Migration of Imam Hussain (as)

[ShiaMan14]

I have been pondering over whether to post this topic or not for a while now (2 months) but based on some recent events on ShiaChat, I feel that I must.

A while ago, @Ibn al-Hussain and I had a serious discussion/disagreement where he reminded me about his 32,000+ posts, different roles on ShiaChat and various other accolades. At another time, he accused me of "not being well read". The quantity of his posts don't impress me; the number of books he has read is equally unimpressive.

Note about me: I don't consider myself well read at all. As a matter of fact since @Ibn Al-Hussain has more than 4 times the number of my posts, I will even acknowledge that he has read 4 times as many books as me or 10 times more.

I want to discuss his post below as the primary source of contention between us. After 32,000 posts, different roles on ShiaChat and reading 1,000 OR 10,000 OR 100,000 books, he reached the conclusion in red below (I have included some other elements as well):

On 11/28/2018 at 11:39 PM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

I believe the narrative as follows, though I still have many questions which I believe we can only speculate over:

1. Imam Husayn (a) did not agree with the truce Imam Hasan (a) made with Mu'awiyah - but for one reason or another, he continued to live under his caliphate (although we do have some references mentioning some Kufans had written to Imam Husayn during this period as well). Imam Husayn (a) as a personality was different from other Imams. His personality sees to be more confrontational than any of the other Imams.

Neither Imam Hasan nor Imam Hussain wanted the truce but they had no choice other than this. However, there is absolutely no evidence that after the martyrdom of Imam Hasan (عليه السلام), Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) contemplated an uprising which you are alluding towards. Also, if Kufans did write to Imam Hussain (عليه السلام), it would be their prerogative and in no way does it implicate Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) as a revolter.

How is Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) more confrontational than other Imams? Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) took part in Jamal, Siffin and Karbala. May be a couple of others that my limited 7,800post+100book knowledge brain does not know off. Imam Ali fought in every single for Islam during the lifetime of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) with the exception of Tabouk. At the very least, Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) was less confrontational than Imam Ali (عليه السلام).

Secondly, how is it confrontational if Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) is presented with 2 equally unacceptable choices - bayah to Yazeed was unacceptable; death without trying to preserve life is also not allowed so Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) chose the 3rd option and left Medina. Saving one's life is an Islamic edict. Given an untenable situation, Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) chose migration - that is the very definition of someone who wants to avoid confrontation.

Imam Hussain's life was in danger so he migrated to Makkah exactly like when the Prophet's (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) life was in danger, he (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) migrated to Medina.
When Imam Hussain's life was in danger in Makkah, he chose migration again just liked the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). The only difference is that the Ansar invited the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) to Medina while Kufans invited Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) to Kufa. If anything Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) tried his best to avoid confrontation. The fact that Kufans wanted Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) as their leader for a revolution is upon them and in no way an indication that Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) was on his way to confront Yazid or Ibn Ziyad or Ibn Sa'ad.

This is the difference between someone who has 32,000 posts and has read 10,000 books versus a layman such as me. A layman such as me realizes that the more I read, the less I know. Then there are those who read a few books and think they know it all. They state their ill-conceived opinions as facts and then get over-sensitive when called out on their wrong opinions.
 

[ShiaMan14]

On 11/28/2018 at 11:39 PM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

2. When Yazid came into power, he had officially broken the last article in the treaty between Imam Hasan (a) and Mu'awiyah. Imam Husayn (a) was not going to take this and hence when he was asked to give his allegiance he refused. The situation became dangerous for the Imam, so he left Medina with his family members and went to Makkah. At this point, the Imam's agenda is not very clear as per historical records and whether he wanted to establish a government or engage in a war. It really does seem that he (a) may have it as a likely option. The famous statement says that he was leaving to "request" or "seek" (طلب) betterment (اصلاح) in the nation of his grandfather. How he was going to go and "request" or "seek" this, and from who, it is not clear for me when he is leaving Medina.

 Quite perplexing that someone with 32,000 posts and reader of 10,000 books would 1/2 quote a statement by Imam Hussain and then speculate about the Imam's intentions. The exact quote is:

The Imam continued: "This movement of mine is not on account of stubbornness, rebellion, worldly passions or instigation by Satan. It is also not my object to create trouble or to oppress anyone. The only thing which invites me to this great movement is that I should reform the affairs of the followers of my grandfather, eradicate corruption, undertake enjoining to do good and restraining from evil and follow the tradition of my grandfather, the Prophet of Allah and my father, Ali".
Imam Hussain also writes, "I am not going out for merry-making and amusement or to create mischief. I am also not perusing the path of oppression". He adds: "I have come out to reform the followers of my grandfather".
https://www.al-Islam.org/probe-history-ashura-Dr.-ibrahim-ayati/chapter-6-Muhammad-bin-hanafiya

Imam Hussain specifically states he is not looking to establish a goernment or engage in war - his mission was to reform the ummah!!!

Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) clearly states he is not rising for rebellion but what does the reader of 10,000 books think, "not very clear as per historical records and whether he wanted to establish a government or engage in a war"

[ShiaMan14]

On 11/28/2018 at 11:39 PM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

3. 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. Now whether in hindsight you believe it was a smart move or not, or better options were available - particularly when everyone who wished well for him were telling him not to go - we could speculate all day. However, at the end of the day the Imam (a) believed it was the best decision. 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). If you believe that the Imams are not completely infallible in the application of certain laws, then you have two options: 1) You still say that due to his knowledge and insight, he made the best decision, 2) or there were some aspects that were hidden from him which he did not take into consideration and perhaps he was eager to carry out his plans. If it was the latter, then in hindsight we could argue that there could have been better options. 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. 

According to Luhuf the Imam addressed a gathering before his departure. After praising the Almighty Allah he said: "Death has marked the human beings in the same manner in which a necklace leaves its mark on the neck of a young woman" (I.e. every human being is destined to die). In these words he hinted at the fact that during those days the social and religious corruption could not be remedied except by the martyrdom of a person like him, who was the son of the daughter of the Holy Prophet of Allah.

In the discourse delivered before his departure from Makkah he speaks about martyrdom, death, going before his grandfather, the Holy Prophet of Allah, and before his parents and falling into the clutches of the hungry wolves of Karbala. He told the people that his journey would end in this manner. We know that Imam Husayn delivered this discourse earlier than the 8th of Zil-Haj and possibly on the seventh of that month before a gathering of the pilgrims of the House of Allah.

At that time the political conditions were apparently favorable for Imam Husayn, and the people thought generally that Yazid bin Mu'awiya would soon step aside and his caliphate would topple down and the Imam who was entitled to the caliphate would attain to it. This was because Muslim bin Aqil, his special representative, had sent a report from Kufa saying: "All the people are with you and do not recognize the caliphate of anyone else. They are also not prepared to acknowledge anyone as their ruler except you. Hence you should come as early as possible".

