Arabic Accounts of Imam Husayn's Martyrdom

By: Dr. I.K.A Howard (Edinburg University)
The importance of the martyrdom of the Imam al‑Husayn can be seen in the great attention paid to it by the early Muslim historians whose works have survived to the present day. Most of these historical works are of a general kind but the amount of space which they devote to this event indicates the momentous impact it had on Muslims.
The early historians whose works are my main concern all lived in the third and fourth centuries of the Islamic era. They based their works, in the main, on earlier monographs devoted entirely to the subject which only survived in these later works. Fortunately the bibliographical works of Ibn Nadim, al‑Tusi and al‑Najashi provide us with evidence of many of these earlier monographs.
We can also deduce them from the writings of later historians. In attempting to describe this historical tradition, I have divided the account into ten phases. In these phases, I will point out what survives from earlier writers and analyze the different presentations.
It will be necessary, first, to give a list of the monographs or lengthy accounts on the martyrdom of al‑Husayn which we have some record of or which we can summarize:
* al‑Asbagh b. Nubata[1] (d. second half of 1st cent. AH),
* Jabir b. Yazid al‑Ju`fi[2] (d. 128),
* Ammar b. Mu`awiya[3] (d. 133),
* `Awana b. al‑Hakam[4] (d. 147),
* Abu Mikhnaf[5] (d. 157),
* Hisham b. al‑Kalbi[6] (d. 204),
* Al‑Waqidi[7] (d. 207),
* Nasr b. Muzahim[8] (d. 212),
* Al‑Mada'ini[9] (d. 215)
These are all the early works which we know at present but there were certainly many more. We also know of monographs written later, but in the third and fourth centuries more general historical writing flourished and most historians preserved some account of the martyrdom of the Imam al‑Husayn.
The main works which will provide the material for the investigation of this historical tradition are those of Khalifa b. Khayyat (d. 246), al‑Baladhuri (d. 279), al‑Dinawari (d. 282), al‑Ya'qubi (d. 292), al‑Tabari (d. 311), Ibn A'tham (d. 314), al‑Mas'udi (d. 346), Abu al‑Faraj al‑Isfahani (d. 356), and al‑Mufid (d. 413).
In an attempt to reconstruct the tradition of historical writing about the martyrdom of the Imam al‑Husayn, it seems appropriate to divide the narrative into distinct sections. Naturally differences between different writers may concern only some of these sections and reports if only some of these occur in early writings. I have adopted the following divisions:
(i) the situation prior to the death of Mu`awiya after the death of the Imam al‑Husayn;
(ii) Yazid's succession and his attempt to get the Imam al‑Husayn to pay homage to him, followed by the latter's retreat to Mecca;
(iii) the letters to the Imam al‑Husayn from Knfa;
(iv) the mission of Muslim b. `Aqil to Kufa and the appointment and activities of Ibn Ziyad as governor of Kufa;
(v) the Imam al‑Husayn's journey to Karbala';
(vi) negotiations with `Umar b. Sa'd and the Kufan army;
(vii) the battle and the death of the Imam al‑Husayn;
(viii) the desecration of his head and the treatment of his family.
Notes:
[1] Al‑Tusi, Fihrist (Mashhad, 1348sh), p. 63.
[2] Al‑Najashi, Rijal (Teheran, n.d.), p. 100.
[3] This account was probably not a monograph but it represents a substantial, continuous piece. It is recorded in al‑Tabari, Ta'rikh al‑Rusul wa‑al‑Muluk (Leiden 1881‑3),11, 227‑32, 281‑3.
[4] That he had an account can be assumed from the extracts used by Ibn al‑Kalbi in al‑Tabaris version.
[5] On Abu Mikhnaf, see U. Sezkin, Abu Mikhnaf (Leiden, 1971).
[6] Most of his account is preserved by al‑Tabari.
[7] Ibn Nadim, Fihrist, tr. Bayard Dodge (New York, 1970), I, 215.
[8] Al‑Tusi, op. cit., p. 347.
[9] Al‑Mufid, Kitab al‑Irshad, tr. I. K. A. Howard (London, 1981), p. 300.

Al‑Asbagh b. Nubata
Al‑Asbagh b. Nubata is accredited with the first known account of the martyrdom of the Imam al‑Husayn.
