The tragedy of Karbala is usually told as a two-sided story: Sayyiduna Husayn versus Yazid. But it argues that the real betrayal came not only from Yazid and his army but from the people of Kufa themselves who claimed to be supporters of the Ahl al-Bayt. These Kufans invited Husayn to lead them, gave pledges of support, then abandoned him. The article uses historical Sunni and Shia sources to show that the Kufans were the main cause of Husayn’s martyrdom.
The False Promises of Kufa
After the death of Muawiyah in 60 AH, many people in Kufa were unhappy with his son Yazid and began writing letters to Sayyiduna Husayn in Makkah, inviting him to lead them in revolt and promising loyalty. Some days saw up to 600 letters. These letters were coming from those who still identified as the Shia (supporters) of the Ahl al-Bayt. Sayyiduna Husayn sent his cousin Muslim ibn Aqil to Kufa to check the situation. When Muslim arrived, 18,000 Kufans gave him their pledge of support and he sent word to Husayn to come.
Muslim ibn Aqil Abandoned by the Kufans
Yazid sent Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad to Kufa to stop the revolt. He entered the city with only 17 men and tricked the people by covering his face, making them think he was Husayn. Once in power, Ibn Ziyad began cracking down.
A spy found Muslim ibn Aqil staying with Hani ibn Urwah. Hani was arrested and tortured. Muslim tried to rise with 4000 men, but Ibn Ziyad sent tribal leaders to warn them of danger, and one by one, the people deserted him. By sunset, Muslim had only 30 men. By nightfall, he was alone. He was later captured, deceived with false promises of safety, and executed on the Day of Arafah (al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, Maqtal al-Husayn).
The Betrayal of the Kufans
Muslim sent a message to Sayyiduna Husayn warning him: “Do not be deceived by the people of Kufa… they have lied to me and lied to you.” The same people who begged Husayn to come did nothing when Muslim was killed. Not one of the 18,000 who pledged to him stood up to protest.
Sayyiduna Husayn Warned Not to Go
In Makkah, many noble Sahabah tried to stop Husayn from going to Iraq. These included Abd Allah ibn Abbas, Abd Allah ibn Umar, Jabir ibn Abd Allah, Abu Said al-Khudri, his brother Muhammad, and his brother-in-law Abd Allah ibn Jafar. But Husayn had already made up his mind. He left Makkah on 8 Dhu al-Hijjah.
Husayn Hears of Muslim’s Death
On the way, Husayn heard of Muslim ibn Aqil’s execution and the treachery of the Kufans. Many of the desert Arabs who joined him thinking he would win left him when they realised the truth. Only the small group who left Makkah with him remained.
The Final Betrayal at Karbala
Ibn Ziyad sent a force of 4000 men under Umar ibn Sad to stop Husayn. This force was originally meant to fight the Daylamites. The people of Kufa saw this but still did nothing to honour their oaths. Only a few joined Husayn. When the sun set on 10 Muharram, Sayyiduna Husayn and his 71 loyal supporters were killed, and the Kufans stayed silent (al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, Maqtal al-Husayn).
The Tawwabun Try to Repent
Four years later, a group from Kufa who called themselves the Tawwabun (the Penitents) tried to make up for their betrayal. They mourned at the grave of Husayn and vowed revenge against Ibn Ziyad, but it was too late. The article argues that if they had supported Husayn at the time, history might have changed.
Excuses Made for the Kufans
Some Shia writers try to excuse the Kufans by saying they were blocked from helping Husayn (Jafri, p. 198). But the article argues this is weak. Ibn Ziyad had only 17 men at first, and the army sent against Husayn was only 4000, which the Kufans far outnumbered.
Were the Deserters True Shia?
Another excuse is to say those who deserted Husayn were not real Shia but only political supporters (Jafri, p. 195). But Husayn himself called them his Shia, and the Tawwabun openly admitted they were the same people who deserted him (Jafri, p. 223). Their own name, “the Penitents,” shows they knew they were guilty.
Zayd ibn Ali Betrayed Like Husayn
Sixty years later, Zayd ibn Ali, grandson of Husayn, led a revolt. 15,000 men from Kufa pledged loyalty. But when Zayd said he respected Abu Bakr and Umar, they deserted him, claiming the true Imam was Jafar al-Sadiq. Zayd was left with a few hundred men and said, “They did to me what they did to Husayn” (Tarikh al-Madhahib al-Islamiyyah, p. 613).
