You need to understand that this war(like many others) was because of misunderstanding between Hazrat Ali(R.A) and Hazrat Aisha(R.A) . No one is perfect and people make mistakes and there was no need for you to bring it here in topic of Muharram. Your Wikipedia is also not a good source of knowledge for those religious conflicts/topics where shia and sunni hold different opinions. If you want to know about opinions of shia and sunni then better have research from shia and Sunni authentic sources instead of relying on Scottish William Muir
Correction:
Petty wars to prove your POV or impose one's will are part of medieval tribal culture - this was no exception. You cannot kill 10,000 people and call it a misunderstanding. Mullahs who justify these things in the name of religion is precisely the reason why 1.5 billion Muslims contribute 4% of world productivity. No wonder we are going backwards because in 21st century we are trying to emulate and justify 7th century issues. Islamic history has been turned into an untouchable holy cow and an extremely taboo subject to present any alternate view point. Our mullahs answer to these atrocities is "Qatil bhe shaheed maqtool bhe shaheed"....well done..human stupidity is infinite!
He, knew what he was walking into - especially after Muslim ibn Aquil was killed, He could have given up but he didn't. Nothing stopped, him from making a stand against the Yazid, a stand that became history not just for which people forget an overwhelming, military victory of Yazid's Army. It, was about the message which inspired people like Iqbal and Khwaja Moinuddin Chisthi.
Yeah, sounds like Hamas. Islam explicitly forbids from emotionalism like this.
Battles are fought with a brain, not with heart and retreating to save your men and fire power to fight another day is a sensible move when a war becomes overly unbalanced.
All the metaphorical verses and their interpretations which you people deduce most of the time negates the one historical fact . Not for the single time in the reign of Abu Bakr Umar and Usman, Not a Single Sahaba of high stature revolted against them on the basis of these quran ayas and hadith of Ghadir Khumm... It is strange that while Sahabas battled against those who didn't payed zakat as it was made mandatory by Allah and his Apostle yet the successor which according the interpretations of your people were made mandatory yet no one raised a single sword in Abu Bakr, Umar and Usman reign.
Which brings to a logical question. All your interpretations are wrong than?
These interpretations are part of political Islam written down by clergies serving the imperial house of their times in exchange of dinars, dirhams, concubines and gems. The purpose of these interpretations was to give legitimacy to one armed faction over another - to full fill the political ambitions of given imperial dynasties. No wonder they continue to breed fitnah even today because that was the intent they were written with.
With the right amount of cash, these clerics will approve anything. From instant conversion to Islam to making exceptions of "legal" prostitution.
This is why state controlling the religion is sucessfull but religion controlling the state is a failure.
I dont have a problem who want to celebrate Muharram with prayers, fasting or outright beating the cr_p out of themselves but please keep it to yourself. Dont enforce it on others by cutting electrical cables, blocking roads and taking our long processions and inciting others or blowing people with suicide bombs in in the name "righteous sect". None hands are clean, both are equally insane (majnoon).
Now some History:
While the Umayyads and the Hashimites may have had bitterness between the two clans before Muhammad, the rivalry turned into a severe case of tribal animosity after the Battle of Badr. The battle saw three top leaders of the Umayyad clan (Utba ibn Rabi'ah, Walid ibn Utbah and Shaybah) killed by Hashmites (Ali, Hamza ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib and Ubaydah ibn al-Harith) in a three-on-three melee.[6] This fueled the opposition of Abu Sufyan ibn Harb, the grandson of Umayya, to Muhammad and to Islam. Abu Sufyan sought to exterminate the adherents of the new religion by waging another battle with Muslims based in Medina only a year after the Battle of Badr. He did this to avenge the defeat at Badr.
The Battle of Uhud is generally believed by scholars to be the first defeat for the Muslims, as they had incurred greater losses than the Meccans. After the battle, Abu Sufyan's wife Hind, who was also the daughter of Utba ibn Rabi'ah is reported to have cut open the corpse of Hamza, taking out his liver which she then attempted to eat.[7] Within five years after his defeat in the Battle of Uhud however, Muhammad took control of Mecca[8] and announced a general amnesty for all. Abu Sufyan and his wife Hind embraced Islam on the eve of the conquest of Mecca, as did their son (the future caliph Muawiyah I).
The Conquest of Mecca while overwhelming for the Umayyads for the time being, further fueled their hatred towards the Hashmites; this would later result in battles between Muawiyah I and Ali and then killing of Husayn ibn Ali along with his family and a few friends on the orders of Yazid ibn Muawiyah at the Battle of Karbala.
Most historians consider Caliph Muawiyah (661–80) to have been the second ruler of the Umayyad dynasty, even though he was the first to assert the Umayyads' right to rule on a dynastic principle. It was really the caliphate of Uthman Ibn Affan (644–656), a member of Umayyad clan himself, that witnessed the revival and then the ascendancy of the Umayyad clan to the corridors of power. Uthman, during his reign, placed some of the trusted members of his clan at prominent and strong positions throughout the state. Most notable was the appointment of Marwan ibn al-Hakam, Uthman's first cousin, as his top advisor, which created a stir amongst the Hashmite companions of Muhammad, as Marwan along with his father Al-Hakam ibn Abi al-'As had been permanently exiled from Medina by Muhammad during his lifetime. Uthman also appointed Walid ibn Uqba, Uthman's half-brother, as the governor of Kufa, who was accused, by Hashmites, of leading prayer while under the influence of alcohol.[10] Uthman also consolidated Muawiyah's governorship of Syria by granting him control over a larger area[11] and appointed his foster brother Abdullah ibn Saad as the Governor of Egypt. However, since
Uthman never named an heir, he cannot be considered the founder of a dynasty.
After the assassination of Uthman in 656,
Ali, a member of the Hashimite clan and a cousin of Muhammad, was elected as the caliph. He soon met with resistance from several factions, owing to his relative political inexperience. Fearing a danger to his life, Ali moved his capital from Medina to Kufa. The resulting conflict, which lasted from 656 until 661, is known as the First Fitna ("civil war").
Ali was first opposed by an alliance led by Aisha, the wife of Muhammad, and Talhah and Al-Zubayr, two of the companions of Muhammad. The two sides clashed at the Battle of the Camel in 656, where Ali won a decisive victory.
He is talking about those people of Kuffa who pledged their support for Hussain (R.A) and pledged they will fight with him. On the basis of this pledge, he was on way to kufa, via karbala and Yazidi forces intercepted him karbala. People of Kufa betrayed Him in the time of need.
People of Kufa were ethnically Assyrians, the original natives of Iraq and heavily persecuted by Muslims even after their conversion to Islam. They saw a beacon of hope in the revolt of Hussian but there wasn't much to accomplish. This is once again one of those dark pages of Islamic history which are not taught to keep the "holier than thou" image.
