Transfer of Caliphate to the Marwanids

Transfer of Caliphate to the Marwanids

Transfer of Caliphate to the Marwanids: Imam Husayn was martyred. There remained no competitor for ‘Abd Allah in Hijaz. Nevertheless, not only he did by no means intend to battle against Yazid overtly, but also had claimed that he wanted the caliphate not for himself and he proposed that the sequence and designation of the caliphs be in accordance with the “council”. [2174] He, however, began securing allegiance from the people of Hijaz covertly.

Being extremely concerned about the probable aftermath of Karbala movement, Yazid exerted himself to invoke trickery like his father. Accordingly, he sent presents to Ibn Zubayr. In no way did he accept. As soon as he aggravated his conflict, a group from Mecca and Medina joined him. [2175]
Once more Yazid dispatched a number of the distinguished of Damascus to silence him through alluring and menacing. As well as indicting Yazid for corruption, he announced that revolting was not his intention and he had chosen the shrine to be secure from Yazid and others. He described himself as a pigeon among the pigeons of the shrine. [2176]
Yazid was set to suppress Ibn Ziyad’s movement as soon as possible. He commanded Medina governor, ‘Amr Ibn Sa’id Ibn ‘As, as a result, to delegate a group to kill Ibn Zubayr in Mecca. [2177] ‘Amr Ibn Sa’id also sent ‘Amr Ibn Zubayr, who was ‘Abd Allah’s brother and Umayya on his mother’s side, to accompany the army going for a battle.
A clash between he and his brother in the vicinity of Mecca ended to ‘Amr’s defeat and capture. All the excruciating tortures he sustained under the name of Islamic punishment limits for his atrocities caused him so enervated that he lost his life in ‘Abd Allah’s prison with no doctor. [2178]
This incident had prompted the followers of Zubayr to feel more powerful and absorb people in both Medina and Ta’if. Since Ibn Zubayr considered Walid Ibn ‘Uqba who had replaced ‘Amr Ibn Sa’id perilous in Medina, he urged Yazid in a letter to substitute a sedate one for him if he wanted the state to improve. No sooner was ‘Uthman Ibn Muhammad Ibn Abi Sufyan appointed [2179] than their pressure exerted on the Umayyads being in Mecca and Ta’if multiplied. [2180]
There, two towns at a regular pace were seized by ‘Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr. Now Damascus was assured that in order to pacify Hijaz, its forces never suffice and it was obliged to seek help from the dwellers of Damascus.

The Battle of Harra Waqim
Among the most detestable atrocities committed by the Umayya following Imam Husayn’s martyrdom was one notorious for the event of Harra in Islamic history. This event is connected to the revolt of Medina in 26th or 27th Dhi l-Hajja, 63 A.H. [2181], not 62 [2182] nor 64 [2183] A.H. which culminated in bloodletting by Damascus army. Three versions as alluded to by historians elucidating the motivations behind the revolt:
First: According to Baladhuri when ‘Abd Allah murdered his brother, ‘Amr, he summoned people to balk at obeying Yazid and to combat against him. Later than Medina which was called upon. Hijaz bowed to be dutiful to him. ‘Abd Allah Ibn Muti’ secured allegiance from Medina on behalf of Ibn Zubayr. Upon hearing the news, Yazid appealed to the governor for dispatching the distinguished of Medina to him for affability…. [2184]
As indicated through this version, Medina stood against Yazid as a result of swearing allegiance to Ibn Zubayr, due to the fact that subsequent to the event of Harra, Ibn Zubayr had proclaimed to his adherents, “Your friends were all massacred in the event”. [2185]Abu l-Faraj has also presented interpretation concerning how Medina deposed Yazid from caliphate and swore allegiance to Ibn Zubayr in the process of its revolt. [2186]
Second: Written by Ya’qubi is that once ‘Uthman Ibn Muhammad was appointed as the governor of Medina, in order Ibn Mina as usual to take Sawafi -the picked-out objects from Bayt al-Mal exclusively for the caliph- he went to Medina. Deeming them their own properties, a number of people inhibited him from taking. The insurrection and dismissal of the Umayya from the town stemmed from the verbal dispute occurred between people and the governor. [2187] Like this narration Ibn Qutayba has also narrated. [2188]
Third: Tabari’s version is that after ‘Uthman Ibn Muhammad’s appointment, he sent a group from among the distinguished of Medina to Yazid to be endowed with his affability and generosity. While returning from Damascus, they commenced slandering Yazid, ليس له دين، يشرب الخمر، يغرف بالطنابير ويضرب عنده القيان ويلعب بالكلاب “Being irreligious, he drinks, he plays lute, plays with the dogs and his slaves play music for him.”
In lieu of admiring him, they, consequently, declared that they would neither comply with him nor approve his sovereignty. [2189]
It seems that all the three points were taken into account. Immediately after proposing the first matter, Baladhuri propounded the third one. Zubayr-orientedness has certainly been considered as a fundamental element in Hijaz. The second matter was then what could pave the ground for nation’s disgust from the Umayya.
In historical sources Hijaz is famed for being Abu Bakr- and ‘Umar-oriented whereas Damascus famed for being Umayyads-oriented and such places as Iraq for Shi’ism and alike. Such a feature attributed to the people of Hijaz particularly people of Medina who had been accomplices in ‘Uthman’s assassination, impeded them to be approved by the Umayya and vice versa.
Moreover, Medina which had observed ‘Umar’s open-handedness including both Muhajirun and Ansar, now could in no way tolerate the Umayya when noticing how Mu’awiya and his son treated for taking the properties.
Ibn Zubayr’s emergence in political scene as well as the Umayya’s fragility in Hijaz laid the foundations for the riot of Medina. Yazid’s attempt for pacifying them through ‘Abd Allah Ibn Ja’far remained abortive. [2190]
Nu’man Ibn Bashir, a pro-Umayyads Ansar, (converting to a pro-Zubayr one and killed later) went to Medina to summon the people to “obedience to Imam” and “observing community” on behalf of Yazid, [2191] people declined, nevertheless. Tabari has quoted ‘Amr Ibn Sa’id as saying, “Both Mecca and Medina incline towards Ibn Zubayr.” [2192]
The insurgents besieged the Umayya together with their followers and governors being as many as one thousand assembled in Marwan Ibn Hakam’s house and then expelled them disdainfully while children were hurling stones. [2193]
They bet that if the expelled swore not to return along with the Damascus army, they would be allowed to leave the city. They assented although atrocious individuals like Marwan [2194] breached their promise. As this expulsion is introduced by Waqidi to be done by Ibn Zubayr, he has added that the total number of those expelled from Mecca, Medina and other areas had been some four thousand people. [2195] In accordance with Ibn A’tham the insurgents were led by ‘Abd Allah Ibn Hanzala Ghasil al-Mala’ika at Ibn Zubayr’s behest, the governor of Medina. [2196]
Wearied of his political strategies for silencing Ibn Zubayr as well as Medina, Yazid sent an army to Medina. The commander of the army was Muslim Ibn ‘Uqba who slaughtered so many people that he was named “Musraf” (prodigal killer). Apparently, his five-thousand-soldier [2197] army was sufficient for suppressing Mecca and Medina through the number might have been higher.
The people of Damascus were allowed to loot the town and take the possession of other’s properties after gaining victory. [2198] When being dispatched, they received their proportion from Bayt al-Mal thoroughly in addition to surplus a hundred Dinars. [2199]
The residents of Medina dug trenches at the entrance to the town (exactly where the Prophet had dug on the course connecting the western Harra to the eastern in Northern Medina) for the purpose of protecting the town. They were led ‘Abd Allah Ibn Muti’, Ma’qal Ibn Sanan together with ‘Abd Allah Ibn Hanzala at the top who was killed with his son during the clash.
Instantly after the Damascus armies arrived in Medina, they settled in the district of Harra in consultation with ‘Abd al-Malik Ibn Marwan expelled along with other members of the Umayya. They could also flourish to take in a number of Banu Haritha with the help of Marwan by financial promises [2200] and penetrate into the town.
Their invasion and clashes lasted less than twenty four hours, they could besiege the town, however. [2201] As already pledged by Yazid entire possessions of the town belonged to the armies for a three-day period, hence they spared no crime in this respect. At this juncture, not only many were slayed but also a large number of women were raped. [2202]
Muslim Ibn ‘Uqba murdered a multitude of the captives including a few from Quraysh. [2203] Among the victims were a group from the Prophet’s companions who were beheaded later. [2204]
Reported by Ibn Qutayba the death toll included one thousand and seven hundred Ansar, Muhajir and their offspring plus ten thousand ordinary people. [2205] He has added that as many as eighty people form companions were also killed. [2206] Haytham Ibn ‘Adi has recorded six thousand and five hundred casualties. [2207] Reported by Mas’udi is ninety and so from Quraysh, the mentioned number from Ansar and four thousand others identified. [2208]
What has been narrated by Ibn A’tham is that Muhajirun’s offspring had been one thousand and three hundred while those of Ansar had been one thousand and seven hundred. [2209] This figure is except the common victims. These pieces of data depict how many citizens were decimated and how many houses were looted in the course of the incident.
