In previous chapters, we proved that during the twenty-year long reign of Muawiya, three groups resided in Kufa:
The common people of Kufa were incensed at the oppression committed by the rulers of Bani Umayyah right from the reign of Uthman and used to complain about the same to Uthman but in vain due to the apathetic attitude of Uthman. For example Uthman removed Saad bin Abi Waqas a well-known companion from the governorship of Kufa and appointed Walid bin Uqbah who was from Bani Umayyad. This Walid was a major transgressor whose alcoholism was such that on one occasion he led Fajr prayers with four rakats. In summary, the people of Kufa were tired of Umayyad oppression that started with Uthman bin Affan through to when Muawiya became ruler, who orchestrated the mass slaughter of Kufan Shia through his bastard brother Ziyad bin Sumaya. Whilst this silenced the Kufans the flame of hatred against the Bani Ummayah was never extinguished. When Muawiya appointed his notorious son Yazid as a ruler and hence converted caliphate into kingship, the Kufans felt that the boundary of tolerance had finally been crossed, for them enough was enough.
Right after the death of Muawiya, the minority Kufan Shia that believed Imamate was the divine right of the Ahl’ul bayt (as) became active;
When the minority Shia learned that Imam Hussain (as) had refused to give bayya to Yazid and had migrated to Makkah from Madina, the people who had hitherto faced oppression saw Imam Hussain (as) as a light at the end of the tunnel and their conscience was telling them that this was the turning point, silence at that time would mean suicide. Hence the people gathered at the house of Suleman bin Surd, an elderly companion of Prophet (s) who had also participated in war alongside Ali bin Abi Talib (as), who said to the people:
“Muawiya has died and Hussain has refused to pay to Yazid and has gone to Makkah from Madina. You people are his and his father’s Shia. If you people believe that there would be no negligence in his obedience and in fighting his enemies, then in the name of Allah, let us write letter to him but if there exists apprehension or weakness on your part then for God’s sake, do not endanger the life of a person by abandoning him”
These words of Suleman demonstrates that he did not want to achieve his goals by creating temporary enthusiasm, rather he wanted people to recognize the harsh realties that would be linked to this decision. This is a natural phenomenon that whilst running high in sentiments, one fails to truly assess his actual strength and in consequence makes a major error. The people were encouraged by his words evidenced their willingness to fight the enemies of Imam Hussain (as).
The question which arises here is: how many minority Shia were there?
One can estimate the figure through the fact that the people had not gathered in an open field or a lavish palace but in the home of Suleman, a traditional Arab house that was small in size, a size similar to that found today. The above cited conversation between Suleman bin Surd and the people of Kufa shows that they were made aware of the consequences that were inevitable for siding with the blessed Imam (as) ? Suleman had completed his duty, thus a letter was then written to Imam Hussain (as) as follows:
This letter made it clear that there were groups were situate in Kufa and this letter was penned not by the common Kufan folk but by the minority Shia residing in Kufa. These individuals then cited their pleasure at the death of Muawiya by stating:
“We do not have any leader [who could lead us in war] therefore please come to us so that through you, we can gather to aid the truth [Haq]. And Nauman bin Bashir is in Dar ul-Amara, we neither attend Friday prayers nor the Eid prayers with him. When we get the news that you are coming, we will make him expel him and send him to Syria”.
This letter was sent through Abdulah bin Hamdani and Abdullah bin Daal and this was the first letter to be written by the minority Shia to Imam Hussain (as) which he received in Makka on the 10th of Ramadhan.
The minority Kufan Shia began to spread their movement among the Aama of Kufa. The people of Kufa who were already boring resentment against the Bani Umayah, this scenario took the resentment to the maximum level and hence, a number of letters began to be written to Imam Hussain (as) by the majority and minority Shia Kufans and within the short span of two days, fifty three petitions were prepared. There were up to three or four names of the people mentioned as the senders of those letters and all of them were delivered through Qays bin Masher, Abdulrehman bin Abdullah and Ammara bin Ubayd Saloli. When the Shia al-Kahsa observed such a enthusiasm from amongst the Aama of Kufa, the former began to believe that public opinion was against Yazid and success in this regard was inevitable, but that was actually a totally wrong assessment as the level of interest by the general public in that campaign was similar to the interest of birds flying in the direction of wind during a storm. The end result of such shortsightedness was that the initial letters written contained wordings like ‘’ which were showing the tantalization and consensus in the form of expectation while in the subsequent letters; the approach was changed to show firm commitment and absolute faith:
“Come quickly because people are awaiting you and are not ready to deem anyone as their leader but you,. Therefore, make it fast, hasty.”
