Journal of Shi‘a Islamic Studies Spring 2009 · Vol. II · No.

Mukhtar al-Thaqafi:
Character versus Controversy
AMINA INLOES
The Islamic College, London, UK

ABSTRACT: Considerable debate surrounds the seventh-century

revolutionary Mukhtar al-Thaqafi. While some view him as a
staunch supporter of the Shi‘a Imams, others hold him responsible
for the formation of several heterodox Islamic sects and for falsely
promoting Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah as the Divine Saviour.
This article attempts to clarify Mukhtar’s role in history through an
examination of his biography and the history of his socio-political
movement.1

KEY WORDS: Muktar al-Thaqafi, Shi‘a history, Shi‘a sects

Introduction
Few individuals throughout Islamic history appear as colourful, as
controversial, or as genuine as al-Mukhtar ibn Abi ‘Ubaydah al-Thaqafi.
Spanning three volumes of Tarikh al-Tabari, Mukhtar’s exploits
included wresting Iraq from the Umayyids, uplifting the
underprivileged and exacting vengeance on the killers of Imam Husayn
ibn ‘Ali. Despite that stunning record, however, his detractors
posthumously pegged him as a heretic who founded no less than three
short-lived sects, all which centred on Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah as
the Saviour and Imam. Tales also began to spread portraying him as
pathetically anti-‘Alid in his youth. His reputation clouded, the one-
time revolutionary began to be viewed as a renegade, and he acquired
the name ‘Mukhtar the liar’ (al-kadhdhab) – a title that prompted his
own son to ask Imam Muhammad al-Baqir whether his father truly was
a ‘liar’.

181
Mukhtar al-Thaqafi: Character versus Controversy Amina Inloes

Who was al-Mukhtar?

Who was this ‘liar’, and where did he come from? Long ago, in the days
of his youth, Abu ‘Ubayd ibn Mas‘ud al-Thaqafi was suffering from a
severe dilemma: he could not decide whom to marry. One night, he had
a dream commanding him to marry a beautiful girl named Ruma bint
Wahhab. Honoured by this proposal from the soon-to-be companion
of the Prophet, Ruma and he soon married, and the fruit of their union
was Mukhtar. While carrying him, Ruma herself is said to have dreamt
of her son’s future valour and to have been instructed to name him al-
Mukhtar, ‘because he would be a person free from avarice and possessor
of plenty of supporters’.2 Imam ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib is also narrated to
have praised Mukhtar while Mukhtar was still a child. 3 True or not,
these stories speak volumes about his popularity and his character.
Both of Mukhtar’s parents sprang from the tribe of Thaqif, famed
for producing educated Arabs. Brilliant and eloquent, Mukhtar proved
to be no exception. Even before Islam, the Thaqafis were deeply
experienced in administering Iraq and had forged close connections
with both the Umayyids and the Quraysh. These connections served
Mukhtar well; twice, his sister used her husband’s influence with the
Umayyid caliph Yazid bin Mu’awiyah to free Mukhtar from prison.4
But whereas most of the Thaqafis elected to work for Mu’awiyah in
what Kennedy terms a ‘Thaqafi mafia’,5 Mukhtar’s immediate relatives
remained staunch supporters of Imam ‘Ali – and, therefore, anti-
Umayyid.
Born in Ta’if in the first year of the hijrah, Mukhtar grew up with
the Prophet’s grandsons Hasan and Husayn – whose murder he would
later take vengeance for. Early on, he demonstrated his bravery; for
instance, when he was thirteen, his uncle had to restrain him from
rushing onto the battlefield to fight the Persians. 6 When Mukhtar
reached his thirties, his father was sent to command the armies in Iraq,
and so the family relocated, forcing Mukhtar to develop an intimate
familiarity with the region. Although Mukhtar’s father subsequently fell
at the Battle of the Bridge, the family remained in Iraq and acquired
property and prestige. Both he and his uncle held office under the
caliphate of Imam ‘Ali, and, rapidly, the family became part of the
Kufan elite.7 From then on, Mukhtar largely dropped out of historical
record until his sixties, when the ascension of Yazid sparked the
uprising of Imam Husayn. The intense detail that his remaining seven
years were chronicled with more than compensates for any lapses.