He was a prominent member of the Shi’i community who came from Kufa. It is claimed that he was in charge of the shurta in Kufa for the Imam `Ali. He seems to have lived well into the second half of the 1st century. All and was contemporary with the events of the martyrdom[10].
It seems that little or nothing of his work survives. However, Ibn al‑Kalbi (in al‑Tabaris version of his account) and al‑Mada'ini (as reported by Abu al‑Faraj) give reports emanating from his son al‑Qasim. These may, in fact, belong to his father's book.
The account from Ibn al‑Kalbi tells how when the Imam's camp was overrun, he attempted to reach the water and was stopped by a tribesman leading a group of his tribe. The Imam al‑Husayn calls on God to make him thirsty, and the tribesman's retort is to shoot an arrow into his throat. The Imam catches the blood with his hands after pulling the arrow out. The account then goes on to describe how that man suffered from an illness so that water would not quench his thirst, and eventually the amount he drank of it killed him[11].
The second report tells of the sufferings of the killer of al‑‘Abbas b. Ali. This killer dreamed of being flung into hell, so that every night he woke up screaming[12].
Notes:
[10] Al‑Tusi, op. cit., pp. 62‑63; Ibn Hajar, Tadhib al‑Tahdhib.
[11] Al‑Tabari, op. cit., II, 361‑2.
[12] Abu al‑Faraj al‑Isfahani, Maqatil al‑ Talibiyyin (Najaf, 1965), pp. 78‑9.

Jabir b. Yazid al‑Ju`fi
The second account is attributed to Jabir b. Yazid al‑Ju`fi. He was a well known Shi’i scholar and follower of the Imam al‑Baqir. He died in 128[13].
His account of the martyrdom of the Imam al‑Husayn seems to have been preserved by Nasr b. Muzahim on the authority of Jabir's pupil, `Amr b. Shamir. Extracts from Nasr's work are preserved by Abu al‑Faraj al‑Isfahani. In fact Abu al‑Faraj has cited very little of Jabir's account. What little there is are the names of some of the killers of the members of the ahl al‑bayt, together with a verse which is included in Abu Mikhnaf's account[14].
The verse tells that the blood shed by the tribesmen will be reckoned against them.
Ibn al‑Kalbi also reports one narrative from Jabir. This is also on the authority of Jabir's pupil, `Amr b. Shamir. In this report Jabir's authority is not given but it may well be the Imam al‑Baqir again. The report tells us how the Imam al‑Husayn was thirsty, and was struck in the mouth by an arrow shot by Husayn b. Tamim. The blood spurted from his mouth, and he brushed it away into the air.
He then prayed: “O God, count their number, destroy their power and do not leave one of them on earth”.[15]
Notes:
[13] Al‑Najashi, loc. cit.
[14] Abu al‑Faraj, op. cit., pp. 54, 56, 57, 61, 62. Cf al‑Tabari, op. cit., p. 360.
[15] Ibid., p. 361.

Ammar b. Mu`awiya
From the little that has survived of Jabir's account, it is difficult to assess his work; but what remains does call into question the account of his contemporary, Ammar b. Mu`awiya al‑Duhni[16].
This narrative is reported by al‑Tabari, and `Ammar claims to be reporting on the authority of the Imam al‑Baqir.
The report begins with a vivid introduction in which Ammar says that he asked the Imam al‑Baqir to tell him about the death of al‑Husayn so that it might be as if he was there himself. What follows is an account which agrees in its basic outline with the version of Ibn al‑Kalbi, while being much shorter and briefer.
This version seemingly adds nothing to Ibn al‑Kalbis narrative. It differs only in giving a different house for the one which Muslim b. `Aqil stayed in when he came to Kufa; it does omit some of the things which Ibn al‑Kalbi has reported, but nothing of real substance. What, then, is the purpose of this narrative? It is clearly put forward as the authoritative Shi’i account. Ammar was a well known traditionalist who, while being regarded as trustworthy by the general run of traditionalists, was also known for his Shi’i inclinations, and as an adherent of the Imam al‑Baqir. He died in 133[17] and is claimed to have a book of traditions on the authority of the Imam al‑Baqir.
This account might well be regarded as the official account of the Imam al‑Baqir and therefore the one which should be accepted.
Notes:
[16] Seen. 3.
[17] Ibn Hajar, Tadhib al‑ Tahdhib.

