Muharram: What happened at Karbala?
The Tragedy of Karbala
The very sad event that took place in the month of Muharram is the martyrdom of Al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him). It is a long and tragic history, but I will do my best to summarise what happened.
My sources are based primarily on authentic Sunni narrations. While I have looked at Shia sources as well, I prefer to rely on the narrations authenticated by our hadith scholars, whose verification methods we trust.
Background
Al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) was killed. To put this in context, remember that among the first four Caliphs, only Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) died a natural death. ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with them all) were assassinated.
After the martyrdom of ‘Ali, his eldest son Al-Hasan became the natural choice for leadership. Did ‘Ali officially appoint him? No. However, the people of Iraq, where the centre of governance had shifted from Madinah to Kufa, considered Al-Hasan most worthy of leadership due to his character, piety, knowledge, and wisdom. So they gave him bay‘ah (pledge of allegiance).
In Islam, bay‘ah is similar to how people today vote for a leader, it is the act of publicly pledging loyalty to someone in authority.
Al-Hasan and Mu‘awiyah
While the people of Iraq gave bay‘ah to Al-Hasan, on the other side, in the region of Sham (Greater Syria), was Mu‘awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him). He had longstanding political tension with ‘Ali, and this continued with Al-Hasan. Mu‘awiyah refused to give bay‘ah to Al-Hasan, and the Ummah seemed to be on the verge of yet another internal war.
It’s important to remember that during the time of ‘Ali, many battles had already taken place among the companions. The Ummah was exhausted, and Al-Hasan recognised this. For the sake of unity and to prevent bloodshed, he voluntarily relinquished his claim to leadership.
This act fulfilled a prophecy of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. Imam al-Bukhari narrates that the Prophet ﷺ was once on the mimbar with Al-Hasan beside him. He looked at the crowd, then at Al-Hasan, and said:
«إِنَّ ابْنِي هَذَا سَيِّدٌ، وَلَعَلَّ اللَّهَ أَنْ يُصْلِحَ بِهِ بَيْنَ فِئَتَيْنِ عَظِيمَتَيْنِ مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ»
“This son of mine is a leader, and perhaps Allah will bring reconciliation between two large groups of Muslims through him.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari)
And indeed, that is what happened in 41 AH, known as the Year of Unity (عام الجماعة). Al-Hasan told Mu‘awiyah that he would give bay‘ah under certain conditions:
- That leadership would remain with Mu‘awiyah for as long as he lived.
- After his death, leadership should return to consultation (shura) and be decided by the Ummah.
- The lives and safety of the people must be protected.
Mu‘awiyah accepted these terms. He publicly declared that Al-Hasan had given up leadership for the sake of unity, and he acknowledged that Al-Hasan was worthier of leadership than himself.
The rise of Yazid
From 41 AH until around 56 AH, Mu‘awiyah ruled. But when he began to fall ill, he broke the agreement by preparing to appoint his son Yazid as his successor, turning the leadership into a hereditary monarchy rather than a consultative caliphate.
By this time, Al-Hasan had passed away. Most narrations suggest he was poisoned, and it is likely that these are authentic. It’s unclear exactly who was responsible, but what is clear is that he was targeted by those who hated righteousness. He was deeply pious, gentle, and knowledgeable. The Prophet ﷺ had praised both brothers, saying:
الحسن والحسين سيدا شباب أهل الجنة
“Al-Hasan and Al-Husayn are the leaders of the youth of Paradise.”
(Sunan al-Tirmidh)
After Al-Hasan’s death, Mu‘awiyah continued preparing the ground for Yazid’s rule until his own death in 60 AH. Before his passing, he had already taken bay‘ah for Yazid during his lifetime.
The appointment of Yazid
Mu‘awiyah began preparing the ground for his son Yazid to succeed him as Khalifah. This decision went against the conditions he had agreed upon with Al-Hasan (may Allah be pleased with him), which included that leadership after Mu‘awiyah’s death would return to consultation (shūrā) and not be inherited.
Some may argue that Mu‘awiyah’s reasoning was based on his fear that, if no successor was named, the Ummah would descend into further division and conflict. Perhaps he believed it was safer to ensure stability by appointing a clear leader, even if it meant overriding the earlier agreement.