Apparently the conditions were very favorable and reassuring, but in spite of this Imam Husayn was talking about death and martyrdom and the fierceness of the Iraqi wolves.

The fact is as already stated by us I.e. Imam Husayn wanted to tell the people that he had already assessed that no result could be achieved and nothing useful and positive could be done without his own martyrdom as well as that of his friends. That is why he said that man cannot avoid death.

He said: "I am keen to see the Prophet of Allah, Ali, Hamza, Ja'far and my mother Fatima in the same way in which Ya'qub was keen to see Yusuf. A site of martyrdom has been selected for me by Allah and I am going there". It transpires from this sentence that this was a Divine plan and not one drawn by Husayn bin Ali. The Almighty Allah had destined since eternity that such deviation and corruption, could take place in the Muslim society, and Husayn bin Ali would make an unprecedented self-sacrifice and meet martyrdom to remedy the situation.

The Imam said: "I can see as if the desert wolves of Iraq are attacking me between Nawawis and Karbala and tearing me into pieces. They are filling their hungry flanks and empty pockets. It is for them to fill their pockets and to feed themselves to satiety, and for me to fight against this social and religious corruption. This is the plan devised by Allah and it is He who has considered my martyrdom to be the remedy and the means of reforming the present state of affairs. It is impossible to escape from whatever has been destined by Him.

We, the family of the Holy Prophet, are happy with what Allah is pleased with, and like whatever He likes. We bear with patience all the difficulties which He makes us face and He also gives us full reward which is admissible to the patient people. I am a part of the body of the Prophet of Allah and a part of his body cannot remain separate from him. I shall join him in Paradise so that he may be pleased to see me and fulfil the promises made with me. Only he, who is prepared to sacrifice his life for my sake and to meet Allah, should accompany me. God willing I intend to depart tomorrow morning".
https://www.al-Islam.org/probe-history-ashura-Dr..-ibrahim-ayati/chapter-12-departure-Imam-madina

I am sure we will get to hear about how Dr... Ibrahim Ayati is a flawed historian or not a historian at all and Ibn@Al-Hussain's naive speculation is much, much better than Dr... Ayati's book.

[ShiaMan14]

On 11/28/2018 at 11:39 PM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

4. In Zubalah, when he hears the news of Muslim and Hani being killed (refer to Maqtal of Abi Mikhnaf), he literally asked people to leave, telling them they have absolutely no responsibility anymore. This is because the purpose for which they were heading towards Kufa for was not going to be achieved anymore (due to the betrayal of the Kufans). If the purpose was not going to be achieved, it would be utterly pointless for these individuals to have been killed. This is what Abu Mikhnaf says in his Maqtal:

فتفرق الناس عنه تفرقا، فاخذوا يمينا وشمالا حتى بقي في اصحابه الذين جاؤا معه من المدينة، وانما فعل ذلك لانه ظن انما اتبعه الاعراب لانهم ظنوا انه يأتي بلدا قد استقامت له طاعة اهله فكره ان يسيروا معه الا وهم يعلمون علام يقدمون، وقد علم انهم إذا بين لهم لم يصحبه الا من يريد مواساته والموت معه

People began to run away in all directions until only those who accompanied him from Medina remained. He (a) did this because he thought the Bedouins had followed him because they thought they will be going to a land whose people's obedience was established. He (a) detested that they accompany him unless they knew what they were heading towards. He most definitely knew that if he clarified it for them, no one will accompany him (a) except one who voluntarily wants to be with him (a) and wants to die with him (a). [Source]

Finally no speculation from @Ibn al-Hussain

[ShiaMan14]

On 11/28/2018 at 11:39 PM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

5. This is when it becomes difficult to understand Imam Husayn's (a) actions. He decided to keep moving towards Kufa - why? Was he thinking he could still go inside Kufa and get the support of the Kufans? Was he thinking he could perhaps go to Kufa to talk to Ibn Ziyad himself and reach some sort of reconciliation? When his path is blocked by the army of Ibn Ziyad, scholars like Sayyid Murtadha mention a very interesting point:

ولما رأى أن لا سبيل له إلى العود ولا إلى دخول الكوفة، سلك طريق الشام سائرا نحو يزيد بن معاوية لعلمه عليه السلام بأنه على ما به أرق من ابن زياد وأصحابه، فسار عليه السلام حتى قدم عليه عمر بن سعد في العسكر العظيم

When he saw that there was no way of return and no way of entering Kufa, he headed towards Sham, towards Yazid b. Mu'awiyah because he (a) knew he (Yazid) was gentler than Ibn Ziyad and his companions. He (a) travelled until 'Umar b. Sa'd arrived with a large army (I.e. to block him). [Source]

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. Even leading up to the day of Ashura, during his conversations with 'Umar b. Sa'd, we find him repeatedly saying he does not want to engage in war, to allow him (a) to leave and go to a faraway land so he can live like a normal person amongst the people. In some earlier works it is also repeatedly mentioned that he says, أو ان أضع يدي في يد يزيد ابن عمى ليرى في رأيه "or let me put my hand in the hand of Yazid the son of my uncle, so he can he decide what he wants to do regarding me."  The reliability of this phrase has been hotly debated right from the beginning, though nevertheless, it does appear in numerous early works. ‘Umar sends a letter to Ibn Ziyad saying Husayn (a) has decided to be good and go back, or we can send him to Yazid so they can resolve their own personal issues. Ibn Ziyad (due to the influence of Shimr perhaps) rejects this offer and tells ‘Umar to make him submit to his (Ibn Ziyad’s) authority and do not let him go anywhere.

What transpires next apparently confuses the matter. ‘Umar tells Shimr (who brought Ibn Ziyad’s letter) that Husayn (a) will never submit because he has a lot of self-esteem and so on. Is this evidence that Imam Husayn (a) truly never said that earlier statement, that he would be willing to go to Yazid, or is this specifically referring to submitting to the authority of Ibn Ziyad? This is not very clear, unfortunately.

More speculation and conjecture.

Surprisingly the reader of 10,000 books does not know history nor the basic rules of Islam. Here is a quick Islam and history lesson:

In Islam, saving one's life is paramount. Engaging in warfare should also be considered a last resort. We find in Jamal, Siffin and Naharwan that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) repeatedly searched for peace and only engaged in battle as a last resort.

That is exactly what Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) did. He already informed people before leaving Makkah that he was on a path to martyrdom. Yet it was still his duty to try to persuade people including Umar ibn Sa''ad to not fight him. 

Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) did nothing more than follow Islamic principles and the sunnah of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and Imam Ali (عليه السلام).

