Karbala - Who Killed Hussain (RA)?

[Mythbuster1]

saqifa Alhamdulillah burns you we know.👍

Yes prophet saw passed away without appointing a leader, we do believe He saw did have His choice but it will burn you, instead He saw left it to the ummah to follow the way of the Quran and choose a leader through shura, mutual consultation, which in history happened and His choice was the one who became leader with the title of khilafat e rasul saw and the ummah agreed with Alhamdulillah.

It wasn’t prophet saw’s job to appoint leaders after Him, your kind believe it is Allah swt that appoints yet you haven’t provided clear proofs for such apart from your own babble.

Now.......promotion......why you always avoiding this main point?😉

[muslim720]

Well, Imam Hussain's (ra) brother handed the Caliphate to Yazeed's father knowing that he (Yazeed's father) would break all the conditions agreed upon and that he would appoint his own son as the Caliph.  Why would Imam Hassan (ra), having knowledge of the future, do such a thing?

[iceman]

Well, Imam Hussain's (ra) brother handed the Caliphate to Yazeed's father knowing that he (Yazeed's father) would break all the conditions agreed upon and that he would appoint his own son as the Caliph.  Why would Imam Hassan (ra), having knowledge of the future, do such a thing?

Because Hassan had the knowledge of the unknown and unseen. Now having such knowledge, what does this mean? You don't allow nature to take its course and you take matters into your own hands just because you have such knowledge?

Have you heard of Loh e Mehfooz? Now if Allah grants someone knowledge from this slate and this knowledge is about what is going to happen and how then does one have the right to use that knowledge to change things?

If yes then what is the point of Ilm e Ghaib and Loh e Mehfooz? You really need to do some research on Ilm e Ghaib and Loh e Mehfooz. Actually you need to do research  on a lot of things. All you do is just shoot your mouth off left, right and centre without knowing and thinking.

[iceman]

Being informed or knowing something in advance is a different thing. The police, local authority, intelligence service or law enforcement agency have been tipped of about something or they've got someone under surveillance which gives them advance knowledge and information is not knowledge of the unseen and unknown, this is not ilm e Ghaib.

As I have said before that Allah only and alone has complete and absolute knowledge of the unseen and unknown, despite this why did he and does he allow this, that and the other to happen? Allah not only knew but Satan also told him that he will do what ever he can to lead mankind astray then why didn't Allah stop him and protect mankind?

Not only this Satan asked for his reward regarding his loyalty and service and the things he asked for were means and tools to lead mankind astray and still Allah knowingly granted him, why? If only Allah knows because he is infallible then only those know who have been graced with infallibility and given such knowledge know as well 😊

[iceman]

Well, Imam Hussain's (ra) brother handed the Caliphate to Yazeed's father knowing that he (Yazeed's father) would break all the conditions agreed upon and that he would appoint his own son as the Caliph.  Why would Imam Hassan (ra), having knowledge of the future, do such a thing?

"Hasan–Muawiya treaty. In 661 CE, after Ali's murder, Hasan ibn Ali attained to the caliphate. There was a military conflict between Ahl al-Bayt and Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan (see Battle of Siffin); and to avoid the agonies of a further civil war, Hasan signed the Hasan–Muawiya treaty with Muawiyah"

And addition to my reply, what would you do? Put an end to the bloodshed or allow it to continue knowing that your rival is well influenced and we'll equipped? If you know someone's intentions can you hold them responsible for their intentions or once they've turned those intentions into actions basically put those intentions into practice? 

It was a treaty, an agreement. Who's responsible, the one who goes into it for the benefit of the Muslims and honours it (Hassan) or the one who dishonoured it by completely breaking it (Muawiya)? 'Well Hassan knew this and he knew that', he was just informed of the unknown if that is the case. And how do you actually convince people?

[iceman]

saqifa Alhamdulillah burns you we know.👍

Yes prophet saw passed away without appointing a leader, we do believe He saw did have His choice but it will burn you, instead He saw left it to the ummah to follow the way of the Quran and choose a leader through shura, mutual consultation, which in history happened and His choice was the one who became leader with the title of khilafat e rasul saw and the ummah agreed with Alhamdulillah.

