthrow Yazid l.a for political power. It has nothing to do with the mass corruption, progressive loss of morality, dying message of the Prophet (pbuhf), nor the religion of Islam which was hijacked and paraded. Has nothing to do with reviving the spirit of the religion. None of that matters, just political revolution. 

As if Imam Hussein (a.s) didn't realize that 72 people isn't enough for a political revolution. But sure why not sacrifice one's family, knowing there will be no political change. Sure, let's die for that, and that if people didn't rise up when I called for them, they'll rise up after I die, and significant sociopolitical changes will certainly take place immediately or near future. Sound logic.

 

If you want enlightenment, I would recommend you stop looking and analyzing a situation from 1400 years ago from your lens.

Your reasoning is incomparable to the reasoning of individuals such as Imam Hussein (a.s), therefore try to see it from his lens, though that of course will prove impossible because 1-much information was altered, lost, and destroyed over the centuries, 2-there are reasons the Imams do certain things in certain ways that we have no knowledge of, hence why they are Imams.

Lastly, based off your posts, you seem to be under the impression that Imam Hussein (a.s) wasn't aware what would befall him and his family. If that's the case, let me inform you he was well aware long before it happened that he and his family would be massacred. Imam Hussein (a.s) is no hot-headed fool looking for fights as you seem to be alluding. If Imam Hasan (a.s) was in his spot, he'd have done the exact same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, dragonxx said:

Again, what sociopolitical changes were you expecting to realistically happen in the situation back then as a result of the sacrifice if indeed it was for political power? Do you really believe that was Imam Hussein's (a.s) goal? To force such changes upon the ummah?

 

But anyway, so his father (a.s) puts up a curtain against the politics/caliphate and dissociates himself from it for decades, but Imam Hussein (a.s), who is known to be just as wise as his father (a.s), learns nothing from that and wants to overthrow Yazid l.a for political power. It has nothing to do with the mass corruption, progressive loss of morality, dying message of the Prophet (pbuhf), nor the religion of Islam which was hijacked and paraded. Has nothing to do with reviving the spirit of the religion. None of that matters, just political revolution. 

As if Imam Hussein (a.s) didn't realize that 72 people isn't enough for a political revolution. But sure why not sacrifice one's family, knowing there will be no political change. Sure, let's die for that, and that if people didn't rise up when I called for them, they'll rise up after I die, and significant sociopolitical changes will certainly take place immediately or near future. Sound logic.

 

If you want enlightenment, I would recommend you stop looking and analyzing a situation from 1400 years ago from your lens.

Your reasoning is incomparable to the reasoning of individuals such as Imam Hussein (a.s), therefore try to see it from his lens, though that of course will prove impossible because 1-much information was altered, lost, and destroyed over the centuries, 2-there are reasons the Imams do certain things in certain ways that we have no knowledge of, hence why they are Imams.

Lastly, based off your posts, you seem to be under the impression that Imam Hussein (a.s) wasn't aware what would befall him and his family. If that's the case, let me inform you he was well aware long before it happened that he and his family would be massacred. Imam Hussein (a.s) is no hot-headed fool looking for fights as you seem to be alluding. If Imam Hasan (a.s) was in his spot, he'd have done the exact same thing.

I am not branding Al-Hussain as a power hungry man who intended to overthrow Yazid to capture the thorn for himself. He might have had other intentions like he might have felt that dethroning Yazid is a religious duty as Yazid's reign is harming Islam. Whatever the intention was , the end goal was overthrowing Yazid and that's a political change. Karbala failed to achieve that and could not put any political effects on Yazid or Ummayad rule. In this scenario , Karbala becomes a sociopolitically trivial affair.

As far as Hussain having prior knowledge about what would happen to him in Karbala , I have read those narrations. All those narrations are unrealistic and self contradictory. Even if one adds those narrations to the narrative of Karbala , they make the event even more vague , irrational and perplexing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
10 minutes ago, dragonxx said:

Again, what sociopolitical changes were you expecting to realistically happen in the situation back then as a result of the sacrifice if indeed it was for political power? Do you really believe that was Imam Hussein's (a.s) goal? To force such changes upon the ummah?

 

But anyway, so his father (a.s) puts up a curtain against the politics/caliphate and dissociates himself from it for decades, but Imam Hussein (a.s), who is known to be just as wise as his father (a.s), learns nothing from that and wants to overthrow Yazid l.a for political power. It has nothing to do with the mass corruption, progressive loss of morality, dying message of the Prophet (pbuhf), nor the religion of Islam which was hijacked and paraded. Has nothing to do with reviving the spirit of the religion. None of that matters, just political revolution. 

As if Imam Hussein (a.s) didn't realize that 72 people isn't enough for a political revolution. But sure why not sacrifice one's family, knowing there will be no political change. Sure, let's die for that, and that if people didn't rise up when I called for them, they'll rise up after I die, and significant sociopolitical changes will certainly take place immediately or near future. Sound logic.

 

If you want enlightenment, I would recommend you stop looking and analyzing a situation from 1400 years ago from your lens.

Your reasoning is incomparable to the reasoning of individuals such as Imam Hussein (a.s), therefore try to see it from his lens, though that of course will prove impossible because 1-much information was altered, lost, and destroyed over the centuries, 2-there are reasons the Imams do certain things in certain ways that we have no knowledge of, hence why they are Imams.

Lastly, based off your posts, you seem to be under the impression that Imam Hussein (a.s) wasn't aware what would befall him and his family. If that's the case, let me inform you he was well aware long before it happened that he and his family would be massacred. Imam Hussein (a.s) is no hot-headed fool looking for fights as you seem to be alluding. If Imam Hasan (a.s) was in his spot, he'd have done the exact same thing.

Although your post is amazing here,

I personally don’t feel it’s right to have Imam Hussein(as) the master of martyrs and hot headed fool in the same line, it’s just irks me.

It's sad you have to make such a comparison to get it through an unwilling person who doesn’t care for what’s right in front of him but just what he thinks make more ‘sense’

I would argue if we even have to make such a comparison we shouldn’t even try to educate them, they simply will reject it or not understand it

But that’s the difference between lovers of Muhammed and ahl muahmmed and people who want to judge them through their personal limited scope lens 

but your post is great aside from that :)

i can tell you’re a true lover of Muhammed and ahl Muhammed (saaws)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
×
  • Create New...