In their military operations, the Umayyads had always had to depend on Arab tribal forces. But that in turn meant choosing sides between traditionally implacable enemies, the northern Qays tribes and the southern Kalb tribes. Opting to bring the Qays with them to Damascus, the Umayyads earned the undying enmity of the Kalb forces then encamped in the garrison cities of Iraq. One of those garrisons was Kufa, a stronghold of the Shia; another was Basra, a stronghold of the Khawarij. In such places discontent fed on itself. Medina, meanwhile, remained the home of prophetic tradition and of religionists convinced they had inherited the custody of Muhammad’s authentic legacy. They looked on the Umayyads with suspicion and shared the view of other groups that the rulers were religiously unfit. So, for very different reasons, did small but increasingly important groups of ascetics. From their perspective, the Umayyads had assumed the mantle of royalty and attempted to justify a lifestyle utterly incompatible with the simplicity they associated with Muhammad’s leadership. Add to this volatile mix a new group of claimants to authority, and the die was cast for the Umayyads. The Abbasids, a faction that traced its lineage to an uncle of Muhammad’s named Abbas, now emerged to take advantage of the internal strife. Using a network of propagandists spread across the impossibly extended Umayyad realm, the Abbasids succeeded in making allies among enough of the disaffected parties to eventually undermine the caliphate. By the mid-740s, the caliphate was doomed and in 750 the Abbasids stepped in to inaugurate a regime that would last, at least nominally, for over five centuries.
Were there any other important internal conflicts during the very early years of Islamic history?
Transitions in leadership are rarely orderly.
That is especially true when the struggle involves forging the very institutions that alone can insure orderly transfer of power. Early Islamic history saw the development of numerous factions squaring off with claims to succession. Most notably, a series of four “civil wars” were testimony to considerable intra-Muslim fragmentation during the seventh and early eighth centuries. Lasting some five years (656–661), the “first fitna” (“dissension”) began with the death of Uthman (third “rightly guided” caliph) and saw protracted struggle between his relatives and supporters over Ali’s legitimacy as fourth caliph. An even more extended conflict (second fitna) began in 680 when a resurgent Shi’i community sought to overthrow the second caliph of the (Sunni) Umayyad dynasty (661–750). After the Shia suffered a catastrophic defeat at Karbala (southern Iraq), and the martyrdom of Ali’s son Husayn, twelve years of strife saw further conflict both between the Shia and the Umayyads and within the Shia, with the Kharijites continuing their rebellious ways. This war ended in 692, and for the next fifty years or so, the Umayyad caliphs in Damascus managed to hold the expanding Muslim realm together. But as their ability to maintain control over an increasingly far-flung administration dwindled, the Umayyads came under duress from various Muslim factions in the third civil war (744–750). The result was the rise of the Abbasids, ruling from their newly founded capital, Baghdad. But within seventy years or so, the Abbasids too began to suffer from internal factionalism, involving vicious infighting within the caliph’s own family as well as rebellion featuring the Shia, the Kharijites, and a host of other special interests. The fourth civil war had begun in 809, with the death of the famous Caliph Harun ar-Rashid and ended in 819 when his son Mamun wrested power from the rebels as well as his own brother.
An early forteenth-century folio from the Book of History by Balami shows the election of Uthman ibn Affan as the third “rightly guided caliph.” Under his leadership, Islam spread into Iran, Afghanistan, and Armenia.
How did early leadership of the Shia unfold?
Major differences between what evolved into the two largest segments of Shi’ites began to crystallize around the second half of the eighth century. Until that time, Shi’i Muslims were in general agreement in recognizing the leadership authority of a hereditary succession of six descendants of Muhammad, beginning with Ali and his two sons, Hasan and Husayn. They called these figures imams. All Shi’ites acknowledged these first three imams, as well as the following three. Jafar as-Sadiq, the sixth in that line, designated his son Ismail to be his successor, but when Ismail pre-deceased his father (in 760), a crisis arose. Despite the fact that Jafar then designated a younger son, Musa, some continued to insist on Ismail’s legitimacy even though he had died. Others pledged their allegiance to Musa and a rift in the Shi’ite community opened. Followers of Ismail regarded him as the “final” imam and saw his death as a temporary departure. This group came to be called the “Seveners” or “Ismailis.” They in turn eventually divided into more than one subgroup. Today Seveners live, for example, in East Africa, Pakistan, and India. The largest of the groups acknowledges the Aga Khan as its leader.
How did the alternative interpretation of Shia history develop?
The majority of Shi’ites hold another interpretation of the events of the 760s, arguing that Jafar’s designation of younger son Musa abrogated his earlier designation of the deceased Ismail. Those who acknowledged Musa’s leadership would follow a line of succession all the way to a twelfth imam. Their theological interpretation of history says that in about 874 C.E., the twelfth imam went into a “lesser concealment,” a period during which he communicated to his followers through a series of four representatives (wakil, wa-KEEL). In 940 C.E., the last of those spokespersons died without having appointed a successor. Since the imam was no longer actively communicating, Twelver Shi’ites call that date the beginning of the “greater concealment,” a condition that obtains to this day. These Twelvers, also called imamis or Jafaris, constitute by far the largest Shi’ite group and account for over ninety per cent of Iran’s population and just over half the population of Iraq. Twelver Shi’ism became the state religion of Iran in the early sixteenth century.
What major features do all Shia groups share?
In addition to the central notion of spiritual descendants from the Prophet (imams), both Twelver and Sevener views of history are distinctly millennialist in tone. Though there are some important differences in how they have elaborated their theologies, both have historically looked forward to the return or reemergence of the last (i.e., seventh or twelfth) imam. He will establish then an age of justice in which all believers will reap the rewards of the redemptive suffering of the imam’s extended family (especially for Twelvers) or from the imam’s healing arcane knowledge (a classical Sevener notion). Sunni tradition also looks forward to the advent of a Mahdi (guided one) at the end of time, but there the idea is not so fundamental as in Shi’i tradition.
In brief, what are the most important early Islamic sectarian movements?
Immediately upon Muhammad’s death Muslims had to face the question of succession to leadership of the community. One faction claimed that the Prophet had designated his cousin and son-in-law, Ali, as his successor. They were to become known as the Party or Faction (Shi’a) of Ali, and today their various sub-communities are called Shi’i Muslims or Shi’ites. But a majority held that Muhammad had made no such appointment and that it was up to the elders to choose from among themselves. They considered their course of action to be both in keeping with the example of Muhammad (called his Sunna, SUN-na) and in the spirit of the needs of the whole community (jama’a, ja-MAA-ah) of Muslims. This majority group came to be known as the People of the Sunna and the Assembly (Ahl as-sunna wa-l’jama’ah), or Sunni Muslims for short.
Several other sects made their views known early on. When Ali was doing battle with the Umayyads to claim his rights to the caliphate, a number of his troops seceded on the grounds that Ali was too lax in his appeal to religious principles in the conduct of battle. They judged Ali a serious sinner who was no longer worthy of the name Muslim. That group became known as the Kharijites (or Khawarij, “those who secede”), and a small remnant of their
