Imām Husayn Before Karbalā’
Although far too many remarks have been constantly made in light of Imām Husayn’s features as yet, purely for luck and good omen, Several of which shall be referred too.
This magnanimous Imām was born on Sha‘bān 3,4 A.H. And having been intimately beside the Prophet, his forefather, he could never detach himself from him even at the prayer time. Allāh’s Messenger, who adored him and his brother exceedingly, could demonstrate a profile of their virtues through his statements to his disciples. In hadith books many virtues describing Imām Husayn (a) can be detected. Mostly like the hadith of, الحسن والحسين سيدا شباب أهل الجنّة “Hasan and Husayn are both the masters of the youth of Paradise dwellers.”
They are repeatedly narrated by successive generations and considered authentic. The Prophet’s extreme affection for these two sons was entirely overt to all disciples. As hinted at concerning with Imām Hasan, the Prophet has been doing his utmost so hard to make the nation conscious of his true attachment to them both that he stated,
[من أحبني فليحب هذين[1 “O Allāh, adore the one who adores these two”
[من أحب الحسن والحسين فقد أحبني، ومن أبغضهما فقد أبغضني[2 “The one feeling affectionate for Hasan and Husayn, feel so for me; nonetheless, the one making them wrathful, has made me too”
[هما ريحاني من الدينا[3 “These two are my fragrant flowers from universe.”
Among the virtues exclusively narrated about Imām Husayn the most well-known of all is,
[حسين منّي وأنا من حسين[4 “Husayn is from me and I am from Husayn.”
It has been narrated by Yahyā Ibn Sālim Mawsilī, Imām Husayn’s governor, as saying, “As we were walking accompanying Imām, he stopped to knock on a door and ask for water. A bondswoman came out holding a bowl of water. Prior to drinking, he took out a piece of silver and offered it to her and then said, “Give it to your family”. He drank afterwards.[5]
Abū Bakr Ibn Muhammad Ibn Hazm has recounted that when Imām Husayn had been passing by the platform whereon a group of the underpriviliged was having food, he was requested to have a share in.
“Under no circumstances does Allāh love the arrogant”, stated Imām and dismounted to eat. Later, Imām told them, “You invited me and I replied in the affirmative. Now I invite you and I expect you to comply with”. Addressing his wife, Rubāb, he demanded her to provide what she had prepared.[6]
It is quoted from Imām Bāqir (a) that for pilgrimage, Imām Husayn inclined towards moving on foot whereas his horses were all going behind him.[7]
Attending the wars of Djamal, Siffīn and Nahrawān, Imām Husayn battled against those breaching their promise and exerting oppression with his father side by side. A sermon is narrated from him in Siffīn whereby he persuaded people to struggle.[8] From the very nitrating stages of Siffīn, Imām Husayn had had such a determining role in capturing the route of water from the soldiers of Damascus that after the victorious result Imām ‘Alī asserted,
[هذا اول فتح ببركة الحسين (ع)[9 “It was the ever-first conquest for the sake of Husayn’s blessing.”
After Imām was called and told by ‘Ubayd Ibn ‘Umar that his father had done such and such to Quraysh, Imām accused him of abiding by Qāsitīn (the apostates) and added that these kinds of individuals have consented to Islam reluctantly but as a matter of fact they are in no way Muslims.[10]
The one who earnestly and thoroughly upholded Imām Hasan’s policy during his tenure was Imām Husayn (a). In spite of frequent demand by Iraq for Imām’s travel to Kūfa even after his brother’s Matyrdom, His Excellency did never incline and warned that it shall look irrational taking an action as long as Mu‘āwiya is alive. This utterance denoted that for a ten-year interlude Imām endured Mu‘āwiya compulsorily. This point can be regarded as of significance in Imām Husayn’s political standings although rarely is it taken into account. And the reason might be due to the fact that we notice Imām Husayn merely from the standpoint of his revolutionary action in Karbalā.
Both the relations between Imām and Mu‘āwiya and the conversation that they have had under various conditions profoundly manifest Imām’s politically unyielding manner in acceding the legitimacy of Mu‘āwiya’s rule. One of the most credible evidence is Imām’s lengthy letter to Mu‘āwiya therein numerous facts about Mu‘āwiya’s atrocity against ‘Alī’s Shi‘ite Muslims has been revealed. “Never do I intend to oppose you nor combat you”, Imām wrote.
Then he added,
وأيم الله لقد تركت وأنا أخاف الله في تركه وما أظن الله راضياَ مني بترك محاكمتك اليه ولا عاذري دون الاعتذار اليه فيك وفي اوليائك القاسطين الملحدين حزب الظالمين وأولياء الشياطين...أولست قاتل حجر بن عدي وأصحابه المصلين العابدين الذين ينكرون الظلم ويستعظمون البدع ولا يخافون لومة لائم، ظلماَ وعدواناً بعد اعطائهم الأمان بالمواثيق والايمان المغلظة، أو لست قاتل عمرو بن الحمق الخزاعي، صاحب رسول الله الذي أبلته العبادة وصفرت لونه وانحلت جسمه،... أو لست المدعي زياد بن سمية المولود علي فراش عبيد عبد ثقيف وزعمت أنه ابن أبيك وقد قال رسول الله صلي الله عليه وآله وسلم, الولد للفراش وللعاهر الحجر، فتركت سنة رسول الله صلي الله عليه وآله وسلم وخالفت أمره متعمداً واتبعت هواك مكذباً بغير هدى من الله، ثم سلتطه على العراقين فقطع أيدي المسلمين وسمل أعينهم وصلبهم علي جذوع النخل، أولست صاحب الحضرميين الذي كتب اليك ابن سميه أنهم على دين علي، فكتبت اليه، اقتل من كان على دين علي ورأيه، فقتلتهم ومثل بهم بأمرك؛ ودين علي، دين محمد صلي الله عليه وآله وسلم الذي كان يضرب عليه أباك والذي انتحالك اياه اجلسك مجلسك هذا ولولا هموا[11] كان أفضل شرفك تجشم الرحلتين في طلب الخمور…فلا أعلم لنفسي وديني أفضل من جهادك، فان أفعله فهو قربة الى ربي وان أتركه فذنب أستغفرالله منه في كثير من تقصيري… فابشر يا معاوية بالقصاص وأيقن بالحساب واعلم أنّ لله كتابا لايغادر صغيرة ولا كبيرة الا أحصاها وليس الله بناس لك أخذك بالظّنة وقتلك أوليائه علي الشبهة والتهمة للناس بالبيعة لابنك غلام سفه يشرب الشراب ويلعب بالكلاب ولا أعلمك الا قد خسرت نفسك وأوبقت دينك وأكلت أمانتك وغششت رعيتك وتبوأت مقعدك النار فبعداَ للقوم الظالمين
“By Almighty Allāh, I relinquished combating against you meanwhile I have fear of Him. I surmise not that Allāh would be gratified with me unless I allow Him to adjudicate about you the atheist and ruthless party as well as the devils’ supporters. Were you not the one who slayed Hudjr Ibn ‘Adī and his followers brutally, those who struggled in a bid to abolish oppression and oppose the heresy while dreading no jeopardy? But then with recourse to swearing oaths, you gave them a quarter. Were you not the assassin of ‘Amr Ibn Hamiq Khuzā‘ī, he who was among the Prophet’s disciples and whose too much worshpping had emanciated and enfeebled his physique and transformed his expression…? Were you not the one who claimed brotherhood with Ziyād Ibn Sumayya, a newborn whose begetter was ‘Ubayd ‘Abd Thaqīf where as you declared that he was your father’s son? It was while the Holy Prophet had affirmed that the newborn belongs to the one who does beget it and it is requisite that the adulterer be stoned to death. Deliberately, you ignored the Prophet’s Sunna and disobeyed him and with no divine guidance you still sought after your carnal desire. Heedless of the fact that Ziyād cut out Muslims’ hands, blinded them and hung them from the palm trees, you gave him predominance in Kūfa and Basra. Did you not slay those two from Hadram, attributed to Hadr Mawt, those about whom Ziyād wrote to you that the, two, believed in ‘Alī’s religion and you responded that anyone being of the same religion and belief as ‘Alī ought to be slaughtered? As a result, he did slay and mutilate them at your behest. It’s the fact other than this that ‘Alī’s religion is in every respect Muhammad’s, the one against whom our father battled? And this religion was what thereby you won this position and if it were not of existence, your only virtue would be merely the tolerance of difficulties during the summer and winter trips seeking for intoxicating drink… I deem naught more momentous than Djihād against you for myself and my religion. I shall draw nearer to my Lord if I do accomplish it but I should ask Him for forgiveness for my neglect and error unless I did accomplish it … O Mu‘āwiya! I give you glad tidings of retaliation for Hudjr’s murder! Never doubt and be informed that there exists a book for Allāh wherein any sin whether minor or major is accurately recorded. Yes, never ever will Allāh fail to remember you for all those whom you have cynically arrested and skeptically slayed; for all those whom you compelled to swear allegiance to your insane, wine drinker and dog-fancying son. What I can say is that you let yourself sustain losses, rendered your religion futile, abused what has been left in your custody, deceived your peasant and consequently you fill you grave with fire to overflowing. May Allāh keep the oppressors away from us!”[12]
Elsewhere, Balādhurī has brought the letter in brief having an additional sentence, وما أعلم فتنة أعظم من ولايتك هذه الامة “I know of no sedition being more dreadful than your rule over this nation.”[13]
Later, no sooner had Mu‘āwiya faced Imām Husayn than he inquired, “Have you heard what we did for Hudjr, his followers and your father’s Shi‘ite Muslims?
“What?” asked Imām.
We murdered them, Mu‘āwiya replied, wrapped them in shroud, performed prayers for them and interred them.
Imām stated in return, “Neither would we wrap them in shroud, perform prayers for them, nor bury them, if we killed your followers.”[14]
By the same token, Mu‘āwiya resorted to any means to suppress the opponents. He even put the holiest figures to the test through alluring. In this way, once he had strivde to silence Abūdhar in Damascus. Here, we demonstrate an amazing example about Mu‘āwiya’s policy toward Imām Husayn (a), the policy that Mu‘āwiya had adopted to relieve Imām’s wrath about the Umayya by sending presents.
Narrated by Asma‘ī is that a gorgeous bondswoman was brought for Mu‘āwiya. When he questioned her price, he was told “100,000 dhms”. Mu‘āwiya purchased her. Taking a look at ‘Amr Ibn ‘Ās, he asked who deserved that woman.
‘Amr and all those present said, “ Amīr al-Mu’minīn does”.
“No”, Mu‘āwiya contradicted, “She is solely appropriate for Husayn Ibn ‘Alī.” “For his family dignity, he deserves her the most”, he added. “It can remove the indignation stemmed from the contention between his father and I.” He commanded that they dispatch her to Imām as a gift. Making her ready for a journey after forty days, they sent her along with a great deal of goods, clothes and so forth. In a letter, Mu‘āwiya wrote to Imām that Amīr al-Mu’minīn purchashed a bondswoman and although he loved her, he granted her to him generously. After the bondswoman was brought in, upon seeing her, Imām who was astonished at her charm, inquired what her name was.
“Hawā (passion)”, she responded.
Imām stated, “How becoming is the name to you! Can you read anything?”
Yes, I can, she replied, both Qur’ān and poem.
Imām demanded that she recite Qur’ān. She prefaced,
وَعِنْدَهُ مَفَاتِحُ الْغَيْبِ لَا يَعْلَمُهَا إِلَّا هُوَ…
“All means for discovering the hidden things are with Allāh and no one else knows them but He…”
Being requested by Imām to read poems if she knew, the bondwoman asked “Am I immune enough?”
