لماذا خرج الحسين ثائرًا على يزيد؟ ومن باعه؟ ومن قتله؟ قصة الساعات الأخيرة لأحفاد الرسول في كربلاء

Good evening to you all. Our appointment today is with the twelfth episode in the series on the Islamic caliphate across a thousand years, with my friend, the professor of Islamic history and civilization, Dr. Ibrahim al-Assal. Good evening, Doctor. >> Good evening, Ustadh Sayyid, and good evening to the viewers. >> May God preserve you. We stopped in episode 1 at Imam al-Husayn b. Ali's decision to go out from Mecca to Kufa — an adventure by the standards of everyone around him: "Do not go out, do not go out." He insisted on going out. On the road one of Yazid b. Mu'awiya's armies intercepted him, so he wanted to turn back and offered them three options, which they refused. Remind us of the three options: why did they refuse them, and how did matters turn out? >> Welcome to you once again. We are continuing the episodes of Islamic history on the transfer of power: how allegiance was given, how the caliphate was, and how it ends in each period. In truth we have reached a very thorny area of Islamic history, the area of al-Husayn b. Ali and the tragedy of al-Husayn. Even historians recoil from it and never like to speak of the tragedy of Karbala. >> As though they had been speaking of pleasant events! In the Great Fitna, for example, and then they were shocked by Karbala. You feel that in the Great Fitna there were things on one side and things on the other — two parties, atrocities on this side and that, something close to parity. But with al-Husayn b. Ali the scene is different. We have al-Suyuti saying: "The killing of al-Husayn has a story the heart cannot bear to relate." >> Because al-Husayn b. Ali in truth holds a very great standing among the historians and in the collective mind of the Muslims, as you said, and that everyone...

All the Companions present in Mecca and in Medina asked al-Husayn not to go out to Kufa and not to rise against Yazid. Some of them made that request so that he would not rise against Yazid; others made it so that he would not go out to Kufa. The reasons differed and the motives differed. We have al-Tabari, who dwells at length on the accounts of the Companions in Mecca and in Medina pressing al-Husayn not to go out, and the examples are very many. Muhammad b. al-Hanafiyya, for instance, his brother, said to him: Do not go out; stay in Mecca and the allegiance will come to you from the Ansar — what is the motive for going out? So Muhammad b. al-Hanafiyya was with him, and supported and respected al-Husayn's view about rising against Yazid, but he was against going out to Kufa. Abd Allah b. Abbas said to him: Go out to Yemen, for in Yemen are your father's Shi'a; do not go out to Kufa. So he objected to Kufa. Abd Allah b. Umar said: I entrust you to God, as one to be slain — as we said, everyone. Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, for his part, took a different position; he would say to him: Hold fast to your imam — that is, hold fast to Yazid. >> That is, do not rise against Yazid. >> We also have Jabir b. Abd Allah, who said to him: Do not create a schism among the Muslims. >> A Companion of the Prophet, God bless him and grant him peace. >> At any rate, al-Husayn resolved upon the matter. The reason for al-Husayn's resolve to go out to Kufa was his envoy Muslim b. Aqil, as we said in the previous episode. When al-Husayn sent Muslim b. Aqil to the people of Kufa and the letters of the people of Kufa had reached him, Muslim wrote back to al-Husayn — that is, a letter reached al-Husayn from Muslim b. Aqil, his cousin, telling him that the people had given him their allegiance in Kufa. The historians have specified figures for the number of those who gave allegiance to al-Husayn as Muslim b. Aqil reported to him: it reaches twelve thousand in some accounts and eighteen thousand in others, a very large number. And Muslim b. Aqil told him: the ground is ready.

Muslim b. Aqil's message to al-Husayn b. Ali is entirely different from the letters of the people of Kufa, because the people of Kufa may err, and al-Husayn b. Ali might not trust them for what they did to his father and his brother. Muslim b. Aqil, however, is al-Husayn b. Ali's envoy; he had said to them: I have sent you my brother and cousin Muslim b. Aqil. So Muslim's word is credited with al-Husayn b. Ali. Besides that, the reasons for al-Husayn b. Ali's going out, as we explained in the previous episode, were that he wanted the matter to be shura among the Muslims and did not want it to be an inheritance, and that he rejected the principle of bequeathing it to Yazid b. Mu'awiya, alongside al-Husayn b. Ali's reservations about the character of Yazid b. Mu'awiya b. Abi Sufyan. Ibn Hajar al-Haytami said that among the conditions of the settlement between Mu'awiya b. Abi Sufyan and al-Hasan was that the matter would pass to Mu'awiya b. Abi Sufyan and afterwards return as shura to the Muslims. So al-Husayn b. Ali invoked this condition and said: it is no longer shura among the Muslims; rather, allegiance was taken for Yazid b. Mu'awiya in the last years of Mu'awiya b. Abi Sufyan. Al-Husayn b. Ali therefore had a logic for going out to Kufa, namely that his supporters in Kufa were calling for him, and he had sent them Muslim b. Aqil — despite the warnings of all the Companions, and despite the warnings of Abd Allah b. Umar, Abd Allah b. Abbas and Abd Allah b. al-Zubayr. Everyone warned al-Husayn b. Ali, and no one agreed with him about going out; in the end he went out to Kufa. I recall that Abd Allah b. Abbas said to him a very fine phrase; he said to him: Do not go out to a people whose governor is still collecting taxes from them — that is, they are still paying the taxes to the governor, so how do you go out when they have not deposed the governor? >> If they sent for you, why have they not deposed the governor? And why do they pay «lahbihim» then? >> That is, they are under his command. >> Yes, under his command. These were the Companions' counsels to al-Husayn b. Ali. But al-Husayn b. Ali held that this was a religious duty, and a duty to restore the matter to shura among the Muslims, alongside the objections to the character of Yazid b. Mu'awiya. So al-Husayn b. Ali went out.

