You wrote in the noha thread:
“When we cry, we make a statement, we tell people that the message of truth will never die. We say that Islam is of Mohammadian roots and of Hussaini eternity.”
What does “of Hussaini eternity” mean exactly?
Re: Jafri, explain your words more clearly plz
As in Imam Hussain (as) and Karbala is what has kept Islam alive until this day. Without going into depth of history as you guys say that they embraced Islam, but Yazid's grandfather was the first enemy of Islam. You cannot deny that. Then Muawiya fought against both Hazrat Ali (as) and Imam Hassan (as). You cannot deny that either.
Yazid was only after power whereas Imam Hussain (as) needed to revive the religion. If Karbala never happened, The so called "Islamic leaders" would continue to oppress. Imam Hussain (as) wanted them to know that the Ahl-ul-Bayt would never back down or listen to such oppressors, such as Yazid.
I am POSITIVE you know enough about Yazid, if Yazid had "won" the battle, he would have made the haram into halal and vice versa, destroying the true essence of Islam.
As in Imam Hussain (as) and Karbala is what has kept Islam alive until this day. Without going into depth of history as you guys say that they embraced Islam, but Yazid's grandfather was the first enemy of Islam. You cannot deny that. *Then Muawiya fought against both Hazrat Ali (as) and Imam Hassan (as). You cannot deny that either. *
Yazid was only after power whereas Imam Hussain (as) needed to revive the religion. If Karbala never happened, The so called "Islamic leaders" would continue to oppress. Imam Hussain (as) wanted them to know that the Ahl-ul-Bayt would never back down or listen to such oppressors, such as Yazid.
I am POSITIVE you know enough about Yazid, if Yazid had "won" the battle, he would have made the haram into halal and vice versa, destroying the true essence of Islam.
i m unable to understand that y ppl link karbala tragedy wid the relegion ........ it was a political event. and not of the first and last of its nature, in the history of islam. like jang e jamal and siffin before it and hazrat ibn zubair death after the event of karbala.
everybody remember karbala but nobody talked about ibn zubair who also rose against banu ummayad. agar banu ummayad kay khilaf khara hona itna bar kaam tha tu yeh tu unhoon nay bhi kiya. and made a much organised and ppl supported effort to overthrow banu ummayyad than hazrat hussain khurooj that was not organised, well planed and very few ppl of his home town supported him. but nobody specially shia consider ibn zubair as a hero.
may be karbala incident have some impact on shia's but on it has no such impact on the islam. its part of the history but not part of the relegion.
the battle really mattered in the history of islam is badr, uhaud, ahzabb, muta, yamama, qadsia, hazrat muavia expedition for cyprus, yazid attack on instunbol ............ etc and many others ..................... its irony we dont talk about them much as compare to karbala.
majority of abu mukhnif fabrications ............ other wise yazid and down the line caliph of banu ummayad did not make halal as haram or vice versa. they did ijtihad as they were caliphs and amir ul momin , where need arose.
majority of the islamic world conquered during the period of ummayad dynasty still we think they were pervert, coward and incompetent.
they were far better ppl than us and really served islam.
** yazid attack on instunbol ............ etc**.
what about yazid's attack on ka'aba?
BTW which of four imams you follow?
As in Imam Hussain (as) and Karbala is what has kept Islam alive until this day. Without going into depth of history as you guys say that they embraced Islam, but Yazid's grandfather was the first enemy of Islam. You cannot deny that. Then Muawiya fought against both Hazrat Ali (as) and Imam Hassan (as). You cannot deny that either.
Yazid was only after power whereas Imam Hussain (as) needed to revive the religion. If Karbala never happened, The so called "Islamic leaders" would continue to oppress. Imam Hussain (as) wanted them to know that the Ahl-ul-Bayt would never back down or listen to such oppressors, such as Yazid.
I am POSITIVE you know enough about Yazid, if Yazid had "won" the battle, he would have made the haram into halal and vice versa, destroying the true essence of Islam.
