Jump to content
Leibniz

What was achieved out of Karbala?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Leibniz said:

Another impression that I get while going through the pages is that Hassan , Abdullah ibn Abbas and Abdullah Ibn Omar are the only sane minded people among the notables who kept their calm in those turbulent times and did not indulge into any meaningless bloodshed , coups and groupings.

Abdullah b budayl

Qays b saad 

Ahnaf b qays 

Jariya b qudama 

Qaraza b kaab

Were also sahaba who though allied with Ali did not always endorse fighting and were a calming influence in his camp 

Pacifism does not always lead to peace ,remember no peace without justice 

Edited by Panzerwaffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Leibniz said:

The thing which sets me aback the most when reading about the history of Islam is that the Muslim society in general was very tribal and even racist. It seems that the kind of modern day pluralistic kind of "everyone is equal in Islam" sentiment did not exist. Almost every individual while making an argument in his favor is seen referring to his father and forefathers. Judging the events in such a society through out 21st century lenses is itself a problem as the we all have our own modern day values in mind and we measure that society through it.

You are right about racism 

That's why I feel mukhtar movement was just as much about socio economic justice for persian converts as it was about avenging hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Panzerwaffe said:

You are right about racism 

That's why I feel mukhtar movement was just as much about socio economic justice for persian converts as it was about avenging hussain

Or justice for Persian convert was a theme of Mukhtar's movement which attracted many Persians to his moment. Tabari has narrated that when Musa'b massacred Mukhtar with his 7000 men , just 700 of them were Arabs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Panzerwaffe said:

Abdullah b budayl

Qays b saad 

Ahnaf b qays 

Jariya b qudama 

Qaraza b kaab

Were also sahaba who though allied with Ali did not always endorse fighting and were a calming influence in his camp 

Pacifism does not always lead to peace ,remember no peace without justice 

Right but keeping in view the society of the time , the tribalism and bigotry coupled by medieval ignorance , I feel maintaining status quo was always a far better option than over throwing the Caliphs no matter how much unjust or worldly they were. Even in modern times , see the fate of Libya and Iraq after Gaddafi and Saddam who were both brutal psychopathic dictators but dethroning them just erupted the volcano. I feel the same happened with the killing of Uthman in the muslim society then.Abdullah Ibn Omar , ibn Abbas and Al-Hassan were more pro status quo individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ShiaMan14 said:

I just provided an alternate to why Imam Hussain was traveling towards to Kufa. You and others have spent 9 pages INSISTING Imam Hussain was out for a revolution. I am only asking for 1 quote from him stating as such.

This is a waste of a discussion if you can't prove the very basis of your argument.

I think This is the right  time to place a full stop here to end  this thread to avoid this wastage

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leibniz said:

Right but keeping in view the society of the time , the tribalism and bigotry coupled by medieval ignorance , I feel maintaining status quo was always a far better option than over throwing the Caliphs no matter how much unjust or worldly they were. Even in modern times , see the fate of Libya and Iraq after Gaddafi and Saddam who were both brutal psychopathic dictators but dethroning them just erupted the volcano. I feel the same happened with the killing of Uthman in the muslim society then.Abdullah Ibn Omar , ibn Abbas and Al-Hassan were more pro status quo individuals.

You are right from a purely political perspective but early sahaba and qurra were egalitarian idealist and they were the base of imam ali 

Furthermore as it looked in 35 AH status quo was only going to make things worse for Ansar and qurra in the long run 

Personally I feel killing uthman was the right thing to do then , otherwise another ummayyad would have succeeded him and strengthened their hold on all provinces 

At least in 36 AH a lot of sahaba were alive and revolution got some traction 

Revolution in 36 AH by iraqi qurra and Ansar was the only fighting chance to put the clock back to the time of prophet 

Assume if uthman rules for another 10 yrs then appoints a "shura of all amirs" i.e all ummayyad governors to appoint caliph claiming best in terms of governance experience then another succession of ummayyads would have followed 

These were very real fears in 35 AH 

Hindsight is always 20/20

Edited by Panzerwaffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leibniz said:

Or justice for Persian convert was a theme of Mukhtar's movement which attracted many Persians to his moment. Tabari has narrated that when Musa'b massacred Mukhtar with his 7000 men , just 700 of them were Arabs.

I'm surprised even 700 , arabs basically saw mukhtar movement as a slaves revolt 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Leibniz said:

Abdllah Ibn Omar did not love Yazid and did not give him a pledge initially. It is very much evident that all the senior companions had learned a hard lesson from the events that befell after the death of Uthman , the bloody wars in which hundreds of thousands of Muslims perished and worst kind of brutalities were unleashed so they refrained from getting into any such mess again. Abdullah Ibn Omar , Abdullah Ibn Abbas , Muhammad ibn Ali al hanaffiyyah all avoided joining or initiating any "revolts" and gave the pledge of allegiance to who ever the ruler was.

