Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Is there some mystery to the tragedy of Karbala?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

The tragedy of Karbala failed to topple the caliph of the time, it never managed to change the status quo at any point in Islamic history, neither did it bring about any real revolutionary social or moral change for the vast majority of the Ummah - apart from the cultivation of 'aza that we still participate in today. This tragedy provided no 'advantage' to the Ahl al-Bayt (a) either, in fact it always seemed to have brought them a great deal of pain. 

If the events that took place were solely about good vs. bad/truth vs. falsehood, why did it necessitate such sacrifices from Imam Hussain (a)? And why him, in particular, when the other nine Imams were also under similar leaderships and circumstances? Did it have something to do with Imam Hussain's personality, specifically, that made him more bold than the others?

Is there some greater reality here that we have not been made aware of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Hussaini
7 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

The tragedy of Karbala failed to topple the caliph of the time, it never managed to change the status quo at any point in Islamic history, neither did it bring about any real revolutionary social or moral change for the vast majority of the Ummah - apart from the cultivation of 'aza that we still participate in today. This tragedy provided no 'advantage' to the Ahl al-Bayt (a) either, in fact it always seemed to have brought them a great deal of pain. 

If the events that took place were solely about good vs. bad/truth vs. falsehood, why did it necessitate such sacrifices from Imam Hussain (a)? And why him, in particular, when the other nine Imams were also under similar leaderships and circumstances? Did it have something to do with Imam Hussain's personality, specifically, that made him more bold than the others?

Is there some greater reality here that we have not been made aware of?

The difference is the fact that imam hussain got slaughtered (literally) The other imams were protected from death by sword so they got poisoned instead . His death cannot be compared to anyone else,  Yet most similair to his death is what happened to prophet Yahya (عليه السلام). the part that makes Karbala also special Is the  fact that it wasnt just a war between arabs. But rather was the army of Hussein full of diverse  Cultures, backgrounds and religions all fighting together against injustice.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
53 minutes ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

The tragedy of Karbala failed to topple the caliph of the time, it never managed to change the status quo at any point in Islamic history, neither did it bring about any real revolutionary social or moral change for the vast majority of the Ummah - apart from the cultivation of 'aza that we still participate in today. This tragedy provided no 'advantage' to the Ahl al-Bayt (a) either, in fact it always seemed to have brought them a great deal of pain. 

If the events that took place were solely about good vs. bad/truth vs. falsehood, why did it necessitate such sacrifices from Imam Hussain (a)? And why him, in particular, when the other nine Imams were also under similar leaderships and circumstances? Did it have something to do with Imam Hussain's personality, specifically, that made him more bold than the others?

Is there some greater reality here that we have not been made aware of?

Let us take this even further with your line of reasoning. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) created mankind and from that mankind chose prophets to lead mankind to the right path. How many humans are there? OVER 7.8 BILLION. How many Muslims from this number are there currently? About 2 Billion. This means around 6 Billion are non believers. What was the point of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) creating us when not everyone is Muslim and most of mankind will perish as a non muslims? Why did God create prophets and put them through countless struggles and trials and tribulations and their follows just so that what? That he punishes them for no reason? Creating them so disbelievers killed them? 

Now from this percentage of the muslim population that are 20% of mankind of which would be potentially "muslim" and in that 20% there are hundreds of schools of thought. So what? After all of this what was the point if so called Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) cant even get all of mankind to follow His religion... What is this claim Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) claimed about truth vs falsehood, good vs evil? What status quo? What revolution to society and morals? Not even Muslim countries agree with each other. Only 20% of humans, that is minuscule in comparison...124,000 prophets for that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

The tragedy of Karbala failed to topple the caliph of the time, it never managed to change the status quo at any point in Islamic history, neither did it bring about any real revolutionary social or moral change for the vast majority of the Ummah

Salam alaikom

Just imagine for a second if Imam al-Husayn (عليه السلام) pledged allegiance to Yazeed (LA). Imam al-Husayn says a man like himself doesn't pledge allegiance to a man like Yazeed. If he did, good would forever become subject to evil. Yazeed would destroy the religion of Islam. He already drank alcohol and listened to music. Imagine what he could do if he had Imam al-Husayn (عليه السلام) to justify his actions.

But rather, we see that when the moazzin said in the palace of Yazeed 'ashhado anna mohammadan rasoolullah', it became clear that the party of Allah had been victorious, and the party of Shaytan had been defeated. Imam al-Husayn didn't lose. As long as the remembrance of his grandfather Rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) remains, we see the victory of Husayn (عليه السلام).

Even if you look today, there are almost 300 million Shia of Husayn. Every year they come and commemorate the tragedy of Ashura. Look at the shrine of Husayn and that of Abbas. Where is the mausoleum of Husayn and where is the mausoleum of Yazeed?

Imam al-Husayn (عليه السلام) may have physically been killed, but his stand saved the religion of Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
17 minutes ago, Ethics said:

Let us take this even further with your line of reasoning. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) created mankind and from that mankind chose prophets to lead mankind to the right path. How many humans are there? OVER 7.8 BILLION. How many Muslims from this number are there currently? About 2 Billion. This means around 6 Billion are non believers. What was the point of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) creating us when not everyone is Muslim and most of mankind will perish as a non muslims? Why did God create prophets and put them through countless struggles and trials and tribulations and their follows just so that what? That he punishes them for no reason? Creating them so disbelievers killed them? 

Now from this percentage of the muslim population that are 20% of mankind of which would be potentially "muslim" and in that 20% there are hundreds of schools of thought. So what? After all of this what was the point if so called Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) cant even get all of mankind to follow His religion... What is this claim Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) claimed about truth vs falsehood, good vs evil? What status quo? What revolution to society and morals? Not even Muslim countries agree with each other. Only 20% of humans, that is minuscule in comparison...124,000 prophets for that...

I thought I had asked a question that would bring us together and give me some more insight, not push us down a big, fat slippery slope. 

My inquiry isn't "what was the point of Karbala?", my question is "might have there been something more to Karbala and Imam Hussain (a) that we do not know?" I am not trying to determine some big truth over here. It's a question asked out of curiosity, that is all. Because I do genuinely feel that there was something going on behind the scenes, something that the Imam (a) had been given knowledge of. And this attracted his companions towards him too. Your entire [fallacious] argument is completely misplaced. If you have any ideas as to anything else that might have been going on in the grand masterplan of Allah, feel free to comment on that. Otherwise, save the opportunity for another thread, Insha'Allah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
11 minutes ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

I thought I had asked a question that would bring us together and give me some more insight, not push us down a big, fat slippery slope. 

My inquiry isn't "what was the point of Karbala?", my question is "might have there been something more to Karbala and Imam Hussain (a) that we do not know?" I am not trying to determine some big truth over here. It's a question asked out of curiosity, that is all. Because I do genuinely feel that there was something going on behind the scenes, something that the Imam (a) had been given knowledge of. And this attracted his companions towards him too. Your entire [fallacious] argument is completely misplaced. If you have any ideas as to anything else that might have been going on in the grand masterplan of Allah, feel free to comment on that. Otherwise, save the opportunity for another thread, Insha'Allah.

This is a discussion thread in the general islamic dicussion topic. My intention is not to push anyone down anywhere. My intention is to understand your ideology. If you cannot answer my questions then say you do not know the answer or at least tell me what is fallacious about the same questions I got from your own post? Everything I said pertains to the topic at hand and falls under this forum topic.

