Sessions

5. The Division of the Ummah: Kharijites and Shiites (656-692)

The tensions that had already become apparent during ʿUthmān's caliphate erupted fully, leading to a significant divide within the Muslim community. The Muslim community splits into various subgroups, each developing its own religious and political doctrines, and clashing with one another. The Umayyads construct the Dome of the Rock as an alternative sacred site to the Kaaba. Muftis and Qur’an exegetes emerge as new religious specialists.

5.1. The First Fitna (656–661)

The killing of ʿUthmān ushered in a prolonged period of strife within the Islamic community, which Arabic sources refer to as fitna (“trial”). It must again be noted that no contemporary sources exist concerning the events and developments of this period. Oral traditions were first recorded in writing in the eighth century, in Arabic monographs on individual events, primarily authored by Shīʿīs—that is, supporters of ʿAlī and his descendants. The account of the fitna in the extant Arabic historical works is essentially based on excerpts from these writings. On the basis of these sources, the following presents a summary of the key events.

5.1.1. The Contested Caliphate of ʿAlī and the Battle of the Camel

Following the assassination of ʿUthmān, many of the rebels who had besieged his house pledged allegiance (bayʿah) to ʿAlī, urging him to assume the caliphate. ʿAlī initially hesitated but accepted the bayʿah as caliph five days later. The Anṣār likewise pledged him their allegiance. Yet ʿAlī’s caliphate was not universally recognized. Many prominent Companions of the Prophet refused to pledge allegiance to him, some arguing that no formal shūrā council had convened for his election. Although Mālik al-Ashtar, one of ʿAlī’s most ardent supporters, sought to compel some of those who had refused to pledge allegiance with armed force, their position remained unchanged.

Relatives and supporters of the Umayyad family —including several well-known poets— had already departed Medina for Syria, where Muʿāwiya, ʿUthmān’s kinsman and governor, maintained his authority and withheld allegiance from ʿAlī. They accused ʿAlī of complicity in ʿUthmān’s murder, especially since he was obliged to rely on the very forces that had opposed ʿUthmān. Muʿāwiya, who had already earned some merit through his role in the futūḥ in Syria and Palestine, now presented himself as the avenger of his cousin ʿUthmān and declared ʿAlī’s election invalid, since it had been carried out only by a minority. ʿAlī was depicted by this “party of ʿUthmān” (shīʿat ʿUthmān) as someone who had attained the caliphate on the foundation of an act of bloodshed.

A third faction in the conflict formed in Mecca around two Companions of the Prophet, Ṭalḥa ibn ʿUbaydallāh and al-Zubayr ibn al-ʿAwwām. In October 656, together with ʿĀʾisha —the Prophet’s widow and daughter of Abū Bakr— and some 3,000 fighters, they went to Basra, where they established a base of opposition. They too justified their fight against ʿAlī on the grounds that he made no attempt to punish ʿUthmān’s killers. The formation of their faction, however, also had a tribal dimension: both ʿĀʾisha and Ṭalḥa belonged to the Qurashī clan of Banū Taym, while al-Zubayr was married to ʿĀʾisha’s half-sister Asmāʾ. An additional underlying cause of the conflict was likely the latent tension between ʿĀʾisha and ʿAlī stemming from the necklace scandal (see above, 3.2.6.), when ʿAlī had advised Muḥammad to divorce her. It is said that ʿĀʾisha never forgave him for this.

ʿAlī assembled his troops in Kufa. After half-hearted peace negotiations failed, he engaged in battle at the end of 656, inflicting a decisive defeat on his opponents: al-Zubayr was killed while fleeing, Ṭalḥa fell in battle, and although ʿĀʾisha’s followers fought on valiantly, they too were defeated. Since ʿĀʾisha observed the battle from a howdah atop a camel, it became known as the Battle of the Camel. Nevertheless, ʿAlī showed clemency toward his adversaries: ʿĀʾisha was escorted back to Medina with an escort of honor, and the rebels were for the most part pardoned.

The Battle of the Camel was the first battle in which two Muslim armies fought each other. The devastating defeat of ʿĀʾisha’s faction was also due to internal discord and its limited support. Several Companions of the Prophet deliberately refrained from aligning with any faction. Among them were some who refused to fight under the command of a woman, such as Abū Bakra al-Thaqafī, who on this occasion stated that he had heard the Prophet say that a people whose affairs are governed by women will never prosper. This dictum was incorporated into the major collections of prophetic traditions and is still used today by certain Muslims as an argument for excluding women from political and judicial office.

5.1.2. Ṣiffīn, the Establishment of the Arbitration, and the Secession of the Khārijites

ʿAlī’s victory in the Battle of the Camel secured for him control of the two Iraqi garrison towns of Basra and Kufa. Relying on these, he was now able to enter into conflict with the Umayyad Muʿāwiya and the Syrians. Of great significance for the subsequent course of events was Muʿāwiya’s success in winning over ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ, the aforementioned conqueror of Egypt, by promising to reinstate him as governor there, and in the fact that he assumed command of his army. The Kindite military leader Shuraḥbīl ibn Simṭ propagated the claim in Syria that ʿAlī had murdered ʿUthmān, thereby helping Muʿāwiya rally the Syrian Arabs, among whom sympathy for ʿAlī had been widespread until then. In the early summer of 657, the two armies clashed at Ṣiffīn on the upper Euphrates, near present-day Raqqa. For weeks the two armies faced each other; yet, despite numerous skirmishes, no decisive battle ensued. Finally, in July, when one of ʿAlī’s commanders succeeded in driving back the Syrians facing him and inflicting a partial defeat, Muʿāwiya, acting on the counsel of ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ, resorted to a stratagem. He sent a group of Syrians into ʿAlī’s camp, carrying copies of the Qurʾān fastened to the points of their lances, crying out that a truce be granted and that the decision be left to the judgment of the Holy Book. Al-Ashʿath ibn Qays, who attempted to mediate between the two sides, persuaded ʿAlī to agree to arbitration that would adjudicate on ʿUthmān’s conduct, the responsibility for his death, and thereby, indirectly, the legitimacy of his own caliphate.

