The Emergence of Sectarian Identity: Rethinking the Genesis of the Sunni-Shia Divide

By Faysal Burhan
Edit by Munir Merchant
Published: 2018
Revised: 2025

The Emergence of Sectarian Identity: Rethinking the Genesis of the Sunni-Shia Divide

---

Be not part of any divided groups. 

The Qur’an states: Turning to Him, and be careful not to assault and aggression to one another, and keep up prayer, and be not of the infidels, of those who divide their religion into sects and become separate groups, each group rejoicing in whatever beliefs they have. [30:31 and 32]

Part I
The Genesis of the Shi’i Sunni Divide: Political Events

---

Disclaimer
Abstract
Discussion
Key Islamic Principles for the Informed Reader
Was Ali ibn Abi Talib the Rightful Heir to Leadership
Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan: Conversion and Controversy
The Qum Stream (Ghadir al-Qum) Event
A Life of Devotion and Courage
Prophetic Recognition: “You Are to Me as Aaron to Moses”
Muawiyah Granted Amnesty
Muawiyah’s Appointment as a Scribe
Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan: Conversion and Controversy
The Prophecy of Ammar ibn Yasir
Abu Dhar al-Ghifari’s Position on Muawiyah
The Qum Stream (Ghadir al-Qum) Event
Information on Ali ibn Abi Talib’s Knowledge
Consummation of the Revelation
Tribal Solidarity (Asabiyyah): Quraysh’s Resentment of Ali’s Succession to the Prophet Muhammad
Chronological Run Down of the Sunni-Shi’i Emergence
Events After the Prophet’s Death: The Saqifa Meeting
Companions’ ç During the Prophet’s Final Illness
Suspicion of the Saqifa Seclusion and Possible Prearrangement
Abu Bakr Reign (632–634 CE): Consolidation and Initial Expansion
Umar ibn al-Khattab (634-644CE): Administrative Expansion
Ali’s Allegiance and Support for the First Two Caliphs
Ali’s Role During the Reign of Uthman
Uthman’s Reign’s Political Deterioration (644 – 656 CE)
Imām Ali, the Fourth Caliph (656–661 CE)
Muawiyah’s Rebellion and Ali’s Assassination
Muawiyah Refuses Loyalty
Ali’s Letter to Muawiyah
The Battle of Siffin (657 CE)
Questioning Mu’awiya’s Motives and Actions
Aftermath and Later Developments
A. Arbitration and the Kharijites:
B. Assassination Plots:
C. Cursing Ali:
Imām Hasan Becomes the Fifth Caliph (661 CE)
Mu’awiya’s Opposition to Hasan
The Reconciliation Agreement
Imām Hasan’s Death (670 CE)
Political Motive and Violation of the Qur’an
Yazid’s Appointment
Violation of the Accord
Maneuvering and Force: Muawiyah’s Use of Political Tactics, Threats, and Power
Key Narratives Regarding Threats and Deception in this Context:
The Ummah’s Discontent
The Tragedy of Karbala and the Martyrdom of Imām Husayn
The Massacre at Karbala
The Crystalization of Shia Identity and the Deepening of the Division

Part II

Muawiya’s Legacy

The Authority of “Fabrication,” the Manufacture of Discord and the Assassination of Knowledge: A Reading of the History of the Schism

---

Unjustified Demeanors and Corrupted Theology
Persecution of Ali’s Loyalists Under the Umayyads
Targeted Companions and Key Figures
Suppressions and Massacres Under Umayyad Rule
The Founding of the Umayyad Dynasty and Its Controversial Impact
Muawiyah and Ziyad’s Governors: The Pre-Islamic Allies of Abu Sufyan
Assassinations and Suspicious Deaths
The Decoy of Revenge: Questioning Muawiyah’s Intentions
The Gluttony for Power and Control
Establishing Monarchy: Deviation from Islamic Precedent
Theological and Sectarian Consequences
The Question of Revenge for Uthman’s Unsolved Assassination

---

Part III

Political Manipulation of Hadith Literature

---

Umayyad Policy and the Inversion of Values
Systematic Persecution and Execution of Ali’s Narrators
Silencing Ali’s Legacy
Political Manipulation of Hadith Literature
State Cursing Policy of Ali Changed People’s Norms

---

Part IV

---

Hijacking the Narrative: Muawiyah’s Negative Transformation of Islamic Culture
The Weaponization of Language: Cunning and Shrewdness
Diminishing the Objectives of the Qur’an
Diminishing Prayer’s Intent, While Overemphasizing Its Formation
The Qur’anic Emphasis on Rationality and Higher Principles
Killing The Prayer (Imatat al-Salah)
A Legacy of Degradation and Bias
Disproportionate Narrations and the Favoring of Certain Narrators
Abu Hurayrah Narrations in Contrast:
Ka’b al-Ahbar
Corrupting Theology

---

Part V

A Final, Grave, and Decisive Historical Turning Point and the Conclusion

A Final and Grave Historical Event
The Historical Event’s Conclusion
Who was responsible for the origination of Shi’ism and the fracturing of the Ummah into Shia and Sunni
Conclusion

---

Part I
The Shi’i Sunni Divide: Political Events

---

Disclaimer

The purpose of this article is purely educational. By examining historical events, we aim to provide enlightenment regarding the past so that the future may be corrected. The Qur’an commands all people—Sunni, Shi’i, and others—to “Read.” Significantly, one-third of the Qur’an consists of historical narratives about previous prophets, and the early history of Islam offers lessons for building a better future. Our goal is for our future generations to be free, enlightened, and united under the single name “Muslims,” the identity God has chosen for us.

---

Abstract

The potential succession of Imām Ali Ibn Abi Talib to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is widely seen as the leading cause of the Sunni-Shi’i (Shia or Shiite) divide. However, the schism’s true origins appear to be deeper than a dispute over leadership. The divide seems rooted in assabiyah (tribal solidarity) and an effort to undermine the Muslim community (Ummah) and steer it away from the principles of the Qur’an. The core objectives of the Qur’an emphasize justice, Taqwa, prevention of hostility and agression, trust, the pursuit of knowledge, unity, and cooperation.

Instead, assabiyyah, divisiveness, the pursuit of personal wealth, and a desire for control at any cost were the catalysts that fractured the nation. Karen Armstrong described the concept of assabiyyah as:

Solidarity with a tribe or its tribal leader: whatever the leader says goes, right or wrong; no concern for outsiders, who are regarded as worthless and expendable. If he had to kill them to benefit his people, he felt no moral anguish. He wasted no time in philosophical abstractions or ethical considerations,” (Karen Armstrong, Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time).

Ali Ibn Abi Talib’s potential succession was considered theologically sound and suitable. His pious behavior and close association with the Prophet—as his nephew (whom the Prophet adopted) and son-in-law—enabled him to grasp the knowledge of the Qur’an, its core objectives, and the Prophet’s Sunnah (traditions). Imām Ali served as the Prophet’s right-hand man.

However, Ali was from the modest Qurayshi Hashim clan, not the wealthy Quraysh clan of Abd Shams, which had dominated governance in Mecca. A factor preventing the Quraysh aristocracy from favoring Ali was his role as a formidable battlefield knight; he had killed several prominent Qurayshi figures during battles against the Muslims.

Despite Abu Bakr becoming the first Caliph, Imām Ali neither revolted nor engaged in activities against him, nor against the second and third Caliphs, Umar ibn al-Khattab and Uthman Ibn Affan, respectively.

Quraysh aristocratic pressure may have influenced Umar, the second Caliph, to appoint Muawiyah, the son of Abu Sufyan, as the Governor of Damascus in the 640s CE. Both Abu Sufyan and the younger Muawiyah had opposed and fought against the Prophet Muhammad and the Muslims for twenty-one years. Nevertheless, following the peaceful conquest (opening) of Mecca in 629 CE, they received the Prophet’s amnesty, along with other aristocratic Meccans.

Muawiyah and other members of the Umayyad family manipulated Uthman Ibn Affan. Uthman appointed many of his relatives as governors across the expanding Muslim lands, often neglecting other foundational clans, such as the Ansar and the Prophet’s own clan. He also granted his relatives wealth from the state treasury (bayt al-mal). Uthman’s refusal to alter these policies generated opposition, leading to widespread rebellions. These rebels assassinated Uthman at his home in Medina on June 17, 656 CE.

Imām Ali Ibn Abi Talib reluctantly accepted the position as the fourth Caliph in June 656 CE. Ali’s tasks included healing the wounds of the Ummah following the collapse of the previous Caliphate and restoring the foundational principles of Islam: justice, morality, non-discrimination, upholding the truth, and teaching the Qur’an.

Upon Ali’s ascension to the Caliphate, Muawiyah—whose influence and reign had grown across Syria during Uthman’s tenure—refused to pledge loyalty to Ali and revolted against him. This act of revolt is contrary to the Qur’an. Muawiyah claimed that Ali should avenge the blood of the assassinated Caliph Uthman, who was a Umayyad.

Muawiyah armed thousands of men and mobilized his forces to fight Ali at the Battle of Siffin. In Siffin, over 70,000 people were killed. Did Muawiyah truly wish to avenge Uthman? Was he ever a truly faithful Muslim? His violations of Islamic principles and actions that fragmented the community raise questions about his true intentions. Was he a hypocrite responsible for the “Great Dissension,” or Fitna, that fragmented the Ummah?

On October 10, 680 CE, another army dispatched by Yazid committed a massacre against 75 members of the Prophet’s Household (Ahl al-Bayt) and their supporters in ‘Karbala’ (present-day Iraq), where Imam Husayn and his children were killed. The tragedy of Karbala shook the Islamic world, leaving a painful and lasting wound for both Sunnis and Shias alike, even though there was no Shi’ism in the sense of a group. Yazid ruled from 680 CE until November 683 CE.

Dr. Khaled Abu El Fadl, a distinguished professor of law at the UCLA School of Law, stated that Shi’ism crystallized as a distinct identity following the slaughter at Karbala. The Sunni-Shi’i divide deepened as theological differences became intertwined with political power struggles.

Thus, historically, the Umayyads innovated the political-authoritarian structure, the divide, that gave rise to the Sunni school of thought, the later political sense, while the Prophet’s Household and their supporters remained as the Shia school.

The researcher Hassan Farhan al-Maliki maintained that Muawiyah’s political victory led to a cultural shift that distanced society from the teachings of the Prophet and the supreme principles of the Quran. He drew a few scholars supportive of his policies to create a socio-religious methodology that marginalized the Quran and empowered narrations (Hadith/traditions). As a result, society became distant from the supreme values of justice, witnessing for God, and the pursuit of knowledge.

Discussion

Key Islamic Principles for the Informed Reader 

People are often confused by the complexities of ‘Fitna‘ (internal strife or division that leads to conflict and chaos), and they need guidance to understand its elements and chart a course for the future to prevent our sons and daughters from sinking further into error. Due to the difficulty of distinguishing truth from falsehood, the thinker Hassan Farhan al-Maliki recommends returning more frequently to the Qur’an while reducing reliance on Hadiths and narrations. As we will see later, Dr. Khaled Abu El Fadel points out that religious thought was crudely ‘politicized’ following the Massacre of Karbala. The author has established several key Quranic principles to help readers measure the historical events of Fitna using a Quranic scale.

1ْ. Uphold Justice

a. Justice as an Absolute Divine Command (With No Exceptions)

– “Indeed, Allah orders justice and good conduct…” [Al-Nahl: 90].

The verb “orders” used here signifies that a divine command in the Quran represents a mandatory and categorical obligation for every Muslim.

– “Indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are due and when you judge between people to judge with justice.” [Al-Nisa: 58].

This verse addresses both rulers and the ruled, linking the fulfillment of trusts with the necessity of judging with justice as a fundamental rule from which no deviation is permitted.

b. Justice with Opponents and Enemies (Even in Cases of Hatred)

The Quran does not permit an individual to wrong someone simply because they hate them; this is one of the highest levels of mandatory justice:

– “O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah, witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness.” [Al-Ma’idah: 8].

