remembering karbala: the construction of an early islamic site of memory

8/16/2019 Remembering Karbala: The construction of an early Islamic site of memory

1/38

The Institute of Asian and African Studies

The Max Schloessinger Memorial Foundation

Offprint from

JERUSALEM STUDIES IN

ARABIC AND ISLAM

42 (2015)

Antoine Borrut

Remembering Karbalā

: the construction of an early Islamic site of memory

THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM

THE FACULTY OF HUMANITIES


2/38


3/38

CONTENTS

Angelika Neuwirth The “discovery of writing” inthe Qurān: tracing an epistemicrevolution in Arab Late Antiquity

1

Walid A. Saleh A piecemeal Qurān: furq¯ an andits meaning in classical Islam andmodern Qurānic studies

31

Koby Yosef Between al-Zuhr̄ı (d. 124/742) andQatāda (d. 118/736): two earlytreatises on abrogation in theQurān

73

Avraham Hakim The Biblical annunciation made toUmar b. al-Khat.t.āb: the religiouslegitimation of the early Islamicconquests

129

Ersilia Francesca Generosity versus avarice inmedieval Islam

151

Miklos Muranyi Geniza or h . ubus : some observationson the library of the great mosquein Qayrawān

183

Harry Munt Trends in the economic history of the early Islamic H. ijāz: Medinaduring the second/eighth century

201

Antoine Borrut Remembering Karbal̄a: the con-struction of an early Islamic site of memory

249

Yaron Ben-Naeh Hebrew sources on the death of Sultan Osman: a chapter in Jewishhistoriography under Islam

283

REVIEWS

Rainer Brunner Ah. mad al-Ah. baiyib. Kit¯ ab al-Ad¯ ad al-musamm¯ a Sul lam al-ilm wa

l-¯ ad¯ ab wa-mi

r¯ aǧ al-h . ikma wa-fas . l al-h ˘

it .¯ ab, Teile 1–6 .

365


4/38

Alfred Ivry Felicitas Opwis and David Reisman,

eds. Islamic philosophy, science,culture and religion: studies in honor of Dimitri Gutas .

369

Meira Polliack Sidney H. Griffith. The Bible in Arabic: The Scriptures of the

‘People of the Book’ in the language

of Islam .

375


5/38

JSAI 42 (2015)

REMEMBERING KARBALĀ:

THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EARLY ISLAMIC

SITE OF MEMORY∗

Antoine BorrutUniversity of Maryland

The hearts of the people are with you [al-H . usayn], but their swords are

with the Ban¯ u Umayya 1

On the tenth of Muh. arram, 61 AH (October 10, 680), a grandson of theProphet Muh. ammad perished as a martyr on the banks of the Euphrates,amidst the arid plain of Karbalā in southern Iraq. The death of al-H. usayn b. Al̄ı at the hands of Umayyad forces is an upsetting memory,chiefly for Shı̄̄ıs, but more broadly for the Islamic community as a whole.This battle, frequently regarded by modern specialists as a relatively“minor” episode — often reduced, in fact, to a police operation directedagainst a rebel refusing to acknowledge caliphal authority—involved thedeath of a few dozen people (the sources most commonly speak of 70or 72 victims), who were massacred by a significantly larger caliphal

army. It rapidly became, however, a central event of early Islam anda foundational stone in the effort at “articulating a narrative of the

∗The present article is part of a broader project on early Islamic sites of memory,entitled “Remaking heritage: memory and oblivion in early Islam” and supportedby the University Research Council of the Aga Khan University (AKU). Most of theresearch and writing of this paper was done thanks to a fellowship at the Institutefor the Study of Muslim Civilisations (ISMC), AKU, London. I wish to expressmy gratitude to its director, Dr. Farouk Topan, and to colleagues from the ISMCwho made every stay in London a pleasant one. I am especially grateful to YohananFriedmann, Najam Haider, Etan Kohlberg, Sabrina Mervin, Sarah Bowen Savant andto the participants in the twelfth international conference From J¯ ahiliyya to Islam (Jerusalem, June 2012) and in the workshop Remembering the First Century of Islam (London, AKU-ISMC, July 2012) for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of thispaper.

1Qul¯ ub al-n¯ as ma ak, wa-suy¯ ufuhum ma a banı̄ Umayya. Al-Farazdaq (d. ca.

112/730), answering al-H. usayn’s question about the feelings and intentions of thepeople of Kūfa (the famous Umayyad-era poet allegedly met al-H. usayn in the out-skirts of Mecca, as the grandson of the Prophet was setting out on his journey toIraq). These lines are notably quoted by al-T. abar̄ı, Ta r̄ıkh , series 2, p. 277 (tr. vol.19, p. 71), and Khal̄ıfa b. Khayyāt., Ta r̄ıkh , vol. 1, p. 281.

249


6/38

250 Antoine Borrut

primordial Islamic past.”2 As such, it has generated highly ritualized

annual commemorations until this day.Indeed, the central place of Āshūrā offers an obvious reminder of the importance and actuality of al-H. usayn’s memory for Muslims, asit includes most famously a reenactment of his martyrdom at Karbal ā

in the form of ta ziya plays,3 as well as a variety of rituals, perhapsbest exemplified by the (much-debated) practice of flagellation.4 Butif the episode was intensely remembered and commemorated by a largenumber of Muslims, Karbalā could also represent a challenge to othergroups. Consider, for instance, the Wahhāb̄ı attack on the city in 1802,as reported by the contemporary chronicler Ibn Bishr:

[The Wahhāb̄ıs] surrounded Karbalā and took it by storm.They killed most of the people in the markets and houses.

They destroyed the dome above H. usayn’s grave. They tookaway everything they saw in the mausoleum and near it, in-cluding the coverlet decorated with emeralds, sapphires andpearls which covered the grave. They took away everythingthey found in the town — possessions, arms, clothes, fab-ric, gold, silver and precious books. One cannot count theirspoils. They stayed there for just one morning and left aftermidday, taking away all the possessions. Nearly 2,000 peoplewere killed in Karbalā.5

Clearly, while the episode of Karbalā has long been and still is vividlyremembered in the Islamic community, it can also represent a major bone

of contention. The ¯

Ashūrā

celebrations and the 1802 episode illustratetwo radically opposed modern memories of a central event of Islamic

2Sizgorich, Violence and belief , pp. 12–13.3For a fascinating example of ta ziya , see Sabrina Mervin’s documentary film, The

procession of the captives (a Shiite tragedy) (Momento Production/CNRS Image,2006).

4There is an abundant bibliography on Āshūrā and its rituals. See especially theclassic study of Ayoub, Redemptive suffering , to be complemented by erudite articlessuch as Hawting, “The Tawwābūn,” and Ende, “The flagellations.” Mervin has alsodedicated numerous studies to Āshūrā rituals, in particular: “Les larmes et le sang”;“Shiite Theatre in South Lebanon”; “Ashura rituals.” For the commemoration of al-H. usayn’s martyrdom prior to the Safavid period, see Calmard, Le culte . The roleand function of Āshūrā in the early modern and modern periods has also receivedsignificant attention in recent scholarship, most notably with Rahimi, Theater state ;Aghaie, The martyrs of Karbal¯ a ; Aigle, “Le symbolisme religieux.”

5Cited in Rogan, The Arabs, p. 57. The main justification for this Wahhābı̄ attackon Karbalā was their strong condemnation of saint veneration, exemplified here byal-H. usayn’s tomb, although this episode should be understood in the broader contextof the competition between Wahhāb̄ıs and Ottomans at the end of the 18th and thebeginning of the 19th century. See Rogan’s discussion, pp. 54–59.


7/38


8/38

252 Antoine Borrut

In the same vein, it is the traces of Karbalā that need to be inves-

tigated: the event of Karbal̄a

is not a dramatic battle on the banksof the Euphrates, but rather its narrative crystallization. That is, thelayers of writing and rewriting up to (and including) the imposition of historiographical filters and the making of an agreed upon version of theepisode.10 Given its centrality in Islamic consciousness, Karbalā could,in fact, be regarded as the event par excellence of early Islam. As themost traumatic episode of nascent Islam, it required the greatest histo-riographical effort and thus the details of the construction of its memorydeserve scrutiny.

The material on Karbalā is so extensive in medieval sources that itis impossible to offer a comprehensive discussion here. For the purposeof the present article, I am limiting myself to Islamic chronographies 11

and the relevant non-Muslim sources,12 as I am mostly interested here in

identifying the very first layers of historical writing on the subject, fol-lowing a methodology developed elsewhere and outlined below.13 Beforefocusing on these texts, however, it must be emphasized that many moresources would be pertinent to such a study and would require furtherresearch. I can only briefly introduce them here.

The maq¯ atil literature, which culminated with Abū al-Faraj al-Is.fahā-n̄ı’s (d. 356/967) Maq¯ atil al-t .¯ alibiyyı̄n , arguably constitutes the most ob-vious venue for such a topic. In his meticulous study of the genre, S.Günther identified four main phases of the circulation of maq¯ atil tradi-tions:14 1) the pre-literary phase (1st/7th century until the first decadesof the 2nd/8th century), during which oral reports of maqtal s mostlycirculated among Sh̄ı̄ıs; 2) a second stage (first half of the 2nd/8th cen-

tury to beginning of 3rd

/9th

century) during which early Sh̄ı

ı̄ historiansstarted to compile collections of maqtal s, mostly in the form of notes(hypomnêmata ), even if some books already existed; 3) a third stage(mid-2nd/8th century until the first third of 4th/10th century) whichrepresents the “golden age” of the genre, culminating with Abū al-Faraj

Donc c’est d’elles, essentiellement, que ce livre entend parler.” Duby, Le dimanche de Bouvines, p. 14).

10Other salient events of early Islam deserve the same kind of attention. See forexample my discussion of the so-called Abbās̄ı Revolution in Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir , pp. 321–381.

11I am using here the historiographical category as defined by Robinson, Islamic historiography , pp. 55–79.

12On the importance of non-Muslim sources for early Islamic history, see especiallyHoyland’s Seeing Islam , and my discussion in Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir , pp.

137ff.13For a full discussion of the methodology, see the first four chapters of my Entre

mémoire et pouvoir .14Günther, “Maq¯ atil literature,” pp. 209–210, and more broadly his Quellenunter-

suchungen . See also Kanazi, “The massacre.”


