The Origins and Early Development of Shia Islam
Chapter 4: The Re-emergence of the 'Alid Party
The sixteen-year period beginning with the caliphate of 'Uthman
(24/644) and ending with the assassination of 'Ali (41/661) represents a
marked difference from the preceding period of the caliphate of Abu Bakr
and 'Umar in the development of Shi'ism in Islam. It was a turning point
in many ways. Firstly, this period created an atmosphere which
encouraged Shi'i tendencies to become more evident and conspicuous.
Secondly, the events which took place gave an active and sometimes
violent character to the hitherto inactive Shi'i movement. Finally, the
circumstances which prevailed involved the Shi'i outlook, for the first
time, in a number of political, geographical, and economic
considerations.
The period was therefore one in which the desire of the first Shi'is to
express their ideas on the succession of 'Ali, the religious zeal of the
Companions, personal hatreds, provincial and economic interests,
political intrigues, and the discontent of the poor against the rich
were fused together. This fusion not only provided a new sphere of
activity for the Shi'i movement, but also widened its circle of
influence to those who needed an outlet for their political grievances,
especially those against Mu'awiya, the representative of the Umayyad
aristocracy and Syrian domination. Seeing in 'Ali a champion of the
political independence of Iraq, as opposed to this Syrian domination,
these groups supported him and were for the time being of the same mind
as the religious supporters of 'Ali, who believed in his right to the
caliphate based on the theocratic principle.
The emergence of the political Shi'a is characterized both by the
increase in its influence and its numbers and by the sudden rapidity
with which it henceforth grew. An examination of the period in which
this emergence occurred Will result in a clearer insight into the split
which developed within the main body of Islam.
Abu Bakr and 'Umar did not give their respective clansmen any
particular share in the rule of the Muslim community, nor were their
clans of much political consequence. Such was not the case with 'Uthman.
His clan wanted to regain its past political importance after having
taken second place to the Hashimites after the victory of Muhammad. When
'Uthman was elected, the Umayyads regarded this as a triumph for the
whole clan, not solely as 'Uthman's personal success.[^1] They
considered it natural that the Caliph should give them a share of the
profits, and their demands could hardly be refused by the new caliph,
who felt that his strength lay in the support and good will of his
powerful clansmen.
He did what he could to satisfy their demands, and the people were
painfully disillusioned when they found the Caliph committed to the
improvement of the lot of his own family and clan rather than to the
welfare of the community as a whole. 'Uthman made no secret of bestowing
favours on his kinsmen, and justified this action by saying: “The
Prophet used to bestow offices on his kinsmen, and I happen to belong to
people who are poor. So I let my hands a bit loose in regard to that
with which I have been entrusted by virtue of the care I take of
it”[^2]
It is an historical fact that within a few years of 'Uthman's accession
the Umayyads claimed among themselves the governorships of Kufa, Basra
(capital of a vast territory including Iran and Central Asia and
extending to Sind), Syria, and Egypt: all the important provinces of the
empire. These Umayyad governors, in turn, relied on the support of their
own kinsmen, whom they placated and allowed to dominate the caliphal
councils.[^3]
The critical problem here was not so much that the Umayyads dominated all positions of power and advantage, but rather that they were allowed enough latitude to use their powers arbitrarily and unfairly for the benefit of themselves and their kinsmen, thus incurring the dissatisfaction and hatred of many Muslims. 'Abd Allah b. Sa'd b. Abi Sarh, 'Uthman's milk-brother, who administered Egypt, was an extremely unpopular man, whom the Prophet had ordered to be killed during the conquest of Mecca.[^4] Al-Walid b. 'Uqba, 'Uthman's half-brother, was even more intensely hated by the Kufans, whom he treated in brutal fashion.
He divided lands among his favourites and finally disgraced himself by
drunkenness.[^5] 'Uthman was obliged to recall him and appointed another
close relative, Sa'id b. Al-'As, who infuriated the local notables by
his high-handed treatment of them, then alarmed them by declaring that
the Sawad of Kufa would become a “Garden of the Quraysh”. Provoked by
such abuses, a group of the Qur'an readers in Kufa, such as Malik b.
Harith an-Nakha'i, Sulayman b. Surad al-Khuza'i, Hujr b. 'Adi al-Kindi,
Shurayh b. 'Awf al-'Absi, and others, protested in vain against Sa'id's
behaviour. Instead of making proper inquiries,
'Uthman ordered the agitators to be sent to Syria for Mu'awiya to deal
with.[^6]
The names of these distinguished Qur'an readers are to be taken
seriously as they afterwards appeared as the leaders of the Shi'i
movement in Ku fa. They stood at the forefront of
'Ali's army at the battles of Al-Jamal and Siffin, and even after
'Ali's assassination they never reconciled themselves with Mu'awiya.
Similarly, the groups of the Qur'an readers from Egypt and Basra were
not less violent in their protests against the free hand given by the
Caliph to his Umayyad governors and their highhanded treatment of the
people.
This clash with the Qur'an readers set the seal on 'Uthman's
unpopularity in religious circles in the provinces. Here we must point
out that the word qurra' (Qur'an readers) used by our sources implies
those who distinguished themselves and were recognized by the people as
learned in religious matters, and who taught the people the Qur'an and
religious observances. Naturally they carried great prestige among the
masses and were regarded as the intelligentsia of the people.
In addition to appointing many of his clansmen to lucrative posts,
'Uthman made large gifts to others.[^7] At the same time, he treated
some of the Companions of the Prophet very harshly. 'Abd Allah b.
