Deep into Shia Islam

CrusaderV

CrusaderV

Well-Known Member
Orange Room Supporter
If you know who he was, you won't praise him just for the sake of making insignificant posts to spite online forumers. Yazeed did not believe in God at all. But obviously, neither do your crusaders.
The Marada were a group of independent communities in Lebanon and the surrounding highlands after the conquest of Syria by the Arab army in 630 CE While some historians argue that the Marada "States" were that of a Maronite Aramaic -speaking Christian warrior elite, other historians tend to their downplay importance, and describe a more complex scenario. The Maronites and thus the Marada were given relative autonomy in the Umayyad Caliphate. The Marada were known by some as a fierce warrior group, and according to some, the name was synonymous with the Arabic word for rebels or also Maronites.
See Corrie girl ?
Next time do your homework before talking
 
  • Advertisement
  • Lebmonage

    Lebmonage

    Legendary Member
    The representative of dictatorship Islamist republic is here with his insults
    Say what you want
    Why did Hussein accept Mu’awiyah rule for 20 years ???
    Yazid mother was a Christian and most of his father minister were Christians
    Yazid mother was from a great Christians Syrians tribe ( quays)
    Ignorant
    It was not Imam Hussein who accepted the rule of his father. Imam Hassan had a truce with Muawiyah, who was governor of Syria. So after Imam Ali was martyred, Muawiyah ceased power. To avoid further bloodshed of the Muslims, Imam Hassan refrained from quelling Muawiyah's rebellion and allowed him to rule. And the condition was that upon Muawiyah's death, the caliphate (political power) would be handed over to Imam Hassan or Imam Hussein. Muawiyah refused and broke the truce. Further, he enticed Imam Hassan's wife with money and promise that she would marry his son and made her to poison Imam Hassan, since he was witnessing that people were more respectful of Imam Hassan. Muawiyah handed over power to his son in violation of the truce agreement. There was a big difference between Muawiyah and his son. Muawiyah outwardly displayed belief in Islam, even if he was inwardly having disbelief. His father, Abu Sufyan was a pagan chief from the tribe called Bank Umayyah who had struggled and fought the Prophet and lost and was humiliated and released as a prisoner of war. The Prophet forgave those who had fought against him after the conquest of Makkah. Yazid unlike his father and grandfather was not outwardly Muslim and inwardly a disbeliever. He was outwardly a disbeliever. He saw the caliphate, which was instituted as successionship to the Prophet as an Arabian institution to rule the Arabs. How can a disbeliever succeed the Prophet? Further, Yazid was way more brutal than his father and more corrupt. He was an immoral ruler who had poets his him on his private part while singing praises to him. Killing became rampant. He was a despot who killed at will and shed blood.
     
    Resign

    Resign

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I think we can all agree that @LVV managed to debunk all of @Rachel Corrie ’s false claims and put his lying ass in its place.

    There should be a rule against spreading false and deceitful information on this forum.
     
    CrusaderV

    CrusaderV

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    It was not Imam Hussein who accepted the rule of his father. Imam Hassan had a truce with Muawiyah, who was governor of Syria. So after Imam Ali was martyred, Muawiyah ceased power. To avoid further bloodshed of the Muslims, Imam Hassan refrained from quelling Muawiyah's rebellion and allowed him to rule. And the condition was that upon Muawiyah's death, the caliphate (political power) would be handed over to Imam Hassan or Imam Hussein. Muawiyah refused and broke the truce. Further, he enticed Imam Hassan's wife with money and promise that she would marry his son and made her to poison Imam Hassan, since he was witnessing that people were more respectful of Imam Hassan. Muawiyah handed over power to his son in violation of the truce agreement. There was a big difference between Muawiyah and his son. Muawiyah outwardly displayed belief in Islam, even if he was inwardly having disbelief. His father, Abu Sufyan was a pagan chief from the tribe called Bank Umayyah who had struggled and fought the Prophet and lost and was humiliated and released as a prisoner of war. The Prophet forgave those who had fought against him after the conquest of Makkah. Yazid unlike his father and grandfather was not outwardly Muslim and inwardly a disbeliever. He was outwardly a disbeliever. He saw the caliphate, which was instituted as successionship to the Prophet as an Arabian institution to rule the Arabs. How can a disbeliever succeed the Prophet? Further, Yazid was way more brutal than his father and more corrupt. He was an immoral ruler who had poets his him on his private part while singing praises to him. Killing became rampant. He was a despot who killed at will and shed blood.
    Bottom line Hussein made a deal with Mu’awiyah
    His brother family pictures is not beautiful
    So in addition that your version of events
    I accept it but don’t talk about values
    Hussein wanted power and compromised over values
     
