Who killed the Lord of Martyrs, Imam Hussain, was it the Iraqis, Syrians or Iranians???
Thanks.
Imam Hussain
well..
#1. i did a bit of online finding (google and u shall find), and i came up with interesting opinions.
#2. it seems shias are very sensitive over this issue (not that sunnis are not), and for them hussain epitomises the love of god. also they say that hussain's death was in the cause of truth, against falsehood and evil. effectively, yazid was evil, tyrant who had hussain killed.
#3. most sunnis hold yazid responsible for hussain's murder but hold he was a muslim nonetheless. some say it was not a duel between godliness and ungodliness, but only a political feud for caliphate (which can be traced back to their fathers), and on behalf of, and the assurance of the people of kufa, hussain set forth with the aim of overthrowing yazid. however, the people of kufa did not live upto their word, and hussain was left with the option of retreating and going forward against yazid's forces. there seems there was some murder in between, somewhere, and hussain was entreated to take revenge. well, hussain proceeded and was finally assassinated, and yazid retained caliphate. there are some who say yazid was a pious and god-fearing man and was truly of the muslims.
#4. as to people of kufa, it seems that shias say the majority were not shia, while sunnis say majority were shia. from what i have read(from shia website), it seems kufa was founded by the second (sunni) caliph, umar, with people of different tribes making up the population.
#5. these are not my views, but that of 2 popular websites: 1 of shias, other of sunnis.
#2. it seems shias are very sensitive over this issue (not that sunnis are not), and for them hussain epitomises the love of god. also they say that hussain's death was in the cause of truth, against falsehood and evil. effectively, yazid was evil, tyrant who had hussain killed.
#3. most sunnis hold yazid responsible for hussain's murder but hold he was a muslim nonetheless. some say it was not a duel between godliness and ungodliness, but only a political feud for caliphate (which can be traced back to their fathers), and on behalf of, and the assurance of the people of kufa, hussain set forth with the aim of overthrowing yazid. however, the people of kufa did not live upto their word, and hussain was left with the option of retreating and going forward against yazid's forces. there seems there was some murder in between, somewhere, and hussain was entreated to take revenge. well, hussain proceeded and was finally assassinated, and yazid retained caliphate. there are some who say yazid was a pious and god-fearing man and was truly of the muslims.
#4. as to people of kufa, it seems that shias say the majority were not shia, while sunnis say majority were shia. from what i have read(from shia website), it seems kufa was founded by the second (sunni) caliph, umar, with people of different tribes making up the population.
#5. these are not my views, but that of 2 popular websites: 1 of shias, other of sunnis.
also...
'The islamic faith of yazid is proved without any shadow of doubt. As regards the murder of hussain, there is no definite evidence that yazid either killed him or issued orders for his killing or approved any such plans. When nothing has been proved in this regard, how would it be lawful to cast doubts and aspersions on yazid when entertaining suspicion about a muslim is unlawful in islam.'
'Anyone who thinks that yazid ordered the killing of hussain or liked the killing of hussain such a person is absolutely fool. . . . . . . . ."'
'"as regards saying (radiallahu anha) after the name of yazid, this is not only permissible but commendable. It is rather included in our dua when we pray for the forgiveness of all muslims and yazid was certainly a momin (believer).'
#1. that is from ghazzali, a very eminent sunni mystic and philosopher. so the more sunnis read it, more could be the credence going in favor of yazid and his redemption (among the sunnis). ofcourse, i dont think shias give any more weightage to ghazzali's words (especially in this regards) than they would give to yazid's words.
#2. also, there are some sunnis who hold the view that seeing the attitude of the people of kufa, hussain wanted to pay allegiance to yazid, but those of kufa who wanted to create enmity among muslims killed hussain and his relatives, and framed yazid over it. i have read that the people of kufa had previously betrayed hussain's father, ali, as well.
'Anyone who thinks that yazid ordered the killing of hussain or liked the killing of hussain such a person is absolutely fool. . . . . . . . ."'
'"as regards saying (radiallahu anha) after the name of yazid, this is not only permissible but commendable. It is rather included in our dua when we pray for the forgiveness of all muslims and yazid was certainly a momin (believer).'
#1. that is from ghazzali, a very eminent sunni mystic and philosopher. so the more sunnis read it, more could be the credence going in favor of yazid and his redemption (among the sunnis). ofcourse, i dont think shias give any more weightage to ghazzali's words (especially in this regards) than they would give to yazid's words.
