Shafaqna English- “Reflections on the Ashura movement” is a book written by “Rasul Jafarian” in Persian, published by Ansarian Publication. Shafaqna English has translated some sections of this book.
How the Umayyads Misled the General Public
A. Claiming Umayyad Descent from the Prophet (PBUH)
In Sham, the Umayyads were seen as relatives of the Prophet (PBUH). Muawiyah himself would tell people: “We are the tree of the Messenger of God.” They also portrayed themselves as the rightful avengers of Uthman’s blood. In Yazid’s first address, he wore Uthman’s bloodied shirt and appeared with Muawiyah’s turban, sword, and ring. He said: “We are the people of truth and the defenders of religion.”
Even after the fall of the Umayyads, when the Abbasids took over, 40 elders of Sham swore before Abul-‘Abbas Al-Saffah that they had known no relatives of the Prophet (PBUH) other than the Umayyads.
B. Fabricating Virtues for Muawiyah
Some fabricated virtues for Muawiyah, such as calling him “the uncle of the believers” and “scribe of revelation.” Over time, the reverence established for the companions also came to include him, which made later Sunni scholars overlook his well-known faults and discouraged criticism of him from other Islamic denominations.
C. Fabricated Hadiths Against Imam Ali (AS) and His Family
Hadiths were fabricated to criticize Imam Ali (AS) and his followers. Some of the Companions aligned with Muawiyah even supported this effort. Umayyad governors in Madinah would fabricate lies and insult Imam Ali (AS) publicly — even in front of Imam Hussain (AS). This happened several times and provoked Hussain’s (AS)anger. Marwan ibn Hakam, for instance, insulted both Imam Hussain (AS) and his mother Fatimah Al-Zahra (SA) in public.
D. Misusing Ambiguous Political Concepts to Manipulate the Masses
One tactic the Umayyads used was exploiting ambiguous political language to pacify and control people. One such concept was “Al-jama‘a” (the unity of the Muslim community). On the night when pledges of allegiance were being sought from Imam Hussain (AS) and Ibn Zubayr, Ibn Umar told them: “Fear God and do not divide the Muslim community.” Ibn Umar believed that allegiance was only valid when there was unity. The Umayyads emphasized this idea even more than he did.
Another concept they used was “breaking allegiance”. Astonishingly, they would force people to pledge allegiance by coercion — and then punish them if they “broke” it. For instance, Muawiyah said to A’isha: “I have taken the allegiance of all Muslims for my son Yazid. Would you have me now break a pledge that is already confirmed and established? Would you have the people break their oaths?” A’isha replied: “I do not believe in that, but I advise you to act with kindness and patience toward the people.”
Muawiyah’s Indoctrination of the People of Sham (Greater Syria)
Muawiyah had taught the people of Sham to view the caliphate as “Khilāfatu-Allah” — the Divine Caliphate. Thus, when Yazid praised his father during his first public speech, someone from the crowd shouted, “You’re lying!” and then disappeared into the crowd so quickly that Yazid’s guards could not find him.
To console Yazid, one of his supporters said: “Do not worry. You have been granted the Divine Caliphate after your father. You are our caliph — the Caliph of God.”
Use of Politico-Religious Terms Like “Fitna” (Sedition)
The term Fitna/Fitnah was frequently used to delegitimize dissent. Ibn Umar used it to describe opponents of forced allegiance. He referred to any kind of resistance or confrontation as “sedition.”
Some members of the Banu Adi Tribe (from which Umar himself descended) once asked Abdullah ibn Umar to intervene for the release of Abdullah ibn Muti‘ Al-‘Adawi. Ibn Umar replied: “Do not rush into Fitna, and do not hasten toward it.”
Marwan ibn Hakam, during Muawiyah’s lifetime, received a letter from him saying: “Indeed, I am not at ease with the thought that Hussain might be lying in wait for a Fitna.”
Imam Hussain (AS), in his famous letter to Muawiyah, replied: “I know of no greater Fitna than your rule over this nation.” Later, at the time of Muawiyah’s death, Dhahhak ibn Qays — a close associate of his who was eventually killed by the Marwanids — declared: “God removed Fitna through Muawiyah and revived the Sunnah through him!”
E. Use of Tribal Systems and Buying Off Tribal Chiefs
The Umayyads took advantage of the tribal system by purchasing the loyalty of tribal leaders in Iraq and aristocrats, who held great sway over the masses. The tribal structure was such that all members followed their chief’s word without question.
How Religious Distortion Emerged During This Period
A major crisis during the first five decades of Islam was the absence of true religious leadership. Once the doctrine of Imamate was side-lined, caliphs came to power who lacked theological understanding. There was no institutional education system to cultivate religious scholars or leaders. Only a few companions of the Prophet (PBUH) were left to guide the people — figures like Aisha or Abu Hurayrah in Madinah, and some others in Kufa.
After the companions passed away, a few Tabi‘un (successors) who had lived near the companions and learned from them took on this role. However, there was no structured training for religious leadership, which resulted in a low level of religious understanding among the general public.
The mere existence of the Quran and its memorization, along with a small number of hadiths, helped somewhat in preserving religion. But in reality, what emerged was intense division and disagreement in thought. When you add forgery, fabrication, and political interference, the extent of damage to religion becomes clear.
