CHAPTER X: THE MARWANIDS’ GOVERNMENT
Al Marwan’s Rule
Yazid’s demise (in Safar 64) was the origin of instability in the Sufyanids’s sovereignty. Such instability could be felt not only in the lands distant from the capital but also inside Damascus, the center of the Umayyads’s caliphate. The instability was expanded when Mu‘awiya II after forty days or four months abdicated. He announced, الا وان جدّي معاوية بن ابي سفيان نازع الامر من كان أولى به منه في القرابة برسول الله وأحق في الاسلام، سابق المسلمين، اول المؤمنين وابن عم رسول رب العالمين وأبا بقيّة خاتم المرسلين“My forefather, Mu‘awiya did battle with the one who was the closest to the Prophet in kinship and had long record in Islam. The ever-first Muslim, the ever-first believer, the Prophet’s cousin and the father of the Seal of the Prophet’s Household was no one save he.”
Enumerating some of his father’s and forefather’s negative conducts, he added,“They martyred the Prophet’s kinfolks, profaned the sacred sanctuary and set fire on Ka‘ba. Neverever will I undertake your responsibility.”
Marwan Ibn Hakam suggested that he organize a council like ‘Umar. He recoiled from the responsibility, however.
It was astonishing that he was Yazid’s son especially when he described his brother,’Abd al-Rahman Ibn Yazid as, كان ناسكاً متألّها
“He is a divine man and a worshipper.”
The principal threat to the Umayyads was in the oriental Islamic lands. It was due to the emergence of a rather powerful substitute from 61 A.H. in Mecca who bid his time to take advantage of the existing instability and dethrone the Umayyads in that area. After Yazid’s death, ‘Ubayd Allah Ibn Ziyad, the governor, tried to keep still Basra and Kufa under his power but the riot of Basra people had him escape to Damascus.
From then on after Mukhtar until 72 A.H., Iraq was ruled by Ibn Zubayr and the Umayyads contented themselves with only Damascus and Egypt.
With the prevailing instability in Damascus, some allied themselves with Ibn Zubayr to eradicate the Umayyads. Nu‘man Ibn Bashir Ansari governing Hims turned to Ibn Zubayr. Zhahhak Ibn Qays, one of the most influential Umayyads commanders, took control of Damascus. In Palestine, Natil Ibn Qays Djudhami joined Ibn Zubayr. ‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn Djahdam Fihri as Ibn Zubayr’s agent began his activities in Egypt. The one and the only land remained for the Umayyads was Jordan ruled by Hassan Ibn Buhdal Kalbi.
And about the tribes, the Qaysids were on Ibn Zubayr’s side and the Kalbids on ‘Amr Ibn Sa‘id’s and Marwan Ibn Hakam Ibn Abi l-‘As’s side.
The Qaysids included the tribes of Sulaym, Hawazin and Ghatfan whereas the tribes backing Marwan were Kalb, Ghassan, Sakun, Saksak, Tanukh, Tayy (from Damascus) and Qayn.
The conflict between these two wings occurred in 64. Marwan Ibn Hakam as a leader from Quraysh and the Umayyads secured allegiance from his followers as a caliph and together with the followers of ‘Amr Ibn Sa‘id went to a war with Zhahhak Ibn Qays. The violent battle done in Mardj Rahit led to the Qaysids’ defeat and Zhahhak’s murder, on one hand, and to Marwan’s penetration into Damascus and new sovereignty of the Umayyads under the name of the Marwanids, on the other hand. It has been said that ‘Ubayd Allah Ibn Ziyad had been the main element who incited Marwan.
Anyhow, Marwan became the founder of the Marwanids dynasty. From different standpoints, his rule as well as the way of his assuming power gained a novelty. Although Mu‘awiya had come into power by compulsion and dissimulation, Marwan could secure it thoroughly by sword. According to Mas‘udi, he was the first one who procured the power by sword with satisfying no group of people at least.
Marwan was in dilemma. One was from the side of ‘Amr Ibn Sa‘id who had played a leading role in the course of this development and was of course nominated as a successor after his son.
Nonetheless, he was later slayed by ‘Abd al-Malik mercilessly. Another problem was Khalid Ibn Yazid Ibn Mu‘awiya who had secured allegiance from a number of Jordanians in the turmoil of clashes. For the purpose of disparaging him, Marwan married his mother. His affront was followed by Khalid’s objection to his mother and Marwan’s assassination by his new wife in 65.
Probably Marwan had staged a coup to conquer Hidjaz although some sources have ascribed it to ‘Abd al-Malik. Overpowering Ibn Zubayr’s army in Medina, Hubaysh Ibn Duladja entered the town and began eating dates on the Prophet’s pulpit. Afterwards, he set out to Rabada, where he battled with the army dispatched by ‘Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr. The majority of Damascus came to be killed and captured.
It is alleged that Hadjdjadj had been in Hubaysh’s army as well.
Marwan’s background bears no luminous point. His first political emergence was that as ‘Uthman’s son-in-law in the throes of ‘Uthman’s conflict with people, he wrote a letter to the ruler of Egypt on behalf of ‘Uthman and without his awareness to decimate Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr and his friends. Later on, he was the governor of Medina for years during which he constantly insulted Imam ‘Ali (a).
When Yazid after his father’s death urged Medinans governor to secure allegiance from Husayn Ibn ‘Ali (a), Marwan suggested that he be killed if balking at.
Morally, he was described, كان مروان فاحشاً سباباً
“Marwan was extremely foul mouthed.”
Marwan’s rule lasted for nine months. After his assassination in 65 A.H his son, ‘Abd al-Malik Ibn Marwan, assumed the caliphate. Before that ‘Abd al-Malik was well known for his worship and Qur’an recitation in Medina.
No sooner had he heard about his caliphate than he shut Qur’an and bid farewell to it forever.
His main internal problem was the existence of ‘Amr Ibn Sa‘id who was supposed to succeed him at his father’s behest. When ‘Abd al-Malik went to conquer Iraq in 68, ‘Amr Ibn Sa‘id revolted in Damascus and besieged it. Returning halfway, ‘Abd al-Malik introduced him as his successor deceitfully and after a while killed him.
This action did divulge ‘Abd al-Malik’s profound deceitfulness in history and such person as Ibn ‘Abbas applied it to their propagation against him.
Before Mukhtar rose up, ‘Abd al-Malik had endeavored to conquer Iraq by making use of ‘Uthman-oriented individuals in Basra. He sent Khalid Ibn ‘Abd Allah to Basra carrying a message for the nobles. Later, an army headed by Malik Ibn Misma‘ was dispatched too, but both unable to conquer Basra fled to Damascus. This event was recorded in history as, يوم الجفرة بالبصرة
“Yawm al-Djafra Bi l-basra”
This very event had likely been recorded by Ibn A‘tham as being led by Zahr Ibn Qays. He had written that ‘Abd al-Malik had pleaded with the Marwanids to adopt a measure and uproot Ibn Zubayr’s dominion. He had sent Zahr Ibn Qays accompanied by a one-thousand-soldier army to Basra; however, the battle resulted in the Marwanids’s serious defeat.
Mus‘ab, Iraqi governor, compelled Basran Marwanids to divorce their wives, he confiscated their properties and demolished their houses.
Yet, it indicated that he could not materialize his aim easily. To solve his problems and reinforce his forces, he compromised the Romans
-as Mu‘awiya had done so when at war with Imam ‘Ali (a)- and could suppress troubled areas of Greater Syria like Palestine ruled by Natil Ibn Qays Djudhami. After years in 72,he reached a decision to conquer Iraq. Noticing how Natil Ibn Qays was vanquished, Mus‘ab Zubayi with an intent to conquer Damascus had to dispense with it.
While the Kharidjites had been making so many obstacles for the Zubayrids from the late 60s and early 70s, ‘Abd al-Malik, determined to conquer Iraq, was busy mobilizing troops. The Zubayrids’s dominion in oriental Islamic lands and Hidjaz lasted nine years (eight years in Iraq). Although ‘Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr himself was far more popular than the Umayyads, some of his specifications made all those able to be helpful for him disperse.
His miserliness
and accusing others of being worldly were what had all leave him on his own. It is said about his jealousy,
عدمت قريشا رضوا بك سيدا و أنت بخيل الكف غيرجواد
“You killed the Quraysh who approved you. The miser is you.”
In spite of the pressure exerted by Mus‘ab Ibn Zubayr, the Zubayrids had not a firm foundation in Basra in the light of the fact that Basra belonged to both Djamal participants and the Marwanids as well as the ‘Uthmanids. In Kufa, on the other hand, due to its relative Shi‘ism, they had no stronghold. The suppression of Mukhtar’s uprising had bitterly agitated the Shi‘ite Muslims. ‘Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr’s enmity with the Hashimites not least with Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyya had doubled the Shi‘ite Muslims’ disgust. It is said about Mus‘ab Ibn Zubayr that he had been invariably seeking after the Shi‘ite Muslims’ murder.
Consecutive wars with the Kharidjites caused many other people to rebel. A grudge which ‘Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr bore his enemies ended in his disreputation among people. Bearing the Hashimites a grudge (according to himself from 40 years ago)
, he even was reluctant to recite Muhammad (s) blessing in his sermons and said if so, his household would show off that they were the prophet’s progeny!
These factors accounted for Ibn Zubayr’s weakness in both Iraq and Hidjaz; nevertheless, his influence on Hidjaz was more than Iraq. Although his debacle might be blamed on Iraq’s not support, ‘Abd al-Malik’s might, his dependence on Damascus army, proverbial for their obedience to the caliphs,
and especially Hadjdjadj’s coercion on Damascus people to move to Iraq
were considered as the reasons for Ibn Zubayr’s defeat and ‘Abd al-Malik’s victory.
Inasmuch as Ibn Zubayr’s base was shakier in Iraq, ‘Abd al-Malik moved to Basra in 72. لم يبق شريف الا كاتبه“There was no nobleman who had not written to him.”