[ShiaMan14]

On 11/28/2018 at 11:39 PM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

6. At this point, Imam Husayn (a) is being treated as a very open transgressor against the caliphate whose only punishment is death. Why didn't Imam Husayn (a) just submit to Ibn Ziyad's authority and save himself and his family even if it were to be out of dissimulation, like how it is justified for all the later Imams (even Imam Sajjad). This is open for us to speculate, perhaps there was no reason left for dissimulation, perhaps he determined it would be prohibited for him to dissimulate at this stage - we should ponder over what possible negative consequences it could have had had he dissimulated at this specific stage (not cliche things like "Islam would have been wiped out"). Perhaps he believed and knew his death would at least begin to cause ripples against the ruling system which it surely did, even if it took some time. Most intriguing is the absence of traditions from later Imams (a) explaining the reason for Imam Husayn's (a) decisions. The main theme in the traditions of Karbala are that a Divine Imam was killed while oppressed and that mourning upon him has significant spiritual value.

Once again, the reader of 10,000 books and write of 32,000 posts does not know the basic principles of dissimulation (taqiyah). Here is the basic principle of dissimulation:

If life is in danger because of religion, do dissimulation and preserve life.
If Islam is in danger, DO NOT DO dissimulation but sacrifice life.

From Medinah --> Makkah --> Karbala, Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) constantly said the same thing over and over again - Islam is in danger; seeking betterment of the Ummah, etc. So it is not a mystery nor do we have to second-guess why Imam chose martyrdom. Suffice to say Imam was following basic Islamic principles.

While the other Imams lived under the rule of the Ummayaads and Abbasaids, none of them gave bayah to the Caliphs, neither was it asked for so to say the Imams gave bayah under dissimulation is completely wrong.

[ShiaMan14]

On 11/28/2018 at 11:39 PM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

All in all, though some aspects of his (a) decisions can be reasonably understood, I still believe there is a lot of mystery to it which we will not be able to figure out or perhaps more research is required (without the immense current theological and emotional baggage attached to it, so we can at least try to understand how the earlier Muslims and companions of the Imams understood it to be - if at all possible).

The only mystery we have is how could reader of 10,000 books and writer of 32,000 posts be so wrong in his speculations and ignorant of basic Islamic principles.

The reader of 100 books and writer of 7,800 posts knows how. The "speculation" is nothing more than @Ibn al-Hussain failed attempt to trivialize Imam Hussain's (عليه السلام) great sacrifice as nothing more than happenstance or worse - a gross miscalculation. He would have everyone question if this verse is applicable to Imam Hussain (as):

[Yusufali 37:107] And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:

After all, accidentally put oneself in a bad situation and dying from it is neither heroic nor can it be considered a great sacrifice.

In another thread, @Ibn Al-Hussain presumed some facts about me without any proof. My turn:

For a fact, @Ibn Al-Hussain firmly believes Qur'an 37:107 is more applicable to him than to Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) since Imam Hussain accidentally got himself killed while @Ibn Al-Hussain sacrifices his time by spending it on ShiaChat and often feels 'persecuted' that his constant ploys against the Shia school of thought are laid to wasted by laymen such as me.

After Siffin, the army of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) wanted Abu Musa Al-Ashari as the arbitrator for his knowledge. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) wanted Malik Al-Ashtar for his wisdom. At best, @Ibn Al-HUssain is like Abu Musa Al-Ashari - lot of knowledge with no wisdom. At worst, he is more like Amr Al-Aas - playing with people's faith and emotions with devious ploys. I think he is...

[S.M.H.A.]

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235060161-what-was-achieved-out-of-Karbala/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-3183640

I will remind everyone that we are ALL internet/Unknown Entities- No one knows who SMHA or Shaiman14 are or anyone else. I don't know anyone here, and I try my best to keep it that way.  . I don't look for friendship here, it creates a problem in been Objective. I don't look to compromise Objectivity because I like his/her posts and he/she will like mine, and support me and I support him/her is not the way on the internet- A Virtual/Anonymous platform specially in the Religious section.  Nothing Personal against any one.  / Our Religion is above any person, title, friendship or group, ethnic or national grouping or allegiances. 

So really its never ever anything personal- since we do not "Really"  know each other how could it be personal.  Don't get offensive , just stick to facts. I do not exist, I am a Virtual entity - So, I don't take anything personal- A Virtual entity here today gone tomorrow- can't look for status or should have any pride. I don't do any one a favor and no one does me a favor-So, no need to thank or like or agree. Be Objective with out fear of losing friend or people who like our content or agree with us. ( Specially in Religious  Section/matters). We all do what we do and we know why we do it. 

Bottom line- Keep personal feelings/longterm friendships/allegiances / business associations out - It will be very productive-

So the views expressed in the above Thread by some are Very similar to the views expressed by this person here in this post(Below)  . Read the above post and watch the Video. 

 

Above is my Educated/logical conclusion. But you decide for yourself. 

 

Edited January 26, 2019 by S.M.H.A.

[Sirius_Bright]

These reformists are dangerous. Never saw someone saying Imam Hussain ((عليه السلام).) didn't agree with Imam Hasan's ((عليه السلام).) truce with Mu'awiyah (la) or Imam Hussain ((عليه السلام).) wanted to establish himself, etcetera. 

Reading books and being knowledgeable doesn't guarantee one to be on right path otherwise Shalmagani would not have turned against Imam Zamana (atfs) during Ghaibate Sughra neither would Qadhi Shuraih issue fatwa on obligation of Jihad against Imam Hussain ((عليه السلام).). If accumulating knowledge was only the way of being steadfast on haq then so many Sunni scholars wouldn't had been Sunni all their life. 

[S.M.H.A.]

Just watch the Video- you will understand the source of these ideas.

[S.M.H.A.]

30 minutes ago, Sirius_Bright said:

Never saw someone saying Imam Hussain ((عليه السلام).) didn't agree with Imam Hasan's ((عليه السلام).) truce with Mu'awiyah (la) or Imam Hussain ((عليه السلام).) wanted to establish himself, etcetera. 

These Trojan arguments are very dangerous. Since like Saqifa, most are either just not informed, or comfortable or worried about their internet lives or losing privileges.

If your pay attention, you will realize, if someone does not agree to a Treaty, he does not have the right to challenge it. Understanding this hidden agenda behind this lie, will make you realize that its not a benign argument. It has a sinister purpose. 

[S.M.H.A.]

57 minutes ago, Sirius_Bright said:

These reformists are dangerous.

They are Not Reformists. Its an easy and politically correct cover these days.

[S.M.H.A.]

On 1/27/2019 at 2:27 PM, Sirius_Bright said:

Reading books and being knowledgeable

Having access to data,or books which anyone (Shia or non Shia) could have these days does not equate to Knowledge. Knowledge is something very different. 

