kufan political alignments
Post on 02-Jun-2018
235 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
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 support@jstor.org.
.
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 -
8/10/2019 Kufan Political Alignments
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
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
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
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
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).
34646464646
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Kufan Political Alignments
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
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
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
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
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).
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Kufan Political Alignments
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
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
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
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
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Kufan Political Alignments
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
top related