As all of the distinguished people had written to him but Muhallab Ibn Abi Sufra,
upon waging the war, a great number left Mus‘ab’s army joining to that of Damascus.
He resisted to the bitter end and while breathing his last, he asked ‘Urwa Ibn Mughira what Husayn Ibn ‘Ali did when martyred. He responded that neverever was Husayn Ibn ‘Ali convinced to do Ibn Ziyad’s bidding.
Mus‘ab then said,
إنّ الألي بالطف من آل هاشم تأسّوا فسنّوا للكرام التواسيا
“Those pearls in Karbala were from the Hashimites who chose the best as their model.”
One ground for Mus‘ab’s fragility was Ibrahim Ibn Malik Ashtar’s murder.
He defied however, until he was removed. As long as the Zubayrids held sway in Iraq, he was the most important Zubayrids element ruling there except a short while. He had Arabic racial prejudice particularly he was more pessimistic about the Iranians who had accompanied Mukhtar.
Following the clashes, Iraqi residents swore allegiance to ‘Abd al-Malik; therefore, the Marwanids became dominant entirely in oriental Islamic lands. The only remaining land was Hidjaz ruling by ‘Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr, ‘Abd al-Malik, who had already perceived the sensitivity of Hidjaz due to the rite of Hadjdj (pilgrimage) and even had banned it, contemplated how to seize that land, especially with Ibn Zubayr’s involvement in political scenes punctuation there existed some people who had not yet deemed his caliphate legitimate.
Among them was ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Umar who neither had likely sworn allegiance to ‘Ali nor had he participated in his wars but immediately after Ibn Zubayr’s assassination, he nightly went to Hadjdjadj and swore allegiance to him.
‘Abd al-Malik sent Hadjdjadj Ibn Yusuf Thaqafi to Hidjaz for conquering Mecca. He stopped in Ta’if, center of Thaqif tribe, temporarily and then betook himself to Mecca. It was the second military expedition that the Umayyads made against Mecca for the purpose of overwhelming Ibn Zubayr. The first time in 64 Husayn Ibn Numayr, the commander of Damascus army, returned upon learning Yazid’s death, but this time Hadjdjadj was engaged in besieging Mecca with his troops as many as 12000 for eight months.
During this period, catapults were installed around the town on the heights targetting Ibn Zubayr and al-Haram Mosque under a rain of fire and stones.
It was carried on until Ka‘ba caught fire. So insolent was he that he even did not avoid throwing garbage on al-Haram Mosque.
On Djamadi al-Thani 10th, 73 A.H Mecca was eventually blockaded by the Umayyads. Subseqently, Hadjdjadj moved to Medina and narratedly he affronted the remaining from the Prophet’s disciples such as Djabir Ibn ‘Abd Allah, Malik Ibn Anas, Sahl Ibn Sa‘d, etc.
From then onwards, the Marwanids governed in all Muslim- populated areas. A barbaric man, ‘Abd al-Malik together with some other brutal rulers including Hadjdjadj, Yazid Ibn Muhallab as well as Hisham Ibn Isma‘il
made people feel sword. He believed that sword was the only panacea for people.
He abominated“enjoining the lawful acts”
and said, والله لا يأمرني أحد بتقوى الله بعد مقامي هذا الا ضربت عنقه“If anyone enjoins me fearing Allah, I will break his neck.”
Like any other person on the very last days of his lifetime, he wished he had been born porter.
HadjdjAdj in Iraq
The main element that laid the foundation of caliphate was no one but Hadjdjadj. Regarding him, ‘Abd al-Malik told his sons later,“It was Hadjdjadj who aided us to come to the throne”
.
Yazid Ibn Abi Muslim, Hadjdjadj’s scribe had said that he had bent his thoughts and efforts to serve the Umayyads.
To reason the superiority of a caliph over the Holy Prophet (s), he himself had affirmed, أخليفة أحدكم في أهله أكرم أم رسوله في حاجته
“In your sight, is the one as your substitute in the family dearer or the one sent to do something?”
According to Djahi¨, he had been annoyed when people paid homage to the Prophet’s tomb and said as a consequence, هلا طافوا بقصر أمير المؤمنين عبد الملك، الا يعلمون أن خليفة المرء خير من رسوله
“Why did you not pay homage to the palace of Amir al-Mu’minin ‘Abd al-Malik? Do you not know the caliph is the best one after the Apostle.”
Hadjdjadj’s this reasoning was repeated by many others too for ingratiating.
Hadjdjadj had been so devoted to ‘Abd al-Malik that he had said,“If I learn that demolishing Ka‘ba did never draw ‘Abd al-Malik’s gratification, I shall break it into stones”
.
Realizing his devotion, when ‘Abd al-Malik designated Hadjdjadj as the governor of Iraq, he told his scribe, اكتب عهده علي العراقين واطلق يده علي الرجال والسلاح والاموال“Write the permission of his governorship in both Basra and Kufa and make him fully authorized about people, properties and weapons”
With Hadjdjadj’s arrival in Iraq that had never had a taste of the 60s-peace could be returned for twenty years with Hadjdjadj’s sword. Since his roughness was extraordinary no one dared oppose him. However, it would be seen how such a pressure sparked off riots at last. On arrival in Kufa, he announced,“The caliph had given me two swords of mercy and requital. On my way here, I lost the sword of mercy and the only sword remained is of requital!”
In the same sermon, he indicted Iraqi people of schism, hypocrisy and moral corruption
; accordingly, he belittled the Kufiyans who were, ذو هيئة وعزة“The respectful people.”
As stated by Ibn A‘tham and took them under his yoke.
His emergence in Iraq had previously foretold by Imam ‘Ali (a) when pronouncing the malediction of أللهم عجل عليهم بالغلام الثقفي
“O Allah! Hasten the appearance of the man from the tribe of Thaqif.”
Yet, it had been later attributed to ‘Umar.
Hadjdjadj’s delight in homicide created a myth that when a baby, he was notbreastfed but fed with blood and it had been Satan’s suggestion under the guise of a human.
Ibn Khallakan has written, و كان للحجاج في القتل وسفك الدماء والعقوبات غرائب لم يسمع مثلها
“Many a story has been recounted about massacre and torture done by Hadjdjadj that were unparalleled at all.”
The aftermath of his great savagery in Iraq was the slaughter of more than 120000 people.
Nearly 50000 men and 30000 women, half of whom unmarried, were confined in his mixed jails.
Characterizing him, Suyuti has written, و قد قتل من الصحابة والتابعين ما لا يحصي، فضلاً عن غيرهم وختم في عنق انس وغيره من الصحابة ختماً“He massacred countless Prophet’s disciples and followers let alone others. He made some gashes on Anas Ibn Malik’s neck and other’s.”
From 75 to 95, Hadjdjadj was the absolute ruler in Iraq and oriental Islamic lands including Khurasan, Sistan and all other Iranian areas. Despite the existing hindrances, he had been so preoccupied with suppressing the Kharidjites, Shi‘ite Muslims and any rebel Sunnites that no conquest, except during the last years, was made. What ought to be borne in mind is that Hadjdjadj had numerous rivals in Iraq but he removed them all barbarically.
His first enemy was the Kharidjites. Only Qatari Ibn Fudja’a, a Kharidjites leader, engaged him for years. After their defeat in Kirman and the Kharidjites’ split, it was Shabib who occupied Kufa twice for hours. Ultimately after a long clash, Hadjdjadj could accomplish to suppress them with recourse to Damascus.
The Kharidjites were scattered in various districts of Iraq as well. More than half of Hadjdjadj’s prisoners were either Kharidjites or being accused of it.
Another group was the Shi‘ite Muslims opposing Hadjdjadj in Iraq. As a consequence of the penitents and Mukhtar’s defeat in 65 and 67 respectively, Shi‘ite Muslims were scattered losing their solidarity. ‘Abd al-Malik who had no apparent fight with ‘Abd al-Muttalib’s progeny, had advised Hadjdjadj in a letter to adopt the same strategy. As written by Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih not a single objection did Hadjdjadj raised to the Talibites.
It never implied that he was not at odds with the Shi‘ite Muslims but it was on account of the fact that no Talibites lived in Iraq. Nontheless, the Shi‘ite Muslims residing in Kufa and other spots of the country were under the worst pressure. As stated by Imam Baqir (a) hearing the word“‘Ali’s Shi‘ites Muslim”
was far less tolerable for Hadjdjadj than the word dualism or“atheist”
.
Whatever made him pleased was to hear a person from a tribe saying, “No one in our tribe has ever cursed ‘Uthman; in Siffin, seventy people from our tribe had been with Mu‘awiya while only one with Abu Turab; no woman from women has ever felt in affection for Abu Turab; there has been found no one in our tribe whom we urged to curse Abu Turab in addition to Hasan, Husayn and Fatima and he disobeyed.
In order to pressurize them to curse ‘Ali (a), Hadjdjadj whipped such individuals as ‘Atiyya Ibn Sa‘d ‘Awfi four hundred lashes for their amity with ‘Ali (a), ‘Atiyya defied, however.
Those intending to wheedle Hadjdjadj, manipulated such values.
‘Ali Ibn Asma‘ came up to Hadjdjadj and said, انّ أبويّ عقّاني فسمَّياني عليّاً فسمِّنِي أنت“My parents have not only disowned me but also named me ‘Ali. Change my name. Changing his name, Hadjdjadj offered him presents.”
Even the simplest Shi‘ites idea was followed by Hadjdjadj perturbation. He, for instance, summoned Yahya Ibn Ya‘mur from Khurasan to Iraq due to announcing that both Hasan (a) and Husayn(a) were the Prophet’s descendants. He merely contented himself with his banishment once Yahya could validate his notion through authenticating that Jesus Christ had been Ibrahim’s descendant too on the strength of Qur’an.
