Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Why did Imam al-Husayn (as) give his Companions Permission to Leave?

One of the objections and questions put forward by some people regarding the event of Karbala is why Imam al-Husayn (as) gave his companions permission to go and leave him alone at Karbala on the night of ‘Ashura.

Imam al-Husayn (as) knew that he was facing a large number of enemy soldiers whose hearts did not possess any mercy at all. He knew that fighting with them was certain. He also knew that in any war, there is need for help from friends and supporters.

Why then did he give his companions permission to leave the desert of Karbala? Why did he advise them to take advantage of the darkness of the night and leave him alone?

Two types of permission from Imam al-Husayn (as)

With recourse to history, we come to know that Imam al-Husayn (as) gave two types of permission to his companions.

A. General permission

Imam al-Husayn (as) addressed his companions in a general way,

أمّا بعد؛ فانّي لا اعلم اصحاباً اوفی ولا خيراً من اصحابي، ولا اهل بيت ابرّ واوصل من اهل بيتي، فجزاکم الله عنّي خيراً. ألا وانّي لأظنّ يومنا من هولاء غداً. ألا وانّي قد اذنت لکم، فانطلقوا جميعاً في حلّ، ليس عليکم حرج منّي ولا ذمام، هذا الليل قد غشيکم فاتخذوه جملاً

“And after this; verily, I have never known companions more loyal and better than my companions. I have never found household members more excellent in observation of bonds of relationship than my Household (the Ahl al-Bayt). Allah will reward you graciously on my behalf. Beware! I strongly predict that the day of our confrontation with them will be tomorrow. Beware! I have given you permission to leave. You are all free to go. I do not and will not reproach anyone of you for doing so. This is a night whose darkness has covered you like a mounted camel. Therefore, take advantage of it and make your escapes.” 1

B. Special or personal permission

History narrates that Imam al-Husayn (as) did not content himself with the general permission he had given to his companions. He went further and gave personal and special permission to some people for certain reasons.

Imam al-Husayn (as) addressed Muhammad ibn Bushr Hadrami on the night of ‘Ashura in this way,“Your child is being held captive in Marzari.” Muhammad ibn Bushr replied,“I entrust his captivity and mine to Allah and His account. I would rather die than live to see my child in captivity. I would not desire to remain alive after him.”

When Imam al-Husayn (as) heard this, he said,“May Allah have mercy on you. You are free from any obligation to me. Go and strive hard to free your child. You are not obliged to me at all.” He answered,

“May the wild beasts tear me to pieces alive if I should leave you.” Imam al-Husayn (as) gave him some clothes and said,“Give these clothes to your son so that he may exert himself to free his brother.” The value of those clothes was one thousand dinars.2

Imam al-Husayn (as) came out of the tents in the heart of the night to examine the pits and holes which were in the desert. Nafi‘ ibn Bilal followed the Holy Imam (as). Imam al-Husayn (as) asked him,“Where are you going?” Nafi‘ ibn Bilal answered,“O son of Allah’s Prophet! Your movement towards this rebellious army has aroused my fears.”

The Holy Imam (as) said,“I came out of my tent in order to examine the highs and lows of this desert so as to be able to distinguish the enemy’s military strategic position.” Imam al-Husayn (as) took Nafi‘ ibn Bilal’s hand into his hands and said,“Verily, it is exactly as I have already predicted. I swear upon Allah!

The promise cannot be abrogated.” After this he said,“Are you not going to take advantage of the darkness and pass through these two hills in the heart of the night in order to save yourself?”

Nafi‘ ibn Bilal fell at Imam al-Husayn’s (as) feet and started kissing them. He said,“May my mother mourn for me! My sword is worth a thousand dinars and my horse is worth a hundred dinars. I swear upon Allah who holds me indebted for the favor of your presence! I will never leave you.” 3

The reality of permission and consent

The question which is put forward at this juncture is this: Does this permission mean that Imam al-Husayn (as) gave his companions clearance from duty and acquittal from the obligation of fighting? Does it imply that they were free from any obligation if they left him alone in those dangerous circumstances?

