This book is dedicated to:

Professor Sibte Jaffer

Servant of the Servants of Ali
 The Grave of Ḥujr b. ʿAdī
Before and After the Terrorist Attack
on 2nd May 2013
 Whats your final wish before we execute you?
Ḥujr said: Kill my son first.
Why?
Kill my son, he said.
They executed his son.
He smiled.
Why do you smile they said?
He said: now I know my son died loving Ali I am ready to die.
I could not bear the thought that the sight of death may make
him leave the love of Ali and become a lover of Muawiya.
I AM NOW READY TO DIE.
HUJR IBN ADI AL-KINDI
A VICTIM OF TERROR

By
Dr. Sayed Ammar Nakshawani

SAYED AMMAR PRESS

 5
HUJR IBN ADI AL-KINDI
A VICTIM OF TERROR

by
Dr. Sayed Ammar Nakshawani

Published by Sayed Ammar Press

in association with Sun Behind The Cloud Publications Ltd
PO Box 15889, Birmingham, B16 6NZ

Copyright © Sayed Ammar Press 2013

All rights reserved

Copyright under the Berne Convention

The author asserts the moral right to be identified

as the author of this work.

A CIP record of this title is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-1-908110-18-3
Printed and bound in the UK

Front cover text quoted from: Ibn Kathīr, Ismāʿīl b. ʿUmar, al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah
(Beirut: Maktabah al-Maʿārif, 1966) The events of SlAH

Back cover text quoted from: al-Ṭabarī, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. Jarīr b. Yazīd, The
History of al-Tabari - Biographies of the Prophet’s Companions and Their Successors,
vol.39, p. 274
 CONTENTS

About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Ḥujr b. ʿAdī al-Kindī: A Victim of Terror . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
The Role of Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Muʿāwiya’s Treatment of Rebellions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
The Execution of Ḥujr b. ʿAdī . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Analysis of the Incident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
 About the Author

Dr. Sayed Ammar Nakshawani is regarded as one of the most powerful

speakers in the Muslim world. He was born in 1981 and graduated
from the University College London, as well as the London School of
Economics. He was then awarded with an M.A. in Islamic Studies from
Shahid Beheshti University in Iran. Dr. Nakshawani completed his Ph.D.
thesis at the University of Exeter. He has lectured at the university in
Classical Islamic History and then pursued further studies at the Islamic
Seminary in Damascus, Syria. Currently he is a visiting scholar at the
Centre of Islamic Studies, University of Cambridge.

1
 Acknowledgments

My sincere gratitude goes to Kawther Rahmani, who edited this book

through cancer out of her love for Ḥujr b. ʿAdī, and to all those who helped,
supported and contributed to this work.

My special thanks extend to Yahya Seymour and Nader Zaveri for

their research assistance; to Tehseen Merali of Sun Behind The Cloud
Publications for her help in publishing the work; to al-Hajj Salman and Zain
Moloobhoy for the unswerving support they haveshown; to Dr Liaket Dewji
and Hyderi Islamic Centre for the inspiration to write about this great man;
to team SAN for their continued help, and to my family for instilling love of
Ḥujr b. ʿAdī in my heart.

Your rewards are with the Almighty.

2
 Foreword

Some analysts of the contemporary Middle East are far too quick to
trace back current conflicts to ancient and long lasting hatreds. But
sectarianism - and particularly pernicious forms of anti-Shīʿī feeling that
seem rampant in the post-2003 world - has political causes, symptoms and
consequences. However, history in the consciousness of many Muslims is
not a dispassionate view of the past or even simply determined by our current
preconceptions. Rather, history is the unfolding of the sacred intervening
in the human; the events of the time of the Prophet and of the early
communities constitute both the sacred history and the political theology
that many believers hold to this day. Symbols matter whether they unite or
divide. And personages are often the most powerful symbols.

Ḥujr b. ʿAdī was precisely one prominent figure - a companion of the

Prophet, confidant of Imam ʿAlī, scourge of Muʿāwiya - who remains a
potent symbol of dissent, as a model who spoke truth to power, whose
identity has in the sectarianised conflict of contemporary Syria became a
symbol of Shīʿī identity - despite and perhaps precisely because he was a
common symbol before the hostilities of 2011. I remember visiting his shrine
many times and being struck with the simple observation that this was a
sacred space, a votive sanctuary that are common to all and particularly
revered by the local Sunni inhabitants of the area in the hinterland of
Damascus.

The brutal desecration of his tomb in Adhra, whilst being the result of a
morally and intellectually bankrupt theology that has wrecked havoc in
Arabia and also more recently in Mali, is more than just a disapproval of
local expressions of spirituality or the covenants of pilgrimage and shrine
visitation; it is a wilful act of provocation, an attack on what is perceived to
be an exclusive repository of Shīʿī identity.

This short and useful book, to which I am happy to add a few words by
way of introduction and endorsement, demonstrates not only how the very
historiography and visions of early sacred history continues to affect our
world but also how Ḥujr b. ʿAdī’s life and martyrdom expressed forms of
Shīʿī identity in the Umayyad period as one finds present in the historical
sources. The destruction of his shrine raises the question of who he was and
what he means.

3
In answering such interrogations, Dr Sayed Ammar makes it clear how
Ḥujr b. ʿAdī, while being a Shīʿī hero, should also be viewed as the Muslim
exemplar, one who speaks for the values of social justice, the noble virtues
of standing for the truths of faith and love against oppression, and being a
faithful and true friend of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib.

The current conflict around the world is for the very nature and
understanding of Islam. By espousing and commemorating Ḥujr, believers
can stand up for a conception of the faith that not only espouses universal
values but seeks to promote human flourishing and achievement, in
opposition to a distorted conception of Islam that reduces religiosity to
nihilistic political action, destruction and murder.

We often learn through stories - we seem hard wired to enjoy narrative -

and through the recollection of the case of Ḥujr b. ʿAdī Dr Sayed Ammar
contributes to a deeply felt and intentioned desire to say no to nihilism, to
terrorism and to the wanton abuse of the faith, of Islam that so many millions
of people hold dear just as they deeply love the symbols of that faith of love
and human flourishing such as the Prophet, Imam ʿAlī, and their loved ones
like Ḥujr b. ʿAdī.

Professor Sajjad H. Rizvi

MA, M.Phil (Oxon), Ph.D. (Cantab)
Associate Professor of Islamic Intellectual History
Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies
University of Exeter
June 2013

4
 Introduction

‘I came to say a word and I shall say it now, but if death

prevents my word it will be said by tomorrow. For tomorrow
never leaves a word unspoken.’
- Khalīl Gibrān

This work is dedicated to Ḥujr b. ʿAdī, the revered companion of Prophet

Muḥammad (PBUH). A colossal figure in Islamic history, very much
underestimated, understudied and undervalued. Arab historians are of the
belief that Muʿāwiya was at fault for killing Ḥujr, and that Ḥujr and his
supporters were innocent.1 Some scholars believe that Ḥujr was oppressed
by Zīyād and that Zīyād helped Muʿāwiya in making his decision to execute
Ḥujr.2 Shaʿbān viewed the act as that of a despot.

However, this victim of terror in his own lifetime was to also become a victim
of terror after his death. The desecration of the grave of Ḥujr b. ʿAdī (AS),
left me in a state of shock as well as frustration. I was truly flabbergasted at
how low the human being can sink. I used to seek to visit his shrine every
Friday when I was studying in the Islamic Seminary in Damascus. Memories
came flooding back of tranquil moments of contemplation sitting next to
this bastion of Islamic thought, bravery, valour and sacrifice. I remember
the lectures I had given there, reflecting on his stand against the despotic
terrorist of his time, Muʿāwiya I. I was astonished at what drives a human to
seek to exhume the corpse of another human being. A theological edict, an
unswerving loyalty to a cause, frustration, or poverty? Whatever it may
be, to seek to desecrate the shrine of a fellow human being, irrespective
of whatever their denomination or theological conclusion, is somewhat
remarkable to say the least. Who would perform such an act of terror?
For this behaviour is surely not befitting of any human being, surely not
befitting of any Muslim. For a Muslim is taught to not only respect the body
1 Muḥammad al-Sayyid al-Wakīl, al-Umawīyyun bayn al-sharq wal-gharb; dirāsa
wasfīyyah wa-taḥlīlīyya li-l-dawla al-Umawīyyah (Damascus: Dar alQalam, 1995), 87-
90; Muḥammad al-Ṭayyib al-Najjār, al-Dawla al-Umawīyyah fi-l-sharq; bayna ʿawamil
al-bina’ wa-maʿawil al-fana (Cairo: Dar al-Iʿtisam, 3rd edn., 1977), 80.
2 Ibrahīm Aḥmad al-ʿAdawī, al-Dawla al-Umawīyyah (Cairo: Maktabat al-Shabāb,
1987-88), 87; Muḥammad Mahir Hamda, Dirāsa wathaiqiyya li-1-Tārīkh al-islamī
wa-maṣadirihī; min ʿahd banī umayyah ḥata al-fatḥ al-ʿUthmānī li-Sūriyah wa-miṣr 40-
922AH /661-1516 C.E. (Beirut: Mu’assassat al Risāla, 1988), 38-39.

5
of a fellow Muslim, but to respect the sanctity of a fellow human being and
the honour of a member of their community at large. A Muslim is taught to
honour Prophet Muḥammad and those he loved. And Prophet Muḥammad
(PBUH) loved Ḥujr.

There is not a day that goes by without a headline using the word terrorism.
Televisions, radio, and print media alike are fixated with the employment
of this term, highlighting what really is a bleak period in human history.
From 9/11 to 7 /7, Madrid or Boston, Oklahoma or Kerbala, Woolwich or
Damascus, is anybody really safe from an attack on their lives involving a
suicide bomber or a student depressed with what surrounds them? Many
people are nervous at the sight of a mere backpack, let alone a face somewhat
similar to those featured in posters of the FBI’s Most Wanted. Many ask the
question, can we not live in harmony with one another, co-exist in peace,
tolerate our differences and build healthy community relationships on the
basis of our similarities? Indeed, Khalīl Gibrān’s words still echo the truth
that ‘we are all like the bright moon, [though] we still have our darker side’,
but surely not to this extent.

Terrorism, in the eyes of many today, is an act performed by a Muslim

against a non-Muslim, but what people need to realise is that Muslims are
also victims of terrorism at the hands of other Muslims. In its true meaning,
being a Muslim and a terrorist is a paradox as Islam never condones such
barbaric behaviour. It is indeed ironic when many assume that Islam and
its followers are only terrorists and are never the victims of terrorism. The
desecration of the grave of Ḥujr b. ʿAdī in Syria serves to highlight the fact
that it is not only the non-Muslim who should be weary of terror, but even
the Muslim whose theological conclusions are not in agreement with another
Muslim may eventually be the victim of an attack. Unfortunately, this is
not something new in the history of Islam. Just because some people call
themselves Muslims does not mean that they follow the principles and ideals
of the religion. A mere glance at our history will show that Islamic terrorism
has always existed.

Fāṭima, the daughter of Prophet Mul:iammad (PBUH), asked to be

buried in the middle of the night, highlighting the existence of Muslim
state terror in her time. Imam ʿAlī’s burial site was not known until nearly
one hundred years after his death out of fear that the terrorists of the time,
known as Khārijites, would exhume his corpse. Abū Bakr’s son Muḥammad
was not only killed by fellow Muslims, but his body was placed in the

6
corpse of a donkey and then set on fire. Ḥussain, the grandson of Prophet
Muḥammad (PBUH), was beheaded by Muslim terrorists in Kerbala upon
the orders of the terrorist Muslim caliph, Yazīd. Zayd, the great-grandson
of Prophet Muḥammad (PBUH), has his nude body hung on a tree by the
Umayyad state terror police. The Abbasids had prisons in different parts of
Iraq ready to victimize and torture those who would just happen to disagree
with their ways. The list could go on and on.

However, one would expect a certain amount of respect for a burial ground.
While the dead have indeed moved on, their bodies should not be mutilated.
They are to be judged by their Lord. Their good deeds are to be remembered.
Visiting their graves is a lesson for everyone. According to verse 21 of Sūrat
al-Kahf, when the Companions of the Cave went to sleep again, the people
differed with one another on how to mark the place where they had gone to
sleep, and they finally agreed to build a place of worship so that visitors, apart
from visiting, could also engage in worshipping God. It is thus recorded in
history books that every year the Prophet (PBUH) would visit the graves of
the martyrs of the Battle of Uhud and recite this prayer: ‘Peace be upon you
because you were so constant; how excellent is then the issue of the abode?’

It is also recorded that Abū Bakr, ʿUmar and ʿUthmān, like the Prophet
(PBUH), also used to perform such a visitation. Fāṭima, the daughter of the
Prophet of Islam (PBUH), would also visit the martyrs of Uhud two days a
week. During his visit to the martyrs, especially to Hamza and Muṣʿab b.
ʿUmayr, the Holy Prophet (PBUH) would recite the following verse: ‘Men
who fulfill what they have pledged to Allāh’ (33:23). In addition to this,
Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī would extend salutations to the grave of Hamza.
Umm Salamah, one of the honorable wives of the Prophet (PBUH), and
individuals such as Abū Hurayra, Fāṭima Khuzāʿīyya, and ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar al-Khaṭṭāb also used to visit this group of martyrs. It is thus recorded
in the important book, Al-Ghadīr, under the section, “Virtues and Merits of
Abū Ḥānīfah” (Bab Fadāʿil wa Manaqib Abū Ḥānīfah) that whenever he
would go to Baghdad, Imam ash-Shāfīʿī would pay a visit to the grave of
Abū Ḥānīfah. He would stand beside his grave, offer salutation to him and
seek his intercession for the fulfillment of his needs. Ahmad b. Ḥanbal did
the same practice with respect to his master, Imam ash-Shāfīʿī, to such an
extent that his son would get astonished.

This act of desecration stems from the ideology and propaganda of one
region in the Muslim world, namely Saudi Arabia. In 1806, the Wahhabi

7
terrorist army occupied Medina. They did not leave any religious building,
including mosques, whether inside or outside the Baqī’ (graveyard), without
demolishing it. They intended to demolish the grave of the Prophet
Muḥammad (PBUH) many times, but would repeatedly change their minds.
At this time, non-Wahhabi Muslims were prevented from performing
the Hajj (pilgrimage). In 1805, Iraqi and Iranian Muslims were refused
permission to perform Hajj, as were the Syrians in 1806 and Egyptians the
following year. The Saudi leader at the time wanted the pilgrims to embrace
his Wahhabi beliefs and accept his mission. If they refused, he denied them
permission to perform the Hajj and considered them to be heretics and
infidels. The Wahhabi army’s destruction campaign targeted the graves of
the martyrs of Uhud, the mosque at the grave of Sayyid al-Shuhadā’ Hamza
b. ʿAbdul Muṭṭalib and the mosques outside the Baqī’: the Mosque of Fāṭima
al-Zahra, the Mosque of al-Manāratayn, and Qubbat al-Thanayā (the burial
site of the Prophet’s (PBUH) incisor that was broken in the Battle of
Uhud). The structures in the Baqī’ were also leveled to the ground and not a
single dome was left standing. This great place that was visited by millions
of Muslims over many centuries became a garbage dump, such that it was
not possible to recognize any grave or know whom it was for.

In 1818, the Wahhabis were defeated, and they withdrew from the holy
places. The Prophet’s (PBUH) Mosque, the Baqī’ and the monuments at
Uhud were rebuilt during the reigns of the Ottoman sultans ʿAbd al-Majīd
I, ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd II and Maḥmūd II. From 1848 to 1860, the buildings were
renovated and the Ottomans built the domes and mosques in splendid
aesthetic style. They also rebuilt the Baqī’ with a large dome over the
graves of Imam Zainul ʿAbidīn (ʿAlī b. al-Ḥussain), Imam Muḥammad
b. ʿAlī al-Bāqir and Imam Jaʿfar al-Sādiq. The graves of others related to
the Prophet (PBUH) found at the Baqī’ include those belonging to Ibrahīm
(son), ‘Uthmān b. ʿAffān (Companion and son-in-law), Ṣaffīyya bint
ʿAbdul Muṭṭalib (aunt), ʿAtīka bint ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib (aunt), Al-ʿAbbās b.
ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib (uncle), Fāṭima bint Asad (Imam ʿAlī’s mother), ʿAbd
Allāh b. Jaʿfar b. Abī Ṭālib (cousin) and Aqīl b. Abī Ṭālib (The Prophet’s
cousin).

The grave of the Prophet’s (PBUH) father ʿAbd Allāh was in Dār al-Nābigha
of the Banī Najjār, the house where the Prophet learned to swim. However,
his father’s grave was exhumed 17 years ago and transferred to the Baqī’.
The area of the house today lies under the marble covering the plaza
surrounding the mosque.

8
A number of the Prophet’s (PBUH) wives (the Mothers of the Faithful) were
buried in the Baqī’: ʿA’isha, Ḥafṣa, Jūwayrīyya, Ṣaffīyya, Sawda, Zaynab
bint Khuzaima, Zaynab bint Jaḥsh, Umm Ḥabība and Umm Salama. The
tomb of Khadīja, the Prophet’s first wife, is in Mecca because she died before
the Hijra (the migration of Muslims to Medina). Her grave is in the Ḥajūn
cemetery, known as Maqbarat al-Maʿlā. The tomb of Maimouna, another
wife, is also in Mecca in an area known as Sarīf, which lies on the side of the
Hijra Road, nearly 13 miles (20 kilometers) outside of Mecca.

On 21st April 1925, the domes in the Baqī’ were demolished once more along
with the tombs of the holy personalities in Maqbarat al-Maʿlā in Mecca,
where the Holy Prophet’s (PBUH) mother, his wife Khadīja, grandfather
and other ancestors are buried. The destruction of the sacred sites in the
Ḥijāz continues till this day. Wahhabis say they are trying to rescue Islam
from what they consider to be innovations, deviances and idolatries. Among
the practices they believe are contrary to Islam are constructing elaborate
monuments over graves and making supplications there. The Mashrubat
Umm Ibrahīm - which was built to mark the location of the house where
the Prophet’s son, Ibrahīm, was born to Mārīah, his Egyptian wife - also
contained the grave of Ḥamīda al-Barbarīyya, the mother of Imam Mūsā
al-Kāzim. These sites were destroyed over the past few years.

When Muqbil b. Hādī al-Wadīʿī was a student at the University of Medina,

he wrote a thesis entitled, About the Dome Built over the Grave of the
Messenger, sponsored by Sheikh Ḥammād al-Anṣārī. In this paper, he
demands that the noble grave be brought out of the Mosque. He says the
presence of the holy grave and noble dome are major innovations and that
they both need to be destroyed! His thesis received very high marks. A few
years ago, the city planning board of Medina painted the famous green dome
of the Prophet’s (PBUH) Holy Mosque silver. After intense protests by the
citizens of Medina, the board restored the dome to its original color.

In the Ottoman part of the Prophet’s (PBUH) Mosque, at the center of the
three sections, and raised a bit from the ground level, are three circles. The
first, toward the west, corresponds to the grave of the Prophet (PBUH).
The next two, toward the east, correspond to the graves of Abū Bakr and
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb. Above the circles are invocations, such as ‘Yā Allāh’
and ‘Yā Muḥammad.’ The latter was removed and replaced with ‘Yā Majīd’
by adding the dot under the ‘hā’ of Muḥammad (PBUH) to make it ‘jīm’ and
two dots under the second ‘mīm’ of Muḥammad (PBUH) to make it ‘yā.’