As Hadjdjadj laid stress on affection for ‘Uthman, he, in his turn, murdered any one suspected of participating in riots against ‘Uthman before.
‘Abd al-Malik and his agents had been persistently attempting to boost the fights between the ‘Alawites and the Zubayrids for the purpose of keeping them engaged. It was in one of these certain meetings that Imam Sadjdjad did not attend feigning illness.
‘Ali’s lineage was coerced by ‘Abd al-Malik to curse ‘Ali while the Zubayrids were so to curse ‘Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr.
His son, Sulayman Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik, perpetuated this policy pressurizing people to curse Imam ‘Ali (a) under threat of murder.
In such a financially tough situation did the Prophet’s Household live under the Umayyads pressure that later the Iraqi ruler had said concerning them, أن أهل هذا البيت من بني هاشم [بني علي] قد كانوا هلكوا جوعاً حتى كانت همة أحدهم قوت يومه“This family from the Hashimites was under threat of starvation to the extent that they only bent their efforts to earn their daily bread.”
Besides the Shi‘ite Muslims and the Kharidjites, Hadjdjadj encountered other adversaries who had risen up against the Umayyads’s oppression or for whatever reason. The first year Hadjdjadj came in power in Iraq, he cut out the surplus proportion from Bayt al-Mal (public treasury) to Basra people. This action culminated in Basra revolt in 75 led by ‘Abd Allah Ibn Djarud although it was immediately stifled.
Another movement was led by Mutarraf Ibn Mughira who himself and whose father had been from the kins of the Umayyads and the governors of Kufa and Ctesiphon but was affected by the Kharidjites. When the representatives of Kharidjites Shabib met with Mutarraf, he proposed that after gaining victory the caliph be determined by a council and be from the Quraysh. Neither of his conditions was approved by the Kharidjites, however.
The motivations he himself had enumerated for his insurrection against Hadjdjadj were, الاستئثار بالفيء وتعطيل الحدود والتسلط بالجبريّة“Misappropriation of public treasury, transgression of divine limits and despotism.”
He along with his followers left Ctesiphon to Qasr Shirin and after a stop-over on the outskirts of Isfahan to Saman district and then to Qum and Kashan.
Gradually some people from Riy and Isfahan, naturally many Arabs and likely a few Iranians, joined him. In a letter, Isfahan governor wrote to Hadjdjadj if he wanted the city, he should hasten. The Arab governor of Hamadan for his part asked for Hadjdjadj’s permission to suppress Mutarraf, since the scattering of Arabs in the lands paying tax had appalled him, he declined his proposal.
By the same token, an army composed of Damascus and Riy people could finally manage to chuckle down Mutarraf’s movement in 77 AH.
Afterwards, ‘Abd al-Malik entrusted all eastern lands up to Khurasan and Sistan borders to Hadjdjadj. Hadjdjadj who had conquered nowhere as yet - even halted from Yazid’s time before him-decided to take an action in this respect and bring further booties for the Umayyads. His determination to dispatch an army for the conquests faced a hurdle for surmounting which behooved him to devote one or two years.
‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn Ash‘ath’s Riot
‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn Muhammad Ibn Ash‘ath Ibn Qays was selected as the commander of a massive Iraqi army to launch his conquests while neither he nor his household was good enough towards Ahl al-Bayt. As it was mentioned by Imam Sadiq (a), Ash‘ath was an accomplice in ‘Ali’s martyrdom his daughter, Dju‘da, was the murderer of Imam Hasan and his son, Muhammad, was an agent in Imam Husayn’s martyrdom.
‘Abd al-Rahman was once appointed by the Zubayrids to amass alms in Medina.
Heading for Sistan in 80 A.H. along with his army, he made up his mind to bring the fight to a standstill until the next year after being somehow victorious. Proposing this to Hadjdjadj, he refused it; consequently, neither ‘Abd al-Rahman nor his army accepted to approve Hadjdjadj’s demand while knowing the laborious task encumbered upon them. Later, this came to be an excuse for them the to be at odds both with Hadjdjadj and the Umayyads.
Iraqi rebellious army, instead of conquering new lands, returned to Iraq while being fully equipped to rebel against that country but since the Arabs were not in Sistan, it would have been much easier for them to gain victory if this riot had happened in Khurasan.
‘Abd al-Rahman called upon people to adhere both to Qur’an and the Prophet’s Sunna, depose misleading leaders and combat the unbelievers.
His army entered Basra in 81 A.H.. The residents of Basra, both those who knew Qur’an by heart and the readers thereof as well as the doyen altogether gave a helping hand in overthrowing ‘Abd al-Malik. People in Kufa also joined him utterly.
From among the rioters, the followers of Ibn Ash‘ath, there were huge numbers of Qur’an readers and scores of Iraqi jurisprudents
such as Ibn Abi Layla, someone who was battered and pushed by Hadjdjadj to insult ‘Ali (a).
The majority of those adoring ‘Ali played a significant role in this uprising. Kumayl Ibn Ziyad was a commander of a group of Qur’an readers.
Being embarrassed, ‘Abd al-Malik, put forward the idea of unsenting Hadjdjadj in order to maintain peace; however, owing to the fact that both ‘Abd al-Rahman and his supporters who on one hand, had a taste of being triumphant and, on the other hand, did not feel confident enough whether he would carry out his undertaking or not, failed to accept his suggestion.
Moreover, they were not in opposition to Hadjdjadj but basically to the Umayyads and it was reasonably evident from their remarks in deposing ‘Abd al-Malik.
To prompt people to revolt against the Umayyads, some vocalized ‘Ali’s remarks. This was an indication of the presence of those tending to Shi‘ism.
Such a trend of this riot, in comparison to that of Tawwabin’s and Mukhtar’s was not so noticeable. Above all, someone was leading the riot who behaved not well towards Ahl al-Bayt. The only reason for various parties to join hands was not more than enmity to the Umayyads and to overthrow Hadjdjadj. From among the notions they repeatedly were taking advantage in their campaign against the Umayyads, one can name their brutality, disregarding the weak and attempting to leave no trace of prayers. قاتلوهم على جورهم في الحكم وتجبرهم في الدين واستذلالهم الضعفاء وإماتتهم الصلاة
“Fight them to get rid of their cruelty in ruling their bullyism in religion, their violation of the rights of the weak and their attempt of disregarding prayers.”
One of the prime reasons that brought about this riot was Hadjdjadj’s compulsion on the villagers who recently had embraced Islam and moved into cities. Tax deduction, consequence of that migration, impelled Hadjdjadj to drive them out of those cities and re-settle them where they had been. Being under hard pressure, they cried out,“O, Muhammad!”
This caused them to tilt towards ‘Abd al-Rahman to kill Hadjdjadj. Besides, sending the Iraqis to the most remote areas to fight simply for the booties which were handed to Hadjdjadj ultimately was another reason for their rebellion.
The impact of taking capitation from newlly converted Mawali should also be taken into account. It was told that the majority of the rioters were jurisprudent, Basra’s soldiers as well as Mawali.
‘Abd al-Rahman’s riot continued until 83 A.H. when Dayr al-Djamadjim event, one of the foremost strike, took place. Due to his defeat and the captivity of extensive numbers of his supporters, ‘Abd al-Rahman was not able to withstand in the subsequent clashes. Eventually, he returned to Sistan and on his way to Khurasan. Most of his supporters separated from him. Then he took refuge by one of the kings in Harat. Ratbil, the king of that land, concluded a treaty with Hadjdjadj in 85 A.H. in which he had promised to send ‘Abd al-Rahman’s head to Hadjdjadj.
Massacring a large number of Dayr al-Djamadjim’s captives, Hadjdjadj set free only those confessing that they were infidel. There, among them, were a handful of Iraqi jurisprudents.
Sha‘bi was one of the jurisprudents, who surrendered himself to Hadjdjadj after being defeated. Another one was Sa‘id Ibn Djubayr who was apprehended by the governor of Medina, Khalid Ibn‘Abd Allah Qasri. Inquiring about his viewpoint with respect to the previous caliphs, which was an indication of being skeptical of trusting them, Hadjdjadj put an end to his life. From then on, Hadjdjadj was suffering from a severe psychical disorder because of Sa‘id’s murder.
They kept on killing the captives to such an extent that ‘Abd al-Rahman himself complained about it to Hadjdjadj.
Ibn Ash‘ath’s clash with Hadjdjadj was the fourth one out of the strings of clashes between Iraq and Damascus. The three previous ones were once with ‘Ali (a) and with the penitents and Mukhtar, another time with Mus‘ab and finally with Ibn Ash‘ath. This time again the dispersed Iraqi people failed to succeed and the people of Damascus, due to their solidarity as well as unsparing contribution to the Umayyads Caliphs, came to be triumphant.
‘Abd al-Malik died in 86 A.H. while he had managed, with assistance of Hadjdjadj, to eliminate monstrous problems facing the Umayyads and pave the ground for the Marwanids. It is said that he was the initiator of some event in the Islamic history. Being the first one ever to carve name of Allah and His prophet on coins, the first and foremost jealous, cunning and treacherous caliph, the first to proscribe speaking in the presence of caliphs, to enjoin the good and to change the records of public treasury tribunal account from Arabic to Persian. He was also the first to include prayer call prior to performing the prayers of two Festivals namely the Fast breaking and Sacrifice.
After him, his son, Walid Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik came to power. Regarding Walid and his agents ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz stated, “Walid in Damascus, Hadjdjadj in Iraq, ‘Uthman Ibn Hayyan in Hidjaz and Qurra Ibn Sharik in Egypt are all individuals prevailing oppression throughout the Earth. امتلاء الارض والله جوراً
“While there is much cruelty on the Earth.”
It has been told about Walid that, اول من تجبّر من الخلفاء
“He was the first ever cruel caliph.”