A portion of ʿAlī’s supporters, however, rejected the planned arbitration as illegitimate, citing Qurʾanic verses that command fighting against rebels. They argued that arbitration could yield only a human judgment, whereas they demanded a divine verdict in form of a battle. While still at Ṣiffīn, some of them, invoking Qurʾanic formulas (cf. Q 12:40), raised the cry: “Decision/Sovereignty rests with [God] only!” (lā ḥukma illā li-Llāh ). Others joined them, and after their return to Kufa, several thousand withdrew to a neighboring locality called Ḥarūrā, where they renounced allegiance to ʿAlī. They evidently attached theocratic notions to their slogan, declaring that bayʿah should be pledged only to God. They further emphasized the Qurʾanic principle of Enjoining Right and Forbidding Wrong (cf. Q 3:110) and insisted that a consultative council (shūrā) elect the new leader of the community.

To persuade the people of Ḥarūrā to abandon their resistance, ʿAlī entered into negotiations with their leaders. From what has been reported of these negotiations, it is clear that the people of Ḥarūrā regarded the killing of ʿUthmān, of Ṭalḥa and al-Zubayr at the Battle of the Camel, and of Muʿāwiya’s supporters as legitimate. They anticipated that arbitration would deprive them of their justification for taking action against such persons. Evidently, ʿAlī succeeded in reconciling some of the Ḥarūrā group to his authority and bringing them back into his camp. However, in the spring of 658, a second secession of the discontented took place when it became clear that ʿAlī insisted on holding the arbitration. This secession, involving some three to four thousand people, brought them to the Nahrawān canal east of the Tigris. The people of Nahrawān, who chose ʿAbdallāh ibn Wahb al-Rāsibī as their leader, demanded that ʿAlī acknowledge that his consent to arbitration was a sin and an act of unbelief, and further demanded that he retract his decision. The fanaticism of the members of this group was manifested in a number of acts of terror. They soon declared not only ʿAlī and ʿUthmān unbelievers, but also all those who did not share this view. Those who refused to curse ʿUthmān and ʿAlī were brutally murdered. Among their most prominent victims was the son of Khabbāb ibn al-Aratt, a Companion of the Prophet. He was killed in 658 together with his pregnant wife by members of the Nahrawān group. In the Arabic sources, the group that took part in the secession at Nahrawān is referred to as khawārij (sing. khārijī, “seceder”), a term rendered in English as Kharijites.

The reports of the Arabic historians concerning the arbitration (ḥukūma) are convoluted. The two arbitrators —Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī for ʿAlī, and ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ for Muʿāwiya— probably met for the first time in the spring of 658 in the town of Adhruḥ (in southern Jordan, between Petra and Maʿān). The discussions initially focused on whether it was necessary to avenge the death of ʿUthmān. To this end, ʿAmr cited Surah 17:33: “And slay not the life which [God] ha[s] forbidden save with right. Whoso is slain wrongfully, We have given power unto his heir, but let him not commit excess in slaying.” From the fact that Muʿāwiya acted as the heir of the demand for revenge for the murder of ʿUthmān, he concluded that he had a greater claim to the caliphate than ʿAlī. Abū Mūsā apparently offered no counterargument. A joint arbitral decision was evidently not reached. Muʿāwiya turned this situation to his advantage and, in May 658, was acclaimed by his troops in Jerusalem as caliph. Two months later, ʿAmr seized Egypt on his behalf.

Meanwhile, the Kharijite army continued to grow, in part, due to the egalitarian orientation of this group. The Kharijites maintained that the Quraysh had no exclusive right to rule, but that in principle anyone could assume leadership of the Islamic community so long as he avoided major sins. ʿAlī, who had at first avoided confronting the Kharijites in order to avoid fighting on two fronts, was compelled to act against them because of their growing aggression. After regaining some of those who had withdrawn to Nahrawān, he mounted an attack in July 658 against the remainder, inflicting a terrible massacre on them at the Nahrawān canal. In the aftermath, ʿAlī’s situation worsened steadily. Between September 658 and February 659, a series of Kharijite uprisings broke out against him.

Thus the ummah was once again divided into three parties: the “party of ʿAlī” (shīʿat ʿAlī), the “party of ʿUthmān” (shīʿat ʿUthmān), which rallied behind Muʿāwiya, and the Kharijites. In his conflict with his opponents, ʿAlī defended his political claim to power by arguing that Muḥammad had designated him as his successor on his return from the Farewell Pilgrimage, at the oasis of Ghadīr Khumm, midway between Mecca and Medina. The words attributed to Muḥammad on this occasion read: “For whomever I am the master, ʿAlī is his master” (man kuntu mawlāhu fa-ʿAlī mawlāhu). It was understood that ʿAlī should have assumed rule immediately after Muḥammad’s death, and that the rule of Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, and ʿUthmān was illegitimate. Some of ʿAlī’s followers, such as ʿAbdallāh ibn Sabaʾ (cf. above, 4.4.4.), went so far as to curse the first three caliphs.

When the arbitration met for a second time at Dūmat al-Jandal in December 658, the two arbitrators were again unable to reach a common decision. This time, Abū Mūsā proposed ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿUmar as a compromise candidate for the caliphate, but the opposing side would not agree to it. Muʿāwiya himself appeared before the arbitration and reaffirmed his claim to authority over the Muslims. In the aftermath of Dūmat al-Jandal, both sides began to curse one another. In the summer of 660, Muʿāwiya was able to further strengthen his position when his forces captured the Ḥijāz and Yemen. In January 661, ʿAlī was assassinated by the Kharijite ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Muljam, who sought to avenge the slaughter at Nahrawān. For ʿAlī’s followers, this was a severe blow. Some refused to accept that ʿAlī had died, proclaiming instead that he had merely entered occultation and would soon return. This included, in particular, the circle around ʿAbdallāh ibn Sabaʾ.

