Change, Hope & Revival: The Echoing Message of the Tragedy of Karbala
By Dr. Riadh Momen
The tragedy of Karbala and the tragic end of Imam Hussein are the ceaseless story of the battle between good and evil in this world. They reflect the historical conflict of the line of the prophets against the followers of the devil, rather than an individual animosity between Imam Hussein and his opponents, as some writers try to depict.1 The encounter between the dignity of human beings and their greed has been embodied by the killing of Imam Hussein at the hands of the Umayyad authorities.
Imam Hussein’s uprising and his tragic end became the prototype of Shia martyrdom and occupy a particularly important role in Shia piety. Shia communities regard the killing of Imam Hussein at the hands of the Umayyad officials as an immoral massacre of the just and rightful ruler at the hands of an usurper. Thus, remembering Imam Hussein’s death combines grief over his death with a strong condemnation of tyranny and injustice. Imam Hussein became a historical figure and his death became a cosmic event, the central focus of Shia history.2 The slogan “vengeance for Imam Hussein,” which played a significant role in the downfall of the Umayyads, became a symbol for all future Shia movements.3
Imam Hussein Ibn Ali (d. 61/680), grandson of Prophet Mohammad (d. 10/632) and third Imam of the Shia, was born in Medina in the fourth year A.H. (after hijra – Prophet Mohammad’s emigration from the city of Mecca to Medina). He was brutally killed on the plains of Karbala, in Iraq, on the tenth day of the Islamic month Muharram along with the male members of his family and a group of his followers, at the hands of the Umayyad authorities. The only reason for Imam Hussein’s killing was that he refused to acknowledge Yazid (d. 64/683) as caliph after Mu’awiya’s death (60/680).
The reason for Imam Hussein’s refusal to acknowledge Yazid’s claim to the caliphate was two-fold: 1) Yazid was not qualified for such a sacred office and, 2) Imam Hussein, belonged to the family of the Prophet and, as such, would not pay homage to an impious man like Yazid. Imam Hussein explained his opposition to Yazid’s caliphate by stating: “we are the household of the Prophet… Yazid, on the other hand, is a reprobate, a killer of the innocent and openly practices all means of corruption. A man of my status, therefore, cannot give bay’a (homage) to a man like Yazid.”4
It became obvious Imam Hussein’s uprising revolved around the leadership of the community (caliphate) and the qualifications of the leader. In order to understand Imam Hussein’s uprising, it is essential to deal with two questions: On what basis was the leadership (the caliphate) after the Prophets’ death established and what were the qualifications of the leader?
The caliphate, according to the Muslim community, should be based on three foundations: 1) early merits and service in the cause of Islam were the criteria for the choice of the caliph; 2) the caliph should follow the Book of God (al-Qur’an) and the conduct, Sunnah, of the Prophet-which means that the obligation of the leader is to apply justice and refrain from all kind of injustice, otherwise the people were not obliged to submit to him; and 3) the caliphate could not be established and the caliph could not be acknowledged as legitimate unless he was recognized by the people through paying homage to him. In fact, the oath of allegiance was the cornerstone of the leadership and without it the leader could not be accepted by the Muslims and they had no obligation to submit to him unless they swear allegiance to him. The Muslims deemed the homage as a covenant between them and the caliph which could not be dissolved unless the caliph deviates from acting according to the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet.5
In addition to adhering to the conditions of the leadership mentioned above, Imam Ali and his sons, Imam Hassan (d. 50/670) and Imam Hussein, believed that they were more entitled to the caliphate because of their relationship to the Prophet. They were also of the opinion that they were the guardians of the principles of the caliphate, the conduct of the Prophet and the principles of Islam.
Since Mu’awiya b. Abī Sufyān had witnessed the events of the caliphate after the Prophet’s death, he was not unaware of the conditions of the caliphate and the qualifications of the caliph, and had also realized that he himself lacked these qualifications. He belonged to the former enemies of the Prophet who converted under duress at the time of the Muslim conquest of Mecca. Mu’awiya was one of those who were pardoned and released by the Prophet at the time of the conquest of Mecca, and therefore, had no right to the caliphate because he lacked early merits and service in Islam.
