Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Lesson Forty-Six: Matter and Form

Views of the Philosophers on Matter and Form

We have thus far taken up the discussion of three kinds of immaterial substance and one kind of material substance, and we have established their existence. However, we previously reported that the Aristotelians held that corporeal substances are composed of two other substances called matter and form, the former being the aspect of the potentiality of bodies and the latter being the aspect of the actuality of bodies. We shall now review this theory.

Before anything, we must bear in mind that matter, in the sense of the ground for the appearance of a new existent and that which receives its actuality, is accepted by nearly all philosophers, as, for example, water is said to be the matter for steam, soil for plants and animals, and grains and pits for their plants. An existent which is the matter for other existents but which does not itself appear from some prior matter, in technical terms is said to possess ‘original existence’ (wujūd ibdā‘ī ) and to be without need of a material cause, and it is called the ‘matter of matters’ (māddat al-mawādd ) or prime matter (hayūlā ūlā ). The difference of opinion between the Aristotelians and others is over whether prime matter is a substance possessing actuality which can be considered a kind of corporeal substance, or is a pure potentiality without any kind of actuality whose only property is the ability to accept corporeal forms. The opinion of the Aristotelians is the latter, and this was also accepted by most of the great Islamic philosophers, including Fārābī, Ibn Sīnā and Mīr Dāmād. In many instances, Ṣadr al-Muta’allihīn has followed the same line, but in some cases he calledhayūlā a ‘privative thing’ (amr ‘adamī ) and in some cases he referred to it as a shadow which the intellect considers for corporeal existents, but which does not have true existence, as the concept of ‘shadow’ is abstracted from weak luminescence and has no existence beyond that of light.1 There are also some scholars who consider it incorrect to attribute the above-mentioned position to Aristotle.2

On the assumption of the existence of prime matter as a substance lacking actuality, it would seem inappropriate to consider matter and form alongside bodies all equivalently as kinds of substances. Perhaps it would be better if matter and form were considered to be two kinds of material substances, with the explanation that prime matter is inseparable from corporeal form, and that the combination of them is called ‘body.’ The main problem is that the existence of a substance which essentially lacks any kind of actuality cannot be established, and it seems that, with regard to this problem, the correct position is that of Shaykh al-Ishrāq, ‘Allāmah Ṭūsī and other philosophers who have denied the existence of this sort of substance.

With the denial of prime matter as a substance lacking any sort of actuality, no room remains for establishing the existence of another sort of substance which is the first form for prime matter and that which grants it actuality, for according to this view, which is attributed to the Platonists, the first matter is a substance possessing actuality, but which is not composed of matter and form. However, new forms occur in it either alternatively or

simultaneously, such that a specific elemental form appears in it, and with its removal, it is replaced by another elemental form. However, the elemental form comes into existence simultaneously with the mineral form or vegetable form, and altogether they are incarnated in the substance of the body, that is, their parts correspond precisely to one another. However, through all these alterations, the body always remains as a substance which possesses actuality, despite the denials by some philosophers that the new forms are substances. These philosophers only accept them as accidents for the body.

Given the denial of matter without actuality, and the acceptance of the forms of species, as kinds of substance, corporeal substances may be divided into two general kinds: one is that of a substance which does not need a location at which to be incarnated, and this is the same as body; the other is a substance which needs another substance to be incarnated in it and impressed in it, and this substance is the form of a species, such as the elemental, mineral and vegetable forms. However, with the denial that these sorts of forms are substances, the corporeal and material substances will be confined to bodies. This seems to indicate the difference between primary and secondary substances in Aristotle. The primary substances are not incarnated, only the secondary ones are.

An Argument for the Aristotelian Theory

The Aristotelians, who believe in prime matter as substance devoid of actuality, have offered for their position two arguments which were originally close to one another: one of these is called the ‘proof from potentiality and actuality’ and the other is called the ‘proof from union and separation.’ They may be summarized as follows.

There are transformations in bodies which are unions and separations, as well as substantial and accidental changes; for example, a continuous unified body may be transformed into two separate bodies, water changes into steam, the seed of a tree changes into a tree. Without a doubt, these various changes do not take place in such a way that the first substance is completely obliterated and one or more other existents are brought into existence from pure nothingness. Rather, certainly something from the prior existent remains in the later existent. However, that which remains is not the form and actuality of the prior existent; hence there is no other alternative but that another substance exists in them which preserves the existential relation between them. This in itself essentially and necessarily must have no actuality, and for this reason, it accepts various sorts of actuality. In this way it is established that there is a substance which has no actuality, and which is characterized by the acceptance of forms, and, in philosophical terms, it is called pure potentiality.

In other words, every corporeal existent possesses two aspects: one is the aspect of actuality and the possession of properties, and the other is the aspect of potentiality and privation in relation to future actualities. These two aspects are different from each other, and so, every corporeal existent is composed of two different objective things. And since it is not possible for the existence of a substance to be composed of two accidents or of a substance and an accident, there is no other choice but that they must be

composed of two substantial parts, one which is the aspect of actuality, and the other the aspect of potentiality.

This argument can also be put in the following form, or the following may be considered as another argument. It is possible for all bodies to change into another kind of body, such as the change of one element into another, or the transformation of one or more elements into minerals, vegetables or animals (potentiality and actuality). Likewise, all bodies have the possibility to be changed into two or several other bodies of the same kind (union and separation). This possibility for change and transformation is a kind of quality which is called the ‘quality of preparedness’ (kayfiyyat isti‘dādī ) or ‘possibility of preparedness’ (imkān isti‘dādī ). This is capable of intensity and weakness, perfection and deficiency, as the preparedness of a fetus to change into an existent which possesses a spirit is greater than that of a zygote.

This accident needs a substantial subject which cannot be considered to be a substance possessing actuality, since this substance has to have the possibility for the appearance of this quality, and the supposed possibility will be another quality dependent on a third possibility, and likewise to infinity. This implies that in order for any existent to be transformed into another, and for the appearance of every new substance or accident an infinity of accidents must occur each of which has temporal priority to another! Hence, it is inevitable that these accidents must be borne by a substance which is the potentiality, possibility and preparedness itself and which has no sort of actuality at all.

Critique

The mentioned arguments are not firm enough, and all of them are more or less controversial. However, since the pivotal concept in all of them is the concept of ‘change,’ we would do well to provide a brief explanation of it, although a more detailed discussion will come under the topics of change and motion.3

Change and transformation may be imagined in a number of forms. Of those relevant to this topic, the following are the most important:

1. Accidental change, such as the change of the color of an apple from green to yellow and from yellow to red.

It must be noted that according to philosophers such as Shaykh al-Ishrāq, changes of species are of this sort, for they considered specific forms to be accidents. Likewise, according to modern physicists, the change of water into steam and vice versa are sorts of gathering together and separating of molecules, not a sort of substantial change.

2. The appearance of a new substantial form in matter, such as the appearance of vegetable form in soil, according to the position of the Aristotelians who consider specific forms to be substances.

3. The obliteration of a temporally contingent substantial form from matter, such as the change from vegetable to soil, according to the Aristotelians.

4. The obliteration of a previous substantial form and the appearance of another substantial form, such as the change of an element into another element, according to the Aristotelians.

5. The substantial attachment of an immaterial thing to matter without being incarnated in it (for incarnation is characteristic of matter), such as the attachment of spirit to body.

6. The cutting off of the above-mentioned attachment, such as the death of an animal or man.

By attending to the above classification, the weakness of the first argument becomes clear, for if change is related to accidents of the body, corporeal substance will be preserved with its actuality, and there will be no need for the assumption of a substance without actuality. Likewise, if there is a sort of attachment of the soul to the body, or its detachment (the fifth or sixth cases) the substance of the body with its own actuality remains.

Also in the second and third cases, in which a new substantial form is incarnated in a body or is separated from it, the previous substance is preserved. It is only in the fourth case that it is conceivable that with the obliteration of the previous form, a substance possessing actuality does not remain, hence, the thing which is in common between them is a substance which lacks actuality.

But we must remember that according to the philosophers, the corporeal form is never corrupted or obliterated, and if the existence of prime matter were also established, it would persist along with the corporeal form (regardless of substantial motion, which will be discussed in its own place). With regard to this point, a question that may be posed is, what rational objections would arise if body is considered a simple substance (i.e., not composed of matter and form) in which another form is incarnated or from which another form is detached?

Perhaps the second explanation may be considered as the answer to this question, that is, body with its own actuality cannot take a new form, but it must possess another part whose essential property is receptivity, and essentially requires no actuality.

The second explanation is based on the notion that the aspects of potentiality and actuality are two entified aspects, each of which has specific objective instances. Since the existence of a body cannot be considered to be composed of two accidents or one substance and one accident, there is no other choice but that they must be considered to be composed of two substances instead of these two aspects.

This notion is debatable, for the concepts of actuality and potentiality, like other fundamental philosophical concepts, are secondary philosophical intelligibles, which are abstracted by the intellect with a specific attention.4 In other words, when we take two corporeal things into consideration, one of which lacks the other (as the seed of a tree lacks the fruit of the tree), but which can come to possess it, then the concept of potentiality or receptivity is related to the first existent, and when it comes to possess the other, the concept of actuality is abstracted from it. Hence, these concepts are abstracted concepts, which are obtained by the comparison of two things, and they do not have entified instances. There is no reason to consider the aspects of potentiality or receptivity to be entified things on the basis of which the existence of a substance or even an accident may be established, the whatness of which is the whatness of potentiality and receptivity.

Likewise the establishment of the causal relation among existents does not require that there be an existent whose whatness is being a cause or being an effect. This is another example of how first and second intelligibles are confused.

It is to be concluded that when a corporeal substance is compared to another substance or to an accident which is capable of being incarnated in it, it is called ‘potential’ (bil quwwah ) in relation to this incarnation, but this does not mean that it possesses an objective part called ‘potentiality.’

Secondly, the second premise may be disputed, for it is possible that one may consider the objective existence of a body (not its whatness) to be composed of substance and a number of accidents. Especially according to the position of those who consider accidents to be aspects and levels of the existence of substance. Hence, supposing that each of the two aspects of potentiality and actuality possess objective instances, one can consider the instance of the aspect of actuality to be corporeal substance and the instance of the aspect of potentiality to be one of its accidents.

The third explanation also has two basic premises. One is that the possibility of preparedness is a kind of objective accident and is a whatish concept. The other is that the characterization (‘urūḍ ) of this accident requires potentiality and a prior possibility, and hence in order to avoid an infinite regress a substance should be posited which itself is the very potentiality, possibility and preparedness.