Although Mu‘awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) is often vilified in history, sometimes portrayed as ruthless or power-hungry, it’s important to note that he was also trusted by the Prophet ﷺ. He was one of the scribes who wrote down the revelation of the Qur’an. The Prophet ﷺ would only entrust that responsibility to someone he trusted.
The Prophet ﷺ had approximately sixty scribes who recorded the Qur’an as it was revealed, and Mu‘awiyah was among them. This indicates a level of trust and responsibility given to him in the time of the Prophet ﷺ.
So while Mu‘awiyah’s political decisions may be criticised, and indeed, some Sunni scholars themselves expressed disapproval, it is unfair to disregard his entire legacy. His intention, Allah knows best, may have been to preserve unity and prevent the fitnah (tribulation) that had already caused much bloodshed in the Ummah.
Refusal of bay‘ah to Yazid
When Mu‘awiyah passed away in 60 AH, Yazid had already been appointed and publicly recognised as Khalifah. However, his leadership was not accepted by many prominent companions and righteous figures. This was not merely due to his young age or inexperience, but because of serious concerns about his character, his religiosity, and his suitability to lead the Muslim Ummah.
Many refused to give bay‘ah to Yazid. Among them were:
- Abdullah ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), who was no longer a young man by then and had deep understanding of the religion.
- Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr
- Al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali
- ‘Abdur-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr (the son of Abu Bakr)
They viewed Yazid as unfit to lead. Mu‘awiyah had, however, used political pressure and state influence to secure bay‘ah for Yazid during his lifetime from some individuals. When he died, Yazid was already seen by many as the official Caliph, but not by those who prioritised Islamic principles of justice and merit.
The call from Iraq
Al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) was seen by many as the most worthy person to be Khalifah. His lineage, character, knowledge, and piety made him the ideal candidate in the eyes of many Muslims, especially those in Iraq. Historically, Iraq had supported ‘Ali, then Al-Hasan, and now they turned to Al-Husayn.
At the time, Al-Husayn was living in Madinah. The people of Iraq, unhappy with Yazid’s appointment, began writing to him. Since there were no modern means of communication, they sent letters and messengers pledging their loyalty and support.
According to narrations, Al-Husayn received around twelve thousand letters urging him to come to Kufa. They told him, “We are with you. Come to us, and we will support you against Yazid. You are more worthy of leadership than him.”
To fill in the context: during Al-Hasan’s time, there had been two simultaneous bay‘ahs, one in Iraq for Al-Hasan and one in Sham for Mu‘awiyah. The division in the Ummah remained unresolved.
The year of unity and the call to Al-Husayn
At the time of Al-Hasan (may Allah be pleased with him), there was serious tension: both sides were saying, “I’ve been appointed,” and “I’ve been given bay‘ah.” Al-Hasan understood this would lead to bloodshed and widespread conflict. To prevent a massacre in the Ummah, he relinquished his right to leadership in order to unite the Muslims. The year in which this occurred, 41 AH, is known by scholars and historians as ‘Ām al-Jamā‘ah (the Year of Unity), fulfilling the prophecy of the Prophet ﷺ that Al-Hasan would reconcile two great factions of the Ummah.
Returning to the story of Al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him): after Yazid’s appointment as Caliph, the people of Iraq, particularly those in Kufa, wrote to Al-Husayn, calling him to lead them. They claimed to be ready, well-armed, and loyal. It is said that Al-Husayn received over 12,000 letters, all pledging their allegiance and urging him to come.
Before leaving Madinah, Al-Husayn consulted many of the senior companions of the Prophet ﷺ. Nearly all of them advised him not to go. They reminded him that the people of Iraq had betrayed his father ‘Ali and his brother Al-Hasan. “Do not trust them,” they warned.
Despite this sincere advice, Al-Husayn felt morally compelled to respond to what appeared to be a strong and unified call for justice. So he made the decision to go, taking around 70 members of his family and companions, including women and children, with him.
The mission of Muslim ibn ‘Aqīl
To verify the sincerity of the people of Kufa, Al-Husayn sent his cousin, Muslim ibn ‘Aqīl, ahead of him. He instructed him to assess whether the people truly supported him and whether they had the strength and organisation to stand against Yazid.