Mas'ud, then in charge of the treasury in Kufa, was recalled after a
quarrel with Al-Walid b. 'Uqba, and the Caliph allowed him to be
manhandled in his presence.[^8] Even worse was the treatment received by
'Ammar b. Yasir, who was reviled and beaten into unconsciousness when he
arrived from Egypt with a letter of complaint against Ibn Abi
Sarh.[^9]
During the last few years of 'Uthman's reign, the major part of the
population was seething with discontent over the spectacle of Umayyad
aristocrats seated in high offices, enjoying wealth and luxury,
indulging in debauchery, and lavishly spending the immense wealth which
they appropriated to themselves illegitimately. The resulting disequi
Librium in the economic and social structure naturally aroused The
jealousy of various sections of the population and provided ample
combustible material for an explosion. One outspoken leader of the
criticism against 'Uthman's regime was Abu Dharr, a fearless and
uncompromising partisan of frugality and asceticism who violently
protested against the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few and
demanded the distribution of lands among the community. 'Uthman, who did
not like the idea of Abu Dharr thundering against the wealthy in the
mosque of Medina, sent him to Syria. Before long, the Caliph received a
letter from Mu'awiya complaining of Abu Dharr's dangerous activities and
ordered that Abu Dharr be bound to a wooden camel saddle and be sent
back to Medina under escort. He arrived in the city half dead, with the
flesh torn off his thighs, and he was shortly thereafter exiled to
Ar-Rabdha, where he soon died.[^10] His misadventures were widely
related throughout the provinces, awakening an echo of bitterness
against 'Uthman and the class of the rich concurrently with the
propagation of 'Ali's claims to the caliphate.
In this connection the speeches of Abu Dharr, frequently delivered in
the mosque of Medina, are of special interest. Gathering people around
himself, he used to say:
”…'Ali is the legatee (wasi) of Muhammad and the inheritor(wraith) of
his knowledge. Oh you bewildered and perplexed community after its
Prophet, if you give preference [in leadership] to those whom God has
given preference, and set aside those whom God has set aside, and if you
firmly place the succession and inheritance in the people of the house
of your Prophet, you will certainly be prosperous and your means of
subsistence will be made ample.[^11]
We must strongly dissent from the viewpoint of such writers as have
laboured to present the rebellion against 'Uthman as being due to only
the evil machinations of some mischief-mongers, and the grievances they
voiced as being all forged and artificial. Such writers ignore the fact
that these mischief-mongers-if such they were-had real grievances to
protest and the tacit support of the Sahaba to provide the necessary
sanction. For discontent to develop into open rebellion, two things are
essential: leadership, which must come from those who command respect in
society, and the time and opportunity to organize and concert action.
Both of these prerequisites were present in the last few years of
'Uthman's caliphate.[^12] The attitude of the Sahaba, prominent among
them being 'Ali, Talha, and Zubayr, is quite clear.
There is ample material to prove that almost all of them, and especially
these three, were equally loud in their opposition to the ways of
'Uthman. Even 'Abd ar-Rahman b. 'Awf (died
32/652), who had played an all-important role in the election of
'Uthman, is reported to have hinted long before the outbreak of
disturbances that he held 'Uthman's actions to be a violation of the
pledge given by him at the time of his election.[^13] Even if we
disagree with the reports that they wrote letters to the provincials or
actually incited them in a systematic manner, the fact remains that they
made no secret of their views and moral support for the rebels.
'Ali's attitude towards the situation in this period is clearly
illustrated by his reaction to the punishment given to Abu Dharr. When
'Uthman ordered the latter to be exiled, he gave strict orders that no
one should see him off except Marwan, who was to escort him out of
Medina. Despite these orders, 'Ali, accompanied by Hasan, Husayn, and
his partisan 'Ammar b. Yasir, went along with Abu Dharr for quite a long
distance. When reminded of the Caliph's directive by Marwan, 'Ali
replied by cursing him and striking the head of Marwan's beast with his
stick. When it was time to part, Abu Dharr wept and said, “By God,
whenever I see you, I remember the Prophet.[^14] To console Abu Dharr,
'Ali said to him:
“You were annoyed for the sake of God, so entertain hope from Him for
whom you were angry. These people were afraid of you for the sake of
their world, and you feared them for the sake of your religion. So leave
in their hands that by reason of which they were afraid of you, and flee
away with that by reason of which you feared them; for how badly do they
need what you have denied them, and how little do you need what they
have denied you. If you had accepted their world they would have loved
you; and if you had appropriated to yourself some part of it, they would
have felt more secure in your presence.”[^15]
Marwan reported the entire matter to 'Uthman, who became quite
indignant at such a breach of orders. When he questioned 'Ali, the
latter replied that he was not obliged to obey orders that were not
compatible with common sense and justice. “My merits and excellences are
far beyond yours; I am far superior to you in every respect.[^16] Later
these points were more commonly argued by supporters of 'Ali. The Shi'I
poet Sayyid al-Himyari availed himself of these arguments to express his
extreme Shi'i views.
After his acceptance of Abu Bakr and the subsequent weakening of his
initial party of supporters, 'Ali remained aloof from all government
activities until the end of 'Umar's rule, as mentioned above. The
protest raised after the selection of 'Uthman demonstrated that 'Ali's
candidacy still had many partisans, but these acted only as individuals
and did not form any particular group. Once the caliphate of 'Uthman
gained widespread acceptance in the community, the spontaneous protests
of men such as Al-Miqdad and 'Ammar ceased, though their dissatisfaction
remained.
