Imam Hussein and Karbala: From Historical Reality to Religious Myth

What has been narrated about the martyrdom of Hussein, the third Imam of Shia Muslims, in the event of Karbala on the tenth of Muharram in the year sixty of the Islamic calendar, how much of it is historical reality and how much is myth and religious superstition? Is the Shia narrative of Ashura the whole truth? Did the third Imam of Shia Muslims and his family truly remain thirsty and without water in Karbala? Why are parts of what happened in this event not mentioned in mourning ceremonies or in the official and governmental readings of the event of Karbala? In this week's taboo, we have raised these questions with Hassan Yousefi Eshkevari, a religious scholar, and Majid Mohammadi, a sociologist with religious studies background. Majid Mohammadi: I believe that the story of Karbala, as presented by Shia clerics and mourners in Iran, is neither history nor merely a myth. Like many films made about historical figures, it takes selective aspects of history but dramatizes a significant portion of it. In this sense, the story of Karbala and Ashura in today's Iranian culture is very similar to science fiction stories. It selectively takes points from reality, but the main work here is really storytelling and nurturing fantasies, not expressing history. There are many omissions. Many figures and events are completely left out. For example, you do not see the struggles of other individuals against Yazid. Or alongside it, there are additions found, such as the story of Qasim's wedding or the illness of the fourth Imam. These are additions made to dramatize the story. Therefore, I believe that fundamentally, the historical-scientific discussion about Ashura is very unproductive for believing Shias. They are looking for something else. The story of Ashura evokes emotions related to Shiism. This is why the story of thirst and lack of water comes up, and all its contradictions come alongside it. A third direction is that an industry is supposed to be built on this basis, just like the industry of science fiction films, and this is where I view religion as a market. The fourth point is that such stories create enthusiasm for more stories. Just like serialized science fiction stories, here too, there is enthusiasm for people to go and listen to unheard mourning ceremonies. Mr. Eshkevari, if you were to categorize what we know about the third Imam of Shia Muslims and what people hear in mourning ceremonies during Muharram, how much fits into the realm of history and how much into the realm of myth? Hassan Yousefi Eshkevari: As far as I have delved into history, particularly the first century, I see no event in Islamic history as ambiguous, vague, and contradictory as the story of Karbala and what happened there. Regarding the story of Karbala, the fabrications, myths, and legendary constructions are far more numerous. From the sources I have reviewed, I can say that in the year 60 AH, the then-caliph Muawiya dies, and his son, whom he had appointed as his successor, comes to power. He writes to his governor in Medina, Walid ibn Utbah, to extract allegiance from two or three people. According to one account, only from the people of Medina and according to another, only from these three individuals: Abdullah ibn Zubair and Abdullah ibn Umar. Abdullah ibn Umar, as usual, takes a middle path and does not confront him. But Abdullah ibn Zubair and Hussein ibn Ali, who had previously opposed Yazid's succession, leave the city at midnight and go to Mecca. In Mecca, Hussein's supporters from Iraq and Kufa write to him, and he eventually heads to Iraq. On the way, he is besieged by the forces of Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad and ultimately killed in a confrontation on Ashura. This is what we can say is mentioned in all historical narratives and reports, but what happened afterward and the details written in the accounts of the martyrs, and as we move away from the event, numerous narratives, superstitions, and fabrications enter the story of Karbala, making it very difficult to distinguish reality from fabrications and myths. Mr. Eshkevari, now regarding the reasons for the influx of what you referred to as 'fabrications' over time in the narrative of Ashura and the third Imam of Shia Muslims, we will certainly address that, but before that, I would like to ask Mr. Mohammadi: Shias emphasize that the third Imam of Shia Muslims was the only one who opposed Yazid and went to the battlefield knowing he would be killed. But was it really like that? There are examples, as Mr. Eshkevari mentioned, such as the story of Abdullah ibn Hanzalah, who continued his fight after Karbala, and he and all his children were killed, and his story is no less significant than what happened in Karbala. Why are these not mentioned? Mohammadi: There are two specific reasons. One reason is that in the narrative line created for Karbala, these details and side stories do not contribute to the narrative. In Shia discourse, it is said that the Imams possess infinite knowledge and power. If they were to create stories about others, naturally, this narrative line and main belief would be undermined. They do not go there. The social context of the story also constructs a framework and ritual for Shias that has a specific lineage and an element of grandeur that must be transferred from one Imam to another so that you can build the story of the twelve Imams and use this tool for social mobilization and to gather people around a main story. All of these do not align with the side stories you mentioned. In fact, you pointed out the 'going of Imam Hussein to be martyred.' Since the 40s, this discussion has been intensely debated among various Shia schools regarding whether Imam Hussein went for martyrdom or to establish a government. Some groups have emerged with different