182
Journal of Shi‘a Islamic Studies Spring 2009 · Vol. II · No. 2

Friend or Foe?
However, Mukhtar’s intervening years do pop up in one dubious
context – accounts, almost certainly fictitious – that portray him as a
foe rather than a friend of the ‘Alids (the same ‘Alids that had
appointed him to office). Of course, the Umayyids – who were
infamous for defaming the family of the Prophet and their supporters –
had every reason to tarnish Mukhtar’s good name. After all, not only
had he lopped off a fair chunk of their land, but he enjoyed
unprecedented popular support. Were that not enough, he had also put
key Umayyid allies to death for murdering Imam Husayn. He also
insisted on that pesky and very anti-Umayyid notion of social equality.
Therefore, given his Umayyid unpopularity and the Umayyid
mendacity, the Umayyids stand as strong suspects in inventing these
tales.
Furthermore, Mukhtar was not just a Shi‘a; he was a super-Shi‘a!
After the murder of Imam Husayn, he dedicated his entire life – and his
followers’ lives – to the sole mission of bringing the killers to justice. In
that quest, he left no stone unturned. Leading an army of thousands, he
methodically hunted down the killers as they fled into the deserts and
the villages and the Umayyid palaces. He succeeded where others – such
as the tawwabun – had failed. Periodically, he also sent lavish gifts on
the order of thousands of dirhams to Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah
and Imam Sajjad. 8 At one point, he even sent Imam Sajjad an army
(known as the khashbiyyah because of the wooden sticks they bore) to
free him and his kinsmen from Ibn Zubayr’s siege and to rebuild their
demolished homes. 9 Such intense loyalty rarely develops overnight –
particularly in later life – and it alone calls tales of disloyalty into
question.
Additionally, the Shi‘a exhibited immense trust in Mukhtar at
critical moments when no one with a sketchy history would have been
entrusted with the safety of the movement. For instance, when Muslim
ibn ‘Aqil was sent to Kufa to prepare for the uprising of Imam Husayn,
Muslim headed directly for Mukhtar’s home, demonstrating both his
trust in Mukhtar as well as Mukhtar’s status in the eyes of the
community. 10 The government too had zero doubts about where
Mukhtar’s loyalties lay, and, rather than trying to buy him – as they did
others – they promptly jailed him.11 These implicit character references
attest that he was continuously allied with the Shi‘a cause.
The stories of Mukhtar’s treachery simply do not fit in with his

183
Mukhtar al-Thaqafi: Character versus Controversy Amina Inloes

character. Throughout history, Mukhtar proved himself a man of his

word. For instance, when Ibn Zubayr, the de facto ruler of the Hijaz,
sought his allegiance, he and Mukhtar haggled over the premises of the
agreement before Mukhtar capitulated – thus indicating how highly
Mukhtar valued his sworn word. For several months, he fought
valiantly for Ibn Zubayr before realizing that Ibn Zubayr had no
intention of living up to his half of the bargain.12 Later, after capturing
Kufa, Mukhtar was itching to execute ‘Umar ibn Sa‘d, the commander
who had led the armies against Imam Husayn. However, since Ibn Sa‘d
rather cowardly sought immunity from Mukhtar, Mukhtar honoured
that request – on the condition that Ibn Sa‘d remain confined to his
house. Only after Ibn Sa‘d broke that agreement did Mukhtar gratefully
return Ibn Sa‘d to his Maker. 13 Only in one instance did Mukhtar
violate his sworn word, and that was when he was released from jail on
the promise that he would not revolt. Even then, he offered to give full
expiation for breaking his oath – namely, sacrificing one thousand
camels and freeing all his slaves.14
Mukhtar was also not the treacherous type. Although he planned to
take over the government, he did not plot to do so; in fact, he spoke
quite openly about his intents – even though his forthrightness landed
him in jail again.15,16 Furthermore, throughout his reign, he consistently
conducted himself with honour and generosity, repeatedly pardoning
his enemies and distributing all nine million dirhams of the treasury to
the public.17 He also went to great lengths to preserve his dignity and
once disappeared to Ta’if for a year so that Ibn Zubayr would realize
that Mukhtar ‘had no need of him’.18 All in all, Mukhtar epitomized
the proverbial Arab virtues of bravery, generosity, and honour; a
European admirer would have called him chivalrous.
Therefore, it is hard to believe that someone as noble as Mukhtar
would have ever backstabbed anyone (unless, of course that person had
murdered Imam Husayn). Nevertheless, Tabari – who himself relates all
of these shining examples of Mukhtar’s chivalry – writes that, one day
in Ctesiphon, Imam Hasan ibn ‘Ali was wounded in battle and sought
refuge in the house of the governor, who happened to be Mukhtar’s
uncle. Thrilled at this unprecedented opportunity, Mukhtar is said to
have suggested that his uncle turn their wounded guest over to
Mu’awiyah to prove their goodwill to the Syrian caliphate. ‘Enraged’
would not sufficiently express Mukhtar’s uncle’s response, and so
Mukhtar wisely dropped the idea. 19 A credible story – except that it
contradicts everything else that is known about Mukhtar. Someone who