>> Al-Husayn set out. Allow me a moment to summarise what you have said: friends, companions, close family — >> And Companions of the Prophet. >> And Companions; and it matters greatly that they were Companions, because their opinion had to carry weight with al-Husayn. So major figures among those around him — his friends and his family — advised him not to go, for two different reasons. First: some refused that he should rise against the commander of the Muslims — do not depart from the community; Yazid is the caliph and most people, if not all, have pledged to him, so do not split the community's ranks. >> Correct. >> Such as Abu Sa'id al-Khudri. >> Such as Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, and Jabir. >> Others had no objection to his rising against Yazid, but refused the risk of going out to the Kufans, because the Kufans were still under the command of one of Yazid b. Mu'awiya's governors. So what would it mean to go out to obtain the allegiance of people who had already pledged and were submitting to the ruler? >> There is risk in it, especially where Kufa is concerned — as you set out at length last episode, the record of the Kufans at this stage was cause for concern. >> With Ali and with al-Hasan; because a portion of them rose against Ali, and they killed Ali and stabbed al-Hasan. >> You are insistent! You have a problem with the Kufans. [laughter] All right. But in this episode you have added what you did not say last time: that al-Husayn had motives, among them —

>> He had reservations about Yazid b. Mu'awiya — that he was not fit for the caliphate — and he wanted the matter to be shura, to restore the matter so that it would be shura. >> We said two reasons: he wants the matter to be shura, and he has a problem with the character of Yazid b. Mu'awiya. >> And he sees himself worthy of the caliphate, and this is a very important matter. >> That is, he sees himself fit to be caliph of the Muslims, and he has letters and he has confirmations from his envoy Muslim b. Aqil. >> A small point, I hope it will not take long: you said that among his motives for going out, or among the things that spurred him to go out, was that the settlement agreement between Mu'awiya b. Abi Sufyan and al-Hasan b. Ali stipulated that after that… and so on. >> Ibn Hajar al-Haytami. >> You said that this was not among the certain items in the agreement. >> Correct, correct. >> That it was among the conditions of the agreement. There are conditions that are agreed upon, which I will set out for you in the episode; and among the conditions that are not agreed upon by the transmitters and the historians is that there was a clause that rule would pass to al-Hasan. >> Correct. >> After the death of Mu'awiya b. Abi Sufyan. >> Now, I still hold that this opinion is a weak one. What was stipulated in the settlement of al-Hasan and Mu'awiya b. Abi Sufyan is that the matter would return as shura to the Muslims, not that it would return to al-Hasan. >> Excellent. In any case, al-Husayn b. Ali went out because he held that Mu'awiya b. Abi Sufyan had broken his agreement with al-Hasan. >> And even if it were the second clause, the one that is not confirmed, it would still… >> No — how, in the first place, would the caliphate return to al-Hasan? Why did he abdicate, then? >> No, it is possible. >> That is: why would I abdicate to you and then the caliphate return to me? It was mine to begin with. >> No. >> That is, the caliphate was mine.

>> Logically it holds. >> In any case, we do not judge it by logic; we judge it by the methodology of the report and its chain of transmission. It is a weak report — I mean the claim that a condition was placed in the settlement of al-Hasan and Mu'awiya b. Abi Sufyan that the caliphate would return to al-Hasan once Mu'awiya b. Abi Sufyan's term ended. Incidentally, there is a very well-known report related by the Shi'i sources which says that Mu'awiya b. Abi Sufyan, after his settlement with al-Hasan, said: I place my settlement with al-Hasan beneath these two feet of mine. It is a very weak report, because it comes by way of Amr b. Thabit, and Amr b. Thabit is not trustworthy; he is discarded as a transmitter. At any rate, I want to say to you that the conditions of the settlement of al-Hasan and Mu'awiya b. Abi Sufyan are very numerous, and they were in fact invoked at the end of Mu'awiya b. Abi Sufyan's reign, because al-Husayn b. Ali refused the oath of allegiance. And as you too said about Abd al-Rahman b. Abi Bakr — and I told you in the previous episode that Abd al-Rahman b. Abi Bakr refused Mu'awiya b. Abi Sufyan's oath of allegiance for Yazid b. Mu'awiya and made a speech to the people — Marwan b. al-Hakam was the one charged by Mu'awiya b. Abi Sufyan with taking the allegiance of the people of Medina for Yazid b. Mu'awiya during Mu'awiya b. Abi Sufyan's lifetime. He stood before the people, gave a speech and called for allegiance to Yazid b. Mu'awiya; Abd al-Rahman b. Abi Bakr, the brother of the Lady Aisha, refused, and stood up and openly declared his refusal and said: Do you want it Heraclian? >> Yes. >> That is: after every Heraclius another Heraclius comes. And in another version: Do you want it a monarchy, or Chosroes-like? >> And of course, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq left aside family and clan and placed it in Banu Adi, because he saw Umar as fit for it. Marwan b. al-Hakam even said, among the things he said — that is, he insulted and attacked Abd al-Rahman b. Abi Bakr — he said: This is the one about whom God's word came down: "And he who said to his parents: Fie upon you both! Do you promise me…" The Mother of the Believers, Aisha, heard him and said: You are of the remnant of God's Prophet's curse upon your father — for the Prophet, God bless him and grant him peace, cursed al-Hakam b. Abi al-As, the father of Marwan b. al-Hakam. >> These two are trading insults. >> Yes. I want to tell you that she said: You are of the progeny of al-Hakam b. Abi al-As. And the Qur'an does not…