‘Awana Ibn Hakam has stated that when they invaded the town from the side of Banu Haritha, the only house which remained immune was Usama Ibn Zayd’s and the only woman was one from Himyar. They combated the people of Medina while calling them Jews. [2210] Within the event of Harra it was not simply Ansar who were borne a grudge by the Umayya but there also existed many a family from Muhajirun among the victims. Here we should make allowance for two points:
1. It can be claimed politically that although the scene was set for the invasion in early 60s, amongst the most crucial points meriting consideration is the participation of Medina in ‘Uthman’s assassination in 36 AH. Having counted hopefully on ‘Uthman and specifically considering Medina as a principal accomplice of the assassination, the Umayya called the event of Harra as a retaliatory reaction. It was the notion of Yazid. [2211]
Another evidence is that this man namely, Muslim Ibn ‘Uqba was captured in the Holy Prophet’s term in Ghatafan. A woman from Ansar purchased and then liberated him. When he was appealed in the course of the event for having regard to them for the sake of his past, he responded, لكنكم قتلتم عثمان [2212] “You are ‘Uthman’s assassins.”
As soon as the news of the event spread, Yazid recited the poem Ibn Zib’ara had composed in Uhud i.e, ليت أشياخي ببدر شهدوا [2213] “I wish my forefathers had been present in Badr observing.”
Alluding to taking revenge of Ansar for slaying Quraysh in Badr. While the Damascus army was invading Medina, it yelled out, يا لثارات عثمان 328 “O revengers for ‘Uthman’s blood.”
Subsequent to the event of Harra, Muslim announced, “Now I am extremely thrilled to kill ‘Uthman’s assassins”. [2214]
Later on ‘Abd al-Malik addressed Medina as saying, انكم لا تحبوننا وأنتم تذكرون يوم الحرة ونحن لانحبكم أبداَ ونحن نذكر مقتل عثمان [2215] “You do dislike us due to the event of Harra and we do so due to ‘Uthman’s murder.”
2. Another matter was the staunch belief in “obedience to the caliph” and “observing community” prevailing among the people in Damascus and it was the Umayya who had made them firmly cleave to these principles. Such a belief was the main means for provoking and deploying them to Medina. [2216]
Deep-rootedly faithful to the principles, Muslim Ibn ‘Uqba consented to attacking Medina and trespassing its sacred limits. After the massacre he said, “O my God, Thou art all aware that under no conditions have I disobeyed a caliph neither publicly nor privately. I consider the annihilation of the residents of Harra my worthiest deed after the avowal of, لااله الا الله “There is no God but Allah.” [2217]
“Nothing has so far been more adorable for me than turning cleansed. Now after wiping off these corrupt people I feel entirely cleansed”, added he. [2218]
Husayn Ibn Numayr, Muslim’s successor, quoted him while breathing his last enroute to Mecca subsequent to the event as saying,أللّهم انك تعلم أني لم أشاق خليفة ولم أفارق جماعة قط فاغفرلي [2219] “O Allah! You are well conscious that I have never ever stood against a caliph nor have I dared to secede from Community, so forgive me.”
The impacts of such religious deviations were discussed in the chapter concerning Karbala uprising. The principles of observing Community and obedience to Imam yet admissible, the main condition of obeying an Imam is venerating the religious limits and stipulations on his part.
The Damascus army after accomplishing their operations in Medina set out to Mecca to repeat the same crimes against Ibn Zubayr and his followers. Muslim passed away on the way and then Husayn Ibn Numayr replaced him at Yazid’s behest. He proceeded and for a several-month period settled on the outskirts of Mecca and threw stones and balls of fire to the divine shrine from the pinnacles of the mountains through catapults. [2220]
Becoming informed of Yazid’s death in Rabi’ al-Awwal 64 A.H., he ultimately called a truce. Husayn, who had entered Mecca for the pupose of pilgrimage following a concord, proposed Ibn Zubayr to accompany him to Damascus and lay the groundwork for his caliphate. He declined, however. [2221] In order to take part in the activities prevalent in Damascus regarding the caliphate, he returned. The way was wholly paved for Ibn Zubayr in Iraq since ‘Ubayd Allah Ibn Ziyad had rushed to Damascus upon hearing Yazid’s demise.
At this stage, there was no obstacle facing Ibn Zubayr in Hijaz. The vital troubles were in Iraq in view of the fact that his plans for domination were thwarted by the Shi’ite Muslims who were extricated from the Umayya’s domination and had gained a profound influence on the city.

The Penitents’ Movement in 65 A.H
Tawwabin’s Movement occurred in 65 against the Umayya’s sovereignty and for the purpose of eradicating Husayn Ibn ‘Ali’s assassins although the start of which had sparkled emotionally with in the hearts of a huge number of the Shi’ite Muslims after the even of Karbala. The Kufiyan Shi’ite Muslims, who had become conscience- stricken at leaving Imam Husayn helpless in Karbala, were determined to make amends at all costs. Not supporting Imam Husayn had become an unforgivable sin in their sight the compensation thereof would be feasible provided that they be killed or kill his assassins.
The Umayya and their agents had Kufa under their thumbs for a while following the event in Karbala. Despite the suppression of the Shi’ite Muslims and the existing restlessness created by Ibn Zubayr in the easternmost part of the Islamic land, the Shi’ite Muslims were still deemed perilous. Here recounting an example of the Shi’ite Muslims’ valour against ‘Ubayd Allah Ibn Ziyad looks appropriate.
Some day after the event of Karbala ‘Ubayd Allah on the pulpit in a mosque proclaimed. “Exaltation does solely belong to Allah who made the truth prevail and aided Amir al-Mu’minin Yazid Ibn Mu’awiya and his party”.
As soon as he heard, ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Afif Azdi who had lost the use of one of his eyes in Jamal and the other in Siffin stood up and dissented, “O liar! O liar’s son! By Almighty Allah you, your father with the one designating you and his father murder the Prophet’s descendants, and now talk like the truthful!”
“O Allah’s foe! What are you saying about ‘Uthman?” ‘Ubayd Allah asked.
“He was a man who did both good and bad, both reformed and corrupted. It is Allah’s Providence to treat justly. Why do you not inquire about yourself, your father, Yazid and his father?” ‘Abd Allah retorted.
‘Ubayd Allah said furiously, “Never shall I inquire so that I can take your life. I have constantly beseeched Him to bestow martyrdom on me. Before you were born I lost the use of my eye hence I relinquished my hope.” “But now I offer my gratitude to Him who is accepting my prayer,” calmly uttered ‘Abd Allah. [2222]
When the turmoil caused by Ibn Zubayr flared up in Mecca and the appearance of a revolt in Kufa was probable, Ibn Ziyad summoned ‘Amr Ibn Hurayth, Kufa’s governor, to delineate to what extent the news is reliable.
He stated, “Ibn Zubayr is never threatening for Amir al-Mu’minin Yazid.” إني أخاف عليه من الترابية شيعة أبي تراب علي بن ابي طالب (ع) “What perturbs me is ‘Ali’s Shi’ite Muslims. Is there anyone in Kufa nowadays ho feels affection for him?”
“Definitely no one adores him but abhores him,” answered ‘Amr Ibn Hurayth.
Ibn Ziyad named Mukhtar as an instance. Later, Ibn Hurayth apprehended Mukhtar [2223] until ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Umar went to his assistance.
Next adventures proved that ‘Ali’s and his descendant’s faithful followers were myriad in Kufa who were secretly in contact with one another those days. The dilemma facing the Shi’ite Muslims was double-sided.
One was from the Umayya’s side and the other from the side of the nobles and a large number of Kufiyans who had been in the opposite front against Imam Husayn in Karbala; There fore, the stance taken was anti-Shi’ism. A group of the Shi’ite Muslims set to take a revenge for Imam Husayn’s martyrdom were necessarily hostile to Kufiyans as well who had martyred Imam. [2224]
Succeeding Yazid’s death in 64, Shi’ite Muslims were called upon by Sulayman Ibn Surad Khuza’i. Many replied him in affirmative. [2225] But since the Umayya’s sovereignty had not become unstable yet, there was no strong probability for their emergence. First of all they began dissemination and assembling the propagandists, they trained and spread them around. [2226]
Little by little, the Umayya’s state deteriorated. The second Mu’awiya, Yazid’s son, either abdicated or was curbed by others. The status quo in Damascus was the scene of unrest. The clashes were arisen among ‘Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr’s adherents on the one hand and among Marwan Ibn Hakam’s on the other hand. The consequence of such riots was nothing except the stabilization of The Umayya’s sovereignty in Iraq and the abolition of which gradually notwithstanding, ‘Abd al-Malik could take Iraq under the Umayya’s rule once again in early 70 A.H.