views. They were revolutionary and activist clerics. Mr. Salehi Najafabadi wrote the book 'Shahid Javid.' Clerics like Mr. Moshkini and Montazeri defended that narrative line, but that narrative line has gone to the margins because there is no need for it. Today, the need is for people to come and hear the main story, which is the lineage of the twelve Imams and then the victimization of clerics and Imams of Shia and those who followed them. Mr. Eshkevari, we have not lacked bravery against the ruling authority throughout world history and even in Iran from the time of Ariobarzanes to today. I want to ask about the issue of pure martyrdom-seeking and whether one can value martyrdom-seeking alone. Even ISIS fighters, independent of their beliefs and behaviors, fight knowing they will be killed, or those who carry out suicide operations out of heartfelt belief, or we have seen bravery in the Iran-Iraq war... What is it that makes this epic so sacred and unique for people that they can easily accept the superstitions surrounding it? Eshkevari: Yes. First, let me point out that it is true that there were others at that time like Ibn Zubair, Abdullah ibn Hanzalah, and others who also revolted about two years later in 62 AH in Medina, but at that time, Abdullah ibn Zubair continued for years. Or in the story of Karbala, we see other martyrs who are not mentioned to this extent. In the course of Iranian history, as you mentioned from Ariobarzanes and others or the Iran war; yes, all of this exists, but one point I want to mention is that the story of Karbala cannot be compared with the story of the Hura event and Medina, both in terms of its hero, Hussein ibn Ali, and the events that occurred there. There, a massive slaughter occurred. It was not just about Abdullah ibn Hanzalah. Many other heroes, some companions, children of companions, followers, and great figures were killed, whether in Iranian history or elsewhere. I want to say that Hussein ibn Ali himself was a very reputable figure at that time. Perhaps he was the most reputable figure. After all, he was the grandson of the Prophet and the son of Ali and Fatimah and one of the greats, but whatever it was, it happened. In a few hours, at least seventy-three people were killed in a tragic manner, including women and children who were part of the household and descendants of the Prophet. Such a tragedy that was unprecedented at that time is why the story of Imam Hussein cannot be compared with others. My analysis of why the story of Imam Hussein and Karbala became so famous is that the story of Karbala, after the death of Muawiya and at that critical juncture, revived the long-standing tribal conflict between Banu Hashim and Banu Umayyah and became an important turning point. Historically, it was a dispute over caliphate, power, and leadership. Now, the story of Karbala opened this festering wound and provided a suitable context and background for Banu Hashim and their intellectual followers to take revenge on Banu Umayyah. The second issue is that this story of Imam Hussein must be interpreted in relation to Iran. Because the story of the Shi'ite movement comes up, and then in Iran, Imam Hussein becomes very prominent. The story of Karbala was not as grand in the first and second centuries. The further time passes, in historical interactions, especially in the anti-Umayyad and anti-Arab atmosphere in Iran during the Shi'ite movement and similar events, it has been nurtured. The third issue that many do not pay attention to is that the story of Karbala also became the source of an important intellectual transformation. Until that time, the general belief among Muslims was that rebellion against the government was not permissible. The story of Karbala created a significant intellectual shift in the Islamic world, and it is after that that the question arises among jurists and theologians about whether rebellion against a ruler, especially if the ruler is tyrannical, is permissible or not. Mr. Mohammadi, if we want to be a bit more detailed about what some critics consider to be superstitions that have entered the story of Ashura, I want to ask you about the very emotional relationship regarding thirst, the lack of water, and the thirst endured by the women and children and supporters of the third Imam of Shia Muslims in Karbala. Does the thirst in Karbala have a real root? Some have raised the issue of ablution or personal hygiene mentioned in sources that the third Imam of Shia Muslims and some of his companions performed on the day of Ashura, casting doubt on the existence of such a level of thirst and lack of water. Mohammadi: You see, this is also one of those parts that are usually added to the stories to increase the drama of the story and evoke the emotions of the audience. It is clear that there was water at that scene; historical sources indicate that access to water existed. Even beyond ablution; you mentioned ablution, it is said that they bathed. Naturally, to bathe, you need more water than for ablution. Now, interestingly, if you look at some of the religious people who have raised this contradiction, they usually justify that no! There was not enough water, and one can perform ablution with little water... Mr. Mohammadi, the discussion was not just about ablution, as can be traced in historical sources. The discussion was even about personal hygiene, meaning even in the sources that have come, for example, depilation or points like this can be seen. Mohammadi: It is clear that access to water existed. Only to increase the water story, these matters may have been added. The points you mentioned are present in multiple historical sources. You mentioned superstition; there is really no boundary between superstition and faith in the framework of religious belief. This reality has created problems for Shias. In fact, when we talk about the...