Imam Husayn ibn Ali (peace be upon them) was brutally massacred along with his family members in Karbala in 61 AH/ 680 CE, exactly fifty years after his grandfather Prophet Muhammad’s death. Though Imam Husayn’s shahadah is memorized yearly in Muharram, nobody tries to go behind the scenes and condemn only the players on the stage, like Yazid–the cursed.
The massacre of Karbala was not only pre-planned but Roman Christians were the masterminds of this plan. Roman Christians accessed Moawiyah ibn Sufyan (May Allah be pleased with them) and surrounded him by acquiring different roles. Serjun ibn Mansoor al-Rumi was a Syrian Christian and a very influential person in Moawiyah’s court.
Imam ibn Kathir noted in al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah:
“Muawiyah appointed the judiciary of al-Sham to Fadala ibn Ubaid, and after him to Abu Idris al-Khawlani. In charge of his police was Qays ibn Hamza, and his secretary and administrator was Serjun ibn Mansur al-Rumi.“
Who was Serjun ibn Mansur al-Rumi?
Serjun ibn Mansur al-Rumi, also known as Sergius the Roman, was a notable figure in the court of Muawiyah ibn Sufyan (May Allah be pleased with them), the first Umayyad caliph. He served as a secretary and advisor, playing a significant role in the administration of the Umayyad Caliphate.
Key Points about Serjun ibn Mansur al-Rumi:
Background and Identity:
- Serjun ibn Mansur al-Rumi was of Christian origin and likely descended from a family with roots in the Byzantine Empire, hence the name “al-Rumi,” which means “the Roman.”
- His Christian background was not uncommon in the early Umayyad administration, where people of various faiths and backgrounds contributed to the governance of the state.
Role in the Umayyad Court:
- As a high-ranking official, Serjun was a secretary (kātib) to Muawiyah (R.A), handling administrative and bureaucratic duties.
- He was involved in the financial administration of the caliphate, overseeing revenue collection and expenditure.
Influence and Contributions:
- Serjun’s expertise and administrative skills were highly valued, and he played a key role in the effective governance of the Umayyad Caliphate.
- His position exemplifies the Umayyad practice of utilizing skilled administrators regardless of their religious affiliations, as long as they demonstrated loyalty and competence.
Legacy:
- Serjun ibn Mansur al-Rumi is also notable for being the father of John of Damascus, a prominent Christian theologian, and one of the most influential figures in early Christian-Muslim relations.
- The legacy of Serjun and his family highlights the multicultural and multi-religious dimensions of the early Islamic empires, where cooperation and coexistence were often pragmatic necessities for effective governance.
Serjun ibn Mansur al-Rumi’s presence in Muawiyah’s court illustrates the diverse administrative practices of the early Umayyad Caliphate and the important contributions of non-Muslim officials in the establishment and maintenance of Islamic governance.
Appointment of Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad
Imam ibn Kathir wrote down in al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah:
So Yazid sent [orders], removing al-Nu’man ibn Bashir (May Allah be pleased with him) from Kufa and adding it to Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad’s jurisdiction along with Basra. This was upon the advice of Sergius, the servant of Yazid ibn Muawiyah, whom Yazid used to consult. Sergius said, “Would you have accepted from Muawiyah what he suggested if he were alive?” Yazid replied, “Yes.” Sergius then said, “Then accept my advice, for there is no one suitable for Kufa except Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad, so appoint him over it.”
Yazid ibn Muawiyah’s plot against Imam Husayn (peace be upon him) can be seen as a multifaceted political strategy to secure his position as the Caliph. Under the influence of his advisor Sergius (also known as Serjun), Yazid took significant steps to undermine Imam Husayn’s support in al-Kufa. The appointment of Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad, a figure known for his ruthless, authoritarian style, and hatred for the Prophet’s family was a key move in this strategy, suggested by Sergius himself. This decision indicates the heavy influence that Sergius, a Roman Christian, had over Yazid’s policies and actions.
By appointing Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad to govern both Basra and Kufa, Yazid aimed to consolidate power and prevent any uprising that might support Imam Husayn (peace be upon him). Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad’s reputation for brutality was likely seen as an effective deterrent against dissent. This action was not merely a local political maneuver but can also be interpreted as part of a larger conspiracy, possibly orchestrated or influenced by Roman interests.
The Romans, through figures like Sergius, might have seen an opportunity to weaken the Muslim state from within by fostering instability and chaos. The removal of al-Nu’man from Kufa and the subsequent appointment of Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad were critical in dismantling the support network that Imam Husayn could have relied upon in Kufa. This destabilization effort could be viewed as a calculated move to create internal divisions and undermine the strength of the Muslim state, ensuring that it remained preoccupied with internal strife rather than external expansion or consolidation.
Furthermore, this conspiracy against Imam Husayn was not just a political ploy but had profound religious and social implications. Imam Husayn’s stand against Yazid was seen as a fight against tyranny and corruption, embodying the principles of justice and righteousness in Islam. By plotting against Imam Husayn, Yazid and his advisors were attempting to suppress a significant and symbolic resistance, further exacerbating the internal conflict.
