Every year, many Muslims around the world commemorate the great sacrifice of Hussein ibn Ali (peace be upon him), the hero of the Battle of Karbala in 680 CE. However, at the same time, it must be acknowledged that a section of Muslims avoid deeply examining this issue and refrain from questioning the historical process that led to the rule of Yazid (the Umayyad caliph). Not only do some groups of Muslims ignore this important historical event in early Islam, but a small number even attempt to erase or eliminate any remembrance or commemoration of this tragedy. In this regard, it may be necessary to understand why such thinking, manifested by terrorists and extremist factions like Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, often targets gatherings commemorating the Karbala tragedy and similar events (as seen in recent years in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan). What is the primary reason behind the hostility of these groups toward what Imam Hussein (peace be upon him) stood for?
To better understand the context of Ashura and the uprising of Imam Hussein (peace be upon him), a brief review of history is necessary. After the death of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in 632 CE, the spread of Islam, due to various factors, became a global phenomenon. Islam was a growing power, but at the same time, the structure of the Islamic society was changing as it gradually absorbed people from various cultures [1].
The elite of society, who were primarily concerned with power and wealth, grew in strength, and as a result, Islam’s emphasis on equality and justice gradually faded. The conscious efforts of some individuals to emulate the hereditary systems of the Romans and Sassanids were evident to many observers. The rulers’ obsession with power and wealth reached its peak during the reign of the Umayyad dynasty. Thus, the transformation of Islamic ideals and the worldly approach to governance became central to Yazid’s rule (the Umayyad caliph) and his followers. For example, the expansion of power through the sword was one of the main tenets of this ideology.
Imam Hussein (peace be upon him), who was the guardian of Islam at this time, stood strongly against this movement, and his unprecedented sacrifice became a catalyst for awakening the Islamic conscience of the people and exposing the deviant movement that was presenting itself as Islam. The foundation of Imam Hussein’s (peace be upon him) uprising was human dignity and honor [2]. Confronting the newly emerging hereditary system of governance was also one of the main features of this uprising. In his final sermon before leaving Medina for Karbala, he clearly stated his goal: “I am seeking to reform the nation of my grandfather” [3].
Therefore, the story of the uprising of Hussein ibn Ali (peace be upon him) was not merely a political confrontation, even though some Muslim historians tried to present it as such to not only cover up the crimes of Yazid but also indirectly endorse his ideology. However, the dominant perspective, both among Shia and Sunni Muslims, has always endorsed the message and uprising of Imam Hussein (peace be upon him). Thus, it is utterly ridiculous to view this event as a sectarian conflict between Shia and Sunni in Islamic history. Among Muslims, only a few controversial scholars support such a view. Furthermore, some writers who propagate this misconception either view the issue superficially or attempt to simplify it for their Western audiences.
Although Shia Muslims are the foremost in commemorating the tragedy of Karbala, Sunnis, especially those belonging to the “Barelvi” school of thought in Southeast Asia, or all Sufi circles across Asia and the Middle East, also eagerly participate in expressing solidarity with Imam Hussein (peace be upon him). Extremists and terrorists, however, try to eliminate this unifying factor, as division suits their sectarian and violent agendas. The distortion of religion to make its outward appearance more intolerant and violent brings them closer to achieving their goals. For them, political power is an end in itself, and the malignant sectarianism that arises from such a worldview has hindered the spiritual growth of many Muslims. The cure for this illness lies in spreading the core message of Karbala throughout the Muslim world and striving to better understand the true principles of Islam.
Imam Hussein’s (peace be upon him) message is entirely at odds with this worldview. In fact, the intention of Imam (peace be upon him) in the Ashura uprising was never based on weapons and violence; instead, he believed in delivering his message through awareness based on love and mercy. His message was truly rooted in humanity. This message, in the context of resisting oppression and self-sacrifice for all humanity and future generations, is a strategic approach. Therefore, the idea of resistance against tyranny and oppression owes much to Hussein ibn Ali (peace be upon him), the Hussein who refused to praise the tyrannical government of Yazid—an oppressive Umayyad caliph—by pledging allegiance to him. He and his small group of companions were martyred in the most brutal way, and his family was taken captive by the oppressive forces. The prominent leader of India, Gandhi, said in this regard: “I learned from Hussein how to achieve victory while being oppressed…”
(From the article “Historical Lessons from Karbala,” written by Dr. Hassan Abbas, published in Foreign Policy magazine, December 11, 2011)
Footnotes:
[1] The text presented is selected from the article “Historical Lessons from Karbala” published in Foreign Policy magazine in 2011. This magazine is one of the influential publications in global politics and economics. Therefore, the aim of the article is to introduce the dimensions of the Ashura uprising to the elite Western audience.
[2] Imam Hussein (peace be upon him) demonstrated human dignity in his uprising as follows: “Be aware that the impure son of the impure (Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad) has forced me to choose between two paths: death or disgrace. But never! We would never choose disgrace, for neither God, His Messenger, nor the believing women, nor the pure and dignified, would accept that we prefer obedience to the lowly over honorable death” (al-Ihtijaj by al-Tabrasi, Volume 2, Page 24).
[3] Manaqib Ibn Shahr Ashub, Volume 4, Page 89.