184
Journal of Shi‘a Islamic Studies Spring 2009 · Vol. II · No. 2

took so much pride in his dignity and honour would hardly have been
expected to stoop to the level of betraying an injured guest – his
childhood friend, no less – in order to curry royal favour with the
Syrian caliphate that was wreaking havoc in Iraq. Perhaps Tabari should
have ascribed this story to one of the more Umayyid-friendly Thaqafis
rather than Mukhtar.

Mukhtar’s Enemies
Doubtlessly, this fib was scribed by the Umayyid propaganda vizier.
However, while Mukhtar had ample external enemies – including the
Umayyid caliphs, his rival Ibn Zubayr, and the killers of Imam Husayn
– his true enemies came from within, and, in the end, they were the
ones who brought him down. While virtually no one, not even the
Umayyid governor ‘Abdullah ibn Yazid, could find fault with his desire
to take vengeance for Imam Husayn,20 the Kufan aristocracy shivered at
his other banner: social equality. At the time, Kufan society was highly
stratified, with the non-Arabs (mostly Iranian mawali) paying higher
taxes and receiving short shrift. 21 However, as these foreigners joined
the fold of Islam, they expected to be treated as equals and were
dismayed when they were viewed more as chattel. Mukhtar promised to
uplift them, and, unsurprisingly, they followed him in droves.
Mukhtar’s equitable treatment towards them scared the nobles, who
gathered outside the city and proclaimed:22
By god, this man [Mukhtar] has made himself commander
over us without our consent. He has drawn our mawali near
to himself, mounted them on horses, given them stipends,
and assigned our fay’ to them. Our slaves have disobeyed us,
and our orphans and widows have thus been despoiled.
As soon as Mukhtar’s army had left Kufa, they revolted, forcing
kinsmen to fight kinsmen and blood to flow through the Kufan
streets. 23 While Mukhtar quickly put down that rebellion, animosity
towards the mawali did not subside. Tragically, during a subsequent
battle, one of Mukhtar’s officers tricked his commander into
dismounting the mawali; practically none of them survived.24 Despite
the fact that Mukhtar had once pardoned these Kufan nobles, they
ultimately turned against him and sided with Mas‘ab ibn Zubayr, even
though he prided himself on being ‘the butcher’. After killing Mukhtar,
Mas‘ab then fulfilled his name and executed thousands of mawali.25

185
Mukhtar al-Thaqafi: Character versus Controversy Amina Inloes

Clearly, this oligarchy had no interest in actually living the

egalitarian ideals of Islam. But whether Mukhtar supported his
underprivileged followers out of idealism or pragmatism, none can
deny that he died for his egalitarian ethos. Therefore, how is it that, so
soon after his death, he acquired the honorific of ‘the liar’ (al-
kadhdhab)?
‘Abdullah ibn Zubayr (the brother of ‘the butcher’) first named
Mukhtar ‘the liar’. Although Ibn ‘Abbas, a respected companion of the
Prophet, immediately objected, saying that Mukhtar ‘killed our
assassins’, ‘took revenge for our blood’, ‘soothed our pains’, and
therefore did not deserve such an insult,26 the catchy title stuck – and
Mukhtar’s enemies gleefully branded him as ‘Mukhtar the liar’. Despite
Mukhtar’s outstanding record, posthumous accusations began raining
down on his grave – mostly, of heterodoxy. While a minority –
beginning with ‘the butcher’ – accused him of claiming prophethood,
others credited him with starting three separate Shi‘a sects (namely, the
kaysaniyyah, the ‘abbasiyyah, and his namesake, the mukhtariyyah). These
sects all held that Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah (the son of Imam ‘Ali
but not the Prophet) was the Divine Saviour (mahdi) and the Shi‘a
Imam.