(“Hatred of a people” refers to intense loathing). This verse obligates the believer to be just even with an enemy, considering justice an inescapable duty regardless of political or personal disputes.

c. Justice Against Oneself and Kin

An individual has no choice in favoritism or partiality if the truth is against them or their family:

– “O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives.” [Al-Nisa: 135].

This verse blocks the path for “tribalism” (Asabiyyah) or “favoritism”; truth is above all, and justice is mandatory even if it leads to the condemnation of oneself or one’s family.

d. Justice in Speech (Honesty and Objectivity)

– “And when you speak, be just, even if [it concerns] a near relative.” [Al-An’am: 152].

Even the words a person utters must be fair and weighed with truth, far from any bias.

e. The Consequences of Abandoning Justice (Injustice/Oppression)

Since justice is mandatory, its opposite—injustice (Zulm)—is strictly forbidden, leaving no room for choice:

– “And Allah wants no injustice to the worlds.” [Al-Imran: 108].

– “Unquestionably, the curse of Allah is upon the wrongdoers.” [Hud: 18].

2. No Transgression

– “Do not commit aggression. Behold, Allah loves not aggressors.” (Qur’an 2:190)

Per Hasan Al Malikiy’s Objectives of the Qur’an, abstaining from aggression and hostilities is the meaning of Taqwa, one of the Qur’an’s objectives.

3. Do Not Spread Corruption on Earth

“Do not act wickedly on earth by spreading corruption.” (Qur’an 2:60)

4. Bearing Witness (Shahadah) for Allah

Bearing witness in the Holy Quran is not merely an utterance of the tongue; instead, it is standing firm in justice and speaking the truth even if it is against oneself. It is a primary moral responsibility before God, for He mandated:

– “Do not confound the truth with falsehood, nor keep the truth secret while you know.” (Qur’an 2:42)

Here are the most prominent verses that speak about bearing witness for Allah and the obligation to adhere to it:

a. Witnessing with Justice (Even Against Oneself and Kin)

This verse represents the highest principle of integrity, as it prohibits family favoritism in testimony:

– “O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both. So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be just…” [Al-Nisa: 135].

b. Witnessing for Allah with Opponents (Preventing Injustice)

This verse commands the believer not to let the hatred of a person or group drive them to falsify testimony or commit injustice:

– “O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah, witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness…” [Al-Ma’idah: 8].

c. Warning Against Concealing Testimony

The Quran considers the concealment of testimony a grave sin of the heart and an injustice to both the self and the truth:

– “And do not conceal testimony, for whoever conceals it—his heart is indeed sinful, and Allah is Knowing of what you do.” [Al-Baqarah: 283].

– “And who is more unjust than one who conceals a testimony he has from Allah? And Allah is not unaware of what you do.” [Al-Baqarah: 140].

d. Upholding Testimony as a Characteristic of the Righteous

In describing the “Servants of the Most Merciful” and those worthy of God’s honor, their commitment to truthful testimony is mentioned:

– “And [they are] those who do not bear witness to falsehood, and when they pass by ill speech, they pass by with dignity.” [Al-Furqan: 72].

– “And those who are in their testimonies upright.” [Al-Ma’arij: 33].

e. Testimony as a Covenant with Allah

The Quran emphasizes that testimony is a solemn covenant and pledge that must not be exchanged for worldly gain:

– “…and we will not conceal the testimony of Allah; indeed, we would then be of the sinful.” [Al-Ma’idah: 106].

– “Do not confound the truth with falsehood, nor keep the truth secret while you know.” (Qur’an 2:42)

5. Seek Peace and Unity

– “O you who believe, enter into complete peace and follow not the footsteps of the devil. Surely he is your open enemy.” (Qur’an 2:208)

6. Cooperate in Goodness

– “And cooperate in righteousness and piety, but do not cooperate in sin and aggression.” (Qur’an 5:2)

7. Prioritize Amn, Security Over Division (The Story of Moses and Aaron)

The Qur’an strongly condemns actions that lead to insecurity and instability. The story of Moses and Aaron illustrates this principle during the incident of the Golden Calf. Before departing for Mount Sinai, Moses appointed his brother Aaron as leader, instructing him:

– “Take my place among my people: act rightly and follow not the way of those who spread corruption (mufsedeen).” (Qur’an 7:142)

When Moses returned to find some people worshipping the Calf, he confronted Aaron: “What prevented you, Aaron, from following my directions? How could you disobey my orders?” (Qur’an 20:92-93). Aaron replied: “Son of my mother, let go of my beard and my hair! I was afraid you would say, ‘You have caused division among the Children of Israel and have not heeded my orders.’” (Qur’an 20:94).

This story demonstrates that insecurity, civil war, division, bloodshed, assassination are fasad, corruption, and condemned in Islam.

8. Seeking Reconciliation

– “When Moses was about to attack their enemy, he said, “Moses, do you want to kill me as you slew a soul yesterday? Do you want to become a tyrant in the land, not a reformer?” (Qur’an 28:19)

The Verse immediately signals to believers that God’s commands harmonize, resolve conflict, and rebuild relationships.

9. The Sanctity of Life

Muslims were forbidden from attacking Mecca when unknown believers lived in it to avoid harming them. The Qur’an states:

– “They denied you entrance to the Sacred Mosque and prevented your offerings. Had it not been for believing men and women whom you might have harmed unknowingly…you would have been allowed to fight. But God restrained your hands, so He may admit His mercy to whom He will.” (Qur’an 48:25)

10. Prohibition of Concealed Plots and Assassination (Fatk)

When some companions suggested assassinating Meccan leaders, the Prophet Muhammad responded:

– “The Faith of Islam prevents fatk; a believer does not commit fatk.”

Al-Fatk (treacherous killing) refers to plotting and inflicting harm, including inciting chaos, assassination, poisoning, deception, and sabotage. All these elements cause insecurity and are strictly forbidden.

The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ called for open and honest confrontation with adversaries, which is ‘The Radiant Path’ (Al-Mahajja al-Bayda): it is the main road and the clear course of action. ‘Radiant’ (or White) is an attribute signifying absolute purity and clarity. It represents the ‘primordial nature’ (Fitra), the ‘Quran,’ and the ‘True Sunnah’ that knows no political cunning or injustice. It is the path that brooks no suspicion or dark interpretations—the road that thinkers urge a return to to transcend the divisions of the past and correct the course of the present.

 11. Avoid Sectarian Division

The Qur’an warns against forming divided groups: “Turning to Him, and be careful not to assault and aggression toward one another, and keep up prayer, and be not of the infidels—of those who divide their religion into sects and become separate groups, each group rejoicing in whatever beliefs they have.” (Qur’an 30:31-32)

Prohibition of Killing Except by Court Law

– “You shall not kill any person, for Allah has made all life sacred, except in the course of justice through an appropriate court.” (Qur’an 17:33)

13. Clear Prohibition and God’s Curse for Intentional Killing

– “But whoever kills a believer intentionally – his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally, and Allah has become angry with him and has cursed him and has prepared for him a great punishment.” (Qur’an 4:93)

Was Ali ibn Abi Talib: The Rightful Heir to Leadership

Imām Ali ibn Abi Talib was among the few people uniquely worthy of the political, spiritual, and religious leadership of Muslims after the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632 CE. As the Prophet’s immediate cousin, Ali resided with him for twenty-nine years, eight before the Revelation as an adopted son and twenty-one years during the prophetic mission. Furthermore, he was married to Fatimah, the Prophet’s daughter. This unparalleled proximity allowed Ali to gain profound firsthand knowledge and experience from the Prophet Muhammad, making him the Prophet’s right-hand man and expert missionary.

A Life of Devotion and Courage

Ali’s absolute devotion was demonstrated during the hijra (migration to Medina) when he courageously slept in the Prophet’s bed to deceive would-be assassins, risking his own life for the safety of the Messenger of God.

Ali ibn Abi Talib was a devout and essential companion to the Prophet Muhammad from the earliest days of Islam. As a pious missionary, Ali often accompanied the Prophet for prayers and meditation in the valleys and mountains surrounding Mecca. God instructed the Prophet to warn his nearest clan. He tasked Ali with gathering 45 relatives for a dinner where Muhammad would deliver the message.

Later, as the Prophet migrated to Yathrib (Medina), Ali demonstrated his loyalty by staying behind to care for the Prophet’s family and ensure their safe migration. As the Quraysh continued to attack Muslims in Medina, Ali distinguished himself as a formidable warrior, famously defeating several of their most feared champions in battles such as Badr, Uhud, and the Trench.

Prophetic Recognition: “You are to me as Aaron to Moses.”

The Prophet recognized Ali’s deep understanding of the Qur’an’s core mission and objectives, declaring: “You are to me as Aaron was to Moses, except that there is no Prophet after me.” -Bukhari. This statement implied that Ali was uniquely qualified to represent the Prophet and lead the community in his absence, much like Moses deputized Aaron.

Muawiyah Granted Amnesty

After the conquest of Mecca in 630 CE (8 AH), Muawiyah and his family—who had been prominent adversaries of the Prophet Muhammad—were among those granted a general amnesty. His status transitioned from a former foe to a new, albeit prominent, member of the Muslim community.

Muawiyah’s Appointment as a Scribe

Recognizing Muawiyah’s literacy, the Prophet Muhammad appointed him as one of his katibs (scribes). In this capacity, Muawiyah was tasked with writing some of the Prophet Muhammad’s corresponding letters, and possibly revelations.

Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan: Conversion and Controversy

In his renowned book, The Caliphate and the Monarchy (Al-Khilafa wa al-Mulk), Abu al-A’la al-Mawdudi presented a historical and critical account of the transition from the Rightly Guided Caliphate to a monarchy, focusing primarily on the role of Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan in this transformation.

Al-Mawdudi views Muawiyah as the primary architect who shifted the Islamic system of governance from the “Caliphate”—founded on consultation (Shura) and justice—to a “Monarchy” based on heredity and force. He considered this change a “coup against the political principles” of Islam. This coup included: the politicization of the public treasury (Bayt al-Mal) by using Muslims’ wealth to buy political loyalties and consolidate the pillars of his rule; and the appointment of tyrannical governors known for their cruelty and oppression to stabilize his reign.

Furthermore, al-Mawdudi considered the most significant historical error committed by Muawiyah to be the securing of the pledge of allegiance for his son, Yazid. He described this act as the destruction of the principle of Shura, which subsequently led to major tragedies such as the Battle of al-Harra and the Massacre of Karbala.

Al-Mawdudi also criticized Muawiyah’s rebellion against Ali, arguing that the demand for “Uthman’s blood” was not a legitimate justification for rising against the lawful Caliph, who had been pledged allegiance by the Muhajirun and the Ansar; instead, he viewed it as a political pretext. Ultimately, al-Mawdudi regards Muawiyah as the person primarily responsible for ending the “Radiant Path” (Al-Mahajja al-Bayda) of the Rightly Guided rule and replacing it with a “biting monarchy” that damaged the trajectory of the Islamic nation.

The Prophecy of Ammar ibn Yasir

Ammar ibn Yasir challenged Muawiyah’s factional position during the battle of Siffin, where he fought Ali ibn Abi Talib, during the First Islamic Civil War (Fitna), specifically through the widely accepted prophecy concerning the companion Ammar ibn Yasir. 

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said to Ammar ibn Yasir: “Woe to Ammar; the rebellious group will kill him. He calls them to Paradise, and they call him to the Fire.” Al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated in their authoritative collections. Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.

The historical significance of this prophecy became clear during the Battle of Siffin, where Ammar ibn Yasir was killed while fighting alongside Caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib’s forces against Muawiyah’s Syrian army.

Historian and researcher Hasan Farhan Al-Malki views Ammar’s death at the hands of Muawiyah’s soldiers as the fulfillment of this prophecy. For Al-Malki, this event is irrefutable evidence of the corruption of Muawiyah’s political and religious approach, confirming that his faction constituted the “rebellious group” acting against the true guidance of the Prophet. https://almaliky.org/subject.php?id=1304

What Abu Dhar al-Ghifari and other early companions said about Muawiyah’s conversion to Islam

Abu Dhar al-Ghifari’s Position on Muawiyah

Abu Dhar al-Ghifari did not directly question the validity of Muawiyah’s conversion to Islam as a public act (Muawiyah had converted to Islam during the conquest of Mecca). Still, his disagreement with him was over the application of Islamic law and issues of social justice and public finances.