Mu’awiya realized that he could not challenge Imam Ali for his entitlement to the caliphate and that he, Mu’awiya, had no right to it. Therefore, he tried his best to demand allegiance from the people as his only resort to in order to be recognized as caliph. Once people swore allegiance to Mu’awiya, his caliphate would be binding on them, and afterwards they could no longer dissolve their homage; this was to become a key strategy of Mu’awiya’s. Therefore and under the pretext of seeking to avenge the murder of his kinsman Uthman, Mu’awiya launched many expeditions into the territories under Imam Ali’s rule and tried to force their inhabitants to swear allegiance to him.6
After Imam Ali’s assassination, the people of Kufa paid homage to Imam Hassan because of his merits in the cause of Islam and his relationship to the Prophet. Mu’awiya refused to acknowledge Imam Hassan’s caliphate and tried to assume it to himself. Mu’awiya took a series of measures designed to undermine Imam Hassan’s position. The leaders of the tribes in Kufa also played an important role in undermining Imam Hassan’s affairs and, consequently, influenced his decision to come to terms with Mu’awiya. When Imam Hassan prepared to fight Mu’awiya, a group of prominent leaders of the tribes in Kufa joined Mu’awiya and paid homage to him on behalf of their tribes. When Imam Hassan realized that leadership was beyond his grasp, he decided to withdraw from fighting Mu’awiya and compromise with him. Imam Hassan, however, refused to hand over his caliphate to Mu’awiya unless he imposed his own conditions on him, and Mu’awiya was ready to accede to whatever Imam Hassan wished.
One of these conditions was that Mu’awiya should conduct himself according to the Book of God and the Sunnah of the Prophet. Before renouncing his authority, Imam Hassan wanted to be sure that Mu’awiya would not violate Islamic norms. In order to protect the caliphate from any deviation, Imam Hassan imposed the further condition that Mu’awiya had no right to nominate his successor. However, Mu’awiya did not fulfill his promises to the Imam. As soon as he entered Kufa, Mu’awiya decided to disclose his intention to succeed to the caliphate and have full power over the people of Kufa. Mu’awiya also announced to the people of Kufa that he had no intention of fulfilling his promises to Imam Hassan and went on to declare, “All conditions I have promised to Imam Hassan are now under my feet.”7
In fact, Mu’awiya did not follow the Book of God and the Sunnah of the Prophet, but rather applied his own policy; he continued to curse Imam Ali, treated the people of Kufa unjustly with regard to their stipends and executed anyone objecting to his rule. Although they did not commit any crime, Hujr, a prominent leader of Kufa, and his followers were killed by Mu’awiya. In refusing Imam Hassan’s caliphate, Mu’awiya’s intention was not to become a caliph who follows the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet, but rather to have full control over the masses and to become a king. Describing Mu’awiya’s caliphate, Madelung, a prominent Orientalist, affirms, “The caliph became counterpart and successor to the Roman-Byzantine emperors. He took over the old crown lands conquered by the Muslim armies as his divine right. He ruled Muslims as his subjects, absolute lord over their life and death.”8
What was Imam Hussein’s attitude towards Mu’awiya’s deeds? After Imam Hassan’s death, Kufan’s delegations continued to visit Imam Hussein asking him to rise against Mu’awiya. Imam Hussein refused their call, advising them to stay calm until Mu’awiya’s death. Mu’awiya was alarmed by these delegations, and wrote a threatening letter to Imam Hussein, warning him against discord. In his response, Imam Hussein condemned Mu’awiya and blamed him for breaking his commitments and for his crimes against innocent people. He also condemned and blamed Mu’awiya for his severe measures against Hujr and his companions and for divergence from the conduct of the Prophet.9
The most important task for Mu’awiya before his death was to strengthen the basis of the caliphate of his son Yazid, who, because of his immorality, was opposed by the Muslims, even by some of Mu’awiya’s supporters in Damascus. Persuading Muslims to accept Yazid, who lacked the qualifications of the leadership, was extremely difficult and Mu’awiya had to employ various schemes. Mu’awiya was not unaware of Yazid’s misconduct and his lack for qualifications for the caliphate. Nonetheless, he nominated him as his successor and imposed him on the people. In doing so Mu’awiya, in fact, wanted to remove the real meaning of the caliphate and intending to transform it to a kingship inherited among his offspring. Mu’awiya himself rejected the principle the early Companions of the Prophet by choosing the leader of the community.
