Jump to content
Leibniz

What was achieved out of Karbala?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

If any one considers why imam Husain as reached Kerbela despite knowing this hadith that he will be killed along river bank then it is stated they only follow the will of Allah swt
He followed the footsteps of the prophet saww
despite knowing it who went to battle of Uhud where companions were martyred and got injured.

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


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

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

Salaam brother, 

I'm not able to keep up with this thread (10 pages). As far as Ayt Khamenei's statement is concerned I never take his words seriously. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's consider Karbala never happened. 

Yazid would have ruled over Arab for another 25 years. 

More people would been slave to his twisted version of Islam.

All across Arab and other lands captured may had casinos, bar, incest, oppression and whatnot, all as permitted in Islam. 

The Islam under Yazid would had 'Holy Prophet (sawa) as a man who staged a play for kingdom and there was no revelation from skies' (God forbid). 

The distorted Islam would be the representation of Allah's deen to the unbelievers. 

Generation after generation would gradually consider oppressor of Banu Umayyah as true Khalifa and Ahlulbait would be totally forgotten. (This happened to some degree during Banu Abbas). 

The lesson of patience, persistence, piety, not bowing down to oppression, obedience (to Hujjate Khuda) from the incident of Karbala would be lost. 

Most Shia's primary source of information about Islam, the month of Lectures and Islamic Seminars, across the world would not have taken place. 

The reward of poetry and Marsiya, Masaeb, lamentations, Azadari, visiting his shrine, etc. would not exist altogether. 

So, if you want to understand what was achieved out of Karbala, understand what all would we loose if Karbala had never happened. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ibn al-Hussain Al-Salamu Alaykum. I hope you are well brother. I would like to ask what do you make of the view of Al-Khoei which I posted before - which offers a Fiqhi explaination of the events?

نعم ، ربما تكون المفسدة في قتله أعظم وأكثر ، كما إذا كان العامل بالتقية ممن يترتب على حياته ترويج الحق بعد الاندراس وإنجاء المؤمنين من المحن بعد الابتلاء ونحو ذلك ، ولكنه أمر آخر ، والتقيّة بما هي تقيّة متصفة بالحرمة في تلك الصورة كما عرفت . ولعله من هنا أقدم الحسين (سلام الله وصلواته عليه)وأصحابه (رضوان الله عليهم) لقتال يزيد بن معاوية وعرضوا أنفسهم للشهادة وتركوا التقيّة عن يزيد ، وكذا بعض أصحاب أمير المؤمنين (عليه السلام) بل بعض علمائنا الأبرار (قدس الله أرواحهم) وجزاهم عن الاسلام خيراً كالشهيدين وغيرهما .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

@Ibn al-Hussain Al-Salamu Alaykum. I hope you are well brother. I would like to ask what do you make of the view of Al-Khoei which I posted before - which offers a Fiqhi explaination of the events?

نعم ، ربما تكون المفسدة في قتله أعظم وأكثر ، كما إذا كان العامل بالتقية ممن يترتب على حياته ترويج الحق بعد الاندراس وإنجاء المؤمنين من المحن بعد الابتلاء ونحو ذلك ، ولكنه أمر آخر ، والتقيّة بما هي تقيّة متصفة بالحرمة في تلك الصورة كما عرفت . ولعله من هنا أقدم الحسين (سلام الله وصلواته عليه)وأصحابه (رضوان الله عليهم) لقتال يزيد بن معاوية وعرضوا أنفسهم للشهادة وتركوا التقيّة عن يزيد ، وكذا بعض أصحاب أمير المؤمنين (عليه السلام) بل بعض علمائنا الأبرار (قدس الله أرواحهم) وجزاهم عن الاسلام خيراً كالشهيدين وغيرهما .

:ws:

What he is saying is not unique to him. A number of jurists (and in fact even non-jurists, like Shaykh Misbah Yazdi whose expertise is the intellectual sciences) have struggled to explain the decisions of some of the companions of Imam 'Ali (a) and as well as Imam Husayn's (a) in light of the principle of Taqiyyah and the numerous traditions we have on them. One of the justifications some of them end up giving is what Sayyid Khu'i is mentioning here.

One of the best works discussing Taqiyyah is by Shaykh Muslim al-Dawari (student of Sayyid Khu'i and also of Sayyid Sistani for a while). He has a 3 volume work called al-Taqiyyah fi Fiqh Ahl al-Bayt. In one of the volumes, I remember him discussing this as well - I read it back in 2015 so don't recall the exact reference. Maybe if I find it, I'll paste it here.

Wasalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, skyweb1987 said:

If any one considers why imam Husain as reached Kerbela despite knowing this hadith that he will be killed along river bank then it is stated they only follow the will of Allah swt
He followed the footsteps of the prophet saww
despite knowing it who went to battle of Uhud where companions were martyred and got injured.
 

How many sahaba have narrated this hadith as far as I know

Umme Salma 

Ana's b harith

Ibn Abbas 

 

Share this post


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

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

Imams will stand against tyrants by any means that they can & if people really help them  they will do revolution & uprising too , Imam hussain (as) action was more a role model for Iranian revolution & rest of Muslim uprising against tyranny & he never failed only martyred & presecuatted physically but is journey still continues till Imam Mahdi (aj) completes his journey 

4 hours 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..

This is not only said in shia & Sunni narrations but also prophecized in Jewish & Christian scriptures one of example is that imam hussain(as) said that killers of Zubair Ibn Qain (ra) are from people that distorted to monkeys & pigs that it referred  about Jews & Christians in Quran if they were not involved in Karbala how Imam stated it ,also one of people that caused this incident was senior advisor of Yazid (la) in name of Sir Jon that was one of ancestors of evangelical Zionists our time .

 

Share this post


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

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.

That's why there is such a huge difference in the actions and world view of first 3 Imams and the ones post imam baqir.

Imam zayn abideen was too pacifist and reclusive to even consider in political matters 

Imami doctrine as we know is truly fiqah jaffariyah as it does little to explain the events surrounding the earliest imams 

And inconsistency between actions of earlier and later imams is also attributed to taqiyyah 

Just like sunnis use the khawarij and rafidi card whenever they are confronted with scandalous behaviour of sahaba 

Edited by Panzerwaffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours 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 told you earlier and I am telling you again that you simply lack the knowledge and intellect to derive anything. Imam Hussain (as) tried to avoid conflict. War and fighting are always the last resort so the Imams always tried their utmost to avoid battle. It might make sense to you that just because some people refused to pay zakat, Caliph Abu Bakr would authorize their killing and raping their women - this was not the way of the Imams. A few examples:

  • Hudaibiya - Caliph Umar wanted battle but the Prophet insisted on a Peace Treaty. Umar even doubted the Prophet's (saw) prophethood and insulted him but the Prophet (saw) stood his ground. Reluctance to fight.
  • During Khandaq, when Amr bin Abd al-wad came to fight the Muslims, no one dared to confront him but Imam Ali (as). When they faced each other, Imam Ali (as) didn't start attacking him immediately but offer him 3 conditions - accept Islam or go back. Once he refused both, then Imam Ali (as) asked him to get of his horse so they could fight. Reluctance to fight.
  • During Battle of Jamal, Imam Ali (as) tried his utmost to avoid fighting at all costs. Only when the Jamalians kiiled innocent civilians did the batte start and that too at the insistence of the Jamalians. Reluctance to fight.
  • During Siffin, when fighting was inevitable, Imam Ali (as) offered to settle the matter in a one-one fight with MUawiya but he rejected. Reluctance to fight.
  • Imam Hasan (as) gave up his right to rule for the sake of the people. Reluctance to fight.
  • Imam Hussain (as) in his letter to the Basrans, clearly wrote that they knew caliphate was their right but they gave it up for the safety of the people. Reluctance to fight.

What is truly an extraordinary claim is saying Imam Hussain (as) was confrontational or was starting a revolution when there is not a single quote from him stating as such.

My challenge to you and @Ibn al-Hussain still stands that you have to produce just 1 quote from Imam Hussain (as) proving his was starting a revolution from Rajab 28 - Muharram 10.

But you can't so instead of admitting your mistake and seeking forgiveness from Allah, you will simply avoid replying to me. Typical!!!

 

Share this post


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

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.

 

Imam Hussain's (as) sacrifice created/started a revolution.

Share this post


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

That's why there is such a huge difference in the actions and world view of first 3 Imams and the ones post imam baqir.