“Certainly”, Imām answered.
The woman read,
غير أن لا بقاء للانسان
أنت نعم المتاع لو كنت تبقي
“What a precious property you would be if you survived, what a pity no one will survive.”
In regard with the content of the poem, Imām burst into tears and said, “Not only are you liberated, but also all sent goods are yours.”
“Have you composed anything concerning Mu‘āwiya?” he asked.
“Sure, I have,” She responded,
رجاء الغني والوارثون قعود
رأيت الفتي يمضي ويجمع جهده
اذا فارق الدنيا عليه يعود
و ما للفتي الا نصيب من التقي
“I saw a youth passing by and dreaming about riches while his heirs were waiting in an ambush. There is no one higher for a youth but piety, for when passing away it would give him a hand.”
Imām, ordering to offer her 1000 dhms as well, stated that his father had also composed regarding it,
فسوف لعمري عن قليل يلومها
و من يطلب الدنيا لحال تسـرّه
وان اقبلت كانت قليلا دوامها
اذا أدبرت كانت علي المرء فتنة
“Anyone, who seeks after this world to make him cheerful for a moment, by myself, he will regret presently; when he turns back on it, he faces problem and when he turns toward it, it will be transient.”
Afterwards, Imām wept and stood up to pray.[15]
Earlier when discussing the issue of making caliphate hereditary, we elucidated Imām’s stance against Mu‘āwiya’s measures. Imām was one of the most notable opponents at that juncture who spared no effort for expressing his opposition in this respect.
Throughout the years when Imām Husayn and his brother were in Medina, Marwān was the governor of the city whose abomination and abusiveness was proverbial and searched for an occasion to slander and insult Imām ‘Alī (a).
Abū Yahyā has recounted, “I was present while Marwān and Imām Husayn were wrangling. Imām Hasan (a) could cease his brother but Marwān kept on so courteously that he said “You, Ahl al-Bayt, are all cursed.” This utterance was the manifestation of Marwān’s innate and deep-rooted malice. Upon hearing, Imām Hasan reacted that, والله لقد لعن الله أباك علي لسان نبيه وأنت في صلبه “Allāh had cursed your father with the tongue of His Messenger where as you were still in his loins.”[16] Accordingly, in this way came Marwān’s vengeance towards the prophet (s).
Once Mu‘āwiya did his best to persuade the daughter of ‘Abd Allāh Ibn Dja‘far Ibn Abī Tālib to marry his son, Yazīd. When ‘Abd Allāh consulted Imām Husayn (a), Imām advised, أتزوجه وسيوفهم تقطر من دمائنا؟ “Do you intend to offer your daughter to the one down whose swords our blood drips?”
“Convince her to marry your nephew, Qāsim Ibn Muhammad”.[17]
In compliance with another narration, Mu‘āwiya’s intention for this action was creating reconciliation between the Umayya and the Hāshimites in other words, making the Hāshimites surrender to the Umayya.[18]
Imām Husayn’s Opposition to Yazīd’s Caliphate
As preplanned, Yazīd became the caliph subsequent to Mu‘āwiya’s death in Radjab, 60 A.H. No sooner had this news spread through Medina than Yazīd exerted himself to secure allegiance from all those opponents whose opposition might wage a revolt against him.[19] Writing a letter to Walīd Ibn ‘Utba Ibn Abī Sufyān, governor of Medina, Yazīd urged him to secure allegiance from ‘Abd Allāh Ibn Zubayr and Husayn Ibn ‘Alī (a). Marwān also commanded that Walīd dispatch the soldiers to them at that very night and if they defied, they should decapitate them all on the spot in view of the fact that that night seemed an opportunity to suffice to revolt and summon people.[20]
Imām Husayn who was informed of Mu‘āwiya’s death through the message-bearer of the governor of Medina, proceeded to the palace accompanied by a number of followers armed to guard Imām against any probable menace. Being asked by Walīd to swear allegiance to Yazīd, Imām stated that such a figure like him ought not to swear privately but openly in a mosque. Walīd concurred, but Marwān made an attempt threateningly to provoke him into arresting Imām. Imām, furious with Marwān, addressed Walīd as saying, أيها الامير! انا اهل بيت النبوة ومعدن الرسالة ومختلف الملائكة ومحطّ الرحمة وبنا فتح الله وبنا ختم ويزيد رجل فاسق شارب خمر، قاتل النفس المحرمة معلن بالفسق ومثلي لا يبايع مثله “O emir! We, Holy Prophet’s household, are the mine of Prophetic mission, angels’ companions and the fountain of mercy. Allāh has commenced with us and so will He terminate with us. By no means will I swear allegiance to Yazīd who is libertine, wine-drinker, murderer of the venerated and the one debauching in public.”
It was at the same session where Imām affirmed in reaction to Marwān’s insistence in securing allegiance, “The knell of Islam will be rung if Yazīd is supposed to secure the power, وعلى الاسلام السلام.
Vindicating through the verse of Tathīr (purification), he commented on Ahl al-Bayt’s meritedness in obtaining the caliphate.[21] This vindication was what had been narrated by Imām ‘Alī(a) and Imām Hasan (a) as well.
At the same night, Ibn Zubayr departed from Medina and was pursued by the governmental guards next day. Next night Imām Husayn did so[22] in a trip along with all Ahl al-Bayt and the only one remained in Medina was Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyya.[23] It is told that the date of departure was Sha‘bān 3, 60 A.H. concurrent with his birthday.
When Imām stepped into Mecca, the residents became quite delighted and even Ibn Zubayr who was a leader himself took part in Imām’s congregational prayers and hadith sessions.[24] Since Mecca was assumed a religious base for Islam, it was naturally the center of attentions where Imām was in touch with various distinguished and ordinary individuals and interpreted the reasons of not swearing allegiance to Yazīd.
Looking forward to experiencing such a day for quite a long, the Shi‘ite Muslims of Kūfa became elated by hearing Imām’s resistance against Yazīd and his arrival in Mecca. They had already condoled Imām Husayn on Imām Hasan’s martyrdom in a letter and invited him; nevertheless, Imām had refused. In the held meeting, such Shi‘ites leaders as Sulaymān Ibn Surad, and the others made speeches and propounded Imām’s invitation to Iraq. Despite the agreement all announced, Sulaymān stressed all to undertake and not to violate; they renounced their commitment.[25] And then a joint letter was written by a few regarded as Shi‘ites leaders such as Sulaymān, Musayyib Ibn Nadjba, Habīb Ibn Ma¨āhir, Rufā‘a Ibn Shaddād as well as ‘Abd Allāh Ibn Wāl inviting Imām to come to Kūfa.[26]
Their letter remained unanswered on Imām’s part. After a while, other letters were consecutively sent and above all Qays Ibn Musahhar Saydāwī, ‘Abd Allāh Ibn Wāl and several others personally travelled to Mecca. On account of the additional letters received by Imām one after another the status quo modified in such a way that it was something beyond the bounds of possibility for Imām to pay no heed to the inviters.[27] When Hānī Ibn Hānī went to Mecca, he reported people’s presence in general and the distinguished’s readiness in particular and it managed to be a confirmation and emphasis on letter’s contents.
Dispatching Muslim to Kūfa
The first action Imām took was dispatching Muslim to Kūfa. Imām addressed him as saying,
[وان رأيت الناس مجتمعين على بيعتي فالعجل لي بالخبر حتى أعمل علي حسب ذلك[28 “Notify me swiftly to adopt a measure in case you perceived that the people are totally willing to swear allegiance to me.”
Muslim, around 40, was singled out from among Ahl al-Bayt for this vital mission. As stated by historians, en route to Medina and then to Iraq from Mecca, Muslim lost his way and one of or both couriers conducting him breathed their last. He, in a letter, asked permission to return but Imām’s response was to accomplish his mission.[29]
Muslim entered Kūfa and resided in Mukhtār’s house, being renowned among Shi‘ite Muslims. He commenced to secure allegiance. Summoning to Divine Book, Prophet’s Sunna, Djihād against the oppressors, defending the oppressed, aiding the needy, fair distribution of Bayt al-Māl (public treasury) among Muslims, backing prophet’s household, compromising the one whom they compromise, battling the one against whom they battle, abiding by Ahl al-Bayt’s word and action and not practicing the contrary, were all among the stipulated conditions of allegiance.[30]
In an interval of thirty five days after Muslim’s arrival, Shawwāl 5, 60, nearly 18.000 people swore allegiance to him. In addition to Shi‘ite Muslims, ordinary people were among them too, as an example Muhammad Ibn Bashīr said, “I’d like Allāh to assist my friends although I do never like to be killed, nor do I like to lie”. The gap formed succeeding Mu‘āwiya’s death among the Umayya opponents in Iraq was filled by Muslim’s arrival. All surrounded Muslim. While the might of government had mitigated, Muslim could openly visit people more easily than before.
The Umayya’s spies who were discontented with the status of Nu‘mān Ibn Bashīr, in a letter wrote to Yazīd that the more he required Kūfa, the sooner he should adopt a measure.[31] Muslim also was engaged in recruiting forces and preparing military weapons. About Abū Thumāma Sa‘īdī it is narrated, يشتري لهم السلاح وكان به بصيرا “As far as his full acquaintance with weapons was concerned, he was delegated to purchase them.”[32]
Later on, Ibn Ziyād had accused Hānī, “Your house has been a refuge for Muslim’s followers and a cache for the weapons”.[33]
Yazīd appointed Ibn Ziyād as the governor of Kūfa while he was the governor in Basra as well. According to historians, in a will given to his servant to transfer to Yazīd later, Mu‘āwiya had appointed Ibn Ziyād to confront any probable riot in Iraq.[34]
Having executed Husayn Ibn ‘Alī’s message-carrier in Basra, Ibn Ziyād set out for Kūfa to suppress the insurgents through harshness he had inherited from his father.
The most practical and efficient tool resorted by Ibn Ziyād for suppression of the Iraqi was nothing save threat. Since the inception, he summoned the distinguished of the city and ordered that they are duty-bound to introduce the aliens and those whose arrest is pleasant for Yazīd, Khāridjites and all those willing to create disunion and conflict and also register their names. And if one did not carry out his own responsibility, any mischief done by aforgoing persons would be upon his conscience and the ruler would on no accounts protect him. In that sense, shedding his blood and confiscating his possessions would be presumed lawful.[35]
The pressures from the side of Ibn Ziyād propelled Muslim to change his residence and act in secrecy. The new place was Hānī Ibn ‘Urwa’s house, one of the chiefs of the tribe of Madhhidj and it seemed to be more secure. Ibn Ziyād was searching for him confusedly. Appointing a spy to claim amity with Ahl al-Bayt, he could locate his whereabouts. Ibn Ziyād apprehended Hānī first and urged him to hand over Muslim. At the same time, those belonging to the tribe of Madhhidj rose up. But Shurayh Qādī treacherously assured them that Hānī was alive and Ibn Ziyād’s guest; therefore, he could dispel them.[36]
Muslim took an action and demanded a few numbers that they summon their friends by chanting the slogan of “O the helper of nation” which was one of the slogans of the Prophet at the time of wars. While making a sermon in the mosque, Ibn Ziyād heard the voices. He who crawled into the palace, concealed himself behind all the locked portals. Muslim’s army besieged the edifice but by reason of something indefinite the back portal remained unbesieged through which the distinguished of Kūfa were regularly in touch with Ibn Ziyād. That door was known as “Bāb al-Rūmīyyīn”. The throng accompanying Muslim was such a countless number at first that it could terrify Ibn Ziyād and his people and confine them in the palace.[37]
Incited by Ibn Ziyād, the distinguished of Kūfa began menacing. “Tomorrow, an army will arrive from Damascus and will do such and such,” they warned people.[38] Another group made the members of their own tribes secede from among Muslim’s followers, Going after their husbands and children, the women said preventively, [والناس يكفونك [39 “Others are present.”