This letters was sent through Hani bin Urwah and Saeed bin Hanafi.
Like we stated above, on the campaign initiated by the Shia al-Khasa of Kufa, the Aama of Kufa also became active and wrote letters to Imam Hussain (as) for the purpose of help, amidst, there were some opportunists whose religion was to get benefits different kinds of worldly gains. When this segment of people saw the general public getting ready to support Imam Hussain (as), they also thought to swim with the water and hence wrote a letter to Imam Hussain (as) the content of which shows nothing but worldly benefits:
“Fields are flourishing again and trees are bearing fruits and ponds are flowing. Thus, you can come whenever you want towards an army, that is prepared for you”
This letter had seven signatories namely Shabath bin Rib’I, Hajar bin al-Jabar, Yazid bin Haritth, Yazid bin Raweem, Azrah bin Qays, Umro bin al-Hajaj al-Zubaydi, Muhamad bin Umari Tamimi. See Tarikh Tabari, Volume 6 page 197.
Just compare the content of these letters written initially with the above one. The earlier letters contained the beliefs of the senders, cited the injustice of Muawiya and his descendant, the admission of Hussain’s right of Imamate, whilst the above cited letter made reference to nothing save material acquisition. In every society, there exist a segment of opportunists who always fly with the direction of wind. This opportunism and sifing with popular opinion was not just limited to this letter the same opportunists showed their devious traits during the battle of Karbala, and we shall cite the example of Shabath a firm believer in the caliphate of Shaykhayn and a narrator of Hadith in the Sunni canonical works.
To suggest that none of the Shia al-Khasa that wrote letters to Imam Hussain (as) participated in the battle against the enemies of Imam Hussain (as), is a lie for we have:
These were the Shia al-Khasa of Kufa who laid down their lives for Imam Hussain (as). It was in fact the letter penned by the opportunist signatories that included, Shabath bin Rab’i, Hajaj bin al-Jabar, Yazid bin Haritth, Azrah bin Qays and Umro bin al-Hajaj al-Zubaydi that switched allegiance and aided and abetted in the murder of the Imam (as) . Whilst the name of the other two cannot be found in the annals of history, one can deduce that they would have joined their five friends in the murder of Imam Hussain (as). These people were amongst the Aama of Kufa who had initially written letters by observing the trend of general populous but later when switched allegiance when the sword of Ibn Ziyad seemed to be triumphant, they hence raised their swords against Imam Hussain (as).
While returning from Makka, Imam Hussain (as) received letters from the people of Kufa. Upon receipt Imam Hussain (as) dispatched Muslim bin Aqeel to Kufa to assess the situation ion the ground and report back. When Muslim bin Aqeel arrived in Kufa, the fire of hatred against Yazid was burning within the hearts of the Kufan and the Shia al-Khasa and Aama of Kufa welcomed him and pledged their support in their scores. At that time, Nauman bin Bashir was the ruler of Kufa who was a shrewd diplomat, he did not offer much resistance or obstacles to Muslim bin Aqeel apart from one sermon in which he warned the public of sedition and asked them to remain loyal in their bayya to Yazid. See Al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah, Volume 8 page 1002.
It was at that time, that a letter was received by Yazid which stated:
“Muslim bin Aqeel has come to Kufa and the Shia have given the oath of allegiance to him on behalf of al Hussain bin Ali. If you have any need of Kufah then send a strong man there who will carry out your orders and act in the same way as you would against your enemy. Al Nauman bin Bashir is a weak man or he is acting like a weak man”
History of al Tabari, Volume 19 page 30
Those who wrote this letter were:
Dear readers, you must have recognized Umar bin Saad. This was same cursed individual who was sent as an army chief for the murder of Imam Hussain (as) and he was the one who fired the first arrow at Imam al Hussain (as), see History of al Tabari, Volume 19 page 129. On the top of it he is a Thiqa narrator of Sunni Hadith works.