The Mahdi
If that were not enough, centuries later, Mukhtar was also accused of
introducing the entire concept of the mahdi into Islam. In particular,
secular scholarship seems to have latched onto that idea, although
plenty of Islamic writers have mentioned it too. For instance, H. U.
Rahman writes in his book A Chronology of Islamic History:27
Mukhtar acquired a revolutionary significance; the idea of the
Mahdi took a firm and lasting hold, the Shia was transformed
from being a political party (based on the question of the
Caliphate after the Prophet’s death) into a religious
sect....Although in the Shi’ite creed the Mahdi became an
essential figure, later identified with the ‘Hidden Imam’ who
would reappear and rule by divine order, filling the world
with righteousness, there also developed gradually a Sunni
conception of the Mahdi.
In A History of the Muslim World to 1405, Egger is even blunter:28

186
Journal of Shi‘a Islamic Studies Spring 2009 · Vol. II · No. 2

Mukhtar claimed that Ibn al-Hanafiya was...the madhi, a

messiahlike figure....Within the first few decades of Islam
there arose informal traditions to the effect that the end of
history would be heralded by a Muslim Mahdi and by Jesus.
These loaded statements reflect the modern academic perspective on
Mukhtar – and, indeed, on the concept of the mahdi itself. According
to this view, the concept of the mahdi had no basis in the Prophet’s
Islam. At first, Mukhtar invented the idea of the mahdi and popularized
it among the Shi‘a; later, the Sunnis grasped on to it too.
Since both Rahman and Egger were busy writing sweeping histories
of the Islamic world, they might not have had time to investigate their
assumptions too carefully. Otherwise, they surely would have noticed
the ample discussion of the mahdi in the six monumental sahih Sunni
hadith collections. These Sunni hadith describe the mahdi much as the
Shi‘a do – namely, as the Saviour who will emerge from the lineage of
the Prophet to lead the Battle of Armageddon and bring peace and
justice to the world. The only major difference is that (orthodox)
Sunnis do not yet believe that the mahdi has been born.29
Of course, no one can guarantee that all of the sahih hadith are
actually authentic. Therefore, two possibilities remain: either the
Prophet said these hadith, or he didn’t. If he didn’t, then someone else
much more favourable to the caliphate than Mukhtar must have, for
the sponsors of the ahl al-sunnah wal-jama‘ah were hardly inclined to
give credence to Shi‘a heterodoxies. So if they did fabricate these stories,
the question would be: why? While the Umayyids had a long history of
tinkering with hadith, they had no conceivable reason to inflame
popular imagination with stories of a divine saviour – an ‘Alid, no less
– who would arise and slay the tyrants of the world (particularly since
they themselves were the said unjust tyrants). Taking the Umayyid
distrust of the mahdi one step further, the ‘Abbasids actually attempted
to slay the child that the Shi‘a believed was the mahdi. Therefore, in the
absence of any motivation for the fabrication of these hadith, it stands
to reason that the Prophet must have said at least some of them – and
that the mahdi was neither a Shi‘a invention nor the brainchild of
Mukhtar.

Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah

Of course, Mukhtar only invented the mahdi centuries after his death.

