For those looking for a fully referenced Sunni narrative in regards to Karbala, you can pick this up from the Dar al-Arqam website: daralarqam.bigcartel.com/product/the-martyrdom-of-al-husayn-in-light-of-the-authentic-traditions ...and no, I'm not making any money from this.

Brother farid, it would be extremely fun and interesting to have a series of books you have, where you, in each episode, review books and share anecdotes from them.

May Allah guide us all

Thank you for uploading

Timely video jazak'Allah

Thank you brother Farid for your great work it honestly helped me with all of my doubts

This man single handedly cleared almost all of my doubts a year ago. Big respect to you Farid 🫶🏽💯💯

JazakAllahu khairan

Subhan'Allah. I was just watching your karbala video. May Allah reward you akhi

Only an ignorant Rafidhi would be unaware that the Banu Umayyah were the literal, actual cousins of the Banu Hashim, and that the two clans literally intermarried with each other for generations after the lives of Rasool Allah Muhammad ﷺ and Sayyidna Ali bin Abu Talib (RAA). Even the “infallible imams” that the Rafidha claim to revere, happily intermarried with the Banu Umayyah for generations, and they did this so regularly, that even Rafidhi genealogists are unable to deny this.

Good points raised here. Also love the new camera/angle.

Salam @FaridResponds We are still waiting for your research and video on siffeen.

May Allah guide him to the right path of Ahlul bayt before he meets the Almighty .

Assalamualaikum "Islam what we need to know" by divine mercy can u refute that pls.

baaraka allah fiika

Question for any Filipino fans (and possibly to Farid), is this the same Farid that appears in The Boys Recreyo episode?

If you can make a video about how عباد بْن يَعْقُوب الروَاجِنِي has one narration in Bukhari although he was a ghulat rafidi

جزاك الله خيرا 💫🤲

if only we had a proper book with all of the details from these videos!

dude keep your streams. I forgot about Ashura and the stream title reminded me. It has great benefit.

Do my eyes deceive me, or is that a full screen 1080p Farid video? O_0

I haven't found yet a real answer from Shi'a about what is the real DIFFERENCE between divinely pointed Imam and a prophet?

5:38 look on the bottom. Ibn hisham , Ibn Ishaq were not even born during the time of Imam Husayn. All " hadith " is not real

وَعَلَيْكُم السَّلَام وَرَحْمَةُ اَللهِ وَبَرَكاتُهُ

Salam Alaykum brother Farid, are you sure three conditions report is a reliable one? Is it authentically established? Because if you analyze it on rational grounds, had Imam Hussain a.s kept these conditions, Ubaydullah ibn Zyad would have happily accepted these and taken Hussain a.s to Yazid for Bayah. Even the one where he asks to let him go back, that would have prevented Karabla from taking place. So if you analyze these 3 conditions rationally, it doesn't make sense that despite these 3 conditions, Karbala happened. Could you please establish its authenticity? Wassalam. @FaridResponds !

Asalamu Alaikum Farid. Can you make a video about siffin just like how you made an in depth video about Karbala? I think it is necessary after seeing a lot of slander of Muawiyah رضي الله عنه from shias and surprisingly sunnis due to what happened at Siffin.

All the points mentioned can be refuted easily. First two points mentioned forgets the political and military tactics used by Muawiyah. Imam Hassan and Hussain (as) had very few followers left in Medina due to Muawiyahs politically expoliting their followers and buying them out. This can be seen when Imam Hassan (a.s)s army was marching against Muawiyah. It reached a point that Imam couldnt continue the expedition as he couldnt trust his own soliders, evidently he was injuired by one of his own soldiers and thus he had to reutrn to Medina. Imam Hassan was forced to sign a peace treaty with Muawiyah and after he passed away, Imam Hussain (as) took charge of Imamah and then he was faced with a similar issue. One of the agreements made in the treaty was that khilafa will not be decided by Muawiyah and cannot be passed onto his children. Muawiyah broke that rule and made Yazeed the ruler. Imam Hussein was forced to give oath of allegiance to Yazeed. Both Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain were the spiritual rulers at their time, we can find a lot of their sayings and teachings. Due to the political environment, their teachings couldnt spread in the muslim world and very few of what theyve taught remains. The last point mentioned in the video can be refuted as the book of abi mikhnaf was corrupted and the remakes of his work is found in the other religious sources. That saying of the Imam doesnt even make any sense after he has sacrificed his family and children on that day and in the end hes willing to give his hand to yazeed nauzobillah. This saying is also found only in this source