As the Caliph gradually began to lose popularity, the old partisans of
'Ali soon revived their grievances and gave full rein to their long-
suppressed desires to see 'Ali as caliph. Fresh support rallied to the
Hashimite candidate as discontented elements in the empire began to
crystallize into factions that needed an effective and acceptable
leader. Though Talha and Zubayr had considerable local followings in
Kufa and Basra respectively, they were far less important than 'Ali and
their support was doomed to remain limited in character. 'Ali found
himself surrounded by groups of protesters arriving from the provinces,
men who called upon him to support their cause, while at the same time
'Uthman approached 'Ali and appealed to him to mediate with the rebels.
Perhaps compelled by the demands of justice, 'Ali had no choice but to
stand in Defence of the offended Companions and demand punishment for
the blame-worthy. He himself protestedagainst the rich gifts made by the
Caliph to his kinsmen.
From this position, he was urged by the qurra' to act as their
spokesman, which he did to help meet the just demands of the people on
the one hand, and to extricate the Caliph from his difficulties on the
other.[^17]
Two groups, different in outlook but with the same goals, were working
simultaneously and serving each other's purposes, though not
consciously. One group consisted of the
discontented provincial elements discussed above which had been hardest
hit by the disequilibrium in the economic structure of the empire, while
the other mainly comprised the loyal partisans of 'Ali. This latter
group, led by men like Abu Dharr, Miqdad, 'Ammar, Hudhayfa, and several
of the Ansar, enlisted a number of new activist supporters such as Ka'b
b. 'Abda an-Nahdi; Malik b. Habib ath-Tha'labi and Yazid b. Qays
al-Arhabi.[^18]
Also included in this circle were the Hashimites as well as 'Ali's clients and servants. Among the latter were Qanbar b. Kadam,[^19] Mitham b. Yahya at-Tammar, and Rushayd al-Hujuri Due to their religious zeal for and devotion to the person of 'Ali as the custodian of Muhammad's message and the true exponent of Islam, these men are symbolic of this stage in the growth of Shi'ism. Both Mitham at-Tammar[^20] and Rushayd al-Hujuri[^21] were crucified in Kufa in 61/680 by 'Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad because they refused to curse 'Ali and continued their zealous adherence to him and to his house even after his death.
Their hands, legs, and tongues were cut off and their bodies were
hanged, a typical example of Ibn Ziyad's brutal behaviour. Besides these
supporters, later writers mention the name of 'Abd Allah b. Wahb b.
Saba, known as Ibn as-Sawda', as having become a great supporter of
'Ali, travelling from place to place sowing discontent against the rule
of 'Uthman.[^22] He is described as a former Jewish rabbi converted to
Islam; however, modern Muslim scholars such as 'Ali al-Wardi strongly
suggest that 'Abd Allah b. Saba never existed, and that the activities
attributed to him were carried out by 'Ammar b. Yasir, whose nickname
was also as-Sawda'.[^23] Modern European scholars have also expressed
their doubts as to the historical personality of Ibn as-Sawda' and tend
to agree that he is a legendary figure.[^24]
It is an interesting phenomenon that both the hatred against 'Uthman
and the numbers of the supporters of 'Ali grew side by side. The pious
opposition to the Umayyad aristocracy became eagerly involved with the
partisanship for 'Ali.[^25] In addition to 'Ali's ardent supporters,
Talha and Zubayr also conducted propaganda activities against 'Uthman.
When Muhammad b. Abi Bakr and Muhammad b. Abi Hudhayfa went to Egypt to
rouse the people against the Caliph, they met Muhammad b. Talha, sent
there by his father for the same task.[^26] Even the widows of the
Prophet opposed the Caliph, and 'A'isha was especially loud in her
denunciations of “Na'thal” (of the big beard and the hairy chest), as
she nicknamed him.[^27]
The simmering discontent exploded into revolt in 35/656, when rebel
contingents from Kufa, Basra, and Egypt marched on Medina under the
leadership of the qurra'. It is interesting to note that most of the
activists leading these contingents happen to have been of Yemeni
origin. These were joined by some of the pro-'Alid Medinese Muhajirun
and Ansar such as 'Ammar and others. The situation soon became chaotic.
The events leading to the murder of 'Uthman are beyond the scope of this
study, but it seems fairly certain that his assassination exceeded the
desires of even those of the Sahaba who were openly opposed to the
Caliph.
Their objectives had been only to depose 'Uthman, not to kill him. It
also seems clear that even during these last tumultuous days 'Ali
continued to play his conciliatory. and mediatory role. He many times
did succeed in dispersing the unruly mob that wanted to hurt the Caliph,
and during the siege he appointed his sons Hasan and Husayn to stand at
the house of 'Uthman and protect him from the angry crowd. They were,
however, jostled and pushed aside by the mob, and the Caliph was killed.