This explanation is also flawed, for, first of all, preparedness is an abstracted concept which cannot have entified instances. For example, to say that the seed of a tree has the preparedness to turn into a tree means that the seed of the tree has the preparedness for turning into a tree, and if water and warmth and the other necessary conditions obtain, gradually it will develop and roots, leaves and branches will appear. So that which is entified is the seed, water, warmth, etc., but there is no additional entified existent by the name of ‘preparedness,’ and consequently, preparedness cannot be considered a kind of objective accident.

Secondly, on the assumption that preparedness is a entified quality, one may consider the first preparedness to be the effect of corporeal substance. In this way infinite regress may be avoided without need for positing a substantial potentiality (matter lacking actuality).

There is another problem with this position, which will not be mentioned in order to avoid prolonging the discussion. We merely indicate that being an existent corresponds to being actual, and moreover, they are in truth the same.

Hence, basically the supposition that an existent lacks actuality seems to be incorrect. The assumption that matter obtains actuality only in the shadow of a form is not coherent with the essential property attributed to matter of lacking actuality and being pure potentiality.

Perhaps it will be said that the pure potentiality of matter is like the essential possibility of every whatness which is inseparable from it. At the same time, in the shadow of causality, it becomes necessary ‘by another.’

However, it must be noted that the essential possibility of a whatness is a purely intellectual attribute which has no objective instances, as whatness

itself is a respectival concept. But in the case of matter, it is assumed that this is an objective substance whose existence is pure potentiality. Perhaps it is for this reason that Ṣadr al-Muta’allihīn called prime matter an intellectual and privative thing (amr ‘aqlī wa ‘adamī ). (Take note.)

References

1 Cf.,Asfār , Vol. 5, p. 146, andMabdā wa Ma’ād , p. 265.

2 Cf., Abū al-Barakāt,Mu’tabar , Vol. 3, p. 200.

3 Cf., Lesson Fifty-One.

4 Cf., Lesson Fifty-Two.

Lesson Forty-Seven: Accidents

Views of Philosophers about Accidents

As was previously indicated, it is well known among philosophers that substance is a highest genus, and it is a specific category which has various species. However, accident is not a specific category, but is a general concept abstracted from nine categories, and the predication of it to each of them is accidental, not essential.

In contrast to this position, three other positions may be indicated. One is the position of Mīr Dāmād who considered accident, like substance, to be a category and a highest genus, and those which others take to be accidental categories, he considered to be species of accidents. Another position is that the categories are: substance, quantity, quality, and relation, and other accidental categories, according to this position, are considered to be kinds of relations. Finally, the position of Shaykh al-Ishrāq (Suhravardī) is that the categories consist of the four mentioned above in addition to motion.1

It seems that, first of all, substance and accident are types of secondary philosophical intelligibles, none of which can be considered a highest genus and whatish category. Secondly, as has been proclaimed by Ṣadr al-Muta’allihīn, motion is an ontological concept and is neither itself a category, nor is it included in any whatish category. Thirdly, many things which are called objective accidents and are taken to be categories or types of categories (including all of the seven relational categories) are abstracted concepts, and none of them are objective accidents to be considered as independent whatish categories or types of categories.

It is clear that the presentation, criticism, and review of all of these positions requires more detailed discussion which is not very useful. For this reason a short discussion will suffice for this topic.

Quantity

The category of quantity may be defined in this way: it is an accident which is essentially capable of being divided; and the modifier ‘essentially’ is used in order to exclude from the definition divisions of other categories, because their divisions are obtained subordinate to the divisions of quantity.

Quantity may be generally divided into two kinds: continuous (i. e., geometrical quantity) and discrete (i. e., number), each of which includes different kinds which are discussed in the two sciences of geometry and arithmetic.

It should be noted that the philosophers consider the first number to be two, which is divisible into two units. One is considered to be the source of the numbers, although it is not held to be a kind of number. It seems that it can easily be accepted that number is not a whatish concept, and that in the external world there is nothing by the name of ‘number’ but only things which have the attributes of being unities or pluralities (numbered). For example, when an individual person is located somewhere, nothing is brought into existence called unity over and above his own existence. However, attending to the fact that there is no one beside him, the concept of unit will be abstracted from him. Likewise, when another individual is located beside him, the second individual is also a unit, but we consider

them together and relate the concept of two to them, although there is no objective accident between them by the name of the number two. By the way, how can a single accident (the number two) subsist in two subjects?! (Take note.) And also, when a third individual sits beside the other two, the number three is abstracted from the set of them. However it is not the case that a entified accident called two has been destroyed and that another one called three has been brought into existence. In this very same situation we can consider the first two individuals and relate the number two to them, as we can consider one of them along with the newly entered individual and call them two persons.

Further evidence that the concept of number is respectival (i‘tibārī ) is that it is an accident of the numbers themselves, their fractions, and sets, and if number were something entified, an infinite number would occur in limited subjects!

Likewise, number is equally related to immaterial and material things, to the real and to the fictitious. Are we to consider number to be an immaterial accident when related to immaterial things and a material accident when related to material things?! Are we to consider number to be real when it is related to real things, and consider it respectival when the same number is predicated to a respectival thing? Or are we to allow that something respectival has a real entified attribute and accident?!

Regarding continuous quantities, as was made clear in the discussions of time and space, they are aspects of the existence of bodies, and they have no existence apart from the existence of bodies. In technical terms, composite making (ja‘l ta’līfī ) and independent creation do not apply to them, even if the mind is able to consider them as independent whatnesses. Considering this point, there is a sense in which they can be taken to be accidents of bodies, but accidents whose existence is the very existence of the body, and all of their whatnesses exist by one existence. In other words, the existence of these kinds of accidents is an aspect of the existence of substances.

Relational Categories

Among the ten categories, there are seven each of which is regarded as possessing some kind of relation, and for this reason they are called the ‘relational categories,’ and some philosophers have taken them to be species of the category of relation (nisbah oriḍāfah ). The relational categories are as follows:

1. The category of relation (iḍāfah ), which is obtained from the occurrence of a relation between two existents, and is divided into those which have similar terms, and those which have opposite terms. The former kind is like the relation ‘being the brother of’ which holds between two brothers, or the relation of simultaneity between two things which exist at one time. The latter kind is like the relation of a father to his child, or the relation of priority and posteriority between two parts of time, or two phenomena which come into existence at two times.

2. The category of where (‘ayn ), which is obtained from the relation between a material thing and its location.

3. The category of when (matā ), which is obtained from the relation between a material existent and its time.

4. The category of position (waḍ‘ ), which is obtained from the relation among the parts of a thing to each other, considering their directions, such as the condition of standing, a posture in which the parts of the body are located over one another so that the head is on top, or the condition of reclining, which is abstracted from the location of the parts of the body next to one another in a horizontal form.

5. The category of possession (jidah ormilk ), which is obtained from the relation of one thing to another which more or less encompasses it, like the condition of the body being covered by its clothes, or the head being covered by a hat.

6. The category of activity (an yaf’al ), which describes the gradual influence of a material agent on the matter acted upon, such as the sun which gradually warms water.

7. The category of passivity (an yanfa’il ), which describes passive matter which is gradually affected by a material agent, such as water which is gradually warmed by the sun.

It should be noted that all of these categories, except for that of relation, are specific to material things, since they possess time and place, and the relations between parts and considerations of direction are conceivable only for bodies. Likewise, the encompassing of clothing and the like is also peculiar to material existents. Also, gradual affecting and being affected by occur only among material things. However, the category of relation is common between material and immaterial things. Examples of it can be found among material things, such as the relation of above and below between two stories of a building, and relation can be found to hold between immaterial things, such as the divine eternal priority (taqaddum sarmadī ) to other immaterial things, and the temporal simultaneity among the intellects. Likewise, one can consider one term of a relation to be an immaterial existent and the other term to be a material existent, such as the ontological priority of an immaterial cause to its material effect.

It seems that none of these are primary intelligible whatish concepts. The best reason for this is that relating one existent to another depends on one who relates them, who compares them with one another, and a concept dependent on comparing and relating cannot describe a thing which is entified and independent of mental respects.

For example, the relation between two brothers, or the relation between a father and his children, is not a entified thing which exists between the related terms; rather, by considering two individuals who have come into existence by means of one father and mother, and who share this respect, the mind abstracts a relation with similar terms called brotherhood. Considering that the father is the preparatory cause for the appearance of his child and not the reverse, the mind abstracts a relation with opposite terms called fatherhood. It is not the case that with the birth of a child another entified thing comes about called the relation of fatherhood, and that after the birth of a second child yet another objective thing called brotherhood appears between the two children. Likewise, the concepts of greater and smaller, closer and farther, equality and simultaneity, etc., are all concepts which are obtained by comparison, and none of them has a entified instance, although

each of them has a specific source of abstraction, and one cannot attribute relational concepts in an arbitrary manner.

Among the evidence for the respectival nature of relation is that, on the one hand, it is applied to the relation between God Almighty and His creatures, while on the other hand, it can hold between two nonentified things, between an existent and a nonexistent, and even between two impossible objects. It is clear that God Almighty cannot be the subject of any accident, and likewise, a nonentified thing and a nonexistent cannot be characterized by entified objective properties.

By examining other relational categories it becomes clear that except for the two terms of the relation, which are the source of abstraction for these concepts, there is no other entified object in existence by the name of the objective relation, let alone that a certain configuration should appear in the subject due to the influence of the relation. The attribution (ittiṣāf ) of these concepts to objective things is no reason for their existence as entified objects, as is the case with regard to all secondary philosophical intelligibles.

Reference

1 Cf., Suhravardī,Talwīḥāt, p. 11.

Lesson Forty-Eight: Quality

The Category of Quality

Every human being finds various mental states within himself through knowledge by presence, such as the states of joy and sorrow, fear and hope, pleasure and pain, attraction and repulsion, love and enmity, etc..

Likewise, he perceives some corporeal attributes through his own external senses, which are often changeable, such as colors, tastes, smells, sounds, etc..

Philosophers have included all of these psychic and corporeal states and attributes in a universal concept and have called it quality, which they have taken as a genus for all of them, and defined as follows: quality is an accident which is essentially incapable of division and does not include the meaning of relation. In actuality, they have introduced it as the negation of the features of quantity and relational categories.

It appears that, disregarding disputes which generally occur about the Aristotelian system of genus and difference, quality must not be taken to be a part of the whatnesses of these various material and immaterial accidents; rather they should be considered general abstracted concepts, such as state, configuration (hay’at ), and accident, which are applied in the form of accidental predication to a number of things which in reality differ. In any case, among the categories of accidents, those which may be considered definitely and certainly to be objective accidents which possess entified objects are in the category of quality, some of whose instances are perceived through infallible knowledge by presence.

On the basis of induction, philosophers have divided quality into four types: psychic qualities, sensory qualities, qualities specific to quantity, and dispositional qualities.