Imam Jafar al-Sadiq’s View of the Shia
A report in al-Kafi shows that when Sudayr al-Sayrafi said that Jafar had many supporters, Jafar took him out to a field and said if he had as many real Shia as there were sheep in that flock, it would have been right to take up arms. There were only 17 sheep (al-Kafi, vol. 2 p. 250–251).
Jafar al-Sadiq is also reported to have said:
“No one bears us greater hatred than those who claim to love us” (Miqbas al-Hidayah, vol. 2 p. 414),
and: “No verse did Allah reveal about the hypocrites except it applies to those who profess Shiism” (Miqbas al-Hidayah, vol. 2 p. 407).
Sayyiduna Hasan and the Kufans
Before Husayn, his brother Hasan also suffered from the treachery of the Kufans. He said:
“Muawiyah is better for me than those who claim to be my Shia” (al-Ihtijaj, vol. 2 p. 290–291).
When someone complained that Hasan was humiliating the Shia by making peace with Muawiyah, Hasan replied he only did so because he had no supporters. He said:
“The people of Kufa claim their hearts are with us, but their swords are drawn against us” (Rawdat al-Kafi, vol. 8 p. 288).
What We Must Remember on Ashura
While remembering the killers of Husayn like Yazid, Ibn Ziyad, and Shimr, Muslims must also remember the betrayal of the Shia of Kufa. The first people to do so were the Tawwabun, who admitted their guilt. Modern Shia, it says, have forgotten this part of the story and instead focus only on Yazid. But the desertion of Husayn by his supposed supporters was just as responsible for his death as the swords of his killers.
Full Article
Also, among what they narrate falsely is that Yazid ibn Muawiyah struck the teeth of al-Husayn with a stick. And that Zaynab said to him: “Did you think, O Yazid, when you took control of the edges of the earth and the horizons of the sky, and we were led as if we were slave women, that we are worthless to Allah and you are honoured by Him, and that this was because you are of great status before Him?
So you raised your nose in arrogance, looked with pride and joy. Is it justice, O son of freed ones, that you keep your own women hidden and protected, while you lead the daughters of the Messenger of Allah as captives, exposing their veils, revealing their faces, with the enemies driving them from one land to another…?”
This has no basis in the books of the scholars. It is only reported by the people of rejection who are known for lying.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: What is confirmed in Sahih al Bukhari is that the head was brought before Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad, and he began striking its front teeth with a cane in the presence of Anas ibn Malik. In the Musnad, it is mentioned that this happened in the presence of Abu Barzah al Aslami. However, some people have narrated with a disconnected chain that this striking was done in the presence of Yazid ibn Muawiyah, and this is false.
For Abu Barzah and Anas ibn Malik were both in Iraq and not in al Sham, while Yazid ibn Muawiyah was in al Sham and not in Iraq at the time of al Husayn’s killing. So whoever narrates that he struck his front teeth with a cane in the presence of Anas and Abu Barzah before Yazid is certainly lying. It is a clear lie, known to be false through widespread and consistent transmission.
It is known through widespread and consistent transmission that Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad was the governor of Iraq at the time of al Husayn’s killing, and it is authentically transmitted that he was the one who sent Umar ibn Saad ibn Abi Waqqas to lead the group that fought al Husayn. Umar had at first refused, but Ibn Ziyad tempted him and threatened him until he did what he did.
The scholars who are well-versed in acceptable chains of narration have mentioned that when the people of Iraq wrote to al Husayn while he was in the Hijaz, asking him to come to them and saying that the Sunnah had been revived and innovation had been removed, and so on, it is said that they sent him letters that filled a chest or more. Wise and understanding elders advised him not to go, but he did not take their advice. As has been said.
Majmuʿ al-Fatawa 27/469-470
What is well known is that Yazid ibn Muawiyah did not order the killing of al-Husayn, nor was he pleased with it. In fact, he insulted Ibn Ziyad for doing it, honoured the family of al-Husayn who were with him in that journey, sent them to Madinah, and did not detain them.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: “Yazid ibn Muawiyah was born during the caliphate of Uthman ibn Affan. He was not known for piety and righteousness. He was among the young men of the Muslims. He became ruler after his father, some Muslims were pleased with that, and some were not.