“They will fill the gap of your absence.”
After a couple of hours many dispersed,[40] وصلي المغرب وما معه الا ثلاثون رجلاً “Only did thirty people participate in his congregational evening prayer.”
Afterwards they also dispelled!
Ibn Ziyād, daring not to exit from terror, commanded to check inside the mosque which was joined to the edifice from the roof to see whether someone was there or not. With throwing down a torch, they made sure that no one was there; therefore, they commenced searching for Muslim in the city. Ibn Ziyād had commanded to inspect all the houses in Kūfa door to door and arrest Muslim.[41]
Ultimately he was traced and after a short clash he was taken to Ibn Ziyād. يا شاق! خرجت علي امامك وشققت عصا المسلمين “Have you come from your Imām’s side,” inquired Ibn Ziyād, to remove Muslims’ union?
Muslim replied that he in no way recognized not only Mu‘āwiya’s caliphate but also beyond any question his son’s as legitimate because he oppressively usurped the caliphate from Prophet’s successor.[42]
“The inhabitants of this city are all of this belief that your father has shed the blood of their kins and misbehaved like Caesar and Kasrā”, he added, “we have come to establish justice and summon people to Allāh’s and the Prophet’s decrees.”[43]
In order to mar Muslim’s reputation among people and to put his deception in practice, Ibn Ziyād said, “In Medina, you have been drinking!”
Sedately, Muslim asserted, “Someone like you for whom slaying innocent people is insignificant will be superior to me if I drink”.[44]
Muslim whose whole perturbation was for the sake of Imām Husayn (a), called ‘Umar Ibn Sa‘d being from Quraysh and claiming to be Muslim’s relative to make his will. What he recommended him was, first, to dispatch one to Husayn and hinder him from coming to Kūfa; secondly, to wrap his corpse in a shroud and bury him and thirdly, by selling his sword and other belongings, to pay for his debts. Then Muslim was martyred.
Although beyond any doubt Muslim was a chaste and pious man, Imām Husayn’s confidence in him, on one hand, and his debt in Kūfa, on the other hand, proves the point. He did never ask someone for a loan[45] and all this time with 700 dhms he had already loaned could make ends meet. At the threshold of his martyrdom he was determined to sell his belongings for clearing his debt.
Another point in his characteristic was that once the ground was prepared for Muslim to kill Ibn Ziyād but he did not. After Ibn Ziyād had gone to Kūfa with Sharīk Ibn A‘war, a Shi‘ites in Basra, Sharīk became sick and had to rest in Hānī Ibn ‘Urwa’s house who was one of the Shi‘ite Muslims as well. Ibn Ziyād was set to visit Sharīk while Muslim was concealed there. Prior to his arrival, Sharīk proposed Muslim to take this golden opportunity and attack Ibn Ziyād after a special cue, which was reading verses of poem. Never did Muslim do so however. Being reproved by Sharīk after Ibn Ziyād left, Muslim stated that Hānī did not feel like Ibn Ziyād to be murdered in his house. Also, he referred to a hadith from the Prophet that, الايمان قيد الفتك “Such a murder is not confirmed in Islam at all.”[46]
The firstly abovementioned point can not be that acceptable about Hānī unless presumably he might have been dreading that with arrival of the dwellers of Damascus later his life might be wholly lost. And about the second one, even though Muslim had reasoned through that hadith, now it merits consideration due to the fact that killing Ibn Ziyād who was a corrupt and criminal man at that moment could change the future of Iraq and Karbalā effectively. The Holy Prophet(s) himself in Medina had delegated a group to go to Mecca and kill Ka‘b Ibn Ashraf and Abū ‘Afak were both killed in the same manner. Killing not Ibn Ziyād had a political motivation, some pointed out. And people would have gone from Damascus to Kūfa, afterwards, for taking vengeance and plundering it.[47] It should not remain untold that they would go there whether Imām Husayn was victorious or not and it had no relevance to Ibn Ziyād’s assassination. And later in the process of besieging his palace, why people left Muslim alone simply was never disclosed. Should this accident be blamed on the people of Kūfa only or was it because the leader of the movement could not persuade the people to remain?
How Muslim’s whereabouts was located is very interesting. In order to locate Muslim’s hiding place, Ibn Ziyād had paid one of his servants. The servant who went to the mosque was looking for him according to the criteria he had heard about the Shi‘ite Muslims. A person, performing prayers continuously, drew his attention. ان هولاء الشيعة يكثرون الصلاة وأحسب هذا منهم “Since the Shi‘ite Muslims pray innumerably I guess that man is a Shi‘ites”[48] he said to himself.
The man was Muslim Ibn ‘Awsadja. After several testings, he could not detect his dastardly plot and while deceived took him to Muslim. The utterance evidently manifests that Shi‘ite Muslims have been famed for asceticism and worship.
Imām’s Movement Towards Iraq
As Imām’s official representative had verified the readiness of Kūfa, there was no longer enough time for a moment’s hesitation. With regard to the letters received as well as Muslim’s letter the scene was beyond question set for rising against the Umayya; therefore, Imām hastened in such a way that on 8th Dhi l-Hadjdja and exactly in thick of Hadjdj (pilgrimage) he changed “‘Umra Tamattu‘“ (a kind of Hadjdj) into “‘Umra Mufrada” (another kind of Hadjdj) and then set out to Iraq. Wasting a moment could influence the status quo in Iraq. Furthermore, in view of the fact that Imām’s assassination was probable in Mecca, his stay looked by no means proper. Reportedly, Imām’s fellow-travelers were 80 people; nonetheless, they are to be more suggested by some other narrations. The number might denote only those accompanying Imām as far as Karbalā.
En route, Imām’s first encounter was with a caravan moving from Yemen to Damascus. What it was transporting were presents for Yazīd’s court. Intercepting the caravan, Imām appealed to them for joining him if willing; otherwise, they ought to return.[49] Imām from Na‘īm, the area where he encountered the caravan, proceeded to al-Safāh and it was where he met Farazdaq, a young poet at that time. After Imām asked him about the conditions in Kūfa, he responded, قلوب الناس معك وسيوفهم عليك “The people’s hearts are with you whereas their swords are drawn at you too.”
When he arrived at Batn al-Ramma in a letter while touching upon Muslim’s letter informed the people of Kūfa to prepare for his entry.[50] Qays Ibn Musahhar who had become responsible for taking the letter on his way to Kūfa encountered Husayn Ibn Numayr’s army and was arrested. Eating the letter on the spot, Qay was then martyred by Ibn Ziayd.
In another area, called Zadūd, Imām saw Zuhayr Ibn Qayn. As soon as he heard of Imām’s invitation and with his wife’s persuasion he became one of Imām’s close followers though he was an ‘Uthmānid. He later asked his friends if they had enthusiasm for martyrdom they could join him; otherwise, they could take their way to Mecca.[51]
It was Dhāt ‘Irq where Imām Husayn (a) informed of both Hānī’s and Muslim’s martyrdom in a message given by a man from Banū Asad.[52] As quoted, Imām came to a decision to return but Muslim’s brothers impeded. Never does it seem that Muslim’s brothers either intended or were capable of compelling Imām to go on to Kūfa if he were reluctant. Owing to the fact that in order to stimulate Imām to go, some had said, والله ما أنت مثل مسلم بن عقيل ولو قدمت الكوفة لكان الناس اليك أسرع “You are not Muslim, upon stepping into Kūfa all will unite behind you at speed.”[53]
Imām was still decisive. The message Muslim had left to ‘Umar Ibn Sa‘d prior to his martyrdom and had pleaded to him for transferring it to Imām was received in Zabāla.[54] No sooner had the time elapsed than the martyrdom news of Qays Ibn Musahhar[55] and ‘Abd Allāh Ibn Yaqtur, Imām’s foster-brother spread. What these reports could indicate was that everything has changed in Kūfa and the present status was utterly distinct from that of the past reported by Muslim. At this very moment, Imām brought together all accompanying him and addressed them, أيها الناس قد خذلتنا شيعتنا فمن أراد منكم الانصراف فلينصرف “O people, our Shi‘ite Muslims left us alone. Anyone willing to return can return.”[56]
A number of people who had joined Imām halfway went back and the only ones remained were Imām’s special friends.[57] They were those who not only were with Imām from Mecca,[58] but also before that from Medina.[60] Nevertheless, those detaching from him were Arabs who had imagined that they would enter a town with Imām therein all were his followers.[59] When the reality was revealed, they returned without hesitation.
After this stage, Imām kept on moving again. Here, it had become fully explicit for Imām that going to Kūfa was under no circumstaces rational according to political evaluations; however, there existed an issue that, beyond politics, should differently be taken into account. Imām proceeded to Sharāt where he made an overnight stay. He was moving next day that Ibn Ziyād’s army led by Hurr Ibn Yazīd Riyāhī appeared from the distance and blocked Imām’s way.
The People of Kūfa and Karbalā Event
Here, it would seem convenient if we analyze the position taken by the people of Kūfa towards the event of Karbalā.
Among the historical sources as well as common people, the dwellers of Kūfa have been introduced infamous and treacherous. What has been described concerning them was that being faithful to promises was invisible amongst them. While enumerating a few features of the people of Kūfa, we referred to their rashness and it could invariably be to the detriment of them and their rulers at the time of decision-making. To be easily resented and easily persuaded, from one hand, and simply surrendering and disobeying, from the other hand, were all a profile of their split personalities.[61] Here, let’s consider their standing.
The population in Kūfa included those from various tribes each of which enjoyed different arrangements during the different rulers’ terms. The expediency the rulers regarded accounted for the variety in the classifications of tribes. Yet, the rulers mostly made allowances for the chiefs or the distinguished of the tribes bearing the fact in mind that in some situations their might was far more than that of governors’.
Merely a part of the population was formed by Shi‘ite Muslims. Although a number of tribes were famous for Shi‘ism, hardly ever could they be deemed to be first class Shi‘ites tribes. They who were dispersed among the tribes had no unity. Since in addition to tribal morale they had a certain kind of Kūfiyān morale; as a result, no discrepancy was conspicuous between them and others.
The count of Shi‘ite Muslims was not considerable at all then. Reportedly, when in the mosque, Hudjr Ibn ‘Adī dissented Ziyād’s remarks only a half or a third was concordant. With reference to Shi‘istic morale of the town and assuring that the beliefs of a number of people were based on a kind of political Shi‘ism according to which they only assented to join ‘Alī’s descendants relatively in political issues, the Shi‘ites process of the town consisted of at least a fourth of the total population.
No one doubts that Kūfa had invited Imām Husayn but did not assist him and later conducted his murder. Notwithstanding, it ought to be perceived who they have been, who had written the letters and how many from Kūfa participated in the battle against Imām. It is also worth mentioning that, later on, Kūfa turned into a hub for ‘Alī’s Shi‘ite Muslims and even reacted against Banū ‘Abbās who usurped the sovereignty of ‘Alī’s descendants. Aside from the historians and hadith-narrators affiliated to the Umayya who loathed the people of Kūfa, those of Banū ‘Abbās had the same feeling. The oppressedness of the Shi‘ite Muslims was not only political but also cultural. With the cultural sovereignty of Banū ‘Abbās such a thing appeared thoroughly natural. Accordingly, much attention should be paid to the fact that the trend of narrating the events is observed through a pair of spectacles the color of which is as dark as disgusting Kūfa for the sake of its Shi‘ism.