5.2. The Caliphate of the Umayyad Muʿāwiya (661–680)

5.2.1. The Second Phase of Expansion

ʿAlī had two sons from his marriage to Muḥammad’s daughter Fāṭima: al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn. Al-Ḥasan, the elder of the two, who led the family, was elected caliph by his father’s supporters. However, he abdicated when Muʿāwiya’s troops advanced from Syria, and he deemed his situation hopeless. His renunciation was facilitated by large sums of money, the transfer of the tribute revenues from a Persian province, and the recognition of his right to the succession. ʿAlī’s two sons then left Iraq and settled in Medina. Thus ended the First Fitna, and leadership of the Islamic community passed once more to the Umayyads. In this way, the center of the new Islamic empire shifted to Syria.

As with ʿUthmān, Muʿāwiya once again filled the key offices of the empire from among his Umayyad kin. These included Marwān ibn al-Ḥakam, Saʿīd ibn al-ʿĀṣ, and al-Walīd ibn ʿUtba. One of Muʿāwiya’s key supporters in the eastern part of the empire was Ziyād ibn Abīhi, a former follower of ʿAlī who had continued to serve as his governor in Fārs even after his assassination. In 665, Muʿāwiya recognized him as his brother and dispatched him as governor to Basra, and in 670 he also placed Kufa under his authority. As governor of Iraq, Ziyād had authority over the entire eastern portion of the empire, including Khorasan. In 671, he resettled 50,000 Arab families from Kufa and Basra in the Khorasani city of Marw. In this way, he consolidated Arab rule over the eastern territories of the empire.

In North Africa, in the 660s, the Meccan general ʿUqba ibn Nāfiʿ began campaigns against the Amazigh of Tripolitania. In 670, he conquered the region of present-day Tunisia and founded the city of Kairouan there as a new miṣr of the West. The newly conquered territory was designated in Arabic as Ifrīqiya, after the former Latin name Africa. In addition, Muʿāwiya pursued his expansionist policy in the Mediterranean, seizing the island of Rhodes in 672 and besieging Constantinople. This marked a new phase of expansion for the Islamic state.

Under Muʿāwiya, the great mosques in Syria and in the Arab garrison towns of Basra, Kufa, and al-Fusṭāṭ were first equipped with towers. This new feature of mosque architecture later became established throughout the Islamic world. The tower, from which the call to prayer was made, was also designated manār or manāra (“place of light”), because of its resemblance to a lighthouse. The English term minaret is derived from this.

5.2.2. The First Muftīs and Qurʾanic Exegetes

The relatively long caliphate of Muʿāwiya also coincided with the active period of the earliest prominent muftis and Qurʾanic exegetes. The Arabic term muftī is derived from the verb aftā, yuftī, which denotes the giving of religious advice and the issuing of legal opinions. The advice or legal opinion itself is called a fatwā. Fatwas are the Islamic counterpart to the responsa through which, in Late Antiquity, the Jewish Geonim of the Babylonian Talmudic academies responded to inquiries from their co-religionists. The Islamic institution of the fatwa has its origins in the Prophet Muḥammad’s advisory role toward his community, and it also finds expression in the Qurʾān. Thus, Surah 4:127 states: “They consult [you] (yastaftūnaka) concerning women. Say: Allah give[s] you decree concerning them (Allāhu yuftīkum fīhinna).” The Prophet’s responses to inquirers, however, were by no means always based on revelation.

After Muḥammad’s death, the caliphs in part assumed his role as sources of guidance. In addition, however, there were also many other individuals who were consulted on ritual, ethical, and legal matters. Among them were Abū Hurayra and Anas ibn Mālik, companions who had served Muḥammad, and his wives ʿĀʾisha and Umm Salama, who were regarded as important authorities particularly because of their frequent presence in his company. ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿUmar was regarded as a specialist in pilgrimage rites and held fatwa sessions upon the arrival of pilgrims in Mecca. Other figures were sought after as authorities because of their profound knowledge of the Qurʾān, such as Muḥammad’s scribe Zayd ibn Thābit in Medina and Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī in Basra.

Lastly, there were those who were consulted above all because of their comprehensive knowledge, intelligence, and discernment. Particularly noteworthy among them was ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿAbbās, the son of ʿAbbās, the Prophet’s uncle. ʿAbbās had originally opposed his nephew and converted to Islam only shortly before the conquest of Mecca in 630. From the time Muʿāwiya assumed the caliphate, Ibn ʿAbbās lived in Mecca, withdrawn from political affairs. In giving answers to practical matters of life, he usually relied on his own opinion (raʾy). Ibn ʿAbbās was known for his stance on temporary marriage (mutʿa), which he permitted despite its prohibition by ʿUmar. Incidentally, ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿUmar is also reported to have held the same opinion.

Ibn ʿAbbās also emerged as a leading authority on Qurʾanic exegesis (tafsīr). Even learned members of the community sometimes found rarer expressions in the language of the Qurʾān difficult to understand and inquired about their meaning. In responding to such inquiries, Ibn ʿAbbās drew upon verses of pre-Islamic Arabic poets for explanation. In connection with interpreting the word ḥaraj (“hardship”; Q 22:78), he expressed this principle: “If something in the Qurʾān appears unfamiliar, then look to poetry; for it is pure Arabic.” For interpreting the Qurʾān, he would also often draw on the traditions of the ahl al-kitāb. In Syria, ʿAbdallāh, the ascetic-minded son of ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ, became the leading authority in tafsīr. He claimed to have written down sayings of the Prophet with his permission. Like Ibn ʿAbbās, however, he relied in his exegesis primarily on the narratives (qiṣaṣ) of the ahl al-kitāb. It is reported that he was also capable of reading books in the Aramaic language.

