The second civil war1 is sometimes called the fitna of Ibn al-Zubayr because the struggle between the Umayyads and Ibn al-Zubayr is the main theme which runs through it from its gradual beginnings during the caliphate of Yazid b. Mu‘awiya until its conclusion with the death of Ibn al-Zubayr probably in 692. It contains, however, a number of other events or episodes which are only loosely connected witheach other and with the struggle between the Umayyads and Ibn al-Zubayr. Put in a general way, tensions and pressures which had been suppressed by Mu‘awiya came to the surface during Yazid’s caliphate and erupted after his death, when Umayyad authority was temporarily eclipsed. With the reestablishment of the line of Umayyad caliphs, in the persons of Marwan (684–5) and his son ‘Abd al-Malik (685–705), Umayyad authority was gradually reimposed.
The two fundamental facts which provided the immediate opportunity for the outbreak of the second civil war were, firstly, the refusal of certain leading Muslims to accept Yazid as caliph and, secondly, the failure of the Sufyanids to supply suitable candidates for the caliphate after the death of Yazid.
Firstly, as we have seen, Mu‘awiya’s attempt to secure, during his own lifetime, recognition of his son Yazid as his successor, although not opposed by the Arab tribesmen, was rejected by a small group of prominent Muslims. They were all members of Quraysh with some claim to be considered as caliphal candidates themselves, and they were all resident in Medina. For our purposes, the two most important of them are ‘Abd Allah b. al-Zubayr, son of a leading companion of Muhammad who had been killed after fighting against ‘Ali at the battle of the Camel in the first civil war, and Husayn b. ‘Ali, grandson of the Prophet Muhammad and leader of the descendants of ‘Ali after the death of his elder brother Hasan who had not pursued his own claims to the imamate after Mu‘awiya’s victory over ‘Ali. When Yazid succeeded Mu‘awiya in 680 he made renewed attempts to secure recognition from these men, but Ibn al-Zubayr and Husayn eluded the Umayyad governor of Medina and fled to Mecca.2
Secondly, the Sufyanid line petered out after the death of Yazid in 683. Yazid was succeeded by his son Mu‘awiya II, but the latter never enjoyed much authority and may have been rejected outside central and southern Syria. Some reports talk of his ill health, others stress his comparative youthfulness, and in any case he survived his father only by a few months. Although the chronology of the period is quite obscure, it seems likely that many former supporters of the Umayyads had already decided to seek a caliph elsewhere even while Mu‘awiya II still lived. Other possibilities from among the Sufyanid branch were deemed unsuitable, and eventually those who still supported the Umayyads turned to Marwan of the Abu ‘l-‘As branch of the family, although the choice may not have been as obvious as his descendants tried to portray it. It was the doubts about the continuation of Umayyad rule, associated with the failure of the Sufyanid line, which enabled the various religious, political and tribal tensions to develop into civil war.3
The main theme of this civil war, then, was the attempt by ‘Abd Allah b. al-Zubayr to establish himself as caliph or commander of the faithful, and the subsequent struggle for supremacy between him and the Umayyads. Although he refused to accept Yazid as caliph, tradition has it that Ibn al-Zubayr did not in fact put himself forward for the office until after Yazid’s death. Before that event he merely remained in Mecca, calling himself ‘the fugitive at the sanctuary’ (al-‘a’idh bi’l-bayt), denouncing Yazid and joining with other opposition groups against Yazid. After the failure at Karbala’ in 680 of Husayn’s attempted revolt, which will be discussed shortly, there were two opposition movements in particular which were in contact with Ibn al-Zubayr. One was a revolt of the people of Medina, who had publicly withdrawn their allegiance to Yazid, in spite of his attempts to conciliate their leaders, in reaction, we are told, to the caliph’s personal unsuitability for his office—charges such as enjoyment of singing girls and playing with a pet monkey are brought against him in the tradition. The other opposition movement involved Kharijites, apparently from both Basra and parts of Arabia. Towards the end of his life, in 683, Yazid raised an army to go to the Hijaz, with the aim of crushing both the Medinese opposition and that of Ibn al-Zubayr. The commander was a Syrian Arab of the ‘northern’ confederation of Qays, Muslim b. ‘Uqba al-Murri. This army defeated the Medinese at the battle of the Harra (summer 683) and subsequently occupied the town, allegedly plundering it and exacting oaths of allegiance to Yazid from the Medinese. This sack of the town of the Prophet, which Muslims come to see as the home of the Sunna, is one of the major crimes charged against the Umayyads in tradition.4
