Introduction
Ziyārah (supplicatory) literature plays a paramount role within Shi’ism and is intimately linked with the physical act of pilgrimage to the tombs of the Ahl al-Bayt and other revered figures within Islam. The practice of ziyārah as pilgrimage has a deep legacy in Islam and mass visitations to the tomb of Imām Ḥusayn is historically rooted immediately following his martyrdom by figures such as the famed companion Jābir al-Anṣārī or other figures such as Sulaymān b. Ṣurad al-Khuzā’ī who was one of the Shi’a elite elders in Kufa at the time.
Alongside physical pilgrimage, ziyarah supplicatory prayer, namely Ziyarah ‘Āshūrā’ plays an important role within this sacred history. Numerous early ascriptions of the ziyārah including Ibn Qūlūwayh’s (d. 386 H) Kāmil al-Ziyārāt and Shaykh Ṭūsī’s (d. 460 H) Misbāḥ al-Mutahajjid have transcribed the text of this ziyārah. These written ascriptions contain reliable chains of transmission traced back to the fifth Imām, Muḥammad al-Bāqir. Dozens of detailed historical commentaries and contemporary studies (including many leading Grand Ayatollahs such as Sayyid Khū’ī, Shubayrī Zanjānī and many others) cover both of the chains of transmissions as well as comparative literary content in the ziyārah. These meticulous studies by some of the leading scholars of the Muslim world present overwhelming evidence attributing to the veracity and faithful transmission of Ziyarah ‘Āshūrā’.
In recent times, however, certain reformist trends within contemporary Shī‘ism expressed disconcert at the ziyārah’s use of la‘n (disassociation and cursing) towards the oppressors of the Ahl al-Bayt and Imām Ḥusayn. These reformist figures, including notable clergymen, questioned the ziyārah’s authenticity on the basis of their theological position that the Imāms could not have advocated such cursing. This position is puzzling given the importance of la‘n as a nearly universally accepted and permissible practice within Shī‘ism, but even more importantly given the fact that the Qur’ān is replete with dozens of usages of la‘n. Not only does Allah do la‘n on certain categories of accursed people, but Allah also groups with himself those who do la‘n in Surah Baqara, Verse 159: “Those who conceal the clear (Signs) We have sent down, and the Guidance, after We have made it clear for the people in the Book – on them shall be Allah's curse, and the curse of those entitled to curse” (yal‘anuhum Allah wa yal‘anahumu al-la‘inūn) (Yusuf Ali translation).
Given the solid basis of Ziyarah ‘Āshūrā’, including its theological and philological/historical foundations, we hope to discuss in more detail the historical, theological, and contemporary context of Ziyarah ‘Āshūrā’.
Sources
The text of Ziyārah ‘Āshūrā’ can be found in two primary works. The earliest extant source of the text is Kāmil al-Ziyārāt of Ibn Qūlūwayh (d. 367), and the second work is Miṣbāḥ al-Mutahajjid wa Salāḥ al-Muta‘abbid of Shaykh Ṭūsī (d. 460).
Other than these two sources that explicitly record the text of the ziyārah, there exists other references to the ziyārah in the aforementioned works that detail the merits and etiquettes of its recitation.
Kāmil al-Ziyārāt
The earliest extant source of the ziyārah is Kāmil al-Ziyārāt, which records a tradition inclusive of merits, etiquettes and as well as the text of the ziyārah to be recited. The chain of transmission as it appears in the book is as follows:
حَدَّثَنِي حَكِيمُ بْنُ دَاوُدَ بْنِ حَكِيمٍ وَ غَيْرُهُ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ مُوسَى الْهَمْدَانِيِّ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ خَالِدٍ الطَّيَالِسِيِّ عَنْ سَيْفِ بْنِ عَمِيرَةَ وَ صَالِحِ بْنِ عُقْبَةَ جَمِيعاً عَنْ عَلْقَمَةَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ الْحَضْرَمِيِّ وَ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِسْمَاعِيلَ عَنْ صَالِحِ بْنِ عُقْبَةَ عَنْ مَالِكٍ الْجُهَنِيِّ عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ الْبَاقِرِ ع قَال
Ḥakīm b. Dāwūd b. Ḥakīm and others narrated from Muḥammad b. Mūsa al-Ḥamdānī from Muḥammad b. Khālid al-Ṭayālisī from Sayf b. ‘Amīrah and Ṣāliḥ b. ‘Uqbah together, from ‘Alqamah b. Muḥammad al-Ḥaḍramī and Muḥmmad b. Ismā‘īl from Ṣāliḥ b. ‘Uqbah from Mālik al-Juhnī from Imām Bāqir (a).