Psychic Qualities

A psychic quality (kayf nafsānī ) is an immaterial accident which only applies to psychic substances (jawāhir nafsānī ). Until now, no precise and complete table of its kinds has been obtained. Philosophers consider knowledge, power, will, aversion, pleasure, pain, passive states, and mental habits and proficiencies to be among the psychic qualities. They have had discussions about them which have been related for the most part to philosophical psychology, the science of the soul (‘ilm al-nafs ).

As has been indicated, the most certain of all the kinds of qualities are psychic qualities with which one becomes acquainted through knowledge by presence and inner experience. Even the likes of Hume, who has raised doubts about many certainties, has considered the existence of this group of qualities to be certain and undeniable.

Among the types of psychic quality, that which has the greatest relevance to philosophical discussions is knowledge, and for this reason there will be an independent discussion of this. After knowledge, will, power, and freedom are considered, which were discussed in Lesson Thirty-Eight, and more explanations pertaining to them will be found in the discussions of the attributes of God Almighty.

Sensible Qualities

By sensible qualities are meant those material qualities which are perceived through the external senses and sensory organs.

On the basis of a view which was accepted in ancient natural science, according to which the external senses are of five kinds, philosophers have divided the sensory qualities into five groups: color and light as visible qualities, sounds as audible qualities, tastes as gustatory qualities, smells as olfactory qualities, and cold, hot, rough and soft as tactile qualities. But in modern psychology, it has been proven that there are other senses in addition to the five well-known senses which must be taken into consideration when classifying the sensory qualities.

The proof of the existence of sensible qualities outside the realm of perception is not as easy as proving psychic qualities, for knowledge by presence does not apply to them. The question may be raised as to whether what we perceive as states of material things exist in the same way in the context of the external world, or whether the soul is capable of perceiving these things within itself as a result of a chain of physical, chemical and physiological actions and reactions, while they themselves cannot be proven to exist in the material world. In order to provide a correct answer to this question one must make use of arguments whose premises are drawn from the empirical sciences. The definitive establishment of these sorts of premises depends on the progress of the relevant sciences. For example, the whatness of energy and the relation between matter and energy are not yet known with certainty, and for this reason a definitive philosophical analysis cannot be provided for them.

The ancient philosophers did not hold that light and heat had any reality apart from the states and accidents which are perceived by the sensory organs, and in this respect they considered them to be essentially simple and unanalyzable. However, on the basis of some views in modern physics, they must be considered to be material substances, and however much they are called energy as opposed to matter in the terminology of physics, since it is believed that matter comes into existence through the concentration of energy and turns into energy through decomposition and radiation, from a philosophical perspective, energy must be considered a kind of body. It is impossible for a body to be composed of something other than bodies or to change through decomposition into something other than extended substance (i. e., body).

The issue is not settled with this, and with further attention it becomes clear that what is perceived directly is not the substance of light and heat, but an attribute of luminosity and heat. Here the previous question may be repeated as to whether the sensible qualities exist in the external world in the same way that they are reflected in the realm of perception.

Qualities Specific to Quantities

Philosophers have also named another group of qualities as qualities specific to quantities. One group of them, such as oddness and evenness, are attributes of number. Another group, such as straightness and curvature, are attributes of geometrical subjects.

Apparently, the reason these qualities are considered to be an independent group and not sensible qualities is that they are not perceived directly by the senses.

The attributes of numbers cannot be considered to be real things and objective accidents, given that number itself is respectival (i‘tibārī ) and lacks an object in the external world. However, the attributes of geometrical subjects, such as the straightness and curvature of a line, or the flatness, concavity and convexity of a plane are abstracted concepts, abstracted from the mode of existence of bodies by several intermediaries. This is especially so, given that line and plane themselves are negative limits (ḥudūd ‘adamī ) of bodies without any real existence of their own, which the human mind loosely considers to be whatnesses existing in the external world.

Therefore, it is difficult to consider this group of qualities as objective accidents possessing entified objects. At most they may be considered to be analytic accidents.

Dispositional Qualities

The fourth type of quality which philosophers have taken to be in the category of quality is that of dispositional quality (imkān isti‘dādī ;isti‘dād , lit. preparedness), which they have defined as follows: a quality by means of which the appearance of a specific phenomenon gains preponderance in a subject. Sometimes it is called dispositional contingency, opposed to other kinds of contingency, such as essential contingency (imkān dhātī ) and occurrent contingency (imkān wuqū‘ī ),1 because other meanings of contingency are secondary philosophical intelligibles, and non-whatish concepts, contrary to dispositional contingency, which is taken to be a whatness belonging to the category of quality.

The reason given for the entifiedness of dispositional qualities is that they have existential attributes such as proximity and remoteness and intensity and weakness; for example, the preparedness of a zygote to acquire a soul is remoter and weaker than the preparedness of a complete fetus. The preparedness of the seed of a tree to turn into a tree is more proximate and stronger than the preparedness of the soil. If dispositional contingencies were also intellectual concepts, like the other expressions involving contingency, they would not be subject to such attributions.

In order to evaluate this reasoning, it is necessary to refer to the character of the acquaintance of the mind with the concept of disposition or preparedness and to relate it to some objective existents which have this attribute. With experience of changes in objective things, man acquires knowledge that the appearance of every entified phenomenon depends on the occurrence of specific conditions and the removal of certain obstacles, which usually takes place gradually. For example, the transformation of water into steam is conditional on a specific temperature which is gradually reached. The growth of a plant in a salty field is conditional on the removal of harmful minerals and the provision of useful minerals and the necessary water and heat, which do not appear all at once.

Noting the causal relation and the necessity for the occurrence of conditions requiring existence and nonexistence, when we consider matter (i. e., the material cause of a phenomenon) in relation to its given actuality,

if all the necessary conditions are provided and all the obstacles are removed, then it will be completely prepared and ready for the reception of the new actuality. If even a few of the existential conditions do not obtain, or some of the obstacles are not removed, then the preparedness will be remote and weak. If only some of the conditions exist or if most of the obstacles remain, then the preparedness of the matter will be very remote and weak.

In conclusion, in a material thing which possesses the preparedness for taking on a new actuality, other than the occurrence of conditions and the removal of obstacles, no other entified thing by the name of ‘preparedness’ obtains. Rather, preparedness, or disposition, is a rational concept which is abstracted from the occurrence of conditions and the removal of obstacles. Evidence for this is that this concept will not be abstracted until one compares the previous and present situations.

In the case of dispositions, the application of expressions such as proximate and remote, intense and weak, perfect and imperfect and the like, is figurative and indicates the abundance and paucity of conditions and obstacles.

What is interesting is that Ṣadr al-Muta’allihīn, despite following the views of other philosophers about substance, accidents and some other topics, and considering dispositional possibility as a type belonging to the category of quality, has at times confessed to the fact that the concept of preparedness is abstracted from the removal of obstacles and impediments. Among these, is his statement in theAsfār where he says, “Dispositional possibility depends on the removal of obstacles and impediments, so that if they are all removed it will be called a proximate potentiality (quwwah qarīb ), and if they are imperfectly removed it will be called a remote potentiality (quwwah ba‘īd ).2

Likewise, in hisMabdā wa Ma‘ād , 3 he is almost explicit that disposition is an abstracted concept and a secondary intelligible, and what is meant by saying that it has an objective existence is that it is attributed to objective things.

Conclusions

From the discussions about substance and accident, the following conclusions have been reached:

1. The concepts of substance and accident are secondary philosophical intelligibles, not primary intelligibles or whatish concepts. Therefore, they should not be considered as genera of whatnesses nor as whatnesses in themselves.

2. Immaterial substances include complete immaterial existents (i.e., vertical and horizontal intellects), psychic substances, and imaginal substances. Material substance is the same as corporeal substance, and if specific forms be considered substances, material substances will be divisible into two subdivisions, body and specific forms.

3. Among the concepts which are called accidental categories, are psychic qualities and sensory qualities, which can be considered whatish concepts possessing entified objectivity. Continuous quantity, which includes geometrical quantities and time, must be considered an analytic

accident which refers to dimensions of the existence of bodies. Also, qualities specific to quantity can be taken as analytic accidents. However, other types of accidents are intellectual and abstracted concepts which have no objective existence themselves as independent types of accidents, though they possess an objective source in external reality from which they are abstracted.

4. Of the nine categories of accidents, six of them are specific to material things: where (‘ayn ), when (matā ), position (waḍ‘ ), possession (jidah ), activity (an yaf‘al ) and passivity (an yanfa‘il ), and likewise continuous quantity and quality specific to it, and sensible qualities. Discrete quantities (numbers) and relations are common between material and immaterial things. Psychic qualities are specific to immaterial psychic substances.

Concepts common to material and immaterial things (discrete quantity and relation) are respectival (i‘tibārī ) and abstracted things, and this very commonality between immaterial and material things is a sign of their not being entified, for a unitary whatness cannot be material at some times and immaterial at other times. Quantity is not a unitary whatness; rather it is a general concept which is applied to several whatnesses with different realities, some of which are specific to material things and others specific to immaterial things.

5. Analytic abstractions such as continuous quantities and their qualities have no existence other than that of their subjects. These kinds of accidents must be considered as mere aspects of the existence of substance, which with their own subjects correspond to a simple posit (ja‘l basīṭ ). Objective accidents, such as psychic qualities, have a special accidental existence, and the posit of them is composite ( ja‘l ta’līfī ). Numbers and relational categories and dispositional qualities are intellectual concepts and they have no real posits.

6. Meanwhile, it has become known that if a concept has one of these signs, it will not be whatish:

a. being predicated of immaterial and material things equally, such as numbers;

b. being predicated of the concept itself, like the number two, which may be predicated to two number twos.

c. commonality between the Necessary Existent and contingent existents, such as relations.

d. inclusion of the meaning of relation, such as all relational categories.

e. changing with respect without an external change, such as above and below.

References

1 Essential possibility (imkān dhātī ) is an intellectual characteristic for a whatness insofar as it essentially does not have a preponderance for existence or non-existence, and neither of these is necessary for it. Occurrent possibility (imkān wuqū‘ī ) is another intellectual characteristic for a whatness insofar as its existence, in addition to being not essentially impossible, also does not imply any other impossibility. [Tr.]

2Cf., Asfār , Vol. 2, p. 376.

3Mullā Ṣadrā, Mabdā’ wa Ma‘ād , p. 318-319.

Ubaydullah in Kufa

In the preceding chapter we have seen that when Ubyadullah bin Ziyad intended to go to Kufa from Basra, Shareek bin A’awar was along with him. Shareek had a very strong inclination towards Shi’aism. He was along with Ammar bin Yasir (a.s.) in the battle of Siffīn (Kamil, Tabari) and his debate with Mu’awiyah (Manaqib) is quite renowned.

When Shareek left Basra (with Ubaydullah), on the way he pretended to be exhausted and uneasy. He intended that Ubaydullah might stop along with him and thus Imam Husayn (a.s.) may reach Kufa before him, but Ubaydullah paid no heed to him and proceeded further.

