Wasn't Imam Husain (as) wrong to revolt against the ruler of his time, Yazid?

In 2007, Peace TV owner Dr. Zakir Naik sparked controversy when speaking in his annual Peace Conference. He claimed that the tragedy of Karbala was merely a "political war," a "difference of opinion" and went on to call Yazid Radiallah ta'la anho (may Allah be pleased with him)! He was rightly condemned by Shia and Sunnis alike.

Zakir Naik - a well wisher of Yazid

 

Firstly, Yazid was never a legitimate rule of the Islamic kingdom. He was appointed as successor to his father Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan after his death - totally going against the treaty that Muawiya has struck with Imam Hasan (as). After his death, the caliphate was meant to return to Imam Hasan and Imam Husain (as). If he wanted to, Imam Husain (as) was perfectly entitled to stand up against Yazid.

Secondly, Imam Husain (as) did not lead a revolt against Yazid. He never set out to fight against Yazid's army. When he was faced with Hur and his small battalion as they commanded him to turn his camp and escorted him to Karbala, he had the upper hand and could've resisted, but he never intended to fight or be the aggressor.

Charles Dickens perhaps understood it best when he said "If Hussain fought to quench his worldly desires, then I do not understand why his sisters, wives and children accompanied him. It stands to reason therefore that he sacrificed purely for Islam." Imam Husain (as) did not revolt against Yazid, he went out of his way leave Medina in order to avoid any bloodshed. He was happy to leave the rule of Yazid and be left alone