... comes down on it, and she defends her brother Abd al-Rahman b. Abi Bakr. >> I want to say to you that the idea of hereditary succession was not rejected by al-Husayn alone: it was rejected by Abd al-Rahman b. Abi Bakr, rejected by Abd Allah b. al-Zubayr, and rejected by Abd Allah b. Umar — even though Abd Allah b. Umar did consent, Abd al-Rahman b. Uwayya died, Abd al-Rahman b. Abi Bakr died, and Abd Allah b. al-Zubayr went to Mecca. Al-Husayn's position was a different one: he went out to Kufa. But, Ustadh Sayyid, and viewers: al-Husayn did not give allegiance to Yazid, and that makes a difference within the Islamic framework and by the Islamic measure — for had he given allegiance and then gone out, he would have become a rebel (baghi); but he did not give it. So this was not a movement of mutiny. The man did not pledge allegiance to Yazid; he announced from the very first moment — and in Mu'awiya's lifetime — that he would not pledge allegiance to Yazid, and he went to Mecca. Then the letters of Kufa reached him, though their number is disputed: five hundred letters, or more, or fewer. Then he sent his envoy and cousin Muslim b. Aqil to Kufa, and there Muslim's letter reached him saying "come", and the letter of the people of Kufa reached him saying "come, and we will be a mustered army for you." So the man went out to those who had pledged allegiance to him by letter. That they then broke this agreement and changed their position is another matter. >> In any case, I of course have questions. >> And this is not a defence of al-Husayn, Ustadh Sayyid, but an explanation of his position; for when I watched the last episode — at the end of which we passed over al-Husayn quickly — I felt that some viewers might not understand al-Husayn's motives for going out, so I was keen to make them clear, because it is very important that his motives be understood. Even if people warned him, he had his motives and he had his point of view about going out: that he wanted the matter to return to consultation (shura) among the Muslims. He had the letters, and he had twelve thousand men who had declared their allegiance to al-Husayn — secretly, yes, to Muslim b. Aqil — but this is confirmed by

Muslim to him, as Ibn Kathir reports in al-Bidaya wa-l-Nihaya. >> Look, Your Excellency, Doctor: my problem is not with Imam al-Husayn's motives; the motives are understood. >> Right. >> It is the risk that is not understood. Even after the explanation you have given, it is not clear to me how Imam al-Husayn could think of going out with his family. Evidently he was confident that there would be no fighting — for if there were fighting, why take children and women and so very small a number? It seems the picture in his mind was: I shall never need to fight. And Abd Allah b. Umar said to him, at the time of the pilgrimage: I fear that your women and your household will witness your killing as Uthman's women and household witnessed his. >> He was... >> He could see the scene. >> He could see the scene, but for some reason al-Husayn... >> No, Imam al-Husayn did not see these facts which appear to me — as someone following this fourteen hundred years later — self-evident in weighing the risks. And clearly it is not only me: fourteen hundred years ago there were those who saw the risks and reckoned them. >> In any case, what happened happened. >> Al-Husayn went out. >> And this is not our main subject, but for the sake of the details: we had reached the point where Mu'awiya's army intercepted him and he said to them... >> Yazid b. Mu'awiya's governor over Kufa was al-Nu'man b. Bashir, and al-Nu'man b. Bashir said no. Yazid b. Mu'awiya had asked him to kill Muslim b. Aqil. And Muslim b. Aqil, when he first came down to Kufa, lodged in the house of al-Mukhtar b. Abi Ubayd al-Thaqafi, and then afterwards lodged in the house of Hani b. Urwa, and Hani b. Urwa was one of the leading men of Kufa. >> Now Yazid has a demand. What is the demand? News of Muslim b. Aqil spread through Kufa, and all the people were with

Muslim, and all the people were pledging allegiance to him — pledging in secret. So Yazid wanted al-Nu'man b. Bashir to kill Muslim b. Aqil, and al-Nu'man refused. What did al-Nu'man say? He said: I fight only whoever fights me; this man has not come to fight me. So al-Nu'man was dismissed from the governorship of Kufa. >> And appointed... >> And Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad b. Abihi was appointed. >> The one who took charge of Kufa and Basra. >> The one who combined the two governorships of Kufa and Basra, as we said in the previous episode. Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad devised an extremely tight security plan — and we said last episode that he entered with his face veiled to test the people — and he closed the entrances and exits of Kufa, arrested Muslim b. Aqil in the manner we described, and executed and killed him. Al-Husayn had already set out, and two armies were sent: a military force followed by an army. The military force was under the command of al-Hurr b. Yazid al-Amiri, a thousand men, and the army under the command of Umar b. Sa'd b. Abi Waqqas. Umar b. Sa'd b. Abi Waqqas at first refused to fight al-Husayn, but Yazid had promised him a governorship called the governorship of Rayy, in Iran, in what is now the land of Fars, and said to him: if you do not go to fight al-Husayn, then return our covenant to us — that is, you will not remain governor. So of course Umar b. Sa'd preferred the governorship and went ahead, following the military force that had set out under the command of al-Hurr b. Yazid al-Amiri. Al-Husayn went out to meet the first force on his road, which was the force of al-Hurr b. Yazid al-Amiri. Al-Husayn's departure was on the eighth of Dhu al-Hijja, on the Day of Tarwiya, as we mentioned. >> Right. >> But the historians say that the pilgrims on the eighth of Dhu al-Hijja — the Day of Tarwiya — were saying: no sooner had we completed our rites than our only concern was to catch up with the son of the daughter of the Messenger of God. And they say that every time he passed one of the wells of the Arabs and one of their waters, people followed him on his journey. So with how many men did al-Husayn go out? He went out with thirty-two horsemen and ... on foot. That is, on foot, meaning

walking without a horse. So he went out with seventy-two men; that was the strength of al-Husayn's army. >> Men? >> Men, women and children — seventeen of them from his own household. >> But... >> Seventeen, yes. And women: some of his wives and some of his daughters, as we shall set out when we come to the details of the battle. But he went out among the seventy-two, and on his journey to meet al-Hurr people joined him and followed him. Why? Because people were glad that al-Husayn b. Ali was going, and wanted to join al-Husayn in what he was going towards. But the news of Muslim b. Aqil's killing reached him, and when it did he said: our Shi'a have failed us. And he gave the people who had joined him the freedom to continue the road with him or to turn back. The report says: so they turned away right and left, and none remained with him but those who had come out from Mecca. Why? Because that was the end of it: with the Umayyads' killing of Muslim b. Aqil, al-Husayn realised they were headed for war, and so he had to warn the people. He realised it at this point, which the scholars say was at al-Qadisiyya in Kuwait, on the Kuwait road. And al-Hurr b. Yazid al-Amiri came to him, and he put to him the three offers we mentioned in the previous episode. >> Al-Husayn made the offer? >> Al-Husayn made the offer to al-Hurr, and to al-Hurr's army and the army of Umar b. Sa'd b. Abi Waqqas — one of three: that I go to al-surur, or that I turn back, or that you take me to Yazid. >> They refused all three. >> They refused all three. In truth al-Hurr did not refuse. >> That is in the details. >> Yes, al-Hurr b. Yazid did not refuse; he said to Umar b. Sa'd: are you going to fight this man? — after he had made the offer he made. >> Meaning: you are going to fight. And so that people do not get confused: we have two commanders before us, both following Yazid b. Mu'awiya; one of them says, as things stand I have no reason to fight al-Husayn. >> And the other insisted upon the people

