Sacrifice of Al Hussain?

[iceman]

Yazeed wrote a letter to Waleed bin Utba informing him of the death of Mu’awiyah. In a short letter he wrote, “Now then, Ask for the oath of allegiance from Husayn, Abdullah bin Umar and Abdullah bin Zubayr, and do not give them respite until they do so.”

When Waleed read about the death of Mu’awiyah, he was alarmed and the news disturbed him, thus reluctantly he summoned Marwan bin Hakam. Marwan was the governor of Madina before Waleed, and hence when Waleed became the governor, he hated and abused him while separating himself from him for a long time until the news of the death of Mu’awiyah and the demand of alle­giance from the people reached him. This being difficult for him, he called for Marwan.

When Marwan came, Waleed read the contents of the letter to him. When Marwan heard it he recited “Verily we are Allah’s and verily unto Him shall we return”, and he prayed for blessings to be bestowed upon Mu’awiyah. When Waleed asked his advice regarding the issue, Marwan re­plied, “In my opinion, before announcing the death of Mu’awiyah, summon these persons this very moment (and ask them to swear the oath of alle­giance for Yazid). If they refuse, cut off their necks before they learn about Mu’awiyah’s death. For if they become slightly aware of this, each one of them will go away to different places and start revolting, and shall claim themselves eligible for the Caliphate.”

Waleed called for Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin Usman, who was just a lad, to summon Imam Husayn (a.s.) and Abdullah bin Zubayr to meet him. It was a time when Waleed usually did not meet anyone. Abdullah bin ‘Amr saw them seated in the Mosque and conveyed Waleed’s message to meet them. They told him to go back and that they would soon follow him

[iceman]

4, Did Hussein have a choice or he didn't? Of course he had a choice just like anybody or everbody else. He could have easily given allegiance to Yazeed and just got on with minding his own business and engage in prayers and fasting (saum and salah) like most others. But he chose not to. Why? Because it wasn't about him otherwise that is exactly what Hussein would have done. It was about Islam and the future of Islam.

Ok, Hussein could have kept the stand off but when his companions were martyred in Kufa and the support was no longer there Hussein could have backed off/down. He still had a choice and he had this choice all the way through till the very end.

5, But what kept Hussein going? Hussein didn't say, "I will not give allegiance to Yazeed", oh no he didn't. This is what Hussein said, "someone like me can never ever give allegiance to someone like Yazeed". By saying this Hussein laid down the foundation by putting down such a principal. It was a matter of choice.

[iceman]

But Hussein also kept the door of negotiations and diplomacy open by putting these offers forward that he either is set free and allowed to go back to Madina since he was stopped and cornered in Karbala, or he was willing to engage in discussions with Yazeed or even was willing to be exiled. But The choice given to Hussein was either allegiance or death by fighting.

Hussein responded with another beautiful statement by saying, "I'd rather die a bloody death than live the life of a coward". People Islam and its future was at stake otherwise Hussein's approach and response would have been different. He had a choice but was willing to sacrifice everything for Islam and its future.

[iceman]

Who Was Hussein and Why Does His Sacrifice Matter.

By Walaa Chahine

An arrow through the eyes. Three spears in the center of an infant’s chest. Women in chains. A final, lone solider beheaded for his stand against injustice.

This is the story of Karbala, the story you were never taught, the story your children will never learn.

History books will never teach you of a man named Hussein or a land named Karbala. You have never learned of the day 72 stood against an army of 30,000 and won. No one has ever told you the story that the great British historian Edward Gibbons said will “awaken the sympathy of the coldest reader.”

You have never truly heard of Hussein, Karbala, or Ashura, and you probably didn’t need to. No, this time in Islamic and global history never meant anything, until now.

More than 1300 years ago, Hussein (as), the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad (as), rode with his family and army to Kufa, Iraq after the people of the city pleaded with him to save them from the oppression of their caliph, Yazid I. During the journey, his caravan was intercepted and diverted to Karbala, Iraq. There, he and his family were denied access to water (in the scorching hot desert) for three days.

After a long stalemate, orders from Yazid arrived to kill Hussein and his people. Yazid’s army did just that, murdering 72 of them and taking the women and children they hadn’t killed as prisoners.

