Abu Mikhnaf
As far as Abu Mikhnaf's reports are concerned, it can be said that he is anti‑Umayyad and in favour of the Imam al‑Husayn, but whether he was actually a Shi’i is questionable. Certainly, he is hostile to both Ibn Ziyad and Yazid; both poke at the teeth in the head of the martyred Imam in his account.
Because of the nature of al‑Tabaris annalistic approach to history, Abu Mikhnaf's beginning of the account is missing, as it does not belong to events of the year 60. Part of it may be preserved by al‑Baladhuri by using the collective term qalu. When the Imam al‑Hasan died the Shi’i in Iraq wrote to the Imam al‑Husayn to ask him to come to lead them. He wrote back reminding them of the agreement that his brother had made with Mu' awiya and promising to lead them. Mu`awiya heard that the people thought that the Imam al‑Husayn would lead them after his death and wrote to him warning him against this. The Imam al‑Husayn wrote back denouncing him. Thus the scene is set for the confrontation on the death of Mu'awiya.
The variety of Abu Mikhnaf's stories and his statement about the majority of the reporters[41] suggest that he was reporting from an existing literature. We have already discussed the accounts of al‑Asbagh, Jabir and `Ammar, and it is noticeable that he does not report from them. His work has already been closely examined by Ursula Sezkin; but she did not attempt to reconstruct possible literary sources, despite the thoroughness of her work[42].
Notes:
[41] Al‑Tabari, op. cit., 11, 314.
[42] U. Sezkin, op. cit., pp. 116‑22.

Hisham b. al-Kalbi
Of the four major monographs by the most distinguished historians of the end of the second century, Ibn al‑Kalbi, al‑Waqidi, Nasr b. Muzahim and al‑Mada'ini', Ibn al‑Kalbi is by far the best represented. Al‑Tabari has reported what is very probably almost the complete monograph. As we have already noted Ibn al‑Kalbi relies very heavily on Abu Mikhnaf but he does use other narratives. He has one one quotation from Jabir b. Yazid and perhaps one from Asbagh b. Nubata and he also uses `Awana. By and large, he follows Abu Mikhnaf in hostility both to Yazid and to Ibn Ziyad. He does however supplement Abu Mikhnaf's reports, which we have already discussed.

Nasr b. Muzahim
Nasr b. Muzahim's monograph is reported in a very limited fashion by Abu al‑Faraj in Maqatil al‑Talibiyyin[43].
He seems to have had two main sources: Abu Mikhnaf, whom he reports on the authority of his mentor `Umar b. Sa'd, and Jabir b. Yazid al‑Ju'fi, whom he reports through `Amr b. Shamir. Nasr b. Muzahim uses both of these sources in his monograph on the Battle of Siffin. If his full work had survived, we would have had a much fuller Shi’i version of the account, as Nasr was himself a Shi’i, and tended to favour the Shi’i tradition.
Notes:
[43] Abu al‑Faraj, op. cit., pp. 51‑81.

al-Mada’ini
We have no clear idea of the account of al‑Mada'ini. It is possible that it is the main source of al‑Baladhuri for Abu Mikhnaf, but al‑Baladhuri introduces his account with the collective qalu. However, this version does not refer to the variation from `Awana which Ibn al‑Kalbi has introduced into his account. Al‑Mada'ind is used as a source by Abu al‑Faraj for a report from al‑Qasim b. al‑Asbagh which has already been cited, and there are other reports from him which are not from Abu Mikhnaf. So clearly he used other material to supplement Abu Mikhnaf s account.

al-Waqidi
Unfortunately little or nothing survives of the monograph written by al‑Waqidi. It is claimed by both Ibn Nadim and his secretary, Ibn Sa'd, that al‑Waqidi was a Shi’i[44].
However, Shaykh al‑Mufid accuses him of being a member of the `Uthmaniyya[45]. What al‑Mufid means by that is that al‑Waqidi had strong sympathies with the Zubayrid faction which had supported greater authority for Medina, and seen the family of Zubayr (and in particular his son, Ibn al‑Zubayr) as the fittest people for the caliphate. If any of his account had survived, it would have been interesting to examine his treatment of Ibn al‑Zubayr. The `Uthmaniyya attitude to Ibn al‑Zubayr with regard to this incident is clearly established in the work of Khalifa b. Khayyat, and there is also a similar report in al‑Baladhuris Ansab al‑Ashraf.
Notes:
[44] E. L. Petersen, op. cit.. p. 89.
[45] Al‑Mufid, Kitab al‑Jamal.

