“O you who have believed, do not take the disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. Do you wish to give Allāh against yourselves a clear case?” (Qur’an 4:144)
Among the prominent Companions of the Prophet Muhammad, ‘Abd Alla b. Al-Abbas (d. 68/687), paternal cousin of Muhammad and of ‘Ali b. Abi Talib, became the primary religious teacher of the muhakkima who after the slaying of the caliph Uthman had been vigorous supporters of Ali, but then deserted him in protest against his arbitration agreement with Mu’awiya. Ibn al-‘Abbas evidently had been well known to them, and highly regarded by them, long before their revolt against ‘Ali. Born three years before the hijra and still a minor at the time of the death of the Prophet, he had first been drawn into a political role by the caliph ‘Umar, who took him into his intimate confidence as a representative of the Banu Hashim, the kin of Muhammad. The caliph Uthman, while besieged by rebels from Egypt in his place in Medina, appointed him a leader of the pilgrimage to Mecca and entrusted him with reading a lengthy message to the assembled pilgrims in which ‘Uthman defended his conduct in office and appealed for their help. Ibn al-Abbas read the message to the Mecca pilgrims on 7 Dhu-l-Hijja 35/6 June 656, just eleven day before the caliph was killed. He then became a close adviser of ‘Ali and was appointed by him governor of Basra after the Battle of the Camel. Like ‘Ali, he did not view the rebels against ‘Uthman as culpable in his death.
When after ‘Ali’s arbitration agreement with Mu’awiya some 12,000 muhakkima seceded in protest from his army and camped at Harura outside Kufa in Rabi’ I 37/Aug-Sept, 657. ‘Ali first sent Ibn al-‘Abbas to them as a mediator. The majority of the seceders, however, rejected his unsound argument that arbitration was generally allowed by the Qur’an and only a few of them returned to Kufa. ‘Ali then was able to persuade all of them to return by promising them to resume the war against Mu’awiya in six months. He evidently expected the arbitration attempts to have failed by then. Quarrelling between the muhakkima and the supporters of arbitration in Kufa delayed ‘Ali’s expedition of his arbitrator, Abu Musa l-Ash’ari, beyond the six months, and when Abu Musa left for the site of arbitration in Dumat al-Jandal accompanied by Ibn al-‘Abbas and an escort of 400 Kufan warriors, the muhakkima decided to leave Kufa secretly and to assemble in al-Nahrawan near al-Mada’in. This time they chose ‘Abd Allah b’ Wahb al-Rasibi as their chief and asked their muhakkima brethren in Basra to join them. Some 2,000 men thus gathered in al-Nahrawan while the meeting of the two arbitrators took place in Dumat al-Jundal in Shawwal-Dhu l-Qa’da 37/March-April 658.
After the breakup of the arbitration meetings in failure to resolve the conflict, ‘Ali immediately denounced the arbitrators and ordered his army to mobilize for a new campaign against Mu’awiya. He wrote to the muhakkima in al-Nahrawan inviting them to join. Their position, however, had now hardened and they demanded that ‘Ali publicly repents of his earlier agreement to arbitration. As ‘Ali led the Kufan army northward toward al-Anbar, some of the muhakkima vented their frustration in wanton murder of Muslims, including ‘Abd Allah, the son of the Companion Khabib b al-Aratt, his pregnant wife and an envoy sent by ‘Ali to them. ‘Ali saw himself forced to abandon his campaign against Mu’awiya and to deal with the muhakkima rebels. IN the battle of al-Nahrawan in Dhu l-Hijja 37/ May 658u more than 1,000 of them were killed.
