Two Different Perspectives on the Karbala Incident Towards the Umayyad State: Ibn al-Athīr and Julius Wellhausen

Abstract

The Umayyads, an Arab-Islamic state founded by Muʿāwiyah ibn Abi Sufyan and centered in Damascus, ruled for approximately 90 years and represent a significant period in Islamic history marked by various firsts. At the top of the firsts experienced in this period are, notable events include the capture of the caliphate through armed force, it’s later transformation into a sultanate, extensive exploitation of religion, the pursuit of a policy that marginalized mawali figures and members of the Prophet's family (Ahl al-Bayt), un-Islamic behaviors like alcohol consumption exhibited by some caliphs like Yazīd I, and the occurrence of events like the tragedy of Karbala. This study focuses on how the Karbala incident, which had an enduring impact to the present day, was evaluated by early Islamic historians like Ibn al-Athīr and Orientalist scholars like Wellhausen during the Umayyad period. The aim is to reveal the perception of the Umayyad state of Ibn al-Athīr, one of the Islamic Historians who are accepted as authority over the Karbala event, and Wellhausen, one of the leading Orientalists. Two different sources were used in the context of the literature review method while researching our subject, about which no study has been done. The first of these sources is Ibn al-Athīr's al-Kāmil fī al-tārīkh, and the second is Julius Wellhausen's Arab State and Silence. In the context of our study, the following main points have been identified: Ibn al-Athīr, who had a significant influence on many historians in Islamic history and played a role in the formation of a negative perception of the Umayyads, provides information about the Karbala conflict that indicates a specific policy of the Umayyads towards Karbala and a general opposition towards the Umayyad rule. For example, he provides information about Yazīd I, with a stick in his hand, played with the severed head of Husayn, and the teeth in his mouth. He does not find sincere the Yazīd I's words and stance that he feels sorry for Husayn, who died in Karbala, and that he blames the governor of Kūfah for this massacre. Ibn al-Athīr indirectly explains that the main reason for the Karbala conflict was the power struggle and that the Umayyad administration killed Husayn and his relatives to maintain their power. In short, he shows that he has a negative Umayyad perception of the information and narrations he preferred about the Karbala event and the information he received in his work. The famous orientalist Wellhausen, on the other hand, looks at the Karbala conflict from a political rather than a religious perspective and reveals that he has a different Umayyad perception depending on this point of view. According to him, Karbala was a political struggle between Husayn and the Umayyads. It was natural for one side to be defeated in the political battle. Despite all the warnings, Husayn's march to Kūfah and his attempt to act together with the people of Kūfah was actually an attempt to overthrow the current government. However, the government suppressed this attempt and, in a way, prevented his coup attempt in the form of overthrowing the government. Based on the information Wellhausen relied on, his evaluations based on this information, and his view of Karbala from a political-mental point of view, it can be said that he saw the Karbala event as a political conflict and did not have a negative perception about the Umayyads, who were a part of this regiment.