Ghadeer Khum

[Ameen]

Shia said:

If the Prophet (pbuh) didn't name and appoint someone to govern after him, then what did he say and advise??? or didn't he bother with this important issue??? The companions thought it was very important and they didn't waste any time about it. The first Khalif (ra) did name and appoint his successor and the second Khalif (ra) was also very concerned about who should succeed him. He also made preparations for this.

Don't worry, he gave loads of instructions and advice. He (saw) was not worried, he knew the fate of his nation and Allah reassured him.

Salaam brother. We have people made and chosen Imams, like you mentioned Khomenie. You also have Aimah e Arbaa, the four Imams of the Ahle Sunnah schools of thought. My point is that does Imamath exist in the Quran and has Allah chosen and made someone an Imam???

You're asking if "leadership" exists? seriously? Next you're going to ask if "wives" exist?

Shias believe in divine Imamath.

Oh divine Imamah? I thought you only believed in Imamah, what's the evidence that such a thing as "divine Imamah" exists?


Allah only mentioned the word "Imam" in his book, it refers to the leadership of good as well as bad people, I don't recall any mention of "divine Imamah".

I'm not worried. If he gave loads of instructions and advice then, bring it forward. Lets here it! You thought??? Well you need to think again. Study Shiaism, don't rely on gossip and rumours. Allah is divine, his Messenger (pbuh) is divine, so therefore the third authority brought and put in line and alongside Allah and his Messenger (pbuh) must also be divine. Otherwise why not just simply and only mention "obey the Ulul Amre" and "certain believers are your Wali" Allah has mentioned himself and his Messenger (pbuh) before making an announcement and announcing the obedience towards Ulul Amre and certain believers of being and becoming Wali, just to show the seriousness and the importance of the matter. But you boys always like to water and wash things down.

[Hani]

You want to hear the advice?  The books of Hadith are full of it, too hard to collect everything, I'll give you some examples if you wish, such as:


1- He (saw) told us to not have more than one leader at once, and that if another man claims leadership in the presence of another leader, we must kill the second who intrudes.


2- He (saw) said that it is not wise to grant authority to a man who seeks leadership and wants to assume power.


3- He (saw) said to be loyal when giving our pledge of allegiance to a man and to not betray him or turn on him.


4- He (saw) said that if people are being governed with corruption and they have the ability to change it, then they must do so.


etc..etc...


A lot more can be found in the books, is this not advice and instructions? It sure does seem like advice and instructions to me.

Allah is divine, his Messenger (pbuh) is divine, so therefore the third authority brought and put in line and alongside Allah and his Messenger (pbuh) must also be divine.

Allah said to be obedient to those of us in authority, this does not cause them to be divine. If Allah tells you to obey your parents and respect them and serve them, does this make them divine?


Allah is divine because he is the Lord, the Prophet (saw) is of an elevated status since he is a man chosen by God to deliver his holy message, as for governors and judges and commanders and deputies, while we have a responsibility towards them since they're in charge of our affairs, yet they aren't divine.

[Ameen]

You want to hear the advice?  The books of Hadith are full of it, too hard to collect everything, I'll give you some examples if you wish, such as:


1- He (saw) told us to not have more than one leader at once, and that if another man claims leadership in the presence of another leader, we must kill the second who intrudes.


2- He (saw) said that it is not wise to grant authority to a man who seeks leadership and wants to assume power.


3- He (saw) said to be loyal when giving our pledge of allegiance to a man and to not betray him or turn on him.


4- He (saw) said that if people are being governed with corruption and they have the ability to change it, then they must do so.


etc..etc...


A lot more can be found in the books, is this not advice and instructions? It sure does seem like advice and instructions to me.

Allah is divine, his Messenger (pbuh) is divine, so therefore the third authority brought and put in line and alongside Allah and his Messenger (pbuh) must also be divine.

Allah said to be obedient to those of us in authority, this does not cause them to be divine. If Allah tells you to obey your parents and respect them and serve them, does this make them divine?


Allah is divine because he is the Lord, the Prophet (saw) is of an elevated status since he is a man chosen by God to deliver his holy message, as for governors and judges and commanders and deputies, while we have a responsibility towards them since they're in charge of our affairs, yet they aren't divine.

