Voices of Islam (89 page)

The Passion of ‘Ashura in Shiite Islam
113

Republic of Iran, which was established through revolutionary upheaval in 1978–1979. At the moment, Iraq seems to be heading toward a Shiite- dominated state, but if the country remains unified its constitution precludes an explicit Shiite government. A small ‘Alawi (also called Nusayri) Shiite minority dominates the Syrian government, but the Syrian Baath regime, as was case of Baathist Iraq under Hussein, is explicitly secular in nature. The same is true for Yemen, where Zaydi Shiites are present in considerable numbers.

Shi‘ism has numerous internal divisions, such as the Ismailis, Zaydis, ‘Alawis, and of course, the Ithna’ ‘Asharis or Twelvers. The roots of the divi- sions among different strains of Shi‘ism can be found in the historical development of Shi‘ism in the centuries after the Prophet Muhammad’s death. The distinctions between these different branches of Shi’ism are based on different legal systems, ritual practices, and theological doctrines. More specifi ly, these different Shiite groups have historically disagreed among themselves regarding the identity, nature, and sequence of the Shiite Imams. The offi of the Imam, called the
Imamate,
is a distinctive feature of all branches of Shi‘ism. It is both the primary difference between Sunnis and Shiites, and the basis of internal disputes among Shiites, which led to the diversity of Shiite groups. Because they are the largest single Shiite group and because their celebrations of ‘Ashura are the most prominent, this chapter will focus on the Ithna’ ‘Ashari, or Twelver, branch of Shi‘ism. Also called Imami Shiites, the name of this sect derives from the belief that there were 12 Shiite Imams, the last of whom has existed in a supernatural or meta- physical state of occultation since 874
CE
.

The sectarian division between the Sunnis and the Shiites took several cen- turies to fully develop. Upon the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632
CE
, there was a crisis of succession. The main challenge facing the young Muslim community was who should succeed the Prophet and in what capacity. It was also unclear whether the Prophet had selected a successor. The imperial caliphate is the system of government that eventually evolved out of this crisis. According to this system, the Islamic state was ruled by a caliph, who commanded both temporal and religious authority, but did not possess any of the supernatural or metaphysical qualities of the Prophet, such as infallibility, supernatural knowledge, or the ability to receive revelation. While some Muslims supported the ruling caliphs, others believed that the Prophet’s son-in-law and cousin ‘Ali ibn Abu Talib should have succeeded the Prophet upon his death. Later, they believed that ‘Ali’s descendants should be his successors, beginning with his sons Hasan (d. 669
CE
) and Husayn (d. 680
CE
). These Muslims are typically referred to as
‘Alids
because of their support for ‘Ali and his descendants.

These Muslims believed that the Prophet selected ‘Ali as his successor on more than one occasion before his death. For example, they believed that the Prophet gave a speech shortly before his death at a place called Ghadir

114
Voices of the Spirit

Khum. According to one account, ‘‘[The Prophet] took ‘Ali by the hand and said to the people: ‘Do you not acknowledge that I have a greater claim on the believers than they have on themselves?’ And they replied: ‘Yes!’ Then he took ‘Ali’s hand and said: ‘Of whomsoever I am Lord [
Mawla
], then ‘Ali is also his Lord. O God! Be thou the supporter of whomever supports ‘Ali and the enemy of whomever opposes him.’’
2

Over the centuries support for ‘Ali and his descendants slowly evolved into a theory of leadership called the Imamate. The Imamate differed from the Sunni caliphate in that the Imam had to be a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad and was usually considered to have supernatural qualities and abilities, such as infallibility and supernatural religious knowledge. The Imam also had to be appointed by either the Prophet or the previous Imam in an unbroken chain of succession leading back to the Prophet. According to this view, the Prophet endorsed the Imamate before his death in 632
CE
.
3
Sunnis and Shiites have passionately disagreed about both the authenticity and the correct interpretation of these accounts. The crisis of succession after the Prophet’s death, followed by a series of political events that unfolded during the first few centuries of Islamic history, turned what was originally a political dispute into a religious or sectarian division.
4