[hafeed al-zahra]

I must say that recently I find much of what @Ibn al-Hussain says to be odd. Especially his recent comments on the Imams and Sayeda Fatima (عليه السلام), it all seems very much out of line with our basic understanding of who the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) are and their merits. They are the proofs of Allah upon this Earth who never seperate from the Qur'an, in fact they are all talking Qur'ans. Yet he speaks of them like they are just a bunch of average Joes who make blunders and errors in judgement like everyone else. The very idea of his that Imam Al-Hussein (عليه السلام) would disagree with Imam Al-Hassan (عليه السلام) on anything let alone a major decision that shapes the course of Islamic history is laughable. You'd expect a better grasp of basic aqeeda from somebody who's studied several years in the hawza. It just goes to show that information ≠ knowledge.

[S.M.H.A.]

I think we should just discuss Points. We are all screen names, and these change, one goes and another ones cones. Like a relay race, baton is passed to a new user name.

So, its prudent to just focus on points.( Not Screen Names). Going to Hawza, - I can say anything- I have a thripple Phd - you will believe me. So, these things a have no value on the Internet. Even if someone did, and many friends and buddies-screen names  say they do - This is a Virtual world. "Your qualification are displayed though you writing". 

Basic Faith, is important to understand before we are dealing with anyone. Usually, if someone hides their Theological view, its red Flag. 

[ShiaMan14]

3 hours ago, hafeed al-Zahra said:

I must say that recently I find much of what @Ibn al-Hussain says to be odd. Especially his recent comments on the Imams and Sayeda Fatima (عليه السلام), it all seems very much out of line with our basic understanding of who the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) are and their merits. They are the proofs of Allah upon this Earth who never seperate from the Qur'an, in fact they are all talking Qur'ans. Yet he speaks of them like they are just a bunch of average Joes who make blunders and errors in judgement like everyone else. The very idea of his that Imam Al-Hussein (عليه السلام) would disagree with Imam Al-Hassan (عليه السلام) on anything let alone a major decision that shapes the course of Islamic history is laughable. You'd expect a better grasp of basic aqeeda from somebody who's studied several years in the hawza. It just goes to show that information ≠ knowledge.

Salaam,

More than the disagreement between Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) and Imam Hussain (عليه السلام), the audacity to call the Imams confrontational and name Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) as being the foremost. Then their cronies "like" those comments and urge others to listen to them and not judge them.

And then suggesting that Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) made a mistake and should have given bayah to Yazeed. That line of thinking comes directly from Bani Ummayya, 

1 hour ago, S.M.H.A. said:

I think we should just discuss Points. We are all screen names, and these change, one goes and another ones cones. Like a relay race, baton is passed to a new user name.

So, its prudent to just focus on points.( Not Screen Names). Going to Hawza, - I can say anything- I have a thripple Phd - you will believe me. So, these things a have no value on the Internet. Even if someone did, and many friends and buddies-screen names  say they do - This is a Virtual world. "Your qualification are displayed though you writing". 

Basic Faith, is important to understand before we are dealing with anyone. Usually, if someone hides their Theological view, its red Flag. 

I agree because names change, fitna stays the same.

Edited January 28, 2019 by ShiaMan14

[ShiaMan14]

5 hours ago, Sirius_Bright said:

These reformists are dangerous. Never saw someone saying Imam Hussain ((عليه السلام).) didn't agree with Imam Hasan's ((عليه السلام).) truce with Mu'awiyah (la) or Imam Hussain ((عليه السلام).) wanted to establish himself, etcetera. 

Reading books and being knowledgeable doesn't guarantee one to be on right path otherwise Shalmagani would not have turned against Imam Zamana (atfs) during Ghaibate Sughra neither would Qadhi Shuraih issue fatwa on obligation of Jihad against Imam Hussain ((عليه السلام).). If accumulating knowledge was only the way of being steadfast on haq then so many Sunni scholars wouldn't had been Sunni all their life. 

Salaam brother,

I can throw 100 books in the large trash can - that does not make it a library. Still a trash can.

Difference between knowledge and wisdom is the same difference between Abu Musa Al-Ashari and Malik Al-Ashtar.

[Ralvi]

I have to agree his posts really hurt my head. I mean how can you come to think of our Imam like that? How do you come to view him like that? Does he just become a figure? Rather than an Imam? It really upsets me. We as momin back everything and anything our Imams decide and do, and we do not question nor bring our bias viewpoints on it, just because we don’t understand doenst mean we project our justifications on it. Because That hides something sinister in our intentions. We need to oust those who we see might have hidden sinister intentions, because they wish to cause a rift whilst hiding under the guise of being ‘learned’.

This is objectively our biggest enemy 

[ShiaMan14]

1 hour ago, Ralvi said:

I have to agree his posts really hurt my head. I mean how can you come to think of our Imam like that? How do you come to view him like that? Does he just become a figure? Rather than an Imam? It really upsets me. We as momin back everything and anything our Imams decide and do, and we do not question nor bring our bias viewpoints on it, just because we don’t understand doenst mean we project our justifications on it. Because That hides something sinister in our intentions. We need to oust those who we see might have hidden sinister intentions, because they wish to cause a rift whilst hiding under the guise of being ‘learned’.

This is objectively our biggest enemy 

After 1,400 years of attacking from the outside and failing, the new strategy is to attack from within but in a subtle manner.". Subtle enough that one may not be offended but at the same time start pondering would Imam (عليه السلام) have pledged allegiance? Did Imam realize he made a mistake? Was Yazeed that bad - at least he was better than Ibn Ziyad? I guess Ibn Ziyad was the real culprit.

5 sentences to absolve Yazeed - see how simple it is. And it starts with "speculation".

[Ralvi]

7 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

After 1,400 years of attacking from the outside and failing, the new strategy is to attack from within but in a subtle manner.". Subtle enough that one may not be offended but at the same time start pondering would Imam (عليه السلام) have pledged allegiance? Did Imam realize he made a mistake? Was Yazeed that bad - at least he was better than Ibn Ziyad? I guess Ibn Ziyad was the real culprit.

5 sentences to absolve Yazeed - see how simple it is. And it starts with "speculation".

EXACTLY 

this is their tactic, and despite it being a very subhuman one it’s very effective. We need to oust them, maybe then they might feel embarrassed and ashamed. But then again what kind of shame must you possess to talk about your master and superior like that? 

Its hilarious honestly 

and I don’t even know how you read all his stuff, I could not even stomach it, after 2 sentences I was done! Like that was literally painful! Like he was REACHING, really trying, so embarrassing honestly 

You must have real thick skin to sit through that nonsense 

Edited January 28, 2019 by Ralvi

[ShiaMan14]

3 minutes ago, Ralvi said:

EXACTLY 

this is their tactic, and despite it being a very subhuman one it’s very effective. We need to oust them, maybe then they might feel embarrassed and ashamed. But then again what kind of shame must you possess to talk about your master and superior like that? 

Its hilarious honestly 

There is a chain of narrators for the Sermon of Fadak that goes to Hz Zainab (عليه السلام). @Ibn al-Hussain thinks that a 5-yr old girl in 11 hijri (that is how he referred to Hz Zainab (as )) could not have memorized the sermon because she had no motivation to do so.