The Umawi mosque in Damascus is one of the most significant monuments built in his term. The apparent tranquility of the period from Shawwal, 86 A.H. to Djamadi al-Thani, 96 A.H. all over the Islamic lands once again led to conquering new lands to such an extent that, according to Dhahabi,“The conquests of his term regained the same splendor as that of ‘Umar Ibn Khattab’s term”
.
The most important assault was, on one hand, against Constantinople and, on the other hand, against Andalusia.
Walid, just the same as his father, was indebted to Hadjdjadj, one of his best counselors. Once a crowd of Iraqi people went to Medina to meet ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, the governor, and he wrote a letter of complaint to Walid. Thereafter, Walid in consultation with Hadjdjadj deposed him from Medina’s governorship. Then he singled out ‘Uthman Ibn Hayyan Marri instead of him. He sent Iraqi refugees kept in fetters to Hadjdjadj.
The subsequent governor of the Islamic lands from Djamadi al-Thani, 96 to Safar, 99 A.H., Sulayman Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik, selected ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz his successor. As it was touched upon formerly, this period should be labelled as a peaceful one following constant attacks of ‘Abd al-Malik in stabilizing his position in the shadow of which the Umayyads caliphs could not only expand their conquests but strengthen their economy as well. In addition, the internal political disputes, a severe strike on the economy of the society, were eliminated too. That was why Walid was widely known as the best caliph for Damascus.
Annoying and chasing the companions of Hadjdjadj were some of the actions of Sulayman, the main reason of which was a dispute between Hadjdjadj and him when he was their apparent.
Hadjdjadj was killed in 95 A.H.. To speak about him what Shurayh had said will suffice. According to him, he was an unbeliever.
Upon hearing the news of his death, Hasan Basri prostrated to show his gratitude to Allah.
‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz’s Administration
For the historians dealing with the Umayyads caliphs, ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, ruling from 99 to 101 A.H. is an eminent figure. For in comparison with them not others, he was a man of outstanding features. In his studies about the approaches of kings, Ibn Athir stated that he could not find anyone better than him in conduct succeeding to Orthodox Caliphs.
He is usually regarded as the fifth member of them.
This statement of Imam Baqir (a) is probably right that he was the Umayyads’s nobleman.
Being Medina’s governor, as it was said, he was in touch with traditionalists as well as jurisprudents, so he was also an specialist in this regard.
However, he himself said that he could remember what he had learnt just during the period he was in Medina and he forgot it no later than he entered Damascus (assuming caliphate).
Radja’ Ibn Haywa, one of the linked learned to the Umayyads’ caliphs, did make great endeavor bringing him to power.
We had already spoken about him.
To know both him and his policy in ruling the Islamic society, no matter Whether he had a political or religious aim in has term, a point of great importance should be taken into account. He had made great endeavor to bring justice to that society and not to be a cruel rule. He also had directed his attention towards the accepted merits of a typical Islamic society, Observing religious tenets and respecting at least some of the popular individuals. He had tried to show a religious image of his caliphate too. Most likely, he had understood that the situation of the society would lead soon to overthrowing of the Umayyads. What was required then was a radical change for the stabilization of them. It is worthwhile to review his reactions towards different groups from various aspects.
Encountering the Shi‘ite Muslims
Speaking about the Shi‘ite Muslims, at first, does not imply that ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz wanted to be good towards them. Some of the sources inclined to the Shi‘ite Muslims had tried to show that he was adherent of Imam ‘Ali (a). They may have done so to say that no one from among the Umayyads’s caliphs had paid attention to Ahl al-Bayt as him. Reviling ‘Ali (a) in sermons formally and publicly prevailed at that time.
He said that from then on, noone was permitted to do so. He himself, as it was said, was doing so before, but later on, he came to know about his bad habit and always recalled ‘Ali as a good man.
Upon coming to power not only did he himself abandon this habit but also he had his agents give it up.
There is no doubt, based on historical sources, that he had done so.
Kuthayyir ‘Azza, a Shi‘ites poet, composed some verses in praising ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz before him,
وليت فلم تشتم عليّاً ولم تخِف بريئاً ولم تتبعْ مقالة مجرم
تكلمت بالحق المبين وإنما تبين آيات الهدي بالتكلم
“Thou came to power and did not revile ‘Ali (a), thou did listen to no culpable instead thou told the true word. Others came to know about Allah’s signs by listening to thy word.”
It was said that he gradually enlarged his understanding of Imam ‘Ali (a) specifically when he found ‘Ali’s letter in the Damascus public treasury. Then he informed all about it.
He had been quoted as saying, أزهد الناس في الدنيا علي
“‘Ali is the most pious person in the world.”
However, it is doubtful whether he was courageous enough to be so on that occasion or not even if one disregards all of those quotations what was said about him is most likely true.
Walid Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik, on the other hand, while on the pulpit quoted Allah’s Prophet, regarding ‘Ali (a) and rank tradition, as saying,“Your status in comparison with me is like that of Qur’an in comparison with Moses.”
It was also said that he was respecting Imam Baqir(a).
Another issue was returning Fadak to Fatima (a). It was a booty that was given to Fatima (a), with no war, by his father Muhammad (s). This land was taken from Fatima, thereafter, without any apparent reason. Returning it to the ‘Alawites was an indication of nullifying the order of both caliphs I and II. On the other hand, ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, the upholder of a jurisdiction that was mostly based on the conduct of the second caliph. Such action by him, as it was said by some of the researchers, shows that he was not following the second caliph but was somehow independent.
Ibn Athir by giving false account of the ownership of Fadak during the time of Orthodox Caliphs had tried to show that such deviation goes back to the time of Mu‘awiya in which he donated it to Marwan Ibn Hakam. It was also said that ‘Uthman had done this not Marwan. Since from the very beginning of the first caliph’s term, it was not under the ownership of Ahl al-Bayt.
Ibn Athir said, “When ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz came to power, he returned it to Fatima’s descendants. Later on, it was taken from them once again. Ma’mun, this time, gave it back to them.
There are other narrations regarding his attention to Fatima’s children. For instance, once he asked his governor in Medina to distribute 10000 diners among ‘Ali’s children. He wrote back saying that ‘Ali has children among various tribes. The caliph told him to share it out among the children of Fatima.
Abu l-Faradj Isfahani had mentioned some instances of his attention to ‘Abd Allah Ibn Hasan Ibn Hasan Ibn ‘Ali (a).
When the caliph was criticized for his action, he said, “I heard Allah’s Prophet said, إنما فاطمة بضعة مني يسرّني من يسرها“Fatima is part of my body. Whoever makes her happy, he shall make me happy.”
The he added, ليس أحد من بني هاشم الا وله شفاعة
“There is no one from among the Hashimites who can intercede him before Allah except her.”
When a Mawali of Imam ‘Ali came to him, the caliph sat down on the ground and said, انا والله مولى علي“Both Allah and I are ‘Ali’s friends.”
Then he quoted this tradition from Allah’s Prophet, من كنت مولاه فهذا علي مولاه
Taking the position of the caliph into account, one doubts about the validity of those narrations. Some poets admired him for what he had done. Sayyid Razi, for example composed,
يا بن عبدالعزيز لو بكت العيـ ن فتـيً مـن أميّة لَبَكيتـُك
غيـر أني أقول أنـك قد طبـ ت وإن لم يطب ولم يذك بيتك
أنت نزهتنا عن السب والقذ ف فلو أمكن الجزاء جزيُتِك
“O, son of ‘Abd al-Aziz, if eyes are to weep for one of the Umayyads’s youths, they will surely do this for thee. Thou have been purified but not thy household. Thou had prevented us from hurling abuse at Ahl al-Bayt. I would reward thee if I could.”
Since the ‘Alawites were the Umayyads’s successors, heading them and subsiding their long-lived rage and hatred could be constructive in the process of ‘Umar II’s reform movement targetting at the Umayyads’s stabilization. At the same time, the Hashimites’s call, the way paved by the ‘Abbasids, started. ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz tried hard to suppress them and by justifying what they were doing guaranteed the survival of the Umayyads.
Encountering the Kharidjites
Another group threatening Umayyads was the Kharidjites. With their constant revolts, they were almost always irritating Umayyads’s rulers and they could not stop them rising up against Iraqi governor and the Kharidjites could defeat them. After a while, another army was sent to the battle. This time, ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, following his usual policy, wrote a letter to their leader, Bastam from Banu Yashkur tribe, saying,“I was informed that you had revolted just for the sake of Allah and His Prophet. Bear in mind that I am superior to you in this regard but let’s debate. If we were right, you should follow us like others and if you were right, we would take your advice.”
Bastam accepted what he said and sent a person to talk to him.
In this regard, Tabari stopped short of saying anything but touching upon the fact that the Kharidjites deemed it improper to pay allegiance to Yazid Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik. Pretending not to know anything about this, ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz said that he should think about it more. He also went on to say that he was poisoned to death by the Marwanids for what he had said.
In contrast, Mas‘udi gave an extended account thereof stating,“Admitting the caliph’s approach as a fair and square one, the Kharidjites declared (at least as a debate) that if he were so, he would be at adds with his tribe and as a result a cruel one. So he should not only curse them but also turn away from them in disgust. Attempting to reprove them, by setting an example, ‘Umar asked them whether they trusted Abu Bakr and him or not. They said that they did.
Then he said, “Abu Bakr had fought against the infidels and held captives, but once ‘Umar came to power, he set them all free.”
As a result, he nullified what Abu Bakr had done.
Then he said,“Did he abhor him then?”
“No he did not”
, the Kharidjites replied.
Taking into account the Kharidjites’ reaction in just the same situation, he asked them if they despised one another or not. He said that for the very same reason he should not curse his dynasty. Out of those who were sent to debate, one did join the Kharidjites but the second one did not.
Mas‘udi further says that there are other narrations about the relationships between ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz and the Kharidjites. Besides, he has mentioned the debates and exchange of letters in his book titled Akhbar al-Zaman and in other books.