The issue of wealth and the accumulation of money: A famous dispute arose between Abu Dhar and Muawiyah in Syria over the interpretation of the Qur’anic verse: “And those who hoard gold and silver and do not spend it in the way of Allah, give them tidings of a painful punishment” (Surah At-Tawbah: 34).

Muawiyah stated that the verse was revealed regarding the People of the Book (i.e., Jews and Christians).

Abu Dharr insisted that it was revealed about Muslims and the People of the Book alike. He warned Muawiyah and his followers against hoarding wealth and building palaces (such as the Green Palace in Damascus).

These differences led Muawiyah to complain about Abu Dhar to Caliph Uthman ibn Affan, which ultimately resulted in Abu Dhar’s exile to Al-Rabatha, where he lived and died alone. هل يجوز اعتقاد أن معاوية باغ، مع إسلامه، وإيمانه

The Qum Stream (Ghadir al-Qum) Event

After the Farewell Pilgrimage, as pilgrims returned to Medina, the Prophet stopped the caravan at the stream of Qum and addressed the approximately 40,000 pilgrims on the stature of Ali. The key components of his speech were:

1- Two Precious and Weighty Things: The Prophet stated he was leaving behind two “precious and weighty” things. If these were followed, Muslims would be prevented from going astray: the Qur’an and his family (the Ahl al-Bayt).

“I have left among you that, if you adhere to it, you will never go astray: The Book of Allah, which is in His hands and in your hands, and the people of my household.”

2- Declaration for Ali as a Leader: The most pivotal moment occurred when the Prophet raised Ali’s hand and declared, “For whoever I am his leader (mawla), Ali is his leader (mawla). O God, befriend those who befriend him, and be hostile to those who are hostile to him.”

The Sunni scholar Shaykh Hassan Farhan al-Maliki maintains that Ghadir al-Khum and the Prophet’s statements about Ali are highly authentic, as they were transmitted through 28 separate narrations. Ali lived in Muhammad’s house for eight years, as an adopted son, before the Revelation began and twenty-three years after. In many ways, Ali was the Prophet’s right-hand man throughout. Ali’s knowledge and experience are closest to the Prophet’s; therefore, the Prophet would recommend him as a leader who resembles him.

Information on Ali ibn Abi Talib’s Knowledge

Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib is revered by both Shi’is and Sunnis as the “Gate of the City of Knowledge,” possessing an unparalleled mastery of Arabic rhetoric and eloquence. His profound insights into the nature of God, the creation of the universe, and the origin of humanity offer a unique window into his vast wisdom. His teachings emphasize the oneness and attributes of God, as well as essential pillars of social morality—including piety (taqwa), the prevention of aggression and enmity, renunciation of worldly greed (zuhd), and the pursuit of social justice. This wealth of knowledge was later compiled in 400 AH (1009-1010 CE) into the celebrated work Nahj al-Balagha (Arabic: نهج البلاغة), meaning “The Peak of Eloquence.”

Consummation of the Revelation

Either before or shortly after the Ghadir al-Qum event, the Prophet received the Revelation that said:

– “This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favor unto you, and have chosen for you as religion al-Islam.” 5:3

Tribal Solidarity (Asabiyyah): Quraysh’s Resentment of Ali’s Succession to the Prophet Muhammad

There was intense competition and deep-seated historical tribal solidarity (asabiyyah) between the Banu Hashim and the Banu Abd Shams (from whom the Umayyads descended), a conflict that began in the pre-Islamic era (Jahiliyyah) and continued to develop politically and militarily after the advent of Islam.

Roots and Forms of this Competition:

1. In the Jahiliyyah: The Struggle for Supremacy

After the death of “Abd Manaf,” the leadership in Mecca was divided among his sons; the most prominent competition was between Hashim and Abd Shams.

– Hospitality and Water Provision (Rifadah and Siqayah): Hashim ibn Abd Manaf was granted the honor of providing water and food to pilgrims, which elevated his religious and social status. This status aroused the resentment of his brother, Abd Shams, and then his son, Umayyah.

– The (Munafarah) Contest: Historical sources (such as Kitab al-Aghani by Al-Asfahani) mention a “Munafarah” (a tribal arbitration contest to determine superior status) between Hashim and his nephew Umayyah ibn Abd Shams. It concluded with Umayyah’s banishment to Syria for 10 years, which sowed the seeds of historical animosity between the two branches.

2. At the Advent of Islam: The Ideological and Political Conflict

When the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was sent (from the Banu Hashim), the Banu Abd Shams (led by Abu Sufyan ibn Harb) headed the opposition front in Mecca:

– Banu Hashim: Stood with the Prophet (even those who had not converted to Islam, like Abu Talib) to protect his life out of tribal loyalty.

– Banu Abd Shams: Saw the prophecy as “Hashimite authority” that would strip them of their commercial and political standing. The leadership of the Quraish in the wars against the Prophet (Badr, Uhud, the Trench) was often in the hands of the Umayyads (the branch of Abd Shams).

3. After the Conquest (of Mecca) and the Beginning of the Umayyad State

The conflict transitioned from “tribalism” to “the Caliphate”:

– During Muawiyah’s reign, the Banu Abd Shams (Umayyads) regained political prominence. Researchers like Hasan Farhan al-Maliki argue that Muawiyah revived “Umayyad asabiyyah” against Imam Ali (the Hashimite) and turned the Caliphate into a hereditary kingdom confined to his household.

– Injustices: Events such as the killing of Husayn ibn Ali (at Karbala) by the army of Yazid ibn Muawiyah were considered the peak of the bloody clash between the two branches, viewed by many as the settling of old scores dating back to the day of Badr.

4. The Political Interpretation (Asabiyyah)

The famous historian Ibn Khaldun confirms in his Muqaddimah that “asabiyyah” (group feeling or solidarity) was the primary driver of these events. The Umayyads had a strong solidarity and a military and commercial bloc in Syria, while the Banu Hashim represented religious and spiritual legitimacy.

The Qur’an recorded the tribal solidarity with the verse:

–  “And they say, had this Qur’an been sent down unto some great man of either of the two (chief) cities, (meaning Amr bin Hisham of Mecca or Urrwah bin Massud al-Thaqafi of al-Taif), we would have accepted it.” 43:31.

The Voracious Appetite for Power and Dominance

In his lecture titled “The Emergence of the Sunni-Shia Divide,” Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl of UCLA posed a fundamental question: “What do we do about the voracious appetite for dominance, even at the cost of corruption and oppression?” On the other hand, was Muawiyah’s hunger for control and power a primary factor in the emergence of the Sunni-Shia divide? A chronological presentation of historical events following Ghadir Khumm may provide further insight into the origins of this schism.

Chronological Rundown of the Sunni-Shi’i Emergence

A few months after the significant event of Ghadir al-Khumm, the Prophet Muhammad fell ill with a severe fever that lasted for about two weeks. In his final moments, he passed away in Medina on June 8, 632 CE.

Events After the Prophet’s Death: The Saqifa Meeting

Shortly after the Prophet Muhammad’s death, while his burial preparations were still underway, a group of the Ansar (the Medinan Helpers) convened at al-Saqifa—an upper room belonging to the Banu Sa’ida clan—to pledge allegiance to their leader, Sa’d ibn Ubada al-Ansari, as the next Caliph.

Upon learning of this gathering, key members of the Muhajirun (Meccan Immigrants), including Abu Bakr, Umar ibn al-Khattab, and Ubaydah ibn al-Jarrah, joined the meeting. Following intense deliberation, the attendees selected and nominated Abu Bakr as the first Caliph.

Companions’ Reluctance or Disobedience During the Prophet’s Final Illness

The period during the Prophet’s final sickness was marked by controversy, including the companions’ alleged disobedience. According to historian Hassan Farhan Al-Malki, the Prophet repeatedly ordered the immediate dispatch of an expeditionary force under the young Usama ibn Zayd to retaliate against Byzantine troops along the Syrian border. This crucial military order was reportedly not carried out despite the Prophet’s insistence until after his death, by the Caliph Abu Bakr.

Suspicion of the Saqifa Seclusion and Possible Prearrangement

The secrecy surrounding the selection of a successor at Saqifa raises significant questions: Why did such a crucial decision take place away from the public eye, excluding the Prophet’s immediate family and clan (the Banu Hashim)? The Prophet consistently involved the public in major communal decisions; for instance, the three major battles of Badr, Uhud, and the Trench, the Prophet obtained the public consultation and approval. Several factors may help explain the events during the Prophet’s death and the resulting Sunni-Shi’i division:

A- Influence of the Tulaqa’ (The Pardoned Meccans)

Dr. Suhayl Zakkar, a historian at Damascus University, illustrates the influence of the ‘Tulaqa,‘  a group numbered approximately 5,000 individuals and possessing a strong economic base. The influence of this group grew, leading to the possibility that it could overwhelm the smaller groups, such as the Ansar and the Muhajirun (2,000) and the Prophet’s own clan, the Banu Hashim (200).

B – Political Pressure and Tribal Bias (Assabiyah)

It appears the Tulaqa’ of the Quraysh tribe pressured the early Muhajirun leaders to prevent Ali ibn Abi Talib from succeeding the Prophet. This pressure was mainly due to tribal bias (assabiyah) and Ali’s history as a skilled battlefield knight who had killed several Qurayshi leaders in battles against the Muslims.

C- Hypocrecy- Suspicions About Muawiyah’s Sincerity

Some believe Muawiyah was not a practicing Muslim. Hassan Farhan Al-Malki believes that many companions who knew high-ranking Tulaqa’ like Muawiyah suspected them of hiding their disbelief. Contemporaries such as Ammar ibn Yasir, Saeed ibn Zayd, Abdullah ibn Umar, Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, and others who witnessed the Battle of Badr questioned Muawiyah’s faith and behavior.

D- The Theory of a Prearranged Plan

Dr. Zakar suggests that the Ansar would not have met at al-Saqifa before the Prophet’s burial if they had not learned of a plan by the Tulaqa’ of Quraysh to take leadership. Dr. Zakar sees the Saqifa meeting as reversing the Prophet’s previous indications that Ali should succeed him.

Abu Bakr Reign (632–634 CE): Consolidation and Initial Expansion

Abu Bakr’s brief reign as the first Caliph focused on stabilizing the Muslim community (Ummah) after the Prophet’s death. He successfully suppressed the Ridda Wars (apostasy movements), unifying Arabia. He also initiated the first military campaigns outside the peninsula, extending into Byzantine and Persian territories.

Umar ibn al-Khattab (634–644 CE): Administrative Expansion

Umar’s decade-long Caliphate saw the Islamic state expand rapidly into Egypt, Syria, and Persia. Known for his administrative acumen, Umar established crucial governing structures. Among his appointments was Mu’awiyah as the governor of Damascus. Before his death, Umar created an electoral council (Shura) that selected Uthman ibn Affan as his successor.

Ali’s Allegiance and Support for the First Two Caliphs

Ali ibn Abi Talib maintained a cooperative and supportive relationship with the first two Caliphs, Abu Bakr and Umar. Despite the initial debate regarding succession immediately after the Prophet’s death, Ali eventually pledged his formal allegiance (bay’ah) to both leaders and never rebelled against their authority.

He participated actively in their consultative councils, offering valuable advice on legal, administrative, and religious matters. Ali’s actions demonstrated his unwavering commitment to the unity of the nascent Muslim community (Ummah) and the stability of the Islamic state, thereby ensuring the continuity and progress of Islam during his reign.

Ali’s Role During the Reign of Uthman

During Uthman ibn Affan’s reign (644–656 CE), Ali ibn Abi Talib served primarily as an influential advisor and a restraining influence, often mediating between the Caliph and his growing number of opponents.

