7. FROM CALIPHATE TO KINGSHIP: ‘UMAR’S REIGN AND FUTURE CHANGES

1. Qur’ān 31:20.

2. Qur’ān 17:70.

3. Qur’ān 8:26.

4. Ṭabarī, I, 2761. No isnād is here given. Smith, HT, XIV, 126–127.

5. Ṭabarī, I, 2772. Smith, HT, XIV, 139.

6. Ibn al-Athīr, II, 404.

7. Ṭabarī, I, 2229. Friedmann, HT, XII, 22–23.

8. Ṭabarī, I, 2544. Juynboll, HT, XIII, 125.

9. ‘Umār’s warning regarding the potential loss of the kingdom parallels a similar cautionary message that Jesus gave to the Pharisees after concluding the parable of the vineyard and the tenants when he told them, “I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.” Matthew 21:43.

10. Ṭabarī, I, 2751. Smith, HT, XIV, 117. Al-Ḥārith←Ibn Sa‘d←Muḥammad b. ‘Umar←Usāma b. Zayd b. Aslam←Usāma’s father←Usāma’s grandfather. Ibn Sa‘d, III, 296. Muḥammad b. ‘Umar [al-Wāqidī]←Usāma b. Zayd b. Aslam←his father←his grandfather.

11. Ṭabarī, I, 2777. Smith, HT, XIV, 144.

12. Ṭabarī, I, 2782.

13. Ṭabarī, I, 2781.

14. Ṭabarī, I, 2779. ‘Umar declares, “If he [Ṭalḥa] comes within the three days, include him in your decision. If the three days go by and he does not come, make the decision nevertheless. Who will deal with Ṭalḥa for me?” “I shall,” responded Sa‘d b. Abī Waqqāṣ, “and he will not give a differing view, God willing.” Ṭabarī, I, 2779. Smith, HT, XIV, 146.

15. This is followed up in the abbreviated version of the succession story with similar fears about Sa‘d and ‘Alī, but it is clear that these doubts were meant primarily for ‘Uthmān and the others only to create an equitable attitude toward the companions.

16. This close coordination between some of ‘Umar’s statements and Jamā‘ī-Sunnī ideas is also reflected in the role ‘Umar gives to his son, ‘Abdallāh. With full awareness of the Sunnī deference to ‘Abdallāh b. ‘Umar’s role in transmitting ḥadīths, ‘Umar is shown giving his son an important symbolic position as arbitrator for the assembly in case the votes are split evenly. Ṭabarī, I, 2779. Although earlier in the text of his instructions ‘Umar rejects appointing his son as successor in pious humility and insists that his son should occupy the role of no more than a counselor to the group (wa yaḥḍur ‘Abdallāh mushīran wa lā shay’a lahu min al-amr), the statement evolves in the end to make Ibn ‘Umar the tilting factor in the votes in case of division. The text reflects the methods by which the narrators tried to address a variety of interests on the part of the audience that received these narratives.

17. See appendix II for full account of the shūrā story.

18. Ṭabarī, I, 2784. Smith, HT, XIV, 151.

19. The translation of this phrase follows the version of al-‘Iqd(IV, 278).

20. Ṭabarī, I, 2784. Smith, HT, XIV, 151–152. Sa‘d, enacting ‘Umar’s prodding role at the Saqīfa, did not like the tentative nature of ‘Abd al-Raḥmān’s statement and/or that ‘Alī may get appointed, so he asserted in clear ‘Umarī decisiveness, “I am afraid that weakness has overcome you. Do as you think best. You know what ‘Umar’s deathbed instructions were.” Ṭabarī, I, 2784. Smith,HT,XIV, 151. Sa‘d’s hints of doubt here bring to mind ‘Umar’s claim that the Prophet’s illness had grown strong just as the latter began expressing an interest in writing down a covenant that seemed to concern the name of an official successor. ‘Umar’s claim is “innahu yahjur.”

21. There Abū Bakr declared, “I am pleased [to offer] you one of these two men [i.e., Abū ‘Ubayda and ‘Umar]; render your oath of allegiance to any one of them you like.” Ṭabarī, I, 1823. Poonawala, HT, IX, 193.

22. An added clarification report on the shūrā scene explains that ‘Amr b. al-‘Āṣ met with ‘Alī during the period of consultation and told him, “The more you show [your] firm resolve, the less keen he is [i.e., ‘Abd al-Raḥmān] [that you be appointed]. But [the more you say you will act according to (your) effort and ability, the more keen he is (that you be appointed).” Then ‘Amr b. al-‘Āṣ met with ‘Abd al-Raḥmān and reportedly advised him of the soundness of giving the caliphate to ‘Uthmān. Ṭabarī, I, 2795. Smith, HT, XIV, 161.

23. Ṭabarī, I, 2783. Smith, HT, XIV, 150.

24. Ṭabarī, I, 2786.

25. It is not certain whether the translation of this phrase is known.

26. Qur’ān 12:18.

27. Qur’ān 55:29.

28. Ṭabarī, I, 2786. Smith, HT, XIV, 153.

29. Ṭabarī, I, 1524.

30. Ṭabarī, I, 2786. Smith, HT, XIV, 153.

31. This statement was known as an Islamic tradition (athar). Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, Jāmi‘, II, 174.

32. Ṭabarī, I, 2786.

33. Ṭabarī, I, 2776–2777. Smith, HT, XIV, 143–144.

34. According to Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi, after Hishām b. ‘Abd al-Malik completed his pilgrimage, he stopped in Medina, where he was told that Sālim b. ‘Abdallāhb. ‘Umar was gravely ill (the statement used to describe this situation, “shadīd al-waja‘,” is similar to ‘Umar’s characterization of Sālim, the mawlā of Abū Ḥudhayfa, as “shadīd al-ḥubb li-allāh).” Soon after the caliph visited him Sālim died, and Hishām led the funeral prayer for him. Hishām then commented, “I don’t know whether I feel more of a reward for having performed the pilgrimage or having led the funeral prayer for Sālim.” This statement also draws on a parallel comparative phrasing from the Rāshidūn caliphate. Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi, al-‘Iqd, IV, 447.

35. Ṭabarī, I, 2779. Smith, HT, XIV, 146. ‘Umar’s statements on the subject of succession are usually logically tendentious, such as when he shows concern that ‘Uthmān might turn to appointing his kinsmen to positions of power (a summary of such statements is given in the story of ‘Umar’s conversation with Ibn ‘Abbās about the succession). Ya‘qūbī, II, 158. However, the characterization of ‘Alī as someone at a disadvantage because of a sense of humor (if this expression has been transmitted and translated correctly [dhū du‘āba]) remains the most obscure wording ‘Umar ever made, since humor appears nowhere in the character of ‘Alī. ‘Umar’s other description of ‘Alī as someone who will carry the community on the firm path (ṭarīq al-ḥaqq) is perhaps more intelligible as an oblique criticism. What narrators were alluding to here was not ‘Alī’s overly confident attitude in his ability to interpret religion (such as in his statements at the shūrā when he declined to abide by the sunna of the first two caliphs), but rather his severe approach toward enforcing the letter of the law on some occasions, as he did when he flogged al-Walīd b. ‘Uqba to an almost gratuitous degree for the offense of wine drinking. Balādhurī, Ansāb (Banū ‘Abd Shams), 523. While ‘Alī’s talent as an expert religious judge was well recognized in traditionist texts, his extremist application of penalties was not always appreciated. Sunnī tradition allowed leeway for moderating sentences (such as in cases where there was reasonable doubt about the occurrence of an offense [following the principle of the famous dictum, “idra’ū al-ḥudūd bi’l-shubuhāt” (ward off severe penalties with the possibility of uncertainty)], a context of war for the transgression, or a plethora of methods that could be used to mitigate a sentence). Presumably negotiating such a reduced verdict also required the varied involvement of Sunnī jurists (or the collectivity of the companions during the early period) rather than the opinion of a single religious expert. This would have ultimately challenged ‘Alī’s monopoly on religious authority as well.