When Shareek reached Kufa he resided at the house of Hani bin Urwah and constantly encouraged him to support the cause of Muslim bin Aqeel and his leadership. Shareek fell ill, and because Ubaydullah (Kamil, Muhammad bin Abi Talib) and the other nobles respected him, he sent him a message that he would come to meet him that night. Shareek told Muslim,

“Tonight the wicked man will be coming to meet me, and when he sits down you may come from behind and kill him. Then you may go to the palace and take the reins into your hands while no one will stop you from doing so. And if I am cured of this illness, I shall go to Basra and straighten the affairs for you there.”

(Abul Faraj) At night Ubaydullah came to visit Shareek. Earlier Shareek had told Muslim,

“When that man enters herein, let him not escape from your clutches.”

Hani stood up and said,

“I do not consent to it that Ubaydullah should be killed in my house”

and despised this idea. Thus, Ubaydullah came and sat down and inquired from Shareek regarding his health and asked him as to what illness was he inflicted with. When their conversation became lengthy, Shareek noted that no one had come out, and fearing that the desired objective may not be achieved started reciting the following cou­plet:

“Why anticipate in bestowing gifts to Salama, to him and to the one who bestows upon him, spill the cup of death into his throat.”

He repeated it twice or thrice. When Ubaydullah heard it he could not understand and said that he was uttering vain under the influence of ill­ness. Hani said,

“Yes it is true, may Allah amend you, he has been in this state since yesterday.”

Ubaydullah arose and left.

(Tabari) Furthermore it is said that Ubaydullah had come accompanied with his retainer Mehran. While Shareek had told Muslim that when he would ask for water, Muslim should come and strike a blow at Ubaydullah. Ubaydullah came and sat near Shareek on his bed and his retainer Mehran stood behind him near his head. Shareek asked for water, and when the maid was bringing water, her sight fell on Muslim who was hiding in ambush and she moved away.

He again asked for water but with no response, and for the third time he asked and said,

“Woe to you! You do not give me water. Give me the water even if it results in my death.”

Mehran understood and he signaled Ubaydullah, to which he too arose to leave. Shareek said that he desired to will to Ubaydullah, to which he replied that he would come some other time and left. Mehran took him away hurriedly and said,

“By Allah, they had desired to kill you.”

Ubaydullah replied,

“How could they do this when I respect and am kind to Shareek, and that too in the house of Hani, whom my father had favored”?

Mehran said,

“Whatever I have said is true.”

(Kamil) When Ubaydullah left, Muslim came out of his hiding and Shareek asked him as to what stopped him from killing Ubaydullah. Muslim replied,

“Two things stopped me from doing so. First because Hani does not approve that Ubaydullah should be killed in his house, and second because of the Tradition related by the Holy Prophet (S) that, “Islam stops from killing anyone unawares and a believer refrains himself from it.”

Shareek said,

“If you had killed him, you would in fact have killed a transgressor, wicked and a crafty unbeliever.”

Ibn Nima says that when Ubaydullah went away and Muslim came to Shareek sword in hand, Shareek asked him as to what stopped him from performing the deed. Muslim replied that,

“I was just coming out when the wife of Hani pleaded with me not to kill Ubaydullah in their house and started weeping. Then I threw away my sword and sat down.”

Hani said,

“Woe be to that woman! She has killed herself and myself and from what I fled has ultimately taken place.”

(Kamil) Shareek remained alive for three more days and then died. Ubaydullah lead his funeral Prayers, and later when he was informed that Shareek had plotted to kill him, he said,

“By Allah! From now on I will never lead the funeral Prayer of any of the Iraqis, and if (my father) Ziyad would not have been buried alongside him, I would certainly have exhumed the grave of Shareek.”

After the death of Shareek, Ma’qal the retainer of Ubaydullah, who was ap­pointed to spy upon them with his wealth, came often to Muslim bin Ausaja. Muslim took him to meet Muslim bin Aqeel who accepted the oath of alle­giance from him. Then he ordered Abu Samamah Saedi, who looked after all the financial transactions, to accept the amount from him. Abu Samamah was in charge of buying the ammunitions, he was a renowned brave man among the Arabs and a man of distinction among the Shi’ah. (Kamil)

Ma’qal started coming to them, heard their conversations and after being aware of their secrets would convey it to Ubaydullah. While Hani had distanced himself from Ubaydullah with an excuse of being unwell.

Ubaydullah called Muhammad bin Ash’as and Asma bin Kharejah and ‘Amr bin Hajjaj Zubaydi too, whose daughter Ruwayhah was the wife of Hani and the mother of his son Yahya. Ubaydullah inquired about Hani and his remaining aloof from them (Kamil) and was told that he was unwell.

Ubaydullah said,

“I have heard that he is well and sits at his door. Go and meet him and tell him not to avoid that what is mandatory and obligatory upon him.”

They came to Hani and told him that,

“Ubaydullah has inquired about you, and he says that if you are unwell he would come to meet you. And people have told him that you frequently sit at your door. He is determined to know why you have kept yourself aloof from him, while the commander will not tolerate this distancing and ungratefulness, hence we request you to come along with us.”

Then Hani called for his dress and wore it and sat on the mule and when he reached near the palace, a fear crept his heart that there might be trouble further. Hani told Hisan bin Asma bin Khareja,

“O my nephew! I fear that man, what do you think about it”?

He replied,

“I do not see any reason for you to fear, thus remove any sorrow from your heart”,

and Asma (or Hisan bin Asma) was not aware of the trap, but Muhammad bin Ash’as was very much aware of it. Then they entered the court of Ubaydullah along with Hani. When Ubaydullah saw Hani, (Irshad) he said,

“The traitor has come in walking on his own feet.”

When Hani was brought near Ubaydullah, Shurayh was sitting next to him, and Ubaydullah recited the couplets:

“I desire him to remain alive, but he desires to kill me.”

(Kamil) Ubaydullah had been kind to Hani and hence he told him as to what had happened. Ubaydullah said,

“Woe O Hani! What is this mischief which has crept up in your house against the commander of the faithful (referred to Yazid) and for the Muslims? You have brought Muslim and have sheltered him in your house and are gathering manpower and arms for him, and you think that I am unaware of these things”?

Hani replied,

“I have not done any thing.”

Ubaydullah said that he had done it, then when their argument increased, Ubaydullah called the retainer (Ma’qal) whom he had sent as his spy. He came and stood facing Hani, and Ubaydullah asked him if he knew him to which he replied in the affirmative and Hani under­stood that he was Ubaydullah’s spy and had conveyed to him all their re­ports.

When he regained his mind he said,

“Listen to me and believe me that by Allah I am not lying to you. I have not invited Muslim nor was I aware of his intentions. Then he came to my house and asked my permission to reside therein and I felt ashamed to refuse it to him. Thus this respon­sibility fell upon me that I sheltered him and you know what happened thereafter. And if you wish I shall pledge at your hands and deposit secur­ity with you. And I promise that after returning I shall turn him away from my house and shall return back to you.”

Ubaydullah said,

“No by Allah! You shall not leave until you bring him (Muslim) to me.”

Hani said,

“I shall not bring my guest to you so that you may kill him.”

(Irshad) Ubaydullah said,

“By Allah! You will have to bring him to me”,

and Hani replied,

“By Allah! I shall never do so.”

It is related by Ibn Nima that Hani said,

“By Allah! Even if he is under my feet, I shall not lift them up and hand him over to you.”

When their argument increased, Muslim bin ‘Amr Bahili (there was no other Basran or Syrian in Kufa except him) saw that when Hani had turned ob­stinate he told Ubaydullah to leave him so that he may speak to him. He took Hani in a corner where Ubaydullah could see them and said,

“O Hani! I request you in the Name of Allah not to kill yourself nor put your tribe to hardship. This man (referring to Muslim bin Aqeel) is their cousin and they will not kill him nor inflict any trouble upon him. Hence hand him over to Ubaydullah and there will be no shame and perdition in it for you, because you would only be handing him over to the commander.”

Hani replied,

“By Allah! There is shame and disgrace in it for me, I will not hand over my guest to him when I am strong and my arms are powerful and have numerous supporters with me. And even if I would have been alone and had no helper, I would not have handed him over to him, rather I would die supporting him.”

Ubaydullah heard his words and commanded that he be brought to him. When Hani was brought he said,

“By Allah! Either you bring him to me or I shall behead you.”

Hani replied,

“If you do so, by Allah, many swords will be unsheathed around your house.”

Hani had thought that the people of his clan would support him.

Ubaydullah said,

“Do you make me fear the swords of your clans”?

Then he ordered Hani to be brought closer to him. When he was brought, Ubaydullah started striking with his cane on his nose, forehead and cheeks until his nose was fractured and blood gushed out and was smeared on his clothes. The flesh of his forehead and cheeks fell upon his beard and the cane broke.

Tabari says that when Ubaydullah told Asma bin Kharejah and Muhammad bin Ash’as to call Hani, they said that he would not come until Ubaydullah offers him security.

Ubaydullah said,

“He does not require any security, but he has surely deviated. Bring him to me, and if he refuses to do so without my granting him (promise of) security, then do so.”

They went to Hani and informed him to which he said,

“If he gets hold of me, he shall surely kill me.”

But they urged him and brought him to Ubaydullah. At that moment Ubaydullah was seated in the Mosque delivering the Friday sermon when Hani arrived with his hair hanging on both sides upon his shoulders. When Ubaydullah finished leading the Prayers he signaled Hani, who followed him until they reached the palace. They entered therein and Hani saluted him. Ubaydullah said,

“O Hani! Do you not remember that when my father (Ziyad) came to this town (Kufa), he did not spare a single Shi’ah here until he killed them, except your father and Hujr, and you are aware of what befell Hujr later. He (Ziyad) was always grateful towards you and he also wrote to the commander of Kufa that he expected him to be fair to you.”

Hani replied that he remembered it. Ubaydullah continued,

“And in return for these favors you have sheltered a man in your house to kill me”?

Hani replied that he had not done so. Then Ubaydullah ordered the Tamimi retainer to be brought forward and Hani understood that he was Ubaydullah’s spy and had conveyed the reports to him. Hani replied,

“O commander! The news which has reached you is verily true, but I shall not annul your favors. Your family is under my protection, hence you may go away safely wherever you wish.”

Mas’oodi says that Hani told Ubaydullah that,

“Your father has surely favored and obliged me, I am wealthy and thus I desire to compensate you (because of him). Then do you desire that I should propose goodness to you”?

Ubaydullah asked him as to what it was. Hani replied,

“You and your family may take all your provisions and wealth and return to Syria, for the man who is more worthy and deserving of this honor than yourself and Yazid, has come.”