Taking the aforesaid point into consideration, it should also be noted that such historians are all doing their utmost to prove that Shi‘ite Muslims are unfaithful to the promises; in other words, Shi‘ism foes are determined to attribute the advocating not of Kūfa to Shi‘ite Muslims. On the contrary, the elaboration below will somewhat indicate that, at that time, only a minority of people remained Shi‘ites and they were in a position that they could not defend Imām Husayn (a) although they would if they sacrificed devotedly. This utterance is what we present proofs for, in brief.
Visualizing the status quo of Kūfa, it could be as to say that Yazīd was a man who seemed, although tolerable for Damascus, he was extremely intolerable for Iraq. As soon as he secured the power, Shi‘ite Muslims in Kūfa began protesting. Since many in Kūfa found no appropriate substitute for Yazīd and while affected by the public atmosphere, they elected Husayn Ibn ‘Alī (a). Besides, Iraq was normally unwilling to concede the domination of Damascus. When the invitation was made on the part of Shi‘ite Muslims, not simply did the common people, having special morale, expressed their advocacy, but also those who either assumed their positions in peril or were influenced by others, announced their support behind Husayn Ibn ‘Alī (a).[62] It resulted in an artificial but public atmosphere of support for him. The Umayya was also incapable of filling the political gap created subsequent to Mu‘āwiya’s demise for a while. This atmosphere was continuously expanding and particularly, as a result of Nu‘mān Ibn Bashīr’s governorship, who was no strict at all, prevailed as long as Ibn Ziayd entered Kūfa.
By taking a glance at a hadith by Imām Husayn, a further likelihood about the invitation on the part of the distinguished may be regarded that they intentionally added fuel to the flames to take Imām to Iraq and martyr him. The hadith was as follows, وما كانت كتب الي الا مكيدة لي وتقرباَ الى ابن معاوية “They wrote nothing but for trickery and keeping closer to Ibn Mu‘āwiya.”[63]
Anyhow, the atmosphere was prepared so positively that upon realizing it, Muslim felt that Imām should set out to Kūfa as soon as possible.
Kūfa Under the Pressure of Ibn Ziyād
Scarcely ever can a person be at variance or rebel while the ruling system is of domineering and audacious dictatorshi. When Nu‘mān Ibn Bashīr, compassionate somehow, was the governor of Kūfa, people dared reveal their Shi‘ism without constraint and when Muslim entered the town, they warmly welcomed him with the Ibn Ziyād’s substitution for Ibn Bashīr, the tide turned against all at once. Ibn Ziyād’s great savagery had terrorized many a person. Those who were oversensitive and made decision impetuously no only were they menaced by Ibn Ziyād, but also they were terrified by the present propaganda about pending arrival of an army from Damascus.
No sooner had few days passed than the withdrawal on the part of Muslim’s supporters expedited. The nobles of the town who were now certain about the dominion in Kūfa and had no doubt about the Umayyads’s stability, stood up for them overtly. They have kept all silence as yet. Many others also looked not it expedient to be at odds with the chiefs of their tribes. These nobles were the ones who minimized Muslim’s allies through alluring and threatening when Muslim attacked Ibn Ziyād’s palace and they intended to manifest their power in controlling the people.[64]
The status in Kūfa had taken such a new shape that before Ibn Ziyād’s despotism even if a chief had defied, the members of the tribe would have never dared to be on his side. As recounted by historians, when Hānī Ibn ‘Urwa, chief of Banū Murād, was arrested “four thousand cavalrymen and eight thousand infantrymen” were his supporters. If the allies of Banū Murād joined them from Kinda, the total would be thirty thousand people. Despite the fact when he was dragged along in Bāzār with his hands tied and while he was imploring one to help, no single helper appeared.[65] After a short time, he was martyred whereas no one dissented at all.
During Imām Husayn’s sojourning in Karbalā, in his remarks Ibn Ziyād ordered the people to left Kūfa for Karbalā. He threateningly warned that,
[فأيّما رجل وجدناه بعد يومنا هذا متخلّفا عن العسكر برئت منه الذمّة[66 “From today on whoever disobeys the army, he shall no longer be protected by us.”
It denoted that his punishment would be murder. In order to search in the town for anyone not complying with the army, Ibn Ziyād delegated Qa‘qā‘ Ibn Suwayd. Qa‘qā‘ while inspecting traced a man from the tribe of Hamdān who had come there to secure his father’s inheritance. After he had been taken to Ibn Ziyād, he issued the verdict of his assassination. Later,
[فلم يبق محتلم بكوفه إلا خرج الى العسكر بالنخيلة[67 “Not a matured one could be seen in Kūfa unless he had joined the army, Nukhayla.”
It was now when all swords were pulled against Imām Husayn (a). Assuredly, if people were free in their actions, by no means would they do so, since a great number were in the same condition.[68] And now what Farazdaq had composed can be perceived concerning Kūfa,
[قلوبهم معك وسيوفهم عليك[70 “Their hearts are with you while their swords are drawn against you” or [أنت أحب الناس إلي الناس والقضاء في السماء والسيوف مع بني أمية[69 “You are the dearest of all, amongst people, but divine decree is in the sky and swords are beside the Umayya.”
For delineating the sense of this utterance, we can reason to Mudjamma‘ Ibn ‘Abd Allāh al-‘Ā’idhī quotation, that joined Imām from Kūfa as saying “The nobles are all in opposition to you and though the hearts of the rest are with you, tomorrow they will pull the swords against you”.[71] Under those existing circumstances, people could not help going to Karbalā owing to the fact that their stay coincided with their slay. The Shi‘ite Muslims or those being reluctant to do so had two alternatives, one, to ally themselves with Imām, two, to flee from Kūfa and Karbalā.
It can be well detected from varying reports that the group of people, who were coercively sent to Karbalā for a battle against Imām Husayn, either fled halfway, or did not appear in Karbalā at all. The total number of soldiers recruited for Ibn Ziyād’s army and announced in Karbalā was the census, which was taken while dispatching them to Karbalā; nonetheless, a throng of them had fled halfway. There must have been some ten thousand people or less in Karbalā whereas compared with the population of Kūfa it was considerably few. It is said that Kūfa mosque had been accommodating forty thousand people.[72] What this fact does disclose is that many had either concealed themselves in Kūfa or fled halfway.
Balādhurī has written,
[كان الرجل يُبعث في ألف فلا يصل إلاّ في ثلاثماة أو أربعمأة وأقل من ذلك كراهة منهم لهذا الوجه [73 “A commander was sent with a thousand troops but when entering Karbalā the troops were reduced to as few as three hundred, four hundred or even less. And it stood for the disgust people bore for moving there.”
“When a commander along with a great many was sent to Karbalā by Ibn Ziyād”, wrote Dīnwarī,
[يصلون إلي كربلاء ولم يبق منهم إلا القليل كانوا يكرهون قتال الحسين فيرتدعون فيتخلّفون[74 “A great few arrived in Karbalā and it was due to the aversion they had to battle against Husayn, hence they preferred to return and secede from the army.”
In addition to fleeing, a number’s endeavor was to join Imām Husayn for his support. When Imām entered Karbalā, it could be eight days before his martyrdom. No one could ever dream about occurrence of a war and Imām’s martyrdom. It was ‘Āshūrā morning when Hurr Ibn Yazīd perceived how serious the situation was and allied himself with Imām. Many people might have had the same idea as Hurr. He told Imām, بابي أنت وأمي! ما ظننت الأمر فينتهي بهؤلاء القوم إلى ما أرى وظننت أنهم سيقبلون منك إحدى الخصال التي عرضتها عليهم فقلتُ في نفسي لا أبالي أن أطيع القوم في بعض أمورهم [75] “May my parents be sacrificed for you! I could never imagine that people’s conditions might be culminated in such a phase I observe. I presumed that they might consent to one of the several alternatives you proposed. I said to myself that I would not mind if I abide by them in a few affairs, but now…”
It was merely Hurr who joined Imām together with a few numbers. Although some might have it in mind, they could not make their decision. Even if Shi‘ite Muslims intended to defend, they did not hasten and only did special ones draw decisively a conclusion and could join Imām at the very beginning. Among those who joined Imām were Nafi‘ Ibn Hilāl Murādī, ‘Umar Ibn Khālid Saydāwī, Sa‘d, one of ‘Umar Ibn Khālid’s governors and Mudjamma‘ Ibn ‘Abd Allāh al-‘Ā’idhī from the tribe of Madhhidj.[76] By the day of ‘Āshūrā, Muslim Ibn ‘Awsadja and Habīb Ibn Ma¨āhir could reach there. As written by Ibn Sa‘d, in ‘Āshūrā morning, some twenty men joined Imām.[77] Ibn Qutayba has reported the number as many as thirty.[78] Further names are referred to by historians.[79]
Noticing such escaping and joining, Ibn Ziyād had to prevent them; consequently, he took an action. Ibn Sa‘d who was one of the first narrators has written, وجعل الرجل والرجلان والثلاثة يتسللون إلى حسين من الكوفة “When Ibn Ziyād was notified that people were joining Husayn individually or in two people or three-people groups.”
Commanding to prepare the barracks, he appointed ‘Amr Ibn Hurayth to drive the people into Nukhayla. His order was also keeping watch on the bridge not to allow one to flee.[80] Husayn Ibn Numayr was duty-bound to patrol the area between Qādisiyya and Qutqutāna to identify anyone proceeding to Hidjāz inasmuch as under this pretext they might join Imām.[81] Ibn Ziyād wrote to his governor in Basra to send a signal man to control the routes and if anyone traversed, he should arrest him.[82] It is absolutely obvious that whom they meant were those who might come to aid Imām. Similarly, Ibn Ziyād had commanded that the routes between Wāqisa and Damascus up to the route of Basra be tightly restricted, ولا يدعون أحدا يلج ولا يخرج “and not to allow anyone to move and exit through it.”[83]
Once Habīb Ibn Ma¨āhir prompted the tribe of Banū Asad, being in the vicininty, to help but ‘Ubayd Allāh’s army alienated seventy of them from Imām’s army and did not permit them to join Imām.[84] At this juncture, many were in prison. Among the prisoners was Mukhtār Ibn Abī ‘Ubayda who was apprehended and whipped by Ibn Ziyād. Whipping caused Mukhtār’s one eye be blinded for ever.[85] This tight control could play an influential role in hindering the people of Kūfa to support Imām.
Alluring was also applied by Ibn Ziyād in addition to threatening. Prior to people’s departure, Ibn Ziyād told them, “in order to persuade you to prepare for battling against his foe, Yazīd has sent four thousand Dīnārs and two hundred thousand dhms to give you”.[86]
People’s reliance on financial generosity provoked a group of them to stand against Imām in Karbalā. When Imām conceived that people were in true intent on assassinating him, he affirmed, يا هؤلاء! إسمعوا يرحمكم الله، مالنا ولكم، ما هذا بكم يا أهل الكوفة؟ قالوا خفنا العطاء “Lo! What has occurred between you and us? O people of Kūfa! What has happened to you? They responded, “We fear the generosity.” Imām added, ما عند الله من العطاء خير لكم[87] “Whatsoever is from Allāh is the best for you.”
But no one heeded what Imām said.