He had courage and generosity. He was not openly engaging in immoral acts as his enemies claim. During his rule, many great events happened. One of them was the killing of al-Husayn, may Allah be pleased with him. He did not order the killing of al-Husayn, nor did he show joy at his killing. He did not strike his teeth with a stick, nor did he send his head to Sham. But he did order that al-Husayn be prevented and kept away from taking leadership, even by fighting him.
The governors exceeded his command. And Shamir ibn Dhi al-Jawshan pushed Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad to kill him. Ubayd Allah wronged him. Al-Husayn asked them to let him go to Yazid, or to go to the frontier to guard the Muslims, or to return to Makkah.
They did not allow him to do any of that unless he surrendered to them. Umar ibn Saʿd was ordered to fight him, and he was killed wrongfully along with a group from his family.
His killing was one of the great calamities.
The killing of al-Husayn and the killing of Uthman before him were among the biggest causes of tribulations in this nation. The ones who killed them are among the worst of creation before Allah. When the family of al-Husayn arrived at Yazid ibn Muawiyah, he honoured them and sent them back to Madinah. It was reported that he cursed Ibn Ziyad for killing him and said: I would have been content with the obedience of the people of Iraq without killing al-Husayn.
However, he did not openly show anger over the killing, nor did he seek revenge for him, nor did he take up his cause.
That was his duty, and the people of truth blame him for not doing his duty, in addition to other matters. As for his enemies, they exaggerate and fabricate lies against him.”
(Majmuʿ al-Fatawa 3/410-411)
It was also reported that he regretted the killing of al-Husayn. He used to say:
“What harm would there have been on me if I had been patient with the offence, brought him into my house, allowed him to decide what he wanted, even if it would have weakened my rule, in honour of the Messenger of Allah and out of care for his right and his family.
Then he would say: May Allah curse Ibn Marjanah – meaning Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad – for he forced him out and cornered him. Al-Husayn had asked to be let go, or to come to me, or to be stationed at one of the frontlines until Allah took his life. But he refused and killed him.
He made the Muslims hate me for his killing.
He planted hatred for me in their hearts. The righteous and the sinful all came to hate me because of what they considered a great crime – that I had killed al-Husayn. What do I have to do with Ibn Marjanah? May Allah curse him and be angry with him.” (al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah 11/651, Siyar Aʿlam al-Nubalaʾ 4/370)
Ibn Kathir said: “The thing for which Yazid ibn Muawiyah is most blamed is his drinking of alcohol and committing some immoral actions. As for the killing of al-Husayn, then as his grandfather Abu Sufyan said on the day of Uhud, he neither ordered it nor was pleased with it. We have mentioned already that he said: If I had been there, I would not have done what Ibn Marjanah did. He said to the messengers who brought the head: Your obedience did not require this. He gave them nothing. He honoured the family of al-Husayn, returned to them all that had been taken, and more than that, and sent them back to Madinah in great respect and dignity.
His own household mourned for al-Husayn along with the family of al-Husayn for three days while they were with him.” (al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah 9/232)
This is not a defence or allegiance to Yazid. The middle path regarding him is that his ruling is like that of other unjust and oppressive rulers. He is neither loved nor cursed.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: “The belief of Ahl al-Sunnah and the Imams of the Ummah is that he is not to be cursed and not to be loved. Salih ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: I said to my father, ‘Some people say that they love Yazid.’
He said: O my son, does anyone who believes in Allah and the Last Day love Yazid?
I said: O my father, then why do you not curse him?
He said: O my son, when have you ever seen your father curse anyone?”
(Majmuʿ al-Fatawa 3/412)
He also said: “Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, as I heard, was asked about Yazid and said: He is not to be cursed and not to be loved. I also heard that our grandfather Abu Abdullah Ibn Taymiyyah was asked about Yazid and said: Do not say more and do not say less. This is the most just and best opinion about him and those like him.” (Majmuʿ al-Fatawa 4/483)
So when the Rafidah began to insult the Companions, the scholars began to order punishment for those who insulted the Companions. Then they went as far as declaring the Companions disbelievers and spoke about them with things for which we have explained their ruling in another place.