His words i.e “Shia have given the oath of allegiance to him on behalf of al Hussain bin Ali” clearly shows that he did not have any connection with the the Shia al-Khasa. Moreover, Yazid’s words i.e “My Shia among the people of Kufa have written to me” strengthen our stance that Umar bin Saad was the Shia of Yazid [la] and from the group/sect that deemed him [la] to be their Imam. Moreover the belief that Hussain rebelled against Yazid accurately tallies with that of the later generation Nawasib like Ibn Arabi etc. Are the Nawasib still going to show their stubbornness and remain shouting that the “killers of al Hussain were his own Shias [i.e. al-Khasa]” while we have already made the sect of His (as) killers known to everyone?
Yazid on receiving this letter wrote to Ibn Ziyad, the son of Ziyad bin Sumaya who during the reign of Muawiya had committed slaughter of Shia al-Khasa in Kufa and hence the government’s army had arrvied and settlled in Kufa from Syria :
“My followers [Shia] among the people of Kufa have written to me to inform me that Ibn al Aqeel is in Kufa gathering units in order to spread rebellion among the Muslims. Therefore when you read this letter of mine go to Kufa and search for Ibn Aqeel as if you were looking for a bead until you find him. Then bind him in chains, kill him or expel him”
History of al Tabari, Volume 19 page 31
It is interesting that some present day Nawasib claim that Ibn Ziyad was amongst the Shias of Imam Hussain (as) i.e. was Shia al-Khasa as a method to cover the sins of their ancestors. The unbiased readers of history should know that besides believing in the caliphate of Shaykhayn, he also believed in the caliphate of Uthman. He is a narrators of Sunni hadith literature, no Sunni scholar of Hadith has declared him Shia. Yazid in his views about Ibn Ziyad stated:
O cup-bearer, make me such a drink that shall quench the thrust of each joint of my body. Then stand up and give a similar drink to Ibn Ziyad.
Who is a pure friend, who is honest, who supports me, who is the investment of my life and my hand during a war
Murooj al-Dahab, Volume 1 page 377
The deviation of Ibn Ziyad from the path of Allah and his apostle was well known amongst the people of Kufa. That is why we read that when Muslim bin Aqeel was residing at the house of Hani bin Urwah, the news that Ibn Ziyad was about to come to meet Sharik bin Awur disseminated to which Sharik asked Muslim bin Aqeel to make the most of the opportunity and kill Ibn Ziyad but he came and went while Muslim did not make any attempt to kill him. Later, Sharik asked Muslim bin Aqeel the reason for not killing Ibn Ziyad to which Muslim replied:
“There were two reasons for that. Firstly Hani didn’t like Ibn Ziyad to be killed in his house, secondly no believer should be murdered.”
To which Hani replied:
“By Allah, had you killed him, it would not have been a murder of a Muslim rather of a Fasiq, Fajir and a dishonest person, no doubt I did not like him to be killed in my house…”
Tarikh Tabari, Volume 6 page 4
The facts are as follows:
In light of this reality we ask those with open minds, was Ibn Ziyad Shia al-Khasa or Shia of Muawiya.
With regards to Ibn Ziyah we read in the History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 33-34:
“When he reached al-Kufah, he was wearing a black turban and he was veiled. News of Husayn’s departure had reached the people; they were expecting his arrival. When Ubaydallah came, they thought he was al-Husayn. Ubaydallah could not pass a group of people without their greeting him. They said,
“Welcome, son of the Apostle of God your arrival is a happy event”. He saw in their joy at seeing al-Husayn something to trouble him. Muslim b. Amr said, “Retire, for this is the governor, Ubaydallah ibn Ziyad”. As he came in view he checked his mount, and he only had some ten men with him”.
The fleeing of the people evidences the fact that none of the Kufans did not deem Ibn Ziyad to be a Shia al Khasa they deemed him a Nasibi like his cruel illegitimate father.
