Question: When, how, and why did the tragedy of Karbala occur? Who was responsible for it, and what were its consequences?
Answer:
In today’s series, Insha’Allah, we will read:
After the death of Hazrat Muawiyah (RA), the rebel movement raised its head once again. As long as he was in power, the rebel movement of the killers of Uthman could not get a chance to rise. All those who were specifically the murderers of Hazrat Uthman (RA) had been brought to justice by Hazrat Muawiyah (RA). But their remaining associates were still alive, and secretly, the next generation of the rebel movement was now ready. We know that the martyrdom of Hazrat Uthman (RA) was in 35AH/655CE and Hazrat Muawiyah’s death was in 60AH/680CE.
Now twenty-five years had passed, and much water had flowed under the bridge. Those who were old at the time of Uthman’s martyrdom had now passed away from the world, the youth of that time were now old, and those who were children at that time were now young.
During the time of Hazrat Muawiyah (RA), the rebel movement could not come out openly, and their activities were underground. During this time, they had gathered some associates as a result of their secret activities. As we have read in previous series, in 51AH/671CE, the enthusiasm of Hujr bin Adi and some of his companions severely damaged the rebel movement, and their leadership was wiped out. However, evidence suggests their second-tier leadership remained safe, and these people secretly rebuilt their movement. Immediately after the death of Hazrat Muawiyah (RA), this rebel movement suddenly became active and began its activities.
After Hazrat Muawiyah (RA), his son Yazid became the ruler, and three major tragedies occurred during his four-year reign (61-64AH/681-684CE):
Due to these three incidents, Yazid was defamed to such an extent that, at least in Iran and South Asia, his name itself became a curse. In the upcoming series, we will try to review the true nature of these events and incidents, avoiding extremes (ifrat and tafrit).
After Yazid, two individuals claimed the caliphate. One of them was Abdullah, the son of the Apostle’s disciple (Hawari Rasul) Hazrat Zubair bin Awwam (RA), and the other was Marwan bin Hakam.
Ibn Zubair’s (RA) government was established in Hejaz, and he eventually made Iraq and Iran part of his government as well.
Marwan’s government was established in Syria and Egypt. After Marwan, during the reign of his son Abdul Malik, the government of the Banu Marwan expanded, and the government of Ibn Zubair continued to shrink. Finally, in 73AH/693CE, the tragedy occurred as a result of which Ibn Zubair was martyred, and the Islamic world was once again united under the leadership of Abdul Malik bin Marwan.
In the upcoming series, Insha’Allah, we will study these twelve years, which span from 61-73AH / 681-693CE.
The tragedy of Karbala is a very grave incident in the history of Muslims. In this incident, the grandson of the Prophet (PBUH) and his companions were martyred in an oppressed manner, and after it, division and disunity spread within the Muslim Ummah. There are many questions related to this event that arise in the mind of a student of history. In this series, we will try to examine various questions:
There are three viewpoints among Muslims regarding the action of Hazrat Hussain (RA):
Since the first viewpoint is completely wrong and we have already read about it in previous series, there is no need to repeat it here. However, here we would like to talk about the second viewpoint because there is no disagreement about the Ahadith, but historically, it is necessary to see what Hazrat Hussain’s (RA) position was. First, we will quote the Ahadith:
Arfajah (RA) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: “When you are united under one man (his government), and someone comes to break your unity or create division in your community, kill him.”
(Sahih Muslim, Kitab Al-Imarah, Hadith No_1852)
Abu Sa’id Khudri (RA) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: “If allegiance is sworn to two caliphs (at the same time), kill the latter one.”
(Sahih Muslim, Kitab Al-Imarah, 1853)
Umm Salamah (RA) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: “Rulers will be imposed upon you, whose evil you will recognize, and some actions’ evil you will not understand. Whoever recognizes their evil deeds is absolved. Whoever could not recognize them is also safe, but whoever was happy with these matters and obeyed (he failed in this world and the hereafter).” The Sahaba asked: “Should we not fight such rulers?” He said: “No. As long as they continue to perform Salah (prayer).”
(Sahih Muslim, Kitab Al-Imarah. Hadith No_1854)
From these Ahadith, it is clear that if such people are imposed on Muslims whose character is not praiseworthy, one should not rebel against them as long as they adhere to Islam and, as a sign of it, do not refuse to perform Salah. The wisdom in prohibiting rebellion is that in the event of rebellion, the oppression of these rulers will spread greatly.
In our view, applying these Ahadith to Hazrat Hussain (RA) is a great audacity (jasarat). In this regard, we will clarify later that Hazrat Hussain (RA) neither rebelled, nor tried to break the community of Muslims, nor did he claim his own caliphate in the presence of one caliph. For this reason, declaring him a rebel and justifying his oppressed martyrdom is a very big accusation. We will detail this in the next sections.
Innumerable books have been written on the topic of the Karbala tragedy. In Muharram al-Haram, many preachers and zakireen (narrators) cry and narrate the story of the Karbala tragedy in such a way as if they were eyewitnesses to the event and had formally recorded the tragedy. The falsehoods fabricated regarding this event in history are perhaps unmatched by any other event.
The strange thing is that in the earliest history books, this event is narrated in full detail by only one person, and his name is Abu Mikhnaf Lut bin Yahya. The person who generally narrates from him is named Hisham Kalbi. We have an old relationship with these two narrators in this historical series, and we know that these two narrators are extremely biased historians and hold a strong animosity (bughz) towards specific Sahaba Karam (RA). In Tarikh Tabari, except for a few, almost all narrations of the Karbala tragedy are narrated from these two. The animosity of these two narrators towards Hazrat Muawiyah (RA) and other Sahaba is so prominent that they have inserted this animosity into these narrations in various places.
It is a recognized principle of history (tarikh ka musallamah usool) not to accept the narration of a biased narrator about a person or event. For this reason, it is most appropriate that we avoid the narrations of Abu Mikhnaf and Hisham Kalbi. Besides these two, some narrations related to the Karbala tragedy come from another unreliable historian, Muhammad bin Umar Al-Waqidi, about whom we also know that he mixes every true and false statement to create a story and then narrates it without any chain of transmission (sanad). Sometimes he does provide a chain, which is usually incomplete. Here we are presenting some statistics regarding the narrations of the Karbala tragedy in the earliest history books.
Karbala narrations in history books
Regarding Tarikh Tabari, you can see that a large portion of the 129 narrations is narrated from Abu Mikhnaf, Hisham Kalbi, and Waqidi. Among the historians before Tabari is Ibn Sa’d (d. 230/845), who, although a student of Waqidi, is a reliable historian himself. The principle of the Muhadditheen about him, which we have stated before, is that his narrations, which he narrates from anyone other than Waqidi, can be trusted, provided their narrators are reliable. Ibn Sa’d has recorded 23 narrations related to the events of the Karbala tragedy in his book, but one of them is a narration he compiled by merging various chains of transmission (asanad) into one long story. The remaining 22 are short narrations in which Ibn Sa’d has narrated some partial details of the event, and there is nothing special in them. After narrating each of these narrations, he writes the words رجع الحديث إلى الأول (Now we return to the first statement) and begins narrating that same long narration. This narration is spread over 25-26 pages, while the remaining 22 narrations are on the remaining 5-6 pages.
He has transmitted the chains of the long narration as follows:
أخبرنا محمد بن عمر (الواقدي)، قال: حدثنا ابن أبي ذئب، قال: حدثني عبدالله بن عمير مولى أم الفضل
أخبرنا عبدالله بن محمد بن عمر بن علي، عن أبيه
أخبرنا يحيي بن سعيد بن دينار السعدي، عن أبيه
وحدثني عبدالرحمن بن أبي الزناد، عن أبي وجزة السعدي، عن علي بن حسين.
قال: وغير هؤلاء أيضا قد حدثني. قال محمد بن سعد: وأخبرنا علي بن محمد، عن يحيي بن إسماعيل بن أبي مهاجر، عن أبيه.
وعن (أبو مخنف) لوط بن يحيي الغامدي، عن محمد بن نشر الهمداني، وغيره.
وعن محمد بن الحجاج، عن عبدالملك بن عمير.
وعن هارون بن عيسى، عن يونس بن أبي إسحاق، عن أبيه.
وعن يحيي بن زكريا بن أبي زائدة، عن مجالد، عن الشعبي.
قال ابن سعد: وغير هؤلاء أيضا قد حدثني في هذا الحديث بطائفة فكتبف جوامع حديثهم في مقتم الحسين رحمة الله عليه ورضوانه وصلوته وبركاته. قالوا:
Ibn Sa’d said: Besides these chains, a group (of narrators) also narrated this tradition to me. I have written down the collection of all their narrations regarding the martyrdom of Hazrat Hussain (Rahmatullah Alaihi wa Ridwanuhu wa Salawatuhu wa Barakatuhu). They said:….
(Ibn Sa’d. Tabaqat Al-Kubra. 6/421-422)
Ibn Sa’d has not specified in this long narration which part was narrated by which narrator; rather, he has narrated it as a continuous story. Now we cannot know which part of this narration, spread over approximately 25-26 pages, was narrated by reliable narrators and which part by unreliable narrators. For this reason, the status of his entire narration becomes doubtful. If the details narrated by Ibn Sa’d are compared with the narrations of Abu Mikhnaf, Hisham Kalbi, and Waqidi narrated in Tabari, similarities are found, which suggests that Ibn Sa’d also derived most of the details from these three narrators.