Narrated Nafi`:
When the people of Medina dethroned Yazid bin Muawiya, Ibn `Umar gathered his special friends and children and said, "I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, 'A flag will be fixed for every betrayer on the Day of Resurrection,' and we have given the oath of allegiance to this person (Yazid) in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle and I do not know of anything more faithless than fighting a person who has been given the oath of allegiance in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle , and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone Yazid, by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me."
Sahih al-Bukhari
Book 92, Hadith 58
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/92/58

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Similarly, Kufians wanted war but Imam Hussain (as) may be headed there for peace.

 

10 hours ago, Leibniz said:

You are inducing a conjecture " Well , Al Hussain might have acted against what the Kufans were saying" so the onus is on you to substantiate it. Just state it as to what do you think Al-Hussain's intentions were and how did you come to know that?

So using your source as evidence:

Imam Hussain (as) wrote to Kufians:

you do not have an Imam and asked me to come to you so that Allah may perhaps draw you together on truth and guidance through me
I swear by my life that a true Imam and leader is only he who takes decisions according to the Qur'an, establishes justice, promotes the Divine religion and dedicates himself to the path of Allah.

Imam Hussain (as) wrote to Basrans (Abu Miknaf):
I send you my messenger with this letter. I invite you to the Book of God and the Sunnah of His Prophet, peace and blessings on him. The Sunnah has surely died, as innovations become alive. If you listen to me and obey me, I will guide you to the right path. May God's peace and mercy be with you.

I have proven to you from the direct words of Imam Hussain (as) using the primary source of Abu Miknaf that Imam intended nothing more than re-establish adherence to Quran and Sunnah. There is no hint of revolution in his letters.

So now the onus is on you to prove using the Imam's words from primary sources that he intended on a starting a revolution. If you are genuine, you will either bring proof or cease from this conversation. I have a feeling you will do neither.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Leibniz said:

If its was predestined that Hussain shall get killed in Karbala and he himself knew this then the Kufans who wrote letters to him and ditched him later on can safely say that it all was predestined and none of their action could prevent it from happening , had they even acted contrary to how they acted.

 What you have stated about Imams is the traditional Ithna  ash'ari view of the Imams and that does not stand the test of history and natural assessment of human social psychology. I feel we can summarise Hussain's actions like this

 1. He either wanted to over throw Yazid and for that he wanted to make Kufa his bastion as he already knew that there is a Shi'i uprising there so he wanted to shift to Kufa along with his family. He was taking his family along with him because he was of the mind that either Yazid's loyalists would not go as far as massacring him along with his family or the Kufans would have captured the gov in Kufa before I enter it. This was plain riddled by political misjudgments and it badly failed. I am not questioning Hussain's intentions here. He might have thought that overthrowing Yazid was his religious responsibility but still its a political change that he was seeking.

 2. Hussain knew each and every thing before hand. He knew that Kufans would ditch him and Yazid loyalists shall massacre him in Karbala but he continued on his mission to meet his fate and the massacre happened. This self contradictory scenario makes no sense whatsoever and is no different from the sacrificial religious myths that we find in Christianity or Hinduism.

First, just because Imam Hussein (a.s) knew what would happen, does not mean that he told everyone. As far as I know, he didn't inform any of them because he knew that would make most people falter. They were already cowering after Mukhtar and Muslim were captured.

Second, for argument's sake, even if they did know, that does not negate their freewill. The predestined matter is sacrificing oneself fighting for the spirit of Islam, the choice is whether or not to join Imam Hussein (a.s) despite knowing this. Therefore a choice of freewill is still there, would you rather live on your knees or die fighting for your religion? Clearly, anyone who is not a coward/true believer would choose the latter. If people choose to live on their knees, that does not absolve them at all of their decision. You have Imam Hussein (a.s) leading you, how would you not support him regardless of the consequences? Reminds me of when Abu Bakr was crying in fear when he was in the cave with the Prophet (pbuhf), while the Prophet was assuring him you are with me, we are being watched over by Allah, and yet he fear still shook him that he would die, which even if he did, he died for the Prophet (pbuhf), and he is returning in the best state to Allah!