9/38

Remembering Karbal¯ a 253

al-Is.fahān̄ı;15 and 4) a fourth stage (starting around the mid- 4th/10th

century), which marks the end of the Maq¯ atil literature as a discrete lit-erary genre (even if it resurfaced much later, in sixteenth century SafavidIran).

Beyond the strict genre of the Maq¯ atil , Sh̄ı̄ı literature and Shı̄̄ı po-etry are likely to have conveyed other memories or provided alternativeroutes for the preservation of the memories of Karbalā.16 If it has, forinstance, been suggested that al-Shaykh al-Muf̄ıd (d. 413/1022) mostlyderived his material on the episode from al-T. abar̄ı,

17 other examplesreveal important efforts of literary and legendary elaboration. This isperhaps above all the case with the figure of Shahrbānū, the Sasanianprincess and daughter of the last emperor Yazdagird III, who was al-legedly al-H. usayn’s wife and Zayn al-Ābid̄ın’s mother, although thisliterary phenomenon is not restricted to Shı̄̄ı sources, as shown by M.A.Amir-Moezzi.18 As for Shı̄̄ı poetry, the useful compilation of T. El-Acheche lists more than two dozen transmitters of verses about Karbalā,many of whom were directly involved in the episode.19 El-Acheche hasalso noted several poems about the Taww¯ ab¯ un .20 Muslim tradition evencredits al-H. usayn with a D̄ıw ̄an , and makes much of his literary talent,inherited from his father.21

The qus . s . ¯ as . also likely played a significant role, perhaps best exem-plified by Ibn Atham al-Kūf̄ı (wr. ca. 204/819).22 As aptly noted byHoward, he offers “the most embellished account of the martyrdom of the Imam al-H. usayn.”

23 Interestingly enough, it is possible that theoriginal version of his Kit¯ ab al-fut¯ uh . ended with the dramatic episode of

15This makes it all the more puzzling to note that al-Is.fahān̄ı has almost nothingto offer on Karbalā in his Agh¯ an̄ı , as pointed out by Kilpatrick, Making the great book of songs, esp. pp. 15 and 146–147.

16For recent discussions of early Sh̄ı̄ı literature, see most notably Modarressi, Tra-dition and survival and Amir-Moezzi, Le Coran silencieux .

17As noted by Howard, “H. usayn the martyr,” p. 142.18Amir-Moezzi, “Shahrbānū, Dame du pays d’Iran” and “Šahrbānū.” For a some-

what different chronological assessment of the elaboration of the legend, see Savant,The new Muslims, pp. 102–108.

19El-Acheche, La poésie ši ite , pp. 135–150.20Ibid., pp. 150–154.21See in particular the discussion of Kanazi, “Notes.” Al-H. usayn is also depicted

as “an occasional poet” in the Kit¯ ab al-agh¯ an̄ı ; see Kilpatrick, Making the great book of songs, p. 147.

22The date of Ibn Atham’s work has been much debated in modern scholarship.

See my discussion in Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir , pp. 91–93 and more recentlyDaniel, “Ketāb al-fotuh. ,” to be complemented by the important, albeit unpublished,article by L.I. Conrad, “Ibn Atham and his History ” (see also his brief entry “IbnAtham al-Kūfı̄,” p. 314).

23Howard, “H. usayn the martyr,” p. 141.


10/38

254 Antoine Borrut

Karbalā, as suggested by the Persian translation of his work!24 If so,

Karbalā

may not only be regarded as an origin — the origin of a Sh̄ı

ı̄memory — but also as an end — the end of a united community and ina sense the end of history.

Lastly, the much-neglected genre of astrological histories also pre-serves some relevant material, such as horoscopes of al-H. usayn’s death.

25

The Karbalā narrative: a (brief) sketch and its problems

Before continuing our investigation, a brief sketch of the Karbalā epi-sode, as reported in mainstream Muslim chronographies,26 would behelpful. I have divided it into four major phases:

1. The problematic succession : the succession of the first Umayyadcaliph Muāwiya by his son Yaz̄ıd in 60/680 proved to be quiteproblematic. Such a hereditary succession was rejected by severalleaders who refused to give the bay a to Yaz̄ıd, such as al-H. usayn b.Al̄ı who eventually left Medina for Mecca in search of a safe-haven.

2. The K¯ ufan call : the inhabitants of Kūfa sent numerous lettersto al-H. usayn, inviting him to join them and become their leader;they affirmed that they would fight on his side against Yaz̄ıd. Afterhaving sent his cousin Muslim b. Aq̄ıl to evaluate the situation,al-H. usayn decided to depart for Kūfa in 60/680. However, theequation dramatically changed during his journey, as the powerful

Umayyad governor of Khurāsān, Bas.ra, and Kūfa, Ubayd Allāh b.Ziyād (d. 67/686), managed to restore Umayyad authority over thelatter city, thus forcing the inhabitants to betray their promises toal-H. usayn.

24On this Persian translation, see Daniel, “Ketāb al-fotuh. .”25See for instance the horoscope of Muh. ammad b. Mūsā al-Khwārizmı̄ (d. after

232/847) preserved by al-Yaqūb̄ı, Ta r̄ıkh , vol. 2, p. 291. On the significance of astrological histories in early Islamic historiography, see Borrut, “Court astrologers.”

26The question of the sources is abundantly discussed below. Such a sketch isalso widespread in modern scholarship, given that literally every work dealing withearly Shı̄ism (and often later developments as well) has to offer at least a brief discussion of Karbalā. This has been true since the pioneering work of Wellhausen,Die religi¨ os-politischen Oppositionsparteien , pp. 60ff. and Das arabische Reich , pp.71ff., or Lammens, Le califat de Yaẑıd I er , pp. 131–161. See for instance the various

works of Halm and especially Le Chiisme , pp. 19–21; Hodgson, “How did the earlySĥıa become sectarian?”; Watt, “Shiism”; Jafri, Origins, pp. 174ff.; the classic studyof the second fitna by Rotter, Die Umayyaden , esp. pp. 37–40; or more recentlyDakake, The charismatic community , pp. 81–99. See also the thorough discussion of Veccia Vaglieri, “(al-)H. usayn b. Al̄ı.”


11/38


3. The battle : al-H. usayn and his followers were intercepted by Umay-

yad forces before reaching Kūfa and ended up in Karbalā

wherethey were massacred on the 10th of Muh. arram 61 (October 10,680). Before the battle itself, al-H. usayn’s partisans were deprivedof access to the waters of the Euphrates, thus suffering torture bythirst. The depiction of the battle itself emphasizes the heroismand martyrdom27 of al-H. usayn and his companions. Al-H. usayn’shead is then cut off and sent first to Ubayd Allāh b. Ziyād in Kūfaand eventually to the caliph Yaz̄ıd (I) b. Muāwiya in Damascus,along with the prisoners. The captives were exclusively women,including al-H. usayn’s famous sister, Zaynab, with the notable ex-ception of Alı̄ b. al-H. usayn Zayn al-Ābidı̄n (d. ca. 94–95/712–713).28

4. Commemorations : only a few years later (64–65/684–685), feel-ing guilty for having failed to protect their guide, the Taww¯ ab¯ un (Penitents) came out against the Umayyad forces and ended upbeing massacred at Ayn al-Warda (i.e., Ras al-Ayn in North-ern Mesopotamia) in 65/685, after a pilgrimage to al-H. usayn’stomb. Other early pilgrimages to Karbalā are also recorded in thesources29 and, moreover, several revolts erupted in the followingyears and decades claiming vengeance for al-H. usayn’s blood, bestexemplified by al-Mukhtār b. Abı̄ Ubayd al-Thaqaf̄ı’s (d. 67/687)bid for power.30

This vulgate of the episode is widely available in the so-called classical

sources of the 3

rd

/9

th

and 4

th

/10

th

centuries, usually in the form of avery dense text. The most comprehensive account is arguably preservedby al-T. abar̄ı (d. 310/923), who composed it almost 250 years after theevent.31 Such a situation raises important questions for us as historians:what were the conditions of this narrative’s crystallization? What wereits rhythms, actors, and places?

27This topic is of course of paramount importance in the narratives and subsequentmemories of the episode. See for instance Ayoub, Redemptive suffering ; Crow, “Thedeath of al-H. usayn”; and more broadly, Cook, Martyrdom in Islam . For a wider LateAntique perspective, see Sizgorich, Violence and belief .

28Kohlberg, “Zayn al-Ābidı̄n.”29N. Haider has recently insisted on the importance of such a ritual in the shaping

of a discrete Imāmı̄ identity. See his The origins, pp. 245–247.30On early Alid and proto-Shı̄̄ı revolts, see W.F. Tucker, Mahdis and millenarians

and Fishbein, The life of al-Mukhtār . See also the useful discussion of Crone, God’srule , pp. 70–86.

31Other scholars such as al-Balādhurı̄ (d. 279/892) or al-Dı̄nawarı̄ (d. between281/894 and 290/903) also offer a fairly detailed account, but not as comprehen-sive as al-T. abar̄ı’s. See the remarks of Howard, “H. usayn the martyr,” pp. 138–139.


12/38

256 Antoine Borrut

A paradox immediately emerges: we have ample attestation of the

early commemoration of the episode, as noted above, but only the thinnesthistorical record of it in the earliest preserved narratives. Indeed, theTa r̄ıkh of Khalı̄fa b. Khayyāt. (d. ca . 240/854), often regarded as theearliest fully preserved chronography, provides only very brief referencesto the episode, under the years 60 and 61 of the hijra : the precise dateof the death of al-H. usayn is duly recorded (and even repeated severaltimes), as well as a brief list of eleven family members killed along withhim. The mission of Muslim b. Aqı̄l in Kūfa is noted in a few lines,and so is the encounter of al-H. usayn on his way to Iraq with the poetFarazdaq at Dhāt Irq, in the vicinity of Mecca.32 Khalı̄fa b. Khayyāt.also reports that al-H. usayn had with him 60 or 70 men, that he waskilled by Shamir (or Shimr) b. Dh̄ı al-Jawshan (d. 66/686), and thatUmar b. Sad b. Mālik (i.e., Umar b. Sad b. Abı̄ Waqqās.) was leading

the Umayyad army.33 Even Shı̄ı̄ authors such as al-Yaqūb̄ı34 (d. ca .292/905) and al-Masūd̄ı35 (d. 345/956) have surprisingly little to offeron the topic. Furthermore, non-Muslim sources are almost completelysilent about the event,36 although they usually offer a narrative of earlyIslamic history that is fairly consistent with Muslim sources (the twonotable exceptions, the anonymous Syriac Chronicle of 1234 and thechronography of Elias of Nisibis, are discussed below).