The Shi’ite Muslims appreciated the convenient opportunity and maintaining their endeavors commenced from 61 onwards to instruct forces and store weapons [2227] they began recruiting troops. Four eminent Shi’ite Muslims who were chosen as responsible for organizing with Sulayman were Musayyib Ibn Najba, ‘Abd Allah Ibn Sa’d Ibn Nawfal, Rufa’a Ibn Shaddad as well as ‘Abd Allah Ibn Wal. A great number of the renowned Shi’ite Muslims in Kufa took part in the session convened. [2228]
Delivering lectures in this convention, the Shi’ites leaders laid stress upon making amends for their oppressive behavior towards the right of the prophet’s infallible household and leaving him all alone. They were intent on repenting and being killed to make up for their misdeed. [2229] By relying on the Qur’anic verse:
يا قوم إنكُم ظَلمتمْ أنفُسَكمْ باتّخاذِكُمْ العِجْل فَتُوبُوا إلي بارِئِكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوا أنفسكُمْ
“O my people! Thou have surely been unjust to thyselves by taking the calf (for a god), therefore turn to thy Creator (penitently), so kill thy people.” [2230]
In the meeting all reached an agreement to cooperate. Those who appealed for fiscal help to the movement were supposed to refer to ‘Abd Allah Ibn Wal. [2231]
The elderly man elected as the leader of the movement was Sulayman, from among Prophet’s companions and Imam ‘Ali’s adherents. In his first action, he wrote to Sa’d Ibn Hudhayfa Ibn al-Yaman who was one of the special Shi’ite Muslims residing in Ctesiphon, a Shi’ites Muslim-populated area, to join them together with other Shi’ite Muslims if willing. He declared the predetermined date and place of departure. It was Rabi’ al-Awwal, 1st. 65 in Nukhayla, well-known barracks in Kufa. [2232]
The words attributed to the penitents (Tawwabin) to have uttered in a sermon clearly manifest the content of the movement. Enumerating the greatness of the Prophet’s descendants, ‘Ubayd Allah Ibn ‘Abd Allah hinted at how they were affronted in Karbala and while addressing the audience being Tawwabin, he affirmed how to repent,
أما أدعوكم إلى كتاب الله وسنة نبيّه والطلب بدماء أهل بيته وإلى جهاد المحلين والمارقين فَإن قتِلنا فما عند الله خير للأبرار وإن ظهرنا، رددنا هذا الأمر إلى أهل بيت نبيَنا
“I do call you towards the divine Book, the Prophet’s Sunna, a revenge for Ahl al-Bayt’s blood and Jihad against the deniers of the religion as well as Mariqin. Were we killed, whatsoever exclusively assigned to the benevolent would be the best. But if we could succeed, the authority would be belonged to Ahl al-Bayt.” [2233]
Concurrent with launching the movement of Tawwabin, both Kufa and Basra were ruled by ‘Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr’s agents. As no one had replaced ‘Ubayd Allah Ibn Ziyad in Iraq who had already fled to Damascus, ‘Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr, the ruler of Mecca from 61 on, dispatched his agents to Iraq and accordingly the pro-Zubayr elements took the thorough power of oriental Islamic land. A man called ‘Abd Allah Yazid Ansari was appointed as governor and Ibrahim Ibn Muhammad Ibn Talha as treasurer.
Kufiyan noblemen who were every time in favor of the Umayya inwardly and outwardly, straightly invoked ‘Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr on learning that a Shi’ites movement was expected. On the other hand, Shi’ite Muslims and those having a tendency went towards Sulayman or Mukhtar as it will be noticed later.
Vital for the Shi’ite Muslims was a reaction against both the nobles and the ruling system in Kufa. They were by no means two separate issues inasmuch as the governor of the town was a Zubayr-designated one and the nobles were also for the governorship. Hardly ever could Shi’ite Muslims clash them.
‘Abd Allah Ibn Yazid, the governor, adopted initially a misleading stance to turn Shi’ite Muslims’ attention to Damascus and goad them into confronting ‘Ubayd Allah Ibn Ziyad’s army departing from Damascus. He believed that they would be naturally supported if they searched for Husayn Ibn ‘Ali’s assassins.
Since it was not vague that his assassin was no one but Ibn Ziyad, never would Tawwabin trigger off a wave of carnage inside the town [2234]. This taken stance not merely could contribute to the intratown security to be well safeguarded but could propel Zubayr’s opponents to come into conflict with one another. And consequently pro-Zubayr men would simply get rid of their threats.
Although the position was propounded a reconcilable one by such persons as Ibrahim Ibn Muhammad Ibn Talha, and even if ‘Abd Allah Ibn Yazid’s real intention were not deceitful, it compelled Tawwabin to leave Kufa and encounter the major army of Damascus with their minor one.
At all events it forced the Shi’ite Muslims to act openly and get fully equipped to proceed to Damascus. [2235]
Sulayman who was also gratified with military expedition to Damascus in a response to those advising that Imam’s assassins live in Kufa said that the foremost cause of the event was Ibn Ziyad. [2236]
By the same token no one defied. Sulayman had added that a battle inside Kufa would culminate in fratricide and automatically multiply the adversaries and figures like ‘Umar Ibn Sa’d were not as powerful as Ibn Ziyad. [2237] Sulayman might have implied that he would meet his doom later.
In the throes of the activities, Mukhtar, a prominent Shi’ites Muslim, arrived in Kufa. As elicited from the reports, he had preplanned to mobilize the Shi’ite Muslims for an uprising but he was faced with Tawwabin’s movement in Kufa. As far as he was concerned such a movement was on no accounts a fundamental stride for achieving the goal and the only aftermath thereof would be Shi’ites’s genocide. The propaganda made a number of Shi’ite Muslims to incline towards him. [2238] Approximately a quarter of those swearing allegiance to Sulayman began advocating Mukhtar. [2239]
Some four thousand people out of sixteen or twelve thousand men who had sworn allegiance to Sulayman prepared themselves for setting out to Damascus and with Sulayman’s persuasion one thousand more joined them. [2240] After Sulayman and the rest of Tawwabin left Kufa, Husayn’s assassins (such as Shabath Ibn Rib’i and others) breathed a sigh of relief.
The only serious misgiving they had was about the presence of Mukhtar. In a collusion they pressurized the governor of Kufa to incarcerate him. [2241] It was after the event of Tawwabin that once more he was set free while mediated by his sister’s husband, ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Umar.
The atmosphere predominant on penintents’s army was purely mingled with determination of repentance. فتنادي الناس من كل جانب: انا لا نطلب الدنيا وليس لها خرجنا [2242] “The voice heard from the four corners of the army was, neither do we seek for this worldly life, nor do we revolt for its sake.”
At this time, Marwan who had overcome Dhahhak Ibn Qays in Damascus dispatched troops to Iraq. Quite evident that Tawwabin could in no way resist against them. Changing his former position, the governor of Kufa sent a message to Sulayman to wait for his army to battle together against ‘Ubayd Allah Ibn Ziyad. [2243]
His later position was on account of the critical menace Damascus had for Hijaz and with Tawwabin’s defeat, the invasion to Iraq was incontrovertible. It was not admitted by Sulayman. After leaving Kufa in the middle of the way they received a letter from the governor repeating the same proposal. Sulayman declined again.
He had said that if acquiescing to collaboration, troops would disperse. According to him it would additionally result in Zubayr’s sovereignty and subsequent to the victory, they would be obliged to battle for ‘Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr and it was a deviation in a real sense of word. Not once did defeat obsess Sulayman and his followers. They would embrace martyrdom. They had pledged if they won they would transfer the rule to those entitled. [2244] With this way of reasoning, allying with Ibn Zubayr was not rational at all.
Tawwabin first set out to Kufa but en route a number of fellow-travellers seceded from the group. [2245]They paid tribute to Imam Husayn’s tomb and while sedding tears they entreated Allah to forgive them. Later, they farewelled the martyred Imam one by one [2246] and went to Jasasa and then to Anbar and the district of Sudur. Since their destination was Damascus, they went to Hit and then to Qirqisiya’’.
It was where Zufar Ibn Harith, among Marwan’s opponents succeeding the internal disputes in Damascus, welcomed Tawwabin with open arms. Equipping them, he provided them with adequate information about the combat Zone. Then they moved to Damascus. Re-highlighting repentence, Sulayman Ibn Surad made speeches once more and reiterated that their behavior towards the wounded and captives in Damascus should be like that of Imam ‘Ali (a).
While it was not too distant to the enemy’s position, Musayyib Ibn Nujba along with a few Tawwabins as the vanguards launched an ambush which put the opposite vanguard to flight and supplied them with loot. Afterwards, the two armies were pit against each other. The Umayya rival recommended that they bow to ‘Abd al-Malik, Marwan’s son, at the present time that he was dead.
In return, Tawwabin’s recommendation as Shi’ite Muslims was that they hand over ‘Abd al-Malik due to the slaughter he had made. And later they could both take an action against ‘Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr, oust him and then,نُرد الأمر ألي أهل بيت نبيَنا الذين أتانا الله من قبلهم بالنعمَة والكرامة [2247] “They leave the authority in the custody of prophet’s Household, the ones through whom Allah bestows His mercy and blessings.”
Naturally neither of them acceded to, however.
The clashes were triggered off. First day was a mischance for the foe, but since fresh troops were regularly being dispatched next days, the pressure exerted on Tawwabin was gradually being intensified. On the second day eight thousand soldiers commanded by Shurahbil Ibn Dhi l-Kila’ joined Husayn Ibn Numayr’s twelve- thousand-soldier army. [2248]
The third day battle led to Sulayman’s and then Musayyib’s martyrdom. After a short time ‘Abd Allah Ibn Wal who was supposed to command succeeding them achieved martyrdom as well. Later on describing whom he had killed, his murderer stated that he was said to be one of the Iraqi religious jurisprudents who, كانوا يكثرون الصوم والصلاة ويفتون الناس “performed so many prayers, observed so many fasts and issued Islamic verdicts among people.”
The other commander of Tawwabin, ‘Abd Allah Ibn Sa’d, was also martyred. Only when it was Rufa’a Ibn Shaddad’s turn, did he retreat overnight to Iraq.
Though the Shi’ite Muslims of Ctesiphon and Basra were assumed to join them, they could not reach in time. While nearly a hundred and seventy Shi’ite Muslims from Ctesiphon and three hundred from Basra led by Makhraba Ibn Muthanna had been moving towards Tawwabin, they encountered the few-survived of them withdrawing and then returned with them. [2249]
Corresponding to what Baladhuri has reported, the Shi’ite Muslims of Basra had joined Tawwabin nearby Imam Husayn’s tomb [2250] It appears not to be true. As a consequence, their movement bore no tangibly fruitful results.

Here Some Points Merit Attention as Regards to the penitents
A. In the light of the foregoing proofs, Tawwabin’s religious ideology can be easily measured. Their beliefs were based on a ideological Shi’ism the most central pillar of which was belief in Imamate. Devolving the leadership of the community upon Ahl al-Bayt was what had been time after time flashing among their remarks. Conforming to Imam ‘Ali’s lifestyle additionally confirms such ideology-based Shi’ism.