Arab districts had a caretaker that would act as a registrar who would record births, marriages, deaths, conduct a local census locate the whereabouts of know felons.
We read in the History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 34:
“Then he went down; he put the arifs and the people to a severe test and said, Write to me about the strangers, those among you who are sought by the Commander of the Faithful, those among you from Haruriyaah and the trublemakers whose concern is discord and turmoil. Whosoever of you makes these lists for us will be safe from harm. But those of you who do not write anyone will have to guarantee that there is no opponent in his irafah who will oppose us, and no opponent who will try to wrong us. Anyone who does not do so will be denied protection, and his blood and his property will be permitted to us. Any arif in whose irafah is found anyone who is wanted by the Commander of the Faithful, whom he has not reported to us, will be crucified at the door of his house, and I will cancel that irafah from [the diwan] of payment, or he will be sent to a position in Uman [or] al-Zarrah”
This rule of fear and tyranny wherein people were in effect being watched over by state spies, created fear amongst the Kufans who knew only to well the consequences of opposing Ibn Ziyad, this reality had a greater influence over the Kufan populous than their support for the Imam (as) .
The thing that most people overlook when discussing Kufa and its people is the official army and police that were present in Kufa from the outset of Muawiya’s reign had been dispatched from Syira. Ziyad bin Sumaya used these troops to co-ordinate mass slaughter of the Kufans over many years. These same tropps then came under the command of Ibn Ziyad, so the Kufans knew what to expect from the governor and his tropps, if he was making threats there was a reasonable prospect that ot would be carried out.
Later, one of the tactics used by Ibn Ziyad was apprehend those that supported Muslim bin Aqeel, he gave this task to the Yemeni tribal leader Kathir b. Shibab and Muhammad b. al-Ashath. We read in the History of Tabari Volume 19 page 49:
“Kathir met a man from Kalb called Abd al-Ala b. Yazid. He was carrying arms with the intention of joining Ibn Aqil with his fellow youths. He seized him and took him to Ibn Ziyad. Kathir told Ibn Ziyad about the man, but the man told Ibn Ziyad that he had been intending to come to him. Ibn Ziyad retorted “Sure, sure! I remember that you promised me that!” Ibn Ziyad ordered the man to be imprisoned.
Muhammad b. al-Ashath went out until he reached the houses of the Banu Umarah. Umarah b. Salkhan al-Azdi came to him; he was on his way to Ibn Aqil and was carrying arms. Muhammad b. al-Ashath seized him and sent him to Ibn Ziyad who imprisoned him”
It is also worth noting that the enemy of Ahlulbayt Muhammad bin al-Ashath cited above, was from amongst the the Aama i.e. the ancestors of present day Ahle Sunnah and not from the Shia al-Khasa. The very Muhammad bin al-Ashath is a narrator of those principle Hadith books of Ahle Sunnah that have been deemed reliable enough to take the guidance from in shape of Hadith. The books that contain his narrations can be found in:
1. Mu’wata, v2, p519
2. Sunnan Abu Dawoud, v2, p146
3. Sunnan al-Nisai, v7, p302
4. Sunnan Kubra, by Bayhaqi, v5, p332
Imam Ibn Haban included him in his collection of Thiqa narrators i.e. al-Thiqat as recorded in Tahdib al-Kamal, Volume 24 page 496 whilst Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb, Volume 2 page 57 biography 5760 counted him amongst the Tabayeen and when it comes to his rank as a narrator of Sunni Hadith he has been graded as ‘Maqbool’ by him. The tradition narrated by him in one of the six principle Hadith books of Ahle Sunnah namely Sunnan Abu Dawoud has been graded ‘Sahih’ by the Imam of Salafies Nasiruddin Al-Albaani in his book Sahih Sunnan Abu Dawud, Vol 2 page 670 Hadith 2997.