Illuminating these contradictions requires some discussion of the me-anderings of early Islamic historiography. As is well known, scholars ingeneral face a significant lack of Islamic narrative sources for the firstcenturies of Islam. The earliest extant Islamic chronographies are noolder than the middle of the 3rd/9th century, which is almost two cen-

turies after al-H. usayn’s martyrdom. In other words, since our knowledgeof the period rests largely upon Islamic narrative sources produced muchlater in Abbās̄ı Iraq, writing the history of the first centuries of Islamposes especially thorny methodological problems and has thus generatedimportant scholarly debates in the field early on.37 I have argued else-

32Dhāt Irq is a station on the road between Mecca and Iraq; see Y āqūt, Mu jam ,vol. 3, p. 651.

33Khal̄ıfa b. Khayyāt., Ta r̄ıkh , vol. 1, pp. 278, 280–281, 284–286. The brevity of Khal̄ıfa’s account was already pointed out by Howard, “H. usayn the martyr,” p. 135.

34The question of his Shı̄ism has been debated by modern scholars: cf. Y. Marquet,“Le šiisme” and Daniel, “Al-Yaqūbı̄ and Shiism reconsidered.” Again, al-Yaqūb̄ı’slimited discussion of the episode was noted by Howard, “H. usayn the martyr,” pp.139–140.

35Al-Masūd̄ı’s Sh̄ıism has often been noted by modern scholars. See recently M.Cooperson, “Masūd̄ı.”

36See table 1. This silence is obvious in Hoyland’s Seeing Islam , index, Karbalā

[s.v.].37See the convenient discussion of Donner, Narratives, pp. 1–31.


13/38


where that an agreed upon version of the early Islamic past, a vulgate,

was crafted in the late 3rd

/9th

and early 4th

/10th

centuries, in the after-math of the abandonment of Sāmarrā in 279/892 and in the context of the return of the caliphate to Baghdad.38 This endeavor, however, wasnot the first attempt by Muslims to write the story of their origins. Butthis Abbās̄ı-era version would prove successful and long lasting, whenprevious efforts vanished, or more aptly were reshaped and enshrined insubsequent layers of rewriting. Yet, for all the oblivion surrounding earlyIslamic historiography, these early layers of historical writing did impactthis Abbās̄ı-era version. Indeed, history had to be rewritten with what-ever materials were available, even if such elements were the products of former competing historical orthodoxies or the fruits of earlier strategiesof selection that “determined in a fundamental way the access that allfuture generations would have to alternative pasts.”39 Such a dearth

of contemporary narratives invites us to a history of memory approach,to shed new light on sources torn between remembrance and oblivion.Historical writing, after all, always conforms to present needs.

Beyond the specific challenges offered by Islamic historiography, non-Muslim sources are also critical for our investigation as several of thempresent the advantage of contemporaneity with the first centuries of Is-lam. The usefulness of this corpus of texts (composed in a variety of lan-guages including in particular Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and Ara-bic) has also been disputed in modern scholarship but their importancehas now been clearly established. And yet, important misconceptionspersist as non-Muslim sources are still largely regarded as “external”to the Islamic tradition, therefore to be opposed to allegedly “internal”

(i.e., Muslim) sources. Such an approach is quite misleading and doesnot do justice to the rich historical material that was widely circulatedamong the various historiographies at work in the Middle East. I haveadvocated elsewhere for a different approach, arguing that we have, infact, Near Eastern sources—that is, common narratives produced in thedifferent languages of the Near East but based, at least for Islamic his-tory, on a shared core of data, circulated through what L.I. Conrad oncetermed “intercultural transmission.”40

To put it differently, non-Muslim scholars were indebted to Muslimand/or Arab informants for their knowledge of the history of Islam andthe caliphate. As a consequence, bits of a now lost early Islamic histo-riography may have survived in non-Muslim sources that can thus offeraccess to fragments of alternative pasts. As we can document early stages

38Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir , pp. 61–108.39Geary, Phantoms of remembrance , p. 177.40Conrad, “Theophanes.” See my discussion in Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir ,

pp. 137ff., and Borrut, “The future of the past.”


14/38

258 Antoine Borrut

of intercultural transmission, we can also unveil elements of lost histori-

ographical layers transmitted at asynchronous times. And it is preciselybecause not all sources are necessarily saying the same thing at the sametime that we can study these various layers of writing and rewriting in order to establish the sequence by which specific themes or clusters of information appeared , thus shedding a new light on these early attemptsat Islamic history and the various political, ideological or historiograph-ical projects they reveal. In other words, the different rhythms of thevarious historiographies of the Near East (and the variable rhythms of the circulation of historical information between these numerous histori-ographies), are essential in trying to access bits of this “buried past thatrefused to stay buried,”41 as non-Muslim sources provide access to dif-ferent moments of historiographical sedimentation. Concretely, we canactually trace some elements back to the Umayyad period itself, well

before the Abbās̄ıs ever appeared on the scene. This is of course not tosay that we can claim to have any access to the original (literary) form of this information, but we might have access to the content itself.

We are thus facing a multi-layered historiography that sometimesallows us to detect in non-Muslim sources elements coming from a now-lost Islamic historiography. Such an approach has offered fruitful resultson several other occasions,42 but the episode of Karbalā poses especiallythorny problems.

The transmission of silence: Karbalā in non-Muslim sources

Indeed, Karbalā constitutes a case in point and a truly notable excep-tion, given that the episode is virtually absent from non-Muslim sources,as shown in table 1. This absence is even more puzzling if one considersthat the salient events immediately preceding or following al-H. usayn’smartyrdom are duly recorded by Christian historians. Thus, Yaz̄ıd’saccession to the throne or al-Mukhtār’s revolt, started in the name of al-H. usayn’s blood, are discussed in some detail. As noted by Hoyland,the account of al-Mukhtār’s revolt “follows remarkably closely the tra-ditional Muslim account,”43 which makes the silence on Karbalā all themore vexing. Such a silence—or oblivion—is more broadly paradoxicalgiven the impact of the episode on classical Islamic historiography.

41To borrow Geary’s expression, Phantoms of remembrance , p. 180.42See especially Borrut, “Entre tradition et histoire,” “La circulation de

l’information historique,” and Entre mémoire et pouvoir .43Hoyland, Seeing Islam , p. 197. Hoyland is specifically referring here to the ac-

count of John Bar Penkāyē (wr. ca. 687), on whom see Brock, “North Mesopotamia.”


15/38


Specialists of history of memory traditionally provided two main ex-

planations for such a scenario: 1) either the event was too insignificant tobe immediately registered and elaborated upon, and the narrative crys-tallization occurred at a much later point for reasons to be elucidated(e.g., political, ideological, identity related, etc.); or 2) the trauma wasso violent that its memory had to be repressed, and thus oblivion wasthe only possible route.

In fact, both options are possible, as both factors may have playeda part for different actors of historical writing. In the caliphal en-tourage, for instance (and perhaps more broadly in Syria, the heartlandof Umayyad power), historians had no interest in publicizing such anembarrassing event, and the Umayyads themselves certainly had an in-terest in minimizing the memory of the episode (option 1 above).44 Onthe other hand, al-H. usayn’s supporters, chiefly in Kūfa and southernIraq, arguably had to repress this trauma, at least for a while, as theyhad witnessed one of the most dramatic events of early Islam and asthe community was deeply shocked by the martyrdom of its Prophet’sgrandson (option 2 above).

As already noted, non-Muslim sources can offer an access to a now-lost Islamic historiography. If, as other examples suggest, non-Muslimsborrowed from texts produced in Umayyad Syria (or traditions circu-lated there), it is quite unsurprising that they are so silent on a bloodyepisode that Umayyad-era historians were trying to bury, thus followinga strategy of “creative forgetting” best described by P.J. Geary for theMedieval West.45 (We have many other examples of such strategies, e.g.al-T. abar̄ı’s silence on the massacre of the Umayyads by the Abbās̄ıs

in 132/75046

). Two significant exceptions to the silence of non-Muslimsources deserve some attention: the chronicle of Elias of Nisibis (d. 1046)and the anonymous Syriac chronicle of 1234.

Elias of Nisibis is the author of a truly fascinating bilingual chron-icle composed in Syriac and Arabic. Elias also presents the huge ad-vantage of systematically quoting his sources, thus revealing that hisinformation on al-H. usayn is derived from the now-lost Kit¯ ab al-ta r̄ıkh ,of Muh. ammad b. Mūsā al-Khwārizm̄ı (d. after 232/847), the famouscourt astronomer/astrologer and great mathematician of the age of al-

44Evidence for the circulation of information about the Karbal̄a episode inUmayyad circles is discussed below. On Umayyad efforts to control the past andto obliterate Sh̄ı̄ı claims (in particular with regard to the “falsification” [tah . r̄ıf ] of

the Qurān), see now Amir-Moezzi, Le Coran silencieux , esp. pp. 209ff.45Geary, “Oblivion between orality and textuality,” p. 111. See more broadly his

Phantoms of remembrance .46As noted by Robinson, Islamic historiography , p. 41. See also my discussion in

Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir , pp. 184–194.


16/38

260 Antoine Borrut

Mamūn.47 His use of al-Khwārizmı̄ is critical here, as it allows us to date

the circulation of historical information. The preserved material suggeststhat the elements relating to Karbalā were in the process of being in-tegrated into Abbās̄ı historiography in the first half of the third/ninthcentury, a fact corroborated by the limited material offered by Khalı̄fab. Khayyāt. roughly at the same time. Apparently, not all of the de-tails were yet available to al-Khwārizmı̄ as preserved by Elias of Nisibis;there is, for instance, no mention of the captives or of the various episodesthat unfolded in the aftermath of the battle, such as those relating to theTaww¯ ab¯ un or even to al-Mukhtār’s revolt. The precise date of the 10th of Muh. arram is given but the name of Karbalā itself is surprisingly absent,as Elias merely reports that al-H. usayn was killed on the road (Syriac:¯ urh . ¯ o; Arabic: t .ar̄ıq ) to Mecca.