B. Another point was the psychological manner Tawwabin had found. They were amongst the ones who did not participate in Karbala event for whatever reason but when they came to their senses it was too late, for the Prophet’s descendant had been tragically martyred and his captive family had been forced to traverse in Kufa. The Kufiyans were severely reproached by Zaynab.
Umm Kulthum and Iman as-Sajjad (a). The outcome of the event as well as Ahl al-Bayt’s such reactions generated feeling of sin for the Kufiyans and then it was their guilty conscience which distressed them the most and it was in view of the fact that they were those who had invited Imam to Kufa.
The one and the only dose being able to soothe their agony was obliterating the psychological side-effects of sin. One of the ways for cleansing themselves was wiping off Imam’s assassins; however, it was never as sweet as martyrdom. They felt that in order to tranquilize themselves even with killing his assassins, their misstep of default could not be compensated.
Totally conscious of the greatest number of the army leaving Damascus accompanied by Ibn Ziyad, scarcely ever did they hesitate about the struggle. Tawwabin’s assessment of the current status quoin Kufa was by no means politically precise. Less determining was planning on conquering Kufa, murdering Husayn’s murderers and equipping Iraq against Damascus in their opinion. These are all what were pursued by Mukhtar later.
The only precious thing was repentance for them. A kind of repentance which could solely be accomplished through nothing but martyrdom. At the last moments of war when Rufa’a said,اني لا أريد، أريد لقاء ربي واللحاق باخواني والخروج من الدنيا الى الاخرة “What we yearn for is not what you seek. Meeting our Lord, reunifying our brethren and farewelling this world are our wishes.”
In an attack, he was murdered later. ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Aziz Kindi who had left his child in the custody of those from Kind in Damascus launched an attack from the other side and then achieved martyrdom. [2251] Kurayb Ibn Zayd Himyari together with a hundred people heedless of Rufa’a’s order did not retreat.
He had said, “I have learned that a group is set to return, but لا أولي هذا العدّو ظهري حتى أرد موارد اخواني “I neverever turn my back to the foe so that I can reunify my brothers.”
Dhi l-Kila’, a Damascus commander, gave him guarantee of clemency since they were both from Himyar originally.
Nevertheless Kurayb responded, انا قد كنّا آمنين من الدنيا، انّما خرجنا نطلب أمان الاخرة “We have been in peace and quiet in this world, we have come for we search for a peacefuand quiet life in the world hereafter.” [2252]
The utterances and verses of poems narrated from Tawwabin in the course of attacks against Damascus army entirely denote the concept of repentance and the manifestation thereof in departing this world and attaining martyrdom. From the incipient stage of the battle, Sulayman Ibn Surad yelled out,
يا شيعة آل محمد! فوالله ما بينكم وبين الشهادة ودخول الجّنة والراحة من هذا الدنيا الا فراق الانفس والتوبة والوفاء بالعهد
“O Shi’ite Muslims of Muhammad’s family! Not a short distance is there between you and martyrdom, your entrance to the Heaven and being released from this worldly life except sublimating your souls, repenting and fulfilling your pledge.”
In a poem he had said:
اليك ربي تبت عن ذنوبي وقد علاني في الوري شيبي
فارحم عبيداً غير ما تكذيب واغفرذنوبي سيدي وحوبي
“O My Lord, I beg for forgiveness for my sins whereas where as my old age has made me conspicuous. While not denying me, pardon your servant and have mercy on him, the sinner.”
‘Abd Allah Ibn Sa’d has composed,
ارحم الـهي عبدك التوابا ولا تواخـذه فقـد أنابـا
لا كوفة يبقي ولا عـراقا لا بل يريـد الموت والعتاقـا
“O my God! Have mercy on your penitent servant. Take not him to task for he has repented. No longer is he after Kufa or Iraq. He is merely after death and freedom.” [2253]
Rufa’a Ibn Shaddad also has composed,
يارب اني تائب اليكا قد اتكلت شدتي عليكا
“My Lord! Not only have I repent but also I have trusted in you.” [2254]
While Sakhr Ibn Hudhayfa was in battle with thirty of his cousins, he said:
الى الله من الذنب أفرّ أنوي ثواب الله فيما قد اسر
“I run away from sins to Allah my only intention is nothing but Allah’s reward.” [2255]

Mukhtar’s Uprising (66, 67 A.H.)
Mukhtar has been Abu ‘Ubayd Thaqafi whose fame thanks to his valor in Muslim Arab’s first attacks against the Iranians as Muslim’s commander. He was martyred in the event of Jisr while at the helm.
The ever-first Mukhtar’s bad record inscribed in Islamic history had been his non-Shi’ites behavior towards Imam Hasan (a). When Imam was wounded in Sabat of Ctesiphon, he resided in the governor’s house, Mukhtar’s uncle, Mukhtar suggested that he be handed over to Mu’awiya in order to prove his good will to Mu’awiya. As soon as his uncle became incensed, Mukhtar became mute. [2256]
It is said that for this reason Mukhtar had been deemed as ‘Uthmanids (pro-’Uthman) in Shi’ites Muslim’s view [2257] until he allied himself to the Shi’ite Muslims later. Since there were abundant motivations among the Umayya narrators to introduce Mukhtar a hypocrite, a liar and a man with capricious personality, such a conduct ascribed to Mukhtar must be forged.
Undeniable is the fact that prior to the event of Karbala he was among the renowned Shi’ite Muslims of Kufa and when Muslim Ibn ‘Aqil came Kufa, he sojourned in his house. [2258] As no definite time had been determined for the start of uprising, Mukhtar could not manage to assist Muslim when invading Ibn Ziyad’s palace and after clashes was arrested and martyred.
Out of Kufa was Mukhtar [2259] and when returned, he found that Ibn Ziyad had dominated, declared martial law and had put a great number under lock and key in the mosque.
Mukhtar who was unaware of the happenings was apprehended by ‘Amr Ibn Hurayth. Regarding his old amicable relationship with ‘Amr Ibn Hurayth, he did his utmost to persuade him to intercede for him with Ibn Ziyad and say that he had surrendered.
Nonetheless, Mukhtar was imprisoned and throughout the event of Karbala he was in jail but later ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Umar acted as an intermediary and released him. Ibn Ziyad offered him a three-day respite to leave Kufa as soon as possible. [2260] Normally Mukhtar’s activities at odds with the Umayya accounted for Ibn Ziyad’s extreme fright. According to narrated accounts, whipping at Ibn Ziyad’s behest had led to loss of the use of Mukhtar’s one eye. [2261]
Travelling to Mecca, Mukhtar had to live in Ta’if for one year where his tribe, Banu Thaqif, lived. After going back to Mecca, Mukhtar was asked by Ibn Zubayr, the present governor of Mecca, for cooperation. He bet to swear allegiance to him rovided that he took counsel from him in all affairs. At that time, Mecca was under siege by Damascus.
Mukhtar also defended the Divine Shrine with the other Muslims side by side so that the rival army could no more resist and returned. Even a group of Kharijites were among the participants. [2262] Their actions were as a counter to profanity of Damascus army about Ka’ba.
After the siege was raised and the Zubayr-supported ones seized the control of Kufa, Mukhtar went back to Kufa. Ibn Zubayr who had suspected him, ignored him and never allowed him to take up a post. The majority of historians have reported that what had been frequently stressed by Mukhtar succeeding the event of Karbala was taking revenge on Husayn Ibn ‘Ali’s assassins and his likely uprising. [2263]
His arrival in Kufa was concurrent with Tawwabin’s preparation for leaving the town. As far as Sulayman’s long record of service was concerned, Mukhtar could never absorb naturally as much Shi’ite Muslims as he could. However he discredited Sulayman’s action in a way that he explicitly had announced that, لا علم له بالحروب والسياسة [2264] “By no mean is Sulayman acquainted with war and politics.”
Mukhtar’s propagation retarded Tawwabin’s activity. The majority was with Sulayman whereas only a minority had joined Mukhtar. No alternative existed for Mukhtar except awaiting patiently until Tawwabin decide. [2265]
Upon Sulayman’s departure from the town, Imam Husayn’s assassins, fearful of Mukhtar, compelled the governor, pro-Zubayr, to put him in prison. This measure was adopted irrespective of all pressures the Shi’ite Muslims exerted on the governor to consider his past being with Mukhtar and liberate him.
Later on, ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Umar interceded for Mukhtar with Ibn Zubayr and after Shi’ite Muslims’ undertaking Mukhtar was set free, [2266] Mukhtar was in prison when the news of Tawwabin’s defeat and return to Kufa spread through.
In a message he offered his condolences to Rufa’a Ibn Shaddad and in addition to wishing blessing for Sulayman’s soul and complementing his character, he urged the survived to prepare for an uprising. He invited them towards the divine Book, the Prophet’s Sunna, revenge for Ahl al-Bayt’s blood, defense of the oppressed and Jihad against Muhillin, those going beyond the sacred limits of Islam and converting Haram (unlawful) into Halal (lawful). [2267]
In 66, Kufa governor was ousted by ‘Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr and ‘Abd Allah Ibn Muti’ was appointed in place. Since the inception, the new governor announced that he would follow the policies of the second and the third caliphs in economic arena but Sa’ib Ibn Malik Ash’ari Stimulated by Mukhtar objected to him as insisting “Except ‘Ali’s policy nothing ought to be followed”. [2268]
Mukhtar secretly had been keeping on his activities. Holding clandestine meetings, he gathered the Shi’ite Muslims together to absorb while introducing himself as Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyya’s representative.