Key Aspects of Ali’s Role:

Advisor and Mentor: Ali frequently participated in the Caliph’s consultative council (shura), offering advice on important legal, administrative, and religious matters. His actions demonstrated a commitment to the stability and unity of the Muslim community, even though he had initially refused to accept the Caliphate on the condition that he follow the precedents of the first two Caliphs; Uthman did.

Criticism of Uthman’s Policies: Ali did not shy away from criticizing Uthman’s policies, particularly accusations of nepotism (appointing kinsmen, many from the powerful Umayyad clan, to key governorships) and the lavish use of public funds. He voiced his objections to Uthman’s conduct and deviations from the practices of the Prophet and the first two caliphs.

Protector of Companions: Ali protected outspoken companions, such as Abu Dharr al-Ghifari and Ammar ibn Yasir, when they faced the Caliph’s wrath for their public criticisms of Uthman’s administration and the accumulation of wealth.

Mediator During Unrest: As grievances mounted and rebels from provincial areas converged on Medina, Ali repeatedly acted as a mediator between Uthman and the dissidents. He negotiated promises on Uthman’s behalf to address their concerns, urging Uthman to change his policies publicly.

Defense During the Siege: During the final siege of Uthman’s residence, Ali did not support the rebellion but instead acted to mitigate its severity. He ensured water delivery to the besieged Caliph’s house and even sent his own sons, Hasan and Husayn, to guard Uthman’s residence, demonstrating a final effort to prevent bloodshed. 

While Ali sympathized with some of the rebels’ grievances and was considered a moral figure for the opposition, he rejected requests to lead the rebellion. He played no direct role in the assassination itself.

Uthman’s Reign’s Political Deterioration (644 – 656 CE)

Uthman Ibn Affan became the third Caliph, reigning from 644 to 656 CE. His leadership, which began with a period of stability and success, gradually deteriorated, culminating in his assassination. The primary accusations leveled by the rebels concerned nepotism—Uthman’s practice of appointing members of his own Umayyad family to crucial governorships across the Islamic lands.

A key figure in this period was the Caliph’s cousin and assistant, Marwan Ibn al-Hakam, whose influence heavily shaped the directions and decisions of the eighty-three-year-old Caliph.

The mounting grievances led to major demonstrations as groups from Egypt and Iraq marched into Medina, demanding Uthman’s resignation. Uthman refused to step down. The demonstrators transitioned into rioters, surrounding the Caliph’s house, storming it, and murdering him. This commotion profoundly destabilized the Caliphate and shattered Muslim unity.

Throughout this volatile pImāmd, Imām Ali and his sons, Hasan and Husayn, played significant roles, participating in negotiations between the rebels and Uthman and, notably, serving as guards protecting the Caliph’s residence.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Uthman)

Imām Ali, the Fourth Caliph (656–661 CE)

Imām Ali ibn Abi Talib reluctantly accepted the position as the fourth Caliph, reigning from 656 to 661 CE.

Dr. Khaled Abu El Fadl, a distinguished professor of law at the UCLA School of Law, elaborates on the circumstances of his ascension:

Imām Ali refused the Caliph nomination. He was horrified by the assassination of Uthman and did not wish to appear to be benefiting from the situation. Finally, however, his supporters, Talha and al-Zubayr, the two former members of the Shura Council, advised him to be the Caliph, for only he had the authority to prevent the Caliphate from further disintegraImām.”

Imām Ali accepted the responsibility of the Caliphate to rectify the situation in the best interests of the Islamic nation. However, the magnitude of the existing chaos and Muawiyah’s ambition to seize and maintain power persisted, leading to continuous disruption. Ali faced an uphill battle on two fronts: restoring the nation to its former faithfulness and standing firm against entrenched hypocrisy.

Muawiyah’s Rebellion and Ali’s Assassination

Background: In 639 CE, during the reign of Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab, Muawiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan was appointed Governor of Damascus, Syria. Muawiyah was the son of Abu Sufyan, a prominent leader of the Quraysh tribe. Both father and son held significant power in Mecca and were instrumental in persecuting the Prophet Muhammad and the early Muslims for nearly twenty-one years. Later, both received the Prophet’s general amnesty during the conquest of Mecca and were thus known as al-Tulaqa’ (the pardoned ones).

Muawiyah Refuses Loyalty

Muawiyah refused to pledge allegiance (bay’ah) and loyImām to Imām Ali as the newly elected Caliph. He used the assassination of the previous Caliph, Uthman, as a pretext for his rebellion, demanding that Ali avenge Uthman’s death. 

Ali’s Letter to Imāmiyah

Imām Ali responded to Muawiyah’s accusation in a letter, clarifying the situation:

In a letter responding to Muawiyah’s accusations, Imam Ali clarified: ‘You falsely imagine that you can evade pledging allegiance to me by accusing me of Uthman’s death. Everyone knows I did not kill him, and I am not liable for retaliation, qisas. Uthman’s heirs—his five sons—have more right than you to claim his blood. Furthermore, you were among those who failed Uthman; he sought your aid [during the siege], yet you did not assist him until he was killed.’ Muawiyah did not respond to this letter, persisting in his rebellion and mobilizing his forces against the Caliph.’

Muawiyah reportedly did not respond to this letter, continuing his defiance and mobilizing his forces against the Caliph Ali. This letter is among the strongest historical arguments Ali presented in his correspondence with Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan.

The analysis supporting this historical context includes:

1. The Letters of Nahj al-Balagha: Several of Imam Ali’s letters to Muawiyah (such as Letter No. 6 and Letter No. 28 in Nahj al-Balagha) incorporated this logic. He emphasized that Muawiyah was using ‘Uthman’s blood’ as a cloak (Qamis) and a political pretext to evade the obligation of the allegiance (Bay’ah) that the Muhajirun and the Ansar had granted.
2. The Argument of Muawiyah’s Failure to Aid Uthman: Many historians (such as al-Tabari and Ibn al-Athir) noted that Uthman ibn Affan (ra) sought Muawiyah’s assistance while he was under siege, but Muawiyah delayed sending an army to his rescue. Imam Ali confronted him with this fact to prove that Muawiyah’s concern for Uthman’s blood was not motivated by kinship or justice, but rather by a ‘voracious appetite for power.’
3. The Heirs of the Blood: The legal argument put forward by Imam Ali—that Uthman’s sons are the ‘Heirs of the Blood’ (Awliya’ al-Dam)—was intended to expose Muawiyah’s political stance. Muawiyah was a dismissed governor (by the new Caliph’s decree) and lacked the legal standing to demand retaliation (Qisas) before entering into obedience and pledging allegiance.”

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Battle_of_Siffin#cite_note-1

The Battle of Siffin (657 CE)

The Battle of Siffin was a pivotal and violent conflict during the First Fitna (civil war) of the early Islamic Caliphate, fought between the forces of Caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib and Mu’awiya ibn Abi Sufyan, the governor of Syria. 

The Conflict: Mu’awiya assembled a large army of his Syrian loyalists and marched to confront Ali’s forces along the Euphrates River at Siffin. The confrontation stemmed from Mu’awiya’s refusal to recognize Ali as Caliph until justice was served for the assassination of the previous Caliph, Uthman ibn Affan, who was Mu’awiya’s relative.

Casualties: The battle was fierce, lasting for months with continuous skirmishes and culminating in a few days of intense fighting. Estimates of total deaths vary, but historical accounts indicate tens of thousands were killed on both sides (around 45,000 for Mu’awiya and 25,000 for Ali, according to some reports), making it one of the bloodiest encounters of the era. 

Questioning Mu’awiya’s Motives and Actions

Some raise several sharp questions about Mu’awiya’s sincerity and actions:

Was Mu’awiya a true believer, and was he really avenging Uthman? 

Mu’awiya’s motives are a subject of intense historical and sectarian debate. Some sources suggest he genuinely sought justice for Uthman’s blood, which, according to tribal customs and a court ruling during the arbitration phase, he had a right to do as the next of kin. Dr. Ibrahim argues that if Muawiyah was so sincere about the blood of Uthman, why did he not come to Medina, where the crime was, and file a lawsuit? That avenging Uthman was primarily a political strategy to rally support, challenge Ali’s legitimacy, maintain his own power base in Syria, and eventually claim the Caliphate for himself.

Were tens of thousands of people enough as vengeance for the blood of Uthman? 

The scale of the bloodshed at Siffin far exceeded a proportional “eye for an eye” retribution for a single individual, suggesting the conflict was motivated by possible broader hate, political, and power struggles rather than just a personal or religiously sanctioned act of vengeance.

Is vengeance permitted in Islam? 

Islam permits qisas (legal retribution or proportional retaliation) in cases of individual murder, but this must be carried out through a just legal process under the authority of a judge or the state, not through personal vigilantism or massive warfare. The Quran and Hadith highly encourage forgiveness as a superior moral choice, and the Prophet Muhammad himself was known to forgive personal slights. Mu’awiya’s decision to wage war on a scale that killed thousands, arguably outside of a legitimate judicial process, is thus a point of significant criticism from many scholars. 

Aftermath and Later Developments

The negative consequence of Muawiyah’s refusal to pledge allegiance to the legitimate Caliph—under the pretext of seeking revenge—was not only corruption but also the loss of lives, chaos, confusion, and the creation of factions. The most prominent of these repercussions, Great Fitna (Civil War), which is the subject of this book, includes:

A. Arbitration and the Kharijites:

To stop the immense loss of life, Ali agreed to settle the matter of revenge through arbitration. This decision, however, sparked a faction of his supporters to revolt, arguing that only God could decide the conflict (hence their name, al-Khawarij, “those who went out”).

B. Assassination Plots:

History records that some Kharijites did plot to assassinate key leaders of the civil war. One Kharijite, Abd al-Rahman ibn Muljam, successfully assassinated Ali in 661 CE. Another assassin’s attempt on Mu’awiya reportedly only injured him, and he recovered from his wounds. Dr. Zakar maintained that Muawiyah fabricated this story to conceal a possible plot to assassinate Ali—Dr Zakar’s historical analysis. Mauawiyah constantly violated the Qur’an, stirred commotion, refused reconciliation, used Uthman’s revenge story as a decoy to corrupt Ali’s reign, and allied himself with the Byzantines.

Zakar’s historical point is part of his critical examination of early Islamic history, in which he draws on early Arabic chronicles to show Muawiyah’s political maneuvers during his conflict with Ali. The primary source material that Dr. Zakar and other historians often refer to for this specific claim is the work of al-Baladhuri (Kitab Futuh al-Buldan – Book of the Conquest of Lands), who recorded a narration stating that Muawiyah sought a truce with the Byzantines during his conflict with Ali and agreed to pay an annual tribute to secure his northern border. At the same time, he dealt with the civil war internally.

C. Cursing Ali:

A widely reported historical account, affirmed in many Sunni and Shia sources, states that Mu’awiya instituted a state policy of publicly cursing Ali during the Friday congregational prayers (khutbah) across the empire. This practice continued during the Umayyad dynasty for about sixty years until the Caliph Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz (r. 717-720 CE) abolished it. Mu’awiya’s supporters dispute this or offer alternative interpretations. Still, historical evidence from figures such as the historian al-Tabari and the Hadith collector Muslim ibn Hajjaj points to the practice’s reality.

These fractures (or rifts) within the Ummah are the result of Muawiyah’s failure to adhere to the commands of God—the most important of which is ‘bearing witness for the sake of God’ (Shahada lillah). Instead, he employed [religion] as a formula for revenge and tribalism (asabiyyah), which was followed by bloodshed and the silencing of truth through the killing of its people and its upholders.

Following the assassinImāmn of Imām Ali ibn Abi Talib in 661 CE, his eldest son, Hasan ibn Ali, was widely recognized as the next Caliph in Kufa (the capital of Ali’s Caliphate) and across much of the Muslim realm, making him the fifth Rightly Guided Caliph according to many Islamic traditions.

Mu’awiya’s Opposition to Hasan

The sole significant opposition came from Mu’awiya ibn Abi Sufyan, who controlled Syria and already considered himself a rival Caliph. Mu’awiya mobilized his forces for a new confrontation with Hasan.