‘Abd Allah b al-‘Abbas, it should be noted, was not present at the Battle of al-Nahrawan, as ‘Ali had deputed him to lead the pilgrimage to Mecca for the year. Ibn al-‘Abbas evidently regretted the assault on the rebels collectively and the resulting massacre. Had he been present, he would no doubt have counseled to restrict any punishment to the actual perpetrators of criminal violence and to leave the others alone, whatever their incendiary rhetoric. As it were, he soon advised ‘Ali, when the latter bitterly complained about the lack of support he had from his men for his campaign against Mu’awiya, to treat them kindly in patience, since they might change their mind in the future. His different attitude toward the seceders soon turned Basra into a safe haven for the muhakkima. While they were unable to establish themselves as a dissident community in the extremely hostile environment of Kufa under the rule of ‘Ali, they found refuge as a tolerated opposition party in Basra under the governorship of Ibn al-‘Abbas, who would not interfere with their activity as long as they abstained from acts of violence and breach of the peace in the city. The muhakkima in Basra fully appreciated the policy of Ibn al-Abbas and looked to him as their trustworthy religious teacher, even though he had defended the legitimacy of ‘Ali’s agreement to arbitration. The bulk of them were tribesmen of Tamim, and they kept the peace with the majority of Tamim and the other tribes in the arbitration.
When Mu’awiya, after the surrender of al-Hasan b ‘Ali in the year 41/661, claimed the rule of Basra, the muhakkima, who had declared him an infidel (kafir), refused to pledge allegiance to him. Mu’awiya then appointed Ziyad b Abih, his bastard paternal brother, who had been Ibn al-‘Abbas trusted assistant in the government of Basra, governor of the town. Although personally less sympathetic to the muhakkma, Ziyad prudently treated them as Ibn al-Abbas had done. They were now led by the Tamimi Abu Bilal Mirdas b Udayya, the brother of ‘Urwa b Udayya who was reputed to have been the first in the army of Ali to proclaim the takhaim: “la hukma illa li-illlah-No rule but God’s”. Abu Bilal continued to keep the peace in the town for two decades during the Caliphate of Mu’awiya. In his later years of leadership he befriended Abu l-Sha’tha Jabir b. Zayd, a pupil of Ibn al-‘Abbas ,and accepted him as his adviser in matters of religion.
Mu’awiya’s professed policy of seeking revenge for the slaying of the caliph ‘Uthman on all of his opponents and even on neutrals who had failed to rally to his defense, as well as his affirmation of the exclusive right of the Qurash to the caliphate in Islam drove many Muslims in Iraq and the eastern provinces, who had not objected to the arbitration or had even supported it, to join the ranks of the seceders. During Mu’awiya’s divisive caliphate, the muhakkima became a widespread, nonviolent opposition movement in the eastern Islamic world. Especially the eastern Arabian tribes of Rabi’a were now attracted to the ideology of the muhakkima. The seceders basic dogma that Islam implied the sovereign rule of God rather than any human being, be he of Quraysh or not, and the recognition that the rule of God meant to obey the Qur’an to the letter, appealed to them. Rabi’a, especially Bakr b Wa’il, had made up the backbone of ‘Ali’s army at Siffin and he thwarted Mu’awiya’s hope for outright victory in the battle. After the surrender of al-Hasan b ‘Ali, Mu’awiya sought to humiliate them by seizing from them the sword of the caliph ‘Umar, called Dhu-l-Wishah, which they had acquired as war booty after killing Umar’s son, Ubayd Allah at Siffin. The bulk of Rabi’a would not pledge allegiance to Mu’awiya and remained in opposition to his caliphate.
Special was the case of the Banu Hanifa, a sub-tribe of Bakr b. Wa’il mostly sedentary in al-Yamama. Their grievance against the pretention of the Quraysh was long standing. Their king Hawdha had offered Muhammad to accept the religion of Islam if the Prophet allowed him to share in the political rule of his people. His negotiations with Muhammad, however, failed and when he died, his successor Musaylima claimed to be a prophet to his people, presumably as a rival to Muhammad, not a denier of his prophethood. Only a small group of Hanifa at the time opposed Musaylima and accepted Muhammad as their prophet.
