Alone with the Beloved: The words of ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn inThe Ṣaḥīfa Sajjādiyya

Alone with the Beloved: The words of ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn inThe Ṣaḥīfa Sajjādiyya33%

Alone with the Beloved: The words of ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn inThe Ṣaḥīfa Sajjādiyya Author:
Publisher: www.etheses.bham.ac.uk
Category: Imam Al Bin Hussein

Alone with the Beloved: The words of ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn inThe Ṣaḥīfa Sajjādiyya
  • Start
  • Previous
  • 13 /
  • Next
  • End
  •  
  • Download HTML
  • Download Word
  • Download PDF
  • visits: 10196 / Download: 4437
Size Size Size
Alone with the Beloved: The words of ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn inThe Ṣaḥīfa Sajjādiyya

Alone with the Beloved: The words of ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn inThe Ṣaḥīfa Sajjādiyya

Author:
Publisher: www.etheses.bham.ac.uk
English

This book is corrected and edited by Al-Hassanain (p) Institue for Islamic Heritage and Thought


Note:

This book was initially a thesis reperesented at University of Birmangham, and we set in book form taken from its pdf which is available on this link: http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/4226/

Chapter 4: The place of the Ṣaḥīfa al-Sajjādiyya

In Muslim Tradition: An Analysis Into Authenticity

This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section deals with the Ṣaḥīfa as a textual production by focusing on the historical background of the Ṣaḥīfa, tracing its origins and transmissions.

The second section will undertake a critical study of the Ṣaḥīfa’s authenticity, attempting to apply both traditional Islamic and contemporary Western methods.

Furthermore, this will entail a linguistic analysis of the Ṣaḥīfa, examining their forms and literary aspects, such as their styles, language and the use of intertextuality and allusion to other sources. This will be done in order to evaluate whether the Ṣaḥīfa may or may not be placed within a specific time period and attributed to an author.

The third section will be examining the text specifically through a traditional evaluation, also considering the matan and sanad, and opinions expressed concerning the Ṣaḥīfa.

1.1 Background of the Ṣaḥīfat al-Sajjādiyya93

According to Shīʿi tradition, ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn had collected his supplications and taught them to his children, especially Muḥammad al-Bāqir (d. 120/738)94 and Zayd (d. 122/740). In later times the text became widely disseminated among the Shīʿa of all persuasions. The specialists in the science of ḥadīth, such as Al-Najāshī and Al-Khū’i, maintain that the text is mutawātir;95 in other words, it was generally known from earliest times and has been handed down by numerous chains of transmission, while its authenticity has never been questioned. In fact, Ibn Shahrāshūb (d.588/1192) refers to the popular view according to Shīʿi belief that after the advent of Islam, the Ṣaḥīfa was amongst the earliest composed works, after the writings of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib and Salmān al-Fārsī, Abūdharr al-Ghaffārī, Asbagh b. Nabāta, ʿUbaydallāh b. Abī Rāfīʿ, all from the first/sixth century.96 Traditionally, in the opinion of the majority of Shīʿi scholars, from the early era to the contemporary, it has been upheld that the Ṣaḥīfa traces its roots back to ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn and has been known during the ages by the honorifics. During the years Shīʿa scholars have unanimously agreed, without denial, that the Ṣaḥīfa traces its roots back to Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn, the different opinions may be due to the different collections of prayers the scholars have collected.97

However, according to Chittick’s translation, the arrangement of the text allows to draw a certain distinction between the fifty-four supplications, which make the main body of the text, and the additional supplications which make up the fourteen addenda (including the prayers for the days of the week) and the fifteen munajāt or ‘whispered prayers’. He maintains that the original fifty-four supplications show an undeniable freshness and unity of theme and style, while the latter, especially the munajāt, add a certain orderliness and self-conscious artistry which may suggest the hand of an editor.98 The addenda are said to have been collected and added to the text by Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Makkī, known as al-Shaḥīd al-Awwal (the ‘first martyr’), the famous author of Al-Lumʿat al-Dimishqīyya in

jurisprudence (fiqh) who was killed in Aleppo in 786/1384. The fifteen munajāt have been added to several modern editions of the Ṣaḥīfa and seem to have been brought to the attention of the main body of the Shī‛a by ‛Allāma Muḥammad Bāqir Majlisī (d. 1109/1698), author of the monumental compilation of Shī‛ī ḥadīth, Biḥar al-Anwār.

Over the years many scholars have written about the Ṣaḥīfa and numerous commentaries have been written, Buzurg Ṭihrānī lists them in the Dharīʿa to be close to seventy, with one of the earlier commentators being ʿAllāmah al-Ḥīllī (d.726/1325)and Muḥammad Bāqir al-Majlisī (d. 1109/1698).

2.1 Authenticity of Text

As with any classical document or text not being free from and exempted from the critique and analysis concerning its historical reliability, particularly in light of modern scholarship, a study of the authenticity of the Ṣaḥīfa is inescapable. Questions concerning the authenticity of the text, which have also been put to the body of early Arabic poetry, started early, and in ʿUmayyad times at the latest and have continued since.99 To undertake a serious study and analysis of the relative historical reliability of the individual supplications found in all the versions of the Ṣaḥīfa, would be a study of great proportions, an undertaking which would certainly fall outside the scope of this study, as it alone may equal independent research in itself. However, for the sake of our study we have attempted a serious analysis into the subject without necessarily expending critical examination and investigation. The study of the authenticity of the Ṣaḥīfa may be undertaken in a number of ways. To begin with, we have chosen a study of the semantic meanings and usages of the word Ṣaḥīfa, in order to evaluate the historical meanings of the word and identify what they indicate to.

This is followed by a linguistic analysis of the text in order to assess the possible similarities and differences in the manner of the author’s deployment of language and use of allusion and reference. Furthermore, an attempt will also be made here to look at any possible significant and characteristic or thematic usages that may be specific to the text. An analysis of this kind, for a text of this nature, is significant as it may be one of the few alternatives besides the traditional analysis to candidate for critical examination. Such an analysis may possibly be able to place the Ṣaḥīfa within a certain time frame, together with traditional analysis. Moreover, this kind of analysis may indicate any specific usage that may direct towards indicating authorship. The last part of this section, deals with how traditional Islamic scholarship has evaluated and transmitted texts. Together with an analysis and application with reference to the Ṣaḥīfa, a brief overview will be given concerning the sciences (ʿilm al-ḥadīth and ʿilm al-rijāl) developed for evaluating texts. For the object of our study and analysis, as for the Ṣaḥīfa, reference will be made to the text established by al-Shaḥīd al-Awwal translated by Chittick.

