Altering the facts of events in Ashura

The one and only free public forum for Bohras. The focus of this forum is the reform movement, the Dawoodi Bohra faith and, of course, the corrupt priesthood. But the discussion is in no way restricted to the Bohras alone.
kseeker
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:01 am

Altering the facts of events in Ashura

#1

Unread post by kseeker » Thu Nov 06, 2014 11:25 am

However critical I am of the dai-ship from the 51st chairperson. I have always admired the fact that TS and SMB did not alter the events of Karbala .. Shia's add a lot of spice to their Bayaans to make people cry however we refrained from it and stuck to the facts ( or atleast what our books have taught us)....

Not anymore... on the 9th Waaz of MS and in that of the night of Aashura I came across the story of Imaam Hassan's 4 year old son who slipped away from the hands of Zainab (AS) and went to Imam Hussain, sat on his lap.. lost his two arms and died on the spot.....

1. This is absolutely false. Simply because its impossible. Imam Hassan (AS) died 10 years before Imam Hussain's shahaadat so I don't see how and when this 4 year old son came from....

2. I can understand that MS in his position is desperate to rake in more people using his already weak bayaans and needs to spice up stuff to make people cry but doing it this way is absolutely preposterous! The people who died in this incident and the order in which they died is a crucial part of the entire ordeal and just as important as the death of Imaam Hussain himself therefore changing it in any way is changing an integral part of our beliefs....



*sigh*

think
Posts: 1834
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:15 am

Re: Altering the facts of events in Ashura

#2

Unread post by think » Thu Nov 06, 2014 11:48 am

Here is another twist in the ashura event which begs an explanation.
It is said and is true that 3 days after Imam Hussain was martered, the army of Mukhtar reached kufa. The perimeter of kufa was surrounded and all of yezid"s army were tortured and killed by mukhtars army. My question is ; did not mukhtar have any clue that the women hood and imam Zainul abedin were still alive and were being taken to Damscus, and if he was aware then why did he and his army not free Zainab and all the others from being prisoners of yezid and save them from this hardship and long walk to Damascus.

kseeker
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:01 am

Re: Altering the facts of events in Ashura

#3

Unread post by kseeker » Thu Nov 06, 2014 11:57 am

think wrote:Here is another twist in the ashura event which begs an explanation.
It is said and is true that 3 days after Imam Hussain was martered, the army of Mukhtar reached kufa. The perimeter of kufa was surrounded and all of yezid"s army were tortured and killed by mukhtars army. My question is ; did not mukhtar have any clue that the women hood and imam Zainul abedin were still alive and were being taken to Damscus, and if he was aware then why did he and his army not free Zainab and all the others from being prisoners of yezid and save them from this hardship and long walk to Damascus.
As per Dawoodi bohra books, Mukhtar did the revolt and killed all the major culprits 6 years after Ashura.... at the time of Aashura, he was in prison.

We don't pay respects to him as he did not have Imam Zain-ul-Abedeen's permission to go ahead with the Qisaas. Certain sources claim that Mohammed Bin Hanafiya had applauded his stance to take revenge however he insisted that Mukhtar first speak to Imam Zain ul Abedeen about it (which he din't).

Only Allah knows best.

SBM
Posts: 6241
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:01 am

Re: Altering the facts of events in Ashura

#4

Unread post by SBM » Thu Nov 06, 2014 12:06 pm


salaar
Posts: 635
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:36 am

Re: Altering the facts of events in Ashura

#5

Unread post by salaar » Thu Nov 06, 2014 3:00 pm

The incident related to the 4 year old grandson of imam Hasan is not new it has been quoted a number of times even during the waiz of syedna Mohammad burhanuddin I am a witness to it, about mukhtar coming after 3 days, who quotes all these baseless stories it was never said in any waiz haven't you heard Chaalis 40 din tak laasho tamaro beta dhoop ma jalsay re. The only group which came after the shahadat was the family members of Maulana Hur a.s .

kseeker
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:01 am

Re: Altering the facts of events in Ashura

#6

Unread post by kseeker » Fri Nov 07, 2014 4:26 am

salaar wrote:The incident related to the 4 year old grandson of imam Hasan is not new it has been quoted a number of times even during the waiz of syedna Mohammad burhanuddin I am a witness to it, about mukhtar coming after 3 days, who quotes all these baseless stories it was never said in any waiz haven't you heard Chaalis 40 din tak laasho tamaro beta dhoop ma jalsay re. The only group which came after the shahadat was the family members of Maulana Hur a.s .
The recent waaz never said grandson.. it specifically said son and referred to Imaam Hussain as his uncle...