36. As ‘Abd al-Raḥmān declared in his prologue to the negotiation with the companions, “A stratagem introduced into speech is more effective than swords in a wound [inna al-ḥīlata fī al-manṭiq ablaghu min al-suyūf fī al-kalim].” The statement in the second version of the shūrā continues where ‘Umar b. Shabba’s account stops. Ṭabarī, I, 2789. In another part of the account, the theme of political acumen is combined with praise for the ‘Abbāsids. At the outset of theshūrā, ‘Alī reportedly confides to al-‘Abbās that the caliphate was about to be distanced from the Hāshimites (“‘adalat ‘annā,” in ‘Alī’s words). When al-‘Abbās inquired about what had happened, ‘Alī described to him ‘Umar’s instructions about weighing votes in the case of a tie. Al-‘Abbās then reminde ‘Alī that he should have listened to his (i.e., al-‘Abbās’) earlier advice not to join in the shūrā . That was the third political mistake ‘Alī had committed by al-‘Abbās’ count, and it was now too late for ‘Alī to do anything. Ṭabarī, I, 2781.

37. Aside from ‘Uthmān’s comments during the shūrā on this topic, one narrative attributes to him a speech announcing this. “Verily, I will be a follower, not an innovator [innī muttabi‘ wa lastu bi-mubtadi‘]. Verily, you may demand three things from me, beyond [obedience to] the Book of the Almighty God and the way [sunna] established by His prophet. [First,] that I follow those who preceded me in matters that you have agreed upon and established [wa inna lakum ‘alayya … ittibā‘ man kāna qablī fī-mā ijtama‘tum ‘alayhi wa sanantum]. [Second,] that I adhere to the path laid out by pious and virtuous men in matters that you have not established by general consensus [wa sann sunnata ahl al-khayr fīmā lam tasunnū ‘an mala’]. [Third,] that I avoid coercion against you save in cases where you have deemed it necessary. Verily, this world is a verdant meadow that has been made to seem desirable to the people [alā wa inna al-dunyā khaḍira qad shuhhiyat ilā alnās] and toward which many among them incline. Do not rely on this world and put no trust in it, for it is not a thing to be trusted. Know that it leaves nothing behind save him who has left it behind.” Ṭabarī, I, 3058–3059. Humphreys, HT, XV, 256–257. This speech makes clear ‘Uthmān’s pursuit of the sunna, even when his innovations were considered to be problematic. The reference to the world as a verdant meadow shows that the composition of this speech was closely tied to the speeches by ‘Umar and ‘Abd al-Raḥmān wherein they speak of the vision of a garden and a trial.

38. One ḥadīth reportedly has the Prophet ask Bilāl to declare to the public that ‘Uthmān would be the successor to ‘Umar. Khaṭīb,Ta’rīkh Baghdād, VII, 429.Ibn Jurayj←‘Aṭā’←Ibn ‘Umar.

39. Ṭabarī, I, 2212–2213. The term “radīf” is explained by Ibn Manẓūr as having the meaning of “successor to the throne,” in Persian kingship (“ardāf al-mulūk hum alladhīna yakhlifūnahum fī’l-qiyām bi-amr al-mimlaka, bi-manzilat al-wuzarā ’fī’l-islām”). Lisān al-‘Arab, IX, 117 (cited by M. Abū’l-Faḍl Ibrāhīm; Ṭabarī, IV, 480). Ibn Qutayba explains that “al-radīf” was an office that the kings of Ḥīra assigned to an individual from the tribe of Banū Tamīm who substituted for the king while the latter was on military campaign. Ibn Qutayba, al-Ma‘ārif, 651.

40. Ṭabarī, I, 2948. Humphreys, HT, XV, 152.

41. Ṭabarī, I, 2947. Humphreys, HT, XV, 152.

42. Ṭabarī, I, 2558. Juynboll, HT, XIII, 138.

43. The similarity to ‘Umar’s words of caution is again worth stressing. Also remarkable here is the great similarity of this discourse with the famous cultural swipes of the Shu‘ūbiyya (nationalist Persian movement) against the Arabs. Shu‘ūbī writers, it will be recalled, narrowed the Arab contribution in history to the gift of prophecy, and argued otherwise for the more preeminent secular role of Persian writers in Islamic civilization (Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi, al-‘Iqd, III, 405).Thus what is couched in ‘Umar’s and Mu‘āwiya’s words as a pious Sunnī self-deprecation and admonition against pride seems to mesh with the Shu‘ūbī cultural view in the ninth century.

44. It is worth noting that traditions on the authority of al-Zuhrī attributed in a tendentious way prior monarchal qualities to Abū Sufyān. This originates in an encounter with the Byzantine emperor, Heraclius, when the latter reportedly inquired of Abū Sufyān about the habits of the Prophet and especially if he broke his agreements during disputes with the Meccans. Abū Sufyān (in an aside told to the narrator) reportedly said that he was tempted to twist the truth on this issue but found that lying was not part of his honorable style. This type of explanation is consistent with the general lore of Ṭabarī and other chroniclers about the central quality of truthfulness in the code of behavior of kings. Abū Nu‘aym, Dalā’il al-Nubuwwa, 343–346. Ḥabīb b. al-Ḥasan←Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā al-Marwazī←Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Ayyūb←Ibrāhīm b. Sa‘d←Ṣāliḥ b. Kaysān←Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī←‘Ubaydallāh b. ‘Utba←’Abdallāh b. ‘Abbās.

45. This secular perspective on hierarchy and definition of rank was also something that Islam eventually accommodated with the ḥadīth that states, “The elect in the Jāhiliyya are also the elect in the Islamic period if they become religiously knowledgeable [al-nāsu ma‘ādin, khiyāruhum fī’l jāhiliyya khiyāruhum fī’l-Islām idhā faqīhū].” Bukhārī (kitāb aḥādīth al-anbiyā’), IV, 508 (no. 787); 388 (no. 593); 390 (no. 597); 461 (no. 700). The same ḥadīth is set in the context of a story referring to the generosity of Sa‘d b. ‘Ubāda. Wāqidī, Maghāzī, III, 1095. Another version of this ḥadīth, however, adds, “People should follow Quraysh in this matter [i.e., political leadership] [al-nāsu taba‘un li-Quraysh fī hādhā al-sha’n].” Muslim (bāb faḍā’il Yūsuf), V (pt. 14), 134 (no. 2378).

46. Of relevance here is the formerly mentioned ḥadīth that declares, “al-a’ imma junna .” Mu‘āwiya’s full comment here is: “I have been told, however, that you are angry with Quraysh. But were it not for Quraysh, you would have returned to being lowly, like you were before. [The community leaders] are a shield for you [al-a’imma junna], so don’t break with your a’imma, for they bear the burden of providing for you [wa qad balaghanī annakum naqamtum qurayshan wa inna qurayshan in lam takun ‘udtum adhillatan kamā kuntum. Inna a’immatakum lakum ilā al-yawmi junna].” Ṭabarī, I, 2910.

47. Another example of this, one that created major controversy, was Mu‘āwiya’s declaration that tax revenues are “God’s wealth” (al-māl māl allāh). As is well known, Abū Dharr was adamant that Mu‘āwiya should not use this phrase even though Mu‘āwiya claimed that his intention from the statement was in harmony with religion. “Aren’t we the servants of God, and doesn’t all wealth belong to God?,” Mu‘āwiya would reportedly ask Abū Dharr. However, the possibility that Mu‘āwiya was referring to the caliph as “God’s deputy” and that the wealth belonged to the caliph was indirectly the implication of this controversy.‘Uthmān also argued with the opposition over a similar controversy, according to the account of Abū Mikhnaf.

48. Ṭabarī, I, 2947.

49. Mu‘āwiya can be seen as preparing the way for ‘Uthmān’s resistance when he rebukes the Kufans, saying, “If affairs were decided according to your opinion and wishes, things would not go well for the people of Islam either day or night [law kānat al-umūr tuqḍā ‘alā ra’iykum wa amānīkum ma istaqāmat al-umūr liahl al-Islām yawman wa lā laylatan].” Ṭabarī, I, 2919. Humphreys,HT, XV, 123–125.In light of this, ‘Uthmān’s reluctance to bend to the challenges in Medina form the logical sequel when he tells the opposition, “I don’t find myself any more in charge if I name officials whom you desire, and remove those hateful to you [mā arānī idhan fī shay’in in kuntu asta‘milu man hawaytum wa a‘zilu man karihtum].” Ṭabarī, I, 2989.