You claim you are not questioning the point of karbala but your first half of the post, poses your beliefs that "nothing came out of the event of karbala" as you list anything but positive outcomes. I highly suggest you actually read on the events leading up to the history of Karbala AND after it. Also touch up on the notions of existence, free will, prophethood, and imamate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Ethics said:

This is a discussion thread in the general islamic dicussion topic. My intention is not to push anyone down anywhere. My intention is to understand your ideology. If you cannot answer my questions then say you do not know the answer or at least tell me what is fallacious about the same questions I got from your own post? Everything I said pertains to the topic at hand and falls under this forum topic.

You claim you are not questioning the point of karbala but your first half of the post, poses your beliefs that "nothing came out of the event of karbala" as you list anything but positive outcomes. I highly suggest you actually read on the events leading up to the history of Karbala AND after it. Also touch up on the notions of existence, free will, prophethood, and imamate.

I have no "ideology." Your comment was fallacious because you are pushing words into my mouth, questioning me over something that is an huge spin-off of my original post. I understand that you are trying to be creative, but this question requires a different style of creativity. I was looking for something that would give me spiritual insight into Karbala. Even if it's subjective and opinion-based. Even if it's just an anecdote. You're going off on tangents about disbelievers and prophets and religion, when my question was not posed for that.

My post is not questioning the point of Karbala. It is presenting the historical facts (which you don't seem to be too amused by), and then asking if there was something more to Karbala than what we know. It's obviously a question for a more spiritually inclined audience. Maybe not your cup of tea.

I highly suggest that, for next time, you redirect your focus on engaging with the actual question in the title before presenting offshoots to make yourself look smarter. It's just basic etiquette of having a dialogue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
Quote

[Mod Note: This reply was removed by a Moderator at the member's request.]

Thank you for your response. What is the greatest lesson you have taken away from Karbala? 

Edited by Hameedeh
Mod Note
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
2 minutes ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

I have no "ideology." Y Even if it's subjective and opinion-based. Even if it's just an anecdote.

My post is not questioning the point of Karbala. It is presenting the historical facts (which you don't seem to be too amused by), and then asking if there was something more to Karbala than what we know.

I highly suggest that, for next time, you redirect your focus on engaging with the actual question in the title before presenting offshoots to make yourself look smarter. It's just basic etiquette of having a dialogue. 

Aha thank you very much. Now I understand. No need to deflect so much.  You would not start your discussion with many false narratives that go against even non muslim historians take on the event of Karbala. Not a single true follower will come up with such conclusions that you have claimed below. If you were truly looking to discuss genuinely and gain some "spiritual insight" you would have further examined my inquiry to your thought process.
 

2 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

The tragedy of Karbala failed to topple the caliph of the time, it never managed to change the status quo at any point in Islamic history, neither did it bring about any real revolutionary social or moral change for the vast majority of the Ummah - apart from the cultivation of 'aza that we still participate in today. This tragedy provided no 'advantage' to the Ahl al-Bayt (a) either, in fact it always seemed to have brought them a great deal of pain. 

 

Just change your initial post with any prophet:

The tragedy of X PROPHET failed to topple the ruler of the time, it never managed to change the status quo at any point in Islamic history, neither did it bring about any real revolutionary social or moral change for the vast majority of the Ummah - apart from the cultivation of 'aza that we still participate in today. This tragedy provided no 'advantage' to the PROPHETS either, in fact it always seemed to have brought them a great deal of pain. 

If the events that took place were solely about good vs. bad/truth vs. falsehood, why did it necessitate such sacrifices from X PROPHET? And why him, in particular, when the other PROPHETS were also under similar leaderships and circumstances? Did it have something to do with X PROPHETS personality, specifically, that made him more bold than the others?

Is there some greater reality here that we have not been made aware of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
2 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

The tragedy of Karbala failed to topple the caliph of the time, it never managed to change the status quo at any point in Islamic history, neither did it bring about any real revolutionary social or moral change for the vast majority of the Ummah - apart from the cultivation of 'aza that we still participate in today. This tragedy provided no 'advantage' to the Ahl al-Bayt (a) either, in fact it always seemed to have brought them a great deal of pain. 

If the events that took place were solely about good vs. bad/truth vs. falsehood, why did it necessitate such sacrifices from Imam Hussain (a)? And why him, in particular, when the other nine Imams were also under similar leaderships and circumstances? Did it have something to do with Imam Hussain's personality, specifically, that made him more bold than the others?

Is there some greater reality here that we have not been made aware of?

This is a fantastic question.

I don't believe Imam Hussain's movement to be political but spiritual instead.

The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said he was leaving behind 2 weighty things (Quran and AhlulBayt) but within 50 years of his demise, we saw the Ummah almost completely removed from the AhlulBayt.

Imam Hussain's movement was to ensure that there would always be a group of people aligned closely to the AhlulBayt no matter what. This was exemplified by the 72 who chose sacrifice over preservation of life to ensure the legacy of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) remained. 

Further evidence of this is from one of Imam Hussain's (عليه السلام) arguments on the battlefield. When he asked his enemies why they were in Karbala to fight him, they responded that it was due their enmity towards his father. Then Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) said that jihad became obligatory.

We can take it further that if the Ummah could remove the AhlulBayt from the 'picture' within 50 years, then how long would it have taken them to remove the Quran as well?

To the other question about Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) being different. Yes and No.

Imam Hussain had may be 100-150 supporters but from that point onwards that support has only grown despite the many challenges faced. So the remaining Imams didn't need a new Karbala because of the organic support Imam Hussain's sacrifice created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, -Rejector- said:

Salam alaikom

Just imagine for a second if Imam al-Husayn (عليه السلام) pledged allegiance to Yazeed (LA). Imam al-Husayn says a man like himself doesn't pledge allegiance to a man like Yazeed. If he did, good would forever become subject to evil. Yazeed would destroy the religion of Islam. He already drank alcohol and listened to music. Imagine what he could do if he had Imam al-Husayn (عليه السلام) to justify his actions.

But rather, we see that when the moazzin said in the palace of Yazeed 'ashhado anna mohammadan rasoolullah', it became clear that the party of Allah had been victorious, and the party of Shaytan had been defeated. Imam al-Husayn didn't lose. As long as the remembrance of his grandfather Rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) remains, we see the victory of Husayn (عليه السلام).

Even if you look today, there are almost 300 million Shia of Husayn. Every year they come and commemorate the tragedy of Ashura. Look at the shrine of Husayn and that of Abbas. Where is the mausoleum of Husayn and where is the mausoleum of Yazeed?

Imam al-Husayn (عليه السلام) may have physically been killed, but his stand saved the religion of Islam.

Wa 'Alaykum Salaam,

Well, this is more of a strategic question here. The Imam (a) could have refused to give allegiance and created an alternative plan with some of his close advisors as to how he should tackle Yazid b. Mu'awiya. Muhammad b. Hanafiyyah had told him not to go to Iraq. 'Abdullah b. Abbas even told the Imam (a) that the people of Kufa were never going to revolt with him, and that he should instead set up a resistance camp in Yemen - since the Yemenis were known to be more loyal to the Ahl al-Bayt (a). The Imam (a) was still very insistent to go to Kufa. Now some people here took this to be a sign that the Imam (a) already knew beforehand that he had to be sacrificed in Karbala. He already knew that the Kufans had betrayed him, yet still remained determined to set himself and his children on that route to be sacrificed. And that this was the demand of Allah. This narrative is a popular one, but I will be honest, I am not whole-heartedly convinced of it just yet. At least not in the manner in which it has been explained to me.