Does it denote that no sin and requital would be recorded for them if they left their Imam unaided? Or is there a deep secret lying beneath this permission?

We believe that Imam al-Husayn (as) had a number of aims in mind when he gave his permission:

1. When Imam al-Husayn (as) made his sermon of giving permission, he wanted to allow the ones who still harboured doubts about his uprising to leave and not get involved in a war they did not fully believe in. The Holy Imam (as) wanted to let those who had joined him for the sake of worldly position, power and money quit the battleground.

2. Additionally, the presence of people lacking strong motivation and character can harm an army and is not beneficial. This is because such people spread the fear and uncertainty which they feel in their hearts to the other soldiers in the camp. This reduces the morale and discipline of the entire army. Fear is contagious and can cause irreparable division among the soldiers of an army.

3. We can also infer that Imam al-Husayn (as) was inspiring his true companions with this kind of discourse to strengthen their determination for war. He was stimulating his true and loyal companions to be even more steadfast in his defence.

4. We can deduce that because the tents were pitched close to each other and the people could hear each other’s voices, Imam al-Husayn (as) wanted his family members to hear for themselves the answers that would be provided by his loyal and faithful companions. This would warm their hearts and raise their spirits high.

5. We can infer that with his speech Imam al-Husayn (as) intended to motivate his followers for a holy war and free them from tribal and clan bigotry. He wanted them to defend him not because of tribal ties, but out of divine motivation to defend what is right and true. He wanted to motivate them to come to the defence of Islam, the faith and monotheism.

Imam al-Husayn’s (as) aim when he made his speech was not to acquit his companions from duty and obligation. In these sensitive circumstances, no one had any pretext for leaving his Imam alone when he needed their help the most.

In reality, the battle that Imam al-Husayn (as) was involved in was such that there was no need for him to ask for help from his companions. Everyone was duty-bound to aid the Holy Imam (as). The very fact that Imam al-Husayn (as) found himself in these circumstances is a call of invitation for help. Is it not incumbent upon people to protect the life of Allah’s trust on earth?

6. When Imam al-Husayn (as) witnessed that his companions possessed sincere and honest intentions, he prayed for them and said,“Lift your heads to the sky and see for yourselves.” When they looked up, they observed their places in heaven. We can deduce from this that Imam al-Husayn (as) wanted to get their allegiance and loyalty before showing them their places in heaven. Seeing and witnessing their places in heaven would strengthen their wills and make them fight with more determination and certainty.

7. On the day of ‘Ashura, Imam al-Husayn (as) was repeatedly asking for help. He would say,

هل من ناصر ينصرني؟

This is not compatible with giving his companions permission to leave and setting them free from any obligation.

8. It has been narrated in some history books that Imam al-Husayn (as) entered Zaynab’s tent after talking to Nafi‘ ibn Bilal and the other companions. Nafi‘ ibn Bilal stood outside Zaynab’s tent waiting for Imam al-Husayn (as) to come out. He heard Zaynab’s voice. She was talking to Imam al-Husayn (as).

She was saying,“Have you tested the determination and will of your companions? I fear that they will leave you alone and surrender you to the enemy when the war gets fierce and the enemies intensify their attack on you.” Imam al-Husayn (as) said,“I swear upon Allah! I have tested them. I have observed that they are capable of being steadfast and patient during hard times. They are more attracted to death than a newborn is attracted to its mother’s breast for milk.” 4

Opposing positions

In order to substantiate that the permission granted by Imam al-Husayn (as) meant that everyone was at liberty to quit the scene of fighting and was exempted from obligation on the condition that they should go far enough that the voice of Imam al-Husayn (as) calling for help and assistance should not reach them, the sceptics have resorted to certain incidents which came to pass.

One of these incidents was when Imam al-Husayn (as) encountered ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Hurr Ju‘fi in the palace of Bani Maqatil. Imam al-Husayn (as) invited ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Hurr Ju‘fi to join him and become one of his helpers but ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Hurr refused and withheld his help from the Holy Imam (as).