50. Ṭabarī, I, 3042. Humphreys, HT, XV, 242.

51. Ṭabarī, III, 780–782.

52. Ṭabarī, I, 2945.

53. Ṭabarī, I, 2945. Humphreys, HT, XV, 149.

54. It is worth noting that ‘Umar is reported to have advised a similar policy when writing to none other than Mu‘āwiya. ‘Umar wrote to Mu‘āwiya, “There is no better way for governing your subjects than to start out tough on both those close to you or distant, for easiness after a stern policy lends more immunity to the security of the subject population and general pardon after penalties makes them more loyal.” ‘Umar b. Shabba, Ta’rīkh al-Madīna, I, 411.

55. Ṭabarī, I, 2946.

56. In spite of his advocacy for the values of humility and equality, it is often overlooked that ‘Umar also provided the tendentious, later ‘Abbāsid argument of obedience to caliphal authority, which was styled as divinely sanctioned. The concept of “God’s caliph,” or “sulṭān allāh,” although not a widespread element in Rāshidūn discourse (with the exception of ‘Uthmān’s caliphate, where the title is shown being misused by the caliph to appropriate authority), also appears occasionally in ‘Umar’s usages. In several instances ‘Umar has confrontations with leading companions for being audacious in demanding things without proper permission or deference to the office of the caliph. Ibn Sa‘d, III, 287, 309. Balādhurī, Ansāb (Sā’ir), 399, 424. Ṭabarī, I, 2754. Also relevant in this context is the ḥadīth that states, “The leader [or leadership in general, “al-sulṭān”] is the shadow of God on earth that provides a haven for those experiencing injustice. If the leader is just then he will be worthy of religious reward and the subjects have [al-ra‘iyya] to show him gratitude. If he is unjust then he carries the religious blame [‘alayhi al-iṣr] while the subjects must be patient [wa ‘alā al-ra‘iyya al-ṣabr].” Ibn Zanjawayh, Kitāb al-Amwāl, I, 77; Ibn Qutayba, ‘Uyūn al-Akhbār, I, 55 (the ḥadīth is related on the authority of Ibn Mas‘ūd). This ideological position was no doubt also formulated in response to the revolt against ‘Uthmān. A pious saying attributed to Ḥudhayfa b. al-Yamān declares, “Those who strive to humiliate God’s ruler on earth will be humiliated before their death comes.” Ibn Qutayba,‘Uyūn al-Akhbār, I, 78; Ibn Zanjawayh, Kitāb al-Amwāl, I, 85; Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi, al- ‘ Iqd, I, 7; ‘Umar b. Shabba,Ta’rīkh al-Madīna, II, 206 (related on the authority of AbūNu‘aym); Sayf b. ‘Umar,Kitāb al-Ridda, I, 76. Aḥmad, Musnad, XXIV, 135 (Aḥmad also includes a simplified version of this statement). Ḥudhayfa’s statement was no doubt crafted in light of the history of ‘Uthmān’s overthrow. The saying is attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās in Ta’rīkh Baghdād, and couched within a wider statement of advice about necessary religious duties. Khaṭīb,Ta’rīkh Baghdād, VI, 76.

57. One such example can be found in Ziyād’s first, and still somewhat lenient, speech, when he assumed the governorship of Kufa in A.H.51/ A.D.671 after the death of al-Mughīra b. Shu‘ba. Continuing for a while the same approach to ruling, Ziyād made a speech in which he declared, “Now then, indeed, we have been put to the test and we have tested. We have ruled and rulers have ruled us, and we have found that this matter would only be set right in the end by that which set it right at the beginning: tractable obedience, the same in secret as openly, when people are absent as when they are present, and [in] their hearts as [on] their tongues. We have found that only flexibility without weakness and strength without violence would reform the people [ammā ba‘d fa-innā qad jarrabnā wa jurribnā wa susnā wa sāsanā al-sā’isūn fa-wajadnā hādhā al-amr lā yaṣluḥ ākhiruhu illā bi-mā ṣaluḥa awwaluhu, bi’l-ṭā‘ati al-layyina al-mushabbah sirruhā bi-‘alāniyatihā wa ghaybi ahlihā bi-shāhidihim wa qulūbihim bi-alsinatihim wa wajadnā al-nās lā yaṣliḥuhum illā līnun fī ghayri ḍa‘f wa shiddatun fī ghayri ‘unf]. I shall not undertake a matter with you unless I carry it out to its smallest detail. There is no lie to which God and the people are witness greater than the lie of an imām upon the pulpit.” Ṭabarī, II, 114–115. Balādhurī,Ansāb(Banū‘ Abd Shams), 244. Trans. M. Morony, The History of al-Ṭabarī: Between Civil Wars, The Caliphate of Mu‘āwiya (Albany, 1987), XVIII, 125. The line about “līn fī ghayri ḍa‘f wa shidda-tun fī ghayri ‘unf” comes clearly from the political language of ‘Umar before. Ibn Sa‘d, III, 344. Balādhurī, Ansāb(Sā’ir), 405. Sometimes, however, it is the speech of Ziyād that sets the standard, and is emulated earlier. An example of this is ‘Umar’s warning statement: “But [now] show us the best of your character, and we shall leave your secrets to God. For those who show us what is bad, yet claim that what they keep secret is good, will not be believed by us; as for those who show us something good openly, we shall think good of them [aẓhirū lanā aḥsana akhlāqikum, wa allāh a‘lamu bi-sarā’irikum, fa-innahu man aẓhara lanā ‘alāniyyatanḥasanatan ẓananā bihiḥusnan wa man aẓhara lanā sū’an wa za‘ama anna sarīratahuḥasanatun lam nuṣaddiqhu].” Balādhurī, Ansāb(Sā ’ ir), 417. Ṭabarī, I, 2759. Smith, HT,XIV, 125 (with some modification in the excerpted translation). A variant account given by Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam includes a statement with a similar message attributed to ‘Umar. Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam;Futūḥ Miṣr, 167.

58. The most glaring example of this is a report given by Ibn Sa‘d. His narrator states that he had happened to be visiting ‘Umar with a group of three other Syrians (min ahl al-shām) after the group had performed the pilgrimage when news came to the caliph that the Iraqis (ahl al-‘Irāq) had pelted their governor. This came after the caliph had already replaced their previous imām (i.e., the governor) with a new one. The narrator then describes how ‘Umar became so distracted and preoccupied with this matter that he lapsed in the proper performance of the community prayer. ‘Umar afterward addressed the crowd, saying, “O People of Syria [yā ahl al-shām], prepare to march against the Iraqis], for Satan has come to thrive amongst them.” Then he prayed, “O Lord, these people [i.e., the Iraqis] have made things impossible. Hasten the arrival among them of the Thaqafī man who will rule them by the law of thejahīliyya, who will neither reward the helpful amongst them, nor overlook the error of their wrongdoer.” Ibn Sa‘d, VII, 442. Abū’l-Yamān←Jarīrb. ‘Uthmān←‘Abd al-Raḥmān b. Maysara←Abū ‘Adhaba al-Ḥaḍramī. Also, Ibn Qutayba, al-Ma‘ārif, 397. That ‘Umar was addressing his congregation in Medina as “ahl al-shām” gives a clear indication of the pro-Syrian tendentiousness of the account. It is also significant that later, in A.H. 94/A.D. 713, Ṭabarī gives an account that confirms this anti-Iraqi message. This occurs as he recounts the speech of ‘Uthmān b. Ḥayyān al-Murrī when the latter was appointed governor of Medina and set about persecuting the Iraqis. The speech reiterates the words of ‘Umarb. al-Khaṭṭāb toward Kufa, and recounts the troubles they presented throughout the Rāshidūn and early Umayyad periods. ‘Uthmān’s speech is presented in a way that captures not only the infamous political treachery of the Iraqis, but also their polemical and argumentative potency, which was as much a source of dissent and fitna within the community as their political prejudice. Of particular significance is an excerpt of the speech that quotes ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb as saying, “Syria is dearer to me. I think that Iraq is an incurable disease; in it Satan has hatched [his brood] and they [i.e., the Iraqis] have made things difficult for me. I can see myself scattering them in the [various] territories. [But] then I say, ‘If I were to scatter them, they would corrupt those into whose presence they enter by [using] argument and contention, [saying,] “How?” and “Why?” and by [their] swiftness of entering into sedition.’” Ṭabarī, II, 1257–1260. Trans.M. Hinds, History of al-Ṭabarī: The Zenith of the Marwanid House, (Albany, 1990), XXIII, 207–208. The account is narrated on the authority of al-Wāqidī.