2.2 Semantic meanings and usage of the word Ṣaḥīfa

According to Ibn Manzūr (d. 711/1311) the word ṣaḥīfa is meant to be something that is written upon.100 Al-Zuhrī (d. 742/1341) maintains that

muṣḥaf (pl. of ṣaḥīfa, other forms of the plural are saḥā‘if, suḥufun and suḥfun) is a collection of that which is ‘written between two covers’, similarly Al-Jawharī (d. ca 860/1456) refers to the word ṣaḥīfa to mean book.101 According to Lane (d. 1876) ṣaḥīfa is something written on paper or skin, it may also mean a book or a volume, a letter or an epistle, something synonymous with kitāb (book).102 Watt gives it a similar meaning, he however adds that it may be applied especially to fragments of the Qur’ān or Ḥadīth or any other document of a solemn nature, whence finally are the written ṣaḥifa themselves.103

An example of the early usage of the word can be found from the Qur’ān:

“...and this is in the books (ṣuḥuf) of the earliest (revelation), the books of Abraham and Moses”104

Another example of the early usage of the word may be demonstrated according to Ibn Hanbal105 (d. 241/855) and Ibn Māja106 (d. 272/886), when the Prophet, just before his death asked for a ṣaḥīfa for writing upon at his dictation.107

From the above there seems to be concurrence regarding the meaning of ṣaḥīfa to be something that is written, either in a book form or otherwise, from the classical to the contemporary era. Watt further maintains that the term (ṣaḥīfa) appears contemporaneously with the advent of Islam, but must evidently have existed before then.108

The appended word ‘Sajjādiyya’ to Ṣaḥīfa in the title of the text makes reference to one of the agnomen or titles of ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn, meaning ‘the one who frequently prostrates’. This kind of usage is common when making reference to possession or ownership in the Arabic language, particularly in view of authorship and attribution of a document to its writer. E.g. an epistle or letter attributed to a person called Jaʿfar may be given the title Risāla Jaʿfariyya.

2.3 Linguistic Analysis

A close reading of the Ṣaḥīfa, will expose differences in the language and style used by the author. However, what is common is that the author makes constant reference and allusion to the verses of the Qur’ān and the ḥadīth. As the text is punctuated with ḥadīth and verses, it is in many places throughout that such references are acknowledged.

We find in the Ṣaḥīfa examples of this kind as it is a frequent address for reference to the verses of the Qur’ān and ḥadīth as well, both directly and in allusion. Whereas such sources are of course employed in other prayer manuals,109 in the Ṣaḥīfa we find that such usage demonstrates knowledge and familiarity of an intimate nature to the sources, being one of the hallmark features characterising it. The language and style of the Ṣaḥīfa is generally Qur’ānic, or drawn from the Qur’ān and ḥadīth, it may have been for this reason the Ṣaḥīfa is also known as Ukht al-Qur’ān (The sister of the Qur’ān).110

The following are some examples where this can be seen; Chittick illustrates one such instance regarding the theme of the predominance of God’s mercy. He sets the scene of the worshipper, when faced with the reality of both the mercy and wrath of God, he does everything to seek out the one and avoid the other. This theme is constant in devotional literature

but particular in the Ṣaḥīfa. The pattern for this is set in the wellknown supplication of the Prophet saying; ‘I seek refuge in Thy good pleasure from Thy displeasure and in Thy pardon from Thy punishment. I seek refuge in Thee from Thee.’111 Here the worshipper prays to God for protection against God Himself, as there is in reality no other threat of significance. God is He who pardons and punishes, He who’s pleasure and displeasure is earned. What is more is that the supplicant can be confident that God’s mercy will eventually overcome, since God’s Essence is mercy, and His wrath only accidental. Mention of God’s predominating mercy is found in the Qur’ān112 as being all embracing, however no such suggestion is made that His wrath is so universal. Allusion to these Qur’ānic and ḥadīth sources can be found in several places within the Ṣaḥīfa, such as in ‘His Supplication in Seeking Asylum with God’:

O God, if Thou willest, Thou wilt pardon us through Thy bounty and if Thou willest, Thou wilt chastise us through Thy justice…

…and grant us sanctuary from Thy chastisement through Thy forbearance, for none of us has the endurance for Thy justice and none of us can reach deliverance without Thy pardon!113

Another example of a similar allusion can be found in ‘His Supplication on the Day of Sacrifice and on Friday’:114

O God, nothing repels Thy wrath but Thy clemency, nothing repels Thy displeasure but Thy pardon, nothing grants sanctuary from Thy punishment but Thy mercy, and nothing will deliver me from Thee except pleading to Thee before Thee…115

This is further illustrated in ‘His Supplication against that which he Feared and Dreaded’, this verse is almost identical with the one found in ‘His Supplication on the Day of Sacrifice and on Friday’:

My God, nothing repels Thy wrath but Thy clemency, nothing delivers me from Thy punishment but Thy pardon, nothing rescues from Thee but Thy mercy and pleading to Thee!116

A language similar to that of the Ṣaḥīfa can be found in the prayers ascribed to the legendary Ḥaṣan al-Baṣrī (d.110/728) who has come to be known as one of the first mystics.117

A closer reading of the prayers attributed to Haṣan al-Baṣrī would reveal certain similarities to the Ṣaḥīfa, such as allusion, reference and use of expression. This could be due to the fact, amongst other things, that both personalities were of a high spiritual standing, and interestingly also that the language employed in the Ṣaḥīfa, when compared, is suggestive of being from the same early period. There are many additional examples to draw from which would be found in the thematic study in the subsequent chapter of this thesis.