>> He insisted on killing. And although the reports indicate that Umar b. Sa'd Abu Khass inclined to al-Hurr's view, there was a man in his army called al-Shimr b. Dhiljawshan, who frankly was the effective power in the army of Umar b. Sa'd b. Abi Waqqas, and he insisted that al-Husayn be a prisoner in the hands of Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad, or be his chattel or his subordinate or his slave. Al-Husayn rejected this entirely, and said: I will not be a prisoner of Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad. >> All of this within the framework of... Of course you have added many things in this episode that you had not mentioned before, but we have arrived at the same point at which we stopped in the last episode: al-Husayn asked that I turn back, or take me to Yazid, or to the frontier posts — meaning something lesser and so on — and they refused all three and said: we will take you prisoner. Very well. >> So al-Husayn moved on and reached the region of Karbala at al-Taff, and the battle is called the Battle of al-Taff after this place. Al-Husayn entered the battle and spent the night there, and he arrived — it was the tenth of Muharram, the eve of the tenth of Muharram. We had set out on the eighth of Dhu al-Hijja, and he arrived on the tenth of Muharram. Al-Husayn had sent messengers to Muslim b. Aqil, but they too were killed. >> Right. But we have reached the eve of the tenth of Muharram, the night of Karbala. >> Before we reach the eve of the tenth: the weak reports — not the sound ones — state that Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad ordered Umar b. Sa'd b. Abi Waqqas to cut off the water from al-Husayn and his companions, so that they should not taste a mouthful of water, as they had done to the pious Uthman b. Affan. This report comes through Abu Mikhnaf Lut b. Yahya, and Abu Mikhnaf Lut b. Yahya repeated this same wording about the battle of Siffin; the critical scholars take that as proof of the report's falsehood and weakness for this reason. Abu Mikhnaf Lut b.

Yahya said that Mu'awiya cut off the water from Ali and Ali's army at Siffin because they had cut off the water from the pious Uthman. This report has a weak chain and comes through Abu Mikhnaf. But in the end, the Shi'i sources affirm beyond any doubt that the water was cut off from al-Husayn. >> Right, that is settled. >> And they say that al-Abbas, al-Husayn's brother — and al-Abbas b. Ali b. Abi Talib is one of the heroes of the battle of Karbala by the agreement of both Sunni and Shi'i sources — used to supply al-Husayn's army with water, and went out with thirty horsemen to draw water in [arab] and give it to al-Husayn and his family, in a heroic stand that the Shi'i sources celebrate: al-Abbas Abu al-Fadl, brother of al-Husayn b. Ali b. Abi Talib. The people slept, and al-Husayn prayed the dawn prayer on the tenth of Muharram, and the battle began: the five thousand facing the seventy-three. The fighting began. And here is the day that changed the compass of Islamic history. The details of this battle were transmitted by the narrators, who exaggerated them, and distorted by the historians. There are books, Ustadh Sayyid, that have been written under the title The Myths of Karbala; and we have very weak reports about the events of the battle of Karbala, and we have confirmed reports about the events of Karbala. We are accustomed to proceeding by the historical method we have previously explained to our viewers — the chain of transmission, the broken chain, and the men who transmit the historical report. At Karbala the battle began with single combat; the Arabs of old used to begin their battles with single combat. So al-Husayn's army fought in single combat, and every time a man from Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad's army came out to fight, they defeated him, because they were superior in one-on-one encounters. So Shimr al-Jawshan and Umar b. Sa'd ordered that the single combat stop and the general fighting begin. The fighting began, and all the people stood around al-Husayn. Before that al-Husayn had given them the choice to go and to depart from him.

And he said to his household, to the family of Aqil: "Muslim killed is enough for you" — meaning Muslim b. Aqil — it is enough that he died from among you. >> That is, he released his family from any obligation. And al-Abbas b. Ali, the brother of al-Husayn, was offered safe-conduct by the army of Shimr Dhi al-Jawshan and Umar b. Sa'd b. Abi Waqqas, and he said: "I have no safe-conduct with the son of Sumayya" — Sumayya being the mother of Ziyad b. Abihi, that is, the grandmother of Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad — and he said: "God's protection is better." The reports record a great many speeches by al-Husayn to his household and to those with him, while they insisted on fighting alongside al-Husayn and would not abandon the son of the daughter of the Messenger of God. They were all killed while shielding al-Husayn, not wanting the arrows of Umar b. Sa'd's army to reach him. Al-Hurr b. Yazid b. al-Abiri was killed with al-Husayn, and al-Husayn said to him: "You are free in this world and free in the hereafter." All the men were killed defending al-Husayn at the field of Karbala, until al-Abbas, al-Husayn's brother, stood with him, swaying with him right and left, until he too was killed. >> And al-Husayn was killed. There is also a report, one afflicted by weakness, that he was killed while drinking water: while he was drinking from the cup of water, an arrow from al-Husayn b. Numayr came and entered his mouth and kept him from drinking, and the cup fell from his hand. This report is open to doubt, but in the end the son of the daughter of the Messenger of God was killed. The killer of al-Husayn is known: the killer of al-Husayn is Khawli b. Yazid al-Asbahi and Sinan b. Anas; the two of them killed al-Husayn, and Khawli b. Yazid severed his head, separating it from his body. Before entering the battle of Karbala, al-Husayn's son Ali al-Asghar had fallen ill; he was twenty-three years old, and his paternal aunt Zaynab, daughter of Ali b. Abi Talib, nursed him.

