The Text of the Doubt

A question is raised concerning Imam Hussain (a): did he know of his killing or not? If he knew, then his revolution is considered a casting of himself into destruction. And if he did not know, then how can this be reconciled with what is mentioned from the pulpits in the form of statements that indicate his knowledge (a) of his killing?

The Answer of Shaykh al-Mufid (r)

• The consensus of the Shi'a is established upon the Imam's knowledge of the ruling in everything that comes to pass, without this necessarily being knowledge of the specific particulars of what occurs in detail (meaning: the consensus of the Shi'a is agreed upon their detailed knowledge of rulings, and there is no consensus on that with respect to subjects). Nor do we preclude his knowledge of that through Allah's informing him of it.
• The Imam's knowledge of his killer and his knowledge that he would be killed are beyond doubt. As for his knowledge of the time of his killing, this has not been established by any transmitted report (or complete narration).
• Were a transmitted report to come to us on that, it would not be problematic — for we do not preclude that Allah may have charged him with religious duty to exercise patience and submission so that he might attain a station unattainable by any other means.

The Answer of Shaykh al-Tabrisi (r)

Shaykh al-Tabrisi mentioned that the Imam's act is open to two interpretations:

• "That he assumed they would not kill him on account of his standing with Prophet Muhammad (s)."
• "That he came to believe it most likely that had he refrained from fighting them, the accursed Ibn Ziyad would have killed him in cold blood, as he had done to his cousin Muslim — and so death with dignity and struggle was easier for him."

The Answer of al-'Allama al-Hilli (as conveyed by al-Majlisi)

Al-'Allama al-Majlisi conveyed from al-'Allama al-Hilli in al-Masa'il al-Muhna'iyya two answers:

• "That it is possible that he (a) was informed of the occurrence of the killing in that night, without knowing at which moment of that night or in which place he would be killed." (This is consistent with the answer of Shaykh al-Mufid.)
• "And that his religious duty (a) differs from our religious duty — and so it was permissible that he offer his noble soul for the sake of Allah the Exalted, just as the fighter is obliged to stand firm even if his steadfastness leads to being killed."

The Answer of al-Sayyid al-Murtada (r)

Al-Sayyid al-Murtada held the view that Imam Hussain (a) may have been beholding the signs of victory and the indicators of success, which moved him to act. He said:

"We know that when the Imam comes to believe it most likely that he will reach his right and fulfill what has been entrusted to him through some form of action, it becomes obligatory upon him — even if it involves a degree of hardship that he can bear. And our master Abu 'Abdillah (a) did not set out seeking Kufa except after taking firm pledges from the people, and after covenants and agreements, and after they wrote to him (a) willingly and without compulsion, of their own initiative and not merely in response."

He then said: that events thereafter unfolded contrary to this assumption, and that the ill turn of affairs reversed the matter, leaving him between humiliation and death — and so he chose martyrdom and felicity.

The Rebuttal of Sayyid Muhsin al-Amin (r)

In his book Lawa'ij al-Ashjan, Sayyid Muhsin al-Amin refuted those who held that the Imam did not know of his fate, citing the Imam's own words and actions. He said:

"Among what indicates that Hussain (a) had settled his self upon being killed and assumed — or in some instances knew with certainty — that he would be killed in that journey:

• His sermon which he delivered when he resolved to depart for Iraq, in which he says: 'Death is inscribed upon the children of Adam...' and so forth — for most of its passages indicate that.
• 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Harith ibn Hisham's prohibition of him in Mecca from departing, and his establishing proof that it was not a sound course of action by saying: 'You are going to a land in which his governors and commanders are established' — and Hussain's (a) not heeding his words, despite excusing himself to him and acknowledging his sincerity of counsel.
• Ibn 'Abbas's prohibition of him as well, on similar grounds: that those who had invited him had not killed their commander, nor expelled their enemy, nor secured their land.
• His reply to Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyya when he advised him against departing for Iraq — he promised him to reconsider, then departed before dawn. Ibn al-Hanafiyya asked him about it, and Hussain (a) said to him: 'Prophet Muhammad (s) came to me after I had parted from you and said: O Husayn, depart — for Allah has willed to see you slain.' He asked: Then what is the meaning of your taking these women with you? He said: 'Allah has willed to see them taken captive.'
• The words of Ibn 'Umar to him when he prohibited him from departing — and he refused — 'You will indeed be killed in this journey of yours': for this indicates that the outward state of affairs was as such, and what was apparent to Ibn 'Umar could not have been hidden from Hussain (a).
• The words of al-Farazdaq to him: 'The hearts of the people are with you, but their swords are against you.'
• The words of Bishr ibn Ghalib to him: 'I left the hearts with you and the swords with the Umayyads' — and Hussain's (a) affirmation of this.
• 'Abdullah ibn Ja'far's prohibition of him and his words: 'I fear for you in this journey that it may bring your destruction and the annihilation of your household.' And Hussain's (a) words to him: 'I saw Prophet Muhammad (s) in a dream, and he commanded me with what I am proceeding to carry out' — and his refusal to relate that vision.
• What he saw in a dream at al-Tha'labiyya, and his words to Abu Hirra: 'By Allah, the transgressing party shall kill me.'
• His words to his companions when the news of Muslim, Hani, and 'Abdullah ibn Yuqtur reached him: 'Our partisans have abandoned us — so let whoever among you wishes to turn back do so.'
• Hussain's words (a): 'The course of affairs is not hidden from me, but Allah the Exalted is not to be overcome in His command.'
• His words (a): 'By Allah, they will not leave me until they extract this blood clot from my chest.'
• His words (a): 'By Allah, even if I were in the burrow of a reptile from among these creatures, they would extract me until they kill me.'
• His letter which he wrote to the Banu Hashim when he set out for Iraq: 'As for what follows: whoever joins me will achieve martyrdom, and whoever stays behind will not attain the opening.'"

All of these proofs, as al-Sayyid al-Amin states, are explicit or apparent in indicating the Imam's knowledge of his killing.

He then conveyed from Ibn Tawus in al-Luhuf: "What we have verified is that Hussain (a) knew what his situation would ultimately come to, and that his religious duty was what he acted upon." Ibn Tawus rebutted those who find this surprising by noting that Allah the Exalted charged certain people with the religious duty of killing themselves, citing Allah's words: ❬So repent to your Creator and kill yourselves.❭

Summary

Al-Sayyid al-Amin concluded that the view holding that the Imam did not know of his fate is inconsistent with what is historically and narratively established regarding their  knowledge. The interpretation therefore remains, on the assumption of knowledge of the fate, intact.

Refuting the Doubt of "Casting Oneself into Destruction"

The word "al-tahluka" (destruction) appears only once in the Holy Quran, in the words of Allah the Exalted: ❬And spend in the cause of Allah and do not throw yourselves with your own hands into destruction❭ [al-Baqara: 195].

Shaykh al-Tusi mentioned in al-Tibyan several meanings for the verse:

• Refraining from spending in the cause of Allah.
• Committing sins while despairing of forgiveness.
• Advancing into battle without the capacity to repel the enemy.
• Excessive spending that consumes one's very self.

He then said: "The preferable position is to construe the verse in its generality across all of that."

Imam al-Baqir (a) interpreted the verse as referring to the abandonment of the guardianship of the Ahlulbayt (a). Thus, the eschatological meaning of destruction is what leads to the Fire, while the worldly meaning is extravagance that leads to the destruction of the body.

Applying This to the Case of Imam Hussain (a)

• The first (worldly) meaning does not apply to the case of Imam Hussain (a), for he was not extravagant, nor did he destroy himself without benefit.
• The second (eschatological) meaning is inconceivable in his regard, for he did not commit any act of disobedience — rather, he performed the greatest of acts of obedience to Allah.
• Were we to concede and say that destruction is forbidden, this would only hold when it is without compensation. As for a destruction in which a person is compensated with the most sublime forms of recompense and reward, it is not reprehensible in the view of reason.
• In Islamic jurisprudence, not every form of destruction is forbidden. Struggle in the cause of Allah, and commanding good and forbidding evil, all sometimes necessitate death — yet they are praiseworthy according to the law.
• Similarly, a criminal surrendering himself for the application of a legal penalty is not a forbidden form of destruction — rather, it is an act of obedience.
• Were the uprising of Imam Hussain (a) and his martyrdom a blameworthy form of destruction, then every movement of struggle and commanding good in Islamic history would likewise be destruction, and every chapter of struggle would have to be removed from the books of Muslims. But struggle is inseparable from worldly death, and in it lies the remaining life of the hereafter.

Conclusion

The knowledge of Imam Hussain (a) of his killing does not contradict his noble uprising — rather, it adds to its greatness. For despite his certainty of martyrdom, he chose the path of Allah willingly, and bore with patience whatever harm came to him, so that he might attain a station unattainable by any other. This is among the most sublime stations of servitude and obedience.