2.4 Sajʿ in the Ṣaḥīfat al-Sajjādiyya

Another distinguishing linguistic feature the author employs is the recurrent employment of sajʿor Arabic rhyme. In addition to demonstrating exceptional proficiency in composition and rhetoric, the sajʿ adds to the element of eloquence to the text. The author may also have had the readers in mind as this may have been due to ease for the readers to memorise some

of the supplications and to harmonise the flow of the text. However, there are places where this sajʿ is breached:

Lā yamlukūna ta’khīran ʿammā qaddamahum ilayhi Wa la yastaṭī‛ūna taqadduman ilā ma akhkharahum ʿanhu.118

In the above example of the Ṣaḥīfa taken from the first supplication, the verb lā yamlikūna is rhymed with la yastaṭī‛ūna. The verbal noun ta’khīran is immediately followed by the verb qaddamaha, which is on the same morphological scale as ta’khīr (akhkhara -ta‘khīr / qaddama - taqdīm). However, after the verb yastaṭī‛ūna the verbal noun taqadduman is used instead of taqdīm, which rhymes which ta’khīr and is from the same morphological scale as the verb akhkhara, which immediately follows taqaddum. This change in the choice of words is designed to change the meaning of the supplication. The rhyme is then applied again in the remaining lines of the supplication.119

It is a correct and acceptable form but one that seems to have appeared in later writings when Arabic etymology (al-ishtiqāq) developed. Most early Arabic dictionaries do not have these forms.

What is interesting is that this may raise the question whether the examples are frequent enough to indicate that the work, the whole body or parts, may be of a later period, different to what is popularly believed? It may not be the place here, for the sake of brevity and conciseness, to undertake a detailed and comprehensive study for such an analysis. What can be said is that word substitution may have taken place during transmission, which may be very likely, since it is claimed that the Ṣaḥīfa was transmitted textually, it is not clear whether the original text contained the diacritical points and vowels or not. It is possible that the scribes of later copies later inserted these vowels.

However, if this may tantamount to the text being manufactured or contrived and also from a different time period is difficult to envisage, as the ‘errors’ would be too conspicuous and blatant not to have been avoided and noticed. Furthermore, if it may be a case of manufacturing, the question arises why the text were not attributed to any of the later Imams, such as Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq (d.148/765) or ʿAlī b. Mūsā al-Riḍā (d.202/818), who were historically more renowned and attribution to whom may have been less challenging? This is a question that may remain unanswered.

Moreover, what may be maintained is that changes in the forms of the actual words, as long as not damaging the body of the text and changing the meaning, would not equal to questioning the integrity of the work. A reference related to this can be found in al-Kāfī in ‘The Book of Excellence of Knowledge’ regarding the quoting of books and traditions, and adhering to them. Muḥammad b. Māʿsūm enquired from Abū ʿAbdillāh (Imam Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq):

“I hear the tradition from you and then (when quoting it to others) I add to it and subtract something from it.” The Imam replied, “It does not matter if you intend to convey the meaning of the tradition”120

Reference to a similar narration is also found in al-Kāfī, this time from Dāwud b. Farqad who asked the same:

I hear the words and then intend to relate them as I have heard from you, but I cannot recall your words. The Imam enquired of me; “Do you deliberately change my words?” I replied; “No not at all!” The Imam further enquired;

“Do you intend to convey my meaning?” I replied; “Certainly!” At this the Imam observed; “Then it does not matter.”121

Apart from the above words discussed, there are other points that can be made regarding the language and grammatical construction of the Ṣaḥīfa. We shall only make reference to such points later in this thesis when they contribute to our interpretation of the central questions of this study.122

2.5 Authenticity of Early Arabic Poetry

Although, as mentioned earlier, such discussions concerning authenticity have always taken place, the debate was once again brought to light after doubts were cast concerning the authenticity of early Arabic poetry by Ṭaḥa Ḥusayn and Margoliouth in the 1920’s. The propositions of both these scholars, which were put forward independently are described by Jones (1992) to be quite flawed, and he describes the counter arguments propounded by the their opponents to be better.123 The debate however drew to a close, not least because of the epilogue to Arberry’s The Seven Odes, in which the arguments were set out, analysed and rebutted.124 Understandably it would not be the place here to discuss the whole body of arguments for or against concerning the discussion of authenticity of early Arabic poetry, as it would make the discussion extensive and take it outside our bounds. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that perceptive scholars as they are called by Jones, such as Gibb, who were not even directly involved in the debate would forward a succinct case in favour of authenticity and had this to say (Arabic Literature p. 21):

… it would have been impossible for the rāwīs of the eighth century, if they had nothing behind them but the undoubtedly genuine productions of the seventh, to have imagined the markedly different poetry of the pre-Islamic age, and to have invented all its particular local and personal diversities.

While it may very seldom be possible to provide objective evidence for the authenticity of any given poem with complete certitude, nevertheless (and notwithstanding all possible sources of error, verbal modification, or rearrangement) there can be no doubt that the commonly accepted nucleus of poems ascribed to the poets of the sixth century is a faithful reproduction of their poetic output and technique, and thus substantially authentic. Most, indeed, of what must have been an immense volume of poetry has perished, but what survives includes, at least, all those works which have been most highly esteemed by every generation of native critics.125

Before entering the final part in our study of authenticity, which is the Traditional Analysis, an evaluation of the issues of linguistic analysis may give rise to some interesting matters to questions discussed in the sections concerning Arabic rhyme and Arabic poetry. Moreover, an assessment of the linguistic analysis of the Ṣaḥīfa with regard to allusion, reference and use of language draws the picture of an author with an intimate familiarity to and knowledge of the sources (Qur’ān and the sunna).

Chittick, in his words, when in the process of comparing and contrasting the Ṣaḥīfa and the personality of ‛Alī b. al-Ḥusayn “with a text which expresses the highest aspirations of the Muslim souls”,126

says:

…if the author of the Ṣahīfat al-kāmila was not Imam Zayn al-‛Ābidīn, he – or they – would in any case have to have been a spiritual authority of equal rank.127

It may well be appropriate here to say that such a familiarity appears to be quite coherent and in character with the personality of ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn, who is considered largely by the majority of the body of Muslim scholars to be held in the highest esteem. Further reference to his personality will be given subsequently in the biography.

3.1 Traditional Analysis

Traditional Islamic scholarship has evaluated texts and transmitted documents in two ways: first by a critical study of the chain of transmitters of the text, or what is known as the ṣanad.128 Secondly, by a critical study of the subject matter of the text, what is known as the matan. Moreover, if the chain itself is believed to be interrupted or broken (munqati‛) the authenticity of the tradition or text will be questioned. If the subject-matter of the text or the matan is found to be contradicting the Qur’ān and other authenticated ḥadīth, or ʿaql (reason), or if the language is not believed to be from the period in which the narration or text is supposed to have originated, it will not be accepted as authentic.129

Ḥadīth scholars have further divided the authentic report or the saḥiḥ into two main categories: the mutawātir (multiple successive transmissions) and the āḥād (single transmission) or khabar al-wāḥid.130 The use of this terminology and methodology is not restricted to Ḥadīth Criticism only; it is commonly and frequently applied to other fields as well.131

For example, in Arabic linguistics and lexicography the ṣanad played a very significant role in the study of words and their meanings. According to Suyūtī (d.910/1505), any meaning of a word would not be accepted until certain conditions were fulfilled.132

Furthermore, ‛ʿ Abū al-Faḍl, expresses a similar opinion from the Lumaʿi-l adilla of Ibn al-Anbarī to that of Suyūṭī, with the addition of the influence and implications on language and law.133 From this it may be arrived to the fact that the study of the chain of transmitters was not limited to ḥadīth literature only.