In summary, Yazid’s conspiracy against Imam Husayn, heavily influenced by Sergius, can be seen as part of a broader effort to secure the Caliphate through ruthless political maneuvering and suppression of dissent. The involvement of Roman interests suggests a deliberate attempt to weaken the Muslim state by promoting instability and internal conflict, thereby preventing the emergence of a unified and powerful Islamic polity.
The historical events suggest that Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad played a pivotal role as a proxy of Roman interests within the Islamic state. His selection by Yazid ibn Muawiyah, influenced by the advice of Sergius, was not a mere coincidence but rather a calculated strategy designed to suppress opposition and solidify Yazid’s power. Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad’s well-documented animosity toward the Prophet’s family highlights the deliberate nature of his appointment.
In Islamic tradition, the love and respect for the Prophet Muhammad and his family (Ahl al-Bayt) are deeply ingrained in the faith of true Muslims. This reverence for the Prophet’s family signifies loyalty to the core values of Islam, including justice, compassion, and righteousness. Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad’s enmity towards the Prophet’s family starkly contrasts with these principles, making his appointment a strategic move to counter any threat from those who revered and supported Imam Husayn.
Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad’s role in the events leading to the Battle of Karbala is a testament to his ruthless and authoritarian nature. His brutal suppression of Imam Husayn and his supporters was a clear indication of his willingness to use extreme measures to maintain Yazid’s authority. This ruthless approach was precisely why Sergius, a Roman advisor, recommended him. The Romans, likely seeking to destabilize the Islamic state, saw in Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad a reliable instrument to further their agenda of causing internal strife and weakening Muslim unity.
The calculated strategy behind Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad’s appointment involved several layers:
- Suppression of Dissent: Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad’s reputation for cruelty served as an effective means to intimidate and silence any opposition to Yazid’s rule. His presence in Kufa ensured that any support for Imam Husayn was swiftly and brutally crushed, preventing the formation of a significant resistance movement.
- Exploitation of Sectarian Divides: By appointing someone who harbored deep-seated animosity towards the Prophet’s family, Yazid and his advisors were able to exploit existing sectarian divides. This move aimed to weaken the cohesion among Muslims and create an environment of distrust and fear.
- Roman Influence: Sergius, representing Roman interests, likely viewed Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad as a pawn to further destabilize the Islamic state. The Romans had a vested interest in preventing the emergence of a powerful and unified Muslim empire that could challenge their dominance. By instigating internal conflict, they could ensure that the Muslim state remained preoccupied with its internal issues.
- Consolidation of Power: For Yazid, consolidating power required eliminating any threats to his rule. Imam Husayn, with his legitimate claim and widespread support, represented a significant challenge. Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad’s appointment was a tactical decision to ensure that this threat was neutralized, thereby securing Yazid’s position as the Caliph.
In conclusion, Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad’s appointment was a meticulously planned strategy that served multiple purposes: suppressing opposition, exploiting sectarian divides, furthering Roman interests, and consolidating Yazid’s power. His actions, driven by hatred for the Prophet’s family, highlight the calculated nature of his selection, underscoring a broader conspiracy to destabilize the Islamic state and prevent the rise of a unified and powerful Muslim polity.
The background of Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad’s mother, Murjanah, being Roman and speaking the Syrian language adds another layer of complexity to the historical narrative of the Karbala massacre. This detail supports the idea that Roman influence played a significant role in the events that led to the tragic confrontation at Karbala, with the Romans orchestrating their plans from behind the scenes.
Roman Influence and the Karbala Massacre
1. Murjanah’s Influence and Cultural Connection
- Cultural Ties: Murjanah’s Roman heritage and her use of the Syrian language suggest that Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad was culturally connected to the Roman world. This connection could have influenced his political affiliations and motivations, making him more amenable to Roman interests.
- Political Maneuvering: The Romans, who had long been engaged in power struggles with various factions within the Islamic state, might have seen in Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad a useful ally due to his mixed heritage. By influencing him through his mother or directly, they could subtly steer the political landscape to their advantage.
2. Strategic Appointment by Yazid
- Sergius’s Role: The advisor Sergius, a Roman by origin, played a crucial role in recommending Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad’s appointment. This move ensured that a person with potential Roman sympathies was placed in a position of power during a critical juncture.
- Proxy Governance: By placing Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad in charge of Kufa and Basra, Yazid effectively ensured that Roman interests were indirectly represented in the governance of these key regions. This proxy governance allowed the Romans to exert influence without direct involvement, maintaining a façade of Muslim internal politics.
3. The Karbala Massacre as a Result of Roman Strategy
- Destabilization Efforts: The Romans had a vested interest in destabilizing the Islamic state to prevent it from becoming a unified and powerful empire. The Karbala massacre, which deepened sectarian divisions and created long-lasting strife, served this purpose well.
- Behind-the-Scenes Orchestration: The fact that the Romans remained behind the scenes while manipulating key figures like Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad indicates a sophisticated level of political strategy. They managed to instigate significant events without direct exposure, thereby protecting their interests and maintaining plausible deniability.
