CHAPTER VI: MU‘AWIYA’S MONARCHY
Mu‘awiya, the Founder of the Umayyad Monarchy
Upon seizure of Iraq, center of government since 36, all Islamic territories came under the yoke of Mu‘awiya, who took power thirty years after the Prophet’s demise.
Before becoming a caliph, he governed Damascus and the Greater Syria for roughly twenty years. The Umayyads martially leading the Quraysh in Dark Age, stood against Islam as far as possible and they embraced Islam only when they had no way but this. Not only through their behavior but also by knowing about Abu Sufyan and Mu‘awiya, in particular, Imam ‘Ali’s statement shall be acknowledged as to the fact that they embraced Islam only because of interests.
Zubayr also thought of Abu Sufyan in the same way.
Yazid Ibn Abu Sufyan commanded the troops when conquering. Greater Syria and Abu Bakr granted Mu‘awiya sainthood besides his brother.
After Yazid died, Mu‘awiya was designated as the ruler of Damascus in ‘Umar’s tenure. As mentioned before, ‘Umar’s rigorlessness to Mu‘awiya had astonished a number of people.
According to Ibn ‘Asakir, ‘Umar entrusted Damascus thoroughly to Mu‘awiya
and by the same token, Mu‘awiya affirmed that by Almighty Allah he could accomplish to dominate over people merely through his high esteem by ‘Umar.
Once encountering Mu‘awiya going and accompanied majestically by his retinue, ‘Umar asked about the ground. Mu‘awiya responded that the more the enemy spies multiply, the more our grandeur has to heighten; yet, I will abide by what you command.
“By no means do I enjoin him nor prohibit him”
, said ‘Umar.
Mu‘awiya himself deemed his firm standing as consequence of ‘Umar’s way of behaving towards him.
Reacting against objections to Mu‘awiya, ‘Uthman said that how he was ever able to depose him designated by ‘Umar.
Nevertheless, Imam ‘Ali’s response to him in this respect was,“Although Mu‘awiya held ‘Umar in reverence, he now does perform whatever without taking counsel with you”
.
What ‘Umar frequently stated was,“You are naming Kasra (title of Sassanian kings) and Caesar whereas Mu‘awiya is amongst you.”
Succeeding ‘Uthman’s assassination, in his remarks addressing people, Mu‘awiya announced that he has been the caliph of ‘Umar as well as ‘Uthman amongst them.
In ‘Uthman’s tenure Damascus was regarded as his security zone. He did banish Kufa reciters along with Abudhar there.
Mu‘awiya did expel them from Damascus soley owing to retaining his position and likewise avoiding their influence on nation. Damascus has been trained by Mu‘awiya and in the course of the Umayya’s governorship the in-depth devotion of its dwellers to them clearly manifested the fact.
It is quoted that the Umayya rulers have attested in the presence of“Saffah”
that they considered no relative for the Holy Prophet (s) save the Umayya.
Mu‘awiya has been quoted as stating,
نحن شجرة رسول الله (ص)“We are from the lineage of Allah’s Apostle.”
Furthermore, under the guises of the revelation amanuensis and Khal al-Mu‘minin (the uncle of the faithful) he did strive in order to fortify his religious stance. He compelled a number of hadith (tradition) narrators as well to fabricate tens of hadiths concerning his supremacy and disseminate them among people.
Mu‘awiya’s rule was the one and the only experience of a ruler who flourished to secure the sovereignty by employing coercion as well as devising political stratagems vis-a-vis all prevailing political-religious or perhaps tribal and regional disputes. Until then neither a military expedition had been occurred, nor had duress been officially manipulated in order to obtain the political authority. And now how can it be ever justified whereas the rule was thoroughly established by force? It should be borne in mind that this very fact had to be endorsed like other political facts emerging at the beginning of caliphate term that afterwards did turn legitimately into a governmental theory. In order to secure allegiance, when a sovereign could suppress all the dissenters through his political authority, Djama‘a (congregation) has subsequently appeared. What dilemma was now there for those who stressed the concept of community and said that they would be the last ones swearing an oath of allegiance? Under the pretext of the self of Community, they, heedless of how the ruler has secured the authority, swore allegiance to a caliph with whom all were agreed. Mu‘awiya himself declared that he had secured the caliphate neither through nation’s amity, nor with their gratification but by sword.
Mu‘awiya named that year as“the year of Djama‘a”
. Touching upon that Mu‘awiya not only secured the authority that year, but also he held sway over other members of the Shuwra (council), Muhadjiruns and Ansars, Djahi¨ has stated, “Mu‘awiya named that year as عام الجماعة“The year of Community”
whereas that year was, عام فُرقةٍ وقهر وجبر وغلبة“The year of separation, wrath, constraint and predominance.”
The year therein Imamate turned into monarchism and Kasra system and caliphate became usurped and Caesarean.
Afterwards, the principle of“Sovereignty does belong to the one who suppress others”
turned an incontrovertible principle in political Fiqh (religious jurisprudence) of Sunnism.
Since the inception of his revolt against Imam ‘Ali (a), Mu‘awiya’s legal mainstay has been his recourse to his kinship with ‘Uthman in addition to his self-introduction as his next of kin. He alleged that the assassin of ‘Uthman had been ‘Ali (a) and he as his next of kin would retaliate his assassins. And gradually it turned into hereditary transfer of caliphate from ‘Uthman to Mu‘awiya in the view of Damascus dwellers, for materializing which Mu‘awiya himself played a pivotal role. Prior to this, it should be taken into consideration that Mu‘awiya deemed himself the successor of Qurayshi power which had transferred from Abu Bakr and ‘Umar to ‘Uthman. We earlier referred to Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr’s letter to Mu‘awiya therein the former had reproached him for his insistence on inequity about ‘Ali (a).
As its response, Mu‘awiya wrote,“Your father and I during our prophet’s lifetime had held ‘Ali’s right incontestable and had indeed discerned his supremacy; nevertheless, usurping his right, your father and ‘Umar, after prophet’s departure, were the ever-first ones who summoned him to swear allegiance to them. He did swear allegiance under duress, they two, yet, granted naught as an allotment to him. After those two, ‘Uthman secured the authority. If it were assumed a blunder, your father had blundered for the first time and we were all his accomplices, yet if it were approved, we emulated your father. If you intend to reproach, you had better reproach your father first.”
From the beginning of his revolt against ‘Uthman, Mu‘awiya was doing his utmost to exploit him. Once he requested ‘Uthman to proceed to him in Damascus in order to be immune from the dissenters, ‘Uthman rejected however.
Later on, when the revolt aggravated, Mu‘awiya found no alternative except ‘Uthman’s assassination. He could abuse the people’s confidence in Damascus in this regard. Mu‘awiya accordingly never aided ‘Uthman until ‘Uthman eventually perceived it when deeply in trouble, hence he wrote a reproving letter to him.
Immediately in the wake of ‘Uthman’s assassination as well as his wife’s escaping to Damascus, Mu‘awiya proposed to her but she declined.
He, in his letters to Imam ‘Ali (a), asserted,“Our caliph ‘Uthman is assassinated oppressedly and since Allah has said, ‘When one is murdered oppressedly, we have assigned a power for his guardian’, we are more preferable to ‘Uthman and his descendants.”
Mu‘awiya’s stress on ‘Uthman’s succession had culminated in an influence on Sunnis’ historical-political line of thinking that for two centuries thereafter Kufa Shi‘ite Muslims, other than the Shi‘ite Muslims and few Sunnis, imagined that Orthodox Caliphs were merely three and following them the only possible and legitimate caliph was Mu‘awiya. Afterwards, the notion of “Tarbi‘“ was broached by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal wherein ‘Ali (a) had been introduced the fourth caliph.
Having composed numerous verses of poems as laudation for the Umayya, Farazdaq has manifested in his poetry the assumption that the Umayya regarded themselves as ‘Uthman’s heirs apparent. In a poem addressing ‘Abd al-Malik Ibn Marwan, he has composed,
تراث عثمان كانوا الاولياء له سربال ملك عليهم غير مسلوب
“They are the custodians of ‘Uthman’s inheritance and this royal robe can by no means be divested.”
He in another poem addressing Walid Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik, has certified that his caliphate has been transferred from ‘Uthman
and elsewhere he has composed addressing Yazid Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik that the caliphate has been transferred from ‘Uthman to Mu‘awiya and then to him among the Umayya
,
ورثت ابن حرب وابن مروان والذي به نصـر الله النبـي محمـدا
“You are the heir of Harb’s son, Marwan’s son and the heir of the one with whose assistance Allah made Muhammad (s) vanquish (he has probably meant ‘Uthman by the last one)”
And for Walid Ibn Yazid he has composed,
ورثوا مشورُتها لعثمان التي كانت تراث نبينا المتخيّر
“They are the heirs of Shuwra (the council) which designated ‘Uthman, the Shuwra which is the inheritance of the Chosen Prophet’s caliphate.”
Djahi¨ has also specified that Mu‘awiya justified his right for caliphate through ‘Uthman’s blood.
Mu‘awiya, from the outset of his opposition to ‘Ali (a), announced that he did never seek after caliphate but as a matter of fact he had already prepared himself for securing caliphate. At the very starting point of caliphate, Imam ‘Ali (a) urged Mu‘awiya’s envoy to inform him that under no circumstances was he was contented with his emirate over Damascus, nor would the nation be gratified with it.
His inward aim was overt for the majority but seemingly he commenced to delude them. Prior to Djamal war, he wrote to Zubayr that he had secured allegiance from Damacsus people for him and if he accomplished to conquer Iraq, he would definitely encounter no trouble in Damascus. Zubayr became very thrilled at the letter.
Irrespective of Zubayr, Mu‘awiya must have elaborated to what way he had acceded for an admissible caliph to be designated. Consequently, he propounded“Muslims’ Council”
in this respect. Within the letters written to a number of celebrities of Medina from Siffin, he had referred to this issue already discussed in Siffin event. Mu‘awiya was determined to absorb one of the political figures of Quraysh mainly from those attending the councilin order to exploit him politically because Imam had censured him for neither of those from Quraysh in Damascus was permitted in the council and their caliphate was unauthorized.
In a letter to Imam ‘Ali (a) as well, Mu‘awiya did propound the issue of Council.
There matters were on no accounts serious on the part of Mu‘awiya.
Reportedly, the dwellers of Damascus at first had sworn allegiance to him as an emir not Amir al-Mu’minin (the Commander of the Faithful) but in the wake of ‘Ali’s martyrdom he pretended to the caliphate, so the nation did swear allegiance to him as Amir al-Mu’minin.
Since the inception, he decided to secure allegiance as the one seeking retaliation for ‘Uthman’s blood and as the emir coveting not caliphate so that this responsibility would be entrusted to the Council.
It is hinted in“Al-Imama wa al-Siyasa”
that prior to Siffin, Mu‘awiya had secured allegiance as an emir.
Mu‘awiya wrote to Hims governor to secure allegiance for him in the same way Damascus people had sworn. Affirming that they would certainly not assemble for retaliating ‘Uthman’s blood without a caliph, the nobles of Damascus were not convinced to swear allegiance to Mu‘awiya as an emir. As a result, the dwellers of Hims were the ever-first ones swearing allegiance to Mu‘awiya as a“caliph”
. After the spread of the news in Damascus the people thereof did swear allegiance to him as well.
It is stated that Hadjdjadj Ibn Wasma had been the first one addressing him as a caliph and being gratified at it.