Those who have written on the authenticity of the Ṣaḥīfa have claimed that their chains are mutawātir.134

There are many chains that have been used to transmit the Ṣaḥīfa.135 The most popular are those leading back directly to Muḥammad al-Bāqir b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn, and al-Shaḥīd al-Khālid Zayd b. ʿAlī also the son of Zayn al-‛Ābidīn. Zayd is said to have possessed a manuscript of the Ṣaḥīfa in his custody, which was later passed on to his children and to the children of ʿAbdullah b. al-Ḥasan al-Muthanna, as mentioned in the beginning of the manuscript.136 There was yet another manuscript in the hands of Muḥammad al-Bāqir.137 According to al-Abṭaḥī, in Majlisī’s account, the number of narrators in the chains of those who transmitted the Ṣaḥīfa

reached over fifty six thousand people138 , this number is consistent with the view held by other scholars as well.139 Furthermore, Chittick mentions a reference found in Mishkāt’s and Marʿashī’s introduction to the Ṣaḥīfa, that Majlisī’s father, Mullā Muḥammad Taqī Majlisī (d.1070/1659-60) counted all the chains of transmission by which he had received the Ṣaḥīfa to be more than a million.140 What possibly could have been meant is the number of reporters in all of the chains.

The wording of the ṣanad itself suggests that the Ṣaḥīfa may have been transmitted both orally and as a written document. The narrator in the beginning of the chain uses the verb ḥaddathanā (‘he related to us’), which is an indicator that he is reporting directly from his sources as opposed to the words ʿan (from), which allows the possibility of indirect transmission.141 Another verb used in the same ṣanad is akhbaranā (he informed us) which is a technical term used by narrators to indicate that they are transmitting from a written document.142 The words qirā’atan ʿalayhi wa anā asmaʿ (he recited it to him while I was listening) also used in the chains explicitly suggests that the Ṣaḥīfa was being circulated and transmitted in written form.

Likewise, verbs such as samiʿtuha (I heard it) also suggest that the transmission of the Ṣaḥīfa is through unbroken chains.

Since there are hundreds of such chains used to transmit this work, discussing each chain individually will prove to be an exhausting task and a study of this magnitude, is perhaps more suitable in the fields of Tradition studies or Ḥadīth criticism. It is not the intention here to analyse all the chains and the biographies of fifty six thousand or more narrators who are believed to have transmitted this work since such a study has already been undertaken by others in the field of rijāl and ḥadīth studies.143

The terms ṣaḥīfa seems to suggest that the text may have been written by the author himself and not merely attributed to him.144

Regarding the authenticity of the Ṣaḥīfa, Chittick in his introduction, maintains that:

The opinion of the writer of these lines concerning the authenticity of the Ṣaḥīfa – admittedly based only upon an intimate acquaintance with the text gained through months spent in translation – is that the original fifty-four prayers go back to Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn, that the addenda are nearly as trustworthy, and that the munajāt may have been worked upon by others.

But the Ṣaḥīfa in its larger forms probably contains a good deal of material from later authors.145

Of course it may be difficult to identify exactly what would have convinced Chittick concerning the authenticity of the Ṣaḥīfa. However, it may be observed that what seems to be an additional factor -and perhaps the deciding factor- over and above his investigation and analysis, which may have led to give the identity of a ‘person’, it seems that the ‘intimate acquaintance’ gained with the text by spending months in translation, as mentioned above, may have given gave a ‘face’ to that person, the person and the face being that of ʿAlī b. Ḥusayn Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn.

What many of those who work with and translate texts of various kinds might agree with, is that often an in-depth and close relationship may

gradually evolve towards the object of study, which in turn might allow the text to be viewed from ‘within’ rather than to be observed from the ‘outside’.

Traditionally, in the opinion of the Shīʿa at least, there has been no doubt concerning the integrity and authorship of the Ṣaḥīfa.146

Although there is some disagreement among non-Shīʿa scholars regarding the authorship of the Ṣaḥīfa,147 it is not maintained within the body of Shīʿa scholarship as mentioned, particularly in the minds of Shīʿa worshippers who use the prayer manual. For them, according to Howarth (1991, p.19) “the value of the book cannot be divorced from the history and personality of Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn himself.”148 He records an interesting incident in his thesis to illustrate this point as recounted by Naṣr: Henry Corbin, a noted Western scholar in Shīʿa studies, remarked once to the well-known Shīʿa scholar ʿAllāma Ṭabaṭabā’ī, the compiler of the renowned commentary of the Qur’ān, al-Mizān, that “Western scholars claim that ʿAlī is not the author of the Nahj al-balāgha.” The ʿAllāma “raised his head and answered in his usual gentle and calm manner”, and replied:

“For us whoever wrote the Nahj al-balāgha is ʿAlī, even if he lived a century ago.”149

Chapter 3: Life and Works of ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn

Introduction

This chapter will explore the life and contribution of ʿAlī b al-Ḥusayn and establish a link between the socio-cultural and political context of that time with the text attributed to him. Although the Ṣaḥīfa is generally viewed as a text on devotional supplication (du’a), however it can also be read as a wider commentary of the time in which it was produced. The Ṣaḥīfa and other texts attributed to ʿAlī b al-Ḥusayn are part of the literary, theological, spiritual, and political discourse of that era. Thus, there is in the text an interplay between spirituality, theology, and history.