Hearing the news, 'Ali was the first to reach the scene and was so
furious at what had transpired that he slapped the face of Husayn and
hit Hasan for failing to save the life of the
Caliph.[^28]
In the confused atmosphere following the murder of the Caliph, the only
candidate for the caliphate that was acceptable to the Muhajirun and the
Ansar, as well as to the rebellious qurra', was 'Ali.[^29] After three
previous but unfulfilled aspirations to gain the office, however, 'Ali
was now reluctant to accept the responsibility of leading a community so
badly entangled in the question of regicide, and thus to implicate
himself in the murder. Ibn 'Abd Rabbih has preserved for us 'Ali's own
statement on the situation in the form of an address delivered at the
time of the battle of Al-Jamal. In it, 'Ali says:
“After 'Uthman was killed, you came to me saying that you wanted to pay
homage to me. I said, 'I do not want it.' I pulled back my hand, but you
stretched it forth. I tried to snatch it [my hand] away from you, but
you seized it. You said, 'We will accept no other than you, and we would
not have gathered together except around you.' You thronged around me
like thirsty camels on their watering day, set loose by their keeper who
had unfastened their tethers, until I thought you would kill me [by
rushing upon me] or that some one of you would kill the other [by
jumping one over the other]. In this way all of you paid me your homage,
and so did Talha and Zubayr.”[^30]
Pressed by the demands from almost all quarters, 'Ali finally agreed to
accept the office, but he specified that he would rule strictly
according to the Qur'an and the Sunna of the Prophet and that he would
enforce justice and law regardless of any criticism or clash with the
interests of any group. Talha and Zubayr, though they both had some
followings from Basra and Kufa, realized that they had no chance of
mustering enough support to contest 'Ali's candidacy, and they were the
first to swear allegiance to him. The Medinese, joined by multitudes of
those from the provinces present in the capital, acclaimed 'Ali as
caliph.[^31]
Through this election, 'Ali became the first and the only caliph in
whose selection a great majority of the community took an active part.
He was also the first among the caliphs who, because of the
circumstances of his birth, combined in his person both the dynastic and
the theocratic principles of succession.
From the very start, 'Ali inherited great problems which none of his
three predecessors had had to face. Marwan b. al-Hakam, 'Uthman's
secretary, along with some other members of the clan of Umayya, managed
to escape to Syria to join Mu'awiya, carrying 'Uthman's blood-stained
shirt and the severed fingers of Na'ila, the murdered caliph's widow, to
use for propaganda purposes. From Syria then came the call for vengeance
for 'Uthman's death and a continuous propaganda campaign against 'Ali.
The murder of 'Uthman was not a simple assassination committed by an
individual to settle personal grievances, as had been the case in
'Umar's death. 'Uthman's murder was the result of a popular revolt of
the poor, discontented, suppressed, and deprived people against the
economic, political, and feudalist domination of an old aristocratic
family. The more religiously-minded people revolted to safeguard the
Islamic ideals of socio-economic justice and equality taught by the
Qur'an, enforced by the Prophet, and jealously maintained by Abu Bakr
and 'Umar. 'Ali's role as the mediator between the rebel qurra' and the
Caliph demonstrates that, on the one hand, he himself was convinced that
the resistance movement had been based on just and right demands (and
thus asked the Caliph to redress their grievances), while, on the other
hand, he had tried his best to save the Caliph from the hands of the
unruly mob. Tempers had flared beyond anyone's control, however, and the
Caliph was killed by extremists who escaped in the midst of the utter
confusion that followed. 'Ali found himself in a hopeless situation. The
actual murderers had fled, and it was impossible for him to locate them
for punishment; yet the fact remained that many of the qurra' around
'Ali had been nearly as responsible for the tragedy as the murderers
themselves. 'Ali himself repeatedly declared that:
”…the murder of 'Uthman was an act of the days of ignorance
[al-Jahiliya: the common term for the pre-Islamic period in Arabia] I am
not indifferent to the demand [of 'Uthman's blood], but at present [the
murderers] are beyond my power. As soon as I get hold of them, I will
not hesitate to punish them.[^32]
Even Talha and Zubayr agreed on this point and said “the insolent and
imprudent people overcame the gentle and sober ones and killed
['Uthman].”[^33] In vain, however, did 'Ali try to find a peaceful
solution to the problem. The paradoxical position of deploring the
murder of 'Uthman while supporting the justified demands of the qurra',
and cursing the murderers of the Caliph while surrounding himself with
their associates, would have been a serious challenge to even the
shrewdest and most cunning politician, and this was even more so in the
case of 'Ali, whose rigid adherence to principles so often prevented him
from adopting a practical political policy. Before long, it became
obvious that 'Ali's attempts to resolve the crisis by peaceful means had
failed. Challenges to his authority included even 'A'isha, who refused
to return to Medina from the 'Umra (lesser pilgrimage) and turned back
to Mecca when informed of the nomination of 'Ali.
Some time later, Talha and Zubayr saw an opportunity to dissociate
themselves from 'Ali, and asked permission to perform the 'Umra. Though
aware of their plans, 'Ali granted their request. The two joined 'A'isha
in the Holy City and then announced that they had been compelled to
swear allegiance to 'Ali under duress.[^34] Though both men were
ambitious for the caliphate, neither of them had been a real leader of
the masses with great popular support at his command; they could never
have concerted their efforts had it not been for 'A'isha, who now
shifted from the position of an extreme critic of 'Uthman to assume the
role of his avenger. By marching to Basra in 36/656, the triumvirate
threatened to cut 'Ali off from the east and compound the problem of a
rebellious Syria by creating a similar problem in Iraq. After much
hesitation, 'Ali finally marched to Kufa, where he succeeded in
gathering a force strong enough to defeat 'A'isha and her associates in
the battle of Al-Jamal. Talha and Zubayr were slain, and 'A'isha was
taken prisoner and sent safely back to Medina.