The evidence so far is wholly to confirm this fact that a group of people including the distinguished and their adherents were all criminals who merited the abusiveness and harshness on the part of those reproaching them. Yet, concerning the specific despotism that predominated, there existed a large number who intended to join Imām but were not able to.
What Balādhurī has written appears appealing that Sa‘d Ibn ‘Ubayda was quoted as saying, “Standing on the hills, many a clergyman in Kūfa were praying, أللهم أنزل عليه نصرك “O Allāh reveals your aid to Husayn.”
Sa‘d added that he told them,يا أعداء الله ألا تنـزلون فتنصرونه “O Allāh’s foes! Why don’t you climb down to aid him?”[88]
Anyway, there is no doubt that Imām was martyred by the people of Kūfa while there was only one from Damascus among them.[89] Notwithstanding, the people of Kūfa should not be deemed as a single group.
Assessing the Travel to Iraq
Now, we ought to consider whether Imām’s travel to Iraq was expedient or not in that situation. Regardless of the aspect of indivisibility of Karbalā event, here we are to assess Imām Husayn’s travel to Iraq politically in a few words. The first question raised is whether there was any other measure to be adopted for Imām other than travelling to Iraq and whether it could be anticipated that conducting such a revolution against Yazīd was feasible.
A deep glance at the existing historical sources will indicate the frequent objections voiced denoting that by no means had a travel to Iraq been expedient. The objections were from the very beginning. When people of Kūfa, subsequent to Imām Hasan’s martyrdom, invited Imām Husayn to that town, Imām replied that he would never consent to any revolution as long as Mu‘āwiya was alive.[90] His justification might have been Iraq’s inability to resist Mu‘āwiya’s tricks because they have already been tested in ‘Alī’s and Hasan’s terms. Following Imām’s opposition to the issue of allegiance and when Imām set out for Mecca, a travel to Iraq was probable. Quotedly, ‘Abd Allāh Ibn Mutī‘ forewarned Imām against his travel to Kūfa on the way from Medina to Mecca.[91]
When Imām entered Mecca, the objectors were innumerable. ‘Abd Allāh Ibn ‘Abbās suggested Imām to waive proceeding to Iraq and go to Yemen’s mountains for preference due to various reasons as it is a mountainous area and more secure therein and that his fathers Shi‘ite Muslims are abundant.[92] It was quoted by Ibn A‘tham from Ibn Hanafiyya.[93]
“People are partial to Dīnār and Dirham which are both in the ruler’s hands. Lest you might go to Iraq”, said ‘Amr Ibn ‘Abd al-Rahmān Ibn Hishām.[94] The objection raised by ‘Abd Allāh Ibn ‘Umar was on account of his extreme fear of bloodshedding.[95] Touching upon his martyrdom in Iraq, ‘Abd Allāh Ibn Dja‘far had written, إني أخاف أن يطفيء نور الارض روح الهدى وأمير المؤمنين، فلا تعجل الى العراق فاني آخذ لك الامان من يزيد “I have a foreboding that the light of the earth will be extinguished as a result of your murder. The spirit of guidance and Amīr al-Mu’minīn is no one but you. Hasten not toward Iraq, I can seek quarter for you from Yazīd.”[96]
Abū Sa‘īd Khudrī is also quoted as saying, [لا تخرج على امامك[97 “Never revolt against your Imām.”
Miswar Ibn Makhrama who was among the protesters as well wrote to Imām, “Be not deluded by Iraqi people”.[98] What Abū Wāqid Laythī had stated was like that of above.[99] Moving from Iraq to Hidjāz, Farazdaq opposed the travel.[100]
All of these objections plus some more are recorded in historical sources and many spiteful narrators might have been endeavoring to multiply them to substantiate that Imām had been truly deceived and traveled to Iraq with not a least rational reason. Prior to reflecting Imām’s justification of why going to Iraq was requisite, it is worth presenting an introduction.
Political history shows that it rarely happened when a revolutionary man rose up politically he, in all probability, could foresee a definite triumph or an achievement of the goal with no peril. Those who struggle to assume a power either benevolently or malevolently always deal with a probability. In politics, even the most tiumphant and popular ones are invariably subjected to various probabilities of hardness and defeat. In no way should it be assumed that a movement be conducted with a high certainty. Such a notion is not only inconsistent with the historical realities, but also it is emanated from the simple-mindedness regarding the nature of political activities.
And now we ought not to presuppose that Imām should have inevitably had a high certainty to win in the travel. On the one hand, those who deemed Imām’s travel inexpedient never must they notice the proof which demonstrate the probable defeat; as an instance, the people of Kūfa had already been tested once. On the other hand, those who deemed it expedient neither should they suppose that there had been no probability of defeat. Taking them all into consideration, Imām Husayn’s position should be gauged in that situation first and then the travel to Iraq be evaluated considering both historical evidence and Imām’s remarks.[101]
Imām by no means assented to Yazīd and his sovereignty no matter if it might have preceded his martyrdom. Nevertheless, he was seeking for an opportunity to rise up against Yazīd and secure the sovereignty. From the framework being made in Imām’s mind one probability should have been preferably singled out and he should have naturally reacted to any suggestion or objection voiced. Since the plan was not flexible at all, any suggestion that could spoil it in any way was condemned on the part of Imām.
In such a situation, there existed particular specifications for the Islamic world politically. Imām had to adopt measures in such a way that he could under those circumstances achieve his goal successfully in a bid to defend the religion and establish a just government. In diverse levels were Imām’s objectives. Procuring the rule could have been treated as a considerable victory for him having been thought of it. As the one enjoying the good and prohibiting the evil, he could have accomplished his mission even though his goal had become unattainable. Given that if he were not able to reach such an achievement he had no doubt that with his blood streamed he was able to irrigate the lofty tree of Islam and enlighten the nation as to the tough environment they live in.
The reality was that Yazīd never allowed anyone like Imām Husayn who abstained from swearing allegiance to him to live at ease. Owing to the fact that Imām was not a man who lives calmly, Yazīd’s only resort was to take his life in case he was not convinced to swear. Moreover, Damascus, Medina and Mecca in particular and Hidjāz in general were not the ones which could resist Yazīd having such an intention. Imām must have turned his attention to elsewhere. Although proceeding to Mecca seemed rational for the time being thanks to its sacred nature wherein his safeti was warranted for a short while, it could certainly not be a permanent refuge for him. Above all, Mecca was not on Imām’s side and even in the course of allegiance to Amīr al-Mu’minīn, it swore with hesitation. At this juncture, the only place as a focal point of attention could be Iraq that was a center for Imām’s Shi‘ites Muslims. In different respects, it was a foe to Damascus as well. The demand made by Kūfa for Imām’s travel reinforced the probability of victory. The more the invitation was stressed, the more the percentage of the probable victory was augmented.
Never does it mean that there was no jeopardy in Iraq. However, the question posed is that if Imām was set to settle in somewhere, where could he select? Was Imām Husayn ever a man to swear allegiance? Or was Yazīd a man who permits him to survive without allegiance? If Imām had not gone to Iraq, would not the historians have written that if he had gone, he would have gained a victory? Would not they have inquired why he had not given a positive answer to the letters? How could he allow Yazīd’s agents to martyr him in Hidjāz whereas he could take an action? These questions together with some more are the ones that would be raised by any wise individual were a travel to Kūfa not taken place.
What merits consideration is that the consequence of objector’s demands for Imām’s not going was approving Yazīd’s sovereignty even if temporarily and never ever could it be practical for Imām. Accordingly, since seeking quarter from Yazīd that had been recommended by ‘Abd Allāh Ibn Dja‘far was on the condition that Imām swears allegiance to him it was on no accounts tolerable for Imām. Now let’s take a glance at Imām’s own response and how history has reflected it.
Among the points Imām (a) had been regularly hinting at was that Yazīd with his agents would in no way allow him to remain alive in Mecca and definitely they would murder him. In an answer to Ibn ‘Abbās’s objection, Imām stated, ان أقتل خارجاً منها بشبرين أحب الي من أقتل خارجاً منه بشبر “I would rather be killed two inches farther from Mecca than one inch farther.”[102]
It highlights not only the reverence of Mecca had to be observed but also Imām’s life was at risk and he should have taken an action. In reacting to Ibn ‘Umar, Imām had asserted, انّ القوم لايتركوني … فلا يزالون حتي أبايع واني كاره فيقتلونني[103] “This group will never stop insisting on swearing allegiance on my part. As I will never do so, they will kill me.”
The situation wherein Imām was, is well-described in above utterance. Elsewhere Imām had made it clear,
[ولو كنت في جُحر هامة من هوام الأرض استخرجوني ويقتلونني[104 “Even though I hide in the hole of a desert animal, they will trace and murder me.”
When Imām was questioned why he hastened, he answered, لو لم أعجل لاخذت[105] “I will be arrested, unless I hasten.”
Somewhere else he stated,
[إنّ بنى أميّة أخذوا مالي فصبرت، وشتموا عرضي فصبرت وطلبوا دمي فهربت[106 “The Umayya confiscated my properties. I had to tolerate, marred my reputation but I tolerated, when they decided to shed my blood, I had to flee.”
All these narrations confirm that they were determined to take Imām’s life and there was no hope of survival left provided that he contented to swear allegiance. The other side of the coin was traveling to Iraq. What spot should have been chosen by Imām?
In an interval between Sha‘bān and Dhi l-Hadjdja when Imām lived in Mecca, he received many letters from Iraq. These letters were the ones which later turned into Imām’s main reason for a travel to Iraq. Any time any objection to going was raised, Imām referred to the letters.[107] When Imām faced Hurr and when he was asked by ‘Umar Ibn Sa‘d why he came to Iraq, he reasoned those very letters.
Once Budjayr Ibn Shaddād asked Imām for the reason of going, he replied,
[هذه كتب وجوه أهل المصر[108 “These letters are all from the distinguished of this city.”
‘Āshūrā morning, he again referred to the letters.[109] He showed the letters to ‘Abd Allāh Ibn ‘Umar too.[110] His response to any objection was,
[خلفي مملوءة بالكتب[111 “The sack on my horse is overflown with their letters.”
This wide-ranging invitation was seemingly serious particularly because in addition to the mass ordinary people, the distinguished of Kūfa had written the greater number of letters, those whom people follow. This crowd included many other distinguished figures as well as the Shi‘ite Muslims. Were it only formed by the Shi‘ite Muslims, it would take little notice in light of the fact that the number of them was truly inconsiderable. It was solely its broadness that gave a serious shape to invitation.
Beyond the invitation were the results of two tests Kūfa had taken in the times of Imām ‘Alī and Imām Hasan, in both of which they had failed. Which one should have been attended by Imām, their black record or their present state? Regarding our previous remarks, if we assume that the probability of Imām’s victory was less than fifty percent, there was no other altentive for him? It does appear that in normally political conditions there was no other way the probability of victory of which to be as equal as that in Kūfa, neither was there in Yemen if proceeding there. It was thanks to the fact that not only the Shi‘ite Muslims in Yemen were never as many as those in Kūfa, but it was within the realm of Mu‘āwiya as well. Even when Imām ‘Alī’s governor was there, an army invaded Yemen from Damascus and massacred the Shi‘ite Muslims.