1.1 General Sketch

Alī b. al-Ḥusayn was born in Medina, according to most sources in the year 37-38/658-9.30 He may have been too small to have remembered his grandfather ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, whom he lived with for two years and who was killed in 41/661. He was brought up in the presence of his uncle Ḥasan b. ʿAlī (d. 49/669) with whom he lived for 12 years and his father Ḥusayn b. ‛Alī (d. 60/680) whom he lived with for 23 years.31 Ḥasan and Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī were the Prophet's grandchildren from his daughter Fāṭima. Many Shīʿa sources state that his mother was Shahrbanū or Shazanān as she is also called, the daughter of Yazdigird, the last Sasanian king of Persia.32 Due to this, according to Ibn Khallikān he was said to be Ibn al-Khiyaratayn, the ‘son of the best two’, meaning the Quraysh among the Arabs and the Persians among the non-Arabs.33 According to some accounts, his mother was brought as a captive to Medina during the caliphate of ʿUmar, who wanted to sell her. ʿAlī suggested instead that she be offered her choice of the Muslim men as a husband and that her dower be paid from the public treasury. ʿUmar agreed and she chose ʿAlī’s son Ḥusayn. She is said to have died shortly after giving birth to her only son ʿAlī, Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn.34

At this stage we shall not recount in detail the massacre at Karbalā' in 60/680, when Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī and many of the male members of his family were killed by the forces of the ʿUmayyad caliph Yazīd, an event which had effects to a great extent on the Islamic world and gave impetus to the nascent Shīʿa movement. Several accounts are related concerning his grief over this tragedy. One such account is that for twenty years whenever food was placed before him, he would weep.35

Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn resided in Medina until his death at the age of fifty-four in the year 95/713-4.36 He was the object both of great sympathy because of the massacre of his family, and of veneration as the great grandson of the Prophet. He dedicated his life to learning and worship and became an authority on prophetic traditions and law, but he was known mostly for his nobility of character and his piety, which earned him his sobriquet already in his lifetime. The details that have reached us about his life in Medina mainly take the form of anecdotes affirming his constant preoccupation with worship and acts of devotion.37 He fathered fifteen children, eleven boys and four girls.38

After Karbalā, there were a number of different factions in the Shīʿi community, not all of whom supported ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn as the rightful

leader and Imam of the Muslim community. Many Shīʿa, such as those involved in the Tawwābūn movement, felt that the ʿUmayyads had to be overthrown and that it was the duty of the Imam to lead a revolt, however he refused to become involved with politics.39

1.2 Childhood

Qarashī mentions that difficulty and pain accompanied him from the time of his childhood; among them being that his mother died while he was in infancy.40 He also states that Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī his father, tried his best to save her from the illness described as childbed fever, but was unable to do so. The fever had become intense and she suffered from severe pain for numerous days until she died. Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī together with prominent Muslim figures and a large number of Muslims escorted her burial procession and she was finally buried in Kūfā.41 His father then arranged for a nursemaid to see to the care of his son ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn. Qarashī describes the nursemaid as a righteous lady, treating the child just like an affectionate mother would treat her own son and that ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn grew up in an atmosphere of intense secrecy regarding the death of his natural birth-mother, and no one told him about her death until he had become grown up lest he would become saddened.42 There are two other narratives regarding his mother one of which is that that she threw herself in the river Euphrates after the incident at Karbalā while the others says that she was among those who survived Karbalā.43

Qarashī describes him as quite thin and weak as he became old due to his constant worship, and also due to the effects and sorrow from the massacre at Karbalā.44

However, despite this, al-Shaykhani al-Qādirī narrates about him that “beholders were fixed in a gaze at the handsomeness of his face.”45

It is also interesting to note that the most well known of the titles or agnomen that ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn became known by, Sayyid al-ʿĀbidīn (the master of worshippers) is reported to have had its roots from the Prophet Muḥammad himself. One such report is from Al-Hāfiz b. ʿAsākir who reported on the authority of Sufyān b. ʿAyyina on the authority of b. al-Zubayr, who said:

“While we were (sitting) with Jābir, ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn came. Jabir said to him: ‘When I was (sitting) with Allāh’s apostle, may Allāh bless him and his family, al-Ḥusayn came to him. He (the Prophet) embraced him (al-Ḥusayn), kissed him, sat him beside him and said; ‘A son will be born from this son who will be called ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn, and a caller will call out on the day of Judgment’; ‘let Sayyid al-ʿĀbidīn stand up’, ‘and he [i.e. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn] will stand up.’ ”46

The first years of ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn were spent under the wings of his father Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī, paternal uncle Ḥasan b. ʿAlī and grandfather ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib. The period with his grandfather lasted about two years after which ʿAlī b. Abi Talib died as a result from sustaining injuries after an assassination attempt at the Mosque of Kūfā during prayers by the infamous ʿAbd al-Rahmān b. al-Muljim, known as Ibn Muljim.

The climate that followed may be described as quite turbulent, with much unrest, particularly for those who subscribed to the leadership of ʿAlī b. Abī

Ṭālib and the Imamate. Those who considered ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib and the Imams after him as the temporal and spiritual leaders came to be known as the Shīʿa (lit. followers, and in this context the Shīʿat ʿAlī, i.e. the followers of ʿAlī).47

It is evident that ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn grew up in the midst and surrounding of prominent personalities of Islam. As mentioned, his father Ḥusayn, uncle Ḥasan and aunts Zaynab and Umm Kulthūm all of them being the children of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib and Fāṭima and thus the grandchildren of the Prophet and Abū Ṭālib. He may have been too young to remember the ordeal surrounding the death of his grandfather ʿAlī .b Abī Ṭālib, at which he was about two years old. He was subsequently looked after by his paternal uncle Ḥasan and father Ḥusayn, both of whom poured much affection, love and care unto the child. Qarashī mentions that Ḥusayn found his son’s qualities noble and similar to that of the Prophet, thus he took great care of him and instilled within him noble values, and accompanying him most of the time.48 It appears very likely that despite the tragic circumstances of the loss of his mother as a child and the difficult circumstances surrounding his grandfather’s death, he was showered with great care and affection from his family members. There is an interesting incident when ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn as a child became ill, his father Ḥusayn hurried to visit him and asked him if he wanted or wished for anything saying; “What do you wish my little son?” He replied; “I wish I would be among those who did not suggest (anything) to their Lord. I am satisfied with what my Lord decides.” Ḥusayn was greatly moved by these words of his son and admired the indication of his great knowledge and deep sense of faith and said with admiration; “Bravo! You are similar to Abraham, the Friend of Allāh (referring to Abraham’s title Khalīl Allāh) when [angel] Gabriel asked him; ‘Have you any need?’ He (Abraham) replied; ‘I do not suggest (anything) to my Lord, rather Allāh is sufficient and the best Agent!’ “49