The link posted by SBM is pretty accurate except for the difference in beliefs between 12'er Shia and Ismaili Shia.... the 12er believe that Imam Zainulabedeen had given permission whereas we believe he did not...

salaar
Posts: 635
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:36 am

Re: Altering the facts of events in Ashura

#7

Unread post by salaar » Fri Nov 07, 2014 5:15 am

Don't promote unnecessary doubts if you are so smart to understand that it is impossible then do you think waizeen are such fools to arouse the controversy. In the waiz it is alwaysa said Imam Hasan name aik 4 waras na Farzand hata., as I earlier said this farzand(son) was the son of imam hasans son that is the grandson. Isn't the son of your son like your own son don't we call Mohammad al Baqir son of Imam Hasan similarly this far and was the son (grandson) of imam Hasan as quoted in our books. This is a general history of Karbala which occurred 1400 years back we forget something that happened with us 10 years back, please don't be such a critic to promote doubts into others concentrate on the qurbani as a whole which the imam gave due to which today you are reciting kalma e shahadat. What does it matter imam away the 6 months old the 4 year old the 11 year old the 18 year old the 34 year old and the 85 year old in the way of Allah and you are here doubting and criticizing whether he was the son or the grandson .... pls stop now

kseeker
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:01 am

Re: Altering the facts of events in Ashura

#8

Unread post by kseeker » Fri Nov 07, 2014 6:02 am

salaar wrote:Don't promote unnecessary doubts if you are so smart to understand that it is impossible then do you think waizeen are such fools to arouse the controversy. In the waiz it is alwaysa said Imam Hasan name aik 4 waras na Farzand hata., as I earlier said this farzand(son) was the son of imam hasans son that is the grandson. Isn't the son of your son like your own son don't we call Mohammad al Baqir son of Imam Hasan similarly this far and was the son (grandson) of imam Hasan as quoted in our books. This is a general history of Karbala which occurred 1400 years back we forget something that happened with us 10 years back, please don't be such a critic to promote doubts into others concentrate on the qurbani as a whole which the imam gave due to which today you are reciting kalma e shahadat. What does it matter imam away the 6 months old the 4 year old the 11 year old the 18 year old the 34 year old and the 85 year old in the way of Allah and you are here doubting and criticizing whether he was the son or the grandson .... pls stop now

" In the waiz it is alwaysa said Imam Hasan name aik 4 waras na Farzand hata., "

It has not always been said... just recently has this started....


"do you think waizeen are such fools to arouse the controversy"

Yup... and they think people who listen to their waaz are as well... and they are... the amount of people giving sajdah to MS and holding their hands up as beggars just shows how foolish and astray the kothar has lead people....

For your last question, see point number 2 in my original post.

salaar
Posts: 635
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:36 am

Re: Altering the facts of events in Ashura

#9

Unread post by salaar » Fri Nov 07, 2014 6:34 am

Don't mix things keep the topic of Karbala seperate from the present state of foolishness which SMS abdes are practicing and if you think bohra males contents about Karbala is so doubtful why do you listen to it go some other place which suits you.

salaar
Posts: 635
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:36 am

Re: Altering the facts of events in Ashura

#10

Unread post by salaar » Fri Nov 07, 2014 6:36 am

Sorry majlis not males

maxthemature
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:30 pm

Re: Altering the facts of events in Ashura

#11

Unread post by maxthemature » Fri Nov 07, 2014 11:52 am

Kseeker this prooves once an ideot always an ideot and just talk shit 24/7!
Smb ra always narrated this bayaan and ali qadar mola tus said the same... yes imam hasans grandson is like (grandson is like your own son)and every duwaat has termed this as Hasan na farzand!
Well don't come to any waaz and then suddenly
Start chatting shit as usual!!!

JC
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:01 am

Re: Altering the facts of events in Ashura

#12

Unread post by JC » Fri Nov 07, 2014 12:38 pm

Can we know the NAME of Son of Hassan whose son was 4 years old in Karbala as claimed by Abdes that 'son of Hassan' MEANT grandson of Hassan.

Abdullah got married to Sakina on 10th Moharram, Qasim was I believe 11 at the time of Karbala ............ now which Hassan's son are we talking about??

kseeker
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:01 am

Re: Altering the facts of events in Ashura

#13

Unread post by kseeker » Fri Nov 07, 2014 1:23 pm

"Smb ra always narrated this bayaan and ali qadar mola tus said the same... yes imam hasans grandson is like (grandson is like your own son)and every duwaat has termed this as Hasan na farzand!"

