Great comment -- thanks very much for the additional detail. I considered including a few more details regarding the events in the late 7th century but, because this was supposed to be a series of photos instead of an essay on early Islamic history, I ended up cutting it back.

I wasn't aware that Ashura goes back before the Battle of Karbala. That's very interesting.  What was the day meant to commemorate before that event?

Ashura literally means 'the tenth.' As in the 10th day of the month of Muharram, which is the first in the Hijri Calendar.

Muharram itself is auspicious because its first days mark the migration to Medina. This is where the Hijarae calender commences for Muslims.

Upon arrival in Yathrib 1431 years ago, the story goes that the Prophet met with elders of the three Jewish tribes residing in Medina (the 'city,' or 'downtown Yathrib') and found them observing a fast on the 10th of Muharram. Asking them why, they informed him that this is when they believed Moses and the Israelites were saved from Pharaoh. He responded saying "We [the Muslims] have more rights upon Moses than you," and advised his followers to also honor the fast.

Other sources in Sunni Islam attribute other occassions in Sacred History to the 10th of Muharram - from a wide range of Prophets.

The day took on a distinct meaning altoghether for Shi'i Muslims 60-some years later when Husayn, the second born of Ali, succombed to assassination attempts by the army of Yazid, by happenstance, on that holy day.

Obviously the Umayyad Caliphate forbade the commemoration of the event, and even the Abbasids forbade it early on.

It didn't begin to be publicly commemorated [as a mourning for Imam Husayn] until roughly 300 years after the event itself.

It is important to note that is a strictly Sunni view that Ashura was celebrated even before the massacre of Imam Hussein. The story of the Prophet Mohammad learning of significant historical events which coincided on Ashura from Jewish leaders is considered untrue by Shias for several reasons:

1. Historical inconsistency: Although Moharram is the first month in the Hijri calendar, the actual migration took place in Rabi'ul Awwal, the 3rd month of the year. So it is historically impossible that the Prophet would learn of the saving of the tribles of Israel upon entering the city (as stated by Sunnis - See SMCI60652's second comment).

2. Religious discrepancy: The general Muslim view is that the Prophet who received divine revelation for everything (from intricate daily chores to how to treat parents) would not need to be inspired from anyone, much less leaders of other religious denominations, to establish a new rite or assign a ritual to a significant occasion. This is seen by Shias as belittling the status of the Prophet and cannot possibly be true.

3. Black propaganda: Shias believe that it was the Umayyad dynasty which, in an attempt to distract attention from the unspeakable atrocities committed against the progeny of the prophet Mohammad, rewrote history and attributed joyous historical events to the 10th of Moharram. Thus, historical events of religious value were made to - somehow - coincide on Ashura including the forgiveness of Adam, the resting of the Ark of Noah, the splitting of the sea and the saving of the Jews, etc.

Side nots: SMCI60652 falsely stated that:

1. "Ashura didn't begin to be publicly commemorated [as a mourning for Imam Husayn] until roughly 300 years after the event itself". This is historically inaccurate because Shia Imams, descendants of Hussein, the progeny of the Prophet, consistently encouraged mourning and lamentation and public expressions of grief even became sanctioned by the Abbasid state at the time of Imam Ali b. Musa al Redha when he became the crown prince of the empire.

2. Shias didn't assign any "divine" value to the caliphate. Nor do they believe that the succession to the Prophet is exclusive to his family. Their assertion has always been that the question of succession is a matter that rests with divine appointment, just like prophethood, as opposed to the Sunni view that it was a matter left to the people. It just so happens that the Prophet, based on divine revelation (see the 10 volume encyclopedic work; al 'Ghadeer in the Scripture, prophetic tradition, and literature', by Sh. Amini) appointed 12 members from his own progeny to succeed him. This is a common misunderstanding which is easily dispelled by referring back to Shii scholarly works.

Fortunately now you also have the Shi'i view.

Although I will say with due respect that the contentions raised about 'Historical inconsistencies,' 'religious discrepancies' as well as the alleged 'black propaganda' are ultimately unprovable arguments, as they concern the differences in 'epidemiologies of certainty' between Sunni and Shi'i Islam.

There really is no basis for sound debate when Sunni sources are considered fabricated and propagandistic by Shi'is and vice versa for Shi'i sources in the eyes of Sunni Muslims.

But I should have been more explicit in saying that my comments above are strictly from the normative Sunni perspective.

Though I do agree that the "alleged" 'Black Propaganda' argument may need a deeper look at the history of Sunni/Shi'i discourse before it can be fully substantiated, the other two arguments are far from "unprovable". A surface research into the actual date of migration will prove the historical inconsistency of the Jewish encounter story, and the very definition of prophethood confirms the obvious point raised in the religious discrepancy argument. The problem with most Sunnis is that once the narration makes its way into Bukhari's collection then it has technically "crossed the bridge", as they say, and cannot be scrutinized or subjected to analytical criticism, so the narrative stands not because of historical or theological merit but because it has received that stamp of approval 12 centuries ago!