Obviously, these actions have been taken during two years or so of government according to a certain policy. This made the Kharidjites lose their agitation and not bother the community.
Standing Against Cruelty and Public Extortion
Diminishing the pressure of the governors on individuals was another performance of ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz. People were pessimist about the governors. Since most of the time they were taking the biggest part of the booties themselves, they also were the owners of vast lands. These could give rise to an outburst of violence and provoke both the Kharidjites and Shi‘ite Muslims to support such uprising as that of ‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn Ash‘ath’s. The caliph so gave back whatsoever the Umayyads had taken from people to their real owners.
However, he was cautious not to take the possession of their lands. He even ordered the residents of Damascus to pay more gifts to the Umayyads but he refrained from doing the same to the residents of Iraq.
What is obvious is that he neither intended nor could do this since it would disperse the Umayyads, on one hand, and remove pressure from some individuals, on the other hand. Iraqis were from among those bearing the brunt. Not only were the Mawali residing in Iran, oppressed all the time leaving out ‘Ali’s term, but Arabs residing in Iraq as well were pressurized by the Umayyads rulers, in particular, Hadjdjadj.
Tabari quoted a letter in which ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz had described the situation of the residents of Damascus to their governor.
He said,“They were subject to ruthlessness, compulsion and malicious conducts of inept governors while religion was in need of justice. Then he ordered the governor of Kufa not to collect tax from those converted to Islam and the destitute beyond their means. He also ordered them not to take anything from the affluent but tax and not to ask people to pay the salaries of tax-collectors and finally not to accept new year and Mihrgan’s gifts as well as the money that was taken under the name of Darahum al-Nikah or fee for writing the books or wages for the family. Also those who are converted Muslims shall not be received tributes.
The above-mentioned letter shows that the Umayyads governors were ransacking public properties. They were also taking unfair advantages of Zoroastrian’s customs namely, The New Year and Ancient Autumnal Festivals by demanding presents from them on those occasions. This was just what Mansur ‘Abbasi was doing with the same intention. According to Imam Ka¨im (a) what they were doing was reviving Zoroastrian’s customs.
One further point of prime significance was collecting tax and tribute even form those who had embraced Islam. This action was prevailed by Hadjdjadj to compensate for the public treasury’s losses. The conversion of many people to Islam and its consequence, tax reduction, he had faced many financial problems. ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, on the other hand, by exempting those converted to Islam from paying tax, a chief reason for most of Mawali to join ‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn Ash‘ath, could prevent the re-occurrence of such riots. Seemingly, it was feasible and resulted in expansion of Islam. In 77, when Bukayr Ibn Wishah revolted against the governor of Khurasan, Umayya Ibn ‘Abd Allah who had gone to Bukhara for another war, he was terrified that perhaps the number of his soldiers would not be sufficient to withstand them. However, he was told that it would suffice for him to have his town herald announce among people that whosoever embraces Islam, he shall be discharged from paying tax. In that case, he will see fifty thousand people who are the best in obedience joining him.
How Islam’s growth was brought to a standstill due to the severity of this kind in Hadjdjadj’s term is quite apparent. ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz has followed the same policy.
Once an Arab and one of Mawali came to him.
The second one told him, “O caliph, twenty thousand of Mawalis are fighting side by side with Arabs against unbelievers while they are not given anything of the spoils. An identical number of protected people (Proteges in accordance with an agreement) have embraced Islam but they are still paying tax.”
‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz commanded Khurasan’s governor, Djarrah Ibn ‘Abd Allah to exempt whosoever accepts Islam from paying tax and soon many people embraced Islam.
The west barbars had confronted just the same treatment as it quoted by Baladhuri.
From among sermons as well letters quoted by him, many cases can be seen which depict the great importance attached to religion and piety. Even if they were exaggerated to a great extent to justify the Umayyads at least, on the whole, one can not deny them all.
It had been observed that he has been promoted to such an extent as Allah’s favorites but, as a matter of fact, it was only in comparison with the other Umayyads governors that he could attract attention. Anyhow, he was ruling while being among an Umayyads family, so his attempt was directed towards consolidating such system.
Khalid Ibn Rib‘i was quoted as saying, “I have read in Torah that both the heaven and the earth will be weeping for forty days in ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz’s mourning.
It is quite obvious that following this way, they were attempting to increase his virtues.
One of the scientific activities of ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz was the issue of inscribing traditions proposed by him for the first time in spite of the fact that others did not heed it later. He ordered his commanders to commit the knowledge of their scholars on the paper for him.
Zuhri, a scholar linked to Umayyads and contemporary with him was the first ever one embarking on it.
He himself had said that he was asked not only to write down traditions but also dispatch some copies thereof to other cities.
As it was stated in another quotation, he wrote a letter to Abu Bakr Ibn Muhammad Ibn Hazm Ansari, a hadith-narrator and Medina’s ruller on behalf of ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz saying to collect every single tradition he had heard from prophet (s) as well as whatsoever being quoted by ‘Umar and send them all to him for fear that they may be forgotten.
He has written the same letter to the residents of Medina.
In spite of the fact that it was a positive movement, even up to the midst of the third century A.H. most of the traditionalists were not still interested in writing traditions and it was considered as a great blow on prophet’s biography among to the Sunnites.
In 101 A.H., ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz passed away. Then Yazid Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik who was adherent to the consistent policy of cruelty, extortion and pressure came to power. There is a quotation indicating that he was poisoned by the Umayyads, despite the probability of its occurrence, it is nothing but a quotation which is based on assumptions.
YazId Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik’s Succession
Even if we accept that ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz had carried out some reforms and improved people’s attitude towards Umayyads. Thereafter, Arab caliphate of the Umayyads was rehabilitated again and extortion, cruelty towards people and inattentiveness to religion all re-appeared. As it was stated by ‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn Yazid Ibn Aslami once, in 101 A.H., Yazid Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik took the place of ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz. He ordered all to follow the same direction of ‘Abd al-‘Aziz.
On the other hand, فأتي اربعين شيخاً فشهدوا له ما علي الخلفاء حساب ولاعذاب
“Forty of the elderly men approached him and bore witness before him that there would be neither chastisement nor accounts for caliphs.”
Mas‘udi has described him as,”Being a selfish man, he was after libidinous pleasure and did not permit people to visit him. He was neither conversant with the right work to do nor was he cognizant of wrongdoing to refrain from.”
Before Yazid, ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz had undertaken some fiscal reforms inspite of the damages incurred on the public treasury. He not only did not ask for tribute from Muslims, something which both after and before him was prevailing, but also exempted those from paying tax to some extent. Once he was asked why prices were higher in his term while they were not so before.
In a reply he said,“Those before me were demanding the protected people to pay tax beyond their men means; consequently they were compelled to pant with whatever they had and therefore became destitute. But I do not do this, so they can sell at whatever price they want to.”
He was also called upon to collect tribute from Jews and Christians newly converted to Islam but he did not consent to it.
He also ordered that the tax payers residing by the coast of the Euphrates be authorized to wear golden rings as well as Taylusan (mantle)
and also be allowed to ride on horses while they were asked to pay the surplus thereof.
It is visible that these undertakings were appeared to be rectifying ones in comparison with prior severity which had driven the protected people to their own native lands, then the names of those regions were sealed either on their hands or their foreheads to prevent them from going out of there. Yazid Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik, on the contrary, put an end to such reforms. He in 105 A.H., commanded ‘Umar Ibn Hubayra, Iraq’s governor, to survey once again all of the farming lands thereof something which was ignored from the second caliph’s term on, so previous statistics was utilized in this regard. His agents were levying tax even on palm trees and this incurred lots of damages on the people who were paying tax while looking down on them. He also was taking both their offerings and whatever they gave him on such occasions as“New year as well as Mihrgan festivals and land tax was paid based on the latest area being measured by Ibn Hubayra.
In Yemen, despite ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz’s command to eliminate former severety being exerted by Hadjdjadj’s brother, once ‘Umar came to power, everything went back to its former states and he declared that they would not be forgiven as long as they were alive.
The outcomes of such severety in Yazid’s term were worse in Khurasan in the eastern parts of which there were many governors as well as kings who each had embraced Islam on their domains and agreed to pay tax. Among them, Sughdiyan who were numerous were held to be a great supporter for Muslim Arabs who were residing there and fighting with Turks settling in Transoxania. Re-imposing prior fiscal pressure in Yazid’s term was the major cause of their inclination to Turks with assistance of whom they managed to stand against Muslims in 102 A.H.. In clashes between “Sa‘id Khuzayna”
, Khurasan governor, and Turks, on one hand, and a group of Sughdiyan, on the other hand, taking place concurrently, both Turks and Sughdiyan were defeated.
At Sa‘id’s behest, Muslim forces stopped chasing them inasmuch as فان السغد بستان امير المومنين“Sughd is flower garden of Amir al-Mu’minin.”
Then he added,“We do not intend to force them to leave this area.”
Even subsequent to a minor skirmish Sa‘id’s herald once again put emphasis on what he had said.
Following Sa‘id’s displacement,“Sa‘id Ibn ‘Amr al-Harathi”
became Khurasan’s governor. Feeling insecure due to Arab’s presence there, Sughdiyan migrated to“Farghana”
and were settled there by the king of that land. Sughdiyan were so important to Arabs that Iraq’s governor, Ibn Hubayra, called upon them to go back to their former residence. Then he would single out whosoever they want as their ruler but they avoided doing so. From then on, clashes between Arabs and Turks, on one hand, and Sughdiyan, on the other hand, escalated
; as a result, the east of Khurasan was no longer secure for Arabs. Later on, once Nasr Ibn Sayyar was designated as Khurasan’s governor, he received hard conditions on the part of Sughdiyan and reconciled with them.
It can be inferred from what Mas‘udi had mentioned that Yazid, considering his personality, was a man after libidinous pleasures and womanizing. Being in love with a woman, he kept her corpse several days after her death.
