The Origins and Early Development of Shia Islam
Chapter 7: The Martyrdom of Husayn
On Mu'awiya death, his son Yazid assumed the caliphate in accordance
with the former's unprecedented testament in Rajab 60/March 680. A true
representative of the way of life common among the pre-Islamic youth of
the Umayyad aristocracy, Yazid commanded no respect in the community.
His anti-Islamic behaviour and openly irreligious practices were well
known throughout the Muslim world and earned for him contempt and
disfavour, especially among those who cared for religion. Even those few
writers who attempt to hush up some of the information unfavourable to
the Umayyad house could not refrain from reporting that Yazid was the
first among the caliphs to drink wine in public and that he sought out
the Worst company, spending much of his time in the pleasures of music
and singing and amusing himself with apes and hunting-hounds. He himself
had no use for religion, nor had he any regard for the religious
sentiments of others. Addicted to wine-bibbing, attracted to
singing-girls, and exposed to all sorts of vices, Yazid has never been
presented in good terms by any Muslim writer of any period or by any
school of thought.[^1] His open and persistent violations of Islamic
norms were still more shocking to the community because of his close
proximity to the Prophet and the Rashidun caliphs, of whom he claimed to
be the successor and from whose authority he derived his title.
Nevertheless, Mu'awiya's meticulous arrangements, coupled with his
formidable military grip on the Muslim world, ensured the smooth
succession of his son. Yazid was thus hailed as the “Commander of the
Faithful” by all the tribes and the provinces; yet his title was not
secure until he could receive homage from the four most notable
personalities of Islam, whom Mu'awiya, in spite of his utmost efforts,
could neither buy nor coerce as he had done with all other men of
prominence and the chiefs of the tribes.
With the death of Mu'awiya the last of the first generation who could
claim for himself at least some political importance, the caliphate had
to pass on to the second generation (tabi'un) after the Prophet. The
grandees of this generation, as has been described in the preceding
chapter, were Husayn b. 'Ali, 'Abd Allah b. az-Zubayr, 'Abd Allah b.
'Umar, and 'Abd ar- Rahman b. Abi Bakr, the sons of the most prominent
Companions of the Prophet who were held in great respect by the
community; Husayn, also being the only surviving grandson of the
Prophet, enjoyed greater regard than the other three. It was therefore
obvious that without their recognition Yazid's authority could not be
firmly consolidated, was fully aware of the importance of these four,
and having failed to secure their agreement to Yazid's succession, he
warned his son of the danger before he breathed his last. On his
deathbed Mu'awiya advised Yazid:
“O my son, I have arranged everything for you, and I have made all the
Arabs agree to obey you. No one will now oppose you in your title to the
caliphate, but I am very much afraid of Husayn b. 'Ali, 'Abd Allah b.
'Umar, 'Abd ar-Rahman b. Abi Bakr, and 'Abd Allah b. az-Zubayr. Among
them Husayn b. 'Ali commands great love and respect because of his
superior rights and close relationship to the Prophet. I do not think
that the people of Iraq will abandon him until they have risen in
rebellion for him against you. As far as is possible, try to deal with
him gently. But the man who will attack you with full force, like a lion
attacks his prey, and who will pounce upon you, like a fox when it finds
an opportunity to pounce, is 'Abd Allah b. az-Zubayr.
Whenever you get a chance, cut him into pieces.”[^2]
Mu'awiya's advice, commonly reported by many sources, confirms the
reports that Mu'awiya's efforts to secure the approval of these grandees
of Islam for Yazid's succession had not been successful.
In order to secure undisputed possession of the caliphate, the first
task Yazid undertook was to order the governor of Medina, Al-Walid b.
'Utba, to exact homage from the refractory, especially from Husayn and
Ibn az-Zubayr. In his letter to the governor, he gave strict orders that
they should not be allowed to delay, and if they refused, that Walid
should behead them at once. Some sources include the name of Ibn 'Umar
as also having been specifically mentioned in this letter.[^3] Walid b.
'Utba accordingly sent for Husayn and Ibn az-Zubayr at an unusual hour
of the night to oblige them to pay homage to the new caliph. Both of
them realized that Mu'awiya was dead, and both had decided to stand by
their refusal to pay homage to Yazid. Ibn az-Zubayr did not go to the
palace and fled to Mecca the following night. Husayn went to see the
governor, but was accompanied by a strong band of his supporters in case
of a serious confrontation. Leaving his supporters at the gate, Husayn
went into the palace alone. Walid read to him Yazid's letter and asked
for immediate recognition of the new caliph. Husayn replied
uncommittedly that the bay'a, in order to be valid, must be made in
public and that the governor should arrange a public gathering in the
mosque where he would also be present.
With this reply, when Husayn rose to leave the palace, Marwan b.
al-Hakam, who was present there as well, rebuked the governor, saying:
“By God, if you allow Husayn to leave without paying the homage now, you
will never be able to get it from him; so arrest him and do not free him
until he pays the homage, or behead him.” In fact, Marwan had already
advised Walid to call these two for the bay'a, and if they refused,
Mu'awiya kill them at once before the news of Mu'awiya's death became
known to the people. Walid, however, did not accept this advice: as
Husayn left the palace, the former retorted to Marwan's harsh attitude,
saying:
“Do not reproach me for this, O Marwan. You have advised me to do
something in which there lies complete destruction and the ruin of my
religion. By God, if the entire wealth and treasures of the whole world
were given to me I would not kill Husayn.
Should I kill him only because he refuses to pay homage,I would suffer
total destruction on the Day of Judgement, for in the sight of God there
cannot be anything more accountable than the blood of Husayn.”[^4]
The reply of Walid to Marwan, so commonly recorded by the sources,
reflects that particular regard and respect with which the grandson of
the Prophet was held not only by his followers, but by a great number of
Muslims in general.
Husayn, however, succeeded in avoiding the demand for the Bay'a for two
days and finally escaped at night with his family and most of the
Hashimites to Mecca. Walid b. 'Utba paid for his lenient attitude
towards the grandson of the Prophet: he was shortly thereafter dismissed
from his post as governor of Medina.
Ibn az-Zubayr, who reached Mecca before Husayn, had gathered people
around him against Yazid, and he is reported to have been harbouring
secret ambitions for the caliphate himself. But as soon as Husayn
arrived in the city, the people abandoned Ibn az-Zubayr and gathered
around Husayn.
This was only natural, for our sources clearly state that “Husayn was
much dearer and far more respected by the people of the Hijaz than Ibn
az-Zubayr, who knew that the people there would never follow him as long
as Husayn was in Mecca.”[^5] So great were the inclinations of the
people to Husayn that after his arrival there people prayed with him,
performed the tawaf of the Ka'ba with him, and preferred to stay around
him most of the time.
Husayn, like his brother Hasan, combined in his person the right of
descent both from the Prophet and from 'Ali; and now after the death of
Hasan he was the only candidate from the Prophet's family. But in the
preceding years he had done very little to support his rights,
restricting himself to a negative attitude towards Yazid's nomination.
Nor, due to Hasan's treaty with Mu'awiya, was it possible for him to act
as long as Mu'awiya was alive. This he explained to the Shi'is of Kufa
whenever they approached him concerning an uprising. The death of
Mu'awiya changed the situation. On the one hand, Husayn was now free
from the treaty obligations of his brother and, on the other, the demand
for active guidance and leadership from the Shi'is of Kufa became
increasingly pressing. As soon as this group received word of Mu'awiya
death, they held a series of meetings expressing their renewed and
enthusiastic support for Husayn. They sent out numerous letters and a
succession of messengers urging Husayn to come to Kufa to take their
leadership, as they had no Imam other than him. The first letter Husayn
received on 10 Ramadan 60/15 June 680; it was signed by Sulayman b.
Surad al-Khuza'i, Al-Musayyab b. Najaba, Rifa'a b. Shaddad, Habib b.
al-Muzahir, and Muslim b. Awsaja in the name of the Shi'is and Muslims
of Kufa, and read:
“We thank God for casting down the tyrannical rule of your enemy, who
had usurped the power to rule this community with out any right, allowed
the possession of God to pass into the hands of the powerful and the
rich, and killed the best men [an allusion to Hujr b. 'Adi and his
supporters] while allowing the worst of the people to remain alive. We
invite you to come to Kufa, as we have no Imam to guide us; and we hope
that through you God will unite us on the path truth. We do not go to
Friday congregational prayers to pray with Nu'man b. Bashir, the
governor of Kufa, nor do we assemble with him at the occasion of the
'Id. If we hear that you are coming to us, we will oust the governor
from our city. Peace and mercy of God be upon you.”[^6]
This letter, signed by the men named above, must have served as a major
incentive to Husayn, for the signatories had been trusted followers of
his house from the very beginning and had proven their loyalty at the
battles of Al-Jamal and Siffin with 'Ali. Though they had been extremely
perturbed and disappointed by Hasan's abdication in favour of Mu'awiya,
they nevertheless remained loyal to the former and hostile to the
latter. Apart from these early Shi'is, a great number of other Kufans
also wrote letters to Husayn, each signed by numerous individuals for
the same purpose.[^7]
Similar letters urging Husayn to assume active leadership were also
sent by the Shi'is of Basra. Not all of them, however, had the same
degree of religious motivation: some had political aspirations, hoping
to throw off the yoke of Syrian domination.
The actions of Husayn, however, show that from beginning to end his
strategy was aimed at a much higher goal than simply accession to the
caliphate. There is no evidence that he tried, while at Mecca, to enlist
active supporters from among the people who gathered around him or to
propagate his cause among the great numbers of people who were coming to
Mecca for the Hajj; there is also no evidence that he attempted to send
his emissaries to stir up any rebellion in provinces such as Yemen and
Persia, which were sympathetic to his house, even though advised by some
of his family members to do so. And above all, had he acted promptly on
the invitation of the Kufans, while the governorship of the city was in
the hands of the weak Nu'man b. Bashir, he might have had a fair chance
of success. His speedy arrival would not only have forestalled any
effective action on the part of the Umayyad government, but would also
have stirred real enthusiasm among the Ku fans. This was emphasized by
the leaders of the movement when they wrote:
“In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate; to al-Husayn b.
'Ali, from his Shi'a, the faithful Muslims: Further make haste, for the
people are awaiting you, as they have no Imam other than you! So haste,
and again haste! Peace.”[^8]
This last letter was signed by a number of people and was sent with a
delegation consisting of Hani b. Hani as-Sabi'I and Sa'id b. 'Abd Allah
al-Hanafi, the two most trusted Shi'is of Kufa. In response to all these
approaches, however, Husayn sent only one letter in reply through this
last delegation. The content of this letter is worthy of note; it
reads:
“From Husayn b. 'Ali to the believers and the Muslims [note that the
word Shi'a is not used]. Hani and Sa'id came to me with your letters,
they being the last among your messengers and delegations to come to me.
I have understood what you said and that you have invited me to come to
you because you have no Imam to guide you, and that you hope my arrival
there will unite you in the right path and in the truth. I am sending my
cousin and the trusted one from my family [Muslim b. 'Aqil] to report to
me about your affairs. If his report conforms with what you have
written, I will soon come. But you must be clear about the fact that the
Imam is only one who follows the Book of God, makes justice and honesty
his conduct and behaviour, judges with truth, and devotes himself to the
service of God. Peace.”[^9]
The last sentence of the letter, explaining the duties of an Imam and
the nature of the Imamate, helps us to understand Husayn's approach and
attitude towards the whole problem.
Abu Mikhnaf has also preserved for us Husayn's letter to the Shi'is of
Basra, which is equally worthy of quotation here.
It reads:
“God has chosen Muhammad from among his people, graced him with His
Prophethood and selected him for His message. After he admonished the
people and conveyed His message to them God took him back unto Himself.
We, being his family (ahl), his close associates endowed with the
quality of guardianship (awliya'), his trustees and vice regent
(awliya'), and his heir and legatee (warith), are the most deserving
among all the people to take his place. But the people preferred
themselves over us for this [privilege]. We became contented, disliking
dissension and anxious to preserve the peace and well-being [of the
community], though we were fully aware that we were more entitled to
this [leadership] than those who had taken it for themselves… I have
sent my messenger to you and I call you to the Book of God, and the
Sunna of his Prophet, the Sunna which has become obliterated and
innovations have become active and energetic. If you listen to me and
obey my orders I will guide you to the right path. May the Peace and the
Mercy of God be upon you.”[^10]
The content of this letter is a complete statement of the Shi'i
doctrine of the Imamate even at this early stage. That the historical
sources have recorded little of what we may call Shi'i religio-political
theory is due to the fact that their main interest has been in events,
not in the underlying principles behind those events. Yet in narrating
the events the sources have preserved certain documents such as letters
or speeches which give us a glimpse of those ideals which underly the
events.