59. The resemblance in some of the political language and authoritarian style of Ziyād b. Abīhi to ‘Umar in the depictions of the historical narratives was something that narrators considered to reflect in part a deliberate emulation of the second caliph by Ziyād. A famous remark characterizing the career of Ziyād states, “Ziyād sought to emulate ‘Umar and in doing this went to excess, and when al-Ḥajjāj emulated Ziyād, he brought ruin on the people.” Ibn Qutayba, ‘Uyūn al-Akhbār, I, 451; al-Hindī, Kanz, XVI, 163.

60. Note the resemblance of Abū Sufyān’s advice to Mu‘āwiya, after the latter was appointed as governor of Syria by ‘Umar, to the parallel situation of wise counsel from al-‘Abbās to his son, ‘Abdallāh, when he became an important member of ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭab’s entourage. Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi, al-‘Iqd, IV, 365. Balādhurī, Ansāb (Banū ‘Abd Shams), 11. Ibn Kathīr, IV (pt. 8), 122.

61. One telling assessment of the secular virtues of the Umayyads that eventually holds religious importance is given by the scholar Abū Bakr ibn ‘Ayyāsh on the occasion when the caliph Hārūn al-Rashīd asked him, “You have caught up with the time of our rule, and you have experienced the days of Banū Umayya. Whose do you find better?” Ibn ‘Ayyāsh replied, “Truly you keep up the ritual, but they were more beneficial to the people [antum aqwam bi’l-ṣalāt wa ulā’ika kānū anfa‘ li’l-nās].” Dhahabī, Siyar, VIII, 498. Another religious ascetic would stress the need for equity to the caliph al-Manṣūr by reminding him of the secret of success in Umayyad rule. The ascetic tells the caliph how the Umayy-ads used to address the grievances of a man treated unjustly for no interest in gaining religious reward, and only in pursuit of attaining the honorable name (laysa fī dhalika ṭalabu thawāb illā iltimāsa makārim al-dunyā). Ibn Bakkār, al-Akhbār al-Muwaffaqiyyāt, 328.

62. As he put it to the envoys of ‘Alī inA.H.37/ A.D.657 just before the Battle of Ṣiffīn, “You have summoned us to obedience and to rejoin the community. As for the community unity to which you have called us, we have it among ourselves [fa-innakum da‘awtum ilā al-ṭā‘a wa’l-jamā‘a, fa-ammā al-jamā‘a allatī da‘awtum ilayhā fa-ma‘anā hiya].” Ṭabarī, I, 3275.

63. Hence the title that Ibn ‘Asākir would bestow on Mu‘āwiya, “khāl al-mu’minīn wa kātib waḥy rabbal-‘ālamīn” (the uncle of the believers and the scribe of divine revelation). Ibn ‘Asākir, LIX, 55. Although the reference to Mu‘āwiya as “the uncle of the believers” does not seem to be widely attested in the historical narratives about the first and second fitnas, it does appear to have been well understood within the fabric of the later narratives. When Ziyād b. Abīhi declared in his famous speech in A.H. 45/ A.D. 665, upon assuming the governorship of Basra, “O people, we have become your rulers and protectors. We rule you by the authority of God which He gave us, and protect you with the wealth which He bestowed on us [nadhūdu ‘ankum bi-fay ’allāh alladhī khawwalanā],” he was most likely referring to the aforementioned maternal kinship or title attributed to Mu‘āwiya (who was also Ziyād’s alleged half-brother). Ṭabarī, II, 73–76.

64. Later traditions that exaggerate the religious merits of Mu‘āwiya are varied. They include mentions that the Prophet predicted Mu‘āwiya would rule, that Mu‘āwiya used to pour the ablutions of the Prophet, and that he was the scribe of revelation. For a range of such ḥadīth s, see Ibn Kathīr, IV (pt. 8), 126. Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi, al -‘Iqd, IV, 364. As for Mu‘āwiya’s role as a scribe to the Prophet, Ṭabarī states that Mu‘āwiya was a scribe for mundane matters, as was Khālid b. Sa‘īd b. al-‘Āṣ, but that the ones who wrote the waḥy were ‘Alī, ‘Uthmān, Ubayyb. Ka‘b, and Zayd b. Thābit. Ṭabarī, II, 836. As if to anticipate Mu‘āwiya’s role in leading Syria, he is also said to have been present on one occasion when the Prophet received the envoy of Heraclius, and to have read the Byzantine emperor’s letter. Ibn Zanjawayh, Kitāb al-Amwāl, II, 585. Umayyad lore would later add the myth that it was Mu‘āwiya who killed Musaylima, the leader of the apostate movement. Balādhurī, Futūḥ, I, 107. One report also claims that Mu‘āwiya had converted relatively early during the year of al-Ḥudaybiyya, but that he kept his conversion secret from his father. Ibn Sa‘d, VII, 406.

65. Other signals of ‘Umar’s endorsement of Mu‘āwiya as a credible governor can be recognized in an extant document in which ‘Umar advises Mu‘āwiya about the proper manner for administering justice (especially notable is his statement, “seek to establish reconciliation among contenders when the case does not have a clear verdict [wa uḥruṣ ‘alā al-ṣulḥ bayn al-nās mā lam yastabin laka al-qaḍā’]).” Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi,al-‘Iqd, I, 84–85; Wakī‘,Akhbār al-Quḍāt, ed. A. M. al-Murāghī, 3 vols. (Cairo, 1950), I, 74–75.

66. The same statement is attributed to ‘Umar in his biography. Balādhurī, Ansāb(Sā ’ ir), 366. Ibn Sa‘d, III, 275.

67. Although the verbal structure of the next clause is in the singular and thus refers more clearly to ‘Umar, the Arabic syntax can allow that in this sentence ‘Umar and the community are two different subjects (wa law ra‘ā dhalika amīr al-mu ’ minīn wa jamā‘at al-muslimīn, la-katab ilayya). This unusual reading is also plausible because ‘Umar is never referred to as “amīr jamā‘at al-muslimīn .”

68. Ṭabarī, I, 2919. Humphreys,HT,XV, 123. This is Wāqidī’s version of Mu‘āwiya’s declaration. Sayf b. ‘Umar’s version is even stronger, where it has Mu‘āwiya saying to the opposition, “I reiterate to you that the Messenger of God was protected [from sin], and he bestowed authority upon me and brought me into his affairs [kāna ma‘ṣūman fa-wallānī wa adkhalanī fī amrihi]. Then AbūBakr was named his successor, and he bestowed authority upon me. ‘Umar and ‘Uthmān did the same upon their succession. I have not acted on behalf of any of them, nor did any of them put me in authority, without his being satisfied with me [fa-lam ali li-aḥadin minhum wa lam yuwallinī illā wa huwa rāḍin ‘annī]. The Messenger of God sought for office only men fully capable of acting on behalf of Muslims [wa innamā ṭalaba rasūl allāh li’l-a‘māl ahla al-jazā’i ‘an al-muslimīn wa al-ghanā’ wa lam yaṭlub lahā ahla al-ijtihād wa al-jahl bihā wa al-ḍa‘f ‘anhā].” Ṭabarī, I, 2913. Humphreys,HT,XV, 118.