In reality, there are two chains for this report which can be broken up as follows:
1) Ḥakīm b. Dāwūd b. Ḥakīm and others narrated from Muḥammad b. Mūsa al-Ḥamdānī from Muḥammad b. Khālid al-Ṭayālisī from Sayf b. ‘Amīrah and Ṣāliḥ b. ‘Uqbah together, from ‘Alqamah b. Muḥammad al-Ḥaḍramī from Imām Bāqir (a).
2) Muḥammad b. Ismā‘īl from Ṣāliḥ b. ‘Uqbah from Malik al-Juhnī from Imām Bāqir (a).
The text begins with the mentioning of merits and etiquettes and then says:
Ṣāliḥ b. ‘Uqbah al-Juhnī and Sayf b. ‘Amīrah say, ‘Alqamah b. Muḥammad al-Ḥaḍramī said to Abī Ja‘far (a) – where ‘Alqamah asks the Imām to inform him of the way to perform this ziyārah and the Imām teaches him the Ziyārah of ‘Āshūrā’. In other words, it appears that the exact text of the ziyārah can be traced back to the first chain mentioned in Kāmil al-Ziyārāt and that the second chain is not relevant for our discussion in this paper.
Miṣbāḥ al-Mutahajjid
The second extant source for the ziyārah is Miṣbāḥ al-Mutahajjid which contains two relevant reports. The first of these reports has the following chain of transmission:
رَوَى مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ بْنِ بَزِيعٍ عَنْ صَالِحِ بْنِ عُقْبَةَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ
1) Muḥammad b. Ismā‘īl b. Bazī‘ from Ṣālih b. ‘Uqbah from his father (‘Uqbah b. Qays) from Imām Bāqir (a).
This tradition is similar to the one that appears in Kāmil al-Ziyārat and also contains the following chain in the middle similar to Kāmil al-Ziyārāt:
2) Ṣāliḥ b. ‘Uqbah al-Juhnī and Sayf b. ‘Amīrah say, ‘Alqamah b. Muḥammad al-Ḥaḍramī said to Abī Ja‘far (a) – ‘Alqamah is taught the ziyārah.
A second report that exists in Miṣbāḥ al-Mutahajjid which is unique to this work, its chain of transmission is as follows:
وَ رَوَى مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ خَالِدٍ الطَّيَالِسِيُّ عَنْ سَيْفِ بْنِ عَمِيرَةَ قَالَ:
Muḥammad b. Khālid al-Tayālisī from Sayf b. ‘Amīrah who said: I left with Ṣafwān b. Mihrān al-Jammāl alongside some other companions towards al-Gharī (present day Najaf) after Abū ‘Abdillah (a) had left. We travelled from al-Ḥīrah towards al-Medīnah … and Safwān recited the Ziyārah which ‘Alqamah b. Muḥammad al-Ḥaḍramī had narrated from Abī Ja‘far (a) on the day of ‘Āshūrā’…
This is an important report because it is from the time of Imām Ṣādiq (a) rather than Imām Bāqir (a), while it references the ziyārah of ‘Āshūrā’ taught to ‘Alqamah by Imām Bāqir (a) as it exists in the tradition in Kāmil al-Ziyārāt and as well as the first tradition cited from Miṣbāḥ al-Mutahajjid.
Analysis of Chains of Narrators
Many scholars have considered the Ziyārah ‘Āshūrā’ to be needless of any chain analysis due to its widespread acceptance amongst the earlier Imāmī Shī‘ī companions and scholars and as well as the acceptance and promotion of it by later scholars.
Nevertheless, in this section we will briefly analyze the chain of narrators for the ziyārah and determine whether it is reliable or not. It was shown that the ziyārah in Kāmil al-Ziyārāt has two chains, although the exact text of the ziyārah can be traced back to the first chain whereas the second chain. As such, we will only investigate the first chain of narrators:
1) Ḥakīm b. Dāwūd b. Ḥakīm and others narrated from Muḥammad b. Mūsa al-Ḥamdānī from Muḥammad b. Khālid al-Ṭayālisī from Sayf b. ‘Amīrah and Ṣāliḥ b. ‘Uqbah together, from ‘Alqamah b. Muḥammad al-Ḥaḍramī from Imām Bāqir (a).