Dear brother Hani, what can i say about you. You have given instructions without any backing. No references but lets examine them. Take a look at 2 and 3, what are you going to say about YAZEED??? The man was in authority and was given pledge of allegiance by vast majority of the Muslims. Even the residents of Madina refused to challenge him. So what is your stance on YAZEED??? He was Khalifatul Muslimeen. He came to power on your terms and that is the pledge of allegiance by the majority. Secondly What do you think of those who raised arms against the fourth rightly guided Khalif of the Muslims in Jamal and Safeen??? They went against the Khalif so therefore broke the Prophet's (pbuh) terms and instructions. I'm sure are honest and a man of principal. So what do you say???

[Husayn]

@ Ameen

Dear brother Hani, what can i say about you. You have given instructions without any backing. No references but lets examine them. Take a look at 2 and 3, what are you going to say about YAZEED??? The man was in authority and was given pledge of allegiance by vast majority of the Muslims. Even the residents of Madina refused to challenge him. So what is your stance on YAZEED??? He was Khalifatul Muslimeen. He came to power on your terms and that is the pledge of allegiance by the majority. Secondly What do you think of those who raised arms against the fourth rightly guided Khalif of the Muslims in Jamal and Safeen??? They went against the Khalif so therefore broke the Prophet's (pbuh) terms and instructions. I'm sure are honest and a man of principal. So what do you say???

I'll let Hani speak for himself, but I'd like to add my two cents.

These events which occured - Jamal/Siffin, Yazid e.t.c. are all evidence that the community, as a whole, is not always going to be united - either as a body, or united on truth. This is because, put simply, the community is not infallible.

The Prophet (saws) was also aware of this, and in many ahadith he states this openly - there will be Khilafah, there will be fitna, there will be dynasties and monarchies. This is all part and parcel of human behaviour, and the behaviour of societies in general.

The Shias like to say:

"If the divinely appointed infallible was in charge, none of this would have happened!"

Wasn't 'Ali (ra) in charge after 'Uthman (ra)? Isn't he a "divinely appointed infallible", according to Shias? If so, why did all this fitna (Jamal, Siffin) occur during his reign, and why couldn't he fix it?

You will say, "it's because of 'Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthman!".

Yet, none of them was alive when 'Ali (ra) was in power. So why couldn't he, being a "divinely appointed infallible", fix it?

Why didn't Allah (swt) give him Divine help to overcome all this and establish the "divinely appointed leadership" system that the Shias harp on about all the time?

Did Allah (swt) want to keep the Muslims divided and disunited?

You will say, "the people didn't obey him!".

So what is the point of a "divinely appointed leader" if the people can still disobey him and tear the Ummah into shreds? What is the point if Allah (swt) doesn't ensure that he maintains control and all the people follow him?

He did this with Rasul Allah (saws), why not with 'Ali (ra)?

[Taha]

Sorry I haven't been as active as I could be.  I don't have time to reply to every post in here, but just thought I'd drop some Qur'an in here to liven things up.  This is dedicated to those that would say that Imam `Ali (a.s.) isn't mentioned in the Qur'an.  And, as always, I begin in the name of our master Al Murtada `Ali (pbuh).


وإنه في أم الكتاب لدينا لعلي حكيم
[43:4]

And verily it is in the Mother of the Book with us; it is `Ali the wise.

وما كان لبشر أن يكلمه الله إلا وحيا أو من وراء حجاب أو يرسل رسولا فيوحي بإذنه ما يشاء إنه علي حكيم
[42:52]

And it is not for any mortal that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a veil, or by sending a messenger and revealing by his permission what he desires to; indeed, he is `Ali the wise.

ووهبنا لهم من رحمتنا وجعلنا لهم لسان صدق عليّا
[19:50]

And we gave them from our mercy and we granted them the truthful tongue; `Ali.

قال هذا صراط علي مستقيم
[15:41]

He said: This is the path of `Ali, straight.

[Husayn]

Taha,

Well, we took you semi-seriously up till now.... atleast you lasted that long. 

[sword_of_sunnah]

Brother Fear Allah from making Tahreef of Quran.