No, this isn’t a history lesson, a parable, or a cruel bedtime story. Yes, there have been battles throughout all of history that have been just as evil and dark. No, none of them have been as overlooked and ignored, as this battle.

Currently the story of Karbala means more to Islam and the world than anyone can imagine.

This is why you need to know about the Battle of Karbala -

[iceman]

Karbala and the day of Ashura (the day the massacre occurred) can teach us a lot about unity. This story is not about Good Islam versus Bad Islam. It’s not about Hussein versus Yazid. It’s not even about Right versus Wrong.

It’s truly, and utterly, about Good versus Evil. That is what united people to fight for and alongside Hussein on that battlefield, the simple story of Good versus Evil.

There is the story of a man named Hur (Arabic word for ‘free man’), who was the leader of the army of Yazid, and who decided to break free from his army and fight alongside Hussein when he realized the corrupt ways of Yazid. He was the first to be martyred.

There was John bin Huwai, an Ethiopian Christian who fought alongside Hussein in the name of good and not evil. Despite being an old man, and Hussein urging him to stay away from the battlefield, John gave his life for the stand against oppression.

Hussein, his family, and friends, all of different races, cultures, and religions, stood hand in hand against an army of cruelty. If we, today can put aside our differences and hunger for power and domination, we can easily defeat anyone who stands in the way of keeping humanity safe and inherently good.

To continue carrying Hussein’s message of unity, many of his followers use Ashura and his story to bring all kinds of people together for charity, tolerance, and goodwill.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

Iceman, I asked in my first post:

Are there any Shias here that can explain how Al Hussain's actions saved Islam?

Please answer this.

Now I am going to answer your question from a different angle. Lets see if this works.

Why a different angle? Can you not just give a straight answer?
Every shia on here is like a politician avoiding giving a straight answer.

No different angles, no long essays & beating round the bush.

Its such a simple question. Can no shia answer this without waffling distractions or taking the mind on a path down boredom lost essay route?

[zaid_ibn_ali]

Don't forget that the grandson of Abu Bakr i.e Abdullah ibn Zubair also was martyred fighting yazid's tyranny.
Do the muslims beat themselves & dramatise crying out for him despite his brave fight & martyrdom?

Did he save Islam too?

[Hani]

So where's this thread at the moment? Hasan destroyed Islam then Husayn saved it? Or did Hujr bin 'Adi save Islam before Husayn when he gathered the Shia, stoned Muawiyas governor then openly disobeyed and  protested Muawiyas rule?

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

Shias say he willingly sacrificed himself and his family for Islam... and the latter is obviously not permissible according to the Shari'ah.

Sunni reports and the most authentic Shia report agree that Al Hussain attempted to back out of Karbala to avoid a massacre, which shows that he did not want to get him or his family killed.

Are there any Shias here that can explain how Al Hussain's actions saved Islam? According to Sunnis, it was a tragedy which led to nothing positive. It was a great loss and not a victory.

Can I see those "most authentic" Shi'a reports?

[iceman]

Iceman, I asked in my first post:

Are there any Shias here that can explain how Al Hussain's actions saved Islam?

Please answer this.

Now I am going to answer your question from a different angle. Lets see if this works.

Why a different angle? Can you not just give a straight answer?
Every shia on here is like a politician avoiding giving a straight answer.

No different angles, no long essays & beating round the bush.

Its such a simple question. Can no shia answer this without waffling distractions or taking the mind on a path down boredom lost essay route?

How many times do I have to repeat this. The question has been answered and many times over on others sites and places. Now, it's not that you can't understand it, it's actually you don't want to understand it. You already have a mindset and there's nothing I can do about that. It's just a few of you.

This is not a huge event between top Shia and Suni scholars discussing and debating while it is being broadcasted globally. We only have a handful of individuals here jumping up and down under the Ahle Sunah umbrella with anti Shia mentality to begin with, who can't discuss their own belief/faith let alone prove it.

For the intelligent and intellectual sense and logic and reality and facts are more than enough to know and understand the truth and want went on.