al-Masu’di
In fact, this seems to be what happened in the case of al‑Mas'udi. In Muruj al‑Dhahab, he reproduces the first half almost word for word with a few omissions[18].
He gives a slightly different version of Ibn Ziyad's entry into Kufa and adds some descriptions of the attempt to persuade al‑Husayn not to go to Kufa. He then reverts to `Ammar's account and faithfully reproduces it[19].
It seems conceivable that al‑Mas'udi got his account from al‑Tabari. Nowhere does al‑Baladhurri use this account. Nor does Abu al‑Faraj al‑Isfahani use it, although he was aware of it. He uses an isnad with a different intermediary from al‑Tabari[20].
Why, then, should this account be questioned? There are two main reasons. The first is that it reports that when the Imam al‑Husayn heard of the news of Muslim b. `Aqil's death, he wanted to return; and the second is that it reports that when `Umar b. Sa`d's army came near, the Imam offered three options:
(i) that he should return,
(ii) that he should go to the outposts of the empire, and
(iii) that he should go to Yazid.
It is worth analyzing Abu Mikhnaf's reports of these two incidents to see what they actually say and whether they are firm on these points. As far as Abu Mikhnaf is concerned, the Imam al‑Husayn learns of the death of Muslim before al‑Hurr arrives. Those who bring the message of Muslim's death urge the Imam al‑Husayn to return but, before he can speak, the sons of Aqil intervene and say that they will not return[21].
There is no report of the Imam saying that he would return in this conversation. Thus 'Ammar's version, which uses the words `he was about to go back', attempts to read the Imam's mind. It also omits the speech that he made in which he encouraged his supporters to leave him, not wanting to endanger their lives on a mission which was now clearly impossible[22].
In a speech to al‑Hurr's men from Kufa, the Imam al‑Husayn does say that they had given him covenants and promises. If they had kept to them, he would go on to Kufa, but if they had changed their minds, he would return[23].
However, this statement demanded that the Kufans respond and admit that they had been false, and they did not do that.
As for the conversations between `Umar b. Sa'd and the Imam al‑Husayn, Abu Mikhnaf gives three versions. The first clearly states that no one knew what they talked about[24].
The second, preceded by the comment that it is what the majority of reporters hold, is the story of the three options[25].
However, it is followed by a report from `Uqba b. Sim'an, the Imam al‑Husayn's servant who was with him at Karbala' and survived.
He claimed that he was with the Imam al‑Husayn all the time and heard everything he said. He goes on: `By God, he never gave the promise, which the people mention and allege, that he would put his hand in the hand of Yazid b. Mu`awiya, nor that they should send him to any one of the Muslim's border posts. Rather he said: "Leave me and I will go in this broad land so that we may see how the people's affair develops."[26]
With regard to the third report, which Abu Mikhnaf said was the majority opinion of reporters, the evidence for the Imam al‑Husayn making such proposals is in a letter written by `Umar b. Sa'd to Ibn Ziyad.‑According to this, Ibn Ziyad is about to agree with these terms but is dissuaded by Shamir b. Dhi Jawshan[27].
As Shamir is directly involved in the murder of the Imam al‑Husayn, this could be a report which tried to remove as much of the blame from the authorities and to transfer it to individuals. It could be an attempt to exonerate the authorities and as such could have been put out by supporters of the Umayyads. On the other hand, it might again be an attempt by `Umar b. Sa'd to get a further delay in the operations.
When the reports of Abu Mikhnaf of these two incidents are compared with `Ammar's version, we see that the latter provides interpretations of Abu Mikhnaf's reports. Because they are seemingly reported on the authority of the fifth Imam, al‑Baqir, they would seem to provide interpretations which Shi’i supporters must accept.
It seems that this was the purpose of `Ammar's version; while still showing the death of the Imam al‑Husayn to be a tragedy it diminishes the stature of the Imam. It does not do so for Shi’is but it does so for non‑Shi’is. It seems that its aim is to confirm to those who oppose the Imamate the weakness of individual Imams and to do so by putting this interpretation into the mouth of the Imam. It certainly does so in the case of Wellhausen in his study of this event. He accepts `Ammar's interpretation without even realizing that he has done so[28].
