Role of Religious Deviation in leading to Karbala
 The Islamic community in the year the event of KarbalÄ took place, had greatly differed from that in the last year of Prophet’s life. The trend of deviation had been however gradual, according to many of researchers, the basis thereof was established from the first years after the Prophet’s departure. The foregoing deviations were in such a way that the politicians could avail themselves of them to not only delude the people but also justify their despotism. The ones who played a crucial role in the origination and the development of such deviations were the Umayyads. The power notably secured by YazÄ«d revealed the fact that never ever had the Umayya believed in a genuine Islam and their belief was merely a covering people had spread in order to justify and concede their sovereignty. Having accused the Umayya of oppression and enmity,[1] ImÄm Husayn (a) had described them as those who “obey Satan, disobey AllÄh, propagate misdeeds, disregard AllÄh’s specified rules and also encroach upon Bayt al-MÄl (public treasury)â€.[2] In addition to creating corruption and ignoring divine limits, they had distorted a large number of religious concepts and misused them. Here let’s discuss a few of them which had impacts in the course of KarbalÄ according to historical evidence. Obedience to ImÄms, the necessity of Community and unlawfulness of breach of allegiance was three common political terms used by caliphs. It may be claimed that the above-mentioned terms could have guaranteed the base and the persistence of the caliphate. Anyhow, these three terms were right principles among the religious, political and Islamic concepts of which observing for the sake of the community was reasonably incumbent. Obeying an ImÄm denotes obeying the ruling system. The question raised is that to what extent the ruler should be complied with. Is it imperative that a just ImÄm be followed or an unjust monarch ought to be obeyed too? Earlier we discussed it in detail while considering ‘UthmÄn’s caliphate. Upholding Community implies avoiding disturbance or taking no action to undermine the unity or pave the ground for the emergence of a shaky Islamic community. The considerable question is whether silence should be kept before despotic monarchism or a libertine ruler under any circumstances; in other words, should any objection be suppressed relying on the fact that it spoils “Community†and causes “disunionâ€? Unlawfulness of breach of allegiance, namely fulfilling a pledge is heavily underlined in Islam. Since breaking a pledge or an allegiance is prohibited seriously, it stands to reason how much the role of which in political affairs can be positive. But if the allegiance were not sworn to caliphs like YazÄ«d or it were breached and consequently Community was ‘spoiled’, would it again follow the principle of unlawfulness of breach of allegiance or would it basically be an exception to the rule? As already alluded to, the Umayyad caliphs and later those of BanÅ« ‘AbbÄs by manipulating such concepts distorted and unconditionally compelled the people to acquiesce to their sovereignty. As stated by Ibn IshÄq, they were doing prayers (perhaps in al-HarÄm mosque) when they noticed that Shimr Ibn Dhil-Djawshan had raised his hands saying: “O AllÄh! You are well-aware of my nobleness, so forgive me.†“I told him, added Ibn IshÄq, how could you ever be forgiven whereas you have aided and abetted in murdering the Prophet’s son?†“What have we preformed?†Shimr reacted. “It was the mandates of our commanders and we could in no way defy themâ€. Had we disobeyed “we would be far more inferior to water carrier beasts.†[3] Apprehending him, Ibn ZiyÄd told Muslim Ibn ‘AqÄ«l: “O outlaw! You have seceded from your ImÄm and have sowed the seeds of discord among Muslims.†[4] Muslim who never yielded to such a digression, riposted that Mu‘Äwiya not only did not procure the caliphate through the consensus of opinions of the nation at all, but he overcame the Holy Prophet’s successor through deception and usurped his caliphate. When ImÄm Husayn was about to leave Mecca, the deputies of ‘Amr Ibn Sa‘īd Ibn ‘Ās, the governor, said, “Do you not fear from AllÄh for seceding from the Muslim congregation and for causing disunion among the nation?