What more can you say?

[Ralvi]

2 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

There is a chain of narrators for the Sermon of Fadak that goes to Hz Zainab (عليه السلام). @Ibn al-Hussain thinks that a 5-yr old girl in 11 hijri (that is how he referred to Hz Zainab (as )) could not have memorized the sermon because she had no motivation to do so.

What more can you say?

Astaghfirullah rabbi wa atoobo illay 

may Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) keep us strong in our faith and our LOVE and DEDICATION to the holy family of the beloved seal of Prophets(SAWAS)

We are nothing more than servants to those shining lights. 

Edited January 28, 2019 by Ralvi

[ShiaMan14]

20 minutes ago, Ralvi said:

and I don’t even know how you read all his stuff, I could not even stomach it, after 2 sentences I was done! Like that was literally painful! Like he was REACHING, really trying, so embarrassing honestly 

You must have real thick skin to sit through that nonsense 

I have been through a lot of nonsense on ShiaChat but this was by far the worst. Nothing turned me off ShiaChat more than this.

It took 2 months to write a response because I was going to let it go but his comments about Hz Zainab (عليه السلام) was the final straw for me.

[Ralvi]

6 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

I have been through a lot of nonsense on ShiaChat but this was by far the worst. Nothing turned me off ShiaChat more than this.

It took 2 months to write a response because I was going to let it go but his comments about Hz Zainab (عليه السلام) was the final straw for me.

Exactly, for me the worst were those who covertly try to insult Sayeda(SA). and now their going to Sayeda Zainab(SA), how awful do you have to be to do this? These people don’t like women at all. And they certainly have no respect for these holy ladies, and absolutely have no respect for our Imams(عليه السلام) or the Prophet (SAWAS). But they will pretend and say they are ‘Shia’. I have a hard time letting it go too. Maybe I should since honestly it’s a waste of time but I have limits too lol

but certainly it’s our duty to call out their fallacies for others to see

Edited January 28, 2019 by Ralvi

[ShiaMan14]

5 minutes ago, Ralvi said:

but certainly it’s our duty to call out their fallacies for others to see

True words my brother.

[Ralvi]

Thanks for your posts it was really informative I hope others were able to learn and see those who lurk and covertly try to cause tension and therefore destruction. Young Adults especially need to know this 

[Ibn al-Hussain]

While there does not seem to be any reason for me to engage in this discussion, especially after multiple confessions by the OP that he is not well-versed, he has not studied enough, or is a layman, and probably thinks Imam Husayn (a) wanted to bring a reform in the nation of his grandfather (p) by giving out roses on the road to Kufa, I will share all the reports on Imam Husayn (a) being in disagreement with Imam Hasan (a) initially on the Sulh, but later accepting his position. Those interested and with some basic knowledge of Arabic (bare minimum requirement for even entering and concerning yourself with such extensive discussions) can read it themselves:

Baladhuri (d. 278) in his Ansab al-Ashraf, v. 3, pg. 149:

 و كان الحسين بن علي منكرا لصلح الحسن معاوية فلما وقع ذلك الصلح دخل جندب بن عبد الله الأزدي و المسيب بن نجبة الفزاري و سليمان بن صرد الخزاعي و سعيد بن عبد الله الحنفي على الحسين و هو قائم في قصر الكوفة يأمر غلمته بحمل المتاع و يستحثهم فسلّموا عليه، فلمّا رأى ما بهم من الكآبة و سوء الهيئة، تكلم فقال: إن أمر الله كان قدرا مقدورا، إن أمر الله كان مفعولا. و ذكر كراهيّته لذلك الصلح، و قال

لكنت طيّب النفس بالموت دونه و لكن أخي عزم عليّ و ناشدني فأطعته و كأنما يحزّ أنفي بالمواسي و يشرّح قلبي بالمدى و قد قال الله عز و جل: «فعسى أن تكرهوا شيئا و يجعل الله فيه خيرا كثيرا» (19/ النساء) و قال: «و عسى أن تكرهوا شيئا و هو خير لكم و عسى أن تحبّوا شيئا و هو شرّ لكم و الله يعلم و أنتم لا تعلمون» (215/ البقرة). فقال له جندب: و الله ما بنا إلّا أن تضاموا و تنتقصوا فأمّا نحن فإنا نعلم أن القوم سيطلبون موّدتنا بكل ما قدروا عليه، و لكن حاش للّه أن نوازر الظالمين، و نظاهر المجرمين و نحن لكم شيعة و لهم عدوّ و قال سليمان بن صرد الخزاعي: إن هذا الكلام الذي كلّمك به جندب هو الذي أردنا (أن) نكلّمك به كلّنا. فقال: رحمكم الله صدقتم و بررتم

و عرض له سليمان بن صرد، و سعيد بن عبد الله الحنفي بالرجوع عن الصلح فقال: هذا ما لا يكون و لا يصلح. قالوا: فمتى أنت سائر؟ قال: غدا إن شاء الله. فلمّا سار خرجوا معه، فلمّا جاوزوا دير هند، نظر الحسين إلى الكوفة فتمثل قول زميل بن أبير الفزاري و هو ابن أم دينار

Baladhuri (d. 278) in his Ansab al-Ashraf, v. 3, pg. 150:

قالوا: و لمّا بايع الحسن معاوية و مضى تلاقت الشيعة بإظهار الحسرة و الندم على ترك القتال و الإذعان بالبيعة، فخرجت إليه جماعة منهم فخطّئوه في الصلح و عرضوا له بنقض ذلك، فأباه و أجابهم بخلاف ما أرادوه عليهثم إنّهم أتو الحسين فعرضوا عليه ما قالوا للحسن و أخبروه بما ردّ عليهم فقال: قد كان صلح و كانت بيعة كنت لها كارها، فانتظروا ما دام هذا الرجل حيّا، فإن يهلك نظرنا و نظرتم. فانصرفوا عنه، فلم يكن شي‏ء أحبّ إليهم و إلى الشيعة من هلاك معاوية، و هم يأخذون أعطيتهم و يغزون مغازيهم

Tabari (d. 310) in his Tarikh, v. 5, pg. 160:

سنه 40 و دخل الناس في طاعه معاويه، و دخل معاويه الكوفه، فبايعه الناس قال زياد بن عبد الله، عن عوانه، و ذكر نحو حديث المسروقى، عن عثمان بن عبد الرحمن هذا، و زاد فيه: و كتب الحسن الى معاويه في الصلح، و طلب الامان، و قال الحسن للحسين و لعبد الله بن جعفر: انى قد كتبت الى معاويه في الصلح و طلب الامان، فقال له الحسين: نشدتك الله ان تصدق احدوثه معاويه، و تكذب احدوثه على! فقال له الحسن: اسكت، فانا اعلم بالأمر منك‏

Ibn A’tham al-Kufi (d. after 320 AH) in his al-Futuh, v. 4, pg. 296:

قال: فالتفت الحسين إلى أخيه الحسن فقال: و الله لو اجتمع الخلق طرا على أن لا يكون الذي كان إذا ما استطاعوا، و لقد كنت كارها لهذا الأمر و لكني لم أحبّ أن أغضبك، إذ كنت أخي و شقيقي

Ibn Hamdun (d. 562) in his al-Tadhkirah al-Hamduniyyah, v. 2, pg. 187:

 وكان بينه وبين أخيه الحسن كلام، فقيل له: ادخل على أخيك فهو أكبر منك، فقال: إني سمعت جدي صلّى الله عليه وسلّم يقول: أيّما اثنين جرى بينهما كلام فطلب أحدهما رضى الآخر كان سابقه إلى الجنة؛ وأنا أكره أن أسبق أخي الأكبر، فبلغ قوله الحسن فأتاه عاجلا

Khwarazmi (d. 568) in his Maqtal al-Husayn, v. 1, pg. 221:

 قيل: تهاجر-الحسن و الحسين-فأراد قوم أن يصلحوا ما بينهما فسألوا الحسين أن يبدأ بالحسن، فقال: «إنّ أبا محمّد-يعني: الحسن-، أكبر مني، و قد قال رسول اللّه صلّى اللّه عليه و آله ما من اثنين تهاجرا ثمّ بدأ أحدهما بمصالحة الآخر إلاّ كانت درجته أعلى من درجة الآخر، و إني لا احبّ أن تكون درجتي أعلى من درجة أخي، فأخبروا الحسن بذلك، فقال: صدق» ، فقام إليه و بدأ بالسّلام عليه

Ibn Asakir (d. 571) in Tarikh al-Dimashq, v. 13, pg. 267:

أن معاوية كان يعلم أن الحسن كان اكره الناس للفتنة فلما توفي علي بعث إلى الحسن فأصلح الذي بينه وبينه سرا واعطاه معاوية عهدا أن حدث به حدث والحسن حي ليسمينه وليجعلن هذا الأمر إليه فلما توثق منه الحسن قال ابن جعفر والله أني لجالس عند الحسن إذا أخذت لاقوم فجذب ثوبي وقال يا هناه اجلس فجلست قال أني قد رأيت رايا واني احب أن تتابعني عليه قال قلت ما هو قال رأيت أن اعمد إلى المدينة فأنزلها واخلي بين معاوية وبين هذا الحديث فقد طالت الفتنة وسفكت فيها الدماء وقطعت فيها الأرحام وقطعت السبل وعطلت الفروج يعني الثغور فقال ابن جعفر جزاك الله عن أمة محمد خيرا فأنا معك على هذا الحديث فقال الحسن ادع لي الحسين فبعث إلى حسين فأتاه فقال أي اخي أني قد رأيت رأيا واني احب أن تتابعني عليه قال ما هو قال فقص عليه الذي قال لابن جعفر قال الحسين اعيذك بالله أن تكذب عليا في قبره وتصدق معاوية فقال الحسن والله ما اردت امرا قط إلا حالفتني إلى غيره والله لقد هممت أن اقذفك في بيت فأطينه عليك حتى اقضي امري قال فلما رأى الحسين غضبه قال أنت أكبر ولد علي وأنت خليفته وامرنا لأمرك تبع فافعل ما بدا لك

Ibn Asakir (d. 571) in his Tarikh Dimashq, v. 14, pg. 181

جرى بين الحسن بن علي وأخيه الحسين كلام حتى تهاجرا فلما أتى على الحسن ثلاثة أيام تأثم من هجر أخيه فأقبل إلى الحسين وهو جالس فأكب على رأسه فقبله فلما جلس الحسن قال له الحسين إن الذي منعني من ابتدائك والقيام إليك أنك أحق بالفضل مني فكرهت أن أنازعك ما أنت أحق به

Shi’I scholar Ibn Shahr Ashub (d. 588) in his al-Manaqib v. 4, pg. 23:

وَ دَخَلَ الْحُسَيْنُ ع عَلَى أَخِيهِ بَاكِياً ثُمَّ خَرَجَ ضَاحِكاً فَقَالَ لَهُ مَوَالِيهِ مَا هَذَا قَالَ أَتَعَجَّبُ مِنْ دُخُولِي عَلَى إِمَامٍ أُرِيدُ أَنْ أُعْلِمَهُ فَقُلْتُ مَا ذَا دَعَاكَ إِلَى تَسْلِيمِ الْخِلَافَةِ فَقَالَ الَّذِي دَعَا أَبَاكَ فِيمَا تَقَدَّمَ. قَالَ: فَطَلَبَ مُعَاوِيَةُ الْبَيْعَةَ مِنَ الْحُسَيْنِ فَقَالَ الْحَسَنُ يَا مُعَاوِيَةُ لَا تُكْرِهْهُ فَإِنَّهُ لَنْ يُبَايِعَ أَبَداً أَوْ يُقْتَلَ وَ لَنْ يُقْتَلَ حَتَّى يُقْتَلَ أَهْلُ بَيْتِهِ وَ لَنْ يُقْتَلَ أَهْلُ بَيْتِهِ حَتَّى يُقْتَلَ أَهْلُ الشَّامِ

Shi’I scholar ‘Ali b. Hasan al-Tabrisi (d. 600) in his Mishkat al-Anwar, pg. 365:

عن الرضا (عليه السلام) قال: اهتجر الحسن والحسين (عليهما السلام) فجاء محمد بن الحنفية إلى الحسين (عليه السلام) فقال: يا أبا عبد الله، ألا تذهب إلى أبي محمد فإن له سنا، فقال له الحسين (عليه السلام): سمعت جدي رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله) يقول: ما متهاجران يبدأ أحدهما صاحبه بالسلام إلا كان البادئ السابق إلى الجنة، وقد كرهت أن أسبق أبا محمد إلى الجنة، قال: فمضى محمد إلى الحسن (عليه السلام) فأخبره، فقال: صدق أبو عبد الله، اذهب بنا إليه

Ibn Abi al-Hadid (d. after 650) citing al-Mada’ini in his Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, v. 16, pg. 16:

فقال أخوه الحسين ع لقد كنت كارها لما كان طيب النفس على سبيل أبي حتى عزم علي أخي فأطعته و كأنما يجذ أنفي

Shi’I scholar Irbilli (d. 692) in Kashf al-Ghummah, v. 2, pg. 33

وَ قِيلَ‏ كَانَ بَيْنَهُ وَ بَيْنَ الْحَسَنِ ع كَلَامٌ فَقِيلَ لِلْحُسَيْنِ ع ادْخُلْ‏ عَلَى أَخِيكَ فَهُوَ أَكْبَرُ مِنْكَ فَقَالَ إِنِّي سَمِعْتُ جَدِّي ص يَقُولُ أَيُّمَا اثْنَيْنِ جَرَى بَيْنَهُمَا كَلَامٌ فَطَلَبَ أَحَدُهُمَا رِضَى الْآخَرِ كَانَ سَابِقَهُ إِلَى الْجَنَّةِ وَ أَنَا أَكْرَهُ أَنْ أَسْبِقَ أَخِيَ الْأَكْبَرَ فَبَلَغَ قَوْلُهُ الْحَسَنَ ع فَأَتَاهُ عَاجِلًا