5.2.3. Kufa and Basra as Centers of Religio-Political Opposition

The Iraqi garrison towns of Kufa and Basra remained strongholds of religio-political opposition for the entirety of Muʿāwiya’s reign. In Kufa, resistance came primarily from the supporters of ʿAlī and his sons. They protested against Muʿāwiya’s introduction of the public cursing of ʿAlī in the Friday congregational prayers, reviled the caliph, claimed that supreme command over the Muslims could legitimately belong only to the family of Abū Ṭālib, and declared dissociation from all enemies of ʿAlī and those who had fought against him. At times, they also turned violent. The leader of this “party of ʿAlī” (shīʿat ʿAlī) was Ḥujr ibn ʿAdī, a former commander of ʿAlī. After an uprising, Ziyād handed him over to Muʿāwiya in Syria, along with his closest companions. Because they were not willing to renounce ʿAlī and curse him, Muʿāwiya had them executed. Ḥujr’s martyrdom marked the transition of the “party of ʿAlī” from a political to a religious movement. Ḥujr’s concern with the question of who should be caliph had nothing to do with political or economic considerations. Rather, he believed in special qualities conferred by God upon the Prophet’s family and was willing to die for them. The term shīʿa (“party”) for the followers of ʿAlī and his sons became so widespread at this time that it adhered to them permanently. To this day, it refers to a particular religio-political movement within Islam that is centered on ʿAlī and his descendants. In English, the term is usually rendered Shia, and the adherents of the movement are called Shiites.

The Kufans’ opposition was partly due to their insistence on their own Qurʾanic tradition. ʿUbaydallāh, the son of Ziyād, whom Muʿāwiya appointed governor of Iraq in 675, provoked them by reciting in public prayer the two surahs of seeking refuge, known as al-muʿawwidhatān, which were absent from the codex of Ibn Masʿūd, from which the Kufans were still reading at the time.

In Basra, opposition was driven primarily by the Kharijites. The Umayyad governor ʿUbaydallāh is reported to have imprisoned 4,000 of them, while others fell in battle. The Kharijites likewise regarded Umayyad rule as illegitimate and maintained that it was their duty to sacrifice themselves in fighting against these unlawful rulers. They derived this view from such passages in the Qurʾān as those in which believers are called upon to sell themselves to God through battle in exchange for eternal life (Q 4:74, 9:111). Of the Kharijite fighter Abū Bilāl Mirdās ibn Ḥudayr, who fell in 679 in combat against ʿUbaydallāh’s troops, it was said, for example: “God has purchased Ibn Hudayr’s life, and he has attained Paradise with all its blessings.” The motif of shirāʾ, the selling of oneself to God, occurs with particular frequency in Kharijite poetry. Shurāt (“[self-]sellers”) was also the principal self-designation of the Kharijites.

Although people in Kufa and Basra campaigned against Muʿāwiya throughout the 670s, his rule was otherwise largely accepted. This changed, however, when Muʿāwiya, toward the end of his life, designated his son Yazīd ibn Muʿāwiya as his successor, and Marwān called upon the Prophet’s Companions to pledge allegiance to him. This move reawakened long-standing resentments against his clan, which had remained pagan until quite late. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, the son of Abū Bakr, accused Muʿāwiya of seeking to establish a hereditary dynasty in the manner of the Byzantines and Sasanians. His sister ʿĀʾisha railed against Marwān, declaring that the Messenger of God had cursed him and that this curse still clung to him. Many Companions of the Prophet, including ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿAmr, distanced themselves from Muʿāwiya at this time. Others withdrew to the Ḥijāz so as not to have to pledge allegiance to Yazīd.

5.3. The Second Fitna (680–692)

5.3.1. The Death of al-Ḥusayn at Karbalāʾ and the Beginning of Shīʿī Penitential Rites

After the death of his father in April 680 and his own accession as the new caliph, Yazīd did everything in his power to compel the oath of allegiance from the most prominent dissenters. He ordered his governor in Medina to pressure ʿAbdallāh ibn al-Zubayr, son of al-Zubayr ibn al-ʿAwwām —ʿAlī’s former opponent at the Battle of the Camel—, and al-Ḥusayn, the second son of ʿAlī, who was then 34 years old, until they pledged allegiance to him. To escape this pressure, the two fled to Mecca, which had retained its status as an inviolable asylum since pagan times.

The anti-Umayyad opposition in Kufa regarded al-Ḥusayn as a suitable claimant who could be put forward against the Umayyads. At their invitation, he set out for Iraq in September 680. Accompanied by about 50 companions —his family and some followers— he set out from Mecca along the pilgrimage route across the Arabian Desert. Since mounted troops dispatched by the government blocked his way to Kufa and also prevented his return to Medina, he was forced to continue northward along the Euphrates. Supporters from Kufa reinforced his small force, while government troops followed and kept him under close watch. When al-Ḥusayn refused the Kufan governor’s demand that he give allegiance to Yazīd, the government troops cut off his followers’ access to the river and thus to vital drinking water. On 10 October 680 (10 Muḥarram 61), battle ensued on the plain of Karbalāʾ. Al-Ḥusayn’s force numbered only about seventy fighters and was hopelessly outnumbered by the government troops. The men were slaughtered, among them al-Ḥusayn himself, his eldest son ʿAlī al-Akbar, and a nephew. The women and children were taken captive.

The tragic end of the Prophet’s grandson al-Ḥusayn provoked a profound crisis of conscience among his supporters in Kufa. They repented their failure and sought to unburden their conscience through penitential return (tawba). Sulaymān ibn Ṣurad, who after Ḥusayn’s death was regarded as the “shaykh of the Shīʿa,” organized a march in November 684 of several thousand “penitents” (tawwābūn) who sought to atone for their share in al-Ḥusayn’s death through an active tawba, sword in hand. Their goal was to overthrow the Umayyads. They spent a day in mourning at al-Ḥusayn’s grave in Karbalāʾ before marching north along the Euphrates toward Syria. A few weeks later, however, they were crushed by an Umayyad army. With his march of the penitents, Sulaymān ibn Ṣurad established the distinctively Shīʿī tradition of penitential rites. On ʿĀshūrāʾ —the tenth day of the month of Muḥarram— many Shīʿīs continue to perform penitential rites in commemoration of the Battle of Karbalāʾ. In some places, men also inflict wounds on their heads with swords. To this day, the events of Karbalāʾ, and above all al-Ḥusayn’s death as a martyr, play an extremely important role in the collective memory of the Shīʿīs; his grave at that very site became one of the most visited Shīʿī pilgrimage sites.