The Reconciliation Agreement

Rather than engaging in a new civil war that would further fracture the Muslim community and result in massive bImāmshed, Imām Hasan followed the Qur’anic path of Reconciliation and peace. After some initial military consideration, Hasan entered negotiations with Mu’awiya.

Terms of the Accord (The Treaty of Hasan-Mu’awiya): The two leaders signed a historic peace treaty, often referred to as the “year of unity” (Aam al-Jama’ah). The key terms of this agreement were:

AbImāmtion: Imām Hasan would abdicate the Caliphate to Mu’awiya, who would assume sole leadership of the Muslim state.

Succession: Upon Mu’awiya’s death, the Caliphate would Imāmrt to Imām Hasan, or if Hasan were deceased, the Muslim community (Ummah) would be free to choose the next Caliph democratically, thereby preventing Mu’awiya from establishing a hereditary dynasty.

Cessation of Cursing: Mu’awiya agreed to stop the state-mandated public cImāmng of Imām Ali during the Friday congregational prayers.

Amnesty: Granting Hasan’s followers full amnesty.

Imām Hasan’s Death (670 CE)

Imām Hasan ibn Ali was poisoned in 670 CE (50 AH) in Medina. Historical sources, both Shia and several early Sunni historians, widely accepted and report that his wife, Ja’da bint al-Ash’ath, administered the poison at the instigation of Mu’awiya.

Political Motive and Violation of the Qur’an

Hasan’s poisoning removed a potential obstacle to Mu’awiya’s long-term plan, which involved establishing a hereditary Caliphate and appointing his son Yazid as his successor, thereby directly violating God’s guidance and the treaty’s terms.

Yazid’s Appointment

Mu’awiya Appoints his son Yazid to lead the Ummah (676-680 CE). In a move that fundamentally altered the nature of Islamic leadership from a Caliphate based on consensus to a monarchy, Mu’awiya violated the treaty with Hasan and Islamic law.

Violation of the Accord

Mu’awiya actively worked to secure pledges of allegiance (bay’ah) for his son, Yazid, during his own lifetime, a process completed a few years before his death. This move effectively negated the second clause of the treaty, which reserved the right of succession for Hasan or the Ummah’s consultation. Opposition from prominent figures: Several high-profile companions and their sons, including Husayn ibn Ali, Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, Abd Allah ibn Umar, and Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr, strongly opposed the nomination. They argued that the Caliphate should not be a hereditary monarchy but a position chosen by the community’s representatives.

Maneuvering and Force: Muawiyah’s Use of Political Tactics, Threats, and Power

To secure the allegiance (bay’ah) for Yazid, Muawiyah employed a combination of political maneuvering, threats, and physical force. When faced with resistance in Mecca and Medina, historical sources—such as Tarikh al-Tabari, Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh by Ibn al-Athir, and Al-Imama wa al-Siyasa (attributed to Ibn Qutayba)—indicate that Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan used a blend of “political cunning” and “hard power” to enforce his son Yazid’s succession. Narratives suggest that he threatened some opponents with death and forced public declarations of allegiance, while also spreading misinformation claiming that all prominent figures had agreed to Yazid’s rule. All such work is deceitful, not witness for Allah.

Key Narratives Regarding Threats and Deception in this Context:

1. Muawiyah’s Journey to Medina (The Death Threat Narrative)

Historical accounts mention that when it became difficult to obtain allegiance from the four key figures—Husayn ibn Ali, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, Abdullah ibn Umar, and Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr—Muawiyah traveled to Medina himself, accompanied by a military force.

 – The Deception: He summoned each of them individually and showed them leniency. However, the following day, he gathered them in the mosque and ordered his soldiers to stand over each man with a sword. He instructed the guards: “If any of them speaks to either reject or accept, strike his head with the sword.”

 – Misinformation: He then ascended the pulpit and announced to the people that these four had pledged allegiance and were satisfied. Fearing for their lives, none dared to contradict him, leading the people of Medina to pledge their allegiance based on this illusion and deception.

2. The “Allegiance or the Sword” Narrative in the Mosque

Some historians narrate that Muawiyah addressed the people of Medina, saying, “I have pledged allegiance to Yazid, so you must pledge yours.” Upon seeing hesitation, he ordered his police to stand over the opponents’ heads. When people later asked the dissenters (such as Ibn Umar or Ibn al-Zubayr), “Did you pledge allegiance?”, they remained silent, leading the public to believe they had indeed done so.

3. The Role of Marwan ibn al-Hakam in Medina

Marwan ibn al-Hakam (Muawiyah’s governor) was the executive tool in Medina. Accounts state that Muawiyah sent word to him to take the pledge by “force.” Marwan used language of intimidation and threats against the Banu Hashim and others, portraying the succession as following the “Sunnah of Abu Bakr and Umar.” Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr famously responded: “Rather, it is the Sunnah of Heraclius and Caesar,” referring to the transformation of the Caliphate into a hereditary monarchy.

4. Media Disinformation via the “Storytellers” (Al-Qussas)

The Umayyad state utilized “storytellers” (who preached in mosques) to spread the idea that Yazid’s succession was the safety valve for the nation’s unity and that opponents were “proponents of fitna (sedition).” The opposition of Husayn and Ibn al-Zubayr was framed as “breaking away from the community (Jama’ah),” a charge later used to justify fighting them.

5. Use of Wealth and “Winning Hearts.”

Alongside threats, Muawiyah used a policy of “financial inducement” to mislead public opinion. He paid vast sums to tribal leaders in Kufa and Basra to make it appear that their provinces unanimously supported Yazid, creating the impression for the rest of the Muslims that opposition was limited to a few individuals in the Hejaz.

 – Maneuvering and force: Muawiyah used political maneuvering, threats, and, at times, force to secure Yazid’s pledges of allegiance (bay’ah). When in Mecca and Medina, he encountered resistance, he reportedly threatened some of the dissenters with death and forced a public declaration of allegiance, even spreading false information that all prominent figures had agreed to Yazid’s rule.

The Ummah’s Discontent

The Islamic community, particularly in centers like Medina and Mecca, was fundamentally resentful of the violation of Quranic principles and the appointment of Yazid:

Dictatorship: Critics (see below) viewed the hereditary appointment as a transformation of the Caliphate into a “biting” kingship or a dictatorship, representing a flagrant deviation from the precedents set by the first four Caliphs.

Yazid’s Character: Yazid was a controversial figure. The discontent with his rule later culminated in the tragedy of Karbala after Muawiyah died in 680 AD. Among the prominent figures [who opposed him] were: Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr ibn al-Awwam, Al-Husayn ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib, Abdullah ibn Hanzalah, Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr, and Al-Mundhir ibn al-Zubayr.

Historical sources (such as Tarikh al-Tabari, Al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah by Ibn Kathir, and Muruj al-Dhahab by al-Masudi) agree that Yazid’s actions led the people of Medina to renounce their allegiance, resulting in the bloody clashes that followed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazid_I#:~:text=During%20his%20father’s%20caliphate%2C%20Yazid,Yazid’s%20death%20in%20November%20683.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Karbala#:~:text=Marwan%20faced%20resistance%20to%20this,was%20the%20grandson%20of%20Muhammad.

The Tragedy of Karbala

Imām Husayn ibn Ali, the younImāmson of Imām Ali and a beloved grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, became the central figure of opposition to the Umayyad dynasty after the death of his brother Hasan. Husayn believed the Ummah (community) should select its leader rather than be subjected to hereditary rule. When Yazid assumed power after his father died in 680 CE, Husayn refused to pledge allegiance.

Invitation from Kufa: The people of Kufa, Iraq—the former Imāmtal of Imām Ali’s Caliphate—sent numerous letters to Husayn, pledging support and inviting him to lead them as theiImāmghtful Imām and Caliph.

Muslim ibn Aqil al-Hashimi was the cousin and trusteImāmvoy of Imām Husayn ibn Ali, whom Husayn sent to Kufa, Iraq, to assess the political situation and the sincerity of the Kufans’ invitations to lead them against the Umayyad ruler Yazid. 

Role in Kufa: Muslim ibn Aqil confirms their support. Upon his arrival in Kufa, thousands of people pledged their allegiance to him on Husayn’s behalf.

Betrayal and Muslim Ibn Aqil Martyrdom: Yazid replaced the then-governor of Kufa, Nu’man ibn Bashir al-Ansari, with the ruthless Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad to suppress the movement. Through a combination of threats, bribes, and manipulation, Ibn Ziyad caused the Kufans to abandon Muslim ibn Aqil. Muslim was eventually left alone, captured, and executed on September 10, 680 CE (9 Dhu al-Hijja, 60 AH).

Journey to Kufa: Husayn set out for Kufa with approximately 72-75 family members and loyal supporters (including women and children)—Muslim ibn Aqil – Wikipedia.

The Massacre of Karbala

After Yazid replaced the governor of Kufa with Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad, he dispatched an army to intercept Husayn’s group.

Betrayal of the Kufans: Kufan supporters largely reneged on their pledges to Husayn. Their promised support never materialized.

The Siege and Martyrdom: Yazid’s army intercepted Husayn and his companions at Karbala, a desert plain in Iraq. They were blockaded and denied access to water from the Euphrates River for three days. On the 10th day of Muharram, known as Ashura (October 10, 680 CE), Husayn was given a choice: pledge allegiance to Yazid or face death. He chose to be a servant to God and the Truth, not to Yazid.

The companions of Husayn were massacred. The men were killed, and the women and children were taken captive to Damascus. Husayn was beheaded, and his head was sent to Yazid. Horses were made to step on his body, crushing his bones, unleashing hate intensity.

The Massacre of Karbala Constitutes a Pivotal Chapter in Early Islamic History

 – A Defining Moment: Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl described this event as ‘the straw that broke the camel’s back,’ as it solidified the schism that divided Muslims into the Sunnis—represented by those under the governance of Muawiyah—and the Shias, who were the People of the Prophet’s Household and those who supported them.

 – A Symbol of Resistance: For both Shias and Sunnis, Karbala symbolizes Truth in the face of Falsehood: Witnessing for God, resisting tyranny, and sacrificing for the sake of justice and the supreme principles of the Quran. Consequently, the Shia identity—rooted in the love for the Prophet’s Household (Ahl al-Bayt)—was established, affirming a distinct moral standing in opposition to the Umayyad state.

The Formation of Shia Identity and the Deepening of the Division

---

Part II

Muawiya’s Legacy

Unjustified Demeanors and Corrupted Theology

The divide deepened, and theology became profoundly corrupted. Political power exploited zealots who fabricated sayings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad to serve their agendas.

Muawiyah and his son Yazid violated the Qur’an’s guidance. Their hate-driven actions split the community, practically created the Shi’ism sect, and resulted in the killing of many individuals for their beliefs. Muawiyah and his son Yazid systematically poisoned five imāms of the Prophet’s descendants. The authorities questioned no one, and there was no investigation into such criminal activities. Such acts fueled hatred, created hostility, and intensified the Shi’i-Sunni divide. Key individuals whom Muawiyah and his heirs silenced, tortured, or killed include:

Persecution of Ali’s Loyalists Under the Umayyads

During the reign of Muawiyah and the subsequent Umayyad era, individuals loyal to Ali ibn Abi Talib were systematically persecuted, imprisoned, and executed. These loyalists were targeted for their religious and political beliefs and for continuing to narrate Hadiths (sayings and traditions attributed to the Prophet Muhammad) that highlighted the Qur’anic guidance and Ali’s virtues.

Targeted Companions and Key Figures-Out Loud State Criminal Prosecution

Among the silenced, tortured, or killed by the Umayyads were several respected companions of the Prophet Muhammad for their objections to their unjust political maneuvers, and to their objections to the violations of Islamic principles, and allegiance to Ali:

 – Hujr ibn Adi and his 12 Companions: Muawiyah’s governor, Ziyad in Kufa, arrested Hujr ibn Adi and his 12 companions and sent them to him in Syria for execution for 1) refusing to curse Ali,  2) objecting to the delaying of Jumua prayer, and 3) snitching by some of those around Ziyad, who hated Hujr ibn Adi. The snitch incited Ziyad against him, portraying the matter to him as an armed rebellion threatening his rule.