Having subdued Medina, the army continued to Mecca but Muslim b. ‘Uqba died on the way and command was taken over by Husayn b. Numayr al-Sakuni. When Husayn reached Mecca, and Ibn al-Zubayr refused to submit, a siege of the town was begun and catapults erected to bombard it. At some stage in the course of the siege the Ka‘ba caught fire and was badly damaged. The circumstances are quite obscure but, as one might expect, there is a tendency in the sources to attach blame to the besieging army, and this siege and bombardment too figure prominently in the lists of Umayyad crimes. Before the siege could be brought to a successful conclusion, however, news reached the Syrians of the death of the caliph Yazid in November 683, upon which Husayn b. Numayr entered into negotiations with Ibn al-Zubayr. It is reported that Husayn offered to recognise Ibn al-Zubayr as caliph if he would leave Mecca and return with the army to Syria. This, however, Ibn al-Zubayr refused and consequently the Syrian army returned home, leaving him in control of Mecca.5
After the death of Yazid, although events in Syria are rather obscure, it is clear that Umayyad authority collapsed almost everywhere and Ibn al-Zubayr was able to extend his authority over most of the Arab lands, eventually appointing his brother Mus’ab b. al-Zubayr to be governor of Iraq. The extent of Ibn al-Zubayr’s authority is attested by coins bearing his name from the Persian provinces of Fars and Kirman. Even in Syria the ‘northern’ confederacy of Qays recognised his caliphate. At this point he was, in fact, the generally recognised caliph of the Muslims, Umayyad authority being limited to central and southern Syria. Once the hiatus in the Umayyad line had been closed with the accession of Marwan to the caliphate in 684, however, Zubayrid authority began to be pushed back. A start was made already by Marwan, who recaptured Egypt for the Umayyads during his nine-month tenure of power (he died in 685). The final Umayyad victory came under the caliphate of his son ‘Abd al-Malik (685–705), partly as a result of the political and military measures which he undertook, but in large measure because of Ibn al-Zubayr’s inability to maintain firm control of those areas, notably Iraq, which had initially recognised him. In 691 ‘Abd al-Malik was able to march into Iraq, defeating and killing Ibn al-Zubayr’s governor Mus‘ab, and following this he sent an army under the command of al-Hajjaj against Ibn al-Zubayr in Mecca. The second siege of Mecca, by al-Hajjaj, is reported in terms very similar to the earlier siege led by Husayn b. Numayr. Again catapults were erected and the town bombarded. This time, though, the siege was pressed home and eventually, probably in November 692, Mecca fell, and Ibn al-Zubayr, now aged about 70 (he had been the first child born to those who had made the hijra to Medina with Muhammad in 622), fell in the final attack.6
This marked the end of the second civil war. Ibn al-Zubayr does not seem to have espoused any distinctive religious or political programme in the manner of the Shi‘ites and the Kharijites (we are told that his alliance with the Kharijites foundered when he refused to accept their religious and political programme), and it seems that he won support mainly because of his status as one of the first generation of Muslims and a member of Quraysh at a time when the Umayyads were weak and opposition to them strong in different quarters. One thing that is notable, however, is the strong association between him and the Muslim sanctuary at Mecca. We have seen that he fled to Mecca, called himself al-‘a’idh bi’l-bayt, and refused to leave it when offered the caliphate by Husayn b. Numayr. In the traditions the Umayyads often refer to him as ‘the evil-doer (mulhid) at Mecca’. After the end of the first siege, we are told, he rebuilt the Ka‘ba and made some significant changes to its form, citing the authority of the Prophet for them. When al-Hajjaj had killed Ibn al-Zubayr and recaptured Mecca, the Umayyad commander destroyed the changes which had been made by Ibn al-Zubayr and restored the Ka‘ba to the form it had had before. While the struggle with Ibn al-Zubayr was at its height, ‘Abd al-Malik undertook the construction of the unique sanctuary of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. The interpretation of these developments is certainly debatable and to some extent obscure, but one may suggest that an argument about the sanctuary, its nature and its site, was an important element in the conflict between Ibn al-Zubayr and the Umayyads.7
Apart from Ibn al-Zubayr, the second civil war also saw attempts to gain power by, or on behalf of, descendants of ‘Ali and although they had only limited success, in the longer term they turned out to be very important.