48 This is quite puzzling given that,as noted above, al-Khwārizm̄ı also produced a horoscope of al-H. usayn’s

martyrdom quoted by al-Yaqūb̄ı, which would have required the preciselocation of the killing for complete accuracy.49 It is worth pointing out,however, that the situation is similar in Khal̄ıfa b. Khayyāt.’s Ta r̄ıkh :the specific date is given and the “day of Āshūrā” is even mentioned,but the toponym of Karbalā is likewise absent.50

The brief mention of Karbalā in the anonymous Syriac Chronicle of 1234 is perhaps even more enigmatic.51 The martyrdom of al-H. usayn isdated there to the immediate aftermath of the battle of S. iffı̄n (37/657),more than two decades before the agreed upon date of the episode in61/680. The text runs as follows:

[§109] On Al̄ı’s death he was succeeded by his son al-H. asan,who was poisoned shortly afterwards and was succeeded inturn by al-H. usayn. These two sons of Al̄ı were born of Fāt.ima, the daughter of Muh. ammad, the prophet of theArabs. [§110] Still the civil war was not over. Muāwiya didbattle with al-H. usayn in the east and al-H. usayn’s side lost.Most of the army and al-H. usayn himself were killed at a placecalled Karbalā. Al-H. usayn was killed by Shamir, an Arab;

47For a discussion of Elias of Nisibis and his use of his sources, more specificallyal-Khwārizmı̄, see Borrut, “La circulation de l’information historique” and “Courtastrologers.”

48Elias of Nisibis, vol. 1, p. 147 (Fr. tr. p. 91).49Al-Yaqūb̄ı, Ta r̄ıkh , vol. 2, p. 291.50Khal̄ıfa b. Khayyāt., Ta r̄ıkh , vol. 1, p. 284. The battle is also commonly referred

to as Waq at al-T . aff (or even Malh . amat al-T . aff ), in reference to the desert plateau

west of Kūfa where Karbalā is located (see Yāqūt, Mu jam , vol. 3, pp. 539–541),but the toponym al-T. aff is likewise absent from the earliest source material.

51On the anonymous Syriac Chronicle of 1234, see most recently Weltecke, “Lestrois grandes chroniques.” On Syriac historiography, see also more broadly M. Debié,L’écriture de l’histoire en syriaque .


17/38


but first he was tortured by thirst. The victors slaughtered

most of the tribe and kin of

Al̄ı. They took their wives andchildren and tormented them beyond the limit of endurance.After this the only survivor in power was Muāwiya b. Abı̄Sufyān from the tribe of the Umayyads, who had a son Yaz̄ıd,called after his brother Yaz̄ıd who had died. He moved thecapital and the royal granaries to Damascus. He had alreadyled the Arabs as commander for twenty years. He was anhonourable man whose tolerance and humanity seemed un-limited. Insults against his person were heard by him andignored. This increased his popularity among the Arabs andso contributed to the division of the Arab armies, with thoseof Yathrib and Babylonia on the one side and those of Egyptand Damascus on the other, until the death of al-H. usayn as

we have shown. And still today there is a heresy among theArabs. [...] [§121] Alı̄’s son al-H. usayn had perished in thewar against Muāwiya.52

Modern scholars had long neglected this passage until J. Howard-Johnston’s recent discussion in his Witnesses to a world crisis . Hisconclusions, however, are not truly convincing as he suggests that theepisode actually took place in the year of 40 or 41 (660–661) and wasintentionally misplaced two decades later in Islamic historiography:

One error, though, may be more apparent than real—his de-tachment of the battle of Karbalā from second fitna [sic ]

and his dating of Husayn’s death soon after his father’s andbrother’s in first fitna [sic ]. If it is an error, it is quite extraor-dinary and virtually impossible to explain. AlternativelyTheophilus may have preserved a vital piece of chronologicalinformation which was suppressed in later Islamic historicalwriting.53

In other words, Howard-Johnston sees the Karbalā episode as oc-curring at the end of the first fitna , but as later on being moved byhistorians to the beginning of the second fitna . In his view, the episodemore sensibly belongs to the aftermath of Al̄ı’s assassination than to theevents around 61/680. He goes on to argue that this manipulation rep-resents one of the “four instances [. . . ] in which religious truth has over-

come and completely ousted historical truth about crucial episodes in521234 , vol. 1, p. 280. I am using here the translation of Palmer, The seventh

century , pp. 185–186, 196.53Howard-Johnston, Witnesses, p. 232. See also his discussion on pp. 386–387.


18/38

262 Antoine Borrut

the formative phase of Islam.”54 Such a radical conclusion is difficult to

accept, even if the detailed chronology of the drama was arguably some-what elaborated around the central date of the day of Āshūrā.55 WhileHoward-Johnston is right to point out that this passage is truly intrigu-ing, he has, however, completely neglected the question of Muāwiya’sdecision to name his son Yaz̄ıd as his successor,56 usually regarded asthe main factor driving al-H. usayn’s rebellion, as well as Abd Allāh b.al-Zubayr’s (d. 73/692) bid for power. Moreover, he is probably wrong toassume that these lines should be derived from Theophilus of Edessa’s (d.169/785) lost chronicle since all of the other sources based on Theophilusare silent on the subject.57 It is therefore more likely that this passagein the Chronicle of 1234, with its specific mention of Karbalā and evenof Shamir, represents a later interpolation; the abundance of such detailsinvites a late date anyway.

Hoyland once suggested that Theophanes also conflated S. iffı̄n andKarbalā58 when he mentioned that “Al̄ı’s men were reduced to thirstand were deserting.”59 Although the motif of thirst is quite prominentin the standard Karbalā narratives,60 this might not necessarily reveala conflation of both episodes, since a similar motif is not uncommon inthe S. iff̄ın narratives (although instead of torture by thirst it is mostly aquestion of one army depriving the other of access to the Euphrates, withsimilar results). Hoyland seems to have subsequently abandoned thisidea, judging by his recent book attempting to reconstruct Theophilusof Edessa’s lost chronicle.61

54Howard-Johnston, Witnesses, p. 380.55See in particular the comments of Lammens, Le califat de Yaẑıd I er , p. 181

and of Hawting, “The Tawwābūn.” Another piece of evidence adduced by Howard-Johnston is the De Administrando Imperio of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (d.959). The text, however, is quite unspecific as it simply states that Muāwiya killedthe sons of Al̄ı who had rebelled against him after the death of their father. No senseof chronology is given and it is thus unclear, for instance, whether Constantine VIIactually conflated al-H. asan and al-H. usayn’s bids for power, or if the killing took placein the immediate aftermath of the battle of S. iff̄ın. See Constantine Porphyrogenitus,De Administrando, chapter 21, ll. 106–110; Howard-Johnston, Witnesses, p. 386, n.92.

56This idea has been recently challenged by K. Keshk, in an unpublished paperentitled “Did Muāwiya appoint Yaz̄ıd?” (presented in 2009 at the Middle EastStudies Association conference held in Boston).

57Interestingly enough, Hoyland does not include this passage in his recentTheophilus of Edessa , p. 148, n. 370, thus clearly implying that Theophilus is notthe author of this material.

58

In Palmer, The seventh century , p. 186, n. 459.59Theophanes, Chronographia , p. 347 (tr. p. 483).60See especially Hylén’s discussion on the subject, H . usayn, the mediator , notably

pp. 176ff. It is worth noting, however, that this motif is absent from one of the earliestpreserved accounts, transmitted by Ammār b. Muāwiya al-Duhnı̄ (d. 133/750) anddiscussed below.

61Hoyland, Theophilus of Edessa , p. 147.


19/38


Islamic versions

If we now turn to Muslim narratives, a careful study of the isn¯ ad s revealsthat the story of Karbalā was elaborated chiefly in Kūfa and Medinabefore subsequent developments in Baghdad.62 Two principal versions of the episode were composed: a long version in Kūfa, and a short version in Medina.

The long version

While early traditions can certainly be assumed to have circulated inKūfa in the years and decades following the Karbalā drama63 (especiallyif one keeps in mind the central role which the inhabitants of the cityplayed in it), an important step in the narrative crystallization processtook place with one of the most prolific historians and transmitters of early Islam, Abū Mikhnaf (d. 157/773–774),64 who composed what couldbe termed the long version of the episode. Indeed, the many booksattributed to him notably include a Maqtal al-H . usayn , which is a volumededicated to the martyrdom of the Prophet’s grandson, although thebook is unfortunately lost.65 Its content, however, is supposed to havebeen largely preserved by later sources, most notably Hish ām al-Kalbı̄

(d. 204/819), himself for the most part preserved by al-T. abar̄ı.66

Thisversion offers a detailed account of the Karbalā episode and already a lotof elements belonging to some kind of epic cycle dedicated to al-H. usayn.

It is worth noting here that Abū Mikhnaf’s ancestors were activesupporters of the Alid cause early on, and that his great-grandfather

62A point already made clear, although not exploited, by the important contribu-tions of Howard, who studied the earliest accounts of the episode in Islamic sources inhis “H. usayn the martyr” and his “Translator’s foreword” to volume 19 of al-T. abar̄ı’stranslation, The history of al-T . abar̄ı , pp. ix–xvi.

63See below the example of As.bagh b. Nubāta (d. second half of the 1st century

AH).64On him see especially Sezgin, Ab¯ u Mih

˘naf , and Athamina, “Abū Mikhnaf.” Ac-

cording to the isn¯ ad s preserved by al-T. abar̄ı, a very large number of Abū Mikhnaf’sinformants were Kūfan traditionists.

65See, however, the debates about the text reconstructed by Wüstenfeld, “Der Toddes H. usein ben Al̄ı und die Rache,” and especially the discussion of Sezgin, Ab¯ u Mih

˘naf , pp. 116–123.

66Al-T. abar̄ı, Ta r̄ıkh , especially series 2, pp. 232–281, 288–390 (tr. vol. 19, pp.22–74, 83–183).