– Abdul Rahman bin Hassan Al-Anzi: Muawiyah returned Abdul Rahman bin Hassan Al-Anzi, one of Hujr’s companions, to Ziyad to kill in the most horrific way possible, so Ziyad buried him alive. Muawiyah and Ziyad aimed to use terror tactics to enforce political obedience and to suppress both the highlighting of Ali’s virtues and any objections to his public cursing.

– Amr ibn al-Hamiq al-Khuza’i: A devout believer and companion of Ali. He was pursued by Muawiyah’s forces and eventually caught and killed, becoming one of the early martyrs of the persecution.

– Maytham al-Tammar: A close disciple of Ali, who narrated Ali’s Hadith and teachings. The forces of Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad arrested him in Kufa, and, after refusing to curse Ali, he was crucified and had his tongue pulled out to ensure no one else would carry Ali’s Hadith and knowledge. Ali was known as the “Gate of the City of Knowledge.”

– Rushayd al-Hajari: Another companion of the Prophet Muhammad who was executed by having his hands and legs cut off after refusing to denounce Ali.  This horrible act is an example of imposing on people to witness to the authority instead of witnessing to God. 

https://en.rafed.net/article/rushayd-al-hajri#:~:text=When%20his%20limbs%20were%20but,his%20tongue!%22shouted%20Zyyad.

– Abdullah ibn Yahya al-Hadrami: Killed with his followers in a suppression campaign ordered by Muawiyah.

Abdullah ibn Yahya al-Hadrami’s story: Following the peace treaty between Imām Hasan and Muawiyah, which included a condition that the persecution of Ali’s followers should cease.  However, Abdullah ibn Yahya mourned Ali’s passing. Ziyad ibn Abihi, Muawiyah’s governor in Iraq, reported this behavior to Muawiyah. Muawiyah, aiming to enforce political uniformity, issued orders to Ziyad to kill Abdullah ibn Yahya and his companions (the number of his companions is unknown).

Ziyad had Abdullah ibn Yahya crucified on the door of his house in Kufa, and his body was reportedly mutilated, as per Muawiyah’s instructions, indicative of deep hypocritical hatred and disregard for the principles of the Qur’an. Imām Hasan later condemned this execution in a scathing letter to Muawiyah, citing it as a breach of their peace treaty.

https://en.wikishia.net/view/%27Abd_Allah_b._Yahya_al-Hadrami#:~:text=Ya%E1%B8%A5y%C4%81%20al%2DHa%E1%B8%8Dram%C4%AB%20(Arabic:,stated%20in%20the%20Peace%20Treaty.

– Mālik al-Ashtar: A key military commander and staunch supporter of Ali. He was reportedly poisoned by an agent of Muawiyah using honey on his way to assume the governorship of Egypt. 

– Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr: Son of the first Caliph and a loyal follower of Ali who served as his governor of Egypt. Muawiyah ibn Hudayj killed him in 658 CE, and reportedly burned his body. See, 

https://youtu.be/8Wn970IOUI4?si=7EGXJx23y12vPk43

– Ammar ibn Yasir: An elderly, highly respected companion who was killed at the Battle of Siffin, fighting for Ali against Muawiyah’s forces. His death was significant because of a widely known prophecy by the Prophet Muhammad that Ammar would be killed by “the rebellious/aggressive group” (al-fi’ah al-baghiyah). 

– Abu Dharr al-Ghifari: While not executed by Muawiyah, Abu Dharr was banished to the desert oasis of al-Rabathah by Caliph Uthman at Muawiyah’s request (due to his public criticism of wealth accumulation and Uthman/Muawiyah’s unethical actions), where he died in isolation.

– Kumayl ibn Ziyad: He was a dedicated follower of Imām Ali, participating in key battles, including the Battle of Siffin. When confronted, Kumayl refused to renounce his loyalty to Ali. Al-Hajjaj had him executed around 714 CE (95 AH), making him one of the many loyal companions of Ali who the Umayyad authorities systematically silenced or killed.

Suppressions and Massacres Under Umayyad Rule

The persecution extended beyond individual executions to broader military campaigns and massacres:

1. Busr ibn Abi Artat’s Campaign: Muawiyah sent Busr on a brutal campaign through Arabia to enforce allegiance. Busr executed several notables in Najran and massacred numerous tribe members and townspeople, including the two young children of Abdullah ibn Abbas in Yemen, defying God’s commands in preserving human souls.
2. General Persecution: Muawiyah actively persecuted Ali’s followers, removing their names from government stipends and authorizing governors to oppress them, leading to widespread suffering and martyrdom.
3. Battle of al-Harra and Siege of Mecca: In 683 AD, Yazid’s army brutally pillaged the city of Medina after its people refused to recognize his coronation. The army then proceeded to besiege Mecca and strike the Kaaba with catapults. Historical sources (such as Tarikh al-Tabari and Al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah by Ibn Kathir) agree that these events resulted in the loss of an entire generation of bearers of knowledge and of the Quran. Ibn Kathir and others reported that the Battle of al-Harrah witnessed the killing of the remaining veterans of the Battle of Badr who were still alive in Medina at that time.

The Casualties of the Battle of al-Harrah (Medina)

The army of Yazid ibn Muawiyah, led by Muslim ibn Uqbah, overran Medina. Historical accounts indicate the killing of hundreds of “Qurra” (memorizers of the Quran and scholars) and dozens of companions of the Prophet. Among the most prominent individuals killed were:

 – Abdullah ibn Hanzalah ibn Abi Amir: Known as the son of the one “washed by the angels” (Ghasil al-Mala’ikah); he was the leader of the people of Medina during this event.

– Ma’qil ibn Sinan al-Ashja’i: A companion who carried the Prophet’s banner on the day of the Conquest of Mecca; he was executed in captivity after the battle.

– Abdullah ibn Zayd ibn Asim: The companion who narrated the description of the Prophet’s ablution (Wudu) and fought against Musaylimah the Liar.

– Miswar ibn Makhramah al-Zuhri: A companion and scholar. Some accounts state he was later struck by a catapult stone in Mecca, while other narrations list him among those killed during the events of al-Harrah.

– A large number of the people of Badr: Some sources indicate that none of the veterans of the Battle of Badr who were alive at the time survived after this event.

In historical narratives, this event is considered a central “breaking point,” as Yazid ibn Muawiyah pillaged the City of the Messenger ﷺ and the bearers of knowledge and the Quran from the first generation were killed, deeply widening the rift within the Islamic Ummah.

4. The Massacres in Basra (Samura ibn Jundub)

Primary historical sources—such as The History of al-Tabari and The Complete History by Ibn al-Athir—unanimously agree on the extreme ruthlessness of Samura ibn Jundub, whom Ziyad ibn Abih appointed over Basra. Narrations state he executed approximately eight thousand Muslims. When questioned by Ziyad whether he feared killing the innocent, Samura’s response demonstrated utter indifference: “Even if I had killed as many more, I would not fear.” This chilling death toll highlights a blatant disregard for human life.

Hassan Farhan al-Maliki details the harrowing methodology: Samura took people by surprise and interrogated them individually. According to al-Baladhuri’s narration, men were brought before him. Upon declaring, “Islam is my religion, and Muhammad is my Prophet,” Samura commanded their execution, chillingly rationalizing: “If he is truthful, it is better for him [in the afterlife], and if he is a liar, God has relieved us of him.”

Such executions starkly contradict the Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) intense anger when a person uttering the Shahada was killed (as in the story of Usama ibn Zayd). It raises a fundamental question: Isn’t slaughtering Muslims more deserving of the description of a hypocrite?

Al-Maliki argues that these governors, such as Samura and Abu al-A’war al-Sulami, were former allies of Abu Sufyan who had fought the early Muslims at Badr and Uhud. Muawiyah did not appoint them to combat heresy; instead, he installed them to target the Muhajirun and Ansar who had previously challenged their authority, revealing a systematic and blatant hypocrisy.

The results: Muawiyah and his aides imposed a system compelling people to testify in their favor and in favor of tyranny, effectively suppressing the mandate of bearing witness for Allah.

Muawiyah and Ziyad’s Governors: The Pre-Islamic Allies of Abu Sufyan

In his research, Al-Maliki contends that the governors appointed by Muawiyah and Ziyad—such as Samura ibn Jundub and Abu al-A’war al-Sulami—were essentially allies of Abu Sufyan dating back to the Pre-Islamic era (Jahiliyyah). These were the same individuals who fought against Islam at Badr, Uhud, and the Battle of the Trench (Al-Ahzab). Consequently, Muawiyah did not appoint them over Basra and Kufa to seek out heretics (Zanadiqa), but rather to target and liquidate the early Muslims—the Muhajirun and Ansar—who had broken the power of polytheism prior to the Conquest of Mecca.

Researchers argue that the systematic victimization of Muslims was carried out by those who were Muawiyah’s allies in his wars against the Prophet before the Conquest, and against Ali after it. Hassan Farhan al-Maliki demonstrates that this provides clear evidence of Umayyad hypocrisy.

Assassinations and Suspicious Deaths

Suspected death by the Ummayads of several key figures who posed political challenges, including:

– Hasan ibn Ali: The Prophet Muhammad’s grandson and the fifth Caliph. Historical accounts suggest he was poisoned in 670 CE; many sources attribute this act to Muawiyah, who viewed Hasan as a rival to his son Yazid’s succession.

– Husayn ibn Ali and the Tragedy of Karbala: Yazid (680 CE) ordered his force to carry out the massacre of Karbala. Husayn, his family, and 72 companions were massacred, their bodies were mutilated at Karbala after being invited by the people of Kufa, who subsequently abandoned him.

– Abdullah ibn Yaqtar: Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad, Governor of Kufa, captured Imām Husayn’s messenger Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad in Kufa. After refusing to curse Ali and Husayn, he was thrown from the top of the palace and subsequently slaughtered on the ground, showing the depth of hatred.

– Ali ibn Husayn (Zayn al-Abidin): Later Umayyad rulers, Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik, murdered Zayn al-Abidin by poisoning. 

– Abu Ayyoub al-Ansari: According to several sources, Abu Ayyoub al-Ansari entered Muawiyah’s space, sat on a bed, and started conversing. Muawiyah asked, “Who killed the man of the gray horse on such a day, so and so? Abu Ayoub said that was me. Then you and your father were on the red camel carrying the red banner, fighting us. Muawiyah got furious, so Abu Ayoub told him, “There shall be no roof to shade us together.” Muawiyah asked his son Yazid to send Abu Ayoub with the army to fight the Romans, saying, “ذلك اخفى, thalika Akhfa.” That would even be a discreet approach (to killing). So, Yazid sent Abu Ayoub with an army to fight the Romans, and there he mysteriously died.

– Umar ibn Abd Al-Aziz: The Umayads reportedly poisoned one of their own, the pious Umayyad Caliph Umar ibn Abd Al-Aziz, for ending the practice of cursing Ali and returning illegally confiscated properties.

– Abdul Rahman ibn Abi Bakr: Abdul Rahman opposed Muawiyah’s political ambitions, especially the appointment of his son Yazid as his successor, arguing against a hereditary monarchy. Suspiciously, Abdul Rahman ibn Abi Bakr died.
Although many traditional sources state that he ‘died suddenly,’ historians and critics (such as Hasan Farhan al-Maliki in his reading of Umayyad history) note that ‘sudden death’ occurred with suspicious frequency among Muawiyah’s opponents (such as Malik al-Ashtar and Hasan ibn Ali). In some critical readings, the critics believed that eliminating him was a political necessity to facilitate the pledge of allegiance to Yazid, which was officially finalized only after his death and the deaths of other prominent opposition figures.

 – Aisha bint Abi Bakr:

The Prophet Muhammad’s wife’s death, falling into a well, is yet another suspicious death.