1.3 How Imamate came to him

Shīʿa scholars and historians provide various accounts regarding how ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn received the Imamate.50 One of the earliest incidents is reported to be during the lifetime of his grandfather ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib. Qarashī describes it to be the time when ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib had been wounded51 and was in the last hours of his life, he gathered his family members and sons around him, including ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn. He entrusted the Imamate to his sons, Ḥasan first and that Ḥusayn was to succeed his brother Ḥasan. ʿAlī also designated the young grandson as the future Imam (after Ḥusayn). Qarashī narrates that ʿAlī recited the greetings of the Prophet to ʿAlī b al-Ḥusayn and to his future son Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Bāqir (who was to be the fifth Imam, after ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn).52

Furthermore there are reports that the Prophet himself in his lifetime appointed and foretold of his twelve successors and trustees after him while also mentioning their names.53 Al-Qarashī further states that had there been no texts indicating and confirming the Imamate of ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn even then his ideals and his outstanding qualities would be enough to confirm it.54 There is also a fascinating account of the Black Stone at the Kaʿba testifying to his Imamate at a time of dispute.55

2.1 Hagiographical reports on His Personality and Spiritual Standing

There appears to be a general consensus among early as well as later Muslims regarding the noble personality and high spiritual standing of ʿAlī b al-Ḥusayn. The Medieval Arabic biographer Ibn Khalikān writes in his Wafāyat al-aʿyān:

The merits and noble qualities of Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn are so many that they cannot all be listed.56

The details regarding his personality have been recorded in hagiographical texts from both the Sunnī and Shīʿa traditions. Jābir b. ʿAbdallā al-Anṣārī (d. 78/697) the wellknown and senior companion of the Prophet would express his great admiration of the Imam by saying; “None of the children of the prophets was like ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn (i.e.

none of them could match him in respect of his exceptional being, personality and character).”57

ʿAbdAllāh b. ʿAbbās (d. 68/690), despite his old age and prominent position among people he would respect the younger ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn and would stand up from his seat when seeing him saying; “Welcome the most beloved one (Marhaban bi-l ḥabīb al-ḥabīb)!”58

The well-known scholar and jurist Muḥammad b. Muslim b. Shihāb al-Zuhrī (d.124/741-2) is found to have stated his view regarding the personality ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn in many sources: “I have never seen a Hāshimī like ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn.”59

“I have never met among the Ahl al-Bayt (Members of the House) a person more meritorious than ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn.”60

Above Al-Zuhrī is referring to the well-known Prophetic tradition mentioned previously which states; “When the Day of Judgment takes place, a caller will call out from inside the Throne; ‘Let the lord of the worshippers stand up! So he will stand up.’”61

Sufyān b. Ayyina relates that he asked al-Zuhrī if he had ever met ʿAlī b.al-Ḥusayn to which he replied; “Yes, I have met him. I have never met a person more meritorious than him. By Allāh, I have never known that he had a friend in secret or an enemy in public”, at which he was asked why that was and he replied; “Because all those who loved him envied him out of their abundant knowledge of his outstanding merits, and all those who hated him took care of him because he took great care of them.”62

Thābit b. Safiya (d. 150/767) better known as Abū Hamza Thumālī from the well known supplication given to him by ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib and named after him (i.e. the supplication of Abū Hamza Thumālī) is reported to have said: “I have never heard that there is a person more ascetic than ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn except [his grandfather] ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib.”63 Another similar report with an addition is; “I have never heard that there is a person more ascetic than ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn, who caused to weep all those who were in his presence when he talked about asceticism and preaching.”64

His grandson and sixth Shīʿi Imam, Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq (d. 148/765) said of him that: “None of ʿAlī’s children [i.e. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib] was more like and nearer to him in manner of dress and understanding than ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn.”65

His high esteem was not merely confined to his supporters and followers but also extended to those who bore enmity or malice against him. An example of this can be found in the words of ʿAbd Allāh al-Malik b. Marwān (d. 86/705) who was known to harbour animosity towards the members of the Ahl al-Bayt.66

The well-known poet al-Farazdaq (d. 109-111/728-730) was among those who held ʿAlī b. Al-Ḥusayn in high esteem and composed his much famed ode at the incident during the time of pilgrimage when both Hishām (d.125/743), the son of the ʿUmayyad caliph ʿAbdul Malik and Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn were trying to reach the Black Stone around the much crowded Kaʿba.67

We find even Ibn Taymīyya (d. 728/1328), known for his hostile and unsympathetic views concerning the Ahl al-Bayt report in favour ofʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn.68

It appears from the hagiographical literature available on ʿAlī Ibn al-Ḥusayn that he is a celebrated figure in various schools of thought who have reported on the personality of ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn, despite their different thoughts and inclinations it can be said that they were unanimous in their regard for him.

Whether the above narratives of ʿAlī b al-Ḥusayn’s personality and spiritual standing can be authenticated or not is a question that deserves an independent critical study, a study that would fall outside the scope of this thesis. What is certain however from the above hagiographical statements is that he clearly enjoys an exalted position in the lives of both Shīʿa and Sunnī Muslims. What can be said though of him regarding the view of his contemporaries and the historians, who although at times had differing doctrines and inclinations is that they seem to be very much in line with Shīʿi view that it is necessary for the ‘Imam’ to be the most meritorious, righteous and knowledgeable person of his time.

Furthermore, any discussion on the inter-relationship between the Ṣaḥīfa and ʿAlī b. Al-Ḥusayn and the wider context within the Shīʿa tradition will have to consider the place and significance of Karbalā in Shīʿa discourse. While the event of Karbalā is significant to both Sunnī and Shīʿas, it has had a greater impact on Shīʿa identity.69

3.1 Karbalā – The Prelude

In order to have an enhanced understanding of an event and to understand it clearer, it becomes necessary to analyse and consider the history and occurrences that are behind it and related to it, whether directly or indirectly, so that an attempt can be made to see through the eyes of the author of the Ṣaḥīfa.

Such would also be the case behind the events of Karbalā which have lead to shape the identity and have impacted the people who relate with it. It may be considered that the events leading to Karbalā would have their traces much further back in time than when they occurred in 61/680, which also have been discussed previously.70

It is not within the scope of this study that we examine closely in detail the political situation and the intricate power grapples that were present including the social conditions and also inequities that existed amongst the

different people, such as the Anṣār and the Muhājirūn, the wealthy and the poor, the Arabs and non-Arabs, the Muslims and non-Muslims and also the theological conditions in as much as all the different factions that had began emerging among the Muslims and the effects and influences of such views and the ethical and moral values and circumstances that were prevailing during the era. However, the previous discussion would have provided us with a window and a sketch nonetheless of the turbulent and at times chaotic period.