Now let’s come to the third historian, Ahmad bin Yahya Baladhuri (d. 279/893)
He has narrated 39 traditions regarding the tragedy of Karbala, which are spread over pages 363-426 in volume 3 of the Maktaba Dar Al-Fikr version. Among them, 14 are narrations from highly unreliable narrators. These include Abu Mikhnaf Lut bin Yahya (narrator No. 4654), Abbad bin Awwam (narrator No. 2651), Awanah bin Hakam (narrator No. 4372), Husain bin Abdur Rahman (narrator No. 1795), and Haytham bin Adi (narrator No. 6546).
All these narrators are weak (da’eef) and unreliable.
(Dhahabi. Siyar A’lam al-Nubala. Can be checked according to the narrators’ numbers.)
Among them, Lut bin Yahya and Abbad bin Awwam belonged to the same rebel party that continuously raised rebellions. Awanah bin Hakam was the teacher of Hisham Kalbi. Haytham bin Adi was declared a Kazzab (liar) by the Muhadditheen. Although Husain bin Abdur Rahman was reliable, his memory was weak, and he used to mix up narrations.
You can review the details of all of them at the relevant numbers in Dhahabi’s famous encyclopedia “Siyar A’lam al-Nubala”. If the narrations narrated by these narrators are omitted, 25 remaining narrations are left, from which we can get some idea of the reality of the event.
The famous 8th-century historian Ibn Kathir also included these narrations of Abu Mikhnaf etc. in his book Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah, and after it, wrote:
The Ahl-e-Tashayyu (Shi’a) and Rawafid (rejectionists) have fabricated many lies and false reports about the martyrdom of Hazrat Hussain (RA). Some of what we have mentioned is subject to scrutiny. If Ibn Jarir (Tabari) and other huffaz and imams had not mentioned it, I would not have narrated it. Most of it is from the narration of Abu Mikhnaf Lut bin Yahya, who was a Shia and weak (unreliable) in narrating events according to the imams. But since he is an ‘Akhbari’ (narrator of reports) and a preserver (of news) and possesses things that no one else does, many authors after him have severely criticized him. Allah knows best. (Ibn Kathir 11/577, Urdu translation: 8/259)
Now the question arises that if the narrations of these unreliable historians are abandoned, we will not be able to know much about the Karbala tragedy. This is a problem that has no solution; however, there are two situations which, if followed carefully, can lead us to correct information to some extent.
The narrations of Tabari, Baladhuri, and Ibn Sa’d agree that during the time of Hazrat Muawiyah (RA), the Kufan rebel movement went underground. They had not accepted the alliance between Hazrat Hassan and Muawiyah (RA) from the heart, so they used to incite Hazrat Hassan to break the peace treaty and restart the war with Hazrat Muawiyah. When Hazrat Hassan would rebuke them, they would come and try to convince Hazrat Hussain (RA) of their viewpoint. He (Hussain) also did not accept any of their talk during the time of Hazrat Muawiyah and remained steadfast on his allegiance.
When Hazrat Muawiyah (RA) passed away and Yazid took power, the Governor of Madinah, Waleed bin Utbah bin Abi Sufyan, summoned Hazrat Hussain (RA), gave him this news, and asked for his allegiance (bay’ah). Hazrat Hussain said: “Inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji’un. May Allah have mercy on Muawiyah and increase your reward. As for the question of allegiance you have asked, I am not one to give allegiance secretly. I think you also should not take secret allegiance from me, but rather take allegiance publicly in front of the people.” Waleed accepted this, so Hazrat Hussain (RA) said, “When you take allegiance from all the people, take it from me along with them.” Waleed was a peace-loving man (aafiyat pasand) and did not like conflict, so he gave him permission to leave.
(Tabari. 4/1-140)
(Baladhuri. 5/316)
Abu Mikhnaf has narrated two contradictory words from Hazrat Hussain regarding Hazrat Muawiyah (RA). In one, he is called the Pharaoh of this Ummah, and in the other, mercy is invoked for him. We can judge for ourselves which statement is befitting of Hazrat Hussain (RA).
After this, Hazrat Hussain (RA) traveled from Madinah to Makkah with his family. Among his brothers, his brother Hazrat Muhammad bin Hanafiyyah (Rahimahullah) gave him advice on this occasion, which Abu Mikhnaf narrated as follows:
My brother! No one in all creation is more beloved to me than you, and for no one else in the world would a word of goodwill come from my mouth more than for you. Stay away from Yazid bin Muawiyah and all cities as much as possible, along with your people. Send your messengers to the people and present your invitation to them. If they give you allegiance, thank Allah for it, and if the people unite on someone other than you, Allah will not decrease anything in your religion or intellect, nor will there be any reduction in your respect and virtue. I fear that you will enter one of these cities (especially in Iraq). A group of people will come to you, then they will fall into disagreement, and another group will stand against you. If it comes to bloodshed, the points of the spears will be turned towards you first, and a person like you, who is the best in personal and family terms, his blood will be shed easily, and all your family will be plunged into ruin.
Hazrat Hussain asked:
“My brother! Then where should I go?” Muhammad replied: “Go to Makkah. If you find peace there, fine, otherwise go into the deserts and mountains. Move from one place to another. Keep watching where the situation settles. At that time, forming your opinion, look at all matters directly and adopt what meets the requirements of reason. In no case will you face more difficulty than if matters are presented to you in a distorted way.” He (Hussain) said: “My brother! You have spoken words of goodwill and love. The hope is that your opinion is correct and agreeable.”
(Tabari. 4/1-142)
(Baladhuri 5/317)
According to Waqidi’s narration, besides Hazrat Hussain, Ibn Zubair (RA) also left Madinah. On the way, they met Ibn Abbas and Ibn Umar (RA). They asked: “What is the news?” They replied: “Muawiyah has passed away, and allegiance is being taken for Yazid.” Ibn Umar told them both: “Fear Allah and do not separate from the community of Muslims.” Then Ibn Umar returned to Madinah and stayed there. He waited for a few days, and when he learned of the allegiance from all cities, he came to Waleed bin Utbah and also gave allegiance, as did Ibn Abbas (RA).
(Tabari. 4/1-144)
This detail shows that Hazrat Hussain (RA) had no intention of rebellion. He was not content (sharh-e-sadr) with Yazid’s nomination as crown prince because it might pave the way for kingship (mulukiyat) and the succession of son after father might become permanent. He wanted to negotiate with Yazid to close this door. When the Kufans wrote him letters, he saw this path: to go to Kufa and form a pressure group with their help to facilitate negotiations with Yazid. This matter could not be completed, and the tragedy of Karbala occurred on the way. This is supported by the narration Abu Mikhnaf himself narrated regarding Yazid after the tragedy of Karbala:
قال أبو مخنف، عن الحارث بن كعب، عن فاطمة بنت علي:
(After the tragedy of Karbala) Yazid used to call Ali bin Hussain for meals morning and evening. … When those people intended to depart, Yazid sent for Ali bin Hussain and said to him: “May Allah curse the son of Marjanah (Ibn Ziyad). By Allah, if Hussain had come to me, whatever he demanded, I would have done it. I would have saved him from destruction in any way possible, even if one of my own children had to be killed for it. But what Allah willed is what you saw. Whatever you need, tell me and send me a written request.” Then Yazid gave clothes to everyone and gave special instructions to the leader(s) of the caravan about these people.
(Tabari. 4/1-237)
This shows that Hazrat Hussain (RA)’s intention was to present some demands to Yazid, not to rebel.
There is a narration in Tarikh Tabari that is free from the chain of Hisham Kalbi, Abu Mikhnaf, and Waqidi. We are quoting this very narration here. Its narrator is Ammar bin Muawiyah Al-Duhni (d. 133/750), who belongs to the moderate group among the Ahl-e-Tashayyu (Shi’a).
(Dhahabi. Mizan al-I’tidal 5/206. Narrator No. 6011)
He narrated this tradition from Hazrat Hussain’s (RA) grandson, Muhammad Baqir (Rahimahullah).
حدثني زكرياء بن يحيى الضرير، قال: حدثنا أحمد بن جناب المصيصي – ويكنى أبا الوليد – قال: حدثنا خالد بن يزيد بن أسد بن عبد الله القسري، قال: حدثنا عمار الدهني: Ammar Al-Duhni says:
I asked Abu Ja’far (Muhammad Baqir): “Tell me the details of Hussain’s martyrdom in such a way that I feel as if I were present there.” He said:
When Muawiyah passed away, Waleed bin Utbah bin Abi Sufyan was the governor of Madinah. He sent a message to Hussain to take allegiance. He (Hussain) said: “Give me some time.” Waleed treated him gently and gave him time. Now he left and went to Makkah. There, (some people) from the residents of Kufa and their messengers came with the message that “We are relying on you and do not attend Friday prayers with the governor of Kufa. Come to us.” In those days, Nu’man bin Bashir was the governor of Kufa. Hussain summoned his cousin Muslim bin Aqeel and said to him: “You depart for Kufa and see what these people are writing to me. If they are writing the truth, then should I go to them?”
