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.
Impact of the Uprising on the Fall of the Umayyads
The fall of any state typically involves two kinds of contributing factors: immediate causes and long-term causes. Both are significant in their own right. Long-term causes may be separated by a wide temporal gap from the actual moment of collapse, but historical analysis clearly shows their powerful role in undermining a regime.
Immediate causes — such as a widespread revolution or a foreign invasion — only become effective when the foundations of a ruling government have already been weakened. That is, when a state is no longer capable of securing broad popular or national support, it becomes vulnerable. Without such vulnerability, a revolution may not succeed, or a foreign invasion might be repelled by the strength of public backing.
The Umayyad dynasty came to power in 41 AH. The Ashura uprising took place in 61 AH, and the Umayyad state fell in 132 AH, 71 years later. The question, then, is: What impact did the tragedy of Ashura have on the fall of the Umayyads?
It appears that Ashura contributed to the Umayyads’ downfall in two significant ways.
1. Undermining the Religious Legitimacy of the Umayyad State
One major consequence of Ashura was that it called into question the Islamic legitimacy of the Umayyad regime. This is evident in many of the statements of Imam Hussain (AS), especially where he describes Yazid’s personality and character traits.
Imam Hussain’s Uprising and the Fall of the Umayyad State
The Umayyad state, whose foundation was laid through Muawiyah’s deceit and manipulation, made considerable efforts to present itself as Islamic. Even at the height of the moral corruption within the Umayyad administration, there were major mosque-building campaigns. For example, Abdul-Malik, while attacking the Hijaz and empowering Hajjaj ibn Yusuf to suppress the people, was simultaneously constructing the Umayyad Mosque and renovating Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem.
Even under Al-Walid, the Prophet’s (PBUH) Mosque in Madinah was rebuilt and adorned with gold. The Umayyads also pushed forward with military conquests. In fact, the territorial expansion under the Umayyads surpassed that of both the early caliphs and the Abbasids. But the critical question remains: Was this truly Islamic?
The Islam of Ahlul-Bayt (AS) was fundamentally different. The Umayyad “Islam” was a manipulated version. Instead of protecting religious identity, preserving ethical values, nurturing spiritual authenticity, promoting justice, and addressing people’s rights, the Umayyads focused on material gain and empire-building — all the while deceiving people by constructing grand Mosques.
The Quran itself, when comparing providing water to pilgrims with jihad in the path of God, clearly favors the latter. While conquests could be considered a form of Jihad, for the Umayyads, these campaigns were pursued primarily for material profit. The same Umayyads even refused to acknowledge the conversion to Islam of the people of Khurasan — so they could continue to collect Jizyah (tax) from them long after their conversion.
Of course, many Muslim soldiers on the battlefields — like Tariq ibn Ziyad and others — may have truly been Jihad-fi-Sabil-Lallah (in the path of God). But when they realized the true nature of the Umayyad state, the conquests stalled — as seen in Khurasan. In the uprising of Dayr Al-Jamajim, the Iraqi army under Abd-ar-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Ash‘ath, who had been sent to conquer Sistan, turned back due to the oppression of Hajjaj, and instead marched on Iraq to overthrow the Umayyad regime.
(Ref: Tarikh Al-Tabari, Vol. 7, P. 55; Al-Kamil, Vol. 5, P. 148)
2-Reviving Banu Hashim’s Leadership Claim
Another major impact of the Karbala uprising on the collapse of the Umayyad state was its political revitalization of the Banu Hashim, the Prophet’s (PBUH) tribe. Since the Prophet’s (PBUH) demise, two families were prominent contenders for leadership of the Muslim community: Banu Hashim and Banu Umayyah. Due to various reasons, neither took power immediately after the Prophet. Instead, intermediary factions seized political control.
Soon after, during the era of Caliph Uthman and especially after the martyrdom of Imam Ali (AS), the Umayyads rose to dominance. At that point, the only significant opposition to them came from the Banu Hashim, as evident in the brief rule of Imam Ali (AS) and his son Imam Hasan (AS).
The Karbala uprising again highlighted that this alternative leadership still existed. It proved that the opposition to Umayyad rule was alive and determined, and that the Ahlul-Bayt (AS) was ready to establish a Hashemite-Alawite government. This had long-lasting political consequences: It legitimized the claim of the Banu Hashim to rule in later periods.
This was no small matter: at the height of Umayyad repression, Karbala reaffirmed the moral and political vitality of the Prophet’s (PBUH) family. For example, the final years of the Umayyad state witnessed the widespread slogan “Al-Ridha min Ahlul-Bayt (AS)” (We seek the satisfaction of one from the Prophet’s (PBUH) family) — a phrase that defined the essence of anti-Umayyad political resistance.
Ultimately, it was the Banu Hashim who overthrew the Umayyads, and it was the people’s devotion to the Ahlul-Bayt (AS) that brought the Umayyad state to an end.
The Sacred Status of the Ahlul-Bayt (AS)
But where did this sacred status of the Ahlul-Bayt (AS) come from? Where did this political affection for Banu Hashim originate? It seems that one of the pivotal moments in shaping this consciousness was the uprising of Karbala. In that event, a large number of the Prophet’s (PBUH) family — between 16 and 25 individuals — were martyred. How could the people ever forget this tragedy? How could they ignore or be indifferent to the suffering and injustice inflicted upon them?
Of course, we must not assume that Karbala was the sole reason for the Umayyad downfall. But the key point is: when leadership finally shifted to Banu Hashim, part of the foundation for that shift was rooted in the oppression they suffered. It was Karbala that etched their victimhood into the memory and conscience of the Muslim world — and that memory became a force capable of toppling the empire.
Regretfully — and as recorded in the historical chronicles — it was the Abbasid branch of Banu Hashim that seized the opportunity. Exploiting the ambiguity surrounding the identity of Ahlul-Bayt (AS) and the slogan “Al-Ridha min Aal-e-Muhammad” (seeking satisfaction from the Family of Muhammad (PBUH)), they capitalized on the moment. With the help of agents like Abu Muslim Khurasani, they ascended the throne of the caliphate. However, Abu Muslim himself was the first victim of this new regime and received his “reward” very swiftly.
Part of the Book Reflection on the Ashura movement by Rasul Jafarian