20/38

264 Antoine Borrut

Mikhnaf b. Sulaym al-Azd̄ı fought alongside Alı̄ at S. iff̄ın, before al-

legedly being killed among the Taww¯ ab¯ un in 65/685.67

In other words,narrating these episodes was a way for Abū Mikhnaf to write the historyof his own family whose memory he was trying to preserve. Moreover, itis difficult to overestimate Abū Mikhnaf’s role in shaping Sh̄ıism’s earlyimage, to the point that he should be regarded as a major historiograph-ical filter.68

The short version

Prior to (and likely also concomitant with) Abū Mikhnaf’s efforts, an-

other much shorter version of the episode (short version ) seems to havecirculated, possibly at the initiative of the Imams themselves. This isa true family memory, as two of al-H. usayn’s own descendants (morespecifically his grandson and great-grandson, the fifth and sixth Imams)play a key role: Muh. ammad al-Bāqir (d. 114/732) and Jafar al-S. ādiq(d. 148/765). Both lived in Medina, and this is therefore also yet anotherlocal memory.

This version was transmitted by Ammār b. Muāwiya al-Duhnı̄ (d.133/750), who was “an adherent of the Imam al-Bāqir,”69 and is no-tably preserved by al-T. abar̄ı (next to the long version ) and al-Masūd̄ı(who does not offer other versions).70 For unconvincing reasons, theconditions of transmission of this short version have been regarded as

67

Ibn H. ajar, Tahdh̄ıb , vol. 10, pp. 70–71. This is the narrative favored by Atham-ina in his recent Encyclopaedia of Islam entry (“Abū Mikhnaf,” where Mikhnaf b.Sulaym is erroneously referred to as Abū Mikhnaf’s grandfather rather than his great-grandfather), although this is not the only version in the sources. Thus, Nas.r b.Muzāh. im has him killed at S. iffı̄n (Waq at S . iff̄ın , p. 263). Al-T. abar̄ı offers a simi-lar passage (Ta r̄ıkh , series 1, p. 3304; tr. vol. 17, p. 51) before surprisingly statingthat Mikhnaf b. Sulaym was still alive in 39/659–660, when he sent his son Abd al-Rah. mān (d. 75/695) “at the head of fifty men” as reinforcement against al-Nu mānb. Bashı̄r (d. 65/684) at the battle of Ayn al-Tamr (series 1, p. 3444; tr. vol. 17, p.199). Al-T. abar̄ı later quotes a poem by Surāqa b. Mirdās al-Bāriqı̄ (d. ca. 80/699)lamenting the death of Mikhnaf b. Sulaym and Abd al-Rah. mān b. Mikhnaf (series2, pp. 879–880; tr. vol. 22, pp. 29–30). See also Sezgin, Ab¯ u Mih

˘naf , p. 225, n. 128;

Lecker, “S. iffı̄n.”68A point emphasized by Dakake, The charismatic community , p. 4.69Howard, “The martyrdom,” p. 127. Al-Duhn̄ı claims to be transmitting directly

from al-Bāqir, see al-T. abar̄ı, Ta r̄ıkh , series 2, p. 227 (tr. vol. 19, p. 17).70Al-T. abar̄ı, especially series 2, pp. 227–232, 281ff. (tr. vol. 19, pp. 16–22, 74ff.);

cf. al-Masūd̄ı, Mur¯ uj , vol. 5, pp. 127ff. (tr. Pellat, vol. 3, pp. 749ff.; references to theArabic text are given according to the page numbers of the C. Barbier de Meynardand Pavet de Courteille’s edition noted in both Pellat’s edition and translation of theMur¯ uj ).


21/38


dubious by I.K.A. Howard, who argued that this version is very “dry,”

omitting many elements on al-H. usayn’s martyrdom, elements that theImams would not have forgotten in his view.71 In my opinion, however,this lack of adornment would rather suggest an early date. It is, in fact,quite likely that this was an original “official version” of the episode, amemory of the Imams not yet transformed into some kind of epic. Thecirculation of such material between Medina and Kūfa is quite plausible:although “the vast majority of early Imāmı̄s lived in Kūfa” they could“communicate with their Medinan Imams through a correspondence me-diated by merchants, travelers, and pilgrims,”72 not to mention studentsand scholars travelling to Medina to study under the supervision of theImams.

It is to be noted that in most modern scholarship, these two Imamsare also specifically associated with an important step toward the defini-

tion of an Imām̄ı Sh̄ıı̄ identity73 and the Karbalā episode may well havebeen a foundational myth from this perspective. To follow the terminol-ogy recently used by the late T. Sizgorich, Karbalā became a primordial past , thus shaping for the community a sense of identity as well as anunderstanding of contemporary events.74

So we have on the one hand the silence (the oblivion) of non-Muslimsources and on the other family memories—and arguably also sectarianmemories—in Medina and Kūfa, and eventually a narrative explosion inthe latter city and subsequently in Baghdad. We have, in other words,several competing memories (if one keeps in mind that remembrance andoblivion are two attributes of memory): a caliphal (or Syrian?) mem-ory trying its best to bury an embarrassing episode in an attempt at an

impossible oblivion and two local and familial memories in Medina andKūfa, which endeavored to preserve a necessary, albeit painful, remem-brance. Interestingly enough, this idea is corroborated by the fact thatthe first two recorded accounts of al-H. usayn’s martyrdom, although no

71Howard, “H. usayn the martyr,” pp. 128–131.72Haider, The origins , p. 14.73See especially Hodgson, “How did the early Sĥıa become sectarian?”; Madelung,

“Imāma”; Kohlberg, “Imam and community”; Lalani, Early Shı̄ ̄ı thought ; Dakake,The charismatic community ; and most recently Haider, The origins . For differentviews, see most notably Amir-Moezzi, Le guide divin , and Modarressi, Crisis and consolidation .

74Sizgorich, Violence and belief , pp. 8ff. Sizgorich’s main source of inspiration hereis Geertz (The interpretation of cultures, pp. 255–310), while Eliade (in particular hisMyths, dreams and mysteries) is surprisingly absent from the discussion. Elaborating

on the work of others, Sizgorich contends that: “[. . . ] for groups who understand theiridentity in primordialist terms, recalled events embedded in the defining narrativesin accordance with which the group in question imagines its formative past oftenprovide an interpretative grammar through which to make sense of contemporaryevents,” p. 9.


22/38

266 Antoine Borrut

longer extant in their original forms, are attributed to As.bagh b. Nubāta

(d. second half of 1st

century AH), “a prominent member of the Sh̄ı

ı̄community” from Kūfa, and Jābir b. Yaz̄ıd al-Juf̄ı (d. 128/746), an-other Kūfan who was “a follower of the Imam al-Bāqir” and studiedextensively under his direction, up to eighteen years according to onesource.75

Moreover, it is quite unlikely that such narratives of al-H. usayn’s mar-tyrdom were unknown in Umayyad circles, therefore reinforcing the ideaof a very conscious effort at “creative forgetting.” The example of Āmirb. Sharāh. ı̄l al-Shab̄ı (d. 103/721) is particularly telling from this per-spective: he was a renowned Kūfan scholar and poet who worked forAbd al-Malik and tutored his sons, before serving as q¯ ad . ı̄ in Iraq underUmar I I despite his alleged “flirtation with Sh̄ı̄ı ideology” that even-tually “came to an end because of the Sh̄ı̄ıs’ ifr¯ at

. or exaggeration in

religion, which he abhorred.”76 Yet al-Shab̄ı actively participated inal-Mukhtār’s rebellion seeking revenge for al-H. usayn’s blood,

77 and heis also credited with a Kit¯ ab al-sh¯ ur¯ a wa-maqtal al-H . usayn (fragmentsof which survive in Ibn Ab̄ı al-H. ad̄ıd’s (d. 655–6/1257–8) Sharh . nahj al-bal¯ agha 78), which suggests a detailed knowledge in Umayyad circlesof the Prophet’s grandson’s martyrdom.79

Other clues attest that the episode was well-known and even dis-cussed at the Umayyad court. Thus, the Christian court poet al-Akht.al(d. ca. 92/710) celebrated in verse the Umayyad victory, emphasizingthe decisive role of Ubayd Allāh b. Ziyād in eliminating Muslim b. Aq̄ıland Hāni b. Urwa before clearly alluding to the battle of Karbalā itself.Indeed, al-Akht.al praises Ibn Ziyād for having managed to deprive al-

H. usayn of access to the waters of the Euphrates, and ends his poem by

75Howard, “H. usayn the martyr,” pp. 124–126. See also Sezgin, GAS , vol. 1, p.307, and recently Modarressi, Tradition and survival , vol. 1, pp. 59–73 (As.bagh b.Nubāta), especially p. 61, and pp. 86–103 (Jābir al-Juf ̄i), particularly pp. 87, 102.Modarressi suggests that the text of the Kit¯ ab maqtal al-H . usayn of Jābir al-Juf̄ı maywell have been “quoted in full” by al-Majlis̄ı (d. 1110/1698) in his Bih . ¯ ar al-anw¯ ar (Tehran, 1376 AH), vol. 30, pp. 287–300. Limited fragments from both As.baghb. Nubāta and Jābir al-Juf̄ı are quoted in Abū al-Faraj al-Is.fahān̄ı’s Maq¯ atil , seeHoward, “H. usayn the martyr,” p. 126.

76Juynboll, “al-Shab̄ı.”77Al-T. abar̄ı, Ta r̄ıkh , series 2, pp. 609–613 (tr. vol. 20, pp. 193–197).78Ibn Abı̄ al-H. ad̄ıd, Sharh . , vol. 9, pp. 49–58, cited in Sezgin, GAS , vol. 1, p. 277.79See Sezgin, GAS , vol. 1, p. 277, and Juynboll, “al-Shab̄ı.” Āmir al-Shab̄ı is

surprisingly absent from Howard’s list of authors of early maqtal s (Howard, “H. usayn

the martyr,” pp. 124–125). In fact, Howard may have confused the author and histransmitter, as he lists Awāna b. al-H. akam (d. 147/764), who does not seem to beotherwise known for having written a maqtal but rather for having transmitted fromĀmir al-Shab̄ı (see Sezgin, GAS , vol. 1, p. 277). See also Lammens, “Le chantre,”pp. 398–405.