Transliteration: Qala hatha siratun AAalayya mustaqeemun
God said, "The path which leads to Me is a straight.(15:41 Shia translator Muhammad Sarwar)


And do you know, even Yazeed is mentioned in Quran( I could yazeed in the english translation, but I don't wanna do that, since I fear Allah, for making suc tahreef like you did) :

Faamma allatheena amanoo waAAamiloo alssalihati fayuwaffeehim ojoorahum wayazeeduhum min fadlihi waamma allatheena istankafoo waistakbaroo fayuAAaththibuhum AAathaban aleeman wala yajidoona lahum min dooni Allahi waliyyan wala naseeran
Then as for those who believe and do good, He will pay them fully their rewards and give them more out of His grace; and as for those who disdain and are proud, He will chastise them with a painful chastisement. And they shall not find for themselves besides Allah a guardian or a helper(4:173)

Wayakhirroona lil-athqani yabkoona wayazeeduhum khushooAAan
They fall down on their faces, weeping, and it increaseth humility in them.(17:109)

And here is an appropriate video, for misled people like you:

MMuXw

[Hani]

Actually the Yazidi sect (like their Shia counterparts) will use verses to prove Yazid is a God, such as:


{Wa Yazeed Allahu} [19:76]


This according to them would mean "And Yazid is Allah".

[Hani]

Dear brother Hani, what can i say about you. You have given instructions without any backing. No references but lets examine them. Take a look at 2 and 3, what are you going to say about YAZEED??? The man was in authority and was given pledge of allegiance by vast majority of the Muslims. Even the residents of Madina refused to challenge him. So what is your stance on YAZEED??? He was Khalifatul Muslimeen. He came to power on your terms and that is the pledge of allegiance by the majority. Secondly What do you think of those who raised arms against the fourth rightly guided Khalif of the Muslims in Jamal and Safeen??? They went against the Khalif so therefore broke the Prophet's (pbuh) terms and instructions. I'm sure are honest and a man of principal. So what do you say???

What do I say? I say I expect your answers because you're a Takfeeri Mughalee, exactly like your brothers from the Khawarij, they took certain rulings and made Takfeer on `Ali and `Uthman and their enemies. As for Ahlul-Sunnah, who are `Ali and `Uthman and al-Zubayr and the pious believers who fear Allah, we never make Takfeer on them and we love them and ask Allah to forgive their mistakes and we learn from their experience and take wisdom. I add, it has been established through the most authentic of chains that Rasul-Allah (saw) described both teams as Muslims, and it has been established that `Ali and al-Hasan and `Ammar the rest of the Sahabah all treated each other as Muslims during the Fitnah.


As for Yazid, most people gave him Bay`ah, and it was not clear in the beginning that he was corrupt but later when Ibn al-Zubayr and Ibn `Ali started a revolution, his violent ways became apparent and he oppressed the people of Madinah who were enraged by the death of Husayn, this was the second Fitnah that had taken place and the nation was divided between Yazid and Ibn al-Zubayr. Of course, the "kingdom" was prophesied by the Prophet (saw) so nothing new there and he (saw) also prophesied that everything will keep getting worse politically and socially.


Look, bottom line is this, the Prophet (saw) told us that we will be ruled by pious righteous men and we will be ruled by oppressive tyrants, this is the truth of the world we live in, but he (saw) emphasized on unity and peace. He told us even if our ruler is not a good one, we should listen and obey as long as he is establishing prayer and fasting, we should advise him and ask the Lord to bless him and guide him to what is best for Islam and Muslims. Don't you remember the Hadith where he (saw) prophesied that some Princes will delay the prayer times (ie al-Hajjaj), his companions asked "Should we overthrow them and make Jihad against them?" He (saw) said: "No, obey them and be patient. Pray in your own houses and then pray again with them, it will be counted as a voluntary prayer for you."


You as a Shia should know the danger and harm that armed revolutions cause, don't you see Syria and `Iraq? didn't you see what happened to al-Husayn bin `Ali? Heck even the Imams after al-Husayn decided to give Bay`ah and remain peaceful because they understood that revolutions are NOT WISE, do you think it's a coincidence that not ONE Imam revolted after Husayn?

[Ameen]

Dear brother Hani, what can i say about you. You have given instructions without any backing. No references but lets examine them. Take a look at 2 and 3, what are you going to say about YAZEED??? The man was in authority and was given pledge of allegiance by vast majority of the Muslims. Even the residents of Madina refused to challenge him. So what is your stance on YAZEED??? He was Khalifatul Muslimeen. He came to power on your terms and that is the pledge of allegiance by the majority. Secondly What do you think of those who raised arms against the fourth rightly guided Khalif of the Muslims in Jamal and Safeen??? They went against the Khalif so therefore broke the Prophet's (pbuh) terms and instructions. I'm sure are honest and a man of principal. So what do you say???