Having secured his position in Iraq for the moment, 'Ali then turned to
deal with the much more dangerous problem of Mu'awiya, who, as 'Uthman's
kinsman, called for vengeance,[^35] a protest which 'Ali rejected on the
grounds that the sons of 'Uthman were more entitled to this right.[^36]
Mu'awiya realized that if 'Ali managed to consolidate his authority he
would dislodge the former from his position as governor of Syria. The
only way to avoid this was to question the validity of 'Ali's title to
the caliphate; given the circumstances in which the new caliph had been
installed in office, this was not difficult. 'Ali's supporters,
especially the qurra', were vigorously opposed to any compromise with
Mu'awiya, and Malik al-Ashtar advised the Caliph not to enter into
correspondence with the governor of Syria. Nevertheless, 'Ali tried
peaceful means in dealing with his adversary; only when this failed and
it became obvious that Mu'awiya had resolved to fight did 'Ali march
with his forces to meet the Syrians.
The conflict of Siffin and the resulting arbitration have been
thoroughly and critically studied by a number of scholars, and it is not
our purpose here to re-cover well trodden ground. It will suffice to
note that 'Ali's position rapidly became critical as the emergence of
the Kharijites and the arbitration of Adhruh steadily eroded his
strength. While he was preparing for a final struggle against Syria, a
Kharijite fanatic, 'Abd ar-Rahman b. al-Muljam, struck him with a
poisoned sword in the mosque of Kufa. The fourth caliph died on 21
Ramadan 40/25 January 661.
This entire period is discussed by 'Ali in the last part of his speech
of Shaqshiqiyya, and his own comments are useful in examining this
confused era:
“In the end, the third of them ['Uthman] stood up shrugging his
shoulders arrogantly; and there stood with him the sons of his father,
eating up the property of God as the camels eat up the springtide
verdure, until what he had twisted became untwisted.
His destruction was complete, and his greediness made him fall to the
ground. Then all of a sudden I was frightened to see a crowd of people
around myself, thick as the hyena's mane, thronging towards me from
every direction until [my sons] Hasan and Husayn were mobbed and my two
sides were split, gathering around me like a herd of goats.
“But when I took up the government, one group broke its pledge, another
rebelled, and some others transgressed, as if they had not heard the
words of God, who says: 'That is the abode hereafter which we allot to
those who do not seek greatness and corruption on the earth, and the end
is for those who fear.' (XXVIII, 83) Nay, by God, they have heard these
words arid comprehend them, but the world is sweet in their eyes and
they are pleased by its gaudiness.
“Nay, by Him who has split the seed and created the soul, but for the
presence of those who are present and the establishment of the arguments
by the existence of the helpers, as also the fact that God has disliked
for the knowing ones to watch idly the fullness of the oppressor and the
hunger of the oppressed, I would have thrown back its [the caliphate's]
rope on its shoulder and made its last drink from the cup of the first
one, and you would have found that your world is as distasteful to me as
the dripping from the nose of a goat.”[^37]
With this brief summary as a foundation, we will attempt to analyse the
causes and consequences of the major events of 'Ali's short-lived
caliphate. It must be remembered that his succession was greatly
resisted by some of the Companions of the Prophet and resulted in the
first civil war in Islam; but at the same time, his so-called “failures”
proved to be epoch- making in the history of the development of Shi'ism.
The bitterness of the supporters of 'Ali created by his defeats and
disappointments provided an historical foundation for the development of
their sectarian tendencies, and the destruction done to him gave the
later Shi'a enough material for the formation of their own discipline
within the body of Islam.
An attempt to grasp the situation as a coherent whole reveals the fact
that the selection of CAll was at once a triumph for a particular view
of succession hitherto frustrated, and a great shock to all those who
had successfully adopted a principle of leadership devoid of notions of
primacy based on hereditary sanctity after the death of the Prophet.
With the succession of CAl!, these two rival views came into genuine
conflict for the first time and crystallized into definite forms.
The former view, soon defeated again, was to find expression in a
separatist tendency towards a, so to speak, sectarian organization; the
latter re-emerged victoriously and more vigorously, and eventually
shaped itself in such a way as to become the centre of the Islamic Umma,
or Jama'a.
Ya'qubi records for us those speeches with which 'Ali was hailed by
his enthusiastic supporters, mostly from the Ansar, on the occasion of
his installation, and which illustrate those tendencies and sentiments
with which he was viewed by this group. For example, Malik b. al-Harith
al-Ashtar pledged his allegiance with the declaration that 'Ali was the
wasi al-awsiya', the legatee from among the legatees [of the prophets),
and the warith ilm al-anbiya', heir to the knowledge of the
prophets.[^38] Hodgson doubts whether these terms were really used in
reference to 'Ali at such an early date.[^39] In the first place, we
must bear in mind that MAlik b. al-Ashtar was of Yemenite origin. South
Arabia was a land of ancient civilization where for a thousand years
kings had succeeded one another according to a dynastic principle and
had been regarded as having extraordinary qualities. Even if the
seventh-century Arabs had no personal experience of kingship, they must
have been unconsciously influenced by this continuing tradition.[^40] In
this case, the use of terms like wasi and warith by a man of Yemenite
origin occurs as a natural and spontaneous corollary of a deep-seated
cultural tradition.
In the second place, there are numerous references in contemporary
writings which reflect the same spirit. In praise of 'Ali, Abu'l-Aswad
ad-Du'ali sings:
'Thou art the noblest of the Quraysh in merit and religion. I see God
arid the ftiture state through my love for 'Ali. 'Ali is the Aaron, 'Ali
is the wasi.''[^41]
Still more informative is the fact that the term wanth appears
frequently in the Qur an, especially in connection with the family of
'Imran and Isma'il, and Muhammad uses it as a proof in his efforts to
attract the “peoples of the book”.[^42] It is thus very likely that some
of the partisans of 'Ali could have used the same terminology to express
their views.