Edited by Ibn-e-Muhammad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

This is a fantastic question.

I don't believe Imam Hussain's movement to be political but spiritual instead.

The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said he was leaving behind 2 weighty things (Quran and AhlulBayt) but within 50 years of his demise, we saw the Ummah almost completely removed from the AhlulBayt.

Imam Hussain's movement was to ensure that there would always be a group of people aligned closely to the AhlulBayt no matter what. This was exemplified by the 72 who chose sacrifice over preservation of life to ensure the legacy of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) remained. 

Further evidence of this is from one of Imam Hussain's (عليه السلام) arguments on the battlefield. When he asked his enemies why they were in Karbala to fight him, they responded that it was due their enmity towards his father. Then Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) said that jihad became obligatory.

We can take it further that if the Ummah could remove the AhlulBayt from the 'picture' within 50 years, then how long would it have taken them to remove the Quran as well?

To the other question about Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) being different. Yes and No.

Imam Hussain had may be 100-150 supporters but from that point onwards that support has only grown despite the many challenges faced. So the remaining Imams didn't need a new Karbala because of the organic support Imam Hussain's sacrifice created.

And this is a fantastic answer, akhi.

I have always been wary of the whole Banu Hashim vs. Banu Ummayah sort of politicized take on this event. That the Imam (a) gave up his head and his family to captivity in order to bring down his immoral political opponent. I mean, if that was the purpose, he wasn't very successful. The Ummah just further plunged into a system of absolute hereditary monarchy. I definitely lean more towards taking a spiritual approach as well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members

The question looks provocative, but I think it's legitimate. I don't see a questioning of kerbala but instead our understanding of it. When Mahatma Gandhi says he learned from Imam Hussein (P) how to be oppressed and still win, he is referring to one key aspect of the tragedy and how Imam Hussein (P), by his sacrifice, took off legitimacy from Omayyad. And this is what signed the downfall of the Omayyad dynasty. The Abbasids' rebellion was based on the main argument of the martyrdom of Imam Hussein. So this is one of the results of its sacrifice that can be seen from a bigger and more strategic perspective. But we as Shias, I think, are still far from understanding kerbala and its message to Muslims of that time, the message to the next generations of Muslims, and the message to the world. It's not just about a rebellion. There is plenty of tragic rebellions in mankind's history. We believe this tragedy is a central point in mankind's history that should inspire Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, ect.. So there is much more than historical, contextual, community, and narrow aspects. Shias must look back and recompile everything that happened back then and analyze it again from scratch. I'm sure we will find its real big message to humanity including messages to regular believers or non-believers, as well as initiated followers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
  • Veteran Member
5 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

And this is a fantastic answer, akhi.

I have always been wary of the whole Banu Hashim vs. Banu Ummayah sort of politicized take on this event. That the Imam (a) gave up his head and his family to captivity in order to bring down his immoral political opponent. I mean, if that was the purpose, he wasn't very successful. The Ummah just further plunged into a system of absolute hereditary monarchy. I definitely lean more towards taking a spiritual approach as well.

People who think/say it was a political struggle have not read Imam Hussain's sermons and addresses to the Muslims for if they had, they would know his movement wasn't political.

5 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

The Imam (a) was still very insistent to go to Kufa. Now some people here took this to be a sign that the Imam (a) already knew beforehand that he had to be sacrificed in Karbala. He already knew that the Kufans had betrayed him, yet still remained determined to set himself and his children on that route to be sacrificed. And that this was the demand of Allah. This narrative is a popular one, but I will be honest, I am not whole-heartedly convinced of it just yet. At least not in the manner in which it has been explained to me.

It's a salient point that in most of Imam's sermons and letters, he said he is headed towards Kufa and to Kufa.

Imam Hussain knew about his imminent death from his sermons. He said, "I see the wolves of Bani Ummayya tearing me apart but I would rather it happened (mentioned some distance) outside Mecca and Medina than inside." So this is why he left Mecca and Medina. No armies, just friends and families and throughout the journey he pushed people away as opposed to gather forces.

Next, Imam chose a desolate place so that no city would have to bear the brunt of Yazeed's anger for supporting Imam (عليه السلام). He bought the land so that the matter would end with his sacrifice. (Individuals may have been targeted but not cities).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

The tragedy of Karbala failed to topple the caliph of the time, it never managed to change the status quo at any point in Islamic history, neither did it bring about any real revolutionary social or moral change for the vast majority of the Ummah - apart from the cultivation of 'aza that we still participate in today. This tragedy provided no 'advantage' to the Ahl al-Bayt (a) either, in fact it always seemed to have brought them a great deal of pain. 

If the events that took place were solely about good vs. bad/truth vs. falsehood, why did it necessitate such sacrifices from Imam Hussain (a)? And why him, in particular, when the other nine Imams were also under similar leaderships and circumstances? Did it have something to do with Imam Hussain's personality, specifically, that made him more bold than the others?

Is there some greater reality here that we have not been made aware of?

It may not have brought immediate benefits, but it had certain long term benefits. 

The Imam's revolt was followed immediately by two anti-Umayyad revolts,  by the Zubayrids in Mecca led by Abdullah ibn Zubayr, and by the people of Medina under the leadership of Abdullah ibn Hanzala (the infamous incidents of Harrah, and the burning of the Kaa'ba followed them as reprisals).  These revolts ultimately failed, and one may even doubt their sincerity in their attachment to the Ahl al-Bayt's cause, but the point remains that, for the first time since Imam Hassan's assassination, the people were feeling emboldened enough to stand up to the Umayyads. Two more very strong revolts which were specifically shi'i in orientation shook the Umayyad throne- the ragtag, poorly equipped,resource-strained armies of the Tawwabun, led by the aged sahabi Sulaiman ibn Surad al-Khuza'i for a while nearly uprooted Umayyad control over Iraq and pushed them back into Syria, until their eventual defeat in the battle of Ainul Wardah, and the other by al-Mukhtar al-Thaqafi, which had Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah and Imam Sajjad's backing, and which again drove both the Umayyads and the Zubayrids away from Iraq, established a Shi'i government and succeeded in bringing all the criminals of Karbala to the gallows; it is said that when Mukhtaar, rahimahullah, sent the severed head of Umar ibn Saad ibn Abi Waqas to Imam Sajjad, he smiled for the first time since his return from Karbala. 

Finally when the opportunists of Bani Abbas rose against the Marwanids, one of the slogans they raised was 'Lil Rida Aal Muhammad' (for the satisfaction of the Prophet's family). They sensed the outrage among the masses against the Umayyad policy of persecuting the Ahl al-Bayt, and played upon that feeling to add mileage to their revolution, a plan that worked. 

The Abbasid tyrants also realized that there were limits beyond which they could not push in their project to distort the religion, so unlike Yazid and the Umayyads they maintained an outwardly religious pretense. They also took note that they couldn't risk a full-scale massacre of the Ahlul Bayt, Karbala-style, so they resorted to the policy of incarcerating and poisoning of the Imams. 

I also agree with brother @ShiaMan14 that the Imam's mission was more spiritual and moral in nature than it was political. He wasn't out for a war, he wanted to make Kufa the base for his reform project for various reasons, some of which have been discussed above. 