And through Zaynab's nursing of Ali b. al-Husayn — Ali al-Asghar — the lineage of the household of the Messenger of God was preserved. >> He is the one who remained. >> He is the one who remained. >> Among the men. >> Among the men, of al-Husayn's sons. For al-Husayn had three sons who took part in the battle: Ali al-Akbar, who was the first to be killed at the field of Karbala; and Ali al-Asghar, who is the one who survived and was later called Ali Zayn al-Abidin or Ali al-Sajjad, and he is the fourth infallible Imam according to the Shi'a. >> Ali al-Asghar. >> Ali al-Asghar; and Abd Allah al-Saghir, who is al-Husayn's third son, who was killed at Karbala. And of al-Husayn's brothers, the sons of Ali b. Abi Talib, five were killed: Abu Bakr b. Ali b. Abi Talib, al-Abbas b. Ali b. Abi Talib, Ja'far b. Ali b. Abi Talib, Muhammad b. Ali b. Abi Talib, al-Husayn b. Ali b. Abi Talib, and Uthman b. Ali b. Abi Talib. And al-Hasan's sons were killed; al-Dhahabi says that six of the sons of al-Hasan b. Ali were killed, but the ones we know with certainty are al-Qasim and Abu Bakr. According to some sources, Umar b. al-Hasan and Zayd b. al-Hasan survived Karbala, and from the latter descends al-Hasan al-Anwar, who is the ancestor of al-Sayyida Nafisa. The sons of Muslim b. Aqil were killed, and the sons of Aqil b. Abi Talib were killed; the entire household of al-Husayn was killed. Al-Hasan al-Basri says: on that day seventeen — or sixteen — of his household were killed with al-Husayn, and they were the best people on earth at that time. >> It was a massacre of the Prophet's grandchildren. >> A massacre, of course, of the grandchildren of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace. And as I told you, the men trampled al-Husayn with their horses, and his head was severed. The one who ordered the severing of the head was Shimr Dhi al-Jawshan; the one who severed it was Ibn Yazid; and the one who killed al-Husayn was Sinan b. Anas, or Sinan b. Aws as Ibn Kathir reports it. >> Is that the one who killed him with his arrow?

>> No; the one who killed him with his arrow is al-Husayn b. Numayr, before he could drink the water, in the weak report. But what is certain is that Khawli b. Yazid, Sinan b. Anas and Shimr Dhi al-Jawshan are the ones who carried out the killing of al-Husayn b. Ali on the orders of Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad. There is an erroneous report among Ahl al-Sunna claiming that they had all taken part at Siffin; this is wrong. >> That is, they said these men fought at Siffin alongside Ali and then went on to kill al-Husayn. This is wrong, and why? Because Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad was born in the year thirty-three, that is, three years before Siffin. >> What difference does it make? How could he be in Ali's army? What they want to say is that it was Ali's Shi'a who turned against al-Husayn. >> But they were in Ali's army and then turned against him. >> Since you raise this, let me tell you: in al-Husayn's army, when he faced the army of Umar b. Sa'd — >> He is the most important commander. >> The most important commander of the army that confronted al-Husayn. What did he say before the battle began? He said: "O Hajjar b. Abjar, and O Yazid b. al-Harith, did you not come to me and write to me and say that the fruit had ripened?" >> This is al-Husayn saying this to them. >> Al-Husayn saying this to them. >> Meaning that people of the "al-lujum" to al-Husayn were in the very army that confronted al-Husayn, named by name. >> People who had come to give him allegiance. >> People who had come to give him allegiance and told him: come. So he said to them: did you not tell me to come forward, that you would be a mustered army for me? Did you not tell me that the fruit had ripened? Al-Husayn rebukes them before the army and before all the people, and they deny it, and he says: by God, you did do it; by God, you did do it. And al-Husayn was killed and his head was severed, and none of the Prophet's household — may God bless him and grant him peace — survived from al-Husayn's army except al-Husayn's son, Ali…

…al-Asghar, Ali al-Sajjad, Ali Zayn al-Abidin, and he is — >> And al-Sayyida Zaynab. >> And she… no, the women altogether. >> None of the women came to any harm. >> And we will devote a separate discussion to this… >> Their conduct was of a very high order. >> No, this matter of the women also contains a good deal of exaggeration and some distortions. But this Ali al-Sajjad — his mother was Persian. >> Yes. >> Because during one of the conquests of Fars, al-Husayn married the daughter of King Yasjird III, king of Iran, king of the land of Fars. >> Some reports give her name as Sulafa, while the religious sources call her Shahrbana. In the end there were three daughters: Abd Allah b. Umar married one, Muhammad b. Abi Bakr al-Siddiq married the second, and al-Husayn b. Ali married the third. >> The king's daughters. >> Yes, the king's daughters; in one of the conquests of Fars they took three daughters of the king's children, and al-Husayn married one and fathered Zayn al-Abidin. >> And Abd Allah b. Umar married one and fathered Salim, and Muhammad b. Abi Bakr al-Siddiq married one and fathered al-Qasim; and all three were among the jurists, the devout and the ascetics, which is what later encouraged people to marry Persian women. >> This is an important story in the matter of Iran's relationship… "baqali baqa al-rasul fi waqt al-ahad"… and it too is an important story, but let us now return to the battle. >> Let us return to the battle. Now al-Husayn's head has been severed; what do we do with the head of al-Hus… >> Why was his head severed in the first place? I understand… >> Excess in taking revenge. >> Revenge for what? If you will permit me…

