see this is why you shouldnt be making assumptions when it is quite obvious you have no idea of the historical background.
Not every one on Imam Hussain (as) side was killed. Imam zainul Abideen (as) was actually present at kerbala, but he was too ill to fight. He was the only male adult present at shaam. Also it was mainly due to Imam Hussain (As) sister bibi Zainab who gave her famous speeches in the courts of yazid, to tell the story of kerbala. After being released from prison, she travelled far and wide to tell people of what had occured, and where ever she went she read the masaib of kerbala. People would gather around to listen, and they would cry and do matam. The tradition of bibi Zainab has continued ever since.
To this day, there are many places in aisa called 'Zainabiyya' because she visited to those places, and it is through these majalises that the public actually got to know of what really happened at kerbala.
You didn't really understand where I was coming from....
So Hazrat Zainul Abideen just stood there and watched while Hazrat Hussain and other members of his family were killed?
What about others that supported Hazrat Hussain?
They didn't do nothing other than retelling stories and doing Matams and more extreme version of such ritual continue today???
It depends which side's story you believe. Apparently, not many believe the stories that Shias tell about events of Karbala as they are meant to defame and degrade the sunnis as a whole. One needs to look at events before karbala, the group that became saperated from rest of the ummah, the killing of Umar, Uthman (events that led to his death) and Ali... Karbala was the climax of what had happened to three caliphas.
I may not be as much knowledgeable and may not be the forum "know it all" but I know what is wrong and what is right when I see it. And frankly knowing more or little doesn't change the facts.
mate you would make more sense if you knew where you were coming from.
1) kerbala does not defame sunnis. They dont even come into the picture.
2) Most sunnis do believe in what shias believe about kerbala. you actually see them reading majlises/ masaib during muharram. They also attend shia mosques and take part in the traditions.
3) knowing more doesnt change facts, it just makes you more aware of them, and prevents people from asking such tellingly ignorant questions!
in addition to that, A couple of the assertions made here rankled. amongst them:
The object is not to degrade sunnis since a significant number of sunnies have their own majalis. The object is to degrade those who sided with Yazeed. Secondly most histories of the Muslim world do record the events of Karbala roughly the same way, there are minor disagreements about who ordered what. But this much is certain. Imam Hussain and his family were brutally martyred, and Medina was ransacked by Yazeed. See this, and read the references quoted there for details:
no, there were a number of violent reactions to the martrydom, often by people who wanted to use Imam Hussain’s name and the public desire for justice for their own benefit. The list of good and bad people who did that includes Mukhtar Thaqafi’s revolt, Yazeed’s brutal suppression in Medina and attack on the Kaaba (waqiya e Harra), Zaid’s revolt and the Fatimid overthrow of the Umayyads.
So were all the Sunnis at the time of Karbala followers of Yazeed?
What is the Sunni version of the story, and on what points does it differ from the Shiite version of the story?
Did Sunnis also believe that Yazeed ransacked Madina and Makkah?
Were Sunnis on the side of Hassan and Hussein at the time, or on the side of Yazeed?
And if neither sunnis nor shias were on the side of Yazeed, then who was? Yazeed’s ancestors were supposedly kuffars that surrendered to Rasullulah in some battle or the other. Was this a grudge that Yazeed had against muslims? (one of the posted articles discusses this). Then, in that case, was it just a group of kuffar’s pretending to be muslims that were cooperating and assisting Yazeed?
nope. a lot of sunnis distanced themselves from his actions, a minoritry of scholars tried to defend him or take his side then, a minority tries to defend him now.
a lot of Muslims both sunni and shia failed to back Imam Hussain when the time came though.
The sunni version of history differs in matters of Yazeed’s culpability. A minority view takes his regret (during the time that the family of Hussain was improsined in his court) and blaming the ruler of Kufa as evidence that he didnt actually know what was going on. Largely dismissed by most scholars, simply because theres too much evidence to backup the fact that he had sent ibn ziyad for that purpose, and had displayed Imam Hussain’s head in his court and imprisoned his family, some of which is still buried in Syria.
Yes Sunnies also believe in the ransacking of medina and attack on mecca. Google waqiya e Harra, and also see the first link I posted. That has references from sunni books and is a sunni book itself by a very famous sunni deobandi alim named Moudoodi.