One could say that just as one sprinkles water on the face of an unconscious person to bring him back to senses, the Imam's blood had to be sprinkled over an unconscious ummah's face to bring it back to senses after Muawiya's bags of gold had put it to sleep. It also served as a warning to those who came after him, that if they let another Karbala happen, there would be repercussions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Wa 'Alaykum Salaam,

Well, this is more of a strategic question here. The Imam (a) could have refused to give allegiance and created an alternative plan with some of his close advisors as to how he should tackle Yazid b. Mu'awiya. Muhammad b. Hanafiyyah had told him not to go to Iraq. 'Abdullah b. Abbas even told the Imam (a) that the people of Kufa were never going to revolt with him, and that he should instead set up a resistance camp in Yemen - since the Yemenis were known to be more loyal to the Ahl al-Bayt (a). The Imam (a) was still very insistent to go to Kufa. Now some people here took this to be a sign that the Imam (a) already knew beforehand that he had to be sacrificed in Karbala. He already knew that the Kufans had betrayed him, yet still remained determined to set himself and his children on that route to be sacrificed. And that this was the demand of Allah. This narrative is a popular one, but I will be honest, I am not whole-heartedly convinced of it just yet. At least not in the manner in which it has been explained to me.

Salam surly he could do it which as you have mentioned  it has been a sterategic answer of poeple likewise Muhammad b. Hanafiyyah (رضي الله عنه) & Abdullah b. Abbas (رضي الله عنه) because both of them just have short sight of ordinary people which surly their sterategy just has been good for a short period of time which at the end of day the bad outweigh  the good because surly outcome of their sterategy has been founding an isolated island from rest of muslim community in exchange of totall distortion or even destroying Islam by cursed Umayyad which after that their sterategy wouldn't be beneficial for muslims & rest of people of world which their resistance wouldn't survive even to end of Umayyad's era which Abdullah b. Abbas (رضي الله عنه) according to advice of  cursed Mughira b. Shu'ba  in similar fashion has advised Amir almuminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to tolerate cursed Muawiah for a period of time until Imam can gain upperhand over him then removes cursed Muawiah by political games  which Amir almuminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام) has rejected his idea because it has been in opposition to his divine policy of following exact Sunnah of prophet Muhammad (pbu) without distortions of previous caliphs before him .

Quote

a. The order of "Mughira b. Shu'ba": He, who was known for his cleverness, said to the Commander of the Faithful (as): "Indeed, for you the right of obedience and advice... keep Mu'awiyah in his work... and put all the agents to work."  until they and the soldiers accept your command, then if you want, leave them aside or leave them." The Commander of the Faithful (عليه السلام) replied: "Let me see." 19 Mas'udi (died 346 A.H.) after narrating this incident, also states another report based on which he suggests a different story to Ali (عليه السلام). which keeps Uthman's agents at work for only one year. But Ali (عليه السلام) said against this proposal: "I swear by Allah that I will not be hypocritical in my religion and hypocritical in my work [government]." According to the same report, Mughira stepped in this way: "If you do not accept [this advice of mine], then remove whoever you want, but leave Mu'awiyah, who has courage in him and whose word is accepted among the people of Syria." In the following, Mughira tries to teach Ali (عليه السلام) the justification of the work as well: "You have proof in keeping Mu'awiyah. Because Umar [the second caliph] gave him the governorship over all of Syria. But still Ali (عليه السلام) has not accepted: "No, I swear to Allah! I will never employ Mu'awiyah for two days."20 Also ,Mas'udi , in another place of "Murūj al-dhahab", Ali's (عليه السلام) response to Mughira is expressed as follows: "No, by Allah! Allah will never see me seeking help from Mu'awiya until he remains in his condition..."21

It is interesting that Mughira, after receiving a negative answer from Amir al-Mu'minan (عليه السلام), came to Ali (عليه السلام) again and this time ordered him as follows: "The opinion is that you hasten to remove Mu'awiyah in order recognize  who accepts the word from who doesn't accept it ...." 22. Of course, this contrary order was due to fraud. 23

b. The order of "Abdullah bin Abbas": When Ibn Abbas learned about Mughira's two orders to Ali (عليه السلام), he analyzed that the first order of Mughira was out of benevolence, and the second was out of deceit. Then he himself said to Ali (as): "I advise you to keep Mu'awiyah on the job. Then, if he pledges allegiance to you, then it is up to me to remove him from his abode", but the Commander of the Faithful (عليه السلام) replied: "No, by Allah! I will not give him anything except a sword. Then the Prophet recited a poem with the following theme: "If I die without humilation and my soul has done its best, such a death will not be shameful."

Against this explicit position of Imam Ali (عليه السلام), Ibn Abbas said: "O Commander of the Faithful! You are a brave man, but haven't you heard that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his progeny ) said: War is a trick. Ali (عليه السلام) replied: Yes. Ibn Abbas offered: "By Allah! If you accept my opinion, I will certainly return them [opponents] after the establishment, and I will leave them to think about the end of things and not know what will happen in the end; Without any defect being directed at you and injustice being done to you." Imam Ali (عليه السلام) rejected the proposal of Ibn Abbas and asked him to continue obeying him. Ibn Abbas also accepted and declared: "... the least right you have over me is obedience..."24

Also, according to a report, the Commander of the Faithful (عليه السلام) said to Ibn Abbas that I have no doubt that the retention of Uthman's agents will be better in the worldly future for the reformation of affairs, but the "truth" and knowledge about him prevents me from doing this, so If they accept and go aside, it will be better for them, otherwise we will draw swords on them. 25

18ـ عزالدين ابوالحسن ابن اثير، اسدالغابة فى معرفة الصحابة، بيروت، درالفكر، 1409 ق / 1989 م، ج 4، ص 472

19ـ ابوالحسن على بن الحسين مسعودى، مروج الذهب و معادن الجوهر، تحقيق محمد محيى الدين عبدالحميد، مصر، السعادة، چاپ چهارم، 1384 ق / 1964 م، ج 2، ص 363

20ـ مسعودى، همان، ج 2، ص 364

21 و22 و23 ـ همان، ص 382، بعدها، امام على(عليه السلام) در يكى از نامه هاى خود به سفارش مغيره مبنى بر ابقاى معاويه بر امارت شام، و امتناع خود از اين امر اشاره كرده است. ر. ك: ابن عساكر، همان، ج 62، ص 91 / ص 363 / ص 363 ـ 364

24ـ مسعودى، همان، ج 2، ص 363 ـ 365

25ـ طبرى، همان، ج 3، ص 460

http://marifat.nashriyat.ir/node/1438

https://masaf.ir/masafofogh/post/61367-آیا-مغیره-به-امیرالمؤمنین-مشورت-داده-است؟.html

https://fa.wikifeqh.ir/مغیرة_بن_شعبه_در_دوران_امام_علی

http://ensani.ir/fa/article/67277/روابط-امام-على-علیه-السلام-و-معاویه-از-خلافت-تا-جنگ-صفین-

Quote

In the time of Ali b. Abi Talib (a), Mughira did not take oath of allegiance to Imam (a) and he did not attend the battles as well.[15] After the Arbitration, he took oath of allegiance to Mu'awiya and again he was appointed as the governor of Kufa where he lived for the rest of his life, until 50/670.[16] In the time of the Peace Treaty of Imam al-Hasan (a) and Mu'awiya, he brought Mu'awiya's letter to Imam al-Hasan (a).[17]

Based on historical sources, al-Mughira was amongst the first ones who proposed the succession of Yazid b. Mu'awiya[18] which took place in 56/676. However, as Mughira died in 50/670, it cannot be true.