Tabari and Ibn Aseer Jazari relate that hearing his words Ubaydullah bowed his head. His retainer Mehran who was standing behind his head holding a thorny staff said,

“What a shame and disgrace it is that a nomad slave is rendering protection to you in your own dominion.”

Ubaydullah yelled that Hani should be imprisoned. Mehran threw his staff and caught hold of Hani’s hair and lifted his face towards Ubaydullah. Ubaydullah lifted up the staff and started striking it on the face of Hani. The thorns of the staff start­ed flying away due to excessive force of striking and penetrated the walls. He hit Hani with such severity that his nose and forehead were fractured.

Ibn Aseer Jazari says that Hani extended his hands towards the sword of a soldier standing nearby but he moved back. When Ubaydullah saw this, he said,

“You have rebelled and have thus made the shedding of your blood impune for us.”

(Irshad) Ubaydullah ordered that he should be arrested. Hani was taken away and imprisoned in one of the rooms of the palace. The door was locked on him and Ubaydullah ordered that guards be deputed on him.

(Kamil) When Asma bin Kharejah saw this, he stood facing Ubaydullah and said,

“O you deceiver! Release Hani. You had promised us that you would protect him and when we brought him, you injured his face and shed his blood, and now you intend killing him.”

Ubaydullah ordered him to be pound­ed. It was done and he was silenced. Then they left him in a wretched state and he sat down. Then Muhammad bin Ash’as (who was also sent to fetch Hani along with Asma) said,

“We are in total conformity with the command of the chief, whether it be profitable for us or no.”

‘Amr bin Hajjaj (Hani’s father-in-law) received news that Hani is killed, and hence he along with the clan of Mazhaj, came and surrounded the palace from all sides and called out,

“I am ‘Amr bin Hajjaj, and along with me are the valours and noblemen of Mazhaj. We have not disobeyed nor have we abandoned our group.”

At that time Shurayh Qazi was sitting near Ubaydullah, and Ubaydullah told him to go to Hani and inquire and tell them (‘Amr and his companions) that he is alive. When Shurayh went, Hani asked,

“O Muslims come to my aid! (Has) my clan been killed? Where are the virtuous ones and where are my companions? Will this enemy and son of an enemy frighten me?”

Then when he heard the voices of the people he said,

“I presume that the voice is of (the people of) my clan of Mazhaj and my noble Muslims. And if only ten of them enter herein, they will surely rescue me from here.”

Shurayh, who was accompanied by the guards of Ubaydullah, left and later said that,

“If the guards of Ubaydullah would not have been along with me, I would surely have conveyed the message of Hani to them.”

Shurayh came outside and said,

“I have seen your friend with my own eyes, he is alive and has not been killed.”

‘Amr and his companions said,

“Praise be to Allah that he is not killed.”

Tabari relates that when Shurayh came to Hani, he said,

“O Shurayh! Do you see what they have done to me.”

Shurayh replied,

“I see that you are alive.”

Hani said,

“Do I look alive in this wretched state? Then go and tell my people that if they return back, he (Ubaydullah) will surely kill me.”

Shurayh returned to Ubaydullah and said,

“I have seen that Hani is alive but the marks of the torture is visible upon him.”

Ubaydullah re­plied,

“I consider it befitting that a king may torture and punish his subjects. Go to these people and inform them.”

Shurayh came out and Ubaydullah signaled Mehran to accompany him. Shurayh called out,

“Why is this vain hue and cry, Hani is alive, but the commander has chastised him which is not fatal for his life, hence go away and do not put your lives and the life of your companion in danger.”

Hearing this they returned back.

Shaikh Mufeed and some others say, that Abdullah bin Khazin says, that I was appointed by Muslim bin Aqeel (a.s.) as a spy in the palace so as to inform him of the treatment being meted out to Hani. When I saw that they had beaten Hani and later imprisoned him, I mounted my horse and hastened to inform Muslim regarding it. And I saw some women of the clan of Bani Murad calling out amidst one another “O grief for him! O bereavement of him!”

I came to Muslim and informed him about the happenings. Muslim told me to go and call out in a loud voice to his supporters. And he had gathered four thousand men in the adjoining houses. I went and called out to them, “O defenders of the nation!”, (Kamil) this being their slogan. Then they informed one another and gathered near Muslim.

Jazari says that Muslim gave the charge of the clan of Bani Kindah to Abdullah bin Aziz Kindi and told him to walk in front of him. Then he gave the charge of the clans of Mazhaj and Asad to Muslim bin Awsaja Asadi, the charge of the clans of Tameem and Hamadan to Abu Samamah Saedi, and the charge of (the battalion of) Madina to Abbas bin Ja’dah Jadali, and pro­ceeded towards the royal palace.

When the news reached Ubaydullah he hid inside the palace and closed it’s doors. Muslim surrounded the palace from all sides while the streets and the Mosque became full of people, and they started gathering until the evening. The situation became tense for Ubaydullah and there was none with him except thirty guards and twenty people from among the noblemen, his family and retainers. While the noblemen came to meet Ubaydullah from the second door adjoining the building of the Romans, while the people were abusing Ubaydullah and his father (Ziyad).

Ubaydullah called Kaseer bin Shihab Harisi and ordered him to take along with him, a man from among the clan of Mazhaj and roam in the streets, admonishing the people to desert Muslim. Besides he told Muhammad bin Ash’as to go, and with the help of his supporters among the Bani Kinda and Hazramawt, pitch a standard into the ground and to call out that whoever comes under the standard would remain safe.

In the same way he instructed Qa’qa’ bin Shaur, Shabas bin Rab’ee Tamimi, Hajjar bin Abjar Ajali and Shimr bin Ziljawshan Zababi to do the same. He kept the chiefs and noblemen along with him not wishing to be without them because of the few people left with him.

They went out and started admonishing people from supporting Muslim bin Aqeel (a.s.). Then Ubaydullah told the noblemen and chiefs who were with him to deceive those people who were subservient to them with false promis­es, and admonish and warn those who were disobedient to them. They did as directed, with the effect that when people heard the words of their noble­men, they started moving away and scattered.

Until the situation reached such a stage that women started coming to their sons and brothers and telling them to return, for the other people who were left were sufficient for the task (of supporting Muslim). Likewise men too started coming (to take their relatives) and people started moving away. Ultimately Muslim was left with only thirty men. When he recited the Prayers of Maghrib in the Mosque, thirty people followed him.

When he saw this situation he turned towards the door of the Bani Kindah. (Irshad) Only ten people remained with him until he reached the door, but when he stepped out no one was left. Then he turned around and saw that no one was left to guide him or offer him shelter in their house or defend him from the enemy. Hence Muslim wandered in the lanes of Kufa (Irshad).

Mas’oodi relates that then Muslim stepped down from his Horse and wandered in the streets of Kufa. He was unaware as to which way he was going until he passed from near the houses of Bani Jabala, a branch of the clan of Kindah. He passed from near the house of a woman named Taw’ah, who was a slave girl of Ash’as bin Qays, who had freed her.

Later Usayd Hazrami had married her from whom she had a son named Bilal. Bilal had gone out with some people and Taw’ah was waiting for him at the door. When Muslim saw her he saluted her and requested her for some water. The woman brought water for him. After drinking Muslim sat at the door. When the woman returned back after keeping the cup in the house, she saw Muslim and asked,

“O servant of Allah! Did not you drink the water”?

Muslim replied in the affirmative. She continued,

“Then go back to your family.”

When Muslim heard this he became silent. The woman repeated her sentence but Muslim did not answer. The woman said for the third time,

“Glory be to Allah! O servant of Allah! Arise, may Allah give you strength. Then return back to your family, for it is not appropriate for you to sit at my door, nor do I permit you to do so.”

Muslim stood up and said,

“O maid of Allah! I do not have a house nor my clan in this town. You are among the generous and favorable ones. Perhaps I could compensate you for it in the future.”

The woman asked him as to what could she do for him. Muslim answered,

“I am Muslim bin Aqeel, these people have deceived me and committed fraud and have brought me out of the place of my safety.”

The woman asked (in aston­ishment) whether he was really Muslim bin Aqeel, to which he answered in the affirmative. She then told him to enter her house, which Muslim did. The woman gave him a separate room, not the one which she used, and spread a sheet for him and gave him food to eat, but Muslim could not eat.

Suddenly Taw’ah’s son returned back (Kamil) and noticed that his mother entered the room frequently. He inquired of her as to what concern she had in the room, she did not answer as much as he inquired. The boy forced her and ultimately she revealed to him on oath to keep it a secret and not to reveal it to anyone, hence the boy remained silent.

As regards Ubaydullah, when the voices of screaming and yelling ceased, he told his supporters to see whether anyone was left. They saw that no one was left and informed him accordingly. Then Ubaydullah came to the Mosque before the Isha Prayers and made his supporters sit around his pulpit. Then he ordered that it should be proclaimed that,

“The blood of every general, chief of clans and warrior is lawful for us, who does not remain present for the Prayers of Isha.”

Thus the Mosque became full of people and Ubaydullah lead the Isha Prayers. Then he ascended the pulpit and after Prais­ing Allah said,

“Now then! Verily the son of Aqeel, an ignorant and illit­erate person, has come to spread dissension and discord as you all have seen. Thus the blood of whosoever offers him refuge in his house shall be lawful upon us. And we shall offer money of his compensation to the one who brings him to us.”

Then he advised people to remain obedient and attend to him. Then he ordered Haseen bin Nameer to seal all the streets and to search the houses. Haseen was in charge of the Police force and was from the clan of Bani Tameem.

Abul Faraj says that Bilal the son of the old woman (Taw’ah), who had of­fered refuge to Muslim, woke up in the morning and informed Abdul Rahman bin Muhammad bin Ash’as that Muslim was in his house as his mother’s guest.

Abdul Rahman rushed to his father Muhammad bin Ash’as, who at that moment was seated with Ubaydullah. He narrated the entire incident in a hush voice to his (step) father. Ubaydullah inquired as to what he was saying. Muhammad replied that,

“He has brought the news that the son of Aqeel (Muslim) is present in one of our houses.”

Ubaydullah, pricking him on the side with his staff, said,

“Go immediately and bring him to me.”

Abu Makhnaf says that Qudamah bin Sa’ad bin Zaedah Saqafi related to him that Ubaydullah dispatched sixty or seventy people from the clan of Qays, under the command of Abdullah bin Abbas Salami with Muhammad bin Ash’as, and they came to the house where Muslim was present.

In Kamile Bahai it is stated that when Muslim bin Aqeel heard the voice of the neighing of the horses, he recited the supplications speedily. Then he wore his armor and told Taw’ah,

“Verily you have done goodness and have favored me, and you have earned your share of intercession of the Holy Prophet of Allah (S) who is the Master of men and genie. Last night I had seen my uncle, the Commander of the Faithful Imam Ali (a.s.), in a dream, who told me that tomorrow I would be alongside him.”