In response to this crisis of succession, Sunnis developed the doctrine that the caliphs, especially the so-called Rightly-Guided Caliphs—Abu Bakr (d. 634
CE
), ‘Umar (d. 644
CE
), ‘Uthman (d. 656
CE
), and ‘Ali (d. 661
CE
)—

were all legitimate successors to the Prophet Muhammad. The caliphs, who were selected as a result of a political process, were generally considered as both religious and temporal leaders, but were not given the same degree of religious authority as Shiites attributed to the Imams. Shiites considered all of the caliphs except ‘Ali to be usurpers of the rightful authority that should have been vested exclusively in the Imams. During the early centuries of Islam, Sunnis tended to be the rulers of the Islamic state, while Shiites were in the opposition. This partly explains the tendency of early Sunnis to preserve the status quo, versus the Shiites who tended to be more critical of rulers and who spoke in more radically utopian terms. While Shiite states eventually developed, particularly in the tenth and eleventh centuries
CE
, the long-term political infl of Shi‘ism was often at its greatest when it took the form of opposition movements that challenged the legitimacy of the ruling Sunni caliphs.

This fundamental disagreement was compounded by later political divisions, which encouraged further divergence in political and legal systems, ritual practices, and theological doctrines. Despite their differing views, relations between Sunnis and Shiites have varied dramatically throughout history, ranging from open confl or hostility, to relative tolerance and coexistence.

The terms
Shi‘a
and
Shiite
derive from the Arabic phrase
Shi‘at ‘Ali,

‘‘Partisans of ‘Ali.’’ The term
Sunni
derives from the phrase
Ahl al-Sunna

The Passion of ‘Ashura in Shiite Islam
115

wa al-Jama‘a,
which means, ‘‘Followers of the [Prophetic] Tradition and the [Majority] Consensus.’’ As these terms imply, the Shiites support the Prophet Muhammad’s progeny as his successors, beginning with ‘Ali. Thus, the concept of Sunni orthodoxy developed largely in response to Shiite ideological and political challenges. While the disputes and schisms may have begun with the crisis of succession, they evolved in accordance with later political and theological trends. For example, regional, ethnic, or tribal loyalties frequently sparked political rebellions. Sectarian rhetoric often accompanied such rebellions. Proto-Shiite arguments were often the most effective way to challenge the legitimacy of the ruling caliphs. The Shiite Imams, who were descendants of the Prophet and who had varying degrees of popular support among the masses, were considered rivals of the Sunni caliphs, who actually ruled the Islamic empire.

When ‘Ali assumed the position of caliph in 656
CE
after the assassination of ‘Uthman, the Prophet’s widow ‘A’isha, with a group from among the Companions of the Prophet, took up arms and challenged ‘Ali’s authority at the Battle of the Camel, which was so named because the fi took place around the camel on which ‘A’isha rode. In some sources ‘A’isha is reported to have stated, ‘‘By Allah! ‘Uthman has been killed unjustly, and I will seek revenge for his blood!’’
5
No sooner had ‘Ali put down this rebel- lion, when he was faced with another military challenge from the powerful governor of Syria, Mu‘awiya. Mu‘awiya was a cousin of ‘Uthman, and he similarly demanded that the murderers of ‘Uthman be brought to justice, something that ‘Ali was either unable or unwilling to do. This military challenge resulted in a stalemate, and eventually an arbitrated settlement. The unsatisfactory outcome of this conflict turned a small group of zealous supporters against ‘Ali. These rebels, who were referred to as
Khawarij
(‘‘secessionists’’), condemned ‘Ali for failing to decisively crush Mu‘awiya’s rebellion. Although ‘Ali defeated the Khawarij, one of their adherents assassi- nated him in 661
CE
. Ironically, this set the stage for Mu‘awiya to assume the offi of caliph, thus ending the period of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs and establishing the Umayyad Caliphate, which lasted for nearly a century.