While Yazid was still alive and Ibn al-Zubayr had not yet put himself forward as caliph, Husayn, the son of ‘Ali and the Prophet Muhammad’s daughter Fatima, was persuaded to make a bid for power. Since the death of his brother Hasan, he was the most prominent of ‘Ali’s children and, as we have seen, was one of those who refused to accept the caliphate of Yazid. In 680, after fleeing together with Ibn al-Zubayr from Medina to Mecca, he was told that he could expect to receive substantial support in Kufa, his father’s former headquarters and already scene of the abortive revolt of Hujr b. ‘Adi, if he would only go there. Thus encouraged, he set out, but the Umayyad authorities got wind of what was going on. Husayn and his small band of followers were never allowed to get into Kufa but were surrounded at Karbala’ in the desert to the north of the garrison town where they were all killed after fighting broke out. Seventy heads, including that of Husayn, are said to have been displayed in Kufa afterwards, and Husayn’s was then forwarded to Damascus where Yazid had it put up for show. The Umayyad governor of Iraq at the time was ‘Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad and he, in particular, is associated in tradition with the suppression of Husayn’s movement, although the bloodshed is often ascribed to others. The date of the fight at Karbala’ was, according to the Muslim hijri calendar, 10 Muharram 61 (10 October 680).8
The event has attained a mythic quality in Muslim, and especially Shi‘ite, tradition. For the Shi‘a Karbala’ is the supreme example of the pattern of suffering and martyrdom which has afflicted their imams and the whole of the Shi‘ite community. Each year the day of Karbala’, 10 Muharram, is marked by Shi‘ites as their greatest festival, and the passion plays and flagellants’ processions which accompany it illustrate the feeling which memory of the event inspires. It is only to be expected, therefore, that it is virtually impossible to disentangle history from the legend and hagiography with which it is associated. Even Sunni Muslims are moved by the fate of the Prophet’s grandson.9 It seems unlikely that at the time itself the affair had very much importance for the Umayyads. Husayn’s force had been small and was suppressed with relative ease. If there was a worry, it was more on account of the disturbances which had occurred in Kufa prior to the arrival of Husayn in Iraq, disturbances which had caused ‘Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad to be shut up in the citadel of Kufa for a while, and which illustrated the continuing instability and sympathy for the ‘Alids in this important garrison town. It is, therefore, in the long run, in its emotive and mythological significance, that Karbala’ is really important. In a negative way, however, it also had some importance: it meant that when Umayyad authority faltered after the death of Yazid, the descendants of ‘Ali and Fatima, many of whom had died along with Husayn, were in no position to take advantage of the situation.
There was, however, another line of descent from ‘Ali, and it was on behalf of a representative of this line that the second major ‘Alid movement of the second civil war developed. This was the revolt led by Mukhtar (a Thaqafi) on behalf of Muhammad b. al-Hanafiyya, son of ‘Ali by a wife known as the Hanafi woman. This revolt, also centred on Kufa, occurred between 685 and 687. By this time Iraq had come under the authority of Ibn al-Zubayr and the revolt of Mukhtar was directed in the first instance against the Zubayrids rather than the Umayyads. Mukhtar himself is portrayed as an ambitious adventurer (the sources are all hostile to him) who was able to take advantage of the conditions in Kufa following the death of Husayn to establish a temporary supremacy there and in the territories dependent upon it. His revolt was preceded by a movement known as that of the Penitents (al-tawwabun), Kufans who, aroused by feelings of guilt over their lack of support for Husayn, sacrificed themselves in a futile battle against the Umayyads in Mesopotamia. How far Mukhtar really had the support of the man in whose name he claimed to be acting, Muhammad b. al-Hanafiyya, is questionable, but he seems to have been able to persuade many Kufans that he was his agent. Mukhtar’s movement is interesting and important in a number of ways.
In the first place, this is the first time that the mawali are shown to play a significant part in events. In modern writing on the Umayyad period the relative importance of Arabs and mawali in certain episodes has become a topic of debate and argument. Older writers may have overemphasised the role of the mawali and in reaction some more modern writers have stressed the importance, indeed the leading role, of the Arabs. Nevertheless, nearly all the sources, and in particular a contemporary non-Muslim source, agree that non-Arabs were prominent and numerous among the supporters of Mukhtar. Indeed, Mukhtar formed a personal bodyguard (haras) from the mawali, commanded by one of their number, Abu ‘Amr Kaysan. The followers of Mukhtar are often referred to generally as the ‘Kaysaniyya’. At this time, by the term mawali we are mainly referring to prisoners of war and their descendants, brought to Kufa in the wake of the upheavals of the Arab conquests, and not the peasant fugitives of a slightly later date. Nevertheless, Mukhtar could not rely on non-Arab support alone and he had to win the support too of the ashraf of Kufa. In this he had some success, but the relationship between Mukhtar and the Arabs seems to have been an uneasy one. Towards the end of the period of his dominance in Kufa many of the ashraf rebelled against him, we are told because of his too favourable attitude to the mawali, and after he had suppressed the revolt many of the ashraf fled to Basra which was still in Zubayrid hands.