Third, it is not self-contradictory, you merely assert it's a contradiction without actually saying what the contradiction is (I'm sorry but I cannot read minds nor is my intellect good enough for me to read between the lines). It's not like he showed up at Karbala and is like ok lets die. He tried to reason with them, and at one point he even got close to swaying a lot of the army's hearts, but they decided to follow the lead of the likes of Shimr (l.a) when they could have made the same decision as Hurr. Clearly, there was a huge test in this as well. Furthermore, while at Karbala, he turned to his followers and told them this is your chance to sneak away under the cover of night, because he knew how it was going to end despite his efforts. They all made it clear they are happy to die by his side, and remained with him. Dying a martyr is not simply a sacrificial religious myth, its impact is heavy, and can lead to deep inspiration and resistance against tyranny the likes of which you will never comprehend.

Lastly, if you are going to claim you know the real reasons why Imam Hussein (a.s) took his family along without proof, don't demand explicit proof and original references. That's just plain hypocrisy. As if a 50+ year old man, whose father was Imam Ali (a.s), who has been in countless battles, who witnessed and was involved in politics since the age of 5 (starting with the Mubahila) does not realize that his family will die if he brings them along on such a perilous journey. He sacrificed everything he had for the religion of Allah, plain and simple.

 

All the best.

Edited by dragonxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

You are right from a purely political perspective but early sahaba and qurra were egalitarian idealist and they were the base of imam ali 

Furthermore as it looked in 35 AH status quo was only going to make things worse for Ansar and qurra in the long run 

Personally I feel killing uthman was the right thing to do then , otherwise another ummayyad would have succeeded him and strengthened their hold on all provinces 

At least in 36 AH a lot of sahaba were alive and revolution got some traction 

Revolution in 36 AH by iraqi qurra and Ansar was the only fighting chance to put the clock back to the time of prophet 

Assume if uthman rules for another 10 yrs then appoints a "shura of all amirs" i.e all ummayyad governors to appoint caliph claiming best in terms of governance experience then another succession of ummayyads would have followed 

These were very real fears in 35 AH 

Hindsight is always 20/20

Right. There is an ambiguous narration in Tabari which underlines Mu'aviya visit to Madinah before the siege of Uthman and there is a talk of succession to Uthman. A poet there mentions Ali as his successor and Talhah Zubair to be strong candidates. Mu'aviya is mentioned as successor by Uthman and his fumes Ali. It is very much possible that Uthman had made his mind to appoint Mu'aviya as his successor and this fastened the things against him.

Even if Uthman would not appoint Mu'aviya as a successor explicitly and some Shura would have been set up , I think Mu'aviya would have been appointed anyway. Mu'aviya was in the position of great political strength. Syria had already become his loyal power center , he had a great influence in Egypt and Hejjaz and for all practical purposes it was impossible to challenge him. 

Your point about idealism is right but you see that idealism was not realistic. Muslims were ruling Hejjaz , Yemen and Nijran during the prophet's time but the caliphate exponentially expanded after him from Hejjaz to Syria , to large parts of Khorasan and to Africa. Larger states weaken the central authority by default , sociocultural intermingling yield into pluralism rather than Puritanism and that's how life goes on. Sociopolitically , the states regress from Puratinism to Pluralism and the same happened with early Muslim empire. Ali was an idealist but by the end of his life he had learned the bitter facts of statecraft and made a peace treaty with Mu'aviya handing him over Syria and taking Iraq. 

This leads us to the question that what is the status of caliphate in Islam. Is it binding upon Muslims to establish one? What would be the methodology of selecting a Caliph? Given all the bloodshed and ambiguity that followed , did not the prophet devise a system in his life for succession ? Or Caliphate is kinda secular thing which has got nothing to do with religion and therefore their are no clear instructions in Quran or Hadiths about succession? Or its kinda ijtihadi thing which shall be dealt with by Muslims according to the conditions of their time like how they did it in Saqifa.

I don't have any hard views on it but there is narration describing a meeting between Ibn Abbas and Omar during Omar's caliphate. Omar asks him about Caliphate and Ibn Abbas tells him that " Ya amir Ul momineen if you don't mind , I dare say we deserved it" and Omar says that by God this bias shall never go away from the hearts of Hashimites and God did not want Prophethood and Caliphate to combine in one house.

The companions fought for Caliphate among themselves , later the Ummayads fought with in themselves for it. The Hashimites fought for it with Ummayads and later the Hashimites fought for it with in themselves , the Abbasids fought with Alids and so on. If Ali would have been the first Caliph what would have been next? Succession with in Hashimites? Their would have been similar turff wars with in Hashimites about succession and as unlike Ummayads ,the Hashimites had a religious oomph attached to them , we would have seen new sects (not just political factions) originating after every succession feud , a phenomena similar to Shia sects originating from differences over the succession of various Imams.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dragonxx said:

First, just because Imam Hussein (a.s) knew what would happen, does not mean that he told everyone. As far as I know, he didn't inform any of them because he knew that would make most people falter. They were already cowering after Mukhtar and Muslim were captured.