When Muslim ibn ‘Aqīl arrived in Kufa, the people initially received him warmly and pledged allegiance to Al-Husayn. Thousands are reported to have given bay‘ah. However, the local governor, ‘Ubaydullāh ibn Ziyād, became aware of this growing support for Al-Husayn. Determined to crush the movement, he ordered Muslim ibn ‘Aqīl to be captured and executed. According to Imam al-Ṭabarī in his Tārīkh, Muslim ibn ‘Aqīl was killed, and his supporters were scattered before Al-Husayn even arrived in Kufa.
Al-Husayn’s journey and the encirclement at Karbala
In the year 61 AH, unaware of Muslim ibn ‘Aqīl’s death and the collapse of support in Kufa, Al-Husayn continued his journey with his family and followers. Many companions had pleaded with him not to go, but Al-Husayn was firm in his intention: he would not accept the leadership of Yazid, whom he regarded as unjust and unfit to rule the Ummah.
He saw the appointment of Yazid as a violation of Islamic principles. Leadership, in his view, had been hijacked. Al-Husayn felt that to remain silent would be to legitimise injustice. His mission was not personal power, but to stand for truth, even if it cost him his life. This is why he remains a powerful symbol of justice in Islamic history.
On the way to Kufa, Al-Husayn’s group was intercepted by the army of Yazid, led by ‘Umar ibn Sa‘d. This army numbered around 4,000 men. Al-Husayn and his small band were surrounded in the plains of Karbala. A negotiation took place.
Al-Husayn proposed three peaceful options:
- Let us return to Madinah, and we will not cause any conflict.
- Allow us to go to the frontlines, where we can serve the Ummah by fighting its external enemies.
- Permit me to go directly to Yazid in Sham, so we may speak face to face and reach a just agreement.
All three options were rejected. The only demand they insisted upon was unconditional surrender, Al-Husayn would be taken as a captive. He refused.
The martyrdom of Al-Husayn
Negotiations with the army failed. The commanders refused all three of Al-Husayn’s peaceful suggestions. Among Yazid’s forces were indeed vicious individuals who ultimately committed a grave atrocity against the grandson of the Prophet ﷺ.
Al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) stood his ground. He refused to surrender, determined to uphold truth, dignity, and justice for his family and the Ummah. The battle took place on the 10th of Muharram, in the year 61 AH, in Karbala, Iraq.
Seventy members of Al-Husayn’s family and companions faced an army of 4,000. It was clear they could not win, but Al-Husayn refused to back down. He was the grandson of the Prophet ﷺ, the beloved of the Ummah, a man of honour and courage. Yet the opposing army did not recognise his sacred status. He was brutally killed, along with nearly all of his male family members.
He fought bravely, but in the end, they martyred him. According to narrations, his head was severed and taken to Yazid in Damascus. Such was the brutality of those who carried out the killing.
The 10th of Muharram, known as ‘Ashura, has since become a powerful symbol of standing against oppression and injustice. It marks one of the darkest days in Islamic history.
Was Yazid responsible?
There are no authentic narrations proving that Yazid directly ordered the killing of Al-Husayn. That does not excuse the crime, which was clearly ḥarām, but it’s important to clarify that Yazid requested Al-Husayn be brought to him and made to give bay‘ah. The interpretation of this command by his army, or their personal wickedness, led to this massacre.
However, it is widely acknowledged by scholars that Yazid failed to punish the known perpetrators of the massacre, such as ʿUbaydullāh ibn Ziyād and Shimr ibn Dhī al-Jawshan. This inaction led many scholars and historians to hold Yazid morally and politically responsible, even if he did not explicitly give the command.
The Ummah of Muhammad ﷺ universally respects the Prophet’s family. We love them, honour them, and make du‘ā for them. We ask Allah to gather us with them in the hereafter. However, Islam does not allow for excessive expressions of grief that involve physical harm or unlawful rituals.
Self-flagellation, cutting the body, and wailing are all forms of mourning rooted in Jāhiliyyah (pre-Islamic ignorance) and are forbidden in Islam. Though we mourn the injustice done to Al-Husayn, we do so within the boundaries of the Shari‘ah.
