Did any of the Sahabah partake in the Battle of Karbala?

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

If I don't get a reply from him maybe I should create my own post. I could call it: "Dissecting the claims of [his username] against some of the Sahaba," and link to this post. What do you think?

As you wish brother.

[Pea Ce]

As you wish brother.

Okay, he replied but he went off topic, not addressing how this affects his allegations.

Unfortunately the details of the battle of Karbala and its causes and consequences are not covered in the hadith books where the Isnad is important, rather (some of them) are mentioned in the history books where usually the Isnad is not important. So it's difficult to discuss about that this way. But I am going to take another approach to this topic:

One of the reasons that Imam Husain refused to pay allegiance to Yazid was that he was seeing Yazid an illegitimate caliph as well as his father Muawiya who appointed him (i.e. Yazid) as his successor. After all Muawiya was who revolted against Imam Ali the rightly guided caliph in the opinion of both Sunni and Shia and started the battle of Saffain in which many Muslims got killed. Now to know whether Imam Ali and Imam Husain were righteous in the eyes of Allah and his apostle or Muawiya and Amr ibn 'Aas (two of the Sahaba) see the following authentic narrations:

https://al-maktaba.org/book/33757/4996 https://al-maktaba.org/book/2266/6107 https://al-maktaba.org/book/2266/6122 https://al-maktaba.org/book/2266/6109

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

the history books where usually the Isnad is not important. So it's difficult to discuss about that this way

He is wrong. Isnad is equally important in history books, because history book contains all sorts of reports, fabricated to reliable. And we can only verify them by analysing their chains.

Ibn Katheer said:

In these volumes, he [Tabari] reported the various narrations as they were transmitted and by whom. His discussion is a mixed bag of valuable and worthless, sound and unsound information. This is in keeping with the custom of many Hadith scholars who merely report the information they have on a subject and make no distinction between what is sound and what is weak. (Ibn Katheer, al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, Vol.5, p.208)

[Pea Ce]

He is wrong. Isnad is equally important in history books, because history book contains all sorts of reports, fabricated to reliable. And we can only verify them by analysing their chains.

Ibn Katheer said:

In these volumes, he [Tabari] reported the various narrations as they were transmitted and by whom. His discussion is a mixed bag of valuable and worthless, sound and unsound information. This is in keeping with the custom of many Hadith scholars who merely report the information they have on a subject and make no distinction between what is sound and what is weak. (Ibn Katheer, al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, Vol.5, p.208)

His response:

I agree with him. The Isnad is always important except for when there is a Tawatur regarding a matter. My statement made him misunderstand me. I meant many historians like Tahari or Biladuri have gathered any report (whether Mursal or Musnad and whether weak or authentic) regarding a historical event AS IF THE ISNAD IS NOT IMPORTANT. But maybe one can justify them by saying they wanted to gather all sorts of reports so that one may understand Tawatur from them in a subject.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

I agree with him. The Isnad is always important except for when there is a Tawatur regarding a matter. My statement made him misunderstand me. I meant many historians like Tahari or Biladuri have gathered any report (whether Mursal or Musnad and whether weak or authentic) regarding a historical event AS IF THE ISNAD IS NOT IMPORTANT. But maybe one can justify them by saying they wanted to gather all sorts of reports so that one may understand Tawatur from them in a subject.

As said before that guy is a fraud and a jahil.

He has no clue what tawattur means. I bet he explain what tawattur means and then relate it with his claim to allege a particular sahabi, claiming there is tawattur that he participated. He cannot do that.

There is no such tawattur that if ten historians have mentioned a particular thing it becomes a fact. Otherwise he'll have to accept the role of Abdullah ibn Saba in matryrdom of Uthman(ra), since several historians mentioned it, thus it becomes mutawattir due his misunderstanding.

[Pea Ce]

As said before that guy is a fraud and a jahil.

He has no clue what tawattur means. I bet he explain what tawattur means and then relate it with his claim to allege a particular sahabi, claiming there is tawattur that he participated. He cannot do that.