Imam al-Husayn (as) said,“I advise you then to do all that is in your capacity to avoid hearing us, the oppressed, when we call out for help. I recommend that you do all that you can to avoid witnessing what will befall us. Because I swear upon Allah! No one who hears our oppressed voices and withholds his help from us will be exempted from the fire of hell.”

Response

If Imam al-Husayn (as) had set everyone at liberty to leave him, then why did he ask for help and assistance from ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Hurr Ju‘fi? Yes, it is true that the Holy Imam (as) asked him to go so far that he could not hear the Imam’s voice calling for help against the oppressors or witness the killing.

The Imam was trying to help him not to get caught up in an even greater sin than refusing his help because on the Day of Judgement, any person who hears an oppressed person calling for help and withholds his help will meet with the wrath of Allah. If that oppressed person happens to be a Holy Imam, the person who withholds his help will certainly be afflicted with harder retribution than the one who does not hear or witness the battle.

References

1. Muqarram, Maqtal al-Husayn (as), p. 212.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid., p. 219.

Why did Muslim ibn ‘Aqil not kill ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad in Hani’s House?

Historians have recounted: When Muslim ibn ‘Aqil was informed that ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad had made a speech warning the people of Kufah not to follow him, Muslim ibn ‘Aqil feared that the government agents would arrest and kill him. For this reason, he left Mukhtar’s house and sought refuge in the house of Hani ibn ‘Urwah Madhhaji, a strong and proud Shi‘ah. Hani was one of the nobles of Kufah and a renowned reciter of the Holy Qur’an in that part of the Muslim World.

He was also a shaykh and spokesman of a religious group that had pledged allegiance of brotherhood to one another and formed what they called a ‘religious clan’. He had four thousand mounted soldiers and eight thousand ground troops at his command. In addition, if we take the contributions of his allies (in times of need) into consideration, his troops would reach thirty thousand able and willing fighters.

He was considered to be one of the closest people to Amir al-Mu’minin ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib (as). He had participated in all the three wars which were imposed on Imam ‘Ali (as). He had also had a limited personal experience with the Holy Prophet (S) and understood well the era of the Holy Prophet (S).

Muslim ibn ‘Aqil sought refuge in Hani’s house. At that time, there was someone else in Hani’s house. His name was Sharik ibn ‘Abd Allah A‘war Harithi. He was one of the highly respectable and renowned Shi‘ahs of Imam ‘Ali (as) in Basrah. He was very honorable and considered to be a great man among the companions.

He had taken part in the Battle of Siffin and had been seen fighting alongside ‘Ammar ibn Yasir. Sharik ibn ‘Abd Allah and Hani ibn ‘Urwah were very close and special friends. While Sharik ibn ‘Abd Allah was in Hani’s house, he became very ill. ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad came to visit this sick person in Hani’s house.

Before Ibn Ziyad had arrived, Sharik ibn ‘Abd Allah addressed Muslim ibn ‘Aqil in this way,“Your aim and the aims of your Shi‘ahs is to bring ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad to perdition. Therefore, hide yourself in that secret closet over there. Whenever you feel certain that he has arrived, leave your secret hiding place and come forward to kill him. I will guarantee your safety.”

When they were still discussing this, it was said that the governor (‘Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad) had arrived at the doorstep. Muslim ibn ‘Aqil hid himself in the closet and a while later ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad came in to visit Sharik ibn ‘Abd Allah.

After waiting for some time, Sharik noticed that Muslim ibn ‘Aqil was not coming out of his hiding place to kill ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad. He feared that Muslim ibn ‘Aqil was delaying and losing time. In order to give him a sign that the time was right for killing Ibn Ziyad, Sharik kept removing his head turban and placing it on the ground.

In order to induce Muslim to come out of his hiding place and kill ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad, he would repeatedly recite poetry. He kept reciting poetry while his eyes were locked on Muslim’s hiding place. Finally, with a voice loud enough for Muslim to hear, he said,“Quench his thirst, even though that will lead to my death.”