As soon as he assumed the caliphate, Yazid wasted no time in asking Imam Hussein to pay homage to him. He gave the Imam no alternative but to submit to his demand, ordering his governor of Medina to take allegiance from Imam Hussein. Because of the Umayyad officials’ harassment, Imam Hussein decided to leave Medina, declaring that he would never recognize Yazid. As soon as the Kufans received news of Imam Hussein’s refusal to give homage to Yazid and departure from Medina, they started sending letters and delegations, calling him to lead them against the Umayya.
Due to his refusal to acknowledge Yazid’s leadership and harassment from the Umayyad officials, Imam Hussein, by taking refuge there, intended to seize the opportunity to gather the Muslim community and announce his opposition to the illegitimacy of Yazid’s caliphate. In spite of the repeated appeals and hundreds of letters sent by the Kufans who were waiting for this opportunity to rise against the Umayyad authorities, Imam Hussein did not make a hasty decision to answer them and go to Kufa. As a precautionary measure, he sent his cousin, Muslim b. Aqil, as his emissary with instructions to ascertain the truth and conviction of their appeals.
Upon b. Aqil’s arrival to Kufa, the inhabitants started to come regularly to visit and to give him their oath of allegiance to Imam Hussein, thus confirming the eagerness and sincerity of their support to him.10 At this time, b. Aqil wrote to Imam Hussein, telling him about the people’s allegiance and urging him to come to Kufa. Meanwhile, some of the Umayyad’s supporters wrote to Yazid, informing him about b. Aqil’s affair, urging him to send a tougher governor who could deal with b. Aqil in a different way. Yazid decided to remove his governor, al-Numan b. Bashir, and replaced him with a hasher governor who could deal strongly with the new development in Kufa and suppress b. Aqil’s mission. In the eyes of Yazid, Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad, then the governor of Basra, was the perfect man for the Kufans, because of his cruelty and severe measures in Basra against the opponents of the Umayyad officials, and because of his father’s reputation for brutality among the Kufans at the time of Mu’awiya.
As soon as he received Yazid’s letter, b. Ziyad wasted no time to reach Kufa. His immediate tasks were to crush those who constituted a threat for the Umayyad officials and to find out b. Aqil’s whereabouts. Ibn Ziyad started to treat the people very harshly. He threatened those among the urafa’11 who did not submit to his orders that he would shed their blood, destroy their property, deprive them from their payment and crucify them to the doors of their houses. The people of Kufa had lost their power and determination because of b. Ziyad’s severe measures against whoever opposed him. In fact, the leader of the tribes played a major role in threatening the people making them withdraw from b. Aqil and imprisoned some of his supporters. Not only did the tribal leaders of Kufa withdraw from b. Aqil’s cause, but they also fought against him. Finally, b. Aqil was brought to the governor and he was beheaded.12
Unaware of b. Aqil’s destiny, Imam Hussein left Mecca heading to Kufa. Although he was informed that the Kufans had no determination to support him, Imam Hussein decided to continue his journey. The death of his cousin and some other prominent followers reached the Imam when he was on his way to Kufa. The most important question in this juncture is: Why did Imam Hussein decide to go on to Kufa even though he had become more certain that the Kufans would fail to support him in his fight? In fact, Imam Hussein was fully aware of the unreliable character of the Kufans, since he had witnessed their failure to support his father and his brother in their fighting against Mu’awiya. He also was conscious of the fact that the Umayyad authorities would not leave him alone until he had either submitted to Yazid or been killed. And, Imam Hussein’s obligation was not to recognize the illegitimate caliph, but rather to fight against him.
Meanwhile, the new governor of Kufa sent al-Hurr in advance with one thousand mounted men to prevent Imam Hussein from entering Kufa. However, when he met with al-Hurr, Imam Hussein reminded the assembly of their letters and their promises to support him, affirming that he would lead them to the right path if they fulfilled their promises and did not break their allegiance. Al-Hurr, who was waiting for new instructions from the governor, continued to accompany Imam Hussein and his followers until they settled at Karbala on the second of Muharram.13
When b. Ziyad heard that al-Hurr had detained Imam Hussein, he started to recruit as many troops as he could to fight against the Imam Hussein. For this difficult mission, he decided to nominate Umar b. Sa’ad as the leader of his troops. Umar was not unaware of the dangerous consequences of Imam Hussein’s killing and tried to avoid this crisis, but meanwhile, he was not ready to lose his promised office as governor of al-Rayy. Umar’s quandary demonstrates the dilemma facing the people of Kufa. On the one hand, they understood very well Imam Hussein’s prominent position among the people, based on his relationship to the Prophet, and, therefore, the enormous offense represented by his killing. On the other hand, they had lost their determination to resist b. Ziyad, who threatened severe punishment to whoever disobeyed his orders of assembling his troops against Imam Hussein.