Moreover, in reading the accounts of the battles of Al-Jamal and
Siffin, one encounters a great bulk of war poetry exchanged between
combatants of both sides in which wasi and such expressions are repeated
by the partisans of 'Ali. Extensive quotations here would be cumbersome,
and it will suffice to refer the reader to Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, who
collected the verses describing 'Ali as the wasi[^43] from the Kit4b
al-Jamal of Abu Mikhnaf[^44] (died i57/774). Another very early work
wherein these verses are abundantly quoted is the Kitab Waq'at Siffin by
Nasr b. Muzahim (died 212/827), who also frequently quotes Abu Mikhnaf
in addition to other early sources.[^45]
Apart from these considerations, we have already seen that there had
been a devoted party which from the very beginning had expressed
personal enthusiasm for 'Ali largely based on religious considerations.
That this group should express its allegiance in appropriately religious
terms is only to be expected. Later generations of Shl'l poets, best
represented by Kumayl, Kuthayyir, Sayyid al-IIimyarl, and Farazdaq,
frequently used the terms wasi and the like in reference to 'Ali,
especially when describing the battles of Al-Jamal and siflln.
The purpose of the preceding discussion has been to demonstrate that
there was a party who viewed 'All's accession to the caliphate from an
angle quite different from the viewpoint of the rest of the community.
Ilis rise to power was a great victory for his party, which held a
particular conception regarding the leadership of the community, and
thus it raised questions that had not arisen under the three previous
caliphs, therefore causing him to face serious opposition from various
quarters almost right from the start.
The initial resistance came from 'A'isha, Talha and Zubayr, who raised
the call for vengeance and offered themselves as the agents for exacting
satisfaction for the murder of 'Uthman.
But the question to be raised here is whether this was really the
reason for their revolt. How could 'Ali alone be held responsible for
the killing when Talha and Zubayr themselves had been equally active in
supporting the grievances of the people? Was 'A'isha not an equal
participant in arousing people against 'Uthman?[^46] For the highly
emotional and violent atmosphere in Medina at that time, we can do no
more and no less than hold all the dissident groups and critics of the
Caliph about equally responsible. In one of his speeches,
'Ali questions these pretenders, saying:
“By God, they have shown their dislike against me for anything
unpleasant and have not appointed an arbitrator between me and
themselves; yet they are demanding a right which they had themselves
given up and revenge for a blood for which they themselves are
responsible. Even if I had a share in it with them, they would still
have a share of it; but if they were held responsible for it without me,
the blame lies only with them: thus their strongest argument goes only
against them. They are still suckling a mother who has already weaned
them, and they are reviving an innovation which had been made to
die.”[^47]
In the final analysis, it would appear that the vengeance for Uthman
was made an easy pretext both by the triumvirate and later by Mu'awiya
for efforts to check the obvious danger of the rule of the ascetic group
in Islam, supported by the lower classes of society and by some of the
Ansar of Medina, of whom 'Ali happened to be the representative. The
emergence of these groups was a real threat to the old Meccan
aristocracy, which had been suppressed by Muhammad's victory and his
concept of society and had been kept under strict control by Abti Bakr
and 'Umar. When 'Uthman, a member of the wealthiest clan of Umayya, came
to power, the old aristocratic ideals of his clan and other ruling
families of Mecca found an opportunity to re-establish their power and
aristocracy. Ironically enough, the impetus given to the ideas of unity
and organization by Islam were brought to the service of this group to
revitalize itself and re-emerge in power.
The revolt of the triumvirate represents Talha and Zubayr's last struggle to protect their interests. 'A'isha served as a symbol behind which they could unify their forces, and it certainly was not difficult to involve her in an attack on 'Ali. Her dislike for him is said to have been based on several factors, one of which was 'Ali's advice to Muhammad that he inquire with 'A 'isha's slave girl concerning an incident wherein 'A'isha's late return after having been left behind on a journey caused people to start talking maliciously about her.[^48] 'A'isha's quarrels with Fatima and 'Ali's questioning of the election of Abti Bakr, 'A'isha's father, also contributed to the hostility.[^49] It is therefore clear that in the battle of Al-Jamal the triumvirate was fighting for personal reasons rather than for the blood of 'Uthman, which was only a convenient pretext.
Though they failed in their objectives, they made the task of Mu'awiya,
the unseating of 'Ali and the reassertion of the ideals threatened by
his succession, much easier. The fact that the claim of Mu'awiya for the
blood of 'Uthman was only an excuse to enable him to remove 'Ali from
power is further evident from a conversation between 'Amr b. al-'As and
'A'isha soon after the battle of Al-Jamal. 'Amr said to 'A'isha:
“I wish you could have been killed on the day of Jamal, and thereby you
would have entered Paradise and we would have used your death as our
strongest means for reviling and defaming
'AII.”[^50] The conflict at the battle of Al-Jamal brought about a
serious split in the Muslim community. All of our sources reporting on
these events use a number of particular designations to express the
position adopted henceforth by different groups.
These designations are important in that they indicate how the religious
outlook, personal loyalties, regional interests, and politico-economic
considerations became involved with one another. Those who supported
'Ali at the battle of AI-Jamal and later at Siffin were at first called
the “people of Iraq” (ahl al-'Iraq) as well as the “party of 'AIr'
(shi'at 'Ali or al-'Alawiya). Their opponents were called shi'at
'Uthman, or more commonly al-'Uthmanyya. They included the faction of
'A'isha, Talha, and Zubayr (called the “people of the camel,” or ashab
al-jamal) and the Syrians (ahi ash-Sham), who were also known as the
shi'at Mu'awiya.