The resistance and opposition from the ʿUmmayads would continue in various forms against the Hāshimī’s from the time of the Prophet throughout the time of ʿAlī b. Al-Ḥusayn, the culmination of which could be seen to be the event of Karbalā.

The ʿUmayyads, from the time of the Caliphate of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, with Muʿāwiya b. Abū Sufyān at the forefront as the governor of Syria, had refused to pay allegiance to ʿAlī’s Caliphate being determined to fight against the Hāshimites and paralyse them, which also lead to divisions of the Muslims. Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn had to witness his uncle Ḥasan and later, his father Ḥusayn go through this ordeal during the government of Muʿāwiya and after him, Yazīd b. Muʿāwiya. Ḥusayn had not risen against Muʿāwiya during his time due to honouring the peace treaty that his brother Ḥasan had to sign with Muʿāwiya and also due to the fact as he understood his revolt would have failed, similar to what had occurred to his brother Ḥasan, as Muʿāwiya had very cleverly turned the situation to his favour implementing strong policies and wealth.71

Despite the treaty which had stipulated the rule to go back to Ḥasan b. ʿAlī and the Hashimites after his death, Muʿāwiya (d. 60/680) had actively scheming to instate his son Yazīd as the next ruler after him, and thus for the first time in Islam establishing dynastic rule and deviating from Islamic norms. Many notable leaders considered this unacceptable, including Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī, Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn ’s father.72

Muʿāwiya had left Yazīd with written instructions with specific strategies on how to deal with these people, with special warning about Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī, as he was the only blood relative and also grandson of the Prophet Muḥammad.73 Also Ḥusayn, being the only living grandson of the Prophet remained as the most significant threat to this dynastic rule. Yazīd was successful in coercing the majority of others, however in order to strengthen his position and rule as the Caliph of the Muslims, also demanded Ḥusayn to pay allegiance (bayʿa) to him, thus intending that Ḥusayn had confirmed and supported his rule with the stamp of approval, giving it legitimacy.

Ḥusayn denied this with his famous words; Mithlī lā yubāyiʿū mithlah “someone like me can never pay allegiance to someone like him.” Below is an extract of his statement;

We are the household of the Prophet, the substance of the Message, the ones visited by the angels; it is through us that Allāh initiates and concludes. Yazīd is a man of sin, a drunkard, a murderer of the soul the killing of which Allāh has prohibited, a man who is openly promiscuous. A man like me shall never swear the oath of allegiance to a man like him.”74

Shortly after the coercive attempt demanding his allegiance, Ḥusayn left Medina for Mecca to perform the pilgrimage with his family including his son Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn and a small group of followers. During this period many letters were received by Ḥusayn from the people of Kūfā, the former seat of the Caliphate of his brother Ḥasan and father ʿAlī. The letters stated the people request for him to come and guide them, assuring him of their support.75 In order to answer their calls and better evaluate the situation, he sent his cousin Muslim b. ʿAqīl as his representative. He was initially welcomed by the people and most swore allegiance to Ḥusayn and him. At this preliminary conclusion Muslim replied to Ḥusayn stating that the situation was favourable. However the situation soon turned in Kūfā after the arrival of ʿUbayd-Allāh b. Ziyād as the newly appointed governor by Yazīd, and Muslim together with his host Hānī b. ʿUrwā were executed.76 The people who had earlier sworn allegiance had been intimidated and threatened by ʿUbayd-Allāh and had not put up any considerable resistance.77

Meanwhile Yazīd had despatched and army with ʿUmar b. Saʿd b. al-ʿĀs as the head, with instructions to intercept and kill Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī during the Ḥajj.78 As this news reached Ḥusayn, he decided to leave Mecca, just a day before the starting of the pilgrimage, and only performed the ʿUmra (minor pilgrimage) in order to prevent the strong possibility of violation of the sanctity of the Kaʿba and the surrounding area of Mecca, by the spilling of his blood.79

As Ḥusayn was preparing to leave for Kūfā, the news of the death of Muslim not yet having reached him, some of the leaders of Mecca met with him, advising him of not journeying towards Kūfā. However, if he was determined, then at least not to take any women or children on this perilous journey. Ḥusayn had however resolved to continue with his plan and addressed the people of his intentions before his departure.80

It could be imagined these events would have had a significant effect on Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn, having to leave the city of Medina in haste, being his great grandfather’s city and then leaving Mecca under such threatening circumstances.81

En route to Kūfā, Ḥusayn’s small caravan were met with the tragic news of his cousin, Muslim’s execution and how the people had swiftly turned.82 Ḥusayn however still decided to continue and was intercepted by Yazīd’s army, only two days away from Kūfā by a contingency of Yazīd’s army of about 1000 men, led by Ḥurr b.Riyāḥī. Ḥusayn’s caravan was prevented to move forward by the orders of Yazīd and Ḥurr’s army forced them to camp at al-Ṭaff, at a place out of reach from the vital water supply of the river Euphrates.83 When Ḥusayn was informed the place was also known as Karbalā, he exclaimed; “O Allāh! I seek refuge with You against karb [affliction] and balā’ [trial and tribulation]” and continued; “Here we shall erect our tents, here our blood shall be spilled, here we shall meet our death and from here we will rise once again on the day of Resurrection! My grandfather, the Messenger of Allāh, had informed me so.”84

3.2 Karbalā

Having considered the prevailing circumstances and conditions during and before the time of ʿAlī b. Al-Ḥusayn, albeit in brief, would have provided us with a clearer understanding of the situation that culminated at Karbalā These events would later have a profound impact upon the life of ʿAlī. b. al-Ḥusayn, shaping his personality and also subsequently resulting in and forming his identity and subsequently his words as the author of the Ṣaḥīfa. We find Majlisī in his Biḥar mentioning this where he has written a chapter dedicated to ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn with the heading; “His Mourning and Weeping on the Martyrdom of his Father, May the Grace of Allāh be on Both”85

It is not possible within this study to fully investigate and narrate the events taking place at Karbalā; however it is also not possible not to mention them as they were probably the most significant events in the life of ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn. For the sake of brevity we will give a few succinct accounts that somewhat capture these events.