There is no such tawattur that if ten historians have mentioned a particular thing it becomes a fact. Otherwise he'll have to accept the role of Abdullah ibn Saba in matryrdom of Uthman(ra), since several historians mentioned it, thus it becomes mutawattir due his misunderstanding.

He responded:

Once again he accuses me of ignorance and saying what I haven't said!!!

I know exactly what Tawatur is and I never claimed that there is Tawatur regarding the participation of Sahaba in killing of Imam Husain.

Up to now I couldn't provide authentic narrations regarding the participation of Sahaba in killing of Imam Husain but what do you want to do with the existence of Tawatur regarding the participation of Sahaba in killing of Ammar ibn Yasir.

{And the story of Abdullah ibn Saba' is originally mentioned only in the book Tarikh al-Tabari and all the other historians have taken it from him and even all the chains of all the reports of Tarikh al-Tabari regarding Ibn Saba' goes back to a famous liar called Saif ibn Umar. So not only there is no Tawatur here but there is not even one single authentic report regarding him.}

If he (i.e. the scholar who helps you) is really knowledgeable and honest why doesn't he answer this:

the holy prophet has called the party of Muawiya and Amr ibn al-'Aas (two of the Sahaba) the rebellious party ("الفئة الباغية") and they were the Imams of this party that according to the hadith were inviting to the hell fire. They revolted against the legitimate caliph Ali ibn abi Talib and killed the great sahaba Ammar ibn Yasir (who the prophet said his killer will be in the hell fire) and even after his assasination Muawiya never regretted that and later he prepared the grounds for the tyranny of his son Yazid who left no option for Imam Husain other than paying allegiance to him or dying and after the massacre of Karbala he (i.e. Yazid) caused the massacre of Harrah in Medina in which many of the Sahaba got killed and many Muslim women were raped and then his army attacked the Mecca and resulted in burning down the Ka'ba.

There is no doubt that Yazid wasn't qualified for leading the Ummah as we can see that Abd-ar-Rahman the son of Abu-Bakr objected the assignment of Yazid as Muawiya's successor (see https://al-maktaba.org/book/33757/8001). Yet Muawiya did that. So by assigning an unqualified person as his successor, Muawiya is responsible for and co-respondant in all the crimes that Yazid committed during his reign (including the killing of Imam Husain).

I put a part of a sentence in bold because he even has now admitted it himself yet he hasn't taken down his post. Let me know what you think brother. I think he should first concede the point before he moves onto something else which he has done but you answer however you like brother. Jazakallahu khair.

[MuslimK]

Ok! so he admits his list was made up of false information and now jumping to other topics.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

He responded:

I put a part of a sentence in bold because he even has now admitted it himself yet he hasn't taken down his post. Let me know what you think brother. I think he should first concede the point before he moves onto something else which he has done but you answer however you like brother. Jazakallahu khair.

I hope this issue is resolved for you akhee:

Did any of the Sahabah partake in the Battle of Karbala?

If so, then end of the case.

Wa iyyakum.

[Pea Ce]

I hope this issue is resolved for you akhee:
If so, then end of the case.

Wa iyyakum.

Yes.

It appears to me that I have my answer.

Q: Imam Husain (peace be upon him) vs some of the Sahaba?
A: "Up to now I couldn't provide authentic narrations regarding the participation of Sahaba in killing of Imam Husain"

Big thanks for the help, I could have left his post alone and others would not know if it was true or not (Shias would probably believe it without second thought). I'm glad I went to investigate this and now we have an answer.

[Pea Ce]

Okay, so he replied again and I just want help formulating a final response:

nowhere in my post I claimed that these reports are necessarily authentic and if your logic regarding removing the unauthentic narrations /reports (regarding our topic) is true, then they should be removed from those history books at the first place. Yet I will add a notification to my post that the authenticity of the reports should be verified.

