Onyocha: @Vedaxcool

If being 'Shia' is about loving,supporting,obeying and following the Imams of Mohammad's household among whom is Hussein,then why would you still consider someone who goes against that definition and join the ranks of their enemies a 'Shia'?

Don't people betray and change beliefs and religion all the time? Would you still consider Muslims who apostasize and go on to insult Mohammad and oppose him to still be 'Muslims'?

From what I just read most of who were 'Shia' in the city of Kufa are the ones who betrayed Hussein.so how does that concern a 'Shia' in another land or city?and these people of Kufa are blamed majorly for betraying Hussein and doing nothing to rescue him and not that they joined Yazid's army.cowardice actually played a role.the people of Kufa were intimidated by Yazid's army and didn't want to die.others were bribed to keep quiet.

The fact is the true Shia who were very loyal defended Hussein to their last drop of blood and didn't abandon him even at the face of imminent death.finally,what did Sunnis do to rescue Imam Hussein from Yazid's plan to either force him to pay allegiance to him or kill him? Don't you think Sunnis are as guilty if not more (since they were active in Yazid's army) in beheading your Prophet's grandson,Hussein?

do not bother and waste your time.he is allergic to reasoning.when he reads your points he would go frantic and type like a dancing elephant!

Onyocha: @Vedaxcool

If being 'Shia' is about loving,supporting,obeying and following the Imams of Mohammad's household among whom is Hussein,then why would you still consider someone who goes against that definition and join the ranks of their enemies a 'Shia'?

You know what, I make it a duty not responding to multiple ids, shiaa is insulting the ahlul bayt, they insult the prophet's wife who happens to be part of the ahlul bayt, the same shias are on record to severally disobey the household of the prophet and even betray them . . . So wherever u dug up ur definition is left to you to think and compare the historical precedence of the shia towards the Islam! Your logic falls flat as the fact that shias have sometimes shown themselves to be only interested in serving their interest as it follows their ignorance just like khariwajies who turned against Ali not by joining his enemies but actually becoming his enemies, why? Simple they insisted that because he was "divinely" appointed he cannot negotiate with his enemies so your confusion that shias who turned against/betray their masters cannot be consider shias is hardly tenable, if Ali had agreed not to negotiate he wouldn't have any issues with the khariwjies, indicating that ur problems lies in claiming superior knowledge to their leaders and well established facts of Islam! Tommorrow with their warp mentality they will pretend not to do takfir yet here they are passing it on the entire kufa shia who ignored Husayn to save their necks!

Onyocha: @Vedaxcool
Don't people betray and change beliefs and religion all the time? Would you still consider Muslims who apostasize and go on to insult Mohammad and oppose him to still be 'Muslims'?

Poor reasoning often produce illogical statements! How ur allusion above save the criminal hands of the shias from the fact that they murdered remains to be seen, for starters one who apostate automatically no longer can be consider a part of religion or sect but did the kufee shias renounce shia? Or did khariwajies renounce the central tenet of shiasm that Ali was divinely appointed? Pls u guys should learn to provide rational and cogent statement!

Onyocha: @Vedaxcool
From what I just read most of who were 'Shia' in the city of Kufa are the ones who betrayed Hussein.so how does that concern a 'Shia' in another land or city?and these people of Kufa are blamed majorly for betraying Hussein and doing nothing to rescue him and not that they joined Yazid's army.cowardice actually played a role.the people of Kufa were intimidated by Yazid's army and didn't want to die.others were bribed to keep quiet

.


this guy is to easy, the shia in Kufa invited Hussayn and pledge their loyalty to him, in a single day Husayn receieved 1000 of letters pledging their loyalty! Would Husayn ever had wasted his time going all the way to kufa in the first place, they invented the disgusting matam practice that u follow blindly and ignorantly? The same Kufa has been identified by shias historians as being central to development of shiasm so lying about Yazid bribing people either shows that you shias come cheap or u do not know how to draw appropriate conclusions by simple logical reasoning! Keep blaming Yazid for your shia ancestors cowardice! Ali, Hassan and Hussayn never trusted the shias and many statement recorded in shia book shows their disappointment in their own followers always calling them all sort of names . . . Yet in your wisdom Yazid is to blame for the shia murders? Now that is sickening!

Onyocha: @Vedaxcool
The fact is the true Shia who were very loyal defended Hussein to their last drop of blood and didn't abandon him even at the face of imminent death.finally,what did Sunnis do to rescue Imam Hussein from Yazid's plan to either force him to pay allegiance to him or kill him? Don't you think Sunnis are as guilty if not more (since they were active in Yazid's army) in beheading your Prophet's grandson,Hussein?