4. Long-Term Impact on Muslim Unity
- Sectarian Divide: The Karbala massacre had a profound impact on the Muslim community, exacerbating sectarian divides between Sunni and Shia Muslims. This division has persisted throughout history, often weakening Muslim unity and making it easier for external powers to influence internal affairs.
- Roman Long-Term Strategy: By ensuring the appointment of individuals like Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad, who had a personal animosity towards the Prophet’s family and potential Roman sympathies, the Romans effectively planted seeds of discord that would have long-lasting consequences.
The involvement of Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad, his Roman mother Murjanah, and the advisor Sergius highlights a complex web of political intrigue that suggests Roman interests played a significant role in the events leading to the Karbala massacre. This historical context provides a deeper understanding of how external powers can manipulate internal affairs to achieve their strategic objectives.
The Roman influence, operating from behind the scenes, underscores the sophisticated nature of their political maneuvering. By exploiting cultural connections, appointing key figures, and orchestrating significant events indirectly, the Romans were able to destabilize the Islamic state and further their own interests. The tragic outcome at Karbala, marked by the martyrdom of Imam Husayn and his supporters, thus becomes a poignant example of how external powers can influence and shape the course of history through calculated and covert strategies.
The Romans Sought Avenge
The Romans, by conspiring against Imam Husayn (peace be upon him), the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) might have sought to avenge the significant losses and setbacks they endured at the hands of Prophet Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) followers during the rapid expansion of the Islamic state. This conspiracy, culminating in the tragic events of Karbala, can be seen as part of a broader Roman strategy to destabilize the Muslim community and exact revenge for their previous defeats.
Historical Context of Roman-Muslim Conflict
1. Early Encounters and Defeats
- Battle of Mu’tah (629 CE): One of the earliest significant military encounters between the Muslims and the Byzantine Empire (Romans). Despite being vastly outnumbered, the Muslim army inflicted substantial casualties on the Byzantines, showcasing their growing military prowess.
- Battle of Tabuk (630 CE): Although this battle did not result in a direct confrontation, the mobilization of a large Muslim army forced the Byzantines to retreat, demonstrating the increasing influence and threat of the Islamic state.
2. Roman Strategic Interests
- Containment of Islamic Expansion: The rapid expansion of the Islamic state posed a significant threat to Byzantine territories and their influence in the region. The loss of key areas and the rising power of the Muslims were direct challenges to Roman authority.
- Revenge and Retribution: The Romans, having suffered military defeats and territorial losses, harbored a desire for revenge. Conspiring against Imam Husayn, a prominent figure in the Muslim community, provided an opportunity to strike at the heart of the Islamic state.
The Role of Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad and Roman Influence
1. Strategic Appointment
- Sergius’s Influence: As a Roman advisor, Sergius played a crucial role in advising Yazid ibn Muawiyah to appoint Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad. This move ensured that someone with potential Roman sympathies and a ruthless disposition was in charge of critical regions.
- Proxy Leadership: Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad’s background, including his Roman mother, Murjanah, and his known animosity towards the Prophet’s family, made him an ideal candidate to further Roman interests by destabilizing the Muslim state from within.
2. Execution of the Conspiracy
- Suppression of Imam Husayn: By appointing Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad to govern Kufa and Basra, the Romans and their proxies aimed to prevent any support for Imam Husayn from gaining momentum. This was a calculated move to eliminate a key figure who could unite Muslims against Yazid’s illegitimate rule.
- Instigation of Internal Conflict: The brutal suppression and eventual martyrdom of Imam Husayn and his followers at Karbala not only removed a significant challenge to Yazid’s rule but also deepened sectarian divides, creating long-term instability within the Muslim community.
Long-Term Implications of the Roman Conspiracy
1. Sectarian Division
- Exacerbation of Sunni-Shia Divide: The events of Karbala intensified the schism between Sunni and Shia Muslims. This division weakened Muslim unity, making it easier for external powers, including the Romans, to exploit internal conflicts.
- Legacy of Martyrdom: The martyrdom of Imam Husayn became a rallying point for Shia Muslims, perpetuating a sense of injustice and opposition to tyrannical rule, which further complicated efforts to achieve a unified Muslim polity.
2. Destabilization of the Islamic State
- Internal Strife: The internal conflicts and power struggles that followed the events of Karbala diverted the Muslim community’s attention from external threats, allowing the Byzantines and other adversaries to regroup and strategize.
- Prevention of Expansion: By fostering instability and division, the Romans aimed to prevent the Islamic State from continuing its rapid expansion, thereby protecting their remaining territories and influence.
Conclusion
The conspiracy against Imam Husayn by the Romans, executed through key figures like Sergius and Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad, can be seen as a strategic move to avenge their previous defeats and prevent further Islamic expansion. By targeting a prominent and revered figure within the Muslim community, the Romans aimed to destabilize the Islamic state, deepen sectarian divides, and protect their interests.
This historical episode underscores the complexities of power dynamics in the early Islamic period and highlights how external powers can manipulate internal conflicts to achieve their strategic objectives. The tragedy of Karbala remains a poignant reminder of the far-reaching consequences of political conspiracies and the enduring impact of sectarian divisions on the Muslim world.