We have quoted one of Hasan's letters in the previous chapter and
pointed out the thinking of the Ahl al-Bayt. Now in the time of Husayn,
twenty years after, Husayn's letters give exactly the same vein of
thinking. In these letters Husayn adequately explains the concept of
walaya, which means that God has bestowed upon the family of the Prophet
special honour and qualities, thereby making them the ideal rulers, and
that through their presence on earth His grace is disseminated. The
other two terms of doctrinal importance are walaya, trusteeship or
custodianship, and warith, heir and legatee, which are used by Husayn.
We have seen in Chapter 4 that at the time of 'Ali election for the
caliphate, he was hailed in these terms by his closest associates. Now
after thirty-five years the same terms are being used by Husayn.
Both these terms carry the idea of God's recommendation of the family
of the Prophet to the people, that Muhammad recommended 'Ali, and that
at his death 'Ali recommended Hasan, who left the legacy of the House
for Husayn. It may, however, be too early for these concepts to have
assumed the full flowering of their doctrinal content, yet one can see
their presence in their embryonic form.
The other important part of Husayn's letter is his declaration that the
right of ruling the community is the exclusive right of the family of
the Prophet and they alone can guide the people in the right path; or in
other words, they alone, by virtue of their special qualities, can
combine temporal power and religious guidance together. Moreover, by
this statement Husayn made a judgement on the caliphates of Abu Bakr,
'Umar and 'Uthman. Then, in the last part of his letter, by calling
people to the Sunna of the Prophet Husayn implicitly rejected the
interpretations of the first three caliphs who were not among the Ahl
al-Bayt. The followers of the House of the Prophet would, therefore, go
back directly to the Sunna of the Prophet and their Imams, who are
divinely inspired (walaya).
However, Husayn decided to respond to the call. Two obvious factors
inspired him to act. Firstly, being the grandson of the founder of
Islam, he must have felt it his duty to respond to the repeated appeals
of these Muslims; and secondly, Yazid's pressing demand for homage was
such that Husayn's filial piety and pride could not allow him to
accept.
It was a difficult situation. Acceptance of the authority of Mu'awiya
as the head of the Muslim state was an entirely different matter from
the acceptance of Yazid. Mu'awiya, in spite of his worldliness and
indifferent attitude towards religion, did not totally violate the norms
of Islam, at least not outwardly.
Yazid not only violated Qur'anic norms and Prophetic Sunna, but also
openly subjected them to contempt and ridicule, as has been the
consensus of Muslim writers of all times. Even Mu'awiya's own agents, in
implementing the plan for Yazid's nomination, were concerned about the
latter's character. Thus when Mu'awiya asked Ziyad to prepare the people
of Basra and Kufa to accept Yazid's nomination, the governor advised
Mu'awiya to try to mend the ways of his son before asking people to
swear allegiance to him.[^11]
It would indeed be a great mistake to assess the case of Yazid without
taking into consideration the living impact of the Prophet and the first
generation of Islam. The tense contradiction between this and the
character of Yazid ultimately provoked the tragedy of Karbala, to which
we must now turn. In order to maintain the continuity of our narrative,
the sources of our information and their authenticity will be discussed
at the end of the chapter.
In spite of repeated appeals' and hundreds of letters sent by the Ku
fans, Husayn did not take a hasty decision, and as a precaution sent his
cousin, Muslim b. 'Aqil, to Kufa as his emissary with instructions to
ascertain the truth of these representations and report back on his
findings. As soon as Muslim arrived at Kufa there was held in the house
of Sulayman b. Surad al-Khuzai'i a meeting which, for the sake of
secrecy at this stage, was attended only by the leaders of the movement.
In response to Husayn's letter, read before those present and quoted
above, Shi'i leaders such as 'Abis b. Abi Habib ash-Shakiri, Habib b.
Muzahir, and Sa'd b. 'Abd Allah al-Hanafi made passionate speeches and
declared their wholehearted support for Husayn until the last
breath.[^12] We shall see shortly that their pledges were not empty
words:
they remained loyal to the cause, fulfilled their promises, and
ultimately gave their lives with Husayn at Karbala. Apart from these
religiously devoted people supporting the cause of the Ahl al-Bayt, the
political supporters of 'Ali from among the people of Kufa did not think
it wise to lag behind in supporting a movement which they thought might
be successful in throwing off Umayyad domination and raising new
opportunities for them. Muslim b. 'Aqil thus quickly gathered thousands
of pledges of support. The number of people who registered their names
and swore allegiance to Muslim in the name of Husayn is variously given
as 12,000 and 18,000, the majority of the sources recording the second
figure.[^13] Soon the movement became so widespread that Muslim b. 'Aqil
was able to preside over the public meetings from the pulpit in the
mosque of Kufa.
Confident of Kufan support, Muslim consequently wrote to Husayn to come
to Kufa and assume leadership of the people. The letter of Muslim was
sent to Husayn not by an ordinary messenger, but by 'Abis b. Habib
ash-Shakiri, a trusted leader of the Shi'is of Kufa.[^14] Having been
assured of the extent of Kufan enthusiasm, Husayn decided to go to Iraq.
Already Ibn al-Hanafiya at Medina, and then 'Abd Allah b. 'Umar and 'Abd
Allah b. al-'Abbas, when they met Husayn on the road between Medina and
Mecca, had warned Husayn against the dangers. Again at Mecca Ibn 'Abbas,
along with many other friends, reiterated their advice with greater
insistence and tried to persuade him not to rely onKufan promises,
reminding him of their instability, their treacherous nature, and how
they had betrayed, at the hour of trial, his father and brother.[^15] On
the other hand, 'Abd Allah b. az-Zubayr first hypocritically voiced his
concern for the safety of Husayn in the enterprise[^16] but nevertheless
urged him to go on with the plan, for he wanted to make a bid for power
himself. While Husayn was in the Hijaz this was impossible, as the
people would never give Ibn az-Zubayr precedence over the grandson of
the Prophet[^17] The former was thus pleased to see that Husayn should
leave the field free for him in Mecca. In spite of all the advice,
however, Husayn did not abandon his project, for he had in mind a
definite plan and strategy, as will be discussed later.
Receiving word of Muslim's arrival in Kufa and the support given to him
by the people there, Yazid, no longer trusting the mild-tempered and
weak governor of the town, Nu'man b. Bashir, appointed his strong man
'Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad, the governor of Basra, to take charge of Kufa as
well and to go there at once. The immediate task to be carried out was
to crush the Shi'i movement by taking whatever measures were required
for this purpose. The text of Yazid's letter is preserved by various
sources and gives a clear idea of his violent attitude towards the
movement in support of Husayn.[^18]
Fully aware of the insurrection in Kufa in favour of Husayn, Ibn Ziyad rode into the city in disguise, wearing a black turban, covering his face, and surrounding himself with a small squadron of horsemen. The Kufans, who were expecting Husayn, mistook Ibn Ziyad for the former, gathered all around his horse, greeted him enthusiastically, and shouted: “Hail to you, O son of the Prophet; we have been waiting you.”[^19]
Ibn Ziyad, quietly observing the people's enthusiasm for Husayn, entered the mosque along with the crowds, mounted the pulpit, and then suddenly tore the veil from his face. He delivered a terrifying speech, declaring death and unprecedented punishment for the sympathizers of Husayn, while making tempting promises for those who would prove their loyalty to the Caliph.[^20] The Kufans, known for their lack of resolution, were stricken by awe and fear, completely lost heart, and ultimately abandoned Muslim, who after attempting in vain to organize an immediate revolt, was captured and beheaded together with Hani b. 'Urwa in whose house he had stayed.[^21]
This unreliable attitude of the political supporters of Husayn, the
so-called Shi'is of Kufa in general, once again demonstrates the
weakness of their character, as had been pointed out to Husayn by those
of the travellers coming from Kufa who happened to meet him on his way.
For example, at a place called Sifah he met the poet Farazdaq and
inquired about conditions in Kufa. Farazdaq replied: “Their hearts are
with you, but their swords are with your enemies.”[^22]
Husayn left Mecca on 8 Dhu'l-Hijja/10 September 68o, the same day
Muslim b. 'Aqil was beheaded in Kufa. He had only about 50 men from
among both his relatives and friends able to bear arms, besides women
and children, accompanying him from Mecca on the fateful journey.
Husayn's sudden departure from Mecca, where he had been staying for the
past five months and where a great number of people were arriving for
the Hajj, only two days away, cannot have been without some serious
cause. Tabari and other sources, quoting Husayn himself, report that the
Umayyad government sent some soldiers disguised as pilgrims to arrest
him or even assassinate him.[^23] Though it is difficult to ascertain
the authenticity of this sort of report, still we cannot rule. out a
possibility of this kind in view of what happened to the holy cities
later at the hands of the army sent by Yazid in connection with the
rebellion of Ibn az-Zubayr.
While Husayn was heading towards Iraq, Ibn Ziyad, after killing Muslim
and Hani, made Kufa a scene of terror and horror. First, he applied
severe economic pressure on the population through the 'arifs, whose
function and importance as being responsible for distribution of
stipends and the maintenance of law and order in their respective
'irafas has already been discussed in Chapter 5. He exploited these
state functionaries and ordered them to write down the names of any
strangers or rebellious or suspicious people in their irafas. He held
the 'arifs responsible for any trouble that might occur in their 'irafa
and threatened that the 'arif would be crucified and the entire 'irafa
would be deprived of its stipend if anything was concealed from Ibn
Ziyad. Secondly, he made a declaration that anyone suspected of
supporting Husayn would be hanged without trial, his house would be set
on fire, and his property would be confiscated.[^24]
Kufa was thus soon brought under full control. At the same time, Ibn Ziyad blockaded all the roads leading from the Hijaz to Kufa and gave strict orders forbidding anyone from entering or leaving the territory of Kufa. At Al-Qadisiya, which by the normal route links Kufa with the Hijaz, he set up a strong military post with an army of 4,000 troops under the command of Husayn b. an-Numayr at-Tamimi. Similarly, other border areas like Qutqutana, La'la', and Kaffan, which link Kufa with Basra and other parts of Iraq, were being heavily patrolled by the Umayyad army;[^25] and consequently it was almost impossible for anyone to enter or leave Kufa. Husayn learned of all these strict measures from the Bedouins, but continued his journey undeterred.
When he reached AthTha'libiya he received word from some travellers of
the execution of Muslim b. 'Aqil and Hani b. 'Urwa at Kufa; then at
Zubala he learned that his messenger Qays b. Mushir as-Saydawi; whom he
had dispatched from Hijir, the fourth stage from Mecca, with a letter
for the Kufans informing them of his imminent arrival, had been captured
at the checkpoint at Al-Qadisiya and that he had been brutally killed by
Ibn Ziyad in Kufa: he was thrown from the top of the governor's palace
when he refused to curse Husayn to save his own life.[^26] Husayn could
not control his tears at the tragic fate of his trusted follower and,
quoting a verse of the Qur'an, said:
”'Among the believers are men who have been true to their covenant with
God. Some of them have completed their vow [i.e. have sacrificed their
lives in fulfilling their vow], and some others are still waiting [to
die]; but they have never changed [their determination] in the least.'
(Qur'an, XXXIII,. 23). O God, make Paradise an abode for us [the
surviving ones] and for them [the ones who have been killed], and unite
both of us in a resting place under your mercy and make your reward our
only object of desire and our treasure.”[^27]
This statement by Husayn is clear enough to demonstrate that he was
fully aware of what was going to happen to him and that he was fully
prepared for it. Another expression of Husayn's thinking is reflected by
his proclamation to his companions which he made after receiving this
news at Zubala. He stood among those accompanying him and after
informing them of the doleful news and of the obvious danger of death
and complete destruction for which he was heading, he asked them to
leave him and withdraw to safety. Those who had joined him during the
journey with certain hopes of material gains did depart, and there
remained with him only those who had followed him from the Hijaz.[^28]
These statements by Husayn must be taken into consideration, for they
are important for an understanding of his thinking, which will be
discussed below.