187
Mukhtar al-Thaqafi: Character versus Controversy Amina Inloes

Individuals living closer to his era were more concerned with whom he
named as the mahdi, not that he invented the mahdi himself. Therefore,
the question is worth asking: did Mukhtar ever refer to Muhammad ibn
al-Hanafiyyah as the mahdi?
The answer is a resounding yes. In letters and speeches and everyday
discourse, Mukhtar - bolstered by his supporters – promoted
Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah as ‘the mahdi’ after his return to Kufa in
64 AH. Upon entering the city, he headed directly for the house of
Sulayman ibn Surad (where the leaders of the Kufan Shi‘a were
gathered) and declared: ‘I have come to you from the mahdi,
Muhammad b. ‘Ali...chosen by him and as his wazir.’30 Mukhtar even
wrote to Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah as ‘Mahdi b. Muhammad b.
‘Ali’ and greeted him with: ‘Salutations be upon you oh [sic] Mahdi’;31
Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah is not recorded to have expressed any
comment on the matter.
That being said, Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah’s newfound position
appears to have been met with, at best, disinterest and, at worst,
scepticism. For instance, several of Mukhtar’s more dubious followers
travelled all the way to Madinah to ask Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah
whether he had really appointed Mukhtar as his wazir. However, they
forgot to ask whether he was really the mahdi – even though they took
the liberty of referring to him as the mahdi upon their return. 32
Conversely, when Mukhtar’s followers presented Ibrahim ibn Malik al-
Ashtar with a letter from ‘Muhammad al-Mahdi’ commanding him to
support them, Ibrahim pointedly remarked that Muhammad ibn al-
Hanafiyyah had never called himself the mahdi before. Although several
of Mukhtar’s followers enthusiastically swore that the letter had not
been forged, Ibrahim remained unconvinced. Later, he confided that
although he doubted the letter’s authenticity, he wanted to join
Mukhtar’s movement, so he let the matter go; 33 he then went on to
become Mukhtar’s key military commander.
This casual acceptance of Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah as their
mahdi could indicate that the Shi‘a of Kufa had more pressing issues
than eschatology. However, it could also suggest that at least some of
the Kufans took the term mahdi at face value to mean ‘a rightly guided
person’ instead of ‘the Divine Saviour’. After all, the ‘Abbasid caliph
Mansur styled his son as ‘al-Mahdi’, but no one ever confused him with
the Divine Saviour.34 The Shi‘a Imams also occasionally took the title of
mahdi, but to indicate their roles as guides, not to imply they were the
final awaited Saviour.35 While later scholars familiar with the specialized

188
Journal of Shi‘a Islamic Studies Spring 2009 · Vol. II · No. 2

implications of the word mahdi attached a tremendous significance to

Mukhtar’s adoption of it, his contemporaries hardly seemed to care.
Doubtlessly, Mukhtar must have been aware of the soteriological
overtones of the word mahdi, or else he wouldn’t have used it. However,
aside from employing the term for dramatic effect, he does not appear
to have elaborated on the subject. He neither explained Muhammad ibn
al-Hanafiyyah’s role as the Divine Saviour, nor did he attribute him
with any supernatural powers. (Indeed, had Muhammad ibn al-
Hanafiyyah actually been the mahdi, he should have arisen – not
Mukhtar.) Mukhtar’s concern was revenge, not doctrine.
Less spectacularly, Mukhtar is said to have made Muhammad ibn al-
Hanafiyyah the Shi‘a Imam. (In contrast, all of the extant Shi‘a sects
except the Zaydis identify Imam Sajjad as the Imam of his time.) Of
course, doing so would have hardly made him heterodox; for the first
three centuries of Islam, the Shi‘a hotly debated the topic of who the
Imam was due to the repressive political conditions that prevented the
Imams from spreading their teachings openly. To put this question to
rest once and for all, Nawbakhti wrote his book.36 To further confuse
the matter, in Mukhtar’s time, many Muslims who would not have
identified themselves as Shi‘a nonetheless preferred the Imams over the
caliphs on account of their piety, knowledge, justice, and kinship with
the Prophet.
Therefore, addressing Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah as ‘the imam’
may have seemed less significant than it does today. Just like its sister
term mahdi, imam can be ambiguous. While imam can refer to the Shi‘a
Imam, it can also refer to any leader, such as a leader of prayer – and,
nowdays, in some locales, to the leader of a mosque, or the leader of the
Islamic Republic. Therefore, was Mukhtar calling him a leader, or the
Leader?
Unfortunately, Mukhtar took that secret to his grave, for he never
elaborated upon what he meant by imam either. However, he was
definitely not the first to look to Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah for
leadership; the rest of Iraq did so too, and so, unsurprisingly, no one
really raised an eyebrow when Mukhtar called him the imam. For
instance, Mukhtar’s companions first went to Muhammad ibn al-
Hanafiyyah to ask for permission to fight – even though Muhammad
ibn al-Hanafiyyah reminded them that they had to ask Imam Sajjad,
‘my Imam and yours.’ 37 Mukhtar too prioritized Muhammad ibn al-
Hanfiyyah, first sending him – not Imam Sajjad – the heads of the
killers as well as 30,000 dinars, and leaving Muhammad ibn al-