The Prophet ﷺ said:
لَيْسَ مِنَّا مَنْ ضَرَبَ الْخُدُودَ، وَشَقَّ الْجُيُوبَ، وَدَعَا بِدَعْوَى الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ
“He is not one of us who strikes the cheeks, tears the clothes, and calls with the calls of the pre-Islamic era.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim)
A lasting impact
The events of Karbala have left a permanent scar on the history of the Ummah. Al-Husayn’s martyrdom still moves hearts to this day. But we must also understand that after the death of the Prophet ﷺ, no one, no matter how noble, is more important than the Prophet ﷺ himself. And we do not commemorate even his death with rituals outside the Sunnah, let alone others.
So, we honour Al-Husayn, we mourn the injustice done to him, and we reflect on the lessons of courage, justice, and sacrifice that he embodied. But we do not engage in actions prohibited by Islam.
This is a brief overview of what occurred after the death of ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him): the appointment of Al-Hasan, his relinquishing of power to Mu‘awiyah, the breaking of the agreement through the appointment of Yazid, and the tragic events of Karbala.
It was after this point that leadership in the Ummah shifted from a rightly guided system to one resembling kingship, passed down by inheritance rather than through shūrā.
The Prophet ﷺ had prophesied this:
الْخِلَافَةُ بَعْدِي ثَلَاثُونَ سَنَةً، ثُمَّ تَكُونُ مُلْكًا
“The Caliphate after me will last for thirty years, then there will be kingship.”
(Sunan Abi Dawud)
If you count from the beginning of Abu Bakr’s caliphate to the relinquishing of Al-Hasan’s, it totals exactly thirty years, fulfilling the Prophet’s prophecy.
From caliphate to kingship
As the Prophet ﷺ foretold, the rightly guided caliphate would last for 30 years before it would turn into kingship (mulk), passed through inheritance rather than chosen by consultation:
After those thirty years, Mu‘awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) became the first of the Umayyad rulers, followed by his son Yazid, formalising a hereditary rule that would continue throughout the Umayyad and then the Abbasid periods. This was the turning point at which political leadership in the Ummah shifted from shūrā to dynastic succession.
To understand the events that culminated in the tragedy of Karbala, it is essential to examine the political landscape of the early Islamic period, particularly the rise of Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān and the establishment of the Umayyad dynasty.
During the caliphate of ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (may Allah be pleased with him), Muʿāwiyah was appointed as governor of al-Shām (Greater Syria). He remained in this post through the caliphates of both ʿUmar and ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān. It was in the period following ʿUthmān’s assassination in 656 CE that Muʿāwiyah’s role became more politically charged.
During the Caliphate of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (656–661 CE)
After the killing of Caliph ʿUthmān, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (may Allah be pleased with him) was appointed as the new caliph. However, Muʿāwiyah, then still governor of Syria and a relative of ʿUthmān, refused to pledge allegiance (bayʿah) to ʿAlī until those responsible for ʿUthmān’s murder were brought to justice.
Battle of Siffin
This led to the Battle of Ṣiffīn in 657 CE, a major confrontation between the forces of ʿAlī and Muʿāwiyah. The battle ended in a stalemate, and arbitration was agreed upon. However, the arbitration process itself caused further division among Muslims. A group from ʿAlī’s own ranks broke away, rejecting both sides and forming the Khawārij, an extremist sect that would later assassinate ʿAlī in 661 CE.
After the Death of ʿAlī
Following ʿAlī’s assassination, his eldest son al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī briefly became caliph. However, recognising the exhaustion of the Muslim community and the threat of further bloodshed, al-Ḥasan chose to abdicate and make peace with Muʿāwiyah. This reconciliation brought an end to years of civil strife and is known in Islamic history as ʿĀm al-Jamāʿah (the Year of Unity).
Muʿāwiyah thus became the undisputed caliph, and his rule marked the beginning of the Umayyad Caliphate, with its capital established in Damascus. Under his leadership, the Muslim world experienced a degree of political stability, but the precedent he set, especially by nominating his son Yazid as successor, marked a shift from the earlier tradition of selecting caliphs through shūrā (consultation) to a hereditary system.