23/38


claiming that the governor of Iraq had thus crushed a “snake” (h . ayya ).80

Elsewhere, we are told that the caliph

Abd al-Malik once questioned al-Zuhr̄ı (d. 124/742) about a miracle (a bleeding stone) that occurred inJerusalem on the very night al-H. usayn was killed.

81

Finally, the fact that several sources are clearly trying to rehabilitatethe image of Yaz̄ıd I82 (r. 60–64/680–683), blaming instead his governorof Kūfa (Ubayd Allāh b. Ziyād)83 or on some other military leaders(most notably the infamous Shamir [or Shimr] b. Dh̄ı al-Jawshan, whoallegedly killed al-H. usayn) for the massacre, suggests strategies to shiftblame from the caliph to some of his subordinates, or even from theSyrians to the Iraqis.84 Thus, al-Masūd̄ı insists for instance on thefact that all the troops engaged against al-H. usayn were from Kūfa andthat not a single Syrian was involved in the battle.85 Such elementsmay well be an echo of an otherwise largely lost pro-Umayyad versionof the episode,86 and whispers of “alternative pasts”87 largely silencedin mainstream Abbāsı̄-era chronicles,88 although internal Shı̄̄ı polemicsshould also be taken into account and certainly deserve further study.

It is also worth noting that the chronology of the development of thetwo main Islamic versions just discussed is consistent with the chrono-logical framework established by S. Günther for the maq¯ atil literature,

80Al-Akht.al, Shi r al-Akht .al , vol. 2, pp. 539–540; Lammens, Le califat de Yaẑıd I er , p. 178 and “Le Chantre,” p. 236. On al-Akht.al, see Lammens, “Le chantre” andStetkevych, “Al-Akht.al.” I am indebted to Suzanne Stetkevych for helping me locatethis poem in Qabāwa’s edition, as the copy of S. ālih. ānı̄’s edition (cited by Lammens)I consulted was faulty.

81This miraculous anecdote is widely found in the sources. To my knowledge, the

earliest occurrence is preserved by Ibn

Abd Rabbih (d. 328/940), who claims thatthis tradition goes back to al-Zuhr̄ı himself, al-Iqd , vol. 4, p. 365.82See for instance the Byzantine-Arab chronicle of 741 or the Chronicle of 754

and cf. in contrast John Bar Penkāyē for an early negative image. Regarding al-T. abar̄ı’s strategies on the topic, see the discussion of Shoshan, Poetics of Islamic historiography , pp. 100–102.

83See, however, al-Akht.al’s praise of Ibn Ziyād’s actions (Shi r al-Akht .al , vol. 2,pp. 539–540) discussed below.

84However, a counter-example is offered by al-Yaqūb̄ı, who specifically insists onYaz̄ıd’s orders to his governors of Medina (al-Wal̄ıd b. Utba) and Kūfa (Ubayd Allāhb. Ziyād) to send him al-H. usayn’s head, Ta r̄ıkh , vol. 2, pp. 287–288. This point wasnoted long ago by Lammens, Le califat de Yazı̂d I er , p. 148, who rejected al-Yaqūb̄ı’sallegations.

85Al-Masūd̄ı, Mur¯ uj , vol. 5, pp. 144–145 (tr. vol. 3, p. 756, §1902).86A point already lamented by Lammens, Le califat de Yaẑıd I er , p. 169.87Geary, Phantoms of remembrance , p. 177.88This is not an isolated example. Cf. Dakake’s conclusions on the circulation of

the Ghadı̄r Khumm narratives, p. 34: “In fact, our analysis suggests that the Ghadı̄rKhumm tradition circulated widely in Umayyad times, but was partially eclipsed oreven suppressed by other sectarian and religio-political developments in the Abbāsidera.”


24/38

268 Antoine Borrut

outlined above. Günther’s idea that oral traditions originally only cir-

culated among proto-Shı̄

ı̄s could also explain the silence of non-Muslimsources, indicating closed networks through which they passed, althoughwe have to avoid a too simplistic opposition of oral and written modesof transmission.89

The redemption of Sh̄ı̄ı memory in Abbās̄ı historiography

We still have to understand why and how this Alid memory was so thor-oughly revived by Abbās̄ı-era chroniclers in the classical period. Whyindeed was there such a choice for remembrance rather than oblivion?

Such a decision was not obvious, since the early Abbāsı̄s turned out tobe extremely hostile to the Alids whom they had deprived of the fruitsof the so-called Abbās̄ı Revolution (in reality a Hashemite one) thattoppled the Umayyads.90 For decades the Alids were widely persecutedand many rebelled against Abbāsı̄ power.91 But in the course of the3rd/9th century, especially in the aftermath of the fourth fitna , and inthe context of the rise of the Turks, the disintegration of the Empire andthe weakening of caliphal authority, the Abbās̄ıs began a massive effortto redeem Shı̄̄ı memory.92 The lesser and greater occultations (ghayba )probably played a significant role in this perspective, as the vanishing of an obvious political contender made this redemption much easier.93

In fact, as already noted, the late 3rd/9th century marked a period

of profound historical rewriting and attempts to develop a new relation-ship to the early Islamic past.94 The past was notably rewritten in order

89As most notably shown by the seminal works of G. Schoeler, most recently The oral and the written and The genesis of literature in Islam .

90On this much debated topic in modern scholarship, see recently Agha, The revo-lution ; Cobb, “The empire in Syria,” pp. 261–268; Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir ,pp. 321–381; and Crone, The nativist prophets , pp. 11–27.

91See the useful discussion of Crone, God’s rule , pp. 87ff.92This is consistent with the chronology suggested above, based on what both

Khalı̄fa b. Khayyāt. and al-Khwārizmı̄ (as preserved by Elias of Nisibis) have to offeron Karbalā. One of the earliest allusions in Abbās̄ı-era sources is to be found inthe S̄ıra itself, where verses in a poem attributed to Umayya b. Abı̄ al-S. alt (d. ca.9/631) and lamenting the martyrs of Badr include a clear allusion to Karbal ā (IbnIsh. āq/Ibn Hishām, S̄ıra , p. 532, tr. 354). This is of course a later interpolation, not tomention that the authenticity of many poems attributed to Umayya b. Abı̄ al-S. alt is

more broadly questionable. See Seidensticker, “The authenticity” and Montgomery,“Umayya b. Ab̄ı ’l-S. alt.”

93On this period of critical importance for the development of Im ām̄ı Sh̄ıism, seeespecially Newman, The formative period .

94Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir , pp. 97–108.


25/38


to make room for all the descendants of the Prophet and not just the

Abbās̄ıs (thus doing the exact opposite of what al-Mahdı̄ had once sug-gested, according the Anonymous history of the Abb¯ as̄ıs 95). The Alidsthus emerge in the so-called classical sources as victims and martyrs inwhose name the Abbās̄ıs are seeking vengeance and legitimacy. Thiswas not a straightforward process though, and if al-Mamūn’s reign cer-tainly played a significant role in this direction, with the designation of Alı̄ al-Rid. ā as heir apparent as an obvious climax,

96 other rulers fol-lowed much more hostile agendas. Thus, the caliph al-Mutawakkil hadal-H. usayn’s tomb leveled to the ground in 236/850–51 and prohibitedvisiting this place of holy memory.97

Paradoxical as it seems, the main challenge for the Abbāsı̄s was topresent the conditions for their own rise to power, during the Abbās̄ıRevolution in 132/ 750 and its immediate aftermath. The various epi-sodes of the massacre of the ousted dynasts, the Umayyads, would proveparticularly problematic as the degree of violence exercised by the newpower brokers was soon condemned by Muslim scholars. However, theearly diffusion of these massacre narratives, clearly attested, in particu-lar, in non-Muslim sources, precluded any attempt at complete oblivion.Rather, Abbās̄ı-era scholars carefully reshaped these accounts so thebloodbath would appear justified and, in fact, necessary. And this is pre-cisely where Alid/Shı̄̄ı memory proved invaluable, as it is in the nameof remembrance of Shı̄̄ı martyrs that the slaughter of the Umayyads bythe new holders of Weber’s monopoly of legitimate violence was to beseen as tolerable. The massacre of the kinsmen of the former mastersof Damascus was reinterpreted in an attempt to fulfill a duty toward

Islamic memory.98

95Akhb¯ ar al-dawla al-Abb¯ asiyya , p. 165. See my discussion in Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir , pp. 80ff.

96The importance of this period has notably been highlighted by Amir-Moezziregarding the construction of the legend of Shahrbānū, al-H. usayn’s alleged Sasanianwife. See Amir-Moezzi, “Shahrbānū, Dame du pays d’Iran,” and idem , “Šahrbānū.”See, however, Savant’s arguments in favor of a later crystallization of the legend, The new Muslims, pp. 102–108. On the designation of Al̄ı al-Rid. ā see most recently Tor,“An historiographical re-examination.”

97See al-T. abar̄ı, Ta r̄ıkh , series 3, p. 1407 (tr. vol. 34, pp. 110–111): “In this year,al-Mutawakkil ordered that the grave of al-H. usayn b. Al̄ı and the residences andpalaces surrounding it be destroyed. The site of his grave was to b e ploughed, sown,and irrigated, and people were to be prevented from visiting it. It is reported thatan agent of the chief of security police announced in the area: ‘Whomever we find

near al-H. usayn’s grave after three days we shall send to the Mat.baq [Prison].’ Peoplefled and refrained from going to the grave. This place was ploughed, and the areaaround it was sown.” The incident is noted by Honigmann, “Karbalā,” who addsthat “Ibn H. awk. al (ed. de Goeje, p. 166), however, mentions about 366/977 a largemashhad with a domed chamber, entered by a door on each side, over the tomb of H. usayn, which in his time was already much visited by pilgrims.”

98For a full discussion of the episode, see Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir , pp.


26/38

270 Antoine Borrut

Most of the narratives run as follows: about 70 members (commonly

72, sometimes more99

) of the Umayyad family are invited under falsepretexts for a dinner by Abd Allāh b. Al̄ı (d. 147/764), the uncle of thefirst Abbās̄ı caliph and one of the leading military figures of the fightagainst the Umayyads. During this encounter, a poet starts recitingverses against the Umayyads. Thereafter, Abd Allāh b. Alı̄ speaksand recalls the martyrdom of al-H. usayn at the hand of Umayyad forces.Then, with this memory still in the air, he makes a sign and orders hissoldiers to massacre the Umayyad guests. He then throws carpets abovethe still moving bodies, we are told, and settles down to enjoy his dinneramidst the sounds of the dying Umayyads.