5.3.2. ʿAbdallāh ibn al-Zubayr and the Meccan Cult Reform

After al-Ḥusayn’s death, ʿAbdallāh ibn al-Zubayr began raising an army in Mecca and declared the deposition of Yazīd. The inhabitants of Medina followed his example by choosing a leader of their own. Yazīd dispatched an army that inflicted a crushing defeat on the rebels at Ḥarra near Medina in August 683. In September, the Umayyad army began a several-week siege of Mecca. The city was bombarded with stones and boulders, and the Kaaba itself caught fire. It was only in November, when news of Yazīd’s death arrived from Syria, that the Umayyad army withdrew.

In Mecca, ʿAbdallāh ibn al-Zubayr thereupon proclaimed himself caliph. The driving force behind his movement of resistance to the Umayyads is said to have been his mother, Asmāʾ, the daughter of Abū Bakr. Although ʿAbdallāh ibn al-Zubayr faced a legitimacy problem —since prominent figures, such as ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿAbbās and ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿUmar, refused him the oath of allegiance— he was aided by the succession crisis that broke out among the Umayyads after Yazīd’s death. It ended only in the summer of 684, when the Syrian troops acclaimed the Umayyad Marwān ibn al-Ḥakam, a former secretary of ʿUthmān (cf. above 4.4.1.), as the new caliph. His reign lasted only a few months; nevertheless, during that time he succeeded in reconquering Egypt. Shortly before his death in the spring of 685, he divided the empire between his two sons: the elder, ʿAbd al-Malik, received Syria along with the caliphal title, while the younger, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, received Egypt. ʿAbd al-Malik’s immediate task, however, was to secure his rule over Syria.

ʿAbdallāh ibn al-Zubayr used his rule over Mecca to implement a comprehensive religious reform. He not only expanded the Sacred Mosque but also had the Kaaba, which had caught fire and was severely damaged during the siege of Mecca in the autumn of 683, completely demolished and rebuilt. His intention was to return Kaaba to “its former state,” which had existed prior to the reconstruction carried out by the Quraysh at the beginning of the 7th century. In this, he invoked a report from his aunt ʿĀʾisha, according to which the Prophet himself, after the conquest of Mecca, intended to reverse the changes made by the Quraysh but refrained in consideration of the fact that they had only recently converted to Islam. According to the words of the Prophet transmitted by ʿĀʾisha, on which ʿAbdallāh ibn al-Zubayr relied, the Quraysh, in their rebuilding of the Kaaba, had, due to lack of funds, not reconstructed the Ḥatīm wall, which had originally extended up to the roof. Instead, however, they sealed the second door that had originally been located on the rear side of the Kaaba and raised the floor of the structure, so that it could only be accessed by a staircase. The Prophet explained this as an attempt by the Quraysh to demonstrate their power, since they could then admit people into the Kaaba or cast them down the stairs at will. With reference to this Prophetic report, ʿAbdallāh ibn al-Zubayr, during his reconstruction of the Kaaba, opened a second door on the eastern side of the structure, lowered the floor of the Kaaba to ground level, and extended the Ḥatīm wall to form an apse. Because the Black Stone had been struck by a catapult projectile during the siege and broken into pieces, ʿAbdallāh ibn al-Zubayr had it set in a silver frame. In March 685, the building was reconsecrated in its new form.

ʿAbdallāh’s reconstruction of the Kaaba reveals an egalitarian impetus: his aim appears to have been the abolition of ritual privileges held by particular Quraysh clans. The Umayyads, however, viewed the reconstruction as an unlawful act and branded ʿAbdallāh ibn al-Zubayr in their propaganda —by allusion to a Qurʾānic verse (Q 22:25)— as the “deviant (mulḥid) in the Sacred Mosque.” To delegitimize their opponent, the Umayyads also circulated hadiths, i.e. reports concerning the Prophet Muḥammad, in which he was said to have foretold the baleful activity of ʿAbdallāh ibn al-Zubayr in Mecca.

5.3.3. The Shīʿī Uprising of al-Mukhtār

After the failure of Sulaymān ibn Ṣurad’s penitential campaign, the governors of the Meccan caliph ʿAbdallāh ibn al-Zubayr also established themselves in Kufa, though many of the city’s inhabitants continued to lean toward the Shīʿa. A certain al-Mukhtār of the Thaqīf tribe succeeded in rallying these pro-ʿAlid groups. He publicly called the people “to the Book of God and the Sunnah of the Prophet,” demanded “vengeance for Ḥusayn,” and presented himself as the representative of Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥanafiyya, a third son of ʿAlī whose mother was not the Prophet’s daughter Fāṭima but a different wife of ʿAlī from the Arab tribe of Banū Ḥanīfa. Al-Mukhtār described Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥanafiyya, who was living in Medina, as the “rightly guided leader” (al-imām al-mahdī ), in contrast to the two “misguided leaders” in Syria and Mecca.

Al-Mukhtār relied less on Arab tribal leaders than on non-Arab mawālī, i.e. converts to Islam, to whom he also granted their own stipends. One of them, a man named Kaysān, developed a distinct religio-political doctrine which in Islamic doxography is known as Kaysāniyya. Central to this doctrine was the notion of the four “descendants” (asbāṭ) of Muḥammad to whom the imamate, caliphate, and authority rightfully were due. These four descendants were understood to be ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib and his three sons, al-Ḥasan, al-Ḥusayn, and Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥanafiyya. Some of the Kaysānites even ascribed cosmological significance to these four descendants. They claimed that through them “creation is nourished with rain, the enemy is fought, the proof is made manifest, and falsehood is destroyed.” They said: “Whoever follows them will attain success; whoever falls behind them will perish. One must take refuge in them; they are like Noah’s Ark: whoever boards it does what is right and is saved, but whoever remains outside sinks and drowns.”