The Imam was sure that the mission of the Umayyad authorities was to only kill him for his refusal to pay homage to Yazid. Therefore, he believed that there was no reason for his followers to expose themselves to death. He is reported to have summoned them and his family and permitted them to leave under the cover of darkness, telling them there would be no further obligation on them. They all expressed their readiness to sacrifice themselves for him and declared that they would never leave him alone.14
Realizing that Umar and his men would attack him as soon as darkness vanished, Imam Hussein mobilized his followers after the morning prayer. Meanwhile Umar mobilized his followers and came out towards Imam Hussein’s camp. Imam Hussein’s speech to the assembly was his last chance to convince the troops to change their minds and withdraw from fighting. Questioning their gathering against him, he declared that he had committed no crime and had not done any harm to them. When they kept silent and did not respond, Imam Hussein called out the names of the commanders of Umar’s troops who had written to him and urged him to come to Kufa, but they denied his statement. Following Imam Hussein’s speech, some of his followers tried to persuade Umar’s men to withdraw from fighting against the Imam, yet they received no response.
The fight began when Umar shot an arrow towards Imam Hussein’s camp. The fight became one-on-one hand-to-hand combat. Imam Hussein’s supporters decided to fight first and did not let the Imam family proceed before them because of their relationship to the Prophet. They fell one by one, and after this, it was the Imam’s family’s turn. Imam Hussein’s older son, Ali al-Akbar, was the first one of the family to be killed and he was followed by the rest of them. It was reported that some children were killed as well in the battle, such as Imam Hassan’s sons, al-Qassim and Abd Allah as well as Imam Hussein’s infant son. When Imam Hussein was standing alone, he fought fiercely and he too tried to reach the river to bring back water for the children after Abu al-Fadl’s (Imam Hussein’s brother) attempt ended in his death. But Umar’s men prevented him. They gathered around him from every side, shoring him by arrows and stones. Although Imam Hussein was lying on the ground, Umars’ men avoided killing him until one of them, Shamir, beheaded him.15
Soon after the battle, the Kufans recognized their fault in deceiving Imam Hussein. The feelings of the Kufans were amplified by the speeches and deeds of the captives from Imam Hussein’s camp. The captives, during their journey from Karbala to Kufa and from Kufa to Damascus, and through their speeches, played an important role in reproaching the Kufans for not fulfilling their commitment to Imam Hussein and his family. They reminded them of their allegiance, their promises to the Imam and their failure to fulfill their duties. This caused the Kufans to regret their deeds and stirred up their wrath against the Umayyad authorities. Confronted by the situation of the captives and their statements and reproaches, the Kufans started to blame themselves and to accuse the Umayyad officials for what had happened to the grandson of the Prophet.
Yazid considered Imam Hussein’s killing a victory and took his family as captives. He did not realize that Imam Hussein’s killing would move the people to the extent that even Yazid’s family would lament the Imam. Imam Hussein’s family, who were taken as prisoners, incited the people against the authorities. Realizing this, Yazid changed his attitude and treated the Imam’s family leniently. He also alleged that he was regretful for Imam Hussein’s killing and declared that b. Ziyad was responsible and cursed him.16
An imperative question begs to be answered about this situation: Why did Imam Hussein take his family with him? Apparently, there was no danger to them in Mecca. According to our sources,17 none of his family was bothered by the Umayyad officials. This leaves us in no doubt that Imam Hussein was aware of the dangerous fate that his family might face, especially when we remember that he was fully aware of the wavering attitude of the Kufans and the probability of betrayal. Even when Imam Hussein had received the news of the killing of his cousin and his other envoys in Kufa and the Kufans’ failure to keep their commitments, he did not send his family back to Medina. This leaves us with the impression that this decision was a part of Imam Hussein’s strategy and uprising so that they would play a significant role after his killing. The role of his family was to testify to the ongoing illegitimacy of Yazid’s caliphate after Imam Hussein’s killing and also to clarify the circumstances of his death for the people. In addition, the family would have refused to stay behind knowing the dangers the Imam is likely to face on his trip.