Suppressing Yazid’s revolt, Maslama Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik came to power but after a while he was dismissed owing to the fact that he had avoided paying tax. Subsequently, ‘Umar Ibn Hubayra, one of the rigid governors of Umayyads in Iraq took his place.
YazId Ibn Muhallab’s Uprising
During the last thirty years of Umayyads caliphate several uprisings came about each of which had originated from various regions with various objectives. From among those individuals and groups taking advantage of the outcomes of such riots were opportunists such as Yazid Ibn Muhallab, justice-seekers such as Harith Ibn Suraydj, Kharidjites, the ‘Abbasids as well as Zayd Ibn ‘Ali and his son, Yahya, from among ‘Alawites.
In 102, Yazid Ibn Muhallab, the son of Muhallab Ibn Abi Safra and a member of Azd tribe whose fame was thanks to his battles against Kharidjites during ‘Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr and ‘Abd al-Malik Ibn Marwan’s term, was nominated as Khurasan’s governor. He had some conquests not only there but also in Gurgan. Owing to the fact that he had refused to hand over war spoils in his possession, once ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz took office, he was imprisoned.
He was still there when Yazid Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik came to power and was apprehensive of being killed accordingly, so he escaped to Iraq. The governor of Basra, ‘Adi Ibn Artat at Yazid Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik’s behest, put his family under lock and key. Resorting to a proper policy, Yazid Ibn Muhallab managed to attract not only some tribes to himself but three thousand people as well by displaying his generosity to them.
In a clash between ‘Adi Ibn Artat and some of the people of Basra and Damascus residing there, on one hand, and Yazid Ibn Muhallab on the other hand, the Umayyads’s army was defeated and Basra went under Yazid’s domination.
Subsequently, the same happened to some other eastern cities such as Ahwaz, Kirman, Makran, Sind and Hind as well. He designated a governor for each; nevertheless, in the west the army of Damascus termed as“Allah’s soldiers”
by the Umayyads was threatening Iraqi rebels and prior experiences also endorsed it since they had been defeated by them and this time, the same happened.
The residents of Basra being free form Umayyads’s mischief paid allegiance to Yazid, who had promised to follow Qur’an and the prophets Sunna, and stipulated that he should not bring back conduct of Hadjdjadj, the wrong-doer.
Yazid told the people that fighting against the Umayyads was worthier than waging war against unbelievers and a courageous army.
It was obvious to some of the residents of Basra that Yazid Ibn Muhallab was still attached to the Umayyads. Being ruthless toward people just the same as them, he pretended that he was adherent to Qur’an as well as the prophet’s Sunna once he recognized his interests were at risk. From among those individuals Hasan Basri was the one stimulating others to leave off bolstering him saying that it was Yazid who was joining hands with the Umayyads in public oppression.
In response people said,“He is calling us for following ‘Umarayn tradition.”
They asked Hasan Basri why he was supporting the wrongdoers of Damascus who had destroyed sacred House of God and his prophet in addition to liquidating the residents of Medina during three days.
Keeping silent as long as Yazid Ibn Muhallab was in Basra, Hasan Basri launched his propagation once again upon Yazid’s departure from Basra to confront a dispatched army from Damascus. His position in Basra forced some of his supporters to give up backing Yazid. Marwan Ibn Muhallab, Yazid’s brother and his successor said of him that he could only attract some of ignoble residents of Uballa and ‘Alwadj in Basra who were most likely referred to non-Arabs. Upon hearing this, people made up their minds to war with the alm of supporting Hasan Basri but he prevented them form doing so.
Considering this threat a serious one, Yazid Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik sent Maslama Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik, who was leading the commander of confrontations between Muslim Arabs and Romans, along with a corps to Iraq. Being undecided how to fight with him, Ibn Muhallab sought advice from his backers. Some were of the opinion that they advance eastward and settle on the course connecting Fars with Khurasan’s mountains. Doing so, they would be secured and some will join them too. Another suggestion was that they go to Musil
, but Yazid did not accept it. The army of Damascus nearly consisted of fifty thousand soldiers but for Yazid Ibn Muhallab it was insignificant.
Describing them, he told,“Most of them were from Djaradjima, Saqaliba, Anbat, Djaramiqa and other tribes being all either farmers or ruffians.
Considering the point being quoted from his brother about ‘Alwadj in Basra, this shows that Yazid’s measure was of Arabic aspect and even aristocratic and he took no effort to use Mawali.
At the early stages of the war, compromise was proposed to Yazid but he preferred to fight. This war terminated while it left three thousand killed. From among them were Yazid and four brothers of him as well.
The majority of captives of Basra, who themselves uncovered that by being remiss in that war they had paved the ground for the victory of the army of Damascus, were also slaughtered.
This came about in Safar, 102 A.H. in ‘Aqr nearby Kufa which later came to be known as Yawm al-’Aqr, “Day of ‘Aqr”
. The remainder of Ibn Muhallab’s family ran away from Basra. Going eastward, they confronted with the army of Damascus, then they were massacred all in Qandabil in India. In that clash Iraqis such as Nu‘man Ibn Ibrahim Ibn Ashtar as well as Muhammad Ibn Ishaq Ibn Ash‘ath were also killed.
One further point which should be taken into consideration is that almost all of the Umayyads’s rulers were doomed either to be at the head of the government or in jail, the latter of whom were slaughtered most of the time. Once Yazid Ibn Muhallab was asked why he did not build a house for himself.
What he said in reply was that,“My domicile is either a royal palace or prison.”
In all likelihood, he could not imagine that the grave was his third choice.
From among the poets supporting him indirectly was“Thabit Qutna”
, celebrated poet who was among the Murdji‘ites. He also had a hand in some conquests in the east where he incited people to back up Yazid Ibn Muhallab. Abu l-Faradj Isfahani considered him a Murdji‘ites in his brief biography. In a poem, he has praised and has induced him to war with the Umayyads.
Later on, when Yazid was defeated, in a poem he reproached those leaving him alone.
On the whole what can be said about Yazid Ibn Muhallab and his riot is that he was an opportunist going on the rampage after years of oppressing people merely because he was disfavored by the Umayyads. People who were tired of the Umayyads’s cruelties and contemptuous attitude of the residents of Damascus toward Iraqis in particular were supporting him for a while despite the fact that they were not serious enough in that. That was why they could not be victorious.
In describing Yazid Ibn Muhallab’s riot, it is importuned to refer to another uprising in Africa. Tabari was quoted as saying that Yazid Ibn Abi Muslim wanted to adopt the style of Hadjdjadj Ibn Yusuf Thaqafi in Iraq in collecting tribute form the newly converted ones who were paying it prior to embracing Islam. Preventing him from following such policy, people put him to death. At the same time, they did not overlook the Umayyads domination and singled out Muhammad Ibn Yazid al-Ansari, their former governor, as their ruler and wrote a letter to Yazid Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik saying that they did not disobey him. In response, he mentioned that he was not gratified with what Yazid Ibn Abi Muslim had done but he was pleased with Muhammad Ibn Yazid.
It is worth saying that Yazid Ibn Abi Muslim was Hadjdjadj’s scribe formerly. Emulating him, he desired to put his policy into practice.
HishAm Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik’s Succession
In Shawwal, 105 A.H., Hisham took the place of his brother and until the year 125, he was in the some position for about nineteen years and seven months. It was he who presided over one of the splendid and durable administrations of the Umayyads’s dynasty. Mas‘udi described some specifications of him in particular his interest in horses.
As Ya‘qubi mentioned, he was renowned by such attributes as prudence, intelligence, stinginess, jealousy, harshness and so forth.
Dhahabi also described him by stating, فيه ظلم مع عدل
“He was both cruel and just.”
He also had quoted some others as saying that he strongly disliked bloodshed.
It is probable that for the very same reason he had ordered to suppress“Zayd Ibn ‘Ali’s”
riot.
‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Ali, someone who had chased the remainder of the Umayyads’s corps and killed Marwan Ibn Muhammad, was quoted as saying,“I collected the chanceries of the Marwanids but none was as systematic as that of Hisham’s.”
He was preventing the Marwanids from taking bounty out of public treasury excluding the time when they could either participate in war themselves or send someone else on their behalf.
There is a quotation from Tabari stating that how Hisham was rebuking his son for his non-attendance in Friday prayers.
Just in the same way Sa‘id dismissed his son, the governor of Hims because of adultery.
On the other hand, Isfahani had touched on the ways Hisham treated Walid Ibn Yazid, his lewd successor, and vice versa - the account of ewhich will be given at a later time. These are all definite indications that Hisham was a wine drinker too as well as being trapped by lewd companions
promoting people to bolster Yazid. Some other quotations indicate that Hisham was following the same route as Zuhri, an eminent traditionalist and linked to the Umayyads, or possibly others were lending a helping hand in assassinating those who were after bullyism. As a case in point, Djahm Ibn Safwan’s murder can be mentioned. In a letter found later in Hisham’s records, it is read that he had called upon Nasr Ibn Sayyar, Khurasan’s governor, to search for someone coming from Dahris to that area and kill him.
Somewhere else we will comment on Djahm as well as“Ghaylan Dimashqi”
both being murdered by ‘Abd al-Malik in 119 A.H.
Apart from Zuhri who was much adored by Hisham, other traditionists such as Mansur Ibn Mu‘tamir were attracted by him.
Abu l-Zanad was also an scribe of the Umayyads.
Zayd Ibn ‘Ali’s riot was a momentous incident in Hisham’s term which will be discussed in more detail later.
Khalid Ibn ‘Abd Allah Qasri, an outstanding governor of Hisham in Iraq, reigned there from the very early stages of his caliphate for almost twenty years. To some, he was similar to a bunch of governors as Ziyad Ibn Abih and Hadjdjadj.