Khalifa b. Khayyat
Khalifa b. Khayyat is writing annalistic history, and therefore has to mention the death of the Imam al‑Husayn. He does so in the briefest form possible and gives a list of the members of the Imam's family who were killed. He devotes much more space to Yazld's request of his governor, al‑Walid, that the oath of allegiance should be taken from Ibn al‑Zubayr and the Imam al‑Husayn[46].
Before discussing his account, it will be necessary to look at the accounts that we have from Abu Mikhnaf. Ibn al‑Kalbis version has unified two separate reports from Abu Mikhnaf; they are given separately by al‑Baladhuri. In the first, al‑Waqidi's messenger comes to Ibn Zubayr and the Imam al‑Husayn, and they make excuses for not attending. Al‑Walid concentrates his pressure on Ibn al‑Zubayr by sending him messengers, and Ibn al‑Zubayr escapes to Mecca. The report adds that al‑Husayn arrives there later, but there is no mention of any actual meeting with al‑Walid. It suggests that when both men are in Mecca, Ibn al‑Zubayr wants the Imam al‑Husayn to go to Kufa to get him out of the way because he is jealous of his influence[47].
In the second report, Abu Mikhnaf speaks of a meeting between al‑Walid and the Imam al‑Husayn in the presence of Marwan b. al‑Hakam in which the Imam puts of pledging allegiance to Yazid and gets angry with Marwan for threatening to kill him[48].
The Uthmaniyya view of this event is somewhat different. Khalifa b. Khayyat gives an account from Wahb b. Jarir on the authority of Abu Bakr Juwayriyya b. Asma' al‑Hudhali, who says that he heard from so many scholars of Medina that he cannot count them. According to this, Yazid's letter comes to al‑Walid. He sends for Marwan who advises him to make Ibn al‑Zubayr and the Imam al‑Husayn pledge allegiance to Yazid immediately. Ibn al‑Zubayr arrives first and there follows a conversation which is almost identical with the one Abu Mikhnaf reported to have taken place with the Imam al‑Husayn.
Al‑Walid orders them both to leave. The Imam al‑Husayn arrives, but nothing is said to him until both men return. The narrative is interrupted at this point by the omission of something, and then goes on with Marwan advising al‑Walid to appoint spies to watch Ibn al‑Zubayr. Ibn al‑Zubayr then makes his escape to Mecca and is followed later by the Imam al‑Husayn. In Mecca, he asks the Imam al‑Husayn why he has not gone to his supporters, adding that if he had such supporters, he would go to them[49].
Al‑Baladhuri has another report from Wahb b. Jarir which purports to come from a servant of Mu'awiya[50].
Khalifa b. Khayyat reports the first half of it but prefers Abu Bakr al‑Hudhalis account of the actual meeting with al‑Walid[51].
In this report, Zurayq, the servant of Mu`awiya, brings the message to al‑Walid from Yazid. It is a very colourful account which gives details of the clothes all the main characters are wearing. Al‑Walid is full of bitter grief at the death of Mu`awiya and sends for Marwan. Marwan advises that the men should be sent for.
The Imam al‑Husayn arrives first, followed by Ibn al‑Zubayr; then a new character arrives, Abd Allah b. Muti`, who is a supporter of Ibn al‑Zubayr. Al‑Walid announces the death of Mu`awiya and calls upon them to pledge alliegance. It is Ibn al‑Zubayr who takes it on himself to answer and he persuades al‑Walid to let them delay it until the morning. Al‑Walid does so and they all escape.
Clearly these two `Uthmaniyya accounts are meant to build up the reputation of Ibn al‑Zubayr at the expense of the Imam al‑Husayn. They seem like propaganda. Abu Bakr al‑Hudhali gives us as his authority countless scholars of Medina but does not name one of them. When compared with Abu Mikhnafs tradition, it is obvious that one of them is based on the other and it seems probable that Abu Mikhnaf's account is the earlier. The second account is full of such great detail with regard to the clothes people were wearing as to suggest that it was written by a fashion critic. Clearly, these details are meant to establish its authenticity, but they rather tend to suggest that it is a fabrication.
Notes:
[46] Khalifa b. Khayyat, Ta'rikh (2nd ed., Beirut, 1977), pp. 231‑6
[47] Al‑Baladhuri, Ansab al‑Ashraf (Beirut, 1979), IV/2, 299‑301
[48] Ibid., pp. 302‑3; cf. al‑Tabari, op. cit., pp. 216‑19.
[49] Khalifa b. Khayyat, op. cit., pp. 232‑3.
[50] Al‑Baladhuri, op. cit., pp. 309‑10.
[51] Khalifa b. Khayyat, op. cit., pp. 232.

al‑Baladhuri
Other fragments of the `Uthmaniyya version of events survive in the Ansab al‑Ashraf of al‑Baladhuri. In the first, Wahb b. Jarir describes briefly the coming of Ibn Ziyad to Kufa and his demanding Hani b. `Urwa to hand over Muslim. When he refuses, he has him executed and then seizes Muslim. He takes Muslim out on the balcony and demands that Muslim say: `I am Muslim b. `Aqil, the leader of rebels.' Muslim says it and then Ibn Ziyad executes him[52].
This isolated report manages again to undermine the bravery of such men as Muslim, and by implication the ahl al‑bayt, by making Muslim repeat such words. Such a story is not to be found elsewhere in the sources.
Another report, again from Wahb b. Jarir, concerns the Imam al‑Husayn addressing the army of `Umar b. Sa`d before the battle. It is not surprising that even this tries to undermine the Imam al‑Husayn. He is reported to have asked the Kufans: `Shall I submit to the rule of Yazid?' To which the reply came: `You must submit to the rule of Ibn Ziyad.' This the Imam al‑Husayn refused to do, and the battle took place. The implication of the report is that the Imam al‑Husayn was prepared to submit to Yazid. This seems to attempt to undermine his stature and to make an unfavourable comparison with Ibn al‑Zubayr, the hero of the later `Uthmaniyya resistance to Yazid[53].
Al‑Baladhuris account, which is split up into sections in his life of Muslim, his life of Yazid, and his life of the Imam al‑Husayn, gives the impression of being the most historically balanced, in the sense of presenting all possible versions.
The kernel of the account is presented with a collective qalu (= they said) but if the earlier surmise is correct, it is probably based on al‑Mada'inis monograph, which, in turn, was based on Abu Mikhnaf. However, al‑Baladhuri also gives the more hostile reports of Wahb b. Jarir, as well as other sources. As already noted, he gives some reports from `Awana, but not through Ibn al‑Kalbi. He also uses a brief account from Husayn b. `Abd al‑Rahman[54].
This account is also used by al‑Tabari. This account is brief and adds nothing to our knowledge of the historical tradition. It does present the view that the Imam al‑Husayn was prepared to submit to Yazid but refused to submit to Ibn Ziyad. It also reports that Yazid wept when the head of the dead Imam was brought to him.
From the point of view of historiography, al‑Baladhuris version is very useful. It is, however, questionable whether al‑Baladhurri was just being an unbiased historian reporting all the accounts available to him. On occasions al‑Baladhuri is known to mention two accounts and say which one is correct. Nowhere in his presentation of the martyrdom of the Imam al‑Husayn does he do this.
The use of the collective qalu makes much of the account sound very unverifiable, whereas the alternatives to the general account are given with full chains of authority. This makes them look more authentic. Thus accounts which undermine the stature of the Shi’i Imam are included in a way that seems to be intended as a correction of the general account.
This in no way means that he is not sympathetic to the plight of the Imam. He clearly is, but he is concerned to undermine the Shi’i conception of the Imamate, and this will be the case if he brings forward accounts which in some way undermine the stature of the man. A particularly good example of that is his report of the three options the Imam al‑Husayn is said to have offered `Umar b. Sa'd and the Kufans. He reports that fully, but ignores Abu Mikhnaf's earlier report that no one knew what `Umar b. Sa'd and the Imam al‑Husayn talked about.
He merely adds a paragraph of the third account, without giving it the authority of `Uqba b. Sim'an, the Imam's servant. In fact, he reports that `it is said' that Ibn Ziyad only asked the Imam to return to Medina. The very use of the words `it is said' implies that this should not be accepted as a truthful report, but rather should be considered as an unidentified and unlikely claim.
At the end of his account al‑Baladhuri includes some of the reports of the sky raining down blood, but these reports would suggest that the tragedy of the death of the Imam al‑Husayn was such because of his blood relation with the Prophet rather than because of his status as an Imam[55].
Notes:
[52] Al‑Baladhuri, Ansab al‑Ashraf, (Beirut, 1974), II, 86.
[53] Al‑Baladhuri, op. cit., III, 227.
[54] Al‑Baladhuri, op. cit., III, 173.
[55] Al‑Baladhuri, op. cit., III, 182.