It wasn’t prophet saw’s job to appoint leaders after Him, your kind believe it is Allah swt that appoints yet you haven’t provided clear proofs for such apart from your own babble.

Now.......promotion......why you always avoiding this main point?😉

Well Alhamdulillah it would burn anybody with a bit of sense, logic, decency and moral standards. Knowing that people did not gather/assemble in Saqifa to name and appoint a leader. And you talk about Shura but no method and procedure in place or mentioned? No principles or rules and regulations about Shura. So what type of Shura was this at Saqifa?

[Mythbuster1]

Well Alhamdulillah it would burn anybody with a bit of sense, logic, decency and moral standards. Knowing that people did not gather/assemble in Saqifa to name and appoint a leader. And you talk about Shura but no method and procedure in place or mentioned? No principles or rules and regulations about Shura. So what type of Shura was this at Saqifa?

Thing is there is no sense in believing in an ideology that you cannot provide CKEAR proofs for........look at all your posts when you cannot give clear answers it’s US who are blind and cannot see.😂👍

See.......shura this shura that I know it gives you nightmares and even worse I can back it up from the Quran and sunnah...........after hundereds of your posts you can’t do the same.😉👍

Why are you avoiding promotion??

Was that made up in your head??😂😂👍

[muslim720]

Because Hassan had the knowledge of the unknown and unseen. Now having such knowledge, what does this mean? You don't allow nature to take its course and you take matters into your own hands just because you have such knowledge?

Would you not take matters in your hands to save your 3rd "infallible" Imam (ra)?  At least I would have taken things in my hands to save Imam Hussain (ra).  Therefore, I am better than Imam Hassan (ra) when it comes to preventing injustice.

After all, the Shias keep asking us the same question!  Whose side would we have been on?  While we would have wholeheartedly supported Imam Hussain (ra), it seems like his own brother failed him.

However, if you argue that things had to run their course, I wonder then why do you spend year after year slapping yourselves over what happened!

If yes then what is the point of Ilm e Ghaib and Loh e Mehfooz? You really need to do some research on Ilm e Ghaib and Loh e Mehfooz. Actually you need to do research  on a lot of things.

I understand "al-lawh al-mahfooz", not the Persian pronounced "loh e mehfooz".

Being informed or knowing something in advance is a different thing. The police, local authority, intelligence service or law enforcement agency have been tipped of about something or they've got someone under surveillance which gives them advance knowledge and information is not knowledge of the unseen and unknown, this is not ilm e Ghaib.

And yet we see that the police, with some intelligence tip, intervene and prevent a crime better than did your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) who was in possession of knowledge of the unseen, lolll!

Police 1, Imams (ra) 0!  hahaha!

[iceman]

Would you not take matters in your hands to save your 3rd "infallible" Imam (ra)?  At least I would have taken things in my hands to save Imam Hussain (ra).  Therefore, I am better than Imam Hassan (ra) when it comes to preventing injustice.

After all, the Shias keep asking us the same question!  Whose side would we have been on?  While we would have wholeheartedly supported Imam Hussain (ra), it seems like his own brother failed him.

However, if you argue that things had to run their course, I wonder then why do you spend year after year slapping yourselves over what happened!

I understand "al-lawh al-mahfooz", not the Persian pronounced "loh e mehfooz".

And yet we see that the police, with some intelligence tip, intervene and prevent a crime better than did your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) who was in possession of knowledge of the unseen, lolll!

Police 1, Imams (ra) 0!  hahaha!

"Would you not take matters in your hands to save your 3rd "infallible" Imam (ra)?"

The answer is a very big NO. I would only follow my Imam's orders and definitely not take matters into my own hands. That's one of the major differences between Shia and Sunni concept and way of thinking. And this is due to lack of knowledge and understanding about Shia Imamah.

"At least I would have taken things in my hands to save Imam Hussain (ra)"

Please read thoroughly the incident of Karbala and go in depth.

"Therefore, I am better than Imam Hassan (ra) when it comes to preventing injustice"

Imam Hassan did what was necessary due to the situation and circumstances of the time. Imam Hussain did what was necessary due to the condition he was facing.

As far as preventing injustice is concerned emotions and feelings shouldn't get in the way. And one should not resort to violence or threatening behaviour.