What do I say? I say I expect your answers because you're a Takfeeri Mughalee, exactly like your brothers from the Khawarij, they took certain rulings and made Takfeer on `Ali and `Uthman and their enemies. As for Ahlul-Sunnah, who are `Ali and `Uthman and al-Zubayr and the pious believers who fear Allah, we never make Takfeer on them and we love them and ask Allah to forgive their mistakes and we learn from their experience and take wisdom. I add, it has been established through the most authentic of chains that Rasul-Allah (saw) described both teams as Muslims, and it has been established that `Ali and al-Hasan and `Ammar the rest of the Sahabah all treated each other as Muslims during the Fitnah.


As for Yazid, most people gave him Bay`ah, and it was not clear in the beginning that he was corrupt but later when Ibn al-Zubayr and Ibn `Ali started a revolution, his violent ways became apparent and he oppressed the people of Madinah who were enraged by the death of Husayn, this was the second Fitnah that had taken place and the nation was divided between Yazid and Ibn al-Zubayr. Of course, the "kingdom" was prophesied by the Prophet (saw) so nothing new there and he (saw) also prophesied that everything will keep getting worse politically and socially.


Look, bottom line is this, the Prophet (saw) told us that we will be ruled by pious righteous men and we will be ruled by oppressive tyrants, this is the truth of the world we live in, but he (saw) emphasized on unity and peace. He told us even if our ruler is not a good one, we should listen and obey as long as he is establishing prayer and fasting, we should advise him and ask the Lord to bless him and guide him to what is best for Islam and Muslims. Don't you remember the Hadith where he (saw) prophesied that some Princes will delay the prayer times (ie al-Hajjaj), his companions asked "Should we overthrow them and make Jihad against them?" He (saw) said: "No, obey them and be patient. Pray in your own houses and then pray again with them, it will be counted as a voluntary prayer for you."


You as a Shia should know the danger and harm that armed revolutions cause, don't you see Syria and `Iraq? didn't you see what happened to al-Husayn bin `Ali? Heck even the Imams after al-Husayn decided to give Bay`ah and remain peaceful because they understood that revolutions are NOT WISE, do you think it's a coincidence that not ONE Imam revolted after Husayn?

I'm sorry to tell you that your information is baseless. I don't know where you got it from but lets take a close look at it. Takfiree Mughalee??? Sunshine, you can call me what ever you like. It's obvious that you are full of bitterness, hatred and envy right from the very start. You have to release it somewhere. I'm not surprised and this is nothing new that you and your kind have been filled with garbage and nonsense about Shiaism right from birth. Here are your words "as for the Ahle Sunnah, who were Ali, Usman and Al Zubayr" my dear Ahle Sunnah came to surface during Imam Jaffar Al Sadiq's (as). The first of your Imam's, Abu Hanifa who kicked off the Sunni Hanfi school of thought. And later own dispute emerged and other Ahle Sunnah schools formed. Ahle Sunnah or Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'ath or Sunnis were no where to be seen or heard off before this time. So I don't know where you got the idea that Ali, Usman and Al Zubayr where Sunnis or from the Ahle Sunnah.

[Hani]

So I don't know where you got the idea that Ali, Usman and Al Zubayr where Sunnis or from the Ahle Sunnah.

Simple, Ahlul-Sunnah means, people of the prophetic tradition, and since these companions followed the Sunnah, they're Ahlu-Sunnatin.

[Ameen]

You believe that they all were known as Muslims and they all treated each other as Muslims and you further on say "during the fitna", my question to you is then why the hell don't you follow their example and start treating others as Muslims??? Those who are different from you in their thought, opinion and point of view, why don't you see them as Muslims??? Why don't you learn from their example. Secondly "during fitna or the time of fitna" who was fitne baaz??? Who created the fitna??? What does fitna mean and who was responsible for creating it??? You have Jamal and you have Safeen, who was right and who was wrong??? Who was on haq and who was on fitna???

[Hani]

You believe that they all were known as Muslims and they all treated each other as Muslims and you further on say "during the fitna", my question to you is then why the hell don't you follow their example and start treating others as Muslims??? Those who are different from you in their thought, opinion and point of view, why don't you see them as Muslims??? Why don't you learn from their example. Secondly "during fitna or the time of fitna" who was fitne baaz??? Who created the fitna??? What does fitna mean and who was responsible for creating it??? You have Jamal and you have Safeen, who was right and who was wrong??? Who was on haq and who was on fitna???

