THE FUTILITY OF POLITICAL CONFLICT
The experience of the first Islamic century proved once and for all that launching opposition against an established political system—even with good intentions—only increases disorder. It creates new problems and makes matters even more complicated. The attempt to reform Uthman’s government revived the old tribal rivalry between two branches of the Quraysh, the Umayyads and the Hashimites, in an even sharper form. It also created favourable conditions for Abdullah ibn Saba, a Jewish convert to Islam, to introduce the doctrine of the “designated successor” and turn the political question of succession to the Caliphate into an issue of religious belief. As a result, Muslims became permanently divided into two hostile groups: Shia and Sunni. Long-suppressed tribal rivalries rose up again under the cover of “ideological” slogans. Arabs, who looked down on non-Arabs, rallied under Muawiya. Non-Arabs, resentful of Arab dominance, joined Ali ibn Abi Talib’s army. The reform movement ended only in political corruption. It spread chaos across the Muslim world and led to the killing of the third Caliph, Uthman. But his murder did not end the matter—it started an endless cycle of action and reaction. Except for a temporary pause during Muawiya’s rule (41–60 AH), the conflict dragged on for centuries. Millions of lives were lost in the most brutal ways. And the original issue—whether to reform the caliphate or to avenge Uthman’s murder—remained unresolved, waiting for the final judgment where all matters will ultimately be settled.
It should also be noted that a war fought for power never ends with simple victory or defeat. When Group A fights Group B, the victorious side itself eventually splits into new factions. The struggle between the Umayyads and the Hashimites over the caliphate began in 35 AH and continued in various forms for almost a hundred years. Throughout this period, the Umayyads kept power. In 133 AH, the Hashimites (the Abbasids), with Persian support, finally overthrew them. But soon after, the Hashimites themselves split into Abbasids and Alawites and began fighting one another. Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Hasan ibn Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib ibn Abdul Muttalib—known as al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah (d. 145 AH)—became a political rival of the Abbasid caliph Abu Ja‘far al-Mansur ibn Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Abdullah ibn Abbas ibn Abdul Muttalib. With his followers, he launched a “Movement for a Just Order” against Mansur (who ruled 136–158 AH). Mansur, however, prevailed and crushed the Alawites. Both belonged to the Hashimite clan—one descended from Abu Talib ibn Abdul Muttalib, the other from Abbas ibn Abdul Muttalib. While opposing the Umayyads, they had stood united. But once power changed hands, they became rivals, and the rivalry did not end until one destroyed the other.
After Uthman’s assassination, Aisha, the Mother of the Believers, was the first to demand punishment of his killers. Zubair ibn al-Awwam, Talha ibn Ubaydullah, and many others joined her. This eventually divided the Muslims into two armed groups. Thirty thousand men gathered under Aisha’s banner, and twenty thousand under Ali ibn Abi Talib. They clashed near Basra in what became known as the Battle of the Camel (36 AH). In this battle, ten thousand Muslims were killed by fellow Muslims. Talha died from wounds, while Zubair was killed in prayer at Wadi al-Siba‘ after leaving the battlefield.
Then came the second stage. Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan, then governor of Syria, took up the cause. Ali ibn Abi Talib demanded allegiance, while Muawiya demanded justice for Uthman’s murder. Once again, at Siffin in Syria (37 AH), a fierce battle was fought. Around seventy thousand Muslims were killed by Muslims. Even after such heavy bloodshed, the dispute was not resolved, leading to arbitration at Dumat al-Jandal. But the main issue remained unsolved. Worse, the role of Amr ibn al-As in the arbitration not only caused more deaths but also destroyed trust in Muslim society. This atmosphere of mistrust gave birth to the Kharijite sect, which later confronted Ali at Nahrawan (37 AH), where about ten thousand Muslims were killed. Their suspicion grew so extreme that they declared Muawiya, Amr ibn al-As, and Ali ibn Abi Talib all equally deserving of death.
After five years (35–40 AH) of civil war and terrible losses in the name of Uthman’s blood, the actual outcome was that Muawiya’s power became stronger. Most Muslim lands—Yemen, Hijaz, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt—came under his control. Ali’s rule was limited to Iraq and Persia. After Ali’s assassination (40 AH), Hasan’s abdication of the caliphate further strengthened Muawiya, who then ruled the entire Muslim world without challenge for twenty years (41–60 AH).
But after Muawiya’s death, the conflict reappeared. He had appointed his son Yazid as heir and had already secured allegiance for him. People felt, however, that Muawiya had made a mistake by settling the matter of succession without consultation. When Yazid became caliph, some said he was unfit for the role. At that time, respected figures like Abdullah ibn Umar, Abdullah ibn Abbas, Abdullah ibn Zubair, Husayn ibn Ali, and Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Bakr were alive. As a result, some refused to pledge allegiance to Yazid. Two men especially led this opposition: Abdullah ibn Zubair and Husayn ibn Ali.
Still, most of the Companions either stayed silent or advised accepting Yazid’s rule to avoid further bloodshed. Abdullah ibn Abbas was in Makkah when news of Muawiya’s death arrived. People gathered to hear his reaction. He said: “Muawiya’s son Yazid is among the worthy men of his family. So stay in your places and give him your obedience and pledge of allegiance.” (Ansab al-Ashraf by al-Baladhuri, Vol. 5, p. 302)
Likewise, Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah spoke in Yazid’s favor and discouraged rebellion against him. Hamid ibn Abdur Rahman recalls visiting Bashir, one of the Companions, when Yazid was appointed heir. Bashir said:
“People say Yazid is not the best man in the community of Muhammad (ﷺ). I also say the same. But I prefer the unity of Muhammad’s community over its division.” (Al-Dhahabi, Tarikh al-Islam, vol. 4, p. 169)
This viewpoint was in fact based on the clear instruction of the Prophet (ﷺ): do not engage in political disputes with rulers; instead, find another, non-political, way to express the spirit of reform. But compared to politics, a constructive approach has always attracted fewer people. Most chose the path of political confrontation, and as a result, men of exceptional capability such as Imam Husayn and Abdullah ibn Zubair—along with countless other Muslims—were killed by the swords of their own brothers. When Yazid learned that the people of Makkah and Madinah had risen in rebellion, he even ordered attacks on the two sacred cities. The walls of the Kaaba were torn down. Yet despite all these sacrifices, the real problem remained unresolved. Yazid’s rule could not be ended by anyone except the Angel of Death.
One of the losses of these civil wars in the first Islamic century was that many great Companions—who had carried Islam forward like a flood, overcoming mighty powers such as Rustam and Isfandiyar—were cut off from public life. Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas, the conqueror of Iran, withdrew from the cities and spent his time tending camels and goats. Abdullah ibn Umar, who by his qualities could have become a “second Umar,” grew disheartened by internal disputes and withdrew into seclusion. And so, it went with others as well. Yet their withdrawal from the battlefield was not entirely negative. There was, however, a positive side to this development. They now devoted themselves to teaching and religious guidance. Narrating the Hadith, helping others understand the essence of Islamic teachings, and acquainting them with the life of the Prophet ﷺ became their principal activities. It was during this period that material relating to Hadith, the Prophet’s biography, and Islamic history was collected. Those who had once distinguished themselves on the battlefield now found another way to serve Islam through teaching and scholarship.