>> Doctor, "fadl afdal"… >> I understand that Yazid said: this man has risen against me, stop him by any means, kill him. Until it was over: the man was killed and his son was killed, and the battle was not really a battle at all. So do you know — and do you doubt — >> That Yazid ordered al-Husayn's head to be cut off? >> I doubt it. >> You have doubt that he may have asked for that? >> He did not ask for that; he did not ask. >> Of course this was an individual act by Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad and Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad's army, and by "Shabraz al-Jawsh." And let me tell you something more: when this news reached Yazid b. Mu'awiya, what did he do? He said: "May God curse Ibn Marjan; by God, I would have accepted from al-Husayn far less than this" — and this is established. >> "Less than this" — meaning what? >> Meaning that the three offers al-Husayn had made were more than Yazid could have dreamed of. >> That is, Yazid — according to the Doctor's account — would have been happy for al-Husayn to ask to return to Mecca, or to go to the frontier posts, or that they take him to the… >> The last thing Yazid b. Mu'awiya would have asked for is the cutting off and severing of al-Husayn's head. In the end al-Husayn b. Ali b. Abi Talib's head was severed and carried to Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad. >> Who is the commander of the army. >> Who is the commander of the city, not the commander of the army; the governor. >> The governor, yes. >> And in al-Bukhari it is reported that Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad toyed with his rod in al-Husayn's nostril, in the nostril of his head. >> In al-Bukhari? >> Yes, a sound report — you wanted a sound report. So he toyed with it, and Anas b. Malik was present, and in another report Abu Barza al-Aslami was present, and they said: lift your rod from a head, and from a place…

…that the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, used to kiss. The Shi'i reports say that the one who toyed with the rod on al-Husayn's head was not Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad but Yazid himself, and this has not been established. The transporting of the head to Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad and to Yazid is a battleground in the historical sources: al-Tabarani in al-Mu'jam al-Kabir says it was carried to Yazid and not to Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad, but this report has a broken chain, because it comes by way of al-Layth b. Sa'd, in the year ninety-four, thirty years after the report. Ibn Kathir held both views: that it was carried to Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad, or that it was carried to Syria — and the more apparent view is that it was carried to Syria. But what is established is that al-Husayn was not content with what Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad did in cutting off the head — >> That Yazid? >> That Yazid was not content with what Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad did in cutting off the head, and was not content with Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad's toying with the head, with his rod on the head of the son of the daughter of the Messenger of God. Because he knows — even if we agree that Yazid is the party primarily responsible for this crime, without any doubt — but even if the problem were not a religious one, he knows the political effect of it, as a ruler and as caliph of the Muslims, when such a thing is done to the head of the son of the daughter of the Messenger of God: what will happen in the provinces? What will happen among the Ansar? So the report claiming that Yazid toyed with the head and dishonoured the head… Because, Mr. Sayyid, I only want to make clear to you and to the honoured viewers how many exaggerations have been wrapped around the battle of Karbala that have no basis in the history books and appeared at a late date. For example, among the things said is that God stretched the night of the tenth of Muharram to seventy-two hours, so that it was three nights long. And among the things said is that Imam al-Husayn ordered Fidda — and this Fidda is a freedwoman among the freedwomen of the Prophet's household…

>> Al-Husayn b. Ali said to his maidservant: When I die, stand facing this direction, this part of the desert, and say, «The Lion of God is victorious», and a lion will come to you and guard my body. This report is recorded in Kitab al-Kafi of al-Kulayni, one of the most important Shi'i sources. They said that Umar b. Sa'd's army numbered a million men — indeed a million six hundred thousand — and they said that each single man in al-Husayn's army killed ten thousand. These are the gross exaggerations that were built up around the battle of Karbala, and the distortions reported in later centuries — and note this: all of it appeared three or four centuries later — even though those who survived Karbala, apart from Ali b. al-Husayn Zayn al-Abidin, were two. >> Ali al-Sajid, you mean? >> Ali al-Sajjad, the fourth Imam, Ali b. al-Husayn Zayn al-Abidin; he was called Zayn al-Abidin because of his devotion. >> So he is Ali al-Asghar. >> He is Ali al-Asghar, he is Ali al-Sajjad, he is Ali Zayn al-Abidin. >> The son of al-Husayn, the fourth Imam for the Shi'a. He used to pray a thousand rak'as at night, and for that he was called Zayn al-Abidin. So those who survived, apart from Ali b. al-Husayn Zayn al-Abidin, were two; and the reports of these two are what gave us, as historians, the history and the record of the events of Karbala. Who are these two? The mawla of al-Rabab — al-Rabab being al-Husayn's wife. >> What does «the mawla of al-Rabab» mean? >> Al-Rabab's servant. Al-Rabab bt. Imru' al-Qays. >> The wife of al-Husayn b. … >> Imru' al-Qays the poet? >> Yes, his daughter al-Rabab, whom al-Husayn married. Al-Husayn had more than one wife. >> Right. >> He had the Persian woman we mentioned to you

about her, and the Qudaʿi woman who bore him Jaʿfar — who died in his lifetime — and Umm Ishaq bt. Talha b. Ubayd Allah, and Layla al-Thaqafiyya of Banu Thaqif, and also al-Rabab bt. Imru' al-Qays. As for this mawla of al-Rabab, his name is Uqba b. Simʿan. >> That is, her servant — the servant of al-Husayn's wife. >> Yes. We historians rely on the reports of Uqba b. Simʿan. What did he say, for instance? He said: I kept close to al-Husayn b. Ali when he went out from Medina to Mecca, and from Mecca to Karbala, and by God I did not leave him until he was killed. >> That is the first source. >> Correct. >> And the second source? >> This man, Uqba b. Simʿan, transmitted a great deal to us; and when Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad seized him he said, «I am only a mawla», so he let him go — that is, «I am a servant», and he let him go. The second is an extremely important source: al-Dahhak al-Mishrafi. He is a very important source — why? Because he is a trustworthy man; Ibn Hajar described him as saduq, and al-Dhahabi described him as trustworthy but of few reports. >> What does «of few reports» mean? >> It means he did not transmit many accounts to us. >> But he is the one who told us that the banner was given to al-Abbas on the day of Karbala. >> And he is the one who told us how many men were with al-Husayn on the day of Karbala. >> What does «given to al-Abbas» mean? >> It means the army's banner was with al-Abbas b. Ali b. Abi Talib, al-Husayn's brother. And he told us they were seventy-two: forty on foot and thirty-two horsemen; and he told us the battle lasted seven hours, until midday; and he told us that al-Husayn prayed the dawn prayer; and he told us that he addressed the people — a great many accounts. >> And was he… >> Al-Dahhak transmitted them, and he was in the army