Second, for argument's sake, even if they did know, that does not negate their freewill. The predestined matter is sacrificing oneself fighting for the spirit of Islam, the choice is whether or not to join Imam Hussein (a.s) despite knowing this. Therefore a choice of freewill is still there, would you rather live on your knees or die fighting for your religion? Clearly, anyone who is not a coward/true believer would choose the latter. If people choose to live on their knees, that does not absolve them at all of their decision. You have Imam Hussein (a.s) leading you, how would you not support him regardless of the consequences? Reminds me of when Abu Bakr was crying in fear when he was in the cave with the Prophet (pbuhf), while the Prophet was assuring him you are with me, we are being watched over by Allah, and yet he fear still shook him that he would die, which even if he did, he died for the Prophet (pbuhf), and he is returning in the best state to Allah!

Third, it is not self-contradictory, you merely assert it's a contradiction without actually saying what the contradiction is (I'm sorry but I cannot read minds nor is my intellect good enough for me to read between the lines). It's not like he showed up at Karbala and is like ok lets die. He tried to reason with them, and at one point he even got close to swaying a lot of the army's hearts, but they decided to follow the lead of the likes of Shimr (l.a) when they could have made the same decision as Hurr. Clearly, there was a huge test in this as well. Furthermore, while at Karbala, he turned to his followers and told them this is your chance to sneak away under the cover of night, because he knew how it was going to end despite his efforts. They all made it clear they are happy to die by his side, and remained with him. Dying a martyr is not simply a sacrificial religious myth, its impact is heavy, and can lead to deep inspiration and resistance against tyranny the likes of which you will never comprehend.

Lastly, if you are going to claim you know the real reasons why Imam Hussein (a.s) took his family along without proof, don't demand explicit proof and original references. That's just plain hypocrisy. As if a 50+ year old man, whose father was Imam Ali (a.s), who has been in countless battles, who witnessed and was involved in politics since the age of 5 (starting with the Mubahila) does not realize that his family will die if he brings them along on such a perilous journey. He sacrificed everything he had for the religion of Allah, plain and simple.

 

All the best.

I wish it was as simple as that.

Abi Mikhnaf's account of Karbala is a very naturalistic explanation of all the events that to the massacre of Karbala. He gives an account of what happened immediately after the death of Mu'aviya till the massacre and its impacts shortly afterwards. We can not read intentions but we definitely can say something about them from the details provided by Abi mikhnaf and the collective circumstantial evidence.

There are atleast 5 instances in which Al-Hussain agrees to stepping back from Karbala and avoid the conflict. The first is when he encounters Hur and his men near Karbala till Ibn Sa'ad has not arrived on the scene. He offers Hur that he would depart back. The second one is in his encounter with Ibn Sa'ad in which Al-Hussain proposes stepping back. The rest can be found in his sermons and interactions before the massacre began.

His decision to step back , end up his journey to Kufa and get out of the situation at hand is very much naturalistic. He is a man who has been encircled by opponents who have a history of bloodshed and his father has been battling the same faction in the recent years. Hussain is seeing the impending doom and he is disillusioned with the Kufan support as well. He twice or may be thrice mentions to Ibn Sa'ad's Army that I did not come by myself , rather I was invited by you people. He even shows them the letters. This simply implies that he is trying to get out of the showdown scenario , to save himself and his family.

In a meeting with Ibn Sa'ad , Al-Hussain proposes that we both should leave our men here and visit Yazid so that we can sought it out. When the news of this proposal and Ibn Sa'ad's soft corner for Al-Hussain reaches the court of Ibn Ziyad , Shimr there instigates Ibn Ziyad alluding to Ibn Sa'ad's soft corner for Al-Hussain and that's when Ibn Ziyad sends Shimr to the scene and he shatters the negotiations as he arrives.

No one needs to read the mind of Al-Hussain but its crystal clear as to what's going on. This account is naturalistic and it makes sense. That's how humans operate. Now , interpolating "Hussain knew that he shall be killed in Karbala and he knowingly embarked on the journey for mass sacrifice" into this makes the whole scenario inexplicable , unnatural and contradictory. Its an extraordinary claim and it needs an extraordinary evidence to substantiate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leibniz said:

I don't have any hard views on it but there is narration describing a meeting between Ibn Abbas and Omar during Omar's caliphate. Omar asks him about Caliphate and Ibn Abbas tells him that " Ya amir Ul momineen if you don't mind , I dare say we deserved it" and Omar says that by God this bias shall never go away from the hearts of Hashimites and God did not want Prophethood and Caliphate to combine in one house.