This was not an extremist view. Just as Hadjdjadj, Khalid was trustworthy and utterly loyal to the Umayyads. Being furious at him, Hisham refrained from endorsing what his predecessor had stated so that to accuse him of assisting the prophet’s Household as well as being an stimulating element in Yazid’s movement.
In response, Hisham said to Yusuf Ibn ‘Umar,“You are not more than a lier and by no means do we accuse him of disobedience.”
His resemblance to Hadjdjadj will be quite apparent once the same utterance of him was said by Khalid. That statement was,“The caliph is superior to prophet.”
However later on Khalid bitterly said that some of the supporters of Hisham had said this sentence.
Khalid was quoted as saying,“If, the commander of the believers - Hisham - instructs me to knock down Ka‘ba and dispatch every stone thereof to Damascus, I will assuredly do the same”
.
This was another feature bearing comparison with that of Hadjdjadj Khalid presided over Iraq, just about the eastern part of the Islamic lands, for almost fifty years at peace. It was Khalid who prevented Yazid Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik from ousting his brother and substituting his son, Walid. That was why Hisham had trusted
, adored and abided by him for fifty years. In as much as his mother was a Christian, he had built a synagogue for her, accordingly he was charged with propagating“Christianity”
and in consequence he was despised severely by some poets. He was held to be responsible for“demolishing mosques, establishing synagogues, having Muslims under Magian’s domination and having daughters of Muslims marrying the protected people”
.
Isfahani declared, “He was a heretic and his mother a Christian one. He had Muslims under Magians and Christians thumb and let them bother Muslims. The protected people were paying for slave girls and had sexual intercourse with them and yet Khalid did not show any objection.
Being imprisoned by him, Farazdaq wrote these verses in his reproach,
أبلغ أميرالمؤمنين رسـالة فعجّل هداك الله نزعك خالد
بني بيعة فيها الصليب لأمّه وهدم من بغض الإله مساجد
“Hisham! Hasten to transfer this message to the commander of the believers, May God guide you in Khalid’s removal, he who dismantled mosques out of his grudge against Allah and established a synagogue instead. He put a cross therein too.”
Referring to the way of his ruling, he vocalized,
وكيف يؤم المسلمين وأمّه تدين بأنّ الله ليس بواحد
How he leads Muslims while on no account is his mother a believer.
Isfahani accused him of having association with heretics.
Thinking about his mother as well as his accusations, one should not be surprised upon hearing that he was handling non-Muslims fittingly and in all likelihood he was inclined towards them.
Dealing with the Shi‘ite Muslims as well as the Commander of the Believers in a harsh way, Khalid affronted Imam ‘Ali (a) so openly and bitterly that it is deplorable to be reiterated. He said that Imam was in the midst of the hell. He was also paying money to people to curse him. Isfahani has a number of quotations in this regard
and after mentioning each, he had damned Khalid by stating, لعن الله خالدا ومن والاه قبحهم صلوات الله علي اميرالمؤمنين“May God curse Khalid and his puppet rulers woe betide them.”
Khalid was ousted in 120 A.H., the reason of which is hardly relevant to our discussion but as mentioned primarily it was owing to the fact that Hisham was emulating Khalid in cereal production whose increase was a threat to his profits.
Being dismissed, he headed for Damascus while he was tortured by Yusuf Ibn ‘Umar for a while just in the same way he had treated ‘Umar Ibn Hubayra once he came to power. In Damascus too, he was subject to Hisham’s persecution. When Walid Ibn Yazid took office, he handed him over to Yusuf Ibn ‘Umar By taking considerable amount of money, then, he killed Khalid. Later on, one of his offsprings took the life of his father’s murderer in Yazid Ibn Walid’s jail.
The prime reason that enabled Khalid to be the governor of Iraq as well as the eastern parts of Islamic lands for over fifty tears was a special privilege devoted to him in return for his total adherence to the Umayyads’s demands. From among them, one was absolute savagery, an one of his outstanding attributes, accordingly he was labeled as“anti-truth tyrant”
.
Another one was hostility towards“‘Ali’s lineage”
which was notable in him as well. He was so strongly loyal to the Umayyads that individuals such as Yazid Ibn Muhallab were not comparable to him because once they became powerful, they thought that they were independent.
Kharidjites’ Rebellion in time of the Marwanids
An interval between 60s and up to late 70s, known as“Al-Shurat”
by the narrators thereof, was considered to be a crucial period of Kharidjites’ activities, although they did remain in power and fought against the ‘Alawites and the Umayyads thereafter. The leading centers for their activities were Basra and Kufa’s suburbs. Being driven out from there, they settled down in Fars, Kirman, Khuzistan and Sistan. What is more is that their settlement in each region was a transient one so they were almost always relocating. They managed to fortify themselves remarkably in a period between Yazid’s death in 64 A.H. and subsequent ineffectuality of the Umayyads in Iraq up to the time it was conquered by ‘Abd al-Malik. Kharidjites’s advancement was mainly due to the Zubayrids’s leniency for some years to such an extent that in 68 A.H. they could freely pay for pilgrimage in Mecca.
Subsequent to Mu‘awiya’s death and Karbala’s event while ‘Ubayd Allah was reigning over Iraq, Mirdas Ibn Udayya from Kharidjites ran wild and was at a later time murdered by ‘Ubayd Allah.
Confronting a great number of Kharidjites in Iraq, ‘Ubayd Allah started demonstrating harsh treatment. He himself divulged that the worthiest action of him after believing in Allah’s Unity was assassinating the Kharidjites.
Prior to deciding on a caliph for Damascus, he was shouldering this task subsequent to Yazid’s death during which he was capturing those under suspicion. He termed that action, later on, as one of his significant undertakings.
The relatives of those who were seized implored him to set them free and he, due to his unsatisfactory situation, admitted it; as a result, Kharidjites were given more freedom. When he escaped to Damascus, there was no longer any obstacle before them. During Ibn Ziyad’s ruling over Iraq, as it was quoted by Ibn Qutayba, he was searching for Kharidjites under suspicion and after their apprehension he took their lives.
What has been disclosed considering Ziyad and his son, ‘Ubayd Allah, is that they shed the blood of at least 13000 of them.
Exerting such pressure obliged some of the Kharidjites to run away to Mecca that was under ‘Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr’s control who not only had cordial relationship with them but struggled diligently to take advantage of them in the Umayyads’s confrontation as well. Thus, Kharidjites who felt secure enough, then joined Ibn Zubayr. To justify what they had done, they proposed the idea of“defending the Sacred Territory of Allah”
.
Being adherent to ‘Uthman, Ibn Zubayr provoked his father strongly in Djamal war that started in revenge for ‘Uthman’s murder who was severely despised by Kharidjites. The sole reason for Kharidjites to join Ibn Zubayr was their common interests.
Ibn Zubayr was quated as saying, لو أعانني الشيطان علي أهل الشام لقبلته
“Even if Satan protects me against the residents of Damascus, I would accept his help.”
Once Yazid’s corps left Mecca upon hearing the news of his death, Kharidjites went to Ibn Zubayr to inquire about his opinion regarding ‘Uthman. Recognizing that he was loyal to ‘Uthman left him alone.
Apart from those Kharidjites being conducted by Nafi‘ Ibn Azraq, the founder of Azariqa, another group also shaped up in Yamama, Bahrayn, ‘Umman and Hadjar under the leadership of Nadjda Ibn ‘Amir Hanafi subsequent to Imam Husayn’s martyrdom. In 68 A.H., it was Nadjda who supervised the pilgrimage service for Kharidjites but for one reason or another, he did not cooperate with Nafi‘ so he was dismissed by them. Then, Abu Fudayk substituted him and was killed after a while.
The Zubayrids’s leniency in Iraq was a justification for Kharidjites under the leadership of Nafi‘ Ibn Azraq (killed in 65 A.H.) to put the residents of Basra in a great inconvenience so as to block the way to commercial caravans in the east and northeast thereof. Going out of patience, Basra’s occupants considered Kharidjites’s threat a serious one and prepared to fight them. After a slight clash which was not a victorious one for them eventually, they, along with Muhallab Ibn Abi Safra, whose reputation was due to his continual assaults on Kharidjites for extensive periods, launched an attack on them. Fiscal support of Basra’s merchants
for Muhallab who was singled out as governor by ‘Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr could suppress them for a while. In spite of the fact that they were not abundant in number in contrast with Iraqis, Kharidjites managed to resist them.
Muhallab in this regard said, سبحان الله العظيم ما رأيت ولاسمعت بمثل هولاء القوم ساعة قط كلما ينقص منهم أن يزيد فيهم
“On no account had I seen or heard of such a tribe; the more they decrease in number, it seems the more they increase.”
In clashes of this kind, they repeatedly retreated while they left too many forces dead each time. Once they were chased up to Isfahan then they entered Fars and camped in Arradjan while they were over thirty two thousand.
Apparently, the majority of those joining them were Iranians opposing the Umayyads. These clashed extended to Ahwaz and Nubanddjan of Fars as well. After a while, Ibn Ma‘mar substituted commander of Iraqis army but his continual defeats
verified that no one can make this war a victorious one but Muhallab. Accordingly, once again he was designated as commander by Ibn Zubayr. The Zubayrids were over thrown while the Umayyads still needed Muhallab and he had been fighting the Kharidjites for nearly three years or so subsequent to Iraq’s conquest. Then, they were divided into branches not because of military failure but due to serious discrepancies among themselves. As a result, they were defeated.
Qatari Ibn Fudja’a became their commander once Nafi‘ Ibn Azraq was killed in a clash in Ahwaz. Opposing some of the Kharidjites in Kirman, he departed to Tabaristan and was murdered there.
Two other groups, one under the leadership of Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih, the senior and the other Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih, the junior fought separately and both were beaten. Prior to this, Muhallab had informed Hadjdjadj that one and the only way to overcome the Kharidjites was creating tension among them.