Although it had drawn the Shi’ite Muslims’ attention to him, it had also evoked their doubt whether Mukhtar was truthful calling himself Muhammad’s representative! In order to make certain, they reached a decision to go to Medina and meet him.
Leaving the town for Medina, ‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn Shurayh accompanying a group met Ibn Hanafiyya privately and asked him about his position concerning Mukhtar. Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyya supported Mukhtar implicitly and ambiguously and said:
أما ما ذكرتم من دعاء من دعاكم الي الطلب بدمائنا فواللّه لوددت أنّ اللّه انتصر لنا من عدوّنا بمن شاء من خلقه
“About what you mentioned that someone has summoned you to rise up in revenge for Ahl al-Bayt’s blood, by Almighty Allah I desire that Allah get our revenge by anyone of His servants He wills.” [2269]
Nothing more did Ibn Hanafiyya add; therefore, they returned. Other Shi’ite Muslims came up to them questioning about his content or discontent. Ibn Shurayh replied that they asked his opinion and he, فأمرنا بمظاهرته [2270] “commanded us to back him” and وأذن لنا في نصرتك [2271] “allowed us to back him.”
Such approval impelled those skeptical about banding together with Mukhtar by then to join him.
Mukhtar determined to consolidate his social bases via the advocacy of a number of chiefs of tribes endeavored to trace authoritative figures. Among them was Ibrahim Ibn Ashtar, Malik Ashtar’s son, who was esteemed both for his father’s reputation in Shi’ism and his intrepidity and influence on the Nakha’ites of Kufa. Following the negotiations he had with Ibrahim, Mukhtar succeeded in attracting his attention and fortifying his position in Kufa through him though Ibrahim detached himself from him later.
Wednesday night on Rabi’ al-Awwal, 14th, 66, it was prearranged, was the promised day for triggering off the attack and rescuing the town from the yoke of Zubayr followers. ‘Abd Allah Ibn Muti’ who had learned Mukhtar’s possible insurrectoin had previously commanded to keep the town under tight security and impose a curfew. Keeping such news unrevealed was something beyond any possibility. From the very beginning he had been told that a large number of Turabiyya have sworn allegiance to Mukhtar. [2272]
It could be two days to duedate when a group headed by Ibrahim encountered and then came into clashes with troops sent by Kufa governor. Decapitating Iyas Ibn Muďarib, police chief, Ibrahim flourished to disperse them.
They had to, it was evident, take the action prematurely. By chanting the slogans of, يا منصور أمت “O Mansur, kill the enemy!” (rehearsed by Muslims during the wars in Early Islamic Era) and يا لثارات حسين “O revengers for Husayn’s blood!” In line with which had ever been Mukhtar’s movement, Shi’ite Muslims joined him. As narrated by Ibn A’tham,وجعل يخرج الناس من كل ناحية علي صعب وذلول [2273] “Despite all complications, Muslims were joining him from everywhere.”
Ibrahim’s parties marched through the town to prompt the Shi’ite Muslims to join them. Mukhtar who considered commencing the war not allowable abiding by Imam ‘Ali’s conduct had forewarned Ibrahim not to be the beginner. [2274] Conquering the town by Mukhtar’s forces led to various clashes. [2275] In the face of ‘Abd Allah Ibn Muti’s’ crowded army (some twenty thousand soldiers) [2276], Mukhtar could assume control of Kufa as a governor with his small army, a fifth as many as the rival’s.
Throughout the battle the leaders in Mukhtar’s army ceaselessly inspirited the Shi’ite Muslims to combat as mightily as possible. What Yazid Ibn Anas or Malik Ibn Sa’ib Ash’ari had been saying was, “O Shi’ite Muslims! Prior to this you were massacred, your limbs were cut up, you were blinded and hung from the branches of palms.
All of these tortures were due to your affinity for the prophet’s infallible household. They were occurring while you had stayed at homes and complied with your foes. What do you say now? If they overpower you, in the twinkling of an eye no one of you will remain alive at least.” [2277]
With Rashid Ibn Iyas Ibn Muďarib’s murder and the dispersion of the troops commanded by Shabath Ibn Rib’i, the palace was eventually besieged by Mukhtar’s adherents. ‘Abd Allah Ibn Muti’ after spending three days left the palace in secret and others also raised the white flag seeking a guarantee of clemency.
The noblemen, the most influential class in Kufa, had compromised with the Umayya prior to Zubayr-appointed person’s coming but later afraid of Shi’ite Muslims as well as their rule, joined forces with Ibn Zubayr’s followers. [2278]
Such a class was also followed by many in its turn. Unlike Tawwabin, whose troops were wholly Arabs, Mukhtar’s were often Iranian and non-Iranian masters. A throng of Arabs later joined him, furthermore. The aforesaid masters were those who on the one hand had memorably and pleasantly experienced Imam ‘Ali’s Islamic and human conduct and on the other hand had endured the Umayya and the affiliated noblemen’s pressure from 40 A.H.
It was why they were after a golden opportunity to modify their unbearable situation in the society and extricate themselves from the abjectness. Mukhtar’s emergence was reciprocally beneficial to both the masters to attain influence through him and Mukhtar to remove the enemy through their aid.
In the morning of the day thereon the battle was due to start, Shabath Ibn Rib’i recited the short Sura (Qur’anic chapters).
Being objected, he responded, “You see how Daylamites are standing before you and now you expect me to recite “the cow” and ”‘Imran’s family” Sura (the longest of all)”. [2279]
When all were fleeing, Shabath addressed them as saying, أأنتم من عبيدكم تهربون [2280] “Are you escaping from your own slaves?” “So acutely did the noble detested the masters that they murdered anyone captured but set the Arab ones free.” [2281] It is recorded by Dinwari that almost all members of Mukhtar’s army in the battle with Damascus were Iranian masters. [2282]
Describing Mukhtar’s soldiers, the commander of the Damascus army stated, “O dwellers of Damascus! You do battle with slaves, those who had abandoned Islam and seceded from it, have no piety and speak not Arabic”. [2283]
Muhammad Ibn Ash’ath, a nobleman, who had fled to Basra told Mus’ab, “Turks and Daylamites are all behind me”. [2284] A year later when the noble and Ibn Zubayr’s supporters came into power in the town, Mus’ab issued the decree to wipe out the masters, for their blasphemousness was made public, their conceit had heightened and their humility before the Arabs had reduced. [2285]
Earlier it was quoted from Mughira that if non-Arabs had been summoned towards Muhammad’s family and to a revenge for their blood, all would have congregated. [2286] The victor was Mukhtar. A number of noblemen ran away to Basra and some others secluded themselves at homes awaiting for divine predestination which came forth after a while.
The people of Kufa swore allegiance to Mukhtar as an emir. Based on his Shi’ites belief he said, “Subsequent to swearing allegiance to ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a) and his family worthier than this one, I have sworn allegiance to no one else.” [2287]
He enumerated what based on which their allegiance should be as, the divine Book, the Prophet’s Sunna, revenge for Ahl al-Bayt’s assassinations, Jihad against those transgressing the sacred limits, defense of the oppressed, a battle against the one battling them and a compromise with the one compromising with them. [2288]
Mukhtar who had taken the power first of all made an attempt to establish national security. Then he eliminated all the elements playing negative roles in Karbala. To absorb the nobles, he initially was so merciful to them that was suspected by the masters. [2289]
Nevertheless, referring to the point that his position-taking is in line with that of theirs, Mukhtar enlightened the masters declaring that such a behavior is transient. [2290] Kufa was deemed as a center for all cities in oriental Islamic lands and Northern Iraq. Such areas as Musil, Hulwan (ajacent to Sar Pul Dhahab), Ctesiphon as well as Armenian lands, Adharbayjan, Arran, Hawran, Mahiyan, Riy and Isfahan were ruled by Iraq.
Mukhtar’s endeavor for keeping Kufa secure did not last long as he learned that an army led by ‘Ubayd Allah Ibn Ziyad had left Damascus to Kufa. The army succeeding to defeating Tawwabin and after a short break for clashing with Qays Ibn ‘Aylan’s tribe set out to Musil. [2291]
During the armed conflict between the three-thousand-soldier army dispatched by Mukhtar and ‘Ubayd Allah’s six-thousand-soldier army, Rabi’a Ibn Mukhariq, a commander, was killed and three hundred people were captured by Mukhtar’s army. It was obvious however that these few numbers could never resist against the rival army. Accordingly Mukhtar sent another group with seven thousand people headed by Ibrahim Ibn Ashtar as a relief group.
Under no circumstances were the noble gratified with Mukhtar’s governorship. It was firstly owing to Mukhtar’s intention had been avenging Husayn Ibn ‘Ali’s assassins among whom were the noble as central elements. Secondly, regarding his limited Shi’ites forces in Kufa, Mukhtar had begun inviting the masters for cooperation and it as a matter of fact was equal to belittling the noblemen. When determined to reprove Mukhtar, there was nothing to be more intolerable than the booties he had devoted to Mawali (freed slaves). [2292]
Such objections were all made in Shabath Ibn Rib’i’s house.The deduction drawn was Shabath’s visit with Mukhtar.
Meeting Mukhtar, he said, … وأعظم الأشياء عليك أنكّ عمدت إلى عبيدنا وهم فيئنا الذين أفاء الله بهم فأخذتهم إليك ثم لم ترض بأخذهم حتى جعلتهم شركاء في فيئنا ولايحل لك في هذا دينك ولا يحمل بك في شرفك [2293] “Your biggest shortcoming is that you rely upon our slaves, those whose looties belong to us. And you deprived us of what Allah had bestowed us. It did not suffice you however, you also let them share in Bayt al-Mal. What you did was thoroughly contrary to both your religion and dignity.”