The companions fought for Caliphate among themselves , later the Ummayads fought with in themselves for it. The Hashimites fought for it with Ummayads and later the Hashimites fought for it with in themselves , the Abbasids fought with Alids and so on. If Ali would have been the first Caliph what would have been next? Succession with in Hashimites? Their would have been similar turff wars with in Hashimites about succession and as unlike Ummayads ,the Hashimites had a religious oomph attached to them , we would have seen new sects (not just political factions) originating after every succession feud , a phenomena similar to Shia sects originating from differences over the succession of various Imams

Perhaps you should read the Quran wherein Allah always decides on the caliph, never the people.Caliph Umar is wrong simply because of the fact that if "God did not want Prophethood and Caliphate to combine in one house" then why did Caliph Umar name Imam Ali (as) in the Shura. I guess going against the Will of Allah came naturally to him.

9 hours ago, dragonxx said:

Lastly, if you are going to claim you know the real reasons why Imam Hussein (a.s) took his family along without proof, don't demand explicit proof and original references. That's just plain hypocrisy. As if a 50+ year old man, whose father was Imam Ali (a.s), who has been in countless battles, who witnessed and was involved in politics since the age of 5 (starting with the Mubahila) does not realize that his family will die if he brings them along on such a perilous journey. He sacrificed everything he had for the religion of Allah, plain and simple.

 

1 hour ago, Leibniz said:

I wish it was as simple as that.

Abi Mikhnaf's account of Karbala is a very naturalistic explanation of all the events that to the massacre of Karbala. He gives an account of what happened immediately after the death of Mu'aviya till the massacre and its impacts shortly afterwards. We can not read intentions but we definitely can say something about them from the details provided by Abi mikhnaf and the collective circumstantial evidence.

There are atleast 5 instances in which Al-Hussain agrees to stepping back from Karbala and avoid the conflict. The first is when he encounters Hur and his men near Karbala till Ibn Sa'ad has not arrived on the scene. He offers Hur that he would depart back. The second one is in his encounter with Ibn Sa'ad in which Al-Hussain proposes stepping back. The rest can be found in his sermons and interactions before the massacre began.

His decision to step back , end up his journey to Kufa and get out of the situation at hand is very much naturalistic. He is a man who has been encircled by opponents who have a history of bloodshed and his father has been battling the same faction in the recent years. Hussain is seeing the impending doom and he is disillusioned with the Kufan support as well. He twice or may be thrice mentions to Ibn Sa'ad's Army that I did not come by myself , rather I was invited by you people. He even shows them the letters. This simply implies that he is trying to get out of the showdown scenario , to save himself and his family.

In a meeting with Ibn Sa'ad , Al-Hussain proposes that we both should leave our men here and visit Yazid so that we can sought it out. When the news of this proposal and Ibn Sa'ad's soft corner for Al-Hussain reaches the court of Ibn Ziyad , Shimr there instigates Ibn Ziyad alluding to Ibn Sa'ad's soft corner for Al-Hussain and that's when Ibn Ziyad sends Shimr to the scene and he shatters the negotiations as he arrives.

No one needs to read the mind of Al-Hussain but its crystal clear as to what's going on. This account is naturalistic and it makes sense. That's how humans operate. Now , interpolating "Hussain knew that he shall be killed in Karbala and he knowingly embarked on the journey for mass sacrifice" into this makes the whole scenario inexplicable , unnatural and contradictory. Its an extraordinary claim and it needs an extraordinary evidence to substantiate it.

I have been asking for the same proof as well.

@Leibniz says Imam Hussain (as) went out for a revolution yet he can't present reference from 1 letter or even a weak hadith where Imam Hussain (as) claims to seek a revolution. 

I said Imam Hussain (as) went out seeking peace and @Leibniz asked me to prove it. So I proved it using the very source he has been citing for a while now - Abu Miknaf.

Along with Leibniz's false conjecture,  @Ibn Al-Hussain claims Imam Hussain (as) to be more confrontational than the other Imams. In the same reference (Abu Miknaf) where Imam writes a letter to the people of Basra, He clearly states:

We are from his family and those entrusted with his authority (Prophet's). We are his trustees and inheritors. We have greater right than anyone else to execute the Prophet's functions. Instead, people have arrogated to themselves out rights. We did not protest because we detested causing division and wanted the best for the community. But we knew that we were more entitled to that station than those who have usurped it.