The Azariqa were still there, that Shabib Kharidji, a valorous one from the Kharidjites, started combating Hadjdjadj. From 76 A.H. on, he defeated the army of Iraq several times and conquered Kufa twice while in both cases, Hadjdjadj concealed himself in his palace. He made some linked individuals to the Umayyads such as Abu Burda, the son of Abu Musa Ash‘ari pay allegiance to him.
At that time, only the army of Damascus contributed to him.
Hadjdjadj himself made it known to ‘Abd al-Malik, وقد عجز أهل الكوفه عن قتال شبيب في مواطن كثيرة في كلٍّ يقتل أمراءهم
“Kufiyans were incapable of fighting Shabib in verious instances, in each of which their leaders were killed.”
This was in contrast with what Hadjdjadj had done to Iraqis, that is pressurizing and mobilizing them against the Kharidjites by force.
Once he gave them three days to attack the Kharidjites led by Muhallab. To prevent others from disobeying him, he killed an aged man regardless of his acceptable reasons for not going to war.
Despite frequent vanquishments as well as losses that were imposed on them during several years, the Kharidjites managed to save themselves from annihilation; nevertheless, considering their achievements of their aims, one should say they were not triumphant since they were fighting to overpower the Umayyads and by no means could they accomplish it. Whenever they were united, soon they dispersed due to their enemy’s assault. Therefore, it can be inferred that they were both victorious in that they protected themselves and defeated in achieving their objectives. The reasons of both cases should be determined. From among factors contributing to their survival, possible repelling of their enemy’s invasion as well as suppressing their opponents which enabled them to exercise influence on people
was their partisan wars in which they were routing their enemies swiftly before they could prepare themselves. They not only shocked their enemy but destroyed them as well.
They uprooted their adversaries by taking advantage of internal elements and those selected as the Kharidjites’s executioners by governors were not secure from their revenge. To give an example, once they could not kill the murderer, they killed his camel instead.
Sometimes, they succeeded in taking their lives.
Ibn Ziyad disclosed that, ما أدري كيف اصنع ما أقتل رجلا من هذه المارقة الا قتل قاتله
“I know not what to do, I kill none of the Kharidjites save they also killed the spies giving information about the Kharidjites to governors.”
Fighting against Hadjdjadj who was infamous, the Kharidjites could somehow achieve fame. Being a dictator who was distinguished for his corruption, Hadjdjadj did not refrain from oppressing people and it was a typical feature of all Umayyads that the Kharidjites were taking advantage of in provoking people both against them and themselves
and even obliging some pious people to follow them. From among them, one can name Salih Ibn Masrah who, due to existing oppression, told his followers, متي انتم مقيمون هذا الجور قد فشا وهذا العدل قد عفي ولاتزداد هذه الولاة علي الناس الا علواً وعتواً وتباعداً عن الحق وجرأةً علي الرب“As long as you stay in power, cruelty runs, the justice disappears and the rulers foment bullying and domination as well as they are abstentious against the truth”
and that was why the Kharidjites did ask him to join them. He ran wild in 76 A.H. and was killed later. Then Shabib who was from Kharidjites replaced him.
Another one leading man of Kharidjites was ‘Abd Allah Ibn Yahya who was told as saying, فرآى باليمن جوراً ظاهراً وعسفاً شديداً وسيرة في الناس قبيحة“There, I did observe apparent injustice an unpleasant behavior towards people.”
Accordingly, for the very same reason he assembled his supporters and by saying, لا يحل لنا المقام علي مانري ولا الصبر عليه“Beholding these things, hesitation shall fly away he went on a rampage.”
Abu Hamza Kharidji in his speech in 12 A.H. also touched upon governor’s cruelty as a stimulus factor
and it is quite obvious that the idea of combating cruelty could attract attention considerably.
Inasmuch as Iran was the major center for their operations, a great number of Mawali joined them in spite of the fact that it was not the case for all Kharidjites’ parties. This was a crucial advantage for them since Iranians were valorous enough to battle.
As it was told, الموالي أشجع الخوارج وأشدهم جسارة
“Kharidjites, as Muhallab was informed, were mainly blacksmiths, dyers, butchers, etc.”
These people from the middle social strata, were naturally acceding to style of the Kharidjites since they were under hard pressure. Additionally, Kharidjites’ fame for their piety
was an outstanding factor for them to absorb people. Some of them even were considered ascetics.
People’s apprehension of them was another element assisting them in particular as regards to those tribes as well as the residents of some cities who were doing so to protect their children and themselves since they were not secure from their attack. Here, one should point out that the very element was also one of the major hurdles in the way of their progress. Although people were contributing to the Kharidjites fearing their lives, they gradually turned to the Umayyads and assisted them to get rid of the Kharidjites who were hard-hearted in their views. The merchants of Basra and probably other areas who deemed the Kharidjites as a great threat to their interests backed them openly.
The Kharidjites frankness always made them lose their heads. Banning precaution dissimulation by the Azariqa forced Kharidji Azraqi to disobey them in any form and under any circumstances. Then, he, along with fifty or a hundred soldiers, set off untimely and irregular riots which led to their defeat. In contrast, the Shi‘ite Muslims succeeded in setting themselves free from the Umayyads’ mischief by observing the very precautionary dissimulation.
Prevailing Islam in Iraq especially in Kufa was an obstacle to Kharidjites’s domination. It has been said that the Shi‘ite Muslims whose Imam was martyred by Kharidjites had strong spite towards them and the Umayyads did take advantage of such feeling greatly and that was why the Kharidjites residing in Kufa were not as many as those in Basra.
The Foundation of the Kharidjites’ Principles
In formation of various sects most of the time the main controversial issue would later on become the central belief of that sect. At times, even the name of that sect would be derived thereof in spite of the fact that occasionally the names of the leaders of sects would go back to them. In Kharidjites’ case, the name of their sect originated from their effort to revolt against the Commander of the Believers and their endeavor in excommunicating both ‘Ali (a) and ‘Uthman was the leading belief of their sect. In fact, discussion about faith versus disbelief was an important point over which different parties debated and became somehow problematic for early sects. With reference to this, ‘Uthman and the companions of Djamal were measured, then, it was turn of the residents of Damascus. Once Iraqis fought against Damascus people, knowing that they were infidels but confronting Arbitration, they hesitated about continuing the war. To eliminate this, they would rather believe in what the opponents had accepted to such an extent that they described Imam ‘Ali (a) as infidel since he had endorsed Arbitration. One further point was that if someone were disbeliever due to advocating Arbitration which was considered as a cardinal sin, then what would happen to others committing cardinal sins? Based on the same extremist view which was the main reason of their defeat, they labeled them as unbelievers. It is known that Mu‘tazila had termed those committing cardinal sins neither as a Muslim wrongdoer nor pious or infidel but purely as a wrongdoer. In contrast, in Imamiyya whoever testifies that there is no God besides Allah and Muhammad is the Allah’s Prophet is Muslim and is entitled to enjoy the same rights as Muslims accordingly. Considering the doer of cardinal sin one should apply the term Muslim wrongdoer (not wrong-doer alone).
In this regard, Shahristani stated that,“All of them are of the opinion that despising ‘Ali (a) as well as ‘Uthman is a must. Considering this issue of prime importance they did hold their marriages to be true merely when they were based on this belief.”
The dispute over belief versus disbelief regarding Imam ‘Ali (a) and ‘Uthman from then on turned out to be the main principle for Kharidjites and the other one was showing resistance to rulers whenever they disregard Sunna.
The Azariqa who was active during that time was one the most extremist groups of Kharidjites who considered those men, women and even children not being a member of the group as infidel and doomed to death.
They referred to this verses,
وَقَالَ نُوحٌ رَبِّ لَا تَذَرْ عَلَى الْأَرْضِ مِنْ الْكَافِرِينَ دَيَّارًا. إِنَّكَ إِنْ تَذَرْهُمْ يُضِلُّوا عِبَادَكَ وَلَا يَلِدُوا إِلَّا فَاجِرًا كَفَّارًا
“And Noah said, “My Lord! Leave me not one of the disbelievers in the land. If you leave them, they will mislead the slaves and will beget none save lewd ingrates”
Moderate followers of the Azariqa such as Sufriyya sect were obtaining from killing children. Banning“Taqiyya”
was one of the fundamental principles of the Azariqa over which they had discrepancy with the Kharidjites form Yamama and ultimately, it led them to be separated form Nadjda Haruri.
Moreover, books concerning sects as well as scholastic theology and jurisprudence compiled by their opponents were attributed to them. The Kharidjites who were dispersed due to continual wars and were secluded from Muslims’ scientific centers, as a result, less commented on this. Other than the Abadiyya that still has some followers in ‘Umman and North of Africa, all other sects have swept out and it is very difficult to confirm the credibility of the principles attributed to them. In addition, another feature of them was altering their principles. It seems as if the Abadiyya were dubious whether to renounce ‘Ali (a) or not and in the latest scripts of some of them they expressed their devotion to ‘Ali (a).
Since some books of various sects were at odds with principles of Kharidjites, there has been exaggeration about basic principles of them. Inasmuch as Kharidjites were mainly composed of Mawali, they made up a new theory overlooking a condition for Imamate e namely being a member of Quraysh, a principle which the Sunnites strongly upheld over six hundred years later.
Some Arab tribes bolstering Kharidjites probably had endorsed this principle either because they did not value caliphate, which was independent from tribal power or they did this to compete with Quraysh.
Yazidiyya, one of the Kharidjites sects that, according to a few fragmented Jarudites, had extremist Kharidjites beliefs about non-Arabism thought, سيبعث الله رسولاً من العجم وينزل عليه كتاباً قد كتبت في السماء ويترك شريعة محمداً المصطفي
It should be mentioned that Qur’an was revealed in the second century A.H. as a result, the Kharidjites must have been following other sects in this regard. Anyway, some ideas of Mu‘tazilites can be traced back in the Kharidjites’ ideologies.
12%
Author: Rasul Ja'farian
