THE UPRISING OF IMAM HUSAYN (AS) A REBELLION AGAINST THE RULER OF THE TIME

[Taqavi]

Was the Uprising of Imam Husayn (AS) a Rebellion Against the Ruler and Caliph of the Time?

 

1.    Analysis of the Issue of "Rebellion Against the Ruler" and the Illegitimacy of Yazid's Caliphate

The charge of "rebellion against the ruler of the time" (khuruj 'ala al-hakim) becomes relevant only when the ruler has assumed power through legitimate and legal Islamic means (such as public acceptance, a council of Muslims, or recognized Islamic criteria) and observes basic justice. In the case of Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah, these conditions were completely non-existent due to the following reasons:

·       Appointment Through Coercion and Threats: The imposition of Yazid upon the Islamic Ummah was neither based on the free choice of the people nor a council of Muslims. Rather, Mu'awiyah secured a forced allegiance for his son by resorting to threats[1], bribery of tribal leaders[2], and the political assassination of key opponents—including prominent figures such as Imam Hasan (AS) [3], 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Khalid[4], and Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas[5].

·       Overt Sinfulness and Depravity: Based on authentic historical texts, Yazid was an open wine-drinker[6] who engaged in public sinfulness and flagrant transgressions[7]. In his famous declaration, Imam Husayn (AS) completely nullified Yazid's personal qualification for leadership, stating:

"And upon Islam be peace, if the Ummah is tested with a ruler like Yazid!" [8]

Therefore, from both jurisprudential and rational perspectives, Yazid was not considered a "legitimate Caliph" in any sense for resistance against him to be categorized as "rebellion against the ruler" (baghy). Indeed, even Ahmad ibn Hanbal (the founder of the Hanbali school of jurisprudence) considered Yazid deserving of curse (la'n) [9].

2.    The Role of Imam Hasan's (AS) Peace Treaty in Delegitimizing Yazid's Rule

The peace treaty signed between Imam Hasan (AS) and Mu'awiyah (in the year 41 AH) was a legally binding covenant. One of its key stipulations included the following:

·       Stipulation Against Appointing a Successor: Mu'awiyah had no right to appoint anyone as his successor, and after Mu'awiyah's death, the determination of governance was to be left to the council (shura) of Muslims[10].

By flagrantly violating this peace treaty[11] and exacting a forced oath of allegiance for Yazid[12], Mu'awiyah shattered all legal foundations of his own governance. Imam Husayn (AS), as the primary surviving party to the treaty and the leader of the Ummah, was not only under no obligation to accept Yazid's rule, but also had a religious and legal duty to stand against this usurpation of power and distortion of the Prophetic Sunnah.

3.    Perspectives of Scholars Across the Islamic World on Opposing an Unjust Ruler

Contrary to despotic and apologetic viewpoints that have attempted to prohibit any form of uprising against rulers, many prominent scholars and jurists across the Islamic world have held a different stance:

·       Jurisprudential Opinions of Sunni Scholars: Several prominent Sunni scholars (such as Ibn al-Jawzi and Ibn 'Aqil) deemed rising against a tyrannical ruler permissible under specific conditions, viewing the uprising of Imam Husayn (AS) as a clear example of combating oppression and a legitimate action against tyrannical rule[13]. Furthermore, the authorship of independent works in defense of Imam Husayn's (AS) status and in condemnation of Yazid's actions demonstrates a significant supportive trend among Sunni scholars regarding the movement of Ashura[14].

·       Evidence from the Prophetic Sunnah and Narrations: Within Islamic teachings, remaining silent in the face of an oppressive ruler is severely condemned. As Imam Husayn (AS) declared, citing the Prophetic tradition:

"Whoever sees a tyrannical ruler who permits what God has forbidden, breaks the covenant of God, opposes the Sunnah of the Messenger of God, and acts among the servants of God with sinfulness and aggression, yet does not rise up against him in word or deed, it is incumbent upon God to place him in the same entry as that tyrant." [15]

Likewise, the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) stated: "When you see my Ummah terrified of telling an oppressor, 'You are an oppressor,' know that salvation has departed from them." [16] These narrations clearly delineate the social responsibility of the Ummah against political corruption and tyranny.

4.    The Perspectives of the Umayyad School and the Imami (Shia) School on the Ashura Movement

·       In Imami Thought: Imamat holds a divine status, and the Imam, as the Proof of God (Hujjat Allah), is the ultimate criterion for discerning religion and guidance. Accordingly, the action of Imam Husayn (AS) was not merely a political reaction; it was the manifestation of fulfilling a divine duty by the Infallible Imam to preserve the core principles of religion against a structural deviation in governance. Numerous narrations testify to the obligation of obeying the Infallible Imams (AS) and the legal authority (hujjiyyah) of their words and deeds[17]. Consequently, the uprising of Ashura possesses complete religious authority and legitimacy for the followers of the Ahl al-Bayt (AS).

Conclusion

The uprising of Imam Husayn (AS) was by no means a "rebellion against a legitimate Caliph"; rather, it was a defensive and reformative reaction to the explicit violation of Imam Hasan's (AS) peace treaty, the hereditary usurpation of power by Yazid, and an effort to revive the Prophetic Sunnah and the obligation of enjoining good and forbidding evil. By refusing to pledge allegiance to a corrupt and tyrannical ruler, Imam Husayn (AS) prevented Umayyad despotism from establishing itself as the "standard of Islamic legitimacy" in history.

 

 

 

 

---

[1] . Al-Futuh, Ibn A'tham al-Kufi, vol. 4, p. 337.

[2] . Ibid., p. 331.

[3] . Al-Ihtijaj, al-Tabarsi, Abu Mansur, vol. 2, p. 13; Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. 16, p. 29; Al-Irshad, Shaykh al-Mufid, vol. 2, p. 16.

[4] . Usd al-Ghabah, Ibn al-Athir, 'Izz al-Din, vol. 3, p. 289; Al-Isti'ab fi Ma'rifat al-Ashab, Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, vol. 2, p. 830.

[5] . Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. 16, p. 29.

[6] . Tarikh Madinat Dimashq, Ibn 'Asakir, vol. 65, p. 403; Ibid., p. 406.

[7] . Tarikh al-Khulafa', al-Suyuti, Jalal al-Din, vol. 1, p. 159; Ansab al-Ashraf, al-Baladhuri, vol. 5, p. 319.

[8] . Maqtal al-Husayn, al-Khwarazmi, vol. 1, p. 268.

[9] . Tafsir Ruh al-Ma'ani, al-Alusi, Shihab al-Din, vol. 13, p. 227.

[10] . Kashf al-Ghummah fi Ma'rifat al-A'immah, al-Irbili, vol. 1, p. 533; Al-Futuh, Ibn A'tham al-Kufi, vol. 4, pp. 290–291.

[11] . Imta' al-Asma', al-Maqrizi, vol. 5, p. 360.

[12] . Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, Ibn Kathir, vol. 8, p. 80.

[13] . Al-Furu' wa Tashih al-Furu', Ibn Muflih, Shams al-Din, vol. 10, p. 180.

[14] . Al-Radd 'ala al-Muta'assib al-'Anid al-Mani' min Dhamm Yazid, Ibn al-Jawzi, 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Ali, p. 12.

[15] . Bihar al-Anwar, Allamah al-Majlisi, vol. 44, p. 328.

[16] . Kanz al-'Ummal, al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, vol. 3, p. 71.

[17] . Al-Kafi, Shaykh al-Kulayni, vol. 1, p. 180; Ibid., p. 186.