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Al-Mughira_b._Shu'ba

Quote

 

Particularly useful for Mu'awiya's purposes was the public cursing of 'Ali in Kufa where, he hoped, it would bring out into the open the latent opposition to Umayyad rule, thus facilitating his measures of repression. When he appointed al-Mughira Ibn Shu'ba governor of Kufa, he instructed him, “Never desist from abusing and censuring 'Ali, from praying for God's mercy and forgiveness for 'Uthman, from disgracing the followers of 'Ali, from removing them and refusing to listen to them. Moreover, never cease praising the partisans of 'Uthman, bringing them close to you, and listening to them.7

Hujr Ibn 'Adi acted as the representative for the partisans of 'Ali. Whenever he heard that the government abusing 'Ali and praying for 'Uthman in the mosque, he stood up, quoting:

O you who have faith, be maintainers of justice and witnesses for the sake of Allah. (Holy Qur’an, 4:135).

Then he gave witness that the one whom they censured and blamed was more worthy of excellence and the one whom they vindicated and extolled was more worthy of censure. Al-Mughira would warn him of the wrath of the ruler but then left him alone. He did not wish to lose the other world by shedding the blood of the best men of the city for the sake securing Mu'awiya's power in this world.8

Al-Mughira vainly attempted to persuade Mu'awiya to change his policy. He pleaded that the caliph had now reached an advanced age. If he were to make a show of justice and spread goodness by displaying concern for his Hashimite kin and by strengthening his bonds with them, since he had no longer anything to fear from them, he would gain from that lasting fame and reward. Mu'awiya answered, “Far from it, would it be so. What fame can I hope for that would last? The brother of Taym [Abu Bakr] reigned, acted justly, and did what he did. As soon as he perished, his fame perished, except for someone occasionally saying, Abu Bakr. Then the brother of 'Adi ['Umar] reigned, strove, and put his shoulder to the wheel for ten years, but as soon as he perished, his fame perished, except for someone occasionally mentioning, 'Umar. Yet Ibn Abi Kabsha [Muhammad] is loudly advertised every day five times, 'I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of God.' What work could endure and what fame could last after that? No by God, there is nothing but burying, burying”.9

Al-Mughira's successor was Ziyad Ibn Abih, now recognized, as Mu'awiya's illegitimate brother, who had already held the governorship of Basra for some time. He was determined to restore law, order, and ready to kill in order to make his point. The partisans of 'Ali Ibn Abi Talib with whom he wanted to deal now were, though loudly criticizing the caliph, neither engaged in armed rebellion, nor endangered the life of any Muslim. Ziyad thus had to provoke an incident to justify bloody repression. Pebbles thrown at his deputy in the mosque provided the occasion. He came hurriedly from Basra and delivered a sermon threatening Hujr with exemplary punishment.

 

https://www.al-islam.org/caliphate-and-imamate-ahmad-namaee/muawiyas-reign-collapse-caliphate

Quote

Ibn Abu al-Hadid said: “Our Shaykh Abu Ja`far al-Iskafi mentioned that Mu`awiya had appointed a group from the Companions (of the Prophet) and a group from the later (Companions of the Prophet) to narrate obscene traditions concerning `Ali, peace be on him, to defame him and to renounce him. Mu`awiya fixed wages for them to (achieve) that. So they fabricated what pleased him. Among them were Abu Hurayra, `Amr b. al-`As, and al-Mughira b. Shu`ba. Among the later (companions of the Prophet) was `Urwa b. al-Zubayr.” [2]

https://shiastudies.com/en/519/muawiya-terrorizing-the-shia-of-imam-ali-as/

The Opinion of Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)) on Caliphate

Quote

What you are referring to is not a sermon of Imam Ali to Muslims, and you have also taken it out of context. it was a part of his letter to Muawiyah when he refused to give his oath to Imam Ali (عليه السلام). Moreover, in contrary to your claim, in that letter Imam Ali (عليه السلام) did NOT say that he BELIEVES in the function of election for Caliphate. (Please see the full text of the letter below). He rather wanted to use the argument of his opponents against themselves.

https://www.erfan.ir/english/90202.html

Quote

 

al-Tabari reported:

When Muawiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan put al-Mughairah Ibn Shubah in charge of Kufah in Jumada 41 (September 2- October 30, 661), he summoned him. After praising and glorifying God, he said:

"Now then, indeed a forbearing person has been admonished in the past... The wise might do what you want without instruction. Although I have wanted to advise you about many things, I left them alone, trusting in your discernment of what pleases me, what helps my regime and what sets my subjects (raiyyah) on the right path. I would continue to advise you about a quality of yours- do not refrain from abusing ‘Ali and criticizing him, not from asking God’s mercy upon Uthman and His forgiveness for him. Continue to shame the companions of ‘Ali, keep at a distance, and don’t listen to them. Praise the faction of Uthman, bring them near, and listen to them."

Sunni reference: History of Tabari, English version, events of year 51 AH, Execution of Hujr Ibn Adi, v18, pp 122-123

 

https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia/muawiyah-and-abusing-imam-ali

Quote

Muawiya sent Moghira b. Sh'oba, Abdullah b. Aamir b. Kerez and Abdel Rahman b. Umme Hakam towards the army of (Imam) Hasan (عليه السلام). They met him (Imam Hasan (as)) in Madain while he was in his tent. While coming out, these persons started announcing that all praise be to Glorified God who has saved the lives of Muslims through the Holy Prophet (saw)'s son the fire of mischief has been extinguished and he has accepted the offer of peace.

On hearing this, there was commotion in the army; no one doubted the truth about what they were saying. Therefore, they plundered the tent of Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) and robbed all that was in it. Seeing this, Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) rode on his horse ... When (Imam) Hasan (عليه السلام) saw that his army had become infirm, his companions had left him and were not willing to fight for him, he made peace with Muawiya." 2

https://www.al-islam.org/imam-hasan-and-caliphate-qurrat-ul-ain-abidiy/some-historical-extracts

Quote

A) Selection Of Mughaira Bin Shoba

Ibn Abde Rabb writes in the beginning of his book Iqdul Fareed under the topic of ‘Discretion of the ruler for those competent for the job’:93

“When the Caliph decided to appoint a new governor for Kufa in place of Ammar Yasir94 he was confused because if he sent a man of probity he would be regarded as weak95 and if he sent a man of ability, he would be considered a tyrant. At this juncture, Mughaira interfered and put the suggestion:

A man of probity if considered weak the weakness will be his own – not yours. But his inability is counted on you because it will have an immediate bearing on you. On the other hand a strong man will be to your advantage while the sins will be his alone!

The Caliph said: You are right! That man is yourself, because at the same time you are a tyrant also. This was the ground for his appointment and he was sent to Kufa.9697

In this way the Caliph preferred a profane man who had committed great many sins and crimes in Basrah when he was the governor there, but he (Mughaira) was never punished or dismissed. Now he was appointed governor of Kufa.