Procuring caliphate for Mu‘awiya had been confronted with another hindrance and it was that he was by no means among the precedented Muslims. He together with his father as well as most members of the family had battledwith Islam and subsequent to his conversion to Islam he was among Tulaqa (the captives whom Allah’s Apostle set free after a triumph). It was a contemptuous lable.
Although Mu‘awiya had fulfilled to reinforce his position somewhat in Damascus by introducing himself as“Khal al-Mu‘minin”
and“the revelation amanuensis”
as well as relying on ‘Umar’s
and ‘Uthman’s assistance, Hidjaz and Iraq were both well-acquainted with his nature. Once ‘Umar had saud that caliphate did only belong to Badr participants but if neither of them were survived, caliphate would be for Uhud participants as long as even one were alive, yet, caliphate would neverever be entrusted to Tulaqa, nor to their descendants.
It is probable that this narration had been ascribed to ‘Umar; however, it should have been engraved in Muslims’ minds after him. In his remarks in Siffin, ‘Ammar had said that they, the Umayya, had had no background in Islam in order to be entitled to be the guardians of the nation or be abided by.
Even ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Umar responding Mu‘awiya’s letter also wrote,“O Mu‘awiya, what do you have to do with caliphate? You are from Tulaqa!”
Enclosing with the letter of ‘Umar’s son, a number of verses belonging to a poet from among Ansar were dispatched reading that Mu‘awiya was too minor to converse about the council participants.
And once ‘Ali (a) reprimanded Mu‘awiya when he expressed his ideas about allotments among Muhadjirun and Ansar and told him that such affairs have no pertinence to Tulaqa!
When Mu‘awiya set out to Medina to assure the opposers of Yazid’s succession to the throne, ‘Ayisha dissented and accused him of her brother Muhammad’s murder. She reiterated,“You are from among Tulaqa for whom caliphate is interdicted.”
This defect was not of significance for Mu‘awiya, however, who had surmounted more formidable hurdles. Not only did he designate himself enforcedly as Muslims’ caliph, but he nominated his son, infamous for being a debauchee, for that very rank as well.
The Umayya’ rule was also a kind of Qurayshi one; therefore, it was on no accounts distinct from the former ones. This circumstance was perpetuated in the ‘Abbasids dynasty too. Now what merits consideration is to perceive when the prerequisite of being from Quraysh had become one of the indispensable prerequisites for caliphate. We already discussed that the prerequisite of being from Quraysh had never been stipulated among prerequisites of Fiqh for caliphate. Although the Shi‘ite Muslims, the Twelvers, had faith in Imamate belonging exclusively and citedly to ‘Ali (a) and his descendants, those even believing not in citation never considered the element of being from Quraysh a prerequisite for caliphate. Hudhayfa had been quoted subsequent to swearing allegiance to ‘Ali(a) as saying that he had would in no way swear allegiance to any Qurayshi after him.
This utterance by one of the renowned Companions (disciples) does justify that the prerequisite of being from Quraysh had by no means been treated legitimate and incontrovertable. Nontheless, the Umayya who were the principal substructure of Quraysh with securing the authority, propounded the prerequisite of being from Quraysh in earnest and Hadith-fabricaters began fabricating Hadiths in this respect. It has been quoted from Mu‘awiya as alleging that this empire and caliphate has been laid amongst Quraysh except whom no other one has the eligibility of a caliph.
Addressing the dwellers of Medina who hesitated to swear allegiance to Yazid, Rawh Ibn Zinba‘ belonging to the tribe of Djudham and from among the devotees of the Umayya in Damascus said, “We are not soliciting you to swear allegiance to the tribes of Lakhm, Djudham or Kalb, ولكنا ندعوكم الى قريش ومن جعل الله له هذا الأمر واختصّه“We are summoning you toward Quraysh and the one for whom Allah has uniquely assigned this authority, namely Yazid Ibn Mu‘awiya.”
The counterfeit Hadiths prevailing were plentiful among which were“The one disdaining Quraysh has indeed disdained Allah”
.
“The formost Imams for the nation are the ones from Quraysh.”
It is astonishing that to substantiate their nobleness, they availed themselves of their consanguinity with Allah’s Apostle(s)
, though they antagonized his close kins.
The Umayya’s Quraysh-oriented policy was manifest in Umayya’s ruthlessness against Ansar.
Akhtal, an Umayya poet, had composed,“Quraysh is the possessor of the entire virtuousness and greatness whereas contemptability is under the turban of Ansar.
Enumerating the grounds for his triumph over ‘Ali (a), Mu‘awiya referred to his fine relation with Quraysh.
Mu‘tazila has indicted Mu‘awiya for initiating fatalism in the Islamic world.
It can be avowed that faith in fatalism in Arab world has had it’s antecedent in Dark Age as those of a number of Christians and the Jews of Hidjaz. Also succeeding the emergence of Islam, much or less, a number of people have inflamed the subject of fatalism; on the contrary, the fact is that this belief predominated in the Umayya’s tenure and gradually turned into a principle in tribal disputes. Employing this principle on caliphate has been revealed in the well-know utterance ascribed to ‘Uthman. The revolters’ insistence was his dethrone but in return ‘Uthman acknowledged that he would never ever remove the robe which Allah had made him wear.
It was wholly evident that he attributed his caliphate to Allah whereas it was in reality emanated from ‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn ‘Awf’s notion. Mu‘awiya did take considerable strides in this regard. Mu‘awiya is quoted as saying, as the entire affairs are under Allah’s control, endeavors are all in vain.
Elsewhere he said, “This caliphate is a decree from among Divine decrees along with a destiny from among Divine destinies.”
Reacting to ‘Ayisha’s dissent from the succession of Yazid, Mu‘awiya responded,“This affair is a Divine destiny but which no one has any other alternative.”
In his famous sermon, Ziyad Ibn Abih, Mu‘awiya’s governor in Basra and Kufa declaimed,“O people, we are all the politicians and the advocates of yours. We govern you with recourse to the power bestowed by Allah.”
In addition, Yazid in his inaugural sermon, stated that since his father had been a servant from among Allah’s servants, Allah, magnanimous enough, bestowed him the caliphate. Now He has laid it with him.
In an answer to ‘Uthman’s son who objected to Yazid’s succession and said,“It was our father after whom you secured the authority”
.
Mu‘awiya said,“This sovereignty is what Allah has granted us.”
To induce Mu‘awiya to introduce his son a caliph, Miskin Darami composed,
بني خـلفاء الله مهـلاً فأنّما يُبوئها الرّحمن حيث يزيد
اذا المنبـر الغربي خلّاه ربـّه فـإن اميرالمؤمنين يزيـد
“O descendants of Allah’s caliphs, slow down, Allah will rest the rule anywhere He ordains. When the western pulpit of Damascus voided (when Mu‘awiya passed away), Yazid would be Amir al-Mu’minin.”
Eventually we will find out how the caliphate simply denoting the succession of Allah’s Apostle(s) at first, gradually conveyed the sense of Divine caliphate. The cardinal matter in Mu‘awiya’s caliphate was that he did abolish the tradition of caliphate and declared monarchism officially in stead. By“officially”
what we intend is that prior to that in ‘Uthman’s tenure the ground had been paved for monarchism (discussed earlier in the section concerning ‘Uthman). Narrated by Ibn ‘Asakir, on hearing the news of ‘Uthman’s murder, Thumama Ibn ‘Adi, one of the prophet’s disciples, wept and stated that he was among those taking the“Prophetic caliphate”
from“Muhammad’s household”
and turning it into a despotic monarchy.
Although of ‘Uthman’s was murdered, a great number of people dissented him, later on account of the Umayya dominion they acquitted and cleansed ‘Uthman of all those flaws. Nevertheless, they still did somewhat cleave to the principle that Mu‘awiya’s dominion equals a termination to caliphate era and a commencement to monarchism. This conversion by no means did make them doubt its legitimacy. As a matter of fact, they justified that legitimacy is something and the perfectness of the rule something else.
Regarding this very conversion, a Hadith is attributed to the Holy prophet (s) as stating, خلافة النبوة ثلاثون سنة
“Prophetic caliphate lasts for thirty years,”
and elsewhere as, الخلافة ثلاثون عاماَ ثم يكن بعد ذلك الملك
“Caliphate is for thirty years after which monarchism appears.”
These Hadiths do never seem authentic. What should be taken into account is that Mu‘awiya was pleased with using the term of monarchism about himself. Mu‘awiya constantly repeated, أنا اول الملوك“I am the first monarch.”
In order to fortify his authority and erase all traces of caliphate, it was possible for him to counterfeit such a Hadith as many other instances have been seen. Ka‘b al-Ahbar one of the admirers of ‘Uthman and Mu‘awiya stated that in the Old Testament he had found Allah’s Apostle(s) as the one who would be born in Mecca, migrate to Taba and whose rule is in Damascus.
And this might have made Mu‘awiya think of transmitting the Holy Prophet’s pulpit as well as his waking-cane from Medina to Damascus.
It is also quoted from Abu Hurayra as stating, الملك في قريش والقضاء في الانصار
“Monarchism is for Quraysh but governorship for Ansar”
and الخلافة في قريش والحكم في الانصار
“Caliphate is for Quraysh but governorship for Ansar.”
And in another narration, one of those possesing bibles had told to Mu‘awiya that he had noticed his attribute within the Divine Books as the one who would for the first time turn caliphate into monarchism, yet, Allah is merciful and forgiving after all.
The Hadith according to which caliphate would last for thirty years had been narrated by Sufayna who was reportedly one of the prophet’s Mawali (freed slaves).
He affirmed that he had heard from the prophet (s) saying, الخلافة ثلاثون عاماَ ثم يكون بعد ذلك الملك“Caliphate lasts for thirty years and after which monarchism appears.”
Consequently, he reckoned that two years for Abu Bakr, ten years for ‘Umar, twelve years for ‘Uthman and six years for ‘Ali (a).
However, it is known that Imam’s authority did merely lasted for four years and nine months not longer. A further reckoning was narrated by Mas‘udi as follows, two years, three months and eight days for Abu Bakr, ten years and six months for ‘Umar, eleven years, eleven months and thirteen days for ‘Uthman, four years, seven months minus afew days for ‘Ali (a) and eight months and ten days for Hasan (a) that altogether equals precisely thirty years.
Primarily other Hadiths dealing with caliphate are virtually of this category unless, the conclusive evidence vindicate their authenticity otherwise.
The narration of, ان الخلفاء من قريش الى أن تقوم الساعة
“Caliphate does belong to Quraysh until the Day of Judgement”
would be of this type as well unless in compliance with our belief it corresponded to Nass (textual nomination) of Imam ‘Ali (a) together with his succeeding Imams.
Heedless of the origin of the Hadith, the historical evidence indicated the start of a thoroughgoing monarchism within the domain of the Islamic caliphate. The term of monarchism as a substitute for caliphate equates to the existence of despotism which is deemed as one of the fundamental features of the rule. As the completion of the narration of this very Hadith“after thirty years”
has come, ثم تكون ملكاَ عاضاَ جبرية“After which monarchism forcibly appears.”
The noticeable instances of which were Kasra’s rule in Iran and those of Caesar’s and Heraclitus’s in Rome and Damascus. Mu‘awiya was a great enthusiast for the background of Damascus in particular. Muslims were all well acquainted with these two rulers.
In one of his sermons concerning Qasitin (the oppossers), Imam ‘Ali (a) said,“Combat Allah’s foes, those striving to extingish Allah’s light. Battle against the misled wrongdoers, the felons who are neither Qur’an recitors, nor religious jurisprudents, scholars of paraphrase and those having no background in Islam. I do swear by Almighty Allah that if they could secure the authority, they would undoubtedly perform what was done by Kasra and Heraclitus.”
‘Ammar also regarding Qasitin said that ‘Uthman’s assassination was a pretext to them until, ليكونوا بذلك جبابرةَ ملوكا
“ The oppressors became monarchs.”
It was the approach that Mu‘awiya had singled out in order to secure the authority and govern an Islamic land. He himself divulged,“By Almighty Allah I did neverever combat for the sake of performing prayers, observing fast, pilgrimage nor paying Zakat (poor-rate as prescribed by Islam). You yourself were acting them all. I did combat to dominate you and although Allah bestowed it to me, you never contented.”
On entering Kufa he announced that the one swearing not allegiance to him would in no way be secure. He set a three-day respite for allegiance.
Quoted from Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr and Djahi¨, he did secure allegiance from the nation as loathing for ‘Ali (a).
In a letter to ‘Abd Allah Ibn Dja‘far to swear allegiance to Yazid, he had written,“If you swear allegiance, you will be adored; otherwised, you will be coerced.”
Allegedly, he had ordered to slay the one who avoids swearing.
About figures like Qays Ibn Sa‘d, having a kind of influence, he secured allegiance by clasping his hand and compelling him to pat his hand whereas Qays was refraining.
Mu‘awiya’s aristocratic lifestyle and his procedures adopted in caliphate, pompted Sa‘d Ibn Abi Waqqas as well to address him a“monarch”
when meeting.
In Damascus he was determined to find the works created about ruler’s biographies in Damascus.
Later on, Djahi¨ recorded that Mu‘awiya turned the rule into the rule of Kasra and Caesar.
Historians have also introduced him as the ever-first monarch.
And Sa‘id Ibn Musayyib affirmed that Mu‘awiya was the first one converting caliphate into monarchism.
Mughira Ibn Shu‘ba described Mu‘awiya as an emir and specified that there should be a difference between a peasant and an emir.
Reportedly, the first one who substituted, ملك يوم الدين“Master of the Day of Judgment”
for مالك يوم الدين“Owner of the Day of Judgment”
was Mu‘awiya.
Ya‘qubi has enumerated what he did as indications of monarchism as follows, being seated on a platform and making others sit in a lower position, singling out the best propertys of the people and allotting them all to himself.
He commanded to devote whatsoever Iranian kings had possessed in farmlands or anywhere else to him.
Mu‘awiya’s status was so conspicuous that ‘Umar had named him Kasra in his tenure.
It should be asserted that Mu‘awiya was set to establish a“caliphate of Islamic royalty”
. He considered himself as a king but described as a caliph concerning old traditions. Making efforts to transport Prophets’ pulpit from Medina to Damascus, he intended to fortify his Islamic strength although he could never succeed.
Mawdudi has itemized a number of characteristics for clarifying the distinction between Mu‘awiya’s monarchism and his predecessors’ caliphate as follows, first, the way of designating a caliph converted. In spite of his predecessors who never rose up for caliphate, Mu‘awiya in any way exerted to gain the caliphate. As soon as he secured the authority, no one was able to dissent him. Anyone had to swear on oath of allegiance to him.
It was what Mu‘awiya himself had confessed,“I was absolutely aware of nation’s discontent with my caliphate; however, I secured it by sword”
.
It gradually culminated in hereditary caliphate by Mu‘awiya. Secondly, the lifestyle of the caliphs converted. Following the approaches of monarchism of Iran and Rome did commence from Mu‘awiya’s tenure on. The third feature is concerned with Bayt al-Mal (public fund). At this juncture, public treasury changed in to the king’s and his lineage’s personal wealth. No one had the right to reprimand the government for the accounts thereof. Fourthly, it was the termination of freedom of speech. At this period, not a single one had an ability to enjoin the good nor prohibit the evil. This new process began in Mu‘awiya’s term after Hudjr Ibn ‘Adi’s assassination. Fifthly, it was the end of freedom of judiciary branch. The end of the council-oriented government was the sixth characteristic of a monarchical government. The seventh was the emergence of racial and tribal prejudices. And also elimination of superiority for law has been deemed as the eighth feature.
Mawdudi has represented many historical instances for each characteristic.
Shi‘ite Muslims in Mu‘awiya’s time
In Mu‘awiya’s term, one of the crucial issues was the Shi‘ites beliefs amongst a number of people specifically Iraqis. We have already discussed the emergence of Shi‘ism. Now we are to evaluate the interactions between Shi‘ite Muslims and the Umayya.
Beyond any doubt, Shi‘ite Muslims have always been Mu‘awiya’s archenemies as the Kharidjites were considered as other foes for him. Nevertheless, the Kharidjites were not of great significance. The universal pessimism on the part of Muslims about them, their oppression as well as their baseless position-taking had resulted in having no support among people. On the contrary, Shi‘ite Muslims particularly in Iraq were all endowed with a mighty support like Imam ‘Ali (a) and others from Ahl al-Bayt (Prophet’s infallible household).
The culture disseminated by Imam ‘Ali (a) in Iraq was indeed thoroughly Islamic and although people had to keep silence under Mu‘awiya’s compulsion, they were all able to distinguish ‘Ali’s truthfulness and Mu‘awiya’s wrongfulness.
Mu‘awiya and with his agents confronted this process with diverse ways, from reconciliation and gentleness to vast harshness. The latter was wide-ranging especially in Iraq. Creating hatred for ‘Ali (a) was one the most critical approach used. Mu‘awiya and other Umayyads succeeding him have persistently been endeavoring to wipe ‘Ali (a) off the face of the earth and introduce him as an element, aggressive, bloodthirsty and the like. In Holy Prophet’s term and later on in caliphs’ terms and his own caliphate especially, Imam ‘Ali’s life verified his unique glory in both scientific and practical domains. His sermons were narrated chest by chest. The statements regarding his scientific supremacy, the Hadiths quoted from the Holy Prophet (s) concerning his excellence as well as his praiseworthy and extraordinary judgments were all recounted by people to one another in hadith assemblies. These all led to dissemination of that culture among people, the culture which prompted Imam ‘Ali’s disciples to retain this affection for him even at the cost of their martyrdom. And above all, this culture could naturally perpetuate among Imam ‘Ali’s descendants, from Prophet’s household. Inasmuch as the Umayya had perceived this fact, they consequently were determined to stigmatize the Imam, express their disgust for him in every assembly and curse him. Ibn Abi l-Hadid has written a chapter entitled“the hadiths counterfeited by Mu‘awiya concerning ‘Ali (a) through stimulating a number of disciples and Tabi‘in”
in his book.
When Marwan Ibn Hakam was asked why they were doing so, he responded, لا يستقيم لنا الامر الا بذلك
“Our governorship will on no accounts be abiding but through this way.”
Principally, the Umayya’s sovereignty could never perpetuate except the policy of insulting ‘Ali (a). Cursing His Excellency, highlighting other caliphs as well as introducing them as superior to ‘Ali (a) were constantly pursued. As stated by some, since Hadith-fabricators aimed to approach the Umayya with recourse to these Hadiths, most Hadiths concerned with disciples’ virtues had been fabricated in the Umayya’s tenure.
At this juncture, individuals like ‘Ayisha were introduced as a source for Hadiths
and others like Zayd Ibn Thabit, being on ‘Uthman’s side, were appointed to be the source of advice on legal or religious matters for Mu‘awiya.
Attributing Hadiths by Imam ‘Ali (a) to himself or others was among what Mu‘awiya did so that others could at times attribute them to Mu‘awiya as well. Djahi¨ who had realized the fact denied the attribution of such Hadiths to Mu‘awiya owing to the fact that he had no relation with the devout.
This Hadith narrated by Imam, ما رأيت سرفاَ الا الي جانبها حق مضيّع
“I have seen no lavishment unless someone’s right was disregarded therein”
was ascribed to Mu‘awiya.
In another case, one of Imam’s Hadiths was attributed to a Bedouin.
“We ascribe ‘Ali’s letter to Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr to Abu Bakr”
, Mu‘awiya himself had confessed.
‘Ali’s malediction to the Kufiyans was attributed to ‘Umar.
Insulting and cursing ‘Ali was prolonged as a tradition until it was ceased in ‘Umar ‘Abd al-‘Aziz’s time.
Mu‘awiya himself stressed that it must be spread to the extent that the offspring mature with this slogan, the youths grow old and no one narrates his excellence.
From among the disciples, some contributed to Mu‘awiya in this regard. There existed a Hadith by Abu Hurayra concerning the mischief-making among the nation that says it is about ‘Ali, yet, the Holy Prophet (s) has cursed such a person.
It has also been narrated that Mu‘awiya rewarded Samura Ibn Djundab with 400,000 dhms to alege that the following verse had been revealed about ‘Ali (a),
وَمِنْ النَّاسِ مَنْ يُعْجِبُكَ قَوْلُهُ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَيُشْهِدُ اللَّهَ عَلَى مَا فِي قَلْبِهِ وَهُوَ أَلَدُّ الْخِصَامِ .
“And among men is the one whose speech about this worldly life causes you to wonder, and he calls on Allah to witness as to what is in his heart, yet he is the most violent of adversaries.”
Ibn Abi l-Hadid has written that Mu‘awiya had stimulated a number of disciples to narrate some Hadiths against Imam ‘Ali(a) among whom were Abu Hurayra, ‘Amr Ibn ‘As, Mughira Ibn Shu‘ba and ‘Urwa Ibn Zubayr.
In his letters to his agents in cities, Mu‘awiya wrote,“The Hadiths regarding ‘Uthman’s virtues are being augmented in cities, as soon as you received my letter, urge people to begin narrating the excellences of companions and caliphs and also narrate a Hadith contradicting any Hadith narrated concerning Abu Turab’s (Imam ‘Ali) virtues.”
Accordng to Ibn Abi l-Hadid, most of them in order to get closer to the Umayya fabricated Hadiths expressing disciples’ excellences.
To replace the Hadith about the brotherhood between ‘Ali(a) and the Holy Prophet (s), they counterfeited it therein the Prophet(s) stated,“If I intended to designate a successor for myself, he would undoubtedly be Abu Bakr.”
They had fabricated the hadith of“Khawkha”
opposite to Hadith of“Sadd al-Abwab”
.
Mu‘awiya was extremely bound to curse Imam ‘Ali (a) as the conclusion of his sermons.
He even compelled Imam’s disciples to go up the pulpit and curse him.
Any agent of Mu‘awiya who did not abide by the tradition of cursing was deposed and replaced right away.
He had eaniced people into daring not to name their babies ‘Ali
but call them Mu‘awiya instead.
He had announced that if anyone narrated the excellences of ‘Ali, he would never warrant his security. Subsequently all preachers expressed their disgust for Imam ‘Ali (a) and cursed him.
However, in return he commanded his agents to support the one narrating ‘Uthman’s excellences.
A great number also lived either in Damascus or Iraq who loathed Imam ‘Ali (a) for their kins’ murder. And now the opportunity was provided to them to disclose their rancor by insulting and cursing him. When Hariz Ibn ‘Uthman was asked why he cursed Imam (a) seventy times every morning and night, his response was,“How can I abstain from it whereas he has beheaded my forefathers with suspicion.”
We will discuss later that the pressure exercising on Ahl al-Bayt was wholly for the sake of hindering ‘Ali’s name to be commemorated. As one of the reasons for murdering Hasan Ibn ‘Ali(a) by poison, Ibn Djawzi has pointed to his entry into Damascus
which was naturally intolerable. All of these harsh treatments in order to wipe ‘Ali’s name off the face of the earth occasioned people not to have the courage to narrate ‘Ali’s virtues. Awza‘i, a renowned traditionist, did narrate nothing concerned with Ahl al-Bayt’s virtues save the Hadith to inform the revelation of the verse of“Tathir”
(purification) about them
, the same as Zuhri who narrated not more than a virtue.
It seemed quite natural that all these repeated and universal curses could eventually influence people’s hearts, particularly in Hidjaz and Damascus, and gradually change public opinions. It was, in every respect, what Mu‘awiya sought. Because Islamic leadership lay with Imam ‘Ali, eliminating him could lead to elimination of the religion from the society. As an emphasis, Mu‘awiya secured allegiance from people by prerequisite of loathing ‘Ali (a)
in the same mannar that he had forced them for the first time to swear.
Mu‘awiya’s another action facing Shi‘ite Muslims was excercising compulsion. The manifestation of his rancor to Imam and Shi‘ite Muslims was in his brutal treatments. Imam Hasan Mudjtaba’s martyrdom, a conspiracy by Mu‘awiya, was in line with this very policy. It is what historical sources have reported and accordingly, they have in truth discredited Mu‘awiya among Muslims. The opposition of Umm al-Mu‘minin (mother of the faithful, ‘Ayisha) in Imam’s burial beside the Prophet (s) exhibited the immense oppressedness of Imam together with his Shi‘ite Muslims.
Mu‘awiya who believed that it was not feasible to delude the people of Iraq in the same way as silly people of Damascus, he had to choose the route of slaying and chastizing. Besides, Iraqi dwellers, including both Shi‘ite Muslims and non-Shi‘ite Muslims, were so sensitive that even a slight irritation could result in chanting bitter slogans against the Umayya although they were all obedient under the sword of Ziyad and Hadjdjadj. The common term describing Shi‘ite Muslims was“Turabiyya”
in the Umayya’s tenure.
It was derived from“Abu Turab”
, (the father of soil), the title use by the Umayya for scorning Imam ‘Ali (a); nevertheless, later on a number of“Ghulat”
(the Exaggerators) availed themselves of it for proving the Divinity of Imam ‘Ali.
Slaying Shi‘ite Muslims had begun since Imam ‘Ali’s term. After Imam’s forces dispersed and there was no security found but in Iraq, Mu‘awiya deployed his troops along with some envoys to various areas among whom were Busr Ibn Artat, Sufyan Ibn ‘Awf Ghamidi and Zhahhak Ibn Qays. Their responsibility in cities was to trace and, فيقتلوا كلّ من وجده من شيعة علي“Kill any Shi‘ites they noticed at Mu‘awiya’s behest.”
Busr set out to Medina were he martyred many of ‘Ali’s disciples and enthusiasts and demolished their houses as well. He then went to Mecca and Sarat respectively and slayed any Shi‘ite Muslim he discovered. Ultimately, he left there for Nadjran and martyred ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Abd al-Muddan as well as his son. Earlier we presented a profile of his crimes.
Among areas that Busr passed en route and plundered was an area the residents of which were from the tribe of Hamdan, ‘Ali’s Shi‘ite Muslims.
Ambushing them, Busr killed numerous men and captured a number of women and children. For the ever-first time Muslim women and children were captured.
These measures were once again adopted later in Karbala. About Busr, Mas‘udi has written that he slayed a number from the tribes of Khuza‘a and Hamdan together with a group known as al-Abna’ (from Iranian race) in Yemen. ولم يبلغه عن أحد انه يمالي علياَ او يهواه الا قتله
“He killed anyone of whose attachment to ‘Ali he heard.”
Setting out to Anbar, ‘Awf Ibn Sufyan martyred Ibn Hassan al-Bakri in addition to Shi‘ites men and women.
After Hasan Ibn ‘Ali (a) had to compromise with Mu‘awiya, one of the menaces Imam felt was the security of ‘Ali’s Shi‘ite Muslims. Hence it was stipulated within the contract that ‘Ali’s disciples should be all endowed with security. Although Mu‘awiya had conceded it, immediately on the same day he announced that he would disregard the entire commitments.
Since Kufa was the center of Shi‘ite Muslims’ political and religious tendencies, Mu‘awiya had to appoint one who can curb such people. Following the clashes between ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Amr Ibn ‘As and Mughira Ibn Shu‘ba who could keep up with Mu‘awiya in deception, Mughira eventually flourished to be appointed as the governor of Kufa.
Mu‘awiya’s endeavor was to have politically peaceful treatments towards the opponents as much as he could. The bases of two groups of the Umayya adversaries such as the Kharidjites and Shi‘ite Muslims were in Iraq. The Kharidjites revolted several times but were suppressed with all possible haste. But on the other hand, Shi‘ite Muslims by virtue of the contract signed between Hasan Ibn ‘Ali and Mu‘awiya, did not permit themselves to transgress. Mughira also intended to take no action except against the one revolting. As a result, even the Kharidjites of Kufa also had apparent relations with one another.
Among the Iraqi tribes, the tribes of Rabi‘a, Hamdan
, Banu ‘Abd al-Qays and Khuza‘a (few in Iraq) had Shi‘ites inclination.
In his remarks addressing the tribe of Banu ‘Abd al-Qays, Sa‘sa‘a Ibn Suhan said, “When apostasy was common, you did remain beside the religion and when some followed ‘Ayisha, Talha, Zubayr and ‘Abd Allah Ibn Wahb Rasibi, you declared that, انا لا نريد إلا أهل البيت الذي ابتدأنا الله من قبلهم بالكرامة
“You seek naught save Ahl al-Bayt, at first by whom Allah had granted you blessing.”
Sa‘sa‘a under other circumstances availed himself of the opportunities provided for spreading his beliefs which were mostly censuring ‘Uthman and eulogizing ‘Ali (a).
When Mughira was notified of such movements, he summoned Sa‘sa‘a and told him, “Far more than you we are acquainted with his excellences but هذه السلطان قد ظهر وأخذنا بإظهار عيبه للناس فندع كثيراً مما أمرنا به ونذكر الشيء الذي لانجد منه بداً نرفع به هؤلاء القوم عن أنفسنا تقيّة
“Because as soon as this ruler appeared, we had to denounce ‘Ali and relinguish many of what we were ordered to merely in order to extricate ourselves from this race (the Umayya).”
Anyhow Mughira the same as other agents were compelled to denounce Imam ‘Ali (a) and exonerate ‘Uthman. Owing to this fact يتعرّض لعليٍّ في مجلسه وخطبه ويدعو لعثمان ويترحّم له
“He variably denounced ‘Ali (a) in every assembly and sermon in the mosque but commemorated ‘Uthman and pled mercy for him.”
Subsquent to Mughira’s death (probably in 49 or 50 A.H.) the status quo converted. Although Ziyad Ibn Abih was the governor of Basra at that time, Mu‘awiya added Kufa to this realm as well. At the time of Imam ‘Ali (a), Ziyad Ibn Abih was the governor of Fars. Since Mu‘awiya’s intention was deluding ‘Ali’s disciples, he decided to delude Ziyad too. His defect was lacking a definite begetter that Mu‘awiya solved the problem by naming him Ziyad Ibn Abi Sufyan. Despite Imam ‘Ali’s forewarning to him
, Ziyad did never resent it and ultimately a while after of compromising he took refuge in Mu‘awiya’s side.
Ziyad as well as his toughness were quite well known to Mu‘awiya. He also knew that Ziyad had been in Iraq for some time and knew ‘Ali’s Shi‘ite Muslims all well. Accordingly, first he despatched him to Basra and added Kufa to his realm after Mughira’s death. Mu‘awiya might realize that the Shi‘ite Muslims in Kufa enjoyed relative freedom and at times could openly object in presence of Mughira in the mosque. It was considered a real threat which Mu‘awiya removed by Ziyad’s dispatch.
The first measure taken by Ziyad was cutting off the hands of those (nearly eighty) who were not convinced to swear allegiance to him.
Ziyad’s harsh treatment in Basra, with a group of the Kharidjites in addition to Shi‘ite Muslims, was proverbial. He had declared a kind of martial law in Basra. At nights, following the night prayer, the opportunity people had for staying outdoors was as long as reciting the Sura (chapter) of The Cow. During the curfew, Ziyad’s soldiers slayed anyone they traced.
Historians have introduced Ziyad as the ever-first one who drew his sword to people, arrested them by accusing them and chastized them with suspicion.
Among the Shi‘ite Muslims martyred by Ziyad were Muslim Ibn Zaymur and ‘Abd Allah Ibn Nudja who were both from the tribe of Hadram. In a letter to Mu‘awiya succeeding Hudjr’s martyrdom, Imam Husayn (a) had commemorated their martyrdom too.
Ziyad’s main mission was to suppress the Shi‘ite Muslims of Kufa throughout Iraq.
“He was always seeking after Shi‘ite Muslims and anywhere tracing he slayed them”
, Ibn A‘tham said.
He cut off the limbs of people and blinded them. Mu‘awiya himself murdered a great number as well.
Elsewhere it has been written that Mu‘awiya had issued the verdict of executing a group of Shi‘ite Muslims.
Ziyad assembled Shi‘ite Muslims in a mosque in order to make them express loathing for ‘Ali.
He also searched for Shi‘ite Muslims in Basra to kill.
In a letter Imam Hasan (a) objected to Mu‘awiya in this regard.
Treating the same way, Samura Ibn Djundab, a substitute for him in Basra, had allegedly augmented the number of orphans in Basra and massacred nearly 8000 people until Ziyad objected him.
Although the accuracy of the abovementioned figures is not definite, it manifests a profile of their atrocities. Ziyad’s treatment towards ‘Ali’s friends was unjust, in a real sense
exactly the same as that of ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Amir, Mu‘awiya’s another governor.
Nu‘man Ibn Bashir, ex-governor of this area, on account of his acute rancor to dwellers of Kufa did not even want to obey Mu‘awiya’s order to increase their provisions from Bayt al-Mal (public fund).
Under the guise of a peace-seeking character, Mu‘awiya had commanded Ziyad to decimate anyone at ‘Ali’s religion.
“Kill anyone amongst you who is from ‘Ali’s Shi‘ite Muslims or accused of his amity”
, he wrote to his agents,“and for it find evidence even hidden under the rocks even though it was solely an assumption”
.
“Exclude the name of the one for whose amity to ‘Ali you found any proof from Bayt al-Mal”
, he added,“and discontinue his provision.”
He then wrote in conclusion, من اتهمتموه بموالاة هولاء القوم فنكّلوا به واهدموا داره
“Kill any one from among yourselves who is accused of having devotion to ‘Ali and demolish his house as well.”
Ibn Abi l-Hadid has also written that as far as Ziyad was well-aquainted with Shi‘ite Muslims, قتلهم تحت كل حجر ومدر وأخافهم وقطع الأيدي والأرجل وسمل العيون وصلبهم على جذوع النخل وطرًّدهم وشردّهم
“He massacred them all anywhere whom he noticed, intimidated them, cut off their limbs, blinded them, hung them from tree branches and banished them.”
The impetus of such treatments was totally obvious. According to Ahnaf Ibn Qays, one of the headmen of Banu Tamim tribe had told about Mu‘awiya that he had captured Iraq not by force but through commitement and contracts;
Anytime it was probable for people to revolt against Mu‘awiya or“a catastrophe”
, as he called it, take place.
It was as a result, necessary that any rebellion be suppressed. Dissatisfied with the Umayya’s the people of Iraq had to yield to them reluctantly. Imam Hasan (a) also had reminded Mu‘awiya of this point.
By the same token, as mentioned by Djahi¨ it was in truth a blunder that Mu‘awiya had named 41 A.H. as عام الجماعة“The year of congregation”
on the contrary, it must have been named as, عام التفرقة“The year of separation”
These all accounted for the lack of factual collaboration and even the potential enmity of the Kufiyans towards Mu‘awiya. In spite of the compulsion exercised by individuals like Ziyad and deception practised by Mughira to impede the growth of adversaries, Shi‘ite Muslims were still wholeheartedly faithful to their allegiance. Imam ‘Ali (a) had recommended them to curse him if they were under duress, but neverever loathe him.
Anyhow, Kufa was like fire under ashes that should have been thwarted with great effort not to catch fire again.
The Suppression of Hudjr Ibn ‘Adi’s Shi‘ite Movement
Hudjr al-Khayr or Hudjr Ibn ‘Adi who had been among the Holy Prophet’s disciples, did later range himself with ‘Ali’s firm and devoted Shi‘ite Muslims. He belonged to the tribe of Kinda, a southern tribe in Hidjaz, who had migrated to Iraq in 17 A.H. This tribe was involved in Iraqi events as participants in Siffin and later on in Mukhtar’s uprising.
A crowd from among them was at odds with Husayn Ibn ‘Ali (a) in Karbala. In the course of Siffin, his activity was utterly broad and he played a role as a commander in ‘Ali’s army, yet when many a bandoned Imam (a)
, up to the very last moment he stayed beside him.
Hudjr could be found amid the most pious disciples of Allah’s Apostle(s). Hukaym Niyshaburi called him the monk of Prophet’s disciples.
After ‘Ali’s martyrdom, he was amongt the ones stimulating the nation to swear allegiance to Hasan Ibn ‘Ali (a). In the process of compromising, Hudjr seemed discontented but Imam elaborated that he had to consent merely due to protecting the lives of individuals like him.
Nontheless later Mu‘awiya by no means remained faithful to his pledge and martyred both Hudjr and his followers.
During the governorship of Mughira over Kufa that lasted until the beginning of 50s, in spite of relative freedom, insults were still hurled at Imam ‘Ali (a) in the masque. The leadership of ‘Ali’s Shi‘ite Muslims was lain with the characters such as Hudjr Ibn ‘Adi and ‘Amr Ibn Hamiq Khuza‘i.
Hudjr was among those who frequently objected to Mughira accustomed to insult Imam ‘Ali (a). When Mughira was paved the way to send a caravan carrying some properties to Mu‘awiya who was in need, Hudjr intercepted the caravan and declared that as long as he has not granted the rights of the rightful, on no accounts would he allow these properties to be conveyed.
At Mu‘awiya’s behest, Mughira had commanded them to take part in the congregational prayer at the mosque.
Once Hudjr was urged by Mughira to go up the pulpit and curse Imam ‘Ali (a) he went up and said,“Mughira propels me to curse ‘Ali (a), curse him you all.”
Immediately, the congregation perceived that his intention had been Mughira himself. Mughira, however, had already declared that he never intended to be the first one murdering the celebrity of Kufa and as a result contribute to Mu‘awiya’s grandeur in this world and his own abjectness in the Hereafter.
This statement was the response to those objecting why he did not arrest or harass Hudjr.
Following the demise of Mughira and Ziyad’s governorship over Kufa, the status quo altered perceptibly.
Ziyad, from the very first night of his governorship, did commence his rigors. His exceptional sermon for threatening Kufa people, has been recorded as a typical Arab sermon in historical sourcesat that juncture.
Well acquainted with Hudjr Ibn ‘Adi, he warned him stating,“You and I have been in the same situation that you know yourself (concerning ‘Ali’s amity) but today anything has converted. Hold your tongue and stay at your home. My throne can be yours too. I will doubtlessly meet all your demands provided that you get along with me although you are rash”
.
Seemingly, Hudjr who was convinced went away.
Once again the status quo changed. It is said that one time Hudjr interrupted Ziyad’s remarks protracted and the time of prayer was elasping, yelling out,“Al-Salat”
(prayer).
It is also narrated that he along with other Shi‘ite Muslims had been convening meetings after Ziyad’s departure to Basra. Ziyad’s substitute, ‘Amr Ibn Hurayth, wrote to Ziyad that if he desired to maintain Kufa, he should return without delay.
In this respect, Hudjr was not merely solitary, but also he was under any circumstances accompanied by a number of Shi‘ite Muslims. Quotedly, when Hudjr protested against Mughira in the mosque, more than one- third of the audience validated his remarks.
As written by Abu l-Faradj, in the absence of Ziyad, being in Basra, Hudjr together with his companions occupied one-third or half of the mosque and began denouncing and vilifying Mu‘awiya.
Ziyad himself had denounced the nobles of Kufa that أنتم معي وإخوانكم وأبنائكم وعشائركم مع حجر
“You are on my side whereas your brothers, offspring and tribes are on Hudjr’s side.”
After a while, a multitude of those on Hudjr’s side dispersed since the chiefs of tribes had menaced the members of the tribes. Therefore, there was no more companion remained with Hudjr.
When a group was sent to arrest him, he addressed his friends as saying, “Since you are by no means able to defy them, there is no way for any struggle.
Eventually, Hudjr conceded to surrender provided that for drawing deduction he should be taken to meet Mu‘awiya.
Having accepted the condition, Ziyad was making an attempt on the other hand to expose him to murder. By the same token, he compelled four characters having been appointed as the chiefs of the tribes in Kufa to make an affidavit against Hudjr. It was stipulated in the affidavit that Hudjr had formed some assemblies wherein Mu‘awiya had been cursed. His belief was that no one merited the caliphate save those from Talib’s lineage. As stated by them having caused chaos within the town, he had expelled ‘Amr Ibn Hurayth, the governor; furthermore, he had not only saluted ‘Ali, but expressed his disgust for his foes and those having combated him.
Ziyad who had on no accounts approved the aforesaid affidavit ordered Abu Burda, son of Abu Musa Ash‘ari, to prepare a more pungent one. What he wrote as a result was, إن حجر خلع الطاعة وفارق الجماعة ولعن الخليفة ودعا إلي الحرب والفتنة وجمع إليه الجموع يدعوهم إلى نكث البيعة وخلع اميرالمؤمنين معاويه وكفر بالله كفرة صلعاء“Hudjr has declined to comply with the caliph and seceded from “Djama‘a”
. He has cursed the caliph and summoned all to a battle and sedition. Having congregated the people around himself, he has urged them to breach their pledges. He dethroned Mu‘awiya, Amir al-Mu’minin, from the caliphate and blasphemed against Allah in addition.”
This time Hudjr was labeled a blasphemer. Abu Burda who was one of the eminent Sunnites traditionists bore the witness of it.
Ziyad persuaded others to sign it too. Among the signitories were Ishaq and Moses, sons of Talha, Mundhir, Zubayr’s son, ‘Umar, son of Sa‘d Ibn Abi Waqqas and ‘Umara, son of ‘Uqba Ibn Abi Mu‘ayt.
As narrated by historians, while Hudjr was being arrested, he yelled out,“I am still faithful to my allegiance”
. He was absolutely right because he neverever intended to revolt againt Mu‘awiya. What he insisted on was about ‘Ali not to be insulted. And it was precisely what had been stipulated in Mu‘awiya’s commitment and conceded by him Fascinatingly, it was specified in the affidavit that Hudjr believed that caliphate was well deserved to no one but those from Talib’s lineage. It was the manifestation of Hudjr’s purifiedly Shi‘ites belief.“Purified Shi‘ite Muslims”
denotes those being religious Shi‘ite Muslims. The belief of such Shi‘ite Muslims is that Imamate does solely belong to prophet’s household (Ahl al-Bayt).
In a poem quoted from Hudjr we read, فإنه كان له وليًّا ثم ارتضاه بعده وصيّاً“‘Ali was a friend of the prophet’s (s) and he was gratified with his executorship.”
Hudjr described ‘Ali as Prophet’s friend and executor. At that time many were of this belief in Iraq. When Abu l-Aswad Du‘ali was sneered due to his in-depth enthusiasm for ‘Ali, he stated in a poem,
أحب محمداً حبّاً شديداً وعباساً وحمزة والوصيا
“I adore Muhammad (s), ‘Abbas, Hamza and the executor (‘Ali)”
He did introduce ‘Ali as the Holy Prophet’s executor manifestubg his successorship. Corresponding to it is Malik’s statement regarding ‘Ali, هذا وصي الأوصياء ووارث علم الأنبياء
“The executor of the executors and the inheritor of all prophets’ body of knowledge is he.”
This description was also what Imam Baqir’s Shi‘ite Muslims like Djabir Ibn Yazid Dju‘fi uttered about ‘Ali (a).
Further instances have been presented earlier in discussion of Shi‘ism at Imam ‘Ali’s time.
Ultimately, Hudjr along with his fourteen companions, known as the heads of Hudjr’s followers
, was sent to Damascus. A few of them were interceded and forgiven by Mu‘awiya in Damascus. Although Hudjr also was interceded, Mu‘awiya did in no way accept. Reportedly, Mu‘awiya was at first ambivalent and on this account he had already written to Ziyad that he believed that Hudjr should never be murdered but Ziyad had replied that liberating him would result in corruption of Iraq
, and he could allow Hudjr to return Iraq on the condition that he did not require Kufa.
Mu‘awiya eventually made a decision to assassinate Hudjr; notwithstanding, since he was terrified to meet him face to face, he commanded to detain them in Mardj ‘Adhra’ a few Farsangs far away from Damascus.
Later he read out the affidavit of dwellers of Kufa to those of Damascus and appealed to them to voice their opinions! It was utterly evident that what they could ever say when the disciples’ descendants were of that opinion! Mu‘awiya deployed a number to Mardj ‘Adhra’ to carry out what they were supposed to. They were at first duty-bound to propose them that if they expressed their loathing for ‘Ali (a), the verdict would be declared null and void. Under no circumstances did Hudjr and his companions agree. And it might have been owing to this fact that Imam ‘Ali (a) had asserted that after him if they were impelled to insult him, they should abide by but neverever express loathing for him.
Subsequently, digging their own graves, Hudjr and his companions spent dusk to dawn in worshiping. Eight out of them were set free but six of them announced their readiness for martyrdom.
Next morning they were again requested to express their idea about ‘Uthman, أول من جار في الحكم“The ever-first one who did injustice was ‘Uthman”
, they retorted. They were asked whether they would pronounce disgust for ‘Ali. They responded, لا، بل نتولاه ونتبرأ ممن تبرأ منه“No, never, we do all love him and hate those who hate him.”
Then they prepared themselves for being martyred. Hudjr who was prominent among the devout of Iraq said a very-long-two-Rak‘at prayer (Rak‘at, unit of prayer consisting of three postures) and stated, والله ماصليت قطّ أقصر منها ولولا أن تروا أن ما بي جزع من الموت أحببت أن استكثر منها“As yet, I have never performed a prayer shorter than this and I yearned to prolong it if you did not accuse me of being scared of decease.”
Six of them were martyred. Karim Ibn ‘Afif Khath‘ami and ‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn Hassan al-‘Anzi were both taken to meet Mu‘awiya. Karim was interceded but when it was ‘Abd al-Rahman’s turn, Mu‘awiya questioned him about ‘Ali (a).
“You had better not enquire any question”
, he responded.
When Mu‘awiya insisted, he declared, أشهد أنه من الذاكرين الله كثيراَ ومن الآمرين بالحق والقائمين بالقسط والعافين عن الناس“I do attest that he was among the ones bearing Allah invariably in mind, enjoining good, establishing justice and being magnanimous.”
And when he was asked about ‘Uthman, he replied, هو اوّل من فتح باب الظلم وارتجع ابواب الحق“He was the first one who opened the door of injustice and closed the doors of justice.”
Mu‘awiya sent him to Iraq and instructed Ziyad to kill him brutally. Then, he was buried alive at Ziyad’s behest.
Repercussions of Hudjr’s Martyrdom
Hudjr’s martyrdom did mar the reputation of Mu‘awiya as well as other Umayyads incredibly. As far as his fame for devoutness and worship among the Prophet’s disciples was concerned, rarely could anyone be found unacquainted with his piety. Being among the chiefs of the tribe of Kinda had magnified his eminence too. Therefore, eruption of objections against the Umayya in general and Mu‘awiya in particular seemed quite natural. Although the heavy pressure exerted could impede the occurance of probable riots in Iraq, it could on the contrary intensify the nation’s devotion to Shi‘ism on the one hand and their rancor to Mu‘awiya on the other hand. Later, a multitude including Hudjr’s sons such as ‘Abd Allah and ‘Abd al-Rahman took part in Mukhtar’s uprising.
On hearing the news of Hudjr’s martyrdom, even a number of Ziyad’s agents like the governor of Khurasan, Rabi‘ Ibn Ziyad Harithi, deplored greatly. It is said that Rabi‘ prayed for being died soon and by accident, he did fall down and pass away on the same day.
‘Ayisha was also among the protesters. She had dispatched ‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn Harith to Mu‘awiya to recommend him not to murdering Hudjr but prior to his arrival Hudjr had been martyred.
Later, ‘Ayisha reproached Mu‘awiya for Hudjr’s murder
as saying,“I would object to you for Hudjr’s murder if it were not the case that anything we dissented occurred in a worser form”
.
Hudjr’s devoutness had prompted ‘Ayisha to object to Mu‘awiya in this regard though his standing in Djamal War was for Imam ‘Ali (a) and against ‘Ayisha.
As usuall, Mu‘awiya resorted to deception and deniedthat he had murdered him.
“Those who testified against him were his murderer”
, he added.
The consequences of such a claim in sight of some like Hasan Basri
were their disbelief in the Umayya and then their discredit among people.
It was quoted from Mu‘awiya as declaring,“Anyone whom I slayed I knew why I did it except about Hudjr.”
Abi Zur‘a has narrated,“Whenever I met Mu‘awiya, he recalled Hudjr.”
While in the agony of death, he had stated, أي يوم من حجر وأصحاب حجر
“Where are those days with Hudjr and his followers.”
In his very last breath, Hudjr had requested to be buried with the same shirt owing to the fact that he desired to stand before Mu‘awiya with that state on the Day of Judgment.
Historians have said, أول ذل دخل الكوفة قتل الحجر وقتل الحسين ودعوة زياد
“The first abjectness for Kufa was the martyrdom of both Hudjr Ibn ‘Adi and Imam Husayn plus Ziyad’s claim to be Abu Sufyan’s son.”
Gragually the relation between Imam Husayn and his Shi‘ite Muslims improved rapidly. Having paniced, in a letter, Mu‘awiya warned Imam not to creat separation, sedition and corruption among the nation. As a riposte, Imam protested against martyring ‘Ali’s Shi‘ite Muslims, the foremost of whom Hudjr Ibn ‘Adi, and deplored for he never took up arms against Mu‘awiya. We will show the letter later concerning Imam Husayn’s stance against Mu‘awiya.
One of the other followers of Hudjr martyred at the same juncture was ‘Amr Ibn Hamiq Khuza‘i who was among Prophet and ‘Ali’s disciples and later deemed as the pivot of the Shi‘ite Muslims in Kufa.
When Ziyad had ordered his guards to trace Hudjr and his companions, ‘Amr Ibn Hamiq along with Rufa‘a Ibn Shaddad escaped to Ctesiphon and then to Musil. The governor of the district sent a mission to arrest them who were aliens. Rufa‘a fled but ‘Amr was taken to Musil governor, ‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Uthman Thaqafi. Recognizing ‘Amr, he wrote to Mu‘awiya what the proper course was to pursue.
Mu‘awiya wrote,“‘Amr himself had confessed he had given nine lashes to ‘Uthman, thus whip him nine times.”
And since ‘Amr was sick, with the very first lash he achieved martyrdom. Then he was beheaded and sent to Damascus. It was the first head carried from one town to the other.
Later it was repeated about the head of Imam Husayn and his disciples. That it has been written that he was found dead in a cave and they beheaded him
seems to be for acquitting Mu‘awiya of the charge of Companions-cide Muhammad Ibn Habib has narrated that his head was showed around in Bazar.
Conquests in Mu‘awiya’s time
With the five-year civil wars in ‘Ali’s term, conquests in east and west of the Islamic land ceased. Inasmuch as ‘Ali’s policy was improving the internal status quo and deposing seditious figures, the process of conquests was ceased. Mu‘awiya who required great might to combat ‘Ali(a), had to compromise the Romans.
Accordingly, war was ceased there as well. After victory of the Umayya, conquests leading to economic benefits for the government were resumed.
The areas ruled by the East Roman Empire were frequently under attack that lasted for almost all years of Mu‘awiya’s dominion. In 49 or 50 A.H., Mu‘awiya deployed a massive army consisted of ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Abbas and Abu Ayyub Ansari together with another group of disciples and their descendants to that area. They could advance as near as the enclosures of Constantinople; Nevertheless, they could not conquer it. Abu Ayyub Ansari passed away there.
Another war site was Africa thereon Muslims advanced ceaselessly in the course of conquering Egypt from the time of caliphII on. Sudan in Africa was conquered in this period. Observing the constant apostasy of the dwellers, the governor, ‘Uqba Ibn Nafi‘, established a town called Qirawan in order to guarantee the stability of the region through Muslim residents there.
This town did play a crucial role in maintaining Muslims’ conquests in that land.
Islamic East was also subject to conquering. For a while Said, ‘Uthman’s son, was involved in conquering Bukhara and the suburbs. He clashed with the Soghdids in Samarqand but later he compromised with them.
He had taken a number of hostages from the queen of Bukhara to set them free after return from conquering Samarqand. In spite of his pledge he took them to Medina and exploited them. Afterwards Sa‘id was assassinated by them.
The war had been continuing during the following years.
India and Indus River were exposed to consecutive wars as well. These areas, between Kabul and Multan, were hit in 43 A.H. and onwards which preceded a great deal of loot.
In farther areas like Ghawr, conquering had been also kept on. In 47, when the dwellers of the region violated their compromise, the attacks on them were recommenced.
From this time on, no considerable contest can be found for Muslims and it is in view of the fact that the Romans had prepared themselves to battle more valiantly on the one hand and the remoteness of war sites particularly Islamic East inhibited the Muslims to adopt serious measures for conquering the land, on the other hand. The problems originated from such conquests as well as Arabs’ tribal disputes in conquered lands such as Khurasan, gradually impeded more troops to be equipped for pursuing conquests.
The constant apostasy in conquered areas undermined the Muslim Arabs. Civil riots in the Islamic land such as Kharidjites movements, Shi‘ites oppositions and so forth can be considered as another facter in debilitating the central authority.
The Kharidjites in Mu‘awiya’s time
Succeeding Imam’s martyrdom, Kufa was composed of classes with various schools of thought, the mojority indifferent, those on Mu‘awiya’s side, those regarded as Kharidjites or Imam ‘Ali’s Shi‘ite Muslims. As many people had lost their close kins in“Nahrawan”
War, they naturally could not remain faithful to ‘Ali’s descendants. However, due to their enmity towards Mu‘awiya, they got ready to join the army organizied by Imam Hasan (a) against Mu‘awiya. After appearing indifference and inclinations on the part of the Kufiyan nobles towards Mu‘awiya specificly in the process of compromising, the Kharidjites decided to assassinate Imam, although their attempt failed.
At the same time, Mu‘awiya predominated all over the Islamic land especially Iraq. The Kharidjites considered both enmity towards ‘Ali (a) and practical disgust for Mu‘awiya and his agents as their principal responsibilities. On account of their disbelief in Taqiyya (precautionary dissimulation), a few
were assembled in a 40 or 70-people small group to clash with an army. Moreover, owing to their deep-rooted beliefs, even if deviated, they were never seeking after a means of escape. They, in light of their distinctive morale, in no way approved leniency.
If the Kharidjites hesitated over combating ‘Ali (a) formerly but later they even those who were not convinced to combat ‘Ali (a) in Nahrawan
, had no doubts about battling against Mu‘awiya.
‘Urwa Ibn Sakhr had stated,“Due to my long and close affinity with ‘Ali (a) I did abstain from battling against him and now I shall definitely rise up against Mu‘awiya.
In the face of such remarkable deviation as the Umayya’s sovereignty, tyranny and oppression that the people of distinct classes sustained, the existence of the Kharidjites appeared evident. Since many of the oppressed regarded them as a group able to stand against the Umayya beside them, the continuity of their movement throughout this sovereignty was incontestable.
No sooner had Mu‘awiya left Iraq than the Kharidjites revolted. Nearly five hundred of them who had already gone to Shahrzur with Farwa Ibn Nawfal returned Kufa following the compromise. Mu‘awiya himself had the people of Kufa combat them.
Subsequenly, small groups of the Kharidjites like Mu‘in al-Kharidji and Abu Maryam from among the Mawali of Banu al-Harith Ibn Ka‘b and Sahm Ibn Ghalib revolted against Kufa governor, Mughira, so were all massacred.
The leniency of Mughira toward the Kharidjites culminated in their gathering from various regions in Kufa. Therefore, they could confer with one another.
Having fled with four hundred of the Kharidjites to Riy, Mustawrid Ibn ‘Ullafa after ‘Ali’s martyrdom returned Kufa and together with Hayyan Ibn ²abyan convened meetings with other the Kharidjites.
Hayyan Ibn ²abyan who was a leader for the Kharidjites in Riy proposed them, “Let’s return our homelands, towards our brothers in order to enjoin them good, forbid them from evil and summon them to battle against the parties. We have no excuse not to rise up while our governor generals are all tyrants, the tradition of guiding is abandoned and all those slaying our brothers are alive. We ought to avenge”
.
When gathering in Kufa, the Kharidjites negotiated about designating an emir. Three figures were nominated, Mustawrid Ibn ‘Ullafa, Mu‘adh Ibn Djuwayn and Hayyan Ibn ²abyan. The report of negotiation is presented by Abu Mikhnaf. The aforesaid report is consisted of their opinions concerned with the eligibility of an emir.
Mustawrid said,“Elect anyone you like. It does make no difference for me whom from among you be my governor-general.”
“I have no request for it. I shall be gratified with and swear allegiance to any one designated”
, said Hayyan. Mu‘adh Ibn Djuwayn also declared,“When you two, Muslims’ Sayyid (chiefs) with renowned lineages, and as the high-qualified and pious ones say so, who shall then undertake Muslims’ responsibility? If all are equal in virtues, the most well-informed in wars, the most intelligent in religion and the most liable of whom ought to be designated for Muslims’ guardianship. Since both of you merit this position, thus one of you two should consent.”
In return they, two, suggested it to him.
“You are my senior”
, he added.
The audience of the Kharidjites announced,“We approve you all three. Elect one from among yourselve.”
Hayyan Ibn ²abyan told Mustawrid,“I do agree with Mu‘adh. You are my senior too. Give your hand to swear allegiance to you”
.
In this way Mustawrid was designated. The Kharidjites swore allegiance to him all.
Mughira who had perceived the probability of revolt arrested Hayyan Ibn ²abyan. Mustawrid and his followers rose in revolt, although Mughira had warned the chiefs of all tribes earlier to banish them from themselves and not allow them to influence on their tribes.
Tabari’s report and that of Mubarrid’s varies concerning the Kharidjites first clashes with Mu‘awiya. Yet, all are unanimous that the Kharidjites with a few numbers battled against Damascus army but were immediately defeated.
Mubarrid and Baladhuri have recounted many adventures about the Kharidjites in Mu‘awiya’s tenure that manifest the scope of their infiltration into diverse tribes.
At any war whether mini or massive, the Kharidjites had commanders.
After the Kharidjites’ suppression, ‘Ali (a) recommended his followers, لا تقاتلوا الخوارج من بعدي
“Under no circumstances should you enter into confilict with the Kharidjites after me.”
This instruction was given by Imam to Shi‘ite Muslims to bear their main enmity towards the Umayya in mind and not to waste their strength on combating the Kharidjites who were among the Umayya foes. Regretfully, this instruction was not heeded on the part of the Shi‘ite Muslims.
Addressing his tribe and reiterating that they were faithful to Shi‘ism and the leadership of the Prophet’s household, Sa‘sa‘a Ibn Suhan, an eloquent chief of the Shi‘ite Muslims said, لا قوم أعدى لله ولأهل بيت نبيّكم ولجماعة المسلمين من هذه المارقة الخاطئة الذين فارقوا امامنا واستحلوا دمائنا وشهدوا علينا بالكفر
“Not a single group like this group shows enmity towards Allah, the Holy Prophet’s household and Muslims; the wrongdoing Mariqin (the deviators) who seceded from our Imam, declared shedding our blood lawful and considered us infidel.”
This statement of Ibn Suhan foreboded that the Shi‘ite Muslims’ hatred of the Kharidjites made them not only remain indifferent in the face of their revolt but conversely become set on suppressing them. And it was exactly beacause almost all Shi‘ite Muslims knew them as the fundamental cause for the failure of the Shi‘ites movement. ‘Adi Ibn Hatim, another Shi‘ites leader, had made the same remarks on aversion to the Kharidjites.
The command of war against the Kharidjites was undertaken by Ma‘qal Ibn Qays who was a commander in Imam ‘Ali’s army.
As soon as being informed of the Shi‘ite Muslims’ inclination for a battle with the Kharidjites, Mughira as well as his advisors became pleased and it was emanated from this fact that, وهم أشد استحلالاَ لدماء هذه المارقة وأجرأ عليهم وغيرهم وقد قاتلوا قبل هذا بمرة
“… since they had battled with them once before, they could have shed their blood more daringly and severely.”
Whatever its outcome might be even the Shi‘ite Muslims’ failure could be for the Umayya benefit because both rivals, the Umayya adversaries, had enfeebled each other.
Not merely had Imam ‘Ali (a) realized and warned about such perils
, but Imam Hasan (a) also had considered it wrong via his conduct practically. Subsequent to the compromise, when Imam (a) set out to Medina, a riot had been triggered by the Kharidjites. Mu‘awiya urged Imam to prepare for a battle against the Kharidjites.
In his reaction he stated, لو آثرت أن أقاتل أحداَ من أهل القبلة بدأت بقتالك“If I were supposed to combat anyone, I would start from you first.”
By the same token, in the course of Mustawrid Ibn ‘Ullafa’s revolt, along with three thousand from نقاوة الشيعة“The most purified Shi‘ite Muslims.”
Ma‘qal Ibn Qays moved to him. While the Kharidjites were in the vicinity of Basra, the Umayya governor of Basra, ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Amir, did emulate Mughira and dispatched three thousand Shi‘ite Muslims led by Sharik Ibn A‘war who was a renowned Shi‘ites of Basra towards them.
Upon hearing the news of the strike by Kufa army, Mustawrid took“counsel”
from people. Some suggested battling and some other“retreating”
.
The decision, however, was to keep away from the army and refrain from confronting provided that they were faced unexpectedly which would result in a conflict.
The details of this conflict are delineated by Tabari that Mustawrid was killed on the one hand and Ma‘qal Ibn Qays on the other hand. At this juncture, the Kharidjites, who under no circumslances were eradicated, dispersed.
It is worth reminding that the Kharidjites of this period of time had an extremely harsh treatment towards other Muslims. The only caliphates confirmed in their sight were those of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar so that they had laid them both beside“Kitab”
(Qur’an) and“Sunna”
(Tradition). In his narration, one of the Kharidjites has referred to a letter from Mustawrid to the governor of Ctesiphon whereas naming him Amir al-Mu’minin”.
It denoted that he must have been regarded as a caliph by the Kharidjites.
It has been cited that the first one who propounded in earnest the subject of blasphemy on the part of the members of the tribe was Sahm Ibn Ghalib Hudjaymi who revolted against ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Amir in Basra in 44 A.H.
This very issue could play a cardinal role in making the Kharidjites secede from the Islamic community. Basra was among the areas accommodating a multitude of the Kharidjites in those days. Rising up in this region, accompanied by some seventy people, Qarib Azdi and Zahhaf Tayi were murdered in 50 A.H. following a clash. As recorded by Ibn Athir, Ziyad who was too rigorous and unyielding towards the Kharidjites had prescribed his substitute in Basra, Samura Ibn Djundab, to treat them relentlessly. They clashed with a mass number of the Kharidjites and flourished to decimate them.
Their considerable number in Basra did account for such severe actions.
Once more rioting in 58 A.H. a group of the Kharidjites were instantly suppressed near to Kufa. Ibn Ziyad’s dealing towards the Kharidjites was also such a tough one that he at times incited them to slay one another. Concurrently a throng of them who were imprisoned by him became slaughtered after a while.
At this stage like the succeeding ones the firm defiance of the Kharidjites against Umayya troops is utterly perceptible as once at the end of Mu‘awiya’s caliphate, a forty-member group caused Ibn Ziyad’s two-thousand-soldier army to flee and make the commander of which be humiliated for a lengthy time.
Mu‘awiya’s Endeavor for Hereditary Caliphate
Earlier it was quoted from Muhammad Rashid Rida that Abu Bakr’s action in delegating a successor paved the ground of making caliphate hereditary.
As Marwan Ibn Hakam too reasoned Abu Bakr’s measure in designating ‘Umar while recommending succession to the throne.
A hereditary authority bore two features one of which was designation of a successor by the former monarch and another was designation of a son or a member from monarch’s lineage as a successor. The latter was submitted from Mu‘awiya’s time on. Under the pretext of his kinship with ‘Uthman, he not only addressed his heritance in order to justify his caliphate but also he proposed the subject of making caliphate hereditary by appointing his son, endowed with no religious, political or military trait. Although this matter has always been unusual among Muslims, hereditary caliphate later became the most fundamental principle in a caliph’s designation. Merely when the Umayya’s administration was converting into that of the ‘Abbasids and the ‘Abbasids’ administration into that of ‘Uthmanids the theory of hereditary caliphate was declared null and void through transfer of caliphate from a lineage to another, yet replaced by violence and force. Except the cases aforesaid the hereditary succession was treated as a radical principle for appointing a new caliph. Deviation from the traditional system, at least nominally claimed to be established on“consultation”
and nation’s vote, was intolerably disagreeable for believing Muslims. However, the status quo was in a way that all endorsed it and but a minority no one defied. The internal coherence of the Umayya reinforced by ‘Uthman’s charity in addition to conveyance of farmlands impelled the Umayya to adopt a measure for safeguarding their power. If it were let to take its normal course, ‘Uthman would beyond question designate Mu‘awiya as his successor. And because it was delayed by his assassination, Mu‘awiya did afterwards withstand obstinately. It stood to reason that when securing the power, he on no accounts would allow the monarchy to make an exit from his family. Except the Shi‘ite Muslims and the Kharidjites, throughout the Islamic world, in the face of the official caliphate not only no Sunnites laid claim to the caliphate but also he did never credit that through power and wealth one could become a caliph. Such regions as Spain, North Africa and Egypt experienced further caliphs later.
In Mu‘awiya’s tenure, not simply did Damascus people never stood against approving of Yazid’s succession but they also insisted on it because their entity before claimants emerging from Arabia Petrae or Iraq depended upon aiding the Umayya to remain in power. Persuading the people of Medina however who were, from among disciples’ descendants, seemed thorny. On one hand, Iraq was naturally opposed to Damascus and besides Kufa Shi‘ite Muslims, Iraqi the Kharidjites were thoroughly opposed to the Umayya on the other hand. Realizing the public opinions about governorship at that time shall appear convenient through a review of the reasoning on the part of Mu‘awiya and his opponents in regard with a hereditary caliphate.
It was already discussed that Mu‘awiya’s rule had lost its nature of caliphate and transformed into monarchism of which nature necessitated the subsequent caliphate or designation to be hereditary. ‘Umar himself had by that time likened Mu‘awiya’s rule in Damascus to those of Kasra and Caesar. When Mu‘awiya secured the authority freelance, people named him“Heraclitus”
.
The matter of making caliphate hereditary as well as Mu‘awiya’s endeavor regarding it are set forth in detail in“Al-Futuh”
and“Al-Imama wa al-Siyasa”
. Others also have referred to it concisely. The ground for the notion of Yazid’s succession to throne could be paved following Imam Hasan Mudjtaba’s martyrdom.
Despite the fact that there existed no unanimity on who had for the first time suggested this notion, many a look was at Mughira Ibn Shu‘ba. In late 40s A.H. Peeling that he might be deposed by Mu‘awiya due to his oldness and inability in running Kufa, he set out to Damascus to stimulate Yazid to talk about his did so to his father and he succeeded after all. Mughira also on his part told Mu‘awiya that he feared that the recent events, sedition and divergence, in the course of ‘Uthman’s caliphate might reoccur once again.
“You had better designate a successor and it would be far better if he were Yazid, your son”
, he added.
Admitting his proposal, Mu‘awiya delegated Mughira to gradually prepare the ground in Kufa. He dispatched a number to Damascus for this reason.
Beyond any doubt such a notion had been in Mu‘awiya’s mind for a long time, but Mughira’s was a sparkle for making it public. After Ziyad Ibn Abih became the governor of Kufa, Mu‘awiya propounded the issue of successorship. Totally negligent of Mu‘awiya’s intention, he did his utmost by a trick to change Mu‘awiya’s and even Yazid’s mind in this respect.
From 55 on the effort Mu‘awiya made to stabilize Yazid’s position multiplied. On a trip to Mecca and Medina, religious centers Mu‘awiya exerted himself to engross the people through substantial open-handedness. It does surprisingly merit consideration that people seemed gratified, however. The poets such as ‘Uqayba al-Asadi and ‘Abd Allah Ibn Hammam al-Saluli who hated Yazid composed some verses of poems for reproaching him although Mu‘awiya could muzzle them with paying hush-up money.
When he returned to Damascus to keep on his activities, he summoned groups of people from Kufa and Basra. Mu‘awiya compelled Zhahhak Ibn Qays to address the congregation and advance the issue of successorship. Consequently, indicting Iraqi people for being hypocritical and schismatic, he denounced them.
In the same meeting, Ahnaf Ibn Qays announced,“As long as Hasan Ibn ‘Ali is alive, the people of Iraq and Hidjaz will neverever swear allegiance.”
Accusing the Iraqi of Hypocrisy, Qays Ibn Zhahhak said,“Hasan and ones like him have nothing to do with divine king whom He has appointed; caliphate is not inherited collaterally from a daughter.”
Ahnaf Ibn Qays, in his response, reminded Mu‘awiya’s commitments promised to Hasan Ibn ‘Ali and referred warningly to Iraqis’ loathing for Mu‘awiya which might cause the swords to rise up from Iraq. After that, Mu‘awiya kept silence about allegiance to Yazid until 50 (Imam Hasan was martyred in 49 A.H).
Mu‘awiya appointed Zhahhak Ibn Qays and ‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn ‘Uthman, advocating Yazid strongly in that very meeting, as the governors of Kufa and Hidjaz respectively to pave the way.
Mu‘awiya was of this opinion that from the standpoint of religion the main problem lies in Medina. Were it feasible to persuade Iraq by force, reasoning would definitely be required for Medina to get satisfied.
Already written to Mu‘awiya by Sa‘id Ibn ‘As was,“…People follow these few individuals therefore as long as the latter have not sworn allegiance, the former would by no means do so.”
Ibn Qutayba had also written that but few, all did hesitate to swear allegiance. Typically they were the Hashimites neither of whom did so.
Before he came, Mu‘awiya had sent various letters mingled with either menace or allure to all those opposing allegiance.
In a session convened on this occasion following Mu‘awiya’s arrival in Medina, opposers voiced their diverse opinions.
‘Abd Allah Ibn Dja‘far addressed Mu‘awiya as saying,“If you have recourse to Qur’an, Ulu al-Arham (relatives) enjoy priority over one another; if you practice the Prophet’s Sunna (tradition), they are the kins of Allah’s Apostle (s); and if you practice the Sunna of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, who would ever be more deserved than the Prophet’s household? By Almighty Allah, if Wilayat (Islamic jurisprudential guardianship) were lain with them after the Prophet, ‘Amr (authority) would have been properly conveyed to the rightful. Caliphate does belong to Quraysh. O Mu‘awiya, fear from Allah! Here are ‘Abd Allah Ibn Dja‘far, ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Abbas, Hasan and Husayn, ‘Ali’s sons, and it is me, Zubayr’s son.
You are well aware of our positions!”
Warned ‘Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr.
‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Umar stated that caliphate was not those of Heraclitus or Kasra to be inherited from fathers.
“If it had been the case, I should have as a result secured the authority after my father. This caliphate not only belongs to Quraysh but also to those whom Muslims comply with and are more pious furthermore,”
he added.
Irrespective of securing allegiance for Yazid, in his response, Mu‘awiya uttered,“This belongs to ‘Abd Manaf’s descendants since they are from among the Prophet’s kins. People themselves aided Abu Bakr and ‘Umar to secure the power. Although they were brought up by no monarch or caliph, they had extremely admirable lifestyles and conduct. Monarchism was transferred to ‘Abd Manaf after them and it will remain perpetually among them until the Day of Judgment. And you! O sons of Zubayr and ‘Umar! Allah has deprived you from this authority.”
Afterwards he returned to Damascus.
According to some sources, at the very same meeting, somewhere else in his intimidating speech, Mu‘awiya had warned that if they did not swear allegiance, لأفعلن كذا وكذا“He would do so and so.”
Mu‘awiya told Imam Husayn (a),“I procrastinated this city’s allegiance owing to the fact that they are from among the kins of mine. If I could feel that there existed anyone else better than my son among Muhammad’s Umma (nation), I would neverever let him be picked out.”
Imam (a) who had been agitated for his remarks, accused Yazid of being debauchee and drinking wine.
Menacingly, Mu‘awiya warned him as saying,“Be cautious lest someone from Damascus (accompanying Mu‘awiya)
hear your voice.”
Later he threatened others concerning the people of Damascus.
‘Ayisha was among the oppossers.
Regarding the lawfulness of Yazid’s successorship Mu‘awiya told her,“It is a Divine destiny about Yazid. No one has the option. The nation has considered swearing allegiance to him as its duty and has sworn to him. Do you think they must breach their allegiance?”
Another reasoning on the part of Mu‘awiya vis-a-vis the opponents was the Imamate permit for an inferior over a superior. Addressing Imam Husayn (a) and a number of disciples and contrasting them with Yazid and qualifying him to be well acquainted with Kitab and Sunna, he stated that in the war of Dhat al-Salasil, Allah’s Apostle (s) had singled out ‘Amr Ibn ‘As as superior over Abu Bakr and ‘Umar and appointed him as the commander. Accordingly, if the Prophet (a) were a good model, such an action i.e the superiority permit of an inferior over a superior would certainly appear reasonable then. By the same token, they should concur with Yazid’s caliphate.
In return, Imam Husayn in his lengthy sermon alluded to the extorted right of his lineage after prophet’s demise as well as Yazid’s black records and added,“O Mu‘awiya! How can you reason out by what is already abrogated.”
Dissenting ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Umar, Mu‘awiya replied,“You have declared yourself that you can never go to bed while swearing allegiance is on your responsibility. This issue is divine destiny about Yazid and there is an option for noone. People have sworn allegiance to him.”
‘Abd Allah touching upon the predecessor’s manners pointed out,“The caliphs preceding you had surely have offsprings. Although theirs must have been for better than your son, they at no time did what you do about yours.”
‘Abd al-Rahman, Abu Bakr’s son, recommended this job be assigned to a council.
What else Mu‘awiya in his public speeche to dwellers of Medina vocalized was that Allah’s Messenger (s) did designate no successor to himself; howevere, Abu Bakr did and neither did ‘Umar behave like him. He assigned it to a six-member council. Inasmuch as neither Abu Bakr did like the Prophet nor ‘Umar like Abu Bakr, I am, therefore, able to do what they had never done both, I do designate my successor.
Another question Ibn Zubayr posed was whether it was credible to swear allegiance to him where as his father, Mu‘awiya, was alive. He voiced to Mu‘awiya that he would be ready to swear allegiance to his son provided that he abdicates himself. If he swore allegiance to his son while he himself is alive, whom should he abide by?
This problem was solved after a while though it was the starting-point of the process at that time. It is quoted from Ibn Zubayr that on the strength of the hadith, لا طاعة لمخلوق في معصية الخالق“No one is entitled to be obeyed while the creator was disobeyed”
he contradicted the allegiance to Yazid.
In order Mu‘awiya to allure a group of eminent opponents, he sent gifts, nevertheless, Husayn Ibn ‘Ali declined.
Being unable to flourish in Medina, he left it for Mecca. He guessed new schemes now. Mu‘awiya made those coming from various spots for pilgrimage come together and he proclaimed later that a few swore allegiance to him for Yazid privately. A number of people from Damascus with their swords sheathed out yelled out that have to do so openly, but Mu‘awiya made them silent. Climbing down the pulpit, he distributed a many present among them and set out for Damascus. Although those individuals were present at the assembly, they dare not deny. However, later they revealed that it has been naught but a trick and they had never sworn.
Since Mu‘awiya had not sent any present to the Hashimites, the ‘Abbassids intimidated him. That he would go around Damascus and stimulate people against him. Mu‘awiya had to concede and send
but Imam Husayn (a) declined them all once again.
A few years later, not merely he himself re-secured allegiance for Yazid but he also wrote to the governor of Medina to do so from people.“People are all conforming to these few ones such as Husayn (a), ‘Abd Allah Ibn Abi Bakr, ‘Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr as well as ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Umar and not a single one of them can be convinced to swear allegiance to me,”
wrote Sa‘id Ibn ‘As, the governor, to Mu‘awiya.
The dwellers of Damascus propounded the issue of inheritance and admitted it as a principle in caliphate. A poet had composed as follows,
فان تأتوا برملة أو بـــهند نبايعـها أميـرة مؤمنيـنا
أذا ما مات كسـرى قام كسرى نعـد ثـلاثـة متنـاسقينا
“Were Ramla or Hind introduced as the caliph, we would swear allegiance to her as Amira al-Mu‘minin (the Commanderess of the Believers) and if a Kasra passed away and another Kasra replaced him, they would be all three equal at our sight.”
And also ‘Abd Allah Ibn Hammam al-Saluli had composed for Yazid as,
تعزّوا يا بني حَرْب بِصَبْر فمن هذا الذي يرجو الخلُودا
تلقَّاها يزيدٌ عن أبيــه فخذها يا معـاوِي عن يزيدا
أديروها بني حرب عَلَيْكم ولاترموا بها الغرض البعيدا
“Soothe yourself with patience. Who does ever expect an eternal life in this world? Yazid inherited the caliphate from his father and you O Mu‘awiya Ibn Yazid assume it from your own father, Yazid. O Harb’s sons, do maintain the caliphate amongst yourselves and never relinguish it.”
What has been observed within the poems belonging to Umayya poets was that they have treated Umayya caliphs as the successors of Allah’s Messenger (s).
إن الوليد وليُّ عهد محمّد كلَّ المكارم بالمكارم يَشْتَري
“Walid being in the position of Muhammad’s successor responds with good), had composed Farazdaq regarding Walid Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik.”
It has been ignored that this approach was perfectly unknown for the disciple’s descendants and what ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Umar had asserted,“This caliphate is dissimilar to those of Heraclitus and Khusraw that anyone who departs a son of his replaces him”
.
‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn Abu Bakr also stated, “We desire to hear not a word about Roman’s tradition according which any Heraclitus passed away, another Heraclitus substituted him.
Here, it has been endowed with the narrations from those following the Divine Books as well in order to forebode the indubitability of Mu‘awiya’s and Yazid’s caliphate though it does not stand to reason whether such narrations have solely been manipulated at that time or the Umayya’s adherents had fabricated them later. A typical narration of Ka‘b al-Akhbar in light of Mu‘awiya’s caliphate has been subsequent to ‘Uthman’s assassination.
‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Amr Ibn ‘As famed for dealing with the books written by followers of the divine Books had conducted a survey of books in Christians’ churches in Damascus before he informed Ibn Zubayr, “In conformity with my research on books, you will claim caliphate, yet you are not a caliph but Yazid Ibn Mu‘awiya is. Also quoted from him is, ملك الارض المقدسة معاوية وابنه“Mu‘awiya and his son are the kings of the holy earth”
In course of such a process, counterfeited hadiths can be traced, as an instance,“The Holy Prophet had prophesied Mu‘awiya’s future caliphate.”
All endeavors made on the part of Mu‘awiya to stabilize Yazid’s position fulfilled whilst large numbers of those at odds in Iraq and Hidjaz still remained like fire under ashes.
It was mentioned that the dwellers of Damascus persisted on Yazid’s successorship and it was in view of the fact that first, Umayya Islam was predominant and the Umayya was deemed as the manifestation of Islam and secondly their benefits in comparison with those of Iraq necessitated to advocate the Umayya. Ultimately, they pressured Mu‘awiya, in his last days of life, into introducing his son. Making him wear the caliphate robe, Mu‘awiya officially appointed him as his successor.
In an account written to Yazid, appointing him as the next caliph after him, Mu‘awiya wrote,“Bear in mind, the Umayya along with the family of ‘Abd Shams must be granted priority over the Hashimites and so must the family of ‘Uthman over the family of Abi Turab as well as the descendants”
and in such a way the future policy for the Umayyads was specified by him.
While Mu‘awiya was expressing his regret and sorrow for shedding the blood of Hudjr Ibn ‘Adi and ‘Amr Ibn Hamiq under his breath, he resigned his shameful life after nineteen years and three months of rule in Radjab, 60 AH.
0%
Author: Rasul Ja'farian