I like how random you are,



The Prophet (saw) prophesied that there shall be a Fitnah, he warned from participating in it, and he said the Muslims will fight each other, and then he said his grandson al-Hasan will reconcile between two great teams of Muslims, as for those on Haq they are `Ali's team by consensus of Ahlul-Sunnah.


It's not too complicated now common.

[Ameen]

Nobody started a revolution my friend. People of Kufa who were governed by Ameer Muavia (ra) and later on by Yazeed, wrote to the people of Madina about Yazeed's anti Islamic ways. Hazrath Hussain (as) responded and sent Hazrath Muslim ibne Aqeel (as) to investigate and then decided to make his way to Kufa. Nobody else from Madina bothered. Hazrath Hussain's (as) caravan was stopped by Yazeed's hench men before Kufa in Karbalaa. And the whole matter evolved around Hussain's (as) bayth to Yazeed. Yes, Yazeed wanted Hussain (as) to accept Yazeed as Khalif and swear allegiance to him. Hussain (as), point blank, refused. He said "no way, someone like me can never do bayth, can never swear allegiance to someone like you". My friend there was no revolution, since people backed out. Revolution only begins when you have the right backing. It was a matter of giving bayth to Yazeed. Or prepare to fight. Hussain (as) wanted to do neither. He did not want to be the cause of bloodshed between Muslims. He was given no choice. He was cornered and out numbered. He wasn't allowed to go back to Madina with out giving bayth. Basically it was either you bayth or it's your head. Hussain (as) new he was cornered and out numbered, he new he had no choice, so he decided to give his head and die with honour.It had nothing to do with revolution or it wasn't a failed uprising.

[Hani]

Nobody started a revolution my friend. People of Kufa who were governed by Ameer Muavia (ra) and later on by Yazeed, wrote to the people of Madina about Yazeed's anti Islamic ways. Hazrath Hussain (as) responded and sent Hazrath Muslim ibne Aqeel (as) to investigate and then decided to make his way to Kufa. Nobody else from Madina bothered. Hazrath Hussain's (as) caravan was stopped by Yazeed's hench men before Kufa in Karbalaa. And the whole matter evolved around Hussain's (as) bayth to Yazeed. Yes, Yazeed wanted Hussain (as) to accept Yazeed as Khalif and swear allegiance to him. Hussain (as), point blank, refused. He said "no way, someone like me can never do bayth, can never swear allegiance to someone like you". My friend there was no revolution, since people backed out. Revolution only begins when you have the right backing. It was a matter of giving bayth to Yazeed. Or prepare to fight. Hussain (as) wanted to do neither. He did not want to be the cause of bloodshed between Muslims. He was given no choice. He was cornered and out numbered. He wasn't allowed to go back to Madina with out giving bayth. Basically it was either you bayth or it's your head. Hussain (as) new he was cornered and out numbered, he new he had no choice, so he decided to give his head and die with honour.It had nothing to do with revolution or it wasn't a failed uprising.

MY GOD, WHAT IS THIS MAN!?


Like MOST Shia scholars describe what Husayn did as "Revolution"! Now you're saying it's not!? Where'd you get that from?


All major Shia websites, write "The Husayni Revolution!" check the official website for al-`Atbah al-Husayniyyah here:
http://imamhussain-lib.com/arabic/pages/bohoth083.php


Check Sistani's `Centre for Belief research:
http://www.aqaed.com/ahlulbait/books/hayat-i-hus2/5.htm


They write:

واحاطت بالامام (ع) عدة من المسؤوليات الدينية والواجبات الاجتماعية وغيرها، فحفزته الى الثورة ودفعته الى التضحية والفداء وهذه بعضها


"And the Imam (as) was surrounded by several religious and social duties, so this directed him towards revolution, and pushed him towards sacrifice etc..."


Heck the official SHia website "rafed.net" writes (here):



الثورات الناجمة عن ثورة الاِمام الحسين_ عليه السلام
1 ـ ثورة أهل المدينة ومأساة الحرة


[The revolutions that were ignited by the revolution of Imam Husayn (as):
1st Is the revolution of the people of Madinah and the tragedy of al-Harrah.
ect...]