Muslim departed from there, came to Madinah, and from there, took two guides and set out for Kufa. Both guides traveled via the desert. On the way, one of them died of thirst. Muslim wrote to Hussain: “Excuse me from this journey.” Hussain wrote back: “You must go to Kufa.” Muslim moved forward and finally reached Kufa. Here he stayed at the house of a man named Ibn Awsajah. The news of his arrival spread among the people of Kufa, and people started coming and giving allegiance. Twelve thousand men gave him allegiance.
One of Yazid’s supporters stood up and said to (the governor of Kufa) Nu’man bin Bashir: “Either you are weak, or you are pretending to be weak. Chaos is spreading in the city (and you do nothing).”
Nu’man said: “If I am considered weak in Allah’s obedience, it is better than being called powerful in Allah’s disobedience. I am not one to uncover what Allah has concealed.” This person wrote his words to Yazid.
Yazid called one of his freed slaves named Sarjun, whom he used to consult. He told Sarjun the whole story. He (Sarjun) said: “If Muawiyah were alive, would you obey him?” Yazid said: “Yes.” He said: “Then listen to me. There is no one better than (the current governor of Basra) Ubaidullah bin Ziyad for Kufa. Give him the governorship there.” Before this, Yazid was angry with Ibn Ziyad and wanted to depose him from the governorship of Basra as well. He (Yazid) wrote to him: “I am pleased with you. I have entrusted the governorship of Kufa to you along with Basra.” He also wrote: “Find Muslim bin Aqeel, and if he is found, kill him.”
Ubaidullah took the leading men of Basra and, covering his head and face, arrived in Kufa. Whichever crowd he passed, he would say “As-Salamu Alaykum” to them. In response, people would say “Wa-Alaikum As-Salam, O grandson of the Messenger of Allah.” They suspected he was Hussain bin Ali. Ubaidullah reached the governor’s palace, called one of his freed slaves, gave him three thousand dirhams, and said: “Go, find the person to whom the people of Kufa are giving allegiance. Just tell him that ‘I have come from Homs (Syria) for this very allegiance’ and give him this money to increase his strength.” That person, in this way, gently tried to find the trail (of the rebel movement) (through various people). Finally, someone led him to an old man from Kufa who used to take the allegiance. This slave now met this man and told him the whole story. The old man said: “I am both happy and troubled by meeting you. I am happy that Allah has guided you, but I am sad because our movement is not yet strong.” Saying this, the old man took the slave inside, took the money from him, and took his allegiance. The slave came and told Ubaidullah all the details.
When Ubaidullah came to Kufa, Muslim (bin Aqeel) left the house he was in and moved to the house of Hani bin Urwah Muradi. He wrote to Hussain bin Ali (RA) that twelve thousand Kufans have given allegiance, you must come. Meanwhile, Ubaidullah asked the leading men of Kufa: “Why hasn’t Hani bin Urwah come to me along with everyone else?” Hearing this, Muhammad bin Ash’ath, along with people of his brotherhood, came to Hani and saw him standing outside the door. They said to him: “The governor just mentioned you and said that you have delayed coming. You should go to him.” These people kept insisting, and finally, Hani mounted and went with these people to Ubaidullah. At that time, Qadi Shuraih was also present there. Seeing Hani, Ubaidullah said to Shuraih: “Look! The one coming has walked to us on his own feet.” When Hani greeted him, Ubaidullah said: “Tell me, where is Muslim?” Hani said: “What do I know?”
Ubaidullah called his slave, who had gone with the dirhams. When he came in front of Hani, he (Hani) was astonished to see him. He said: “May Allah bless the governor. By Allah! I did not call Muslim to my house; he came on his own and became my responsibility.” Ubaidullah said: “Bring him to me.” He replied: “By Allah! Even if he were hidden under my feet, I would not move my foot from there.” Ubaidullah ordered: “Bring him close to me.” When they brought Hani close to him, he (Ubaidullah) struck him such a blow that his bone broke. Hani reached for a soldier’s sword to draw it from its sheath, but the people stopped him. Ubaidullah said: “Allah has now made your killing lawful.” Saying this, he ordered him to be imprisoned and imprisoned him in a part of the palace. …..
(After this, Tabari inserts another narration as a parenthetical statement. Then he returns to Ammar Al-Duhni’s statement.)
Hani was in this state when the news reached (his) tribe of Madhhij. A noise arose at the gate of Ibn Ziyad’s palace. Hearing it, he asked what the matter was. People said it was the people of Madhhij. Ibn Ziyad said to Shuraih: “Go to these people and tell them that I have only imprisoned Hani for some questioning.” He sent one of his freed slaves as a spy to see what Shuraih said. Shuraih passed by Hani, and Hani said: “Shuraih! Fear Allah. This man wants to kill me.” Shuraih, standing at the palace gate, said: “There is no fear of harm to him. The governor has only detained him for some questioning.” Everyone started saying: “Shuraih is speaking the truth. There is no fear of harm to your leader.” Hearing this, all the people dispersed.
On the other hand, when Muslim (bin Aqeel) received this news, he announced his slogan (special code words), and four thousand men from Kufa gathered around him. Now Muslim advanced the vanguard (front section) of the army, arranged the right (maymanah) and left (maysarah) flanks, and he himself, in the center (qalb), advanced towards Ubaidullah. Meanwhile, Ubaidullah had gathered the leading men of Kufa in his private palace. When Muslim reached the palace gate, all the chieftains climbed onto the palace and came before their respective kinsmen and began to persuade them to return. Now people started slipping away from Muslim. By evening, five hundred men remained. When the darkness of night fell, they also left. Muslim, alone, wandering the streets, sat at the door of a house. A woman came out, and he asked her for water. She brought him water to drink and then went inside. After a while, she came out again and saw him sitting there. She said: “O servant of Allah! Your sitting here seems suspicious to me; please get up from here.” He said: “I am Muslim bin Aqeel. Can I get refuge?” The woman said: “Come inside. There is space.”
This woman’s son was among the companions of Muhammad bin Ash’ath. When he found out, he informed Ibn Ash’ath, and he went and informed Ubaidullah. Ubaidullah dispatched his police chief, Amr bin Hurayth Makhzumi, and sent Ibn Ash’ath’s son, Abdur Rahman, with him. Muslim learned that soldiers had surrounded the house. He picked up his sword, came out, and started fighting. Abdur Rahman said: “You have amnesty (amaan).” He placed his hand in his (Abdur Rahman’s) hand, and he brought him to Ubaidullah. By Ubaidullah’s order, they took him to the roof of the palace, killed him, and threw his body down in front of the people. Then, by his order, people dragged Hani away and crucified him.
(Tabari. 4/1- 147 to 150)
(After this, Tabari narrates long narrations from Abu Mikhnaf and then resumes the chain of Ammar Al-Duhni’s narration.)
The situation of the event that emerges from this statement is:
If the details of this narration are accepted as correct, and it is assumed that no narrator has added anything of his own to the statement of Hazrat Muhammad Baqir (Rahimahullah), it appears that the actions were initiated by the rebel movement, who attacked the governor’s palace. Hazrat Muslim bin Aqeel (Rahimahullah) fell for the words of these rebels and took premature action. The rebels just wanted a “martyr” from the family of Hazrat Ali (RA) in whose name they could invigorate their movement. Therefore, they abandoned Hazrat Muslim at the crucial moment.
On the other hand, Ibn Ziyad reacted with excessive severity and had him killed. Then he also crucified Hani bin Urwah in a very painful manner. This action of his was, on the one hand, oppression (zulm) and, on the other hand, shows his emotional nature (jazbati pan). If he had acted with the wisdom and prudence of his father, Ziyad bin Abi Sufyan (Rahimahullah), on this occasion and settled the matters gently, the later tragedies would not have occurred.
When Muslim bin Aqeel (Rahimahullah) was captive, he sent a message to Hazrat Hussain (RA) through Ibn Ash’ath, who was the brother-in-law of Hazrat Hassan (RA), which Tabari has narrated from Abu Mikhnaf:
O servant of Allah! I think you won’t be able to secure amnesty for me. Will you do this favor for me: send one of your men to Hussain on my behalf? He must have set out to come to you these very days, and his family will be with him. The anxiety you see in me is only for this reason. Convey this message to him from me: “Muslim has sent me to you. He has been captured. He does not want you to come here and be killed. Return with your family, do not be deceived by the Kufans. These are the same people your father wished to get rid of through death or being killed. The Kufans lied to you and they lied to me. Do not reject my opinion.”
(Tabari. 4/1-168)
This “testimony from within” (ghar ki gawahi) from Abu Mikhnaf shows what the objectives of the Kufan rebel movement were.
When Hazrat Hussain (RA) stayed in Makkah, the governor there, Amr bin Sa’id, who was the son of Hazrat Sa’id bin Aas (Rahimahullah), did not mistreat Hazrat Hussain, but rather treated him with gentleness. During this time, the Kufan rebel movement flooded him with letters and sent their delegations to him, saying that “we have stopped praying behind the governor Hazrat Nu’man bin Bashir (RA), and you must just come here as soon as possible.” The letter from Hazrat Hussain that Abu Mikhnaf has narrated contains no such thing that would suggest he was going to Kufa to rebel.
The words of the letter are:
بسم اللہ الرحمن الرحیم. From Hussain bin Ali to the community of believers and Muslims. Hani and Sa’id came to me with your letters. These two individuals were the last among your messengers to arrive. What you have written and said is that “We have no leader, so come. Perhaps Allah will unite us on truth and guidance through you.” I have sent my cousin, whom I trust and who is from my family, to you. I have told him to write to me about your situation and the opinion of all. If his writing also confirms what your messengers have come to me for, and what I have read in your letters—that your community leaders and wise people are united on this matter—then Insha’Allah I will come to you very soon. By my life, the leader of the people can only be one who acts on the Quran, establishes justice, adheres to the truth, and trusts in Allah. Was-salam.
(Tabari. 4/1-151)
This letter shows that Hazrat Hussain (RA) had no intention of rebellion; rather, he only wanted to reform the situation (islah-e-ahwal). To have such suspicions about him, that he was going to Kufa to create disunity among Muslims, is completely wrong.
After this, when Hazrat Hussain (RA) intended to depart for Iraq, his sincere friends and relatives gave him very good and sincere advice. This advice has been recorded by Tabari on the authority of Abu Mikhnaf, and Baladhuri has recorded it on the authority of other narrators.
Regarding Hazrat Abdullah bin Abbas (RA), who was Hazrat Hussain’s (RA) uncle in relation, but only slightly older than him in age, Tabari has stated:
When Abdullah bin Abbas heard of Hussain’s departure, he came to him and said: “Brother! It has become well-known among the people that you are about to depart for Iraq. Please tell me, what is your intention?” He (Hussain) said: “Insha’Allah, the intention is to depart within these two days.” He (Ibn Abbas) said: “I plead with you for the sake of Allah, do not do this. May Allah have mercy on you. Please tell me, are you going to those people who have killed their ruler, taken control of their cities’ administration, and driven out their enemy? If they have done so, then go. But if a ruler is imposed on them, and his officials are collecting taxes (kharaj) from the cities, and yet they are calling you, then they are calling you merely to start a war. I fear that these people will deceive you, belie you, oppose you, abandon you, and if they turn away from you, then these same people will launch a severe attack against you.” Hussain replied: “I seek guidance (khair) from Allah and will see what happens.”
When Hazrat Ibn Abbas (RA) was the governor of Basra during the time of Hazrat Ali (RA), he had seen the leaders of the rebel movement from very close proximity. He sensed that these rebels merely wanted to use Hazrat Hussain (RA) for their own objectives, which is why he very strongly forbade him from going to Iraq. In contrast, Hazrat Hussain (RA) thought he could go there and reform the situation. That same evening or the next morning, Ibn Abbas came again and said:
“Brother! I want to be patient, but I cannot. I fear your demise and destruction in this path. The people of Iraq (their rebel movement) are indeed treacherous people. Do not go to them. Stay in this city, for you are the leader of the people of Hejaz. If the people of Iraq call you, write to them to first get rid of their enemy. After that, you can come to them. If this is not acceptable to you, then go to Yemen. There are forts, mountains, and a vast country there. Your father’s supporters are present there. You can stay aloof from everyone and correspond with them and send messengers. Through this method, I hope you will achieve what you want with peace and safety.” Hazrat Hussain replied: “Brother! By Allah, I know you are a well-wisher and affectionate. But I have now made a firm decision to depart.”
Ibn Abbas said: “If you must go, then do not take the women and children with you. By Allah! I fear that, like Hazrat Uthman, you too might be killed in front of your women and children.”
(Tabari. 4/1-176)
Since Abu Mikhnaf has a particular animosity towards Hazrat Abdullah bin Zubair (RA), he has presented a picture of him as wanting Hazrat Hussain (RA) to leave Makkah as soon as possible. However, in one of his own narrations, a contrary point is seen, which he narrated from Abdullah bin Salim and Mudhri bin Mushma’il.
They say:
We set out from Kufa for Hajj and reached Makkah. On the eighth of Dhul-Hijjah, we entered the Haram Sharif and saw Hazrat Hussain and Abdullah bin Zubair standing near the Hajar al-Aswad (Black Stone) and the door of the Kaaba in the late morning. We went near them. We heard Ibn Zubair saying to Hussain: “If you wish, you can stay here and take leadership of this matter. We will be your helpers and well-wishers and will give you our allegiance.” Hussain replied: “I have heard from my father that a ‘ram’ (dumbah) will violate the sanctity of Makkah. I do not want to be that ram.” At this, Ibn Zubair said: “Alright, you stay here and hand over the government to me. I will obey your every command, and nothing will be done against your will.” Hussain said: “This is not acceptable to me either.” Then both gentlemen continued talking quietly until the time for Zuhr prayer arrived and people left for Mina. Hussain performed Tawaf of the Kaaba, Sa’i between Safa and Marwa, cut his hair, and ended his Ihram for Umrah. Then he departed towards Kufa.
(Tabari. 4/1-177)
This shows how sincere Hazrat Ibn Zubair was towards Hazrat Hussain (RA). Hazrat Hussain had just reached the place of Tan’eem when he met the poet Farazdaq, who was coming from Iraq. He also forbade him from going and said: “The people’s hearts are with you, but their swords are with the Banu Umayyah.”
After this, Hazrat Hussain’s cousin, Abdullah bin Ja’far (RA), wrote him a letter and sent it with his sons, Awn and Muhammad.
The letter said:
“I plead with you for the sake of Allah to return as soon as you see my letter. I fear that where you are going, you may be killed and your household (Ahl-e-Bait) may be destroyed. If you are killed, the world will be plunged into darkness. You are the guide for the people of guidance and the support for the believers. Do not hasten your departure; I am also coming after this letter. Was-salam.”
Abdullah bin Ja’far went to (the governor of Makkah) Amr bin Sa’id and said to him: “Write a letter for Hussain, in which you promise him safety (amaan) and good treatment and kindness. Write to him to return. Perhaps your letter will reassure him, and he will return from the way.” Amr bin Sa’id said: “Write whatever you wish and bring it to me; I will put my seal on it.” Abdullah bin Ja’far wrote the letter, brought it to Amr, and said: “Put your seal on it and send it with your brother Yahya bin Sa’id. Yahya’s going will reassure him, and he will understand that what you have written is from the heart.” Amr did so. Yahya and Ibn Ja’far both took this letter and reached Hazrat Hussain. Yahya gave him the letter, and both strongly insisted on his return.
(Tabari. 4/1-179)
From Abu Mikhnaf’s own narrations, it becomes clear that first the governor of Madinah and then the governor of Makkah, both of whom belonged to the Banu Umayyah and were Yazid’s governors, did not mistreat Hazrat Hussain (RA) in any way, and these people respected him greatly. The way Hazrat Abdullah bin Ja’far (RA) got the letter written by Amr bin Sa’id shows how much these people valued Hazrat Hussain.
Marwan bin Hakam, about whom it has been propagated that he bore malice (bughz) towards Hazrat Ali (RA) and used to curse him, wrote a letter to the governor of Iraq, Ibn Ziyad, the content of which was:
Marwan sent this letter to Ibn Ziyad. Amma Ba’d (Furthermore): You should know that Hussain bin Ali is coming towards you. He is the son of Sayyidah Fatimah, who is the daughter of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). By God! No person is more beloved to us than Hussain. Beware! Do not, in a fit of rage and anger, commit an act that cannot be remedied and which the common people will not be able to forget for the rest of time. Was-salam.
(Ibn Kathir. 11/507)
From these letters of Amr bin Sa’id bin Aas and Marwan bin Hakam, it appears that the tales of enmity between the Banu Umayyah and the Aal-e-Ali (Family of Ali) are just tales, and the Banu Umayyah also had the same love for the children of Hazrat Ali (RA) as we do.
Now the question arises, why did Hazrat Hussain (RA) not heed the words of his sincere relatives and trust the rebels of Kufa and go there?
From reading the letter mentioned above, the reason that is understood is that he had no intention of inciting a rebellion; rather, he wanted to control those rebels and reform the affairs of the government of the time. It was also apparent from the government’s behavior that these people respected Hazrat Hussain. From this, Hazrat Hussain (RA) would also have hoped that no harsh action would be taken against him. The reality is that it would have been so, but the rebels took the step of rebellion in Kufa before this could happen and then, abandoning Muslim bin Aqeel, disappeared themselves. The governor of Kufa, Ibn Ziyad, in his haste, also martyred him in a very cruel manner, which caused the situation to deteriorate.
After this, Hazrat Hussain (RA) proceeded towards Kufa. The subsequent events have been narrated by Tabari on the authority of Ammar Al-Duhni as follows:
When Muslim bin Aqeel’s letter reached Hussain bin Ali, he departed from there and had just reached a place three miles from Qadisiyyah (meaning he was still eighty to ninety kilometers from Kufa) when he met Hurr bin Yazid Tamimi. Hurr asked: “Where are you going?” He replied: “I intend to go to this city (Kufa).” Hurr submitted: “Go back. There is no hope of good (khair) for you there.” Hearing this, Hussain intended to go back. All of Muslim bin Aqeel’s brothers were with him; they said: “By Allah! We will not go back until we avenge Muslim bin Aqeel (our brother) or we are all killed.”