#2. also, there are some sunnis who hold the view that seeing the attitude of the people of kufa, hussain wanted to pay allegiance to yazid, but those of kufa who wanted to create enmity among muslims killed hussain and his relatives, and framed yazid over it. i have read that the people of kufa had previously betrayed hussain's father, ali, as well.
Re: Imam Hussain
not related directly to the issue, but: who is the ancestor of the Báb through Husayn? Was Zainu’l-Abidin?
umm..
#1. again, off topic, but i found this at a website:
'Babies were the original followers of Bab (the correct founder of the Bab/Bahá'í Faith!). '
#2. bab+ ies = babies! lol! absolutely no offence to anybody, i am only laughing at my stupidity: i was like babies were the original followers of bab! HUH!
#3. talkin about bab's lineage, i could not find anything as yet, apart from something going back to hasan askari. but seems bahaullah has been traced back to david. yes, i havent found the names in the lineage: just that bahaullah is a descendant of david.
#4. i would like to know more about yazid and hussain. i always thought yazid was a vile character (no offence to those who venerate him), but now i read he probably had nothing to do with hussain's death.
#5. a few shias hate me for being born a non-shia, if they ever discover my new knoweldge regarding yazid, i dont know what they will do. :-S
'Babies were the original followers of Bab (the correct founder of the Bab/Bahá'í Faith!). '
#2. bab+ ies = babies! lol! absolutely no offence to anybody, i am only laughing at my stupidity: i was like babies were the original followers of bab! HUH!
#3. talkin about bab's lineage, i could not find anything as yet, apart from something going back to hasan askari. but seems bahaullah has been traced back to david. yes, i havent found the names in the lineage: just that bahaullah is a descendant of david.
#4. i would like to know more about yazid and hussain. i always thought yazid was a vile character (no offence to those who venerate him), but now i read he probably had nothing to do with hussain's death.
#5. a few shias hate me for being born a non-shia, if they ever discover my new knoweldge regarding yazid, i dont know what they will do. :-S
ummm...
#1. so as for who killed hussain, it can be very well that a certain people in order to create disunity, or for their own selfish purpose decided to oppose the majority of muslims through any schism they could. as v can see from history, even shias are divided over the imams, mainly ismailis and jaffaris, and really is about which view u prefer to go with.
#2. and similar it seems to me to be the case with shias and sunni opinions, it does seem to be a matter of which side's opinion seems to be less absurd. i recently came across a sunni website which has an interesting tradition from a shia book, where jaffar sadiq, sixth imam of imami shias says that he hardly has a few followers, despite many claiming to be shias. in other words, what may be understood by that is that somebody who just starts claiming to be a shia does not become a shia, as seen here by jaffar's statement.
#3. so the sunni view that it were those who called themsleves shias (but never looked at as shias by the likes of ali themselves) were the murderers of hussain, deserves a careful study. the people of kufa have repeatedly shown their treacherous nature, and was again seen during the schism which saw the emergence of two sects among shias. and this time around, shias cannot deny that the population was shia.
#4. again, what makes some claims look more spurious is the fact that these very people overthrew yazid after hussain's death. so if they were not shias and it was only a political feud: why did people after hussain's death decide to revolt(?) and if they really were shias: why did they wait till hussain's death(?) in anycase, seen by the standards of ali, most of the people who claim to be shias do not qualify for that position, even though they go around claiming to be.
#2. and similar it seems to me to be the case with shias and sunni opinions, it does seem to be a matter of which side's opinion seems to be less absurd. i recently came across a sunni website which has an interesting tradition from a shia book, where jaffar sadiq, sixth imam of imami shias says that he hardly has a few followers, despite many claiming to be shias. in other words, what may be understood by that is that somebody who just starts claiming to be a shia does not become a shia, as seen here by jaffar's statement.
#3. so the sunni view that it were those who called themsleves shias (but never looked at as shias by the likes of ali themselves) were the murderers of hussain, deserves a careful study. the people of kufa have repeatedly shown their treacherous nature, and was again seen during the schism which saw the emergence of two sects among shias. and this time around, shias cannot deny that the population was shia.
#4. again, what makes some claims look more spurious is the fact that these very people overthrew yazid after hussain's death. so if they were not shias and it was only a political feud: why did people after hussain's death decide to revolt(?) and if they really were shias: why did they wait till hussain's death(?) in anycase, seen by the standards of ali, most of the people who claim to be shias do not qualify for that position, even though they go around claiming to be.