Leaving Zubala, Husayn reached Batn 'Aqiq, a place a few stages from
Kufa; and upon learning in detail of the strong military force stationed
at Al-Qadisiya, he changed his route to enter Kufa from another
direction. Husayn b. Numayr, the commander at Al-Qadisiya, was informed
of Husayn's change of route and sent a detachment of 1,000 troops under
the command of Hurr b. Yazid at-Tamimi al-Yarbu'i to intercept him. When
they appeared on the horizon, Husayn ordered his people to pitch their
tents at a nearby place called Dh(1Husm (or Husam). The army of Hurr
soon reached Husayn.
The day was hot and Hurr's army had run out of water; the grandson of
the Prophet could not tolerate that even his enemies should suffer from
thirst, and he ordered his men to give water to the Umayyad troops and
to their horses. Husayn himself took part in serving water to those
badly affected by thirst and the heat.[^29] Hurr had a certain regard
for Husayn, and at both prayers of the day he, along with his troops,
prayed behind him. Even when four of the leading Shi'is of Kufa who had
managed to escape from the city joined Husayn at this point, Hurr,
though he protested, did not dare to use force.[^30] After each of the
two prayers, Husayn explained to his adversaries the reasons which had
caused him to set out:
“O people of Kufa! You sent to me your delegations and wrote me letters
saying that you had no Imam and that I should come to unite you and lead
you in the way of God … You wrote that we, the Ahl al-Bayt, are more
qualified to govern your affairs than those who claim things to which
they have no right and who act unjustly and wrongfully…. But if you have
changed your minds, have become ignorant of our rights, and have
forgotten your delegations and repeated appeals to me to come for the
sake of your religion… I shall turn back.”[^31]
Then Husayn showed Hurr two sacks full of the letters sent by the
Kufans to him, but Hurr said he knew nothing of these and that he had
come with the orders of Ibn Ziyad to arrest him and his party as
prisoners to be handed over to Ibn Ziyad. Husayn refused to submit, but
still Hurr did not use force against him. After some argument it was
agreed that Husayn should keep on travelling along the Euphrates in the
opposite direction from Kufa until fresh orders arrived from the
governor, and that Hurr would follow Husayn closely. When they reached
the district of Ninawa (or Naynawa) a horseman arrived from Kufa.
Without greeting Husayn, he gave Hurr a letter from Ibn Ziyad ordering
him not to allow the “rebels” to make a halt except in a desert place
without fortifications or water.[^32] Zuhayr b. al-Qayn, a companion of
Husayn, then suggested that he should attack Hurr's small detachment and
occupy a fortified village called Al-'Aqr, but i;1usayn refused to be
the one to initiate hostilities. Husayn, however, managed to proceed
only a little farther until they reached the plain of Karbala and there
pitched their tents. It was 2 Muharram 61/2 October 680.
On the third of Muharram the situation deteriorated as 'Umar b. Sa'd
arrived with the Umayyad army of 4,000 men and assumed overall command
on the field. Upon reaching Karbala Ibn Sa'd learned that Husayn now
intended to return to Medina; but Ibn Ziyad, on receiving word of this
development, ordered that all the “rebels” should render homage to
Yazid. Meanwhile, they were to be prevented from reaching the river.
'Umar b. Sa'd accordingly stationed a force of 500 cavalry on the road
to the river, and for three days before the massacre on the tenth of
Muharram Husayn and party suffered terribly from thirst. A daring sortie
led by 'Abbas, Husayn's brother, managed to reach the river but
succeeded in filling only a few waterskins. Ibn Sa'd was still trying to
persuade the governor to find some peaceful means to avoid shedding the
blood of the grandson of the Prophet, but all in vain. Ibn Ziyad sent
his final orders through Shamir b. Dhu'l-Jawshan (commonly written as
Shimr) either to attack Husayn immediately or to hand over the command
of the army to Shamir, the bearer of the letter.[^33] The orders also
specified that when Husayn fell in the fighting his body was to be
trampled, because he was “a rebel, a Seditious person, a brigand, an
oppressor”.[^34] Ibn Sa'd had to act, as he was anxious to retain his
appointment as the deputy of the governor of the province of Ray' and
was well aware of the fact that Husayn would never submit, for the
latter “had a proud soul in him”.
Soon after receiving these new orders on the evening of 9 Muharram, Ibn
Sa'd advanced with his army towards the camp of Husayn. Noticing this,
Husayn sent his brother 'Abbas, along with some followers, to ascertain
the reason for their approach. 'Abbas was told of the orders of Ibn
Ziyad, and when informed of this Husayn sent 'Abbas back to request a
respite of one night. This was granted. At this point Husayn assembled
his relatives and supporters and delivered a speech. This speech is
unanimously reported in the events of the night of 'Ashura by the
sources through different authorities, and it is useful in understanding
Husayn's thinking. He said:
“I -give praise to God who has honoured us with the Prophethood, has
taught us the Qur'an, and favoured us with His religion … I know of no
worthier companions than mine; may God reward you with all the best of
His reward. I think tomorrow our end will come … I ask you all to leave
me alone and to go away to safety. I free you from your responsibilities
for me, and I do not hold you back. Night will provide you a cover; use
it as a steed … You may take my children with you to save their
lives.”[^35]
With only a few exceptions, his supporters, from among both friends and
relatives, refused to leave or survive after him; through their
speeches, to be discussed later, they showed an unshakable devotion to
his cause. After some measures were taken for the safety of women and
children and for Defence by bringing the tents closer together, tying
them to one another, digging ditches in the rear and on the flanks and
filling them with wood, the rest of the night was spent in prayer,
recitation of the Qur'an, and worship and remembrance of God.[^36]
The borrowed night ended, and the fateful morning of 10 Muharram
brought with it the summons of death and the tragic end of the family of
the Prophet and its handful of supporters. Husayn drew up in front of
the tents his small army of 72 men: 32 horsemen and 40 foot soldiers of
varying ages ranging from the seventy-year-old Muslim b. 'Awsaja to the
fourteen-year-old Qasim b. Hasan b. 'Ali The rear of the tents was
protected by setting on fire the heaps of wood and reeds. Zuhayr b.
al-Qayn was given command of the right wing, Habib b. Muzahir al-Asadi
of the left, and 'Abbas b. 'Ali was entrusted with the standard of the
Hashimite house.
Husayn, preparing himself for the fateful encounter, dressed himself in
the cloak of the Prophet, perfumed himself with musk, and rode on
horseback with the Qur'an raised in his hand. Addressing his enemies and
invoking God in a long and beautiful sermon, he said:
“O God, you are my only Trust in every calamity; you are my only hope
in every hardship; you are the only promise in the anxiety and distress
in which hearts become weak and [human] action becomes slight, in which
one is deserted and forsaken by his own friends, and in which the
enemies take malicious pleasure and rejoice at his misfortunes. O God, I
submit myself to You; my complaint is to You alone against my enemies,
and to You alone is my desire and request. Who else other than you can
relieve me from grief. You alone are the custodian of every blessing and
the Master of every excellence and the last resort for every
desire.”[^37]
The enemy replied to Husayn's discourse with the most insulting and
heinous remarks; among them, Shamir, seeing the fire burning by Husayn's
tents, said: “Husayn, you are hastening for the fire in this world even
before the Fire of the Day of judgement.” Husayn's companion, Muslim b.
'Awsaja, could not control himself at this heinous insult and asked his
permission to reply with an arrow, but Husayn stopped him, saying: “We
will never start the fighting from our side.”[^38] As the situation grew
hotter and an attack from the Umayyad army imminent, Husayn once again
came forward; after praising God and praying for His blessing on
Muhammad, he addressed his enemies:
“O people! you are accusing me, but think who I am! Then search your
hearts for what you are doing to me. Consider well if it be lawful for
you to kill me and violate my sacrosanctity. Am I not the son of the
daughter of your Prophet, the son of the Prophet's wasi and cousin…? Did
not the Prophet say of me and my brother that 'they are the lords of the
youth of Paradise'? You cannot deny the truth of what I have said
concerning the merits of the family of Muhammad. Are all these not
sufficient to prevent you from shedding my blood?”
And again:
“If you search in the whole East and the West you will not find a
grandson of the Prophet other than me.”[^39]
Husayn's numerous speeches and repeated appeals in the name of the
Prophet to his enemies' religious sentiments, which he made throughout
the day and after each loss of life among his supporters, were all in
vain. The only reply he received was that he must submit himself to
Yazid or be killed. To this demand Husayn's reply was that he could
never humiliate himself like a slave.
The day-long battle-sometimes in single combat, sometimes
collectively-began in the morning and ended shortly before sunset. The
phases of the battle can be followed fairly clearly. After Husayn's
first speech, the Umayyad army began firing arrows and duels took place.
For most of the day there were series of single combats, with dialogues
between the adversaries which are vividly recorded in the sources and
which will be discussed in some detail later. It seems that two major
assaults were made by the Umayyads before noon and were met with stiff
resistance, but the Umayyad cavalry and 500 archers maintained steady
pressure on Husayn's small force. As the latter could be approached only
from the front, Ibn Sa'd sent some men from the right and left towards
the Talibi's tents to destroy them, but the supporters of Husayn,
slipping among the tents, defended them energetically. Shamir, with a
strong force under his command, approached the tent of Husayn and his
wives and would have set it on fire, but even his comrades reproached
him for this and he went away ashamed.[^40]
At noon Husayn and his followers performed the prayer of the Zuhr
according to the rite of the Salat al-khawf(the prayer prescribed for
when one faces a disastrous situation and calamity). It was in the
afternoon that the battle became fiercer, and Husayn's supporters one
after the other fell fighting in front of him. Until the last of them
had perished not a single member of Husayn's family came to harm,[^41]
but finally it was the turn of his relatives.
The first to killed was 'Ali al-Akbar, the son of Husayn, followed in quick succession by the son of Muslim b. 'Aqil, the sons of 'Aqil, three brothers of 'Abbas b. 'Ali from 'Ali's wife Umm al-Banin, then Qasim, the son of Hasan, a young and beautiful boy whose body was trampled and mutilated and whose death is described in touching terms. Husayn watched the fall of each of them and ran to the field to bring back their bodies and lay them in a row before his tent.[^42] One by one all the Talibi's gave their lives fighting the enemy, and eventually there remained only two: Husayn and his half-brother 'Abbas b. 'Ali; the standard bearer of the vanquished army. Famous for his physical strength and bravery and known as “the moon of the Banu Hashim” because of his extraordinary beauty, the latter was a great support to Husayn throughout the period of torture and calamity. Now it was time for him to throw himself on to the swords of the bloodthirsty Umayyad army. With broken hearts, distressed and spattered with the blood of their dearest ones, both brothers went together and fell upon the enemy.
The enraged 'Abbas penetrated deep into the ranks of his foes, became
separated from Husayn, and was killed some distance away.[^43] Alone and
weary, Husayn returned to the tents to console the terrified and
grief-stricken women and children for what would befall them after his
demise and to bid them farewell for the last time. Trying to calm his
thirsty and crying infant child, Husayn took him in his arms just as an
arrow struck the baby. Husayn lifted his hands with the dead child
toward heaven and prayed to God for justice and rewards for his
sufferings.[^44]
Exhausted and weary, lonely and dejected, wounded and bleeding, Husayn
seated himself at the door of his tent. The Umayyad forces wavered for a
moment, hesitant to kill the grandson of the Prophet. Finally it was
Shamir who advanced with a small group of soldiers, but even he did not
dare to deliver the final blow on Husayn; there merely ensued an
altercation between the two. At last the son of 'Ali rose and threw
himself on the Umayyads. Attacked from every side, he finally fell
face-down on the ground just in front of his tent, while the women and
children watched the dreadful -scene. A boy of tender age, 'Abd Allah,
the youngest son of Hasan b. 'Ali, in a fit of horror and terror, could
not be controlled by the women, rushed from the tent, and stretched his
hands around his uncle to protect him. A sword fell upon him and cut off
the hands of the young boy.[^45] Finally, as Sinan b. Anas b. 'Amr
raised his sword again to make the final blow on Husayn, the latter's
sister Zaynab came out of the tent and cried, addressing Ibn Sa'd:
“O 'Umar b. Sa'd, will Abu 'Abd Allah [Husayn's kunya] be killed while
you are standing by and watching ?”[^46]
Nothing could help. Sinan cut off the head of the grandson of the
Prophet in front of the tent where the women and children were watching
and crying. Khawali b. Yazid al Asbahi took the head into his custody to
be taken to Kufa.[^47]
The combat having thus ended, the soldiers turned to pillage and
looting. They seized Husayn's clothes, his sword, and whatever was on
his body. They looted the tents and seized from the women their
ornaments, their baggage, and even the mantles from their heads. The
only surviving male of the line of Husayn, his son 'Ali, who because of
serious illness did not take part in the fighting, was lying on a skin
in one of the tents. The skin was pulled from under him and Shamir would
have killed him, but he was saved when Zaynab covered him under her arms
and Ibn Sa'd restrained Shamir from striking the boy.[^48] The tragic
day is known as Al-'Ashura, the tenth day of the month of Muharram.