After the death of Muhammad and the establishment of the caliphate of Quraysh, the Muslims viewed Hanifa as apostates and followers of a false prophet. In the Battle of al-‘Aqraba, they subdued them breaking fierce resistance. While many Companion of the Prophet fell, the Banu Hanifa were decimated and some of their women and children enslaved. They were excluded form the wars of conquest under ‘Umar, stayed neutral in the revolt against ‘Uthman, and unlike the bulk of Rabi’a, did not join the army of ‘Ali. There were no tribesmen of Hanifa among the original muhakkima. Busr b Abi Artah, Mu’awiya’s general sent to subdue Arabia, towns and countryside, and to punish former supporters of ‘Ali and neutrals alike, carried off the son of the former chief of Hanifa, Mujja’a b Murara, as a captive to Mu’awiya and recommended that the caliph kill him as a punishment. Mu’awiya, however, accepted the pledge of allegiance of the captive and confirmed him as chief of his people. He then claimed the agricultural land of Hanifa in al-Yamama as crown property and had it cultivated by his slaves. The majority of the Banu Hanifa joined the muhakkima movement evidently early during the caliphate of Mu’awiya.
Two of the leaders of the Hanifa muhakkima, Nafi b al-Azraq and Najda b ‘Amir, are known to have to ‘Abd Allah b al-‘Abbas as their authoritative teacher in religion. They re described as rival for the leadership in their community and as seeking to bolster their own authority by relying on religious verdicts of the cousin of the Prophet. Nafi’ b. Al-Azraq al-Hanifa-Hanzali, who later became the chief of the most radical sect of the Kharijis, was the son of a freedman of Greek origin. He put questiions to Ibn al-‘Abbas, presumably in Mecca during the pilgrimage season, about the meaning of Qur’anic terms and then asked him for confirmation of that meaning by their use by Arab pre-Islamic poets. Numerous such masa’il were later transmitted and collected by Sunni scholars. While western scholars following J. Wansbrough have viewed all reports of Masa’il Nafi’ b. Al-Azraq as entirely fictitious, the authenticity of At least a core of them has been defended by A. Neuwirth with strong arguments. Given the paramount importance of the correct understanding of the meaning of the Qur’an for the muhakkima, it is evidently quite reasonable that a non-Arab mawla should have put such questions to Ibn al-‘Abbas and have asked for proof-text form Islamic poetry. Neuwirth suggested that the meeting of Nafi’ and Najda with Ibn al-‘Abbas most likely took place in teh eyar 60/680. It seems more likely, however, that the two interrogated Ibn al-‘Abbas earlier during the caliphate of Mu’awiya, when Ibn al-‘Abbas is known to have regularly taught and responded to questions during the pilgrimage season.
Najda b ‘Amir, a native Arab tribesman of Hanifa who evidently had a much larger following among them than Nafi’ b. Al-Azraq, put question on theology to Ibn al-‘Abbas. ‘Abd Allah b. Yazid al-Fazari, the 2nd/8th century Kufan Ibadi kalam theologian, quotes a report according to which Najda asked Ibn al-‘Abbas about how he recognized his Lord remarking that there was disagreement among the people in that regard. Ibn al-‘Abbas answered with a lengthy statement that he recognized his Lord as He described Himself in His Book. Ibn al-‘Abbas then denied that God could be seen or perceived by the senses and rejected any anthropomorphic concept of God (tashbih). He affirmed God’s justice in all His decisions and judgement, but emphasized His determination of all acts of His creatures by His decisive will and foreknowledge.
The great expansion of muhakkima ideology in the eastern Muslim world came into the open during the second inter-Muslim War (fitna) that raged for over a decade from 61/681 to 73/692. The war was provoked by Mu’awiya’s appointment of his son Yazid as his successor and his demand for an immediate pledge of allegiance to him. The refusal of several prominent Companions, especially ‘Abd Allah b. Al-Zubayr, al-Husayn b ‘Ali and ‘Abd Allah b. Al’Abbas, to pledge allegiance encouraged tribal chiefs to withhold their pledge. Mu’awiya’s poison murders of potential rivals and opponents of his son then inflamed the latent enmity against him. Mu’awiya first poisoned al-Hasan b. Ali whom he had contractually promised an election of his successor by consultation (shura), thus inciting Shi’i revolt. When the tribal leaders in Syria expressed their preference for ‘Abd al-Rahman, the son of the ‘Sword of Islam’ Khalid b. Al-Walid, for the succession, he had him poisoned. This drove the Banu Makhzum, Khalid’s kinsmen in Mecca to solid support of the counter-caliphate of ‘Abd Allah b. Al-Zubayr. In Basra the Rabi’a resisted Mu’awiya’s demand that they pledge allegiance to Yazid, and many of them left the town. Mu’awia then put pressure on Khaild b al-Mu’ammar, the chief of Bakr b. Wa’il, who promised him to secure the loyal support of Rabi’a to him. Mu’awiya now appointed him governor of Armenia, but still distrusting him as a former supporter of ‘Ali, had him poisoned when he reached Nasibin.