It all depends on your priorities if you've got them in order. According to some people getting their way is prior, individual success is important and what is in your benefit and interest.

According to others the welfare of Islam and the benefit of the Muslims has priority above all and collective interest and success is important.

"After all, the Shias keep asking us the same question!  Whose side would we have been on?  While we would have wholeheartedly supported Imam Hussain (ra), it seems like his own brother failed him"

See what I mean, it's got nothing to do with sides but who was on the right. Might isn't right and it isn't necessary that those in authority and power are always right. It seems to you his brother failed.

If making peace for the welfare of Islam and the benefit of the Muslims is failure according to you then that's your thinking.

"However, if you argue that things had to run their course, I wonder then why do you spend year after year slapping yourselves over what happened"

For your information I don't slap myself. But no matter what I say I don't think it's going to  make any difference to you and your thinking.

People commemorate the martyrdom of Hussain according to their own way based on culture and tradition on where they live, belong or come from.

[iceman]

Would you not take matters in your hands to save your 3rd "infallible" Imam (ra)?  At least I would have taken things in my hands to save Imam Hussain (ra).  Therefore, I am better than Imam Hassan (ra) when it comes to preventing injustice.

After all, the Shias keep asking us the same question!  Whose side would we have been on?  While we would have wholeheartedly supported Imam Hussain (ra), it seems like his own brother failed him.

However, if you argue that things had to run their course, I wonder then why do you spend year after year slapping yourselves over what happened!

I understand "al-lawh al-mahfooz", not the Persian pronounced "loh e mehfooz".

And yet we see that the police, with some intelligence tip, intervene and prevent a crime better than did your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) who was in possession of knowledge of the unseen, lolll!

Police 1, Imams (ra) 0!  hahaha!

"I understand "al-lawh al-mahfooz", not the Persian pronounced "loh e mehfooz"

Well it would have been nice if you discussed it rather than just mentioning pronunciation and then running away from it. 😊

"And yet we see that the police, with some intelligence tip, intervene and prevent a crime better than did your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) who was in possession of knowledge of the unseen, lolll!"

Am I talking to a brick wall here? I've mentioned ilm e Ghaib and al-lawh al-mahfooz but rather than touching and discussing this you want to joke about it 😊

"Police 1, Imams (ra) 0!  hahaha!"

This is exactly what we call JAHALAT. Go on, have a laugh. 😊

[iceman]

Thing is there is no sense in believing in an ideology that you cannot provide CKEAR proofs for........look at all your posts when you cannot give clear answers it’s US who are blind and cannot see.😂👍

See.......shura this shura that I know it gives you nightmares and even worse I can back it up from the Quran and sunnah...........after hundereds of your posts you can’t do the same.😉👍

Why are you avoiding promotion??

Was that made up in your head??😂😂👍

And you seriously want a civilised discussion with me on Imamah? What, with  your childish behaviour and gimmicks? 😊

[Mythbuster1]

And you seriously want a civilised discussion with me on Imamah? What, with  your childish behaviour and gimmicks? 😊

What’s up? Does reality hurt? I’ve had discussions with you for you to turn around and say we are blind and are doing it on purpose........go check previous posts, you and your kind will resort to such once shura is shown to you very clear.😉

Promotion? Why you keep running from it? 😂👍

[iceman]

What’s up? Does reality hurt? I’ve had discussions with you for you to turn around and say we are blind and are doing it on purpose........go check previous posts, you and your kind will resort to such once shura is shown to you very clear.😉

Promotion? Why you keep running from it? 😂👍

Where was Shura in Saqifa, forget about anywhere else? Take a look at Abu Bakr's speech;

"Abu Bakr said, ‘O company of Ansaar! You are surely the recipient of the attributes which you have described and you have achieved them. But, Caliphate and government is only the right of the Quraish because they are renowned for their nobility and lineage, manners and conduct throughout the Arabian Peninsula and enjoy an undisputed position. It is only for your betterment that I do this, I present before you two people so that you may choose whomsoever you wish for the Caliphate. Saying this, Abu Bakr caught hold of my hand and that of Abu Ubaidah and presented us before the crowd. I disliked the last suggestion."

Where is Shura in the above? Let me tell you what's in the above and on what basis a selection was made by a handful of people.