Secondly, Mukhtar’s movement is of religious interest, although the significance of some of the information we have about this aspect of it is unclear. Generally his movement is shown to have been coloured by religious ideas and practices of non-Arab and non-Islamic origin and dubious legitimacy. One of the most striking instances is the practice ascribed to his followers of carrying a chair which they called the chair of ‘Ali and which they took into battle and walked around like the Hebrew Ark of the Covenant. It is in connection with Mukhtar’s movement too that the idea of the mahdi, the messianic figure who is expected at the end of time to restore the world to a state of justice and righteousness, occurs apparently for the first time. He is said to have proclaimed Ibn al-Hanafiyya as the mahdi while he himself was his wazir, or helper. The idea of the mahdi was to become characteristic of Islam, especially in its Shi‘ite forms, but it is not attested before the time of Mukhtar. The appearance of ideas like these in Mukhtar’s movement has sometimes been connected with the importance of the mawali in his following, the suggestion being that these non-Arabs brought with them into Islam religious concepts derived from their pre-Islamic backgrounds, such as the idea of the messiah or that of the transmigration of souls. These concepts would then have been grafted on to what was an original pure Arab Islam. The difficulty, of course, would lie in isolating the content of this alleged pure form of Islam before it became ‘contaminated’ by foreign ‘borrowings’.
Thirdly, Mukhtar’s movement looks to the future. There seems to be a thread running from Mukhtar to the movement which eventually overthrew the Umayyads, that of the Hashimiyya. The crushing of Mukhtar’s revolt did not, it seems, end support for Ibn al-Hanafiyya as the rightful imam, and when he too died some of his followers transferred their hopes to his son Abu Hashim. This Abu Hashim then, according to early ‘Abbasid tradition, transferred on his deathbed his rights to the imamate to the ‘Abbasid family. Thus the ‘Abbasids claimed to be the rightful leaders of the movement which had originally supported Muhammad b. al-Hanafiyya, and this seems to have been one of the ‘Abbasids’ main claims to legitimacy in the early part of their caliphate. From one point of view, therefore, the triumph of the Hashimiyya in 749 and 750 can be seen as the ultimate victory of the movement which had begun with Mukhtar’s revolt. It was only after the accession of the ‘Abbasids that the line of descent from ‘Ali and Fatima again became the main focus of Shi‘ite hopes.
Eventually, in the spring of 687, Mukhtar’s revolt was crushed by the Zubayrid governor of Basra with the support of those Kufan ashraf who had fled from Mukhtar’s rule. Before that happened, however, he, or rather his general, the Arab Ibrahim al-Ashtar, whose father had been one of ‘Ali’s chief supporters, had achieved a striking victory over the Umayyads. That was in the summer of 686 at the battle on the river Khazir near Mosul. The Umayyad army was led by ‘Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad, who, after being driven out of Iraq in the period following the death of Yazid, had made his way to Syria and given his support to the Marwanids. ‘Abd al-Malik now sent him to restore Umayyad authority in Mesopotamia, but his defeat and death at the hands of Mukhtar’s men meant that ‘Abd al-Malik had to postpone his planned reconquest of Iraq for some years more. The death of ‘Ubayd Allah in this battle at the hands of the supporters of Mukhtar came to be portrayed as justice for his involvement in the events of Karbala’. One of Mukhtar’s slogans had demanded vengeance for Husayn and the battle on the Khazir was seen as obtaining it. Some sources go so far as to say that ‘Ubayd Allah, like Husayn, was killed on the 10 Muharram, but a different day of the month seems more likely.10
In addition to the attempts by Zubayrids and Shi‘ites to overthrow the established order, the final theme of the second civil war is the development of polarised factionalism among the Arab tribesmen. For the first time we hear of the appearance among the Arab tribes of two extensive and mutually hostile alliances, based generally on the ‘northern’ and ‘southern’ genealogical groupings. This occurs at almost the same time in Syria and in Basra, and the immediate cause in each case was the crisis in Umayyad authority which encouraged discontented elements to look for better fortunes under non-Umayyad leaders.