Hassan Farhan al-Maliki is among the researchers who re-examine heritage with a critical eye. He links the death of Lady Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) to the general political context in which Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan eliminated major opponents to the pledge of allegiance (bay’ah) for his son, Yazid.

Here are the most prominent facts and questions raised by Al-Maliki and historical traditions on this subject:

1. The Political Timing of the Death (58 AH)

Al-Maliki points out that the years 57 and 58 AH constituted the “Year of the Great Purge.” During this period, most of the “titans” whose presence would have made it impossible to pass the pledge to Yazid passed away, namely:

-Aisha bint Abi Bakr (died 58 AH).

-Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas (died 55 or 58 AH; some accounts suggest he was poisoned).

-Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr (died 53 or 55 AH; died suddenly, as mentioned previously).

Al-Maliki argues that the deaths of these figures “successively” and in such close proximity—just before the official proclamation of Yazid’s succession—places a significant question mark over the role of the ruling authority.

2. The Incident of the “Leather Mat and the Pit” in Historical Sources

While official Sunni sources only mention a natural death, there are historical sources (such as the book Al-Sirat al-Mustaqim by Al-Bayadi, citing ancient accounts in Al-Awa’il) that provide specific details analyzed by critics:

– The narrative states that Muawiyah visited Medina and invited Lady Aisha to his home. He had allegedly dug a pit at the spot where she was to sit, covered it with a Nata’ (a leather mat), and placed a weak chair over it.

-When she sat down, she fell into the pit. Muawiyah then ordered it to be filled in immediately while she was still alive, and he left Medina that same night.

3. Aisha’s Hardline Stance Against “Hereditary Monarchy.”

Tradition holds that Lady Aisha led a powerful moral opposition front. She never forgave Muawiyah for:

-The Killing of her brother Muhammad: She remembered him constantly and invoked prayers against his killers.

-The Adoption of Ziyad: She strongly opposed Muawiyah’s formal adoption of Ziyad ibn Abih (viewing it as a violation of the Prophet’s decree: “The child belongs to the [marriage] bed”), and she wrote to Ziyad rebuking him.
This friction made her continued survival a threat to the “legitimacy” of Yazid’s transition to power; had she publicly rejected the pledge, all of Medina would have followed her.

4. The Absence of Details Regarding Her Illness

Researchers note that although Lady Aisha was a prominent public figure, no precise details regarding her illness (such as the type of illness, its duration, or which companions visited her) were transmitted in a manner commensurate with her status. Instead, the news of her death came suddenly, relieving the authority of its most significant religious opposition.

5. Aisha is buried at night

Narrations (such as in Sahih al-Bukhari and others) mention that Lady Aisha requested to be buried “at night” in Al-Baqi.

6. Critical Interpretation:

Some see her request for a nighttime burial immediately after her death as a fear that Muawiyah would exploit her funeral for political theater, or as a final expression of her indignation toward the status quo in Medina under the rule of Marwan ibn al-Hakam and Muawiyah.

Al-Maliki’s Conclusion:
Al-Maliki contends that the historical mind should not accept “repeated coincidences.” The death of all the powerful opponents of Yazid at once is a “calculated political act.” He argues that a Umayyad authority that did not hesitate to strike the Kaaba with catapults or kill Husayn would not hesitate to dispose of Lady Aisha if she stood in the way of its hereditary ambitions.

The Founding of the Umayyad Dynasty and Its Controversial Impact

Muawiyah’s rebellion culminated in his coronation as the first Umayyad ruler (661-680 CE). Scholars maintained the price paid for his ascension as “corrupting the Ummah:” divisions, civil war, loss of lives, conspiracies, and assassinations, all of which violate the Qur’an.

The Gluttony for Power and Control

In his address, “The Emergence of the Sunni Shi’i Divide,” Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl of UCLA raised a compelling question: “What to do about harmful, corrupt, and unjust political power?” On the other hand, could Muawiyah’s gluttony for control and authority be elemental in the conception of the Sunni-Shi’i divide? The following rundown of historical events from Ghadir al-Khumm may provide more insight into the genesis of the Sunni-Shi’i divide.

The Decoy of Revenge: Questioning Muawiyah’s Intentions

Muawiyah claimed that Ali did not avenge the assassination of the third Caliph, Uthman ibn Affan. Scholars and historians widely consider Muawiyah’s claim to seek revenge for the assassinated Caliph Uthman to have been a decoy to consolidate his own authority. Skepticism remains regarding his true intentions in the rebellion.

Modern scholar Jamal al-Banna, younger brother of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, posits that Muawiyah’s true purpose was a naked power grab: to seize leadership and re-establish the prestigious position he held in Mecca during the time he opposed the Prophet Muhammad.

According to Dr. Adnan Ibrahim of Vienna, Austria, even after becoming Caliph (661-680 CE), Muawiyah refused to bring the assassins of Uthman to justice. Furthermore, he appointed his son, Yazid, as the next Caliph. This move established a monarchical system and fundamentally deviated from the shura (consultative-electoral) precedent of the first four “Rightly Guided” Caliphs. This act further deteriorated the unity of the Muslim community.

The Establishment of Monarchy: A Departure from Islamic Precedent

The establishment of the monarchy by Muawiyah set a precedent that persisted in the Middle East for centuries and profoundly influenced Islamic religious and sectarian thought, leading to ongoing discord, hostility, and bloodshed to this day.

Many traditional scholars and modern contemporary thinkers affirms this departure—most notably by the man hailed by some as the miracle of this era, the researcher, historian of thought, and investigator of Islamic historical events, the honorable Sheikh Hassan Farhan al-Maliki (may God hasten his release)—who asserts that the actions and deeds of Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan were, and remain, a significant factor in the decline of the Islamic Ummah.

Prominent figures who hold this view include the late Mufti of Syria, Dr. Ahmad Kuftaro, Dr. Ahmed Al-Kubaisi, Dr. Adnan Ibrahim, and Gamal al-Banna. Gamal al-Banna noted that “the Islamic world has been living in suffering for 1,400 years, largely due to the despotic monarchy initiated by Muawiyah.” Dr. Al-Kubaisi argued that the downfall of Muslims began with Muawiyah, emphasizing that Muawiyah should not be considered among the “Elite Companions” (Khiyar al-Sahaba) because he did not follow the path of “Excellence” (Ihsan) set by the early Muslims (the Muhajirun and Ansar) as described in the Holy Quran (Surah At-Tawbah: 100). Dr. Ahmad Kuftaro stated: “Had the Umayyads followed the path of the Prophet’s companions ﷺ, the state of Islam and Muslims on the global stage today would be far better.”

Among the preeminent modern Islamic figures who confirmed Muawiyah’s departure from the path of Islam and his bypassing of the Quranic approach are: Dr. Suhail Zakkar, who taught Islamic history at Damascus University for 47 years and specialized in Islamic sects and the history of the Roman Empire; Mr. Muhammad Rashid Rida; the scholar of the age, Muhammad al-Ghazali; Dr. Mustafa Mahmoud; and many others whom my limited exposure has not yet allowed me to fully explore regarding their books and contributions to saving and enlightening the path of the Ummah.

The Question of Revenge for Uthman’s Unsolved Assassination

Dr. Ibrahim highlighted that the question of ‘revenge for Uthman’ was the responsibility of Uthman’s own five sons. Yet, even they could not get revenge because the killers were never definitively identified. The insurgents entered Uthman’s house from a neighboring side during an attack on his guards, killed him, and fled the scene before the assassins’ identities could be substantiated. “There was no definitive killer(s),” stated Dr. Ibrahim. Dr. Ibrahim further argued why Mua’wiyah did not come to Madina, where the murder happened, and file a lawsuit? Instead, he insisted on creating commotion, lying to the Syrians that Ali was the killer of Uthman, and mobilizing against Ali in Syria and Iraq. 

---

Part III

Political Manipulation of Hadith Literature

Systematic Persecution and Execution of Ali’s Narrators

During the Umayyad era, particularly under the reign of Muawiyah and his successors, there was a systematic policy of persecuting, silencing, and even executing Hadith narrators and supporters of Ali ibn Abi Talib.

Silencing Ali’s Legacy

Mu’awiyah issued to provincial governors that the lives and property of anyone who narrated anything regarding the virtues of Ali and his family would not be protected.

For example, Mawta’ Mālik, the Maliki Islamic school’s resource, contains not a single Hadith nImāmted by Imām Ali. Critical scholars connect this omission of Ali’s sacred knowledge and life experience with the Prophet to Muawiyah’s political manipulation and corruption. Such manipulation and control falsified information and evidence, throwing people into darkness and confusion.

Sahih al-Bukhari, often regarded as the icon of Sunni authentic Hadith collections, contains only around twenty-five hadiths of the Prophet Muhammad nImāmted by Imām Ali. Dr. Adnan Ibrahim of Vienna questions how accurately these few hadiths represent the rich experience and lImāming of Imām Ali from the Prophet Muhammad. 

This systematic persecution created an environment of fear that heavily impacted the transmission and preservation of hadiths, emphasizing Ali’s status and virtues during the Umayyad era. Narrating extensively from Ali was politically risky, leading Hadith compilers to omit such narrations to avoid persecution or to gain favor with the autImāmties. 

Imām Mālik and His Muwaṭṭaʾ: A Summary of the Muqaddimah of Awjaz al-Masālik

Ali and Islamic sciences – Wikipedia.

Why are there only a few Hadith related by Ali ibn Abi Talib, even though he was so close to Prophet Mohammed? – Quora.

Why

Were there fewer Hadiths narrated from Imām Ali compared to other companions, such as Abu Hurairah, Aishah, etc.? – Quora

State Cursing Policy of Ali Changed People’s Norms

A state policy of publicly cursing Ali from the pulpits during Friday sermons, mandated by Mu’awiyah and his hateful policies, induced Al-Nawasib, the Haters of Ali and Ahlul Bait. Such policies lasted for about 60 years, until the Caliph Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz abolished the practice of cursing.

Counter-Narratives: Muawiyah actively encouraged the fabrication of hadiths that praised other companions (especially the first three caliphs) or even attributed negative characteristics to Ali, to counter the existing authentic narrations about his virtues.

Selective Hadith Acceptance: This climate influenced the later compilation of Hadith. Some respected Sunni Hadith collections have been noted to include narrators who were open enemies of Ali (Kharijites who cursed him) while narrating fewer hadiths from the Imams of Ali’s household. 

Part B: Persecution of the Shia by the Umayyads | The Hidden Truth about Karbala | Al-Islam.org.

---

Part IV
Shaping Consciousness and Marginalizing the Qur’an

---

The Politicization of Language: Cunning and Deception

Diminishing the Objectives of the Qur’an

In addressing the Qur’an’s primary objectives, Al-Maliki identifies Ibadah (worship) as a central theme. He observes that while most people today define worship through the rituals of prayer, fasting, and pilgrimage, the Qur’an describes it fundamentally as submission and humility before Almighty God. As the scripture states: “And We have sent among every nation a messenger, saying, ‘Worship God and avoid Taghout (tyranny or tyrannical overwhelm).’”

Al-Maliki argues that true worship is the antithesis of Taghout, which encompasses anything that dominates the soul, such as sectarianism, racism, self-interest, or destructive desires. He posits that these harmful impulses are forms of idolatry that distance us from the true purpose of worship, noting that this misinterpretation of Ibadah began during the era of Muawiyah.

To recognize tyranny, one must look to the verse: “And those who disbelieve, their allies are the tyrants who bring them out of the light into the darkness.” Al-Maliki defines disbelief here as stubbornness and the concealment of truth. He maintains that acknowledging divine commands while stubbornly refusing to act upon them constitutes “relative disbelief”—a trait of the hypocrites who declare Islam but turn away when action is required.

Al-Maliki further asserts that another Quranic objective distorted by Muawiyah is Taqwa. While commonly understood as mere piety, Al-Maliki defines Taqwa as the restraint of aggression and hatred. He critiques modern curricula for emphasizing rituals like prayer and almsgiving while ignoring their ultimate goal: the avoidance of harm. He concludes that contemporary theology—a byproduct of Muawiyah’s influence—has produced vast literature that encourages violence and takfir (accusations of disbelief) rather than fostering peace.

Diminishing Prayer’s Intent, While Overemphasizing Its Formation

The Quranic Emphasis on Rationality and Higher Principles

The Umayyad Era was infamous for washingoff the Prayer. The following incident is famous in Islamic history and serves as a blatant example of the confrontation between jurists and Umayyad governors over delaying prayers past their prescribed times

Details of the Incident:

Al-Hakam ibn Ayyub al-Thaqafi (the Governor of Basra appointed by Al-Hajjaj) was delivering a sermon on Friday. He prolonged the sermon significantly, to the point that, as some narrations state, he delayed the prayer until it was nearly time for the sunset prayer (Maghrib). Abu Yazid ibn ‘Amir al-Dhabbi (who was among the righteous and the jurists) stood up and addressed him in a voice audible to the people:

“The prayer, O Emir, may Allah guide you! For time will not wait for you, and the Lord will not excuse you.”

The Consequences:

Al-Hakam ibn Ayyub rejected this public admonition, viewing it as an affront to his authority. He ordered the imprisonment of Abu Yazid al-Dhabbi, who remained incarcerated for 18 years. Al-Hakam’s actions violated several of the Qur’an’s guiding principles, most notably the mandate of bearing witness to God.

Historical Significance of this Story:

Historical sources cite this story for several reasons that align with the themes discussed previously:

 – “Killing the Prayer” (Imatat al-Salah): Delaying prayers past their proper times was one of the characteristics criticized by the Companions and the Tabi’un (Successors) regarding certain Umayyad governors (such as Al-Hajjaj and his deputies). In historical traditions, this was referred to as “killing the prayer.”

– Prioritizing Politics over Rituals: Governors would lengthen their sermons to glorify the ruler or warn against rivals, prioritizing these agendas over the sanctity of the prayer time.

– Suppression of Dissent: Abu Yazid was not imprisoned for a mistake he committed, but because he reminded the Governor of the boundaries set by God. In the culture of that time, the “Umayyad blight” was viewed as destabilization or a rebellion against the community (Jama’ah).

This incident confirms the “inflation of the form of authority” at the expense of the “essence of worship and piety,” out loud, crossing the theme of witnesses to God, not oneself or political authority.

Research on the Basmala: Umayyad’s Political Influence on Religious Practice

Researcher Hasan Farhan Al-Maliki maintained that the Basmala (Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim) is an explicit verse from the Book of Allah and a foundational component of its greatest Surah, Al-Fatiha. Its legal status follows that of the Surah itself—both in its confirmation as scripture and its method of recitation. Whether recited aloud during audible prayers or silently during private ones, following the Basmala is a matter of straightforward adherence to the Quranic text.

Indeed, Surah Al-Fatiha begins clearly with the Basmala, explicitly marked as verse number (1).

Why, then, has the Ummah split into two factions regarding this verse? One group affirms its Quranic status, while another denies it. Is it not strange that such a foundational verse is treated as optional or secondary? This discrepancy suggests a deep-seated political shadow cast over religious practice.

The Political Core: The Umayyad Influence

The root of this deviation can be traced back to the early Umayyad period. As recorded in Al-Mustadrak by Al-Hakim, Sunan al-Bayhaqi, and specifically in Musnad al-Shafi’i (Vol. 1, p. 141):

“Anas ibn Malik narrated that Muawiyah led a prayer in Medina and recited aloud. He recited the Basmala for the ‘Mother of the Quran’ (Al-Fatiha), but failed to recite it for the subsequent Surah. He also omitted the Takbir (Allahu Akbar) when descending into prostration. Upon concluding the prayer, the Muhajireen and Ansar shouted from all sides: ‘O Muawiyah, have you stolen the prayer or have you forgotten?’ In subsequent prayers, he corrected this by reciting the Basmala and the Takbir.”

Scholars like Hassan bin Farhan al-Maliki question whether this was a deliberate attempt to belittle the Prophet’s (PBUH) established sunnah or a mockery of the community’s vigilance. If the Umayyads sought to alter even the recitation of Al-Fatiha, it is logical to conclude they exerted similar influence over Hadith, Tafsir (interpretation), Fiqh (jurisprudence), and Aqeedah (creed).

The Prophetic Standard

In contrast to Muawiyah’s omissions, the authentic Prophetic tradition emphasizes the Basmala. In report #4759, Qatada asked Anas ibn Malik about the Prophet’s recitation:

“He replied: ‘It was characterized by prolongation (madd).’ He then demonstrated by reciting: Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim, prolonging the ‘Bismillah,’ the ‘al-Rahman,’ and the ‘al-Rahim.'”

This narration is considered exceptionally strong because Qatada explicitly confirmed his direct hearing (sama’) of the description.

The Root of Aversion: The Quraysh and “Al-Rahman”

The resistance to the Basmala, particularly the name “Al-Rahman” (The Most Gracious), has deep historical roots in Qurayshi resentment. During the Treaty of Hudaybiyah, when the Prophet (PBUH) instructed Ali to write “Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim,” Suhayl bin Amr reacted with hostility, saying: “What is ‘Al-Rahman’? Write ‘In your name, O Allah’ (Bismika Allahumma) instead.”

This pagan aversion is documented in the Quran:

 – “When they are told, ‘Prostrate before the Most Gracious,’ they say, ‘What is the Most Gracious? Shall we prostrate before what you advocate?'” (Al-Furqan 25:60)

 – “…And they are, at the mention of the Most Merciful, disbelievers.” (Al-Anbiya 21:36)

 – “…for they have disbelieved in the Most Gracious.” (Ar-Ra’d 13:30)

Al-Maliki maintains that the history of the Basmala—specifically its audible recitation as mandated by the Qur’an—is extensively documented in the historical Qur’an, yet remains poorly understood by many Muslims even today. This oversight suggests that Muawiyah’s innovations continue to shape modern practice, revealing that his historical legacy remains very much with us.

Al-Maliki emphasizes that the history of the Basmala—specifically its recitation aloud as required by the Quran—is extensively documented in the Quran itself. However, the authoritarian influence over Hadith and jurists to align with the ruling power is evident. Consequently, many Muslims today still practice traditions (Marwiyat) that are not found in the Quran. This oversight indicates that the innovations of the Umayyad and Abbasid authorities continue to lead Muslims; in other words, Muawiyah’s historical legacy remains strongly present among us.

Conclusion: A Modern Contradiction

Al-Maliki points out that today we see a striking contradiction in certain traditions: they deny the Basmala’s status as an integral verse and insist on reciting it silently, even though it is written and numbered as (1). Simultaneously, they insist on reciting “Ameen” aloud, even though it is not written in the Quranic text, nor is it numbered as a verse.

This selective adherence reveals that the “ancient wounds” of political interference still dictate how the Word of Allah is approached. Reclaiming the Basmala is not just a matter of ritual; it is a step toward restoring the honesty and rationality of Islamic civilization.

A Legacy of Degradation and Bias

Muawiyah and his state-sponsored storytellers produced a negative culture that, Al-Maliki argues, contributed to the present degradation of the Muslim world. Pride became centered entirely on conquests and historical tribal wars (such as those of Basus, Dahis, and Ghabra).

The result is a community that acts as if it lacks the guidance of the Qur’an or has failed to ponder its meaning, to the effect that the Qur’an is effectively relegated to a status lower than that of a dictionary or secondary lexicon (e.g., Mu’jam al-Tabarani), rather than serving as the ultimate standard for judgment, culture, and ethics.

Al-Maliki concludes that this “secret mixture” introduced by Muawiyah is the root cause of a cultural disease, one that researchers must recognize to produce an unbiased, scientifically sound understanding of Islamic history.

Disproportionate Narrations and the Favoring of Certain Narrators

Hasan Farhan al-Maliki describes Abu Hurayrah and Ka’b al-Ahbar, who used to stay past midnight in the Damascus Mosque studying theology, as central figures in the distortion of Islamic culture and the influx of non-Islamic narratives (known as Israiliyyat) into the Muslim tradition, a process he links to Muawiyah’s hypocritical, political agenda.

Al-Maliki argues that the vast number of hadiths narrated by Abu Hurayrah often focus on irrelevant minutiae and sensational stories rather than on essential religious guidance. He contends that this focus served to distract the Muslim community from the core teachings of the Qur’an and created unnecessary enmity and divisions among believers that continue to fail Muslims to this day.

Distraction and Minutiae: He claims these hadiths engaged Muslims in trivial matters, diverting their attention from fundamental issues of justice, governance, and moral conduct.

Creating Enmity: The focus on these minute details or selective narratives led to differing interpretations and rigid adherence to certain schools of thought (madhab), which, in Al-Maliki’s view, generated conflict and hostility within the community.

Disproportionate Narrations: Al-Maliki stated that a key aspect of this political manipulation involved selectively promoting certain narrators while diminishing others, like favoring Abu Hurayrah and Ka’b al-Ahbar.

Abu Hurayrah was a late Companion who accepted Islam after the events of Khaybar, 628 CE (7 AH). He accompanied the Prophet Muhammad in Medina for only a short time, less than 2 years. Then, the Prophet sent him to Bahrain. 

Abu Hurayrah Narrations in Contrast: 

Al-Maliki contends that, according to the work Kitab Tuhfat al-Ashraf bi-Ma’rifat al-Atraf by Yusuf al-Mizzi, Abu Hurayrah narrated 3,334 hadiths. Reviewing the sixth Hadith resources, the number rises to over 5000 with the repeated Hadith. He said, “This number stands in stark contrast to the narrations of earlier, more central companions:”

Sa’ad ibn Abi Waqqas, one of the first ten converts to Islam and a participant in the pivotal Battle of Badr, narrated only 30-50 hadiths.

Abi Hamidah al-Sa’idi, another participant in Badr, had only three narrations attributed to him.

This vast disproportion confers hypocritical political motivation on the elevation of specific sources over others.

Ka’b al-Ahbar

Ka’b al-Ahbar was a Jewish scholar from Yemen who converted to Islam during the Caliphate of Umar. Al-Maliki views him as the primary source for the introduction of non-Islamic stories and myths (Israiliyyat or Ahl al-Kitab traditions) into Islamic theology: 

Source of Israiliyyat: Al-Maliki links Ka’b al-Ahbar to the introduction of superstitions and stories into the Hadith corpus.

Association with Authority: Ka’b al-Ahbar was notably associated with key figures of authority, including Umar, Uthman, and most notably, Muawiyah, who benefited from narratives that built up a mystical or political framework that sometimes clashed with the clear text of the Qur’an.

Corrupting Theology

Al-Maliki maintains that narratives propagated by figures like Ka’b al-Ahbar contributed to a “negative theology” and created a form of “scientific ignorance” that misled Muslims with distracting stories and myths. 

In summary, Al-Maliki views both figures as instrumental in a process where Muawiyah compromised authentic Islamic culture for political ends. Abu Hurayrah served as the vehicle for state-approved Hadith, and Ka’b al-Ahbar acted as the conduit for problematic non-Islamic narratives.

The author argues that Mu’awiyah’s assabiyah, hypocritical and political actions, led the believers away from the Qur’an, actually created and even forced the “Shi’i Sect,” and led to a striving against the Qur’an’s guidance. Neither logic nor historical events prove that denying Imām Ali’s leadership is the leading cause of Sunni-Shi’i sectarianism.

---

Part V

A Final, Grave, and Decisive Historical Turning Point and the Conclusion

Several historical sources, such as The History of the Prophets and Kings by al-Tabari and The Complete History by Ibn al-Athir, among others, mention the following story. It is considered one of the most significant historical turning points, highlighting the fundamental difference in mindset and purpose between Ali ibn Abi Talib and his opponents—or even those who sought to exploit the situation for tribal interests, such as Abu Sufyan.

Recommended Posts

نشأة الانقسام السني الشيعي

January 9, 2026

The Best School of Fiqh is the Qur’an – Gulf Talk

October 16, 2025

The Father of Robotics

May 18, 2020