The nobles’ ultimatum was that they would never stop protesting unless Mukhtar committed to return Mawali to them.
In return for their request, Mukhtar requested something about declining of which by the noblemen he was certain, it was whether they would declare their readiness to battle beside him against the Umayya and Ibn Zubayr or not. [2294] Shabath who went to bring their answer never came back and it denoted that the noble were set to revolt.
The other reproof was about Mukhtar’s and his followers’ Shi’ism, that they all loatheاسلافنا الصالحين “Our competent forefathers.” [2295]
What they implied might had been that the Shi’ite Muslims reproached many of the Prophet’s companions (for the deviations caused by them).
For consultation, the nobles went to ‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn Mikhnaf, warning them not to combat Mukhtar, he added, “All the valorous of the tribes are with him and moreover Mawali who are as lion-hearted as Arabs and as revengeful as non-Arabs are with him”.
He urged them to await pending the arrival of troops from Basra (Ibn Zubayr) or Damascus. They balked at his proposal in view of the fact that at that time the majority of Mukhtar’s adherents in particular Ibrahim Ibn Ashtar had left the town for Musil. They imagined that it was a favorable occasion to win a victory over Mukhtar.
No sooner had the army commanded by Ibrahim arrived in Ctesiphon than a wave of rioting was triggered off. As soon as Mukhtar noticed that the situation was critical, he sent for Ibrahim to return Kufa. In order to keep them occupied, he himself began futile negotiations with the insurgents. [2296]
One day to Ibrahim’s entry, the clasnes flared up. Both Ibrahim’s haste to return and Mukhtar’s withstanding led to Mukhtar’s triumph and the nobles’ debacle. In this war, Mukhtar’s army sustained 135 casualties whereas it was 640 for the foe.
The nobles’ insurrection made Mukhtar, who had taken no action in revenge for Ahl al-Bayt’s blood hopeful about absorbing the nobles, adopt a measure. His first action was the killing of 284 captives seized in the war with the nobles. Reported by eye-witnesses, they had been among the participants in Karbala.
Mukhtar announced then, إنه من أغلق با به فهو آمن الا رجلا شرك في دم آل محمد (ص) “Anyone staying at his home is secure unless he has aided and abetted the ones streaming the prophet’s descendants’ blood.”
The noblemen, who were confident that Mukhtar would beyond the shadow of a doubt apprehend and slaughter them this time, fled to Basra and another group concealed themselves in Kufa. Mukhtar had promulgated, ما من ديننا ترك قوم قتلوا الحسين يعيشون أحياء في الارض “Permitting Husayn’s assassins to go on living freely on the earth is never ever passable in our religion.”
Its implication was their murder. Recollecting those collaborating in Karbala, Mukhtar’s supporters brought them to him one after another. He also cut the arms of some and the legs of some others in order to kill them. [2297]
It is estimated that the men charged with participating in the event of Karbala were approximately three thousand. [2298] Among the figures targeted was Shimr Ibn Dhi l-Jawshan who was murdered by Mukhtar’s envoys while escaping to Basra. As a rule of thumb, ‘Umar Ibn Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqas, the commander, pleaded guilty as the main culprit.
From the outset of his responsibility- when busy with absorbing the nobles-Mukhtar had given a guarantee of clemency to him stipulating that he were secure provided that he should under no conditions attend an incident against him, الا أذا أحد ث حاد ث. In the throes of recent adventures when he was arrested too, he showed his guarantee of clemency. He was said,nevertheless, that the stipulated condition could include any incident even flight of a pigeon or entry and exit from house!
Not only ‘Umar Ibn Sa’d’s doom was death but also his son was killed as well. The heads of both were sent to Medina. The former one was in revenge for Imam Husayn’s blood and the latter for ‘Ali Akbar’s, the eldest son. [2299] Narratedly, it was the one and the only day Iman as-Sajjad (a) was seen smiling, [2300] since he had always been with a sorrowful expression weeping up to that very time. Both Tabari and Ibn A’tham have recounted the murders of various individuals in detail.
The latest phenomena drew certain boundaries. Shi’ite Muslims seceded from other parties completely. For the time being, Mukhtar’s support was merely the Shi’ite Muslims although he had been striving to absorb from al parties. In the opposite front were the Umayya adherents in addition to Ibn Zubayr’s devotees. Their number was not low. Many traveled to Basra and many others stayed looking forward to a golden opportunity. At the same time, Mukhtar intended to intensify his efforts to engross the attention.
Giving a description of Mukhtar’s conduct, the historians stated, … وكان مختار أوّل من ظَهَر أحسن شيءٍ سيرة تالفاً للناس [2301] “He was the first one behaving in the best way. He invariably prompted people to befriend one another.”
According to Ibn A’tham, وأحبّه الناس حُباً شديداً [2302] “People were attached to him.”
Baladhuri narrated, وأحسن المختار مجاورة أهل الكوفة والسيرة فيهم [2303] “Mukhtar was the best for the Kufiyans with his best conducts.”
It definitively was concerned with the Shi’ite Muslims not those with whom Mukhtar was wrathful. In regard to this reason it is said, (كان عبد الله بن جعدة أكرم خلق الله علي المختار لقرابته من عليٍّ (ع”‘Abd Allah Ibn Ju’da was held dear by Mukhtar on account of his kinship with ‘Ali (a).” [2304]
Having resolved the internal points at issue through suppression of the noble and the ones affiliated to the Umayya and Ibn Zubayr, Mukhtar anticipated how to broaden the realm of his governorship.
Basra known as a haven for the fugitives from Kufa and a stronghold for the pro-Ibn Zubayr persons in Iraq had drawn Mukhtar’s attention but it could naturally be a focal point of potential peril. His action might have been in a bid to absorb the Shi’ite Muslims there although few.
The leader of such Shi’ite Muslims was Makhraba Ibn Muthanna who had assisted the penitents but could not arrive at the battle in time. Swearing allegiance to Mukhtar, he was commissioned to proceed and incite the people in Basra to a riot against Ibn Zubayr. In Basra, Muthanna gathered a group from his tribe along with other residents. In a clash, nearly forty soldiers from Muthanna’s army were dead. Later on, with Ahnaf Ibn Qays’s intercession, Muthanna could return Kufa with his a few-remained people. [2305]
Another spot which had become center of Mukhtar’s attention was Hijaz, namely Ibn Zubayr’s main base. At that time an attack by Damascus from Wasidi al-Qura was imminent. Mukhtar plotted to send an army to exercise control over Medina under the pretext of obviating the threat of Damascus. Ibn Zubayr consented.
A three-thousand-member army of which seven hundred were only Arabs [2306] set out to Hijaz. Ibn Zubayr, by no means over confident about Mukhtar, dispatched an army to Medina recommending that they should get along with them on the condition that they were convinced to be supervised; otherwise, it was imperative that they be suppressed immediately. On the other hand, Mukhtar, reluctant to unvail his real scheme, recommended the commander that a message dash carrier take his mandates to them when convenient.
Prior to the communication of Mukhtar’s mandates, Ibn Zubayr’s army clashed with Mukhtar’s. By virtue of the fact that they did not yield to Ibn Zubayr’s army as the commander they were assaulted. Many were killed and many had to flee. Mukhtar’s genuine intention which wPas revealed, later in his letter to Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyya was,فإني بعثت إليك جنداً ليذلّوا لك الأعداء وليحوزوا لك البلاد “I sent my army for the purpose of overthrowing your opponents and conquer the land.”
The letter did manifest that his aim had been eliminating Ahl al-Bayt’s foes and liberating Hijaz for the Shi’ite Muslims’sovereignty. Responding the letter for asking his permission to deploy a large army to Medina, in addition to lauding him and his intent, Ibn Hanafiyya wrote, “If I were bent on combating, there would be many a person ready to join me but I have secluded myself.” [2307]
Afterwards when Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyya and a group from the Hashimites were in Mecca, Ibn Zubayr aimed to secure allegiance from them menacingly. Demurring, they were threatened to be imprisoned and burned to death. How dauntless! Ibn Zubayr had realized that without their allegiance consolidation of his sovereignty over other lands would be beyond the realm of possibility. The other side of the coin was that their allegiance might unstablize Mukhtar’s position as Muhammad Hanafiyya’s representative in Kufa.
Once ‘Urwa Ibn Zubayr, the pretender to religious jurisprudence, was objected in this regard, he reacted as stating, “My brother’s intention is to establish unity and to avert discord among Muslims”. It was exactly as ‘Umar Ibn Khattab secured allegiance from the Hashimites for Abu Bakr by laying logs on their doorsteps. [2308]
Ibn Hanafiyya who felt the status insecure wrote to Mukhtar to help them out. [2309] Mukhtar dispatched nearly one hundred and fifty people group by group, in order not to be identified, to Mecca to emancipate the Hashimites with no clash with the slogan of, يا لثارات حسين [2310]
They moved to Zamzam wherein the prison was located and released them after all. Both Ibn Zubayr and the sent group by Mukhtar refrained from any conflict which would certainly culminate in bloodshedding in Divine Shrine. Since this group had entered Mecca with sticks (not swords) had been named “Khashabiyya”. [2311]
Mukhtar’s the most remarkable action was his confrontation with the army of Damascus. It occurred between Mukhtar’s dispatched army led by Ibrahim Ibn Ashtar and an army commanded by ‘Ubayd Allah Ibn Ziyad. A great number of prominent leaders of Damascus taken part in various battles against Iraq so far were killed during the fight among whom were ‘Ubayd Allah Ibn Ziyad, Husayn Ibn Numayr Sukuni and Shurahbil Ibn Dhi l-Kila’. The remaining of the army while limping and running away wandered through Musil.