a) Ḥakīm b. Dāwūd b. Ḥakīm is from the teachers of Ibn Qūluwayh and can be strengthened based on the principle that some of the teachers that trustworthy scholars would narrate from were also trustworthy. Even if one were not to reject this principle in general, in the case of Ibn Qūlūwayh it would still apply as he himself says in his introduction that he is narrating from trustworthy and reliable individuals, which as a bare minimum would include his teachers.
b) Muḥammad b. Mūsa al-Ḥamdānī has been weakened by both Shaykh Najāshī and Ibn Ghaḍā’irī. The former says that the scholars of Qom would weaken him because of their understanding that he would exaggerate, whereas Ibn Walīd could consider him to be someone who would fabricated traditions. As such, he cannot be relied upon in principle.
c) Muaḥammad b. Khālid al-Ṭayālisī does not have any explicit statements from scholars regarding his credibility, however, more will be said on him later in the paper.
d) Sayf b. ‘Amīrah has been strengthened by both Shaykh Najāshī and Shaykh Ṭūsī.
e) Ṣaliḥ b. ‘Uqbah can also not be strengthened and on the contrary Ibn Ghaḍā’irī weakens him – although this weakness does not matter to us since Ṣāliḥ b. ‘Uqbah is reporting together with Sayf b. ‘Amīrah who is trustworthy.
f) ‘Alqamah b. Muḥammad al-Ḥaḍramī does not have explicit statements on his credibility, but there exist some reasons to believe he was reliable.
From the perspective of the chain, this chain of narration could be considered weak due to the presence of Muḥammad b. Mūsa who was weakened by Ibn Ghaḍā’irī, however there are two problems with this: firstly, the attribution of Ibn Ghaḍā’irī’s book to him has been contested by many scholar, and secondly, it is well known that many of Ibn Ghaḍā’irī’s opinions weakening certain individuals were due to his theological disagreements with them. As such, many scholars have not taken the opinions of Ibn Ghaḍā’irī very seriously.
Moving on to the chain of Miṣbāḥ al-Mutahajjid, we have two different reports, one which is similar to Kāmil al-Ziyārāt and is transmitting from Imām Bāqir (a), and a second report in which Imām Ṣādiq (a) is mentioned. The chain of the first report is as follows:
رَوَى مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ بْنِ بَزِيعٍ عَنْ صَالِحِ بْنِ عُقْبَةَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ
1) Muḥammad b. Ismā‘īl b. Bazī‘ from Ṣālih b. ‘Uqbah from his father (‘Uqbah b. Qays) from Imām Bāqir (a).
2) Ṣāliḥ b. ‘Uqbah and Sayf b. ‘Amīrah say, ‘Alqamah b. Muḥammad al-Ḥaḍramī said, I said to Abī Ja‘far (a).
The statement “from his father” is most likely an error in the chain. Nevertheless, this is the exact same report as mentioned in Kāmil al-Ziyārāt and the analysis will not be repeated. The tradition in which a reference is made to the ziyārāh of ‘Āshūrā’ in the presence of Imām Ṣādiq (a) has the following chain:
وَ رَوَى مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ خَالِدٍ الطَّيَالِسِيُّ عَنْ سَيْفِ بْنِ عَمِيرَةَ قَالَ:
Muḥammad b. Khālid al-Tayālisī from Sayf b. ‘Amīrah who said: I left with Ṣafwān b. Mihrān al-Jammāl alongside some other companions towards al-Gharī (Najaf) after Abū ‘Abdillah (a) had left. We travelled from al-Ḥīrah towards al-Medīnah … and Safwān recited the Ziyārah which ‘Alqamah b. Muḥammad al-Ḥaḍramī had narrated from Abī Ja‘far (a) on the day of ‘Āshūrā’…
Three individuals need to be analyzed in this chain, namely Muḥammad b. Khālid al-Tayālisī, Sayf b. ‘Amīrah and Ṣafwān b. Mihrān.
It was earlier shown that Sayf b. ‘Amīrah is trustworthy and there is also no dispute on the reliability of Ṣafwān b. Mihrān. The only disputed issue is the connection between Shaykh Ṭūsī to Muḥammad b. Khālid al-Ṭayālisī and the reliability of al-Ṭayālisī himself.
It appears that Shaykh Ṭūsī took the report from the book of Muḥammad b. Khālid al-Ṭayālisī and Shaykh Ṭūsī himself has a path to his book as follows:
Al-Ḥusayn b. ‘Ubaydillah al-Ghaḍā’irī, from Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā al-‘Āṭṭār from his father, from Muḥammad b. ‘Alī b. Maḥbūb.