Hazrat Hussain (RA) said: “Then what is the pleasure of life without you?” He said this and moved forward. When some horsemen from the vanguard of Ibn Ziyad’s army came into view, he turned towards Karbala. He placed a settlement, which was located in a depression, at the back of his army, so that if a battle occurred, it would be from one side only. He dismounted right there and pitched his tents. Among his companions were forty-five horsemen and one hundred foot soldiers.
Ubaidullah bin Ziyad gave Umar bin Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas the governorship of Rayy (present-day Tehran) and also wrote this decree, saying: “On my behalf, go and deal with this gentleman (Hussain).” Ibn Sa’d said: “Please excuse me from this task.” Ibn Ziyad did not agree in any way, so he (Ibn Sa’d) said: “Give me respite for tonight.” He gave him respite, and he (Ibn Sa’d) kept thinking about his situation. When morning came, he went to Ibn Ziyad, agreed to obey his command, and departed towards Hussain bin Ali. When he reached him, Hussain said: “Choose one of three options:
Umar bin Sa’d accepted this proposal from Hussain (RA).
(When Umar bin Sa’d wrote these three options from Hazrat Hussain (RA) to governor Ibn Ziyad,) he (Ibn Ziyad) wrote in reply:
“This cannot happen until he places his hand in our hand.”
In response, Hussain said: “This can never happen.” Upon this, the fight broke out, and all of Hussain’s companions were killed. Among them were seventeen or eighteen young men from his family. An arrow came and struck a child who was in his lap. Hussain kept wiping the blood and saying: “O Allah! Judge between us and these people. They called us to help us, and now they are killing us.” After that, he asked for a sheet, tore it, and wore it around his neck. Then he took his sword, went out, fought, and was martyred. (Radi Allahu Anhu).
A man from the Banu Madhhij killed you and cut off your head, brought it to Ibn Ziyad, and said: “Fill my camels with wealth and gold. I have killed the magnificent king. I have killed him whose parents were the best of creation and who himself was the best of creation in lineage.”
Ibn Ziyad sent this man with Hussain’s head to Yazid. He placed Hussain’s blessed head in front of Yazid. At that time, Abu Barzah al-Aslami was sitting with him. He (Yazid) was tapping his (Hussain’s) lips with a stick and reciting this couplet: “We ourselves killed our beloved ones; they too had rebelled and disobeyed us.”
Abu Barzah said: “Remove your stick. By Allah! I have repeatedly seen the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) place his mouth here and kiss it.”
Meanwhile, Ibn Sa’d sent Hussain’s family and dependents to Ibn Ziyad. Among his Ahl-e-Bait, besides the women, no one remained except a sick boy. Ibn Ziyad ordered him to be killed as well. Hearing this, Zainab clung to the sick boy and said: “Until you kill me too, you will not be able to kill him.” Ibn Ziyad felt pity and refrained from this intention. He had all their belongings prepared, mounted them (on animals), and sent them to Yazid. When these people reached Yazid, he gathered his courtiers from the people of Syria. After that, the Ahl-e-Bait were brought into the court. The courtiers congratulated him. One of them, a man with blue eyes and a red complexion, looked at a girl from the Ahl-e-Bait and said: “Amir al-Mu’minin! Give this one to me.” Sayyidah Zainab said: “By Allah! Neither Yazid has this authority nor do you, and you cannot do this until you exit the religion of Islam.” Yazid stopped that man. Then he sent the Ahl-e-Bait to his own family. After that, he prepared their travel provisions and sent them all towards Madinah.
When these people reached Madinah, a woman from the Banu Abdul Muttalib came out to receive them with disheveled hair, her head covered with a shawl. She was crying and saying: “O people! What answer will you give when the Prophet asks you: ‘What treatment did you, being the last Ummah, mete out to my children and Ahl-e-Bait after me? Some of them were captives, and some were killed and smeared in dust and blood. This was not the reward for the guidance I gave you, that you should do evil to my family after me.’”
(Tabari. 4/1-180-182)
This account of the Karbala tragedy, which Ammar Al-Duhni has narrated attributing it to Hazrat Muhammad Baqir (Rahimahullah), is devoid of the details that Abu Mikhnaf has narrated. Abu Mikhnaf’s narrations are spread over 90 pages in the Maktaba Mishkat version of Tarikh Tabari, and he has narrated the event with much “salt and pepper” (embellishment) and, as is his habit, has also taken digs at various Sahaba, among whom Hazrat Abdullah bin Zubair (RA) is particularly prominent. The narrations of Abu Mikhnaf contain exactly the kind of emotionalism that we see in the statements of preachers and narrators (zakireen) of our own time. They paint such a picture of the situation as if goodness (khair) had completely departed from that era, and all the Sahaba and Tabi’in, apart from Hazrat Hussain (RA), had, God forbid, become devoid of religious zeal and honor and had accepted usurping and oppressive rulers.
In contrast to Abu Mikhnaf, Ammar Al-Duhni’s narration is free from all these things. Hazrat Muhammad Baqir bin Zain-ul-Abideen (Rahimahumallah) is a very reliable narrator. He is the grandson of Hazrat Hussain (RA), and his esteemed father, Hazrat Zain-ul-Abideen (Rahmatullah Alaih), was an eyewitness to the tragedy of Karbala. Ammar Al-Duhni narrated this event after hearing it from him. If we assume that no narrator has adulterated this account with anything of his own, we can draw these conclusions from this statement.
Here the question arises, if Hazrat Hussain (RA) was going towards Kufa, what was his plan? Suppose the people of Kufa had not broken their pledge with him, what events would have occurred? In the books of history, we do not find details of his intention in his own words. It is merely the speculation of some analysts that he would take control of the government of Kufa and wage war against the people of Syria.
It is stated in a narration from Hisham Kalbi in Tabari that when the government army, led by Hurr bin Yazid, stopped Hazrat Hussain (RA) from going to Kufa, he addressed this government army, which consisted of Kufans, and said:
قال هشام: حدثني لقيط، عن علي بن الطعان المحاربي: … He commanded Hajjaj bin Masruq Ju’fi to give the Adhan (call to prayer). He gave the Adhan, and when it was time for the Iqamah (call to commence prayer), he (Hazrat Hussain) came out wearing a lower garment (tahband), a sheet, and shoes. He praised and glorified Allah Ta’ala and said: “O people! I state the reason (for my coming) before Allah Azza wa Jall and before all of you. I did not come to you until your letters and your messengers came to me with the message: ‘Come, we have no ruler. Perhaps Allah Ta’ala will unite all of us on guidance through you.’ Now, if you stand by that same word, I have come to you. If you people make such a covenant with me that satisfies me, I am ready to go to your city. If you do not do so, and my coming is disagreeable to you, I will return to where I came from.” Hearing this, everyone remained silent. He said to the Mu’adhin (caller to prayer): “Say the Iqamah.” He said the Iqamah, and Hussain asked Hurr: “Will you people pray separately?” He said: “No. We will all pray with you.” He led them all in prayer and went to his tent. …
(Then after Asr prayer, he gave a sermon.) Hurr said to him: “By Allah! I do not know what letters you are referring to.” Hearing this, he said to Uqbah bin Sim’an: “Bring those two bags that contain the people’s letters.” Uqbah brought both bags, which were full of letters. He brought them before everyone and scattered the letters.
(Tabari. 4/1-191)
From the words of this narration, “Come, we have no ruler,” it becomes completely clear that Hazrat Hussain (RA) undertook the journey to Kufa precisely because there was a state of anarchy (lack of government) there. He was going to Kufa to end this anarchy. When it became clear to him on the way that the state of anarchy had ended and a government had been established there, he changed his opinion and resolved to return.
In our opinion, it is very far-fetched to think that a personality like Hazrat Hussain (RA) would start a civil war among Muslims merely for his own power. The rebel movements have attributed this idea to him to justify their killing and plunder. It is a severe suspicion (bad-gumani) about Hazrat Hussain (RA) to think that he wanted to create division among Muslims for his own power. Having good faith (husn-e-zann) in him, the most we can say is that his aim was to form a pressure group to put pressure on the government so that matters requiring reform could be reformed.
It is known from historical narrations that when the true situation of the people of Kufa became clear to Hazrat Hussain (RA), his opinion changed. This seems correct and plausible.
In Tabari, in a narration from Abu Mikhnaf himself, the statement of two individuals from Banu Asad is narrated as follows:
قال أبو مخنف: وأما ما حدثنا به المجالد بن سعيد والصقعب بن زهير الأزدي وغيرهما من المحدثين، فهو ما عليه جماعة المحدثين، قالوا: Hazrat Hussain said: Choose one of three things for me: Let me return to where I came from. Or, let me place my hand in Yazid’s hand, and let him decide between himself and me as he wishes. Or, let me go to one of the borders of the Islamic kingdom. I will live as one of them, and my profit and loss will be subject to their profit and loss.
(Tabari. 4/1-200)
Exactly this has been mentioned above in the narration of Ammar Al-Duhni. This shows the extent to which Hazrat Hussain (RA) was peace-loving and did not want bloodshed under any circumstances. Phrases like “Gave his head, but not his hand into Yazid’s hand” (Sar daad na daad dast dar dast-e-Yazid) are merely said under the influence of the literature of rebel movements. These rebel movements, to strengthen themselves, have presented Hazrat Hussain’s personality as a stubborn and adamant person; otherwise, he understood the situations well and made decisions accordingly. When he received the news of Muslim bin Aqeel, he gave all the people permission to leave him and go to their homes.