Shi’I scholar Irbilli (d. 692) in his Kashf al-Ghummah from Abi Mikhnaf (d. 157), v. 2, pg. 35:

قَالَ أَبُو مِخْنَفٍ‏ كَانَ مَوْلَانَا الْحُسَيْنُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ ص يُظْهِرُ الْكَرَاهِيَةَ لِمَا كَانَ مِنْ أَمْرِ أَخِيهِ الْحَسَنِ ع مَعَ مُعَاوِيَةَ وَ يَقُولُ لَوْ حُزَّ أَنْفِي بِمُوسَى لَكَانَ أَحَبَّ إِلَيَّ مِمَّا فَعَلَهُ أَخِي

فَمَا سَاءَنِي شَيْ‏ءٌ كَمَا سَاءَنِي أَخِي‏   /  وَ لَمْ أَرْضَ لِلَّهِ الَّذِي كَانَ صَانِعاً

وَ لَكِنْ إِذَا مَا اللَّهُ أَمْضَى قَضَاءَهُ‏  /  فَلَا بُدَّ يَوْماً أَنْ تَرَى الْأَمْرَ وَاقِعاً    

وَ لَوْ أَنَّنِي شُووِرْتُ فِيهِ لِمَا رَأَوْا  /  قَرِيبَهُمُ إِلَّا عَنِ الْأَمْرِ شَاسِعاً

وَ لَمْ أَكُ أَرْضَى بِالَّذِي قَدْ رَضُوا بِهِ‏        /  وَ لَوْ جَمَعَتْ كُلٌّ إِلَيَّ الْمَجَامِعَا

وَ لَوْ حُزَّ أَنْفِي قَبْلَ ذَلِكَ حَزَّهُ‏  /  بِمُوسَى لَمَا أَلْفَيْتُ لِلصُّلْحِ تَابِعا

Abi Mikhnaf quotes a few lines of poetry from Imam Husayn (a) upset at what has happened but accepting the decision. Irbilli then writes:

إن صح أن هذه الأبيات من شعره ع فكل منهما يرى المصلحة بحسب حاله و مقتضى زمانه و كلاهما ع مصيبان فيما اعتمدا و هما إمامان سيدان قاما أو قعدا فلا يتطرق عليهما مقال و هما أعرف بالأحوال في كل حال‏

May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) protect us from a fairy-tale theology.

Wasalam

Edited January 28, 2019 by Ibn al-Hussain

[hafeed al-zahra]

I do find much of what he says odd, like I said, but it is a big sin to accuse a mu'min of being an enemy trying to attack from within, so could we please avoid speaking about the brother like that. Not every disagreement has to lead to accusations like that.

[haideriam]

Whilst the deep down intention is appreciated but the the methodology is so so counter productive. This trolling, ad hominems , blanket over crowding shows that there are other reasons in play which have overtaken your primary pure intent.  And one of the biggest reason of these negative traits which includes lying by some to give false airs is complete and utter lack of knowledge. And it is very easy to slip from mal-intent to lying for both are in the negative arc. 

There are two ways of dealing with this and surely it is not debating with brother Ibn al-Hussain for his knowledge is way beyond all of us which is Shiaman14, Salsabeel, S.M.H.A, Sirius Bright and myself that when we try and debate we expose 2 things, our ignorance and our untamed ego and to the wider audience we begin to look and seen like a cult. 

Shiaism is knowledge based not jahalat or any negative trait based and as soon as you see one of the jahalat traits manifest just remember you are moving away from haq rather than defending it. 

I only wish like the years past that we either had some other senior students of the Hawzas or some maulana partake with brother Ibn al Hussain for otherwise it is exposing our weakness of running away or blanketing the issues. 

I pray this is taken with a positive understanding.

[S.M.H.A.]

6 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

 I will share all the reports on Imam Husayn (a) being in disagreement with Imam Hasan (a) initially on the Sulh, but later accepting his position.

Here what you said before

Quote

1. Imam Husayn (a) did not agree with the truce Imam Hasan (a) made with Mu'awiyah - but for one reason or another, he continued to live under his caliphate

I do not need to explain it its self explanatory. 

I am not even going to ask, what was the need for this info, and what were you trying to accomplish with it. If the end result was the submission to the will of his Mawla.

There is not law prohibiting a discussion, or tactic  or need to understand . Like the Angels did, they had a questions wanted to understand and you know what happened once the answer was given to them. If the end result was the submission to the will of his Mawla.

This information of what use in that discussion except for what your first quote implies. A disagreement. Which is useful information as it was also utilized in the Video, to given a certain impression. You understand what that is I do not need to expand on it. 

Edited January 28, 2019 by S.M.H.A.

[S.M.H.A.]

Just so there is no confusion here is Your post.

Quote

Swimming past all the exaggerated stories, fabrications, lies, overly-dramatic interpretations that have been formulated and propagated over the centuries regarding the event of Karbala and Imam Husayn (a), as well as the absurd interpretations where modern terminologies are applied to his actions (I.e. he stood up for justice, freedom, liberty and all the other conflated jargon) I believe the narrative as follows, though I still have many questions which I believe we can only speculate over:

1. Imam Husayn (a) did not agree with the truce Imam Hasan (a) made with Mu'awiyah - but for one reason or another, he continued to live under his caliphate (although we do have some references mentioning some Kufans had written to Imam Husayn during this period as well). 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.

2. When Yazid came into power, he had officially broken the last article in the treaty between Imam Hasan (a) and Mu'awiyah. Imam Husayn (a) was not going to take this and hence when he was asked to give his allegiance he refused. The situation became dangerous for the Imam, so he left Medina with his family members and went to Makkah. At this point, the Imam's agenda is not very clear as per historical records and whether he wanted to establish a government or engage in a war. It really does seem that he (a) may have it as a likely option. The famous statement says that he was leaving to "request" or "seek" (طلب) betterment (اصلاح) in the nation of his grandfather. How he was going to go and "request" or "seek" this, and from who, it is not clear for me when he is leaving Medina.

3. 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. Now whether in hindsight you believe it was a smart move or not, or better options were available - particularly when everyone who wished well for him were telling him not to go - we could speculate all day. However, at the end of the day the Imam (a) believed it was the best decision. 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). If you believe that the Imams are not completely infallible in the application of certain laws, then you have two options: 1) You still say that due to his knowledge and insight, he made the best decision, 2) or there were some aspects that were hidden from him which he did not take into consideration and perhaps he was eager to carry out his plans. If it was the latter, then in hindsight we could argue that there could have been better options. 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. 