What was the reason and the purpose of Imam Hussein’s uprising? There were four reasons for his revolt; first, as was mentioned above, his refusal to acknowledge Yazid’s caliphate. On many occasions, Imam Hussein shared that the Umayyad authorities would not leave him alone unless he paid homage to Yazid. When b. Umar told Imam Hussein that no harm would reach him if he stayed in his home, even without paying homage to Yazid, Imam Hussein dismissed this claim.18 With Yazid’s leadership, Mu’awiya had created a new system in regard to the caliphate, destroying the principles acknowledged by the early community of the Prophet and wishing to transform it into a kingship for his family. Through his refusal to recognize Yazid’s caliphate, al-Hussein intended to stand against this new system and to revive the principles of the early Companions of the Prophet.
The second reason for Imam Hussein’s uprising was the Kufans’ frequent calls to lead them against the Umayyad officials. Imam Hussein received many warnings from prominent persons about the fickleness of the Kufans. Although the Imam was not unaware of the Kufans’ attitude, he decided to pursue his plan. He believed that their homage was binding on him and that, therefore, it was his duty to comply with their call.
A third factor could be added to the reasons for Imam Hussein’s uprising; namely, the economic factor. For example, Ziyad Ibn Abih deprived the followers of Imam Ali from their share of the proceeds in the reign of Mu’awiya. He did this in order to silence the party that was opposing the Umayyads. And that was one of Hujr’s objections to Ziyad. The same approach was used by Ibn Ziyad against the followers of al-Hussein. He tried to keep them from following Imam Hussein by threatening to take their property and withholding their shares from the treasury.
In one of their letters to Imam Hussein, the people of Kufa condemned Mu’awiya for his unjust conduct in killing the best men of the community and for dividing the property of the community among the tyrants and wealthy men. They invited Imam Hussein to guide and unite them. They repeated their demand that he lead them in order to establish justice and remove corruption caused by Yazid.19 Imam Hussein’s objection to the Umayyads unjust treatment of Ali’s supporters in Kufa can be seen in his statement:
“Indeed, these authorities [the Umayyads] have adhered to obedience to Satan and have abandoned the Merciful; they have made corruption visible; they neglect the punishment laid down by God; they have seized the [treasury proceeds] exclusively for themselves; they have permitted what God has forbidden, and they have forbidden what He has permitted. I am more responsible for changing this than anyone else.”20
Therefore, Imam Hussein’s uprising was also motivated by his desire to give the people back their economic rights and benefits.
The fourth and most important reason for the uprising was proclaimed by Imam Hussein himself. Before leaving Medina, Imam Hussein wanted to make an announcement about the reasons for his decision. He stated:
“I have not left my residence out of joy, or gratitude, or corruption, or wrongdoing; rather, I have left to seek reform in the community of my grandfather Mohammad. I want to command morality and to forbid corruption and to follow the conduct of my grandfather and my father.”21
Yazid’s leadership, in Imam Hussein’s eyes, was a deviation from the Sunnah of the path of justice and represented corruption in the community of his grandfather. He announced that the reason for his revolt and for his refusal to recognize Yazid was to prevent this corruption and to establish justice in the community. Because of Yazid’s irreligious conduct, Imam Hussein was not ready to lend legitimacy to his caliphate by paying homage to him.
Imam Hussein did not listen to those who advised him to submit to the established de facto authority just like the rest of the community. They were fully aware of Yazid’s unsuitability for the leadership and had opposed Mu’awiya’s desire to nominate Yazid as his successor. But, when the homage to Yazid was imposed upon them, they, out of fear, asked Imam Hussein to compromise and to follow the community. They believed that paying homage to Yazid would be better than an uprising which might lead to the division of the community. Imam Hussein rejected their advice to submit, explaining that their obligation was not to accept an unjust ruler who allows tyranny and aggression but to rise against him. Imam Hussein’s attitude to stand against tyranny and his sacrifice for the sake of the community is the message we as human beings should take from his uprising.
Before Imam Hussein’s death, the people, out of fear from the brutality of the Umayyad officials, could not raise their voices to ask for their rights or oppose the officials’ policy to the extent that they, unwillingly, stood against the Imam’s camp. In fact, they accepted humiliation and lost their freedom and identity as liberated human beings. In his uprising, Imam Hussein taught the masses how to sacrifice their bodies and properties for the sake of their dignity, Islamic principles and human rights. They learned from Imam Hussein how to stand fast in defending their rights, how to preserve the truth and how to stand bravely and fight against tyranny and all kind of injustice. For this reason it is not surprising to see millions of Muslims celebrate Imam Hussein’s martyrdom every year.