This enemy of Ahlulbayt (as) was also amongst those killed by Mukhtar when he avenged for the murder of Imam Hussain (as) as we read in Tahdeeb al Kamal, Volume 24 page 496:
“Al-Mukhtar killed him in year 66”
This Nasibi benefied from his familial links with a prominent Sahabi family, as we read in Tahdeeb al Kamal, Volume 24 page 495:
“Muhammad bin al-Ash’ath bin Qays al-Kindi Abu al-Qasim al-Kufi, his mother is Um Farwa bin Abi Quhafa the sister of Abu Bakr al-Sidiq”
Another tactic used by Ibn Ziyad was the dissemination of the rumors across Kufa that central forces were about to arrive in Kufa from Syria so as to create panic amongst the people to the extent that:
“Women began to come to their sons and brothers, urging them to go away as the people would be enough without them. Every man went to his son or his brother telling him, ‘Tomorrow the Syrians will come against you. What have you to do with the war and this evil doing? Go away.’ Thus, each took someone away. They continued to disperse so that by the time evening came Muslim b Aqil only had thirty men with him in the mosque”. ”
History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 50-51
This was the time when fear and awe among the people of Kufa was at its climax and hence no one was coming out of his home and pin drop silence type of situation had developed in the city with no one knowing the situation of another of his friend or relatives.
The handful Shia al-Khasa of Kufa that remained were most affected by the situation. They sought safe havens in Kufa but in vain. Ibn Ziyad knew that Hussain bin Ali (as) was due to arrive in Kufa and although the determination and morale of the people was badly debilitated by that time, his arrival would have been resurrected their morbid states, hence in the wake of this apprehension, he started tracing all such individuals who posed a risk to the State and would support Hussain (as) arriving in Kufa and had them arrested including Mukhtar bin Abu Ubaida Thaqafi, Abdullah bin Harthi bin Nofal etc.
On the other hand, after the martyrdom of Muslim bin Aqeel (as), Yazid wrote to Ibn Ziyad:
“I have been informed that al Husayn b. Ali has set out for Iraq. Therefore set lookouts and watches, and be vigilant against suspicious characters. Arrest anyone on suspicion but only kill those who fight against you”
History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 64
A policy of arrests and incarceration were swiftly implemented. The extent of this operation can be understood from the testimony of Ibn Ziyad following the death of Yazid:
“There was no individual who about whom were suspicions that he might oppose the government that was not imprisoned”
Tarikh Tabari, Volume 7 page 18
Furthermore, when following the death of Yazid, Ibn Ziyad was fleeing from Kufa to Syria he met Sayf, to whom Ibn Ziyad said:
“I was just saying to myself that I wish I had issued an order that the prisoners be brought out and beheaded”
Tarikh Tabari, Volume 7 page 70
[This is because the same prisoners such as Mukhtar brought about a revolution to overthrow the Umawis]
It was through these methods that the State quashed the machinations of their opponents and gained complete control over Kufa. Ibn Ziyad then set about apprehending and threatening the residents cities neighbouring Kufa wherein sizeable Shia communities resided such as Basrah and Madain.
Now upon the instructions of Yazid, strict surveillance of all the exits of different cities and barricades were installed for this purpose. Tabari informs us Ibn Ziyad sent:
“al Husayn b. Tamim, the commander of the police to station himself at al-Qadisiyyah to set the cavalry between the area of al-Qadisiyyah to Khaffan and the area of al-Qadisiyyah to al-Qutqutanah and to La’la”
History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 83
Professor Howard in his footnote on the same page informs us that:
“La’la was a halting place between al-Kufah and al-Basrah”.
What this means is that armies had been strategically posted in a manner that made entry into Kufa near impossible, access into Kufa had in effect been blocked.
We learn on the next page that, Qays bin Mushir who was carrying the letter of Imam Hussain (as) to the people of Kufa was arrested by al-Husayn b. Tamim at al-Qadisiyyah who transferred him to Ibn Ziyad who had him executed. When Imam Hussain (as) himself arrived at the said locations, he enquired about the situation from the people living at desert areas who told Him (as):
“By Allah we don’t know anything except the fact that neither we can exit nor can we enter”
Hurr bin Yazid al-Rahiaye and his troops who had intercepted Imam Hussain (as) and his supporters at al-Qadisiyyah and said to him:
“These men from al-Kufah are not among the party that came with you. I will either detain them or send them back”. Al-Husayn answered, ‘I will defend them in the same way I would defend my own life. They are only my supporters and helpers…they are my followers and they are just like those who came with me”
History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 98
By the time when that Imam Husasin (as) had reached Karbala, men were being recruited from al-Nukhaylah to fight him. See History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 129.