After the death of Mu’awiya in 60/680, the muhakkima came in large number to Mecca, where ‘Abd Allah b. Al-Zubayr was then seeking asylum, prepared to defend the Holy City against any Syrian assault and to recognize Ibn al-Zubayr as their imam. When they questioned about his views concerning the caliphate of ‘Uthman and he insisted that ‘Uthman had been wrongfully killed, they turned away from him. They continued, however, to protect Mecca against any Syrian encroachment. In 64/683-4 they aided Ibn al-Zubay’rs supporters in holding off the Syrian attack on Mecca before the death of caliph Yazid. Ibn al-Zubayr now claimed the caliphate and gained wide recognition throughout the central and eastern regions of Islam. The muhakkima and the Shi’a, however, would not recognize him, and in Syria the Umayyad Marwan b. Al-Hakam soon found recognition as caliph. By 67/687 Najda b. ‘Amir, the leader of the Hanifa muhakkima, gained control over all of Arabia except Mecca and Medina. Ibn al-Zubayr now expelled Muhammad b. Al-Hanafiyya, whom the Shi’a in Kufa recognized against his will as the imam and mahdi from Mecca. When Ibn al-‘Abbas publicly protested the expulsion, Ibn al-Zubayr furiously expelled him, too, from his home town. The two and their families sought refuge in al-Ta’if which was under Najda’s rule. Najda again consulted Ibn al’Abbas on questions of religion. When he considered blocing the food supply to the two holy cities, ‘Abd Allah b. Al-‘Abbas remonstrated with him, and he desisted. Internal conflict among the Hanifa about the leadership weakened his position gradually and eventually he was killed by his rival Abu Fudayks in 72/691. Abu Fudayk in turn was killed in al-Bahrayn a year lader by the calph ‘Abd al-Malik’s commander ‘Umar b ‘Ubayd Allah b. Ma’mar, and Ummayad rule was finally restored over all of Arabia.
After the death of Ibn al-‘Abbas in 68’687 in exile in al-Ta’if, his Berber freedman ‘Ikrma d. ca. 105/723) became an active propagandist for the muhakkima, ‘Ikrma had been given a slave boy to Ibn al-‘Abbas when he came to Basra as governor. Ibn al-‘Abbas educated him in Qur’an exegesis and the sunna and then employed him to teach and give legal counsel in his master’s place. ‘Ikrima took part in the burial of Ibn al-‘Abbas in al-Ta’if. Shortly afterward he is mentioned during the pilgrimage to Mecca serving Najda b “amir as his doorman. Since he is called in the report the slave (ghulam) of Ibn al-‘Abbas, it seems not unlikely that the latter had before his death attached ‘Ikrima to Najda to counsel him in religious law He was then manumitted by Ibn al-‘Abbas son and heir ‘Ali b. ‘Abd Allah. In any case, ‘Ikrima became widely recognized as the foremost and best informed transmitter of the Qur’an exegesis of Ibn Al-‘Abbas, but was also accused of falsifying his master’s teaching in promoting muhakkima doctrine. He is described as traveling throughout the Muslim world spreading Khariji ideology. His teaching now became radically anti-Shi’i. Thus he proclaimed that the ahl al-bayt whom according to the Qur’an 33:33 God wanted to purify meant specially the wives of the Prophet, excluding his kin, daughter and grandsons. This was entirely contrary to the view of Ibn al-‘Abbas, who ever upheld the divinely privileged religious rank of the Prophet’s kin and progeny, and ‘Ikrima could not have asserted it during his life-time. ‘Ikrima is further described as coming jointly with an Ibadi missionary sent by Abu ‘Ubayda to the Maghrib in the early 2nd/8th century where he summoned to the Sufriyya. It was at this time that the muhakkima expanded widely in the Maghrib as they had expanded a generation earlier throughout the eastern Muslim world and Arabia. The Sufriyya are known to have constituted a substantial community in the far western Maghrib for some time, but later the Ibadiyya prevailed.