[Hadrami]

For the intelligent and intellectual sense and logic and reality and facts are more than enough to know and understand the truth and want went on.

well that excludes you then, because logic and facts are so further from any of shia claims. Since you zombies believed Islam has been changed since 1st caliph which mean
-1st imam let it happened for decades
-2nd imam helped religion being destroyed by giving up power & legitimised muawiya's rule
- 3rd imam also did nothing and legitimised that so called unislamic regime
- all of a sudden 3rd imam acted "to save Islam"

So 1st, 2nd did not & 3rd also did not then only in the end decided "to save Islam"

A bunch of baloney bollywood story

[MuslimK]

But Hussein also kept the door of negotiations and diplomacy open by putting these offers forward that he either is set free and allowed to go back to Madina since he was stopped and cornered in Karbala, or he was willing to engage in discussions with Yazeed or even was willing to be exiled. But The choice given to Hussein was either allegiance or death by fighting.

Hussein responded with another beautiful statement by saying, "I'd rather die a bloody death than live the life of a coward". People Islam and its future was at stake otherwise Hussein's approach and response would have been different. He had a choice but was willing to sacrifice everything for Islam and its future.

So you admit that Hussain wanted to return back when he learned the reality on the ground.

[Mythbuster1]

Iceman

For the intelligent and intellectual sense and logic and reality and facts are more than enough to know and understand the truth and want went on.
[/quote]

Intelligence and logic.......

What Islam did imam Hussein ra save?

Shiites answer.......

1st imam didn't fight (for sake of Islam)
2nd imam didn't fight (for sake of Islam)
3rd imam he fought (for the sake of Islam) and took His ra's family too with women and kids

You call that  intelligence and logic?? Do you fight with your women and kids beside you? Is this the Islam He ra was saving?

Intelligence and logic............ Hussein ra saved Islam.
What did he save?...........he fought yazeed......intelligence and logic.

That's as far as is explained by the ahle tashayyu at the moment.

Not very intelligent or logical so far.

[iceman]

For the intelligent and intellectual sense and logic and reality and facts are more than enough to know and understand the truth and want went on.

well that excludes you then, because logic and facts are so further from any of shia claims. Since you zombies believed Islam has been changed since 1st caliph which mean
-1st imam let it happened for decades
-2nd imam helped religion being destroyed by giving up power & legitimised muawiya's rule
- 3rd imam also did nothing and legitimised that so called unislamic regime
- all of a sudden 3rd imam acted "to save Islam"

So 1st, 2nd did not & 3rd also did not then only in the end decided "to save Islam"

A bunch of baloney bollywood story

Us zombies. ..LOL, you really need to see a doctor. The first three Imams their response and dealing was different. Why? Because the circumstances, situation and conditions where absolutely different and so were the individuals and characters they were up against were also very different. Yo know this as well as I do. You're just playing around by raising suspicion and casting doubt on the based on the anti shia fever and mentality you are suffering from.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

For the intelligent and intellectual sense and logic and reality and facts are more than enough to know and understand the truth and want went on.

well that excludes you then, because logic and facts are so further from any of shia claims. Since you zombies believed Islam has been changed since 1st caliph which mean
-1st imam let it happened for decades
-2nd imam helped religion being destroyed by giving up power & legitimised muawiya's rule
- 3rd imam also did nothing and legitimised that so called unislamic regime
- all of a sudden 3rd imam acted "to save Islam"

So 1st, 2nd did not & 3rd also did not then only in the end decided "to save Islam"

A bunch of baloney bollywood story

Us zombies. ..LOL, you really need to see a doctor. The first three Imams their response and dealing was different. Why? Because the circumstances, situation and conditions where absolutely different and so were the individuals and characters they were up against were also very different. Yo know this as well as I do. You're just playing around by raising suspicion and casting doubt on the based on the anti shia fever and mentality you are suffering from.

Yes the circumstances were different.
Ali ACCEPTED the first 3 caliphs, just as Hasan & Husayn eventually ACCEPTED Muawiya.
Like sunni's do.

Husayn however rejected Yazid as he was not fit to rule. Sunni's agree on this too as Yazid was a drunkard etc.

But the shia story...insane...
How was fighting a losing battle against Yazid the right circumstances but fighting the first 3 caliphs & Muawiya not the right circumstances?