Mu‘awiyah began taking bay‘ah for Yazid around four years before his death. After Mu‘awiyah’s passing, Yazid became the ruler. Al-Husayn refused to give him bay‘ah, citing Yazid’s lack of qualification, poor character, and unsuitability as a leader.
Despite initial enthusiasm from the people of Kufa, who had sent over 12,000 letters pledging allegiance, it became clear that their support was hollow. The moment things became dangerous, they abandoned Al-Husayn. Many companions had warned him, advising him not to travel to Kufa, or at the very least, to leave his family behind and investigate the people’s sincerity first.
A dream and a destiny
Some narrations mention that Al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him), while fasting during the sacred month of Muharram, saw a dream that he would break his fast with his grandfather, the Prophet ﷺ. This vision perhaps affirmed to him that his martyrdom was near and accepted by Allah.
And indeed, he was martyred. May Allah curse those who killed him. They will be held accountable for this crime, and Allah will punish them severely for shedding the blood of the beloved grandson of the Prophet ﷺ. As some narrations suggest, Al-Husayn did break his fast, just as he saw in his dream, with the Prophet ﷺ in the next life.
Our response to Karbala
The martyrdom of Al-Husayn is deeply painful for every believer. But our response must remain rooted in the teachings of the Prophet ﷺ. Islam does not permit mourning practices such as self-flagellation, tearing of clothes, or wailing.
These are considered blameworthy innovations (bid‘ah madhmumah) and carry roots in Jāhiliyyah, the pre-Islamic practices the Prophet ﷺ strictly forbade. He said:
لَيْسَ مِنَّا مَنْ ضَرَبَ الْخُدُودَ، وَشَقَّ الْجُيُوبَ، وَدَعَا بِدَعْوَى الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ
“He is not one of us who strikes the cheeks, tears the clothes, and calls with the calls of the pre-Islamic era.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim)
Sadly, such practices are still carried out today by some in various parts of the world, including even the streets of London. But this behaviour is not sanctioned by the Qur’an or Sunnah.
We do not commemorate the Prophet’s death in such ways, so why should we do so for anyone else, no matter how honoured? Al-Husayn, Al-Hasan, and the family of the Prophet ﷺ deserve our love and our du‘ā’, but not rituals rooted in misguidance.
Reflection
If Al-Husayn is remembered for his bravery, it is worth recalling that his father, ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), was also brave. So were Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman, each of them stood firmly for truth and justice. Many of them died as martyrs. Yet we do not respond to their deaths with prohibited acts of mourning.
This does not mean we are not saddened by what happened at Karbala. We are. But we remain guided by the Sunnah in how we express our grief. The greatest tragedy in our Ummah was the death of the Prophet ﷺ himself, and even then we were not permitted to transgress the limits of Islamic mourning.
Understanding Mu‘āwiyah’s legacy
It’s common to hear people criticise Mu‘āwiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) and paint him in a negative light, often based on biased or incomplete readings of history. Some even go as far as to curse him, which is clearly impermissible.
The balanced and scholarly approach is to acknowledge that Mu‘āwiyah was not infallible. He made mistakes, as all human beings do. But he was a companion of the Prophet ﷺ, a scribe of revelation, and someone trusted with responsibilities in the Prophet’s lifetime. Therefore, he is not to be vilified, nor declared evil or corrupt, as some groups have done.
Yes, Mu‘āwiyah did prepare the ground for his son Yazid to succeed him, and that move was highly controversial. But we must consider his reasoning: he feared that if he left the caliphate undecided, the Ummah would once again descend into chaos and civil war. In his own ijtihād (judgement), he believed that a smooth succession would preserve unity. If we believe that was not the right decision, we have to assess it as an error of judgement, not a sign of malice.
Why did fitnah begin so early?
The question naturally arises: why did Muslims begin fighting one another so soon after the Prophet’s death?
The Prophet ﷺ prophesied this in clear terms:
وَسَتَكُونُ فِتْنَةٌ كَقِطَعِ اللَّيْلِ الْمُظْلِمِ
“There will be tribulations like stretches of a dark night. The narrator said: “We said to Masrūq, ‘Did ʿUmar know what the door was?’
He said: ‘Yes, just as one knows that night comes before tomorrow. I narrated a true report to him.’