In October 685, al-Mukhtār rebelled against Ibn al-Zubayr’s governor and seized control of the city and citadel. He managed to hold out for over a year against the Zubayrid governors, the Syrian Umayyad troops, and rival tribal leaders within Kufa itself. In this period, he also dispatched his own governors to the territories under Kufa’s authority: Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Mosul. The man in whose name all this was carried out, Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥanafiyya, had no part whatsoever in what was taking place in Kufa. Following the outbreak of al-Mukhtār’s revolt, he was imprisoned by ʿAbdallāh ibn al-Zubayr. Even after al-Mukhtār’s followers freed him in a spectacular action, he refused to come to Kufa or assume his father ʿAlī’s heritage, although some of al-Mukhtār’s supporters had already erected a throne for him there, adorned with silk and brocade.

5.3.4. The Fragmentation of the Kharijites

A fourth faction in this civil war was formed by the Kharijites of Basra. They initially supported ʿAbdallāh ibn al-Zubayr and went to Mecca to join him, but they broke away once they realized that he did not share their political views. Some of them, including a man named Nāfiʿ ibn al-Azraq, resisted when Ibn al-Zubayr attempted to appoint a governor in Basra in 683. Though Ibn al-Azraq was killed in battle soon thereafter, his followers continued fighting and retreated with a large following to Khūzistān. Wherever the Azraqites, the followers of Ibn al-Azraq, were strong enough and their opponents weak, plunder and pillaging were commonplace. Muslims who deviated from their views or refused to follow them were killed, along with their wives and children. This practice was known as istiʿrāḍ. Only those who actively supported the Azraqites were spared.

In Basra, the militant Azraqites were opposed by moderate Kharijites: pious men who sought to see the Islamic state and community established on the principles of the Qurʾān, yet who disapproved of the practice of istiʿrāḍ. They were also willing to accept Ibn al-Zubayr’s rule, provided they were not persecuted. The Azraqites denounced this “quietist” group as “those who remained seated” (qaʿada) and regarded them as unbelievers who must be killed as well, since they did not take an active part in their struggle. The terminology is derived from Qurʾanic passages that distinguish between the true believers who wage jihād and those who remain seated (Q 4:95). The Azraqites regarded only the shurāt, i.e. those prepared to sacrifice themselves in battle, as true Muslims, and maintained that —apart from Jews and Christians who as a whole received official protection (dhimma) from the Islamic community— all other people could legitimately be despoiled or killed.

Another Kharijite movement emerged on the Arabian Peninsula. The Kharijite Najda ibn ʿĀmir, who had fought alongside Nāfiʿ ibn al-Azraq in 683 against the governor appointed by Ibn al-Zubayr, emerged in 686 in al-Yamāma in eastern Arabia as leader of a Kharijite faction. He was able to bring under his rule a vast territory including Bahrain on the Persian Gulf, Oman, and parts of Yemen and Hadhramaut in the south. At the height of his power, his influence on the Arabian Peninsula surpassed that of Ibn al-Zubayr. One difference between Najda and the Azraqites was that they regarded the quietist Kharijite group not as unbelievers, but merely as hypocrites and continued to maintain relations with them.

Despite their fragmentation into various subgroups, these Kharijite groups still shared certain points, especially the teaching of walāya and barāʾa. Accordingly, loyalty and solidarity (walāya) were to be maintained only with believers, while toward unbelievers one was to practice dissociation and repudiation (barāʾa). All those who had committed a major sin (kabīra) were counted among the unbelievers. In Kharijite understanding, this extended also to the two caliphs ʿUthmān and ʿAlī. In their view, ʿUthmān was regarded as a major sinner because he had enriched himself and mistreated the Prophet’s companions, and ʿAlī because he had accepted arbitration. The Kharijites also justified the killing of these men on the grounds that they were counted among the unbelievers.

5.3.5. ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿUmar and the Five Pillars of Islam

The divisions within the ummah were particularly evident at the pilgrimage in 686, when on the plain of ʿArafāt the pilgrim groups of four factions competing for rule in the Islamic realm faced one another under separate banners: 1. the faction of Ibn al-Zubayr; 2. the faction of the Kharijite Najda ibn ʿĀmir; 3. the faction of the Shīʿīs of Kufa, who venerated Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥanafiyya as the Mahdī; and 4. the faction of the Syrians, who recognized the Umayyads as the legitimate rulers. A figure who enjoyed great esteem at this time was ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿUmar, already mentioned above, who was residing in Medina. All warring factions courted him and sought to win him over to their side. But he refused to pledge allegiance to any ruler, on the grounds that this was permissible only if the ruler was backed by the entire community (jamāʿa). He considered Ibn al-Zubayr’s rule illegitimate because it had been imposed on the people without a shūrā being held.

To those who urged Ibn ʿUmar himself to take up arms —on the grounds that, as the son of ʿUmar, he had the greatest chance of uniting the Muslim community— he replied with the Qurʾanic verse: “And fight them until fitna is no more, and religion is for [God].” (Q 2:193). He commented: “We fought so that worship might belong to God and fitna might be ended. But now you want to fight so that fitna may arise and worship may belong to other than God.” On another occasion, he is reported to have said: “Whoever calls me to prayer, I will heed; but whoever calls me to fight my Muslim brother and seize his property, I will not.” By refusing to participate in internal Muslim conflicts, Ibn ʿUmar earned the respect of many Muslims.

According to a report traced back to his client Nāfiʿ, Ibn ʿUmar was once approached during the Second Civil War by a Kharijite who asked why he performed ḥajj and ʿumrah regularly but neglected jihād in God’s cause, even though he knew what God had assigned to it. He replied that Islam rests only upon five pillars: belief in God and His Messenger, the five daily prayers, fasting during Ramaḍān, the payment of zakāt, and the ḥajj. This is probably the earliest attestation of the concept of the five pillars of Islam. It shows that this concept has an anti-militant orientation.