According to the tendency of the epoch, their positions were also
described in more religiously oriented terms through the use of the word
din, which was used in reference to both 'Ali and 'Uthman in expressions
such as din 'Ali and din 'Uthman. Another way of expressing this was to
assert that one held the 'Alawi or 'Uthmani opinion, ra'y al-'Alawiya or
ra'y al-'Uthmaniya.[^51] However, besides these general terms used to
describe opposing factions, the more precise titles of Shi'at Ahl
al-Bayt and Shi'at Al Muhammad were frequently used from this time
onwards by the religiously enthusiastic followers of 'Ali.
Occasionally the nickname at- Turab:ya was also used. This title was
derived from 'Ali's kunya Abn Turab, Father of Dust, given to him by
Muhammad.[^52] More revealing is the fact that 'Ali himself called his
opponents by names which indicated their being misled from the true
religious path. Those who fought against him at AI-Jamal he referred to
as An-Nakithun, “those who break their allegiance”.
This is a derivation from the Qur'anic verse which says:
“Then anyone who violates his oath (nakatha) does so to the harm of his
soul.”[^53] 'Ali named his opponents at Siffin Al-Qasitun, “those who
act wrongfully”, taken from the Qur'anic verse which reads: “Those who
swerve (al-qasitun) are fuel for Hell-fire.”[^54] Lastly, referring to a
tradition of the Prophet, 'Ali referred to the Kharijites of Nahrawan as
al-Manqun, “those who missed the truth of religion”.[^55] Obviously
these names became common among 'All's followers to describe their
opponents.
Throughout this period, however, the followers of 'Ali were developing
a continuously broadening base of support. Until the battle of Al-Jamal,
the Shi'at 'Ali consisted only of a small personal following who from
the very beginning regarded him as the most worthy person for the office
of the caliphate to lead the community after the death of the Prophet.
After the battle of Al-Jamal the term Shi'at 'Ali came to include all
those who had supported 'Ali against 'A'isha, and from this point
onwards the original Shi'a group was confusingly included with other
groups and individuals who supported 'Ali for other than religious
reasons. It was in this wider sense that the term Shi'a was used in the
document of arbitration at Siffin.[^56]
A few decades later, when the Shi'a started to formulate their official
position, some attempts were made to sort out the various groups of
'Ali's supporters which had been so confusingly mixed up at that earlier
stage. The ranks of the Shi'a were divided into four categories:
Al-Asfiya, the “sincere friends”; Al-Awliya, the “devoted friends”;
Al-Ashab, the “companions”; and the Shurtat al-Khamis, the “picked
division”.[^57] To whom the first three terms refer is not quite clear,
though various Shi'i sources indicate the group of earlier
followers-Miqdad, Salman, 'Ammar, Hudhayfa, Abu Hamza, Abu Sasan, and
Shutayr-as belonging to the Asftya.
The idea of these classes is certainly of a later date. Nevertheless,
we must make some distinction between those followers of 'Ali who
emphasized the religious factor of his succession as the wasi and those
who supported his cause mainly on political grounds, especially after he
made Kufa his capital. In addition to a large political following, 'Ali
left behind him a zealous personal party which had sworn to him that
they would be “friends to those whom he befriended, and enemies of those
to whom he was hostile.”[^58] Insisting that 'Ali was in accordance with
truth and guidance” ('ala'l-haqq wa'l- huda) and his opponents
consequently in error, they maintaned that 'Ali, by the circumstances of
his birth, was specially qualified to bear supreme authority in the
community. The existence of this devoted band of religious supporters
largely explains how Shiism managed to survive the multitude of decisive
political defeats inflicted on the movement over the years.
(101)
[^1]: Aghani VI, pp.334 f.; Mas'udi, Muruj, II, pp.342 f.
[^2]: Tabari, I, pp. 2948 f. For other versions, see Ibn Sa'd, III, 64; Baladhuri, V, p.25; Ya'qubi, II, pp.164 ff.; Dinawari, Akhbar, p.139; Mas'udi, Muruj; II, pp.334 ff.; 'Iqd, IV, pp. 280ff.
[^3]: See Tabari, I, pp.29323; Mas'udi, Muruj, II, p.337
[^4]: Tabari, I, p. 2871 ; Baladhuri, V, p.49
[^5]: Baladhuri, V, pp.31 ff.; Tabari, I, p.2845; Mas'udi, Muruj, II, p.335; 'Iqd, IV, p.307
[^6]: For the Ithna 'Asharites, see Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi and Furu' al-Kafi; for the Isma'ilites, see Qadi Nu'man, Da'a'im al-Islam
[^7]: Baladhuri, V. pp.27 f.; Tabari, I, pp.2953 f.; Ash'ari, Tamhid, p.99
[^8]: Baladhuri, V, pp.36 f.; Ya'qubi, II, p.170
[^9]: Baladhuri, V, pp. 48 f.; 'Iqd, IV, p.307. Also see Mowdudi, Abu'lA'la, Khilafai wa Mulukiyat, pp.105 ff., 321 if, which gives an admirable exposition of 'Uthman's weakness for his kinsmen and of their misdeeds.
[^10]: Baladhuri, V, pp. 52 ff.; Tabari, I, pp. 2858 ff.; Mas'udi, Muruj, II, pp.339 ff.; Ya'qubi, II, p.171
[^11]: Ya'qubi, loc. cit.