Historical annals say that Abu Bakr too had the same policy.

https://www.al-islam.org/sw/victim-lost-saqifah-revised-edition-comprehensive-additions-ali-labbaf/discourse-1-piety-and#selection-mughaira-bin-shoba

https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia/muawiyah-and-abusing-imam-ali

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

The tragedy of Karbala failed to topple the caliph of the time, it never managed to change the status quo at any point in Islamic history, neither did it bring about any real revolutionary social or moral change for the vast majority of the Ummah - apart from the cultivation of 'aza that we still participate in today. This tragedy provided no 'advantage' to the Ahl al-Bayt (a) either, in fact it always seemed to have brought them a great deal of pain. 

Politically, this tragedy was the main reason that encouraged people to launch anti-ummayyad movements which ended in toppling of ummayyad dynasty. 

Socially and morally, it attracts millions of people every year to respond to the call of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) and learn about his stand and learn about true islam. It should be noted that this tragedy reforms Muslims at personal level as well and encourages them to bring themselves near to piety. This tragedy has also helped shias to form some kind of organization who now gather around the platform of marjayah for their rights. And, because of this institution, they are now much more actively participating to learn religion.

12 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

If the events that took place were solely about good vs. bad/truth vs. falsehood, why did it necessitate such sacrifices from Imam Hussain (a)? And why him, in particular, when the other nine Imams were also under similar leaderships and circumstances? Did it have something to do with Imam Hussain's personality, specifically, that made him more bold than the others?

All Imams are equally bold, the only thing which differs are will of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), circumstances and means through which they have to achieve certain objectives. At the time of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام), the most wretched person was ruler over Muslim world who had detemined that either Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) submit to him or else he should spill the blood of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) at any cost. While those who ruled during our upcoming nine imams had witnessed the effects of tragedy of Karbala, therefore, they kept their evil intentions hidden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
10 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Wa 'Alaykum Salaam,

Well, this is more of a strategic question here. The Imam (a) could have refused to give allegiance and created an alternative plan with some of his close advisors as to how he should tackle Yazid b. Mu'awiya. Muhammad b. Hanafiyyah had told him not to go to Iraq. 'Abdullah b. Abbas even told the Imam (a) that the people of Kufa were never going to revolt with him, and that he should instead set up a resistance camp in Yemen - since the Yemenis were known to be more loyal to the Ahl al-Bayt (a). The Imam (a) was still very insistent to go to Kufa. Now some people here took this to be a sign that the Imam (a) already knew beforehand that he had to be sacrificed in Karbala. He already knew that the Kufans had betrayed him, yet still remained determined to set himself and his children on that route to be sacrificed. And that this was the demand of Allah. This narrative is a popular one, but I will be honest, I am not whole-heartedly convinced of it just yet. At least not in the manner in which it has been explained to me.

This is where I'm out of my expertise...

What I will say is that I think Imam al-Husayn, when he say his options, decided that Kufa would be the best move. 

And remember that Imam al-Husayn's Ilm al-Ghayb isn't 100%. Allah could have still changed His plans for the Imam without him knowing.

Like scholars say that when Imam Ali (عليه السلام) sacrificed himself for the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) on the night of the hijra, he didn't know if he would survive or not. This would take away from the value of the sacrifice.

But that's all I'm gonna say; like I mentioned, I'm not an expert.

May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) bless you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
5 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

This is where I'm out of my expertise...

What I will say is that I think Imam al-Husayn, when he say his options, decided that Kufa would be the best move. 

And remember that Imam al-Husayn's Ilm al-Ghayb isn't 100%. Allah could have still changed His plans for the Imam without him knowing.

Like scholars say that when Imam Ali (عليه السلام) sacrificed himself for the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) on the night of the hijra, he didn't know if he would survive or not. This would take away from the value of the sacrifice.

But that's all I'm gonna say; like I mentioned, I'm not an expert.

May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) bless you.

Imam Hussain's primary intention was to get out of the region of Mecca and Medina.

In all his sermons, he always said he was going "towards Kufa" and never "to Kufa".

He chose Karbala as the place so that no city would have to bear the consequences of harboring him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

And remember that Imam al-Husayn's Ilm al-Ghayb isn't 100%. Allah could have still changed His plans for the Imam without him knowing.

Like scholars say that when Imam Ali (عليه السلام) sacrificed himself for the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) on the night of the hijra, he didn't know if he would survive or not. This would take away from the value of the sacrifice.

But that's all I'm gonna say; like I mentioned, I'm not an expert.

May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) bless you.

What has happened to you brother? Did Allah (عزّ وجلّ) say that Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) is not gifted with 100 percent ilmul gaib? While He (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) knows that human can come around with any weird question. There is only one ilmul gaib that Imams do not know and only Allah (عزّ وجلّ) knows that is What is He (عزّ وجلّ).

Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) learnt that event of Karbala would take place as he was told this by prophet (PBUHHP). 

As far Imam Ali's sacrifice is concerned, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was told by prophet that when the night passes he should give back his trusts and meet him where masjid Quba is located. So, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) knew that he will survive. These events are told to us by scholars.

Edited by Borntowitnesstruth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

The Imam's revolt was followed immediately by two anti-Umayyad revolts,  by the Zubayrids in Mecca led by Abdullah ibn Zubayr, and by the people of Medina under the leadership of Abdullah ibn Hanzala (the infamous incidents of Harrah, and the burning of the Kaa'ba followed them as reprisals).  These revolts ultimately failed, and one may even doubt their sincerity in their attachment to the Ahl al-Bayt's cause, but the point remains that, for the first time since Imam Hassan's assassination, the people were feeling emboldened enough to stand up to the Umayyads. Two more very strong revolts which were specifically shi'i in orientation shook the Umayyad throne- the ragtag, poorly equipped,resource-strained armies of the Tawwabun, led by the aged sahabi Sulaiman ibn Surad al-Khuza'i for a while nearly uprooted Umayyad control over Iraq and pushed them back into Syria, until their eventual defeat in the battle of Ainul Wardah, and the other by al-Mukhtar al-Thaqafi, which had Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah and Imam Sajjad's backing, and which again drove both the Umayyads and the Zubayrids away from Iraq, established a Shi'i government and succeeded in bringing all the criminals of Karbala to the gallows; it is said that when Mukhtaar, rahimahullah, sent the severed head of Umar ibn Saad ibn Abi Waqas to Imam Sajjad, he smiled for the first time since his return from Karbala. 

These revolts were not sincere to the cause of the Ahl al-Bayt (a), if we're taking that to mean the Ja'fari/Twelver creed. This is my contention, really - the tragedy of Karbala, although it led to immediate revolts, did not change the status quo as we know it. What eventually led to the falling of the Ummayads was their fiscal policies, failure against the Romans, and mainly the internal social strife (that the early Shi'ites took advantage of). The revolts, if anything, were a reflection of that pre-existing friction. To be very honest, if we're going to praise some of these people and their revolts, I think it's only fair to note that they only led to further division within the Shi'ites. They were far more counter-productive than they were beneficial. Kitab Firaq al-Shi'a by Nawbakhti and Crisis and Consolidation by Hossein Modarressi are two works that do a fine job at expounding on what I am saying; reading them almost makes you question everything you believe in, but nonetheless, they are two highly recommended works if one wants to research on this topic. My point is: was the tragedy of Karbala followed by pro-Hussain revolts? Yes. Were they really pro-Ali in nature? Who knows. Pro-Alidness was not a very clear matter back then. Were these revolts politically productive in the long run? I don't think so. Did they consolidate the Shi'ites in any religious sense? No, quite the contrary. 