[Hadrami]

al-Husein did something which was against Allah's command according to al-Mufid....ooopss!!! That's shiaism, you will go so low as to insult husain RA just to save your contradictive history & weak beliefs.

Read this snippet from http://twelvershia.net/2014/10/10/issues-of-ghaybah-part-10/

A man who did a considerable amount of damage to this great faith through his corruption and extremism, the leader of the Imamiyyah al-Shaykh al-Mufid, this man in a desperate attempt to defend the absence of his Imam ended up doing more damage to his own sect and cult than anything.

The topic which was being discussed was the reason for the occultation and Ghaybah of the 12th Imam as opposed to his fathers who were never absent. In his book Rasa’il al-Ghaybah 3/3 al-Mufid quotes his opponent’s argument:

إذا كان السبب في الغيبة – التي طالت مدتها ، و امتدت بها الأيام – هو كثرة الأعداء والخوف على نفسه منهم ، فقد كان الزمن الأول على الأئمة من آبائه أصعب ، وكان أعداؤهم أكثر ، والخوف على أنفسهم أشد وأكثر ، ومع ذلك فإنهم كانوا ظاهرين ، ولم يستتروا ، ولا غابوا عن شيعتهم ، حتى أتاهم اليقين فهذا يبطل هذه العلة في الغيبة

[If the cause of this absence -which stretched for a long time- was the big number of enemies and his fear for himself, then (I argue that) the old days of his fathers were much harder and their enemies were more numerous, they feared so much more for themselves, yet they were still apparent and not hidden from their followers or absent, so that the followers may have certainty (of the truth) and this cancels out the excuse of his Ghaybah.]

Al-Mufid replies to this on the next page 3/4:

 إن الذي يظهر من أحوال الأئمة الماضين عليهم السلام أنهم أبيحت لهم التقية من الأعداء ، ولم يكلفوا بالقيام بالسيف مع الظهور ، لعدم مصلحة في ذلك ، ولم يكونوا ملزمين بالدعوة ، بل كانت المصلحة تقتضي الحضور في مجالس الأعداء ، والمخالطة لهم ، ولهذا أذاعوا تحريم إشهار السيوف عنهم ، وحظر الدعوة إليها ، لئلا يزاحم الأعداء ظهورهم وتواجدهم بين الناس . وقد أشاروا إلى مجئ منتظر يكون في أخر الزمان ، إمام منهم ، يكشف الله به الغمة ، ويحيي به السنة ، يهدي به الأمة ، لا تسعه التقية عند ظهوره

[What is apparent from the situation of the previous Imams (as) is that Taqiyyah was made permissible for them from their enemies, they were not ordered to rebel with the sword when apparent because there was no goodness or benefit from it. The previous Imams were not ordered to make Da`wah(preaching) but rather there were benefits from attending the gatherings of the enemies, and mixing with them, this is why they announced the impermissibility of unsheathing the sword and the impermissibility of calling to their right of leadership, so that the enemies may not interfere with their presence among the people. They (Imams) have pointed to the appearance of an awaited one at the end of times, an Imam just like them, through which Allah lifts the darkness and revives the Sunnah and guides the nation, he is incapable of Taqiyyah in his appearance.]

He repeats the same words again in volume 4 of this book, so notice the dangerous idea that he is declaring here, that previous Imams were ordered to stick to Taqiyyah and not declare their leadership or rise with the sword.

Here we ask the following question, isn’t it the popular Shi`ee belief that Imam al-Husayn led a religious revolution to reform? That he took a heroic stance which SAVED the religion and he stood against the tyrant Sultan? The Shia even commemorate this event and describe it as “The Husayni revolution”.

[Ameen]

Nobody started a revolution my friend. People of Kufa who were governed by Ameer Muavia (ra) and later on by Yazeed, wrote to the people of Madina about Yazeed's anti Islamic ways. Hazrath Hussain (as) responded and sent Hazrath Muslim ibne Aqeel (as) to investigate and then decided to make his way to Kufa. Nobody else from Madina bothered. Hazrath Hussain's (as) caravan was stopped by Yazeed's hench men before Kufa in Karbalaa. And the whole matter evolved around Hussain's (as) bayth to Yazeed. Yes, Yazeed wanted Hussain (as) to accept Yazeed as Khalif and swear allegiance to him. Hussain (as), point blank, refused. He said "no way, someone like me can never do bayth, can never swear allegiance to someone like you". My friend there was no revolution, since people backed out. Revolution only begins when you have the right backing. It was a matter of giving bayth to Yazeed. Or prepare to fight. Hussain (as) wanted to do neither. He did not want to be the cause of bloodshed between Muslims. He was given no choice. He was cornered and out numbered. He wasn't allowed to go back to Madina with out giving bayth. Basically it was either you bayth or it's your head. Hussain (as) new he was cornered and out numbered, he new he had no choice, so he decided to give his head and die with honour.It had nothing to do with revolution or it wasn't a failed uprising.