The long term impact of Ibn al-‘Abbas’s teaching on the muhakimma and the Ibadiyya in particular has been significant. In theology they have consistently repudiated the tendencies to anthropomorphism apparent in the Sunni traditionalist doctrine including the dogma of the visio beatifica of God in the hereafter. Against Murj’i tendencies they have vigorously upheld the eternal punishment of Muslim wrongdoers by God. Against Mu’tazili rationalist doctrine divine justice entailing free will, they have mostly affirmed the determining effectiveness of God’s eternal will and foreknowledge. There were, however, significant groups in the 1st/7th and 2nd/8th centuries who inclined the Mu’tazili position on divine justice.
In religious law and ritual, the muhakkima were in general less influenced by the teaching of Ibn al-‘Abbas than the Shi’a. Fully supporting the caliphate of ‘Umar, they, unlike the Shi’a, did not question the legitimacy of ‘Umar’s religious reforms, such as the change of the wording of the call to prayer and the prohibition of the mut’a temporary marriage. However, in the question of the permissibility of al-mash ‘ala l-khuffayn, the rubbing of the footwear instead of washing the feet for ritual purification, they sided with the Shi’a denying it against the Sunni consensus. While there was apparently no ruling of the caliph ‘Umar concerning al-mash ‘ala l-khuffayn, it was definitely declared impermissible by Ibn al-‘Abbas.
Prima-Qur’an comments:
Before I comment on the above mentioned let me preface by sharing my own thoughts on Orientalist and those who are overly reliant upon orientalist.
This topic most likely deserves it’s own post. However, this short bit should suffice. Some Muslims think that to use Orientalist is an extension of Neo-Colonialism. Now, while I agree that I believe European powers did send people to study the language, culture and history of people’s for a nefarious purpose, I also believe there are those among them who are sincere and genuinely curious.
The issue I have with some Muslims is that if I were to get a PhD in from Cambridge on early Islamic history and write a thesis paper on the battle of Al-Narhawan this would now some how make me an expert in all matters in relationship to Al-Narhawan. My word is without reproach. What becomes dangerous is that when I write a paper on Narhawan and I surmise on events often the reader is so fixated with my credentials and where I went to school, that they overlook the fact that I (like many Orientalist) often surmise about events, people, and situations. That we very often use suppositions. These same Muslims would look upon the works of Muslim history with high degree of scrutiny and yet take the words of Orientalist as if they were non-biased, not invested eye witness accounts to the events themselves!
This is not discounting the fact that Orientalist often disagree among each other. So while I do not discount the efforts of Orientalist as some Neo-Colonial projects at the same time I ask Muslims to who are skeptical of their own tradition to approach the writings of Orientalist with the same energy.
Fair? 🤷
So on to my thoughts about the few pages I read from Wilferd Madelung
There are some real questions for Madelung.
“The majority of the seceders, however, rejected his unsound argument that arbitration was generally allowed by the Qur’an and only a few of them returned to Kufa.”
Prima-Qur’an response: Where does Madelung get this informatin from? In fact this is a strawman argument used by the Shi’i till this day. Where do they get this information from or base this information on?
Madelung also states: “Some 2,000 men thus gathered in al-Nahrawan while the meeting of the two arbitrators took place in Dumat al-Jundal in Shawwal-Dhu l-Qa’da 37/March-April 658.”
Prima-Qur’an response: Do keep note of this number, as we you will notice historical discrepancies in relation to the flow of event and numbers.
Madelung also curiously states:
“As ‘Ali led the Kufan army northward toward al-Anbar, some of the muhakkima vented their frustration in wanton murder of Muslims, including ‘Abd Allah, the son of the Companion Khabib b al-Aratt, his pregnant wife and an envoy sent by ‘Ali to them.”
Prima-Qur’an response: Why would anyone vent frustration concerning an envoy being sent to them? Wanton killing of Muslims (plural) who? Which of the muhakkima vented these frustrations? At this point Madelung departs academia and has now become a Shi’i polemicist.
I thought the point of academics were to report the historical record and not to embellish accounts.