All of these individuals are from the senior scholars of the Imāmīyyah school and are prolific teachers and narrators of ḥadīth. Hence, the connection of Shaykh Ṭūsī to the book of Muḥamad al-Ṭayālisī presents no problem. The only discussion left is regarding al-Ṭayālisī himself. There are a number of ways to strengthen him:
a) We see that Muḥammad b. ‘Alī b. Maḥbūb has transmitted the book of al-Ṭayālisī, and he was from the senior scholars of Qom, trustworthy and a noble man.
b) We also see that the books of Sayf b. ‘Amīrah and Muḥammad b. Ma‘rūf are transmitted by Muḥammad b. Ja‘far al-Razzāz through Muḥammad al-Ṭayālisī. Al-Razzāz was one of great Imāmī scholars and his transmission of these books through al-Ṭayālisī shows his reliance on him.
c) A number of great trustworthy scholars – besides the ones mentioned above – also narrate from al-Ṭayālisī, such as Sa‘d b. ‘Abdillah, Salamah b. al-Khaṭṭāb, ‘Alī b. Ibrāhīm, ‘Alī b. Sulaymān al-Zarārī, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Ṣaffār, Mu‘āwīyah b. Ḥakīm and others.
These are all reasonable indicators that strengthen al-Ṭayālisī’s reputation and that he is to be considered a reliable narrator of ḥadīth. As such, the tradition in which the Ziyārāh ‘Āshūrā’ is referenced as it was taught to ‘Alqamah by Imām Bāqir is authentic and reliable.
Observations on Text of the Ziyārah
Given the ziyārah’s attribution to Imām Bāqir (a), we see that its content is in complete harmony with the socio-political context of the Imām’s (a) time, which coincided with the last few years of the Umayyad dynasty.
One of the prominent themes of the ziyārah is the notion of walāyah – in the sense of loyalty and loving the Ahl al-Bayt (a) - and barā’at – in the sense of disassociating and hating the enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt (a). This was a prevalent atmosphere during the first half of the second century hijrī. The ziyārah reiterates the notion of barā’at from the Umayyads and this was a well-known position of the Shī‘a during the latter stages of the Umayyad dynasty. One of the indicators of a fabricated text are the presuppositions a fabricator naturally brings into the text. As such, if this was a later fabrication such as during the Abbasid period, there would naturally have been signs of a more consolidated Shī‘ī theology and as well as perhaps references to contemporary enemies.
The text of the ziyārah explicitly mentions the names of some of the enemies that the Shī‘a had a shared anger towards. This strengthens the claim that the ziyārah was prescribed during a time when these names and as well as family lineages were very much still known and relevant, and even in positions of authority and power.
Meaning of Tanaqqabat Li-Qitālik
A statement in the ziyārah which has been the subject of exegetical differences is:
لَعَنَ الله أُمّةً أسْرَجَتْ وَ أَلْجَمَتْ وَ تَنَقَّبَتْ لِقِتالِكَ
May Allah also curse the people who saddled up, gave reins to their horses, and masked their faces in preparation for fighting against you.
The verb tanaqqabat which originates from the verbal-noun tanaqqub (to mask one’s face) has been the subject of exegetical differences amongst scholars. Some scholars have opined that while men covering their faces was not a common practice, there are definitely references in historical reports indicating certain men covering their faces for various reasons. Thus, it is possible that some of the enemies may have covered their faces when preparing to fight Imām Ḥusayn (a) and his companions.
However, the problem with this position is that firstly, no historical report on the battle of Karbalā’ suggests that even a certain flank of soldiers was covering their faces. Secondly, the verb tanaqqabat is primarily used to describe a woman covering her face. The noun lithām and the verb talaththama is used to describe the covering used by men to conceal their face.
Other scholars have interpreted the verb as a metonymy (kināyah) or comparison (tashbīh) of women covering their faces in preparation to leave their homes with soldiers preparing themselves to leave their homes for battle. However, the act of women covering their faces used as a metonymy for preparing to leave the home is unheard of in the Arabic language and the Arabs do not have such an affinity between the two concepts.
The most reasonable opinion seems to be that a scribal error has occurred in this text, where the verb tahayya’at (they mobilized themselves) has been mistakenly replaced by tanaqqabat. While such scribal errors can be cited as mere possibilities, in this case, there is ample evidence to indicate that such an error did indeed take place.
The verb tanaqqabat does not appear in any other ziyārah of Imām Ḥusayn (a), not even in the Ziyārah ‘Āshūrā’ recorded in Kāmil al-Ziyārāt. Instead, the verb tahayya’at appears as follows: