Omar Ibn Sa’d: Difference between revisions

'''Omar Ibn Sa’d''' (d. Kufa 66/686), was the commander of the [[Umayyad]] troops at [[Karbala]]. He led an army of four thousand men at the battle of Karbala leading to [[martyrdom]] of [[Imam Husayn]] and his followers on 10 [[Muharram]] 61/10 October 680. It is said that his motivation for suppressing Imam Husayn revolt was to achieve the governorship of Ray. Finally, he was killed by the order of [[Mukhtar]] who revolted against Umayyad to take revenge of Imam Husayn’s martyrdom.  

Son of the famous Arab general Saʿd b. Abi Waqqas, he had just been made deputy-governor (naʾeb) of Ray by [[Obayd-Allah Ibn Ziad]] and was to go to Dastaba to quell a Daylamite rising when he was called back to check Husayn b. ʿAli’s insurrection. It was only under the threat of losing his post that he finally obeyed and marched at the head of 4,000 men, reaching Karbala on 3 Muharram 61/3 October 680. Although he cut off Husayn’s access to water, he tried to negotiate a settlement. At the urging of Shamer (known as [[Shemr]] by the Shiʿites) b. Dhu’l-Jawshan ʿAmeri, a former follower of [[ʿAli b. Abi Taleb]], Ibn Ziad ordered Ibn Saʿd to attack Husayn immediately and threatened to give Shamer the command of the army. On the evening of 10 Muharram/10 October, Ibn Saʿd sent an ultimatum to Husayn through [[Abbas b. ʿAli]] (Tabari, II, pp. 308-20). The next morning Ibn Saʿd attacked, apparently hoping that Husayn and his followers would surrender, but the circumstances ended in massacre.  

Historical evidence indicates that Ibn Saʿd was reluctant to fight Husayn (Tabari, II, pp. 309-11), and his intervention probably saved the life of [[ʿAli b. Husayn Zayn-al-ʿAbedin]] (q.v.). On the other hand, most traditions show him eager to obey Ibn Ziad’s orders. He thus had Husayn’s corpse trampled by ten horsemen (Tabari, II, pp. 365-68; Masʿudi, Moruj III, p. 259; cf. Balʿami, ed. Rowshan, p. 711, tr. Zotenberg, IV, p. 45). Ibn Saʿd was executed in Dhul’-Hejja 66/July 686 by Ibrahim b. Ashtar, at [[Mukhtar]]’s orders, during the latter’s rebellion, for his role in the tragedy of Karbala (Tabari, II, pp. 671-74; Hawting).   

Although Turco-Persian literature of Karbala has elaborated on Ibn Saʿd’s villainy, many historical features of his character have been retained down to the most recent [[taʿziya]]s, such as his eagerness to keep his post in Ray and his reluctance to kill Husayn. In the Mukhtar-nama, Ibn Saʿd is cursed by his own wife, who is the sister of the Shiʿite rebel Mukhtar, and his severed head is cursed by his Shiʿite younger son (pp. 209-11; Kashefi, pp. 262 f.). An old tradition holds that Ray, the price paid to him for Husayn’s blood, was under a divine curse (Yaqut, Boldan, Beirut, III, p. 118; C. Barbier de Meynard, Dictionnaire géographique de la Perse, Paris, 1861, p. 278). Ibn Saʿd’s chastisement is sometimes shown as particularly horrible; in the story of Mohammad b. al-Hanafiya, Ibn Saʿd and Ibn Ziad are smeared with naphtha and set on fire (Calmard, p. 267). In [http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/safavids Safavid] Persia ʿOmar b. Saʿd was sometimes burnt in effigy in a ritual similar to the “killing of ʿOmar” (ʿOmarkoshan), perhaps because of a popular confusion with the caliph most hated by the Persian Shiʿites (Calmard, p. 500). In taʿziyas Ibn Saʿd is the only bad character who feels remorse for his own villainy; he is ashamed to have killed Husayn and protects ʿAli Zayn-al-ʿAbedin and the women of the [[Ahl-e Bayt]], ordering them to be taken to [[Kufa]] in covered litters (mahamel mastura; Dinavari, ed. Guirgass, p. 270; Kashefi, pp. 349-50, 360). In some taʿziyas, he even seems opposed to the killing of Husayn (Mamnoun, pp. 67 ff.). But in spite of his hesitation and belated remorse, he remains a typical villain in the eyes of Muharram mourners. His arrogance while riding his horse and addressing himself to Husayn has become proverbial (methl-e Ibn-e Saʿd; ʿA.-A. Dehkhoda, Amthal o hekam, Tehran, 1352 Sh./1973, III, p. 1403).   

*The main historical source is the narrative of Abū Meḵnaf (on him see U. Sezkin, Abū Mikhnaf, Leiden, 1971.), preserved most completely in Balāḏorī and Ṭabarī. On Arabic sources in general, see I. K. A. Howard, “Husain the Martyr. A Commentary on the Account of the Martyrdom in Arabic Sources,” Alserāt. The Imam Husayn Conference Number, London, 1986, pp. 124-42.

*Husayn Wāʿeẓ Kāšefī, Rawżat al-šohadāʾ, ed. M. Ramażānī, Tehran, 1341 Š./1962.