MY GOD, WHAT IS THIS MAN!?


Like MOST Shia scholars describe what Husayn did as "Revolution"! Now you're saying it's not!? Where'd you get that from?


All major Shia websites, write "The Husayni Revolution!" check the official website for al-`Atbah al-Husayniyyah here:
http://imamhussain-lib.com/arabic/pages/bohoth083.php


Check Sistani's `Centre for Belief research:
http://www.aqaed.com/ahlulbait/books/hayat-i-hus2/5.htm


They write:

واحاطت بالامام (ع) عدة من المسؤوليات الدينية والواجبات الاجتماعية وغيرها، فحفزته الى الثورة ودفعته الى التضحية والفداء وهذه بعضها


"And the Imam (as) was surrounded by several religious and social duties, so this directed him towards revolution, and pushed him towards sacrifice etc..."


Heck the official SHia website "rafed.net" writes (here):



الثورات الناجمة عن ثورة الاِمام الحسين_ عليه السلام
1 ـ ثورة أهل المدينة ومأساة الحرة


[The revolutions that were ignited by the revolution of Imam Husayn (as):
1st Is the revolution of the people of Madinah and the tragedy of al-Harrah.
ect...]

So tell me how exactly did this revolution begin??? Answer me this, according to you why did Hussain (as) leave Madina??? Where was he haeding towards??? What was his purpose??? Is this difficult for you to answer??? When you do i will take it further from there.

[Hani]

So tell me how exactly did this revolution begin??? Answer me this, according to you why did Hussain (as) leave Madina??? Where was he haeding towards??? What was his purpose??? Is this difficult for you to answer??? When you do i will take it further from there.

The leader of the Shia al-Shaykh al-Mufeed writes in his "al-Irshad" volume 2 page 31, he writes about the actions of al-Husayn ibn `Ali after the death of Mu`awiyah:


فلما مات معاوية وانقضت مدة الهدنة التي كانت تمنع الحسين ابن علي عليهما السلام من الدعوة إلى نفسه، أظهر أمره بحسب الامكان، وأبان عن حقه للجاهلين به حالا بحال، إلى أن اجتمع له في الظاهر الأنصار. فدعا عليه السلام إلى الجهاد وشمر للقتال، وتوجه بولده وأهل بيته من حرم الله وحرم رسوله نحو العراق، للاستنصار بمن دعاه من شيعته على الأعداء


[Then when Mu`awiyah died and the truce ended after it had prevented al-Husayn ibn `Ali (as) from calling for himself (as leader), he then revealed his leadership as much as he could, and he clarified his right for those who are ignorant, until he was able to amass what appeared to be supporters. Then he (as) called for Jihad and prepared to fight, and headed with his children and household from Hijaz to `Iraq, to seek the support of his Shia who called on him to face their enemies.]

[Ameen]

So tell me how exactly did this revolution begin??? Answer me this, according to you why did Hussain (as) leave Madina??? Where was he haeding towards??? What was his purpose??? Is this difficult for you to answer??? When you do i will take it further from there.

The leader of the Shia al-Shaykh al-Mufeed writes in his "al-Irshad" volume 2 page 31, he writes about the actions of al-Husayn ibn `Ali after the death of Mu`awiyah:


فلما مات معاوية وانقضت مدة الهدنة التي كانت تمنع الحسين ابن علي عليهما السلام من الدعوة إلى نفسه، أظهر أمره بحسب الامكان، وأبان عن حقه للجاهلين به حالا بحال، إلى أن اجتمع له في الظاهر الأنصار. فدعا عليه السلام إلى الجهاد وشمر للقتال، وتوجه بولده وأهل بيته من حرم الله وحرم رسوله نحو العراق، للاستنصار بمن دعاه من شيعته على الأعداء


[Then when Mu`awiyah died and the truce ended after it had prevented al-Husayn ibn `Ali (as) from calling for himself (as leader), he then revealed his leadership as much as he could, and he clarified his right for those who are ignorant, until he was able to amass what appeared to be supporters. Then he (as) called for Jihad and prepared to fight, and headed with his children and household from Hijaz to `Iraq, to seek the support of his Shia who called on him to face their enemies.]