Doubt has been cast on the validity of `Ammar's report from the fifth Imam. This is further confirmed if one examines its brief account of the actual fight. Thus it says: `All the Imam al‑Husayn's followers were killed, among whom were more than the young men from his family. An arrow came and struck his son, who he had with him, on his lap. He began to wipe the blood from him saying, "O God, judge between us and a people who asked us to come so that they might help us and then killed us." He called for a striped cloak, tore it and then put it on. He took out his sword and fought until he was killed. A man of the tribe of Madhhij killed him and cut off his head[29].
This is supposed to be a vivid account of the death of the Imam al‑Husayn, as told by the Imam al‑Baqir to a Shi’i adherent, `Ammar. It is clearly unacceptable. He does not know the exact number of the members of the Imam al‑Husayn's family who were killed.
We have reports from Jabir b. Yazid in which the Imam al‑Baqir names killers of individual members of the Imam al‑Husayn's family; yet, according to Ammar, he does not even identify the killer of the Imam. I have already mentioned an account from Jabir which describes vividly one attack on the Imam al‑Husayn. Ibn al‑Kalbi also gives a similar report on the authority of the Imam al‑Baqir of the killing of the child with a slightly different prayer[30], but this in no way confirms that `Ammar's report is from the Imam. Rather it lends credence to it by including one report well known to non‑Shi’is from the Imam. Furthermore Abu Mikhnaf tells us that the sixth Imam reported that Imam al‑Husayn had received thirty‑three spear thrusts and thirty‑four sword blows on his body by the time he was killed[31]. Yet `Ammar gives us one brief sentence describing how the Imam died.
Ammar's account must be suspect. It almost certainly did not come from the Imam al‑Baqir and seems unlikely to be the work of a Shi’i such as `Ammar who was contemporary with Jabir b. Yazid al‑Ju`fi and reported traditions from him.
Notes:
[18] Al‑Mas'udi, Muruj al‑Dhahab (Beirut, n.d.), III, pp. 53‑5.
[19] Ibid., pp. 60‑1.
[20] Abu al‑Faraj, op. cit., p. 63.
[21] Al‑Tabari, op. cit., 11, pp. 292‑3.
[22] Ibid., p. 294.
[23] Ibid., p. 300.
[24] Ibid., p. 314.
[25] Ibid., p. 314.
[26] Ibid., p. 314.
[27] Ibid., p. 315.
[28] J. Wellhausen, The Religio‑Political Factions in Early Islam, tr. Walzer and Ostle (Amsterdam, 1975).
[29] Al‑Tabari, op. cit., II, 282.
[30] Ibid., p. 360.
[31] Ibid., p. 366.

Awana b. al‑Hakam
Ibn al‑Kalbi has included some narratives from `Awana b. al‑Hakam which supplement the version of Abu Mikhnaf and sometimes provide alternatives for it. Al‑Baladhuri also gives quotations from `Awana from different sources than Ibn al­Kalbi[32].
`Awana presents his reports without any further isnad. This suggests that they are taken from a continuous account which `Awana had written.
The first extract which we have from it concerns Yazid's appointment of Ibn Ziyad as governor of Kufa after receiving complaints from his supporters that Nu’man b. Bashir was not acting firm against Muslim b. `Aqil and the Shi’i in Kufa. `Awana seems to be the only source for the story of Yazid consulting his father's Christian advisor, Sergius. Sergius tells Yazid that his father was going to appoint Ibn Ziyad over Kufa and advises him to do the same. Yazid takes this advice and writes to Ibn Ziyad, telling him to go to Kufa and hunt for Muslim. He gives him three choices in his treatment of Muslim: to imprison him, to kill him or to banish him[33].
Ibn A'tham repeats this account in a somewhat embellished version without giving any reference to `Awana[34] but it is clear that `Awana must be his source, probably in the version of Ibn al‑Kalbi. Shaykh al‑Mufid also reproduces the account but he says that his version is based on Ibn A'tham[35]; al‑Mufid did not realize the implications of this version of `Awana; it removes the responsibility of the appointment of Ibn Ziyad from Yazid and puts it, in effect, not on Mu`awiya, but instead on Mu`awiya's Christian advisor.
Thus Yazid is exonerated to some extent from Ibn Ziyad's conduct. Even the three choices given to Ibn Ziyad for dealing with Muslim are presented in such a way as to lay less emphasis on the killing of Muslim. The first is imprisonment, the last banishment. Ibn Ziyad's choice of the second, killing, put more of the responsibility for that on himself rather than Yazid.