So now there are two people who claim SMB said this as well... which means he was lying as well...

there are two ways of addressing a relationship

ie:
1. Hussain is the son of Ali
2.Ali is the father of Hussain

In arabs, sentence 1 can have many carriers as the word father also means grandfather and/or tribe.....

ie, "Hussain is the son of Abdul Muttalib" and that would be true...

However, sentence 2 can have ONLY 1 carrier
ie: Abdul Mutalib is the father of Hussain - that would be false.....
one can only say " Ali is the father of Hussain" - this is the only true statment....

One might think both the statments are the same but in arabic, they are not....


Which is why its okay to address Imam Hussain as "Ibn Rasulullah" but when he would speak about it, he would not call Rasulullah his "abee".. he would call himself "sibte rasul"...

If he would call that boy " Ehna farzand" ONLY that would be fine but whenever this fake son of Hassan has been talked about, MS has said " aa bhateja" or "ehna chacha" proving that he is actually trying to call him the son of Hassan.

salaar
Posts: 635
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:36 am

Re: Altering the facts of events in Ashura

#14

Unread post by salaar » Fri Nov 07, 2014 3:59 pm

You cannot convince people who are bound to do argument for the sake of argument. As for the name of the father of the 4 year old boy his name is never mentioned, imam Hasan had an extended family and many sons whose generations upheld the name of Imam Hasan but imam at was only in the family of Imam Hussain. Some of the names and incidents are recorded but notconveyed publicly because of ddoubts. Maulatena Nafisa whose rouza is there in Cairo is also in the generation of imam Hasan. People in sindh claims that Abdullah shah ghazi whose mazar is on the beach of Clifton Karachi is direct descendant of imam Hasan after whom hajjaj bin Yousuf send Mohammad bin Qasim to kill him, he came chasing him till the shores of Karachi where he was martyred after a short battle. You might have not heard the name of maulana Bashir, which you might hear in future waiz. Do you know what caused such a high fever to imam Ali Zainulabideen, it was due to a severe infection caused by an injury caused on his legs. Abdullah was the elder brother who was abt 14 and the younger one was qasim, sakina a.s was married to abdullah, at that time the age of sakina a.s was between 9 to 11 and not 4 as wrongly quoted, Sakina a.s later became a renowned poet and literary figure of her time and lived till the age of around 60. I will write a detail biography ofaulatena Sakina sometime for members reference. Now there are so much of history and details related to Karbala which occurred 14 centuries back there might be some errors but as I earlier said focus on the objective rather then age and names.

salaar
Posts: 635
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:36 am

Re: Altering the facts of events in Ashura

#15

Unread post by salaar » Fri Nov 07, 2014 4:08 pm

We specifically use the name Zainab and Kulsoom for the daughters of Maula Ali whereas Arabs call them Zainab e kubra and Zainab e Sughra.

salaar
Posts: 635
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:36 am

Re: Altering the facts of events in Ashura

#16

Unread post by salaar » Fri Nov 07, 2014 4:09 pm

Do you know what happened to banu a.s after Karbala?

alam
Posts: 712
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:15 pm

Re: Altering the facts of events in Ashura

#17

Unread post by alam » Fri Nov 07, 2014 4:17 pm

Banu a.s. was a princess, a daughter of some King of a neighboring country... her father arranged for here escape from Karbala on night or 2 before ashura. Don't know how much this is authenticated.

Ozdundee
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:57 am

Re: Altering the facts of events in Ashura

#18

Unread post by Ozdundee » Fri Nov 07, 2014 4:46 pm

This is what happens when one tries to over dramatise the history..people throw in statements to make people grieve ..try to spread a bayan over 4 hrs and then one comment leads to another and before one know we suddenly have loose ends. Now this happens every year for 10 days for 1400 years . Next we have self made poets , the Marsiya party ..who sing their emotions into history.

it is very difficult to know what actually happened second by second every conversation in every space occurred . One should also recognise the narrators of the stories or witnesses were equally traumatised and abused. Naturally they will have their own version and emotions embedded.