189
Mukhtar al-Thaqafi: Character versus Controversy Amina Inloes

Hanafiyyah the honour of forwarding the good news. Nor did Imam
Sajjad take this as a slight; on the contrary, he profusely thanked both
Mukhtar and God.38
These preferences may have reflected nothing more than
Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah’s seniority. In a tribal society that
respected age, Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah was a generation older
than Imam Sajjad (as was Mukhtar). Even during the other Imamates,
Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah had played a leadership role; for
instance, his brother Imam Husayn left him in charge of Madinah and
also left him his will.39 While not overtly political, he was less quietist
than Imam Sajjad who focused entirely on spiritual teachings.
Therefore, although the Shi‘a of Iraq – including Mukhtar – accepted
him as a reliable leader, they may not have viewed him as the absolute
religio-political Imam, nor does their acknowledgement of his political
leadership exclude the possibility that they also acknowledged Imam
Sajjad’s spiritual leadership. To give a modern example, many Shi‘a of
the past few decades acknowledged Ayatollah Khoei as their marja‘ and
spiritual leader but Ayatollah Khomeini as their political leader.
In any case, while Mukhtar may have been overenthusiastic – and
perhaps irresponsible – in calling Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah the
imam and the mahdi in order to garner support, he did not single-
handedly invite people towards his Imamate, nor did he preach a new
doctrine. Therefore, he hardly deserves to be called ‘the liar’ who went
off and started three new sects.

The Kaysaniyyah
Nonetheless, the new sects did appear. Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah’s
stature swelled until he was said to have been the most important of the
‘Alids, and ‘no one from his household’ – including Imam Hasan and
Imam Husayn – ‘was permitted to oppose him, dispute his imamate, or
use the sword without his permission’.40 Unable to accept his death, his
followers then claimed he had gone into concealment on Mt. Radwa,
where he was ‘nourished with springs of water and honey and protected
by a lion and a leopard.’41 Such a complex (and baseless) ideology was a
far cry from Mukhtar’s mere capitalization on the honorific. What
happened?
To begin with, the people of the time were desperate for a saviour.
Already suffering under political instability and Umayyid oppression,
some must have seen the bloody massacre of the grandson of the

190
Journal of Shi‘a Islamic Studies Spring 2009 · Vol. II · No. 2

Prophet at the hands of Muslims as a sign of the end of the world, or at

least their religion. Tensions between the masses and the nobility as well
as the Arabs and the non-Arabs set the stage for severe social conflict. In
such an explosive environment, many Muslims had immense faith but
little knowledge, especially in areas far from the Hijaz. Kufa itself had
only received a canonized copy of the Qur’an three decades before.42
Fearful of the Prophet’s teachings – which justified neither monarchy
nor tyranny – the Umayyid dynasty suppressed many of the hadith,
particularly those pertaining to social equality and the family of the
Prophet. Simultaneously, hordes of newcomers were entering Islam and
needed to be educated about the Islamic cause. Mass religious illiteracy
reached the point where the Shi‘a were said to have been ignorant
before the advent of Imam Baqir. In such a desperate and repressed
environment, it is easy to imagine how heterodoxies could take root.
Nawbakhti also points to another option and places the blame
squarely on the shoulders of Mukhtar’s police chief, Abu ‘Amrah al-
Kaysan (hence one source of the name kaysaniyyah). According to him,
Kaysan went around saying that the Angel Gabriel visited Mukhtar and
tried to offer him revelation, but Mukhtar was unaware of it. 43 (Of
course, one might ask how Kaysan was aware of it if Mukhtar was not)
Additionally, after Mukhtar’s death, Mas‘ab ibn Zubayr (a.k.a. ‘the
butcher’) spread the rumour that one of Mukhtar’s wives had claimed
Mukhtar was a prophet – even though she had not – and, therefore, he
had been forced to execute her.44 Given Mukhtar’s numerous enemies,
it is no surprise that these fictions abounded.
Mukhtar may also have simply been the victim of his own sharp
foresight. Many times, he very accurately predicted what the future
would unfold, to the surprise of those who could not believe that such
events would come to pass. Although his foresight undoubtedly
resulted from his sharp intellect combined with his unparalleled
determination – since much of what he predicted pertained to himself
– amazed passers-by did sometimes wonder whether he had been
granted with the gift of prescience from God. 45 He also quoted a
prophecy – that came true – that was handed down to him from Imam
‘Ali through Maytham al-Tammar. 46 Nonetheless, Mukhtar himself
never claimed any sort of supernatural wisdom.