The reality is the Shia al-Khasa were either murdered or imprisoned whilst on the orders of Ibn Ziyad, the Aama of Kufa were being forced to go Karbala and fight Hussain bin Ali (as). Such Aama of Kufa did not want to fight the Imam (as), which is why they fled back to Kufa if they got the opportunity. Ibn Ziyad sought to counter their efforts through the dispatching of Suwayd bin Abdulrehman Munqari and other men to Kufa who would apprehend such people and return them back to the army against the Imam (as) . On one occasion Suwayd arrested a Syrian man on personal business in Kufa he sent him to Ibn Ziyad who sought to create an example of him by having him executed, thus all those Aama who had sought to avoid the pending battle were returned to Karbala, see Akhbar Tawal, page 252.
All this proves the following points:
It is clear that when Ibn Ziyad began his terror campaign it was the second group of “Shi’a” the ‘Aama’ that were brought to heel – not the ‘Shia al Khasa’ mentioned earlier since they had already been exterminated in Kufa. This group of Shi’a still believed that Imamate was the right of the people, they were happy and the manner in which Yazid had acquired power and deemed Imam Hussain (as) to be the right candidate for the job, could be swayed easily since their beliefs were not based on any religious conviction. A two-pronged strategy was formulated to essentially change the hearts and minds of those Kufan majority, duress to bring to people in line, coupled with convincing the people to get behind Yazid as he was legitimate Head of State. If they had any doubts these were laid to rest by advocates of Yazid such as the sahaba Abdullah Ibn Umar (as we shall expand on later). This group therefore set aside their personal views and abandoned support for Imam Hussain (as) and joined hands with Yazid as he in their eyes had obtained the ijma of the people. These individuals were Shi’a when they gave bayya and sided with Ali (as) following the death of Uthman. They deemed Imam ‘Ali (as) to be the legitimate fourth khalifa as he had obtained the ijma of the people. Their being Shi’a of Ali (as) was only as long as Imam ‘Ali (as) was khalifa. Once these people were convinced that Yazid had secured bayya from the other Arab provinces and had ardent supporters like Ibn Saba it was easy for them to revise their view on Yazid and recognize his succession as Khalifa was indeed legitimate as it was based on ijma. The Kufans may have had sympathies towards Imam Hussain (as) that influenced their decision to write to him, but influential words of support for Yazid’s right to rule from notables such as Ibn Umar, ensured that their faltering loyalty to Khalifa Yazid was restored.
Despite such extreme obstacles, we see in the annals of history that the Shia al-Khasa who had initiated the movement and had written letters to Imam Hussain (as) and had promised their support to Him (as) did reach him (as) in Karbala and died for him (as) .
It is indeed very strange to see that narrow-minded Nawasib have never noticed the names of the above named al-Shia al-Khasa martyrs. Whilst their bigoted eyes are quick on the Shia Tawabun but become blind when it comes to the textual evidences of the loyalty of but the above cited Shia al-Khasa. They also fail to make reference to the Nawasib killers of Imam Hussain (as) who have been deemed worthy narrators of Sunni Hadith literature.
The above cited men were of the al-Shia al-Khasa who by one way or the other reached to Imam Hussain (as) and laid down their lives. As for those Shia al-Khasa who either did not or were unable to reach to Imam Hussain (as), there exists no evidence of their playing a role in the murder of Imam Hussain (as) whilst those with the Imams blood on their hands have been graded as men of truth in the world of Sunni hadith narrations!