"But, Caliphate and government is only the right of the Quraish because they are renowned for their nobility and lineage, manners and conduct throughout the Arabian Peninsula and enjoy an undisputed position"

'But Caliphate and government is ONLY THE RIGHT OF THE QURAISH?  Excuse me? Where did Shura go? It didn't go anywhere, it just wasn't there to begin with  😊

So was a selection made on Shura or tribalism?

[Cherub786]

Where was Shura in Saqifa, forget about anywhere else? Take a look at Abu Bakr's speech;

"Abu Bakr said, ‘O company of Ansaar! You are surely the recipient of the attributes which you have described and you have achieved them. But, Caliphate and government is only the right of the Quraish because they are renowned for their nobility and lineage, manners and conduct throughout the Arabian Peninsula and enjoy an undisputed position. It is only for your betterment that I do this, I present before you two people so that you may choose whomsoever you wish for the Caliphate. Saying this, Abu Bakr caught hold of my hand and that of Abu Ubaidah and presented us before the crowd. I disliked the last suggestion."

Where is Shura in the above? Let me tell you what's in the above and on what basis a selection was made by a handful of people.

"But, Caliphate and government is only the right of the Quraish because they are renowned for their nobility and lineage, manners and conduct throughout the Arabian Peninsula and enjoy an undisputed position"

'But Caliphate and government is ONLY THE RIGHT OF THE QURAISH?  Excuse me? Where did Shura go? It didn't go anywhere, it just wasn't there to begin with  😊

So was a selection made on Shura or tribalism?

Can you cite the source for your quote of sayyidina Abi Bakr رضى الله عنه so I can check it in Arabic and see what the reality is.

[iceman]

Sehih Bukhari
Volume 5, Book 57, Number 19 :
Narrated by 'Aisha
(the wife of the Prophet)

Allah's Apostle died while Abu Bakr was at a place called As-Sunah (Al-'Aliya) 'Umar stood up and said, "By Allah! Allah's Apostle is not dead!" 'Umar (later on) said, "By Allah! Nothing occurred to my mind except that." He said, "Verily! Allah will resurrect him and he will cut the hands and legs of some men." Then Abu Bakr came and uncovered the face of Allah's Apostle, kissed him and said, "Let my mother and father be sacrificed for you, (O Allah's Apostle), you are good in life and in death. By Allah in Whose Hands my life is, Allah will never make you taste death twice."

Then he went out and said, "O oath-taker! Don't be hasty." When Abu Bakr spoke, 'Umar sat down. Abu Bakr praised and glorified Allah and said, No doubt! Whoever worshipped Muhammad, then Muhammad is dead, but whoever worshipped Allah, then Allah is Alive and shall never die." Then he recited Allah's Statement.: "(O Muhammad) Verily you will die, and they also will die." (39.30) He also recited: "Muhammad is no more than an Apostle; and indeed many Apostles have passed away, before him, If he dies Or is killed, will you then Turn back on your heels? And he who turns back On his heels, not the least Harm will he do to Allah And Allah will give reward to those Who are grateful." (3.144)

The people wept loudly, and the Ansar were assembled with Sad bin 'Ubada in the shed of Bani Saida. They said (to the emigrants). "There should be one 'Amir from us and one from you." Then Abu Bakr, Umar bin Al-Khattab and Abu 'baida bin Al-Jarrah went to them. 'Umar wanted to speak but Abu Bakr stopped him. 'Umar later on used to say, "By Allah, I intended only to say something that appealed to me and I was afraid that Abu Bakr would not speak so well. Then Abu Bakr spoke and his speech was very eloquent. He said in his statement, "We are the rulers and you (Ansars) are the ministers (i.e. advisers),"

Hubab bin Al-Mundhir said, "No, by Allah we won't accept this. But there must be a ruler from us and a ruler from you." Abu Bakr said, "No, we will be the rulers and you will be the ministers, for they (i.e. Quarish) are the best family amongst the 'Arabs and of best origin. So you should elect either 'Umar or Abu 'Ubaida bin Al-Jarrah as your ruler." 'Umar said (to Abu Bakr), "No but we elect you, for you are our chief and the best amongst us and the most beloved of all of us to Allah's Apostle."