Finding himself together with his family and small number of companions on the plains of Karbalā we find that Ḥusayn tried to reason with his antagonists in order to avoid confrontation, using rationale and mentioning his merits and lineage;

... Then Hosein mounted his horse, and took the Koran and laid it before him, and, coming up to the people, invited them to the performances of their duty: adding, O God, Thou art my confidence in every trouble, and my hope in all adversity!… He next reminded them of his excellency, the nobility of his birth, the greatness of his power, and his high descent, and said, “Consider with yourselves whether or not such a man as I am is not better than you; I who am the son of your Prophet's daughter, besides whom there is no other upon the face of the earth. ʿAlī was my father; Jaafar and Hamza, the chief of the martyrs, were both my uncles; and the apostle of God, upon whom be peace, said both of me and my brother, that we were the Chief[s] of the youth of Paradise. If you will believe me, what I say is true, for by God, I never told a lie in earnest since I had my understanding; for God hates a lie. If you do not believe me, ask the companions of the apostle of God [here he named them], and they will tell you the same. Let me go back to what I have...86

Despite trying to reason with the ʿUmayyad forces, they were not convinced and the impasse ended in the massacre of Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī together with the male members of his family and his companions. Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn describes the day, which is also known as the day of ʿĀshurā (lit. meaning ‘the tenth’ signifying the tenth of the month of Muḥarram in the Islamic calendar) as one of the most difficult days.87

When Ḥusayn remained alone, the male members of his family and companions slain he called out for assistance, as Qarashī describes the moment;

Imam al-Ḥusayn, who was afflicted with disaster, looked with great sadness and sorrow at the members of his family and his companions. He saw them slaughtered like sheep on the sand of Karbalā under the heat of the sun’s rays, and he heard his womenfolk weeping and lamenting over their martyred ones. He did not know what would happen to them after his

martyrdom. That tragic sight had a great effect on him, so he sought help to protect the womenfolk of Allāh’s Apostle, may Allāh bless him and his family, saying: “Is there anyone to protect the womenfolk of Allāh’s Apostle, may Allāh bless him and his family? Is there any monotheist to fear Allāh through us? Is there any helper who seeks hope from Allāh through helping us?”88

Qarashī further describes the moment of Ḥusayn’s calling and Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn waking up from his partial unconsciousness, due to severe illness, when hearing his father, struggling to get up, leaning on a stick, to come to his assistance. Ḥusayn seeing this called out to his sister Umm Kulthūm; “Hold him back lest the earth becomes void of the descendants of the family of Muḥammad!” As Ḥusayn was surrounded by the ʿUmayyad soldiers, severely wounded and his condition worsening with no hope of survival, we find an account of him turning his face towards the sky, in a state of munajāt (intimate conversation with God);

O Allāh! Sublime You are, Great of Might, Omnipotent, Independent of all creation, greatly Majestic, Capable of doing whatever You please, Forthcoming in mercy, True of Promise, Inclusive of Blessings, Clement, Near to those who invoke Him, Subduing His creation, Receptive to Repentance, Able, Overpowering, Appreciative when thanked, Remembering those who remember Him! You do I call upon out of my want, and You do I seek out of [my] need! From You do I seek help when in fear and cry when sorrowful! Your help do I seek in my weakness, and upon You do I rely! O Allāh! Judge between us and our people, for they deceived and betrayed us! They were treacherous to us, and they killed us though we are the ʿItrat [family]of Your Prophet and the offspring of the one You love; Muḥammad whom You chose for Your Message and entrusted with the revelation! Do find an ease for our affair and an exit, O most Merciful of all merciful ones!

Grant me patience to bear Your destiny, O Lord! There is no god but You! O Helper of those who seek help! I have no god besides You, nor do I adore anyone but You!

Grant me to persevere as I face Your decree, O Helper of the helpless, O Eternal One Who knows no end, O One Who brings the dead back to life, O One Who rewards every soul as it earned, do judge between me and them; surely You are the Best of judges.89

As Ḥusayn was drawing his final breaths the following account is given;

Zainab the wise, cried out, “O Muḥammad! O father! O ʿAlī ! O Jaʿfar! O Hamza!

Here is Ḥusain in the open, slain in Karbalā!” Then Zainab said, “I wish the heavens had fallen upon the earth! I wish the mountains had crushed the valley!” She was near al-Ḥusain when ʿUmar Ibn Saʿd came close to her flanked by some of his men.

Al-Ḥusain was drawing his last breath she cried out, “O ʿUmar! Should Abū ʿAbdullah be killed as you look on?!” He turned his face away. His tears were flooding his beard. She said, “Woe unto you! Is there [not] any Muslim man among you?” None answered her. Then [ʿUmar] Ibn Saʿd shouted at [the] people, “Alight and put him to rest!” Al-Shimr was the first

to do so. He kicked the Imam with his foot then sat on his chest and took hold of his holy beard. He dealt him twelve sword strokes. He then severed his sacred head...90

The persecution continued even after the men had been killed, when the enemy soldiers set upon the camp and tents of Ḥusayn’s family;

Ḥussein accepted and set out from Mecca with his family and an entourage of about seventy followers. But on the plain of Kerbela they were caught in an ambush set by the … caliph, Yazīd. Though defeat was certain, Hussein refused to pay homage to him. Surrounded by a great enemy force, Ḥussein and his company existed without water for ten days in the burning desert of Kerbela. Finally Ḥussein, the adults and some male children of his family and his companions were cut to bits by the arrows and swords of Yazīd's army; his women and remaining children were taken as captives to Yazīd in Damascus. The renowned historian Abu Reyhan al-Birunī states;

“… then fire was set to their camp and the bodies were trampled by the hoofs of the horses; nobody in the history of the human kind has seen such atrocities.”91

Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi describes the aftermath and relates that no Imam could have begun his Imamate in a more painful tragic circumstance and situation than ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn. He says;

No Imam began his Imamate in a more tragic atmosphere. The first day of his Imamate saw him seriously ill and a captive of the army of Yazīd in Karbalā. His father and predecessors had sacrificed all he [they] had on the altar of truth; and Imam Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn found himself with a group of helpless widows and orphans being led from place to place, from the durbar [palatial court] of Ibn Ziyād to the court of Yazīd. Finally they were thrown into a prison, where the Imam spent the first year of his Imamate, cut off from the followers of his father and unable to look after their affairs.”92


3

4

5

6