I actually asked you and wanted to know what your opinion is. Anyways, so what is your opinion??? Do you believe in this??? I would definitely like to here your views. Lets take a look at this. First of all it is not compulsory on me to agree and believe in this. When Ameer Muavia (ra) died His son Yazeed was already sworn in as the leader of the Muslim Ummah. Two, many companions of the Prophet (pbuh) and those companions who died their children had gave their pledge of allegiance to Yazaeed. Three, if Hussain (as) revealed his leadership as much as he could then, what support did he get and receive from Madina??? From the Madanites??? This is where he lived and where is residence was, so what support did he get and receive from the locals? Four,Kufa, Iraq was many, many miles away and was governed and ruled by Ameer Muavia (ra), ruled by the Umayad dynasty for many, many years and was one of his strongholds. Five, doesn't this sound strange that Hazrath Hussain (as) lives and resides in Madina and has no Shias there to support and accompany him but he suddenly has Shias out of the blue in Kufa, somebody else's back yard??? Six,Hussain (as) never called for jihad because jihad is not with and against Muslims. And this was not the way of Hussain's (as) elders and ancestors. And if he did call for jihad then you don't take your family with you on jihad and do jihad with them. You prepare and take soldiers and weapons. Seven, take a look at Haq Char Yaar website, you will find brother Fatah Momin on there and I will dig out one of his articles around 2010/2011 on this matter. See what he has to say.

[Hani]

I actually asked you and wanted to know what your opinion is. Anyways, so what is your opinion??? Do you believe in this??? I would definitely like to here your views.

I believe Yazid is an unqualified fool and Husayn had more right to it than him.

Two, many companions of the Prophet (pbuh) and those companions who died their children had gave their pledge of allegiance to Yazaeed.

Yazeed was given allegiance by the majority no doubt, no one else claimed Imamah at the time, Husayn and Ibn Zubayr declared their opposition after the fact. There is no doubt he was given a legitimate Bay`ah and became a Khalifah, even if we hate him this is the truth, and we do not praise the method in which he became Khalifah as the opinions of the children of `Ali and the children of Zubayr and those of `Abbas and `Umar in our opinion outweighs that of the majority but this is how things played out.

Three, if Hussain (as) revealed his leadership as much as he could then, what support did he get and receive from Madina??? From the Madanites???

He was advised by many to remain in Madinah and declare his revolution from Makkah and Madinah, Husayn refused because the people of `Iraq were much more numerous and much stronger, they were also very enthusiastic and they were the ones who encouraged Husayn to start the revolution to begin with. I add, Husayn did not want any bloodshed to take place in the sacred cities of Makkah and Madinah.

This is where he lived and where is residence was, so what support did he get and receive from the locals?

The best support he got was their advise, "Don't go to `Iraq! They'll trick you like they did your father and brother."

Four,Kufa, Iraq was many, many miles away and was governed and ruled by Ameer Muavia (ra), ruled by the Umayad dynasty for many, many years and was one of his strongholds.

Kufa was full of `Ali's Shia, they hated banu Umayyah and always caused them trouble. They also held grudges against the people of Sham.

Six,Hussain (as) never called for jihad because jihad is not with and against Muslims. And this was not the way of Hussain's (as) elders and ancestors. And if he did call for jihad then you don't take your family with you on jihad and do jihad with them. You prepare and take soldiers and weapons.

Matter of the fact, Husayn and `Abdullah did not accept Yazeed's Bay`ah or Khilafah, they rejected him altogether. Husayn took a pledge from thousands of `Iraqies that they'd be his soldiers, as Mufeed said, he went to seek their support and he took his close family members with him as he intended to establish his leadership from there, it backfired!


Listen to what some of the Shia scholars gave as excuses as to why he took his family, you'll laugh:
http://www.imamhussain.org/Sabaya/27vie.html

Seven, take a look at Haq Char Yaar website, you will find brother Fatah Momin on there and I will dig out one of his articles around 2010/2011 on this matter. See what he has to say.

Dunno him.