4. In Zubalah, when he hears the news of Muslim and Hani being killed (refer to Maqtal of Abi Mikhnaf), he literally asked people to leave, telling them they have absolutely no responsibility anymore. This is because the purpose for which they were heading towards Kufa for was not going to be achieved anymore (due to the betrayal of the Kufans). If the purpose was not going to be achieved, it would be utterly pointless for these individuals to have been killed. This is what Abu Mikhnaf says in his Maqtal:

فتفرق الناس عنه تفرقا، فاخذوا يمينا وشمالا حتى بقي في اصحابه الذين جاؤا معه من المدينة، وانما فعل ذلك لانه ظن انما اتبعه الاعراب لانهم ظنوا انه يأتي بلدا قد استقامت له طاعة اهله فكره ان يسيروا معه الا وهم يعلمون علام يقدمون، وقد علم انهم إذا بين لهم لم يصحبه الا من يريد مواساته والموت معه

People began to run away in all directions until only those who accompanied him from Medina remained. He (a) did this because he thought the Bedouins had followed him because they thought they will be going to a land whose people's obedience was established. He (a) detested that they accompany him unless they knew what they were heading towards. He most definitely knew that if he clarified it for them, no one will accompany him (a) except one who voluntarily wants to be with him (a) and wants to die with him (a). [Source]

5. This is when it becomes difficult to understand Imam Husayn's (a) actions. He decided to keep moving towards Kufa - why? Was he thinking he could still go inside Kufa and get the support of the Kufans? Was he thinking he could perhaps go to Kufa to talk to Ibn Ziyad himself and reach some sort of reconciliation? When his path is blocked by the army of Ibn Ziyad, scholars like Sayyid Murtadha mention a very interesting point:

ولما رأى أن لا سبيل له إلى العود ولا إلى دخول الكوفة، سلك طريق الشام سائرا نحو يزيد بن معاوية لعلمه عليه السلام بأنه على ما به أرق من ابن زياد وأصحابه، فسار عليه السلام حتى قدم عليه عمر بن سعد في العسكر العظيم

When he saw that there was no way of return and no way of entering Kufa, he headed towards Sham, towards Yazid b. Mu'awiyah because he (a) knew he (Yazid) was gentler than Ibn Ziyad and his companions. He (a) travelled until 'Umar b. Sa'd arrived with a large army (I.e. to block him). [Source]

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. Even leading up to the day of Ashura, during his conversations with 'Umar b. Sa'd, we find him repeatedly saying he does not want to engage in war, to allow him (a) to leave and go to a faraway land so he can live like a normal person amongst the people. In some earlier works it is also repeatedly mentioned that he says, أو ان أضع يدي في يد يزيد ابن عمى ليرى في رأيه "or let me put my hand in the hand of Yazid the son of my uncle, so he can he decide what he wants to do regarding me."  The reliability of this phrase has been hotly debated right from the beginning, though nevertheless, it does appear in numerous early works. ‘Umar sends a letter to Ibn Ziyad saying Husayn (a) has decided to be good and go back, or we can send him to Yazid so they can resolve their own personal issues. Ibn Ziyad (due to the influence of Shimr perhaps) rejects this offer and tells ‘Umar to make him submit to his (Ibn Ziyad’s) authority and do not let him go anywhere.

What transpires next apparently confuses the matter. ‘Umar tells Shimr (who brought Ibn Ziyad’s letter) that Husayn (a) will never submit because he has a lot of self-esteem and so on. Is this evidence that Imam Husayn (a) truly never said that earlier statement, that he would be willing to go to Yazid, or is this specifically referring to submitting to the authority of Ibn Ziyad? This is not very clear, unfortunately.

6. At this point, Imam Husayn (a) is being treated as a very open transgressor against the caliphate whose only punishment is death. Why didn't Imam Husayn (a) just submit to Ibn Ziyad's authority and save himself and his family even if it were to be out of dissimulation, like how it is justified for all the later Imams (even Imam Sajjad). This is open for us to speculate, perhaps there was no reason left for dissimulation, perhaps he determined it would be prohibited for him to dissimulate at this stage - we should ponder over what possible negative consequences it could have had had he dissimulated at this specific stage (not cliche things like "Islam would have been wiped out"). Perhaps he believed and knew his death would at least begin to cause ripples against the ruling system which it surely did, even if it took some time. Most intriguing is the absence of traditions from later Imams (a) explaining the reason for Imam Husayn's (a) decisions. The main theme in the traditions of Karbala are that a Divine Imam was killed while oppressed and that mourning upon him has significant spiritual value.

All in all, though some aspects of his (a) decisions can be reasonably understood, I still believe there is a lot of mystery to it which we will not be able to figure out or perhaps more research is required (without the immense current theological and emotional baggage attached to it, so we can at least try to understand how the earlier Muslims and companions of the Imams understood it to be - if at all possible).

[S.M.H.A.]

On 1/28/2019 at 12:55 AM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

 he has not studied enough, or is a layman, and probably thinks Imam Husayn (a) wanted to bring a reform in the nation of his grandfather (p) by giving out roses on the road to Kufa,

Before you use anymore conjecture, read this

[786:)]

Why is it so far fetched for Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) to have a difference of opinion as his brother? Why can’t they have a variance in personality? Why do we always take the human out of the Imams when it comes to their day-to-day and try to portray them as some sort of robots.

[S.M.H.A.]

7 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

 

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). If you believe that the Imams are not completely infallible in the application of certain laws, then you have two options: 1) You still say that due to his knowledge and insight, he made the best decision, 2) or there were some aspects that were hidden from him which he did not take into consideration and perhaps he was eager to carry out his plans. If it was the latter, then in hindsight we could argue that there could have been better options. 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. 

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.

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235060161-what-was-achieved-out-of-Karbala/?page=4&tab=comments#comment-3183865

All the if and the option you mentioned above, Can you tell us, ( you are NOT  forced to do so, What is your position - this will help us understand your though process and will clarify any confusion? ( you are entitled to your position, whatever it is. I have no problem with the person in the Video - I don;t agree - but I know what his faith is. and why he thinks the way he thinks. If he believes that a person can make a mistake, well he made that clear. so his thesis is based on that) 

What is your position? Which is the bases of your thesis. 

( if do not want to give your theological position, there is nothing to discuss- because I don't know the basis of your thesis above. I do not want to speculate.  I like to have clear understanding, and as I said your position is your's and you don't need to explain it me or justify)- 

If you think they make mistakes- your thesis in right on that theme. We do not  agree And we part ways. This way I will know who I am dealing with.  

Edited January 28, 2019 by S.M.H.A.

[S.M.H.A.]

If there is no answer.

Its best to just discuss  point.

Here are some, I will add more...