>> He was in the army. >> He obtained a guarantee of safety from Umar b. Sa'd's army through a marriage tie on his mother's side. He came to al-Husayn and said: I came out with you to fight, to defend you and to be of use to you; but now I am neither of use to you nor defending you. >> Why? >> So al-Husayn released him from his pledge — we are in a suicidal battle. >> During the battle? >> Yes, during the battle; so the man left the battle: al-Dahhak al-Mishrafi. The Shi'i sources hold him in high esteem because he is a very important source. So the reports of Uqba b. Simʿan and the reports of al-Dahhak al-Mishrafi are the reports that transmitted to us the events of the battle of Karbala and the burial of al-Husayn's body at Karbala. >> Let me say this to you now: I have many questions, of course, but the questions are all about details; I have only one observation… >> And let us move on to what is better. >> For friends who may not have followed us across these eleven episodes: the main aim of these episodes is to talk about the history of power. The details, in truth, come under the pressure of the audience's wishes — they say, «you left this out»… the details that had an effect on power. >> After that. >> I will come to it; that too is a reason for us to discuss it. >> But the details are very many indeed, and personally I wish we had all the time in the world — I would have asked the doctor about what he said and sought further clarification, and expressed my astonishment at much of what was mentioned. But I have one question: you have given me the impression that you are defending Yazid b. Mu'awiya. One moment, doctor, before you answer: my great astonishment is that you reject this, and hold on logical grounds that Yazid ordered neither the killing of al-Husayn nor the severing of

his head. >> Right. >> Even if this goes into the details. >> And that it could not be such-and-such, as you mentioned. Frankly, I am personally astonished at your position, because logic says: I am the one who appointed these men, I am the one who brought all these fools and sick men to be commanders in an army or governors in a city. >> I cannot repeat what he did — what is recorded in al-Bukhari: that he should do such a thing to the corpse of a man, whoever that man might be. >> Right. >> Let alone a man of standing, the grandson of the Prophet. He is in the first place a mentally sick person, a completely deranged person. >> So how am I to exonerate him, or to say: it is inconceivable that he did this? You are the one who brought a group of sick men into your army and a group of sick men into your provinces, so what is strange about his ordering them to do it in the first place? >> Are we telling history with you, Ustadh Sayyid, for entertainment or by a methodology? Do you want what actually happened, or do you want us to tell a nice story? If you want us to tell a nice story, we will tell you what you yourself say: that Yazid b. Mu'awiya did this and that; and since Yazid has been established as a criminal, I will tell you things that never happened as though they had happened — he is a criminal in any case. You asked me last time, in the previous episode, and you said: Yazid committed a crime in killing the son of the Messenger of God's daughter — the episode is there. But does that give me the right, as a historian, to say that Yazid is the one who toyed with al-Husayn's head and not Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad, when that did not happen? If Yazid commits a crime, do I, as a historian, load onto him what he did not do? No. >> Otherwise, how do I differ from clerics when they speak about history? I do not. >> No, no, my question was simpler than that. >> So this is [ḥaḍak — unclear] now: al-Husayn's head — who toyed with it, Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad or Yazid b. Mu'awiya?

>> My friend. >> Better. >> No, that is in the details. But I say: am I defending Yazid b. Mu'awiya? Where is the defence of Yazid? >> When you defend, the fact is that you… >> When did you ask me and I defended him? What is your argument? What did I say to you? >> You object that it is inconceivable — according to the reports you yourself describe as sound — that Yazid would accept the killing of al-Husayn, let alone the severing of his head, let alone the desecration of his head. >> Excellent. >> I say the man is a criminal, not because he necessarily did this, but because he appointed a group of sick men. One moment, doctor, today I… >> Excellent. When I choose a governor, I choose him precisely because he is to be a governor — that is, he must possess at least a minimum of level-headedness; and when I choose a commander for the army, I choose him as a commander of the army, so he must possess qualities of integrity, morals and the like. So when the people I appointed behave in this manner from beginning to end… al-Husayn could have been taken captive; it could have stopped at killing him. But everything that happened after that can only come from sick personalities. So I cannot say: Yazid would not do this because he is a rational man. And where is the rationality here? >> I say: Yazid did not do this because he did not do it, not because he is a man who would not do such a thing. The point is not that he would not do the like of it because that is the logical view. And this point is very important for the viewers as well. >> Honoured viewers, and Ustadh Sayyid, my dear friend: Yazid b. Mu'awiya — and let me add another verse to the poem of his criminality; what does your honour say? I come out fine either way. And here is the additional verse: he did not punish Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad, he did not punish Shimr Dhi al-Jawshan, and he did not punish the man who severed al-Husayn's head. That is, I will grant you that he did not order them — but he did not punish them either. >> So the criminality is complete. Right, but this…

>> It does not give me the right, as a historian working by a scholarly research methodology, to say that he did something which, according to the report, he did not do. That is the difference. What is the difference, Ustadh Sayyid, between history as events and historical facts, and history from a religious, doctrinal perspective? From the religious, doctrinal perspective: Yazid b. Mu'awiya is accursed, and Yazid did to al-Husayn's head what he did. Let me tell you something: what did Abu Mikhnaf tell us about Karbala? He told us that the heads of the entire Family of the Prophet were carried to Yazid. Am I not to come out and say to you: this is wrong, this is an erroneous report, and measured against the circumstantial evidence it did not happen? And why? Because I have a sound report, transmitted by Ibn Sa'd in the Tabaqat, which says that the women of the Prophet's household — God bless him and grant him peace — were carried to Yazid; whereas weak, partisan reports said that they were carried naked and that all manner of things were done to them, and that did not happen. So shall I tell you that this happened in order to blacken Yazid's image further? Or shall I narrate to you exactly what happened? What happened exactly is that the women were transported to Yazid's house. And I tell you that Ali Zayn al-Abidin was in Yazid's assembly, and stayed a month in Yazid's house, and Yazid would summon him to food and drink as well, and gave him the choice between staying in Syria and returning to Medina to his family. This is a sound report, and inside it there is another, weak report which says that Yazid asked him to duel his son Khalid; that one is weak and did not happen. This is what I am saying to you, Ustadh Sayyid… >> Yazid's errors and his three crimes, which we named in the previous episode, are known and clear to everyone; but I am not required, as a historian, when a man commits a crime in history, to load onto him what did not happen. >> These are points of view as well. I understand your point of view, and it is entirely sound: that I should say so-and-so did this, and that he killed twenty-five people, but he did not strike and did not slap such-and-such a person…