The point is no need to exaggerate or make it any more graphical than it is, if we all agree Husain AS and his family was violently killed, we grieve his physical loss but we should recognise what was the purpose and reason more ! Because we can not reverse history but we can change the future by remembering his mission !

ghulam muhammed
Posts: 11653
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: Altering the facts of events in Ashura

#19

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Fri Nov 07, 2014 5:10 pm

All criticism of the author in this book is directed to the historians, and not at all to the honorable personalities of Islam - The exalted Prophet, Sahaba Kiraam, Hazraat Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain, all of whom inspire our reverence and respect.

At this juncture please make a note that the entire tale of Karbala has been narrated by the so-called Imam Tabari bin Rustam, the Zoroastrian, 239 years after the supposed event. Time and again he begins with, "Abu Mukhnif said this and Abu Mukhnif said that …" Renowned scholars like Shah Abdul Aziz, Allama Tamanna Imadi and 'Maulana' Habibur Rahman Kandhalwi have conducted in-depth research and are of the opinion that Abu Mukhnif is a fictitious character. Other scholars have established that even if such a person existed in flesh and blood, he had died more than fifty years before Tabari was born. It was Tabari who wrote Maqtal Husain in the name of Abu Mukhnif. Moreover, Tabari does not once claim that he ever met Abu Mukhnif. This being the state of affairs, it becomes obvious that the myth of Karbala is the product of Tabari’s own imagination. Some said Tabari was a Shia, others contend that he was a Sunni. In fact he had changed his name from Tabari bin Rustam to Tabari bin Yazeed for deceiving the masses. Tabari ascribes all atrocities to Yazeed, yet, he associates his own name with Yazeed, a shameless attempt to get some credibility!

Dear reader! Only a few excerpts have been picked out cautiously for the sake of brevity. But I have not restricted the account to merely ten or twenty points from various voluminous books in order to convey to you what has been written in them about the illustrious Imam. "Too much reverence breeds insult", (Akbar Ilahadi). The books from which the excerpts have been taken are so numerous that several pages are needed just to record the list of their long titles. Below are given only a few titles as examples:

Tareekh-e-Tabri, Usool-e-Kafi, Sunan Ibn Maja, Shaheed-e-Insaniat, Aashir Bahaar, Sirre Shahadatain, Amali Saddooq, Tafseer Baizawi, Nehjul Balagha, Ainee Sharh-e-Bokhari, Irshade Shaikh Mufeed, Al-Akhbar-il- 'Awaalee, Maqtal-e-Makram, Maqtal Ibn Sahili, Kaamil Ibn Kaseer, Nafsil Mahmmom, Qamqam, Al-Husain Maqtali Maqram, Nasikh-ut-Tawareekh, Waqai-Ayyam-e-Muharram, Zakheera-tud- Daarain, Murawwaj-uz-Zahab, Maqtal Khuaarizimi, Manaqib Shahr Ibn Ashobe, Maqatilul Talibeen, Shahadat-e-Husain, Zibh-e-Azeem, Al-Imamat Was-Siasat, Kanzul Amaal, Iste'aab, Sawa'iqul Muharraqa, Addam'ah As-Sakiba, and so on.

All these references can be looked up in Mustatab Saadat-ud-Darain fi Qatlil Husain by Allama Sarkar Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Husain, printer Maktabah As-Sibtain


TO INTELLIGENCE ABOUND : Along with these events, the historians include a relentless exchange of verses and dialogues as if it were a vocal contest of which they were eyewitnesses, or the audio-video records were being made. This is in spite of the fact that Tabari compiled the first “History of Islam” nearly two hundred and fifty years after Imam Husain’s martyrdom. In order to keep this book reasonably small, we are disregarding much of the running commentary.

SOMETHING STRANGE: It is truly amazing to note that Munajaat-e-Zainul Abideen, and Saheefa Sajjadia written by Imam Zain in his last years make no mention of Karbala at all! The usual rebuttal to this perplexity, "Well, they are a collection of prayers." But even the prayer books of Imam Zain are expected to mention his family and the Karbala martyrs.