Is this the tone of a hotheaded revolutionary?Imam Hussain (as) is clearly acknowledging that "we" aka AhlulBayt  do not create mischief in the community. While it seems like @Leibniz has read Abu Miknaf several times, it sure seems like he has understood very little of it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

For Shaykh Mufid read this response in al-masail al-'ukbariyyah (المسائل العكبرية) where he responds to a question by someone named Hajib Abu Layth who asks exactly this question (that if Imams knew everything why did they put themselves in positions where they were killed).

 

If Imam Ali (as) never prayed or at least didn't pray in mosque, Ibn Muljim could never have killed him.

If Imam Hassan never married, his wife couldn't have poisoned him.

If Imam Hussain (as) didn't leave Medinah, Yazid 's men could never have killed him.

And so on...

@Ralvi - Salaam brother. Is the above to much ridicule??? :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

If Imam Ali (as) never prayed or at least didn't pray in mosque, Ibn Muljim could never have killed him.

If Imam Hassan never married, his wife couldn't have poisoned him.

If Imam Hussain (as) didn't leave Medinah, Yazid 's men could never have killed him.

And so on...

@Ralvi - Salaam brother. Is the above to much ridicule??? :grin:

No brother, this perfectly fine discourse, facts are facts. :grin: The fact is for Shias the ahulbayt are our jugular vein :NH:

and my soul hurts when even one bit of evil tries to approach them. But then Allah made an even bigger promise to make sure that never happens. So imagine how you prod at Allah when you prod at his beloved and purified creations! It’s just unfathomable 

As the manifestations of Sayeda’s dua we must be firm and active in showing our love and our dedication and unwillingness to back down from discussion and discourse. 

Those who can’t love will forever try to twist things and make it seem like the victim is the reason for the wrongdoing instead of the aggressor. Another perspective on Kerbala is to highlight the victim and the aggressor and we all know who clearly is that. So why even try to blame the victim, is it becuase you don’t have the backbone to change the status quo? 

Personally I find that This is a disease in the ummah, silence is just as guilty as the aggressor 

And trust me Shias aren’t perfect but this who love truly are the most loyal and try their best 

Edited by Ralvi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Leibniz said:

Right. There is an ambiguous narration in Tabari which underlines Mu'aviya visit to Madinah before the siege of Uthman and there is a talk of succession to Uthman. A poet there mentions Ali as his successor and Talhah Zubair to be strong candidates. Mu'aviya is mentioned as successor by Uthman and his fumes Ali. It is very much possible that Uthman had made his mind to appoint Mu'aviya as his successor and this fastened the things against him.

Even if Uthman would not appoint Mu'aviya as a successor explicitly and some Shura would have been set up , I think Mu'aviya would have been appointed anyway. Mu'aviya was in the position of great political strength. Syria had already become his loyal power center , he had a great influence in Egypt and Hejjaz and for all practical purposes it was impossible to challenge him. 

Your point about idealism is right but you see that idealism was not realistic. Muslims were ruling Hejjaz , Yemen and Nijran during the prophet's time but the caliphate exponentially expanded after him from Hejjaz to Syria , to large parts of Khorasan and to Africa. Larger states weaken the central authority by default , sociocultural intermingling yield into pluralism rather than Puritanism and that's how life goes on. Sociopolitically , the states regress from Puratinism to Pluralism and the same happened with early Muslim empire. Ali was an idealist but by the end of his life he had learned the bitter facts of statecraft and made a peace treaty with Mu'aviya handing him over Syria and taking Iraq. 

This leads us to the question that what is the status of caliphate in Islam. Is it binding upon Muslims to establish one? What would be the methodology of selecting a Caliph? Given all the bloodshed and ambiguity that followed , did not the prophet devise a system in his life for succession ? Or Caliphate is kinda secular thing which has got nothing to do with religion and therefore their are no clear instructions in Quran or Hadiths about succession? Or its kinda ijtihadi thing which shall be dealt with by Muslims according to the conditions of their time like how they did it in Saqifa.

I don't have any hard views on it but there is narration describing a meeting between Ibn Abbas and Omar during Omar's caliphate. Omar asks him about Caliphate and Ibn Abbas tells him that " Ya amir Ul momineen if you don't mind , I dare say we deserved it" and Omar says that by God this bias shall never go away from the hearts of Hashimites and God did not want Prophethood and Caliphate to combine in one house.

The companions fought for Caliphate among themselves , later the Ummayads fought with in themselves for it. The Hashimites fought for it with Ummayads and later the Hashimites fought for it with in themselves , the Abbasids fought with Alids and so on. If Ali would have been the first Caliph what would have been next? Succession with in Hashimites? Their would have been similar turff wars with in Hashimites about succession and as unlike Ummayads ,the Hashimites had a religious oomph attached to them , we would have seen new sects (not just political factions) originating after every succession feud , a phenomena similar to Shia sects originating from differences over the succession of various Imams.