>> That he killed them. >> "al-25" — he killed them, but I do not add to that the slapping of a man. I understand, but the point I am making is one that I feel does not contradict what you are saying: I say that it is strange for me to accept a report claiming that this man — who did not scruple at severing al-Husayn b. Ali's head, nor at killing him — did such a thing. Why? I could have accepted something less than that. As for the sound report — and I do have a sound report — I say that there are question marks over it; it is sound by the criteria you stated, but: I sent an army, and I sent that army not to kill a highway robber, but to kill the greatest political opponent. And when an army marches out — fourteen hundred years ago, or five thousand years ago, or five thousand years from now — it has an objective: where am I going, and to do what? It is not conceivable that he told them, "Go out to meet al-Husayn," and gave them no objective. >> No one has said that. >> Yes, all right. >> No one has said that. Yazid b. Mu'awiya is the one who gave the orders to Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad's army, and Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad is the one who gave the orders to Umar b. Sa'd's army, and the responsibility falls upon them all together. We are not here to defend or to attack; this is what I want to convey: history conveyed in a different way. In history we must learn not to pass judgements; we are not responsible for that. We are responsible for setting out the historical report as it happened, to the best of our knowledge, according to a historical method: which report has a sound chain of transmission and which has a broken one. The books are there, in front of everyone. >> What I am saying... >> "One, and al-Husayn's head." >> I will come to al-Husayn's head. >> But so that we may close this point: that is settled, I have understood your view. >> I personally cannot say that I am in a position where... But if I find a sound report telling me that the ruler who was

present, and who gave... >> He invoked mercy upon "al-Hajj"... What is your view of the report? He said: "May God have mercy on Abu Abd Allah." He killed him and then invoked mercy upon him! Very nice indeed. >> "If you feel no shame..." >> Nice, fine. Am I today to reject this report because it is in Yazid b. Mu'awiya's favour? Then what would I be? And what would be the difference between me and any cleric who speaks about history? That is a serious problem. >> In any case it is a serious problem, and a bind we escape by saying... >> Because we shall need this later on, over al-Husayn b. Ali's head. >> I want to tell you something. Go ahead. We will not finish this contest of mine; if you... this will not end. >> No, this time I departed from the logic I always follow — or rather I am being logical in that... >> I am only saying that, by the very same standard, my position here is the same as my position on the noble Companion our master Uthman b. Affan: I personally say he is a noble Companion, held in the highest honour, but politically he is responsible for all the acts of his governors. So what did Uthman b. Affan do compared with Yazid b. Mu'awiya? Yazid b. Mu'awiya set psychologically disturbed men over the governorship of Kufa, and placed disturbed men in the army, and gave them a free hand. In any case, that is logical. So regardless of the invoking of mercy... >> The difference — no, the difference between me and you, Mr. Sayyid, is that you enjoy history as a diversion: we tell a pleasant story and say that Yazid b. Mu'awiya was a criminal and did such and such; so you accept any report that disparages him, adding disparagement upon his disparagement and criminality upon his criminality. And what do I do? I tell you: of the reports found in the history books, this one happened and that one did not.

It happened. And by the way, this will not please people; not one Shi'i will be pleased by any word in favour of — not Yazid b. Mu'awiya alone — but of Banu Umayya as a whole. >> My friend, I am not a Shi'i. >> All right. >> And not one Sunni will be pleased by describing Yazid b. Mu'awiya as criminal. >> You see? That is because we press history into the service of religion and bring it into creed. >> In any case, my friend, let us return to our thread. >> Fine. >> The tragedy of Karbala has come to an end. >> And al-Husayn b. Ali's body was buried. >> Yes; I will close on this point in order to tell you... >> Have we finished the episode? >> We have not yet come out of Karbala, Mr. Sayyid. >> If I sat asking you the questions I have, we would not come out of Karbala for three days. >> And I have not yet said... I want to tell the viewers that there are terrifying things in Karbala, but time... the terror... >> There is much terror still to come, and much blood to come. >> "Ustadh Husayn," the subject is truly most tragic. >> I will ask your leave that we stop at this story, because we have stopped at a specific point; for I am going to ask you about al-Husayn's head — take it in this episode so that we may close the file on al-Husayn. >> No, I will ask your leave, excuse me, because we... >> Have you had complaints about the length of the episodes, or what? >> So I will stop at this point, Karbala having ended with this outcome, and the rest will come in the next episode. I will ask you two questions — indeed many questions — but I stop at a point that is raised

Now, politically, touristically and academically: where are the body and the head of al-Husayn b. Ali? >> I will ask you about this, because I was taken aback when you once told me that the Mosque of al-Husayn we have in Egypt does not contain the head of al-Husayn b. Ali. >> And what will people do to us when I answer this question of yours? >> By God, they will do it to you, not to me [laughter]. So I will ask you next time. >> I will ask you in the next episode about the fate of the head of al-Husayn b. Ali. >> You are welcome. >> And after that I will ask you about the more important matter, namely that al-Husayn b. Ali is important because of «jadal al-anb» concerning him. >> But I will also ask you about what followed… >> After Karbala. >> After Karbala, and the political impact, and what happened to Yazid b. Mu'awiya, and how people reacted to Yazid b. Mu'awiya and his rule, and how Yazid b. Mu'awiya acted or responded to that reaction. Thank you very much; our guest was the doctor. >> Thank you, Ustadh Sayyid, «wa-arahak». >> «Intaqatni» [laughter]. Thank you very much, thank you very much to all of you; we will meet you, God willing, in episode thirteen.