69. It should be noted here that this networking of contentious discourse for political legitimation is not fully clarified until the reign of al-Ḥasan b. ‘Alī, for it was then that Mu‘āwiya was finally represented articulating the full extent of his grounds for ascent to rule (i.e., the tendentious parabolic argument on behalf of his rule). In an exchange of correspondence with al-Ḥasan over their competing claims to the caliphate, Mu‘āwiya writes a significant letter debunking the ‘Alid political demands. As he had done before when debating delegations from ‘Alī, Mu‘āwiya does not deny the excellence of the Hāshimites and the superiority of the Prophet’s position. What is different this time, however, is that Mu‘āwiya, after the absence of ‘Alī, takes advantage of the generational difference between him and al-Ḥasan to stress the issue of political experience. Mu‘āwiya writes: “I have understood your summons to me for political agreement [al-ṣulḥ], but the situation between the two of us today is similar to that you [i.e., the ‘Alids] had with Abū Bakr after the Prophet’s death. Had I believed that you are more capable to control the subject population, more attentive to the community of believers, and better skilled in government than I, and more capable to collect the tax revenues and confront the enemy [aḍbaṭ li’l-ra‘iyya, wa aḥwaṭ ‘alā hādhihi alumma, wa aḥsanu siyāsa, wa aqwā ‘alā jam‘ al-amwāl wa akyadu li’l-‘aduww], I would have conceded to your demands and admitted your better suitability for these tasks. But I have come to know that my duration in rule is longer than yours, and that I am more experienced in this matter, better at politics and older than you, therefore it is more incumbent upon you to give allegiance to me [qad ‘alimtu annī aṭwalu minka wilāyatan wa aqdamu minka li-hādhihi al-umma tajruba wa aktharu minka siyāsatan wa akbaru minka sinnan faanta aḥaqqu an tujībanī ilā hādhihi almanzila allatī sa’altanī]. If you declare your loyalty to me, then you can become the ruler after me [fa-udkhul fī ṭā‘atī wa la-ka al-amru ba‘dī].” Mu‘āwiya then adds the well-known offer that he would grant al-Ḥasan the tax revenues of Iraq if he conceded his title to the caliphate. Al-Iṣfahānī,Maqātil al-Ṭalibiyyīn, ed. al-Sayyid Aḥmad Ṣaqr (Beirut, 1987), 66–67. The aforementioned letter is additionally remarkable for summarizing what would later be viewed as an essentially Sunnī argument about the tafḍīl (preference) of Mu‘āwiya over al-Ḥasan; more noteworthy still is its inclusion in a well-known Shī‘ī source.

70. In a famous quote when Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal was asked about the caliphs, he named the four Rāshidūn. Then when asked about Mu‘āwiya, Ibn Ḥanbal replied, “No one was more worthy for the caliphate in ‘Alī’s time than ‘Alī, and may God have mercy on Mu‘āwiya.” By not diminishing Mu‘āwiya’s credentials as a rebel or a later king, the story implied that Mu‘āwiya would be qualified to succeed after ‘Alī. Ibn Kathīr, IV (pt. 8), 132, quoting al-Bayhaqī.

71. Later medieval sources would go farther in admiring the reign of Mu‘āwiya. Summarizing the history of the early period with the use of a narrative line from the Ayyubid and Mamluk periods, Ibn Kathīr describes Mu‘āwiya’s accession to rule and reign as follows: “Mu‘āwiya was the deputy of the caliph over Syria [nā ’ iban‘ alā al-shām] during the reigns of ‘Umar and ‘Uthmān [al-dawla ‘ al-‘Umarriyya wa’l-‘Uthmāniyya] … The community agreed to have him lead in A.H.41/ A.D.661 [fa-in‘aqadat al-kalima ‘alā Mu‘āwiya wa ajma‘at al-ra‘āyā ‘alā bay‘atihi]. He then held power exclusively for the rest of his reign, during which jihād in the enemy lands was underway, and the word of God kept high. The booty of conquests came to him from the extremities of the empire, and Muslims enjoyed the peace, justice, and forbearance of his rule [wa’l-muslimūn ma‘ahu fīrāḥatin wa ‘adl wa ṣafḥin wa ‘afw].” Ibn Kathīr, IV (pt. 8), 122. Ibn Kathīr later adds an apology for the protagonists (‘Alī and Mu‘āwiya) in the conflict by saying, “Disputes happened between him [i.e., Mu‘āwiya] and ‘Alī, after the murder of ‘Uthmān, due to their variant interpretations [‘alā sabīl al-ijtihād wa’l-ra ’ y]. A great war happened between the two, as we described earlier. The position of correctness and righteousness was with ‘Alī, but Mu‘āwiya is excused among the majority of scholars in ancient times and in the present.” Ibn Kathīr, IV (pt. 8), 129.

72. Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi,al-‘Iqd, IV, 365. Al-‘Utbī←his father. Ṭabarī’s version of the same story is similar but less clear in the dialogue’s conclusion. Ṭabarī, II, 207. Aḥmad b. Zuhayr←‘Alī b. Muḥammad←Abū Muḥammad al-Umawī. The additional excerpt is from Ṭabarī. Balādhurī,Ansāb(Banū‘Abd Shams), 147.Balādhurī’s version, closer to Ṭabarī’s though still slightly varied, is related on the authority of Hishām b. ‘Ammār.

73. ‘Umar’s comment: “You speak of the skill [dahā ’] of Khusraw and Caesar, but you have Mu‘āwiya.” Ṭabarī, II, 206.

74. See chap. 5, n. 104.

75. Some narrators established a direct comparison between ‘Umar’s and Mu‘āwiya’s models of rule, and concluded with the assessment, “Mu‘āwiya was the more successful sovereign, but ‘Umar was better than him.” This account is usually recounted after an assertion that states that no one was more successful in rule after the Prophet than Mu‘āwiya. Ibn Kathīr, IV (pt. 8), 137. Dhahabī, Siyar, III, 152. (where the report is attributed to Ibn Isḥāq).

76. ‘Abd al-Malik reportedly outlined this viewpoint when he commented to a pious sage, Tha‘laba b. Abī Mālik al-Quraẓī, “[The caliph] ‘Uthmān did not change ways from the path of ‘Umar except in being lenient towards people. He was so lenient towards them that they took advantage of him. Had he been rough like ‘Umar, they would not have treated him the way they did … And where would one find today a community of subjects like those over whom ‘Umar ruled. O Tha‘laba, it is my view that the ruler must adjust to the way the subjects are [innī ra’aytu sīrata al-sulṭān tadūru ma‘ al-nās]. If someone today were to rule in the same way [as ‘Umar did], people would be robbed in their homes, and raids would happen on the roads; and people would exploit each other and sedition would happen. The ruler must therefore govern in a manner that adjusts to his times.” Ibn Sa‘d, V, 232. Al-Wāqidī←Ibn Abī Sabra←al-Miswar b. Rifā‘a←Tha‘laba.

77. Ṭabarī, II, 211–212. ‘Abdallāh←‘Abdallāh’s father←Sulaymān←‘Abdallāh b. al-Mubārak←Jarīr b. Hāzim←Muḥammad b. al-Zubayr←‘Abdallāh b. Mas‘ada b. Ḥakma al-Fazārī (a man reportedly from the clan of Badr,min banī āl Badr). Also, Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi,al-‘Iqd, IV, 364–365 (related by al-Qadhḥamī). An abbreviated and slightly varied account of the story is reported by al-Madā’inī. Balādhurī,Ansāb(Banū‘ Abd Shams), 110. Also,Akhbār al-Dawla al-‘Abbāsiyya, 83.Ibn ‘Asākir, XLIV, 287. In another report also involving the examples of the first two caliphs, Mu‘āwiya declares to the community, “I have sought the path of AbūBakr and ‘Umar but could not bear it, so I have applied with you a path that has some personal gain [‘alā ba‘ḍ al-athra]. Accept what I give you even when it is scarce, for the bounty in its scarcity can become a source of wealth [inna alkhayr idhā tatāba‘a wa in qall aghnā]. Balādhurī,Ansāb(Sā’ir), 49. Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi,, IV, 81–82. The comparison with Abū Bakr and ‘Umar will later become a stock theme of monarchal apology by other rulers. ‘Abd al-Malik, for example, would declare to his subjects, “Be just toward us, you ask us to rule you like Abū Bakr and ‘Umar did, but you are not toward us [i.e., obedient] like the community of Abū Bakr and ‘Umar was towards them.” Ibn Qutayba, ‘ Uyūn al-Akhbār, I, 62. Al-Jāḥiẓ,al-Bayān wa’l-Tabyīn, I, 265; al-Ṭurṭūshī,Sirāj al-Mulūk, 348. When an asectic named Abū Naṣr admonished Hārūn al-Rashīd in the mosque of Me-dina to be more caring in his rule, the caliph reportedly sought to defend himself by also stating that his times and community were different from those in the reign of ‘Umar (inna ra‘iyyatī wa dahrī ghayru ra‘iyyati ‘Umar wa dahrihi). This reponse did not avail al-Rashīd of continued ascetic admonition. Although this exchange is significant for its idealized portrayal of the relations between rulers and religious scholars in general, it is the ‘Abbāsid provenance of such an apologetic response about the first two caliphs that is here more noteworthy, and shows the shaping of Umayyad historiography through the narrative lens of ‘Abbāsid times. Ibn Bakkār,al-Akhbār al-Muwaffaqiyyāt, 131 (this tradition is part of a wider cluster of reports narrated on the authority of Aḥmad b. Sa‘īd al-Dimashqī). Finally, a spinoff variant on ‘Abd al-Malik’s statement also shows al-Ma’mūn expressing similar expediency and doubt that the policies of Abū Bakr and ‘Umar could continue to be applicable. Al-Bayhaqī,al-Maḥāsin wa’l-Masāwi ’, 495. Ibn al-Ṭiqṭiqā would also assert the more secularist view that the rule of the first caliphs was not to be taken as a model for kings, because the lifestyle of the first caliphs was closer to that of the prophets. Ibn al-Ṭiqṭiqā,al-Fakhrī, 29, 73.