Imam zayn abideen was too pacifist and reclusive to even consider in political matters 

Imami doctrine as we know is truly fiqah jaffariyah as it does little to explain the events surrounding the earliest imams 

And inconsistency between actions of earlier and later imams is also attributed to taqiyyah 

Just like sunnis use the khawarij and rafidi card whenever they are confronted with scandalous behaviour of sahaba 

The Sunni doctrine of Sahabas , as far as I know , is not as rigid , puritan and idealistic as the Shia doctrine of Imamah. The Sunnis don't take Sahabas as infallible and would admit that they did make mistakes. They either don't want to highlight those mistakes or they feel that their mistakes don't add up to the degree of Fisq so they swallow them without reluctance. In the Mu'aviya Ali and later Hassan Mu'aviya conflict they would say that Ali and Hassan were on the righteous side but would refrain from branding Mu'aviya a Fasiq and Kafir. I find this approach a sympathatic approach towards the nutshell of Islam albeit not historically pure.

Share this post


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

My challenge to you and @Ibn al-Hussain still stands that you have to produce just 1 quote from Imam Hussain (as) proving his was starting a revolution from Rajab 28 - Muharram 10.

1

If it hasn't already been obvious over the last 10 pages, I have no interest in discussing polemics with you and the dogmatic emotional baggage you bring with yourself. Not only are you not well read, you actually don't even seem to know the language required for sufficient reading nor possess the appropriate tools to deal with these topics. An example of your naivety of historical interpretation and analysis is this challenge itself.

Wasalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Leibniz said:

The Sunni doctrine of Sahabas , as far as I know , is not as rigid , puritan and idealistic as the Shia doctrine of Imamah. The Sunnis don't take Sahabas as infallible and would admit that they did make mistakes. They either don't want to highlight those mistakes or they feel that their mistakes don't add up to the degree of Fisq so they swallow them without reluctance. In the Mu'aviya Ali and later Hassan Mu'aviya conflict they would say that Ali and Hassan were on the righteous side but would refrain from branding Mu'aviya a Fasiq and Kafir. I find this approach a sympathatic approach towards the nutshell of Islam albeit not historically pure.

Salam , the Sunni doctrine is more rigid than Shias ,for them all actions of Sahaba is unquestionable ,even they praise their Fisq in their so called Sihah Sitah (the six true books) & they accuse everytime shias to insulting them & by using this accusation ISIS fighters were killing Shias in Syria & Iraq ,they even praised Muawiah (la) & trust able sources found their manifests after defeating them that they had plan to install a Muawiah (la) statue in Damasqus after capturing it in a position that he has head of Imam Hussain(as) as it bleeding in his hand as symbol of   their victory over Imam Hussain (as) & Imam Ali (as) way although they were against building any statue but they had this plan but they defeated & failed .

Share this post


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

Salam , the Sunni doctrine is more rigid than Shias ,for them all actions of Sahaba is unquestionable ,even they praise their Fisq in their so called Sihah Sitah (the six true books) & they accuse everytime shias to insulting them & by using this accusation ISIS fighters were killing Shias in Syria & Iraq ,they even praised Muawiah (la) & trust able sources found their manifests after defeating them that they had plan to install a Muawiah (la) statue in Damasqus after capturing it in a position that he has head of Imam Hussain(as) as it bleeding in his hand as symbol of   their victory over Imam Hussain (as) & Imam Ali (as) way although they were against building any statue but they had this plan but they defeated & failed .

WS bro , I shall open a thread about the Sunni doctrine of Sahabas and we can discuss it there. Its not very clear to me either and most of my information about it comes from what I have heard from the Sunnis.

Share this post


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

How many sahaba have narrated this hadith as far as I know

Umme Salma 

Ana's b harith

Ibn Abbas 

in Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal it is narrated by the following:

Imam Ali bin Abi Talib AS

 Anas bin Malik 

 Umm Salamah, the Wife of the Prophet 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2018 at 8:55 AM, Leibniz said:

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

https://www.hilmi.eu/islam/books/maaref-foundation/www.maaref-foundation.com/english/library/pro_ahl/imam02_hasan/sulh_al-hasan/index.htm

A little bit better online resource for Sulh Al Hasan. Again, not really primary sources but a good detailed read on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, S.M.H.A. said:

With all due respect , you are implying that one should first accept the dogma of infallibility of Imams as you understand it and then should understand the whole event of Karbala in the light of that. It is the fallacy of  circular reasoning. Its akin to saying 

1. All colors are white 

2. If you believe grey is grey 

3. Then refer to premise #1

Share this post


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

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

Thank you for your input. 

But I do not agree with how you and anyother Ayatullah are viewing the Karbala. 

I believe that the Imams are the "warisan-e-Quran" therefore they have complete knowledge and understanding of its verses. It is impossible that Imam Hussain (asws) never knew anything about the term "Zibhin Azeem" used in a verse.