This narration from Hisham Kalbi is stated in Tabari:
قال هشام: حدثنا أبو bكر بن عياش عمن أخبره: (Hazrat Hussain said:) News of a very severe incident has reached me. Muslim bin Aqeel, Hani bin Urwah, and Abdullah bin Baqtar have been killed. Our ‘Shias’ (partisans) have abandoned us. Whoever among you wants to leave, may leave. I have removed my responsibility from you.” As soon as they heard this, all those people left. Some went right, and some went left. It reached the point that only those people who had accompanied him from Madinah remained.
(Tabari. 4/1-188)
It is present in the narrations of Ammar Al-Duhni and Abu Mikhnaf that he presented three options to the government forces:
This also shows that he had no intention of rebellion or war.
If we look at the narration of Ammar Al-Duhni stated above, it appears that negotiations were underway between Hazrat Hussain (RA) and Umar bin Sa’d, and he (Hussain) had even become ready to go to Yazid, when the fight broke out in the midst. This narration is silent on how this fight broke out and what caused it.
However, some words of Hazrat Hussain (RA) are narrated in this account that give some indication as to who was responsible for starting this war. During the battle, he supplicated to Allah Ta’ala: “O Allah! Judge between us and these people. They called us to help us, and now they are killing us.”
These are words whose subject can be neither Umar bin Sa’d nor Ibn Ziyad and his associates because these people had not written any letters to him.
It seems that those people were present in the government army who had written letters to Hazrat Hussain (RA) inviting him to Kufa. Now, these very people attacked him and began to martyr him and his companions.
If the background of those whose names are mentioned among the direct killers of Hazrat Hussain (RA) is examined, it appears that they belonged to the rebel movement.
Abu Mikhnaf has written the names of Abdur Rahman Ju’fi, Qutham bin Amr bin Yazid al-Ju’fi, Salih bin Wahb al-Yazani, Sinan bin Anas Nakha’i, Khawli bin Yazid al-Asbahi, and their leader Shimr bin Dhil-Jawshan among the direct killers of Hazrat Hussain (RA). We do not know from other sources whether these very people were his killers or not. It is well-known that Shimr was part of Hazrat Ali’s (RA) army in the Battle of Siffeen, and according to Abu Mikhnaf’s own narration, he was wounded in the Battle of Siffeen. (Tabari. 3/2-221)
Sinan bin Anas belonged to the Nakha tribe and was a relative of Malik al-Ashtar Nakha’i. However, we should still not name any person definitively because we have no proof other than these narrations, and the narrations are not reliable.
Now the question arises, why did these people from the rebel movement attack Hazrat Hussain (RA) and his companions? If these people belonged to the rebel movement, what benefit did they get from it?
It seems they feared that their secret would be exposed. If Hazrat Hussain (RA) had shown the letters they had written, they would have been punished for treason by the government. After the tragedy, no trace is found of those letters, two bags full of which Hazrat Hussain (RA) had brought with him. It is quite possible that these letters were destroyed during the battle to erase the evidence.
A second reason could be that the rebel movement was in search of a fresh “high-profile martyr,” in whose name they could incite the people of their movement. It is quite possible that this motive was in the minds of some rebels, that in the form of Hazrat Hussain (RA), they could get such a martyr. The politics of corpses (lashon ki siyasat) is not unique to our era; rebel movements have been doing this in every age. However, this is also a possible theory. The true knowledge is with Allah Ta’ala alone, and He will make it clear on the Day of Resurrection. It is difficult to say anything definitively based on narrations.
Whatever narrations are stated in Tabari and elsewhere about Umar bin Sa’d are through Abu Mikhnaf; therefore, they cannot be trusted. Two contradictory pictures of Umar bin Sa’d emerge from these narrations. One picture is that he took action against Hazrat Hussain (RA) out of greed for the governorship of “Rayy,” and the second picture that appears is that he was sincere with Hazrat Hussain. He had even accepted Hazrat Hussain’s (RA) demands, and when he (Hussain) was martyred, he cried so much that his beard became wet. Now, what was in his heart, we should leave this matter to Allah Ta’ala. Whoever is responsible for the martyrdom of Hazrat Hussain (RA) will be punished by Allah Ta’ala. We should not form an opinion about anyone based on these narrations.
What is known from the narrations about Ibn Ziyad is that he was the one who ordered his forces to deal strictly (with the situation). When Hazrat Hussain (RA) presented the three options, he (Ibn Ziyad) became adamant that he (Hussain) must first come to him and give allegiance at his hand. After the tragedy, when Hazrat Hussain’s family and dependents were brought to him, he did not express any sorrow, nor did he question his forces about why and how the incident occurred. He neither tried to determine who was responsible nor took any action against them. Nothing different from this is recorded in the narrations about him. In some narrations of Tabari, it is mentioned that Ibn Ziyad’s mother, Marjanah, was a pious woman, and she strongly cursed and reproached her son. The rest of the truth is known only to Allah Ta’ala because we have nothing besides these narrations.
Two contradictory theories are presented regarding Yazid’s role in the tragedy of Karbala, and both are based on these same historical narrations:
Some narrations, also stated by Abu Mikhnaf in Tarikh Tabari, support this second theory.
According to Abu Mikhnaf’s statement, when Ibn Ziyad sent the news of the killing of Muslim bin Aqeel and Hani bin Urwah to Yazid, Yazid praised Ibn Ziyad for controlling the Kufan rebellion, but wrote the following regarding Hazrat Hussain (RA):
قال أبو مخنف: عن أبي جناب يحيى بن أبي حية الكلبي: ۔۔۔۔
I have received information that Hussain bin Ali has departed for Iraq. Appoint watchmen at the border checkpoints. Detain those about whom there is suspicion, and arrest those against whom there is any accusation. But whoever does not initiate war against you, you too must not wage war against him. Inform me of whatever incident occurs. Was-salam.
(Tabari. 4/1-173)
After the tragedy of Karbala, the conduct of Yazid and his family members has been narrated by Abu Mikhnaf on the authority of Hazrat Hussain’s (RA) granddaughter, Sayyidah Fatimah (Rahimahallah), as follows:
قال أبو مخنف، عن الحارث بن كعب، عن فاطمة بنت علي:
Yazid said to Nu’man bin Bashir (RA): “Nu’man! Make arrangements for the departure of these people, as is appropriate. And send with them a person from the people of Syria who is trustworthy and of good character. Send some horsemen and servants with him to escort them all to Madinah.” After that, he gave orders for the women, that they be lodged in a separate house, and that it should contain all necessities. Their brother Ali bin Hussain (Rahimahullah) should stay in the same house where they all had been staying until now. After this, when all these people (the women) went from that house to Yazid’s house, there was no woman from the family of Muawiyah (Aal-e-Muawiyah) who did not come to them weeping and lamenting for Hussain (RA). In short, everyone there mourned.
Yazid used to call Ali bin Hussain for meals morning and evening. … When those people intended to depart, Yazid sent for Ali bin Hussain and said to him: “May Allah curse the son of Marjanah (Ibn Ziyad). By Allah, if Hussain had come to me, whatever he demanded, I would have done it. I would have saved him from destruction in any way possible, even if one of my own children had to be killed for it. But what Allah willed is what you saw. Whatever you need, tell me and send me a written request.” Then Yazid gave clothes to everyone and gave special instructions to the leader(s) of the caravan about these people.
(Tabari. 4/1-237)
In this regard, Baladhuri has narrated this incident of Hazrat Hussain’s (RA) brother, Muhammad bin Ali (Rahimahullah):
حدثني أبو مسعود الكوفي عن عوانة قال: Yazid invited Ibn Hanafiyyah for a meeting, seated him beside him, and said to him: “May Allah give me and you recompense for the martyrdom of Hussain. By Allah! The loss of Hussain is as heavy for me as it is for you. I have been pained by his martyrdom just as much as you have. If his matter had been entrusted to me, and I saw that I could avert his death even by cutting my fingers and giving my eyes, I would, without exaggeration, have sacrificed both for him, even though he was very unjust to me and spurned the blood relationship (i.e., he went there upon the invitation of the people of Iraq).”
You must know that we criticize Hussain(‘s action) in front of the public, but by Allah, this is not because the family of Hazrat Ali does not possess honor and sanctity in the eyes of the public; rather, we want to tell the people through this that we cannot tolerate any rival in government and caliphate.”
Hearing this, Ibn Hanafiyyah said: “May Allah bless you and have mercy on Hussain and forgive his mistakes. I am happy to know that you consider our loss your loss and our deprivation your deprivation. Hussain is by no means deserving of you criticizing or condemning him.
Amir al-Mu’minin! I request you not to say anything about Hussain that is disagreeable to me.” Yazid replied: “My cousin! I will not say anything about Hussain that would hurt your heart.”