We feared to ask Ḥudhayfah, but Masrūq told us to, so we asked.
Ḥudhayfah said: ‘The door was ʿUmar.’””
(Tirmidhi)
When asked when this would begin, he ﷺ said it would start after the death of ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (may Allah be pleased with him). And indeed, the seeds of discord began shortly after, with tension, misunderstandings, and power struggles following his assassination.
These fitan, tests and tribulations, have continued in waves throughout the Ummah’s history. And the test of our time is different: we are called to unite, to overcome our differences with knowledge, sincerity, and the spirit of brotherhood.
What about theological differences?
Theological differences developed between Sunni and Shia Muslims after the events of Karbala and beyond. These differences grew over time and were influenced not just by the events of Karbala but also by political, social, and scholarly developments in the centuries that followed. However, it’s important to understand that many of the extreme positions found in later sects were not present in the earliest generations.
For example, the belief among some Shia groups that the Twelve Imams possess divine-like qualities or infallibility (‘ismah) did not exist during the early centuries of Islam. These beliefs were developed and formalised around the third century AH (after 300 AH), much later than the events of Karbala. Until then, theological differences were still fluid and evolving.
The central early dispute was not about divinity, but about who had the right to succeed the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. While Sunnis believe the Prophet ﷺ left the matter to the Ummah through consultation (shūrā), others believed it was divinely designated to the family of the Prophet ﷺ.
Despite these disagreements, it is vital to remember the broader goal: preserving the unity of the Ummah and minimising division.
The foundational elements of the Imamate theory, based on divine designation (naṣṣ) and infallibility (ʿiṣmah), were laid down by early Imāmī Shīʿī theologians of the 2nd and 3rd Islamic centuries, such as Hishām ibn al-Ḥakam, who was among the earliest and strongest defenders of the rational necessity of the Imām, al-Faḍl ibn Shādhān, who articulated key attributes of the Imām, and al-Nawbakhtī, who wrote about Shīʿī sects and helped define core Imāmī concepts. However, their contributions remained somewhat fragmented and lacked full systematisation.
Shaykh al-Mufīd was one of the most prominent Shīʿī scholars of the 4th century AH. He combined legal, theological, and historical expertise and authored key works such as Awāʾil al-Maqālāt, al-Irshād, and al-Nukat fī al-Imāmah. In these texts, he argued that Imamate is a core pillar of religion, asserted that the Imām is divinely appointed by Allah, through the Prophet and then by each preceding Imām, and provided rational arguments for the necessity of a divinely guided and infallible leader in every era. He also defended the belief in the Hidden Imām, Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī, during the period of the Greater Occultation.
Shaykh al-Mufīd (d. 413 AH / 1022 CE) was not the first to formulate the theory of Imamate, but he was among the earliest scholars to systematically develop and articulate it in a philosophical and theological framework, that had not appeared in such a detailed and methodical form before him.
Later scholars such as al-Ṭūsī and al-Murtaḍā expanded and refined the framework laid by al-Mufīd, shaping what became known as the Najaf school. Earlier figures like Hishām ibn al-Ḥakam and al-Nawbakhtī helped lay the groundwork for this systematisation, while al-Mufīd was the first to present a fully developed theological structure.
Key references for this development include Awāʾil al-Maqālāt and al-Nukat fī al-Imāmah by Shaykh al-Mufīd, Firaq al-Shīʿah by al-Nawbakhtī, al-Iqtiṣād fī al-Iʿtiqād by al-Ṭūsī, and al-Milal wa al-Niḥal by al-Shahrastānī.
With regard to the burial of Imām al-Ḥusayn, it is agreed upon by scholars and historians that his body was buried in Karbala, at the site where he was martyred in 61 AH (680 CE). After his martyrdom, the tribe of Banū Asad buried his body under the supervision of his son, ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn (Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn), at the very battlefield. That burial site later became known as the sanctuary of Imām al-Ḥusayn in Karbala, a major site of visitation for Muslims, especially the Shīʿah.
