The second...

The second, preceded by the comment that it is what the majority of reporters hold, is the story of the three options[^25]. However, it is followed by a report from `Uqba b. Sim'an, the Imam al-Husayn's servant who was with him at Karbala' and survived. He claimed that he was with the Imam al-Husayn all the time and heard everything he said. He goes on: `By God, he never gave the promise, which the people mention and allege, that he would put his hand in the hand of Yazid b.

Mu`awiya, nor that they should send him to any one of the Muslim's border posts. Rather he said: "Leave me and I will go in this broad land so that we may see how the people's affair develops."[^26] With regard to the third report, which Abu Mikhnaf said was the majority opinion of reporters, the evidence for the Imam al-Husayn making such proposals is in a letter written by `Umar b. Sa'd to Ibn Ziyad.-According to this, Ibn Ziyad is about to agree with these terms but is dissuaded by Shamir b.

Dhi Jawshan[^27]. As Shamir is directly involved in the murder of the Imam al-Husayn, this could be a report which tried to remove as much of the blame from the authorities and to transfer it to individuals. It could be an attempt to exonerate the authorities and as such could have been put out by supporters of the Umayyads. On the other hand, it might again be an attempt by `Umar b. Sa'd to get a further delay in the operations.

When the reports of Abu Mikhnaf of these two incidents are compared with `Ammar's version, we see that the latter provides interpretations of Abu Mikhnaf's reports. Because they are seemingly reported on the authority of the fifth Imam, al-Baqir, they would seem to provide interpretations which Shi’i supporters must accept. It seems that this was the purpose of `Ammar's version; while still showing the death of the Imam al-Husayn to be a tragedy it diminishes the stature of the Imam.

It does not do so for Shi’is but it does so for non-Shi’is. It seems that its aim is to confirm to those who oppose the Imamate the weakness of individual Imams and to do so by putting this interpretation into the mouth of the Imam. It certainly does so in the case of Wellhausen in his study of this event. He accepts `Ammar's interpretation without even realizing that he has done so[^28]. Doubt has been cast on the validity of `Ammar's report from the fifth Imam.

This is further confirmed if one examines its brief account of the actual fight.