▁family ▁of ▁Mar wan ". ▁Histor ian ▁Hugh ▁N . ▁Kennedy ▁as ser ts ▁that ▁this ▁" report ▁is ▁ex agger ated " ▁because ▁U bay d ▁Al lah ▁rec ru ited ▁command ers ▁from ▁both ▁Q ays ▁and ▁Y aman ▁( the ▁latter ▁were ▁domin ated ▁by ▁the ▁Kal b ), ▁" but ▁it ▁does ▁point ▁to ▁a ▁general ▁problem " ▁regarding ▁the ▁effect ▁of ▁the ▁Q ays i – Y am ani ▁rival ry ▁on ▁the ▁Um ay y ad ▁army . ▁ ▁Al ids ▁M uk ht ar ' s ▁forces ▁were ▁smaller ▁than ▁U bay d ▁Al lah ' s ▁army , ▁but ▁the ▁mor ale ▁of ▁his ▁men ▁was ▁high ▁due ▁to ▁their ▁victory ▁in ▁K uf a ▁and ▁their ▁desire ▁to ▁a ven ge ▁Hus ay n ▁ibn ▁Ali ▁and ▁I bn ▁Sur ad ' s ▁Pen it ents , ▁whose ▁death s ▁were ▁attributed ▁to ▁U bay d ▁Al lah . ▁The ▁report ▁of ▁the ▁Arab ic ▁historian ▁Ab u ▁Mik h na f ▁( d . ▁ 7 7 4 ) ▁has ▁I bn ▁al - As ht ar ' s ▁army ▁as ▁a ▁well - organ ized , ▁ 2 0 , 0 0 0 - strong ▁caval ry ▁force , ▁while ▁the ▁account ▁of ▁the ▁contemporary ▁Sy ri ac ▁historian ▁John ▁bar ▁P enk aye ▁describes ▁this ▁force ▁as ▁a ▁rag - tag ▁army ▁of ▁ 1 3 , 0 0 0 ▁foot ▁soldiers . ▁The ▁foot ▁soldiers ▁were ▁referred ▁to ▁as ▁M