78. I have elsewhere noted a number of anecdotes in this genre that show Ibn al-Mubārak and other prominent ascetics having the upper hand in rebuking the caliphs and awakening their religiosity, but at the same time alerting the community to its duty to obey rulers and avoid seditious challenges to the caliphs. Mu‘āwiya here seems to be having his moment in these stories when Ibn al-Mubārak is featured in the isnād to underscore admiration for Mu‘āwiya’s contrition over having competed for power. The isnād of this account underscores the orthodox shaping of the anecdote, with the redundant use of the name ‘Abdallāh at the outset, clearly referring through a stress of Ibn al-Mubārak’s first name to his singular importance in the chain of narration, and through the reference to one narrator as a man from the children of the clan of Badr, an allusive reference to the fighters at Badr no doubt rather than to any particular family by that name. A key example of a debating story between the caliph and a pious figure has Mu‘āwiya admonish al-Miswar b. Makhrama for dwelling only on the short-al-‘Iqd comings of the caliph. “Do you not know that a good deed receives its reward in tenfold, or do you only count the misdeeds,” Mu‘āwiya tells al-Miswar. “The tasks that I perform for the well-being of the people are greater than what you are in charge of… . I always choose God’s way when I am given a choice between two paths, and I am of a faith where God accepts deeds, and rewards them [wa anā ‘alā dīnin yaqbal allāh fīhi al-‘amal wa yujzī bi’l-ḥasanāt] … I am entrusted with many tasks that I don’t even count, including keeping up the congregational prayer for the Muslims, the defense of the community, ruling according to God’s law, and a great many other acts which bring benefit to you personally, so ponder this sometime.” Khaṭīb,Ta’rīkh Baghdād, I, 208–209 (reported by al-Zuhrī). Balādhurī, Ansāb(Banū ‘Abd Shams), 36, 47 (reported by al-Madā’inī).

79. While narrators sought to distance Mu‘āwiya (and later ‘Abd al-Malik) from ‘Umar’s idealistic practices, they also found it essential that the Umayy-ads be viewed as continuators of certain key governmental policies that were purportedly developed by ‘Umar. Thus although there is no firm historical evidence before the yearA.H.45/ A.D.665 (during the governorship of Ziyād b. Abīhi) about a substantial organization of the diwān (government departments) that dispensed military stipends and the tax revenues of the conquered lands, the early ‘Abbāsid narrators consistently began the story of the organization of the diwān as the innovation of ‘Umar. This historical claim was established and embellished because of the legalistic implications of such an action (for instance, toward land tax policy, relations with non-Muslim subjects, and a host of polemical purposes), not because of its historicity. In other words, what may have been a secular Umayyad economic and administrative policy was reshaped in a legalistic ‘Abbāsid discourse, and back-projected onto the reign of ‘Umar. F. Don-ner has noted that most of the accounts about ‘Umar’s organization of thedīwānin Ṭabarī’s history are reported on the authority of Wāqidī. F. Donner,Narratives, 169. Ṭabarī, I, 2749–2757.

80. Ibn ‘Asākir, XXXVII, 151 (the statement is conveyed through a report by ‘Umar b. Shabba). Ibn Kathīr, V (pt. 9), 71.

81. Ibn Sa‘d, V, 233. Al-Wāqidī←Ibn Abī Sabra←Abū Mūsā al-Ḥannāṭ←Ibn Ka‘b. Ibn Kathīr, V (pt. 9), 68. Al-Zuhrī would elsewhere phrase his motive for writing down thesunna in similar terms, stating, “Were it not for certain lore that has come to us from the east [lawlā aḥādīth sālat ‘alaynā min al-mashriq], I would not have written down [thesunna], nor commanded others to write it.”Ibn ‘Asākir, LV, 319. It is also notable that ‘Abd al-Malik’s declaration confirms what ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb reportedly said to the crowd visiting the Prophet during his final illness: “The Prophet has been weakened by illness. You should all now abide by the Qur’ān. The Book of God shall suffice us.”

82. Balādhurī,Ansāb, IV, pt. 2, 496. Ibn ‘Asākir, XXXVII, 135 (reported on the authority of Ibn Jurayj). Ibn Kathīr, V (pt. 9), 68. ‘Abd al-Malik’s cautioning statement to the public after the downfall of ‘Amr b. Sa‘īd b. al-‘Āṣ strongly resembles in dramatic tone and some of its reworked content a statement that al-Manṣūr gave after the overthrow of Abū Muslim al-Khurāsānī. Dhahabī,Siyar, VII, 89.

83. Qur’ān 3:26 (Arberry, I, 76).

84. Suyūṭī,Ta’rīkh, 13.

85. Ibn Kathīr, IV (pt. 8), 134. Dhahabī,Siyar, III, 143.

86. Qur’ān 4:59.

87. Ibn al-Ṭiqṭiqā,al-Fakhrī, 28.

88. In spite of the modesty of this early political office, believers were strongly discouraged from seeking to aspire to political leadership. This was the message of the famous ḥadīth in which the Prophet reportedly tells ‘Abd al-Raḥmān b. Samra, “O ‘Abd al-Raḥmān, do not seek leadership. If it comes to you from the offer of the people, then God will help you in handling the matter [government].” Khaṭīb,Ta’rīkh Baghdād, II, 268, 400–401; VII, 161. It was probably in light of this ḥadīth that much of the contrast between the history of Abū Bakr’s and ‘Uthmān’s caliphates was understood by a medieval audience. Abū Bakr had been disinterested in ruling, but when the caliphate was reportedly pushed upon him, he was largely aided in ruling as ‘Abd al-Raḥmān and ‘Umar volunteered their services for subsidiary tasks such as the judgeship (Ibn Sa‘d, III, 184). In contrast, ‘Uthmān was known to have been very eager to rule, and thus found himself challenged and abandoned by the companions, some of whom had served him as officials. The example of the treasurer, Ibn al-Arqam, throwing the keys of the state treasury to the caliph during the crisis of ‘Uthmān’s reign illustrates the contrast. Balādhurī,Ansāb(Banū ‘Abd Shams), 518, 548.

89. Ṭabarī, II, 854–855.

90. Ṭabarī, II, 869.