In one of the books of Martyrdom (Maqatil), it is stated that when the time of morning Prayers drew near, Taw’ah brought some water for Muslim so that he may perform his ablutions and said,

“O my master! Haven’t you slept the previous night”?

Muslim replied,

“I slept for sometime and I saw my uncle, the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.), commanding me to hasten and finish speedily, hence I have concluded that today is the last day of my life.”

In Kamil Bahai it is stated that when the troops of the enemies reached the house of Taw’ah, Muslim feared lest they would burn her house and hence came outside and slew forty-two men.

Sayyid Ibn Tawoos and Shaikh Ja’far Ibn Nima says, that Muslim wore his armor and mounted his horse and striking them with his sword pushed them away from the house.

Regarding the mounting of Muslim upon his horse has been narrated by Sayyid ibn Tawoos and Ibn Nima only, and I have found no one else stating it, while all other statements bear testimony to it. It has been specifically mentioned by Mas’oodi in Murujuz Zahab, that before entering the house of Taw’ah, Muslim had mounted his horse, and that then he alighted from his horse and started wandering in the streets of Kufa.

He did not know as to which way he was going until he reached the house of a slave girl of Ash’as bin Qays and asked for water. She gave him water to drink and asked him as to who his was. Muslim introduced himself to her, and she was moved and invited him to be her guest.

Abul Faraj says that when Muslim heard the sound of the hooves of the horses and voices of the people, he perceived that they had come for him and he unsheathed his sword. The people had entered the house and scattered therein, seeing this he attacked them fiercely. When they saw this, they ran up to the roof and started hurling stones and burning wood upon his head. When Muslim saw this he muttered to himself,

“Verily this struggle is for the sake of the murder of the son of Aqeel. O my self! Go forth to­wards the inevitable death.”

Then he drew his sword and confronted them in the streets.

Mas’oodi and others say that when combat ensued between Muslim bin Aqeel (a.s.) and Bukayr bin Humran Ahmari, Bukayr struck the mouth of Muslim bin Aqeel with his sword, which cut the upper lip and landed on the lower one cutting it too. Muslim dealt a terrible blow upon his head and another on his shoulder, which reached his stomach. Muslim was reciting the following Rajaz:1

“I swear, I will only be killed as a free man, although I consider death as something horrible, every man one day will meet an evil, I fear that I will be cheated and deluded.”

When Muhammad bin Ash’as saw this, he went up to him and said,

“We shall not lie to you nor commit deceit.”

Then he offered Muslim protection, hence Muslim accepted his offer. They mounted him on a mule and took him to the presence of Ubaydullah bin Ziyad. When Muhammad ibn Ash’as offered protec­tion to Muslim, he took away the sword and other arms from him. A poet points out to Muhammad’s satire in these words:

“You abandoned your uncle and were sluggish in assisting him, Alas! he would have acquired a secured place if you had not been there, Alas! you killed the one sent by the Progeny of Muhammad (S), you shamelessly pulled away the sword and shield off him.”2

While the above couplet refers to the incident of Hujr bin Adi regarding whom it shall be discussed later.

He killed forty-one people out of them. Muhammad bin Abu Talib says that when Muslim had killed numerous men, and this news reached Ubaydullah, he dispatched someone to Muhammad bin Ash’as with a message that,

“We have sent you to (fight) a single man and commanded you to bring him to us, while a severe crack is visible among your men. Then what would be your state if we sent you to someone other than him”?

Muhammad replied back,

“O commander! Do you think that you have sent us in pursuit of a vegetable vendor of Kufa or a foreign refugee? Do you not know that you have sent us against a ferocious lion, a swordsman, and a renowned champion, who is from the family of the best of creations.”

Ubaydullah sent a reply saying,

“Offer protection to him until you gain control over him.”

In some books it is stated that Muslim was like a lion, and the strength of his arms was such that he lifted up people with his hands and threw them on top of the roofs.

Sayyid Ibn Tawoos in his Malhoof writes, that when Muslim (a.s.) heard the sound of the hooves of the horses, he wore his armor and mounted his horse. Then he attacked the army of Ubaydullah until he had killed numerous among them. Muhammad bin Ash’as called out to him in a loud voice,

“O Muslim! There is protection for you.”

When Muslim heard him he said,

“How can one rely upon the promise of deceptors and evil doers”?

Then he turned towards then and started fighting while reciting the Rajaz of Humran bin Malik Khas’ami:

“I swear, I will only be killed as a freeman, although I consider death as something horrible. Or it turns the cold into a bitter heat and deflects the rays of the sun (forever). Every man one day will meet an evil, I fear that I will be cheated and deluded.”

Then the army raised a hue and cry and called out,

“No one shall lie to you nor deceive you”,

but he did not pay any heed to their words. Then a large battalion attacked him, he received numerous wounds on his body and a man dealt a blow from behind with his lance. Muslims fell off his horse and was arrested.

In Manaqib of Ibn Shahr Ashob it is written that Muslim bin Aqeel (a.s.) was wounded such severely with the arrows and stones, that he was exhausted and sat with his back leaning against a wall. Then he said,

“What is the matter that you have been hurling stones at me as is done to an infidel, while I am from the Household of the ethical Prophet. Do you not have regard for the Household (Ahlul Bayt) of the Prophet due to his right”?

Then Muhammad bin Ash’as said,

“Do not kill yourself, verily you are under my protection.”

Muslim replied,

“I shall not surrender to be imprisoned by you until the strength remains within me, by Allah, this will never happen.”

Saying this he attacked them and they fled away. Then Muslim said,

“O Allah! Thirst is killing me.”

Then they attacked him from all sides and Bukayr bin Humran Ahmari cut off his upper lip with a stroke of his sword. Then Muslim dealt him a blow with his scimitar, which pierced his stomach and killed him. Then someone attacked him from behind with a spear and he fell down from his horse and was thus arrested.

Shaikh Mufeed, Jazari and Abul Faraj say that Muslim was utterly wounded and was exhausted while fighting. Then, breathing heavily, he came and sat with his back (leaning) towards the wall of a house. Muhammad bin Ash’as came near him and said that he would give him protection. Muslim turned towards the people and asked whether they all agreed to it and they an­swered in the affirmative except Ubaydullah (or Abdullah) bin Abbas Salami, who said that,

“I have nothing to do with it”,

saying this he stepped aside. Muslim replied,

“By Allah! If you do not grant me security, I will never place my hand in yours.”

They brought a mule and mounted him on it. They surrounded him from all sides and took away his sword. Muslim was now utterly disappointed, tears started flowing from his eyes. He realized that these people would ultimately kill him and hence said,

“This is the first betrayal.”

Muhammad bin Ash’as said,

“I hope that there will be no danger for you.”

Muslim said,

“Is there only a hope? Then where is your promise of protection? Verily we are Allah’s, and verily unto him shall we return.”

Then he started weeping, and Ubaydullah bin Abbas Salami said,

“The person who desires what you have desired and when he comes in a state in which you are now, he should not weep.”

Muslim replied,

“I do not weep for myself nor do I fear being killed, even though I do not befriend being killed, but I weep for my relatives and the people of my household, who would be reach­ing here shortly, and I weep for Husayn and his family.”

Then Muslim turned towards Muhammad bin Ash’as and said,

“I believe that you are unable to fulfill the promise of security.”

Then he desired that a messenger be sent to Imam Husayn (a.s.) to apprise him of the situation so that he may not come there.

Shaikh Mufeed relates that Muslim told Muhammad bin Ash’as that,

“O slave of Allah! I see that you are unable to fulfill the promise of security that you have given me, then you may perform a good act. Dispatch someone to­wards Imam Husayn (a.s.), who would narrate my words to him. For I think that today or tomorrow he might proceed to come here with his household. The messenger should convey to him that he has been sent by Muslim bin Aqeel, who has been arrested by them, and he presumes that before today evening he might be killed. He sends message that: May my parents be your ransom! You along with your Household may retreat back, do not let the people of Kufa deceive you. These are the very same companions of your father, regarding whom your blessed father (Imam Ali) desired that he would die and thus be relieved of them. The people of Kufa have lied to you, and the one who has been lied has no judgment.”

Hearing this Muhammad bin Ash’as replied,

“By Allah! I shall surely convey your message.”

Azdi relates from Ja’far bin Huzayfa that Muhammad bin Ash’as called Ayas bin Atal Tai, who was from the children of Malik bin ‘Amr bin Samamah. Ayas was a poet and was the confidante of Muhammad, who told him,

“Go to the presence of Imam Husayn (a.s.) and present him this letter.”

Then he wrote down the contents, which Muslim had told him and said,

“These are the provisions for your journey and these are expenses for your family (in your absence).”

Ayas replied,

“I am in need of a mount, for my Camel has turned feeble.”

Muhammad replied,

“Take this saddled Camel of mine and go.”

Ayas left and after a lapse of four nights reached Imam Husayn (a.s.) at Zubalah and conveyed the message to him and handed him the letter of Muslim. After hearing him Imam Husayn (a.s.) said,

“Whatever has been destined shall occur, and we desire from Allah to judge between ourselves and the mis­chief of the people.”

When Muslim bin Aqeel (a.s.) had taken shelter in the house of Hani bin Urwah and eighteen thousand people had taken the oath of fealthy to him, Muslim dispatched Abis bin Abi Shabeeb Shakiri with a letter to Imam Husayn (a.s.) which read as follows:

“Now then! The one who goes in search of water does not lie regarding it to his family. Eighteen thousand men from among the people of Kufa have sworn the oath of fealthy to me, hence hasten as soon as you receive my letter, for all the people are with you while their view and desire are not with the progeny of Mu’awiyah. Greetings.”

The above-referred letter has also been quoted in Museerul Ehzan, which was dispatched along with Abis bin Abi Shabeeb Shakiri and Qays bin Musah­hir Saydawi,

“Now then! The one who goes in search of water does not lie regarding it to his family. All the people of Kufa are on your side and eighteen thousand men from among them have taken the oath of allegiance to me. As soon as you read my letter, hasten, peace be upon you and Allah’s Mercy and Blessings.”

Muslim bin Aqeel (a.s.) taken to the presence of Ubaydullah bin Ziyad

As regards Muslim, Muhammad bin Ash’as took him to the palace of Ubaydullah bin Ziyad. Muhammad entered therein alone and told him that he had arrested Muslim but had given him the promise of protection too. Ubaydullah replied,

“You do not have the right to do so, rather I had sent you to bring him to me.”

Hearing this Muhammad became silent. When Muslim was seated at the gate of the palace, he saw a jug filled with cold water and asked for some. Muslim bin ‘Amr Bahili said,

“Do you see how cold this water is? By Allah! You will not get even a single drop from this until (Allah’s refuge) you drink the boiling water (Hameem) in hell.”