Let me redirect u back to the thread u posted the above can't! Shimr a shia and a staunch Ali supporter murdered Husaayn r.a! If you cannot get this simple fact found in shia books is lost to u I cannot really aid u beyound that! On sunnis, did they invite Husayn to kufa to start a rebellion? Did Hussayn announce his intentions to the generality of people? Did the sunni deceive Hussayn that they pledge their allegiance to him and then lie that they have no one to lead them In prayer only to ignore him when Hussayn need their help? Was shimr a sunni? Did the sunnis kill him to cover their tracks? Go to the thread and see the links provided!

vedaxcool:

You know what, I make it a duty not responding to multiple ids, shiaa is insulting the ahlul bayt, they insult the prophet's wife who happens to be part of the ahlul bayt, the same shias are on record to severally disobey the household of the prophet and even betray them . . . So wherever u dug up ur definition is left to you to think and compare the historical precedence of the shia towards the Islam! Your logic falls flat as the fact that shias have sometimes shown themselves to be only interested in serving their interest as it follows their ignorance just like khariwajies who turned against Ali not by joining his enemies but actually becoming his enemies, why? Simple they insisted that because he was "divinely" appointed he cannot negotiate with his enemies so your confusion that shias who turned against/betray their masters cannot be consider shias is hardly tenable, if Ali had agreed not to negotiate he wouldn't have any issues with the khariwjies, indicating that ur problems lies in claiming superior knowledge to their leaders and well established facts of Islam! Tommorrow with their warp mentality they will pretend not to do takfir yet here they are passing it on the entire kufa shia who ignored Husayn to save their necks!



Poor reasoning often produce illogical statements! How ur allusion above save the criminal hands of the shias from the fact that they murdered remains to be seen, for starters one who apostate automatically no longer can be consider a part of religion or sect but did the kufee shias renounce shia? Or did khariwajies renounce the central tenet of shiasm that Ali was divinely appointed? Pls u guys should learn to provide rational and cogent statement!

.


this guy is to easy, the shia in Kufa invited Hussayn and pledge their loyalty to him, in a single day Husayn receieved 1000 of letters pledging their loyalty! Would Husayn ever had wasted his time going all the way to kufa in the first place, they invented the disgusting matam practice that u follow blindly and ignorantly? The same Kufa has been identified by shias historians as being central to development of shiasm so lying about Yazid bribing people either shows that you shias come cheap or u do not know how to draw appropriate conclusions by simple logical reasoning! Keep blaming Yazid for your shia ancestors cowardice! Ali, Hassan and Hussayn never trusted the shias and many statement recorded in shia book shows their disappointment in their own followers always calling them all sort of names . . . Yet in your wisdom Yazid is to blame for the shia murders? Now that is sickening!




Let me redirect u back to the thread u posted the above can't! Shimr a shia and a staunch Ali supporter murdered Husaayn r.a! If you cannot get this simple fact found in shia books is lost to u I cannot really aid u beyound that! On sunnis, did they invite Husayn to kufa to start a rebellion? Did Hussayn announce his intentions to the generality of people? Did the sunni deceive Hussayn that they pledge their allegiance to him and then lie that they have no one to lead them In prayer only to ignore him when Hussayn need their help? Was shimr a sunni? Did the sunnis kill him to cover their tracks? Go to the thread and see the links provided!

Yazeed was the head of the snake that demanded the blood of Hussein.there are those among Shia in Kufa who betrayed Hussein and there are the die-hard Shia who were true to themselves and stood by Hussein to the last drop of their blood.my question is where were Sunnis? why didn't Sunnis assist Hussein? if Hussein was alive today would you have supported him? i can see earlier on you refused too curse Yazeed.

also,if someone calls himself a Shia,he is expected to love and support the Ahlul-Bayt,but if that person turns away,do you still consider him a "Shia"?i dont think so.i can go to youtube and bring you many videos of ex-muslims who presently insult Mohammed.do you still consider them "muslims"?i do not think so.

i want to know why do Sunnis love Yazeed.was he not infamous and he demanded the allegiance or blood of Hussein?

do you find any person today calling himself "Shia" that support what the people of Kufa did to Hussein? does anyone calling himself Shia today justify the betrayal of the people of Kufa? and why do you use the people in one city to hold responsible a worldwide body of believers? if today the Shia do not relate to the people of Kufa and they condemn what they did,why dont you condemn what Yazeed did and why dont you condemn at least the inaction of Sunnis to defend Hussein? from what i know history the larger body of Muslims (even to this day) are not the Shia.Yazeed definitely like his father was leading and recognized by the larger body.

to conclude,do you think Hussein's opposition to Yazeed was justified based on Islam? what do you have to say to the saudi mufti who considered Yazeed's rule as legal and Hussein as someone 'misguided'.do you agree with him?

vedaxcool:

You know what, I make it a duty not responding to multiple ids, shiaa is insulting the ahlul bayt, they insult the prophet's wife who happens to be part of the ahlul bayt, the same shias are on record to severally disobey the household of the prophet and even betray them . . . So wherever u dug up ur definition is left to you to think and compare the historical precedence of the shia towards the Islam! Your logic falls flat as the fact that shias have sometimes shown themselves to be only interested in serving their interest as it follows their ignorance just like khariwajies who turned against Ali not by joining his enemies but actually becoming his enemies, why? Simple they insisted that because he was "divinely" appointed he cannot negotiate with his enemies so your confusion that shias who turned against/betray their masters cannot be consider shias is hardly tenable, if Ali had agreed not to negotiate he wouldn't have any issues with the khariwjies, indicating that ur problems lies in claiming superior knowledge to their leaders and well established facts of Islam! Tommorrow with their warp mentality they will pretend not to do takfir yet here they are passing it on the entire kufa shia who ignored Husayn to save their necks!



Poor reasoning often produce illogical statements! How ur allusion above save the criminal hands of the shias from the fact that they murdered remains to be seen, for starters one who apostate automatically no longer can be consider a part of religion or sect but did the kufee shias renounce shia? Or did khariwajies renounce the central tenet of shiasm that Ali was divinely appointed? Pls u guys should learn to provide rational and cogent statement!

.


this guy is to easy, the shia in Kufa invited Hussayn and pledge their loyalty to him, in a single day Husayn receieved 1000 of letters pledging their loyalty! Would Husayn ever had wasted his time going all the way to kufa in the first place, they invented the disgusting matam practice that u follow blindly and ignorantly? The same Kufa has been identified by shias historians as being central to development of shiasm so lying about Yazid bribing people either shows that you shias come cheap or u do not know how to draw appropriate conclusions by simple logical reasoning! Keep blaming Yazid for your shia ancestors cowardice! Ali, Hassan and Hussayn never trusted the shias and many statement recorded in shia book shows their disappointment in their own followers always calling them all sort of names . . . Yet in your wisdom Yazid is to blame for the shia murders? Now that is sickening!




Let me redirect u back to the thread u posted the above can't! Shimr a shia and a staunch Ali supporter murdered Husaayn r.a! If you cannot get this simple fact found in shia books is lost to u I cannot really aid u beyound that! On sunnis, did they invite Husayn to kufa to start a rebellion? Did Hussayn announce his intentions to the generality of people? Did the sunni deceive Hussayn that they pledge their allegiance to him and then lie that they have no one to lead them In prayer only to ignore him when Hussayn need their help? Was shimr a sunni? Did the sunnis kill him to cover their tracks? Go to the thread and see the links provided!

Yazeed was the head of the snake that demanded the blood of Hussein if Hussein did not pay allegiance to him,which ofcourse Hussein refused to do regardless of how small the number of his supporters were.there are those among Shia in Kufa who betrayed Hussein and there are the die-hard Shia who were true to themselves and stood by Hussein to the last drop of their blood.my question is where were Sunnis? why didn't Sunnis assist Hussein? if Hussein was alive today would you have supported him? i can see earlier on you refused to curse Yazeed.

also,if someone calls himself a Shia,he is expected to love and support the Ahlul-Bayt,but if that person turns away,do you still consider him a "Shia"?i dont think so.i can go to youtube and bring you many videos of ex-muslims who presently insult Mohammed.do you still consider them "muslims"?i do not think so.

i want to know why do Sunnis love Yazeed.was he not infamous and he demanded the allegiance or blood of Hussein?

do you find any person today calling himself "Shia" that support what the people of Kufa did to Hussein? does anyone calling himself Shia today justify the betrayal of the people of Kufa? and why do you use the people in one city to hold responsible a worldwide body of believers? isn't that blackmail you are applying? if today the Shia do not relate to the people of Kufa and they condemn what they did,why dont you condemn what Yazeed did and why dont you condemn at least the inaction of Sunnis to defend Hussein? from what i know of history the larger body of Muslims (even to this day) are not the Shia.Sunnis who were more of "quietists" and submissive to the rulership made the larger body.the Shia generally were perceived for their opposition to the caliphate and promoting the rule of Mohammed's household.Yazeed definitely like his father was leading and recognized by the larger body which was the Sunnis.if the Sunnis had stood with Hussein,do you think Yazeed would have succeeded in killing Hussein and his followers and household? so dont you think Sunnis are to blame for their lack of concern for the grandson of Mohammed?

to conclude,do you think Hussein's opposition to Yazeed was justified based on Islam? what do you have to say to the saudi mufti who considered Yazeed's rule as legal and Hussein as someone 'misguided'.do you agree with him?