Second point is that the level of their patience is extraordinary, it is impossible for a common man to display this level of patience without having deep understanding and comprehensive information. Therefore I see that the "sabr" of our Imams is related with the "khabar", and this relationship is also mentioned in the same chapter whose verses (beginning) are said to have recited by the decapitated heads of martyrs:

وَكَيْفَ تَصْبِرُ عَلَى مَا لَمْ تُحِطْ بِهِ خُبْرًا

18:68

I therefore feel necessary to avoid speculating anything about Imam Hussain (asws) nor I would like to base anything on assumption.

Imams are "Ma'soom" as well as "Rasikhoona fil ilm", it is absurd to say Imam Hussain (asws) was unaware of what would happen to him in Karbala.

وَفَدَيْنَاهُ بِذِبْحٍ عَظِيمٍ

37:107 

I believe Imams are aware of Amr as well as Qadha hence we have the famous words of Imam Hussain (asws) in history books:

"Ridhan be qadha-e-he wa tasleeman le amreh".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

if people really help them  

This is a big "if".

Brother, I don't think you are unaware of that famous hadith in which one of our Imam has mentioned as to why he is not doing qayam like Imam Hussain.

Anyway, if we see the history of Karbala, I am unable to see any revolt or uprising of Imam Hussain (asws). He was invited by the kufans and martyrdom of Muslim bin Aqeel was sufficient to understand why Imam has sent him as messenger there. Imam was well aware of what would be the end result. 

Any speculation in this simple historical fact would be the result of assumption that Imam don't have comprehensive knowledge.

Share this post


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

If it hasn't already been obvious over the last 10 pages, I have no interest in discussing polemics with you and the dogmatic emotional baggage you bring with yourself. Not only are you not well read, you actually don't even seem to know the language required for sufficient reading nor possess the appropriate tools to deal with these topics. An example of your naivety of historical interpretation and analysis is this challenge itself.

Wasalam

Using big words just because you can't bring forth any proof to show Imam Hussain (as) as being more confrontational than other Imams. Typical.

I have never claimed to be knowledgeable about anything. I have never read that Imam Hussain claimed he was setting out for a revolution. You said that's why he left so I simply asked you and @Leibniz to bring 1 quote from Imam Hussain (as) to show he set out for a revolution. 3 straight days without an answer is a good enough answer.

Yours and Leibniz's entire premise to show Imam Hussain as a wannabe war-monger is nullified. 

Edited by ShiaMan14

Share this post


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

With all due respect , you are implying that one should first accept the dogma of infallibility of Imams as you understand it and then should understand the whole event of Karbala in the light of that. It is the fallacy of  circular reasoning. Its akin to saying 

1. All colors are white 

2. If you believe grey is grey 

3. Then refer to premise #1

With all due respect, still waiting for 1 quote to show Imam Hussain (as) set out for a revolution.

Share this post


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

Thank you for your input. 

But I do not agree with how you and anyother Ayatullah are viewing the Karbala. 

I believe that the Imams are the "warisan-e-Quran" therefore they have complete knowledge and understanding of its verses. It is impossible that Imam Hussain (asws) never knew anything about the term "Zibhin Azeem" used in a verse.

Second point is that the level of their patience is extraordinary, it is impossible for a common man to display this level of patience without having deep understanding and comprehensive information. Therefore I see that the "sabr" of our Imams is related with the "khabar", and this relationship is also mentioned in the same chapter whose verses (beginning) are said to have recited by the decapitated heads of martyrs:

وَكَيْفَ تَصْبِرُ عَلَى مَا لَمْ تُحِطْ بِهِ خُبْرًا

18:68

I therefore feel necessary to avoid speculating anything about Imam Hussain (asws) nor I would like to base anything on assumption.

Imams are "Ma'soom" as well as "Rasikhoona fil ilm", it is absurd to say Imam Hussain (asws) was unaware of what would happen to him in Karbala.

وَفَدَيْنَاهُ بِذِبْحٍ عَظِيمٍ

37:107 

I believe Imams are aware of Amr as well as Qadha hence we have the famous words of Imam Hussain (asws) in history books:

"Ridhan be qadha-e-he wa tasleeman le amreh".

 

@Ibn al-Hussain believes Imam Hussain (as) was more confrontational than the other Imams. What more can be said.

Be careful in how you respond to him or he will refuse to carry your emotional baggage too...i am speculating.

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

×