Especially when he read that Madelung states:
“During Mu’awiya’s divisive caliphate, the muhakkima became a widespread, nonviolent opposition movement in the eastern Islamic world.”
That certainly really does not sound like the crazed sword wielding Kharijites declaring all who differ with them infidels that we hear all too often from the Sunni and Shi’i.
“‘Abd Allah b al-‘Abbas, it should be noted, was not present at the Battle of al-Nahrawan, as ‘Ali had deputed him to lead the pilgrimage to Mecca for the year. Ibn al-‘Abbas evidently regretted the assault on the rebels collectively and the resulting massacre. Had he been present, he would no doubt have counseled to restrict any punishment to the actual perpetrators of criminal violence and to leave the others alone, whatever their incendiary rhetoric.”
Prima-Qur’an response: The implication here by Madelung is that Ibn ‘Abbas would have participated in the battle of al-Nahrawan. Also keep in mind that Madelung has Ibn Abbas leading a pilgrimage to Mecca. Another point to keep in mind when reading the discrepancies of history.
Ibn Abbas is made by Madelung to alleged that the people of Al-Nahrawan did something blameworthy. Another interesting piece of information.
“Ikrima became widely recognized as the foremost and best informed transmitter of the Qur’an exegesis of Ibn Al-‘Abbas, but was also accused of falsifying his master’s teaching in promoting muhakkima doctrine.”
Prima-Qur’an response: In what way did Ikrima falsify his master’s teaching in promoting the muhakkima doctrine? Do tell us. Why the tease?
“His teaching now became radically anti-Shi’i. Thus he proclaimed that the ahl al-bayt whom according to the Qur’an 33:33 God wanted to purify meant specially the wives of the Prophet, excluding his kin, daughter and grandsons“
Prima-Qur’an response: No, Ikrima simply taught what the Qur’an teaches.
“Against Mu’tazili rationalist doctrine divine justice entailing free will, they have mostly affirmed the determining effectiveness of God’s eternal will and foreknowledge.”
Prima-Qur’an response:
I believe the reason why Madelung makes such claims is that in his mind he see’s the Muhakkima as people who leave all matters up to Allah (swt) in the sense that no human element is involved in anything related to the laws of Allah (swt).
We can see this where he states above:
“The majority of the seceders, however, rejected his unsound argument that arbitration was generally allowed by the Qur’an and only a few of them returned to Kufa.”
Which we will state again is a bizarre argument. It is akin to those who believe that the Muhakkima believe that God decides battles, meaning if Ali’s was upon the truth than he would be victorious. It is such a bizarre thought process considering that the Blessed Messenger (saw) lost battles against the Kuffar. So the kuffar are upon the haqq?
This was a bit of sloppy writing on behalf of Magdelung because in the very next sentence he states:
“There were, however, significant groups in the 1st/7th and 2nd/8th centuries who inclined the Mu’tazili position on divine justice.”
So why I say it is sloppy writing is because Magdelung is giving us a check list of key theological points of the Muhakkima and yet he is unsure if there is a consensus on the matter or not. Yet the way he writes he makes it seem as if the Muhakkima are fatalist.
It makes sense why he would throw academia out the window and make wide eyed assertions like this. As mentioned: I believe the reason why Madelung makes such claims is that in his mind he see’s the Muhakkima as people who leave all matters up to Allah (swt) in the sense that no human element is involved in anything related to the laws of Allah (swt).
Again just to reiterate a small irritation I have with people who use Orientalist is this. I will give you an example. So someone writing a paper wanting to discredit Ikrima as a narrator may have a section that states: “He is described as traveling throughout the Muslim world spreading Khariji ideology. His teaching now became radically anti-Shi’i. ” They will quote Magdelung.
O.K. so now what are we supposed to that with that information? It must be true because Magdelung said so! No, based upon what? Give us some examples. Let us explore this further.
That is the problem that I encounter. By the way I say this not only about Orientalist but the same standard applies to Muslim historians. It is obvious that I question historical narratives or I would be following the majority narrative concerning Siffin.
In the end the relevant text are uploaded below: I leave it to you the reader to do the research and come to your conclusions. May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).
Prima Quran 