At that time, no one used to speak about Yazid ibn Muawiyah, and speaking about him was not considered part of the religion. Then events occurred afterwards, and some people began to openly curse Yazid ibn Muawiyah. Perhaps their aim behind this was to make it a way to curse others besides him. So most of the people of the Sunnah disliked cursing any specific person by name. Some people who followed the Sunnah heard about this, and they came to believe that Yazid was among the great righteous men and leaders of guidance.
And so extremists on both sides went to opposite extremes. These ones say: he was a disbeliever, a heretic, and that he killed the grandson of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, and that he killed the Ansar and their children in the incident of al-Harrah to take revenge for the people of his household who were killed as disbelievers, like his maternal grandfather Utbah ibn Rabiʿah, his maternal uncle al-Walid, and others. And they report about him things like being well-known for drinking alcohol and openly committing immoral acts.
And some people believe that he was a just imam, a rightly guided one, and that he was among the Companions or the great Companions, and that he was one of the allies of Allah Most High. Some even believed he was one of the Prophets.
They say: whoever hesitates about Yazid, Allah will place him over the Fire of Hell. And they report from Shaykh Hasan ibn Adi that he was such-and-such a wali (friend of Allah), and that those who hesitated about him would end up over the Fire, because of what they said about Yazid. In the time of Shaykh Hasan, they added false things in poetry and prose, and they went to extremes in their beliefs about Shaykh Adi and Yazid, things which were against the way of Shaykh Adi the elder, may Allah sanctify his soul. His way was sound and free from these innovations. They were tested with Rafidah who opposed them and killed Shaykh Hasan, and there occurred trials that neither Allah nor His Messenger love.
This extremism regarding Yazid, from both sides, is against what the people of knowledge and faith agreed upon.
Yazid ibn Muawiyah was born during the caliphate of Uthman ibn Affan, may Allah be pleased with him. He did not meet the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and was not among the Companions, by agreement of the scholars. Nor was he among those known for religion and righteousness. He was one of the youth of the Muslims. He was not a disbeliever, nor a heretic. He assumed rule after his father with the dislike of some Muslims and the acceptance of others. He had bravery and generosity. He was not openly immoral as his opponents claimed.
Major events occurred during his rule: One of them was the killing of al-Husayn, may Allah be pleased with him. Yazid did not command the killing of al-Husayn, nor did he show happiness over it. He did not strike his teeth with a stick, may Allah be pleased with him, nor did he have al-Husayn’s head carried to Sham. Rather, he gave the order to stop al-Husayn and keep him away from leadership. Even if it meant fighting him, his governors went beyond his order.
And it was Shamir who incited the armies for Ibn Ziyad to kill him. So Ibn Ziyad overstepped. Al-Husayn, may Allah be pleased with him, asked them to let him go to Yazid, or to go to the border to fight, or to return to Makkah, but they refused, unless he surrendered to them. Umar ibn Saʿd was ordered to fight him, so they killed him wrongfully, and likewise a group from his family, may Allah be pleased with them.
His killing, may Allah be pleased with him, was one of the great calamities. The killing of al-Husayn, and before him the killing of Uthman, were among the greatest causes of trials in this ummah. Their killers are among the worst of creation in the sight of Allah.
Majmu Fatawa By Ibn Taymiyyah (3/409-411)
So Ibn Taymiyyah clarified the correct position and said: The correct view in this matter is what the imams held, that he is not to be singled out either with love or with cursing. So we neither love him nor curse him. Along with this, if he was a sinner or unjust, as you say, then Allah forgives the sinner and the unjust, especially if the sinner did a great good deed that wipes away his sins.
It is established in Sahih al-Bukhari that Yazid did a good deed, which was striving in the path of Allah. For al-Bukhari narrated in his Sahih from Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both, that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “The first army that will attack Constantinople will be forgiven.” And the first army that attacked it had Yazid ibn Muawiyah as their commander, and Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, may Allah be pleased with him, was with him. So this shows that he should not be cursed or insulted.
Sometimes Yazid ibn Muawiyah is confused with his uncle Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan. Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan was one of the Companions and one of the best among them. He was the best of the family of Harb. He was one of the commanders of the Levant whom Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, sent during the conquests of the Levant. Abu Bakr walked alongside him to advise him and see him off. Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan said to him, ‘O Caliph of the Messenger of Allah, either you ride or I dismount.’ Abu Bakr replied, ‘I will neither ride nor will you dismount. I seek reward for these steps in the path of Allah.’
When Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan died after the conquests of the Levant during the caliphate of Umar, Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, appointed his brother Muawiyah in his place. Yazid (the son of Muawiyah) was born during the caliphate of Uthman ibn Affan, may Allah be pleased with him, and Muawiyah remained in the Levant until what happened occurred.”
“It is obligatory to be limited and restrained regarding this matter and to turn away from mentioning Yazid ibn Muawiyah and testing the Muslims with him. This is one of the innovations that opposes the way of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamaʿah. Because of this, some of the ignorant came to believe that Yazid ibn Muawiyah was among the Companions and among the greatest of the righteous and the imams of justice. This is clearly wrong.”
Much of what is narrated about the tribulations that occurred between Muslims is reported only by liars, fabricators, and unknown narrators. It is not allowed for anyone to rely on anything reported by such people because they lack integrity. Allah says: “O you who believe, if a rebellious person comes to you with news, then verify, so that you do not harm people out of ignorance and then regret what you have done” (al-Hujurat: 6).
Among those false reports is what was narrated by al-Tabari in his history (5/461) and by Ibn Asakir in “Tarikh Dimashq” (69/176), from Abu Mikhnaf, from al-Harith ibn Kaab, from Fatimah bint Ali, who said: “When we were brought before Yazid ibn Muawiyah, he softened towards us, ordered something for us, and treated us kindly. Then a man from Syria, who had red skin, stood up and said to Yazid, ‘O leader of the believers, give me this girl’ – meaning me, and I was a beautiful girl. I trembled and feared, and I thought it was allowed for them. So I held on to the clothes of my sister Zaynab. She was older than me and wiser, and she knew that such a thing was not allowed. So she said, ‘By Allah, you have lied and acted disgracefully. That is not for you or for him.’
Yazid became angry and said, ‘By Allah, you are lying. That is mine. If I wished to do it, I would.’ She said, ‘No, by Allah, Allah has not given you that right unless you leave our religion and follow a different one.’
Yazid became furious and said, ‘You dare speak like that to me? It was your father and your brother who left the religion.’
Zaynab said, ‘It is by the religion of Allah, the religion of my father, and the religion of my brother and my grandfather that you and your father and your grandfather found guidance.’
He said, ‘You lie, O enemy of Allah.’
She said, ‘You are a ruling oppressor, insulting unjustly and overpowering with your rule.’
She said, ‘By Allah, it was as if he became ashamed and remained silent. Then the Syrian man returned and said, “O leader of the believers, give me this girl.” Yazid said, “Be gone. May Allah give you a decisive death.”‘
This is also narrated by Ibn Kathir in “al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah” (11/562) from Abu Mikhnaf.
Abu Mikhnaf’s name is Lut ibn Yahya. Al-Dhahabi said: “He is a storyteller who is worthless. Not to be trusted. Abu Hatim and others abandoned him. Al-Daraqutni said: Weak. Ibn Maeen said: He is not trustworthy. He also said: He is nothing. Ibn Adi said: A passionate Shia, a man who reports their stories.” (Mizan al-Iʿtidal 3/419)
So this report is false and not authentic.
Grading Of Abu Mikhnaf (Lut Ibn Yahya) In Siyar A’lam Nubala
Abu Mikhnaf (Lut ibn Yahya al-Kufi) A man who authored writings and historical records.
He narrated from: Jabir al-Juʿfi, Mujalid ibn Saʿid, Saʿb ibn Zuhayr, and a group of unknown narrators.
And among those who narrated from him: Abdur Rahman ibn Maghraa and Ali ibn Muhammad al-Madaʾini.
Yahya ibn Maʿin said: He is not trustworthy. Abu Hatim said: His hadith is to be abandoned. Al-Daraqutni said: A storyteller who is weak (Ibn al-Daraqutni’s statement “a storyteller who is weak” is quoted to indicate the unreliability of his narrations).
Ad Dhahabi said: He died in the year 157 AH. He is of the same level as Sif ibn Umar al-Tamimi, the narrator of the apostasy wars, and Abdullah ibn Ayyash al-Mantuf, and Awanah ibn al-Hakam (This means Abu Mikhnaf is considered equal to these three narrators in weakness and status).
Siyar A’lam Nubala By Imam Ad Dhahabi 7/301-302