In Syria, the factionalism developed around, on the one side, the Quda‘a, led by the tribe of Kalb, and on the other the confederation of Qays. Quda‘a were strong in the central and southern regions of Syria, while Qays predominated in the north and in Mesopotamia. We have seen that the Sufyanid caliphs formed strong ties with the Quda‘a. When Umayyad authority tottered after the death of Yazid, Qays came out in support of Ibn al-Zubayr while Quda‘a eventually decided to give their support to Marwan. The two confederations met in battle at Marj Rahit near Damascus in the summer of 684, and it was the victory of Quda‘a and its allies at this battle which ensured the continuation of Umayyad rule, at least in southern and central Syria. The remaining years of the civil war, though, were marked by a long and complicated period of tribal feuding in the Syrian desert and in Mesopotamia, a bitter legacy of the battle of Marj Rahit. It was in the course of these feuds that the distinction between ‘northerners’ and ‘southerners’ became more clearly established. Quda‘a, who had been regarded previously as descendants of Isma‘il, that is ‘northerners’, now came to regard themselves as ‘southerners’ like their allies and in contradistinction to the ‘northern’ Qays. This provided the nomenclature for the factionalism in Syria for the remainder of the Umayyad period: on the one side Kalb, the dominant tribe of the ‘southern’ Quda‘a; on the other Qays, the leaders of the ‘northerners’.11
In Basra, the factions appear under different names. There the original settlers consisted mainly of two tribal groups both classed as ‘northerners’: Mudar, under the leadership of the tribe of Tamim, and Rabi‘a. Shortly before the second civil war a third group, the ‘southern’ Azd from Oman, migrated into Basra in large numbers, and an alliance was made between them and Rabi‘a against the Mudar. After the death of Yazid, the Umayyad governor of Iraq, ‘Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad, tried to get himself recognised in Basra as amir by the Arabs there until affairs regarding the caliphate were cleared up. The Mudar, led by Tamim, refused to accept him and a feud then developed between the Mudar on one side and Azd and Rabi‘a on the other. Eventually this feud was temporarily settled and Basra came under Zubayrid control. But the parties had been formed for future conflict, and what is particularly important is that it was from Basra that Khurasan was garrisoned and so the divisions of Basra were carried over to this key province of the north-east frontier. In the east, therefore, the factions generally go under the names of Mudar, the ‘northerners’, including Tamim and Qays, and Yemen, the ‘southerners’, dominated by Azd but including also the formally ‘northern’ Rabi‘a tribes.12
The underlying factors leading to the polarisation of the tribesmen in this way have already been discussed. In both Syria and Basra we can point to two things in particular which probably had a crucial influence. First, in the period before the second civil war, the existing tribal balance or situation had been upset in both places by recent immigration. In northern Syria and Mesopotamia there had been recent migrations of Qays, while in Basra the recent arrival of Azd gave Rabi‘a the opportunity to attack the domination of Tamim. Secondly, in both places the political situation became entangled with the tribal one. In Syria the Sufyanid links with Quda‘a may have provoked Qaysi support for Ibn al-Zubayr, while in Basra ‘Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad’s attempt to get Azd to support his bid to be recognised as amir in the face of Tamim’s hostility seems to have triggered off the fighting. The dangers resulting from the government’s reliance on or support for one faction at the expense of another are self-evident.