The fundamental reason of probable victory was the letters showing that not only a great number would guard him but also they would battle against his foe. Furthermore, nowhereelse did invite him. Those who wrote letters first were such Shi‘ite Muslims as Sulaymān Ibn Surad, Musayyib Ibn Nadjba, Habīb Ibn Ma¨āhir, Rufā‘a Ibn Shaddād and others. With a short opportunity available to Imām, he selected a way reasonably. At this stage, he let the letters unanswered inasmuch as Mecca was flooded with frequent letters. Besides, the representatives of the writers went to Mecca and offered their invitations personally. Any letter received in Mecca had many a name and signature at the bottom. According to a few narrations, the number of the letters had been one hundred and fifty. Notwithstanding, Imām gave no answer to them up to the end[112] but he only contented himself with dispatching Muslim.
To assess public support better, Imām dispatched an envoy, Muslim Ibn ‘Aqīl who was trustworthy to Kūfa. In a letter he wrote to Kūfa,
اني بعثت أخي وابن عمي وثقتي من أهل بيتي مسلم بن عقيل وقد أمرته أن يكتب الي بحالكم ورأيكم فقدموا مع ابن عمّي وبايعوه وانصروه[113]
“I have sent my brother, my cousin and the most truthful in my family, Muslim Ibn ‘Aqīl to you. I have demanded that he write about the conditions there to me. Help him and, swear allegiance to him.”
After Muslim had entered the town, people swore allegiance to him group by group. Recording their names, he had them make a pledge to back Imām and not be treacherous. The recorded number was twenty thousand and more.[114] Muslim who found the situation well wrote to Imām Husayn,
[فاني أخبرك أنه قد بايعك من الكوفة نيف وعشرون ألفا فاذا بلغك كتابي هذا فالعجل[115 “As soon as you have received my letter, hurry for more than twenty thousand people who swore allegiance to you.”
When Imām departed, he had received a letter informing that eighteen thousands in Kūfa have sworn allegiance to Muslim.[116]
What was Imām able to do upon receiving such a letter? In advance of dispatching Muslim, by no means was he certain. But now it was the letter his envoy had written and could be the evidence of people’s to him. At the last stage reacting to Ibn ‘Abbās’s objection, Imām said, I know that your intention is naught except advising but,
ولكن مسلم بن عقيل كتب الي باجتماع أهل المصر على بيعتي ونصرتي وقد أجمعت على المسير اليه[117]
“Since Muslim has written to me that all have congregated to aid me and swear allegiance to me, I am decisive to travel.”
In another narration, Muslim had written to Imām,
[والناس كلهم معك ليس لهم في آل معاوية رأي ولا هوى[118 “Everyone is with you and no one is attentive to Mu‘āwiya’s family.”
It was exactly what Muslim had witnessed and reported. Although he had assuredly noticed public ignorance towards Mu‘āwiya and their inclination to ‘Alī’s family, with Ibn Ziyād’s arrival and black shade of his despotism the tables were turned. Threatening Kūfa was a serious affair for the Umayya. In a letter to Yazīd, spies wrote, [قد بايع مسلم الترابية[119 “Turābiyya- a label given to Shi‘ite Muslims after naming ‘Alī as Abū Turāb- have all sworn allegiance to Muslim and entreated him to come to their rescue in Kūfa.”
Dispatching ‘Ubayd Allāh accounted for it. It had become totally overt that they would be deprived of Kūfa unless they make haste. Notably, when according to a narration Nu‘mān Ibn Bashīr, in addition to his indifference, had stated, [لابن بنت رسول الله أحب الينا من ابن بجدل[120 “Allāh’s Messenger’s descendant is more popular with us than Ibn Badjdal’s[121] son.”
As quoted by Ibn A‘tham, in the course of Muslim’s coming to Kūfa, Nu‘mān was on his own in the palace. No one attended Friday prayers andP no one paid tax to him. Anyone whom he summoned did never care and anyone whom he commanded did not comply with.
Imām Versus Iraqi Army
The ever-first army Imām encountered was a one-thousand- soldier army the head of which was Hurr Ibn Yazīd Riyāhī; Then, Hurr was a subordinate commander at Ibn Ziyād’s service and did not interfere in political affairs. By the same token on account the belief he enjoyed he along with his army performed his prayer led by Imām Husayn. Hurr’s accountability was to escort Imām to Kūfa and never allow him to return.
In a sermon delivered Imām addressed the worshippers as saying, “I had in no way intended to come here until your letters and message-carriers came to me. I will step into your town if you guarantee that no breach of promise will be made; otherwise, I return to where I came from”.[122]
As already mentioned, as soon as Imām received Muslim’s Letter, he left Mecca with all possible haste for Kūfa. Moving ahead was kept on until the news of Muslim’s martyrdom spread. No sooner had the caravan learned it[123] than it slackened its pace and consequently exchange of views began among Imām, his household and the followers. It is alleged that Imām changed his mind about going onwards. Nonetheless, Muslim’s brothers were not convinced but decisive to retaliate.[124] If presumably they had had such an intention, they must have been definitely hopeful about the victory. And it might have influenced Imām to become apparently persuaded to proceed. It is hardly rational to assume that they sought revenge for their brother’s murder while being certain of their defeat. There existed another matter apart from political victory and it was the fact that Imām Husayn should have taken a stance on Mu‘āwiya after all even though it cost his martyrdom and to his eye this kind of martyrdom was equated with condemning Yazīd. To confirm the probability of victory, many might have made some remarks.
Quotedly a number said, “You and Muslim Ibn ‘Aqīl are not alike. Upon seeing you, the people of Kūfa will warmly welcome you”.[125]
They meant that perhaps Muslim could not accomplish to prompt people for whatever reason but his personality will unequivocally captivate them. In view of all letters and ten-year requests on the part of Kūfa, never did it seem unlikely. Accordingly Imām consented to keep on.
In consistent with a narration in al-Futūh, the letter sent by Imām through Qays Ibn Musahhar for urging Kūfa to observe their commitment[126] had been possibly after being informed of Muslim’s martyrdom though doubt about Kūfa had been remarkably prevailed in Imām’s army its impact on returning was uncovered only when it encountered Hurr’s army. The coming of Hurr together with his army, hearing that enemy’s four-thousand- soldier army being enroute to Qādisiyya as well as the previous news from Kūfa given by Ibn Sa‘d’s envoy about Muslim’s recommendation all propelled Imām to disregard going to Kūfa. Being arrested and noticing how people left him alone, Muslim tried to dissuade him from coming at all costs with a message as he had already tried to persuade him. He had appealed to ‘Umar Ibn Sa‘d for leaving his message to Imām.
A while after receiving the message in early Muharram, Imām’s caravan encountered Hurr’s army in Iraq. Although Imām was set to return, Hurr impeded him, for his duty was to escort Imām to Kūfa. Imām who had become aware of the real status in Kūfa, rejected his request. In order to refrain from any clash for which he had no mandate, he decided to lead the army towards Karbalā, an arid land, in lieu of Hidjāz or Kūfa.[127] Heedless of what was adopted practically, Imām propounded the matter of returning when meeting Hurr and demanded him to allow them to return.[128] Once more he repeated the same proposal to Ibn Sa‘d later,[129] and frequently he stated, يا أيها الناس إذا كرهمتموني فدعوني أنصرف عنكم إلى مأمني الأرض “O people! If you are reluctant to support me, at least let me return to the secure land, Mecca.”[130]
As narrated by a number of historians, Imām’s suggestions were three, Returning to Hidjāz, Damascus or to oriental land of Islam, on the outskirts of the Islamic land. The tradition just mentioned in addition to others all manifest that Imām requested to only return to Hidjāz, either Mecca or Medina, not to Damascus. Balādhurī has stipulated that his insistence was only on returning to Medina when seeing ‘Umar Ibn Sa‘d.[131] It has been also quoted from ‘Uqba Ibn Sam‘ān supportedly as saying, “Contrary to popular belief under no circumstances did Imām ask permission to visit Yazīd and swear allegiance to him though I was beside him at all times. What he urged was, دعوني أرجع إلي مكان الذي أقبلت منه، أو دعوني أذهب في هذه الأرض العريضة حتى تنظر الى ما يصير اليه أمر الناس[132] “Let me either return where I came from or live in this extensive land to find out what the destiny of such people would be.”
According to Balādhurī Imām appealed to Hurr for permitting him to go to Damascus and swear allegiance to Yazīd. [133] It is as plain as day that Imām endured such sufferings as the homelessness for the sake of not swearing allegiance to Yazīd, and were this narration genuine supposedly, it could never be interpreted as corroborating Yazīd’s caliphate, but in all probability as keeping away from Ibn Ziyād’s realm who was a libertine and bold man. Imām was certain that his not swearing allegiance would prompt Yazīd to assassinate him; therefore, it seemed irrational to go to Damascus intentionally.
Yazīd personally had written to Walīd, [وليكن جوابك إليّ رأس الحسين[134 “Your response to me has to be Husayn Ibn ‘Alī’s head.”
Walīd detested to murder him in person and later on he expressed regret on Imām’s martyrdom.[135] It is by no means admissible that even if Imām had made such a remark, his aim could have been swearing allegiance or proceeding to Damascus at all.
When Imām for the purpose of enlightening Hurr refereed to the pile of letters from Kūfa as the motivation of his travel, Hurr was totally unaware of the letters. After the letters were all displayed, he again pointed out that he was duty-bound to take them to Kūfa. Imām who was never ever convinced to go to Kūfa took the route of Hidjāz.[136] Hurr’s army blocked his way then. They compromised to take a midway neither to Hidjāz nor to Kūfa but to the area of al-‘Udhayb.[137]
It was this point where Tirimmāh Ibn ‘Adī proposed Imām to go towards Tayy mountains but on account of the presence of Hurr’s army and the agreement they had reached, Imām refused it[138].On his way Imām made an attempt to switch to way to the desert and keep as far away from Kūfa as possible. Hurr was regularly the one who prevented him until they arrived at Banū Muqātil’s palace and then Naynawā.[139] Exactly it was here where the command of ceasing was received by Hurr from Ibn Ziyād,
[و لا تحلّه إلا بالعراء على غير خضر ولا ماء[140 “Keep him awaiting solely in an arid desert.”
Here a number of the Shi‘ite Muslims of Kūfa could join Imām and despite Hurr’s opposition remained beside him.[141]
While Hurr was with Imām, Zubayr Ibn Qayn suggested Imām to attack them who were few then. Declining Imām affirmed,
[إني اكره أن أبدئهم بالقتال[142 “I loathe to be the one who wages war.”
Arriving in Karbalā coincided with the second of Muharram, Wednesday or Thursday. According to Dīnwarī, Muharram 1st was the day of arriving in Karbalā.[143]
As written by Mas‘ūdī, when Imām arrived in Karbalā, five hundred cavalrymen and one hundred infantrymen were accompanying him.[144] During the eight-day period and above all on the eve of ‘Āshūrā, the day after which war would undoubtedly break out, these men turned their back on Imām. Although the number of whom at that night might have been fewer than that reported by Mas‘ūdī, beyond any question a number left Imām an his own at this interval.
The day after Imām’s arrival in Karbalā, Ibn Ziyād’s troops were gradually deployed to this land. All tribes were group by group dispatched to the spot due to the fact that Ibn Ziyād insisted that each one of Kūfa participate in the process. Such a policy was to hinder a few tribes to be accused later and to try to make all have a hand in Imām’s murder and it could be a hindrance to the people of Kūfa to engage in any movement in ‘Alawites’ favor. Those having been dispatched were some twenty two thousand according to Ibn A‘tham[145] although Balādhurī,[146] Dīnwarī[147] as well as Ibn Sa‘d have described that some had fled halfway.
In view of the fact that Ibn Ziyād had announced,
[أيّما رجل وجدناه بعد يومنا هذا متخلفاً عن العسكر برئت منه الذّمة[148 “Anyone who abstains from joining the army, from today onwards, will in no way be protected by me.”