9
There are qaṣīdas written by rulers of the Muslim world, such as Sultan ‘Abd
al-Ḥamīd. Many verses of the famous Burda of al-Busīrī have also been
painted over. On the Qibla side, the brass partition that is divided into three
sections between two columns, the authorities have also tried to cover the
famous two verses inscribed in the east from the story of al-ʿUtbī as
mentioned by Ibn Kathīr in his tafsīr.

O best of those whose bones are buried in the deep earth,

and from whose fragrance the depth and height have become
sweet! May I be the ransom for a grave in which you dwell,
where purity, bounty and munificence [lives].

In 1998 the grave of ʿAmina bint Wahb, the Prophet’s (PBUH) mother, was
bulldozed in ʿAbwā and gasoline was poured over it. Even though thousands
of petitions throughout the Muslim world were sent to Saudi Arabia, nothing
could stop this heinous action from being performed. The House of Khadīja
was excavated during the Haram extensions, then hurriedly covered over so
as to obliterate any trace of it. This was the house where the Prophet (PBUH)
received some of his first revelations and it is also where his children Umm
Kulthūm, Ruqqaya, Zaynab, Fāṭima, and Qāsim were born. Dār al-Arqam,
the first school in Islam where the Prophet taught, has also been demolished.
It was in the area of Shiʿb ʿAlī near the Bāb ʿAlī door opposite the king’s
palace. It is now part of the extension of the Haram. The authorities plan to
demolish the house of Mawlid, where the Prophet (PBUH) was born.

About 60 years ago, this house, which used to have a dome over it, was
turned into a cattle market. Some people then worked together to transform
it into a library, which it is today. It is lined with shelves of books about
Mecca, most of them written by Meccans. But the library is under threat
again because of the new Jabal ʿUmar project, one of the largest real estate
development projects near the Grand Mosque. The birthplace of the Prophet
(PBUH) is to make way for a car park and hotels. About 99% of real
estate owners in the Jabal ʿUmar area are shareholders in this company. The
owners have been provided with financial incentives, including what they
used to receive as rents, combining five-star facilities under the luxurious Le
Merldlen banner. The Meridien Towers will allow several thousand housing
units in Mecca to be available during specified periods of time, for a one-off,
fixed fee, giving the towers 25 years of shared ownership in Mecca. This
scheme allow outsiders, whether Muslim or not, to invest in the city; they
will be allowed to buy from a range of properties that can be used, sublet,
resold or given as a gift.

10
In Medina, of the seven mosques at the site of the Battle of the Trench
(Jabal al-Khandaq), where Sūrat al-Ahzāb was revealed, only two remain.
The others have been demolished and a Saudi bank’s cash point machine has
been built in the area. The remaining mosques will be demolished as soon as
the new mosque being constructed is ready. One of the mosques slated for
destruction is Masjid Fatḥ, the mosque and rock of victory where the Prophet
(PBUH) stood during the Battle of the Trench praying for victory. On the
rock is where he received God’s promises of victory and of the conquest of
Mecca.

This study therefore will seek to historically examine the life and death of
Ḥujr b. ʿAdī. It seeks to understand who Ḥujr b. ʿAdī really was, and why
he and his companions were killed so mercilessly by Muʿāwiya. In brief,
Wellhausen and Hawting portray Muʿāwiya as having little choice but to
kill Ḥujr b. ʿAdī because of the schism that existed between Ḥujr and Zīyād
and his only choice surprisingly, was to execute Ḥujr and forgive the latter.3
Maḥmūd Ibrahīm concludes that Ḥujr was a threat to Muʿāwiya’s economic
interests, and therefore had to be executed, which is in line with Shaʿban’s
‘despot’ conclusion. The taking of the Ṣawafī land was the first step:
With its income taken away from them, this faction of the New
Segment were reduced further despite their objections which ended
in the execution of Ḥujr b. ʿAdī and some of his supporters, the first
political execution in Islam.4

Interesting to note that Hodgson believed that ḥilm was represented by

executing those who were dividing the state. In executing Ḥujr, Hodgson
views Muʿāwiya as the Arab-Shaykh and not an autocrat and that the unity
of the Muslim community at the time could only be maintained by executing
those who were deemed as threats, irrespective of their backgrounds or past
service to the religion. Khaled Keshk concludes that the core of the Ḥujr
incident is true, but that historians sought to add their own explanations
within the narrative. He examines Ḥujr as the dissident and as the martyr,
then analyses the different versions which portray his struggles with
Muʿāwiya. Keshk seeks to portray that the inclusion of Khubayb b. ʿAdī in
Baṣran sources sought to highlight how history repeats itself, as Abū Sufyān
was a witness to Khabab’s death and his son was a witness to Ḥujr’s.5 Such
3 Julius Wellhausen, The Religio-Political Factions of Early Islam, ed. R.C. Ostle, trans.
R.C. Ostle and S.M. Waltzer (Amsterdam-North Holland Publishing, 1975).
4 Ibrahīm M. The Social and Economic Background of the Umayyad Caliphate, 370-1.
5 Keskh K. “The Historiography of an Execution: The Killing of Ḥujr b. ʿAdī”, journal of
Islamic Studies, vol. 19, no. 1 (January 2008), 1-35.

11
incidents would be included in narratives of other clashes to add weight to
the image of the martyr, as discussed by Waldman and al-Qāḍī.6

By analyzing the life of this great companion of the Prophet Muḥammad

(PBUH), we are able to see a distinct Shīʿī identity/theology in the formative
period of Islamic History. Ḥujr’s execution, in my opinion, is arguably one of
the clearest proofs that a party who believed in the designation of ʿAlī by the
Prophet (PBUH) are present and existed very early, and not as some would
like to portray as being a group whose beliefs were crystallized centuries
later. Thirdly, we are able to reflect on our lives and seek to apply the lessons
from his magnificent stands and principles today. How much have we truly
sacrificed in our lives for the cause of the religion of Islam? How much have
we sought to protect the tenets of the religion? How much have we sought to
stand against the Muʿāwiya’s of our time, representatives of tyranny, cruelty
and hypocrisy in all it’s forms? Ḥujr’s grave may have been destroyed, but
the terrorists can never obliterate his stands and principles from the heart’s
of the people. The words of Hind, the daughter of Zayd al-Anṣārī, recited to
bewail Ḥujr, reverberate in the heart of every devout believer:
O bright moon, go higher
So that you may see Ḥujr walking!
He is walking to Muʿāwiya b. Harb.
(Muʿāwiya will) kill him as the Emir has claimed.
(He will) hang him on the gate of Damascus.
So the eagles will eat from his charms.
The tyrants have become haughty after Ḥujr.
Al-Khwarnaq and al-Sidir (two palaces) have delighted them.
The country has become faded
As if no rain had enlivened it.
O Hujr, Ḥujr b. ʿAdī,
May safety and joy receive you.
I fear that you will be killed as ʿAlī had been killed.
If you perish, then every chief of people
moves from this world to destruction.

Dr. Sayed Ammar Nakshawani

London, England
5th June 2013

6 Walmand M R. Toward a Theory of Historical Narrative (Columbus: Ohio State

University Press, 1980); al-Qāḍī, W. Bishr b. Kubar al-Balawī; namudhaj min al-nathr
al-fanni al-mubakkir fi al-Yaman (Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 1985)

12
 Ḥujr b. ʿAdī al-Kindī: A Victim of Terror

Once Mecca had been conquered, a great number of pagan tribes became
Muslim of their own accord, whereas others accepted Islam when the Prophet
sent missionaries to instruct people in the tenets of the Muslim religion. ʿAlī
b. Abī Ṭālib was one of the Prophet’s companions who was sent to Yemen
in 10 AH to invite the Yemeni tribes to Islam. His efforts had a monumental
affect on many of the youths in that region as well as endearing him to many
of them forever. Although the final expedition which the Prophet organized
was under the command of Usāma b. Zayd b. Ḥāritha on the Syrian frontier,
he never left Medina in his lifetime. Accordingly, the missionary expedition
to Yemen in Ramadhan 10 AH under the command of ʿAlī was the last one
which left the city of Medina while he was still alive.

The army arrived with ʿAlī in the winter period, and he begun to invite the
leaders of Madhḥaj to accept Islam. Their reply was a unanimous score of
arrows and rocks whereupon he also signaled his troops to charge. They at-
tacked the tribesmen and routed them but did not pursue them because ʿAlī’s
mission was one of peace and not of war. His orders to his troops were to
fight only in self-defense. The Madhḥaj wanted peace which ʿAlī granted
them, and he renewed his invitation to them to accept Islam. This time they
and also the tribe of Ḥamdān responded to his call, and accepted Islam. The
whole of Yemen became Muslim through the efforts of ʿAlī.

The tribe of Kinda belonged to the band of Kahlān, and their homeland was
Yemen. Many of their leaders then moved to Iraq. Kahlān and Ḥimyar were
the two sons of Saba’; this was the name which brought both tribes together.
It was said: ‘The Arabs regarded the houses with glory and honor after the
house of Hāshim b. ‘Abd Manāf as four houses. They were the house of
Qays al-Fāzāzī, (the house of) the Darīmyyīn, (the house of) Band Shayn,
and the house of Yemen, who belonged to the bane of al-Ḥarith b. Kaʿb.’
As for the Kinda, they were not regarded simply as ordinary people from
the houses. They were kings, and among them was al-Malik al-Dilīl (i.e.,
ʿUmrū’ al-Qays). They had authority in both Yemen and al-Ḥijāz. The glory
of Kinda lasted during the time of Islam. A few of the Kindīs took part in the
conquests and the revolts; while some of them were governors, others were
judges, such as Ḥusayn b. Ḥasan al-Ḥujrī; and there were poets such as Jaʿfar
b. ʿAffan al-Makfūf, the poet of the Shīʿa, in their lineage. Hanī b. al-Wad
b. ʿAdī, the nephew of Ḥujr, was among the noble figures of Kūfah. Jaʿfar b.

13
al-Ashʿath and his son al-ʿAbbās b. Jaʿfar were among the Shīʿa of Imam
Abu al-Ḥasan (i.e., Mūsā b. Jaʿfar) and his son al-Riḍa, peace be upon them.
As for al-Ashʿath b. Qays al-Kindī, he was the greatest of all the hypocrites
in Kūfah. He became Muslim, then he renounced Islam after the Prophet
died. Then he became Muslim, and Abu Bakr accepted his Islam. Abu
Bakr then married him to his sister who was the mother of Muḥammad b.
al-Ashʿath. Imam al-Ḥasan married al-Ashʿath’s daughter whom Muʿāwiya
asked to give poison for Imam al-Ḥasan to drink.

Ḥujr b. ʿAdī’s full name was Ḥujr b. ʿAdī b. Jabāl b. ʿAdī b. Rābiʿah b.
Muʿāwiya al-Akbār b. al-Ḥarith b. Muʿāwiya b. Thawr b. Bazīgh b.
Kindī al-Kūfī. He was known as Ḥujr al-Khayr (Ḥujr the Good). There
is a difference of opinion as to whether Ḥujr was a companion or from
the followers of the companions as he is included in the lists of both
groupings, however in his book Al-Mustadrak, al-Ḥakim has described him
as ‘the monk of the Companions of Muḥammad, may Allāh bless him and
his family.’1

He fought in the Ridda and later took part in the battle of al-Qādisīyyah on
the Sasanian front.2 He fought alongside ʿAlī b. Abū Ṭālib in the Battles
of the Camel and Ṣiffīn and was one of his staunch supporters.3 Ḥujr and
his brother Hānī b. ʿAdī came to the Prophet, may Allāh bless him and his
family. In his book Al-Istīʿāb, Ibn ʿAbd al-Birr al-Malikī said, ‘Ḥujr was
among the excellent companions, and his age was less than their old ones.’
In his book Usad al-Ghāba, Ibn al-ʿAthīr has mentioned him with words
similar to these.

Imam ʿAlī attracted more Shīʿa from the ʿAdnānī tribes than from among
the Qaḥṭānī ones; although Shīʿīsm among the Qaḥṭānīs had grown a great
deal as well. The principal Shīʿa who comprised the soldiers and compilers
of history of the Commander of the Faithful were Arab tribes from Yemen in
the south and and from among the Qaḥṭānīs. For example, Imam ʿAlī said in
Rājzī, one of the battle arenas in Ṣiffīn:
‫أنا الغالم القريش املؤتمن * املاجد األبيض يلث اكلشطن‬
‫يرىض به السادة من أهل ايلمن * من ساكين جند ومن أهل عدن‬
1 al-Nīsabūrī, Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥakīm, al-Mustadrak ala 1-Ṣaḥīḥayn (India:
Dā’irat al-Maʿārif al-Nād’imiyet al-Qā’ima fī l-Hind, 1913).
2 Ibn Saʿd, Al-Ṭabaqāt, vol. 6, 151.
3 Ibn Kathīr, Al-Bidāya wa-l-Nihāya, ed. ʿAlī ʿAbd al-Ṣāṭir (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-
ʿIlmīyyah, 1985), vol. 3, 51-2.

14
 I am a Qurayshī youth - trustworthy, great, pure, and like a lion - with
whom the distinguished men of the people of Yemen from among the
residents of Najd and ʿAden are pleased.4

Likewise, after the death of the Prophet of Islam (PBUH), the majority of
ʿAlī’s followers from among the companions of the Prophet (PBUH) were
Anṣār whose origins were Qaḥṭānī. It was most of these men who had ac-
companied ʿAlī from Medina to the Battle of Jamal.5 Similarly, when lmam
al-Ḥusayn set off toward Kūfah, ʿAbd Allāh b. al-ʿAbbās said to him:
If the people of Iraq like you and want to assist you, you write to
them, “The enemy shall expel you from your city. Then, you come
here.” Instead, you move toward Yemen where there are mountains,
strongholds and forts that Iraq does not have. Yemen is a vast land
and your father have Shīʿa there. You go there and then send your
preachers to the neighboring places to invite the people to come to you.

The companions of Imam al-Ḥusayn, with the exception of Banū Hāshim

and a few Ghaffārīs, belonged to tribes from Yemen as well. As Masʿūdī has
said, ‘from among the companions of the Prophet (PBUH), only four persons
attained martyrdom at the lap of the Prophet (S) and these four were from
the Anṣār.’6

After the Battle of Nahrawān, Muʿāwiya sent Al-Ḍaḥḥāk b. Qays al-Fihrī

with a force of four thousand towards Kūfah with the purpose that he
should create disorder in this area, kill whomever he finds and keep busy in
bloodshed and destruction so that Amīr al-Muʿminīn should find no rest or
peace of mind. He set off for the achievement of this aim, and shedding
innocent blood and spreading destruction all round reached up to the place
of al-Thaʿlabīyyah. Here he attacked a caravan of pilgrims (to Mecca) and
looted all their wealth and belongings. Then at al-Quṭquṭānah he killed the
nephew of ʿAbdullāh b. Masʿūd, the Holy Prophet's companion, namely,
ʿAmr b. ʿUways b. Masʿūd together with his followers. In this manner he
created havoc and bloodshed all round. When Amīr al-Muʿminīn came to
know of this rack and ruin he called his men to battle in order to put a stop to
this vandalism, but people seemed to avoid war. Being disgusted with their

4 Ibn Shāhrashūb Māzandarānī, Manāqib Al Abī Ṭālib (Qum: Muʿassasah Intisharat-e

‘Allameh, n.d.), vol. 3, p. 178.
5 Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā b. Jābir Balādhurī, Ansāb al-Ashrāf, researched by Muḥammad Bāqir
Maḥmūdī (Beirut: Manshurat Muʿassasah al-Aʿlami Li’l-Matbuʿat, 1394 AH), vol. 3, 161.
6 ʿAlī b. ʿusayn b. ʿAlī Masʿūdī, Murūj al-Dhahāb wa Maʿādin al-]awhar, 1st edition
(Beirut: Manshurat Muʿassasah al-Aʿlami Li’l-Matbuʿat, 1411 AH), vol. 3,84

15
lethargy and lack of enthusiasm he ascended the pulpit and delivered this
sermon, wherein he has roused the men to feel shame and not to try to avoid
war but to rise for the protection of their country like brave men without
employing wrong and lame excuses. At last Ḥujr b. ʿAdī al-Kindī rose with a
force of four thousand for crushing the enemy and overtook him at Tadmur.
Only a small encounter had taken place between the parties when night came
on and he fled away with only nineteen killed on his side. In the army two
persons also fell as martyrs. This sermon in the Nahj al-Balāgha sets the
scene:
O people, your bodies are together but your desires are divergent.
Your talk softens the hard stones and your action attracts your enemy
towards you. You claim in your sittings that you would do this and
that, but when fighting approaches, you say (to war), 'turn thou away'
(i.e. flee away). If one calls you (for help) the call receives no heed.
And he who deals hardly with you his heart has no solace. The excuses
are amiss like that of a debtor unwilling to pay. The ignoble can not
ward off oppression. Right cannot be achieved without effort. Which
is the house besides this one to protect? And with which leader (Imam)
would you go for fighting after me?

By Allāh! Deceived is one whom you have deceived while, by Allāh!

he who is successful with you receives only useless arrows. You are
like broken arrows thrown over the enemy. By Allāh! I am now in the
position that I neither confirm your views nor hope for your support,
nor challenge the enemy through you. What is the matter with you?
What is your ailment? What is your cure? The other party is also men
of your shape (but they are so different in character). Will there be
talk without action, carelessness without piety and greed in things not
right?!7

Furthermore, on the night of the assassination Ibn Muljam came to al-Ashʿath

b. Qays and both retired to a corner of the mosque and sat there when Ḥujr
b. ʿAdī passed by and he heard al-Ashʿath saying to Ibn Muljam, ‘Be quick
now or else dawn’s light would disgrace you.’ On hearing this Ḥujr said to
al-Ashʿath, ‘O one-eyed man, you are preparing to kill ʿAlī’ and hastened
towards ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, but Ibn Muljam had preceded him and struck 'Ali
with his sword. When Ḥujr turned back, people were crying, ʿAlī has been
killed.’

Later, Al-Ḥasan sent Ḥujr b. ʿAdī to order the leaders to set out and to call
7 Sermon 29, Nahj al-Balāgha

16
the people together for war (jihād). They were slow to (answer) him and
then they came forward. (Al-Ḥasan) had a mixed band of men: some of them
belonged to his Shīʿa and to his father’s; some of them were members of the
Muḥakkima (i.e., Khārijites) who were influenced by (the desires of) fighting
Muʿāwiya with every means (possible); some of them were men who loved
discords and were anxious for booty; some of them were doubters; oth-
ers were tribal supporters who followed the leaders of their tribes without
reference to religion.

Al-Ḥasan, peace be on him, followed all these ways from the day when
he assumed the succession in Kūfah. Also he used them when he declared
jihād. Among his measures, as we have said earlier, were that he increased
the salaries of the fighters a hundred percent. He sent Ḥujr b. ʿAdī to his
rulers to summon them to jihād. His notable companions, who were orators,
helped him with his task. Among them were ʿAdī b. Hātam, Maʿqal b. Qays
al-Riyāḥī, Zīyīd b. Saʿsaʿa al-Tamīmī, and Qays b. Saʿd al-Anṣārī. They
criticized the people for their slowness and urged them to take part in jihād
for Allāh. Then they themselves competed with each other for their places in
the general camp, and they competed with the people for that.

They spread the standards of jihād all over Kūfah. They summoned the
people (to obey) Allāh, the Great and Almighty, and the family of
Muḥammad, peace be on them. The partisans of ʿAlī revolted against
Muʿāwiya and his central government. They had paid allegiance to al-Ḥasan,
son of ʿAlī and grandson of Muḥammad, soon after the battle of Ṣiffīn and
the murder of ʿAlī. They viewed al-Ḥasan as the legitimate successor to ʿAlī.
Muʿāwiya did not believe that al-Ḥasan had the capability of leading and
dismissed him, by stating:
I admit that your blood relationship gives you a clear title to the office.
If I knew that you were more capable than I in keeping the people under
discipline, more considerate of this Ummah, a better statesman, more
effective in collecting the revenues, and a greater deterrent against the
enemy, I would certainly swear allegiance to you. But I have had long
enough in this position and I have much more experience in its duties
than you have.8

8 Al-Isfahānī, Abul Faraj, Maqātil al-Ṭālibiyīn, ed. Aḥmed Saqr, (Cairo, 1949), 2nd edition,
(Tehran, 1970), 58

17
 The Role of Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān

According to traditional Muslim sources, Muʿāwiya was born in Mecca five

years before the open proclamation of the religion of Islam.1 His father was
Ṣakhr b. Ḥarb b. Umayyah b. ʿAbd Shams b. ʿAbd Manāf, who was known
as Abū Sufyān and his mother was Hind bt. ʿUtbah b. Rabīʿah b. ʿAbd Shams
b. ʿAbd Manāf.2 Abū Sufyan had two sons, Yazīd and Muʿāwiya, and a
daughter named Umm Ḥabība. Muʿāwiya ruled the Islamic nascent Muslim
community from 41-60/661-680. Historians see Muʿāwiya as either the first
or the second of the Umayyad Caliphs as ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān ruled before
him from 23-35/644-656.3 ʿUthmān is viewed as being amongst the rightly
guided Caliphs, an honour notably given to only one other Umayyad, ʿUmar
II.4 Muʿāwiya, however, is regarded as the founder of the Caliphate of the
Umayyad dynasty.5 The Sufyanid dynasty refers solely to Muʿāwiya and his
lineage, which came to an end with the death of his grandson Muʿāwiya II in
64/683, thus marking the beginning of the Marwānid dynasty.

There is a difference of opinion on the timing of Muʿāwiya’s conversion

1 Aḥmad b. ʿAlī Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, al-Iṣābah fī tamyīz al-ṣaḥābah (Cairo: Bulaq,
1328/1910 ), vol. 3, 433.
2 On Abū Sufyān, see Abū ʿAmr Khalīfa Ibn Khayyāṭ, al-Ṭabaqāt: riwāyat Abī ʿImrān
Mūsā al-Tustarī, ed. Akram Ḍiyā’ al-ʿUmarī (Baghdad: Maṭbaʿat al-ʿAnī, 1967), 297;
ʿAbdullāh b. Muslim Ibn Qutayba, Kitāb al-Maʿārif, ed. Tharwat ʿUkāshah (Cairo:
Maṭbaʿat Dār al-Kutub, 1960), 344; ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn al-Masʿūdī, al-Tanbīḥ wa-l-ishrāf
(Leiden, 1894, rpt., Beirut: Maktabat al-Khayyat,1965); on Hind, see Ibn Khayyāṭ,
al-Ṭabaqāt, 298.
3 Asma Afsaruddin, The First Muslims: History and Memory (Oxford: Oneworld
Publications, 2008), 47-50, discusses the notion of ʿUthmān as being amongst the Rightly
Guided Caliphs. Cf. M. A. Shaban, Islamic History: A New Interpretation A.D. 600-750
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), vol. 1, 63.
4 G.R. Hawting, The First Dynasty of Islam (London: Routledge, 2000), 18. It is not very
clear when the term al-Khulāfa’ al-Rāshidūn was crystallised. Afsaruddin comments on
page 55 of The First Muslims that ‘the concept began to crystallize at some point during
the Umayyad period when, against the backdrop of what appeared to be a deliberate
reversion to pre-Islamic values, nostalgia for the age of the Prophet and his Companions
must have become pronounced. Abū Hanīfa (d. 767) and Aḥmed b. Hanbal (d. 855) are
credited with being the earliest scholars to recognise the chronological order of the four
Rāshidūn caliphs and to have imparted a certain degree of theological significance to
this order.’ There is a difference of opinion as to whether was ‘Alī was initially excluded
from the list of caliphs. See Madelung, The Succession to Muḥammad, 173. This seems
to have changed by the late eighth century. See M. Watt, The Formative Period of Islamic
Thought (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1973), 77.
5 Hawting, The First Dynasty of Islam, 1.

18
to Islam.6 A conversion preceding the conquest of Mecca would be more
favorable in light of later claims for the Caliphate, as he would not be
categorized as being one of the freed ones, known as the tulaqāh. One
narration discusses his conversion as taking place before the occupation of
Mecca. The narration discusses the fact that he accepted Islam at the Treaty
of Ḥudaybīyyah.7 Another narration, however, Indicates a conversion to
Islam in the year 8 AH, hence counting him amongst the freedmen in
Mecca.8 After his conversion, Muʿāwiya was given one hundred camels and
forty ounces of gold from the booty of the Battle of Ḥunayn, for he was
one of those whose hearts had been reconciled.9 Muʿāwiya was employed
by the Prophet as a secretary,10 or kātib.11 Amongst his duties was to ensure
messages were written to chiefs of different Arab tribes.12

Muʿāwiya served the state during the rule of the first three caliphs. First,
he acted as lieutenant of the army that conquered Syria during the reign
of Abū Bakr. Then, when Khālid b. Saʿīd b. al-Āṣ had been defeated and
killed by the Byzantines in the Battle of Marj al-Ṣuffar in the year 13/ 633,
Muʿāwiya was head of the 3, 000 tribesmen that were part of the expedition.13
Furthermore, during the reign of ʿUmar,14 he fought and defeated the
Byzantines in the Battle of al-Yarmūk in 15/635 and would then continue
under ʿUthmān as a military governor.15

The political divisions of the period between 656 and 661 acquired
6 Ibn ʿAsākīr, Tārīkh Madīnat Dimashq, ed. Muḥibb al-Dīn Abī Saʿīd ʿUmar b. Gharāma
al-ʿAmrawī (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1995-1998) vol. 61, 57. See also al-Balādhurī, Ansāb
al-Ashrāf, ed. Iḥsan ʿAbbās (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1979), vol. 4, 13, who discusses
a different though not exact date and indicates that it was earlier than the conquest of
Mecca.
7 Ibn Ḥajar, al-Iṣābah, vol. 3, 433; see also I. Hasson, JSAI, 22 (1998), ‘La conversion de
Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān,’ 219.
8 Al-Ṭabarī, Tārīkh al-Rusul wa’l-mulūk, ed. M.J. de Goej, et al (Leiden: Brill, 1881),
vol. 1, 1642-3.
9 Ismail b. ʿUmar Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah (Beirut: Maktabah al-Maʿārif,
1966), vol. 8, 117.
10 Afsaruddin,The First Muslims, 81.
11 Izz al-Dīn Ibn al-ʿAthīr, al-Kāmil fī al-Tārīkh, ed. C.J. Tornberg (Leiden: Brill, 1868-
70), vol. 2, 313.
12 Ibn Ḥajar, al-Iṣābah, vol. 3, 434.
13 Al-Ṭabarī, Tārīkh al-Rusul wa’l-mulūk, vol. 1, 2090-1.
14 S. Bashear, “The Title Fārūq and its Association with ʿUmar I”, Studia Islamica, 72
(1990), 47-70.
15 Aḥmed b. Yaḥyā al-Balādhurī, Futūḥ al-Buldān, ed. M. de Goeje (Leiden: Brill, 1865),
135-6. See also R.B. Serjeant, “The Caliph ʿUmar’s Letters to Abū Mūsā and Muʿāwiya,”
Semitic Studies, 24 (1984), 65-79.

19
significance in regards to the discussions of Muʿāwiya’s authority and
leadership for later Muslims.16 These events shaped the identities and
political thoughts of Muslim communities.17 Irreconcilable factions within
the community were to be explained in light of the civil wars after the
murder of ʿUthmān.18 Tensions were clearly prevalent within the new
Muslim community.19 Old rivalries between the Meccans and Medinans,
as well as inter-tribal conflicts, were revived. The newly created Islamic
theocracy was full of dissensions.20 Abū Bakr and ʿUmar were seen to
have upheld a modus vivendi21 with their recognition of the religious
and political aspects of leading the Islamic state.22 However, with the
emergence of ʿUthmān and the Umayyads, dissatisfaction once again
resurfaced.23 Muʿāwiya’s leadership is central to this period and its main
events as we shall see.24

It is a period referred to by Donner as the era of ‘Islamic origins.’25

The history of Islamic origins is mainly taken from the Islamic tradition
itself. There are extensive sources for this - that fact is not under question.26
Yet the documentary value of such sources is under intense scrutiny and this
in many cases reduces the confidence of scholars when seeking to build a
traditional picture of Islamic orlglns.27 This is not to deny that there are
sources which, although outside of the Islamic tradition, were contemporary

16 M. Hinds, “The Murder of the Caliph ʿUthmān”, IJMES, 3 (1972), 450-69.

17 M. Sharon, “Notes on the Question of Legitimacy of Government in Islam”, Israel
Oriental Studies, 10 (1980), 116-23.
18 P. Crone, God’s Rule (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004), 23.
19 M. Hinds, “The Murder of the Caliph ʿUthmān”.
20 G. Hawting, “The Significance of the Slogan La Ḥukma illa Lillah and the References
to the Ḥudūd in the Traditions about the Fitna and the Murder of ʿUthmān”, BSOAS, 41
(1978), 453-463.
21 E. Petersen, ʿAlī and Muʿāwiya (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1964), Introduction.
However, Madelung questions the legitimacy of their authority in light of the events at
Saqīfat Banī Sā’idah - see Madelung, The Succession to Muḥammad, 28.
22 W.M. Watt, “God’s Caliph: Quranic Interpretations and Umayyad Claims”, Iran and
Islam, ed. C.E. Bosworth (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1971).
23 Madelung, The Succession to Muḥammad, 113. See also M. Quṭb, Social Justice In
Islam, tr. John Hardie (New York: Octagon Books, 1970), 183.
24 M. Sharon, “The Umayyads as Ahl al-Bayt”, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 14
(1992), 115-52.
25 Donner, Narratives of Islamic Origins, 1.
26 M. Hinds, “The Siffin Arbitration Agreement”, JSS, 17 (1972), 92-129.
27 S.P. Brock, “Syriac Sources for Seventh Century History”, Byzantine and Modern
Greek Studies, 2 (1976).

20
with the spread of Islam.28 These have been viewed as being more reliable
than the Islamic sources, as they were produced without any type of
theological or political stance underpinning the way history is portrayed.29
These sources are of the utmost importance, though at times they may not
provide conclusive or even helpful results in relation to certain parts of
history.30 Particular detail shall be paid in our study to the conditions for
leadership, which are listed in such sources, in order to examine the reign of
Muʿāwiya. ‘The Maronite Chronicle’, compiled by an anonymous Maronite
Christian author, recorded Muʿāwiya’s succession as caliph. This chronicle
was compiled between 664 and 727 and is seen as a near contemporaneous
source.31 This is the view adopted by Marsham when he states:
The two Syriac accounts of Muʿāwiya’s succession in Syria are not
only contemporaneous evidence for early Umayyad succession ritual
than anything in the extant Arabic-Islamic material but are also more
detailed in many respects. We can be reasonably confident that they are
near contemporaneous, even perhaps eyewitness accounts, copied by
the compiler of the chronicle.32

The narratives indicate a ceremony representing a shift from the Caliphate

to kingship. Muʿāwiya’s reign as leader marks that shift from Caliphate to
kingship in light of the conditions ofleadership as stipulated in the sources.

A survey of the sources that discuss Muʿāwiya’s leadership is therefore

vital. Historical, theological, jurisprudential, adab and jurisprudence
literature form the basis of the narratives relating to the period in and around
the fitnah and provide adequate evidence that the theory of the schools
can be rejected and that through source criticism, the similarities and
contradictions in the narratives display no clear political or ideological
motive in compilation.

While stressing the lack of sympathy within Shīʿī and Kharijite circles,
28 M. Leeker, “The Estates of ʿAmr b. al-Āṣ in Palestine: Notes on a New Negev Arabic
Inscription”, BSOAS, 52 (1989), 24-37.
29 W. Kaegi, “Initial Byzantine Reactions to the Arab Conquests”, Church History, 38
(1969), 139-49; R. Hoyland, “Sebeos, the Jews and the Rise of Islam”, Studies in
Muslim-Jewish Relations, 2 (1996), 89-102.
30 F. Donner, The Early Islamic Conquests (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981),
142-146.
31 A. Palmer, S. Brock, and R. Hoyland, The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian
Chronicles (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1993), 29.
32 A. Marsham, Rituals of Islamic Monarchy, Accession and Succession in the First
Muslim Empire (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009), 87-88.

21
Humphreys does admit that Muʿāwiya does not necessarily fall within the
definition of the more traditional religious circles:
The real problem is that he did not fit neatly into the moral categories
which later Muslims decided to evaluate a person’s religious standing
- indeed, he subverted them, and so they could never quite decide what
to make of him.33

He speaks of ‘Arabic sources, dominated by Iraqi and pro-ʿAlid

perspectives.’34 ʿAlī is portrayed here as never intending to find the killers
of ʿUthmān. But at the same time, he ironically belittles Muʿāwiya’s
approach to events. First is the clear lack of help he offers his cousin in his
time of need. Intrigue overshadows much of Muʿāwiya’s intention for the
position of Caliphate, like that of his partner ʿAmr b. al-Āṣ, ‘a man not above
cynical opportunism.’35

Humphreys introduces certain members of the Caliph’s government - people

whose personal conduct had ‘often been scandalous’,36 like al-Mughīrah
and the hapless Zīyād, son of his father, named because of his mysterious,
adulterous birth. ‘To win the reluctant Zīyād to his cause, Muʿāwiya had the
idea of proclaiming that he was the son of his own father Abu Sufyan’37, an
act of un-Islamic proportions. This Zīyād is highly praised by Humphreys,
especially in a comical narration of his striking of an innocent bedouin’s
head!38 Humphreys does, however, admit that Muʿāwiya ‘lacked and
almost certainly never desired, the religious charisma of Muḥammad but
in his methods of using political means for political ends, he is perhaps no
different.’39

Moreover, the depiction of Muʿāwiya, according to Keshk, very much

depends on the period in which the accounts have taken place and who the
narrators of the respective events are. His work includes an analysis of some
diametrically opposed depictions, within three periods, pre-civil war, civil
war and post-civil war. In the pre-civil war period, Muʿāwiya’s image is
portrayed as that of an obedient governor. His loyalty, bravery and piety all
emerge. What is the reasoning behind this? Keshk believes this is very much

33 Humphreys, Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān, 3.

34 Ibid, 79.
35 Ibid, 81.
36 Ibid, 86.
37 Ibid, 89.
38 Ibid, 92.
39 Ibid, 93.

22
related to the fact that the historical tragedy of the first civil war had not yet
affected Muʿāwiya’s persona.40

Keshk then continues by looking at ‘civil war Muʿāwiya’ and discusses

the fact that the negative images which emerge are due to parallels made
between ʿAlī’s struggle with Muʿāwiya and Muḥammad’s struggle with
Abū Sufyān.41 Keshk then sheds light on two of the most important incidents
in defining Muʿāwiya’s image in Islamic history, the killing of Ḥujr b. ʿAdī
al-Kindī and the appointment of Yazīd as heir apparent. Again, the question
is raised, is Muʿāwiya the proverbial Arab sheikh or the despot? Keshk
argues that this all depends on the way one views Ḥujr. Is Ḥujr a rebel against
the cause or is he a renowned companion of the Prophet? Likewise, when
discussing Yazīd, he analyses the regional and political factors that led to the
appointment.42

Keshk’s main point is that history and historiography are two different
things. ‘Madelung takes this argument, as he does with every negative
comment about Muʿāwiya, with absolute truth. Although Madelung does
seem to accept the story at face value, we believe he misses out some of its
subtleties, or maybe he purposely avoids them.’43 Again Keshk believes that
without considering the sources and the environment of the time, Madelung
is amongst the historians who have reached the wrong conclusions:
Muʿāwiya and his followers were easily stigmatized by the simple
injection of Muʿāwiya’s name among the confederates besieging
Medina at the Battle of the Trench. This association remained with
Muʿāwiya and his followers through their subsequent struggle with
ʿAlī and his supporters. Indeed, Muʿāwiya’s character in these
depictions was that of an evil, irreligious, cowardly usurper who was
unworthy of the support of other Muslims, let alone the caliphate.
This re-working of Muʿāwiya’s image has been sufficiently effective
that one modern scholar, namely Madelung, has accepted it as a true
reflection of a historical figure, rather than the fictional story telling of
the classical Muslim historians.44

However, Keshk’s conclusion is rejected when examining the sources and

the way they depict Muʿāwiya’s decisions. Keshk seeks to explain the
40 Keshk, The Depiction of Muʿāwiya, 18.
41 Ibid, 53.
42 Ibid, 101.
43 Ibid, 106.
44 Ibid, 185.

23
killing of Ḥujr b. ʿAdī by proposing the theory that historians emphasize
certain elements of the story of Ḥujr to highlight a particular political bias,
and that when this is done, they are taking away from the fact that ‘these
sources had a primary purpose that was lost on modern scholars in their use
of the Ḥujr story.’ The reply, however, is that the emphasis on these elements
was to portray a clearer understanding of the motives and the backgrounds
of the execution. Historians are in agreement on four major parts of the
narrative. The first is a discussion of the disagreement which occurred
between Ḥujr, al-Mughīrah and Zīyād. The second is that they discuss the
background to his disobedience of the authorities in Kūfah, the third is his
arrest and the fourth is his execution. Keshk states that while they all agree,
they tend to emphasize one incident over another. The emphasis of one
incident over another does not hide the over-arching question as to whether
Muʿāwiya’s conclusive decision concerning Ḥujr was that of a ḥalīm or that
of a jāhil.

Muʿāwiya’s does not display ḥilm in his dealings with Ḥujr. It was a ruthless
decision that was undertaken, with no tolerance or respect shown to the men
who tried to intercede on behalf of Ḥujr. The offer to exile them into different
parts of the empire would no doubt have silenced his critics and the critics
of Zīyād as well. But the government had reached a stage where dissidents
were not tolerated, especially those who continued to display love towards
ʿAlī, his family and their political beliefs. In each case, Shaban concludes
that Muʿāwiya acts as a despot in his dealings with Ḥujr.45

This point is stressed upon by Quṭb. While Quṭb may not be regarded as
a historian as such, his later social influence in Islamic political circles is
very clear.46 Quṭb is extremely critical of the sources that depict Muʿāwiya
as being of the earlier entourage of companions and a man of known piety.
Muʿāwiya’s biography and subsequent credentials are examined and he
disagrees with the picture portrayed by some historians:
The erroneous fable still persists that Muʿāwiya was a scribe who
wrote down the revelations of Allāh’s Messenger. The truth is that
when Abū Sufyān embraced Islam, he besought the Prophet to give
Muʿāwiya some measure of position in the eyes of the Arabs; thus
he would be compensated of being slow to embrace Islam and of
being one of those who had no precedence in the new religion. So
45 Shaban, Islamic History, 89.
46 W. Shepard, “The Development of the Thought of Sayyid Quṭb as Reflected in Earlier
and Later Editions of ‘Social Justice in Islam’,” Die Welt des Islam, 32 (1992); See also
W. Shepard, “Sayyed Quṭb’s Doctrine of Jaḥilīyya'', IJMES, 35 (2003), 521-45.

24
 the Prophet used Muʿāwiya for writing letters and contracts and
agreements. But none of the companions ever said that he wrote
down any of the Prophet’s revelations, as was asserted by Muʿāwiya’s
partisans after he had assumed the throne.47

Yet no historian of the modern school has been as scathing in his attack on
the Umayyads in general and Muʿāwiya in particular as Madelung:
The cancer in the body of the caliphate which had nurtured and
proved unable to excise because of his doting love for a corrupt
and rapacious kin destroyed him. It was to continue to grow and to
sweep away ʿUmar’s caliphate of the Islamic meritocracy. ʿUthmān’s
successor, Muʿāwiya, turned it, as predicted by a well-known
prophecy ascribed to Muḥammad, into traditional despotic kingship.48

This view of Muʿāwiya, in stark contrast to Humphreys and others, is further

emphasized in discussing what they he viewed as ḥilm:
Muʿāwiya had developed a taste for despotism of the Roman Byzantine
type. While endowed with a natural instinct for power and domination,
his judgment of human nature was, contrary to his reputation, limited
and primitive. He had come to understand that in statecraft, whenever
bribery or intimidation would not reduce an opponent, murder, open or
secret, was the most convenient and effective means.49

Madelung then analyzes the role of cursing within Muʿāwiya’s political fi-
nesse. ʿAlī is portrayed by Muʿāwiya as a sworn enemy, in a manner which
differs from the works of contemporary scholars, with the animosity dis-
played in public arenas:
Particularly useful for Muʿāwiya’s purposes was the public cursing of
ʿAlī in Kūfah where, he hoped, it would bring out into the open the
latent opposition to Umayyad rule, thus facilitating his measures of
repression.50

47 Quṭb, Social Justice in Islam, 183.

48 Madelung, The Succession to Muḥammad, 140.
49 Ibid, 197-8.
50 Ibid, 335.

25
 Muʿāwiya’s Treatment of Rebellions

Muʿāwiya had cleverly chosen al-Mughīrah b. Shuʿbah al-Thaqafī, a

man of experience, as governor of Kūfah.1 Al-Mughīrah could now help
control any emerging political rivals for Muʿāwiya in Kūfah and, indeed,
dissenters. As soon as he came into power, al-Mughīrah would have to end
the revolt of Muʿayn b. ʿAbdullāh al-Muḥāribī and ensured that he was
executed. Abū Laylā, ally of Banī al-Ḥārith b. Kaʿb was also killed. He
had shouted, ‘Taḥkīm!’ (arbitration), in the mosque and wanted to revolt in
Kūfah. Maʿqil b. Qays al-Riyāḥī was appointed by al-Mughīrah to kill him
in the Sawād.

Muʿāwiya had appointed al-Mughīrah in Kūfah and ʿAbdullāh b. ʿĀmīr in

Baṣra. ʿAbdullāh had to face the Khawārij but was seemingly lenient with
them. ʿIbādah b. Qurṣ al-Laythī, known as a companion of Muḥammad,
was killed by a group of the Khawārij who had been led by Sahm b. Ghālib
al-Hujaymī. They killed him as well as his wife and son. ʿAbdullāh caught
them, but did not kill them, and ensured that they were to be granted
amnesty. He therefore went against an order from Muʿāwiya to execute
them.2 Muʿāwiya dismissed him because:
He had some difficulties in his dealings with the the tribesmen in Baṣra
itself. This was because large numbers of new immigrants coming into
Baṣra had caused some tension between the different tribal groups.
Muʿāwiya, who was alarmed by the situation, removed Ibn ʿĀmīr in
44/664, replacing him with the redoubtable Zīyād b. Abīhī.3

These two appointments were signs of the ḥilm of Muʿāwiya. He knew

who to appoint and when to replace them and with whom to replace them.
Al-Mughīrah was protecting Kūfah for him and Zīyād was now ensuring the
smooth running of affairs in Baṣra. Al-Mughīrah was constantly aware of the
plans of the Khawārij. Men such as Muʿadh b. Juwayn al-Ṭa’ī, al-Mustawrid
b. ʿUllafa al-Taymī and Ḥayyān b. Dhabyan al-Sulamī were seeking to make
a breakthrough in Kūfah, especially Ḥayyān, who had been in al-Rayy since
38/658. The meetings were held in the house of Ḥayyān and were attended
by twenty of the Khawārij. Qabīḍa b. al-Dāmūn was appointed to break the
meeting, capture and imprison the leaders in the prisons of Kūfah. These
people had felt oppressed and at the same time felt Islamic law was not being
1 Al-Balādhurī, Ansāb al-Ashrāf, vol. 4A, 139-40.
2 Ibn al-ʿAthīr, vol. 3, 417-418.
3 Shaban, Islamic History, 85-86.

26
implemeneted. However, al-Mustawrid escaped and al-Mughīrah met each
and every tribal leader to ensure that they kept an eye out for the rebels, and
if they did not, or if a rebel was from their tribe, then the whole tribe would
be imprisoned. This form of governance had not been witnessed in the reigns
of any of the first caliphs.4

Furthermore, Mughīrah would ensure that any of the enemies of the

central government would fight each other. Qabīḍa b. al-Dāmūn was ordered
to ensure three thousand of the Shīʿīs of Kūfah would be sent under Maʿqil
b. Qays al-Riyāḥī, a Shīʿī, to fight al-Mustawrid.

Both died at al-Madhār, a Khārijite and a Shīʿī fighting each other with
al-Mughīrah instigating the war. Indeed, anyone whose loyalty was in
question would not be given any sanctuary, including Shabīb b. Bajra
al-Ashjaʿī who had fought against ʿAlī at al-Nahrawān was killed by Khālid
b. ʿUrfuṭa in ʿUnquf near Kūfah.5

Zīyād b. Abīhī made a unanimous announcement when appointed as the

governor (45/664) of Baṣra which embodied the message of the government.
I swear I will never be remiss in punishing the client for the Sire, the
father for the son, the healthy for the sick, the staying for the fugitive,
the obedient for the unruly, until the man on meeting will say, ‘Save
yourself Saʿd for Saʿīd has perished.’6

Those who were pardoned or given amnesty would no longer receive such
treatment under Zīyād. As an example, Sahm was killed and Zīyād b. Mālik
al-Bāhilī was to be placed under house arrest in Baṣra under the watchful eye
of Muslim b. ʿAmr al-Bāhilī. On the night that Zīyād asked to see Zīyād b.
Mālik he was not there. This led to his execution and his body was not even
given a burial but thrown towards a resident tribe.7 Zīyād was ruthless but
the act of throwing a body with no burial was unprecedented.8 Furthermore,
when ʿAbbad b. Ḥusayn al-Ṭāʿī led a revolt in Baṣra, he was mercilessly
caught and executed by Bishr b. ʿUtbah al-Tamīmī under the orders of Zīyād.
The latter would eventually take charge of both Kūfah and Baṣra when
al-Mughīrah died in 50/670. One governor would administer both districts
for the first time. He would ensure that he spent six months in Baṣra and six
months in Kūfah.
4 Al-Ṭabarī, Tārīkh, vol. 2, 32-33.
5 Al-Balādhurī, Ansāb al-Ashrāf, vol. 4A, 141.
6 Al-Ṭabarī, Tārīkh, vol. 2, 74.
7 Al-Balādhurī, Ansāb al-Ashrāf, vol. 4A, 148-49.
8 Ibid, 149.

27
His strength as governor would be revealed through the revolts that would
be led when he was not present. An increase in revolts began because of his
strictness with his fiscal policies and the purging of records which included
the names of the deceased of the Khawārij. Corruption would then be
limited and people would not abuse the system.9 When he left Baṣra, he
would announce Samar b. Jundab al-Fazārī as his successor and some
Khawārij would seek to revolt including the likes of Qurayb b. Murra
al-ʿAzdī and Zaḥāf b. Zaḥr al-Ṭāʿī. They had the audacity to march through
the streets and kill. When Zīyād returned he unleashed a warning that if the
people of Baṣra did not cooperate with him then they would feel the force
of his administration and rule. Their annual stipends would also be cut off.10
This announcement led to the heads of the tribes of ʿAlī and Rāsib to besiege
the Banī Yashkur and kill Qurayb and his companions. If your tribe was
made up of a Khārijite, people would ensure that the person would be taken
to Zīyād.11

Zīyād was equally ruthless with the women of the community. In an

unprecedented move, he declared that even the women of the Khawārij
would be killed if they were known to be plotting against the state. Questions
are raised about Muʿāwiya’s silence on this issue as this was not known to
be a practice of Prophet Muḥammad. Women were to be hung naked if they
were following the ideologies of Qurayb and Zaḥāf. Jārīyah, a women of the
Khārijites decided that she had to speak out against Zīyād and his policies.
She was to be executed and hung as a message to all Baṣran women who
supported the Khawārij. The caliph was silent when advice and guidance
was necessary to stop the ruthless Zīyād.12 By the end of his rule, none of
the Khārijites could rebel against him, male or female. Hence one may argue
this was the reason Muʿāwiya was silent. Zīyād’s message was continued
by his son ʿUbaydullāh, who would cut off the feet of ʿUrwah b. ʿAdīyah b.
Ḥandhala al-Tamīmī when he had the bravery to criticise his father’s
policies. He also had to foil the revolt of Ṭawwaf b. Ghallāq. When ʿUrwah’s
brother Abū Bilāl sought to revolt in Darabjerd, he was killed by Ibn Zīyād’s
commander ʿAbbād b. ʿAlqama b. ʿAmr al-Mazinī al-Tamīmī in 61/681.13

9 Shaban, Islamic History, 87.

10 Al-Balādhurī, Ansāb al-Ashrāf, vol. 4A, 150-152.
11 Al-Mubarrad, al-Kāmil, vol. 3, 245.
12 Al-Balādhurī, Ansāb al-Ashrāf, vol. 4A, 152-153.
13 Ibid, 159.

28
 The Execution of Ḥujr b. ʿAdī

Muʿāwiya did not face the animosity from the partisans of ʿAlī as he had
faced from the Khawārij. In the first ten years of his rule, there was relative
peace between the two factions. ʿAbdullāh b. Amīr, the governor of Baṣra,
and al-Mughīrah b. Shuʿbah would employ prominent Shīʿī such as Sharik b.
al-Aʿwar al-Ḥārithī to fight the Khawārij. However, where Muʿāwiya’s ḥilm
is to be questioned is making permissible the cursing of ʿAlī on the pulpits.

This was an act unprecedented in Islamic history and would result in

uproar from the followers of ʿAlī. His followers would constantly display
their loyalty towards their leader by narrating his merits. Saʿsaʿah b. Sahwān
al-ʿAbdī was once informed by al-Mughīrah when hearing that he would
narrate the merits of ʿAlī publically that:
I warn you to stop doing so, and to remember that you will not say a
thing in praise of ʿAlī which I do not know. If you want to do so, you
can do it among your kinsmen in your houses and in secret but in the
mosque I shall not permit it and the caliph himself will not tolerate this
or forgive me for this if I allow you to do it.1

Surprisingly enough, the statement that the merits of ʿAlī would not be
tolerated in the mosque, but the cursing of ʿAlī had become an institution,
were approved by the caliph and the governor.

After the year of the community (ʿam al-jamāʿa), Muʿāwiya wrote a letter
to his tax collectors in which he said, ‘Let the conquered people refrain from
mentioning any merit to Abū Turāb or his kinsmen.’ So in every village and
on every pulpit preachers stood up cursing ʿAlī, disowning him, disparaging
him and his house. In another letter he wrote, ‘Make search for those you can
find who were partisans of ʿUthmān and those who supported his rule and
those who uphold his merits and qualities. Seek their company, gain access
to them and honor them. Write down for me what everybody relates, as well
as his name, that of his father and clan.’

Thus, they did until they had increased the number of merits and
qualities of ʿUthmān. In exchange he sent them presents, garments, gifts and
[documents of] pieces of land. This was showered over Arabs mawali alike
and it occurred on a large scale in every city, the people competing in ranks

1 Al-Ṭabarī, citing Abū Mikhnāf, Tārīkh, vol. 2, 38.

29
and worldly honors. Every lowly individual who went to any governors of
Muʿāwiya and related about ʿUthmān a merit or a virtue was received kindly,
his name was taken down and he was given preferential treatment.

Regular public cursing of ʿAlī, identified as the soul of the Prophet, in the
congregational prayers thus remained a vital institution, which was not
abolished until sixty years later by ʿUmar II (ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz).
Marwān clearly recognized the importance of the cursing as a tool of
government. He told ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn, ‘No one was more temperate
(akaff) towards our master than your master.’ ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn asked him,
‘Why do you curse him then from the pulpits?’ He answered, ‘Our reign
would not be sound without that.’ (Lā yastaqīmu lana hadha ilia bi hadha).

Particularly useful for Muʿāwiya’s purposes was the public cursing of ʿAlī in
Kūfah where, he hoped, it would bring out into the open the latent opposition
to Umayyad rule, thus facilitating his measures of repression. When he
appointed al-Mughīrah b. Shuʿba governor of Kūfah, he Instructed him,
‘Never desist from abusing and censuring ʿAlī, from praying for God’s
mercy and forgiveness for ʿUthmān, from disgracing the followers of ʿAlī,
from removing them and refusing to listen to them. Moreover, never cease
praising the partisans of ʿUthmān, bringing them close to you, and listening
to them.’

The Shīʿī of ʿAlī would not accept what they viewed as an act of injustice
against the tenants of Islam. ʿAlī was a caliph, son-in-law of Muḥammad
and a nobleman of great pedigree. Unlike the Khawārij, the Shīʿī who stood
up and revolted were men of great history and virtue, amongst them Ḥujr b.
ʿAdī. Al-Mughīrah had cursed ʿAlī in his sermon. This caused outrage with
Ḥujr and other worshippers standing who raised a cry that they would not
accept such words and policies from the government. Al-Dīnawarī narrates
that al-Mughīrah tried to win Ḥujr’s support with a sum of five thousand
dirhams, but this seems unlikely as the diwān was providing Ḥujr with
2,500 dirhams at the time.2 Al-Mughīrah died in 50/670 and Zīyād became
governor of both Kūfah and Baṣra.

Ḥujr and Zīyād had known each other through previous skirmishes, both on
the side of ʿAlī and when they fought in opposition. Ḥujr was offered sums
of money and different ranks within the government hierarchy but refused
all the advances made by Zīyād.3 ʿAmr b. Ḥurayth al-Makhzūmī had been
2 Al-Dinawarī, Al-Akhbār al-Ṭiwāl, 223; Ibn al-ʿAthīr, Usad al-Ghāba, vol. 1, 386.
3 Al-Isfahānī, Kitāb al-Aghānī (Beirut, 1970), vol. 3, 16.

30
appointed as Zīyād’s representative in Kūfah when he had left for Baṣra.
ʿAmr’s speech, anti-ʿAlī in its stance, was interrupted by Ḥujr and his
partisans. Sinān b. Ḥurayth al-Ḍabbī was sent to inform Zīyād of what had
happened in Kūfah. He conveyed to him the message that Ḥujr and his
followers were now in a position of strength in Kūfah.

Zīyād sent warnings to Ḥujr through personalities such as Jarīr b. ʿAbdullāh

al-Bajālī and Khālid b. ʿUrfuta al-ʿUdhrī that such behavior would not be
tolerated. Ḥujr could not tolerate their public attacks seeking to defile the
character of ʿAlī, which he believed to be attacks against the very core of
the religion of Islam. Shaddād b. al-Haytham al-Hilālī was sent to Ḥujr but
he did not make any breakthrough. Zīyād was outraged and conveyed his
outrage to the chiefs of Kūfah including Qays b. al-Walīd b. ʿAbd Shams b.
al-Mughīrah and Abū Burḍa b. Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī. He said:
O people of Kūfah, you are wounding with one hand and sympathizing
with the other. Your bodies are with me but your hearts are with Ḥujr
that fool. You are with me while your kinsmen are with Ḥujr. This is
dishonesty. You have to show me unqualified loyalty otherwise I shall
send against you people who will bring you back and will destroy your
pride.

The chiefs of Kūfah vowed that their kinsmen would support Zīyād and
leave Ḥujr.4 Interesting to note the language used by Zīyād in describing
Ḥujr as a fool and that the people of Kūfah were either with him or against
him. The people of Kūfah’s support for Ḥujr indicates distrust, or, indeed,
disenchantment with Zīyād’s rule, and a question mark on Muʿāwiya’s choice
of one governor for two districts.

Zīyād, recognizing the power of Ḥujr’s stand, sent out groups to find
Ḥujr. Muḥammad b. al-Ashʿath b. Qays was given three days to find
Ḥujr. If he did not, then all the plam trees that he owned and his houses
would be destroyed and he would be executed. Ḥujr had to flee, including
movements made from al-Nakhaʿī, an area led by ʿAbdullāh b. al-Ḥārith
al-Nakhaʿī towards īAzd. Muḥammad received a letter from Ḥujr that he
would surrender himself if he were to be pardoned and sent to Muʿāwiya,
in expectation of amnesty from the caliph. Ḥujr b. Yazīd al-Kindī
and Jarīr b. ʿAbdullāh al-Bajālī accompanied Muḥammad to Zīyād
who granted Ḥujr amnesty in a prison cell for ten days.5 Thirteen of
Ḥujr’s loyal partisans were pursued and captured by Zīyād. Saʿd b. Nimrān
4 Al-Balādhurī, Ansāb al-Ashrāf, vol. 4A, 214-215.
5 Al-Ṭabarī, Tārīkh, vol. 2, 121.

31
al-Hamdhānī, ʿUtbah b. al-Akhnās al-Saʿdī, ʿAbdul Raḥman b.
Ḥasanal-Anzī, ʿAbdullāh b. Ḥawīyyah al-Tamīmī, Kidam b. Ḥayyān
al-ʿAnsī, Warqaʿ b. Sumayyah al-Bajālī, ʿAṣīm b. ʿAwf al-Bajālī,
Qabīṣa b. Dubaya b. Ḥarmala al-ʿAbsī, Qabīṣa b. Dubaya, Sayfi b. Faṣil
al-Shaybānī, Sharik b. Shaddad al-Ḥadrāmī and al-Arqām b. ʿAbdullāh
al-Kindī.6 Amongst them was ʿAmr b. Ḥumq al-Khuzāʿī, a companion of
Muḥammad. Reports indicate he escaped but was caught by ʿAbdul-Raḥman
b. ʿAbdullāh b. ʿUthmān al-Thaqafī, the governor of Mosul, was killed and
paraded around.7

When Ḥujr and his companions rebelled, Zīyād attacked their stance and
revolt. He first forged a story that they were looking to dissolve the caliphate
of Muʿāwiya by revolting against his governor in Iraq. Secondly, he used
their love for the family of the Prophet (the Ahl al-Bayt) as a negative belief
which had to be destroyed.8 The origin of Islam was built on the foundation
of love and its expression for Muḥammad’s near ones, but was now seen as
a threatening armour in the hands of Ḥujr and his followers. Seventy men of
different tribes signed the accusations of Zīyād.9

Waʿil b. Ḥujr al-Ḥaḍrāmī and Kathīr b. Shihāb al-Ḥarithī were ordered to

ensure Ḥujr was taken to Muʿāwiya, who refused to meet him, although he
did meet Zīyād’s messengers. Two miles from Damascus in Marj ʿAdhra,
Ḥujr and his companions were imprisoned.10 Yazīd b. Asad al-Bajālī sought
to advise Muʿāwiya to spread Ḥujr and his followers to different parts of the
region and thus break their stand against him. Zīyād however wanted a quick
resolution to end their lives and keep stability in the region. ‘If you desire
the stability of this miṣr, please do not send Ḥujr and his followers to Kūfah
again.’11

Each of Ḥujr’s followers had kinsmen in Syria who sought to mediate on

their tribesmen’s behalf. ʿAsim and Warqa, both Bajālīs were represented
by Jarīr b. ʿAbdullah al-Bajālī. Saʿd b. Nimrān al-Hamdhānī received the
backing of Humrah b. Mālik al-Hamdhānī, Karīm b. ʿAfīf al-Kathʿamī
received the backing of Shamir b. ʿAbdullāh al-Kathʿamī. Ḥujr was
represented by Mālik b. Ḥubayra al-Sakūnī, but to no avail. Muʿāwiya
firmly belived that Ḥujr was the instigator and ordered that this innocent
6 Al-Balādhurī, Ansāb al-Ashrāf, vol. 4A, 218-219.
7 Al-Ṭabarī, Tārīkh, vol. 2, 136.
8 Al-Balādhurī, Ansāb al-Ashrāf, Vol. 4A, 236-237.
9 Ibid, 223.
10 Al-Ṭabarī, Tārīkh, vol. 2, 134.
11 Al-Balādhurī, Ansāb al-Ashrāf, Vol. 4A, 223.

32
man who stood up against the injustice of the pulpits of Kūfah was to be
executed alongside six of his followers.12 Shaban states that for Muʿāwiya ‘it
was effective, but unusually rash and high handed.’13

The policemen took Ḥujr and his faithful companions to Marj ʿAdhra’,
where they were quickly imprisoned. Muʿāwiya and Zīyād then exchanged
letters with each other. Not only did they bring Muʿāwiya’s order to kill
Ḥujr and his companions, they also brought shrouds with them. ‘Indeed the
Commander of the Faithful has ordered me to kill you, for you are the root
of error, the origin of unbelief and tyranny, and the supporter of Abū Turāb.
He has ordered me to kill your companions unless you retract your unbelief,
curse your leader and renounce him,’ Muʿāwiya’s officials declared to Ḥujr.
‘Indeed patience towards the punishment of the sword is easier for us than
what you summon us to. Meeting Allāh, His Apostle, and his waṣī (Imam
ʿAlī) is more attractive to us than entering the fire,’ said Ḥujr and his
companions.

The graves were dug for Ḥujr and his companions. They performed their
prayers throughout the night. When morning came, the policemen went
to retrieve them. ‘Let me perform the ritual ablution and say my prayers,’
requested Ḥujr. They let him pray, and after he was finished they took him
away. ‘By Allāh, I had not performed a prayer lighter than this prayer,’ he
said. ‘Were it not for that, you think that I am impatient of death, I would
increase it.’

Then Ḥujr said: ‘O Allāh, we ask you to show enmity towards our people.
Indeed, the Kūfans have testified against us, and the Syrians have come to
kill us. By Allāh, If you kill me in the village of ʿAdhra’, I will be the first
Muslim horseman to be killed in its valley, and the first Muslim man at whom
its dogs will bark.’14

Then Hudba b. Fayyad al-Qudaʿī walked towards him with his sword while
Ḥujr had his. Hudba trembled and said to Ḥujr: ‘You have claimed that you
are patient towards death. Therefore renounce your leader and we will let
you go.
12 Al-Balādhurī, Ansāb al-Ashrāf, Vol. 4A, 224; al-Yaʿqubī, Tārīkh, vol. 2, 231.
13 Shaban, Islamic History, 89-90.
14 Ibn al-ʿAthīr, al-Kāmil fī al-Tārīkh, vol. 3, 192. Ibn Saʿd and Musʿab al-Zubarī have
narrated the following on the authority of al-Ḥākim, who said: ‘He was killed at Marj
ʿAdhra’ according to Muʿāwiya’s orders. It was Ḥujr who conquered it (Marj ʿAdhra’),
then he was killed at it.’ This is the meaning of Ḥujr’s words: “... and the first Muslim
man at whom its dogs will bark.” He meant the day when he conquered it.

33
Ḥujr replied: ‘Of course, I am patient towards death. For I see a grave has
been dug, a shroud has been spread, and a sword has been drawn. Indeed, by
Allāh, even if I am impatient towards death, I will not say what displeases
the Lord!’

A few close associates of Muʿāwiya interceded for seven companions of

Ḥujr. The rest of Ḥujr’s companions were put to the sword. Ḥujr’s final
words were, ‘Leave me shackled with iron and stained with blood. For I
will meet Muʿāwiya on the straight path tomorrow. I will testify against him
before Allāh.’ Muʿāwiya mentioned these words of Ḥujr when he was about
to die: ‘Ḥujr, my day will be long because of you,’ he said.

Muʿāwiya performed the hajj after he had killed Ḥujr; he happened to pass
by the house of ʿA’isha. He asked permission to enter her home, and she
permitted him inside. When he sat down, she said to him: ‘Did you not fear
Allāh when you killed Ḥujr and his companions?’15 Then she added: ‘Were it
not for the critical situation, we would not have let Ḥujr be killed. By Allāh,
he performed the greater and the lesser hajj.’16

Shurayh b. Hānī had wrote to Muʿāwiya concerning Ḥujr and had given him
a religious opinion in which he said that it was forbidden for Muʿāwiya to
shed the blood of Ḥujr and to take his possessions. Shurayh had said about
Ḥujr, ‘He was among those who performed the ritual prayers, paid zakat,
frequently performed the lesser and the greater hajj, enjoined (the people) to
do good deeds and prevented them from doing evil deeds. It was forbidden
to shed his blood and to take his property.’17

Ibn ‘Umar began asking the people about Ḥujr from the day he was captured.
While Ibn ‘Umar was walking in the market, he was told that Ḥujr had been
killed. He burst into tears and left.18

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Ḥārith b. Hishām came to Muʿāwiya, after the latter

had killed Ḥujr, and said to him: ‘When did the clemency of Abū Sufyān
leave you?’ Muʿāwiya replied: ‘It left me when those who were like you in
clemency left me. Ibn Sumayya (Zīyād b. Abīhī) provoked me, so I carried
that out.’ Then ʿAbd al-Raḥmān said: ‘By Allāh, the Arabs will never regard
you as the one who has clemency and a [good] opinion. You killed the people
whom the prisoners from the Muslims sent to you.’
15 Al-Ṭabarī, Tārīkh, vol. 6, 156.
16 Ibn al-ʿAthīr, al-Kāmil fī al-Tārīkh, vol. 3, 193.
17 Al-Ṭabarī, Tārīkh, vol. 6, 153.
18 Ibid.

34
Many people from Kinda, al-Sikūn, and Yemen supported Mālik b. Hubayra
al-Sikūnī. So Mālik was able to freely say to Muʿāwiya the following words
when he refused to release Ḥujr from prison: ‘By Allāh, we are in no need
of Muʿāwiya more than Muʿāwiya is in no need of us. We have alternates
among his peoples, while he has no successor from us among the people.’19

Al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī said: ‘Muʿāwiya had four flaws. Firstly, his

appointment of troublemakers for this community so that he stole its
rule without consultation with its members, while there was a remnant
of the companions and possessors of virtue among them. Secondly, his
appointment of his son as his successor after him, a drunkard and a
habitual drinker of alcohol who wears silk and plays tunbur. Thirdly, he
claimed Zīyād [as his own child] while the Apostle of Allāh, may Allāh
bless him and his family, said, “The baby is to the bed (son of zina, or
adultery) and the prostitute is stoned.” Fourthly, the execution of Ḥujr. Woe
unto him from Ḥujr and his companions.’20

After Muʿāwiya had murdered these noble Muslims, and after he had
performed his hajj, he met al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī, peace be upon him, in Mecca
and said to him proudly: ‘Have you heard what we have done to Ḥujr, his
companions, and his Shīʿa (followers) who were the Shīʿa of your father?’
Al-Ḥusayn asked: ‘What have you done to them?’ Muʿāwiya replied: ‘We
have killed them, shrouded them, prayed over them, and buried them.’
Al-Ḥusayn, peace be upon him, smiled, and then he said: ‘Muʿāwiya, the
people will bring suit against you (before Allāh). If we killed your followers,
we would not shroud them, nor would we pray over them, nor would we bury
them.’21

Among the companions who were killed with Ḥujr were Shurayk b.
Shaddād, Thaddād al-Haḍramī, and Ṣayfī b. Fasīl al-Shaybānī. The latter
was one of the best companions of Ḥujr. It is said that he had an iron heart,
strong belief in God, and polite speech. He was captured with Ḥujr and
brought before Zīyād. ‘O enemy of Allāh, what do you think of Abū Turāb
19 See also: Ibn ʿAbd al-Birr al-Malikī, al-Istiʿāb; Ibn al-ʿAthīr, Usad al-Ghāba fī Tamyīz
al-Ṣaḥāba; ʿAIī Khān, al-Darajāt al-Rāfīiʿa; Al-Shaykh al-Ṭūsī, al-Amālī.
20 Ibn Kathīr, Al-Bidāya wa-l-Nihāya (Beirut: Maktabah al Maʿārif, 1966), vol. 8, 130-
140.
21 Al-Majlisī, Bihar al-Anwar. Al-Tabarī has narrated a tradition similar to this one on the
authority of al-Ḥasan. That is incorrect for the tragedy of Ḥujr and his companions
happened two years after the death of al-Ḥasan. A similar tradition has been narrated by
Ibn al-ʿAthīr on the authority of al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī who said: ‘By the Lord of the Kaʿaba,
they have instituted a proof against them.’

35
(i.e., Imam ʿAlī)?,’ he said to him. ‘I do not know anyone named Abū Turāb,’
replied Ṣayfī. ‘You know him very well,’ Zīyād continued. ‘I don’t know
him,’ answered Ṣayfī. ‘Do you not know ʿAlī b. Abū Ṭālib?' asked Zīyād.
‘Yes,’ answered Ṣayfī. To which Zīyād replied incredulously, ‘That is Abū
Turāb!.’ ‘No, that is Abu al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn,’ said Ṣayfī. So Zīyād’s
police chief said to Ṣayfī: ‘The Emir said to you: “He is Abū Turāb,” and
you say: “No.”’ ‘Do you want me to tell lies as the Emir does? Do you want
me to falsely testify?’ asked Ṣayfī. ‘Bring me the rod,’ said Zīyād. When the
rod was brought to Zīyād, he said to Ṣayfī: ‘What do you say now?’ ‘These
are the best words which I have said concerning a servant from the believing
servants of Allāh,’ replied Ṣayfī. ‘Hit his shoulder with the rod till he sticks
to the ground,’ said Zīyād. So Ṣayfī was hit a number of times until his body
stuck to the ground.

Then Zīyād requested that the police stop beating Ṣayfī. ‘What do you think
of ʿAlī now?,’ Zīyād asked. ‘By Allāh, even if you cut me to pieces with
razors and knifes, I will not say except what you have heard from me,’
answered Ṣayfī. ‘You should curse him otherwise I will cut off your neck,’
said Zīyād. ‘Then cut it off,’ he replied. ‘Push him in the neck. Tie him up
with the shackles, and throw him into prison,’ shouted ztyad. Thus Ṣayfī
joined the caravan of death with Ḥiujr, and was among those blessed people
who died as martyrs at the Marj of ʿAdhra’.

Then there was ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥasan al-ʿAnzī. He was sent to prison
along with Ḥujr while he was shackled. When he arrived at the Marj of
ʿAdhra’, he asked the police to send him to Muʿāwiya because he thought
that Muʿāwiya would be kinder to him than Ibn Zīyād. When he came to
Muʿāwiya, the latter said to him: ‘Brother of Rābīʿa, what do you have to
say about ʿAlī?’ ‘Leave me and do not ask me (about him), for that is better
for you,’ replied ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. ‘By Allāh, I will not leave you alone until
you answer,’ said Muʿāwiya.

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān said: ‘I testify that he was among those who remembered
Allāh very much, enjoined the truth, undertook justice, and forgave the
people.’ ‘What do you say concerning ʿUthmān?’ asked Muʿāwiya. ‘He was
the first to open the door of injustice and to close the door of truth,’ answered
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. ‘You have killed yourself,’ said Muʿāwiya. ‘Rather, you
have killed yourself,’ said ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. Then Muʿāwiya returned him
to Zīyād in Kufah and promptly ordered him to kill him in a malevolent
manner.

36
On the day when the policemen of Muʿāwiya imprisoned him along with
his companions at the Marj of ʿAdhra’ ʿAbd al-Raḥmān said the following
words: ‘O Allāh, make me among those whom You honor through their
[the Umayyads’] disgrace, and be pleased with me. I subjected myself to the
possibilty of being murdered many times, but Allāh refused (that) except
what He willed.’

In his book Tarikh al-Kūfah, Ḥabbata al-ʿAranī has mentioned ʿAbd

al-Raḥmān as follows: ‘ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥasan al-ʿAnzī was among
the companions of ʿAlī, peace be upon him. He lived in Kūfah and used to
provoke the people against the Banū Umayya. So Zīyād captured him and
sent him to Sham. Muʿāwiya summoned him to renounce ʿAlī, peace be
upon him, but ʿAbd al-Raḥmān answered Muʿāwiya rudely. So Muʿāwiya
returned him to Zīyād, and Zīyād killed him.’ Ibn al-ʿAthīr22 and al-Ṭabarī23
narrate that Zīyād buried ʿAbd al-Raḥmān alive at the Qis of al-Natif.24

Also among the companions who died with Ḥujr was Qubayṣa b. Rābīʿa
al-ʿAbasī, although he was called Qubayṣa b. Dubayʿa by some historians.
Qubayṣa was a brave man who decided to resist the corrupt Umayyads
along with his community. The commander of the police gave him his oath
that his blood would not be shed and his property would not be taken, and
he put his hand in their hands according to the covenant of security and
protection which the Arabs followed before and after Islam. But it seems
that the Umayyads abandoned the morals of the Arabs and Muslims, or that
they simply understood that such morals were a mere means for victory and
violence. So (Qubayṣa) b. Dubayʿa al-ʿAbasī was brought before Zīyād, who
said to hjm: ‘By Allāh, I will do (something) for you to distract you from
creating discord and revolting against the governors.’ Qubayṣa said: ‘I have
come to you according to the security covenant.’ ‘Take him to prison,’ said
Zīyād.

Qubayṣa was among the people who were shackled and taken to their
deaths because of patience. Before the policemen took Ḥujr and his
companions prisoner, they had passed by Qubayṣa’s house. Qubayṣa saw
his daughters looking at him and weeping. So he said to Wāʿil and Kathīr,
the two policemen taking him to jail: ‘Allow me to see my family.’ When
he approached his weeping daughters, he kept silent for an hour, and then
he said to them: ‘Be silent.’ So they remained silent. Then he said to them:
22 Ibn al-ʿAthīr, al-Kāmil fī al-Tārīkh, vol. 3, 192.
23 Al-Ṭabarī, Tārīkh, vol. 6, 155.
24 The eastern bank of the Euphrates.

37
‘Fear Allāh, the Great and Almighty. Be patient. Indeed I hope that Allāh,
my Lord, will grant me one of the two good things during this challenge of
mine - either martyrdom or returning to you. It is Allāh, the Most High, Who
gives You your provisions. He is Living, and never dies. I hope that He will
not leave you. I hope that He will protect me so that I can return to you.’ Then
Qubayṣa was taken away. The hopeless family spent the night weeping and
praying, just as Muʿāwiya had wanted. There were many daughters similar
to Dubayʿa’s who had suffered such tragedies.

Al-Ṭabarī said: ‘Qubayṣa b. Dubayʿa fell into the hands of Abū Sharīf
al-Baddī. So Qubayṣa said to him: “Indeed there is bad blood between my
people and your people. So let someone other than you kill me.” Abū Sharīf
said: “Kinship is obedient to your wishes.” Then al-Quḍāʿī killed Qubayṣa.’25

Also among the fallen were Kaddam b. Hayyān al-ʿAnzī and Muhriz
b. Shahāb b. Būjayr b. Sufyān b. Khālid b. Munqir al-Tamīmī. The latter
was among the chiefs of the people, and from among the loyal and pious
Shīʿītes who were known for their devotion to the Ahlulbayt. Muhriz was
the commander of the left wing of the army headed by Maʿqāl b. Qays, who
had waged war against the Khārijites in the year 43 AH. During those three
battles, the army of Maʿqal numbered three thousand people from among the
loyal Shīʿītes and their horsemen, as al-Tabari described in his book.26

25 Al-Ṭabarī, Tārīkh, vol. 6, 156.

26 Al-Ṭabarī, Tārīkh, vol. 6, 108.

38
 Analysis of the Incident

What Khaled Keshk does not take into account amongst others who seek to
defend Muʿāwiya is the pre-Islamic definition of ḥilm and its usage. In the
pre-Islamic definition of ḥilm, the ḥalīm was a person renowned for his:
calmness, balanced mind, self-control and steadiness of
judgement. A ḥalīm is a man who knows how to smother his
feelings, to overcome his own blind passions and to remain
tranquil and undisturbed whatever happens to him, however much he
may be provoked.1

The jāhil was a:

hot-blooded impetuous man, who tends to lose his self-control on the
slightest provocation, and consequently to act wrecklessly, driven by
an uncontrollable blind passion, without reflecting on the disastrous
consequence this behavior might lead to. It is the behavior pattern
peculiar to a man of an extremely touch and passionate nature, who has
no control of his own feelings and emotions, and who therefore, easily
surrenders himself to the dictates of violent passions, losing the sense
of what is right and what is wrong.2

Muʿāwiya’s act of killing Ḥujr was more an act of jahl than ḥilm for it can be
seen as an act of hot bloodedness as well as wrecklessness, with very little
display of tranquility and calmness when these attributes were requires.

Keshk furthermore seeks to convey the theory that there is not a need for
the historians to emphasize on certain elements of the story of Ḥujr, and that
when this is done, they are taking away from the fact that ‘these sources had
a primary purpose that was lost on modern scholars in their use of the Ḥujr
story.’3 The reply however is that the emphasis on these elements was to
portray a clearer understanding of the motives and the backgrounds of the
execution.

The historians are all in agreement on four major parts of the narrative.
The first is a discussion of the disagreement which occurred between Ḥujr,
1 Izutsu, God and Man in the Koran: Semantics of the Koranic Weltanschauung (Tokyo:
The Keio Institute of Cultural and Linguistic Studies, 1964), 205.
2 Ibid.
3 Keshk, K. The Historians Muʿāwiya; The Depiction of Muʿāwiya in the Early Islamic
Sources (Germany: Vdm Verlag Dr. MullerAktienGesellschaft, 2008), 104.

39
al-Mughīrah and Zīyād. The second is that they discuss the background
to his disaobedience of the authorities in Kūfah. The third is his arrest and
the fourth is his execution. Keshk states that while they all agree they tend
to emphasize one incident over another. Emphasis of one incident above
another does not hide the over-arching question mark as to whether
Muʿāwiya’s conclusive decision concerning Ḥujr was that of a ḥalīm or that
of a jāhil.

A study of the works of the historians displays how their conclusions are that
Muʿāwiya was the man who made the decision to kill Ḥujr. While Khalīf b.
Khayyaṭ does not elaborate further on the background of the incident and
simply states that Muʿāwiya killed Ḥujr in the year 50 AH,4 Ibn Aʿtham
clearly discusses that there was an active killing spree taking place at the
time against the supporters of ʿAlī by Zīyād, which was undertaken to please
Muʿāwiya. This does not reflect well on Muʿāwiya’s ḥilm as here he is
portrayed as the bloodthirsty despot of the jāhil age.5

Furthermore, al-Balādhurī6 using Rawḥ b. ʿAbd al-Mu’min and ʿUmar b.

Shabba b. ʿAbida b. Zayd b. Raiṭ al-Numayrī, al-Ṭabarī from ʿAlī b. Ḥasan
and Muslim b. Abī Muslim al-Ḥaramī7 and Ibn ʿAsākīr8 using Hishām b.
Ḥasan concentrate on portraying two very important themes in the incident.
The first theme which they are unanimous on is Ḥujr is a martyr and not
a rebel or a dissident figure. Secondly, Ḥujr is the man of piety and not
Muʿāwiya or his soldiers. Muʿāwiya’s lack of self control is displayed by
the fact that historians are unanimous that it was Muʿāwiya who would
encourage his governors to curse ʿAlī publically. This begun under the
leadership of al-Mughīrah and continued in the reign of Zīyād. Keshk
does not seek to accept that all the early historians are in agreement that
it was Muʿāwiya who would find pleasure in the public cursing of ʿAlī.
This important prelude to the incident of the killing of Ḥujr is narrated by
al-Balādhurī,9 al-Yaʿqūbī, al-Ṭabarī and Ibn al-ʿAthīr. This could be seen
4 Khalīfah b. Khayyaṭ, Abū ʿAmr. Tārīkh Khalīfah b. Khayyaṭ, ed. Muṣṭafa Najib Fawaz
and Ḥikmat Fawwāz (Beirut, Dar al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1995), 131.
5 Al-Kūfi, Ibn Aʿtham. Kitāb al-Fūtūḥ, 8 vols. (Ḥaydarabād: Da’irat al-Maʿārif al-
Uthmaniyyah, 1968-75), 203.
6 Al-Balādhurī, Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā b. Jabīr, Ansāb al-Ashrāf, vol 4/1, ed. Iḥsān ʿAbbās
(Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1979), vol. 4, 243.
7 Al-Ṭabarī, Muḥammad b. Jarīr, Tārīkh al rusūl wa-al-mulūk, ed. Muḥammad Abū al-
Faḍl Ibrahīm, 11 vols. (Cairo: Dar al-Maʿārif, 1960-1970), vol. 5, 256.
8 Ibn ʿAsākīr, ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan. Tārīkh Medinat Dimashq, ed. Muḥibb al-Dīn Abū Saʿīd
ʿUmar b. Gharama al-ʿAmrāwī, 70 vols. (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1995-1998).
9 Al-Balādhurī, Ansāb, vol 4, 243; al-Yaʿqūbī, Tārīkh, vol. 4, 218; al-Ṭabarī, vol. 5, 253-4;
Ibn al-ʿAthīr, al-Kāmil, vol. 3, 69-70.

40
as a clear sign of man driven by an uncontrolled blind passion with little or
no reflection on the disastrous consequences of such an act, the behavior of
a leader who is more a jāhil rather than ḥalīm. It is therefore not surprising
when seeing Ibn al-ʿAthīr’ narration of Zīyād torturing Ṣayf b. Faṣil for his
refusal to take part in the cursing of ʿAlī. The despotic tendency of the leader
was reflected by his governors.10

Al-Balādhurī continues to narrate that there were still good people who were
willing to change their minds once they were informed of the sincerity of
Ḥujr’s cause. Amongst these was Ibn Khuraym al-Murrī and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
b. al-Aswad b. ʿAbd Yaghūth al-Zuhrī who both rejected the responsibility of
executing Ḥujr once they knew of his true beliefs.11

Ibn ʿAsakīr’s narration concerning Ḥujr’s death clearly displays that there
was a lack of ḥilm in Muʿāwiya’s decision. Muʿāwiya asks for advice
concerning the killing of Ḥujr. The advice however is taken from men whose
very attitude to the incident is wreckless and bloodthirsty, with little concern
for the consequences and more concern for their position before the caliph. A
man of ḥilm would be seen as a mah who would smother his feelings and be
steady in his judgement. However, Muʿāwiya does not fit either description.
While Ibn ʿAsakīr narrates that ʿAmr b. al-Aswad al-ʿAnsī left the decision
in Muʿāwiya’s hands by telling him that he knew the people of Iraq better
than anybody else,12 Muʿāwiya listens to two personalities. One is clearly
more rash in his conclusion and gives a speech based on flattery than sincere
advise. The second displays a hint of ḥilm. He is seeking to offer an avenue
of support for Ḥujr where he seeks to make the caliph consider forgiveness
as an option. The first is Abū Muslim al-Khawlānī, also known as ʿAbdullāh
b. Thuwāb, who states:
We have never hated you since we loved you, never disobeyed you
since we obeyed you, never left you since we joined you, and never
violated our oath of allegiance to you since we gave it. Our swords are
on our shoulders; if you order us we will obey and if you call us we
will heed.13

10 Ibn al-ʿAthīr, al-Kāmil, vol. 3, 73.

11 Balādhurī, Ansāb, vol. 4, 259-260.
12 Ibn ʿAsākīr, Tārīkh Medinat Dimashq, vol. 12, 223-224.
13 Ibn ʿAsākīr, Tārīkh, vol. 12, 224.

41
 Bibliography

Primary Sources

Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Yūsuf b. ʿAbdullāh, al-Istīʿab fī maʿrifat al-aṣḥāb, ed. A.

al-Bajjāwī, 4 vols. (Cairo, n.d.).

Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd Allāh, Futuḥ Miṣr wa-
Akhbāruha (Baghdad, 1967).
, Futūḥ Miṣr (al-Qāhirah: Maktabat al-Thaqāfah al-Dīnīyah,
1995).

Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd, ʿIzz al-Dīn Abū Ḥamīd, Sharḥ Nahjul Balāgha (Cairo: Dār
al-kutub al-ʿArabīyyah, 1944).

Ibn ʿAbd Rabbihī, Aḥmad b. Muḥammad, al-ʿIqd al-farīd, ed. Aḥmad Amīn,
Aḥmad al-Zayn and Ibrāhim al-Ibyārī (Cairo: Lajnat al-Ta’lif wa al-Tarjama
wa al-Nashr, 1948).

ʿAlam al-Hudā, al-Sharīf Abū 1-Qāsim ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusain al-Murtaḍā aka

Dhūl-Majdain, “Majmu’a fi funūn min ʿilm al-kalām” in Nafā’is al-makhṭūṭāt,
ed. Muḥammad Ḥasan Āl-Yāsīn, 1st edition (Baghdad: al-Maʿārif, 1955).
, “al-Uṣūl al-itiqaḍīyya” in Nafā’is al-makhṭūṭāt, ed. Muḥammad
Ḥasan Āl-Yāsīn, 1st edition (Baghdad: al-Maʿārif, 1955).
, al-Shāfī fil Imāma (Tehran, 1301/1884).

al-Aminī, ʿAbd al-Ḥusayn, al-Ghadeer (Beirut: Dār al Kitāb al-ʿArabī,

1970).
, al-Ghadīr fil Kitāb wal Sunnah wal Adab (Qum: Furū al-Dīn
Publishers, 1995).

Asadābādī, ʿAbd al-Jabbār b. Aḥmad, Fīraq wa-ṭabaqāt al-muʿtazilah

(Cairo: Dār al-Ṭibāʿah al-Jāmiʿīyah, 1972).
, al-Mughnī (Cairo: al-Mu’assasa al-Miṣrīyya al-ʿāmma lil-ta’līf
wal-anbā’ wal-nashr, 1961-5).

Ibn ʿAsākīr, ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan, Tārīkh Madīnat Dimashq, ed. Muḥibb al-Dīn
Abī Saʿīd ʿUmar b. Gharāma al-ʿAmrawī (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1995-1998).

42
al-Ashʿārī, Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. Ismaʿīl, Kitāb al-Ibānah ʿan Uṣūl
al-diyānah (Hyderabad: 1321/1903); tr. by W.C. Klein as The Elucidation of
Islam’s Foundation (New Haven: 1940).
, Kitāb al-Luma’, text and translation in R.J. McCarthy, The
Theology of al-Ashʿārī (Beirut: 1953).
, Maqālāt al-Islāmiyyīn, ed. Hellmut Ritter (Istanbul, 1928).

al-ʿAsqalānī, Aḥmad b. ʿAlī Ibn Ḥajar, al-Iṣābah fī tamyīz al-Ṣaḥābah

(Cairo: Būlāq, 1328/1910).
, Lisān al-mīzān (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1987-1988).
, Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb fī rijāl al-ḥadīth (Beirut, 1968).

Ibn Aʿtham, Kitāb al-Fūtūḥ, 8 vols. (Ḥaydarabād: Dā’irat al-Maʿārif

al-ʿUthmaniyyah, 1968-75).
, Muḥammad b. ʿAlī, Kitāb al-Fūtūḥ, Istanbul Manuscript, Library
of Ahmet III.

Ibn al-ʿAthīr, Izz al-Dīn, al-Bāhir fī Tārīkh ad-Dawllah al-Tatabanya,

ed. A. Tulaymat (Cairo: 1962).
, al-Kāmil fī al-Tārīkh, ed. C.J. Tornberg (Leiden: Brill, 1868-70).
, al-Kāmil fī al-Tārīkh (Beirut, 1965).

al-Baghdādī, Abū Manṣur ʿAbd al-Qāhir Tāhir, Uṣūl al-dīn (Istanbul:

Madrasat al-Ilāhīyāt bi-Dār al-Funūn al-Tūrkīyah, 1928), simplified
translation in H.A.R. Gibb, “Constitutional Organisation” in Law in the
Middle East, ed. Majid Khadduri and Herbert]. Liebesny (Washington D.C.,
1955).

al-Balādhurī, Ansāb al-Ashrāf (published for the first time by the School of
Oriental Studies, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, SDF Goitein Univ Press,
1936).
, Ansāb al-Ashrāf, ed. Muḥammad Bāqir al-Maḥmudī (Beirut, 1974).
, Aḥmed b. Yaḥyā, Ansāb al-Ashrāf, ed. Iḥsān ʿAbbās (Wiesbaden:
Franz Steiner, 1979).
, Ansāb al-Ashrāf (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1996).
, Futūḥ al-Buldān, ed. M. de Goeje (Leiden: Brill, 1865).

Al-Bāqillānī, Abū Bakr Muḥammad b. al-Ṭayyib, Manāqib al-aʿimmah

al-arbaʿah, ed. Samīra Farhat (Beirut: Dār al-Muntakhab al-Arabī, 2002).
, al-Tamhīd fī al-Radd ʿalā al-mulḥidah al-muʿaṭṭalah wa al-rāfīḍah
wa-l-Khawārij wa-1-Muʿtazilah (al-Qāhirah: Dār al-Fikr al-Islāmī, 1947).

43
al-Dīnawarī, Abū Ḥanīfah Aḥmad b. Dawūd, al-Akhbār al-ṭiwāl (Leiden:
1888).

al-Farazdaq, Hammām b. Ghālib Abū Firās, Dīwān, ed. M.I.A. al-Ṣāwī

(Cairo, 1936 and Beirut, 1960).

Hajjī Khalīf, Muṣṭafā b. ʿAbdullāh, Kashf al-ẓunūn ʿan asāmī al-kutub wa-
al-funūn, ed. Gustav Flugel, 7 vols. (Leipzig and London: 1835-58).

al-Ḥamawī, Yāqūt b. ʿAbdallāh, Irshād al-arīb ilā maʿrifat al-adīb:

al-Muʿjam al-ʿUdaba (Dictionary of Learned Men), ed. D.S. Margoliouth, 7
vols., 2nd edition (London: 1923-31).

Ibn Ḥanbal, ʿAbd Allāh b. Aḥmad, Musnad (Cairo: Maymanya Publishers,

1313 AH).

Ibn Hishām, Muḥammad b. Aḥmad, Ṣīrat Sayyidna Muḥammad Rasūl Allāh,

ed. Ferdinand Wilstenfeld, 2 vols. (Gottingen, 1858-60; reprint, Frankfurt
am Main, 1961).

al-Jāḥiẓ, Abu ʿUthmān ʿAmr b. Baḥr, al-Bayān wa’l-tabyīn, ed. A.S.M.

Harun (Cairo, 1948-50).
, Kitāb al-hayawān, ed, A.S.M. Harun, 2nd edition (Cairo: Muṣṭafā
al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī, 1965-1969).
, Rasa’il al-Jāḥiẓ, ed. H. al-Sandubi (Cairo: Yuṭlab min al-Maktabah
al-Tijārīyah al-Kubrā, 1933).
, Rasa’il al-Jāḥiẓ, ed. A.S.M. Harun (Cairo, 1965).
, Risālat al-ʿUthmānīyya, ed. A.S.M. Harun (Cairo: Dār al-Kitāb
al-ʿArabī, 1955).

al-Jumaḥī, Muḥammad b. Sallām, Ṭabaqāt fuḥūl al-shuʿarā’, ed. A. M.

Shakir (Cairo, 1952).

al-Juwaynī, ʿAbd al-Malik b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Yūsuf, Ghiyāth al-Umām fi

al-Tiyāth al-Ẓulam, ed. A. Dīb (Qatar, 1400/1979).

Ibn Kathīr, Ismāʿīl b. ʿUmar, al-Bidāya wa-l-Nihāya (Beirut: Maktabah al-

Maʿārif, 1966).
, al-Bidāya wa-l-Nihāya, ed. ʿAlī ʿAbd al-Ṣāṭir (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub
al-ʿIlmīyyah,, 1985).

44
Ibn Khaldūn, Muqaddimah (Cairo, 1321), quoted by L. Gardet and M.M.
Anawati in Introduction à la Théologie Musulmane (Paris: Librairie
Philosophique J. Vrin, 1948).

Ibn Khallikān, Shams al-Dīn Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. Muḥammad, Wafayāt

al-Aʿyān, (Cairo, 1948).

al-Khaṭafā, Jarīr b. ʿAṭīyya b., Dīwān, ed. M.I.A. al-Ṣāwī (Cairo 1353) and
ed. N.M.A. Ṭāhā (Cairo 1969-70).

Ibn al-Khayyāṭ, ʿAbd al-Raḥīm b. Muḥammad, Kitāb al-Intiṣar wa-al-radd

ʿala Ibn al-Rawandī al-mulḥid, ed. and tr. Albert Nader (Beirut: al-Matbaʿah
al-Kathulikiyah, 1957).
, al-Ṭabaqāt: riwāyat Abī ʿImrān Mūsā al-Tustarī, ed. Akram Ḍiyā’
al-ʿUmarī (Baghdad: Maṭbaʿat al-ʿĀnī, 1967).
, Tārīkh Khalīfah b. Khayyāṭ (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmīyyah,
1995).

al-Kindī, Abū ʿUmar Muḥammad b. Yūsuf, Kitāb al-Wulāt wa Kitāb

al-Quḍāt, ed. R. Guest (Leiden, 1912).

al-Isfahānī, Abū al-Faraj ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn, Kitāb al-Aghānī (Cairo, 1285).

, Kitāb al-Aghānī, ed. Naṣr al-Hurinī, 20 vols. (Bulāq, 1868).
, Kitāb al-Aghānī (Leiden, 1905).
, Kitāb al-Aghānī (Cairo, 1927-74).
, Maqātil al-Ṭālibīyīn, ed. Aḥmed Saqr (Cairo, 1949; 2nd edtn,
Tehran, 1970).
, Maqātil al-Ṭālibīyīn (Najaf: al-Maktabah al-l;iaydariyah, 1965).

al-Isfahāni, Ḥasan Muḥammad al-Raghib, Kitāb al-mufradāt fī gharīb al-

Qur’ān (Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifah, n.d.).

al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥmad b. ʿAlī al-Rāzī, Uṣūl al-fiqh al-musammā bi al-Fuṣūl fī

al-uṣūl, 4 vols., ed. U.J. Nashmī (Kuwait: Wizārat al-Awqāf, 1994).

Mālik b. Anas, Muwaṭṭa’ al-Imām Mālik b. Anas (Jeddah: Dār al-Shurūq,

1985).

Ibn Manẓūr, Muḥammad b. Mukarram, Lisān al-ʿArab, 20 vols. (Cairo:

Būlaq, 1300-108 AH).

45
al-Maqrīzī, Aḥmad b. ʿAlī, al-Khiṭaṭ, ed. G. Wiet (Cairo, 1911-2).

al-Maṣrī, Imām Jamāl al-Dīn b. Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab (Beirut: Dār Ṣādir,
1955-56).

al-Masʿūdī, ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn, Murūj al-Dhahāb wa Maʿādin al-Jawhar, ed.

C. Pellat (Beirut: Université Libanaise, 1966-79).
, Les Prairies d’or, ed and trans. Barbier de Maynard and Pavet de
Courteille, 9 vols. (Paris, 1861-77).
, ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn, al-Tanbīḥ wa-l-ishrāf (Leiden, 1894, rpt., Beirut:
Maktabat al-Khayyāṭ, 1965).

al-Marzubānī, Abī ʿUbayd Allāh Muḥammad b. ʿImrān b. Mūsā,

al-Muwashshah (Cairo, 1924).

al-Māwardī, Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. Ḥabīb, al-Aḥkām al-

Sulṭānīyyah (Egypt, 1966).

al-Minqārī, Naṣr b. Muzaḥim, Waq’at Ṣiffīn, ed. A.S.M. Harūn (Cairo, 1365
AH).
, Waq’at Ṣiffīn, ed. A.S.M. Harūn (Cairo, 1382 AH).

al-Mufaḍḍal b. Salamah, Fākhīr, ed. C.A. Storey (Leyden: Brill, 1915).

al-Mufīd, Abū Abdullāh Muḥammad b. Muḥammad, Awā’il al-maqālāt

fi’l-madhāhib al-mukhtārāt, ed. ʿAbbāsqūlī S. Wajdī, with notes and
introduction by Faẓl Allāh Zanjānī, 2nd edition (Tabriz: Charandabi, 1371).
, al-Fuṣūl al-mukhtārah min al-ʿuyūn wa-al-maḥāsin (Tehran:
Intishārāt-i Navīd, 1983).
, al-Ifṣāh fi Imāmat Amīr al-Muʿminīn ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, 2nd edition
(Najaf: al-Haidariyya, 1950).
, Kitāb al-Irshād, tr. I.K.A. Howard (London: The Muḥammadi
Trust, 1981).
, Sharḥ ʿaqāʿid al-Ṣadūq (Beirut: Dār al-Kitāb al-Islāmī, 1983).
, Taṣḥīh al-iʿtiqād (Qum, 1951).

Ibn al-Murtaḍā, Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā, Ṭabaqāt al-Muʿtazila/Die Klassen der

Muʿtaziliten von Ibn al-Murtaḍā, ed. Sussana Diwald-Wilzer (Beirut:
Imrimerie Catholique, 1961), as cited in L. Clarke, Shīʿite Heritage.

46
al-Najāshī, Abī al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. ʿAlī, Rijāl al-Najāshī (Beirut: Dār
al-Adwā’, 1988).

al-Nīsābūrī, Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥakīm, al-Mustadrak ala

l-Ṣaḥīḥayn (India: Dā’irat al-Maʿārif al-Nād’imiyet al-Qā’ima fī 1-Hind,
1913).

al-Nūmairī, Abū Zaid ʿUmar Ihn Shabba b. ʿAbida Zaid, Tārīkh al-Madīna
al-Munawarrah, ed. Fahīm Muḥammad Shaltūt (Iran, 1989).

Nuwayrī, Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, Nihāyat al-ʿArab fī funūn al-Adāb

(Cairo, 1342-48).

Al-Qāḍī al-Nuʿmān, Abū Ḥanīfa al-Nuʿmān b. Abī ʿAbdillāh Muḥammad b.

Manṣūr al-Tamīmī, Daʿaʿim al-Islam, ed. A.A. Fyzee, 2 vols. (Cairo, 1951-
60).

Qāsim b. Sallām, Abū ʿUbayd, Kitāb al-amwāl (al-Qāhirah: Dār al-Fikr,

1975).

al-Qurashī, Yaḥyā b. Adam, Kitāb al-Kharāj, ed. Th. W. Juynboll (Leiden:

E.J. Brill, 1896).

Ibn Qutayba, ʿAbdullāh b. Muslim, al-Imāmāh wa’l-siyāsah (Cairo, 1909).

, Kitāb al-maʿarif, ed. Tharwat ʿUkāshah (Cairo: Maṭbaʿat Dār
al-Kutub, 1960).

Ibn Saʿd, Muḥammad, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā (Beirut, 1947-60).

al-Ṣafadī, Khalīl b. Aybak, al-Wāfī bi-al-wafayāt (Beirut: Dār Iḥyā’ al-Turāth

al-ʿArabī, 2000).

al-Sanʿānī, ʿAbd al-Razzāq b. Ḥammām, Muṣannaf, ed. Ḥabīb al-Raḥman

al-Aʿẓamī, 11 vols. (Simlak, Dahbel/Beirut, 1391/1972).

Ibn Shahrāshūb, Rashīd al-Dīn Abī Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. ʿAlī, Kitāb Maʿālim
al-ʿulamā’ (Tehran: Maṭbaʿat Fardīn, 1934).

al-Shammākhī, Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. Saʿīd, Kitāb al-Siyār (Cairo, 1301).

47
al-Shīrāzī, Abū Isḥaq, al-Ishārah ilā madhhab Ahl al-ḥaqq (al-Qāhirah:
Markaz al-Sīrah wa al-Sunnah, 1999).

al-Sijistānī, Abū Yaʿqūb Isḥaq b. Aḥmad, Kitāb al-Iftikhār, ed. with notes and
comments by Ismail K. Poonawala (Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 2000).

al-Ṭabarī, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. Jarīr b.Yazīd, Tārīkh al-Rusul wa’l-

mulūk, ed. M.J. de Goeje, et al. (Leiden: Brill, 1881).
, Tārīkh al-Rusul wa’l-mulūk (Cairo: al-Istiqāma Publishers, 1939).
, Tārīkh al-Rusul wa’l-mulūk, ed. Muḥammad Abū al-Faḍl Ibrāhīm,
11 vols. (Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif, 1960-1970).
, Tārīkh al-Rusul wa’l-mulūk, 13 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1998).

al-Tabrīzī, Yaḥyā b. ʿAlī Khaṭīb, Sharḥ al-Ḥamāsah (Cairo, 1916), vol. 1, 3.

al-Tamīmī, Sayf b. ʿUmar al-Asadī, Kitāb al-Ridda wa’l-futūh and Kitāb

al-Jamal wa-masīr ʿA’isha wa-ʿAlī: A Facsimile Edition of the Fragments
Preserved in the University Library of Imām Muḥammad Ibn Saʿud Islamic
University in Riyadh (Leiden: Smitskamp Oriental Antiquarium, 1995).

al-Tawḥīdī, Abū Ḥayyān ʿAlī b. Muḥammad, al-Baṣā’ir wa-al-dhakhā’ir,

ed. Wadād al-Qāḍī (Beirut, 1988).
, Kitāb al-imtāʿ wa-al-mu’ānasah, ed. Aḥmed Amīn and Aḥmed
al-Zayn (Cairo, 1953).
, Risālat al-Saqīfah, published in I. al-Kīlānī, ed., Thalāth rasā’il lī-
Abī Ḥayyān al-Tawḥīdī (Damascus, 1951).

Ibn al-Ṭiqṭaqā, al-Fakhrī fī al-adab al-sulṭānīyah wal duwal al-islāmīyya

(Cairo: al-Maktaba al-tijariya al-kubrā, 1927).

Ibn Ṭūlūn, Muḥammad b. ʿAlī, Quḍāt Dimashq: al-thaghr al-bassām fī dhikr

man wuliyya qaḍā’ al-shām, ed. S. Munajjid (Damascus, 1956).

al-Ṭūsī, al-Fihrist, ed. A. Sprenger/new ed. Maḥmud Ramyar (Mashhad,

1351).

Yaʿqūb, Abū Yūsuf, Kitāb al-Kharāj (1886).

al-Yaʿqūbī, Aḥmad b. Abī Yaʿqūb, Kitāb al-Tārīkh (Leiden: Brill, 1883).

, “Kitāb al-Buldan” in Ibn Rustah’s Aʿlāq al-nafīsah, ed. M.J. de
Goeje (Leiden: Brill, 1892).

48
al-Zubayrī, Abī ʿAbd Allāh al-Muṣʿab b. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Muṣʿab, Nasab
Quraysh (Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif lil-Ṭibāʿah wa-al-Nashr, 1953).

Secondary Sources

Abbott, N., Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri (Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 1957).

al-ʿAdawī, Ibrāhīm Aḥmad, al-Dawla al-Umawīyah (Cairo: Maktabat al-

Shabāb, 1987-88).

Afsaruddin, Asma, Excellence and Precedence: Medieval Discourse on

Legitimate Leadership (Leiden: Brill, 2002).
, The First Muslims: History and Memory (Oxford: Oneworld
Publications, 2008).
, “In Praise of the Caliphs: Recreating History from the Manāqib
Literature,” IJMES, 31 (1999).

Ahlwardt, W., The Divans of the Six Ancient Arabic Poets, 25, no. 23:11
(London, 1870).

ʿAlī, Jawād, “Mawarid Tārīkh al-Ṭabarī,” Majallat al-Majmaʿ al-ʿIlmī

al-Iraqī, 1 (1950).

al-ʿAlī, Ṣalih, “Muslim Estates in Ḥijāz in the First Century,” JESHO, vol.
2 (1959).

ʿAlī, ʿAbdullāh Yūsuf, tr. The Qur’ān (New York: Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an,
Inc., 2007).

Allard, M., Le problème des attributs divins dans la doctrine d’al-As’arï et

de ses premiers grands disciples (Beirut, 1965).

Aqīl, Nabil, Dirasat fī al-ʿaṣr al-umawī, 4th edition (Damascus: University of

Damascus Press, 1991-92).

ʿArafāt, W., “The Historical Background to the Elegies on ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān

Attributed to Ḥassan b. Thabit,” BSOAS, 33 (1970).

Arberry, A. J., Arabic Poetry: A Primer for Students (Cambridge, Cambridge

University Press, 1965).

49
Arnold, T. W., The Caliphate (New York : Barnes and Noble, 1966 [1924]).

al-ʿAskarī, S. M., The Role of ʿA’isha in the History of Islam: ʿA’isha in the
Time of Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān, tr. Dr. ʿAlā’ al-Dīn Pārzārgādī (Iran: Naba
Organization, 2000).

Ashtiany, J. and J.D. Latham, ʿAbbāsid Belles-Lettres (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1990).

ʿAṭwān, Ḥusayn, Niẓām wilayāt al-ʿahd wa wirathāt al-khilāfah fī al-ʿaṣr

al-Umawī (Beirut: Dār al-Jīl, 1991).

ʿAẓamī, M. M., On Schacht’s Origins of Muammadan jurisprudence

(Oxford: Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies; 1996).
, Studies in Early Ḥadith Literature (Indianapolis: American Trust
Publications, 1992).

al-Azmeh, A., Muslim Kingship (New York: LB. Tauris Publishers, 1997).

Bahar, Muḥammad Taqī, ed., Tārīkh-i Sīstān (Tehran, 1314).

Bakhit, M. Adnan, and Robert Schick, eds., The History of the Bilād
al-Shām During the Umayyad Period: Fourth International Conference of
the History of Bilād al-Shām (Amman: University of Jordan and Yarmouk
University, 1989).

Bakhtin, M. M., The Dialogic Imagination, ed. Michael Holquist (Austin:

Univeristy of Texas Press, 1981).

Barthes, Roland, The Pleasure of the Text (New York: Hill and Wang, 1975).

Bashear, Suliman, “The Title Fārūq and its Association with ʿUmar I”, Studia
Islamica, 72 (1990).

Bates, Michael, “The ʿArab-Byzantine Bronze Coinage of Syria: An

Innovation by ʿAbd al-Mālik,” A Colloquium in Memory of George
Carpenter Miles (New York: American Numismatic Society, 1976).

Bayhom-Daou, T., “The Imām’s Knowledge and the Qur’ān According to al-
Faḍl b. Shādhān al-Nīsābūrī (d. 260 A.H./874 A.D.),” BSOAS, 64, 2 (2001).

50
 , Shaykh Mufīd: Makers of the Muslim World (Oxford: Oneworld,
2005).

Berg, H., The Development of Exegesis in Early Islam (Richmond: Curzon

Press, 2000).

Birkeland, H., Old Muslim Opposition Against Interpretation of the Qur’ān

(Oslo: Jacob Dybwad, 1955).

Brock, Sebastian P., “Syriac Sources for Seventh Century History,” BMGS,
2 (1976).
, “Syriac Views of Emergent Islam” in G.H.A. Juynboll (ed.), Studies
in the First Century of Islamic Society (Carbondale and Edwardsville, 1982).

Brockelmann, C., “al-Ya’kubī,” Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd edition (Leiden:

Brill, 1954-66).

Brown, J., Ḥādīth: Muḥammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World
(Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2009).

Burton, J., An Introduction to the Ḥādīth (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University

Press, 1994).

Busse, H., “Monotheismus und Islamische Christologie in der Bauinschrift

des Felsendoms in Jerusalem,” Theologische Quartalschrift, 161 (1981) as
cited by Donner in Narratives of Islamic Origins.

Cahen, C., “History and Historians: From the Beginnings to the Time of
al-Ṭabarī,” Religion, Learning and Science in the ʿAbbāsid Period: The
Cambridge History of Arabic Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1990).

Calder, Norman, “The Qurrā and the Arab Lexicographical Tradition,” JSS,
36, 2 (1991).

Cameron, A. J., Abū Dharr al-Ghifārī: An Examination of His Image in

the Hagiography of Islam, Oriental Translation Fund, New Series, vol. 63
(London: Luzac and Co. Ltd. for the Royal Asiatic Society, 1973).

Cameron, Averil, “Images of Authority: Elites and Icons in Late Sixth-

51
Century Byzantium,” in M. Mullet and R. Scott (eds.), Byzantium and the
Classical Tradition (Birmingham: University of Birmingham Press, 1981).

el-Cheikh, N., Byzantium Viewed by the Arabs (Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Centre for Middle-Eastern Studies, 2004).

Cooperson, M., Classical Arabic Biography (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2000).

Crone, Patricia, God’s Rule: Government in Islam (New York: Columbia

University Press, 2004).
, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press,
2004).
, Slaves on Horses: The Evolution of the Islamic Polity (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1980).
, “Were the Qays and Yemen of the Umayyad Period Political
Parties?” DI, 71 (1994).

Crone, Patricia, and M. Cook, Hagarism: The Making Of The Islamic World
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977).

Crone, Patricia, and F.W. Zimmerman, The Epistle of Sālim b. Dhakwan

(New York: Oxford University Press, 2001).

Coulson, N.J., A History of Islamic Law, Islamic Surveys, vol. 2 (Edinburgh:

Edinburgh University Press, 1964; reprint, 1991).

Culler, Jonathan, The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction

(London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981).

Dabashi, Hamid, Authority in Islam: From the Rise of Muḥammad to

the Establishment of the Umayyads, 2nd edition (New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Books, 1992).

Dakake, Maria, The Charismatic Community: Shiʿite Identity in Early Islam

(Albany: SUNY Press, 2007).

al-Dīb, ʿAbd al-ʿAẒīm, Imām al-Ḥāramayn (Kuwait: Dār al-Qalam, 1981).

Dixon, A. A., The Umayyad Caliphate 65-86/684-705: A Political Study

(London: Luzac, 1971).

52
Donner, Fred, The Early Islamic Conquests (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1981).
, “From Believers to Muslims: Confessional Self-Identity in the
Early Islamic Community” in The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East,
IV: Patterns of Communal Identity, ed. Lawrence I. Conrad (Princeton:
Darwin Press, 2003).
, Narratives of Islamic Origins: The Beginning of Islamic Historical
Writing (Princeton: The Darwin Press, Inc: 1998).

Dūrī, A. A., The Rise of History Among the Arabs (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1983).

Elad, A., “The Beginnings of Historical Writing by the Arabs: The Earliest
Syrian Writers on the Arab Conquests,” JSAI, 28 (2003).

Ennami, A. K., “A Description of New ʿIbādī Manuscripts from North

Africa,” Joumal of Semitic Studies, 15 (1970).

Farouq, Umar, Khalāfah b. Khayyaṭ Muʿarrikhān (Baghdad: 1967).

Faris, N. A., “Development in Arab Historiography as Reflected in the

Strugle Between ʿAlī and Muʿāwiyah” in Historians of the Middle East, ed.
P. M. Holt and B. Lewis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962).

Flood, Gavin, Beyond Phenomenology: Rethinking the Study of Religion

(London: Cassell, 1999).

Fowden, G., Quṣayr ʿAmra: Art and the Umayyad Elite in Late Antique
Syria (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1st Edition, 2004).

Fück, Johann, “Die Rolle des Traditionalism us im Islam,” Zeitschrift der

Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, 93 (1939) in Berg, H., The
Development of Exegesis in Early Islam, (Richmond: Curzon Press, 2000).

Fyzee, A. A., “Qāḍī an-Nuʿmān: The Fāṭimid Jurist and Author,” JRAS
(1934).

Geyer, R., The Divan of al-ʿA’isha (London, E.J.W. Gibb Memorial series,
N.S.6, 1928).

53
Gleave, R. “Between Ḥādīth and Fiqh: Early Imāmī Collections of Akhbār,”
ILS, 8, 3 (2001).

Goldziher, I., Mohamedanische Studien (first published 1890), vol. 2, tr. into
English by C.R. Barber and S.M. Stern under the title Muslim Studies, vol. 2
(London: George Allen & Unwin, 1967-71).
, The Principles of Law in Islam, vol. 8, 301, in The Historian’s
History of the World, ed. H.S. Williams (London, 1907).

Goriawala, M., A Descriptive Catalogue of the Fyzee collection of Ismaili

Manuscripts, no. 24 and no. 49 entitled Ithbāt al-Imāmah (Bombay:
University of Bombay, 1965).

Gorke, A., “The Historical Tradition about al-Hudaybīyya,” In The

Biography of Muḥammad: The Issue of the Sources, ed. Harald Motzki
(Leiden: Brill, 2000).

Gruendler, B., “Verse and Taxes: The Function of Poetry in Selected Literary
Akhbār of the Third/Ninth Century” in On Fiction and Adab in Medieval
Arabic Literature, ed. Ph. F. Kennedy (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005).

Gunther, S., “Assessing the Sources of Classical Arabic Compilations: The

Issue of Categories and Methodologies,” BJMES, 32, 1 (2005).

Halm, Heinz, Shīʿism (Edinburgh, 1992).

Hamda, Muḥammad Māhir, Dirāsa wathā’iqīyya li-l-Tārīkh al-Islamī

wa-maṣadirihī; min ʿahd banī umayyah ḥata al-fatḥ al-ʿUthmānī li-Sūriyah
wa-Miṣr 40-922 AH /661-1516 CE (Beirut: Mu’assassat al Risāla, 1988).

Hasson, Isaac, “La conversion de Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān,” JSAI, 22 (1998).

Hawting, Gerald R., The First Dynasty of Islam (London: Routledge, 2000).
, “The Origins of the Muslim Sanctuary at Mecca”, in G.H.A.
Juynboll (ed.), Studies on the First Century of Islamic Society (Carbondale
and Edwardsville, 1982).
, “The Significance of the Slogan La Ḥukma illa Lillah and the
References to the Ḥudūd in the Traditions about the Fitna and the Murder of
ʿUthmān,” BSOAS, 41 (1978).

54
el-Ḥibrī, T., JSTOR, vol. 118, n.1.
, Reinterpreting Islamic Historiography: Harūn al-Rashīd and the
Narrative of the ʿAbbāsid Caliphate (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1999).

Hinds, Martin, “The Banners and the Battle Cries of the Arabs at the Battle
of Ṣiffīn (657 AD),” al-Abḥāth, 24 (1971).
, “Muʿāwiya I,” The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition (Leiden:
Brill, 1993).
, “The Murder of the Caliph ʿUthmān,” IJMES, 3 (1972).
, “Sayf b. ʿUmar’s Sources on Arabia,” Studies in the History of
Arabia, 1: ii (1979).
, “The Siffin Arbitration Agreement,” JSS, 17 (1972).

Hitti, Philip K., History of the Arabs (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan,

2002).

Hodgson, Marshall, “How Did the Early Shiʿa become Sectarian,” JAOS, 75
(1955).

Horst, Heribert, Die Gewahrsmanner im korankommentar at-Ṭabarī: Ein

Beitrag zur kenntnis der exegetischen Uberlieferung im Islam (Rheinische
Friedrich-Willhelms-Universitat zu Bonn, Ph.D dissertation, 1951) in Berg,
H., The Development of Exegesis in Early Islam (Richmond: Curzon Press,
2000).

Hoyland, R., “Sebeos, the Jews and the Rise of Islam,” SMJR, 2 (1996).
, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It (Princeton: Darwin Press, 1997),
quoting George of Resh’aina, “An Early Syriac Life of Maxim us XXIII.”

Humphreys, R. S., Islamic History: A Framework for Inquiry (Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 1991).
, Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān: From Arabia to Empire (Oxford:
Oneworld Publications, 2006).

Ibrāhīm, Maḥmood, Merchant Capital and Islam (Austin: The University of

Texas Press, 1990).
, The Social and Economic Background of the Umayyad Caliphate
(University of California, Los Angeles, Ph.cl. dissertation, 1981).

55
Ivanow, V., “Early ShI'ite Movements,” JBBRAS (1941).

Izutsu, T., Ethico-Religious Concepts in the Qur’ān (Montreal: McGill

University Press, 1966).
, God and Man in the Koran: Semantics of the Qur’ānic
Weltanschauung (Tokyo: The Keio Institute of Cultural and Linguistic
Studies, 1964).

al-Jabburī, K. S., Nuṣūs min Tārīkh Abī Mikhnaf Lūṭ b. Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd
al-Jāmidī al-Azdī l-Kūfī l-Mutawaffa [157 H] (Beirut: Dār al-Rasūl
al-Akram, 1999).

Jones,J.M.B., “The Chronology of the Maghāzī: A Textual Survey,” BSOAS,

XIX (1957).

Juynboll, G.H.A., Muslim Tradition: Studies in Chronology, Provenance and

the Authorship of Early Ḥadīth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1983).
, Studies on the First Century of Islamic Society (Carbondale, IL:
Southern Illinois University Press, 1982).

Kaegi, Walter, “Initial Byzantine Reactions to the Arab Conquests,” CH, 38

(1969).

Kassis, H. E., A Concordance of the Qur’ān (Berkeley: The University of

California Press, 1983).

Kennedy, Hugh, The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphate: The Islamic Near
East from the Sixth to the Eleventh Century (London: Longman, 1986).
, Al-Ṭabarī: Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam (London:
Darwin Press, 2008).

Keshk, Khaled, The Depiction of Muʿāwiya in the Early Islamic Sources

(Chicago: University of Chicago, 2002).
, The Historian’s Muʿāwiya: The Depiction of Muʿāwiya in the Early
Islamic Sources (Saarbrucken: VDM Verlag Dr Muller, 2008).
, “The Historiography of an Execution: The Killing of Ḥujr b. ʿAdī,”
Journal of Islamic Studies 19, 1 (January 2008).

Khālidī, T., Arab Historical Thought in the Classical Period (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1994).

56
 , Images of Muḥammad (New York: Doubleday, 2009).

Kohlberg, Etan, “Evolution of the Shīʿa,” JQ, 27 (1983).

, “From Imāmīyya to Ithnā-Asharīyya,” BSOAS, 39 (1976).
, “Imām and Community in the Pre-Ghayba Period,” in Authority
and Political Culture in Shīʿism, ed. Saʿīd Amīr Arjomand (Albany: State
University of New York Press, 1988).
, “The Term Muhaddath in Twelver Shīʿism,” Studio Orientalia D.H.
Baneth Dedicata (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1979).

Kristeva, Julia, Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and

Art (New York: Columbia University Press, 1980).

Lalani, Arzina, Early Shīʿi Thought: The Teachings of Imām Muḥammad

al-Bāqir (London: I.B. Tauris and the Institute of ʿIsmāʿlī Studies, 2004).

Lambton, A., State and Government in Medieval Islam (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1981).

Lammens, Henri, Etudies sur le regne du Calife Omiyade Mo’awiya I

(Leipzig, 1908).
, “Mu’āwiya,” The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd edition (Leiden: Brill,
1954-66).

Lapidus, Ira M., A History of Islamic Societies (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1988).
, “Knowledge, Virtue, and Action: The Classical Muslim Conception
of Adab and the Nature of Religious Fulfillment in Islam” In Moral Conduct
and Authority: The Place of Adab in South Asian Islam, ed. Barbara D.
Metcalf (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984).
, “The Separation of State and Religion in the Development of Early
Islamic Society,” IJMES 6 (1975).

Lassner, J., Islamic Revolution and Historical Memory (New Haven:

American Oriental Society, 1986).

Lecker, Michael, “The Estates of ʿAmr b. al-Āṣ in Palestine: Notes on a New

Negev Arabic Inscription,” BSOAS, 52 (1989).

Leder, Stefan, “The Literary Use of the Khabar: A Basic Form of Historical

57
Writing” in The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East I: Problems in the
Literary Source Material, ed. Averil Cameron and Lawrence I. Conrad
(Princeton: The Darwin Press, 1992).

Lewinstein, K., Journal of the American Oriental Society, 121, 2 (2001).

Lindsay, J., Ibn Asākīr and Early Islamic History (Princeton: Darwin Press,
2001).

Macdonald, D. B., Development of Muslim Theology: jurisprudence and

Constitutional Theory (New York: Charles Scrb.er's Sons, 1903).

Macintyre, Alasdair, A History of Ethics (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul,

1967).

McCarthy, R. J., “Al-Bāqillānī,” Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd edition

(Leiden: Brill, 1954-66).
, The Theology of al-Ashʿārī (Beirut: 1953).

Mccutcheon, Russell T., “General Introduction” in The Insider/Outsider

Problem in the Study of Religion, ed. Russell T. Mccutcheon (London:
Cassell, 1999).

McDermott, Martin J., The Theology of Shaykh al-Mufīd (Beirut, 1978).

Madelung, Wilferd, The Succession to Muḥammad (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1996).

Madelung, Wilferd, “Early Sunnī Doctrine Concerning Faith as Reflected in

the Kitāb al-Imān of Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim b. Sallām” (d. 224/839), SI, 32
(1970).
, “The Hāshimīyāt of al-Kumayt and Hāshimī Shīʿism,” SI, 70 (1989).

Margoliouth, D. S., Lectures on Arab Historians (Calcutta: University of

Calcutta, 1930).

Marsham, Andrew, Rituals of Islamic Monarchy, Accession and Succession

in the First Muslim Empire (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009).

Martensson, U., “Discourse and Historical Analysis: The Case of al-Ṭabarī’s

History of the Messengers and the Kings,” 16 (2005).

58
Mattson, I., JR, 78, 2 (1998).

Miles, G. C., “Early Islamic Inscriptions Near Ṭā’if in the Ḥijāz,” JNES, 7
(1948).

Millward, W. G., “Al-Yaʿqūbī’s Sources and the Question of Shīʿī

Partiality”, Abr Nahrain, 12 (1971-1972).

Modarressi, Hossein, Crisis and Consolidation in the Formative Period of

Shīʿite Islam: Abū Jaʿfar b. Qiba al-Rāzī and His Contribution to Imāmite
Shīʿite Thought (Princeton: Darwin Press, 1993).
, Tradition and Survival: A Bibliographical Survey of Early Shīʿite
Literature (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2003).

Montgomery, J., “al-Jāḥiẓ” in Dictionary of Literary Biography, vol. 311:

Arabic Literary Heritage 500-925, ed. S.M. Toorawa and M. Cooperson
(Detroit: Layman, Brucoli & Clark, 2005).
, “Jāḥiẓ’s Kitāb al-Bayan wa-1-Tabayin,” in Julia Bray (ed.), Writing
and Representation: (London: Muslim Horizons, 2006).
, “Of Models and Amanuenses: The Remarks on the Qaṣīda in Ibn
Qutaybah’s Kitāb al-Shi‘r wa-1-Shu‘arā,” in R. Hoyland and P. Kennedy
(ed.), Islamic Reflections, Arabic Musings: Studies in Honour of Alan Jones
(Oxford: Gibb Memorial Trust, 2004).

Morony, M., trans., History of Ṭabarī: Between Civil Wars: The Caliphate
of Muʿāwiyah, vol. 18 (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987).
, Iraq after the Muslim Conquest (Princeton: N.J.; Princeton Univer-
sity Press, 1984).
, NES, 59, 2 (2000).

Motzki, H., The Biography of Muḥammad: The Issue of the Sources (Leiden:
Brill, 2000).
, Ḥadīth: Origins and Development (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004).
, “The Muṣannaf of ʿAbd al-Razzāq b. Ḥammām al-Sanʿānī as a
Source of Authentic Aḥadīth of the First Century AH,” JNES, 50 (1991).

Mubarak, Z., al-Nathr al-Fannī (Cairo, 1934).

Muir, W. The Caliphate: Its Rise, Decline and Fall (London: Religious Tract
Society, 1891).

59
al-Najjar, M., al-Dawla al-Umawīyya fi al-sharq (Cairo, 1962).

Nallino, C. A., “Appunti sulla natura del ‘Califatto’ in genere e sul presunto
‘Califatto ottomano’,” in Raccolta di scritti editi e inediti (Rome, 1941) as
cited in Watt, W. Montgomery, “God’s Caliph: Qur’ānic Interpretations
and Umayyad Claims,” Iran and Islam, ed. C. E. Bosworth (Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press, 1971).

Noth, A., and L. Conrad, The Early Arabic Historical Tradition: A

Source-Critical Study (Princeton: Darwin Press, 1994).

Ostrogorsky, George, History of the Byzantine State (Oxford: Blackwell,

1968).

Palmer, A., S. Brock, and R. Hoyland, The Seventh Century in the West-
Syrian Chronicles (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1993).

Pellat, C., The Life and Works of Jāḥiẓ Translation of Selected Texts
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969 ).

Petersen, E., “ʿAlī and Muʿāwiya: The Rise of the Ummayad Caliphate 656-
661,” Acta Orientalia, 23 (1955).
, ʿAlī and Muʿāwiya (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1964).

Poonawala, Ismail K., Al-Qaḍī al-Numān and his Urjuza on the Imāmate
(University of California, Los Angeles, Ph.d. dissertation, 1970).

al-Qāḍī, Wadād, Bishr b. Kubar al-Balawī; Namūdhaj min al-nathr al-fannī

al-mubakkir fī al-Yaman (Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islamī, 1985).
, “al-Raka’iẓ al-fikrīyyah fī naẓrat Abū Ḥayyān al-Tawḥīdī ilā
1-mujtama,” al-Abḥāth, 23 (1970).
, “The Religious Foundation of Late Umayyad Ideology and
Practice,” Saber Religioso y Poder Politico en el Islam: Actas del Simposio
Internacional, Granada, 15-18 octubre 1991 (Madrid, 1994).
, “The Term ‘Khalīfa’ in Early Exegetical Literature,” DWI, 28
(1988).

Quṭb, Sayyid, Social Justice in Islam, tr. John Hardie (New York: Octagon
Books, 1970).

60
Quṭbuddin, T., “Khuṭba: The Evolution of Early Arabic Oration,” in
Classical Arabic Humanities in their Own Terms: Festschrift for Wolfhart
Heinrichs on his 65th Birthday, ed. Beatrice Gruendler (Leiden: Brill
Academic Publishers, 2008).

Reinink, G.J., “The Beginnings of Syriac Apologetic Literature in Response

to Islam,” Oriens Christianus, 77 (1993).

Richards, D. S., “Ibn al-Athīr and the Later Parts of the Kāmil: A Study for
Aims and Methods” in Medieval Historical Writing in the Christian and
Islamic Worlds, ed. D.O. Morgan (London: SOAS, University of London,
1982).

Rippin, A., “Literary Analysis of the Qur’ān, Tafsīr and Sīrah: The
Methodologies of John Wansborough” in Approaches to Islam in Religious
Studies, ed. Richard C. Martin (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1985).

Robinson, C., ʿAbd al-Mālik: Makers of the Muslim World (Oxford:

Oneworld Publications, 2007).
, Islamic Historiography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2003).

Robson, J., “The Isnād in Muslim Tradition,” Transactions of the Glasgow

University Oriental Society, 15 (1953-4).

Rosenthal, F. A., Knowledge Trimuphant: The Concept of Knowledge in

Medieval Islam (Leiden: Brill, 1970).
, History of Muslim Historiography (Leiden: Brill, 1968).
, The History of Ṭabarī (Albany: State University of New York Press,
1989).

Rubin, Uri, “The Eye of the Beholder: The Life of Muḥammad As Viewed
By the Early Muslims, A Textual Analysis,” Studies in Late Antiquity and
Early Islam, 8 (Princeton: The Darwin Press, 1995).

al-Sāmarrā’ī, Ibrāhīm, Fī al-Muṣṭalah al-Islāmī (Beirut: Dār al-Hadāthah,

1990).

Scheeler, G., The Oral and the Written in Early Islam, tr. Uwe Vagelpohl
(London: Routledge, 2006).

61
Serjeant, R. B., “The Caliph ʿUmar’s Letters to Abū Mūsā and Muʿāwiya,”
SS, 24 (1984).

Sezgin, F., Geschichte des Arabesque Schriftums, Band I: Qur’ān

Wissenschaften, ḥadith, Geschichte, Fīqh, Dogmatik, Mystik bis ca. 430 H,
tr. H. Berg (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1967).

Sezgin, U., Abū Mikhnaf: Ein Beitrag zur Historiographie des

umaiyadischen Ziet (Leiden: Brill, 1971) as cited in C. Robinson.

Shaban, M. A., The Abbasid Revolution (London: Cambridge University

Press, 1970).
, Islamic History: A New Interpretation A.D. 600-750 (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1971).

Shahid, Irfan, Byzantium and the Arabs in the Fifth Century (Washington
D.C., Dumbarton Oaks Research Library Collection, 1989).
, Byzantium and the Arabs in the Sixth Century (Washington D.C.
Dumbarton Oaks Research Library Collection, 1995 ).
, Byzantium and the Arabs in Late Antiquity (Bruxelles: Byzantion,
2005).

Sharon, Moshe, “Notes on the Question of Legitimacy of Government in

Islam,” IAO, 10 (1980).
, “The Umayyads as Ahl al-Bayt”, JSAI, 14 (1992).

Shepard, W., “The Development of the Thought of Sayyid Quṭb as Reflected

in Earlier and Later Editions of ‘Social Justice in Islam’,” DWI, 32 (1992).
, “Sayyed Quṭb’s Doctrine of Jaḥilīyya,” IJMES, 35 (2003).

Schacht, J., Origins of Muḥammadan Jurisprudence (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1950).

Shackle, Christopher, and Stefan Speri, “Qaṣīda Poetry in Islamic Asia and
Africa,” 2 vols., in Studies in Arabic Literature, vol. 20 (Leiden: Brill, 1997).

Silverstein, A., Postal-Systems in the Pre-Modern Islamic World:

Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2007).

62
Speight, M., “A Look at Variant Readings in the Ḥadīth,” DI, 77 (2000).

Stetkevych, Jaroslav, Arabic Poetry and Orientalism (Oxford: St John’s

College Research Centre, 2004).

Stetkevych, S., Early Islamic Poetry and Poetics: The Formation of the
Classical Islamic World (Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Variorum, 2009).
, The Mute Immortals Speak: Pre-Islamic Poetry and the Poetics of
Ritual (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993).

Stewart, Devin, “Saj’ in the Qur’ān: Prosody and Structure,” JAL, 21 (1990).

Stroumsa, S., “The Blinding Emerald: Ibn al-Rawandī’s Kitāb al-Zumurrud”,

JAOS, 114 (1994).
, “Ibn al-Rawandī’s Suʿadab al-mujadala: The Role of Bad Manners
in Medieval Disputations’ in H. Lazarus-Yaffe, et al. (eds.), The Majlis:
Interreligious Encounters in Medieval Islam, Studies in Arabic Language
and Literature (Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 1999).

Taqqush, M. S., Tārīkh al-dawla al-Umawīyya (Beirut: Dār al-Nafāʿis,

1996).

Thompson, Willie, Postmodernism and History (New York: Palgrave

Macmillan, 2004).

Tyan, E., Histoire de l’organisation judiciaire en pays d’Islam (Paris, 1938-

1943; 2nd edition, Leiden, 1960) in Watt, W. Montgomery,”God’s Caliph:
Qur’ānic Interpretations and Umayyad Claims,” Iran and Islam, ed. C.E.
Bosworth (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1971).

ʿUways, Abd al-Ḥalīm, Banū Umayyah bayn al-suqūt wa al-intiḥār; dirāsah

ḥawl suqūt Banū Umayyah fī al-mashriq (Cairo: Dār al-Sahwa, 1987).

al-Wakīl, Muḥammad al-Sayyid, al-Umawīyun bayna al-sharq wal-gharb:

dirāsah waṣfīyah wa-taḥlīlīyah lil-dawlah al-Umawīyah (Damascus: Dār
al-Qalam, 1995).

Walmand, M. R., Toward a Theory of Historical Narrative (Columbus: Ohio

State University Press, 1980).

63
Watt, W. Montgomery, The Formative Period of Islamic Thought
(Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1973).
, “God’s Caliph: Qur’ānic Interpretations and Umayyad Claims,”
Iran and Islam, ed. C.E. Bosworth (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,
1971).
, Muḥammad at Mecca (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953).
, “Shīʿism under the Umayyads,” JRAS (1960).

Wansborough, J., Qur’ānic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural

Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977).

Weber, Max, Max Weber on Charisma and Institution Building: Selected

Papers, ed. S.N. Eisenstadt (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968).

Wellhausen, J., The Arab Kingdom and its Fall, tr. Margaret Weir (Beirut:
Khayats, 1963).
, The Religio-Political Factions of Early Islam, ed. R.C. Ostle, trans.
R.C. Ostle and S.M. Waltzer (Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing, 1975).

White, Hayden, Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-

Century Europe (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973).

Wolfson, H., The Philosophy of the Kalam (Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press, 1976).

64
 ‫‪Appendix‬‬

‫عن خميش بن حجر بن عدي عن أبيه أن نيب اهلل (ص) خطبهم‪ ،‬فقال‪ :‬أي يوم هذا؟‬
‫فقالوا‪ :‬يوم حرام‪ .‬قال‪ :‬فأي بدل هذا؟ قالوا ‪ :‬بدل حرام‪ ،‬قال‪ :‬فأي شهر هذا؟ قالوا‪ :‬شهر‬
‫حرام‪ ،‬قال‪ :‬فان دماءكم وأموالكم وأعراضكم حرام عليكم كحرمة يومكم‬
‫هذا‪ ،‬كحرمة شهركم هذا‪ ،‬كحرمة بدلكم هذا‪ ،‬يلبلغ الشاهد الغائب‪ ،‬ال ترجعوا‬
‫بعدي كفارا يرضب بعضكم رقاب بعض‪.‬‬

‫املستدرك‪ ،‬ج ‪ / 3‬ص ‪Source : 470‬‬

‫شعيب بن حرب عن شعبة عن ابي بكر بن حفص عن حجر بن عدي رجل من‬
‫ً‬
‫اصحاب انليب(ص) عن انليب (ص) قال‪ :‬ان قوما يرشبون اخلمر يسمونها بغري اسمها‬

‫االصابة‪ ،‬ج ‪ / 1‬ص ‪Source : 313‬‬

‫حجر بن عدي الكندي قال‪« :‬قلت حلجر‪ :‬اني رايت ابنك دخل اخلالء ولم يتوضأ‪،‬‬
‫قال‪ :‬ناولين الصحيفة من الكوة‪ .‬فقرأ‪ :‬بسم اهلل الرمحن الرحيم‪ ،‬هذا ما سمعت علي‬
‫بن ابي طالب يذكر‪ :‬أن الطهور نصف االيمان»‬

‫الطبقات‪ ،‬ج ‪ / 6‬ص ‪Source : 220‬‬

‫‪65‬‬
‫عن حجر انه قال‪« :‬سمعت علي بن ابي طالب يقول‪ :‬الوضوء نصف االيمان» وروى‬
‫ً‬
‫ابن عساكر ايضا باسناده إىل حجر بن عدي قال‪« :‬سمعت رشاحيل بن مرة يقول‪:‬‬
‫سمعت انلبي (ص) يقول لعلي‪ :‬ابرش يا علي‪ ،‬حياتك وموتك ميع»‬

‫تاريخ ابن عساكر‪ ،‬ج ‪ / 4‬ص ‪Source : 85‬‬

‫رشيك قال‪ :‬اخربنا عبداهلل بن سعد عن حجر بن عدي قال‪ :‬قدمت املدينة‬
‫فجلست اىل ابي هريرة‪ ،‬فقال‪ :‬ممن انت؟ قلت‪ :‬من اهل ابلرصة‪ ،‬قال‪ :‬ما فعل سمرة‬
‫الي طول حياة منه‪ ،‬قلت‪ :‬ول ِ َم ذاك؟‬
‫بن جندب؟‪ ،‬قلت‪ :‬هو حي‪ ،‬قال‪ :‬ما احد احب ّ‬
‫ً‬
‫قال‪ :‬ان رسول (ص) قال لي وهل وحلذيفة بن ايلمان‪« :‬آخركم موتا يف انلار»‪ ،‬فسبقنا‬
‫حذيفة‪ ،‬وانا االن أتمىن ان اسبقه‪ ،‬قال‪ :‬فبىق سمرة بن جندب‪ ،‬حىت شهد مقتل‬
‫احلسني‬

‫رشح نهج ابلالغة‪ ،‬ج ‪ / 4‬ص ‪Source : 74‬‬

‫‪66‬‬