Kufan Political Alignments

8/10/2019 Kufan Political Alignments

1/23

Kufan Political Alignments and Their Background in the Mid-Seventh Century A.D.Author(s): Martin HindsSource: International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 2, No. 4 (Oct., 1971), pp. 346-367Published by: Cambridge University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/162722.

Accessed: 22/10/2014 09:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

International Journal of Middle East Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 162.89.0.21 on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:36:33 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/162722?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/162722?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup


2/23

Int.

J.

Middle East Stud. 2

(I97I),

346-367

Printed

in

Great

Britainnt.

J.

Middle East Stud. 2

(I97I),

346-367

Printed

in

Great

Britainnt.

J.

Middle East Stud. 2

(I97I),

346-367

Printed

in

Great

Britainnt.

J.

Middle East Stud. 2

(I97I),

346-367

Printed

in

Great

Britainnt.

J.

Middle East Stud. 2

(I97I),

346-367

Printed

in

Great

Britain

Martin Hinds

KUFAN POLITICAL ALIGNMENTS

AND

THEIR

BACKGROUND

IN

THE

MID-SEVENTH

CENTURY

A.D.

The period of the so-called Patriarchal Caliphs continues to be rich with

questions

which

can be

investigated

only

with material which often

seems

less

than

adequate.

Among

the

more

intriguing questions

are

those

connected

with

the

role of Kufa

and

the

emergence

there

of

the

political

alignments

with

which

representatives

both

of the

early

Umayyad

caliphs

and of the

anti-caliph

Ibn

al-Zubary

had later to

deal,

viz.

the

Khawarij,

the Shi'a and the

tribal

ashrdf.

The remarks

in this article

are intended to

present

a broad

picture

of

conclusions

reached

in

a

more

detailed

study

of the

formation

of

these

political

alignmentsI

-

conclusions which are based on evidence contained

in

the

earliest

Islamic historical sources available to us, notably those of al-Baladhuri, al-

Tabari,

Ibn

Sa'd,

Ibn A'tham

al-Kufi,

Khalifa

b.

Khayyat

and

Nasr b.

Muzahim

al-Minqari.2

I.

The

years

from

34/654-5

to

40/660-I

were a time of crisis

in

Arabia,

Egypt

and

the

Fertile

Crescent-a crisis which

began

with

the

dissension that

arose

under 'Uthman

and led to his

murder,

continued

with

civil war

between

'Ali

and

Mu'awiya,

and ended

with the

murder of

'Ali.

From

the time of

'Ali's death

we can discern at

Kufa

three broad

political

alignments,

whose

preceding

circumstances

it is

the

purpose

of this article

to examine:

the

Kha-

warij, who had been so named since the time of the confrontation at Siffin and

appeared

in

opposition

both

in

the time

of

'All

and

immediately

after;

the

Shi'a,

who

had

originally

been

'Ali's

supporters

and

were an

opposition

move-

ment

thereafter;

and tribal

leaders,

usually

termed

ashrdf al-qabd'il,

who

were

the intermediaries

in

the

official

power

structure

of

'Iraq

in the

early

Umayyad

I

The

early

history of

Islamic

schism

n

Iraq

(Ph.D.

thesis,

University

of

London

1969).

2

The

following

abbreviations are used: A'th.

=

Ibn

A'tham,

Kitab

al-futuh,

2

vols,

MS

Topkapi

Sarayl

(Ahmet III),

no.

2956;

BA/MS.

=

al-Baladhuri,

Ansdb

al-ashrdf

2

vols,

MS

Siileymaniye

Kiutuphanesi (Reisiilkiittap

Mustafa

Efendi),

nos.

597, 598;

BA.

v

=

al-Baladhuri,

Ansab

al-ashrdf

vol. V

[pp.

9I8-II27

of

BA/MS.I],

ed. S.

D. F.

Goitein

(Jerusalem, I936);

BF

=

al-Baladhuri,

Futuih

al-bulddn,

ed. M.

J.

de

Goeje

(Leiden,

i866);

IS.

=

Ibn

Sa'd,

Kitab

al-tabaqat

al-kabzr,

ed. E. Sachau et al.

(8

vols

Leiden,

1905-17);

Khal.

=

Khalifa

b.

Khayyat,

Tdirikh

vol.

I,

ed. A.

D. al-'Umari

(al-

Najaf,

1386/1967);

Tab.

=

al-Tabari,

Tdrzkhal-rusul

wa'l-muluk,

ed.

M.

J.

de

Goeje

et

al.,

3

series

(Leiden,

I879-I901);

WS.

=

al-Minqari, Waq'at

Siffin,

ed.

A. M.

Harun

(2nd.

ed.

Cairo,

1382/1962-3).

Martin Hinds


AND

THEIR

BACKGROUND

IN

THE

MID-SEVENTH

CENTURY

A.D.


questions

which

can be

investigated

only


seems

less

than

adequate.

Among

the

more


are

those

connected

with

the

role of Kufa

and

the

emergence

there

of

the

political

alignments

with

which

representatives

both

of the

early

Umayyad

caliphs

and of the

anti-caliph

Ibn

al-Zubary

had later to

deal,

viz.

the

Khawarij,

the Shi'a and the

tribal

ashrdf.

The remarks

in this article

are intended to

present

a broad

picture

of

conclusions

reached

in

a

more

detailed

study

of the

formation

of

these

political

alignmentsI

-


in

the

earliest


Tabari,

Ibn

Sa'd,

Ibn A'tham

al-Kufi,

Khalifa

b.

Khayyat

and

Nasr b.

Muzahim

al-Minqari.2

I.

The

years

from

34/654-5

to

40/660-I


in

Arabia,

Egypt

and

the

Fertile


began

with

the

dissension that

arose

under 'Uthman

and led to his

murder,

continued

with

civil war

between

'Ali

and

Mu'awiya,

and ended

with the

murder of

'Ali.

From

the time of

'Ali's death

we can discern at

Kufa

three broad

political

alignments,

whose

preceding

circumstances

it is

the

purpose

of this article

to examine:

the

Kha-


appeared

in

opposition

both

in

the time

of

'All

and

immediately

after;

the

Shi'a,

who

had

originally

been

'Ali's

supporters

and

were an

opposition

move-

ment

thereafter;

and tribal

leaders,

usually

termed

ashrdf al-qabd'il,

who

were

the intermediaries

in

the

official

power

structure

of

'Iraq

in the

early

Umayyad

I

The

early

history of

Islamic

schism

n

Iraq

(Ph.D.

thesis,

University

of

London

1969).

2

The

following


=

Ibn

A'tham,

Kitab

al-futuh,

2

vols,

MS

Topkapi

Sarayl

(Ahmet III),

no.

2956;

BA/MS.

=

al-Baladhuri,

Ansdb

al-ashrdf

2

vols,

MS

Siileymaniye


Mustafa

Efendi),

nos.

597, 598;

BA.

v

=

al-Baladhuri,

Ansab

al-ashrdf

vol. V

[pp.

9I8-II27

of

BA/MS.I],

ed. S.

D. F.

Goitein

(Jerusalem, I936);

BF

=

al-Baladhuri,

Futuih

al-bulddn,

ed. M.

J.

de

Goeje

(Leiden,

i866);

IS.

=

Ibn

Sa'd,

Kitab

al-tabaqat

al-kabzr,


(8

vols

Leiden,

1905-17);

Khal.

=

Khalifa

b.

Khayyat,

Tdirikh

vol.

I,

ed. A.

D. al-'Umari

(al-

Najaf,

1386/1967);

Tab.

=

al-Tabari,

Tdrzkhal-rusul

wa'l-muluk,

ed.

M.

J.

de

Goeje

et

al.,

3

series

(Leiden,

I879-I901);

WS.

=

al-Minqari, Waq'at

Siffin,

ed.

A. M.

Harun

(2nd.

ed.

Cairo,

1382/1962-3).

Martin Hinds


AND

THEIR

BACKGROUND

IN

THE

MID-SEVENTH

CENTURY

A.D.


questions

which

can be

investigated

only


seems

less

than

adequate.

Among

the

more


are

those

connected

with

the

role of Kufa

and

the

emergence

there

of

the

political

alignments

with

which

representatives

both

of the

early

Umayyad

caliphs

and of the

anti-caliph

Ibn

al-Zubary

had later to

deal,

viz.

the

Khawarij,

the Shi'a and the

tribal

ashrdf.

The remarks

in this article

are intended to

present

a broad

picture

of

conclusions

reached

in

a

more

detailed

study

of the

formation

of

these

political

alignmentsI

-


in

the

earliest


Tabari,

Ibn

Sa'd,

Ibn A'tham

al-Kufi,

Khalifa

b.

Khayyat

and

Nasr b.

Muzahim

al-Minqari.2

I.

The

years

from

34/654-5

to

40/660-I


in

Arabia,

Egypt

and

the

Fertile


began

with

the

dissension that

arose

under 'Uthman

and led to his

murder,

continued

with

civil war

between

'Ali

and

Mu'awiya,

and ended

with the

murder of

'Ali.

From

the time of

'Ali's death

we can discern at

Kufa

three broad

political

alignments,

whose

preceding

circumstances

it is

the

purpose

of this article

to examine:

the

Kha-


appeared

in

opposition

both

in

the time

of

'All

and

immediately

after;

the

Shi'a,

who

had

originally

been

'Ali's

supporters

and

were an

opposition

move-

ment

thereafter;

and tribal

leaders,

usually

termed

ashrdf al-qabd'il,

who

were

the intermediaries

in

the

official

power

structure

of

'Iraq

in the

early

Umayyad

I

The

early

history of

Islamic

schism

n

Iraq

(Ph.D.

thesis,

University

of

London

1969).

2

The

following


=

Ibn

A'tham,

Kitab

al-futuh,

2

vols,

MS

Topkapi

Sarayl

(Ahmet III),

no.

2956;

BA/MS.

=

al-Baladhuri,

Ansdb

al-ashrdf

2

vols,

MS

Siileymaniye


Mustafa

Efendi),

nos.

597, 598;

BA.

v

=

al-Baladhuri,

Ansab

al-ashrdf

vol. V

[pp.

9I8-II27

of

BA/MS.I],

ed. S.

D. F.

Goitein

(Jerusalem, I936);

BF

=

al-Baladhuri,

Futuih

al-bulddn,

ed. M.

J.

de

Goeje

(Leiden,

i866);

IS.

=

Ibn

Sa'd,

Kitab

al-tabaqat

al-kabzr,


(8

vols

Leiden,

1905-17);

Khal.

=

Khalifa

b.

Khayyat,

Tdirikh

vol.

I,

ed. A.

D. al-'Umari

(al-

Najaf,

1386/1967);

Tab.

=

al-Tabari,

Tdrzkhal-rusul

wa'l-muluk,

ed.

M.

J.

de

Goeje

et

al.,

3

series

(Leiden,

I879-I901);

WS.

=

al-Minqari, Waq'at

Siffin,

ed.

A. M.

Harun

(2nd.

ed.

Cairo,

1382/1962-3).

Martin Hinds


AND

THEIR

BACKGROUND

IN

THE

MID-SEVENTH

CENTURY

A.D.


questions

which

can be

investigated

only


seems

less

than

adequate.

Among

the

more


are

those

connected

with

the

role of Kufa

and

the

emergence

there

of

the

political

alignments

with

which

representatives

both

of the

early

Umayyad

caliphs

and of the

anti-caliph

Ibn

al-Zubary

had later to

deal,

viz.

the

Khawarij,

the Shi'a and the

tribal

ashrdf.

The remarks

in this article

are intended to

present

a broad

picture

of

conclusions

reached

in

a

more

detailed

study

of the

formation

of

these

political

alignmentsI

-


in

the

earliest


Tabari,

Ibn

Sa'd,

Ibn A'tham

al-Kufi,

Khalifa

b.

Khayyat

and

Nasr b.

Muzahim

al-Minqari.2

I.

The

years

from

34/654-5

to

40/660-I


in

Arabia,

Egypt

and

the

Fertile


began

with

the

dissension that

arose

under 'Uthman

and led to his

murder,

continued

with

civil war

between

'Ali

and

Mu'awiya,

and ended

with the

murder of

'Ali.

From

the time of

'Ali's death

we can discern at

Kufa

three broad

political

alignments,

whose

preceding

circumstances

it is

the

purpose

of this article

to examine:

the

Kha-


appeared

in

opposition

both

in

the time

of

'All

and

immediately

after;

the

Shi'a,

who

had

originally

been

'Ali's

supporters

and

were an

opposition

move-

ment

thereafter;

and tribal

leaders,

usually

termed

ashrdf al-qabd'il,

who

were

the intermediaries

in

the

official

power

structure

of

'Iraq

in the

early

Umayyad

I

The

early

history of

Islamic

schism

n

Iraq

(Ph.D.

thesis,

University

of

London

1969).

2

The

following


=

Ibn

A'tham,

Kitab

al-futuh,

2

vols,

MS

Topkapi

Sarayl

(Ahmet III),

no.

2956;

BA/MS.

=

al-Baladhuri,

Ansdb

al-ashrdf

2

vols,

MS

Siileymaniye


Mustafa

Efendi),

nos.

597, 598;

BA.

v

=

al-Baladhuri,

Ansab

al-ashrdf

vol. V

[pp.

9I8-II27

of

BA/MS.I],

ed. S.

D. F.

Goitein

(Jerusalem, I936);

BF

=

al-Baladhuri,

Futuih

al-bulddn,

ed. M.

J.

de

Goeje

(Leiden,

i866);

IS.

=

Ibn

Sa'd,

Kitab

al-tabaqat

al-kabzr,


(8

vols

Leiden,

1905-17);

Khal.

=

Khalifa

b.

Khayyat,

Tdirikh

vol.

I,

ed. A.

D. al-'Umari

(al-

Najaf,

1386/1967);

Tab.

=

al-Tabari,

Tdrzkhal-rusul

wa'l-muluk,

ed.

M.

J.

de

Goeje

et

al.,

3

series

(Leiden,

I879-I901);

WS.

=

al-Minqari, Waq'at

Siffin,

ed.

A. M.

Harun

(2nd.

ed.

Cairo,

1382/1962-3).

Martin Hinds


AND

THEIR

BACKGROUND

IN

THE

MID-SEVENTH

CENTURY

A.D.


questions

which

can be

investigated

only


seems

less

than

adequate.

Among

the

more


are

those

connected

with

the

role of Kufa

and

the

emergence

there

of

the

political

alignments

with

which

representatives

both

of the

early

Umayyad

caliphs

and of the

anti-caliph

Ibn

al-Zubary

had later to

deal,

viz.

the

Khawarij,

the Shi'a and the

tribal

ashrdf.

The remarks

in this article

are intended to

present

a broad

picture

of

conclusions

reached

in

a

more

detailed

study

of the

formation

of

these

political

alignmentsI

-


in

the

earliest


Tabari,

Ibn

Sa'd,

Ibn A'tham

al-Kufi,

Khalifa

b.

Khayyat

and

Nasr b.

Muzahim

al-Minqari.2

I.

The

years

from

34/654-5

to

40/660-I


in

Arabia,

Egypt

and

the

Fertile


began

with

the

dissension that

arose

under 'Uthman

and led to his

murder,

continued

with

civil war

between

'Ali

and

Mu'awiya,

and ended

with the

murder of

'Ali.

From

the time of

'Ali's death

we can discern at

Kufa

three broad

political

alignments,

whose

preceding

circumstances

it is

the

purpose

of this article

to examine:

the

Kha-


appeared

in

opposition

both

in

the time

of

'All

and

immediately

after;

the

Shi'a,

who

had

originally

been

'Ali's

supporters

and

were an

opposition

move-

ment

thereafter;

and tribal

leaders,

usually

termed

ashrdf al-qabd'il,

who

were

the intermediaries

in

the

official

power

structure

of

'Iraq

in the

early

Umayyad

I

The

early

history of

Islamic

schism

n

Iraq

(Ph.D.

thesis,

University

of

London

1969).

2

The

following


=

Ibn

A'tham,

Kitab

al-futuh,

2

vols,

MS

Topkapi

Sarayl

(Ahmet III),

no.

2956;

BA/MS.

=

al-Baladhuri,

Ansdb

al-ashrdf

2

vols,

MS

Siileymaniye


Mustafa

Efendi),

nos.

597, 598;

BA.

v

=

al-Baladhuri,

Ansab

al-ashrdf

vol. V

[pp.

9I8-II27

of

BA/MS.I],

ed. S.

D. F.

Goitein

(Jerusalem, I936);

BF

=

al-Baladhuri,

Futuih

al-bulddn,

ed. M.

J.

de

Goeje

(Leiden,

i866);

IS.

=

Ibn

Sa'd,

Kitab

al-tabaqat

al-kabzr,


(8

vols

Leiden,

1905-17);

Khal.

=

Khalifa

b.

Khayyat,

Tdirikh

vol.

I,

ed. A.

D. al-'Umari

(al-

Najaf,

1386/1967);

Tab.

=

al-Tabari,

Tdrzkhal-rusul

wa'l-muluk,

ed.

M.

J.

de

Goeje

et

al.,

3

series

(Leiden,

I879-I901);

WS.

=

al-Minqari, Waq'at

Siffin,

ed.

A. M.

Harun

(2nd.

ed.

Cairo,

1382/1962-3).

34646464646

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/23

Kufan political alignments 347ufan political alignments 347ufan political alignments 347ufan political alignments 347ufan political alignments 347

period.

The

regime

in

'Iraq

from the time of

Mu'awiya

and

Ziyad

until the

time of

al-Hajjaj

rested

on a

tribal

organization

in

which tribal leaders were

supposed

to

support,

and were in turn

supported by,

the

government.

The

pre-Islamic

clan

organization

was

the essential

basis,

but

in

the

changed

environ-

ment

of a central

government

and

the

garrison

towns

of Kufa

and Basra.

Fighting

men

(muqdtila)

were

organized

in tribal

groups

which in turn

made

up

the

arbd'

and

akhmds

of Kufa and

Basra;

each tribal

group

was made

up

of

clans,

and the units known

as

'irdfdt

were

straight-forward

subdivisions

of

these.

The

ashrdf

al-qabd'il

were the 'establishment' of

Iraq,

and

central autho-

rity,

whether

Umayyad

or

Zubayrid,

was

concerned

to

exercise

power

both

over

and

through

them. This state of affairs

changed

only

with the

appointment

of al-Hajjaj, the introduction of Syrian troops into 'Iraq and the revolt of the

most

prominent

of the

ashrdf

al-qabdail,

'Abd al-Rahman b. Muhammad

b.

al-Ash'ath

b.

Qays

al-Kindi.

What then

of the

Khawarij

and the Shi'a in the

early

Umayyad period?

The

main

conclusion

to

which

this

article seeks to

point

is that

Khariji

and

Shi'i

opposition

of

that

period

was

not so much directed

against

central

authority

per

se as

against

the

authority

of

the tribal leaders

through

whom

that

central

authority

was exercised.

Their

opposition

differed

in

that at that

stage

the

Khawarij

were

essentially

reactionaries and the

Shi'is

revolutionaries,

but

they

were at one in that they were advocates of an Islamic social order which had no

place

for the traditional

type

of tribal

leadership.

Their

ideas of the form

that this

Islamic social order should

take

naturally

differed;

the

Khawarij

harked

back

to the

disorganized

days

of

'Umar,

while

the Shi'a

idealized the

egalitarian

policy

of 'All and

gradually

evolved the notion of an

infallible

imam.

The for-

mative

stages

of

each

were

conditioned

by

their

opposition

to

the

existing

tribal

order.

In the

case of the

Khawarij,

it

can

be noted that the

very

word

khadriji

s

defined

as

'one

who

goes

out and

acquires

sharaf

on his own

account,

without

his

having possessed

a

long-standing

[sharaf]'.'

In

traditional

tribal

terms,

sharaf reposed in 'one who has three consecutive forbears as leaders and is

himself

the

fourth;

the

bayt

of a

tribe

(qabila) [then

rests]

in

him'.2 In

these

terms

'

Khawarij' simply

meant

people

who claimed

sharaf

but did

not

possess

tribal

sharaf

according

to

traditional

criteria;

what the

Khawarij

did in

fact

claim

was

an

'Islamic'

sharaf

and the

attendant

privileges

accorded to

'Iraqi early-

comers in

the time

of

'Umar,

and it

was

in

defence

of

these that

they

clashed

with

government-backed

tribal leaders.

The Shi'a

in

the

early Umayyad

period

consisted

(i)

of some

Kufan

early-

comers

who had

been

among

'Ali's

supporters

but

subsequently

had

no

role

Ibn

Manzur,

Lisdn

al-'arab

(Cairo,

1300-7)

vol.

III,

p.

74,

where the sense is further

illustrated

in

a

line

by

al-Kuthayyir:

aba

Marwana

lasta

bi-kharijiyyi //wa-laysa

qadim

majdika

bi'ntihadl.

2

al-Isfahani,

Kitdb

al-ag_hani

Cairo,

1285),

vol.

xvI,

p.

io6

(cited

by

W. W.

Rajkow-

ski, Early

Shi'ism

in

Iraq

(Ph.D. thesis,

University

of

London,

1955),

p.

i6).

period.

The

regime

in

'Iraq

from the time of

Mu'awiya

and

Ziyad

until the

time of

al-Hajjaj

rested

on a

tribal

organization

in


supposed

to

support,

and were in turn

supported by,

the

government.

The

pre-Islamic

clan

organization

was

the essential

basis,

but

in

the

changed

environ-

ment

of a central

government

and

the

garrison

towns

of Kufa

and Basra.

Fighting

men

(muqdtila)

were

organized

in tribal

groups

which in turn

made

up

the

arbd'

and

akhmds

of Kufa and

Basra;

each tribal

group

was made

up

of

clans,

and the units known

as

'irdfdt

were

straight-forward

subdivisions

of

these.

The

ashrdf

al-qabd'il


Iraq,

and

central autho-

rity,

whether

Umayyad

or

Zubayrid,

was

concerned

to

exercise

power

both

over

and

through


changed

only

with the

appointment


most

prominent

of the

ashrdf

al-qabdail,


b.

al-Ash'ath

b.

Qays

al-Kindi.

What then

of the

Khawarij


early

Umayyad period?

The

main

conclusion

to

which

this

article seeks to

point

is that

Khariji

and

Shi'i

opposition

of

that

period

was


against

central

authority

per

se as

against

the

authority

of

the tribal leaders

through

whom

that

central

authority

was exercised.

Their

opposition

differed

in

that at that

stage

the

Khawarij

were

essentially


Shi'is

revolutionaries,

but

they


place

for the traditional

type

of tribal

leadership.

Their

ideas of the form

that this


take

naturally

differed;

the

Khawarij

harked

back

to the

disorganized

days

of

'Umar,

while

the Shi'a

idealized the

egalitarian

policy

of 'All and

gradually


infallible

imam.

The for-

mative

stages

of

each

were

conditioned

by

their

opposition

to

the

existing

tribal

order.

In the

case of the

Khawarij,

it

can

be noted that the

very

word

khadriji

s

defined

as

'one

who

goes

out and

acquires

sharaf

on his own

account,

without

his

having possessed

a

long-standing

[sharaf]'.'

In

traditional

tribal

terms,


himself

the

fourth;

the

bayt

of a

tribe

(qabila) [then

rests]

in

him'.2 In

these

terms

'

Khawarij' simply

meant

people

who claimed

sharaf

but did

not

possess

tribal

sharaf

according

to

traditional

criteria;

what the

Khawarij

did in

fact

claim

was

an

'Islamic'

sharaf

and the

attendant

privileges

accorded to

'Iraqi early-

comers in

the time

of

'Umar,

and it

was

in

defence

of

these that

they

clashed

with

government-backed

tribal leaders.

The Shi'a

in

the

early Umayyad

period

consisted

(i)

of some

Kufan

early-

comers

who had

been

among

'Ali's

supporters

but

subsequently

had

no

role

Ibn

Manzur,

Lisdn

al-'arab

(Cairo,

1300-7)

vol.

III,

p.

74,


illustrated

in

a

line

by

al-Kuthayyir:

aba

Marwana

lasta


qadim

majdika

bi'ntihadl.

2

al-Isfahani,

Kitdb

al-ag_hani

Cairo,

1285),

vol.

xvI,

p.

io6

(cited

by

W. W.

Rajkow-

ski, Early

Shi'ism

in

Iraq

(Ph.D. thesis,

University

of

London,

1955),

p.

i6).

period.

The

regime

in

'Iraq

from the time of

Mu'awiya

and

Ziyad

until the

time of

al-Hajjaj

rested

on a

tribal

organization

in


supposed

to

support,

and were in turn

supported by,

the

government.

The

pre-Islamic

clan

organization

was

the essential

basis,

but

in

the

changed

environ-

ment

of a central

government

and

the

garrison

towns

of Kufa

and Basra.

Fighting

men

(muqdtila)

were

organized

in tribal

groups

which in turn

made

up

the

arbd'

and

akhmds

of Kufa and

Basra;

each tribal

group

was made

up

of

clans,

and the units known

as

'irdfdt

were

straight-forward

subdivisions

of

these.

The

ashrdf

al-qabd'il


Iraq,

and

central autho-

rity,

whether

Umayyad

or

Zubayrid,

was

concerned

to

exercise

power

both

over

and

through


changed

only

with the

appointment


most

prominent

of the

ashrdf

al-qabdail,


b.

al-Ash'ath

b.

Qays

al-Kindi.

What then

of the

Khawarij


early

Umayyad period?

The

main

conclusion

to

which

this

article seeks to

point

is that

Khariji

and

Shi'i

opposition

of

that

period

was


against

central

authority

per

se as

against

the

authority

of

the tribal leaders

through

whom

that

central

authority

was exercised.

Their

opposition

differed

in

that at that

stage

the

Khawarij

were

essentially


Shi'is

revolutionaries,

but

they


place

for the traditional

type

of tribal

leadership.

Their

ideas of the form

that this


take

naturally

differed;

the

Khawarij

harked

back

to the

disorganized

days

of

'Umar,

while

the Shi'a

idealized the

egalitarian

policy

of 'All and

gradually


infallible

imam.

The for-

mative

stages

of

each

were

conditioned

by

their

opposition

to

the

existing

tribal

order.

In the

case of the

Khawarij,

it

can

be noted that the

very

word

khadriji

s

defined

as

'one

who

goes

out and

acquires

sharaf

on his own

account,

without

his

having possessed

a

long-standing

[sharaf]'.'

In

traditional

tribal

terms,


himself

the

fourth;

the

bayt

of a

tribe

(qabila) [then

rests]

in

him'.2 In

these

terms

'

Khawarij' simply

meant

people

who claimed

sharaf

but did

not

possess

tribal

sharaf

according

to

traditional

criteria;

what the

Khawarij

did in

fact

claim

was

an

'Islamic'

sharaf

and the

attendant

privileges

accorded to

'Iraqi early-

comers in

the time

of

'Umar,

and it

was

in

defence

of

these that

they

clashed

with

government-backed

tribal leaders.

The Shi'a

in

the

early Umayyad

period

consisted

(i)

of some

Kufan

early-

comers

who had

been

among

'Ali's

supporters

but

subsequently

had

no

role

Ibn

Manzur,

Lisdn

al-'arab

(Cairo,

1300-7)

vol.

III,

p.

74,


illustrated

in

a

line

by

al-Kuthayyir:

aba

Marwana

lasta


qadim

majdika

bi'ntihadl.

2

al-Isfahani,

Kitdb

al-ag_hani

Cairo,

1285),

vol.

xvI,

p.

io6

(cited

by

W. W.

Rajkow-

ski, Early

Shi'ism

in

Iraq

(Ph.D. thesis,

University

of

London,

1955),

p.

i6).

period.

The

regime

in

'Iraq

from the time of

Mu'awiya

and

Ziyad

until the

time of

al-Hajjaj

rested

on a

tribal

organization

in


supposed

to

support,

and were in turn

supported by,

the

government.

The

pre-Islamic

clan

organization

was

the essential

basis,

but

in

the

changed

environ-

ment

of a central

government

and

the

garrison

towns

of Kufa

and Basra.

Fighting

men

(muqdtila)

were

organized

in tribal

groups

which in turn

made

up

the

arbd'

and

akhmds

of Kufa and

Basra;

each tribal

group

was made

up

of

clans,

and the units known

as

'irdfdt

were

straight-forward

subdivisions

of

these.

The

ashrdf

al-qabd'il


Iraq,

and

central autho-

rity,

whether

Umayyad

or

Zubayrid,

was

concerned

to

exercise

power

both

over

and

through


changed

only

with the

appointment


most

prominent

of the

ashrdf

al-qabdail,


b.

al-Ash'ath

b.

Qays

al-Kindi.

What then

of the

Khawarij


early

Umayyad period?

The

main

conclusion

to

which

this

article seeks to

point

is that

Khariji

and

Shi'i

opposition

of

that

period

was


against

central

authority

per

se as

against

the

authority

of

the tribal leaders

through

whom

that

central

authority

was exercised.

Their

opposition

differed

in

that at that

stage

the

Khawarij

were

essentially


Shi'is

revolutionaries,

but

they


place

for the traditional

type

of tribal

leadership.

Their

ideas of the form

that this


take

naturally

differed;

the

Khawarij

harked

back

to the

disorganized

days

of

'Umar,

while

the Shi'a

idealized the

egalitarian

policy

of 'All and

gradually


infallible

imam.

The for-

mative

stages

of

each

were

conditioned

by

their

opposition

to

the

existing

tribal

order.

In the

case of the

Khawarij,

it

can

be noted that the

very

word

khadriji

s

defined

as

'one

who

goes

out and

acquires

sharaf

on his own

account,

without

his

having possessed

a

long-standing

[sharaf]'.'

In

traditional

tribal

terms,


himself

the

fourth;

the

bayt

of a

tribe

(qabila) [then

rests]

in

him'.2 In

these

terms

'

Khawarij' simply

meant

people

who claimed

sharaf

but did

not

possess

tribal

sharaf

according

to

traditional

criteria;

what the

Khawarij

did in

fact

claim

was

an

'Islamic'

sharaf

and the

attendant

privileges

accorded to

'Iraqi early-

comers in

the time

of

'Umar,

and it

was

in

defence

of

these that

they

clashed

with

government-backed

tribal leaders.

The Shi'a

in

the

early Umayyad

period

consisted

(i)

of some

Kufan

early-

comers

who had

been

among

'Ali's

supporters

but

subsequently

had

no

role

Ibn

Manzur,

Lisdn

al-'arab

(Cairo,

1300-7)

vol.

III,

p.

74,


illustrated

in

a

line

by

al-Kuthayyir:

aba

Marwana

lasta


qadim

majdika

bi'ntihadl.

2

al-Isfahani,

Kitdb

al-ag_hani

Cairo,

1285),

vol.

xvI,

p.

io6

(cited

by

W. W.

Rajkow-

ski, Early

Shi'ism

in

Iraq

(Ph.D. thesis,

University

of

London,

1955),

p.

i6).

period.

The

regime

in

'Iraq

from the time of

Mu'awiya

and

Ziyad

until the

time of

al-Hajjaj

rested

on a

tribal

organization

in


supposed

to

support,

and were in turn

supported by,

the

government.

The

pre-Islamic

clan

organization

was

the essential

basis,

but

in

the

changed

environ-

ment

of a central

government

and

the

garrison

towns

of Kufa

and Basra.

Fighting

men

(muqdtila)

were

organized

in tribal

groups

which in turn

made

up

the

arbd'

and

akhmds

of Kufa and

Basra;

each tribal

group

was made

up

of

clans,

and the units known

as

'irdfdt

were

straight-forward

subdivisions

of

these.

The

ashrdf

al-qabd'il


Iraq,

and

central autho-

rity,

whether

Umayyad

or

Zubayrid,

was

concerned

to

exercise

power

both

over

and

through


changed

only

with the

appointment


most

prominent

of the

ashrdf

al-qabdail,


b.

al-Ash'ath

b.

Qays

al-Kindi.

What then

of the

Khawarij


early

Umayyad period?

The

main

conclusion

to

which

this

article seeks to

point

is that

Khariji

and

Shi'i

opposition

of

that

period

was


against

central

authority

per

se as

against

the

authority

of

the tribal leaders

through

whom

that

central

authority

was exercised.

Their

opposition

differed

in

that at that

stage

the

Khawarij

were

essentially


Shi'is

revolutionaries,

but

they


place

for the traditional

type

of tribal

leadership.

Their

ideas of the form

that this


take

naturally

differed;

the

Khawarij

harked

back

to the

disorganized

days

of

'Umar,

while

the Shi'a

idealized the

egalitarian

policy

of 'All and

gradually


infallible

imam.

The for-

mative

stages

of

each

were

conditioned

by

their

opposition

to

the

existing

tribal

order.

In the

case of the

Khawarij,

it

can

be noted that the

very

word

khadriji

s

defined

as

'one

who

goes

out and

acquires

sharaf

on his own

account,

without

his

having possessed

a

long-standing

[sharaf]'.'

In

traditional

tribal

terms,


himself

the

fourth;

the

bayt

of a

tribe

(qabila) [then

rests]

in

him'.2 In

these

terms

'

Khawarij' simply

meant

people

who claimed

sharaf

but did

not

possess

tribal

sharaf

according

to

traditional

criteria;

what the

Khawarij

did in

fact

claim

was

an

'Islamic'

sharaf

and the

attendant

privileges

accorded to

'Iraqi early-

comers in

the time

of

'Umar,

and it

was

in

defence

of

these that

they

clashed

with

government-backed

tribal leaders.

The Shi'a

in

the

early Umayyad

period

consisted

(i)

of some

Kufan

early-

comers

who had

been

among

'Ali's

supporters

but

subsequently

had

no

role

Ibn

Manzur,

Lisdn

al-'arab

(Cairo,

1300-7)

vol.

III,

p.

74,


illustrated

in

a

line

by

al-Kuthayyir:

aba

Marwana

lasta


qadim

majdika

bi'ntihadl.

2

al-Isfahani,

Kitdb

al-ag_hani

Cairo,

1285),

vol.

xvI,

p.

io6

(cited

by

W. W.

Rajkow-

ski, Early

Shi'ism

in

Iraq

(Ph.D. thesis,

University

of

London,

1955),

p.

i6).



4/23

348

Martin Hinds

348

Martin Hinds

348

Martin Hinds

348

Martin Hinds

348

Martin Hinds

to

play

in the

government-backed

tribal

organization

(e.g.

IHujr

b.

'Adl

al-

Kindi,

who

was

totally

eclipsed by

Muhammad b.

al-Ash'ath

al-Kindi),

and

(ii)

predominantly

of newcomer

tribesmen,

many

of

whom

had

not

reached

Kfifa

until

the time

of

'Ali

or

later,

who resisted

the

authority

of

the established

tribal

leadership

in the

hope

of

bettering

their condition.

Certain

Kindi,

Ham-

dani

and

Bajali groups

who

first

emerge

as

'Ali's

most zealous

supporters

re-

emerge

as

supporters

of

Hujr

b.

'Adi,

al-Husayn

b.

'Ali

and

al-Mukhtar

b.

Abi

'Ubayd.

In the

extremely

detailed,

almost

step-by-step

account

by

Abu

Mikhnaf of the

victory

of al-Mukhtar

over

the tribal

leaders,'

it

becomes

abundantly

clear that al-Mukhtar's

Kufan

support

was

in

the

tribaljabbdnas

and

that

the tribal leaders themselves

lived

in

Kufa

proper.

Now whatever

the

jabbdnas

had been at an earlier stage of the evolution of the city of Kufa - whether

graveyards

or

simply open

spaces

for the

grazing

and

watering

of

animals- it is

plain

that

by

that

stage they

had

been built

upon

as more

people

settled

at

Kufa;

they

had

been

the

obvious,

indeed the

only, places

where

newcomers

during

the

previous

twenty

odd

years

had been able to settle. When al-Mukhtar

revolted,

the

tribal leaders

went out

and

unsuccessfully

tried

to take control

of

their

respective

jabbdnas;

thereafter

they

were

concerned

to

prevent

the

Shi'a

from

entering

'old'

Kufa,

as the attention

paid

by

Abu Mikhnaf to

fighting

where

the

streets

debouched

(afwdh

al-sikak)

shows.2 When

they

entered 'old'

Kffa,

the Shi'a besieged the tribal leaders in the citadel. Their shortlived victory was

one of

rebellious

tribesmen

over

the established

tribal

leadership.

The

important

point

about

al-Mukhtar's

famous

rantings

was

that

they

foretold

a

collapse

of

the

established

tribal

leadership

and

a redistribution

of wealth.3

In the

early Umayyad period,

then,

the social

order at

Kufa,

and

elsewhere,

was

essentially

an order

of clans and

tribes,

rendered

different from the

pre-

Islamic

order

only

in

so

far

as

central

authority

and

garrison

town

arrangements

were

conducive

to

an

unprecedented

cohesion.

This

tribal

order was

fostered

by

Mu'awiya

as

a

basic feature

of the

Umayyad

power

structure. With it

came the

end of a short-lived attempt in the period of the Patriarchal Caliphs to promote

a

different

kind of

social

order.

To

this

period

we now

turn,

beginning

with

some

general

remarks

about

the

caliphate

of

'Umar.

II.

It is clear

from

'Umar's actions

that

his

overriding

political

aim

was

the

preservation

of

the Medinan

hegemony

set

up

by

Muhammad

and

maintained

by

Abu

Bakr

in

the

face

of

the serious threat

posed

by

the ridda leaders. He

sought

to achieve

this

purpose

by

vesting leadership

and other

powers

in those

whose

loyalty

was

to,

and

whose

interests

lay

in,

the

preservation

of that

hege-

mony;

hence

the

prominent

role

played

by

sahdba,

Ansar

and others

possessed

of Islamic

sdbiqa (priority

or

precedence) during

his

caliphate.

He

sought

to

'

Tab.

II,

pp.

613

ff; BA.v, pp. 224

ff;

A'th.

I,

fols.

226B

ff.,

II,

fols.

i B

ff.

2

Tab.

II,

p.

626;

A'th.

II. fol.

3

B.

Note that

BA.v,

p.

225

refers also to sikak

al-umara'

within

'old'

Kuifa.

3

BA.

v,

pp.

235-6;

A'th.

I,

fol.

236

A,

11,

ol.

5

A.

to

play

in the

government-backed

tribal

organization

(e.g.

IHujr

b.

'Adl

al-

Kindi,

who

was

totally

eclipsed by

Muhammad b.

al-Ash'ath

al-Kindi),

and

(ii)

predominantly

of newcomer

tribesmen,

many

of

whom

had

not

reached

Kfifa

until

the time

of

'Ali

or

later,

who resisted

the

authority

of

the established

tribal

leadership

in the

hope

of

bettering

their condition.

Certain

Kindi,

Ham-

dani

and

Bajali groups

who

first

emerge

as

'Ali's

most zealous

supporters

re-

emerge

as

supporters

of

Hujr

b.

'Adi,

al-Husayn

b.

'Ali

and

al-Mukhtar

b.

Abi

'Ubayd.

In the

extremely

detailed,

almost

step-by-step

account

by

Abu

Mikhnaf of the

victory

of al-Mukhtar

over

the tribal

leaders,'

it

becomes

abundantly


Kufan

support

was

in

the

tribaljabbdnas

and

that


lived

in

Kufa

proper.

Now whatever

the

jabbdnas


graveyards

or

simply open

spaces

for the

grazing

and

watering

of

animals- it is

plain

that

by

that

stage they

had

been built

upon

as more

people

settled

at

Kufa;

they

had

been

the

obvious,

indeed the

only, places

where

newcomers

during

the

previous

twenty

odd

years


revolted,

the

tribal leaders

went out

and

unsuccessfully

tried

to take control

of

their

respective

jabbdnas;

thereafter

they

were

concerned

to

prevent

the

Shi'a

from

entering

'old'

Kufa,

as the attention

paid

by

Abu Mikhnaf to

fighting

where

the

streets

debouched

(afwdh

al-sikak)

shows.2 When

they

entered 'old'

Kffa,


one of

rebellious

tribesmen

over

the established

tribal

leadership.

The

important

point

about

al-Mukhtar's

famous

rantings

was

that

they

foretold

a

collapse

of

the

established

tribal

leadership

and

a redistribution

of wealth.3

In the


then,

the social

order at

Kufa,

and

elsewhere,

was

essentially

an order

of clans and

tribes,

rendered

different from the

pre-

Islamic

order

only

in

so

far

as

central

authority

and

garrison

town

arrangements

were

conducive

to

an

unprecedented

cohesion.

This

tribal

order was

fostered

by

Mu'awiya

as

a

basic feature

of the

Umayyad

power

structure. With it

came the


a

different

kind of

social

order.

To

this

period

we now

turn,

beginning

with

some

general

remarks

about

the

caliphate

of

'Umar.

II.

It is clear

from

'Umar's actions

that

his

overriding

political

aim

was

the

preservation

of

the Medinan

hegemony

set

up

by

Muhammad

and

maintained

by

Abu

Bakr

in

the

face

of

the serious threat

posed

by


sought

to achieve

this

purpose

by

vesting leadership

and other

powers

in those

whose

loyalty

was

to,

and

whose

interests

lay

in,

the

preservation

of that

hege-

mony;

hence

the

prominent

role

played

by

sahdba,

Ansar

and others

possessed

of Islamic

sdbiqa (priority

or

precedence) during

his

caliphate.

He

sought

to

'

Tab.

II,

pp.

613

ff; BA.v, pp. 224

ff;

A'th.

I,

fols.

226B

ff.,

II,

fols.

i B

ff.

2

Tab.

II,

p.

626;

A'th.

II. fol.

3

B.

Note that

BA.v,

p.

225


al-umara'

within

'old'

Kuifa.

3

BA.

v,

pp.

235-6;

A'th.

I,

fol.

236

A,

11,

ol.

5

A.

to

play

in the

government-backed

tribal

organization

(e.g.

IHujr

b.

'Adl

al-

Kindi,

who

was

totally

eclipsed by

Muhammad b.

al-Ash'ath

al-Kindi),

and

(ii)

predominantly

of newcomer

tribesmen,

many

of

whom

had

not

reached

Kfifa

until

the time

of

'Ali

or

later,

who resisted

the

authority

of

the established

tribal

leadership

in the

hope

of

bettering

their condition.

Certain

Kindi,

Ham-

dani

and

Bajali groups

who

first

emerge

as

'Ali's

most zealous

supporters

re-

emerge

as

supporters

of

Hujr

b.

'Adi,

al-Husayn

b.

'Ali

and

al-Mukhtar

b.

Abi

'Ubayd.

In the

extremely

detailed,

almost

step-by-step

account

by

Abu

Mikhnaf of the

victory

of al-Mukhtar

over

the tribal

leaders,'

it

becomes

abundantly


Kufan

support

was

in

the

tribaljabbdnas

and

that


lived

in

Kufa

proper.

Now whatever

the

jabbdnas


graveyards

or

simply open

spaces

for the

grazing

and

watering

of

animals- it is

plain

that

by

that

stage they

had

been built

upon

as more

people

settled

at

Kufa;

they

had

been

the

obvious,

indeed the

only, places

where

newcomers

during

the

previous

twenty

odd

years


revolted,

the

tribal leaders

went out

and

unsuccessfully

tried

to take control

of

their

respective

jabbdnas;

thereafter

they

were

concerned

to

prevent

the

Shi'a

from

entering

'old'

Kufa,

as the attention

paid

by

Abu Mikhnaf to

fighting

where

the

streets

debouched

(afwdh

al-sikak)

shows.2 When

they

entered 'old'

Kffa,


one of

rebellious

tribesmen

over

the established

tribal

leadership.

The

important

point

about

al-Mukhtar's

famous

rantings

was

that

they

foretold

a

collapse

of

the

established

tribal

leadership

and

a redistribution

of wealth.3

In the


then,

the social

order at

Kufa,

and

elsewhere,

was

essentially

an order

of clans and

tribes,

rendered

different from the

pre-

Islamic

order

only

in

so

far

as

central

authority

and

garrison

town

arrangements

were

conducive

to

an

unprecedented

cohesion.

This

tribal

order was

fostered

by

Mu'awiya

as

a

basic feature

of the

Umayyad

power

structure. With it

came the


a

different

kind of

social

order.

To

this

period

we now

turn,

beginning

with

some

general

remarks

about

the

caliphate

of

'Umar.

II.

It is clear

from

'Umar's actions

that

his

overriding

political

aim

was

the

preservation

of

the Medinan

hegemony

set

up

by

Muhammad

and

maintained

by

Abu

Bakr

in

the

face

of

the serious threat

posed

by


sought

to achieve

this

purpose

by

vesting leadership

and other

powers

in those

whose

loyalty

was

to,

and

whose

interests

lay

in,

the

preservation

of that

hege-

mony;

hence

the

prominent

role

played

by

sahdba,

Ansar

and others

possessed

of Islamic

sdbiqa (priority

or

precedence) during

his

caliphate.

He

sought

to

'

Tab.

II,

pp.

613

ff; BA.v, pp. 224

ff;

A'th.

I,

fols.

226B

ff.,

II,

fols.

i B

ff.

2

Tab.

II,

p.

626;

A'th.

II. fol.

3

B.

Note that

BA.v,

p.

225


al-umara'

within

'old'

Kuifa.

3

BA.

v,

pp.

235-6;

A'th.

I,

fol.

236

A,

11,

ol.

5

A.

to

play

in the

government-backed

tribal

organization

(e.g.

IHujr

b.

'Adl

al-

Kindi,

who

was

totally

eclipsed by

Muhammad b.

al-Ash'ath

al-Kindi),

and

(ii)

predominantly

of newcomer

tribesmen,

many

of

whom

had

not

reached

Kfifa

until

the time

of

'Ali

or

later,

who resisted

the

authority

of

the established

tribal

leadership

in the

hope

of

bettering

their condition.

Certain

Kindi,

Ham-

dani

and

Bajali groups

who

first

emerge

as

'Ali's

most zealous

supporters

re-

emerge

as

supporters

of

Hujr

b.

'Adi,

al-Husayn

b.

'Ali

and

al-Mukhtar

b.

Abi

'Ubayd.

In the

extremely

detailed,

almost

step-by-step

account

by

Abu

Mikhnaf of the

victory

of al-Mukhtar

over

the tribal

leaders,'

it

becomes

abundantly


Kufan

support

was

in

the

tribaljabbdnas

and

that


lived

in

Kufa

proper.

Now whatever

the

jabbdnas


graveyards

or

simply open

spaces

for the

grazing

and

watering

of

animals- it is

plain

that

by

that

stage they

had

been built

upon

as more

people

settled

at

Kufa;

they

had

been

the

obvious,

indeed the

only, places

where

newcomers

during

the

previous

twenty

odd

years


revolted,

the

tribal leaders

went out

and

unsuccessfully

tried

to take control

of

their

respective

jabbdnas;

thereafter

they

were

concerned

to

prevent

the

Shi'a

from

entering

'old'

Kufa,

as the attention

paid

by

Abu Mikhnaf to

fighting

where

the

streets

debouched

(afwdh

al-sikak)

shows.2 When

they

entered 'old'

Kffa,


one of

rebellious

tribesmen

over

the established

tribal

leadership.

The

important

point

about

al-Mukhtar's

famous

rantings

was

that

they

foretold

a

collapse

of

the

established

tribal

leadership

and

a redistribution

of wealth.3

In the


then,

the social

order at

Kufa,

and

elsewhere,

was

essentially

an order

of clans and

tribes,

rendered

different from the

pre-

Islamic

order

only

in

so

far

as

central

authority

and

garrison

town

arrangements

were

conducive

to

an

unprecedented

cohesion.

This

tribal

order was

fostered

by

Mu'awiya

as

a

basic feature

of the

Umayyad

power

structure. With it

came the


a

different

kind of

social

order.

To

this

period

we now

turn,

beginning

with

some

general

remarks

about

the

caliphate

of

'Umar.

II.

It is clear

from

'Umar's actions

that

his

overriding

political

aim

was

the

preservation

of

the Medinan

hegemony

set

up

by

Muhammad

and

maintained

by

Abu

Bakr

in

the

face

of

the serious threat

posed

by


sought

to achieve

this

purpose

by

vesting leadership

and other

powers

in those

whose

loyalty

was

to,

and

whose

interests

lay

in,

the

preservation

of that

hege-

mony;

hence

the

prominent

role

played

by

sahdba,

Ansar

and others

possessed

of Islamic

sdbiqa (priority

or

precedence) during

his

caliphate.

He

sought

to

'

Tab.

II,

pp.

613

ff; BA.v, pp. 224

ff;

A'th.

I,

fols.

226B

ff.,

II,

fols.

i B

ff.

2

Tab.

II,

p.

626;

A'th.

II. fol.

3

B.

Note that

BA.v,

p.

225


al-umara'

within

'old'

Kuifa.

3

BA.

v,

pp.

235-6;

A'th.

I,

fol.

236

A,

11,

ol.

5

A.

to

play

in the

government-backed

tribal

organization

(e.g.

IHujr

b.

'Adl

al-

Kindi,

who

was

totally

eclipsed by

Muhammad b.

al-Ash'ath

al-Kindi),

and

(ii)

predominantly

of newcomer

tribesmen,

many

of

whom

had

not

reached

Kfifa

until

the time

of

'Ali

or

later,

who resisted

the

authority

of

the established

tribal

leadership

in the

hope

of

bettering

their condition.

Certain

Kindi,

Ham-

dani

and

Bajali groups

who

first

emerge

as

'Ali's

most zealous

supporters

re-

emerge

as

supporters

of

Hujr

b.

'Adi,

al-Husayn

b.

'Ali

and

al-Mukhtar

b.

Abi

'Ubayd.

In the

extremely

detailed,

almost

step-by-step

account

by

Abu

Mikhnaf of the

victory

of al-Mukhtar

over

the tribal

leaders,'

it

becomes

abundantly


Kufan

support

was

in

the

tribaljabbdnas

and

that


lived

in

Kufa

proper.

Now whatever

the

jabbdnas


graveyards

or

simply open

spaces

for the

grazing

and

watering

of

animals- it is

plain

that

by

that

stage they

had

been built

upon

as more

people

settled

at

Kufa;

they

had

been

the

obvious,

indeed the

only, places

where

newcomers

during

the

previous

twenty

odd

years


revolted,

the

tribal leaders

went out

and

unsuccessfully

tried

to take control

of

their

respective

jabbdnas;

thereafter

they

were

concerned

to

prevent

the

Shi'a

from

entering

'old'

Kufa,

as the attention

paid

by

Abu Mikhnaf to

fighting

where

the

streets

debouched

(afwdh

al-sikak)

shows.2 When

they

entered 'old'

Kffa,


one of

rebellious

tribesmen

over

the established

tribal

leadership.

The

important

point

about

al-Mukhtar's

famous

rantings

was

that

they

foretold

a

collapse

of

the

established

tribal

leadership

and

a redistribution

of wealth.3

In the


then,

the social

order at

Kufa,

and

elsewhere,

was

essentially

an order

of clans and

tribes,

rendered

different from the

pre-

Islamic

order

only

in

so

far

as

central

authority

and

garrison

town

arrangements

were

conducive

to

an

unprecedented

cohesion.

This

tribal

order was

fostered

by

Mu'awiya

as

a

basic feature

of the

Umayyad

power

structure. With it

came the


a

different

kind of

social

order.

To

this

period

we now

turn,

beginning

with

some

general

remarks

about

the

caliphate

of

'Umar.

II.

It is clear

from

'Umar's actions

that

his

overriding

political

aim

was

the

preservation

of

the Medinan

hegemony

set

up

by

Muhammad

and

maintained

by

Abu

Bakr

in

the

face

of

the serious threat

posed

by


sought

to achieve

this

purpose

by

vesting leadership

and other

powers

in those

whose

loyalty

was

to,

and

whose

interests

lay

in,

the

preservation

of that

hege-

mony;

hence

the

prominent

role

played

by

sahdba,

Ansar

and others

possessed

of Islamic

sdbiqa (priority

or

precedence) during

his

caliphate.

He

sought

to

'

Tab.

II,

pp.

613

ff; BA.v, pp. 224

ff;

A'th.

I,

fols.

226B

ff.,

II,

fols.

i B

ff.

2

Tab.

II,

p.

626;

A'th.

II. fol.

3

B.

Note that

BA.v,

p.

225


al-umara'

within

'old'

Kuifa.

3

BA.

v,

pp.

235-6;

A'th.

I,

fol.

236

A,

11,

ol.

5

A.



5/23

Kufan

political

alignments

349

ufan

political

alignments

349

ufan

political

alignments

349

ufan

political

alignments

349

ufan

political

alignments

349

establish

this

sdbiqa

as the

main

criterion of worth

in

a

system

of

social

organiza-

tion and

control

which

would

provide

an

over-all

unity

in

society,

embracing

the changing and fluid patterns of ephemeral alliances between clans and groups

of clans.

The

underpinning

of this

organization

was

to

be the

'Islamic leader-

ship'- supporters

of Medinan

hegemony, propounders

of an

accompany-

ing

ideology,

and

counterweights

to the influence

of forces

for

disunity;

notable

among

these last

were

the former

ridda

leaders,

who were

specifically

debarred

from

holding

commands.'

When,

toward the end of

his

caliphate,

'Umar

was confronted

with

the

need

for

initiating

organization

to em-

brace the

newly conquered

territories,

the

principle

of

sdbiqa

was

central

in

his

proposal.

This is clear in the system of distribution of stipends laid down in 20/641, in

which

the three main

categories

were:

(i)

various

grades

of

Muhajirin

and

Ans.r,

who received

from

5,000

to

3,000

dirhams

per

annum,

(ii)

people

involved

in

the

operations

preceding

Yarmuk

and

Qadisiyya

(ahl

al-ayydm)

and

people

who

were

at

Yarmuk

or

Qadisiyya,

who

received

3,000

and

2,000

respectively,

and

(iii)

rawddif

(people

who

came

after

[Yarmuk

or

Qadisiyya]),

who

were

in

a

variety

of

grades, depending

on

the time

when

they

first

participated

in the

conquests;

there

is

some

disagreement

about

these

grades,

but

they

probably

ranged

from

1,500

to

200

dirhams

per

annum.

At

both

Kufa

and Basra

the

'irdfa became a unit for the distribution of ioo,ooo dirhams; twenty men at

3,000 plus

allowances

for

dependants

in the case

of

ahl

al-ayydm,

forty-three

men

at

2,000

plus

dependants

in

the

case of ahl

al-Qddisiyya,

and

sixty

men at

1,500 plus

dependants

in

the

case of the first wave of

rawddif

(al-rddifa

al-uld).

'Umar's

diwdn

of

20/641

made use of

genealogical

arrangement,

as

his

employ-

ment

of

experts

on

genealogy

(nussdb)

shows,

but the

principle

of

Islamic

priority

was what counted. In most cases

'irdfas

were

probably

composed

of

people

from

the

same

clan,

but

an

'irdfa

was

essentially

a

group

of

people

with

identical

Islamic

priority.2

At

first

sight

it

may

seem that

this

principle

of

Islamic

priority,

which

at

a

certain

level

constituted an

acknowledgement

of

the

privilege

of

the

provincial

early-comer,

had little

or

no further

place

in decisions

concerning

the

land

itself,

for

'Umar decided

that the

Sawad

should

not

be

divided

among

its

conquerors

but

should instead

be reserved for 'those

Muslims who

come

after

us'.

By

this

decision,

which

authorities other

than

Sayf

b.

'Umar

describe

as a

decision

to

make

the

Sawad

fay'

for the

Muslims,

the

population

of

the

Sawad were

to be

allowed

to

cultivate

the

land

as

people

under

protection

(dhimma)

and

to

pay

taxes;

Sayf

b.

'Umar

always

refers to this

type

of

land as

sulh or

dhimma

land.

E.g. Tab. I, pp.

2225,

2327, 2617.

2

Tab.

I,

pp. 2412-3,

2496;

BF.

p.

449;

IS.

III,

pt.

i,

pp.

213-5;

al-Ya'qubi,

Tdrikh,

ed.

M. T.

Houtsma

(Leiden, 1883),

vol.

II,

p.

175,

see

also

G.-R.

Puin,

Der

Diwan

von 'Umar

ibn

al-Hjattdb

(Bonn, 1970)

and

a review of

this

in

BSOAS,

xxxiv

(I97)-.

establish

this

sdbiqa

as the

main

criterion of worth

in

a

system

of

social

organiza-

tion and

control

which

would

provide

an

over-all

unity

in

society,

embracing

the changing and fluid patterns of ephemeral alliances between clans and groups

of clans.

The

underpinning

of this

organization

was

to

be the

'Islamic leader-

ship'- supporters

of Medinan

hegemony, propounders

of an

accompany-

ing

ideology,

and

counterweights

to the influence

of forces

for

disunity;

notable

among

these last

were

the former

ridda

leaders,

who were

specifically

debarred

from

holding

commands.'

When,

toward the end of

his

caliphate,

'Umar

was confronted

with

the

need

for

initiating

organization

to em-

brace the

newly conquered

territories,

the

principle

of

sdbiqa

was

central

in

his

proposal.

This is clear in the system of distribution of stipends laid down in 20/641, in

which

the three main

categories

were:

(i)

various

grades

of

Muhajirin

and

Ans.r,

who received

from

5,000

to

3,000

Documents

Kufan Political Alignments