In looking at the second civil war generally, and seeking to assess its significance and consequences, therefore, it seems that the conflict between the Umayyads and Ibn al-Zubayr, although it supplies the thread which provides the distinctive colour of this fitna, is not its most important element. Ibn al-Zubayr left behind no party or programme, and if he had been victorious it is not clear what changes would have resulted apart from the end of Umayyad rule and its replacement by that of another member of Quraysh.13 To some extent this judgement may need to be qualified by reference to the development of the Muslim sanctuary. It might be possible to argue that the struggle with Ibn al-Zubayr was decisive in establishing that the Muslim sanctuary would be at Mecca, away from the seat of the caliph, but this is a complicated issue which involves questioning the Muslim tradition’s insistence that the sanctuary had been fixed at Mecca since the time of the Prophet. The most obvious result of this second civil war is, of course, the change from Sufyanid to Marwanid rule, but the more significant consequences are elsewhere. First, the polarisation of the Arab factions provides the basis for divisions among the Arabs which, as we will see, were of the greatest importance for the Umayyad state. Secondly, the impetus given to the development of Shi‘ism and the link between this and the later anti-Umayyad movement of the Hashimiyya have been indicated. Next, the emergence of the mawali as a significant force for the first time is also a pointer for future developments. Another development, of a somewhat more temporary importance, but for a time a major problem for the Umayyads, was the appearance of Kharijite groups in Iraq and Mesopotamia, taking advantage of the breakdown of order there during the troubles associated with Mukhtar and the Zubayrid rule. After the reassertion of Umayyad authority in the area, ‘Abd al-Malik’s governor, al-Hajjaj, had to devote considerable time and effort to the threat they posed. Finally, the second civil war had revealed the shaky foundations of the Sufyanid system of government, especially in Iraq where the ashraf had given their support to the Zubayrids. The questionable loyalty of the Iraqis in general and particularly the ashraf was to be revealed in episodes after the end of the civil war, and was probably decisive in the development of a more direct type of rule by ‘Abd al-Malik and his descendants.
1. The most recent detailed discussion with full bibliography is Gernot Rotter, Die Umayyaden und der zweite Bürgerkrieg (680–692). See also R.Sellheim, Der zweite Bürgerkrieg im Islam. In English, A.A.Dixon, The Umayyad caliphate 65– 86/684–705, treats in detail some of the later episodes.
2. J.Wellhausen, Arab kingdom, 140–5; H.Lammens, Le califat de Yazid 1er, 98–106; Gernot Rotter, Bürgerkrieg, 35–6.
3. J.Wellhausen, Arab kingdom, 167–9; F.Buhl, ‘Die Krisis der Umajjadenherrschaft im Jahre 684’, ZA, 27 (1912); H.Lammens, ‘Mo‘awia II ou le dernier des Sofianides’, in Le siècle des Omayyades, 163–210.
4. J.Wellhausen, Arab kingdom, 147–65; article ‘al-Harra’ in EI2; M.J.Kister, ‘The battle of the Harra’, in Studies in memory of Gaston Wiet, ed. M.Rosen Ayalon, Jerusalem, 1977; H.Lammens, Yazid 1er, 210–57; G.Rotter, Bürgerkrieg, 40–53.
5. J.Wellhausen, Arab kingdom, 165–7; H.Lammens, Yazid 1er, 257–69; G. Rotter, Bürgerkrieg, 53–59.
6. J.Wellhausen, Arab kingdom, 170–200; A.A.Dixon, Umayyad caliphate, 121–42; G.Rotter, Bürgerkrieg, 107 ff.; article “Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr’ in EI2.
7. Article ‘Ka‘ba’ in EI2; J.Wellhausen, Arab Kingdom, 212–15; S.D.Goitein, ‘The historical background of the erection of the Dome of the Rock’, JAOS, 70 (1950). See further below, pp. 59–61.
8. J.Wellhausen, Religio-political factions, 105–20; H.Lammens, Yazid 1er, 117–81; articles ‘al-Husayn b. ‘Ali’ and ‘Karbala’ in EI2; S.M.Jafri, Origins and early development of Shi‘a Islam, 174 ff.; G.Rotter, Bürgerkrieg, 37–40.
9. G.E.von Grunebaum, Muslim festivals, 85–94.
10. J.Wellhausen, Religio-political factions, 121–59; articles ‘Al-Mukhtar’ and ‘Muhammad b. al-Hanafiyya’ in EI1, ‘Kaysaniyya’ in EI2; K.A.Fariq, ‘The story of an Arab diplomat’, Studies in Islam, 3 (1966) and 4 (1967); W.M.Watt, ‘Shi‘ism under the Umayyads’, JRAS (1960); A.A.Dixon, Umayyad caliphate, 25–81; S.M. Jafri, Origins and early development of Shi‘a Islam, 235 ff.; M.A.Shaban, New interpretation, 94–6; G.Rotter, Bürgerkrieg, 93–106, 187–92.
11. J.Wellhausen, Arab kingdom, 170–83, 201–9; A.A.Dixon, Umayyad caliphate, 83–120; P.Crone, Slaves on horses, 34–6; G.Rotter, Bürgerkrieg, 126–51.
12. J.Wellhausen, Arab kingdom, 209–10, 397–411; G.Rotter, Bürgerkrieg, 68– 84. See genealogical tables 1 and 2, above.
13. G.Rotter, Bürgerkrieg, 243–51.