Muslim asked him as to who he was, to which he replied that,

“I am the one who has recognized the truth while you have abandoned it, I am the one who is a well-wisher of the nation and the Imam while you have desired evil for him, and am obedient to him whereas you have disobeyed him. I am Muslim bin ‘Amr Bahili.”

Muslim replied,

“May your mother weep over you! How cruel, unsympathetic and a harsh man are you. O son of Bahila! Verily you are more worthy than me to taste the boiling water (Hameem) and abide eternally in hell.”

Then Ammarah bin Atbah called for water to give it to him.

In Irshad and Kamil of Ibn Aseer it is narrated, that ‘Amr bin Hurays sent his retainer to fetch water. The retainer returned with a jar of water along with a napkin and a cup, and gave the water to Muslim to drink. (Kamil) When Muslim took the cup to drink water, it became full with his blood thus he could not partake it. Thrice the cup was filled with water, and when water was filled for the third time, his front teeth fell in it. Muslim said,

“Praise be to Allah! If this water would had been destined for me, I could have drank it.”

Muslim was then taken to the presence of Ubaydullah bin Ziyad and he did not greet him. A guard told him, “Why do you not greet the commander”?

Muslim replied,

“Why should I greet him when he desires to kill me, and if he does not desire my death, then I have abundant greetings for him.”

Ubaydullah said, “By my life! You shall surely die.” Muslim said, “So be it”? To which Ubaydullah answered in the affirmative. Then Muslim said, “If this is the case then give me respite so that I may will to someone among my kinsmen”, to which Ubaydullah agreed. Muslim turned towards Umar bin Sa’ad and said, “There exists kinship between us, I desire that I may relate to you something in confidence.” Umar refused to yield, to which Ubaydullah said, “Do not refuse to fulfill the desire of your cousin”. Hearing this Umar stood up (Irshad) and sat with Muslim at a place where Ubaydullah could see them. (Kamil)

Muslim said,

“I have become indebted in Kufa for a sum of seven hundred dirhams, so please pay it off by selling the property of mine which is in Madina.” (Kamil) “And take my corpse after my death from Ubaydullah and bury it. Besides send someone to Imam Husayn (a.s.) who would return him back.”

Umar went to Ubaydullah and revealed whatever Muslim had told him. Ubaydullah said,

“A trustworthy man does not commit treachery, but sometimes a traitor fulfils a trust. As regards his (Muslim’s) wealth, do whatever you desire to do with it. And as for Husayn, if he does intend towards us, we will not intend towards him. But if he challenges us, we shall not refrain ourselves from (harming) him. Regarding his corpse, we shall certainly not accept your intervention in that matter.”

While others quote him saying that,

“As regards his corpse, after we have killed him it is not our concern, you may do what you desire with it.”

Then he turned towards Muslim and said,

“O son of Aqeel! The people were unified and in accordance with one another, but you came and divided them and created discord.”

Muslim replied,

“It is not so, but the people of this town are of the opinion that your father (Ziyad) killed many of their virtuous men. He shed their blood and followed the footsteps of the Choesroes (the rulers of ancient Persia) and Caesers (the rulers of ancient Rome). We have come to enjoin justice and invite towards the Holy Book and Traditions (of the Prophet).”

Ubaydullah said,

“O transgressor! What relation you hold with these? And why did you not do that among the people, while you were busy drinking wine (Allah’s refuge) in Madina”?

Muslim replied,

“Did I drink wine? By Allah! He knows that you are not speaking the truth, nor am I similar to what you have ascribed to me. While drinking wine is a practice of those (referring to Ubaydullah and his father Ziyad) who in rage and enmity spill the blood of the Muslims, and who rejoices and delights as if he has never ever committed any indecency (referred to Yazid).”

Ubaydullah was infuriated and said,

“May Allah kill me if I do not kill you in a manner as no one else has ever been killed in Islam.”

Muslim replied,

“It is befitting you that you introduce such innovations in Islam which have never taken place. You are an evil murderer, wicked chastiser, ill natured, and a degraded person than all those who preceded you.”

Then Ubaydullah started abusing him, Imam Husayn (a.s.), Imam Ali (a.s.) and Hazrat Aqeel (a.s.) while Muslim did not speak to him.

Martyrdom of Muslim bin Aqeel bin Abi Talib (a.s.)

Mas’oodi says that when their speech concluded and Muslim spoke harshly to Ubaydullah, he ordered that Muslim should be taken to the roof of the palace and it was said to Bukayr bin Humran Ahmari to behead him and take his revenge.

Jazari says that Muslim (a.s.) told Muhammad bin Ash’as,

“By Allah! I would never have surrendered if you had not given me the promise of protec­tion. Then defend me with your sword for your promise has been broken.”

Then they took him on top of the palace when he was asking forgiveness from Allah and praising and glorifying Him. Then they took him to the place overlooking the shoe-makers and severed his blessed head which fell down.

(May Allah’s Mercy and Blessings be upon him). His murderer was Bukayr bin Humran, whom Muslim had previously wounded. Then his body too was thrown down. When Bukayr came down, Ubaydullah asked him, “What was Muslim utter­ing when you took him to the roof”?.

He replied that,

“Muslim was glorifying Allah and seeking His forgiveness.”

When I intended to kill him, I told him to come near and then I said:

“Praise be to Allah who has given me an upper hand over you and thus I have taken the revenge from you.”

Then I struck a blow, which went waste. Then Muslim said:

“O slave! Haven’t you taken your revenge by inflicting this wound upon me”?

Ubaydullah said,

“Such dignity even at the verge of death”?

Bukayr said,

“Then I struck him a second blow and killed him.”

Tabari says that Muslim was taken on the roof of the palace and his neck was severed and body thrown down to the people. An order was issued that his corpse be taken to that place where garbage is thrown and to be hanged there.

Martyrdom of Hani bin Urwah Muradi

Mas’oodi says that Bukayr bin Humran Ahmari severed the head of Muslim and threw it down followed by his body. Then Ubaydullah ordered that Hani be taken to the market-place and beheaded with hands fastened together. Hani was calling out to the people of Murad, whose chief and spokesman he was, to assist him.

When Hani would mount, four thousand armored men of the Bani Murad along with eight thousand men on foot would accompany him. And if those who were under the agreement with him among the people of Kinda and others would be with him, then thirty thousand armored men would accompany him. Even then at the need of the hour no one responded to him due to slackness and deceit.

Shaikh Mufeed says that Muhammad bin Ash’as came to Ubaydullah and inter­ceded on behalf of Hani saying, “You are aware of the honor that Hani holds in this town while also his family in the tribe. His people know that myself and my colleague have brought him to your presence, hence I request you in the name of Allah to hand him over to me, for I do not desire enmity with the people of this town.”

Ubaydullah promised to do so but later regretted and immediately ordered that Hani should be taken to the market and beheaded. They took him to the market, where the sheep were sold, with hands bound together, while he was calling out, “O Mazhaj! There is no one from the Mazhaj for me today! O Mazhaj! Where is Mazhaj”? When Hani sensed that no one came forward to render him assistance, he pulled away his hand from the rope and started yelling, “Isn’t there a stick, a knife, a stone or even a bone by which a man may defend himself”?

The guards leapt upon him and tied his hands tightly and told him to extend his neck (so that they may behead him), to which he replied that, “I am not generous in this regard and shall not help you in the matter of my murder.” Then Rasheed, a Turkish retainer of Ubaydullah, dealt a blow with his sword upon Hani, which went waste, and Hani said, “Verily retreat is towards Allah. O Allah! (I come) towards Your Mercy and Your Paradise.” Then he dealt a second blow by which Hani was martyred. (May Allah’s Mercy and Blessings be upon him).

It is written in Kamil of Ibn Aseer that Abdul Rahman bin Haseen Muradi once met the Turkish retainer (who had killed Hani) traveling along with Ubaydullah and killed him.

Abdullah bin Zubayr Asadi said regarding the murder of Hani bin Urwah and Muslim bin Aqeel (while some attribute it to Farazdaq, the poet):

“If you do not know what death is, then look at Hani in the marketplace and the son of Aqeel, a hero whose face was covered with the wounds of sword, and another who fell to death from the roof, the wrath of Ibn Ziyad struck them both, and they became legends for every traveler on road, you see a beheaded corpse whose color death has changed, and his blood flowed abun­dantly like a river, a young man who was more shy than a young woman, was more incisive than a sharp edged sword, is Asma riding in safety a mount which moves at walking pace, while Mazhaj urged him to seek revenge, and Murad wander around him? And all of them in fear of the questioner and the questioned, then if you do not avenge (the death of) your two masters, then you are illegitimate (sons), lowly and degraded.”

Ubaydullah dispatched both, the heads of Muslim and Hani to Yazid, who sent him a thanksgiving letter as follows:

“I have received news that Husayn is coming towards Iraq, deploy guards over the roads, gather provisions, and keep alert. Imprison and detain the dubious ones and kill those who fight you.”

It is stated in Irshad that Yazid said,

“And arrest people on grounds of suspicion and kill the accused, then keep me informed of the happenings.”

Mas’oodi says that Muslim bin Aqeel (a.s.) revolted in Kufa on Tuesday, the eighth of the month of Zilhaj 60 A.H., this being the same day when Imam Husayn (a.s.) left Makkah to come to Kufa, and (Muslim) was martyred on Wednesday ninth Zilhaj, i.e., the day of Arafah. Then Ubaydullah ordered that Muslim’s body be hanged and his head was dispatched to Damascus. This being the first body among the Bani Hashim, which was hanged upon the (city) door, and the first head among them, which was sent to Damascus.

It is written in Manaqib that both the heads were sent to Damascus with Hani bin Habooh Wade’ee and were hung at the gate of (the city of) Damas­cus.

In the Maqtal of Shaikh Fakhruddin it is quoted that the bodies of Muslim and Hani were being dragged in the market. When the people of the tribe of Mazhaj were informed about it, they mounted on their horses and fought with them until they took the bodies of Muslim and Hani from them. Then they gave the dead body bath and shrouded and buried them. May Allah’s Mercy be upon them and may Allah’s wrath befall their murderers, a severe wrath.

Appendix

As has been quoted in Habibus Siyar, Hani bin Urwah was a notable of Kufa and an outstanding Shi’ah, and besides it has been related that he met the Holy Prophet Muhammad (S) and was blessed with his companionship. He was eighty-nine years old when he was martyred and his dignity and eminence can be proven from his bold speech with Ubaydullah as quoted above.

Mas’oodi says that he was a Shi’ah and chief of the (clan) of Murad, and four thousand armored horsemen and eight thousand on foot would accompany him. When Imam Husayn (a.s.) was informed about the martyrdom of Muslim and Hani, he said,

“Verily we are Allah’s and verily unto Him shall we return”,

and repeated,

“Allah’s Mercy be upon both of them.”