The Kufiyan fugitives were the main elements causing Mus’ab Ibn Zubayr’s invasion to Kufa. Through incitement, they could flourish to impel Mus’ab Ibn Zubayr to suppress Mukhtar and the Kufa into control too. Such individuals as Muhammad Ibn Ash’ath Ibn Qays, one of Imam Husayn’s assassins, were among the commanders of Ibn Zubayr’s troops while attacking Kufa. Excluding them there were a number delegated to propagate against Mukhtar amongst people. [2312]
Ibrahim Ibn Ashtar, governing Musil, did never declare his readiness to return to Kufa and back Mukhtar, furthermore. Reassuring how the fugitive noblemen had prompted other sinners to uproot the right and let the wrong replace it, Mukhtar attempted to mobilize the Kufiyan. [2313]
When both rivals met one another face to face, those on Ibn Zubayr’s side proposed that Mukhtar’s forces relinguish fighting by swearing allegiance to ‘Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr as “Amir al-Mu’minin”. Those on Mukhtar’s side also urged them to swear allegiance to Mukhtar and entrust “the Messenger’s family” with the caliphate. [2314]
At this juncture, the commander of pro-Ibn Zubayr soldiers was Muhallab Ibn Abi Sufra and Mukhtar’s was Ahmar Ibn Shumayt. Muhammad Ibn Ash’ath was the commander of the fugitives from Kufa to Basra. The clashes terminated in Ibn Zubayr’s favor which preceded Mukhtar’s and his follower’s martyrdom.
Earlier we provided you with plentiful evidence averring Mukhtar’s and his adherents’ belief in Shi’ism as well as their indescribable devotion to Ahl al-Bayt in a way that it is by all means beyond any doubt historically. Moreover there are available proofs indicating Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyya’s support which thoroughly substantiates Mukhtar’s uprising, relative, however. Mukhtar’s personal standing taken in revenge for the Umayya and the noble elucidates how he jeopardized his position with apprehension and murder of Imam Husayn’s assassins.
In as much as he struck the Umayya hard for several times and also called the legitimacy of Ibn Zubayr’s governorship into question, they exerted themselves to make him the target of any kind of charges at all costs.
The accusations were his claim of “Prophethood” for himself, “Mahdavitism” for Ibn Hanafiyya, founding the sect of the Kissanids and the most common one was the label of “liar” (Kadhdhab) which has been referred to in all sources. [2315] Almost all of these accusations, in accordance with a researcher, were ascribed to Mukhtar after his martyrdom [2316].
Assuming that Mukhtar had committed some errors but it ought to be borne in mind that the pivotal factor in his indictment had been thanks to the strokes the Umayya and Ibn Zubayr had experienced on the part of him.
As soon as the news of Mukhtar’s martyrdom was heard, Ibn Zubayr informed Ibn ‘Abbas,ألم يبلغك قتل الكذاب “Have you heard not the news of the liar’s death?”
“The liar?” asked Ibn ‘Abbas.
“Mukhtar, I mean”, Ibn Zubayr replied. “It seems that you do not feel like calling him the liar”.
Ibn ‘Abbas said, ذلك رجل قتل قتلتنا وطلب بدمائنا وشفى صدورنا وليس جزاءه منا الشتم والشماتة [2317] “He is the one who had killed our assassins, has taken revenge for our blood and has soothed our pains. The reward of such a person in our sight is not insulation.”
Elsewhere when once more the name of Mukhtar was mentioned before Ibn ‘Abbas, he said,صلى عليه كرام الكاتبون [2318] “The two illustrious writers send their regards to him.”
It is reported that Ibn ‘Abbas, Ibn Hanafiyya and even Ibn ‘Umar never returned Mukhtar’s sent presents. [2319]
Once ‘Ubayd Allah’s head was carried to ‘Ali Ibn Husayn (a) in Medina, he stated,لم يبق من بني هاشم أحد إلا قام بخطبة في الثناء علي المختار والدعاء له وجميل القول فيه “There was no one from the Hashimites who did not make a sermon complimenting Mukhtar and praying for him.”
Kashshi has quoted Imam al-Baqir (a) as saying,لا تسبّوا المختار فانّه قتل قتلتنا وطلب ثارنا وزوّج ارامنا وقسّم فينا المال علي العسرة [2320] “Insult not Mukhtar owing to the fact that he has killed our assassins, has taken revenge on them, has had our orphans marry and contributed us financially when in trouble.”
As commented by himself, Ibn Zubayr who had borne Ahl al-Bayt’s grudge for forty years [2321] could on no accounts stand Mukhtar’s presence whose endeavor was in line with Ahl al-Bayt’s governorship. And the Umayya enmity was truly overt how he agitated the leaders of Damascus to battle with Mukhtar.
Sufficient would be if we quote Tabari and others regarding Mukhtar’s devotedness. Succeeding his martyrdom, his two wives, one of whom Nu’man Ibn Bashir Ansari’s daughter and the other was Samura Ibn Jundab’s daughter, were interrogated. They latter confessed that her ideas about him were like those of theirs! However, the former said, انّه كان عبداَ من عباد الله الصالحين “He was a servant from Allah’s pious servants.”
Confining her, Mus’ab wrote to Ibn Zubayr, “This woman is of the opinion that her husband, Mukhtar, has been a prophet!”
In the answer, ‘Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr commanded him to slay her. [2322]
The worst accusation Mukhtar was leveled was his claim to be a prophet. Such a charge is totally baseless. Its roots can be located in an utterance the historians have quoted from Mukhtar mostly in rhymed prose (most of which have been narrated by Tabari and others). [2323] Another accusation was that he had introduced himself a diviner and had carried out what the prophets had done. [2324] We believe that these remarks do him an injustice although it never implies that he had been infallible.
Socially, the novelty of Mukhtar’s uprising was due to Mawali’s presence and except one case which was limited compared with Kharijites, it was an absolutely new phenomenon. Previous to his uprising, hardly ever did Mawali have roles in the Arabic society of Iraq though they had been promoted scientifically in the late first century A.H.
It was Mukhtar’s uprising which cleared the way for the appearance of Mawali as an applicable and considerable force in Iraq. By reason of their participation in Mukhtar’s movement, they were severely suppressed, however, they could play an effective role within the community. What many had suggested Mus’ab Ibn Zubayr was,أقتل هولاء الموالي فانهم قد بدء كفرهم وعظم كبرهم وقلّ شكرهم [2325] “Massacre all Mawali for they have revealed their disbelief, have heightened their conceit and lessened their gratitude.”

Reportedly, six thousands of them were slaughtered by Mus’ab!