In Memoriam
Therefore, Mukhtar should be remembered by his true name –

191
Mukhtar al-Thaqafi: Character versus Controversy Amina Inloes

‘Mukhtar al-Thaqafi’ – and not his acquired name, ‘Mukhtar the Liar’.
While heterodox sects did appear posthumously bearing his name, he
had no hand in them. He had two goals – taking vengeance and
reforming society – and he accomplished both of them. Scripting
doctrine was not one of them. Epitomizing bravery, valour, intellect,
generosity, and determination, Mukhtar gave his life for justice.

Notes
1
I would like to thank Dr. Jassim Husain of The Islamic College (London) for his
tireless assistance, encouragement, and support.
2
‘Ali Munfarid, The Story of Karbala (Qum: Suroor Publications, 1997), 485, citing
Bihar al-Anwar.
3
Munfarid, 487.
4
Munfarid, 491.
5
Hugh Kennedy, The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates (Harlow: Pearson
Education Limited, 1986), 86.
6
Munfarid, 485.
7
Kennedy, 95; Munfarid, 485.
8
Munfarid, 541.
9
Rasul Ja‘farian, History of the Caliphs: From the Death of the Messenger (s) to the Decline
of the Umayyad Dynasty 11-123 AH (Qum: Ansariyan Pulibcations, 2003), 460.
10
Muhammad ibn Jarir Tabari, The History of al-Tabari XIX, trans. W. Watt & M.
McDonald (New York: SUNY, 1988), 39; Lut b. Yahya Al-Kufi (Abu Mikhnaf, d. 157
AH), Maqtal al-Husayn (A) – Account of the Martyrdom of al-Husayn (A), trans. Hamid
Mavani, 31. Retrieved from <http://www.islamicdigest.net/abumikhnaf>, accessed:
October, 2004.
11
Munfarid, 489.
12
Tabari, XX, 111.
13
Munfarid, 527.
14
Munfarid, 492.
15
Tabari, XX, 111.
16
Munfarid, 491.
17
Munfarid, 522-523.
18
Tabari, XX, 111.
19
Tabari, IV, 441; Ja‘fariyan, 449.
20
Tabari, XX, 94.
21
Kennedy, 94-95.
22
Tabari, on the authority of Abu Mikhnaf in the year 66.
23
Munfarid, 517.
24
Munfarid, 547.
25
Munfarid, 555.
26
Ja‘farian, 462.
27
H. U. Rahman, A Chronology of Islamic History: 570-100 CE (London: Ta-Ha
Publishers Ltd., 1995), 83-84.

192
Journal of Shi‘a Islamic Studies Spring 2009 · Vol. II · No. 2

28
Vernon Egger, A History of the Muslim World to 1405: The Making of a Civilization
(Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, 2004), 70.
29
Luis Alberto Vittor, Shi‘ite Islam: Orthodoxy or Heterodoxy?, 165. Retrieved from:
<http://www.maaref-foundation.com/english/lib/islam/shiite_islam/13.htm>, accessed
October, 2007.
30
Tabari, XX, 93.
31
Munfarid, 528.
32
Tabari, XX, 193.
33
Tabari, XX, 195.
34
Kennedy, 137.
35
See ‘Abbas Qummi, “Ziyarat al-Imam al-Husayn al-Mutlaqah”, in Mafatih al-Jinan
(Qum: Firuz Abadi Publishers, 1426 AH), 501; which reads, ‘Ashhadu annaka al-Imam…
al-Hadi al-Mahdi.
36
Al-Hasan ibn Musa Al-Nawbakhti, Shi’a Sects, trans. A. Kadhim (London: ICAS
Press, 2007), 33.
37
Munfarid, 495.
38
Munfarid, 542.
39
‘Abd al-Razzaq al-Muqarram, Maqtal al-Husain: Martyrdom Epic of Imam al-Husain,
trans. Yasin T. al-Jibouri (Beirut: Al-Kharsan, 2005), Ch. 21. Available online at
<http://www.al-islam.org/maqtal>, accessed April, 2009.
40
Nawbakhti, 75.
41
Egger, 70.
42
Ahmad von Denffer,‘Ulum al-Qur’an: An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’an
(London: The Islamic Foundation, 1994), 63.
43
Nawbakhti, 70.
44
Munfarid, 556.
45
Tabari, XX, 109.
46
Munfarid, 489.

193