Masha'Allah

Please upload more about shia religion

Point number one, 1) Hassan did give up his political power, the question to awnser is why did he do it ? -One of the reason as to why he did that is because he did not want to shed muslim blood. - Some amongst his army were against him. On this point, it is said by Shia that Muawiya had spies in his camp that were undermining his army from the inside. On this note, before you start saying that it comes from shia sources, you have to acknowldge the fact that Muawiya had been ruler of the Sham for a long time now and he would have had the ability, ressources AND motive to do it. The use of spies was prevalent probably on both side but more so on Muawiya side simply due to his influence in the region. - Another reason is that Kharijite that fought against imam Ali, went with Imam hassan and revolted due to him advocating for peace 2) You said that al Hassan and al Hussein did not hold any religious significance according you but also gave the shia narrative which is 100% right but also logically correct. Would you allow, not only your past rival but the son of the man you took the Khalifa from to preache and risk stirring up a new revolution once again ? No, nobody would. Fact of the matter is, not only did Muawiya not allow Imam al Hassan to preache because of his fear, he had him assassinated, a fact that you forget to mention. Point number 2 Sunni hadith are not a reliable,trusworthy or wajib souce for a Shia, if your point is to refute Imamah, do so either using the Quran or Shia hadith. Even if we are taking that Hadith, your argument is on the basis that Al Hussayn should be acting like this on Muawiya instead of the actual man in this situation that is being unjust with him ? What kind of point is this, why would the Imam act like this on Muawiya if he is not the one being unfair IN THIS situation ? Then you try to link it with the Khalifa but let's not forget that: Muawiya and Hassan had a deal that you do not mention and a deal that is backed by countless sources that IF Muawiya was to die a Shura would elect the next Khalif and that would have been without a doubt Al Hassan (but that is not the subject for now). Now you also seem to not mention that Muawiya had al hassan murdered in the meantime, renegad on his deal, so that he would secure his son as next khalif. Al hussayn stayed true to the word of his brother, and waited UNTIL Muawiya died. Please help me remeber what happened when he died? Did Muawiya hold his end of the bargain? No he elected Yazid in 680. When did al Hussayn rose up against Yazid ? In 680..... Point number 3 You are saying these statements would make sens to any one but they are 100% because of literraly what happened next. What did Yazid want if not the pledge of al Hussayn? What happened next explain everything there is to know. Yazid army had him killed. Why would that be if he was to pledge to Yazid ? InshAllah you will open your mind, just by logic you can see who was right and who was wrong, yet you prefer to defend Muawiya and Yazid.

Brother it is nice that you are talking in a moral manner unlike other Nasbis. However I was disappointed at the end of the video because I was constantly waiting for a solid argument from your side but not a single was given.

I didn't get what you are saying I am sunni but how that will deny that he was appointed by Allah like if had give three conditions to save the life of him and his family which didn't happen all his male family members were Martyr in the karbala how will that gonna deny that he is Imam because shia belive in taqiyah they say that if he done that it will taqqiyah because he didn't have power to fight in numbers

Habibi Farid, honestly what did you expect Imam Hasan(as) to do considering he had a bunch of donkeys in his army? Fight Mu'awiya with like a thousand men? On a side note, why isn't Mu'awiya condemned more by Sunnis for starting multiple civil wars resulting in the blood of thousands of Muslims shed? How can any Muslim love a guy like that? At the end of the day, no political entity can remain in power (whether democratic or monarchial or even tyrannical) without broad support/acceptance from the people. If the people did not bother supporting the Imam of their time, please tell us what you expected Imam Hasan(as) to do? Absolutely crush his opposition like the Umayyids and Hafez al-Assad did? As a God-fearing Muslim, he couldn't do that. Giving up the political khilafah and retaining the spiritual Imamate was his(as) only option. How many people was Nabi Ibrahim(pbuh) an Imam of during his(pbuh) time? How many Prophets(pbuht) only taught a handful of people and yet had the spiritual leadership of Prophethood?

❤❤❤🌹🌹🌹

Akhi you are wasting your time talking to blood worshipers. They don't have enough brains to follow a single coherent point that u made, let alone 3. Jazak Allah Khair.

و عليك السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته إن شاء الله you disbeliever!

moment of silence for potato cam 😔

💯💯💯💯💯

Wtf happened to the camera ☠️☠️ 💀💀 Edit: mic too!

Ah brother....Fear of Alllah...in which direction you are heading towards😊

al-Bukhari Narrated from Ibn Abi Na’m: I have heard Prophet saying: "They (Hasan and Husayn) are my two sweet- smelling flowers in this world."

Barkallahufeekum for this short but concise summary. One big thing that keeps many from seeing the Shia's reality: in my experience, many are emotionally attached to it because it presents a multi-level sad story and they don't approach it rationally. The consequent conditions alone are evidence against these stories. Imam Ali (as) and Fatima (as) were suppressed, Fatima(as) was even killed but the hero Imam Ali (as) sacrificed himself for Ummah by not doing anything directly because of Fitnah and even working together, then when he became Caliph, then the Kharawij and the wife of the Prophet(saws) was against his right then he was killed and his sons were to succeed him but they too were oppressed and killed.