91. This was the message of ‘Abd al-Malik’s statement “lastu bi’l-khalīfa almustaḍ‘af wa lā bi’l-khalīfa al-mudāhin wa lā bi’l-khalīfa al-ma’fūn .” Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi, al- ‘ Iqd, IV, 90–91; al-Jāḥiẓ,al-Bayān, II, 85. Ibn ‘Asākir, XXXVII, 151. Balādhurī,, ed. ‘Abd al-‘Azīz al-Dūrī and ‘Iṣām ‘Uqla (Wiesbaden, 2001), IV, pt. 2, 496. Abū Ṣāliḥ al-Anṭākī←al-Hajjāj b. Muḥammad←Ibn Jurayj←Ismā‘īl b. Muḥammad. The statement is excerpted and simplified in another version. Ansāb, IV, pt. 2, 486. Al-Madā’inī←Maslama b. Muḥārib. ‘Abd al-Malik’s extremist position of avenging ‘Uthmān by forbidding any religious critique of power, however, did not put an end to the historical polemic with the Umayyads. Later it will be the ‘Abbāsids who are represented as providing the final balance between affirming political order while remaining within the juridical limits of the faith. The caliph al-Manṣūr, whose biography is shaped in a way that provides a complete mix of secular wisdom and pious deference, ultimately repudiates the example of ‘Abd al-Malik’s resort to pure force. In a speech that is crafted in a way that responds to the Umayyad arrogance of power, al-Manṣūr states, after being interrupted during his sermon at the Friday prayer by an ascetic who exhorted him to be pious (“Ittaqi allāh”), “You have spoken of a great matter, and Ansāb al-Ashrāf reminded us of the fear of the Sublime. I seek refuge with God that I become like the one [i.e., ‘Abd al-Malik] who, when advised with the same invocation, would show an arrogance on top of his transgression [akhadhathu al-‘izzatu bi’l-ithm].” The caliph then goes on to appropriate the pious platform by asserting that religious advice began with the Hāshimite or ‘Abbāsid household (“al-maw‘iẓatu minnā bada’at wa min ‘indinā kharajat”), and then rebukes the religious zealot as an opportunist seeking to elicit a punishment against himself that would make him a revered victim. The caliph concludes by warning the public against using such religious provocations. Khaṭīb,Ta’rīkh Baghdād, X, 55. Ibn ‘Asākir, XXXII, 312. A similar version given by Ṭabarī (replacing, however, the phrase about “al-maw‘iẓa” [instructive advice] with the statement “inna al-ḥikma ‘alaynā nazalat wa min ‘indinā faṣalat” [wisdom descended on us and we imparted it to others]). Ṭabarī, III, 427. A simplified version of this story is also given by Ibn Rabbihi, al-‘Iqd, IV, 98. The ‘Abbāsid response was therefore not the idealistic reaction of ‘Umar when he was told by a zealot “Ittaqi allāh” (fear God in your actions) (when someone chided the man for challenging ‘Umar, the latter rejected this suppression and encouraged the public to make pious exhortation, stating, “Shame on them if they don’t say it, and we would be unjust if we didn’t accept criticism”). But neither was it the militant reaction of political power, as in the case of the Umayyads. With the ‘Abbāsids, the caliphate had established rules for critique set within the jurisprudential rules that it laid out as the legal code of the faith, and had finally ended the discordant tendencies of zealotry (or messianism) that had begun with the famous example of the proto-Khārijite who had once challenged the Prophet’s division of the booty at Ḥunayn as inequitable.

92. Hence the clearly fabricated reports about the voluntary agreement of ‘Abdallāh b. ‘Umar to offer thebay‘ato ‘Abd al-Malik. Ibn al-‘Arabī,al-‘Awāṣim min al-Qawāṣim, 251 (citing a tradition of Bukhārī). According to a report given by Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi, ‘Abdallāh b. ‘Umar sent a concise statement of hisbay‘a, as well as abay‘aon behalf of his mawlā, Nāfi‘, to ‘Abd al-Malik. Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi,al-‘Iqd, IV, 400. Balādhurī,Ansāb, IV, pt. 2, 484 (excluding, however, thebay‘aof Nāfi‘).A followup report describes how—when he was asked, “Do you accept that he [i.e., Ibn ‘Umar] write to you like this [partly in reference to the blunt reference to the caliph by his first name]—‘Abd al-Malik said, “This much [loyalty] from Abū ‘Abd al-Raḥmān is indeed a lot.” Al-Madā’inī←Muḥammad b. Ṣāliḥ←Ismā‘īl b. Abī Khālid←al-Sha‘bī. Other accounts relating to the Umayyads are clearly modeled after an antecedent ‘Abbāsid tradition. The seemingly Sunnī obedience to authority that some scholars, such as Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī and Sa‘īd b. al-Musayyib, displayed toward the Umayyad caliphs is crafted in light of an ‘Abbāsid shaping of traditions about caliphs as well as ‘ulamā’. Examples of this include the feisty defiance shown by Sa‘īd b. al-Musayyib toward ‘Abd al-Malik when he visited Medina. Dhahabī,Siyar, IV, 226–227. Ibn ‘Asākir, LV, 322–324 (where the account is related on the authority of al-Wāqidī and Ibn Sa‘d, but is not found in the Ṭabaqāt). This was meant to be similar to Mālik b. Anas’ disinterest in interacting with Hārūn al-Rashīd when he came on pilgrimage. Another story, about al-Zuhrī’s awkward first attempt to be introduced to the court of ‘Abd al-Malik in a search for patronage, is highly similar in drama (although different in details) to al-Wāqidī’s equally botched first audience with the Barmakids, seeking to gain the patronage of Hārūn al-Rashīd. Dhahabī,Siyar, V, 330–331. Ibn Sa‘d, V, 425–430. Also, about Yaḥyā al-Barmakī’s patronage for al-Wāqidī. Bayhaqī,al-Maḥāsin wa’l-Masāwi’, 196. Other means of representation from the ‘Abbāsid period were sometimes used out of their original context to describe personalities in the Umayyad period.

93. Ya‘qūbī, II, 261. Oleg Grabar’s skepticism about the validity of the reason Ya‘qūbī gave for the construction of the Dome of the Rock (as a temporary pilgrimage site while Mecca was under the control of the rival caliph ‘Abdallāh b. al-Zubayr during his war with ‘Abd al-Malik) has been stated and restated over the years by art historians and historians alike. This skepticism has helped to privilege Grabar’s own theory of reading the structure as a monument for Is-lamic monotheistic propaganda against Christians and Jews. Oleg Grabar,The Formation of Islamic Art(New Haven, 1972), 49–50, 62–64. Beyond a reading of the Qur’ānic inscriptions inside the monument in a search for verification of such an interpretation, there has never been any proof from the classical sources (either Muslim or non-Muslim) that such was the aim for the structure. Indeed, Ya‘qūbī’s explanation remains the only plausible theory for the original motive for the ambitious and unusual design of the Dome of the Rock. That the Qur’ānic inscriptions underscored the monotheistic message was a feature of enhancement but not the original purpose for building the commemorative structure.

94. It seems to have been only an earlier, different cultural sensibility during the Rāshidūn caliphate that prevented including Islamic slogans on the coinage. This can partly be inferred from a report of Ibn Sa‘d’s that ‘Umar had banned the inscription of seals with Arabic, and another report of Wahb b. Munabbih that compares coinage to seals. Ibn Sa‘d, IV, 176; Dhahabī,Siyar, IV, 548.

95. Ya‘qūbī states that “Mu‘āwiya did in Syria, al-Jazīra, and Yemen what he did in Iraq, which was to extract the former crown lands in these territories for his own personal wealth [istaṣfā mā kāna li al-mulūk min al-ḍiyā‘ wa taṣyīrihā khāliṣātan li-nafsihi], which he bequeathed to his family and his protégés [wa aqṭa‘ahā ahla baytihi wa khāṣatihi].”Ta’rīkh, II, 234.

96. Goldziher,Muslim Studies, II, 45–46, 123–124.

97. It is thus not a coincidence that al-Zuhrī reported hardly any historical information about the Umayyads, but gave abundant reporting about the Rāshidūn. This was mainly Wāqidī’s way of continuing the Sīra project established by Ibn Isḥāq, and it also proposed an early picture of cooperation between some Umayyad caliphs and religious scholars that was modeled on the ‘Abbāsid patronage of Sunnī knowledge compilation, and the Arabization of this project.I. Goldziher had a crucial role in cultivating the credulous attitude in anecdotes about al-Zuhrī and al-Zuhrī’s relation to the Umayyads. He concluded, after recounting one account about al-Zuhrī’s permission for the Umayyad Ibrāhīm b. al-Walīd to write and recite ḥadīths, by saying, “This account fully confirms the willingness of al-Zuhrī … to promote the interests of the dynasty by religious means.” Goldziher,Muslim Studies, II, 46.

98. See ‘Umar’s comments above about the danger of the spread of the ra’y method and its association with the non-Arabs. Other famous statements of ‘Umar’s criticizing those who pose hypothetical questions or debate too much were indirectly used byahl al-ḥadīth(the traditionist scholars) against theahl alra ’ y(scholars who used reasoned interpretation in addition to traditionist texts) and more specifically the Iraqi school of jurisprudence (ahl al-‘Irāq). Khaṭīb,Kitāb al-Faqīh, II, 11–14. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr,Jāmi‘ Bayān al-‘Ilm, II, 53.