The son of the defeated Persia, Rustam's Zoroastrian son Tabari has woven a yarn from which none of our historians has managed to break loose.

http://chagataikhan.blogspot.in/2009/01 ... ala-2.html

ghulam muhammed
Posts: 11653
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: Altering the facts of events in Ashura

#20

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Fri Nov 07, 2014 6:27 pm

The link to the above article is as below :-

http://chagataikhan.blogspot.in/2009/01 ... ala-2.html

salaar
Posts: 635
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:36 am

Re: Altering the facts of events in Ashura

#21

Unread post by salaar » Fri Nov 07, 2014 10:46 pm

It might be so that this tabari has prominently influenced the compilation of tareekh Karbala but as according to our believe fatimi imams who were the true heirs of maula Hussain carried the gham and buka of imam a.s among their followers and shia, like Quran was compiled at a later stage similarly the incident of Karbala was transferred from imam to imam until it would have been recorded and compiled but we if we follow fatimi imams should depend on their source.

kseeker
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:01 am

Re: Altering the facts of events in Ashura

#22

Unread post by kseeker » Sat Nov 08, 2014 1:25 am

alam wrote:Banu a.s. was a princess, a daughter of some King of a neighboring country... her father arranged for here escape from Karbala on night or 2 before ashura. Don't know how much this is authenticated.
Ali (AS) killed Banu's (AS) father, Yazdegerd so I do not think that is true. Many sources say that she was there with Ali Zain-ul-Abedeen till the end....

kseeker
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:01 am

Re: Altering the facts of events in Ashura

#23

Unread post by kseeker » Sat Nov 08, 2014 1:31 am

salaar wrote:You cannot convince people who are bound to do argument for the sake of argument. As for the name of the father of the 4 year old boy his name is never mentioned, imam Hasan had an extended family and many sons whose generations upheld the name of Imam Hasan but imam at was only in the family of Imam Hussain. Some of the names and incidents are recorded but notconveyed publicly because of ddoubts. Maulatena Nafisa whose rouza is there in Cairo is also in the generation of imam Hasan. People in sindh claims that Abdullah shah ghazi whose mazar is on the beach of Clifton Karachi is direct descendant of imam Hasan after whom hajjaj bin Yousuf send Mohammad bin Qasim to kill him, he came chasing him till the shores of Karachi where he was martyred after a short battle. You might have not heard the name of maulana Bashir, which you might hear in future waiz. Do you know what caused such a high fever to imam Ali Zainulabideen, it was due to a severe infection caused by an injury caused on his legs. Abdullah was the elder brother who was abt 14 and the younger one was qasim, sakina a.s was married to abdullah, at that time the age of sakina a.s was between 9 to 11 and not 4 as wrongly quoted, Sakina a.s later became a renowned poet and literary figure of her time and lived till the age of around 60. I will write a detail biography ofaulatena Sakina sometime for members reference. Now there are so much of history and details related to Karbala which occurred 14 centuries back there might be some errors but as I earlier said focus on the objective rather then age and names.
I agree with you that because the event occured so many years ago there are bound to be different version however this is not argument just for the sake of it.... In Fatimid belief, each and every ruthbha gave shahaadat and in the order of their ruthba.. ie: mumin, mukasir, mazoon, dai-al-mutlaq, dai-al-balagh, hujjat-al-lail, hujjat-al-nahaar, bab-al-abwaab, imaam (and two other ruthbas)....

the order in which people left were very important... bringing in a 4 year old boy out of no where passively destroys our theology....

fustrate_Bohra
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2013 6:46 am

Re: Altering the facts of events in Ashura

#24

Unread post by fustrate_Bohra » Sat Nov 08, 2014 3:25 am

The ONLY fact in karbala event is our IMAMS and their true followers HAD laid their life for humanity.

Now its does not matter

1. how they were killed?
2. what was the position of the people who were killed in the battlefield?
3. what was the time when they were killed?
4. what was the relation of the person with imams who were killed?
5. age of the martyred?
6. what conversation were done between imams while going for sahaadat?

Debating on above questions is baseless. Only the fact we have to accept (and we all do) that karbala event has happened where 72 people were killed and just because of them ISLAM is alive today.

And now just because of our behaviour islam is in danger.

salaar
Posts: 635
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:36 am

Re: Altering the facts of events in Ashura

#25

Unread post by salaar » Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:41 am

About banu a.s who is ummul aimmat after sometime in Medina she asked imam ali zainul abideen to accompany her to Iran where she wanted to go and meet her ma sahiba and brother who had accepted Islam much earlier. Maulatena banu was deeply grieved and weak, they had earlier plan to go to Iran that is before the event of Karbala to do the wedding of shahzada Ali Akbar, but after the twist of fate she was nearing her home in a state of grief and shock. At a little distance before Tehran her conditions worsened and she died during the journey. Imam Ali Zain ul Abideen buried her and informed her ma sahib a and brother of this tragic news. They all came out wailing for their daughter and after 3 days her ma sahiba also passed away.. her mausoleum is present in the outskirt of Tehran. In bohra belief the whole thing is accepted but the place of mazar is not confirmed therefore not much is said about it.