Its no use really, i know, talking about mere speculations and stuff... especially between and among the sunni shiya sector... but Jaf, lemme explain you this...
The Karbala incident didn't revive or kept Islam alive to this date. But on the contrary, that incident actually hammered a dent to our Marvellous History.
Islam as a religion is meant to be alive till Qayamah. Don't make a face, its in your Quran-e-Majeed. And there's no such line, ayah, any word related to Karbala or as such.
The first big enemy of Islam were many before that guy you pointed. How about someone to whom even the Almighty has mentioned in Quran...
Tabat Yada abi lahbi'n wa tab (Abu Lahb) ...
Anyways, I sincerely am not intrigued to slip into such a discussion with no inclination to end. Its just taking every thing that happened into a proper context, taking out of the account, our sectarianism... and then we'll see things more clearly. And then I believe, things will have a different meaning to us collectively.
Especially history.
............... But on the contrary, that incident actually hammered a dent to our Marvellous History.
please also enlighten us who was responsible for such a heinous crime which demaged "our Marvellous History" that bad?
Re: Jafri, explain your words more clearly plz
Just a small and great Hadith of the prophet SAW : Min husnil Islaam il Mar e Tarku hoo maa LAAA yan'ie ie. th ebest of Muslims is that who leaves anything/such things which do NOT concern him/her.
Basically, What happened between the Sahaba and the Muslims of previous times is Not our Concern to discuss about.. Since the Prophet SAW also said that 'my sahaba are like the nujoom:stars so follow them. so if one companion fought one another ..we should not be questioning let alone discussing their reasons for combat.
And one last simple thing .. These are things we are NOT gona be questioned about on the day of judgement by Allah as if Allah will ask us who fought who and who saved Islam. Our job s to learn from what has happened in History and NOT to repeat it and worry about what we will be asked about.
Its no use really, i know, talking about mere speculations and stuff... especially between and among the sunni shiya sector... but Jaf, lemme explain you this...
The Karbala incident didn't revive or kept Islam alive to this date. But on the contrary, that incident actually hammered a dent to our Marvellous History. Islam as a religion is meant to be alive till Qayamah. Don't make a face, its in your Quran-e-Majeed. And there's no such line, ayah, any word related to Karbala or as such.
The first big enemy of Islam were many before that guy you pointed. How about someone to whom even the Almighty has mentioned in Quran... Tabat Yada abi lahbi'n wa tab (Abu Lahb) ...
Anyways, I sincerely am not intrigued to slip into such a discussion with no inclination to end. Its just taking every thing that happened into a proper context, taking out of the account, our sectarianism... and then we'll see things more clearly. And then I believe, things will have a different meaning to us collectively.
Especially history.
Just a small and great Hadith of the prophet SAW : Min husnil Islaam il Mar e Tarku hoo maa LAAA yan'ie ie. th ebest of Muslims is that who leaves anything/such things which do NOT concern him/her.
Basically, What happened between the Sahaba and the Muslims of previous times is Not our Concern to discuss about.. Since the Prophet SAW also said that 'my sahaba are like the nujoom:stars so follow them. so if one companion fought one another ..we should not be questioning let alone discussing their reasons for combat.
And one last simple thing .. These are things we are NOT gona be questioned about on the day of judgement by Allah as if Allah will ask us who fought who and who saved Islam. Our job s to learn from what has happened in History and NOT to repeat it and worry about what we will be asked about.
Jazak'Allah khair!
(mods can close this thread please before it gets out hand like countless others)
Re: Jafri, explain your words more clearly plz
^ yeah bury your heads in sand like an ostrich
Typical!
Re: Jafri, explain your words more clearly plz
^ummm no, hes being mature unlike some immature ppl who like to make an issue out of nothing rolleyes
Bro, if I want to read on politics, I go to CNN.com. :halo:
oh whatevvvver dude .. 
some people are sensible to actually understan Islam .that something we wont be asked about ..wont matter to us .. so why discuss it .. and in the Process ..UNKNOWLING commit a sin or make a blasphamous remark.
bro you seem very sure what would be asked about. Please do share :)
Would there be a question about following haq or batil or atleast distinguishing between the two?
