Ibn Khaldūn in his entry on the ‘Murder of Husayn bin Alī’

May God be pleased with him, and peace and blessings upon the Prophet and his family!

“When the transgression of Yazīd bin Mu’awīya became apparent to to all the people of their age, a party from ahl al-bayt [the family of the Prophet] from Kufa came to Husayn to stand for this affair. Husayn came to the opinion that he was obligated to rebel (Khurūj) against Yazīd due to his flagrant transgression… and his view that he was capable [of governing] and possessed sufficient material support (Shawka). In terms of capability (ahliyya) he was more than capable. As for material support he was mistaken, may God have Mercy on him… as after the age of Prophethood the natural previous tribal order established itself again as it was before, and returned to the Ummayad household…

So it is established to you the error of Husayn was in [his analysis] of a worldly matter and as such he is not blameworthy. Regarding the judgement of the Sharīah, he was not mistaken in this. This was dependent on his analysis. And he was of the opinion he was in possession of sufficient power (qudra) to do so… Ibn Abbās, Ibn Zubayr, Ibn Umar and Ibn al-Hanafiyya his brother and others realized that he was mistaken…

As for other than Husayn from the Sahāba (companions) who were in the Hijāz, or in Shām with Yazīd, and Irāq and of those who followed them (Tabi’īna lahum), they were of the opinion that rebellion against Yazīd was forbidden even he was a flagrant transgressor, due to what would transpire from it in terms of killing, bloodshed… so they did not follow Husayn, but they did not condemn him for this nor did they declare him sinful. For verily he was a Mujtahid and indeed an example to be followed for the Mujtahidīn. And there is no way for you to mistakenly declare such who differed with Husayn as sinners for their restraint and not supporting Husayn, that was the majority of the Sahāba!”

Ibn Khaldūn also makes another important and instructive point. It is incorrect to say that those who fought against Husayn for the tyrant Yazīd were following “valid Ijtihād and were correct”, just because his view was an Ijtihād. And gives us a guiding principle for ourselves in many discussions that we are having here too:

“Know that verily what is executed of a transgressors orders are [only] what is lawful (mashrū) and fighting rebels (bughāt) has a condition (shart), [namely] that the leader be just (yakūn mā’al-Imām al-Ādil) and that is absent in our affair! So it was not allowed to fight alongside Yazīd, nor was it allowed for Yazīd! Indeed this act was of the most extreme manifestations of his transgressions. And Husayn was a martyr, rewarded [in the hereafter], upon the truth and Ijtihād, just as those Sahāba [who didn’t fight] Yazīd, were also upon truth and Ijtihād.”¹

May God raise us with those standing for truth, on the side of those that stood up to tyrants, not on the side of tyrants and oppressors.

¹Pages 224–226, ‘Muqadimma Ibn Khaldūn’ by Allāma Abdul-Rahmān bin Muhammad Ibn Khaldūn, published by Mu’assas al-Risāla al-Nashirūn 2015CE-1432H, Damascus-Syria