†[5] “We have neverever ignored disobeying ImÄm, nor have we seceded from Community†affirmed ‘Amr Ibn HadjdjÄdj, a commander of Ibn ZiyÄd’s.[6] Advising Ibn ZiyÄd’s army, he added, “Not ever fail to remember obedience and union and at no time do you doubt about killing the one seceding from the religion and being at variance with ImÄm (ruler).†[7] Figures like ‘Abd AllÄh Ibn ‘Umar who was among the Sunnites religious jurisprudents and hadith-narrators, had imagined that if entire people acquiesced to swear the oath of allegiance to YazÄ«d, they would consent too. He had given his assurance to Mu‘Äwiya, “I shall oppose you unless people all swear allegiance to your son, YazÄ«d.”[8] He also had addressed ImÄm as saying, “Do cause not disunion among Muslims!â€[9] Such individuals as ‘Umar and ‘Abd al-RahmÄn Ibn ‘Awf’s daughter had written to ImÄm to regard obedience with reverence and treat Community and its upholding as urgent.[10] Another religious deviation in the Islamic community was “belief in fatalismâ€. Previous to the event of KarbalÄ this belief has been misused. In Early Islamic Era, however, Mu‘Äwiya had been the reviver of which or according to AbÅ« HilÄl ‘AskarÄ« he was the initiator of which.[11] Referring to the fact that Mu‘Äwiya is the founder of “fatalismâ€, QÄdÄ« ‘Abd al-DjabbÄr has quoted Mu‘Äwiya making as remarkable remarks[12] as follows, “This matter concerning YazÄ«d is a destiny from among Divine destinies and no one has any volition in this regard.†[13] ‘Ubayd AllÄh Ibn ZiyÄd asked ImÄm SadjdjÄd (a), “Was AllÄh not the One who killed ‘AlÄ« Akbar?†ImÄm’s response was: “I had an elder brother whom people killed.â€[14] Once ‘Umar Ibn Sa‘d was objected why he killed ImÄm Husayn solely for the sake of the Ray governorship, he replied that such an affair had been predestined.[15] When alive, Ka‘b al-AhbÄr had been foretelling that under no conditions would authority be secured by the HÄshimites, (although later both the ‘AbbÄsids and ‘Alawites could secure it as an instance in TabaristÄn). It has been quoted from ‘Abd AllÄh Ibn ‘Umar as well, as saying: “Any time you realized that one from the HÄshimites has secured the authority, conclude that it is that end of the world.†[16] References: [1] al-FutÅ«h, vol.V, p. 137 [2] AnsÄb al-ashrÄf, vol.III, p. 171; al-FutÅ«h, vol.V, pp. 144-15; TÄrÄ«kh al-tabarÄ«, vol.IV, p.304; elsewhere, ImÄm had stated, الا ترون أن الØÙ‚ لا يعمل به وأن الباطل لا يتناهي عنه Not you see how the gospel is not practiced but the credal error is endlessly practiced? TÄrÄ«kh al-tabarÄ«, vol.IV, p.305; Ibn ‘AsÄkir, Tardjamat al-imÄm al-Husayn,p. 214. Also ImÄm had said, Ùان السنة قد أميتت وان البدعة قد Ø£Øييت The Prophet’s Sunnah is dissolved while heresies are revived TÄrÄ«kh al-tabarÄ«, vol.IV, p. 266 [3] Tardjamat al-imÄm al-Husayn, p.197; al-ImÄma wa l-siyÄsa, LisÄn al-mÄ«zÄn, vol.III, p.151 (Al-Humayr al-saqqÄ’Ät) [4] al-FutÅ«h, bol.5, p.98 [5] TÄrÄ«kh al-tabarÄ«, vol.IV, p. 289; such adverse publicity had made, the majority of people specially those from Damascus to consider ImÄm Husayn as an outsider (the one seceding) and to accuse him of heresy. [6] TÄrÄ«kh al-tabarÄ«, p. 275 [7] Ibid. p. 331 [8] Tardjamat al-imÄm al-Husayn, p. 167, as described by Mu‘Äwiya, Ibn ‘Umar was a coward (Ibn A‘tham, vol.IV, p. 260). He advised ImÄm Husayn saying “Do not rise up, be patient, compromise as others did. See also al-FutÅ«h, vol.V, p. 39; Tardjamat al-imÄm al-Husayn, p. 166. [9] al-KÄmil fi l-tÄrÄ«kh, vol.IV, p. 17 [10] Tardjamat al-imÄm al-Husayn, p. 167 [11] al-AwÄ’Ãl, AskarÄ«, vol.II, p. 125 [12] Fadl al-I‘tizÄl wa tabaqÄt al-mu‘tazila, p. 143 [13] al-ImÄma wa l-siyÄsa, vol.I, pp. 183, 187 [14] Tardjamat al-imÄm al-Husayn, p. 188 [15] TabaqÄt al-kubrÄ, vol.V, p. 148 [16] Ibn ‘AsÄkir,Tardjamat al-imÄm al-Husayn, p. 193 Source: An extract from ‘History of the Caliphs’ by Rasul Ja’farian