At that moment, ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad turned his face towards Hani ibn ‘Urwah Madhhaji and said,“Your cousin hallucinates because of his illness.” Hani answered,“Since he got ill, Sharik has been speaking deliriously. He does not understand what he utters.”

‘Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad left the gathering. Muslim ibn ‘Aqil did not make the least attempt to kill him. The question that can be asked here is: Why did Muslim ibn ‘Aqil not act according to their discussion and kill the matrix of corruption and the zenith of perversion, ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad, before the event of Karbala? In other words, why did he not exact vengeance and retribution before the crime?

Response

Various responses have been offered for the above question and objection, and we will now mention some of them:

1. Muslim ibn ‘Aqil could not resort to deceit and trickery in order to kill ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad because the Holy Prophet (S) forbade any kind of guile. Therefore, Muslim could not employ craftiness in order to fight ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad. Imam al-Sadiq (as) recounts a hadith in which Allah’s Prophet (S) said,

إنّ الاسلام قيد الفتك

“Verily, Islam became an obstruction of deceit and an obstacle of trickery. (Islam has tied and chained guile and craftiness).” 1

2. It has been narrated in history books that the wife of Hani ibn ‘Urwah had made Muslim ibn ‘Aqil swear not to kill ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad in her house. She even cried in front of Muslim ibn ‘Aqil in order to persuade him not to carry out their plan. This is something which Muslim ibn ‘Aqil himself mentioned.

3. Killing ‘Ubayd Allah by means of deceit was not compatible with Muslim’s conduct and personality because he was a man endowed with strong faith and abstinence. He was raised and brought up in the house of Amir al-Mu’minin ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib (as).

The responsibilities he was carrying from Imam al-Husayn (as) were to get and secure the people’s allegiance for the Holy Imam (as) and inform him about all that was taking place in Kufah, not killing ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad. Therefore, if he had killed ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad, he would have gone beyond the domain of his duties and beyond his line of responsibilities.

4. Muslim ibn ‘Aqil considered his duty to be the awakening of the consciousness of the people. If ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad and the likes of him were assassinated in the absence of social consciousness arising from awareness among the people, the result would be that the people would bring to power someone similar or even worse than Ibn Ziyad.

The people had to become aware and informed about the corruption and perversion of the caliph himself. This social awareness and awakening could not be attained by assassinating one man. This is why there is no historical document confirming that Muslim ibn ‘Aqil had concurred with Sharik’s plan of assassinating ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad. It is possible that Muslim ibn ‘Aqil was thinking about this plan, but did not have a definite intention of executing it.

5. When we deeply reflect upon this event, we come to the conclusion that Hani ibn ‘Urwah had granted guarantees of safety to ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad. The reason is that when Ibn Ziyad asked Hani to give him permission to come and visit Sharik, Hani ibn ‘Urwah granted him the permission.

This in itself is a kind of verbal guarantee which Hani gave to ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad. In these circumstances, Islam binds a man to respect the rules of civility by stipulating that he should not kill anyone who has been granted guarantees of safety, even if that person is a matrix of corruption and a source of perversion like Ibn Ziyad especially when this person is visiting another person’s house, not yours, and the host’s wife is not pleased with such an action and is pleading with you to quit the plan; particularly when she insists that if you seriously intend to carry out the assassination, you should do it elsewhere, and not in her house.

6. ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad had come with bodyguards. Some of his bodyguards had remained outside the house behind the door and some had come inside the house along with him. The atmosphere prevailing in Kufah at that time demanded that everyone take every precaution about their lives. There was no guarantee that Muslim ibn ‘Aqil would have succeeded at killing ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad even if he had carried out his plan.

7. There was also no guarantee that had Muslim ibn ‘Aqil succeeded at killing ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad, the people of Kufah would have judged in his favor and put him in the governor’s palace.