It is in the name of remembrance, of duty to Islamic historical mem-ory, that the Umayyads are massacred, in an exact mirror of Karbalā.Even the number of victims is precisely identical to perfect the parallel.

This presentation of the events is very easy to understand: in so doing,this episode is not to be associated with a simple vendetta, but ratherto be included in the active process of legitimation of the new Abbās̄ıregime. The narration of these massacres is generally followed in thesources by accounts about the violation of the graves of the Umayyadcaliphs, whose remains are flogged and burnt, their ashes scattered in thewind, often again in the name of Sh̄ı̄ı martyrs.100 The veracity or thelegendary character of this event is not so important, in the frameworkof a history of memory. The destruction of the graves, places of com-memoration par excellence, shows clearly that, beyond the Umayyadsthemselves, it is their memory that is to be fought, in the name of Alidmartyrs.

184–194 and “The future of the past.” See also the classic study of Moscati, “Lemassacre”; Elad, “Aspects of the transition”; and Robinson, “The violence.”

99Such a figure is of course highly symbolic. See the thorough discussion in Elad,

“Aspects of the transition.” On the significance of numerical symbolism in Islamichistoriography, see more broadly Conrad, “Seven and the tasb̄ı .”100See for example the fate of Hishām b. Abd al-Malik’s corpse, guilty of having

martyred Zayd b. Alı̄ (d. 122/740). Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir , pp. 187–193and Madelung, “Zayd b. Al̄ı.”


27/38


Conclusion

The Karbalā episode is thus originally torn between impossible oblivionand necessary remembrance. The historical information does not, froma geographical perspective, seem to have circulated widely but was pre-served locally in Medina and Kūfa, where local and familial memorieswere conserved. These memories ended up irrigating mainstream clas-sical sources composed primarily in Abbās̄ı Baghdad, and largely usingmaterial from Medina and Kūfa. This is not to say that we have to goback to Wellhausen’s old theory of “schools of history,” but rather to ac-knowledge, with Fred Donner, that “the critiques of Wellhausen’s ‘school’

theory [. . . ] tend to obscure the fact that historical writing during thefirst two Muslim centuries was, in fact, the product of a very limitednumber of major cities,”101 and that historical information circulatedbetween those cities more than is often assumed.102 This redemptionof Alid memory was also critical for Abbās̄ı political and ideologicalprojects. From this perspective, it was indispensable and this choicewould not be challenged, as this version of the episode would becomethe definitive vulgate.

In its narrative dimension at least, the Karbalā episode seems tofollow the paradigm once suggested by R.S. Humphreys: covenant, be-trayal, and redemption.103 The covenant with the family of the Prophetis broken by the betrayal of the Kūfans and the subsequent brutal mas-sacre of al-H. usayn and most of his male relatives and followers, orches-

trated by the Umayyad forces. The redemption process starts early,chiefly with the Taww¯ ab¯ un , but is not complete until H. usaynid memoryhas been redeemed in Abbāsı̄ sources.

As aptly noted by I.K.A. Howard, al-H. usayn’s martyrdom “becamean important subject for historians from an early time.”104 But Karbalā

was to be more than just a topic covered by historians: it became a verycentral lieu de mémoire not only for Shı̄̄ıs but also for the entire Islamiccommunity. Nora stated that “les lieux de mémoire ne sont pas ce donton se souvient, mais là où la mémoire travaille; non la tradition elle-même, mais son laboratoire.”105 As such, the Karbalā drama was to be

101Donner, Narratives, p. 216. J. Wellhausen’s theory was originally presented inhis Das arabische Reich .

102A point noted by Conrad, “Heraclius in early Islamic Kerygma,” pp. 152–153.See my discussion in Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir , pp. 33–37.103Humpreys, “Qurānic myth.”104Howard, “H. usayn the martyr,” p. 142.105Nora, Les lieux de mémoire , vol. 1, pp. 17–18.


28/38

272 Antoine Borrut

contested and disputed. This is of course especially true in the context of

“cyclical reenactments of primordial beginnings”106

best exemplified bythe Āshūrā rituals, but certainly not limited to such commemorations.What such an investigation reveals is both the role of memory and

oblivion in medieval sources themselves, and the impact of historicalwriting and the construction of Islamic sites of memory not only onmedieval rituals and identities but on modern ones as well. And withthis conclusion comes an interesting paradox: modern “orthodox” inter-pretations of Karbalā could well be based upon Abbāsı̄-era sectarianvisions.

106Sizgorich, Violence and belief , p. 74.


29/38



30/38

274 Antoine Borrut

Bibliography

Agha, S.S. The revolution which toppled the Umayyads: neither Arabnor Abb¯ asid . Leiden, 2003.

Aghaie, K.S. The martyrs of Karbal¯ a : Shı̄ ̄ı symbols and rituals in modern Iran . Seattle and London, 2004.

Aigle, D. “Le symbolisme religieux shı̄ite dans l’éloge funèbre de l’imāmKhomeyni à l’occasion de la prière de Kumayl.” Arabica 41 (1994):59–83.

Akhb¯ ar al-dawla al-Abbāsiyya. A.A. al-Dūr̄ı and A.J. al-Mut.t.alibı̄,

eds. Beirut, 1971.

Al-Akht.al. Shi r al-Akht .al Abı̄ M ̄alik Ghiy¯ ath ibn Ghawth al-Taghlibı̄ .Fakhr al-Dı̄n Qabāwa, ed. Recension of al-Sukkar̄ı. 2 vols. 2nd ed.Beirut, 1399/1979.

Amir-Moezzi, M.A. Le guide divin dans le sh̄ı isme originel: aux sources de l’ésotérisme en Islam . Paris, 1992.

——. “Shahrbānū, Dame du pays d’Iran et mère des Imams: entrel’Iran préislamique et le Shiisme Imamite.” JSAI 27 (2002): 497–549.

——. “Šahrbānū.” Encyclopaedia Iranica . Online version. 2005.

——. Le Coran silencieux et le Coran parlant. Sources scripturaires de l’islam entre histoire et ferveur . Paris, 2011.

Assmann, J. Moses the Egyptian: the memory of Egypt in Western monotheism. Cambridge (Mass.), 1997.

——.Cultural memory and early civilization: writing, remembrance,and political imagination . Cambridge, 2011.

Athamina, K. “Abū Mikhnaf.” EI 3 . Online version. 2011.

Ayoub, M. Redemptive suffering in Islam: a study of the devotional aspects of ¯ Ash¯ urā in Twelver Shı̄ ism . The Hague, 1978.

Borrut, A. “La circulation de l’information historique entre les sourcesarabo-musulmanes et syriaques: Élie de Nisibe et ses sources.” InM. Debié, ed. L’historiographie syriaque . Paris, 2009, pp. 137–159.


31/38


——. Entre mémoire et pouvoir: l’espace syrien sous les derniers

Omeyyades et les premiers Abbassides (v. 72–193/692–809). Lei-den, 2011.

——.“The future of the past: historical writing in early Islamic Syriaand Umayyad memory.” Forthcoming.

——.“Court astrologers and historical writing in early Abbāsid Bagh-dad: an appraisal.” In J. Scheiner et al., eds. Contexts of learning in Baghdad from the 8 th –10 th centuries. Göttingen, forthcoming.

Brock, S.P. “North Mesopotamia in the late seventh century. Book XVof John Bar Penkāyē’s R̄ıš Mellē .” JSAI 9 (1987): 51–75.

Byzantine-Arab chronicle of 741 = Chronique Byzantino-Arabe de 741,Corpus Scriptorum Muzarabicorum , I. J. Gil, ed. Madrid, 1973,pp. 7–14; trad. R.G. Hoyland, Seeing Islam , pp. 611–630.

Calmard, J. Le culte de l’imˆ am H . usayn. ´ Etudes sur la commemoration du drame de Karbalˆ a dans l’Iran pré-safavide . Unpublished PhDthesis. Paris, 1975.

Chronicle of 754 = Chronique Hispanique de 754, Corpus Scriptorum Muzarabicorum , I. J. Gil, ed. Madrid, 1973, pp. 16–54.

Chronicum ad Annum Christi 1234 Pertinens . Ed. and Latin tr. J.-B.Chabot (CSCO vol. 81, Scriptores Syri t.36). Leuven, 1920 and

1965.Cobb, P.M. “The empire in Syria.” In C.F. Robinson, ed. The new

Cambridge history of Islam, vol. I: the formation of the Islamic world, sixth to eleventh centuries . Cambridge, 2010, pp. 226–268.

Conrad, L.I. “Theophanes and the Arabic historical tradition: some in-dications of intercultural transmission.” Byzantinische Forschun-gen 15 (1988): 1–44.

——.“Seven and the tasb̄ı : on the implications of numerical symbolismfor the study of medieval Islamic history.” JESHO 31 (1988): 42–73.

——.“Ibn Atham and his History.” Unpublished paper.

——.“Ibn Atham al-Kūf̄ı.” In J.S. Meisami and P. Starkey, eds. En-cyclopedia of Arabic Literature, Vol. I: A–K . London, 1998, p. 314.


32/38

276 Antoine Borrut

——.“Heraclius in early Islamic Kerygma.” In G.J. Reinink and B.H.

Stolte, eds. The reign of Heraclius (610–641): crisis and con- frontation . Leuven, 2002, pp. 113–156.

Constantine (VII) Porphyrogenitus. De Administrando Imperio. G.Moravcsik, ed. English tr. by R.J.H. Jenkins. Dumbarton Oaks,1967.

Cook, D. Martyrdom in Islam . Cambridge, 2007.

Cooperson, M. “Masūd̄ı.” Encyclopaedia Iranica . Online version.2011.

Crone, P. God’s rule . Government and Islam: six centuries of medieval Islamic political thought . New York, 2004.

——. The nativist prophets of early Islamic Iran: rural revolt and local Zoroastrianism . Cambridge, 2012.