Q: Imam Husain (peace be upon him) vs some of the Sahaba? This discussion was about this topic

In my last message I provided authentic narrations about Imam Husain vs one of the Sahaba (Muawiya)

And I proved that by appointing the unqualified Yazid for leading the Ummah, Muawiya is responsible for the killing of Imam Husain and is as guilty as those who participated in the battle of Karbala. Therefore it is the same topic and the discussion is not over yet.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Okay, so he replied again and I just want help formulating a final response:

Since that Rafidi has lost the argument, he is making silly arguments for damage control.

A Khariji could use same stupid logic as this Rafidi and blame the responsibility on Hasan(RA) for killing of Hussain(RA), He could say that because Hassan(RA) gave Caliphate to Mu'awiyah(RA) , he(ra) was able to make Yazeed as Caliph and all of this occurred.

So you see, there is no end to the stupidity of people, they can run the horses of their stupidity to any extent.

Infact Mu’awiya(RA) is absolutely free from the stupid allegation he made, if we read the report mentioned in Shia and Sunni books.

Hadrat Mu’âwiya’s last advice to his son Yazîd as he was dying, as follows:
و امـّا الحسين فـقـد عـرفـت حظّه مـن رسول الله و هو مـن لحم رسول اللّه و دمـه و قـد عـلمـت لا مـحالة انّ اءهل العراق سيخرجونه اليهم ثمّ يخذلونه و يضيّعـونه ، فـان ظفـرت به فـاعـرف حقـّه و مـنزلة مـن رسول اللّه و لا تـواءخـذه بفـعـله ، و مـع ذلك فـانّ لنا به خلطة و رحما و ايّاك ان تناله بسوء او يرى منك مكروها.
– بحار ج 44 / ص 311-. حيات الامـام الحسين ج 2، ص 236. كامل ابن اثير ج 4، ص 6. طبرى ج 7، ص 196 و 217. ينابيع الموده ص 333.
“You know what relation Imâm Husayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ is to the Messenger of Allah. He is a part from the beloved Prophet’s blessed body. He is an offspring from the flesh and blood of that most honourable person. I understand that the inhabitants of Iraq invite him to go there and be with them. But they will not help him; they will leave him alone. If he should fall into your hands, behave in appreciation of his value! Remember the closeness and affection of the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ to him! Do not get back at him for his behaviour! Mind you don’t break the substantial ties I have established between him and us! Be extra careful lest you should hurt or offend him!”
[Bihar al-Anwar vol 44, page 311, etc]

[Pea Ce]

Since that Rafidi has lost the argument, he is making silly arguments for damage control.

A Khariji could use same stupid logic as this Rafidi and blame the responsibility on Hasan(RA) for killing of Hussain(RA), He could say that because Hassan(RA) gave Caliphate to Mu'awiyah(RA) , he(ra) was able to make Yazeed as Caliph and all of this occurred.

So you see, there is no end to the stupidity of people, they can run the horses of their stupidity to any extent.

Infact Mu’awiya(RA) is absolutely free from the stupid allegation he made, if we read the report mentioned in Shia and Sunni books.

Hadrat Mu’âwiya’s last advice to his son Yazîd as he was dying, as follows:
و امـّا الحسين فـقـد عـرفـت حظّه مـن رسول الله و هو مـن لحم رسول اللّه و دمـه و قـد عـلمـت لا مـحالة انّ اءهل العراق سيخرجونه اليهم ثمّ يخذلونه و يضيّعـونه ، فـان ظفـرت به فـاعـرف حقـّه و مـنزلة مـن رسول اللّه و لا تـواءخـذه بفـعـله ، و مـع ذلك فـانّ لنا به خلطة و رحما و ايّاك ان تناله بسوء او يرى منك مكروها.
– بحار ج 44 / ص 311-. حيات الامـام الحسين ج 2، ص 236. كامل ابن اثير ج 4، ص 6. طبرى ج 7، ص 196 و 217. ينابيع الموده ص 333.
“You know what relation Imâm Husayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ is to the Messenger of Allah. He is a part from the beloved Prophet’s blessed body. He is an offspring from the flesh and blood of that most honourable person. I understand that the inhabitants of Iraq invite him to go there and be with them. But they will not help him; they will leave him alone. If he should fall into your hands, behave in appreciation of his value! Remember the closeness and affection of the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ to him! Do not get back at him for his behaviour! Mind you don’t break the substantial ties I have established between him and us! Be extra careful lest you should hurt or offend him!”
[Bihar al-Anwar vol 44, page 311, etc]

He replied:

Tell him:

Now let's see who is making silly arguments to escape from losing.

A Khariji could use same stupid logic as this Rafidi and blame the responsibility on Hasan(RA) for killing of Hussain(RA), He could say that because Hassan(RA) gave Caliphate to Mu'awiyah(RA)

False equivalent!!! If you are not aware of the history go and educate yourself first and if you are aware don't try to cover up the truth regarding the situation that led to the peace treaty between Imam Hasan and Muawiya. Imam Hasan had not enough true supporters to fight Muawiya, therefore to stop bloodshed between Muslims he accepted the peace treaty with some conditions that one of them was this: "Muawiya must not pass the caliphate to Yazid" but Muawiya violated this condition and appointed Yazid as his successor.

Hadrat Mu’âwiya’s last advice to his son Yazîd as he was dying, as follows

Alhamdulillah that Allah refuted you with your own words. The only Sunni source that has reported this last advice of Muawiya with a Isnad (chain of transmitters) is the book of Tabari and when we look it up we see Abu-Mikhnaf is in the chain who is a famous liar according to you. And if you announce him authentic to prove this report then you lose again because of those reports that I cited and Abu-Mikhnaf was in their chains.

Setting aside the problem with its Isnad, if Muawiya had really said that and he were honest in his words ("Remember the closeness and affection of the Messenger of Allah to him") why didn't he himself observe the closeness and affection of the prophet to Imam Ali and Imam Hasan at their times?

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Imam Hasan had not enough true supporters to fight Muawiya,

How many true supporters did Hassan(RA) have? Is he trying to say that, those with whom Hussain(RA) travelled to Karbala didn't exist or weren't supporters of Hassan(Ra).

"Muawiya must not pass the caliphate to Yazid" but Muawiya violated this condition and appointed Yazid as his successor.

I'm not aware of any reliable report to ascertain this point, what Im aware of is that it comes via narrator who was a liar as per Sunnis.

Moreover, why would a khariji care for that, he would argue at first place that Hassan(RA) was wrong and it was his mistake to trust Mu'awiya(RA) and Handover Caliphate to him. As this is how khawarij reacted after Hassan(ra) gave caliphate to Muawiya(RA).

Alhamdulillah that Allah refuted you with your own words. The only Sunni source that has reported this last advice of Muawiya with a Isnad (chain of transmitters) is the book of Tabari and when we look it up we see Abu-Mikhnaf is in the chain who is a famous liar according to you. And if you announce him authentic to prove this report then you lose again because of those reports that I cited and Abu-Mikhnaf was in their chains.

Lol, i pity at IQ of this Desperate loser.

What this exposes is his hypocrisy. Why?

1. He is the one who claimed he considers Abu mikhnaf as reliable. And accepts his reports.

2. It's him who made the stupid allegation on Muawiya(ra) , not me, even if i reject that report as unreliable, it doesn't effect me.

So this report actually exposed his hypocrisy and bias.

why didn't he himself observe the closeness and affection of the prophet to Imam Ali and Imam Hasan at their times?

He did. Even if you disagree, consider it as something he regrets and while he was near his death he advised his son. Nevertheless not to forget that all of this doesn't prove Rafidi's  stupid allegation on Mu’awiyah(ra). Him making that allegation proves that he is a fool.

[Pea Ce]

He gave me another reply, it's another lengthy one. I'm happy with the answers you've given and I'm not sure what benefit there is in continuing but if you want to read it then I'll post it, but I don't want to waste your time further. You've already done a lot. Jazakallahu khair.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

He gave me another reply, it's another lengthy one. I'm happy with the answers you've given and I'm not sure what benefit there is in continuing but if you want to read it then I'll post it, but I don't want to waste your time further. You've already done a lot. Jazakallahu khair.

 Wa iyyakum.