Muslims as well as non-Muslims admired Imam Hussein. Mahatma Ghandi of India, for instance, confirms that “If we want to reach victory, we should learn from [Imam] Hussein.” Thomas Carlyle, an English philosopher and historian, points out that the great lesson we learn from the tragedy of Karbala is that Imam Hussein and his followers had a firm faith in God; they demonstrated that the number of warriors has no significance when truthfulness fights against falsehood. Washington Irving, a prominent American historian, said that Imam Hussein could have easily escaped from death if he had paid homage to Yazid, but, as a leader of the community, he chose not to acknowledge Yazid, and this uprising was the reason for many movements in Islam.
According to Percy Sykes, an English orientalist, everyone acknowledges the bravery and heroism of Imam Hussein and his followers. He also asserts that Imam Hussein is a historical hero. Another English orientalist, Edward Brown, declared that even non-Muslims could not disregard the pure soul (of Imam Hussein) which had fallen in the battle of Karbala. Freya Stark, an English writer, states that the tragic end of Imam Hussein has an impact on everything and it was one of the rare stories which “I could not hold my [crying] when I read it.” Finally, a Christian thinker said that “If Imam Hussein belonged to us, we will call people for Christianity in his name.”22
Endnotes
1. Abbas Mahmud al-Aqqad, Abu al-shuhada.
2. Mahmud Ayoub, Redemptive Suffering in Islam.
3. Sayyed Hussein Nasr, “Shiism:Ithna’ Ashaiya,” Encyclopedia of Religion.
4. Ahmad Ibn Atham, kitab al-Futuh.v.3.
5. Amad b. Dawud al-Dinawari, al-Akhbar al-hiwal. Al-Baladhuri, Ansab al-Ashraf. V.3.
6. Ibn Atham, Futuh, v.2. Al-Baladhuri, Ansab, v.3.
7. Ibn Saad, Tarjamat al-Hasan. Isfahani, Maqatil.
8. Wilferd Madelung, Succession to Muhammad, p.315.
9. Al-Baladhuri, Ansab, v.5. Al-Dinawari, Akbar.
10. Al-Ya’qubi, Ta’iīkh.v.2. Isfahani, Maqatil.
11. Arif (pl. urafa’) is the person who is in charge of the distribution of the stipends among the inhabitants of a specific district. He was furthermore responsible for security inside his own irafa and collecting blood-money and arbitrating and resolving disputes among the members of the irafa. See Saleh A. El-Ali and CI. Cahen, “cArif,” Encyclopaedia of Islam.
12. Al-Habari, Ta’rikh. V.4. Ibn Atham, Futuh, v.3. It should be mentioned that many details have been abbreviated.
13. Al-Habari, Ta’rikh, v.4. Al-Baladhuri, Ansab, v.3. Al-Dinawari, Akhbar.
14. Ibn Saad, Maqtal al-Husayn. P. 79. Al-Habari, Ta’rikh, .v. 4.
15. Ibn Saad, Maqtal. Al-habarī, Ta’rikh, v.4. Al-Baladhuri, Ansab, v.3.
16. Al-Habari, Ta’ikh, v.4. Al-Baladhuri, Ansab, v.3.
17. It should be mentioned that my article is exclusively based on Classical Arabic Sources (3rd and 4t44th Century A.H/9th and 10th Century A.D).
18. Al-Habari, Ta’rikh, 4:289. Al-Baladhuri, Ansab, 3: 375. Ibn Atham, Futh, 3: 72, 79.
19. Ibid, 3: 31-2. Al-Baladhuri, Ansab, 3: 369. Al-Habari, Ta’rikh, 4: 261-2. Al-Yaqubi, Ta’rikh, 2: 241-2. Al-Masudi, Muruj, 3: 45.
20. Al-Habari, Ta’rikh, 4: 304. Ibn Atham, Futuh, 3: 91. Al-Baladhuri mentions this statement briefly. Ansab, 3: 381.
21. Ibn Atham, Futuh, 3: 23.
22. Miṣbāḥ Yazdī, Naḍra fī Iḥyā’ wa Marasim Ashura. Jawad Muhaddithi, Mawsuat Ashura.