[^12]: For these comments see S. M. Yusuf, “The Revolt Against 'Uthman”, Islamic Culture, XXVI I (1953), pp.4-5
[^13]: Baladhuri, V, pp. 26, 57; Tabari, I, pp.2955, 2980; 'Iqd, IV, p.280
[^14]: Baladhuri, V, pp. 53ff.; Mas'adi, Muruj, II, pp.34' f.; Ya'qubi, II, pp.172 f.; Iladid, Sharh, VIII, pp.252 ff.
[^15]: Nahj al-Balagha, I, p.303
[^16]: Cf. sources in note 14 above
[^17]: Baladhuri; V, pp. 26, 60-6I; Tabari, I, pp. 2948 f., pp.2955 ff.; Mas'udi, Muruj II, p.344; Ash'ari, Tamhid, p.54
[^18]: Baladhuri, V, p.40
[^19]: Kashshi, Rijal, p.72
[^20]: ibid., pp. 79-87
[^21]: ibid., pp. 75-78
[^22]: Tabari, I, p.2942; Ash'ari, Tamhid, pp.55 f.
[^23]: Wa' az as-Salat'n (Baghdad, 1954), pp.148 ff..
[^24]: Bernard Lewis, Origins of Isma'ilism (Cambridge, 1940), p.25; Marshal G. S. Hodgson, “How Did the Early Shi'a Become Sectarian ?” JAOS, LXXV (1955), p.2. For further sources, see EI2 article “Abd Allah b. Saba”.
[^25]: Hodgson, “Early Shi'a”, p.3
[^26]: Baladhuri, V, p.49. The son of Abu Bakr, Muhammad was a devoted follower of 'Ali and a bitter critic of'Uthman. Cf. Hodgson, “Early Shi'a”, p.2
[^27]: Baladhuri, V, pp.34, 48-49; Tabari, I, p.3112; Ya'qubi, II, p.175; Al-Imama wa's-Siyasa, I, p.30
[^28]: Baladhuri, V, pp.62 ff., 69; Tabari, I, pp. 2988 f.; Mas'udi, Muruj, II, p.232; 'Iqd, IV, p.290
[^29]: Baladhuri, V, pp.70 f.; Tabari, I, pp.3066 ff.; 'Iqd, IV, pp.291, 310
[^30]: 'Iqd, IV, p.318
[^31]: Baladhuri, V, p.70; Tabari, I, p.3068; Ya'qubi, II, p. 178; Ash'ari, Tamhid, p.107; Dinawari, Akhbar, p.140
[^32]: Tabari, I, p.3080
[^33]: Tabari, I, p.3127
[^34]: Tabari, I, pp. 309 I, 3112 if.; Ya'qubi, II, p. 180; Hadid, Sharh, I, p.232
[^35]: Tabari, I, p.3255
[^36]: 'Iqd, IV, p.334. Also see Baladhuri, IVA, p. 108, where some companions rejected Mu'awiya's right to call for the blood of 'Uthman while there were other nearer relatives of 'Uthman to claim it.
[^37]: See Chapter 3, n. 8, above
[^38]: Ya'qu hi, II, p.179
[^39]: Hodgson, “How Did the Early Shi'a Become Sectarian?”, JAOS, p.2
[^40]: W. Montgomery Watt, “Shi'ism Under the Umayyads”, JRAS, 196o, p. 161. Cf. 3. Ryckmans, L'institution monarchique en Arabia atant l'Islam (Louvain, 1951), pp.229 if.
[^41]: Mubarrad, Kamil, III, p. 205; Mas'udi; Muruj, II, p.416; Aghani; XII, p.326. R. Strothmann agrees that there are distinguishable religious honours accorded to 'Ali in the poetry of ad-Du'ali (cf. E11 article “Shl'a”). Also see similar verses composed by Kumayt and Kuthayyir in Mubarrad, Kamil, III, pp.204 f.
[^42]: e.g. Qur'an, xIx, 6
[^43]: Hadid, Sharh, I, pp.144-9
[^44]: Ibn Nadim, Fihrist, p.93
[^45]: e.g. pp. 18,23 f., 43,49, 365, 382, 385. See also Askafi, Naqdal- 'Uthmaniya, p.84
[^46]: Baladhuri, V, p. 34. Even the verses of Ibn Umm Kilb attribute to 'A 'isha the responsibility for the murder of 'Uthman. Cf. Tabari, I, p 3112
[^47]: Mufid, Irshad, p.146; Nahj al-Balagha, I, p.63
[^48]: This incident is known as the Hadith al-Ifk, and Bukhari records a detailed account of it (See Sahih, III, pp. 25 ff). Cf. other hadith works under the heading “Hadith al-Ifk”.
[^49]: 'Umar Abu Nasr, 'Ali wa 'A'isha (Baghdad, n.d.), pp.25 ff
[^50]: Mubarrad, Kamil, I, p.267
[^51]: These expressions are frequently used in the Arabic sources: e.g. Tabari I, pp.3196, 3199; Ya'qubI, II, pp.183, 183 199; Aghanz; XII, p.334; XIV, p.219
[^52]: Tabari, I, p.1272
[^53]: XLVIII, 10. See Iladid, Sharh, I, p.201
[^54]: LXXII, 15. See Iladid, loc. cit.
[^55]: Hadid, loc. cit.; Ya'qubi, II, p.193
[^56]: Minqari; Waq'at Siffin, p.504; Tabari, I, pp.3336 f.
[^57]: Fihrist, p.175; Tabari, II, p. 1; Kashshi, Rijal, pp.4 f.
[^58]: Tabari, I,pp.3350 f. Cf. W. Montgomery Watt, “Shi'ism Under the Umayyads”, JRAS (1960), pp. I60-161