Why Karbala?

[Fatso]

These are all interesting reads. The bottom line is that in 2008 shia and sunni on a personal level have no problems with each other. Iran remains the only country, that I can think of, that is using shia rituals for political reasons. The day will surely end reading a declaration to support nuclear power and death to America, belittling whatever Hossein may have died for. Even in Iraq those rituals are not officially sanctioned by the government and appear to be grass roots.

Well of course the average person doesn't really care if his/her neighbor has the exact same views, but I think its unfair to say only Iran uses this for political reasons.
In Bahrain every year they run into problems because of Ashura. Their government basically pumps anti-Shia propaganda (thanks to Saudi) into the Sunnis, to the point that people thought a large group of Shia buying some real estate in Bahrain was an Iranian conspiracy to take back Bahrain. Or lets say Mubarak's comments that Shias will always be loyal to Iran and not their own country. There are many more examples... but to be honest when on this Earth's history has there not been a time where some politician didn't use religion for political purposes?

 

[mashtnaghi]

The argument that Shiism was a creation of Iranians as a means to "Persianize" Islam or "make it their own" is a commonly heard claim which is based on no significant historical fact and is a wishful thinking at best.
...

I said “adopted” not created.

And we have made it our own. Doesn’t your suggestion of the role of Safavids and the European implications support this as well? Iran houses the largest Shiaa population in the world. I suspect that almost all the prominent Shiaa clergies have been from Iran. How could it not have been influenced or modified by us?

You are right that the public displays such as the processions, passion plays, etc are heavily influenced by the Catholic rituals, which in turn are influenced by Jewish rituals of seeking salvation through pain and suffering.

None of these, I think, are an answer to the question that was posed as the opener of this thread.

In my view, the elaborate commemoration of Ashura in Iran has become a rite of passage. It is a declaration of parallel yet independent existence in the world of Islam. It also feeds our culture with the desire to wail, and our yearning for misery and tragedy. Of course, not to forget the best Ghaymeh in the world.

 

[Motori]

Agha Rasoul, as the piece I posted said, Hurr did not allow Imam Hossein to either go back to Medina nor let him go toward Kuffeh. Imam Hossein had no choice except to go north. Hurr and his men were actually following Imam Hossein until Imam Hossein reached Karbala.
After Muavieh died and Yazid took over, Yazid asked for Imam Hossein's alleginace(beyat) which Imam refused and left Mecca. Around the same time the Kuffees rebelled against Yazid; the Kuffees then asked Imam Hossein to go to Kuffeh and be their leader. Yazid had already ordered the governer of Mecca to kill Imam Hossein if he did not give his allegiance to him, even before Imam headed toward Kuffa. Clearly after Kuffees uprising and Imam Hossein's heading toward Kuffa, Yazid felt threatened and was determined to kill Imam Hossein. I am no expert on the matter, but this is little I know.
chak

My point exactly!!

 

[AliMR]

Well of course the average person doesn't really care if his/her neighbor has the exact same views, but I think its unfair to say only Iran uses this for political reasons.
In Bahrain every year they run into problems because of Ashura. Their government basically pumps anti-Shia propaganda (thanks to Saudi) into the Sunnis, to the point that people thought a large group of Shia buying some real estate in Bahrain was an Iranian conspiracy to take back Bahrain. Or lets say Mubarak's comments that Shias will always be loyal to Iran and not their own country. There are many more examples... but to be honest when on this Earth's history has there not been a time where some politician didn't use religion for political purposes?

On your first point, i think governments always use the "other" as a unifying point...instead of engaging the shia community and questioning their belief... (like i think asking dead imams to be a form of shirk, according to Quran)... they (arab governments) think/believe its easier to just vilify them.

second point, Mobarak is a dictator and an anti-islamic one at that! he watches over the islamic movements in egypt like an eagle and puts them down, so his comments arent exactly sincere.

 

[Iranpaak]

My point exactly!!

Rasoul Jan, you did not read the sentence next to the one with which you agreed. Even before Kuffees asked Imam Hossein to be their leader, Yazid had already ordered the governer of Mecca to kill Imam Hossein if he did not accept Yazid as the leader of the Muslims. Imam Hossein did not accept Yazid and therefore, left Mecca because he did not to do Beyat with a corrupt man as the leader of the Muslims. After he left Mecca to go to Medina he heard from the Kuffees. Imam Hossein was not seeking the leadership at that point. Therefore, the claim that the whole Karbala event was was a power struggle, or politically motivated, is not correct IMO if that was your point. It was good vs evil, not giving in to opperssion or tyrant and haveing principals; and giving the ultimate price for those beliefs.