5.3.6. Zubayrid Propaganda and the Construction of the Dome of the Rock

In later years, Ibn al-Zubayr managed to consolidate his power. In 686, he sent his brother Musʿab to Iraq in order to assert his claim to power in the East. He succeeded in winning over the South Arabian military commander Muhallab ibn Abī Ṣufra, who was active in Persia, to the Meccan caliphate. In the same year, Muhallab freed the region around Basra from the Azraqites and, in April 687, brought the Shīʿī rule established by Mukhtār in Kufa to an end. The Azraqites retreated to Iran, where their insurgent activities nevertheless continued.

Since many Syrians and Egyptians came to Mecca during the pilgrimage, ʿAbdallāh ibn al-Zubayr took advantage of this occasion for propaganda purposes. He sought to discredit the Marwānids and called upon the people to pledge allegiance to him. On the days of Minā and ʿArafah, and when the people gathered in Mecca, he declared in his sermons that the Messenger of God had cursed al-Ḥakam, the father of Marwān, and his descendants. When ʿAbd al-Malik became aware of this, he temporarily prevented people from undertaking the pilgrimage to Mecca.

According to Arabic historiographers, this was in fact the actual motive behind the construction of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. When unrest broke out among the people in Syria because of the ban on the pilgrimage to Mecca, ʿAbd al-Malik is said to have built the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqṣā Mosque in order to divert their attention away from the Meccan pilgrimage. The name chosen for the second building, al-masjid al-aqṣā (“the farthest place of prayer”), refers to the beginning of Surah 17, where the Night Journey (isrāʾ) from the Sacred Place of Prayer to the Farthest Place of Prayer is described. The servant of God mentioned here came to be unequivocally identified with Muḥammad. Moreover, for the Umayyads, there was no doubt that the expression al-masjid al-aqṣā referred to Jerusalem. This interpretation was probably deliberately propagated by ʿAbd al-Malik as a means of positioning Jerusalem as a new sanctuary in contrast to the Sacred Sanctuary under the control of ʿAbdallāh ibn al-Zubayr.

Al-Yaʿqūbī and other Arabic historians report that, at the time of the construction of the Dome of the Rock, ʿAbd al-Malik sent the following letter to the inhabitants of the garrison towns in Syria, Egypt, Armenia, and the Jazīra, who were subject to his rule:

“

The Commander of the Believers has decided to build a dome over the Rock of Jerusalem, so that the Muslims may have a covering and protection. And may it bring power and glory to his descendants and to all who succeed him.

”

At this time, a religious scholar residing in Medina and critical of ʿAbdallāh ibn al-Zubayr, Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyib, invoked the Prophetic saying: “Journeys should only be undertaken to three mosques: the Sacred Mosque (in Mecca), my mosque (in Medina), and the mosque of Jerusalem (bayt al-maqdis).” By circulating this, he was, in effect, granting authorization for the establishment of a sanctuary in Jerusalem.

Nevertheless, ʿAbd al-Malik was not left in peace, for Ibn al-Zubayr began to denounce him, alleging that through his constructions he sought to imitate the palace of the King of Persia and that he had shifted the ṭawāf away from the House of God to the qibla of the Israelites. There may, in fact, have been a real basis for this propaganda. Some Arabic authors report that pilgrims to Jerusalem performed the wuqūf at the Rock and circumambulated it, just as one circumambulates the Kaaba, and that on the day of the Feast of Sacrifice, animals were slaughtered there.

5.3.7. The Growing Distrust of Hadith Reports and the Idea of Sunnism

During the Second Fitna, numerous hadith reports were propagated by the various warring parties in order to lend legitimacy to their own viewpoints and claims to authority, and to denigrate their opponents. The fact that hadith reports were also circulated for propaganda purposes gave rise to need to verify their authenticity. To ensure against forged or tendentious hadith reports being passed off by one of these factions, people began to demand that the transmitters of the reports in question be named. This practice of citing transmitters in order to establish the credibility of reports —known in Arabic as isnad (lit. “support, backing”)— later developed into a standard practice in nearly all fields of Islamic scholarship. That this practice first emerged during the Second Fitna is suggested by a statement of the Basran scholar Muḥammad ibn Sīrīn (d. 728), reported in one of the canonical hadith collections. He is quoted there as saying: “In the past, people did not ask about the isnād. But when the Fitna broke out, they said: ‘Name your transmitters to us.’ Those were then examined: if they were ahl al-sunnah (“people of the Sunnah”), their reports were accepted; but if they were ahl al-bidaʿ (“people of innovation”), their hadith reports were not accepted.”

Ibn Sīrīn’s statement is particularly significant because it constitutes the earliest attestation of the expression ahl al-sunnah, which later came to denote a distinct confessional designation, usually translated as “Sunnis.” Hadith reports were to be accepted only from those individuals who were ahl al-sunnah. What was originally meant by this term is not entirely clear, but several statements by contemporaries suggest that it carried an anti-Shīʿī orientation. It is reported of the Kufan scholar al-Shaʿbī (d. 721–29) —who had initially sided with the Shīʿīs during the civil war, but, repelled by their fanaticism, later withdrew to Medina— that he took offense at the hatred of the Kaysānīs toward ʿĀʾisha and condemned it as a violation of the Sunnah of the Prophet. From his teacher Masrūq ibn al-Ajdaʿ (d. 683), who had served as a muftī in Kufa, al-Shaʿbī transmitted that he regarded it as part of the Sunnah to love the first two caliphs, Abū Bakr and ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, and to acknowledge their precedence. For these two scholars, then, Sunnah signified not merely the normative way of life laid down by the Prophet, but also a specific religio-political stance that encompassed love for the Prophet’s Companions, whom the Shīʿīs detested. This stance later became an integral part of Sunnism.