Let those who are Rawafidh from amongst the Twelver Imamiyyah Shi’a seethe, especially since they know deep down, that the Ahlul Bayt (RAA) are in perfect harmony with Ahlul Sunnah wal Jamaa’ah when it comes to the mutual love, respect, and frequent intermarriage between the Sahhaba (RAA) and Ahlul Bayt (RAA). Ahlul Sunnah wal Jamaa’ah is the true school of Ahlul Bayt, and the Rawafidh are the true Nawasib who do nothing but disrespect and even despise the Ahlul Bayt, day and night. It was literally members of the Shi’a of Ali (RAA) who assassinated Ali (RAA), stabbed al-Hassan (RAA) and nearly killed him by driving a dagger in his thigh all the way into his femur, and who lured al-Hussain (RAA) to Kufa with false promises of support, caused his cousin Muslim bin Aqeel (RAA) to be captured and killed, and who then volunteered to fight the brave little band of al-Hussain (RAA). The men who surrounded al-Hussain (RAA), mortally wounded him, and then beheaded him, were all veterans of Ali’s (RAA) armies. Worst of all, the treacherous Shi’a of Kufa did the exact same thing all over again to Zayd (RA) bin Ali Zayn al-Abideen (RA) bin al-Hussain (RAA). It is Zayd (RA) himself who first described them as Rawafidh or Rafidha, because of how they abandoned him the moment that he refused to disassociate himself from Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman (RAA jamee’an), and he insisted that growing up among Ahlul Bayt (RAA), he heard nothing but good about the Sahhaba (RAA).

The Messenger of Allah said: "He who loves al-Hasan and al-Husayn, loved me, and he who makes them angry has made me angry." Sunni reference: - Sunan Ibn Majah, - al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, from Abu Hurairah - Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, as quited in: - al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami, Ch. 11, section 3, p292

Of course it desteoys the concept of divine Veloyat, because the martyred Imam رضي الله تعالى عنه never knew of the treachery of the Kufans before arriving at Karbala..

your points are nonsense. many of the Imams were oppressed , and were in house arrest , banned from talking to many people for many years , or allowed to talk people while they're inside the jail. not every imam necessarily held grand posts like the 6th imam or other imams who had more freedom than many latter imams

the sad part is you don't understand a man of wisdom , honor justice would find a way to peace regardless if his family was there , even more so if they were. a man of wisdom would reach a peaceful settlement to avoid blood being shed . but if attacked woild fight back . and those martyrs fought like lions . Qasim, Abbas, Ali Akbar, Husayn , and others eliminated hundreds of the satans forces. a man of wisdom and a man of God would find a peaceful settlement so the agressors don't agress and damn themselves to hell. it's unfortunate all this was lost on you but hopefully you can learn your if your heart is truly open to truth and justice , Adl

What did the Ahlul Bayt (RAA) teach that the Sahhaba (RAA) and the Salaf us-Saalih in general didn’t teach? Sooner or later, all roads of tawheed lead back to Ahlul Sunnah wal Jamaa’ah. Ultimately, it’s Ahlul Sunnah wal Jamaa’ah who uphold the virtue and love of the Ahlul Bayt (RAA), and in turn, Ahlul Bayt (RAA) reciprocated by intermarrying for generations with the families and progeny of the most important of the Sahhaba (RAA) of Rasool Allah Muhammad ﷺ that today’s Twelver Shi’a Imamiyyah curse and revile. The Ahlul Bayt (RAA) even intermarried with the Banu Ummayyah themselves, who are in fact the cousins of the Banu Hashim. This _literally_ refutes the last argument of those reformist Shi’a who finally reconcile with the doctrines and beliefs of the Ahlul Sunnah, but still feel something in their heart telling them that the Ahlul Sunnah usurped some of the rights of Ahlul Bayt or weren’t sufficiently deferential to them. Yet the Imams intermarried again and again and again with every one of the houses of the Sahhaba whom Twelver Imamiyyah Shi’a reviled and continue to revile, including, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Talha, and Zubayr, as well as the house of Muawiyya bin Abu Sufyan, may Allah be pleased with all of these Sahhaba, and the Ahlul Bayt. Not only that, but the imams again and again named their sons and daughters after Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and A’isha (RAA jamee’an), even though the Imamiyyah themselves have a prohibition against naming children after so-called or alleged “nawasib”. Interesting, isn’t it? Meanwhile, no propagator of note of the Imami creeds among the early shuyukh of the Imamiyyah, ever intermarried with the Ahlul Bayt. It’s almost like the progeny of Rasool Allah Muhammad ﷺ were trying to say something to the Shi’a, without incurring the wrath of the ghulaat. They did so by intermarrying with the Sahhaba, and naming their children after them for generations, such that even Twelver Imamiyyah genealogists were forced to include and repeat the names of the Sahhaba (RAA) whom they reviled, with every generation of imams and their progeny that they recorded in their books of genealogy. So if the doctrines always converge back to Ahlul Sunnah, and the imams themselves showed their reverence of the Sahhaba (RAA) and obedience to the leaders appointed over them by Khulafa al-Rashidun (RAA), Ameer ul-Mu’mineen Muawiyya (RAA), and the subsequent everyday rulers who followed after that, what then is left of the word “Shi’ism” other than needless fitna?

Farid is honestly a G.

Salaam my dear brother. You are a hadith expert, can you please help me out? In Sahih Bukhari Volume 005, Book 059, Hadith Number 379. Narated By Zaid bin Thabit : When we wrote the Holy Qur'an, I missed one of the Verses of Surat-al-Ahzab which I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting. Then we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. The Verse was: 'Among the Believers are men Who have been true to Their Covenant with Allah, Of them, some have fulfilled Their obligations to Allah (i.e. they have been Killed in Allah's Cause), And some of them are (still) waiting" (33.23) So we wrote this in its place in the Qur'an. In another Hadith from Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 509: So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palmed stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last Verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The Verse is: 'Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty..(till the end of Surat-Baraa' (At-Tauba) (9.128-129) From what I understand, Zaid RA wanted to write the Quran based off memory of Sahabah and he asked Sahabah to bring written fragments of Quran along with two witnesses to testify the written fragments were written verbatim directly under the supervision of the Prophet. I am confused. How do we reconcile these narrations? One narration says a verse from Surah Ahzaab was found with Abi Khuzaymah RA and another narration says the last verses of Surah Tauba were found with Khuzaymah bin Thabit RA. Are these the same Khuzaymah or two different people? But if this is the case, only one Khuzaymah was given the status of having his testimony equal to two witnesses therefore his written copy of the verses were accepted. But what about the other Khuzaymah? Did he have two witnesses for his written verse as well? How did Ibn Kathir and Ibn Taymiyyah explain this? Please clarify. JazakAllah Khair.

Secondly,Maula Hussain ASWS fought with the enemies of Islam…he gave his whole family for the prosperity of Islam,was it not the preaching of Islam…Actually u don’t know the standard of Infallibility…he never made mistake and he guided people through his actions…so doesn’t it make him Infallible…

The reason many of these points DONT actually conflict with divinely appointed Imamah, is because if they did, then Prophet Muhammad (who we say is a divinely appointed Prophet and Imam) would’ve been wrong in keeping Islam secret for the first several years Allah plans differently. If you understand how much those early figures despised Ali and his family, then Allah protecting “true” Islam and letting things happen at their appointed time is exactly natural and normal. The silence of Ali after Saqifa (due to his lack of numbers), as per Prophets directions, allowed him to stay alive long enough to have some time in power to spread Islam properly, to put the future imams in a better position, etc etc - it trickles down This is just my opinion, but I’m certain the enemies of Islam would’ve killed Ali and his family and the bloodline of the prophet and the religion would’ve both been finished, if the Ahlulbayt didn’t take actions the way they did - rising up and being “lowkey” at the appropriate times. And likewise, one of the ways Allah mentions Ahlulbayt in the Quran is not by name, and even in grammatical genius. This is to both mention them and remove the possibility of someone, out of hated for Ahlulbayt, changing the Quran Don’t put your own minds against Allah please. Have taqwa

Much love for you, but I can’t help but flinch when you mention the names of Ahl-al-Bait without titles of honor and respect. The Prophet loved them so much…

Where is the verse from Ibn Majah 1944? 🤣🤣🤣🤣

'THE COMPANION OF JOSEPH' what this sentence mean? Brother farid please explain below hadith in detail because I have heard two shia's narrative, one try to prove Ammi Ayesha S.A to be disbeleiver and another tried to make Sunni narrative for the legitimacy of caliphate to be illegitimate and the word 'The companion of Yusuf' as the sentece of rebuke for Ammi Ayesha S.A as if she did conspiracy against the command of Muhammad SAW and trying to create her father's reputation amongst Muslims by doing so. Here it is On the day that the Holy Prophet (pbuh&hf) was destined to pass away at noon, Lady 'A'ishah ordered Bilal to tell her father that the Holy Prophet (pbuh&hf) wanted him to lead the morning prayers. Once the Holy Prophet (pbuh&hf) learned this, he went out to lead the prayers, leaning on Imam 'Ali (pbuh) and al-Fadl ibn 'Abbas. After removing the first caliph and leading the prayers, the Holy Prophet (pbuh&hf) went back to his room in the Mosque of the Prophet and said to Lady 'A'ishah: "You are among the companions of Joseph (Yusuf). Plz explain below Hadith. حَدَّثَنَا إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ نَصْرٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا حُسَيْنٌ، عَنْ زَائِدَةَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الْمَلِكِ بْنِ عُمَيْرٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي أَبُو بُرْدَةَ، عَنْ أَبِي مُوسَى، قَالَ مَرِضَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَاشْتَدَّ مَرَضُهُ فَقَالَ ‏"‏ مُرُوا أَبَا بَكْرٍ فَلْيُصَلِّ بِالنَّاسِ ‏"‏‏.‏ قَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ إِنَّهُ رَجُلٌ رَقِيقٌ، إِذَا قَامَ مَقَامَكَ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ أَنْ يُصَلِّيَ بِالنَّاسِ‏.‏ قَالَ ‏"‏ مُرُوا أَبَا بَكْرٍ فَلْيُصَلِّ بِالنَّاسِ ‏"‏ فَعَادَتْ فَقَالَ ‏"‏ مُرِي أَبَا بَكْرٍ فَلْيُصَلِّ بِالنَّاسِ، فَإِنَّكُنَّ صَوَاحِبُ يُوسُفَ ‏"‏‏.‏ فَأَتَاهُ الرَّسُولُ فَصَلَّى بِالنَّاسِ فِي حَيَاةِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم‏.‏ Sahih Bukhari Hadith 678

2:50 " barely see any hadiths about hassan hussain " sahih muslim bukhari came hundreds of years after the prophet and barely have hadiths from Imam Ali also . your point has zero merit

Imam Hussain was traveling with his family , not leading an army to war and then surrendering to go talk to Yazid doing his duty for his family and humanity to live , giving a test to that army , to save them from committing an act which is going to send them to hell i'll pray for you. the holy prophet said " i leave with you the Holy Quran and my ahlul bayt "- Rasool i am from hussain and hussain is from me- Rasool Hassan & Hussain are the chiefs of youth of paradise - Rasool

The Shi'a have specific narrations pointing out that al hasan and al husain are both Imam's whether they are actively ruling or not, meaning they are the ones who are given this "منصب" by God, in the case of them not ruling they are still the rightful Imam's they only have the right to the Imamah and who ever fight's them against it is either a sinner or a kafir, The Imamah is not at all an exclusively spiritual "منصب", it is exactly what other believe it is, it's just that you believe it's appointed by people and we believe it's appointed by God, al Hasan letting mu'awiyah rule is by the command of the prophet and because he didn't want to weaken islam by causing bloodshed of Muslims, this also the reason Imam Ali didn't fight them over it because the prophet had just passed away and the Muslims were confused and Arabs were ready to go back to their old religions, to not let all that happened he refrained, as for the Hasan and Husain no teaching in madinah, in our tradition they have taught their children the matters of their Deen that's why you find Alwaites narrating saying "عن آبائي عن علي بن ابي طالب" or "عن رسول الله" , people like Abdullah b. Al Hasan b. Al Hasan b. Ali b. Abi Talib or other masha'ikh of ahl-ul bayt, so it is clear that they have taught their children and their children passed it to the next generation, and Ameer-ul-mu'mineen had written a book the includes all the rulings of the prophet pbuh in different matters and that book got passed down through the lineage of Muhammad Al Baqir by all different Shi'a sects agreeing on this, and also the kitab of jafr which included what would occur in this world till the day of the judgement, this all is agreed upon within different sects of the Shi'a and their early ruwat and masha'ikh and it's clear in their narrations, Now if this all is passed down this could only mean they (Al hasan & Al Husain) either were trying to hide the ilm that they had from other people, which is Haram and you wouldn't actually say they did this, or it could mean that they couldn't teach the knowledge that they had to other people due to a valid reason that we can't appoint with certainty, and this only seems the logical thing to believe about the grandsons of the prophet whom God have made pure

1. Al Hasan RadiAllah Anhu Wa Alaihis Salaam relinquishing the political authority to Muaviyah RadiAllah Anhu 2. Al Hasan and Al Husain RadiAllah Anhuma, wa Alaihum as Salaam didn't become teachers in Madina. 3. The situation between Al Husain Radi Allah Anhu wa Alaihis Salaam to Al Walid bin Utba - Marwah land. Why not take his right from Muaviyah RadiAllah Anhu in the same way? 4. The options given by Al Husain Radi Allah Anhu wa Alaihis Salaam according to Shia sources themselves. How could he Radi Allah Anhu wa Alaihis offer placing his hand on the hand of Yazid?

One of the most important truth all sunnis (and even some shias) missed and being clueless is that the leadership given up by Hassan is only the leadership invented by Umar (i. e. The caliphs must not be all from ahl Bayt but for anyone who is qualified). The leadership from Allah is that all caliphs or imams must be from the family of prophet Muhammad. In short, Hassan was still the true caliph/Imam after he relinquish the umarian version of Caliphate/leadership.

May Allah curse yazid, his army and all those who mistreated the family of the prophet (ﷺ) and those that mistreat them today ameen

Imam Hussain is teaching people to this day . if you're open to truth read what i've posted

The Imamiyyah Shi’a-especially the Rawafidh amongst them-are the true Nawasib who killed the Ahlul-Bayt and who slander them and the Sahhaba, and who ascribe lies to the Ahlul-Bayt. The blood of the Ahlul-Bayt is on the hands of the Imamiyyah Shi’a, and we will never let them forget it. Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama’ah is the true mathhab of Ahlul-Bayt.

Salaam to all. I make an earnest dua to. ALLAH, ( SWT) t keep you with muawiya and yazeed in aakhira.AMEEN.

You're talking absolute nonsense 7:54 he was with his baby , family members , blockaded from water . This was a test for those people to not kill the Imam , the grandson of the Prophet . and they failed . if you don't think the Holy Prophets would convince those not to attack or kill then then you are absolutely misguided

Lets say Hassan AS didn't give Muawiyah the Khalifa, would you believe Muawiyah would have given bay'ah to Hassan and merged his army together with his?

The Sunnis and Shias conflict that happened in global today that caused massive destructions, humanity crisis, and economic disturbances is not triggered because the Karbala tragedy. The Karbala tragedy is just an instrument that used as a main power to fired up the global conflict between shias and sunnis. So the backbone of Sunnis and Shias conflict nowadays is the cold war between Iran and Saudis. Why it's happening? Why between Iran and Saudis? Why Iran became predominantly shias? Long before it date 23 August 1514 C.E, Selim I (Ottoman Sultan) wins a Turko-Persian war at Battle of Chaldiran. After he destroyed Saffavid army in a disastrously devastated situation where the persians didn't bring any artilery to the battlefield. He takes all of Ismail's (Saffavid Sultan) concubines and 2 wives that makes Ismail deeply saddened then died. This event brings a new hate through his generations started from his son Tahmasp I where he used the most powerful instrument (Karbala tragedy) that could help him to get all the support from his cause and get revenge to the Ottomans. He started to deepens the hatred between shias and sunnis and He force MASS CONVERTED all of the Persians to the Twelver Shias belief and not too long after he ordered this thing Persians are also followed him because what Ottomans did is not only phsycally, and mentally hit the Persian civilization but also economically. I can't type to long in this YT comment but i've already makes an article about it, but before i shared it i wanted to know about your opinion about my argument.

To our esteemed Imami Ithna’Ashari Shi’i viewers who ponder upon the tragedy of Karbala: You might want to have a talk with the Shi’a of Kufa. After all, the tragedy of Karbala, was yet another assault upon the Ahlul Bayt by the Shi’a of Kufa, the same people from whom the assassin of Ali (RAA) bin Abi Talib came, the same people who stabbed al-Hassan bin Ali (RAA) in his thigh to the bone, nearly killing him, and who had called al-Hassan (RAA) the “Humiliator of the Believers”, mutinied against him, and raided and looted his camp and even his personal belongings, and they are the same people who massacred al-Hussain bin Ali (RAA), and who Zaynab bint Ali (RAA) and Ali Zayn ul-Abideen bin al-Hussain (RAA) made du’aa against, and they were the same people who later repeated the same tragedy against Zayd bin Ali Zayn ul-Abideen (RA), massacring Zayd (RA) when he refused to disown the legacy of the Caliphs Abu Bakr (RAA), Umar (RAA), and Uthman (RAA). You should read the authentic accounts of how the Shi’a of Kufa betrayed al-Hussain (RAA) bin Ali (RAA) and turned against him, causing his cousin Muslim bin Aqeel (RAA) to be killed, and how they then volunteered in the army that finally surrounded and killed al-Hussain (RAA), and how Shimr bin Thul Jawshan was a veteran of Ali (RAA) bin Abi Talib’s army, and how al-Hussain (RAA) made du’aa against the Shi’a of Kufa for their betrayal, and how his sister Zaynab bint Ali (RAA) and his son Ali Zayn ul-Abideen (RA) also made du’aa against the treacherous Shi’a of Kufa, and how the Shi’a themselves admitted their treachery by forming a movement called at-Tawaboon (the Penitents) whose goal was to make tawbah (repentance) for their treachery, and how the Shi’a of Kufa betrayed Zayd (RA) bin Ali (RA) bin al-Hussain (RAA) in exactly the same way as they betrayed his grandfather, and how they betrayed Zayd (RA) because he refused to disassociate from the Rashidun Caliphs Abu Bakr (RAA), Umar (RAA), and Uthman (RAA), insisting that growing up among Ahlul Bayt he had only ever heard good things about the first three Caliphs, causing Zayd (RA) to call them the Rawafidh for rejecting him. Yes the Shi’a mistreated and even killed the Ahlul Bayt. Again I remind you, let’s not forget that it was literally members of the Shi’a of Ali (RAA) who assassinated Ali (RAA), and stabbed al-Hassan (RAA) and nearly killed him by driving a dagger in his thigh all the way into his femur. It’s no wonder that that the Aliids/Talibiyeen/Hashimiyeen continued to intermarry with their cousins, the Umayyads and the progeny of the Caliphs Abu Bakr (RAA), Umar (RAA), Uthman (RAA), and the Sahhaba Talha (RAA) and Zubayr (RAA) for generations afterward, going out of their way to name generations of their sons and daughters after Abu Bakr (RAA), Umar (RAA), Uthman (RAA) and Aisha (RAA). The Aliids much preferred to reconcile and maintain their almost uniformly positive relations with the close Companions (RAA) of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and the Umayyads, rather than have anything whatsoever to do with the ever treacherous Shi’a of Iraq who did nothing but oppress and even murder the Ahlul Bayt for generations. There’s not a single example on record of any Aliid/Talibi/Hashimi intermarrying with persons deemed to be Imami Shi’a, whereas the examples of intermarriage with the Companions (RAA) and the Aliids’ Umayyad cousins number in the dozens and span generations. But I’m sure that you already knew all of this, of course.

I can't comment on what kind of a ruler Yazid was, he may or may not have been a tyrant but let's say if he was, a divinely ordained Imam blessed with infalliblility offering to pledge allegiance to a tyrant?

Camera👌

Relinquishing khilafah to a munafiq because that munafiq would have murdered human beings so a true Khalifa of Allaah knows when to sit down and when to stand up my grandsons are imams standing or sitting

I am from Hussain and hussain is from me - Rasool i am the city of knowledge and Ali is the gate - Rasool Look up event Mubahila. Holy Prophet bought his Ahlul Bayt to face those christian's . those christian's upon seeing the pure holy light of the Ahlul Bayt cancelled the challenge of whoever group is the false one is cursed Look up Hadith Kisa

if your argument against imamah is claiming no spiritual significance for those called by the prophet and allah ' the leaders of the youth of paradise' i think you need to rethink it lol. there title should be enough for you that they are on a higher plain then anyone of that time and were pure or 'infallible' enough to be trusted to be called this at a very young age by the prophet somehow knowing they both wouldnt do things to bring such a statement into disrepute for the rest of their lives. something there for you perhaps to think about if you dont want to just gloss over or diminish these titles like maybe youve been brought up to

Labaik Ya Hussain!!!! May Allah curse Yazees ibn Muawaiyah.

Urdu audience please listen to Engineer Ali Mirza on Karbala, he has done an excellent job refuting Imamah after Rasoolullah SAWS passing from this world & also refuting the sects that have hatred towards Ahle-bayt. Unless you are honest to Rasoolullah SAWS you cannot speak the truth.

Imam Husayn (as) said: "By Allah, I shall not give my oath to you like a humiliated one, and nor shall I flee like the captive."

He never did one of the three things. Why did they then Kill Al Hussein if he agreed to put his hand on Yazids had... Would you put your hand on Yazids hand... May the Almighty withdraw all his blessings on Yazid and his followers....I wonder so Much Hate for the Ahlulbayt!! Can you make a vedio on the the Burning of the door of Lady Fatema (AS). Also Can we sit and reflect on these posints please as intellectuals 1. What happened in the 50 years Since the death of the Holy Prophet (SAWW) for his children to be killed like this? 2. What role Did Abu Suffian Play during the time of the Caliphs? 3. Who appointed Muawiya (LA) as a governor of Sham? 4.who poisoned Al Hassan? 5. Why did Muawiya (LA) appoint his son who was an open FAsikh and Fajir? 6. How did Banu Umayya get so much power yet they were the top most enemies of the Holy Prophet My brothers think during the rule of the Umayad and the Abbasids do we et authentic hadith! also how can you kill the leader of the youth of paradise? My brothers think and let not the hate of the Ahlul bayt (AS) who have been purified by quraan, and Hated by Ibn Taymiya cloud your judgement! THINK!!!