Imam Ibn Jarir Tabari recorded:
“When Hussain was killed and Ibn Ziyad returned to Kufa from al-Nukhaylah, the Shias met and maligned one another and expressed regret at their weaknesses, they thoght that they had committed a big crime as they had invited Hussain by promising him their support upon his arrival, they did not go and he was killed in their neighbourhood and they didn’t help him at all and they thought that this mistake cannot be removed from them except by killing those who participated in his murder or lay down their lives in this”
Tarikh Tabari, Volume 7 page 27
This further debases Nasibi claims and proves that whilst some Shia al-Khasa of Kufa might have failed to help Imam Hussain (as) they certainly played no role in his murder. Two key points can be gauged from the
Verily, this group of Shias who were Shias al-Khasa did not play any role in the murder of Imam Hussain (as) and the maximum wrong committed by them was that they were unable to reach to Imam Hussain (as) and help him, and that may have been due to the preventative methods that had been employed by Ibn Ziyad that we cited earlier. It was then that a gathering was convened in Suleman bin Surd al-Khuzai’s house wherein Musayib bin Najba addressed them:
“We used to be proud of our truthfulness and would praise our Shia party but Allah tested us and it was at that time that we came to know that our claims were wrong. We invited Hussain, sent messages to come and we would help him, but when he came we hid ourselves to the extent that he got killed in our neighborhood, neither did we physically help him nor did we support him through our tongues, nor did we afford him protection in our properties, nor did we send our tribe to aid him. Now how will be respond to Allah and his Prophet (s) when the grandson of the Prophet (s) was killed in our country? Verily, our mistake is not worth hearing. But now we have an opportunity to kill all those who participated in his murder or we can at least lay down our lives in this task”
Tarikh Tabari, Volume 7 page 48
This further demolishes Nasibi propaganda and proves those that played even a minor role in the murder of Imam Hussain (as) did not have any connection with the group called the al Shia al-Khasa.
Later, Suleiman bin Surd was chosen as the leader of the Tawabun movement and the speech that he had gave, that he subsequently repeatedly delivered on Fridays was:
“We were proudly raising our necks whlist waiting for the Ahlulbayt of the Prophet and kept assuring them of our aid and convinced him to come here. But when he arrived, we displayed weakness and brought clumsiness into our work and kept worrying as to what was going to happen to the extent that the grandson of the Prophet got killed in our country at a nearby location when he was seeking aid but no one was adhered to justice. A group of Fasiqeen made him the target of their spears to the extent that he got martyred”
Tarikh Tabari, Volume 7 page 49
This also affirms that fact that they had got trapped in Kufa and a group of Fasiqeen that killed Imam Hussain (as) was different from them and these notables acquired the rank of becoming Sunni hadith narrators.
Following Yazid’s death a group of Shias came to Suleman bin Surd and suggested that it was the right time to rise up and take vengeance from the state officials during what were uncertain times, Suleman bin Surd responded with this sermon:
“Having analyzed the situation, I have found that the killers of Hussain are the tribal leaders of Kufa and they are responsible for his murder by the time that they learn of your plans and know that it is going to affect them, they will get prepared to vehemently oppose you. And having analyzed those that are prepared to be my supporters, I found that they are in a number from whom avenge could neither be acquired nor could the aim be achieved, nor could any damage be caused to the enemy, on the contrary, these people will be cut down like anything. Thus the best thing is that you dispatch your men around and have them convince people to join us”
Tarikh Tabari, Volume 7 page 52
This proves that the killers of Imam Hussain (as) were the Shaykhs and tribal leaders of Aama and they had nothing to do with this group of Shia. Moreover, the reality regarding the number of Shia al-Khasa residing in Kufa is also clarified from this sermon, they did not possess a distinct number and could have been eliminated quites easily before the Aama of Kufa. Later, the speech given by Ubaidullah bin Abdullah was:
“The enemies were determined to kill the grandson of the Prophet whilst friends did not assist him. Verily, his killers deserve wrath and those who abandoned him deserve to be admonished, Neither will his killer have any grounds before Allah nor will there be any reasoning worth hearing by those that abandoned him, except if they sincerely repent and conduct Jihad against his killers and fight the oppressors”
Tarikh Tabari, Volume 7 page 52
When people arrived in Karbala from Kufa with the intention of avenging the murder of Imam Hussain (as), Mathna bin Makhbariya gave a speech that contained the following important sentence:
“Hussain and and his Ansar were killed by a group that we deem them as our enemies and we dissociate ourselves from them, we have now left our homes in order to destroy every one of them”
Tarikh Tabari, Volume 7 page 221
All of these historical evidences make it clear that not a single Shia al-Khasa was the army that killed Imam Hussain (as).