The Umayyad period of Islamic history is critically important for under- standing the schism that developed between the Sunnis and the Shiites. During this period, ‘Ali’s descendants, especially his sons Hasan and Husayn, were increasingly perceived by opposition groups as the ideal rivals of the Umayyad caliphs because of their piety and their relationship to the Prophet. For this reason, Mu‘awiya and his successors were particularly hostile toward these supporters of ‘Ali and his sons. It was routine for the Umayyads to condemn or persecute the family of ‘Ali, and they were even cursed from the pulpit. It is in this environment of tension, distrust, and conflict, along with the crisis resulting from the death of Mu‘awiya and the accession to the throne of his unpopular son Yazid I (d. 683
CE
), that the battle of Karbala took place in 680
CE
.

116
Voices of the Spirit

The battle of Karbala was the ultimate climax of this dizzying series of con- fl battles, and debates. In many ways it is the most important symbolic event for Shiites since the Prophet Muhammad’s mission, because it is the ultimate and ideal example of the Sunni–Shiite conflict. It serves as a religious model for behavior among Shiites, who are expected to struggle against injustice in the path of God, even if they face oppression, persecution, or death. It is no surprise, therefore, that the vast majority of Shiite rituals are derived from events that are believed to have taken place in or around the battle of Karbala.

Like many other famous historical events, the tale of Karbala has been told and retold over the centuries without a single authoritative version emerging to completely supplant all others. The most commonly accepted narratives of the battle of Karbala begin with an account of the discontent of the Muslims of southern Iraq under the rule of the second Umayyad caliph, Yazid. Yazid is typically portrayed as politically oppressive and morally corrupt. The Prophet Muhammad’s grandson Husayn, who was living in Medina, received several letters from the caliph’s subjects asking him to travel to Iraq in order to lead them in an uprising against Yazid. After sending scouts to assess the situation, Husayn and a number of his close relatives left Medina and began the trip to Iraq.

When they reached Karbala, Husayn’s caravan was surrounded by an overwhelmingly large army sent by Yazid. A standoff ensued, because Husayn refused to give an oath of allegiance to the caliph. After 10 days of waiting, negotiating, and occasionally fi a final battle took place in which Husayn, all of his adult male relatives and supporters, and some of the women and children were killed in a brutal fashion. The surviving women and children, along with Husayn’s adult son ‘Ali Zayn al-‘Abidin (d. 712– 713
CE
), who was too ill to take part in the fi were taken captive and transported, along with the heads of the martyrs, to Yazid’s court in Damascus.

Along the way from Karbala to Damascus, the members of the Prophet’s family who were taken prisoner were exhibited in chains in the public mar- kets of the cities through which they passed. Because of this humiliation, Husayn’s surviving relatives, especially his sister Zaynab and his son ‘Ali, condemned Yazid for his cruelty toward the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad. The role played by women, such as Zaynab, in the events of Karbala and their aftermath is an important focus in Shiite recreations of the Karbala tragedy. Their ordeal of captivity is understood by Shiites to be a terrible injustice and humiliation, especially considering that the prisoners were direct descendants or relatives of the Prophet Muhammad. This captivity also provided an opportunity for Husayn’s sister Zaynab to assume a political role by publicly challenging the Umayyad Caliph Yazid. For example, in the following Shiite account, Zaynab rebukes Yazid, saying:

The Passion of ‘Ashura in Shiite Islam
117

You are not a human being. You are not human. You are an oppressor who inherited bloodthirsty oppression from your father! Even though my heart is wounded and wearied, and my tears are flowing [because of the massacre of Karbala], surely very soon the day of God’s punishment will come and everyone will be subjected to God’s justice. This is suffi for us.... If fate has brought me here to face you this was not something that I wished to happen. But now that it is so, I count you as small and I reproach

you!
6

The entire Muslim community was deeply traumatized by the massacre of Karbala, both because Muslims were killing other Muslims and because the ruling caliph had ordered his troops to massacre the pious descendants of the Prophet. The events of Karbala were also related to earlier traumatic events, like the Battle of the Camel between ‘Ali and ‘A’isha, and the Battle of Siffin between ‘Ali and Mu‘awiya, in which pious and respected Muslims fought on both sides. This negative feeling was compounded by the fact that for many Muslims Husayn and Yazid represented two opposite ends of a religious spectrum. Yazid was widely condemned as impious, tyrannical, and immoral, whereas Husayn was generally seen as being not unlike his grandfather Muhammad or his father ‘Ali in his piety, character, and conduct.