 

 

It seems like somebody has read "the prince" 

The issue of whether caliphate is mandatory or not is a whole different one I think it's very a pro quraishi and pro arab concept and I think after prophet ansar should have governed medina , muhaijreen go back to mecca and have a United arab states of muslims but that's a political model that appeals to my 20th century mind obviously Arab leaders then esp muhajireen who wanted to spread Islam to the ends of the earth could follow the existing imperial models " one God one prophet one caliph"

Again I do see the points you have raised  , and again since my POV is very hostile to ummayyads I approach the events of first fitna with that bias 

But if we say ummayyads peacefully took power after uthman and then muawiyah changed sunnah and did those things against sharia then it would have bern officially accepted as part of faith.And there is no guarentee that it would be peaceful either,  even if ansar ali and qurra dont rise up against him.The ambitions of the houses of talha , zubair would  be on a collision course with ummayyads.

And dont forget makhzumis like abdul Rahman b Khalid 

And himyari dhul qila who although fought for muawiyah was a Syrian with strong separatist tendencies from Damascus 

So my point is saying all this happened because uthman was killed is wrong the better question is why uthman was deviating from the model of umar ? Since people lost faith in the system of tribal meritocracy established by umar they feared the worst and made radical moves to thwart was seemed like power grab by just one tribe 

Apart from actions of first 3 imams I dont defend the hashimites either e.g as you mentioned abdullah b jafar in contrast to his brother Muhammad b jafar( who was martyred in siffin), was just fond of music a great friend of muwuysh and even named his son that.

 

Edited by Panzerwaffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sense. That's how humans operate. Now , interpolating "Hussain knew that he shall be killed in Karbala and he knowingly embarked on the journey for mass sacrifice" into this makes the whole scenario inexplicable , unnatural and contradictory. Its an extraordinary claim and

@Leibniz

Makes sense but let's say its morning of ashura , no hope compromise left why would Hussain not practice taqiya take the bayah save his family and friends go back to medina or yemen break the pledge say it was under duress and start a guerilla warfare movement? That's very logical too 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Panzerwaffe said:

It seems like somebody has read "the prince" 

The issue of whether caliphate is mandatory or not is a whole different one I think it's very a pro quraishi and pro arab concept and I think after prophet ansar should have governed medina , muhaijreen go back to mecca and have a United arab states of muslims but that's a political model that appeals to my 20th century mind obviously Arab leaders then esp muhajireen who wanted to spread Islam to the ends of the earth could follow the existing imperial models " one God one prophet one caliph"

Again I do see the points you have raised  , and again since my POV is very hostile to ummayyads I approach the events of first fitna with that bias 

But if we say ummayyads peacefully took power after uthman and then muawiyah changed sunnah and did those things against sharia then it would have bern officially accepted as part of faith.And there is no guarentee that it would be peaceful either,  even if ansar ali and qurra dont rise up against him.The ambitions of the houses of talha , zubair would  be on a collision course with ummayyads.

And dont forget makhzumis like abdul Rahman b Khalid 

And himyari dhul qila who although fought for muawiyah was a Syrian with strong separatist tendencies from Damascus 

So my point is saying all this happened because uthman was killed is wrong the better question is why uthman was deviating from the model of umar ? Since people lost faith in the system of tribal meritocracy established by umar they feared the worst and made radical moves to thwart was seemed like power grab by just one tribe 

Apart from actions of first 3 imams I dont defend the hashimites either e.g as you mentioned abdullah b jafar in contrast to his brother Muhammad b jafar( who was martyred in siffin), was just fond of music a great friend of muwuysh and even named his son that.

 

Machiavellian model is the only model which works , atleast in the medieval  history. There are almost no exceptions to it except for a very few benevolent dictators. As far as the decline of Uthman , I see it more as a naturalistic decline of caliphate coupled by a larger ungovernable empire with various issues and the Hashimites waiting for the final showdown , in case of Uthman they found the aging caliph who was a political underdog by nature.

The ansari caliph scenario would have been ideal but whether the imiggrant Quraish would have accepted that , I don't think so. Ummayads and especially Mu'aviya were very liberal secular people and I don't think so they ever tried to middle into religious affairs. No notable scholar issues a decree against Hussain , not even after his death. We don't find much Hadith's in favor of Mu'aviya , they could forge many during their reign. Even in the Sunni world , Mu'aviya is excluded from the Rashidoon and is taken as a liability.

