The tragedy of Karbala where serves as a paradigm of conviction, piety, hope and sacrifices for mankind, there it has a number of political implications for good, just governance and legitimate order for which Imam Hussain sacrificed himself along with his followers on the sandy grounds along the river Euphrates on 10 October 680 AD/10 Muharram 61 AH. The lessons stand validity for a large number of Muslim countries that have suffered from crisis of legitimacy, one-man establishment and no tolerance for opposition.
The tragedy the Muslim world has been mourning for the last 1,324 years was the result of crisis of legitimacy, a leading crisis in political science, emerged after the nomination of Yazid by Hazrat Amir Muawiya against the rules of Islamic polity established by the Holy Prophet (SV) and followed by the four Caliphs. The crises deepened over the situation when Yazid soon after the death of his father in quest for strengthening his rule asked Imam Hussain for allegiance. Imam Hussain was in Mecca and was neither direct threat nor he rebelled against Yazid, but the latter suffered from crisis of legitimacy and feared him as a threat to his corrupt and repressive establishment. He believed in allegiance from him.
Karbala represents lust of power and its misuse, hypocrisy, opportunism, defiance, injustice against truth, courage and honour over the principles of a just order. The years leading to Karbala show that power corrupts.
In the early sieges of Constantinople in which Hazrat Ayub Ansari breathed his last and was buried near the rampart walls of the city, Yazid, the eldest son of Amir Muawiya, commanded. He believed in piety and Jihad with his young age, full of courage and wisdom about which the famous Persian poet Hafiz begins his Diwan (collection of poems). But soon after Muawiya, in violation of all rules the pious Caliphate was set upon, tried to secure the caliphate for his son, Yazid seemed a changed man.
The lust for power and intolerance culminated in his personality, and he soon ignored the advice of his father not to interfere with Imam Hussain in Medina for allegiance. Imam Hussain’s major difference with Yazid was over allegiance which he did not want to pay to him due to his nomination by his father contrary to the very principles the Islamic polity was set upon. None of the four Caliphs were nominated by an individual, but were chosen by consent and consultation on the basis of their piety and devotion.
Karbala was a negation of a struggle for power and absolute power without toleration of any opposition. The true spirit of an Islamic state Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) founded was totally ignored under Yazid. He immediately changed the governors of his provinces and despised all who even asked him for status quo of not asking Imam Hussain for allegiance. In politics, reconciliation and tolerance which in modern polities of western democracies devolve on the role of opposition was lessons Islam preached and violated by its rulers, Yazid onwards.
Power politics without any tolerance of opposition is a feature of so many Muslim countries today. The rulers standing crises of legitimacy are engaged in all sorts of corruption, propaganda and pseudo representation. Karbala defied rule of corruption and intolerance. In the volatile game of politics in which ultimate goal if becomes the usurpation of power without any morality and justice then a Karbala is needed which Imam Hussain proved in his ailing 57 years of age a clash involving Islamic truth versus falsehood, right versus wrong, belief versus disbelief, the oppressed versus the oppressor, faith against brute force.
Karbala was about standing in the face of oppression, no matter the cost. The goal of politics should be the fair game of representation and social justice.
One of the major political lessons from Karbala is about the role of establishment in strengthening a corrupt rule against human innocence and justice. It is bureaucracy and military forces which silence the right of weak and oppressed class of society in favour of a regime built on force and oppression. Karbala stood against the recognition of a cruel establishment in which many like Ubaidullah bin Ziyad were behind Yazid to support his legitimacy. Yazid removed Numan bin Baseer and appointed ibn Ziyad as a good choice for the action. Ziyad was a model of repression which is usually utilized as a tool in subduing a voice against authoritarian societies. His first step was to behead Mukhtar al Thaqafi and torture Hani bin Urwah with whom Muslim bin Aqil held secret meeting about Kufayids.
People of Kufa played the role of renegades who changed loyalties and defected. Imam Hussain had the same experience. He received 12,000 letters from Kufa to be their leader. Kufa was at a distance of 1,100 miles (average journey on camel back was 45 miles) in the blistering heat. Many advised Imam Hussain not to go to Kufa, including Al-Farazdaq, a poet who he met on the way. He advised him not to go as the hearts may be with him but the swords would be against him. How many people are renegades in our society and believe in alliance with those in power for personal whims and opportunities no matter how deeper damage is inflicted on society.
Karbala teaches that there are fewer men of virtue who withstand highest bidders. In system building it counts a lot. Those in power through back doors cannot tolerate opposition and leave no stone unturned in silencing those in defiance.
The rules of Establishment are inhumane and retaliating in enhancement of an unjust order. It was also a rule of establishment, directed and redirected, in which Imam Hussain was to be besieged and subdued until he paid the allegiance. It was the similar rule under which the water of Euphrates was allowed for leopards, jackals and pigs, but the children of Muhammad (peace be upon him) could not drink a drop of it. Why innocent children and women with days of thirst and agony were denied access to water was a question even many from Yazid’s side raised. And even that Imam Hussain, Ibn Abbas, Hur and many others were rebels and defiant of Yazid’s establishment, nonetheless, what about the infant Ali Asghar, Zainul Abideen and Ruqiya. The order of establishment was to be carried. Such orders are directed and redirected in front of our eyes in present day societies whose implementation becomes necessary at the cost of human sufferings and happiness for the glorification of a powerful establishment ---- be it of a superpower, monarch or dictator.
Karbala defies such an order of an establishment and exposes its cruelties and repercussion for generations to come. It relates to the message of Karbala that the rules of an illegitimate establishment in such an action can be wrong and oppressive. It may try to make its own history, but it does not. It is rather made under circumstances in which the ultimate winner is truth and courage.
Imam Hussain did not believe in power and opposed such an establishment. The good sense he inherited from his maternal grandfather, as Alfred Guilaume describes in his book: Islam, was the despised sense for pomp of royalty. The apostle of God submitted to menial offices like sweeping the floor, milking the ewes and mending with his own hands the shoes and his woolen garment.
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) disdained the penance and merit of a hermit by observing, without effort or vanity, the abstemious diet of an Arab and a soldier. It was the aberrance of the rule under Yazid which culminated in Karbala.
Conciliation and negotiation are the pillars on which political dialogue are build to avert and solve crisis. Imam Hussain’s attitude was conciliatory and believed in negotiation till last. He avoided the bloodshed and raised his three conditions ---- a sort of political dialogue, i.e. to allow him to cross the borders of Yazid (empire), ii) to return to Medina, iii) and even be allowed to see Yazid for face to face negotiation. But none of his conditions were met by Yazid’s lieutenants except taking allegiance from him for which Imam Hussain was not ready.
The night before the tragedy he gathered all his associates around him and provided them a way out in case any desired not to join him in the battle now inevitable. The candle of his tent was turned off with reaffirmation of all those behind him. Those behind him were courageous and committed to his cause with universality. They included his step brothers, cousins, nephews, friends and supporters including a Turk and two Christians, John and Aslam. And finally the hour had arrived for them. They remained steadfast till they breathe their last under the supreme command of their leader not ready for a corrupt political order.