Moreover, many Muslims didn’t even know the basic religious laws. This ignorance paved the way for religious distortion.
Types of Religious Distortion in This Era
Before examining the specific types, it is important to remember that, as mentioned, the people’s understanding of religion was very superficial. Among the Bedouins, the situation was clear — they were largely illiterate and uninstructed. But even non-Bedouins received little or no proper religious education. In fact, distortion began not long after the Prophet’s death.
Distortion in Beliefs
In addition to the failure to properly explain the religion, some religious concepts — especially those tied to social or political matters — were distorted or reinterpreted in misleading ways.
For example, belief in God’s role in social change was manipulated: by emphasizing its dual aspects, rulers used it to justify monarchy. The doctrine of Divine Decree and Predestination (Qadā’ wa Qadar) was also employed to impose rulers’ decisions on the people.
Muawiyah saw his own monarchy as divinely ordained and therefore sacred. In 56 AH, when Aisha opposed Yazid’s appointment in Madinah, Muawiyah responded to her: “Yazid’s rule is a decree from among the decrees of God. The servants have no say in God’s decisions.”
Distortion of the Religious Perspective on the Caliphate
The distortion of religion’s view on caliphate was itself based on manipulation. The theory of Imamate and Wilayah (spiritual and political leadership) was first eliminated, and a new form of caliphate was established. It is unclear exactly when the Hadith “The caliphate belongs to Quraysh” was fabricated, but clearly it served to prevent other tribes from claiming leadership.
The so-called “elected” caliph — who in theory was supposed to be chosen by the people — was in fact never elected in such a manner. Yet, he was granted such extensive powers that he could introduce new religious rulings, even ones contrary to what the Prophet (PBUH) himself had declared. Regarding the public treasury (Baytul-Maal), he considered it his personal property. The ethical model of governance also changed: the strict standards upheld by Umar regarding governors were forgotten, and instead, palace-building became widespread.
This transformation of the Caliphate into a monarchy, and its gradual alignment with Roman imperial models, had already begun even before, during the reign of the third caliph, whose court had become increasingly corrupt and lavish.
The Problem of the “Tulaqā” (Freedmen of Mecca)
Fundamentally, the rise to power of the Tulaqā’ (those who were pardoned by the Prophet (PBUH) after the conquest of Makkah) posed a major problem. Imam Hussain (AS) in confronting Marwan ibn Hakam, said: “I heard the Messenger of God say: The caliphate is forbidden to the family of Abu Sufyan and to the Tulaqā’ and the sons of the Tulaqā’. So if you ever see Muawiyah on my pulpit, tear his belly open.”
These individuals had no true concern for religion or its values. Only a small sense of religious awareness remained in Medina — and even that was manipulated by Abdullah ibn Zubayr.
The Rise of Yazid and the Crisis of Leadership
The emergence of someone like Yazid in Muawiyah’s court was not a coincidence or spontaneous accident. Muawiyah’s insistence on Yazid’s succession was not, as he and his supporters claimed, based on a concern for the well-being of Islam or the Muslim community.
It had become clear that the situation had deteriorated to the point where such a move appeared normal, and Muawiyah felt powerful enough to carry it through. Hence, Imam Hussain (AS) declared: “When the nation is afflicted with a leader like Yazid, one must bid farewell to Islam.”
Neglect of Divine Law and Prophetic Tradition
In practice, God’s legal boundaries (Hudud) were being neglected, the Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH) was pushed aside, and innovations (Bid‘ah) replaced it. We know that the substitution of innovation for Sunnah began soon after the Prophet’s (PBUH) passing. Later, Imam Ali (AS) focused much of his critique on this issue as a central sign of societal deviation.
Following him, Imam Hussain (AS) also repeatedly pointed this out. He wrote to the people of Basra: “The Sunnah has been put to death, and innovation has been revived and elevated.” He emphasized this matter on many occasions.
Meanwhile, the spread of corruption was ignored, and gradually the caliph’s residence — which should have been the purest place — became, under various pretences, the most impure. The use of intoxicants (Muskirāt) was justified by arguing that the Quran only prohibits Khamr (wine), not all intoxicants. Unfortunately, this reasoning later found its way into certain Sunni legal schools — even though the Prophet (PBUH) clearly stated: “Every intoxicant is forbidden.”
Prevalence of Corruption in Imam Hussain’s (AS) View
The widespread immorality of this period is mentioned frequently in Imam Hussain’s (AS) speeches. He directly identified Yazid and his court as the source of this corruption. When Marwan summoned him to pledge allegiance to Yazid, Imam Hussain (AS) replied: “How can someone who drinks intoxicants rule over the nation of Muhammad (PBUH)? A drinker of intoxicants is among the corrupt; such a person is one of the wicked. Someone who drinks intoxicants is not trustworthy even with a single dirham — how then can he be trusted with the fate of the entire ummah?”
Conclusion: The Consequences of Corruption in a Religious Society
The presence of such corruption in a society that claims to uphold Shari‘ah undermines the very foundation of religion. A society that proclaims belief in certain values but fails to adhere to them in practice will inevitably become stagnant — unable to rely on its own principles, thoughts, or willpower. This is the fate of a community where religious distortion is allowed to flourish.
Part of the Book Reflection on the Ashura movement by Rasul Jafarian