The atrocities were not yet over. Husayn's body, already torn by
numerous wounds, was trampled by the horses often mounted soldiers who
volunteered to inflict this final indignity on the grandson of the
Apostle of God.[^49] On the morning of 11 Muharram, bodies of the
Umayyad troops who had fallen in the battle were collected together; and
after the prescribed prayer for the dead led by Ibn Sa'd, they were
buried. But the headless bodies of Husayn and of those killed with him
were even left uncovered. On 12 Muharram, however, when the Umayyad
forces left Karbala, the people of the tribe of Bani Asad from the
nearby village of Ghadiriya came down and buried the bodies of Husayn
and his companions on the spot where the massacre had taken place.[^50]
It is of interest to note that those whose bodies were left in such a
pitiful and contemptible manner not long before were so honoured and
immortalized that their graves have become one of the most venerated
sanctuaries, have been embellished with gold, and have been ornamented
with splendid decoration; they soon became the centre of pilgrimage for
a countless number of devotees. There is hardly any trace of the graves
or of the memory of those who were the victors at Karbala, whereas the
tombs of Husayn and his vanquished supporters with their lofty minarets
have become landmarks and symbols of grace and hope for the destitute.
The morning of 12 Muharram saw a peculiar procession leaving Karbala
for Kufa. Seventy4wo heads were raised on the points of the lances, each
of them held by one soldier, followed by the women of the Prophet's
family on camels and the huge army of the Umayyads.[^51] Abu Mikhnaf
describes the scene of the departure of Zaynab and other women of the
Prophet's family as captives from Karbala. Their lamentations at the
sight of the massacred bodies of their sons, brothers, and husbands
which were lying uncovered in front of them, caused even their enemies
to shed tears. Qurra' b. Qays at- Tamimi, a member of the Umayyad army,
is reported by Abu Mikhnaf as saying that he could never forget the
scene when Husayn's sister Zaynab passed by the mutilated body of her
brother; she cried in hysterical fits, saying:
“O Muhammad! O Muhammad! The angels of Heaven send blessings upon you,
but this is your Husayn, so humiliated and disgraced, covered with blood
and cut into pieces; and, O, Muhammad, your daughters are made captives,
and your butchered family is left for the East Wind to cover with
dust?”[^52]
After reaching Kufa the captives and the heads of the victims were
presented to Ibn Ziyad, and the head of Husayn was placed in a tray in
front of him in a court ceremony crowded with nobles and spectators. Ibn
Ziyad, having a cane in his hand, struck the lips of Husayn again and
again. Zayd b. Arqam, an old Companion of the Prophet present in the
court, not aware of what had happened, recognized Husayn's face, was
stricken by shock and grief, and shouted to Ibn Ziyad:
“Remove your cane from these lips! By God, on these lips have I seen
the lips of the Prophet of God, kissing and sucking them.”[^53]
He left the court weeping; outside, people heard him saying:
“O people of the Arabs, after this day you have made yourselves
home-born slaves and cattle. You have killed the son of Fatima and made
your ruler Ibn Marjana [kunya of Ibn Ziyad], who will now keep on
killing your best men and force you to do the most hateful things. You
must now be ready for the utmost disgrace.”[^54]
The head of Husayn was erected for public display in Kufa before it was
sent to Yazid in Damascus. How long the captives were detained in Kufa
in a dungeon is not quite clear, but it seems that before long the
captives and the heads were dispatched to Damascus to be presented to
the Caliph. When the head of Husayn and the captive women and children
were presented before Yazid, in a court ceremony equally as lavish as
that of Ibn Ziyad, Zahr b. Qays, who led the caravan as the
representative of Ibn Ziyad, made a long speech of presentation
describing how Husayn and his companions had been massacred and how
their bodies had been trampled and left for the eagles to eat.[^55] The
reaction of Yazid is reported to have been different from that of Ibn
Ziyad, and he regretted the haste with which his governor had acted.
This seems to be contrary to all those reports which describe Yazid's
orders to his governor in Medina, and then to Ibn Ziyad in which he
clearly ordered them to either exact homage from Husayn and his
followers or behead them without delay. The conversation which took
place between Yazid and both Zaynab and 'Ali b. al-Husayn, in which the
Caliph rebuked them and treated them harshly, also cast doubt on his
alleged feelings of remorse. Moreover, as is pointed out by Ibn Kathir,
a Syrian pupil of Ibn Tamiya usually hostile to the Shi'i cause, if
Yazid had really felt that his governor had committed a serious mistake
in dealing with Husayn he would have taken some action against him. But,
says Ibn Kathir, Yazid did not dismiss Ibn Ziyad from his post, did not
punish him in any way, or even write a letter of censure for exceeding
his orders.[^56] If Yazid at all expressed his remorse it must have been
due to the fear of reaction or revolt by some section of the Muslim
community.
After some time, however, Yazid released the captives and sent them
back to Medina. Thus ended the most pathetic tragedy in the history of
Islam. Edward Gibbon, with his limited sources of Islamic history and
mainly depending on Ockley's narrative of Karbala, could not help but
comment:
“In a distant age and climate, the tragic scene of the death of Husayn
will awaken the sympathy of the coldest reader.”[^57]
We have seen in the previous chapter how ardently and passionately the
Prophet loved his grandsons Hasan and Husayn, but only fifty years after
the Prophet's death, as Dinawari points out,[^58] while many of the
Prophet's Companions who were well aware of this affection were still
alive, one of these beloved grandsons was brutally murdered at the hands
of those who claimed to be members of the Umma of Muhammad.
With this brief summary of the lengthy accounts of the tragic end of
Husayn, it is intended firstly to analyse how it became so easy for the
Umayyads to destroy him and crush the Shi'i movement behind him; and
secondly, to determine the elements of purely religious sentiment among
those who readily sacrificed their lives with Husayn and thus made
another step forward towards the consolidation of Shi'! thought in
Islam.
It has already been pointed out that of those who invited Husayn to Ku
fa, and then those 18,000 who paid homage to his envoy, Muslim b. 'Aqil,
not all were Shi 'is in the religious sense of the term, but were rather
supporters of the house of 'Ali for political reasons-a distinction
which must be kept clearly in mind in order to understand the early
history of Shi'i Islam. They wrote to Husayn hundreds of letters, each
signed by groups, and when Muslim b. 'Aqil reached Kufa they gathered
around him; but this was for most of them an expression of their desire
to throw off Syrian domination, a goal which at that time they thought
was possible through Husayn. But as soon as Ibn Ziyad, well known in
Islamic history for his high-handed policy, took over the governorship
of Kufa and after all those extreme and severe measures carried out by
him to crush the movement, the Kufans saw their hopes gone, and their
characteristic lack of resolution in times of trial overcame their
political aspirations. They thus submitted to the reality of
circumstances rather than endanger themselves for the cause.
There was, however, a small group of the Ku fans who had invited the
grandson of the Prophet and led the movement motivated purely by their
religious feelings. Where were they when Husayn was so helplessly killed
at Karbala? We have seen that after the execution of Muslim b. 'Aqil and
Hani b. 'Urwa, Kufa was kept under firm control. Anyone suspected of
sympathy for Husayn was to be executed. Naturally all the sincere
leaders of the movement adopted the stratagem of hiding to escape arrest
and execution, not because they betrayed Husayn and wanted to save their
lives, but, as we shall see presently, because they wanted to make
themselves directly available to Husayn, then on his way to Kufa.
This may be seen by comparing the lists of names of those who gave their
lives at Karbala with Husayn or later with the Tawwabun, with those who
wrote the first letters of invitation to him and who had been leading
the movement in Ku fa. We have seen that four of these Shi'i leaders of
Kufa managed to join Husayn at Dhu Husm in spite of Hurr's objection. As
soon as they heard of Husayn's arrival at Karbala, those who could, in
spite of all the obstacles, somehow manage to reach Karbala did so; they
laid down their lives before Husayn or any one from among his family
members were hurt.' And of those who were not with Husayn at Karbala,
some had already been arrested and some others, due to the heavy
blockade of the roads, could not make their way to Karbala until it was
too late.
When Husayn had left Mecca there were only 50 persons with him, 18
Talibi's or close relatives, and 32 others. After the battle, however,
72 heads were taken to be presented before Ibn Ziyad, 18 of them
Talibi's and 54 Shi'is, though the real number of those who fell at
Karbala with Husayn seems to have been more than 72. Samawi and some
other sources enumerate the non-Talibi's and give the total number of
victims as 92.[^59] If this was the case, then it seems that the heads
of those who had no tribal identity were not taken to Ibn Ziyad, thus
resulting in the lower figure of 72 deaths. Tabari and Dinawari list the
names of the tribes and the numbers of heads carried by them to Kufa as
follows: Kinda, thirteen; Hawazin, twenty; Tamim, seventeen; Asad, six;
Madhhij, seven; Thaqif, twelve; Azd, five; and another seven of unknown
tribal affiliation.[^60] There is a slight variation between the lists
of Tabari and Dinawari. While Tabari mentions the Madhhij as carrying
seven heads and does not record Thaqif's twelve, Dinawari omits
Madhhij's seven and mentions the Thaqif as having carried twelve heads,
in addition to mentioning five heads held by the Azd. Scrutiny of other
sources confirms both: seven heads carried by Madhhij and twelve by
Thaqif. This gives a total of 87 victims of the massacre whose heads
were presented at the court of Ibn Ziyad.
Tabari and other sources also tell us in detail how Husayn's true
followers managed to escape secretly from Kufa and reach Karbala.[^61]
In addition, we find a few names of those who came to Karbala with the
Umayyad army and, when they saw the sacrilegious treatment by the
Umayyads of the grandson of the Prophet, could no longer resist their
feelings for the house of the Prophet, defected from the Umayyad ranks,
and cast their lot with Husayn. Besides Hurr, whose defection is
reported in great detail, it is also commonly recorded that on the
morning of 'Ashura, just before the battle began, thirty nobles of Kufa
who were with the army of Ibn Sa'd defected from him over to Husayn's
side and fought for him.[^62]
Furthermore, it should be noted again that the blockade of all the
roads coming into Kufa and its vicinity made it almost impossible for
the majority of those Shi'is of Kufa who were in hiding, and also for
those residing in other cities like Basra, to come to the aid of Husayn.
Nevertheless, a few persons from Basra did reach Karbala and shared the
fate of Husayn.[^63] We have, therefore, good grounds for supposing that
had there not been so many obstacles and had there been sufficient time
and opportunity to mobilize their strength, quite a few of the Tawwabun
(penitents), to be discussed in the following chapter, who later on
sacrificed their lives in the name of Husayn, would have been with him
at Karbala.
Circumstantial evidence allows us to suggest that those who gave their
lives for the sake of the slain Husayn would have gone at least as far
for the living Husayn. On the other hand, the aim of elaborating this
fact is not to suggest that had there not been those unavoidable
circumstances Husayn's fate would have been any different. It would
certainly have been the same in any case because of the well-organized
and formidable military strength of the Umayyads and the characteristic
fickleness of the majority of the Kufans, coupled with the as yet weak
and disorganized movement of the religiously motivated Shi'is. Our
purpose is to suggest that under slightly better circumstances the
defeat at Karbala would not have occurred so helplessly and without
there being any conspicuous resistance, and thus we would have a clearer
picture of the physical strength of the Shi'i movement at this stage. To
support this hypothesis we can cite the successes achieved not long
after Karbala, but under better circumstances and with better
opportunities, by Al-Mukhtar and Ibn az-Zubayr, both far less important
than the grandson of the Prophet.
We will only point out here in passing that Al-Mukhtar b. Abi 'Ubayda
ath-Thaqafi seized possession of Kufa in 66/686-687 and captured
Mesopotamia and some parts of the eastern provinces from the Umayyads
mainly in the name of the blood of Husayn. Re, however, lost control of
the situation and was killed in 67/687 or 68/688. 'Abd Allah b.
az-Zubayr proclaimed his caliphate in 61/680-81 and by 64/684 had
established his power in Iraq, in southern Arabia, and in the greater
part of Syria. Re was killed in battle against Hajjaj in 73/692 after
ruling for almost nine years.
An analysis of the sources describing the movement of and the support
given to both Al-Mukhtar and Ibn az-Zubayr leaves us in hardly any doubt
that some of the component parts of Husayn's movement, later on
frustrated and perverted, gave vent to their indignation against the
Umayyads under the banners of these two adventurers. This comparison
leads us to another important point. Al-Mukhtar and Ibn az-Zubayr
achieved considerable political success in their enterprises, and both
were able to rule certain parts of the Muslim world for quite a few
years; but neither could leave any religious following behind him after
he had fallen, though both were, in a sense, as much martyrs as Husayn
himself.
There is no evidence at all that Ibn az-Zubayr left any sectarian
following behind him; the name of Al-Mukhtar was kept alive for a very
short time and was followed by a small group, but it soon afterwards
lost its identity and was merged in a wider group.[^64] The reason is
both obvious and vital. Neither Al-Mukhtar, nor Ibn az-Zubayr, nor their
supporters had any specific ideal or any particular view which could
keep their memory alive in the annals of religious thought in Islam.
Husayn and his cause, on the other hand, though militarily a complete
failure, were so conspicuously upheld by a sizable part of the Muslim
community that his name became an emblem of the identity or entity of
the second largest group in Islam.
This was due to the fact that his movement was based on a particular
view of the leadership of the community, which has been elaborated in
the first two chapters above and which has also been pointed out in the
letters written by I;1asan to Mu'awiya and by Husayn to the Shi'is of
Kufa. The memory of Al-Mukhtar and Ibn az-Zubayr died with the lapse of
time and could only find place in the annals of history. The memory of
Husayn remained alive in the hearts and minds of the Muslims and has
become a recurrent theme for certain values. The section of the Muslim
community which upheld the cause and memory of Husayn at the expense of
and in disregard for political realities, but still remaining an
integral part of the religious entity of Islam, was thrust into a
sectarian role by that majority which, though unwillingly, compromised
with the political realities at the religious level.
Some Muslim historians writing directly under the influence of the
ruling authorities of the time, and those theologians who by necessity
tried to find a compromise position between the ruling authorities on
the one hand and the Islamic community on the other, described Husayn's
action as an ambitious attempt to wrest political power and as a mistake
of judgement. Western scholars of Islam, in their rather superficial
attempts to study Husayn's action, have subjected themselves to a
certain mechanical methodology which they term a “scientific historical
approach”.
The German school of orientalists, the first to enter the field of
modern orientalism, though it indeed made valuable and solid
contributions in certain branches of Arab-Islamic studies with admirable
thoroughness and depth, was so committed to a particular historical
methodology that it could never grasp the “feelings” and “necessary
aptitude” so vitally important in understanding religious history and
its development. The impact of the German school has been so strong that
this trend has persisted, and the subsequent schools of the French and
British scholars, with very few exceptions, have followed the same
trend. It is thus rather regrettable that the tragedy of Karbala has
been regarded by these scholars with the same mechanical historicism:
none of them has ever tried to study Husayn's action in its meaning and
purpose. It was therefore natural for these scholars to describe Husayn
as an ill-fated adventurer attempting to seize political power, his
movement as a rebellion against the established order, and his action as
a fatal miscalculation of Kufan promises.[^65]
We have already hinted in passing that Husayn had been fully aware of
the situation and the consequences. On the road from Medina to Mecca,
then at the time when he was leaving the “House of God” for Ku fa, and
finally throughout the journey from Mecca to Ku fa, he was warned by
dozens of people about the danger and that “the hearts of the Iraqis
were for him but that their swords were for the Umayyads.”
But I;1usayn's replies to all of those who attempted to deflect him
from his purpose were always more or less in the same vein:
“God does as He wishes…, I leave it to God to choose what is best…, God
is not hostile to him who proposes the just cause.”[^66]
From these replies it is clear that Husayn was fully aware of the
dangers he would encounter and that he had a certain strategy and plan
in mind to bring about a revolution in the consciousness of the Muslim
community. Furthermore, it is also very clear from the sources, as has
been stated before, that Husayn did not try to organize or mobilize
military support, which he easily could have done in the Hijaz, nor did
he even try to exploit whatever physical strength was available to him.
Among many instances in this respect we will restrict ourselves to
citing only one. At a place called 'Uzayb al- Hujaynat, after having
already learned about the Kufan abandonment of his envoy Muslim b. 'Aqil
and his subsequent death, it was clear to Husayn that he had no hope of
support or even survival in Kufa. Nevertheless, he totally refused an
offer of safety, if not success, extended to him. Abu Mikhnaf and other
sources relate that at this place four of the leading Shi'is of Kufa
managed to reach Husayn with the help of Tirimmah. b. 'Adi at-Ta'i, who
acted as a guide (dalil). Tirimmah made a strong appeal to Husayn,
saying:
“By God I have left Kufa in such a condition that when you reach there
you will not find a single person who could help you against your
enemies. By God, if you go there, you and those who are travelling with
you will be instantly butchered. For God's sake, abandon your plan and
come with me to the safety of our mountains here. By God, these
mountains have been beyond the reach of the kings of Ghassan and Himyar,
from Nu'man b. al-Mundhir, and from any black and red [i.e., from any
formidable power]. By God, if you decide to come with me no one can
humiliate you or stop you from doing so [reference to Hurr]. Once you
reach my villages on the mountains, we will send for men of [the tribes
of] Ba'ja and Salma of the Tayy'.
Then, even ten days will not pass before the horsemen and the foot
soldiers of Tayy' arrive to help you. You can stay with us as long as
you wish, and if then you want to make an uprising from there, or if you
are disturbed, I would lead a force -of twenty thousand men of the Tayy'
with you, who would strike [at your enemies] with their swords in front
of you. By God, no one will ever be able to reach you, and the eyes of
the people of Tayy' would remain guarding you.'[^67]
Husayn's only reply to this extremely valuable and timely offer, when
all hopes of support in Kufa had already vanished, was:
“God bless you and your people, but I am committed to some people, and
I cannot go back from my word, though I did not know what would happen
between us and them. However, things are destined.”^68
One cannot help asking how it would be possible for a man making a bid
for power to refuse to accept such a promising offer of support. Can
anyone think that after knowing all of the latest developments in Kufa
Husayn was still hoping to find any support or even the slightest chance
of survival in Kufa? Moreover, we have detailed descriptions of the fact
that when at Zubala I;1usayn learned of the brutal execution of his
envoy Qays b. Mushir, he gathered those accompanying him and asked them
to leave him alone and go to safety. After Zubala, Husayn made this
proclamation to his companions time and again, the last of these being
on the night of 'Ashura. Is it conceivable that anyone striving for
power would ask his supporters to abandon him, no matter how
insignificant their number might have been? No one can answer these
questions in the affirmative. What then did Husayn have in mind?
Why was he still heading for Kufa?
It is rather disappointing to note that Western scholarship on Islam,
given too much to historicism, has placed all its attention on the
discrete external aspects of the event of Karbala and has never tried to
analyse the inner history and agonizing conflict in Husayn's mind.
Anatomy of the human body can give knowledge of the various parts and
their composition, but cannot give us an understanding of man himself.
In the case of Husayn, a careful study and analysis of the events of
Karbala as a whole reveals the fact that from the very beginning Husayn
was planning for a complete revolution in the religious consciousness of
the Muslims. All of his actions show that he was aware of the fact that
a victory achieved through military strength and might is always
temporal, because another stronger power can in course of time bring it
down in ruins. But a victory achieved through suffering and sacrifice is
everlasting and leaves permanent imprints on man S consciousness. Husayn
was brought up in the lap of the Founder of Islam and had inherited the
love and devotion to the Islamic way of life from his father.
As time went on, he noticed the great changes which were rapidly taking
place in the community in regard to religious feelings and morality. The
natural process of conflict and struggle between action and reaction was
now at work. That is, Muhammad's progressive Islamic action had
succeeded in suppressing Arab conservatism, embodied in heathen
pre-Islamic practices and ways of thinking. But in less than thirty
years' time this Arab conservatism revitalized itself as a forceful
reaction to challenge Muhammad's action once again. The forces of this
reaction had already moved into motion with the rise of Mu'awiya, but
the succession of Yazid was a clear sign that the reactionary forces had
mobilized themselves and had now re-emerged with full vigour. The
strength of this reaction, embodied in Yazid's character, was powerful
enough to suppress or at least deface Muhammad's action.
Islam was now, in the thinking of Husayn, in dire need of reactivation
of Muhammad's action against the old Arabian reaction and thus required
a complete shake-up. Such a shake up would not have been so effective at
the time of Hasan, for his rival Mu'awiya, though he had little regard
for religion, atleast outwardly tried to veil his reactionary attitude
of the old Arabism. Yazid did not care even for this; he exposed these
pretensions and his conduct amounted to open ridicule of Muhammad's
Sunna and Qur'anic norms.
Now, through Yazid, reaction of the old Arabism was in direct
confrontation against the Islamic action of Muhammad. This could be seen
by such instances as when Yazid, during his father's reign, once came to
Medina in the season of the Hajj and became badly intoxicated from
wine-drinking. Ibn 'Abbas and Husayn happened to pass by him, whereupon
Yazid called his servant and ordered him to serve wine to Husayn,
insisting that the latter take it. When Husayn angrily refused and rose
to leave, Yazid, in his drunken stupor, sang:
“O my friend, how strange it is that I have invited you, but you do not
accept, To women singers, pleasures, wine, and music, And to a brimming
full jar of wine on the lip of which sits the master of the Arabs.
And among them [the singing girls] there is one who has captured your
heart, and she did not repent by doing this.”
Husayn stood up and said:
“But your heart, O son of Mu'awiya.”[^69]
Now this same Yazid was the Caliph of Islam and was asking Husayn to
accept his authority. Husayn's acceptance of Yazid, with the latter's
openly reactionary attitude against Islamic norms, would not have meant
merely a political arrangement, as had been the case with Hasan and
Mu'awiya, but an endorsement of Yazid's character and way of life as
well. This was unthinkable to the grandson of the Prophet, now the head
of Muhammad's family and the embodiment of his Sunna.
In order to counteract this reaction against Islamic action, Husayn
prepared his strategy. In his opinion he had the right, by virtue of his
family and his own position therein, to guide the people and receive
their respect. However, if this right were challenged, he was willing to
sacrifice and die for his cause. He realized that mere force of arms
would not have saved Islamic action and consciousness. To him it needed
a shaking and jolting of hearts and feelings. This, he decided, could
only be achieved through sacrifice and sufferings. This should not be
difficult to understand, especially for those who fully appreciate the
heroic deeds and sacrifices of, for example, Socrates and Joan of Arc,
both of whom embraced death for their ideals, and above all of the great
sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the redemption of mankind.
It is in this light that we should read Husayn's replies to those
well-wishers who advised him not to go to Iraq. It also explains why
Husayn took with him his women and children, though advised by Ibn
'Abbas that should he insist on his project, at least he should not take
his family with him. Aware of the extent of the brutal nature of the
reactionary forces, Husayn knew that after killing him the Umayyads
would make his women and children captives and take them all the way
from Kufa to Damascus. This caravan of captives of Muhammad's immediate
family would publicize Husayn's message and would force the Muslims'
hearts to ponder on the tragedy. It would make the Muslims think of the
whole affair and would awaken their consciousness. This is exactly what
happened. Husayn succeeded in his purpose. It is difficult today to
evaluate exactly the impact of Husayn's action on Islamic morality and
way of thinking, because it prevailed. Had Husayn not shaken and
awakened Muslim consciousness by this method, who knows whether Yazid's
way of life would have become standard behaviour in the Muslim
community, endorsed and accepted by the grandson of the Prophet No
doubt, even after Yazid kingship did prevail in Islam, and the character
and behaviour in the personal lives of these kings was not very
different from that of Yazid, but the change in thinking which prevailed
after the sacrifice of Husayn always served as a line of distinction
between Islamic norms and the personal character of the rulers.
Except for a few mediaeval writers committed to certain interests,
Muslim historians and authors have always paid their utmost tribute in
praising Husayn's heroic action. It is indeed encouraging that in modern
times more and more Muslim scholars of all schools of thought have been
contributing independent works to explain Husayn's philosophy of
sacrifice and martyrdom. Among the numerous books published in the past
few decades, coinciding with the reawakening of the Muslim world, we
would refer our readers to only two. One is by the famous Egyptian
author 'Abbas Mahmud al-'Aqqad and entitled Abu ash-shuhada', al-Husayn
b. Ali[^70] (Father of Martyrs, Husayn b. 'Ali). The other is by a great
Lebanese scholar and shaykh, 'Abd Allah al-'Ala'ili, and is entitled
Al-Imam al-Husayn, sumu'l-ma'na fi sumu'dhdhat.[^71] (The Imam Husayn,
Loftiness of Purpose in a Lofty -Personality), a comprehensive study of
Husayn's life, times, and martyrdom. Both writers, the former a secular
scholar of history and philosophy, the latter a religious scholar of
very high standing and scholarship, have discussed thoroughly the
meaning, purpose, philosophy and the highest ideal of Husayn's deed.
Now we must turn to examine the second inference to be drawn from the
outline of the episode of Karbala given above:
to determine the religious feelings of those who willingly gave their
lives with Husayn. In describing the tragedy our sources do not fail to
provide ample material on those doctrinal feelings which compelled the
supporters of Husayn to choose to die with him rather than to live in
peace and comfort, a choice which remained open to them even up to the
last moment. This can be elucidated by examining those speeches and
pledges of loyalty made by these persons on several occasions. It is
also illustrated by that war poetry in rajaz (verbal duels) which was
exchanged between the combatants of both sides. In Arabian warfare it
was customary that when two combatants came to fight each other, each
would declare his tribe, its deeds and status, and the stand for which
he was going to fight. Only a few examples, however, from each of these
three categories will be cited here to show that there was a particular
doctrinal stand for which the followers of Husayn stood and died.
We have seen that Husayn's messenger Qays b. Mushir, whom he had sent
from Hajir to inform the Kufans of his arrival, was arrested at
al-Qadisiya and sent to Ibn Ziyad for trial. The governor ordered him to
go to the top of the palace and curse Husayn if he wanted to save his
life. Qays used this opportunity to propagate his cause; he addressed
the people, saying:
“O people of Kufi. I am Husayn's messenger, and I declare before you
that Husayn, the grandson of the Prophet, is the best man of his time
among the men of God on earth and has better claims upon you than anyone
else. It is therefore your duty to respond to him.”
Qays then called for the curse of God upon Ibn Ziyad and God's blessing
for 'Ali[^72] He was thereupon thrown to his death. If we compare Qays'
attitude with that of Hujr b. 'Adi al-Kindi about twelve years earlier,
mentioned in the preceding chapter, we find a consistent way of thinking
which links them in an unbroken chain of Shi'i thought. Qays'
introduction of Husayn with special reference to his relationship with
the Prophet and stating that he was the best man of God of his time on
earth goes back to the ideas promulgated from the very beginning by the
supporters of 'Ali.
As mentioned above, on the eve of 'Ashura (9 Muharram) Ibn Sa'd ordered
his forces to advance towards Husayn's camp after receiving Ibn Ziyad's
orders for an immediate attack. Husayn sent his brother 'Abbas along
with some leading followers to ask for a night's respite. After some
argument this was granted, and 'Abbas returned to inform Husayn; but
Habib b. Muzahir and Zuhayr b. al-Qayn, who had come along with 'Abbas,
remained behind to try to convince the Umayyad army of their
wrongdoings. There are some useful dialogues recorded between these two
men and their opponents. Habib b. Muzahir spoke first to the enemy:
“By God, how evil and wretched those people will be when they appear
before God after killing the family and the Ahl al-Bayt of their own
Prophet. The people of this sacred family are those who are the best
worshippers of God and who spend their mornings striving in the devotion
to God, devoting themselves to the best of His remembrance.”
Azra b. Qays from the Umayyad side tauntingly replied:
“You go ahead with the purification of your soul as much as you like”
(implying: “but do not try to convince us”). To this Zuhayr b. al-Qayn
responded:
“O Azra! God has indeed purified our souls and has guided us. So fear
God, O Azra, because I am one of your sincerest advisors. May God make
you think, O Azra. Would you like to be one of. those who have fixed for
themselves the path of error by killing these sacred and purified souls
[Husayn and other members of the Ahl al-Bayt]?”
Azra b. Qays again retorted:
“O Zuhayr, you were not among the Shi'is of 'Ali, but were known to be
an 'Uthmani.”
Zuhayr replied:
“But now being with Husayn you must recognize that I am a Shi'i of
'Ali.”[^73]
After this respite of only one night, and with all hopes gone, it was
certain that the following morning would bring the summons of death for
Husayn and his supporters. He gathered his companions and asked them to
leave him alone as the enemy wanted nothing but his head. All the
prominent companions and relatives of Husayn, in reply to his address,
refused to leave him until all of them were killed. Perhaps we should
avoid considering the pledges made on this occasion by the relatives of
Husayn, like 'Abbas, his half-brother and others,[^74] which may be
interpreted as the clannish loyalty to the head of the clan. We would,
therefore, record here the pledges of those who had no blood, clan, or
even tribal relationship with Husayn, but only ties of religious or
doctrinal loyalty.
From among the followers of Husayn the aged Muslim b. 'Awsaja stood up
and exclaimed:
“How can we leave you? What excuse then will we have before God in
discharging our duty towards you? No, by God, we will not depart from
you. I will fight with you until my last breath and until I die with
you.”[^75]
Then Sa'd b. 'Abd Allah al-Hanafi addressed Husayn, saying:
“By God, we will not depart from you until by sacrificing our lives we
have proven to God that we have faithfully fulfilled the duty we owe to
the Prophet concerning you. By God, if I knew that I would be killed and
then again be given a new life, and that then my body would be burned
alive, all this being repeated seventy times, I would still not leave
you until I died in front of you. And why should I not do that when I
know that I can only be killed once, leading to an everlasting honour
and privilege.
[The last sentence in Bidaya reads:] By God, if I knew that I would be
killed before you a thousand times, and by this your life and the lives
of the other Ahl al-Bayt would be saved, I would love to be killed a
thousand times; but this is only to be killed once, leading to an
everlasting honour.”[^76]
After quoting a similar speech by Zuhayr b. al-Qayn, our sources say
that all the companions of Husayn pronounced more or less in the same
vein and declared their complete loyalties to Husayn, saying:
“By God, we will never leave you alone until all of us are killed and
our bodies are torn to pieces. By this we will have fulfilled our duties
to you.”^77
The contents of all these statements and pledges provide very useful
points with which to emphasize that religious urge which made the
companions of Husayn so firm and enthusiastic, even at that moment of
calamity. The points prevailing in these pledges are: 1: emphasis on
Husayn's close and direct relationship with the Prophet, and not
specifically with 'Ali; 2: that to betray Husayn is to betray the
Prophet, or similarly, that loyalty to Husayn is loyalty to Muhammad,
the Prophet of God; 3: that to give up Husayn is to denounce Islam,
which was revealed by his grandfather, the Prophet; 4: that betrayal of
Husayn this day would cause them to perish on the Day of Judgement and
would deprive them of the intercession of the Prophet. The essence of
all three aspects, however, is that in their thinking there was an Imam
or central authority who was the focal point for the love normally
directed to the person of the Prophet himself.[^78]
On the day of 'Ashura, shortly before the fateful battle began, Hurr b.
Yazid, a respected commander of the Umayyad army, the first who
confronted Husayn and forced him to halt at Karbala as mentioned above,
was himself now confronted by his own conscience and feelings. A great
conflict arose in his mind: he was forced to choose between either
wetting his hands in the sacred blood of the grandson of the Prophet or
giving up his rank, power, and a bright career lying before him. His
feelings ultimately won him over and he chose the latter. He suddenly
spurred his horse towards Husayn's camp, threw himself at Husayn's feet,
and exclaimed:
“O son of the Prophet! Here is the man who did you great injustice in
detaining you at this place and causing you so much trouble. Is it
possible for you to forgive a sinner like me? By God, I never imagined
that these people would go so far as to shed the blood of the grandson
of their Prophet. I only thought that they would accept one of these
three options you offered; and thus some sort of reconciliation would
ultimately prevail, and in this way I would be able to retain my rank
and position. But now, when all hopes for peace are gone, I cannot buy
Hell for this worldly gain. Forgive my mistake and allow me to sacrifice
myself for you. Only by doing this can I redeem myself in the eyes of
God for my sin against you.”[^79]
Husayn embraced Hurr and said: “You are as free-born and noble (Hurr)
as your mother named you.” Hurr then at once went before the Umayyad
army and addressed his fellow men in a long speech in favour of Husayn.
Condemning their sacrilegious actions against the grandson of the
Prophet, he put them to shame and reminded them of the Day of
Judgement.[^80] Consequently, Hurr was among the first to give his life
for Husayn. The defection of Hurr to Husayn shortly before the battle
began and his being killed by the Umayyad army is as historical as the
event of Karbala itself; to his defection all the sources bear unanimous
testimony.
The physical defection of Hurr from the established order was, however,
not of much importance. It was the principle on which Hurr defected from
the Umayyad army which should be considered seriously. This was,
perhaps, the greatest visible victory for the Shi'i point of view, for
which the companions of Husayn were fighting to the death. The working
of Hurr's mind at this last moment, as expressed in his statements
mentioned above, was exactly the same as that of the companions of
Husayn. This again supports the view that there was a particular way of
thinking directed to the Shi'i doctrine.
5 Not of least importance in this connection are those rajaz verses
exchanged between Husayn's companions and their opponents. Among the
most illuminating are the following:
1: The same Hurr, when engaged in battle, proclaimed:
“I will strike my sword on your heads in the cause of that Imam who is
the best among all the inhabitants of Mecca.”[^81]
2: Nafi' b. Hilal al-Jamali, of Husayn's camp, came forward and asked
for his combatant, proclaiming:
“I am from the tribe of Banu Jamal, and I am of the religion of 'Ali
(din 'Ali).”
From the opposite side one Muzahim b. Hurayth came forward, saying:
“I will fight with you; I am of the religion of 'Uthman (din
Uthman).”
Nafi' retorted:
“No, you are of the religion of Satan.”[^82]
3: When Zuhayr b. al-Qayn came to fight he said:
“I am Zuhayr, and I am the son of Qayn; I will defend and protect
Husayn with my sword.”
Turning to Husayn he said:
“I will proceed leading to a rightly guided path the day when I meet
your grandfather, the Prophet, [and the day] when I will meet Hasan and
'Ali al-Murtada and the one of the two wings [reference to Ja'far
at-Tayyar].”[^83]
The war poetry in rajaz pronounced by the combatants of both sides,
which has come down to us from reliable sources to be examined later,
makes useful reading and provides important points. We have quoted only
three of them for the sake of brevity. These pronouncements, however,
sufficiently indicate that the Shi'i trend of thinking was fully active
among those who chose to die with Husayn. The statement of Hurr that
Husayn was an Imam, the best of all the residents of Mecca, and Nafi'
and Zuhayr's declarations that they were of the religion of 'Ali and on
the rightly guided path, are complete explanations in themselves and
require no further comment. Yet the pronouncement of Husayn's followers
that they were of the religion of 'Ali does not fail to suggest that
they meant this term in a strictly religious sense, in contrast to those
who had also called themselves by the same name at Al-Jamal, at Siffin,
and on other occasions with 'Ali, but on political grounds, and who with
the changing circumstances assimilated with the ruling majority who were
now going to kill the son of 'Ali. On the other hand, by looking at all
these quotations referred to above we find that throughout the incident
of Karbala there had been a persistent and continuous doctrinal tendency
among the followers of Husayn, based on their declaration of being of
the religion of 'Ali. This very tendency in course of time, as we shall
see later, was translated into a more elaborate form of Shi'i tenets and
developed its own theological doctrine (kalam) and legal system (fiqh)
in opposition to the rest of the Jama'a.
Commenting on the tragedy of Karbala, even a scholar like Philip Hitti
lets himself write that “Shi'ism was born on the tenth of
Muharram.”[^84] All the information derived from our sources and all the
evidence given above totally reject this view. Instead, a careful study
of the material handed down to us from the sources of different schools
of thought confirm the fact that the Shi'i doctrinal stand had been in
evidence right from the time of the death of the Prophet, and the death
of Husayn only “set the seal of an official ShT'ism.”[^85]
For that purpose we have gone into the detail of citing from those speeches, pledges, and war poetry pronounced before the death of Husayn, all of which clearly demonstrates the nature of the existing tendencies prevailing before the tragedy occurred. What is really true to say, however, is that the tragedy did play an immensely important role, not in the creation of Shi'ism, but in the consolidation of the Shi'I identity. The fate of Husayn was destined to become the most effective agent in the propagation and comparatively rapid spread of Shi'ism. It is also undoubtedly true that the tragedy added to Shi'i Islam an element of “passion”, which renders human psychology more receptive to doctrine than anything else. Henceforth we find that this element of “passion” becomes a characteristic feature of the Shi'is.
The tragedy of Karbala in its immediate and far-reaching consequences
created three thousand Tawwabun (penitents) who let themselves die as a
way of repenting for their inability to fulfil their commitments to the
grandson of the Prophet. It provided a ground from which Mukhtar was
able to launch his movement. It provided an effective slogan to the
'Abbasids for overthrowing the Umayyad regime. And ultimately, the name
and memory of Husayn became an inseparable part of Shi'i moral and
religious fervour.[^86]
A brief comment on the authenticity of the sources of our information
for the whole account of Karbala, including the speeches, pledges, and
rajaz material pronounced by the supporters of Husayn, is in order. The
main source of our knowledge of the tragedy is Abu Mikhnaf Lut b. Yahya
(died I 57/774) the first to produce a comprehensive account of Karbala.
This work was entitled Maqtal al-Husayn, and in the list of Abu
Mikhnaf's numerous works this one is unanimously mentioned by all
bibliographers.[^87]
Abu Mikhnaf, one of the earliest and best Arab historians, has been
thoroughly and critically studied by scholars such as Welihausen[^88]
and others, and recently by Ursula Sezgin in an admirable work entitled
Abu Mikhnaf[^89] All have found him generally the most reliable and
authentic writer on the annals of Kufa and Iraq under the Umayyads. It
is now established that, as a rule, he does not take his material from
predecessors or far-distant sources, but rather collects it himself by
enquiring in the most diverse directions from all possible people who
could have first-hand information or who had been present to see and
hear for themselves. The chain of transmitters with him is a reality and
not merely a literary form, and it is always very short. Writing shortly
after the events he describes, Abu Mikhnaf often relates from an
eyewitness account with only one intermediary between himself and his
source.[^90] Gibb suggests that Abu Mikhnaf presents an Iraqi or Ku fan,
rather than purely Shi'i!, point of view in his narratives.[^91] In this
his sympathies are no doubt on the side of Iraq against Syria; for 'Ali,
against the Umayyads. Yet in the opinion of Welihausen there is not much
of a bias noticeable, at least not so much as to positively falsify
fact.[^92]
The Maqtal of Abu Mikhnaf has come to us through numerous sources. It
is, however, Tabari who used this work in full for the first time and
thus becomes our main source of the text. In most cases Tabari quotes
Abu Mikhnaf directly, but quite a few traditions he quotes from Hisham
b. Muhammad al-Kalbi, most of these, no doubt, going back to Abu Mikhnaf
himself. Tabari sometimes begins his narrative by saying: “Abu Mikhnaf
said from so-and-so…”; and other times by saying: “Hisham (b. al-Kalbi)
said from Abu Mikhnaf from so-and-so…,, This indicates that in the
former case Tabari is quoting directly from Abu Mikhnaf's work, while in
the latter he quotes Abu Mikhnaf in the recension of Ibn al-Kalbi.
Besides Abu Mikhnaf and Ibn al-Kalbi, Tabari also quotes quite a few
traditions transmitted from other traditionists, which add a few
variants to the preceding ones and in most cases confirm Abu Mikhnaf.
Another source for Abu Mikhnaf is Baladhuri (died 279/892-893), whose
Ansab al-ashraf pertaining to Husayn has not yet been published, but has
been used by Veccia Vaglieri in her long and thorough article on Husayn
in the new edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Vaglieri finds that
“Al-Baladhuri almost always used the same sources as At-Tabari, but
often made resumes of them, introducing them by qalu (they said), and he
provides some additional verses.” Our own examination of the manuscript
leads us to agree with her findings, thus detailed references to the
Ansab manuscript seem unnecessary.[^93]
Besides these two, who have used Abu Mikhnaf in full, we have also
referred to Ibn Kathir (died 774/1372-1373), a pupil of Ibn Taymiyya and
a committed Sunni of the Syrian school, often very critical of the
Shi'i, whom he often refers to as the Rawafid. Ibn Kathir, often
selective, naturally ignores those parts of Abu Mikhnaf which are
directly against his interests, such as the references to 'Uthman, etc.;
otherwise he accepts most of the material of Abu Mikhnaf. On the other
hand, early Shi'i writers, like Shaykh al-Mufid (born 336/947, died
413/1022) in his Irshad, and others, relate the tragedy of Karbala,
apart from Abu Mikhnaf from their own sources, often going back to 'Ali
b. al-Husayn. This son of Husayn, twenty-three years old when he was
present at Karbala, could not take part in the battle due to his illness
and was thus saved from the general massacre. This makes him a major
narrator of the tragedy. It is indeed very interesting and useful to
note that in general outline and in all the major events, the renderings
of Shaykh al-Mufid, a very committed die-hard Shi'i, are closely
paralleled by those of the Syrian Ibn Kathir.
In examining Abu Mikhnaf's Maqtal al-Husayn one must particularly take
into consideration the time factor to the author's advantage. We do not
know precisely the date of his birth, but at the rising of Ibn Ash'ath
against Hajjaj in 80-82/699-701,[^94] Abu Mikhnaf had already reached
manhood.[^95]
The tragedy of Karbala took place in 61/680. This means that Abu
Mikhnaf must have been born about the year of the tragedy, and at the
time of Ibn al-Ash'ath's revolt he must have been somewhere between the
ages of eighteen and twenty-two. It is certain that many of those who
took active part in the battle of Karbala on the Umayyad side were still
living, and thus the author had the opportunity of meeting and
interviewing personally those who had witnessed the event themselves.
For this reason, in the Maqtal Abu Mikhnaf cites his authority with the
clear observation wa kana qad shahida qatl al-Husayn (and he witnessed
the murder of Husayn). Without exception, throughout his narrative he
uses the verb haddathani (he told me); and if his report is not directly
from an eyewitness, he cites only one or two intermediaries who had
received the account from the eyewitness himself. Thus in our quotations
above concerning the statements of loyalty, pledges, and rajaz, the
isnad runs:
1: Abu Mikhnaf-Muhammad b. Qays (eyewitness).
2: Abu Mikhnaf-Harith b.Hasira and 'Abd Allah b. Sharik al-'Amiri
(eyewitnesses).
3: Abu Mikhnaf-'Abd Allah b. 'Asim and Dahhak b. 'Abd Allah
(eyewitnesses).
4: Abu Mikhnaf-Abu Jana-b al-Kalbi and 'Adi b. Hurmula
(eyewitnesses).
5: Abu Mikhnaf-Muhammad b. Qays (eyewitness).[^96]
Often he further strengthens his isnad by citing more than one
eyewitness, for instance in 2, 3, and 4 above. Reporting the pledges of
the supporters of Husayn on the night of 'Ashura, he says that 'Ali b.
al-Husayn said: “I was lying sick in my bed and heard my father's speech
and the replies of his supporters thereto.”
The Maqtal al-Husayn of Abu Mikhnaf must have soon received widespread
popularity, and numerous copies must have been made and circulated. This
is evident from an examination of the isnads and reference to sources in
which the work is used by other authors. Tabari source was no doubt
mainly Hisham b. al-Kalbi directly. But Mufid, Abi'l Faraj (Maqatil al-
Talibiyin), Ibn Kathir, and many others give different sources and names
through whom the work reached them. For example, Mufid often begins his
narrative with the prefatory comment: “What is reported by Al-Kalbi,
Al-Mada'ini, and others than these two from among the biographers (ashab
a-b as-Siyar).”[^97]
Similarly, Abu'l-Faraj quotes Abu Mikhnaf from Ibn al-Kalbi and
Mada'ini, and additionally from sources such as Husayn b. Nasr, the son
of the famous Nasr b. Muzahim al-Minqari, the author of Waq'at and
'Awana, the famous historian. Abu'l-Faraj alone uses about five
different isnads going back to Abu Mikhnaf, and quite a few other
independent isnads going back to 'Ali b. al-Husayn, and then as usual
summarises the accounts of all of them together. Basically, however,
Abu'l-Faraj's source for Abu Mikhnaf is Mada'ini.[^98] Likewise still
other authorities and different sources are given by Ibn Kathir, through
whom he was able to use Abu Mikhnaf.[^99]
Mention must finally be made of the four manuscripts of the Maqtal,
located at Gotha (No.1836), Berlin (Sprenger, Nos. 159-160), Leiden
(No.792), and St. Petersburg (Am No. 78). It was from the first two that
Ferdinand Wustenfeld made a German translation of the work entitled Der
Tod des Husein Ben 'Ali und die Rache (Gottingen, 1883). Wustenfeld,
while convinced of the early origin of these manuscripts, doubts that
the author was Abu Mikhnaf.[^100] The foremost argument he puts forward
is that it contains some miraculous and supernatural types of stories,
such as terrible manifestations of grief in natural phenomena: reddening
skies, bleeding sands, and so forth. Ursula Sezgin questions
Wustenfeld's criticism at several points and suggests that while the
existing manuscripts may be the recensions or rewritings made by some
later unknown writers, the fact remains that Tabari's main source of Abu
Mikhnaf was Ibn al-Kalbi.[^101]
However, some of these miraculous stories or fantasies have found a
place even in Tabari, which suggests that these might have been
originally written by Abu Mikhnaf himself or may have been incorporated
by Ibn al-Kalbi when he rewrote his master's work. But to cast doubts on
Abu Mikhnaf's authorship of the Maqtal only on the grounds that some
supernatural and miraculous events are recorded, as Wustenfeld is
inclined to suggest, would mean to ignore certain tendencies of the age.
It would perhaps be a grave error to expect that a book written in the
early eighth century about a great religious personality would not
accept supernatural occurrences as a matter of course, especially when
the main event itself is so charged with emotion and suffering. The Near
East has produced an enormous number of books on the miracles of saints
and holy men, and it would be strange indeed if Islam had not followed
in the footsteps of its predecessors in glorifying the deeds of its
Prophet and his family, even at the expense of their human greatness.
Moreover, as explained in the first chapter, the Arabs always believed
in certain supernatural powers endowed on some sacerdotal families.
Similarly, certain reactions of natural elements in certain conditions
were also a commonplace factor in the system of Arab beliefs. After the
Arabs' conversion to Islam, the miraculous stories were growing in
narration right from the time of the Prophet, to which the Sira of Ibn
Hisham bears testimony.
The most extraordinary circumstances of Husayn's death, immediately
followed by the Tawwabun Movement highly charged with passion and
remorse, and the propaganda carried out by the Tawwabun and by
Al-Mukhtar naturally produced some supernatural stories alongside the
accounts of the tragedy. We can, therefore, conclude that even if a few
popular legends and supernatural events related to the tragedy are
described in the Maqtal, this does not mean that the work is not of Abu
Mikhnaf's authorship, nor that the whole account is unreliable. The
inclusion of such stories does not eclipse the fact that the Maqtal also
contains and comprises the efforts of a prominent Arab historian to
collect and preserve the most reliable and the most contemporary
historical accounts of Husayn's martyrdom available to scholarship at a
time when many participants in the events were still alive and able to
contribute their knowledge to Abu Mikhnaf's research.
[^1]: For the character and conduct of Yazid, see Jahiz, Rasa'il, “Risala fi Bani Umayya”, pp.294 ff.; Baladhuri, IVB, pp. 1-11; Aghani; XV, p.232; Mas'udi, Muruj, III, p.67; Damiri, Hayat al- Hayawan, pp. 261 ff.; Ya'qubi, II, p.228. It is indeed surprising to note that Henri Lammens, in his Le califat de Yazid, contrary to the unanimous reports of Muslim writers of all times, has taken great pains to depict Yazid as an ideal character. Lammens' unusual regard for the Umayyad house often led him to read the Arabic text to suit his own purposes.
[^2]: Baladhuri, IVB, pp.122 f.; 'Iqd, IV, p.226; Tabari, II, pp.196 f.; Dinawari, p.226
[^3]: Baladhuri, IVB, p.12; Ya'qubi, II, p.241; Tabari, II, p. 216; 'Iqd IV, p.227; Bidaya, VIII, pp.146 f.
[^4]: Tabari, II, p.219; Baladhuri, IVB, p. 15; Dinawari, p.228; Bidaya, VIII, p.147
[^5]: See Tabari, II, pp.233, 276; Baladhuri, IVB, p.13; Dinawari, p.229; Mas'udi, Muruj, III, p. 55 Bidaya, VIII, p. 151
[^6]: Tabari, II, pp.233 f.; Maqatil, p.96
[^7]: Tabari, II p.234; Dinawari, p.229; Bidaya, VIII, pp. 151 f.
[^8]: Tabari, II, pp.234 f.; Ya'qubi, II, p.242
[^9]: Tabari, II, p.235; Mufid, Irshad, II, pp.35 f.
[^10]: Tabari, II, p.240
[^11]: See details in Tabari, II, pp.174 f.
[^12]: Tabari, II, pp.237 f.; Mufid, Irshad, II, p.36; Bidaya, VIII, p.152
[^13]: Tabari, II, p.264; Mas'udi, Muruj; III, p.54; Dinawari, p.235; Baladhuri, II, p. 80; Mufid, Irshad, II, p.38; Bidaya, VIII, p.152. Ibn 'Abd Rabbih gives the figure as more than 30,000 in 'Iqd, IV, p. 378
[^14]: This letter of Muslim was sent to Husayn on 12 Dhu'l-Qa'da 60/15 August 680, 27 days before the murder of Muslim; see Tabari, II, pp.264, 271; Mufid, Irshad, II, pp.67, 72
[^15]: Tabari, II, pp.220 f.; 223,274 f.; Dinawari, Pp.229,243 f.; 'Iqd, IV, p.376; Maqatil, p.109; Bidaya, VIII, pp. 109 f.; 160 ff
[^16]: Tabari, II, pp.274-76; Bidaya, VII I, p. 166
[^17]: Tabari, loc. cit.; Baladhuri, IVB, p. '4; Dinawari, p. 229; Maqatil, p.109; Bidaya, VIII, pp. 160, 163
[^18]: See the text of Yazid's order in Tabari, II, pp.228, 240. A still more detailed version is given by Jahshiyari, Al-Wuzara' wa'l-Kuttab, ed. Saqqa, Ibyari, and Shibli (Cairo, 1938), p.3'; Dinawari, pp.231, 242; Bidaya, VIII, p.152; Mufid Irshad, II, p.40
[^19]: Tabari, II, pp.229, 241; Dinawari, p.232; Mas'udi, Muruj, III, p. 57; Maqatil, p. 96; Bidaya, VIII, p.153; Mufid, Irshad, II, p.41
[^20]: Tabari, II, p.242; Dinawari, p.232; Maqatil, p.97; Bidaya, VIII, p.154; Mufid, Irshad, II, p.41
[^21]: See Tabari, II, p. 267; Mas'udi, Muruj, III, pp.59 f.; Dinawari, p.240; Maqatil, pp. 100-8; Bidaya, VII I, pp.153-7; Mufid, Irshad, II, pp. 42-67
[^22]: Tabari, II, pp.242, 277; Dinawari, p.245; Bidaya, VIII, p. 166
[^23]: Tabari, II, p. 278; Ya'qubi, II, p. 249;Bidaya, VIII, p. 167. Shi'I sources state that Yazid sent some soldiers disguised as pilgrims to assassinate Husayn amidst the crowds assembled for the Hajj; see Mufid, Irshad, II, p.69
[^24]: Tabari, II, p.242
[^25]: Tabari, II, pp. 285, 288 f.; Dinawari, p.243; Mufid, Irshad, II, p.71
[^26]: Tabari, II, pp. 289 ff.; 293, 303; Dinawari; pp.247 f.; Bidaya, VIII, pp. z68, 274; Mufid, Irshad, II, p.72
[^27]: Tabari, II, p.303; Bidaya, loc. cit.
[^28]: Tabari, II, p.294; Dinawari, p.248; Bidaya, VIII, p. 169; Mufid, Irshad, II, p.77
[^29]: Tabari, II, pp.296 f.; Dinawari, p.249; Bidaya, VIII, p.172; Mufid, Irshad, II, pp. 78 ff
[^30]: Tabari, loc. cit.; Dinawari, loc. cit.; Bidaya, loc. cit.; Mufid, loc. cit.
[^31]: Tabari, II, pp. 298 f. See also Dinawari, p.249; Bidaya, VIII, p.172; Mufid, Irshad, II, p. 81
[^32]: Tabari, II, pp.299-307; Dinawari, pp.249-51; Bidaya, VIII, pp. 172-S; Mufid, Irshad, II, p.84
[^33]: For details see Tabari, II, pp. 308-16; Dinawari, pp.253-5; Bidaya, VIII, pp.175 f.; Mufid, Irshad, II, pp. 85-91
[^34]: Tabari, II, p.316; Dinawari, p.255; Bidaya, VIII, p.175
[^35]: Tabari, II, pp.319 if.; Bidaya, VIII, p. 176; Maqatil, p.112; Mufid, Irshad, II, pp.93 f.
[^36]: Tabari, II, pp.324 f.; Bidaya, VIII, p.177; Dinawari, p. 256; Mufid, Irshad, II, p.97
[^37]: Tabari, II, p. 227;Bidaya, VIII, pp. 169, 178; Mufid, Irshad, II, p.99
[^38]: Tabari, II, p. 328; Mufid, loc. cit.
[^39]: Tabari, II, p.329; Bidaya, VIII, p.179; Mufid, Irshad, II, p.100
[^40]: See Tabari, II, pp.335 ff., 337 ff., 344, 346; Bidaya, VIII, pp. 181 ff
[^41]: Tabari, II, pp.347, 35' ff, 355 f.; Bidaya, VIII, pp.184 f.; Mufid, Irshad, II, p.109; Dinawari, pp.256 f.
[^42]: Tabari, II, pp. 356-9; Dinawari, loc. cit.; Bidaya, VIII, pp.185-9; Mufid Irshad, II, pp. 110-4;Maqatil, pp. 80-113
[^43]: Tabari, II, p.386; Dinawari, pp.257 f.; Maqatil, p.84; Mufid, Irshad, II, p 113
[^44]: Tabari; II, p.360; Dinawari, p.258; Mufid, Irshad, II, p.112; Ya'qubi; II, p.240; Maqatil, p.115
[^45]: Tabari, II, pp.361, 363; Bidaya, VIII, p. .187; Mufid, Irshad, II, p.114
[^46]: Tabari, II, p.365; Bidaya, loc. cit.; Mufid, Irshad, II, p. 116
[^47]: Tabari, II, p.366; Bidaya, VIII, p.188; Dinawari; p.258; Mufid, Irshad, II, p.117
[^48]: For the details of these cruel acts, see Tabari, II, p.367; Bidaya, loc. cit.; Dinawari; p.258; Mufid, Irshad, II, pp.117 f.; Maqatil, pp. 117 ff.
[^49]: Tabari; II, pp.368 f.; Maqatil, p.119; Mufid, loc. cit.
[^50]: Tabari, loc. cit.; Dinawari; p.260; Bidaya, VIII, p.189
[^51]: Tabari, II, p.369; Dinawari, p.259; Bidaya, VIII, p. 190; Mufid, Irshad, II, pp. 118 f.
[^52]: Tabari, II, p.370; Bidaya, VIII, p.193
[^53]: Tabari; II, p.371; Dinawari, pp.259 f.; Bidaya, VIII, p.190
[^54]: See sources cited in note 53
[^55]: Tabari, II, p.375; Bidaya, VIII, p. 191; Mufid, Irshad, II, p.123
[^56]: Bidaya, VIII, p.203. For Yazid's reported remorse see Bidaya, VIII, pp.191 ff; Tabari, II, pp.376 ff
[^57]: History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. J.B. Bury, 2nd ed. (London, '90'), V, p.391
[^58]: Akhbar, p.259
[^59]: Ibsar al-'ayn fi ahwal al-ansar al-Husayn (Najaf, 1341 AH), pp.47 ff
[^60]: Tabari; II, p.386; Akhbar, p.259
[^61]: See Tabari, II, pp.303, 335
[^62]: Bidaya, VIII, p.170; 'Iqd, IV, p.380
[^63]: Tabari; II, p.236
[^64]: See B. Lewis, Origins of Isma'ilism (Cambridge, 1940), p.27; also Nawbakhti, Firaq ash-Shi'a, p.45
[^65]: The best example of this, among many others, is Henri Lammens' Le califat de Yazid and his El' article Husayn”. Also see Welihausen, Arab Kingdom, pp.145-7
[^66]: Tabari, II, pp. 216-95; also note 14 above
[^67]: Tabari; II, pp.304 f.
[^69]: Aghani XV, p.233
[^70]: 2nd ed. (Cairo, n.d.)
[^71]: 2nd ed. (Beirut, 1972)
[^72]: Tabari, II, pp. 288, 303; Bidaya, VIII, pp. 168, 174
[^73]: Tabari, II, pp. 318 f.; Bidaya, VIII, p. 176, gives only a summary of the address of Habib b. Muzahir
[^74]: For their pledges see Tabari, II, p.322; Mufid, Irshad, II, p.94; Bidaya, VIII, p. 176;Maqatil,p. 112
[^75]: Tabari, loc. cit.; Bidaya, VIII, p.177. Mufid, Irshad, II, p.95, gives a longer and more forceful version.
[^76]: Tabari, II, p 322; Bidaya, VIII, p.177; Mufid, Irshad, II, p.95
[^78]: A. A. A. Fyzee, “Shi'i Legal Theories,” Law in the Middle East, ed. Majid Khadduri and H. J. Lesbesny (Washington, '955), p.113
[^79]: Tabari, II, pp.333 f.; Mufid, Irshad, II, pp.103 f. Bidaya, VIII, p. 180, only summarises the statement of Hurr.
[^80]: See Tabari, loc. cit.; Mufid, loc. cit. Bidaya, VIII, pp. 180 f., gives here the full text of Hurr's speech as in Tabari.
[^81]: Tabari, II, p.350; Bidaya, VIII, p.183
[^82]: Tabari, II, pp.342, 350; Mufid, Irshad, II, pp. 106 f. Bidaya naturally does not mention this final retort of Nafi'.
[^83]: Tabari, II, p. 380; Bidaya, VIII, p.183
[^84]: History of the Arabs, p.191
[^85]: Fyzee, op. cit., p.113
[^86]: cf. Hodgson, “How Did the Early Shi'a become Sectarian?” p.3
[^87]: Ibn Nadim, Fihrist, p.93; Tusi, Fihrist, Nos. 155, 282; Najashi, Rijal, p.245; Ahlwardt, Nos. 9028-9 9031-8; Ursula Sezgin, Abu Mikhnaf Ein Beitrag zur Historiographie der Umaiyadischen Zeit (Leiden, 1971), pp. 116-23, a discussion of the Maqtal itself. On Tusi and his Fihrist, see Sprenger's preface to his edition of this work in the Bibliotheca Indica (Calcutta, 1853), and Brown's discussion of biographical authorities in A Literary History of Persia (Cambridge, 1902-4), IV, pp. 3555. On Najashi also see Brown, loc. cit.
[^88]: See his preface to The Arab Kingdom and its Fall
[^89]: See above, note 87
[^90]: Wellhausen, loc. cit.
[^91]: El2 article “Abu Mikhnaf'
[^92]: Wellhausen, loc. cit.
[^93]: In the Istanbul Ms. of the Ansab, Husayn is discussed in ML 597, ff. 219a-251b
[^94]: For his revolt see Veccia Vaglieri, EI2 article “Ibn al-Ash'ath”, and sources cited therein.
[^95]: Welihausen, op. cit., p. vii
[^96]: See Tabari, index
[^97]: e.g. Mufid, Irshad, II, p.29
[^98]: See Maqatil, p.95
[^99]: See Bidaya, VIII, pp.60, 61
[^100]: See Der Tod des Husein, Wustenfeld's preface
[^101]: Sezgin, Abu Mikhnaf pp.190 ff