kseeker
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:01 am

Re: Altering the facts of events in Ashura

#26

Unread post by kseeker » Sat Nov 08, 2014 7:18 am

salaar wrote:About banu a.s who is ummul aimmat after sometime in Medina she asked imam ali zainul abideen to accompany her to Iran where she wanted to go and meet her ma sahiba and brother who had accepted Islam much earlier. Maulatena banu was deeply grieved and weak, they had earlier plan to go to Iran that is before the event of Karbala to do the wedding of shahzada Ali Akbar, but after the twist of fate she was nearing her home in a state of grief and shock. At a little distance before Tehran her conditions worsened and she died during the journey. Imam Ali Zain ul Abideen buried her and informed her ma sahib a and brother of this tragic news. They all came out wailing for their daughter and after 3 days her ma sahiba also passed away.. her mausoleum is present in the outskirt of Tehran. In bohra belief the whole thing is accepted but the place of mazar is not confirmed therefore not much is said about it.
She treated Ali Akbar as her own blood because of Imaam Hussain's love for him.....

kseeker
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:01 am

Re: Altering the facts of events in Ashura

#27

Unread post by kseeker » Sat Nov 08, 2014 7:21 am

fustrate_Bohra wrote:The ONLY fact in karbala event is our IMAMS and their true followers HAD laid their life for humanity.

Now its does not matter

1. how they were killed?
2. what was the position of the people who were killed in the battlefield?
3. what was the time when they were killed?
4. what was the relation of the person with imams who were killed?
5. age of the martyred?
6. what conversation were done between imams while going for sahaadat?

Debating on above questions is baseless. Only the fact we have to accept (and we all do) that karbala event has happened where 72 people were killed and just because of them ISLAM is alive today.

And now just because of our behaviour islam is in danger.
Every detail matters ... the circumstances, the people involved, the reasons everything ... it is exactly what makes it so different to other battles...badr was important, uhud was important, so were siffin and khandaq... they all fought for the same reason however none are revered as much as karbala

fustrate_Bohra
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2013 6:46 am

Re: Altering the facts of events in Ashura

#28

Unread post by fustrate_Bohra » Sat Nov 08, 2014 7:57 am

Kseeker bhai, am not denying reason, off course knowing the reason is very important. what am i saying is the points i mentioned is useless we only need to remember and fit into our mind "reason behind karbala war and why all those 72 people ready to embrace death?"

salaar
Posts: 635
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:36 am

Re: Altering the facts of events in Ashura

#29

Unread post by salaar » Sat Nov 08, 2014 10:16 am

karbala is a battle of determination for the right cause, it was never intended to be fought to defeat the enemy but it was fought to prove that with tryranny and barbarism you can kill the body but not the soul. maula Hussain upheld the kalematus shahadat by sacrificing whatever he had, 90% events are similar between all religious groups which is obvious keeping in view that this incident happened centuries back, iam not taking sides but it is a fact that in bohra majalis you will hardly hear anything new related to karbala, in one of our majlis the speaker said something nice, he said that people say that we are bored hearing the same thing, in comparison the shia waizeen keep on bringing new things to the interest of audience, the speaker said look we have the same ittar in the same old bottle but its fragrance is still fresh and fresh. no comment required just sharing my experience.

Ozdundee
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:57 am

Re: Altering the facts of events in Ashura

#30

Unread post by Ozdundee » Sat Nov 08, 2014 10:38 am

what is the source of your belief..is it the sermon or sabaq.

Have you ever personally read any book or document which you can rely on that describes the events that you are mentioning.

People keep on saying it is Bohra belief system, belief system based on desire of how events should have happened or actual witnessed events.

Now if Bohra ideology is based on inspiration received in their Imams or Diai , this is just faith. It is hard to explain ...but don't say they are facts. It is a belief system that people are comfortable with and are trained and indoctrinated to accept from childhood. The danger is, Bohra tawil tries to apply logic to mysteries and once you do that you enter the logical space and then be prepared for logic challenge..you cannot flip flop between logic and faith and think they both will remain intact.

Your comment that Husain AS intentionally gave up his life and his companions where he had not intention to win, how did you come to that conclusion. If that is the case why would he even have a sword or kill dozens of enemy warriors. According to you what was the point of allowing his companions and children to die .

Why is it not that he was betrayed , harassed and killed in cold blood murder..he had no choice. It is the Christians who believe Christ SAW died for their sins .