Of course their are exceptions to the Hashmite Ummayad rivalry. One other such example is the friendship of Marwan and Imam Zain Ul abideen. It was Imam Zain who gave shelter to the family of Marwan while Ummayads were expelled from Mecca. Abdullah ibn Omar had refused to give them shelter. Later on it was Marwan who took Imam Zain Ul abideen to Muslim bin Uqbah to get a safety assurance for him. 

What can one make of all this mess? May be the only logical solution is to state that Islam has nothing to do with governance and is a personal religion. I don't see any coherent solution other than this to the bloody history of caliphate in Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Panzerwaffe said:

sense. That's how humans operate. Now , interpolating "Hussain knew that he shall be killed in Karbala and he knowingly embarked on the journey for mass sacrifice" into this makes the whole scenario inexplicable , unnatural and contradictory. Its an extraordinary claim and

@Leibniz

Makes sense but let's say its morning of ashura , no hope compromise left why would Hussain not practice taqiya take the bayah save his family and friends go back to medina or yemen break the pledge say it was under duress and start a guerilla warfare movement? That's very logical too 

Hussain's action are the best argument against 'Taqayyah'. Yet you would see that those who praise Hussain for his metal , steadfastness and sacrifice would always keep the 'Taqayyah' card in pocket and would explain away anything that contradicts their theological view of history with the Taqqayah card. So much so that Imam Reza's becoming crown prince of Mamun is branded as Taqayyah on his part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just breaking my silence for a while to share something important here. 

"Describing the outcomes of the Revolution led by Imam Husain bin Ali, Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei states: “The struggle of Imam Hussain (as) has two dimensions, therefor it can have two outcomes, both of which would be good. One outcome was that Imam Hussain (as) would be able to overcome Yazid by taking power out if the hands that suppressed the people and ruined their lives, then putting it back on the right path where it should have been. If this was achieved, the course of history would've changed. The other dimension is that if Imam Hussain (as) did not achieve a political and military victory, for any reason, then at this point Imam Hussain (as) would promote his words of truth like a perpetual and non-stop stream throughout history, not through a physical tongue but through the language of sacrificing his blood and being oppressed- the language that the history would never ever forget it, and Imam Hussain (as) did so.”

http://english.khamenei.ir/news/4212/Imam-Hussain-s-Revolution-for-Humanity

So according to Ayatullah Khamenei, Imam Hussain (asws) launched an uprising/revolution against Yazid (Laeen) which got failed. 

@ShiaMan14, @skyweb1987 @Sumerian @Sirius_Bright

Would like to see your input brothers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Leibniz said:

No one needs to read the mind of Al-Hussain but its crystal clear as to what's going on. This account is naturalistic and it makes sense. That's how humans operate. Now , interpolating "Hussain knew that he shall be killed in Karbala and he knowingly embarked on the journey for mass sacrifice" into this makes the whole scenario inexplicable , unnatural and contradictory. Its an extraordinary claim and it needs an extraordinary evidence to substantiate it.

There are narrations in both sunni and shia sources confirming this that the prophet saaw already informed that Imam Hussein AS will be killed by nation at the river bank..

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Salsabeel said:

So according to Ayatullah Khamenei, Imam Hussain (asws) launched an uprising/revolution against Yazid (Laeen) which got failed. 

1

Amongst a lot of contemporary Iranian scholarship, this is a well-established view. In fact, Sayyid Khamenei explains this thoroughly in his work Insan 250 Saleh  (250-year-old man). Although his theory is that every Imam was trying to do exactly what Imam Husayn (a) was trying to do (which I do not find convincing), but nevertheless the theory at the very least can be applied very easily on Imam Husayn's (a) scenario.

Wasalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, skyweb1987 said:

There are narrations in both sunni and shia sources confirming this that the prophet saaw already informed that Imam Hussein AS will be killed by nation at the river bank..

On a light note : I was talking to a Sunni who told me that there is such an authentic hadith in Sunni sources and when I asked him , then why did Hussain go there ? , he said "May be Hussain did not hear this hadith".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ibn al-Hussain said:

Amongst contemporary Iranian scholarship, this is a well-established view. In fact, Sayyid Khamenei explains this thoroughly in his work Insan 250 Saleh  (250-year-old man). Although his theory is that every Imam was trying to do exactly what Imam Husayn (a) was trying to do (which I do not find convincing), but nevertheless the theory at the very least can be applied very easily on Imam Husayn's (a) scenario.

Wasalam

May be this interpretation supports WF and the ousting of Shah so that's why we are seeing it from Ayatullah Khamenei. One more such interpretation comes from the Jihadist and Ikhwani Salafis who use Hussain's uprising as an argument against the Madkhali Salafis who tend to emphasize on abiding by the ruler no matter what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×