The unspoken side of Karbala: The social nature of crime

Is it possible to discuss the Karbala massacre from a different perspective?

For instance, to look for the perpetrators of the massacre not just in a few names, but on a broader, more collective ground?

While focusing on the act itself, to rethink the long process that made that act possible; the silences, the pledges of allegiance, the fears, and the transactional relationships?

To trace the truth revealed by history; while talking about Yazid, not to forget the social and political ground that brought him to power…

Because Karbala is not just the story of a single day, a desert, and a few swords.

Let us turn our lens to those days.

When Muawiyah was preparing his son for the throne, he did not just transfer power; he constructed a mindset. Envoys were sent to cities, propaganda was organized, and those who might object were either bought off or silenced.

This preparation lasted seven years.

For seven years, a society was transformed step by step.

Some were silenced by bribes.

Some by fear.

Some by saying, "let the order not be disrupted."

And some by acting as if nothing was happening.

That silence, that turning a blind eye, that "not my problem" attitude…

That was the real perpetrator itself.

A society's silent tongue, unseeing eye, and unhearing ear brought Yazid into existence.

The sultanate was not established in a single night.

Oppression was not built in an instant.

The oligarchy was not born overnight.

All of it was the sum of years of small concessions, small silences, and small betrayals.

Karbala had actually begun before it even took place.

Because shame does not begin when the sword is drawn; it begins when one remains silent despite knowing the sword will be drawn.

Yazid became caliph with the explicit or implicit acceptance of tens of thousands of people.

Everyone knew what was coming.

Who did not know that Ali was being cursed!

Who did not see how religion was being instrumentalized!

Who was unaware of how the state was being turned into a dynastic property!

Let us assume some did not know.

Then the crime is not ignorance, but apathy, insensitivity, and indifference.

It is not failing to know, but choosing not to know.

And that is just as heavy as knowing and remaining silent.

That is why reading Karbala only as a "massacre" is incomplete.

It is the inevitable result of a long political process.

It is a mirror of a mindset, a form of power, and a state of society.

Let us come to the present day.

If the issue were only Yazid, history would consist of a file long since closed.

But the issue is not Yazid—it is the order that makes Yazid possible. 

We see that this order somehow recreates itself again and again.

Faces change.

Governments change.

Geographies change.

But the same mindset continues to live on under different guises.

And more painfully:

The masses that bring the Yazids of the era to power continue to appear before us in similar ways. 

In this state, history seems not to progress at all.

No lessons are learned, no conclusions are drawn from what has been experienced, and no critical approach toward the past is adopted. 

When that happens, the collective face of crime never ages, and that face never leaves the stage.

So, what will happen if all these political developments continue in the same way?

The Karbalas will not end,

Furthermore,

If another Karbala happens tomorrow,

that desert will not be in a very distant place.

We will be standing right in the middle of it.