The people of Kufah feared that if ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad got killed in Kufah, the central government in Sham would just send a more bloodthirsty man, worse than ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad, to Kufah to kill them indiscriminately. They were afraid that the central government in Sham would hold them responsible for killing the governor, and as a result avenge his death with massacre of the people of Kufah.

Reference

1. Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 10, p. 214; Al-Kafi, vol. 7, p. 375.

Why Didn’t Abu al-Fadl Drink Water?

Historians have narrated that when Abu al-Fadl al-‘Abbas (as) decided to go on the battlefield, Imam al-Husayn (as) requested that he bring some water for the children and newborns. Abu al-Fadl (as) got a water skin and mounted his horse.

He started moving towards the River Euphrates. Four thousand men surrounded him and were showering spears on him from every direction, but the lone soldier Abu al-Fadl al-‘Abbas (as) did not pay the least attention to them, nor to the spears which were being showered all around him. He managed to drive the enemies away from the river bank and gain access to water all by himself.

He dismounted his horse and went next to the river with astounding ease and calmness. He then got a handful of water from the river and wanted to drink it because of the intense thirst he was feeling. All of a sudden, he remembered that Imam al-Husayn (as) and his children and the entire family were thirsty. He dropped the water that was in his hands back into the river and recited the famous poem,

يا نفس من بعد الحسين هوني وبعده لا کنت ان تکوني هذا حسين وارد المنون وتشربين بارد المعين تالله ما هذا فعال ديني

“O soul! You should be debased for al-Husayn (as) and never live after him.

Al-Husayn (as) has come face to face with death and yet you want to drink cold and delicious water!?I swear upon Allah that this is not in accordance with the dictates of my religion!”

Then, he filled the waterskin, mounted his horse and returned towards Imam al-Husayn’s (as) camp. The enemy closed his way…1

Some ask why Abu al-Fadl al-‘Abbas did not drink the water. It would have been better if he had quenched his thirst first in order to gain the necessary strength that was needed to fight, and by this means inflict heavy blows on the enemy or even exterminate them altogether. If he had drunk the water, he would have been able to help Imam al-Husayn (as) and Islam better.

Response

Firstly, Imam al-Husayn’s (as) aim at Karbala was not to bring about the deaths of all the people. On the contrary, Imam al-Husayn’s (as) main aim was to awaken the Islamic community and bring about social consciousness. Even killing the enemy has to occur when there is a pressing need and expedience in the action.

Secondly, the issue of Abu al-Fadl’s not drinking water has served as further proof of the oppression that was committed against Imam al-Husayn (as). This action has attracted sympathy and affection and led human hearts towards Imam al-Husayn (as). It has drawn people to initiate uprisings against Yazid and others like him.

Thirdly, Abu al-Fadl al-‘Abbas knew very well that he and his brother, the Holy Imam al-Husayn (as), were going to get killed, whether he took the opportunity to drink water or not. He knew that he was not going to leave this battlefield safe, sound and alive. He knew that the enemies were determined and bent on killing all the household of Bani Hashim at all costs. Therefore, was it not better to attain martyrdom and return to his Lord with thirsty lips?

What bears witness to this is that man drinks water whenever he knows with certainty that drinking water will save his life, but Abu al-Fadl al-‘Abbas had no hope of living after this war. He knew with certainty that he was going to be martyred.

Fourthly, Abu al-Fadl al-‘Abbas believed that drinking water when Imam al-Husayn (as) and his household were thirsty amounted to treachery in some way. The rules of proper Islamic conduct did not allow him as a follower to satiate his thirst when his holy leader was thirsty.

Fifthly, generosity and self sacrifice are among the morals and gracious virtues of the Ahl al-Bayt (as). Abu al-Fadl al-‘Abbas sacrificed in the same way that his father Amir al-Mu’minin ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib (as), Fatimah al-Zahra (as), al-Hasan and al-Husayn (as) had sacrificed generously and given the food they so badly needed to break their fast with in the holy mounth of Ramadan to the poor, orphans and the captives for three days in a row while they themselves were forced to remain hungry all this time.

Reference

1. Muqarram, Maqtal al-Husayn (as), p. 267.