Crow, D.K. “The death of al-H. usayn b. Al̄ı and early Shı̄̄ı views of theImamate.” Al-Serāt (Papers from the Imam H . usayn conference in London, July 1984) 12 (1986): 71–116.

Dakake, M.M. The charismatic community: Shi ite identity in early Islam . Albany, 2007.

Daniel, E.L. “Al-Yaqūbı̄ and Shiism reconsidered.” In J.E. Mont-gomery, ed. Abb¯ asid studies: occasional papers of the School of

Abb¯ asid Studies, Cambridge, 6–10 July 2002 . Leuven, 2004, pp.209–231.

—–.“Ketāb al-fotuh. ,” Encyclopaedia Iranica. Online version. 2012.

Debié, M. L’́ecriture de l’histoire en syriaque. Transmissions inter-culturelles et constructions identitaires entre hellénisme et islam .Leiden, forthcoming.

Donner, F.M. Narratives of Islamic origins: the beginnings of Islamic historical writing . Princeton, 1998.

Duby, G. Le dimanche de Bouvines, 27 juillet 1214. Paris, 1985. En-glish tr. by C. Tihanyi as The legend of Bouvines: war, religion and culture in the Middle Ages . Berkeley, 1990.

El-Acheche, T. La póesie ši ite des origines au iiie siècle de l’hégire .Damas, 2003.


33/38


Elad, A. “Aspects of the transition from the Umayyad to the Abbāsid

caliphate.” JSAI 19 (1995): 89–132.Eliade, M. Myths, dreams and mysteries: the encounter between con-

temporary faiths and archaic realities . New York, 1967.

Elias of Nisibis. Eliae Metropolitae Nisibeni , opus chronologicum . E.W.Brooks, ed. (CSCO vol. 62, Scriptores Syri t. 21). Leuven, 1962.French tr. L.-J. Delaporte as Chronographie de Mar ´ Elie bar ˇ Sinaya métropolitain de Nisibe . Paris, 1910.

Ende, W. “The flagellations of Muh. arram and the Shiite ulamā.” InG.R. Hawting, ed. The development of Islamic ritual . Aldershot,2006, pp. 331–348.

Fishbein, M. The life of al-Mukht¯ ar b. Abı̄ Ubayd in some early Arabic historians . Unpublished PhD thesis. University of California, LosAngeles, 1988.

Geary, P.J. Phantoms of remembrance: memory and oblivion at the end of the first millennium . Princeton, 1994.

—–.“Oblivion between orality and textuality in the tenth century.” InG. Althoff, J. Fried, and P.J. Geary, eds. Medieval concepts of the past. Ritual, memory, historiography . Cambridge, 2002, pp.111–122.

Geertz, C. The interpretation of cultures. New York, 1973.

Günther, S. Quellenuntersuchungen zu den “Maq¯ atil at .-T

. ¯ alibiyyı̄n” des

Ab¯ u’l Farǎg al-Is . fah¯ an̄ı (gest. 356/967): ein Beitrag zur Prob-lematik der m¨ undlichen und schriftlichen ¨ Uberlieferung in der mit-telalterlichen arabischen Literatur . Hildesheim – Zürich – NewYork, 1991.

——.“Maq¯ atil literature in medieval Islam.” Journal of Arabic Litera-ture 25 (1994): 192–212.

Haider, N. The origins of the Sh̄ı a. Identity, ritual, and sacred space in eighth-century K¯ ufa . Cambridge, 2011.

Halm, H. Le chiisme . Paris, 1995.

Hartmann, A. “Rethinking memory and remaking history: methodolog-

ical approaches to “lieux de mémoire” in Muslim societies.” In A.Pellitteri, ed. Maǧ ̄az: culture e contatti nell’area del Mediterraneo.Il ruolo dell’Islam. Atti 21. Congresso UEAI, Palermo, 2002 .Palermo, 2003, pp. 51–61.


34/38

278 Antoine Borrut

Hawting, G.R. “The Tawwābūn, atonement and Āshūrā.” In G.R.

Hawting, ed. The development of Islamic ritual . Aldershot, 2006,pp. 173–188.

Hodgson, M.G.S. “How did the early Sĥıa become sectarian?” JAOS 75 (1955): 1–13.

Honigmann, E. “Karbalā.” EI 2 . Online version.

Howard, I.K.A. “H. usayn the martyr: a commentary on the accountsof the martyrdom in Arabic sources.” Al-Ser¯ at (Papers from the Imam H . usayn conference in London, July 1984) 12 (1986): 124–142.

—–.“Translator’s foreword.” In I.K.A. Howard, tr. The history of al-

T . abar̄ı. Vol 19: the caliphate of Yaz̄ıd b. Mu

¯ awiyah . Albany,1990, pp. ix–xvi.

Howard-Johnston, J. Witnesses to a world crisis: historians and histo-ries of the Middle East in the seventh century . Oxford, 2010.

Hoyland, R.G. Seeing Islam as others saw it: a survey and evalua-tion of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian writings on early Islam .Princeton, 1997.

——.Theophilus of Edessa’s chronicle and the circulation of historical knowledge in late antiquity and early Islam . Liverpool, 2011.

Humpreys, R.S. “Qurānic myth and narrative structure in early Is-

lamic historiography.” In F.M. Clover and R.S. Humphreys, eds.Tradition and innovation in late antiquity . Madison, 1989, pp.271–290.

Hyĺen, T. H . usayn, the mediator: a structural analysis of the Karbal¯ a

drama according to Ab¯ u Ja far Muh . ammad b. Jar̄ır al-T . abar̄ı (d.310/923). Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Uppsala, 2007.

Ibn Abd al-Rabbih. Al-Iqd al-farı̄d . M. al-Tawnaj̄ı, ed. 7 vols. Beirut,2001.

Ibn Abı̄ al-H. ad̄ıd. Sharh . nahj al-bal¯ agha. M. Abū al-Fad. l Ibrāhı̄m, ed.20 vols. Cairo, 1959–1964.

Ibn H. ajar al-

Asqalān̄ı. Tahdhı̄b al-tahdhı̄b. Cairo, n.d.Ibn Ish. āq/Ibn Hishām, Sı̄rat ras ̄ul All¯ ah . F. Wüstenfeld, ed. 3 vols.

Frankfurt am Main, 1961. English tr. by A. Guillaume as The life of Muhammad . Oxford, 1955.


35/38


Jafri, S.H.M. Origins and early development of Sh̄ı a Islam . London

and New York, 1979.

Juynboll, G.H.A. “al-Shab̄ı.” EI 2 . Online version.

Kanazi, G. “The massacre of al-H. usayn b. Al̄ı: between history andfolklore.” In S. Ballas and R. Snir, eds. Studies in canonical and popular Arabic literature. Toronto, 1998, pp. 23–36.

——.“Notes on the literary output of H. usayn ibn Al̄ı.” ZDMG 155(2005): 341–364.

Khal̄ıfa b. Khayyāt. al-Us.fur̄ı. Ta r̄ıkh. A.D. . al-Umar̄ı, ed. 2 vols.Najaf, 1965–1979.

Kilpatrick, H. Making the great book of songs. Compilation and the author’s craft in Ab¯ u l-Faraj al-Is . bah¯ anı̄’s Kit̄ ab al-agh¯ an̄ı . Londonand New York, 2003.

Kohlberg, E. “Imam and community in the pre-ghayba period.” In S.A.Arjomand, ed. Authority and political culture in Shi ism . Albany,1988, pp. 25–53.

——. “Zayn al-Ābidı̄n.” EI 2 . Online version.

Lalani, A. Early Shı̄ ̄ı thought: the teachings of Imam Muh . ammad al-B¯ aqir . London, 2000.

Lammens, H. “Le chantre des Omiades.” Journal Asiatique 9 (1894):94–176, 193–241, 381–459.

——. Le califat de Yaẑıd I er . Extrait des Mélanges de la Faculté ori-entale de Beyrouth . Beirut, 1921.

Lecker, M. “S. iffı̄n.” EI 2 . Online version.

Madelung, W. “Imāma.” EI 2 . Online version.

——. “Zayd b. Al̄ı.” EI 2 . Online version.

Marquet, Y. “Le šiisme au ixe siècle à travers l’histoire de Yaqūb̄ı.”Arabica 19 (1972): 1–45, 101–138.

Al-Masūd̄ı. Mur¯ uj al-dhahab wa-ma ¯ adin al-jawhar. Charles Pellat,ed. Beirut, 1965–1979. French tr. by Charles Pellat as Les prairies d’or . Paris, 1962–1997.


36/38

280 Antoine Borrut

Mervin, S. “Les larmes et le sang des chiites: corps et pratiques rituelles

lors des célébrations de ¯

Ashûrâ

(Liban, Syrie).” REMMM : Le corps et le sacré dans l’Orient musulman 113–114 (2006): 153–166.

——.The procession of the captives (a Shiite tragedy). Documentaryfilm, Momento Production/CNRS Image. Paris, 2006.

——.“Shiite theatre in South Lebanon: the Karbalā drama and theSabaya.” In P. Chelkowski, ed. Eternal performance: Ta ziehs and other Shiite rituals (Enactments). Chicago, 2010, pp. 324–335.

——.“Ashura rituals: a comparative approach of Twelver Shiism.”Forthcoming.

Modarressi, H. Crisis and consolidation in the formative period of Shi

ite Islam: Ab¯ u Ja far ibn Qiba al-R¯ az̄ı and his contribution to Im¯ amite Sh̄ı ite thought . Princeton, 1993.

——.Tradition and survival. A bibliographical survey of early Sh̄ı ite literature . Vol. 1. Oxford, 2003.

Montgomery, J.E. “Umayya b. Ab̄ı ’l-S. alt.” EI 2 . Online version.

Moscati, S. “Le massacre des Umayyades dans l’histoire et dans lesfragments poétiques.” Archiv Orient´ alńı 18 (1950): 88–115.

Nas.r d. Muzāh. im. Waq at S . iff̄ın . A.M. Harun, ed. Cairo, 1946.

Newman, A. The formative period of Twelver Shi

ism: H . adı̄th as dis-course between Qum and Baghdad . Richmond, 2000.

Nora, P. Les lieux de mémoire. Paris, 1997.

Palmer, A. The seventh century in the West-Syrian chronicles . L

remembering karbala: the construction of an early islamic site of memory

Documents