Another report from `Awana of some significance is paralleled by reports from Abu Mikhnaf. It emphasizes the reluctance of `Umar b. Sad to go against the Imam al‑Husayn and stresses the pressure that Ibn Ziyad put on him by threatening to withdraw the appointment that he had earlier given him. `Umar b. Sa'd suggests that the task be given to a tribal leader in Kufa but Ibn Ziyad refuses.
When `Umar b. Sa°d's army reaches the Imam al‑Husayn, he finds it difficult to send a messenger to the Imam because nearly all of them had previously sent messages to the Imam urging him to come to Kufa. The report ends with `Umar b. Sa°d's hope that he will not have to fight the Imam al‑Husayn[36].
This account, like others, put the blame for `Umar b. Sa`d's situation on Ibn Ziyad. It also stresses the treachery of the Kufan tribal leaders. In this context, again, we see the blame for the ensuing situation being transferred from Yazid to Ibn Ziyad and the Kufan traitors[37].
A further report from Awana concerns Yazid's behaviour when the head of the martyred Imam and the prisoners of the ahl al‑bayt are sent to him by Ibn Ziyad.
In this account we are told that the members of the ahl al‑bayt were imprisoned while Ibn Ziyad sent after Yazid. A message was sent to them in which there was a promise to inform them of their fate. When the prisoners are sent to Yazid, he justifies his action and indicates that he was unwilling that such a thing should happen. The report describes his good treatment of the prisoners, and even the praise of his treatment by one of them[38].
This report should be seen in conjunction with another isolated report by Ibn al‑Kalbi, which has clearly pro‑Yazid tendencies. In it, Yazid expresses regret for the death of the Imam and puts the blame on Ibn Ziyad.
Awana, in his narrative, seems to be presenting again a slant which diverts the blame for the killing of the Imam away from Yazid and towards Ibn Ziyad. There is no mention of Yazid's desecration of the Imam's head.
A report from `Awana, which has no support elsewhere, describes how Ibn Ziyad tries to get his letter instructing `Umar b. Sa'd to attack the Imam al‑Husayn from `Umar b. Sa'd, but `Umar b. Sa'd has already used it as a justification for himself[39].
Thus insofar as the reports from 'Awana which have been included in Ibn al‑Kalbis version may be taken as a sample of `Awana's full account, it would seem that `Awana is presenting an account which reduces the amount of blame attached to Yazid in the affair. He is writing a marginally pro‑Umayyad version. In his accounts of the battle of Siffin, it has been noted that `Awana tends to shift responsibility from Mu`awiya to `Amr b. al-As[40].
The same operation appears to be taking place here with `Awana shifting the responsibility away from Yazid to Ibn Ziyad and ultimately to his advisor, Sergius, for suggesting Ibn Ziyad's appointment.
Abu Mikhnaf's account survives in the reports taken by later writers from the recensions of Ibn al‑Kalbi, Nasr b. Muzahim and al‑Mada'ini. Ibn al‑Kalbis work is given in very full form by al‑Tabari. Al‑Baladhuri tends to use the collective `they said (qalu)'.
But it is clear that the major source is Abu Mikhnaf. Abu al‑Faraj uses both Nasr b. Muzahim's version and al‑Mada'ini s, but he mainly relies on Nasr b. Muzahim's. It is clear from a comparison of the three texts that the fullest version is Ibn al‑Kalbis, but all three recensions indicate that sometimes narratives are compressed together and summarized. What emerges is a very full account based on numerous sources, where alternatives are put side by side.
Notes:
[32] Al‑Badadhuri, Ansab al‑Ashraf (Beirut, 1977), III, 165, 213, 218.
[33] Al‑Tabari, op. cit., II, 239‑40.
[34] Ibn A`tham, Kitab al‑Futuh, V, 60‑1.
[35] Al‑Mufid, op. cit., pp. 307‑8.
[36] Al‑Tabari, op. cit., Il, 309‑11.
[37] Ibid., pp. 379‑83.
[38] Ibid., pp. 374‑6.
[39] Ibid., p. 385.
[40] E. L. Petersen, Ali and Mu awiya in Early Arab Tradition(Copenhagen, 1964), pp. 32, 48, 53.