After this, Yazid asked him about his debts. Muhammad bin Ali said: “I have no debt.” Yazid said to his son Khalid bin Yazid: “My son! Your uncle is far from shallowness, blame, and falsehood. If it had been anyone else in his place, they would have said that they owed such-and-such.” Then Yazid issued an order that he be given three hundred thousand dirhams, which he accepted. It is also said that he was given five hundred thousand dirhams in cash and one hundred thousand worth of goods.
Yazid used to sit with Ibn Hanafiyyah and ask him questions related to Fiqh (jurisprudence) and the Quran. When it was time to bid him farewell, he said to him: “Abu al-Qasim! If you have seen any evil in my character, tell me, and I will remove it. And whatever you point out, I will correct it.” Ibn Hanafiyyah said: “By Allah! To the best of my ability, I have not seen any evil that you have not forbidden people from, and in this matter, have not told about the right of Allah. It is the responsibility of the people of knowledge (Ahl-e-Ilm) to clarify the truth for the people and not to hide it. I have seen nothing but good (khair) in you.”
(Baladhuri. Ansab al-Ashraf. 3/470. Chapter: Muhammad bin Hanafiyyah)
According to the second group of narrations from Abu Mikhnaf, Yazid was happy about the martyrdom of Hussain, and his consent was involved in it. In contrast, the narrations from the same Abu Mikhnaf, stated above, present a contrary picture: that Yazid was severely saddened by the tragedy of Karbala and expressed grief over this tragedy.
Now it depends on each person’s own choice which of Abu Mikhnaf’s narrations they accept. After so many centuries, no one’s heart can be torn open to see what is inside it.
Here the question arises that if Yazid was not involved in this tragedy, why did he not punish Ibn Ziyad and the others responsible for the Karbala tragedy?
What should have happened was that he should have formed an investigative team comprising such honest people in whom the Ummah had complete confidence. These people would have investigated the tragedy of Karbala, and those who were involved in it would have been given exemplary punishment. This is a question to which there is no answer in the pages of history books. In the mildest of terms, it can be said that this was such a terrible mistake by Yazid, as a result of which neither his power could be established, and his opponents, using this failure as a basis, began a chain of cursing and condemnation against him that continues to this day.
Yazid himself suffered severe damage because of the tragedy of Karbala. Whatever little credibility he had left was completely finished, and people began to hate him.
A narration in Tabari indicates that Yazid had realized this loss and had begun to hate Ibn Ziyad intensely.
قال أبو جعفر: وحدثني أبو عبيدة معمر بن المثنى أن يونس بن حبيب الجرمي حدثه، قال:
A few days later, he (Yazid) became remorseful (pashaimaan) and would often say: “If I had endured a little trouble and kept Hussain in my own home, and given him the authority to do what he wanted—because in that was the pleasure of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) and regard for his right and kinship. What harm would it have been if my government had been slighted in this? May Allah curse Ibn Marjanah (Ibn Ziyad), for he forced him (Hussain) to fight. He (Hussain) was only saying, ‘Let me go back, or (send me to Yazid) so I can put my hand in Yazid’s hand, or let me go out to one of the borders of the Muslims.’ There, Allah Azza wa Jall would protect me. He (Ibn Ziyad) did not accept this either and refused it. He brought him back towards Kufa and killed him. With this incident, he (Ibn Ziyad) filled the hearts of the Muslims with hatred (bughz) for me and sowed the seed of enmity for me. Now, pious or wicked, everyone hates me for this matter, that I killed Hussain. People consider it a very great event. What do I care about Ibn Marjanah? May Allah curse him and send His wrath upon him.”
(Tabari. 4/1-270)
A little after this narration, it is stated that after Yazid’s death, Ibn Ziyad gave a sermon and also condemned him. He knew that Yazid was going to deal with him very badly and was, therefore, afraid of him. It is possible that if Yazid had lived a little longer, he might have taken action against Ibn Ziyad, but in any case, it was now too late, and the damage that was to befall him due to the martyrdom of Hazrat Hussain (RA) had already occurred.
The role of the Kufan rebel movement in the tragedy of Karbala is prominent. These were the people who invited Hazrat Hussain (RA) to Kufa and sent a barrage of letters. After that, they incited Muslim bin Aqeel (Rahimahullah) to rebel and then abandoned him in the midst of the siege. As we have stated above, it is highly likely that those who directly martyred Hazrat Hussain (RA) included people who belonged to the rebel movement. Among them, the name of Shimr bin Dhil-Jawshan is prominent, who was part of Hazrat Ali’s (RA) army in the Battle of Siffeen. The prayer that Hazrat Hussain made shortly before his martyrdom also indicates that these were the people who were martyring him:
“O Allah! Judge between us and these people. They called us to help us, and now they are killing us.”
If the results of Hazrat Hussain’s (RA) martyrdom are considered, it appears that this martyrdom did not benefit Yazid at all; however, the rebel movement benefited immensely (lit: had all five fingers in ghee). They ‘cashed in’ heavily on Hazrat Hussain’s name and, after four years of preparation, launched a massive rebellion in his name. As we have described in the life cycle of rebel movements, these people are in search of “martyrs” so they can inflame the emotions of the people by using their names. And if the martyr is a person of Hazrat Hussain’s (RA) stature, then what more could they ask for? This is why the rebels first encouraged Hazrat Hussain (RA) to come to them, then abandoned him when he journeyed towards Kufa. After he was martyred, they used his name extensively to incite the emotions of future generations and raised successive rebellions. However, Allah Ta’ala thwarted all their plans, and none of their rebellions could succeed. After Hazrat Hussain (RA), this same rebel movement did the same thing to his grandson, Mr. Zayd bin Ali (Rahimahumallah), and his cousin, Nafs al-Zakiyyah (Alaihir Rahmah).
Many aspects are common between the martyrdoms of Hazrat Uthman and Hazrat Hussain (RA). This comparison was first made by Hazrat Abdullah bin Abbas (RA) when he forbade Hazrat Hussain from going to Iraq. He had said: “If you must go, then do not take the women and children with you. By Allah! I fear that, like Hazrat Uthman, you too might be killed in front of your women and children.” This prediction of Hazrat Ibn Abbas came true, and Hazrat Hussain, like Hazrat Uthman (RA), was also martyred in front of his family. The last person to meet Hazrat Uthman shortly before his martyrdom was Hazrat Hussain himself.
This aspect is also common in the martyrdoms of both these elders: that both were martyred with extreme oppression (mazloomiyat). Just as Hazrat Uthman had only a few companions, including Hassan and Hussain, while his opponents were in the thousands, similarly Hazrat Hussain also had only a few companions, and his opponents were also in the thousands.
The second connection between the martyrdoms of Hazrat Uthman and Hussain (RA) is that both were martyred at the hands of the rebel movement.
The third connection is that just as the killers of Uthman could not succeed in their objectives, the killers of Hussain also failed and were lost.
The objective of Hazrat Uthman’s killers was to seize power and establish their rule behind the veil of a puppet caliph. Hazrat Ali, Hassan, and Muawiyah (RA) did not let this wish of theirs be fulfilled.
In exactly the same way, the objective of Hussain’s killers was to gain some reward and honor from Yazid by martyring him. Yazid did not fulfill this wish of theirs. Just as the killers of Uthman were hunted down and arrested by Hazrat Muawiyah (RA) and then tried and sentenced to death, in the exact same way, the killers of Hussain were also singled out and killed during the time of Mukhtar Thaqafi.
Another connection between the martyrdoms of Hazrat Uthman and Hazrat Hussain (RA) is that both of their names were used for war and conflict. The Nasibi sect used Hazrat Uthman’s name to spread propaganda against Hazrat Ali (RA). In the exact same way, the rebel movement used Hazrat Hussain’s (RA) name to spread propaganda against the Umayyad governments.
We see that in later periods, the propaganda done in the name of Hazrat Uthman (RA) ended, whereas the propaganda done in the name of Hazrat Hussain (RA) is still ongoing. No specific sect has a monopoly on this matter; rather, whenever any rebel movement needs it, it uses the name of Hazrat Hussain (RA).
Here, the question arises in the mind of a student of history: why is this done only with the name of Hazrat Hussain, and why has Hazrat Uthman been completely ignored?
The reason for this is that Hazrat Uthman (RA) was the Caliph, and those who rose against him were rebels. For this reason, rebel movements find no benefit in using his name. In contrast, Hazrat Hussain (RA) is, God forbid (Ma’az Allah), likened to a rebel who stood up defiantly (seena taan kar) against an oppressive ruler. After that, blood-boiling poems are recited, and movement workers are prepared for rebellion.
The purpose of stating this detail is that we should understand the tactics of the political leaders of our era, who use the sacred names of these elders to pave their own path to power by using simple-minded youth. The interesting point is that these leaders themselves rarely give their lives and mostly encourage their simple-minded workers to give their lives. The reality is that Hazrat Hussain (RA) did not commit any rebellion, nor did he create fitna (sedition) or fasad (chaos). He had gone to Iraq to end anarchy, and when he learned that a government had been established there, he was even ready to go to Yazid and settle the matter directly to maintain the unity (ijtima’iyyat) of the Muslims. This is why, when he was martyred despite this, his killing was declared an oppressed (mazloomana) killing throughout the entire Muslim world.