Sunnies in the Hijaz region at that time were largely neutral, as far as I know (as far as i know!). A significant number of Yazeed’s forces were from the province of Syria and also Iraq that had developed as a psuedo state during the time of Muawiya, and had warred with Hazrat Ali before. The rest of the sunnies, sunni scholars etc back then too, and over a period of time have distanced themselves from his acitons, especially over the attack on the Kaaba and the ransacking of medina.
ravage, do you know the name of the gentleman who is on the annual shaam-e-ghareeba (Sp?) program on PTV, hes from Karachi I think (wears glasses), very learned guy, and I watched him for so many years, now. Recently, I watched it on ARY and GEO with different people, but they werent as effective as that gentleman. Also, what is the form of poetry in Urdu called, which relates to the historic events of karbala? Marsiya-Nigari?
*Ashura is an electrifying event, spectacular in every sense of the word, with a long historical tradition of poetry and prose in various languages.
*But perhaps what will continue to make it so interesting to the non-Shia is the way in which the Passion of Hussein continues to be rendered, with a vividness and dramatic immediacy that is visually stunning.
*
**The remembrance of Hussein is a poetic reminder of both the depths to which humanity can sink - through the actions of Yazid - and the heights to which it can raise itself - through the example of Hussein, whose inspirational message today includes the slogan “Every day is Ashura and every place is Karbala”.
*
PCG: The link i posted in support of my assertions turned out shiite. Still looking for authentic sunni link. However, my sources are the books and speeches of sunni ullmah. For the sake of simlicity lets stick to the core on which entire muslim world share similar views i.e. rampage on madina and demise of kaaba.
As far as, where were sunni and shiya were at the time of karbala battle? Well, there was no shiite sec by then. Only sunni and shiyan-e-ali (later they transfored into shia). Also, Imam hussain never declared war against yazeed, he himself believed in dialogue and left for koufa to avoid bloodshed in madina/ makkah.
Assume, he was preparing for battle and left for koufa to gain support then why there were females, children and other family members with him and why they were only a bunch of 72 (to 100).
Most of the islamic world was unaware about karbala incident well after it happend for there were no proper means of communication (internet, plane, train, phone, Tv etc.).
After the death of Imam Ali, Imam Hassan and Muawiya negotiated a peace agreement, whereby the power would stay with Muawiya with two main provisions. 1. Muawiya rule according to the edicts of Quran and Sunnah. 2. After the death of Muawiya Khilafat will pass to Imam Hussain
Imam Hasan was elected as the 5th caliph n he ruled for 6 months........
ur point 2 is wrong , tht agreement was a bit long more than 2 points plus he did not say tht imam hussein wud become caliph.......rather he himself , Imam hasan will became caliph again but if he die then his little bro Imam hussein will become caliph
n Muawiya cannot nominated yazid EVER ......if hell do Imam hasan will face him in battlefield......n if he dies then his little bro, Imam Hussein will
Well okay, all of these things happened centuries ago. I did not side with Yazeed, nor did any of us. So why do we continue to celebrate Ashura and all these holidays and do matham? It was not our fault that all this happened. Blimey, we're brown, not Arabs or Persians. And we aren't related to the guy, nor were our ancestors supporters of Yazeed. And even people who come from the lineages that did support Yazeed, how is it their fault what happened?
Nobody observes muharram to blame anyone except for the yazidies at that time PCG. There are many reasons for observing it, foremostly:
To remember and preserve the ideological reasons behind Imam Hussains martrydom.
To mourn for them as we would mourn for our own relatives. That is a core element of Shia and to a broader extent Muslim philosophy. The love for the Ahl e Bayt. There are many many ahadith where the Prophet expressed love for these people and instructed Muslims to love them too. We observe Muharram for that reason
There really is no blame on present day Sunnies. Im doing it in Karachi for the first time and have honestly for the first time seen the amount of Sunni observance of Muharram, and I am very pleasantly surprised
Shias believe Muawiaya did nominate Yazeed before dying. Sunnies are divided on this. I think Moulana Moudoodi is a famous deobandi moulvi in recent times who believed Yazeed was nominated by Muawiya.
Anyway heres a reference from Sahih Bukhari on Muawiya’s emissaries attempting to extract beyat for Yazid
Other stuff I hadnt backed up.. that Yazeed did extract the bayt of people at that time: (this “dethroning” occurred for a brief period after Imam Hussains martyrdom in reaction to it, followed by a bloody suppression of Medina, and an attack on Mecca)
the people that form the processions and gatherings of Ashura and rememberance of Karbala are 90% from the lineage of Imam Hussain. (The Abidis, The Jaffiris, The Kazmis, The Moosvis, The Rizvis The Taqvis, The Naqvis, The Askaris) they ARE the descendants,
and its not about blaming who did what - History has spoken to the world - now its upto the people to judge who was righteous and who not, and with what reason.