Moreover he read a letter in the presence of the people,

“In the Name of Allah, the Benefi­cent, the Merciful. A heart rending news has reached us that Muslim, Hani and Abdullah bin Yaqtoor have been martyred.”

Pilgrimage to the grave of Hani bin Urwah Muradi

It is quoted in the Mazar of Muhammad bin Mashhadi, Misbahuz Zaer of Sayyid Ibn Tawoos, Mazar of Shaikh Mufeed, and Mazar of Shaikh Shaheed (may Allah sanctify their souls) in context to the supplications of the Mosque of Kufa that: Stand near his (Hani bin Urwah’s) grave and send salutations upon Muhammad (S) and his Progeny and then say,

“Allah’s Sublime Peace and His Benediction be upon you, O Hani bin Urwah! Peace be upon you O (the) devout and sincere slave of Allah and His Prophet (till the end).”

Then recite two units of Prayers as gift and pray for him and bid farewell.

Besides, Hani was among those who had fought alongside Imam Ali (a.s.) in the battle of Jamal. It is quoted in Manaqib of Ibn Shahr Ashob, that he recited the following Rajaz in that battle “It is a battle in which the guide is a Camel, their woman, the chief of misguidance, is in the fore­front, while Ali is the Master of the masters and a Master.”

Sayyid Mohsin Kazmi in his Takmelah writes that, “Hani was included among the praiseworthy men and whatever we have quoted (of his virtues) proves it.” Then he says, “Formerly Sayyid Mahdi Bahrul Uloom was in doubt regard­ing (the sincerity of) Hani. Then when he investigated the reports, he repented and in apology compiled a couplet in praise of Hani.”

The author (Shaikh Abbas Qummi) says that the above-referred Sayyid Mahdi Bahrul Uloom in his Rijal has discussed in detail on the subject of Hani, and then states that, “These different reports unanimously agree that Hani bin Urwah offered shelter to Muslim bin Aqeel (a.s.) in his house.

He took necessary steps for him and organized manpower and ammunitions. He refused to hand over Muslim to Ubaydullah, and was even ready to sacrifice his life for it, until he was harassed, beaten, tortured and imprisoned, and was ultimately killed with his hands bound together. While this being a clear proof of his virtue and a fruitful end. He is included among the companions of Imam Husayn (a.s.) and his Shi’ah, who laid down their lives for him. The words which he spoke to Ubaydullah is enough proof of (his sincerity) that,

“The man has come who is more worthy of Caliphate than yourself and your master (Yazid)”

besides that which is quoted in Muntakhab of Shaikh Fakhruddin Turayhi that he said,

“Even if a child of the family of Muhammad (S) is hiding below my feet, I shall not lift it up until it is cut off.”

And similar speeches which he delivered bear witness, that whatever he did was due to his foresight and intelligence, and not due to prejudice or pride or simply because he gave refuge to Muslim (and was thus bound to protect him). The following words of Imam Husayn (a.s.) bear witness to it.

When Imam received the news of his Martyrdom and that of Muslim, he prayed for Allah’s Mercy for them and repeated it numerous times and said, “A heart rending news has reached us that Muslim bin Aqeel, Hani bin Urwah and Abdullah bin Yaqtoor have been martyred.”

It is quoted in Malhoof of Sayyid Ibn Tawoos that when the news of Martyr­dom of Abdullah bin

Yaqtoor reached Imam Husayn (a.s.), whose Martyrdom occurred after that of Muslim and Hani, his eyes were filled with tears and he said,

“O Allah! Bestow a merciful status for us and our Shi’ah, and unite us in the place of repose of Your Blessings. Verily You have power over all things.”

Our masters (the Ulama) (may Allah’s Benediction be upon them) have quoted salutations for Hani and still visit his grave. They have explicitly stated that he was among the felicitous martyrs, who were devot­ed to (serve) Allah and His Prophet. They died in the way of Allah and thus entered His Mercy and Benediction, the salutation being “Allah’s immense Peace .........(till the end).”

Then it is said that the contents of this salutation is not textual or mere reports, and even if it is so, then the contents itself prove that he was a felicitous martyr, a noble dignitary and one whose end was fair. I have witnessed our Shaikhs like Mufeed and other Ulama, who have included Hani among the noblemen, and have added, “May Allah be pleased with him”, or “May Allah have mercy upon him” after his name. And I have not found any of our Ulama ever reproaching or criticizing him.

As regards the episode which is reported, that when Ubaydullah came to Kufa, Hani went to pay his respects to him and with the other noblemen kept visiting him until the time Muslim bin Aqeel came to his house. This epi­sode does not in any way give way for suspicion regarding Hani, for this was due to dissimulation (taqiyyah). Hani was a renowned person and Ubaydullah considered him and held good relations with him.

Thus if under these circumstances, had he kept himself aloof and remote from Ubaydullah, then his dissimulation would go waste, which formed the basis of Muslim’s task. Hence it was necessary for him to keep contact with Ubaydullah and visit him frequently so that he may not fall a prey to his suspicion. But when Muslim came to his house, he lessened going to Ubaydullah and pretended to be ill, but whatever he had not deemed, took place.

As regards his desisting Muslim from revolting hastily, could be on account of his foresight and he desired that more and more people may gather and a great number of arms could be collected too. And so that Imam Husayn (a.s.) himself would come to Kufa, hence the situation would come under control and if fighting would ever occur, it would be under the auspices of Imam himself. And as regards preventing the murder of Ubaydullah in his house, it is already quoted that there is difference in reports.

Some narrate that Hani himself had planned that he would pretend to be ill, so that when Ubaydullah would come to visit him, he could be killed by Muslim. And as is quoted that Muslim said, that a woman wept and pleaded with him not to kill Ubaydullah in the house. Thus Sayyid Murtaďa alone has quoted this reason in his Tanzeeyahul Ambiyah.

And as regards Ubaydullah’s question to Hani regarding his giving refuge to Muslim, and Hani’s answer that, “By Allah! I have not invited Muslim to my house, nor was I aware of his intentions. Then he came to my house and asked me permission to reside therein and I could not refuse, thus this responsibility fell upon me”, these words were uttered by Hani only to save himself from the clutches of Ubaydullah, and in dissimulation, and it is not possible that Muslim would have taken Hani’s protection without in­forming him and taking an oath from him, and Hani would be unaware of his intentions.

Again it is not possible that Hani, being a notable of the Shi’ah, would be unaware of the intentions of Muslim. Thus it proves the unreliability of whatever is quoted in Rawzatus Safa that Hani told Muslim that, “You have put me great difficulty and pain, and if you had not en­tered into my door, I would have sent you away”, is not sound, and this statement is not quoted anywhere else.

Ibn Abil Hadeed, in his Sharhe Nahjul Balagha, quotes two narrations re­garding Hani, one praising him, while the other vilifying him. The one praising him is his statement regarding Imam Ali (a.s.), wherein he says that, “I am the first one to confirm him, and shall not be the first one to deny him.” Sayyid (may Allah’s Mercy be upon him) relates the narration praising Hani and quotes the one vilifying him too (from Sharhe Nahjul Balagha, the chapter of empowerment) that Imam Ali (a.s.) said in his short Aphorisms,

“The tool of kingship is a wide bosom”,3

and in refutation of this he (Sayyid) says that this is nothing more than a fiction and does not contain grounds for being a narration, while it does not even contain any chain of transmitters. Besides it is not quoted from any other book nor from other historical or biographical books. The historians have referred to the incident wherein Mu’awiyah asked the people to take the oath of allegiance to his son Yazid and has quoted regarding those who yielded and those who refused and other matters, while the above incident is absent therein. Thus if this incident would have been true, then it should have been quoted, for it was certainly a novelty.

Furthermore, because Hani later broke off the allegiance of Yazid and revolted in assistance of Imam Husayn (a.s.) and was killed for him. They would then have quoted the above guilt of his if it would have been true. While the case of Hani was similar to that of Hurr (Allah’s mercy be upon him) who repented, and his repentance was accepted for what he had done. And his case was more severe than that of Hani, thus Hani is more liable to be forgiven (if he ever erred).

Abul Abbas Mubarrad says that Mu’awiyah gave the governorship of Khurasan to Kaseer bin Shihab Mazhaji. There Kaseer misappropriated too much wealth and ran away taking shelter in the house of Hani bin Urwah. When the news reached Mu’awiyah, he issued orders that Hani’s blood should be spilled with impunity.

Hence Hani left Kufa and went to seek refuge with Mu’awiyah. Mu’awiyah did not recognize him, when all the people left, Hani remained seated in his place. When Mu’awiyah inquired of him, he replied that he was Hani bin Urwah. To which Mu’awiyah said, “This day of yours is not (the same) as the other days, when your father boasted that: I comb my tresses and I draw my cloak, my mount is a Bay Horse with a black tale and mane, and I walk accompanied by the chiefs of Bani Ateef, and if oppression comes my way, I roll away the heads.”

Hani replied, “Verily I am respected today more than yesterday.” Mu’awiyah asked him the reason for it, to which Hani replied that it was because of Islam. Mu’awiyah said, “Where is Kaseer bin Shihaab”? Hani replied, “He is with me and among your group.” Mu’awiyah said, “Do you see how much wealth he has misappropriated, then take away a part from him and give him a part of it.”

Furthermore, it is related that the troops of Yazid arrested a man from the helpers of Imam Husayn (a.s.) in Karbala, and took him to the presence of Yazid. Yazid looked towards him and asked, “Are you the son of the man who said: I comb my tresses.........?” The man replied in the affirma­tive, hence Yazid ordered him to be killed. (Allah’s mercy and Blessings be upon him).

Notes

1. Rajaz - Epic poems recited by Arab warriors in the battlefield while announcing their valour and virtues.

2. The poet was Abdullah bin Zubayr Asadi, and his couplets are as follows: “Did you not abandon Muslim and did not fight assisting him, in fear of death and of being subdued, You shamelessly killed the one sent by the Progeny of Muhammad (S), he would have remained safe if you would have not been there, if you would have been from the (clan of) Bani Asad, you would have recognized his esteem and would have earned the inter­cession of Ahmad (S) in Qiyamah.”

3. The explanation as given by Ibn Abil Hadeed in his Sharh Nahjul Balagha with reference to the words “The tool of kingship is a wide bosom”, reproaching Hani, is the incident at the time when the chiefs of Iraq went to Mu’awiyah when he ordered the people to take the oath of allegiance to Yazid. Hani, who was a representative of the chiefs of Iraq, requested Mu’awiyah to appoint him in charge of taking the allegiance for Yazid, but in the above incidents Hani clearly opposed Mu’awiyah and this narrative is nothing but incongruous.