As for the location of his blessed head, there has been much historical disagreement. The most famous Shīʿī opinion is that the head was returned and buried with the body in Karbala. They cite reports that Imām Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn retrieved the head from Yazīd and brought it back to Karbala for burial. A well-known Sunni opinion holds that the head was buried in Damascus, in the Umayyad Mosque, where it is believed by some to rest in the eastern wing. Some narrations suggest the head was moved from Asqalān to Cairo, and a shrine known as Mashhad Raʾs al-Ḥusayn stands in the Ḥusayn district of Cairo.
The origin of the shrine in Egypt is widely connected to the narrative that the Crusaders attacked Asqalān, where the head was believed to be buried. In response, the Fāṭimids are said to have secretly transferred the head to Cairo in the year 548 AH / 1153 CE. They then built a mausoleum which became known as al-Ḥusayn Mosque. This narrative is supported by some Fāṭimid historians and scholars associated with al-Azhar.
Working toward unity
While theological differences between Sunni and Shia Muslims remain, political unity and cooperation are possible and even necessary. As was pointed out in the discussion, we have far more in common with each other than with those who deny the foundations of Islam altogether, such as atheists or disbelievers.
Both Sunnis and Shias believe in:
- The oneness of Allah
- The prophethood of Muhammad ﷺ
- The Qur’an as the word of Allah
- Prayer, fasting, zakah, and Hajj
Let us build on these commonalities and form alliances where needed, especially when facing common threats to the Muslim Ummah, such as the oppression of Muslims in places like Palestine.
إِنَّ هَـٰذِهِۦۤ أُمَّتُكُمۡ أُمَّةࣰ وَ ٰحِدَةࣰ وَأَنَا۠ رَبُّكُمۡ فَٱعۡبُدُونِ
“Indeed this, your Ummah, is one Ummah, and I am your Lord, so worship Me.”
(Surah Al-Anbiya 21:92)
Historical narrations and authenticity
Some narrations, particularly those found in al-Ṭabarī’s Tārīkh and in various Shīʿī and Sunni sources, claim that al-Ḥusayn’s head was brought to Yazid in Damascus. According to these reports, Yazid is said to have poked the head with a stick and recited lines referring to the Battle of Badr, allegedly saying, “A day for a day of Badr.”
However, these accounts are disputed and not reliably authenticated. Some have weak or broken chains of narration. Others appear to be influenced by political or sectarian bias. By contrast, alternative narrations suggest that Yazid wept upon seeing the head and expressed remorse, reportedly saying, “By Allah, had I been present, I would not have killed him.”
Scholarly judgement on Yazid varies among the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah. The mainstream Sunni position can be summarised as follows:
- Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Dhahabī, and Ibn Kathīr held that Yazid did not order the killing of al-Ḥusayn, but he was blameworthy for failing to hold the perpetrators accountable.
- He is not regarded as a righteous leader, nor was he among the companions.
- These scholars maintained that he should neither be loved nor cursed, and that his case is to be left to Allah.
Ibn Taymiyyah wrote:
“Nothing that requires cursing was definitively proven to have come from him. He was not among the righteous leaders, nor among the companions, and many of the things said about him are false or exaggerated.”
(Minhāj al-Sunnah)
Other scholars, however, took a sterner view. One narration from Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, transmitted by his son ʿAbdullāh, permits cursing Yazid. Ibn al-Jawzī went further and authored a work titled Refutation of the Stubborn Fanatic who Prevents the Cursing of Yazid.
Accusations against Yazid in historical records include drinking wine, associating with singers and entertainers, and behaving in ways considered inappropriate for a leader of the Muslim community.
These claims appear in historical sources such as Tārīkh al-Ṭabarī, Al-Kāmil fī al-Tārīkh by Ibn al-Athīr, and Murūj al-Dhahab by al-Masʿūdī, who was known to have Shīʿī inclinations.
Despite their presence in historical works, many of these reports are considered weak or disconnected by hadith scholars. In addition, they often originate from political opponents of the Umayyad dynasty, which further calls their reliability into question.
As scholars have clarified, there are no rigorously authentic narrations confirming that Yazid personally mocked Al-Husayn’s head. That does not mean Yazid is absolved from all wrongdoing, but we must avoid repeating unverified or fabricated accounts, even when the person in question is widely disliked.