 

[The_Referee]

Referee jAn,
Thank you for the info and the reference but still it does not answer my question. If the Yazid's vanguards intercepted Emam Hussein then event sould've taken place SOUTH of Kufeh not in Karbala which is located more than 80 kilometer NORTH of Kufeh. 80 kilometers sounds like more than 5 days long trip back then.
Again if some one is traveling from Madineh in the same path he will get to Kufeh first and Karbala is way up north. Check the goole map.

The answer is somehow insinuated in what HORR said:

"No, but select a way neither toward Kufa nor Madina enabling me to find a pretense before ibn Ziyad that you would have disagreed with me on the way."

I remember from somewhere/someone that they had met West of Kufa.

HORR did not let them back or forward. Hossein might have had crossing Euphrates in his mind to reach Iran/Rey instead after facing HORR and learning Kufa is not so friendly towards him anymore. So he chose closest route towards Euphrates to the North of where they met ( Euphrates is running almost South East in that area). Considering they travelled for a few days until the letter from Kufa it makes sense that they may have been right 5 days South of Karbala and West of KUafa.

 

[alila]

ashoora and husein and yazid fight was based on fighting over a pussy. those who know the story know what im talking about and those who dont should read more books.

yazid was a great poet . anybody knew that? im sure the majority of you guys have heard

Ala ya ayo hal saghi,ader kasan va navelha ke esgh asan nemood aval vali oftad moshkel ha
be booye .......................................

this is the opening mesra from DIVAN hafez and the arabic part ALA YA ......................... belongs to YAZID except hafez re-ordered the arabic part.

the yazid version is : ADER KASAN VA NAVELHA ,ALA YA AYOHA SAGHI


I wonder why hafez did that?lol
chak

 

[Iranpaak]

ashoora and husein and yazid fight was based on fighting over a pussy. those who know the story know what im talking about and those who dont should read more books.

yazid was a great poet . anybody knew that? im sure the majority of you guys have heard

Ala ya ayo hal saghi,ader kasan va navelha ke esgh asan nemood aval vali oftad moshkel ha
be booye .......................................

this is the opening mesra from DIVAN hafez and the arabic part ALA YA ......................... belongs to YAZID except hafez re-ordered the arabic part.

the yazid version is : ADER KASAN VA NAVELHA ,ALA YA AYOHA SAGHI


I wonder why hafez did that?lol
chak

Come again, what Yazid being a poet had anything to do with anything? What are you talking about man?
It is a historical fact that after the death of Muavieh, Yazid thought Hossein would be a problem for his reign; as soon as Muavieh died he ordered his governer in Mecca to get imam Hossein's allegiance or beyat; or kill him if he refuses. Now rather than referring to "books" tell me what those "books" are saying and based on what?

Here is wikipedia's account of history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Karbala:
[edit] Caliphate turns into monarchy

Muawiya violated every single clause of the treaty which he signed with Hasan Ibn Ali. Most blatantly, he tried to ensure that his son, Yazid I, would be planted as the next King, another major deviation from the general Islamic norms. Muawiya required all of his supporters to swear allegiance to Yazid before his death. By doing so, he disregarded the peace treaty with Hasan ibn Ali to hold Shura.
When Muawiya died, some major Muslims such as Abdullah ibn Umar, Abdullah ibn Zubayr as well as Husayn ibn Ali refused to recognize Yazid I as the next caliph. This was the perfect opportunity for any parties opposing Umayyad to begin struggling for power.[8]

[edit] Kufa's opposition to Damascus

Kufa, a garrison town in what is now Iraq, had been Ali's capital, and there were still many people in Kufa claiming they are still supporters of Ali. Husayn ibn Ali received many letters from the Kufans expressing their offer of support if he claimed the caliphate. They were also trying to restore Kufa's power against Damascus, the Umayyad capital.

[edit] Particulars of the event

The route of Husayn ibn Ali from Medina to Karbala is mentioned in various history books.[9][10]

[edit] Medina

Yazid, the new ruler, feared that Husayn would revolt. Therefore he sent a letter to Walid ibn Utbah, governor of Medina, and ordered him to take allegiance from Husayn or to kill him if he refrains. Walid consulted Marwan ibn al-Hakam and he advised Walid to kill Husayn since he will never accept Bay'ah with Yazid, but Walid did not accept this advice since he did not want to kill Husayn.