So 'Umar took Abu Bakr's hand and gave the pledge of allegiance and the people too gave the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr. Someone said, "You have killed Sad bin Ubada." 'Umar said, "Allah has killed him." 'Aisha said (in another narration), ("When the Prophet was on his death-bed) he looked up and said thrice, (Amongst) the Highest Companion (See Qur'an 4.69)' Aisha said, Allah benefited the people by their two speeches. 'Umar frightened the people some of whom were hypocrites whom Allah caused to abandon Islam because of 'Umar's speech.

Then Abu Bakr led the people to True Guidance and acquainted them with the right path they were to follow so that they went out reciting: "Muhammad is no more than an Apostle and indeed many Apostles have passed away before him..." (3.144)

[Cherub786]

Sehih Bukhari
Volume 5, Book 57, Number 19 :
Narrated by 'Aisha
(the wife of the Prophet)

Allah's Apostle died while Abu Bakr was at a place called As-Sunah (Al-'Aliya) 'Umar stood up and said, "By Allah! Allah's Apostle is not dead!" 'Umar (later on) said, "By Allah! Nothing occurred to my mind except that." He said, "Verily! Allah will resurrect him and he will cut the hands and legs of some men." Then Abu Bakr came and uncovered the face of Allah's Apostle, kissed him and said, "Let my mother and father be sacrificed for you, (O Allah's Apostle), you are good in life and in death. By Allah in Whose Hands my life is, Allah will never make you taste death twice."

Then he went out and said, "O oath-taker! Don't be hasty." When Abu Bakr spoke, 'Umar sat down. Abu Bakr praised and glorified Allah and said, No doubt! Whoever worshipped Muhammad, then Muhammad is dead, but whoever worshipped Allah, then Allah is Alive and shall never die." Then he recited Allah's Statement.: "(O Muhammad) Verily you will die, and they also will die." (39.30) He also recited: "Muhammad is no more than an Apostle; and indeed many Apostles have passed away, before him, If he dies Or is killed, will you then Turn back on your heels? And he who turns back On his heels, not the least Harm will he do to Allah And Allah will give reward to those Who are grateful." (3.144)

The people wept loudly, and the Ansar were assembled with Sad bin 'Ubada in the shed of Bani Saida. They said (to the emigrants). "There should be one 'Amir from us and one from you." Then Abu Bakr, Umar bin Al-Khattab and Abu 'baida bin Al-Jarrah went to them. 'Umar wanted to speak but Abu Bakr stopped him. 'Umar later on used to say, "By Allah, I intended only to say something that appealed to me and I was afraid that Abu Bakr would not speak so well. Then Abu Bakr spoke and his speech was very eloquent. He said in his statement, "We are the rulers and you (Ansars) are the ministers (i.e. advisers),"

Hubab bin Al-Mundhir said, "No, by Allah we won't accept this. But there must be a ruler from us and a ruler from you." Abu Bakr said, "No, we will be the rulers and you will be the ministers, for they (i.e. Quarish) are the best family amongst the 'Arabs and of best origin. So you should elect either 'Umar or Abu 'Ubaida bin Al-Jarrah as your ruler." 'Umar said (to Abu Bakr), "No but we elect you, for you are our chief and the best amongst us and the most beloved of all of us to Allah's Apostle."

So 'Umar took Abu Bakr's hand and gave the pledge of allegiance and the people too gave the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr. Someone said, "You have killed Sad bin Ubada." 'Umar said, "Allah has killed him." 'Aisha said (in another narration), ("When the Prophet was on his death-bed) he looked up and said thrice, (Amongst) the Highest Companion (See Qur'an 4.69)' Aisha said, Allah benefited the people by their two speeches. 'Umar frightened the people some of whom were hypocrites whom Allah" caused to abandon Islam because of 'Umar's speech.

Then Abu Bakr led the people to True Guidance and acquainted them with the right path they were to follow so that they went out reciting: "Muhammad is no more than an Apostle and indeed many Apostles have passed away before him..." (3.144)

You are quoting something else. I asked for the source of this statement:

"Caliphate and government is only the right of the Quraish"

The Hadith you have quoted just now from Bukhari doesn't have these words. It doesn't say that government is only the right of the Quraish.