This is why I question the alleged political success of Karbala. 

By the way, Imam Ali b. Hussain (a) did not back Mukhtar's revolt. Mukhtar's group was a radical splinter sect that took Muhammad b. Hanafiyyah as its spiritual leader (quite literally, the Mahdi). This group might have been one of the first real Shi'ite sects before the Zaydites and Ja'farites emerged. 

12 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

The Abbasid tyrants also realized that there were limits beyond which they could not push in their project to distort the religion, so unlike Yazid and the Umayyads they maintained an outwardly religious pretense. They also took note that they couldn't risk a full-scale massacre of the Ahlul Bayt, Karbala-style, so they resorted to the policy of incarcerating and poisoning of the Imams.

Or maybe they wouldn't have to risk a massacre because the Imams became virtually apolitical and never gave them any chance to? Hussain b. Ali (a) was still somewhat of a prominent figure in a political sense, in the way Abdullah b. Zubair was, for example. The other Imams were not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

Politically, this tragedy was the main reason that encouraged people to launch anti-ummayyad movements which ended in toppling of ummayyad dynasty. 

The fall of the Ummayad dynasty was due to reasons other than that. This tragedy was certainly used and monetized by the Hashimiites, but it's not clear that these movements were the main reason the Ummayads were toppled.

9 hours ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

All Imams are equally bold, the only thing which differs are will of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), circumstances and means through which they have to achieve certain objectives. At the time of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام), the most wretched person was ruler over Muslim world who had detemined that either Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) submit to him or else he should spill the blood of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) at any cost. While those who ruled during our upcoming nine imams had witnessed the effects of tragedy of Karbala, therefore, they kept their evil intentions hidden.

I don't completely agree, but fair enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
8 minutes ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

By the way, Imam Ali b. Hussain (a) did not back Mukhtar's revolt. Mukhtar's group was a radical splinter sect that took Muhammad b. Hanafiyyah as its spiritual leader (quite literally, the Mahdi). This group might have been one of the first real Shi'ite sects before the Zaydites and Ja'farites emerged. 

This is debatable but a separate topic. MbH was a front man for Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

As far Imam Ali's sacrifice is concerned, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was told by prophet that when the night passes he should give back his trusts and meet him where masjid Quba is located. So, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) knew that he will survive. These events are told to us by scholars.

Then it's not so much of a sacrifice, is it? If he already knew that he would survive the night and meet with the Prophet (s) again, how is it a sacrifice anymore?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Imam Hussain's primary intention was to get out of the region of Mecca and Medina.

In all his sermons, he always said he was going "towards Kufa" and never "to Kufa".

He chose Karbala as the place so that no city would have to bear the consequences of harboring him.

Well then.. why not a desolate place somewhere in Yemen? Was he not aware that Yemen harbored more loyal followers than Kufa? Was going towards Kufa a miscalculation on his part? 

This has become such a dilemma for me. The more I read on it, the more I scratch my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

I don't completely agree, but fair enough.

You also have to remember that even if all the Imams just did what Imam Hussain did, then what? It's not very useful to just keep sacrificing yourself, is it? Imam Hussain was the one Allah commanded to go down that route and the other Imams were commanded to safeguard the religion in other ways, because ultimately, Islam and the Ummah of the Prophet were not just restricted to that time. Even if all the rulers after Yazid were carbon copies of him, you still need a Imam Baqir or  aImam Sadiq to actually expound on some of the theological foundations of the religion to prepare the ummah for the centuries to come after or, in the case of the later Imams, to prepare them for the ghaybah (occultation) of the 12th Imam. That required a different form of jihad and different priorities and strategies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
58 minutes ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

What eventually led to the falling of the Ummayads was their fiscal policies, failure against the Romans, and mainly the internal social strife (that the early Shi'ites took advantage of). The revolts, if anything, were a reflection of that pre-existing friction. 

Not really. The Byzantines had been completely yeeted out of both North Africa and the Levant since the days of Abdul Malik ibn Marwan himself (the famous 'Dome of the Rock' in Jerusalem dates from this period), and they were no longer in a position to threaten Arab communications across the Mediterranean. Major victories had been won against the Holy Roman Empire in Iberia towards the close of this period (the Cordoba Caliphs were an offshoot of the Umayyads). What failed for the Umayyads was, firstly, their social engineering of knitting tribal alliances to share the pie of power, as many Arab tribes, especially those who had settled in Khurasan and Turkestan began to demand a greater share in the pie, and the Ajams were exasperated with their racial segregationism. Along with this, the persecution of the Alawi-Fatimis was indeed a prominent factor. Had this factor not been prominent, agents like Abu Muslim Khurasani wouldn't have sought the support of Imam al-Sadiq (عليه السلام), nor would al-Saffah and al-Mansour have sought the help of some Hassani sadah (only to kill them later). Hugh Kennedy's work is something I'd really reccomend here. He masterfully brings out the Ahlul Bayt (as)'s propangandistic use in Abbasid revolutionary rhetoric.

1 hour ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

To be very honest, if we're going to praise some of these people and their revolts, I think it's only fair to note that they only led to further division within the Shi'ites. They were far more counter-productive than they were beneficial. Kitab Firaq al-Shi'a by Nawbakhti and Crisis and Consolidation by Hossein Modarressi are two works that do a fine job at expounding on what I am saying; reading them almost makes you question everything you believe in, but nonetheless, they are two highly recommended works if one wants to research on this topic. My point is: was the tragedy of Karbala followed by pro-Hussain revolts? Yes. Were they really pro-Ali in nature? Who knows. Pro-Alidness was not a very clear matter back then. Were these revolts politically productive in the long run? I don't think so. Did they consolidate the Shi'ites in any religious sense? No, quite the contrary. 

This is why I question the alleged political success of Karbala. 

But Shi'i consolidation was not the objective of these revolts, so it is unfair to judge them on that account. The Zubayrids simply wanted power, and Hussayn (as)'s blood was simply a ruse for them. The Medina group of revolutionaries simply wanted Yazid out and they didn't necessarily want the Alids back in power. In fact they had collectively pledged allegience to Abdullah ibn Hanzala. The Tawwabun didn't have any concrete political programme besides punishing the culprits behind Karbala. Of all these rebellion, only al-Mukhtar's was the one with a long term strategic vision. He wanted the heads of the criminals of Karbala, but he knew it's necessary to consolidate a base of power in Iraq first. He did manage to unite the Shi'is under his banner, since people like Ibrahim b. Malik al-Ashtar al-Nakha'i and the sahabi Amr ibn Wathilah (Abu Tufayl)and Anas bin Kamila al-Shakiri, who were prominent Shi'i figures joined his revolt, as did the Iranian Shi'is in Kufa. Also there is no causal link between these revolts and the later Shi'i firaq that emerge. That's something which is visible only after Zayd b. Ali b. Hussayn's revolt, which happened long after all of these revoltes had died down. 