BTW It is not about WHAT happend back then rather it is WHY. Think about it and then comment*. :)*
please also enlighten us who was responsible for such a heinous crime which demaged "our Marvellous History" that bad?
What's the catch?
Plus, its derailing from topic...
Plus... Its exactly what i mentioned in my earlier post. Double check.
what about yazid's attack on ka'aba?
i m not sure but i think it was mawan or hasham who attacked kaba . it was not yazid.
Re: Jafri, explain your words more clearly plz
Please keep the topic open. I'll reply when I come back.
i m unable to understand that y ppl link karbala tragedy wid the relegion ........ it was a political event. and not of the first and last of its nature, in the history of islam. like jang e jamal and siffin before it and hazrat ibn zubair death after the event of karbala.
everybody remember karbala but nobody talked about ibn zubair who also rose against banu ummayad. agar banu ummayad kay khilaf khara hona itna bar kaam tha tu yeh tu unhoon nay bhi kiya. and made a much organised and ppl supported effort to overthrow banu ummayyad than hazrat hussain khurooj that was not organised, well planed and very few ppl of his home town supported him. but nobody specially shia consider ibn zubair as a hero.
may be karbala incident have some impact on shia's but on it has no such impact on the islam. its part of the history but not part of the relegion.
the battle really mattered in the history of islam is badr, uhaud, ahzabb, muta, yamama, qadsia, hazrat muavia expedition for cyprus, yazid attack on instunbol ............ etc and many others ..................... its irony we dont talk about them much as compare to karbala.
majority of abu mukhnif fabrications ............ other wise yazid and down the line caliph of banu ummayad did not make halal as haram or vice versa. they did ijtihad as they were caliphs and amir ul momin , where need arose.
majority of the islamic world conquered during the period of ummayad dynasty still we think they were pervert, coward and incompetent.
they were far better ppl than us and really served islam.
abu mikhanaf is an expert on iraqi history and many imams of hadith have used his narrations for history although they dont take hadith from him.
Plus its not just abu mikhanaf who criticizes yazid and ummayyads,
karabala isapolitical event 100% , but politics is an integral part of islam. As islam without caliphate is impotent similarly karabala is central to islamic revival.
karbala is important as is gave rise to whole series of revolts against tyrants which rocked the ummayyad and abbassid govts
Re: Jafri, explain your words more clearly plz
[QUOTE]
majority of the islamic world conquered during the period of ummayad dynasty still we think they were pervert, coward and incompetent.
[/QUOTE]
not really, after hisham conquest totally stopped and the ummayyads added very little to rashidun empire.
plus islam is not about conquering land but enforcing shariah and except umar II none of the ummayyads did that.
no they were not neccesarily coward or incompetent , rather some were good administrators but so was julius caeser, augustus , halaku khan , napolean...that is irrelevent from the religious standpoint.They changed sunnah and oppressed religious people and thats why i hate them.
i m not sure but i think it was mawan or hasham who attacked kaba . it was not yazid.
some narrations say that he died before mecca was conquered but he did lay siege to it, but yazid clearly endorsed the pillaging of Medina and the killing of ansar ...
Hadith : "one who hates the ansar is a munafiq " so the evidence is clear
Re: Jafri, explain your words more clearly plz
The biggest tragedy here is that some argue that:
once an enemy ... always an enemy
It makes Islam look rather powerless ... I thought the Message of Islam was one that penetrated nations and turned the hearts! Apparently some believe this not to be the case.
As for the words Mohammedian roots and Hussaini eternity ... I would say this can mean:
Starting from Muhammad (SAW) and through the family line of Imam Hussain (RA) until the end of Judgement.
However, I think it has been exaggerated to read something more than what it should read.