[iceman]

Can you cite the source for your quote of sayyidina Abi Bakr رضى الله عنه so I can check it in Arabic and see what the reality is.

Saheeh Bukhari, Kitabul Hudud, Baabul Rajmul Hablaa, 4/ 119-120

Seerae Ibne Hisham, 4/ 336-338 Kanz al-Ummaal, 3/ 139- Hadith 2326

[iceman]

You are quoting something else. I asked for the source of this statement:

"Caliphate and government is only the right of the Quraish"

The Hadith you have quoted just now from Bukhari doesn't have these words. It doesn't say that government is only the right of the Quraish.

That's true. I'm looking into this myself. Let me know how you get along.

[Cherub786]

Saheeh Bukhari, Kitabul Hudud, Baabul Rajmul Hablaa, 4/ 119-120

Seerae Ibne Hisham, 4/ 336-338 Kanz al-Ummaal, 3/ 139- Hadith 2326

The Hadith in Bukhari has these words:

فَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ لاَ، وَلَكِنَّا الأُمَرَاءُ وَأَنْتُمُ الْوُزَرَاءُ هُمْ أَوْسَطُ الْعَرَبِ دَارًا، وَأَعْرَبُهُمْ أَحْسَابًا

In your original quote, you claimed that sayyidina Abi Bakr RA said: "Caliphate and government is only the right of the Quraish"

But these words are not found anywhere in the Hadith you quoted

[muslim720]

The answer is a very big NO. I would only follow my Imam's orders and definitely not take matters into my own hands.

So you would have allowed Imam Hussain (ra) to walk right into a betrayal and ultimately his death and then you wonder why we say that Shias killed Imam Hussain (ra), lol!  And what "order" did the Imam (ra) have on the situation?  He could not even get his own supporters, his own Shia, to stand by him and you claim you would have obeyed his "order"!  Well, you're a Shia like the Kufans who betrayed him.  Your political and theological thought is the same as the Kufans, lol.

That's one of the major differences between Shia and Sunni concept and way of thinking.

Agreed one hundred percent.  While you would have allowed the Imam (ra) to undertake a suicidal mission, I would have tried to save him.

Please read thoroughly the incident of Karbala and go in depth.

I have read and heard enough.  If obeying the "order" of the Imam (ra) and not taking matters into your own hands was what you had done then you should condemn Hurr and everyone else who took "matters into" their own hands and tried to save the Imam (ra).

Imam Hassan did what was necessary due to the situation and circumstances of the time. Imam Hussain did what was necessary due to the condition he was facing.

That is the Sunni reasoning which can perfectly be explained by our beliefs.  In the Shi'i theology, with the over-complication of "infallibility", you cannot have one "infallible" surrender and another fight.  Don't know why this doesn't get in your thick head.

As far as preventing injustice is concerned emotions and feelings shouldn't get in the way. And one should not resort to violence or threatening behaviour.

So Imam Hussain (ra) was wrong for resorting to violence?  After all, he did not see the support of thousands of Kufans (those who betrayed him) as a way to sing kumbaya!

According to others the welfare of Islam and the benefit of the Muslims has priority above all and collective interest and success is important.

Okay so now Imam Hassan (ra) was wrong?  He handed the entire Ummah to a vicious man who only loved dunya!

If making peace for the welfare of Islam and the benefit of the Muslims is failure according to you then that's your thinking.

Now you are twitching out of control.  If you say that making peace with Muawiya was for the well-being and benefit of Muslims then you should have a positive outlook on the appointment, and rule, of Yazeed.  You should also stop crying over what happened at Karbala.  In other words, if Imam Hassan (ra) saw benefit in Muawiya ruling, you should be the first one to accept Muawiya's rule.  After all, you said you would "obey" the Imam (ra).

Well it would have been nice if you discussed it rather than just mentioning pronunciation and then running away from it.

I did not discuss them because the end-result is shameful for you.  The police intervenes to prevent a crime with the slightest of intelligence tips; the 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra), knowing the unseen, did nothing to prevent the catastrophe that was to visit upon the Ummah and his own brother.  He actually made way for the catastrophe to befell upon the Muslims and his own family, lol.