The term bidʿah (“innovation”) —which underlies the expression ahl al-bidaʿ— had, by the time of the civil wars at the latest, come to be regarded as the opposite of Sunnah. It denoted not only a deviation from the way of life established by the Prophet, but also a doctrine considered heretical. The fact that in Ibn Sīrīn’s dictum the term appears in the plural suggests that by ahl al-bidaʿ he referred not only to the Shīʿīs, but also to the adherents of other warring factions who advanced their own teachings. Also revealing in this context is another statement attributed to al-Shaʿbī. It is reported that he said the Muslims had divided into four groups: 1) those who loved ʿAlī and hated ʿUthmān, 2) those who loved ʿUthmān and hated ʿAlī, 3) those who loved both, and 4) those who hated both. When asked to which group he belonged, he replied: “I belong to those who love both and pray for forgiveness for both.” The Shīʿīs (1), the Umayyads (2), and the Kharijites (4) can easily be identified as the proponents of the other three positions. Al-Shaʿbī’s position, by contrast, later came to be included in many Sunni confessions of faith.

5.3.8. The End of the Meccan Caliphate and the “Year of Unity”

A new situation arose when, in the early 690s, ʿAbd al-Malik was able to defeat his rival ʿAbdallāh ibn al-Zubayr. In October 691, ʿAbdallāh’s brother Musʿab was the first to fall in Iraq. At the end of 691, ʿAbd al-Malik dispatched his general al-Ḥajjāj ibn Yūsuf with instructions to conduct negotiations with him and, if necessary, to starve the city out. Al-Ḥajjāj, however, grew impatient, called for reinforcements, and bombarded the city. In October 692, he succeeded in defeating Ibn al-Zubayr. Since at the same time the Kharijite state of Najda ibn ʿĀmir collapsed as a result of internal strife, the year 692 was celebrated as the “Year of Unity” (ʿām al-jamāʿa).

Shortly thereafter, al-Ḥajjāj reversed the modifications made to the Kaaba by ʿAbdallāh ibn al-Zubayr. However, ʿAbd al-Malik is reported to have later regretted al-Ḥajjāj’s subsequent alteration of the building, after al-Ḥārith ibn ʿAbdallāh, a former governor of Ibn al-Zubayr in Basra, confirmed the authenticity of ʿĀʾisha’s statement which Ibn al-Zubayr had cited in justification. Around the same time, the Dome of the Rock was also completed. The exterior of the octagonal arcade bears an inscription which dates the building to the year 72 AH (= 691/2 CE). The inscriptions in the Dome of the Rock give prominence to precisely those Qurʾanic passages that are directed against Christian doctrine. For instance, on the exterior of the octagon, Surah 112 was inscribed:

“

Say: He is Allah, the One! [God], the eternally Besought of all! He begetteth not nor was begotten. And there is none comparable unto Him.

”

And on the interior of the octagon, Surah 4:171f:

“

O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning [God] save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of [God], and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in [God] and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - [God] is only One [God]. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And [God] is sufficient as Defender. The Messiah will never scorn to be a slave unto [God], nor will the favoured angels.

”

Thus the Dome of the Rock no longer appears as a rival sanctuary to the Kaaba, which was under Zubayrid control, but rather as a monument with an ‘anti-Christian’ orientation. For this reason, many art historians regard it primarily as an Islamic response to Christian sacred architecture in the Middle East, particularly the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.

5.5. Supplementary Literature

Sean W. Anthony: The caliph and the heretic: Ibn Sabaʾ and the origins of Shīʿism. Brill, Leiden, 2012.
Rudolf Ernst Brünnow: Die Charidschiten unter den ersten Omaiyaden. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des ersten islamischen Jahrhunderts. Leiden 1884. Digitalisat
Werner Caskel: Der Felsendom und die Wallfahrt nach Jerusalem. Köln 1963.
Hichem Djait: La grande discorde: religion et politique dans l’Islam des origines. Paris 1989.
S. Husain M. Jafri: Origins and early development of Shiʿa Islam. Longman, London, 1979.
Wilferd Madelung: The Succession to Muhammad. A study of the early caliphate. Cambridge 1997.
Harald Motzki: Die Anfänge der islamischen Jurisprudenz. Ihre Entwicklung in Mekka bis zur Mitte des 2./8. Jahrhunderts. Stuttgart 1991.
Harald Motzki: „Religiöse Ratgebung im Islam: Entstehung, Bedeutung und Praxis des muftī und der fatwā“ in Zeitschrift für Religionswissenschaft 2 (1994) 3-22.
Erling Ladewing Petersen: ʿAlī and Muʿāwiya in early Arabic tradition studies on the genesis and growth of Islamic historical writing until the end of the ninth century. Kopenhagen 1964.
Gernot Rotter: Die Umaiyaden und der Zweite Bürgerkrieg (680-92). Das Ende der mekkanisch-medinensischen Vorherrschaft. Wiesbaden 1982.
ʿAzmī Muḥammad A. Ṣāliḥī: The society, beliefs and political theories of the K̮hārijites as revealed in their poetry of the Umayyad era. London Univ. Diss. 1975.
Julius Wellhausen: Die religiös-politischen Oppositionsparteien im alten Islam. Berlin 1901.

5.6. Questions & Tasks

1. To this day, there are Muslims who justify the exclusion of women from political and judicial office with a hadith stating that a people whose affairs are governed by women will never prosper. How should this hadith be situated historically?

2. Explain the background to the assassination of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib.

3. Who are the ahl al-kitāb, and what role did they play in early Qurʾanic exegesis?

4. Explain how the Shīʿa originated.

5. During the Second Civil War, the Kaaba was demolished and rebuilt in altered form. What did these alterations consist of, and what motivated them?

6. What doctrines did the Kharijites advocate, and how did they proceed against their opponents?

7. What was the motivation for the construction of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem?

8. What do the terms Sunnah and bidʿah mean, and what is their context of emergence?