1 hour ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

By the way, Imam Ali b. Hussain (a) did not back Mukhtar's revolt. Mukhtar's group was a radical splinter sect that took Muhammad b. Hanafiyyah as its spiritual leader (quite literally, the Mahdi). This group might have been one of the first real Shi'ite sects before the Zaydites and Ja'farites emerged

Not really. This is a piece of misinformation that has long been debunked. I am not aware of any such work in English, but if you can read Farsi, I can refer you to a work by the Shaheed al-Thalith Qadi Sayyid Nurullah al-Hussayni al-Shustari al-Hindi (rahimahullah) where he discusses this matter in the light of authentic Hadith. He conclusively proves that Mukhtar had the tacit backing of Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام) and Ibn Hanafiyyah (عليه السلام), who had become his nephew's secretary. They couldn't opnely come out in his support for obvious reasons, but there is enough documentary evidence from Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام) and Imam Baqir (عليه السلام) to show that they not only personally blessed Mukhtar's revolution, but exhorted all the Shi'a who came to meet them to join and support him. They continued to value his sacrifice even after his martyrdom, as is proven by the conversation between al-Hakam b. Mukhtar and Imam Baqir (عليه السلام). The reports critical of Mukhtar are either weak, in taqiyyah or originate from milieux hostile to him (proto-Sunnis of Kufa, who hated him because he took on the Zubayrids as well). Ayatullah Khu'i (rh) in his Mu'jam al-Rijal arrives at the same conclusion after a critical evaluation of the reports concerning Mukhtar. The Kaysaniyyah, who took ibn Hanfiyyah for their Imam, and of whome Mukhtar is accused of being a member, emerged only long after Mukhtar's death so this anachrony makes this theory false too.

1 hour ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Or maybe they wouldn't have to risk a massacre because the Imams became virtually apolitical and never gave them any chance to? Hussain b. Ali (a) was still somewhat of a prominent figure in a political sense, in the way Abdullah b. Zubair was, for example. The other Imams were not. 

It's not like they didn't try. There was a full-scale pogrom of the Hassani sadah in Medina. Imam al-Sadiq (as)'s own house was attacked and burned. This created a huge wave of revulsion among the Shi'a from Hijaz to Kufa (this was one of the reasons to keep Imam al-Kadhim (عليه السلام) imprisoned in Baghdad so that he could be kept under supervision and incommunicado from the Shi'a). It is to cool down the anger withing the Shi'a that Ma'amun (la) declared Imam Rida (عليه السلام) as heir-apparent. They wouldn't have missed any chace to get rid of the Ahlul Bayt (ams) in one stroke, but they saw the cost-to-benefit ratio and decided against it.Also, if the imams after Imam al-Hussayn were political non-entities, the Abbasids wouldn't invest so much energy, time,grey matter and money in getting rid of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
2 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Well then.. why not a desolate place somewhere in Yemen? Was he not aware that Yemen harbored more loyal followers than Kufa? Was going towards Kufa a miscalculation on his part? 

The intention was not to raise an army but to wake up the Ummah with his sacrifice. 

If he wanted more loyal followers he would have recruited from Medina and then Mecca. Based on my estimation, there were must have been at least 500,000 hajji in Mecca in 60AH. That could have been a very supple recruiting ground but Imam chose to leave quietly with his closest associated.

2 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

 This has become such a dilemma for me. The more I read on it, the more I scratch my head.

That's because you are trying to align Imam's actions with what you would have done instead of the other way around.

If you don't mind me saying, this is why only 72 remained with Imam and are considered the most loyal. They chose to trust Imam Hussain's judgement rather than question it. Imam could have gone in 360 different directions, he chose one. Now everyone is questioning about the other 359.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Then it's not so much of a sacrifice, is it? If he already knew that he would survive the night and meet with the Prophet (s) again, how is it a sacrifice anymore?

I view it as it's about belief on prophet (pbuhhp). While Hazrat Abu Bakar was with Prophet but he felt fear despite with Prophet but Imam Ali (عليه السلام) just listened to the words of Prophet and felt confident that he will meet prophet (SAAWW). it's about Iman brother.

Edited by Borntowitnesstruth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

The fall of the Ummayad dynasty was due to reasons other than that. This tragedy was certainly used and monetized by the Hashimiites, but it's not clear that these movements were the main reason the Ummayads were toppled.

Well, history says that tragedy of Karbala was one of the main reasons that led shias to help Abbasids to topple ummayad dynasty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
On 8/10/2022 at 4:17 AM, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

The tragedy of Karbala failed to topple the caliph of the time, it never managed to change the status quo at any point in Islamic history, neither did it bring about any real revolutionary social or moral change for the vast majority of the Ummah - apart from the cultivation of 'aza that we still participate in today. This tragedy provided no 'advantage' to the Ahl al-Bayt (a) either, in fact it always seemed to have brought them a great deal of pain. 

If the events that took place were solely about good vs. bad/truth vs. falsehood, why did it necessitate such sacrifices from Imam Hussain (a)? And why him, in particular, when the other nine Imams were also under similar leaderships and circumstances? Did it have something to do with Imam Hussain's personality, specifically, that made him more bold than the others?

Is there some greater reality here that we have not been made aware of?

Ibrahim (عليه السلام) was asked to sacrifice his son Ismail (عليه السلام).  Why?  Then the event has significant value for humanity until now.

Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) has to stand up against a corrupt system and basically has to die for executing the task.  The event has significant value for humanity.

 

Event in Karbala is multidimensional. It is almost impossible to list all aspects of goodness to humanity.

On the spiritual side, too much to explain. One aspect, if we remember Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) at his time of facing death alone at Karbala, Imam (عليه السلام) will be with us when our time of death comes.  Facing death is no an easy event for all of us. It will be easy if Imam is by our side.

We remember him during his difficult time at Karbala, Imam (عليه السلام) will be with us during our difficult times.  All of us have to go through many difficult times throughout our life.  

Wallahualam 

 

Edited by layman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members

I can actually relate to what the OP is saying. How the tragedy of Karbala seem to benefit only those who knows, those who remember and commemorate; the followers of the Ahlulbayt ((عليه السلام)). Ask a fellow Sunni, he/she would probably remember Hasan and Husayn as the little grandsons in the storybook where they teach an old man how to make wudhu (ablution). And even if you tell them what happened to Imam Husayn, the reply would be "but its the past, why the need to mourn etc". 

I have also wondered why only a specific Imam had these immense sacrifices on him whereas the other Imams ' demise are by poisoning. Then again, you don't really have the answers to these kind of questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, lyricalsoul29 said:

I have also wondered why only a specific Imam had these immense sacrifices on him whereas the other Imams ' demise are by poisoning. Then again, you don't really have the answers to these kind of questions.

It is very very very important for every muslim to understand the system of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

Within this just system we have limited free will. It is in this free will that humans have the ability to go against Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and His commands and His representatives. The reason why it was Hussain (عليه السلام) and not any other Imam (عليه السلام) was because it was all simply within his life that all these tragedies took place. Think about it Yazid, may he and those that follow him burn in hell for eternity, not only killed the Imam but also desecrated the mosque of the holy prophet, and burned the holy Kaaba! The Imam being the representative of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and by the command of the holy prophet knew and would have never ever given his allegiance to such a vile being. Every single enemy, every single opponent of Allah's prophets and imams, did everything heinous, all within their own free will and that is why our prophets and imams are who they are within our eyes. Of course Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is our creator and He knows all, thus He chose them. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) system is not predetermined. Even our Prophets and Imams have free will, but they chose that their will aligns with the Almighty Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

God does not burden any soul with more than it can bear! Holy Quran 2:286
Allah chooses messengers from among the angels and from among the men. Verily Allah is All-Hearing, All-Seeing. Holy Quran 22:75
Believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those from among you who are invested with authority; Holy Quran 4:59

Edited by Ethics
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
×
  • Create New...