Al‑Dinawari
Al‑Dinawari gives us a fairly full account[56].
In the main, it seems to follow the traditional account, but it was probably based on a later recension of Abu Mikhnaf's work. On two points in the account he introduces material that differs from what has been reported earlier. He presents an account of Ibn al‑Zubayr trying to persuade the Imam al‑Husayn not to go to Kufa but to carry out his resistance to Yazid from the Hijaz[57].
This may be a survival of a Zubayrid Medinan tradition which supported Ibn al‑Zubayr, but did not want to denigrate the Imam al‑Husayn. The other point is that al‑Dinawari does not mention the three options often alleged to have been offered by the Imam to `Umar b. Sa`d. As far as he is concerned, the Imam only said that he was willing to go back, but Ibn Ziyad insisted that he pledge allegiance to Yazid[58].
In effect, al‑Dinawari's version is basically presenting the standard version with a high degree of sympathy and support for the Imam al‑Husayn.
Notes:
[56] Al‑Dinawari, al‑Akhbar al‑Tiwal (Cairo, 1960), pp. 229‑62.
[57] Ibid., p. 244.
[58] Ibid., p. 254.

al-Ya’qubi
It is surprising that al‑Ya`qubi, who was almost certainly a Shi’i, has devoted little space to the account of the martyrdom of the Imam al‑Husayn in his history[59].
It seems to be a mere summary of Abu Mikhnaf's account, with the addition at the end of a miraculous tradition. According to this, the Prophet had given Umm Salama some soil which he had received from the angel Gabriel. This would turn red when the Imam al‑Husayn was killed. When that happened, Umm Salama tearfully announced the death of the Imam in Medina, at the time that it had happened at Karbala'.[60]
He strays slightly from Abu Mikhnaf's account in suggesting that both the Imam al‑Husayn and Ibn al‑Zubayr went to see al‑Walid together when he summoned them to pledge allegiance to Yazid[61].
Generally al‑Ya'qubis account gives the impression of being a rather hurried summary of Abu Mikhnaf and it does not add appreciably to our knowledge of the historical tradition.
Al‑Tabari's account of the martyrdom of the Imam al‑Husayn has long been regarded as the definitive account. He gives the isnad of the account that he uses, and interrupts the narrative to give other alternative or confirmatory traditions. In the main he relies on Ibn al‑Kalbi and `Ammar b. Mu`awiya al‑Duhfi. Al‑Tabari seems to be using `Ammar's version as a means of interpreting Ibn al‑Kalbi’s.
Thus he gives the first half of `Ammar's version first, and then follows it with Ibn al‑Kalbis fuller version. He then presents the second half of `Ammar's version, followed by the second half of Ibn al‑Kalbi's. On two occasions he interprets Ibn al‑Kalbi with differing reports from `Umar b. Shabba[62], and he concludes his account with the brief version of Husayn b. `Abd alآ­Rahman‑similar to that of al‑Baladhuri. What emerges looks at first glance to be the authoritative version of the martyrdom of the Imam al‑Husayn.
However, this is not quite the case. As already mentioned, the annalistic nature of the work means that the agreement made by Mu`awiya with the Imam al‑Hasan, and the death of the Imam al‑Hasan and the letters of the Kufans, are not reported. The surprising thing is that, in what purports to be a comprehensive history, they are not reported elsewhere in the text.
The other annalistic historians, al‑Ya'qubi, al‑Dinawari, and Ibn A'tham do not report them. These omissions must make us question al‑Tabari's motive. The answer to this problem will lie in a more comprehensive study than this, which is limited to the account of the martyrdom of the Imam al‑Husayn.
We have already noted that the use of 'Ammar's version is intended to be an interpretation of Ibn al‑Kalbi's, and thus weakens the stature of the Imam. This is probably deliberately done by al‑Tabari. However, he ignores, at least in this account, material from the `Uthmaniyya.
Notes:
[59] Al‑Ya`qubi, Ta'rikh (Najaf, 1964), II, 229‑33.
[60] Ibid., p. 233.
[61] Ibid., p. 229.
[62] Al‑Tabari, op. cit., II, 242‑6, 272.