Furthermore, though both sources of history are considered largely unsound by the opposing side, it is a hallmark of Shi'i scholastic research to base their theological arguments on Sunni sources, in an 'in your face' kind of way for many centuries. This has provided a platform for meaningful dialogue and sound debate, which is the reason behind the wave of conversion from Sunni to Shi'i Islam for many centuries (the most recent of which sparked outrage on the part of Sunni scholars such as Qaradhawi as well as brutal repression by political leaders across the Muslim world). If there was no basis for sound debate, no such conversion would exist, at least not on this scale.

Ali was Muhammad's first cousin through his paternal uncle, Abu Talib.

He also later became Muhammad's son-in-law on account of marrying his youngest daughter, Fatima.

Ali and Fatima's first two children were Hasan and Husayn, the grandsons of Muhammad.

Muhammad never 'chose sheiks' to determine his successor. The folks that did this were the aristocracy of the two local Medinan tribes, and the elders of Mecca's migrants. Therefore as these 'sheiks' never existed, they naturally didn't assassinate Ali.

Those that assassinated Ali were troops who originally sided with him against the Governor of Syria. This governor, Mu'awiyah, was a cousin of the previous Caliph [Uthman] and demanded retribution against the Caliph's assassins. Ali refused based on his own sound political judgement. But the said Governor refused to swear allegiance to Ali on this accord.

Ali marched on Syria, but an agreement was struck, upon which certain fanatics from his own ranks were pissed off, and conspired to assassinate both Ali and the Governor on the same night. They got to Ali, but couldn't kill the Governor. This faction of fanatics is known as the 'Kharij-ites.' Many modern Muslims view Wahhabism (the official faith of Saudi Arabia) as a 'Khawarij' movement, since it too worked actively to undermine a Caliphate.

Anyways, since the Governor [Mu'awiyah] survived, and Syria was the richest province of the fledgling empire at the time, he managed to rally the majority of Muslims around himself, and claimed the Caliphate. Whereupon his death his son, Yazid I, claimed his right to succeed his father, but Ali's sons had the most legitimate claim to the empire, as well as the majority of popular support. Yazid basically took by force what he couldn't obtain by right... so he assassinated Husayn, the son of Ali, while he was near Kerbala, on the 10th of Muharram or 'Ashura.'

And, as they say, the rest is history.

Interesting you should say that most muslims know the real reason this day is special. The muslim men shown in the photos with blood dripping down their bodies do not seem to be celebrating the numerous events you mention. Is it possible that you are suggesting that the Shia are not real muslims?

i can see how that statement can be interpreted like this, but that is not at what i meant. it would be akin to me saying that most americans can name the branches of government. that would in no way imply that the citizenship of someone who doesn't know all the branches would be negated.

Don't forget also that God created the heavens and the earth on Ashura, that Adam married Eve, that Jesus ascended to the heavens, etc.. Isn't it just odd that every conceivable event of any religious significance just happened to have occurred on Ashura.. Given the fact that (most) Muslims' religious credence is the product of what historians have narrated, this "blessing" that you speak of reeks with the stench of self-serving Ummayyad ideology. See my comments above in response to SMCI60652.

I'm not sure the context within which this was likely mentioned, but it comes with a lot of caveats.

First of all, traditionally Sufism wasn't seen as a sect, it WAS normative Islam. It's part of the reason why modern literalistic-reformist Muslims, that claim authenticity, write off the vast majority of Muslim history after the first two generations - as 'misguided.' And now suddenly, after over a thousand years of separation, they have somehow miraculously landed back on the 'pure truth.'

The popular belief among traditional Muslims is that "In the beginning, Sufism was a Reality without a Name; now it's just Name without a Reality."

In other words, the first few generations were practitioners of Sufism, but didn't formalize it or call it anything in particular.

Islam, as practiced by the vast majority Muslims throughout its history was a synthesis between its legal dictates (Shariah) and its inward realities (tasawwuf, or 'Sufism' in modern parlance). So we see that ALL (not just most) scholars of Islam throughout the ages, with the exception of the Modern Age, belonged to one Sufic method (Tariqah) or an other, without exception. The irony of this all is that the scholars the modern literalists quote to support their positions and lambaste other Muslims, THEMSELVES were Sufis!

So seen in this light, through the practice of Islam as a holistic religion, yes, it is true: there were many more Sufis (practitioners of traditional Islam), than the rest of Muslims put together.

Although it should also be pointed out that there have been periods in Islam where the numbers were completely inverted. Most Muslims, including Muslim dominion, belonged to Shi'a Islam, and Sunni Islam was a minority concentrated in Persia, what is Modern day Iran.