99. Ibn ‘Asākir, II, 290–291, 296–207, 334–341. The ḥadīth about the abdāl is mainly attributed to ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib, who reportedly narrated it to his followers in order to discourage them from cursing the followers of Mu‘āwiya. Also, Aḥmad,Musnad, XXVIII, 129. Mu‘āwiya is also quoted as narrating the ḥadīththat states, “When the fitan break out, the faith shall remain [steadfast] in Syria.” Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam,Futūḥ Miṣr, 267.

100.The Prophet reportedly counted the heavenly cities as four: Mecca, Me-dina, Jerusalem, and Damascus. Al-Buldān, 37. In another tradition, when one of the companions declares his intention to migrate to Iraq, the Prophet reportedly advises him to emigrate to Syria instead, asserting that “God has guaranteed the blessing of its land and its people.” Wakī‘,Akhbār al-Quḍāt, I, 324; al-Hamadānī,al-Buldān, 103.

101. Various traditions interpret the Qur’ānic description of where Mary and Jesus settled after his birth (wa awaynāhumā ilā rabwatin dhāta qarārin wa ma‘īn) as the locale of Syria. Ibn ‘Asākir,Ta’rīkh, II, 203–213.

102. Ibn Sa‘d, I, 360. Ibn ‘Asākir, I, 183–184. A slightly variant version of this ḥadīth is provided by Bukhārī,Ṣaḥīḥ,kitāb al-tafsīr, VI, 345 (no. 362). ‘Abdallāh b. Salama←‘Abd al-‘Azīz b. Abī Salama←Hilāl b. Abī Hilāl←‘Aṭā’ b. Yasār←’Abdallāh b. ‘Amr b. al-‘Āṣ. Another declaration, with a similar articulation of concepts and a parallel chiliastic tenor, attributed to Zayd b. Khārija, carries the prediction to a comparison of the qualities of the first caliphs and the emergence offitna, and then declares that this path of events is a result of fate (wa kāna amru allāh qada-ran maqdūran). Ibn Bakkār,al-Akhbār al-Muwaffaqiyyāt, 394–396.

103. Ibn ‘Asākir, I, 185, 188. Anotherḥadīth reportedly transmitted by Abū Hurayra simply states, “The caliphate will be in Medina, and the kingdom in Syria [al-khilāfa bi’l-madīna wa’l-mulk bi’l-shām].” Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr,Jāmi‘, II, 186.

104. Ṭabarī, I, 2523.

105. Ṭabarī, I, 2524. Juynboll,HT,XIII, 104.

106. Ṭabarī, I, 2525.

8. CONCLUSION

1. As he put it, “al-ārā’ al-marwiyya fī faḍā’ ilihim mut‘āriḍa.” Kitāb al-Irshād, 431.

2. This political foundation for the historical narration is so central that if one were to backtrack into reading the standoff between Moses and Pharaoh anew, one would find that the story in Islam was not just about Pharaoh’s blasphemy and the beginnings of salvation history for the Israelites, but that it was equally about the political-moralistic problematic of tyrannical rule and its detrimental effect on the relation between leadership and society.

3. Ṭabarī, III, 445.

4. Ṭabarī, III, 446–447: al-sulṭān, ya bunayy, ḥablu allāh al-matīn wa ‘urwatuhu al-wuthqā wa dīn allāh al-qayyim fa-iḥfaẓhu wa ḥuṭhu wa ḥaṣṣinhu wa dhub ‘anhu wa awqi‘ bi’l-mulḥidīn fīhi wa iqma‘ al-māriqīn minhu… wa lā tujāwiz mā amara allāh bihi fī muḥkami al-qur’ān wa uḥkum bi’l-‘adl wa lā tushṭiṭ .

5. Ṭabarī, III, 446–448. Trans. J. A. Williams, al-Ṭabarī: The Early ‘Abbāsī Empire, II, 48–49.

6. Al-Manṣūr states about the support of Khurāsān: “Then the Sons of Umayya fell upon us [i.e., the ‘Abbāsids] and put our leading men to death and took away our power, although by God there was no revenge due them from our family that they should seek… they drove us out of the land, and we fled now to Ṭā’if, now to Syria, and now to al-Sharrāt, until God sent you to us as partisans and helpers and revived our honor and gave us power through you, the people of Khurāsān, and made your fidelity overcome the people of falsehood, and caused our right to prevail, and caused our heritage from our Prophet to come to us. Then Truth settled in its place and its beacon became manifest and its helpers became mighty and those who had oppressed were exterminated; and praise be to God, the Lord of all being [ḥattā ibta‘athakum allāh lanā shī‘atan wa anṣāran fa-aḥyā sharafanā wa ‘azzanā bi-kum ahlu khurāsān wa damagha bi-ḥaqqikum ahla al-bāṭil wa aẓhara ḥaqqanā wa aṣāra ilaynā mirāthanā ‘an nabiyyinā, fa-qarra al-ḥaqqu maqarrahu wa aẓhara manārahu wa a‘azza anṣārahu].” Ṭabarī, III, 430–432. Trans. Williams, II, 35. According to al-Haytham b. ‘Adī’s account, al-Manṣūr exhorts al-Mahdī to honor the Khurāsānīs (ahl Khurāsān), and puts this advice in terms that are similar to the Prophet Muḥammad’s exhortation during his final sermon that the community safeguard the Anṣār and ignore their lapses. Ṭabarī, III, 443–444.

APPENDIX 1. ABŪ MIKHNAF’S ACCOUNT OF THE SAQĪFA OF BANŪ SĀ‘IDA

1. Ṭabarī, I, 1837–1844. Donner, HT, X, 1–10.

2. Lit. “the people are in your shade and shadow.”

3. Abū Mikhnaf’s account of events here is undoubtedly the fullest and most cogent in the positioning of actors and various positions and reactions. This text, however, can be found heavily redacted and its various statements shifted in more orthodox versions. Ibn Sa‘d, for example, attributes the statement “minnā amīr wa minkum amīr,” and later “anā judhayluhā al-muḥakkak,” toSa‘d b. ‘Ubāda rather than al-Ḥubāb b. al-Mundhir. The account is given a clearly contrived isnād : Muḥammad b. ‘Umar (al-Wāqidī)←Ma‘mar and Muḥammad b. ‘Abdallāh←al-Zuhrī←‘Ubaydallāh b. ‘Abdallāh b. ‘Utba←Ibn ‘Abbās←’Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb. Ibn Sa‘d, III, 615–616.

4. The situation presumes that Sa‘d was still seated.

APPENDIX 2. THE SUCCESSION TO ‘UMAR

1. “alā a‘riḍū ‘an hādhā ajma‘ūn .” The statement may be referring to Ibn ‘Umar, in which case ‘Umar’s comment would mean: “All of you, don’t listen to this one [i.e., Ibn ‘Umar].”

2. This reference to ‘Alī (fa-fīhi du‘āba) has been one of the most obscure and yet crucial comments made about ‘Alī by ‘Umar. A sense of humor was certainly not a quality of ‘Alī’s personality, as all the narratives of his biography show, so the word must have had an archaic meaning that is now lost to readers.

3. “wa aymu allāh lā yanāluhu illā bi-sharr lā yanfa‘u ma‘ahu khayr.”

4. “lam tura ‘yā abā al-Ḥasan.” More likely, it is possible that the Arabic is: “li-matura‘ yā abā al- Ḥasan” (what are you afraid of, O Abū’l-Ḥasan?), as if anticipating ‘Alid dissent in the future.

5. “arjū an af‘al wa a‘mal bi-mablagh ‘ilmī wa ṭāqatī .” The phrasing is ambiguous, making it unclear whether ‘Alī was promising to abide by the rulings of his predecessors, add to their practice, or simply govern according to his own independent expertise.

6. Ṭabarī, I, 2776–2786. Trans. G. Rex Smith, HT, XIV, 143–154.

APPENDIX 3. MANŪSHIHR’S DECLARATION

1. Ṭabarī, I, 436–440. Trans. W. Brinner, HT, III, 24–28.