And this menace was what made the crowd set out to Karbalā.
‘Umar Ibn Sa‘d Ibn Abī Waqqās was due to proceed to Riy and do battle with Daylamān, a polytheist; however, it was resolved to move to Riy after finalizing the plan in Karbalā. As the commander of Kūfiyān troops in spite of his and Banū Zuhra’s[149] reluctance, he eventually opted the governorship of Riy in return for streaming Imām’s blood and then went to Karbalā.[150]
At first Ibn Sa‘d sent an envoy to Imām to ask for the ground of his coming. Imām who refereed to the letters received from Kūfa stated that if they had retracted, he would return where he had come from. Seeking refuge, ‘Umar Ibn Sa‘d reported the suggestion to Ibn Ziyād, “Husayn has made a pledge to either return or go to one of the extremities of Islamic land and live a quiet life and it is satisfactory for you and is for the good of the nation,[151] هذا لك رضا وللأمة صلاح “Nevertheless, Shimr tried to dissuade Ibn Ziyād willing to accept the suggestion and told him that if he let Husayn go, under no conditions could he be found any more.”
Ibn Ziyād in a letter to Ibn Sa‘d wrote, “I have not sent you to condescend but to secure allegiance for Yazīd presently. If he refrained, take his life”.[152]
As soon as receiving the message, Imām stressed,
[لا أُجيب ابن زياد، لا ذلك ابداً، فهل هو إلا الموت فمرحباً به[153 “Never ever will I reply Ibn Ziyād’s proposal in affirmative. Will there be any other consequence save demise? Demise is very welcomed, however.”
A couple of days to ‘Āshūrā, Ibn Ziyād commanded emphatically to keep water beyond Imām Husayn’s reach,
[حل بين الحسين والماء فلا يذوقوا منه قطرة كما منع بالتّقي الزّكي عثمان[154 “Keep him far away from water so that he cannot take a drop as they did so to ‘Uthmān.”
He also had written to Ibn Sa‘d, “I have learned that Husayn with his companions have sunk wells and water is within reach. Upon receiving the letter, stop their digging as far as possible and by no means allow them to consume the water of the Euphrates.”[155]
During the last days Imām had some clandestine meetings with Ibn Sa‘d attempting to dissuade him. Yet as demonstrated by historical narration’s he could in no way disregard the governorship of Riy.
Shimr due to consanguinity he had with ‘Abbās Ibn ‘Alī’s mother, made Ibn Ziyād to write guarantee of clemency to him as well as his brothers. Under no circumstances were they able to be prevailed upon to leave Imām Husayn alone.[156]In another case a guarantee of clemency is reported for ‘Alī Akbar and it was also for the sake of his mother. ‘Alī Akbar had asserted,
[أما والله لقرابة رسول الله (ص) أولى أن ترعى من قرابة أبي سفيان[157 “Deferring to consanguinity with the Prophet (s) is more superior than that with Abū Sufyān.”
Ibn Ziyād who was determined to attack in the evening of Tāsū‘ā (the ninth day of the month of Muharram) admitted to procrastinate it till tomorrow at the request of Imām. At night Imām made some remarks to his companions. He declared that he ignored their allegiance, they are free to leave and they can take a few members of his family with them as well. However, companions did announce their steadfastness.[158]
On the eve of ‘Āshūrā, Imām commanded to dig out trenches all around the tents but one side to avert the enemy’s attacks from all sides. From early morning of ‘Āshūrā, both armies arrayed against one another. No imperfection could be noticed in Imām’s army. Without consideration of facts, divine predestination or the political privileges of which subsequent to Imām Husayn’s martyrdom, taking the household with him exposes to view the intention Imām had had for procuring Yazīd the sovereignty. Even their transferring from Mecca to Kūfa had seemingly originated from political certainty and it was the submission of Kūfa to Imām. Accordingly their staying in Hidjāz was never politically expedient in view of the fact that it could be envisioned how the Umayya would behave towards them following securing Arabia Pertae if the victory were supposedly gained in Iraq.
On the eve of ‘Āshūrā Imām addressed his companions as saying, “Tomorrow there shall be naught but martyrdom,
فأنتم في حل مني وهذا الليل قد غشيكم، فمن كانت له منم قوة فليضم رجلاَ من أهل بيتي اليه وتفرقوا في سوادكم، فعسى الله أن يأتي بالفتح أو أمر من عنده فيصبحوا على ما اسرّوا في انفسهم نادمين [159]
“You are all at liberty and it is the night at which you feel secure. Any of you who is more courageous can take one from my household with him and abandon so that Allāh can either grant us the triumph or adopt another measure to deter them from materializing their plan.”
It is alluded here that it was probable for them to gain victory or for the foes to change their minds although such a probability did never appear politically strong. Under such circumstances, there existed no other alternative other than martyrdom. Hurr’s as well as thirty individuals’ joining to Imām[160] in addition to political broad-mindedness on the part of Imām in ‘Āshūrā morning both implied that such a development was not beyond the bounds of possibility. Not withstanding ‘Umar Ibn Sa‘d’s villainous nature whose father was among the Qā’idīn[161], the malice fo such Khāridjites-featured individuals as Shimr Ibn Dhi l-Djawshan[162] along with the pressure exerted by Ibn Ziyād altogether engendered one of the most gruesome felony in the Islamic world.
Imām’s army as narrated by Ibn Sa‘d, included fifty men but later twenty others joined him.[163] Prior to the clashes, Imām delivered a speech to the opposite army, “Thanks to the request of you and others I came here. You had written that the Prophet’s Sunna (tradition) was being neglected and discord was being sown. My coming here was at your demand to guide my forefather’s Umma (nation). If now you feel disinclined, allow me return at least. Think twice! Do you ever consider shedding the blood of the Holy Prophet’s son legitimate? The son of Prophet’s cousin who was the ever first believer? The one whose uncles were Hamza, ‘Abbās and Dja‘far? Have you ever not heard how the Prophet (s) had characterized my brother and me as, سيدا شباب أهل الجنّة “They both are the masters of the youth in Heaven.”
Question Djābir Ansārī, Abū Sa‘īd Khudrī and Zayd Ibn Arqam if you do not believe me”.[164]
The reasoning Ibn Hudayr had refereed to are like those mentioned.[165] Zuhayr Ibn Qayn, a renowned figure, pronounced an ultimatum as well.[166]
So for presuming that it might never be culminated in blood letting not least streaming the blood of Allāh’s Messenger’s son, Hurr Ibn Yazīd perceived the reality all at once.
He went to Ibn Sa‘d asking, “Was none of his remarks convincing for you?”
“I would never murder him if I could,” ‘Umar Ibn Sa‘d responded, “now there is no other alternative.”
Upon hearing such comments, Hurr without delay went to Imām, begged for forgiveness, stood to defend him and ultimately after killing two people achieved martyrdom.[167] Among the ones who allied themselves with Imām and became martyred was Yazīd Ibn Abī Ziyād, too.[168]
Since it was by no means Imām ‘Alī’s approach to be the beginner of the war, Imām also was not the one who commenced it in Karbalā. It was ‘Umar Ibn Sa‘d who put on arrow in his bow and shot at Imām’s army first. And afterwards he announced that they should wear witness to Ibn Ziyād that he was the first shooter.[169]
When the battle started, the members of Imām’s army went to the battlefield one by one. After a while the enemy’s death toll had risen to more than the martyrs. Therefore, touching upon the fact that they were combating Arab heroes, ‘Amr Ibn Hadjdjādj forewarned, “You will all be slaughtered unless you put them under a rain of arrows”.[170] Under a heavy barrage of arrows and in the course of several clashes, Imām’s adherents and the members of his household were martyred respectively. The details of the conflict have been inscribed by a number as inscribed by Ibn Sa‘d in Tabaqāt. Eventually the event of Karbalā, resulting in martyring Imām and more than seventy of his followers and killing some eighty eight people of the opposite army, came to an end.[171]
[1] Ibn Sa‘d, Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn, p.135
[2] Ibid. p.136
[3] Ibid. p.131
[4] Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn, p.137; see Farā’id al-simtayn, a precious reference, for more information concerning these two Imāms. Among the recently published books in "Fadā’il al-khamsa fi Sihāh al-Sitta", Ahl Bayt’s virtues are compiled from Sunnites’ famous books.
[5]Ibid. Ibn Sa‘d, p.146
[6] Ibid. p.149
[7] Ibn Sa‘d, Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn, p.145
[8] Bihār al-anwār, vol.XXXII, p.405
[9] Bihār al-anwār, vol.XXXXIV, p.266
[10] al-Futūh, vol.III, p.35
[11] It is refereed within this very text that it must be "هم".
[12] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.III, pp.154-155, footnote; Akhbār al-tiwāl, p.224; al-Imāma wa l-siyāsa, vol.I, p.180-181; al-Ihtidjādj, vol.II, p.20; pp.48,49; al-Daradjāt l-rafī‘a, p.434; Ikhtiyār Ma‘rifat al-ridjāl, vol.II, p.121; a part of the letter in al-Muhabbar, p.479. therein the names of the two from Hadram whose martyrdom was mentioned by Imām are referred to as Muslim Ibn Zaymur and ‘Abd Allāh Ibn Nudjā.
[13] Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn, Ibn ‘Asākir, p.198
[14] al-Daradjāt al-rafī‘a, p.429; Tārīkh al-ya‘qūbī, vol.II, pp.231-232
[15] Tārīkh Madīnat Dimashq, Tarādjim al-nisā’, pp.469-470
[16] Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn, Ibn Sa‘d, pp.145-146.
[17] Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn, Ibn Sa‘d, p.149.
[18] Ibid. p.150.
[19] Akhbār al-tiwāl,p.227.
[20] al-Futūh, vol.V, p.11.
[21] al-Futūh, vol.V, p.17.
[22] Dīnwarī, p.228.
[23] al-Kāmil fi l-tārīkh, vol.IV, p.16; Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.IV, p.15.
[24] al-Futūh, vol.V, p.37
[257] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.V, p.260-261; al-Futūh, vol.V, p.46. This emphasis was because they were infamous for not supporting ‘Alī and his son, Hasan.
[26] The letter is fullyread in al-Kāmil fi l-tārīkh, vol.IV, p.20
[27] al-Futūh, vol.V, pp.49,50
[28] Ibid. vol.V, p.53.
[29] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.263-264. Some researchers deny such events. Mab‘ūth al-Husayn, p 90.
[30] al-Shahīd Muslim, p.104; these sentences are not in historical books but Muqarram by availing Himself of narrations related to allegiance of ‘Aqaba and Yawm al-fath has referred approximately to them.
[31] al-Futūh, vol.V, pp.59,60.
[32] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p. 271
[33] Ibid. vol.IV, p. 273; al-Kāmil fi l-tārīkh, vol.IV, p.28.
[34] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.265; al-Kāmil fi l-tārīkh, vol.IV, p.21.
[35] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.267; al-Kāmil fi l-tārīkh, vol.IV, pp.24, 25.
[36] Tadhkirat al-khawās, p.242. Later on Shurayh had said, “As Ibn Ziyād had appointed an agent to watch me, I scared to give Hanī’s message to the members of the tribe that he was under duress.”
[37] al-Kmail fi l-tārīkh, vol.IV, p.31
[38] al-Irshād, p.210, Around 4000 people is reported.
[39] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.277; al-Futūh, vol.V, p.87; al-Kāmil fi l-tārīkh, vol.IV, p.31.
[40] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.227.
[41] al-Irshād, p.212.