As Muslims, we are bound by the Prophet’s instruction:
كَفَى بِالْمَرْءِ كَذِبًا أَنْ يُحَدِّثَ بِكُلِّ مَا سَمِعَ
“It is enough of a lie for a man to narrate everything he hears.”
(Sahih Muslim)
The question of Yazid’s role in the martyrdom of al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī (may Allah be pleased with him) has remained one of the most sensitive and debated topics in Islamic history.
The date of martyrdom
It’s important to note that there are no primary or contemporary Sunni or Shia sources from the time of Imam Husayn’s martyrdom in 61 AH (680 CE) that definitively establish the 10th of Muharram as the date of his death. The first known attribution of this specific date appears in the works of Muhammad ibn Umar al-Waqidi (d. 207 AH), who lived nearly 150 years after the tragedy. However, al-Waqidi’s credibility has been widely challenged by hadith scholars—Imam Ahmad and Ibn Hibban, for instance, categorised him as untrustworthy, with some even labelling him a fabricator. Notably, al-Waqidi himself offers inconsistent reports regarding the date.
The annual rituals of public mourning on Ashura, as observed today, did not begin until much later, specifically during the Buyid period in 352 AH (963 CE), nearly three centuries after Karbala. These commemorations were subsequently expanded and formalised under later Shi’a-led states, most notably the Safavid dynasty. Historical analysis suggests that the association of Ashura with mourning may have developed, at least in part, as a response to Sunni practices that honoured Ashura for other reasons.
As historian Wilferd Madelung observes, there is minimal credible evidence that the exact day of Ashura was immediately remembered or commemorated following the tragedy. The connection between Karbala and Ashura appears to have become firmly established only later, likely influenced by Kufan Shi’i circles who framed the 10th of Muharram as a day marked by suffering and trial.
Prophetic Insight into the Era of Fitnah
The turbulence that unfolded after the assassination of ʿUthmān (may Allah be pleased with him), including the events of Karbala, was foretold by the Prophet ﷺ.
As mentioned earlier, Ḥudhayfah ibn al-Yamān, who said, “There will be tribulations like stretches of a dark night.” In other hadiths, he explained that these waves of fitnah would begin after the martyrdom of ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, (may Allah be pleased with him) who was described as a closed door between the Ummah and the coming chaos. The door was Umar bin Khattab, and opened with the assassination of ‘Umar. It predicted the wave of unrest that followed ʿUmar’s death, including the assassination of ʿUthmān, the Battle of the Camel, the Battle of Ṣiffīn, the emergence of the Khawārij, and ultimately, the tragedy of Karbala.
The location of Al-Husayn’s head
A recurring question is the whereabouts of Al-Husayn’s head. Some claim it was buried in Syria; others say it was taken to Egypt, where a shrine known as Sayyidna al-Ḥusayn Mosque stands in Cairo.
However, according to the most reliable Sunni reports, his head was eventually reunited with his body, and he was buried in Karbala, Iraq. This is the view held by most scholars. While various shrines exist in his name, there is no authentic evidence that the head remains in Egypt or Syria. These shrines often arose as symbolic memorials, rather than genuine graves.
As with many early historical details, only Allah knows with certainty where the grave lies, but the majority opinion supports Karbala as the site of his burial.
The story of Karbala continues to move hearts across centuries. While history continues to debate Yazid’s personal guilt, what is clear is that the Ummah suffered a great loss at Karbala. Al-Ḥusayn stood for truth, dignity, and justice, and his martyrdom remains a symbol of resistance against tyranny. We should honour the legacy of the Prophet’s family, not by expressing grief in a manner that the Prophet ﷺ warned us not to.
We must strive for unity. While there are different schools of thought within Islam, four well-established schools in Sunni tradition and four in the Shia tradition, our diversity in jurisprudence should not lead to division in our hearts. What we need is political unity and a collective commitment to preserving the strength and dignity of the Muslim ummah. We must minimise anything that fuels hatred or deepens divisions among us.
Let us focus instead on what unites us: our shared belief in Allah, our love for the Prophet ﷺ, and our duty to uphold the trust (amānah) he delivered. By returning to his teachings and example, we can work together for the betterment of the entire ummah.
Based on the talk delivered by Shaykh Haytham Tamim to the Convert Club at 1st July 2025