The Next events pending the extinction of the Umayya dynasty proved that the Iranian Mawalis’ development had been originated from the time of Mukhtar onwards and their role in the Islamic community reached the pinnacle by coming into power by Banu ‘Abbas. Deeming them minacious, ‘Abd al-Malik planned to avert their likely insurrection through paying much more heed to them. By the same token be enlarged their proportion of Bayt al-Mal more than what allotted by Mu’awiya. [2326]
[2174] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV pp 16, 17
[2175] Ibid p. 17
[2176] al-Futuh, vol. V, p. 285; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, pp 19, 20, 21
[2177] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 23
[2178] al-Futuh, vol. V, pp 285, 286; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV P. 28
[2179] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 30
[2180] al-Futuh, vol. V, p. 277
[2181] al-Imamah wa’l-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 220; Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, pp 374, 380; Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 41
[2182] Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 251; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 42
[2183] Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 374 mentioned as untrue
[2184] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 31
[2185] Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq, vol. III, p. 156
[2186] al-Aghani, vol. I, pp 21-24
[2187] Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 250
[2188] al-Imamah wa’l-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 206
[2189] Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 368; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 31
[2190] al-Imamah wa’l-Siyasah, vol. I, pp 206, 207
[2191] Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 367
[2192] Ibid vol. IV, p. 369; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 32
[2193] al-Imamah wa’l-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 208
[2194] Ibid vol. I, p. 210
[2195] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, pp 37, 38
[2196] al-Futuh, vol. V, pp 292-293
[2197] Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 250
[2198] al-Imamah wa’l-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 209; Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. III, p. 372
[2199] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 23; Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 371
[2200] al-Imamah wa’l-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 211
[2201] Some had already predicted the inefficiency of the people of Medina (Al-Imama wa’l-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 210) and some others and amazed at their submission (Al-Imama wa’l-Siyasah, vol. I, pp 216, 217)
[2202] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 37; Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 250; al-Futuh, vol. V, p. 295
[2203] Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 378
[2204] al-Imamah wa’l-Siyasah, vol. I, p. 213
[2205] Ibid vol. I, p. 215
[2206] Ibid vol. I, pp 216, 220
[2207] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 42
[2208] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. III, p. 70
[2209] al-Futuh, vol. V, p. 295
[2210] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 37 As it can be perceived, Muslim Ibn ‘Uqba’s atrocities have been to the extent that Tabari, Ibn Qutayba, Baladhuri, etc have explicitly enumerated them But can it be justified why Wellhausen defended him and starved to acquit him, (Tarikh al-dawlat al-’Arabiyya, p. 156) Afterwards, he tried to introduce the discord between Damascus and Medina as purely political; nonetheless, it is clear that such an outlook was solely for exonerating both Damascus and the Umayya We do never intend to totally define the people of Medina but it ought to be borne in mind that religious motivations could have by no means be ineffective, (Ibid p. 161) Under other circumstances, also his defen of Damascus is noticeable, (p. 162) Supporting Hajjaj as well as denying the charges laid on him are among the cases (pp 247, 248) He had also described sensual Sulayman as a pious man (p. 256)
[2211] Abu l-Faraj al-Aghani, vol. I, p. 14
[2212] Abu l-Faraj, al-Aghani, vol. I, p. 14
[2213] Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 267; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 42
[2214] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 41
[2215] Muruj al-dhahab, vol. III, p. 122
[2216] Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, pp 373, 375
[2217] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 40; Ibn A‘tham, vol. V, p. 301
[2218] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. IV, p. 41
[2219] Ibid vol. IV, p. 42; Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 382; previously, we discussed it entitled “Religious Deviation in Karbala”
[2220] al-Futuh, vol. V, p. 301; Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 268
[2221] al-Futuh, vol. V, p. 306
[2222] al-Muhabbar, pp 480-481
[2223] al-Futuh, vol. V, pp 268, 269
[2224] Ibid vol. VI, p. 47
[2225] Tajarib al-umam, vol. II, pp 97, 98
[2226] Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 432; see also Tajarib al-umam, vol. II, p. 97
[2227] Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 432; See also Tajarib al-umam, vol. II, p. 97
[2228] Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 428
[2229] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 206; Tajarib al-umam, vol. II, p. 96; al-Futuh, vol. VI, p. 50
[2230] Baghara, 54
[2231] Tajarib al-umam, vol. II, p. 96
[2232] Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, pp 430, 431; See also Ansab al-Ashraf vol. V, p. 206; Tajarib al-umam, vol. II, p. 97; al-Futuh, vol. VI, p. 52, a similar letter was also written to Basrian Shi‘ite Muslims led by Muthanna Ibn Makhraba
[2233] Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 433
[2234] See Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 438; Tajarib al-umam, vol. II, p. 99; vol. IV, p. 207
[2235] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 208; Tajarib al-umam, vol. II, p. 99
[2236] Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, pp 353-354
[2237] al-Futuh, vol. VI, pp 65-66
[2238] Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 499 See also Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 207; Tajarib al-Uman, vol. II, p. 98
[2239] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 208
[2240] Tarikh at-Tabari, Vol IV, pp 452-453; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 208
[2241] Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 450
[2242] Ibid vol. IV, p. 453
[2243] Tarikh at-Tabari, Vol III, p. 455
[2244] Ibid Vol III, p. 459; See Tajarib al-umam, Vol II, p. 103
[2245] Some one thousand went back; See Ansab al-Ashraf, Vol V, p. 209, as narrated by Ibn A‘tham, they were 3300 when encountering, Vol VI, p. 8
[2246] al-Futuh, Vol VI, p. 89
[2247] Tarikh at-Tabari, Vol IV, p. 464; Ansab al-Ashraf, Vol V, p. 210; Tajarib al-umam, Vol II, p. 109 and Ibn A‘tham has said, هلم الي طاعة اهل بيت النبوة “Hasten to obey the Prophet’s Household” Al-Futuh, Vol VI, p. 82
[2248] Tarikh at-Tabari, Vol IV, p. 460
[2249] Tajarib al-umam, vol. II, pp 111, 112; Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 470
[2250] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 211
[2251] Ibid vol. IV, p. 469
[2252] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 469.
[2253] al-Futuh, vol. VI, p. 83
[2254] Ibid vol. VI, P. 84
[2255] Ibid vol. 5I6, p. 85
[2256] Ibn Sa‘d,’Asakir Tarjamat al-imam al-Hasan, p. 154; Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 441
[2257] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 214
[2258] Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 440; Mab‘uth al-Husayn, p. 98; al-Kamil fi l-Tarikh, Vol IV, p. 22; Ansab al-Ashraf, Vol V, p. 215
[2259] Ibn Sa‘d, Tarjamat al-imam al-Hasan, p. 154; Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 441
[2260] Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, pp 441-442 Ya‘qubi has written, وكان مختار أقبل في جماعة يريدون نصر حسين بن علي (ع) فاخذه عبيد الله بن زياد فحسبه “Since Mukhtar was the vanguard of those desiring to help Husayn Ibn ‘Ali; ‘Ubayd Allah imprisoned him” Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 58
[2261] al-Muhabbar, p. 303
[2262] Tarikh at-Tabari,vol. IV, p. 446
[2263] Ibid vol. IV, p. 443
[2264] Ibid vol. IV, pp 434 -449
[2265] al-Futuh, vol. VI, p. 56
[2266] al-Futuh, Vol V, p. 74; Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 488
[2267] Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, pp 471, 478; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 212
[2268] al-Futuh, Vol VI, p. 88; Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, pp 220-221
[2269] Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 399; al-Futuh, vol. V, pp 91, 92, 93
[2270] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, p. 221
[2271] See al-Futuh, Vol VI, p. 95; describing his father, he had said,وهو سيد الناس في محبة اهل البيت (ع) “His affection for the Household was the strongest among people”
[2272] al-Futuh, Vol VI, p. 99 the Umayya and later pro-Zubayr people’s intention of calling the Shi‘ite Muslims “Turabiya” was usually disparaging them
[2273] al-Futuh, Vol VI, p. 105
[2274] Tarikh at-Tabari, Vol IV, p. 498
[2275] al-Futuh, Vol VI, p. 103
[2276] al-Futuh, Vol VI, p. 106; Tarikh at-Tabari, Vol VI, pp 108, 109
[2277] Tarikh at-Tabari, Vol IV, p. 503; al-Futuh, Vol VI, pp 108,109
[2278] Tarikh at-Tabari, Vol IV, p. 507
[2279] Tarikh at-Tabari, Vol IV, p. 501; al-Futuh, Vol VI, p. 107; “Daylamites” was a title for Iranian non-Muslims though the masters were Muslims mostly This term was used by Muslim Arabs describing them as disbelievers in order to disdain them
[2280] Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 502; al-Futuh, Vol VI, p. 108
[2281] Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 502
[2282] Akhbar al-Tiwal, p. 293, see also p. 306
[2283] Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 516
[2284] al-Futuh, Vol VI, p. 138
[2285] Ansab al-Ashraf, Vol V, p. 294; Tarikh at-Tabari, Vol IV, p. 577
[2286] Ansab al-Ashraf, Vol V, p. 223
[2287] Tarikh at-Tabari, Vol IV, p. 508
[2288] Tarikh at-Tabari, Vol IV, p. 508; Ibn A‘tham, Vol VI, p. 115
[2289] Tarikh at-Tabari, Vol IV, p. 508.
[2290] Ibid Vol IV, p. 509
[2291] Narrated by Ibn A‘tham, Vol VI, p. 139; following its clash with Mukhtar, the army of Damascus returned and again in order to conquer Iraq, it set out to Jazira and then to Musil
[2292] Tarikh at-Tabari, Vol IV, p. 518
[2293] Ibid Vol VI, p. 146
[2294] Tarikh at-Tabari, Vol VI, p. 146.
[2295] Tarikh at-Tabari, Vol VI, p. 146.
[2296] Tarikh at-Tabari, Vol VI, p. 149
[2297] Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. VI, p. 343 (‘Izz al-din publication)أمّا أمان المختار لعمر بن سعد الا أن بحدث حدثاً فأنّه كان يريد به أذا دخل الخلاء واحدث …
[2298] Ibid Vol VI, p. 139
[2299] al-Futuh, Vol VI, p. 123
[2300] Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, Vol II, p. 259
[2301] Tarikh at-Tabari, Vol IV, p. 53
[2302] al-Futuh, Vol VI, p. 120
[2303] Ansab al-Ashraf, Vol V, pp 228-229; Maqidasi narrated that Mukhtar had done his best to absorb as many people as possible See also, al-Bad’ wa l-Tarikh, Vol VI, p. 22
[2304] Tarikh at-Tabari, Vol IV, p. 531
[2305] Tarikh at-Tabari, Vol IV, pp 536, 537
[2306] Tarikh at-Tabari, Vol IV, p. 542
[2307] Ansab al-Ashraf, Vol III, p. 282
[2308] Ansab al-Ashraf, Vol III, p. 282
[2309] Ibid Vol II, p. 283; al-Kamil fi l-Tarikh, vol. IV, p. 250
[2310] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. III, p. 282
[2311] Tarikh at-Tabari, Vol IV, p. 455; Muruj al-dhahab, Vol III, p. 99; Ansab al-Ashraf, Vol III, p. 285; Vol V, p. 231, it has been said that they had taken the logs being repaired for burning Ibn Hanafiyya and others from the Hashimites by Ibn Zubayr
[2312] Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 559
[2313] Tarikh at-Tabari vol. IV, p. 559
[2314] Ibid vol. IV, p. 560
[2315] See ‘Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf, vol. V, p. 300
[2316] Hadgson, How did the early shia become sectarian?, p. 3
[2317] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. II, p. 287; Vol V, p. 265
[2318] Ibid Vol V, p. 267
[2319] Ibid Vol V, p. 270
[2320] Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat al-rijal, p. 125; for other hadiths in this regard, refer to Bahjat al-amal, vol. VII, p.
[2321] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. III, p. 291
[2322] Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV, p. 574; Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, vol. II, p. 264; Muruj al-dhahab, vol. III, p. 99
[2323] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, pp 233, 235, 236
[2324] An example was a narration about “throne” Mukhtar has been quoted as telling his followers a lie, “Bring ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib’s throne” Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. V, pp 241,242
[2325] Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. IV P. 577
[2326] al-‘Iqd al-farid, vol. IV, p. 148

Denial of Mahdi(A.S.) is Blasphemy

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.