FATHER FRANK’S RANTS - Christian Martyr of Karbala

Rant Number 524      29 January 2013

‘The tragic scene of the death of Husayn will awaken the sympathy of the coldest reader’ wrote historian Edward Gibbon.

Accounts of the battle of Karbala in 680 AD are indeed harrowing. Besieged in the Iraqi desert and denied access to water, the Prophet’s beloved grandson, his relatives and small band of followers, including women and children, suffered unbearable thirst. When the unequal clash came - the enemy being hugely superior in numbers - Husayn and his companions were butchered. The Imam’s head was struck off and his much wounded body trampled on by ten horsemen. Soldiers then looted the tents of the vanquished, stripped captive women of the jewels, their belongings, even their coverings. 72 heads stuck on spears accompanied the victors’ caravan back from Karbala to Kufa.

Just another atrocious event in the endless, ongoing series of fratricidal struggles within Islam? Why care about it, unless you are a Muslim? Possible answer: because of Wahab al-Kalbi. The Nazarene, the Christian who, they say, bravely fought and fell with Imam Husayn at Karbala.

Now from Karbala to Leicester, England. An invitation reached me from Khoja Shia’ people to address their ‘Momentous Sacrifice’ interfaith event last Saturday. I accepted with alacrity. I went and it was good. A spirit of fellowship was palpable. New friendships forged. Altogether a perfect day.

Why should a Christian have fought alongside Husayn? Historian Hugh Kennedy describes the Imam’s enemies, the Damascus Umayyad Caliphate, as ‘forces of godless oppression’. Husayn thus ‘became the symbol for the sufferings of all the weak and the defenceless’. That is a cause a good Christian would naturally have rallied to. Although St Paul in Romans commands obedience to legitimate authorities for the sake of the common good, some types of tyranny are so diabolical and corrupting that they forsake any claim to legitimacy. In the Book of Revelation, chapter 13, the state has clearly become demonic.  Not too fanciful perhaps to see the repulsive Beast arising out of the sea as an anticipation of Caliph Yazid, Imam Husayn deadly foe.

A doubt might arise concerning violence. Many early Christians inclined to pacifism. Because of Christ’s example, they refused to serve in the Roman army and kill, so they were martyred. Why didn’t Wahab follow their example?

It is unclear whether Christians shunned the army because of bloodshed or for reluctance to swear an oath to the deified Emperor, something tantamount to idolatry. Be that as it may, by the second century AD there were Christian soldiers in Marcus Aurelius’ Thundering Legion, fighting on the German frontier. Moreover, by al-Wahab’s time, the Empire had long embraced the Cross. ‘Roman Caesar with the soul of Christ’, Nietzsche’s astounding phrase, had become a reality. Unless you were a monk, military service was no longer sinful. No reason then why al-Wahab could not have fought at Karbala.

Sunni writers have questioned the wisdom of Husayn’s expedition from his base in Medina across the desert to Kufa, in Iraq. The Kufans who had invited him were notoriously fickle, the Imam’s small party no match for Yazid’s powerful army and weren’t his opponents fellow Muslims after all? Hadn’t his brother Hasan accepted compromise with Yazid’s father, the cunning Mu’awiya? Why not follow suit?

Questions for Muslims, not for the priest. I like to speculate that Wahab was a bit of a romantic, as well as a righteous Christian. Lost, desperate causes always fascinate. The iconography offered at the Leicester conference actually bewildered me a bit. The Christian hero was shown as wearing the armour and sword, with red crosses on his breast and shield, all too reminiscent of a crusader! I wonder whether it was intended. Of course the Crusades also were a lost cause. Those who lose a battle or a war may still long linger in the popular imagination and indeed fire it. So Wahab in the end is portrayed by an actor as crucified on a rudimentary cross – another apposite but unlikely emblem.

To be tough-minded: no Christian narrative exists of al-Wahab at Karbala. Nonetheless, by the rise of Islam the Middle East pullulated with Nazarenes of all sects, hence it is not impossible. Anyway, does it matter? Al-Wahab’s person could have the force of a myth. A powerful image with its own meaning and momentum, regardless of historicity. Like in that old Western movie, ‘The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance’, a voice speaks: ‘Throw away the history and keep the legend’. Because the legend is better.

Does al-Wahab, this solitary follower of the Cross laying down his life for Muhammad’s grandson, has a message for Christians and Muslims today? I have wracked my brains trying to find cases of people of the two faiths fighting together qua believers, no luck. Yes, Moroccan troops served under General Franco against the godless Reds in Spain but...not all may relish this example, so...what?

Al-Wahab: a forerunner of religious dialogue and friendship? Sounds a bit naff! The proud warrior of Karbala, the intrepid foe of tyranny, the martyr would hardly care for the trendy pabulum, the weak soup that goes under the name of interfaith. The priest is interested in al-Wahab but not to enlist him in the ranks of the lukewarm. Al-Wahab fought like a lion. Worth recalling how Revelation calls Christ a lion too: the Lion of the tribe of Judah!

Riding back to London on the train from Leicester a bearded chap saw me mugging up my Teach Yourself Arabic. Turned out to be an Arab, an Iraqi. We spoke. (A rare occasion as today most travellers are like zombies, riveted to their gadgets and mobile: hideous!) I told him about the event I had just attended. He listened with astonishment. ‘I never knew of this al-Wahab...what a story...thank you very much, Father. I am going to remember that.’

Quite serendipitous, no?

Revd Frank Julian Gelli