Why are u afraid of debating Sayf Ali and Allayari if u have guts come

How lol

SUMMARY: The video questions the Shia belief in Hussain as a divinely appointed infallible Imam. It argues that Hussain's actions contradict this claim. In brief, there will be three points: (1) that by conceding political/worldly power to Muawiyah. Hassan/Hussain also lost the ability to enact their supposed spiritual role as Imams. (2) yet Hassan was prepared to fight the governor of Medina for a plot of land, (3) we see Hussain utterly conceding defeat to Yazid and accepting for his 'Imamate' dawah to be stopped again. (1) Hussain relinquished his political power to Muawiyah, which raises doubts about his spiritual imamate. Shias say this was only a political concession and the retained his spiritual imamah. One wonders why the Shia then emphasize Saqifah (where the Sahabah gave allegiance to Abu Bakr) at all, if political power does not affect spiritual position anyway. Furthermore, after giving up the caliphate, both Hassan and Hussain moved to Medina, but they did not actively hold a spiritual imamate like Ali (r.a.) did. There are fewer hadiths attributed to them teaching the religion compared to Ali and other family members. Shia's response that they were unable to due to circumstances is countered by the argument that them giving up political power caused this limitation, thus themselves undermining their supposed Imamate spiritual position through this decision. (2) Another issue raised is that while living in Medina, Hussain had a disagreement with its governor (al-Walid bin Utbah, a son of Abu Sufyan) over a plot of land and warned that he would invoke a security pact to fight the governor. If Hussan was prepared to fight/rebel against the governor of Medina, why would he not be prepared to do so against Muawiyah in order to teach the "true" version of Islam in his role of Imam? (3) At the battle of Karbala, both Sunni and shia sources both record Hussain as saying when surrounded by enemy troops that he should be allowed to either return to Mecca/Medina, be expelled to Ummah outskirts, or that he should be able to place his hand onto the hand of Yazeed for Yazeed to determine his fate. Such a statement seems unbefitting for a Divinely appointed Imam with a role given by Allah.

Another stinker

Farid has had a shocker here, an absolute almighty shocker. Firstly, he has used Sunni references to push forward his own sect’s views, therefore nothing he says here makes any difference to what we believe. Firstly, he conveniently and purposely leaves out the treaty that was made with Muawiya because Muawiya politically had a lot of power and the soldiers of Ahlul Bayt (a.s) had been through 3 battles, major battles in 4 years during Imam Ali’s (a.s) caliphate and lost thousands of soldiers. So, he signed a treaty much like the Prophet (sawa) to show Muawiyas hypocrisy through this. Question: Farid, is the prophet now not as divine as you think? He returned to Medina after signing a treaty with kaafirs and didn’t perform Hajj? Secondly, who told uiu that Hassan (a.s) and Hussain (a.s) didn’t teach spirituality, law, knowledge in Medina? Were you there? If you’re using Sunni books then you aren’t blessed with hadiths from our imams like we are. You have people who made up hadiths from people who did it go get food, or liars that fought Imam Ali (a.s) etc Thirdly, do you really think that the narration you have provided is authentic that Imam Hussain (a.s) offered to pledge allegiance to Yazid and then they still killed him even though they wanted the pledge of allegiance? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Farid, you’ve wasted 9 mins of people’s lives by talking complete nonsense without any references that are reliable and then you ask us to ask our molanas like they hide stuff from us. Na, lad that’s your school’s game. Plus you have severe la’na upon your face because you’re a hater of Ahlul Bayt. So much la’na that I have to wash my eyes now.

My only issue is that there are hadith that show that the prophet was informed of the martyrdom of Hussain, like the following "[...]He replied: I once entered to the Prophet (saw) and his eyes were overflowing with tears, I asked the Prophet (saw), 'Did anybody anger you? Why are you crying so profoundly?' He said: Angel Jibreel came to me once and informed me that Hussain will be killed by river Euphrates, and said 'Do you want to smell this earth?' He (saw) said 'Yes!' He reached out and took a handful from the earth (of Karbala) and gave it to me, and I could not stop my eyes overflowing.' Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Vol. 1, H. # 648, Pg. # 446

Nasibi mullah

Good to see that he's recovered from the AP burn

Your arguments are weaker than spider web

May Allah guide you akhi, you should make your shahada again. Hasan gave up khilafate, as note by many of our own Ahl Sunnah ulama, to spare the ummah from bloodshed. Imam Suyuti makes this clear in his history of the Rashidun Khulafa, of which Hasan ibn Ali was one. Hasan made a sacrifice to preserve the Ummah from bloodshed. This doesn't mean that he wasn't the rightful Khalifa and it's frankly idiotic to defend an opposite position

The worst take ever in history. Your playing with Karbala and Imamate is not a joke. You are in full violation of all the principles of love of the ahly bayt of our rasul. He will let you know of your error on yauma qiyama.

Not only does Farid misinterpret imama as political leadership, the tradition he quoted at the end is not even authentic (neither to Sunnis nor the Shia). Hence Farid is dishonest, because he is inconsistent in this regard. In fact, there is little evidence the author is Shii, much less a prominent transmitter of hadith. Imama in the teaching of the Ahlulbayt is something very different. Read Kitab al-Kafi or any other collection of hadith. Overall the argument is extremely weak and distorts the motives of al-Husayn (AS).

Wahabi making up his own facts 💀

weak arguments. the report you mentioned in the end that is attributed to abu miknaf is not even authentic. why you try to deceive your viewers? and the whole argument on al hassan giving up his khilafa ot muawiyah is ridicilious. after studying the books of tashayyuh for years, you didn't learn anything due to not taking off your salafi glasses.

Farid is intellectual has many books uses to defend the bullshit who said the fake prophet. Imagine how many BS he said

وَعَلَيْكُم السَّلَام وَرَحْمَةُ اَللهِ وَبَرَكاتُهُ