Since the tragedy of Karbala was a major tragedy and it left deep psychological effects on the Muslim world, it moved from the domain of historians to become the subject of gatherings of common storytellers, poets, and orators. Along with them, story-telling orators and poets belonging to the rebel movement worked to add fuel to the fire. A common orator or poet is not interested in narrating the event accurately; rather, his interest lies in what can be said to incite the emotions of the audience, make them weep and shout, tear their collars, and get up to praise the orator or poet. This is why these gentlemen fabricated such exaggerated tales of the Karbala tragedy that perhaps even Abu Mikhnaf could not have imagined. These tales have no chain of transmission (sanad), nor are they present in any history book. It’s just that ignorant (jahil) preachers and poets narrate them. Here, we present a few examples of these exaggerated tales that are commonly famous.
1. It has been commonly propagated that water for Hazrat Hussain (RA) and his Ahl-e-Bait was cut off for three days in Karbala, and they were martyred thirsty.
This is contradicted by Abu Mikhnaf’s own narration, which is present in Tabari:
قال أبو مخنف: حدثنا عبد الله بن عاصم الفائشي – بطن من همدان – عن الضحاك بن عبد الله المشرقي:۔۔۔ (On the night of the Karbala tragedy, Sayyidah Zainab (RA) fainted from the intensity of grief.) Seeing his sister’s condition, Hazrat Hussain stood up. He came to her, sprinkled water on her face, and said: “Dear sister! Fear Allah and have patience for Allah’s sake. Understand this, that all on the face of the earth will die. The inhabitants of the heavens will not remain either. Only the Being of Allah, who created this earth with His power and who will bring the creation back to life, He alone is One and Unique. All things are perishable. My father was better than me, my mother was better than you, my brother was better than me. I, and all of them, and every Muslim should find solace by looking at the beautiful example (Uswa-e-Hasana) of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH).” He advised her with similar words and then said: “Dear sister! I make you swear an oath, and fulfill this oath of mine. When I die, do not tear your collar (garibaan) in grief for me, do not beat your face, do not call for destruction and death.”
(Tabari. 4/1-206)
The advice that Hazrat Hussain (RA) gave to his sister in this narration should also be firmly grasped by our women. This narration shows that even on the last night of the tragedy, Hazrat Hussain (RA) had water available, which he sprinkled on Sayyidah Zainab’s (RA) face.
Besides, Karbala is situated on the bank of the Euphrates River. The river’s water is so vast that there is a large lake in the area because of it, which is called ‘Buhayra al-Razzaza’ (Lake Razzaza) and is just 18 kilometers from the city of Karbala. Even today, this entire area can be seen with the help of Google Earth. The Euphrates is a river, not some small spring whose water can be blocked. If the enemy had guarded one spot, water could have been obtained from another.
A little after this narration, Tabari has transmitted another narration according to which Hazrat Hussain (RA) ordered musk to be dissolved in water in a large tub, so it could be applied to the body. If there was no water to drink, then where did a tub full of water come from for applying ‘noorah’ (depilatory paste) like wrestlers?
قال أبو مخنف: حدثني فضيل بن خديج الكندي، عن محمد بن بشر، عن عمرو الحضرمي، قال: When these people (the government army) advanced to fight him (Hazrat Hussain), he ordered the large tent to be pitched. So it was pitched. He ordered musk to be dissolved in water in a large vessel. When it was dissolved, he went inside the tent to apply ‘noorah’.
(Tabari. 4/1-208)
2. Another exaggerated statement is that Hazrat Hussain (RA) killed thousands or even lakhs (hundreds of thousands) of enemy soldiers with his own hand and created mounds of the slain.
In some narrations, this number reaches two thousand, and in some, three hundred thousand. The exaggeration of this narration can be gauged from the fact that if even one minute was required to fight, defeat, and kill each man, then 2000 minutes would be needed to kill 2000 people; this amounts to about 33 hours. From Abu Mikhnaf’s narrations, it appears that this tragedy occurred and was over within an hour or two.
3. Another exaggerated statement is that the heads of Hazrat Hussain (RA) and other martyrs were placed on spears and paraded with his family in the form of a procession from city to city, and even in this state, the sound of the recitation of the Holy Quran was heard from Hazrat Hussain’s blessed lips.
If anyone did this even today, it could only be called political suicide. If such a thing had happened, rebellions would have erupted wherever this procession passed. Then this question also arises: if such an act had been committed, there would have been thousands of onlookers. Did the honor (ghairat) of none of them flare up? Among the dozens of Sahaba and thousands of Tabi’in present at that time, were there not even a few hundred people who, upon seeing this procession, spoke a word of truth (Kalima-e-Haqq) before Yazid?
Dozens of such exaggerated tales are commonly seen being narrated by our orators and poets, but we will suffice with these.
After the fourth century Hijri, three positions became prevalent regarding the tragedy of Karbala.
Ibn Kathir (701-774/1301-1372) has stated them as follows:
The Rawafid exceeded the limits around 400 AH during the government of the Banu Buwayh (Buyids). On the Day of Ashura, drums were beaten in Baghdad and other cities, ashes and chaff were scattered on the roads and in the markets, sackcloths were hung on shops, and people expressed grief and sorrow. On this night, many people would not drink water in sympathy with Hazrat Hussain (RA) because he was killed in a state of thirst. Women would come out into the markets bare-faced, wailing, and beating their chests and faces, barefoot. Other such reprehensible innovations (bid’aat-e-shanee’a) and vile desires and disgraceful fabricated acts were carried out. Their purpose with such acts was to humiliate the Umayyad government because Hazrat Hussain was killed during their reign.
On the other side, the Nasibin of Syria began to celebrate the Day of Ashura in the opposite way. These people would cook food on the Day of Ashura, bathe, apply perfume, and wear expensive clothes, and celebrate this day as an Eid. In this, they would cook various types of food and express joy and happiness, and their aim was to oppose the Rawafid. They justified the killing of Hazrat Hussain by saying that he had come out to shatter the unity of the Muslims and to depose the person upon whose allegiance the people had agreed. They interpret the warnings and admonitions mentioned in Sahih Muslim regarding punishing rebels and apply them to Hazrat Hussain. This was the interpretation of the ignorant who martyred him. It was incumbent upon them not to martyr him; rather, when he gave three options, they should have accepted one of them….
Every Muslim should be saddened by his martyrdom. Undoubtedly, he was among the leaders (Saadaat) of the Muslims and the ‘Ulema and Sahaba, and he was the son of the Prophet’s (PBUH) daughter who was the most virtuous among his daughters. He was devout, brave, and generous. But the way the Shia express grief with impatience (be-sabri) is not appropriate. Perhaps most of it is based on affectation (tasannu’) and showing off. His father (Hazrat Ali RA) was superior to him. He was also martyred, but they do not mourn his killing like the killing of Hazrat Hussain. Undoubtedly, his father was killed on 17 Ramadan 40 AH, on a Friday, while going for the Fajr prayer.
Similarly, Hazrat Uthman (RA) was also killed, who, according to the Ahl-e-Sunnah wa Al-Jama’ah, was superior to Hazrat Ali (RA). He was killed in his house during the days of Tashreeq in the month of Dhul-Hijjah 36 AH, while besieged. His jugular vein was cut, but people did not make the day of his killing a day of mourning. Similarly, Hazrat Umar bin Khattab (RA) was also killed, who was superior to Hazrat Uthman and Hazrat Ali. He was killed in the mihrab (prayer niche) while leading the Fajr prayer and reciting the Quran, but people did not make the day of his martyrdom a day of mourning either. Similarly, Hazrat Siddiq (RA) was superior to him, and people did not make the day of his passing a day of mourning either. The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) is the leader of the children of Adam in this world and the hereafter; Allah Ta’ala gave him death just as the Prophets before him passed away. No one made the day of his passing a day of mourning, nor did they do those things that the ignorant among these Rawafid do on the day of Hazrat Hussain’s martyrdom. Neither on the day of the Prophet’s (PBUH) passing nor on the day of anyone’s passing before him did anyone narrate any such aforementioned matter that these people claim regarding the day of Hazrat Hussain’s (RA) killing, such as the solar eclipse and the redness that appears in the sky.
(Ibn Kathir. Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah. 11/577 (Urdu 8/259))
The position of the majority of Muslims that Ibn Kathir has stated is also his own viewpoint. His purpose in mentioning the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) and Hazraat Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman (RA) is that he wants to draw the attention of the Ahl-e-Sunnah to what their stance should be on the martyrdom of Hussain (RA).
And Allah Ta’ala knows best what is correct.
Understand the Shari'ah stance on Muslim men/women marrying disbelievers (Kafir) or polytheists (Mushrik), with Quranic evidence, Hadith, and scholarly views… Read More
Learn the Sunnah way of wiping the head during Wudu for men and women with long hair, plus rulings on… Read More
Discover the Shari'ah status of sprinkling water on private parts post-Wudu, its Sunnah basis from Hadith, and whether Wudu remains… Read More
Detailed Shariah ruling: Praying bareheaded is completely valid and permissible for men; covering the head is Mustahab in daily life… Read More
Explore Sharia rulings on head shaving for men and women during Hajj/Umrah (Sunnah for men, trimming for women) and whether… Read More
Explore the Islamic perspective on Jahez (dowry), its permissible and impermissible forms, and whether Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) gave dowry to… Read More