It would mean Husayn made a miscalculated decision as the result does not fit with the criteria of being the correct circumstances according your above logic.

[iceman]

For the intelligent and intellectual sense and logic and reality and facts are more than enough to know and understand the truth and want went on.

well that excludes you then, because logic and facts are so further from any of shia claims. Since you zombies believed Islam has been changed since 1st caliph which mean
-1st imam let it happened for decades
-2nd imam helped religion being destroyed by giving up power & legitimised muawiya's rule
- 3rd imam also did nothing and legitimised that so called unislamic regime
- all of a sudden 3rd imam acted "to save Islam"

So 1st, 2nd did not & 3rd also did not then only in the end decided "to save Islam"

A bunch of baloney bollywood story

Us zombies. ..LOL, you really need to see a doctor. The first three Imams their response and dealing was different. Why? Because the circumstances, situation and conditions where absolutely different and so were the individuals and characters they were up against were also very different. Yo know this as well as I do. You're just playing around by raising suspicion and casting doubt on the based on the anti shia fever and mentality you are suffering from.

Yes the circumstances were different.
Ali ACCEPTED the first 3 caliphs, just as Hasan & Husayn eventually ACCEPTED Muawiya.
Like sunni's do.

Husayn however rejected Yazid as he was not fit to rule. Sunni's agree on this too as Yazid was a drunkard etc.

But the shia story...insane...
How was fighting a losing battle against Yazid the right circumstances but fighting the first 3 caliphs & Muawiya not the right circumstances?

You're mixing things up here fact with fiction, reality with story and truth with false. Ali did not accept the first three Khalifs. The situation after the Prophet's (s) death was about governance, about leading the Muslim Ummah. It wasn't about Islam or the message.

I will continue this but please lets keep it civilised and with in manners.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

You're mixing things up here fact with fiction, reality with story and truth with false. Ali did not accept the first three Khalifs.

Sunni's believe he did accept the 3 caliphs, shia don't.
Ali was a brave fighter but he didn't fight them. That we can all agree on.

The situation after the Prophet's (s) death was about governance, about leading the Muslim Ummah. It wasn't about Islam or the message.

Are you sunni now? As that is what ahlus sunnah believe, that it was a political scenario of leadership of the ummah & not anything about the message.

Thanks for accepting the sunni view & not the shia view that it was all about accepting or rejecting Islam's message of Wilayah.

[Mythbuster1]

[/quote]

Us zombies. ..LOL, you really need to see a doctor. The first three Imams their response and dealing was different. Why? Because the circumstances, situation and conditions where absolutely different and so were the individuals and characters they were up against were also very different. Yo know this as well as I do. You're just playing around by raising suspicion and casting doubt on the based on the anti shia fever and mentality you are suffering from.
[/quote]

Lol.......and this from a guy who has intelligence and logical sense😂😂👍

[iceman]

If Ali had accepted the first two Khalifs then why wasn't Ali the third Khalif? What made Ali let the opportunity of becoming the third Khalif slip away? He refused the condition of accepting and governing under the condition and according to Seerath e Shaykhain.

This is more than enough to know that Ali never accepted them as Khalifa but allowed them to get on with it and where ever and when ever the welfare and benefit of Islam and the Muslims was at stake Ali stepped forward and intervened.

The reign of the first three Khalifs was helped and aided by  Imam Ali and his followers where ever and when ever needed. The opposition to the first three never used violence or threatening behaviour to achieve their goals.

Hassan didn't ask for and do a peace treaty with Moawiya. It was the other way around. Hassan put down circumstances which Moawiya accepted and Hassan proceeded keeping the welfare and benefit of the Muslims at hand. Going in to and accepting a peace treaty doesn't mean you accept and believe in the person or party you are dealing with.

The Prophet (s) also went in to a peace treaty the peace treaty of Hudaibiya. Now what does this treaty mean? The Prophet (s) believed in and considered the others to be right and fine?

[Abu Muhammad]

The Prophet (s) also went in to a peace treaty the peace treaty of Hudaibiya. Now what does this treaty mean? The Prophet (s) believed in and considered the others to be right and fine?

Hudaibiyyah is never a good analogy, bro. Did Rasulullah (saw) surrender his leadership to the Quraisy?