@LagosShia

please explain and clarify why do the Shia insult the wife of the Prophet who is among the Ahlul-Bayt according to Vedaxcool.thank you.

Onyocha: @LagosShia

please explain and clarify why do the Shia insult the wife of the Prophet who is among the Ahlul-Bayt according to Vedaxcool.thank you.

as you can clearly see someone is trying to use blackmail and create a scenario that doesn't exist by either totally concealing the past from the eyes of Muslims or trying to twist the facts.

firstly as Muslims,insulting anyone is haram.we are not told to insult anyone in Shia Islam.

secondly,the question you put forth about the wife of the Prophet (sa) is therefore not correct.we do have a dislike for Aisha and there are known reasons for that.but it doesn't mean we go about calling her names or using insults.if you're then asking why do we have an opposition to Aisha and she is according to your question "among the Ahlul-Bayt"? if you ask such question,then you must equally put that question to Aisha herself.ask her if you could why does she hate the Ahlul-Bayt (as),particularly Fatima (the Prophet's daughter),her husband Imam Ali and her children (may Allah's blessings be upon them).the answer is Sayyida Fatima's (as) mother,Sayyida Khadija (ra) bore the Prophet (sa) children and Aisha was barren.one of the reasons is jealousy.another is because her father is abu bakr,the first Sunni caliph who usurped the caliphate from Imam Ali (as) and went against the nomination by the Prophet (sa) of Imam Ali (as) to be his successor as recorded in Hadith of the Pond of Khumm and in Hadith al-Manzila among others.

Further,Aisha had being warned by the Prophet (sa) in a prophecy that she should not leave her house as the Quran commands the Prophet's (sa) wives to contain themselves in their houses.Aisha inspite of the prophecy by the Prophet (sa) and his warnings went ahead to wage war against the Imam of her time,Imam Ali (as) who was then holding the caliphate.the Battle of Jamal Aisha declared claimed the lives of thousands of Muslims,among whom a large number of them were innocent civilians killed in Basra.

moreover,the Sunnis really do not understand what is "Ahlul-Bayt" which translates to "people of the House" i.e. the house of the Prophet (sa).they dont know who to include and who to exclude in that term as i will shortly exlplain.our loyalty,love and obedience to the Prophet (sa),and Imam Ali (as) and Sayyida Fatima (as),and their two sons Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain (as) is out of obedience to Allah (swt) and the Prophet (sa) and following those who are righteous and chosen.when verse 33:33 of the Quran was revealed confirming the sinlessness of the Ahlul-Bayt (as),the Prophet (sa) regarded those four plus himself to be "the Ahlul-Bayt" for that description of purity in verse 33:33.there is no way both Aisha,the disobedient wife who killed Muslims and waged the battle of Jamal, and Imam Ali (as) and his children could be part of the same people that verse is talking about as "pure" and "sinless".it wouldn't make sense except if you want to discredit the Quran or you remove Aisha from the "Ahlul-Bayt equation" as in reality she wasn't part of it.we also see Aisha's hatred for the Prophet's (sa) grandson Imam Hassan (as) when he was martyred and was to be buried close to his grandfather.she refused.also as the definition of "Ahlul-Bayt" shows from hadith al-kisa,there are five people in the time of Prophet Muhammad (sa) covered by the term "Ahlul-Bayt" which sends the idea of purity and sinlessness.they did not incude the wives.and the tenses use in verse 33:33 in arabic clearly shows that the verse of purity doesn't include the wives.

also,if we are to consider Aisha a member of the "Ahlul-Bayt" in the context of verse 33:33,are we also to consider the Prophet's (sa) uncle,abu lahab who is condemned to the hell fire in the holy Quran as a part of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) because he was related by blood to the Prophet (sa)? we do not think so.being related by blood or through marriage to a prophet is no pass for being righteous and accepted or approved of or loved in the eyes of the believers.the wives of Prophet Noah and Prophet Lot (as) are condemned in the Quran and so also the son of Prophet Noah (as).so our adherence and definition to those five and also the remaining 9 Ahlul-Bayt Imams from the offspring of Imam Hussain (as) is purely borne out more of obedience to Allah (swt) and His Prophet (sa) than sentiments and emotions.in simple terms we love those Allah (swt) is pleased with and He showed total approval of through the mouth of His Prophet (sa).we follow what we are sure of.in the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things,the Prophet (sa) commanded explciitly that we abide by Imam Ali (as) and his progeny alongside the book of Allah (swt),the Holy Quran..

Holy Quran 33:33
"Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet's] household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification".

please watch a narration of Hadith al-Kisa with english subtitles and see whom Prophet Muhammad (sa) referred to as his "Ahlul-Bayt" (as):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFuAKucK264&feature=related