    Lebmonage

    Lebmonage

    Legendary Member
    There was independent mount Lebanon
    For your information the Umayyad gave the Maronite autonomy in Mount Lebanon
    Maronites and the Crusader marada ruled the whole mountain from tartous to Jerusalem
    The Umayyad paid tribute to the Maronite
    Your first patriarch John Maron was from this period
    the same Yazid led expeditions to invade and capture Cyprus.

    Anyways, so this is good. The christian narration that the Sunnis caliphate oppressed Christians and forcefully wanted to convert them is all wrong. The caliphate was good to Christians.
     
    CrusaderV

    CrusaderV

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    the same Yazid led expeditions to invade and capture Cyprus.

    Anyways, so this is good. The christian narration that the Sunnis caliphate oppressed Christians and forcefully wanted to convert them is all wrong. The caliphate was good to Christians.
    I told you other Christians
    About caliphate
    Umayyad was tolerant at first because they needed Christians
    Most of Syrians were Christians
    Maronite were strong warriors who defeated the caliphate
     
    CrusaderV

    CrusaderV

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Today Maronite are the main church who remains under Rome Authority in the Middle East
    Maronite refused other Christians collaborations with caliphate
    They made truce with Umayyad but their heart was with Crusader Europe
    The French king ? Saint Louis said in 1250
    When he met the Maronites in Lebanon in his crusade
    40,000 Maronite greeted him
    We consider you to be part of the French Nation
    800 years ago
     
    CrusaderV

    CrusaderV

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Like Bashir Gemayel and Assad
    Maronite refused Syrians occupation of
    Lebanon although Syria regime was secular and good with Christians
    Same story
    We Maronite live here , love here but your heart is with Christian Europe civilization
     
    CrusaderV

    CrusaderV

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    We want sexual freedom in Lebanon for gays and LGTB
    I don’t like it as a Crusader but freedom is essential
    No Islamist way of life
    Let people be free to decide
    We want a Democratic secular Equal society
    Ic
     
    The_FPMer

    The_FPMer

    Active Member
    I told you other Christians
    About caliphate
    Umayyad was tolerant at first because they needed Christians
    Most of Syrians were Christians
    Maronite were strong warriors who defeated the caliphate
    They needed them because they had all the knowledge and expertise.
     
    CrusaderV

    CrusaderV

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    And yes Shia Islam is dark
    They don’t enjoy ? life
    Better than Isis for sure but a disaster
    Have a good Ashoura
     
    CrusaderV

    CrusaderV

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    They needed them because they had all the knowledge and expertise.
    Exact under the abbasids 750
    Middle Eastern Christians were persecuted no longer needed
    Most of them converted to Islam
    Only Mount Lebanon remains Christian and linked to Europe
     
    Lebmonage

    Lebmonage

    Legendary Member
    Bottom line Hussein made a deal with Mu’awiyah
    His brother family pictures is not beautiful
    So in addition that your version of events
    I accept it but don’t talk about values
    Hussein wanted power and compromised over values
    It is not power that he wanted. Point of correction. And I will explain in details.

    Thousands upon thousands sent letters to Imam Hussein asking him to embark on a journey to Kufa. They told him that Yazid's rule was becoming intolerable and they want a strong leader acceptable to the people to rally around him and revolt against the rule of Banu Umayyah.

    Imam Hussein sent his cousin to confirm the letters of support. His cousin, Muslim Ibn Aqeel went to Kufa and he was first killed by the commanders of Yazeed.

    Then it was time for hajj in Makkah. Yazeed sent assassins to Makkah to kill Imam Hussein even if he was found holding the walls of the Kaabah. The news was revealed to Imam Hussein and he cut short his trip from Makkah and went to Medina and then headed to Iraq. A tyrant wanted a smooth assasinatiyon of his political opponent. Imam Hussein instead wanted the sleeping ummah to wake up, so even if he were to be killed, it should be an event and not an incident. He left to Iraq, a different place and for a different time to be killed if at all.

    On the way to Iraq, Imam Hussein got the news his cousin had been killed and mutilated. He was told that he should turn back for his safety. He refused to turn back and continued in his march to Iraq. Yazid and his commanders were bent on killing him for one reason: not because Imam Hussein wanted power but because Imam Hussein refused to pay allegiance to Yazeed. Assuming the ruler who captured power was not Yazeed, Imam Hussein would have followed the same path of his father and tolerated him and even recognize him to certain extent. But Yazeed was against any form of protest or dissent. Imam Ali refused to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr but he was not killed. Yazeed was a new high: crushing completely all forms of dissent.

    Imam Hussein reached Iraq and before he could get to Kufa (the former capital of the Muslim world), he was besieged in Karbala.

    At Karbala, the Imam offered that he would abandon the Muslim world and head to India. The commanders of Yazid refused to allow him access to leave. They insisted that Imam Hussein must pay allegiance to Yazid (give bay'ah) or else he would be killed. No third option or compromise.

    Imam Hussein refused to pay allegiance to Yazeed even if he was to be killed. Someone who wants power, material gains and the allurement of this life would not refuse to pay allegiance to a despot and choose to die instead of paying allegiance. He would not sacrifice not life. The Imam Hussein embraced death. His popular saying goes thus: "death with dignity is better than life in humiliation".

    Besides, Yazeed sent message that he would offer Imam Hussein worldly rewards if he were to pay allegiance and recognize him as the caliph. imam Hussein refused all and even provided them with a middle path to tread to allow him leave to the lands of the non Muslims.. Imam Hussein's refusal is not in a bid to capture power but in a bid to refuse tyranny. This was the first time in the Islamic world that opposition was stifled and was to be eliminated at all cost.

    We learn from this that Yazid was not tolerant to opposition, dissent or political competition. This is the same legacy that Al Saud follow in Saudi Arabia. To the Wahhabis, Yazeed was a legitimate ruler and the role model upon which the rule of Al Saud rest. Otherwise, Islamically, monarchy has no basis in Islam. They see Yazeed as such because it was the first time power was inherited in the Muslim world (Muawiya to Yazeed). And also, Yazeed was an authoritarian ruler. If you don't recognize and obey him, you're to die. No political opposition. Paying allegiance is a must and by force or else you die.

    The refusal of Imam Hussein even at the face of death, and even when offered material rewards is why we see Imam Hussein as the epitome of what a revolutionary leader should be. Neither fear nor favor made him submit to the rule of a tyrant.
     
    Lebmonage

    Lebmonage

    Legendary Member
    Like Bashir Gemayel and Assad
    Maronite refused Syrians occupation of
    Lebanon although Syria regime was secular and good with Christians
    Same story
    We Maronite live here , love here but your heart is with Christian Europe civilization
    How good Yazeed was or how bad he was to Christians is not the yardstick we use to measure whether he was good or evil. His calculations for tolerating Christians might have been because he wanted to prevent war with the west or to gain something. Not out of love.
     
    Last edited:
    Top