Ibn A’tham al-Kufi
Ibn A'tham al‑Kufi gives us the most embellished account of the martyrdom of the Imam al‑Husayn. He prefaces his account by including lists of isnads, which he claims are his sources[63].
These lists are muddled, and seem like an attempt to show that this is indeed an authoritative account. Ibn A'tham's exaggeration in his authorities sets the tone for the rest of the account. It is based on what has become the standard version, but it is that standard version in a very embellished form. Each individual battle is prefaced by verses, most of which are not reported by any other source.
The prowess in the battle of the Imam al‑Husayn's followers and the Imam himself is such that one is surprised that they were not victorious. In his partisan approach, Ibn A'tham forgets that it is a tragedy which is taking place. The same tendency to exaggerate is a feature also of the account attributed to Abu Mikhnaf. Such treatment diminishes the real story of the Imam's sufferings and places it in the realm of a peculiar kind of hagiography. Abu al‑Faraj al‑Isfahani deals with the martyrdom of al‑Husayn in his Maqatil al‑Talibiyyan.
The work, as its name suggests, is a survey of the persecution of the descendants of Abu Talib. His account is brief in comparison with al‑Tabari and al‑Baladhuri, but he does give a useful account[64].
His main authority is Nasr b. Muzahim but he also uses al‑Mada'ini. A third authority of Abu al‑Faraj‑and one he uses throughout his book‑is Yahya b. al‑Hasan. The latter is also an authority of al‑Mufid for his Kitab al‑Irshad, and he seems to have written a The other annalistic historians, al‑Ya'qubi, al‑Dinawari, work on the descendants of the Imam 'Ali b. Abi Talib. The account supplements the reports of Abu Mikhnaf, but by and large it acts as confirmation that al‑Tabari's use of Ibn al‑Kalbi is authentic.
Notes:
[63] Ibn A`tham, Kitab al‑Futuh (Hyderabad, 1971), IV, 209‑10. The whole narrative is IV, 209‑24, and V, 8‑252.
[64] Abu al‑Faraj al‑Isfahani, op. cit., pp. 51‑81.

Shaykh al‑Mufid
The last writer in the list of authorities is Shaykh al‑Mufid. In his work Kitab al‑Irshad[65], hepresents an account of the martyrdom of the Imam al‑Husayn. He claims that his authorities are Ibn al‑Kalbi and al‑Mada'ini. In fact, he seems mostly to have used Ibn al‑Kalbi in al‑Tabari's recension. On one occasion he uses an alternative to Ibn al‑Kalbi which al‑Tabari has provided concerning Ibn Ziyad's entry into Kufa[66], but without indicating a different source. Al‑Mufid does, however, make the beginning of the story clear by giving those events prior to Mu`awiya's death which al‑Tabari has omitted.
The historiographical study of this event shows how the martyrdom of the Imam al‑Husayn became an important subject for historians from an early time. Despite attempts by some to diminish the stature of the Imam, the historical tradition has, by and large, preserved the general picture of heroism and sacrifice. The reality, in the simpler stories, has conveyed a more profound effect than the embellishments of some later writers. It was the martyrdom that gave rise to the historical writings, and the historical writings have carried on the tradition of the martyrdom to inspire men throughout the years since the tragic event.
Notes:
[65] Al‑Mufid, Kitab al‑Irshad, pp. 299‑372.
[66] Al‑Mufid, Kitab al‑Irshad, p. 308.
O Believers, if an unrighteous person comes to you with information, you should verify it or else you might inflict harm on a people in ignorance and then end up regretting what you have doneâ€‌
(Qur'an: Chapter 49, Verse 6)