[42] Al-Futūh, vol.V, p.98.
[43] Ibid. vol.IV, p.35.
[44] al-Futūh, vol.V, pp.98,99; Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.283.
[45] al-Futūh, vol.V, p.57; Maqtal al-Husayn, vol.I, p.197; Mab‘ūth al-Husayn, p.123.
[46] al-Kāmil fi l-tārīkh, vol.IV, p.27.
[47] Mab‘ūth al-Husayn, pp. 152, 153
[48] Akhbār al-tiwāl, p.249.
[49] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.III, p.164; Akhbār al-tiwāl,.245; Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, pp. 289-290.
[50] Akhbār al-tiwāl, p.245
[51] Akhbār al-tiwāl, p.247
[52] al-Futūh, vol.V, p. 120
[53] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.300
[54] The message was that Imām Husayn should return to Hidjāz as soon as possible.
[55] Akhbār al-tiwāl, p. 247, 248
[56] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.III, p.169
[57] Akhbār al-tiwāl, p.248
[58] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.III, p.169
[59] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, pp. 300, 301
[60] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.300
[61] See, Acquaintance with the people of Kūfa at the beginning of discussion about Imām Hasan’s Caliphate.
[62] Men such as ‘Amr Ibn Hadjdjādj and Shabath Ibn Rib‘ī who were commanders of Ibn Ziyād’s army in Karbalā were among those writing letters to Imām Husayn. See al-Futūh, vol.V, pp. 50-51.
[63] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.III, p. 185; al-Futūh, vol.V, p. 169.
[64] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p. 277, Ibn A‘tham, writing the letter was a trick against me and for becoming nearer to Yazīd.
[65] Murūdj al-dhahab, vol.III, p.59
[66] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.III, p.178; Akhbār al-tiwāl, pp. 245, 255
[67] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.III, p.179
[68] It was noticed, in Iraqi war against Iran, how it compelled Iraqi people to combat Iranian Muslims. By the same token, such people are culprit and we do never intend to acquit the people of Kūfa this way, But there is a vast difference between the one who goes freely and the one going under duress. However, many chiefs and nobles and those affiliated with the Umayya whom later Zaynab and Umm Kuthūm blamed went to Karbalā willingly.
[69] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.290; al-Futūh vol.V, pp.120,124; Akhbār al-tiwāl, p.245; Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.III, p.165
[70] Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn of Ibn Sa‘d, p.171; Tardjamat al-Husayn, Ibn ‘Asākir, p.206
[71] al-Kāmil fi l-tārīkh, vol.IV, p.48
[72] Tashayyu‘ dar masīr tārīkh, p.160
[73] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.III, p.179
[74] Akhbār al-tiwāl, p.254
[75] Tadjārib al-umam, vol.II, p.70
[76] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.III, p.172
[77] Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn of Ibn Sa‘d, p.178
[78] al-Imāma wa l-siyāsa, vol.II, p.7
[79] al-Kāmil fi l-tārīkh, vol.IV, p.73
[80] Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn of Ibn Sa‘d, pp.178-179
[81] Akhbār al-tiwāl, p.243
[82] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.263; Imām had already asked some of the Shi‘ites distinguished in Basra for help in a letter, vol.IV, p.23.
[83] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.III, pp.173,179; Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.295
[84] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.III, p.180; al-Futūh, vol.V, pp.159,160
[85] al-Muhabbar, p.303
[86] al-Futūh, vol.V, p.157
[87] Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn of Ibn Sa‘d, p.178
[88] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.III, p.226
[89] al-Kāmil fi l-tārīkh, vol.IV, p.28; Murūdj al-dhahab, vol.III, p.61. (Even this one is not mentioned either).
[90] Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn, Ibn ‘Asākir, p.197; Akhbār al-tiwāl pp.222-224
[91] al-Futūh, vol.V, pp.36,37; Akhbār al-tiwāl, pp.228,246; al-Kāmil fi l-tārīkh, vol.IV, p.19. on p.41 Imām’s meeting with Ibn Mutī‘ eroute from Mecca to Kūfa is referred.
[92] Akhbār al-tiwāl, p.224; al-Futūh, vol.V, p.113; Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.287; Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.II, p.161; al-Kāmil fi l-tārīkh, vol.IV, p.39
[93] Ibn A‘tham, vol.V, p.32
[94] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.III, p.161; al-Futūh, vol.V, p.110; Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.287
[95] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.III, p.163; al-Futūh, vol.V, p.39; Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn of Ibn Sa‘d, p.166
[96] Ibn A‘tham, vol.V, p.116; Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.291; Ibn Athīr, vol.IV, p.40
[97] Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn of Ibn Sa‘d, p. 167
[98] Ibid. p. 167
[99] Ibid. p.166
[100] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.III, p.165
[101] As mentioned earlier, this matter is beyond the scholastic aspect of Imamate.
[102] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.III, p.164; Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.289; al-Futūh, vol.V, p.113; Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn, the first Ibn ‘Asākir, p.190; al-Ma‘rifat wa l-tārīkh, vol.I, p.541; Madjma‘ al-Zawā’id, vol.I, p.192; Murūdj al-dhahab, vol.III, p.55; al-Kāmil fi l-tārīkh, vol.IV, p.38
[103] loc.cit.
[104] al-Futūh, vol.V, p.116; al-Kāmil fi l-tārīkh, vol.IV, p.38
[105] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.290
[106] al-Futūh, vol.V, p.124
[107] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.III, pp.163-165
[108] Ibn Sa‘d, Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn, p.173
[109] Ibid. p.181
[110] Ibn ‘Asākir,Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn, p. 192
[111] Ibid. pp. 209, 210
[112] See, al-Futūh, vol.V, pp. 46, 49, 50, 51; Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.262
[113] See, al-Futūh, vol.V, p.52; Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.262
[114] See, al-Futūh, vol.V, p.68, see also Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p. 259; Ibn ‘Asākir, Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn, 207; Murūdj al-dhahab, vol.III, p54, (The number recorded was 12000); see also, al-Imāma wa l-siyāsa, vol.II, p.5 (The recorded number was 30000)
[115] Ibn Sa‘d, Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn, p.174; Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.281; al-Futūh, vol.V, p.77
[116] Ibid. p. 174
[117] Murūdj al-dhahab, vol.III, pp. 54, 55
[118] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.281
[119] al-Futūh, vol.V, p.281
[120] al-Imāma wa l-siyāsa, vol.II, p.5.
[121] Ibn Badjdal refers to Yazīd.
[122] Akhbār al-tiwāl, see also Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.III, p.170; Al Futūh, vol.V, p.135
[123] Akhbār al-tiwāl, p.247 it is narrated that two people belonging to Banū Asad who were coming from Kūfa informed them. That the one giving the news of Muslim’s martyrdom was either Farazdaq or Hurr is not true. See Murūdj al-dhahab, vol.III, p.61; al-Futūh, vol.V, p.125.
[124] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.III, p.168; Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.292;Ibn Sa‘d, Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn, p.176; al-Imāma wa l-siyāsa, vol.II, p.6
[125] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.300; al-Kāmil fi l-tārīkh, vol.IV, p.42
[126] al-Futūh, vol.V, p.304
[127] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.II, p.170; al-Futūh, vol.V, p.139; al-Kāmil fi l-tārīkh, vol.IV, pp.47, 48
[128] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.III, p.170; al-Futūh, vol.V, p.135; Akhbār al-tiwāl, p.250
[129] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.311; al-Futūh, vol.V, p.155
[130] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.323
[131] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.II, p.182
[132] al-Kāmil fi l-tārīkh, vol.IV, p.54
[133] Ibid. p.173; in footnote, this tradition is declared untrue by Editor.
[134] al-Futūh, vol.V, p.26
[135] Ibn Sa‘d,Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn, p.192
[136] Ibid. p.250
[137] Ibn Sa‘d, Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn, p.250; al-Futūh, vol.V, pp.130, 141; vol.II, p.170
[138] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.307; Balādhurī, vol.II, p.173 the tribe of Banū Tayy was the tribe of Hātam Tāyī whose son, Adi, was from among the Prophet’s and later ‘Alī’s companions and now his son, Tirimmāh, made such a suggestion for his Shī‘ism.
[139] Akhbār al-tiwāl, pp.250, 251
[140] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.III, p.176;Akhbār al-tiwāl, p.251
[141] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.III, p.172
[142] Akhbār al-tiwāl, p.252
[143] Ibid. p.253
[144] Murūdj al-dhahab, vol.II, p.61
[145] Hurr with one thousand, Husayn Ibn Numayr with tour thousand, Shabath Ibn Rib‘ī with one thousand, Shimr Ibn Dhi l-Djawshan with four thousand, ….; al-Futūh, vol.V, p.159
[146] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.III, p.179
[147] Akhbār al-tiwāl, p.254
[148] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.III, p.178
[149] Sharaf al-imām al-Husayn, p.178
[150] Imām sent an envoy to dissuade Ibn Sa‘d but the response given to him was رفي ابن سعد أن يقتلك بملك اسري Ibn Sa‘d to battle against you in return Riy. Al-Futūh, vol.V, p.173
[151] al-Irshād, p.229
[152] al-Futūh, vol.V, p.166; Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.III,, p.183 فانظر فإن نزل الحسين واصحابه على الحكم فابعث بهم اليّ سلماً وإن أبوا فازحف إليهم حتى تقتلهم وتمثل بهم فانهم مستحقون لذالك
[153] Akhbār al-tiwāl, p.254
[154] This order was given three days after Imām’s arrival. See also, Akhbār al-tiwāl, p.255; Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.IV, p.180, what Ibn Ziyād has stated about ‘Uthmān was on no accounts true because when ‘Uthmān was under opponents’ pressure, it was Imām ‘Alī (a) who provide water for him. Earlier, we have discussed this in this regard.
[155] al-Futūh, vol.V, p.162; Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.311. Reaction to some objections as saying because with digging two or three metersof water could be found in Karbalā and there was no need for the water of the Euphrates; there fore, no one suffered from thirst. It is absolutely evident that Ibn Ziyād’s army was so ruthless that it did not allow them to sink wells. Nevertheless, Imām’s army could take water from the Euphrates several times until a couple of days prior to Āshūrā.
[156] Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.III, p.184; al-Futūh, vol.V, p.168
[157] Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn, p.182
[158] Ibn Sa‘d,Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn,, p.178; al-Kāmil fi l-tārīkh, vol.IV, pp.58,59
[159] Ibn Sa‘d,Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn, pp. 179, 180
[160] Ibid. pp. 178, 181; al-Imāma wa l-siyāsa, vol.II, p.7
[161] Those who had been described well by Imām ‘Alī (a) as
خذلوا الحق ولم ينصروا الباطل
They have not only forgotten the gospel truth but also they never back the credal error
[162] Notorious of being Khāridjites
[163] Ibn Sa‘d,Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn,, p.178
[164] Ibn Sa‘d,Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn, p.181. see also al-Kāmil fi l-tārīkh, vol.IV, pp. 60, 61
[165] al-Futūh, vol.V, p.182
[166] al-Kāmil fi l-tārīkh, vol.IV, p. 63
[167] Ibid. vol.IV, pp. 64-65
[168] al-Kāmil fi l-tārīkh, vol.IV, p. 73
[169] Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p.326; al-Futūh, vol.V, p.183
[170] Tarkih Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.IV, p. 331; al-Kāmil fi l-tārīkh, vol.IV, p.67
[171] Ibn Sa‘d, Tardjamat al-imām al-Husayn, p.184; see also Murūdj al-dhahab, vol.III, p.63. It has been the true historical narration and consistent with the status quo at that time and the mutual manners.
source : http://www.imfi.ir
