Submit manuscript...
Journal of
eISSN: 2573-2897

Historical Archaeology & Anthropological Sciences

Review Article Volume 9 Issue 2

Ways for the rightly guided Caliphs (Alkhulafa’ Alraashidin) to come to power

Hiba Farooq Haroun

History Department, Jordan University, Jordan

Correspondence: Hiba Farooq Haroun, History Department, Jordan University, Jordan

Received: April 15, 2024 | Published: May 30, 2024

Citation: Haroun HF. Ways for the rightly guided Caliphs (Alkhulafa’ Alraashidin) to come to power. J His Arch & Anthropol Sci. 2024;9(2):89-97 DOI: 10.15406/jhaas.2024.09.00303

Download PDF


This study focused on Al-Rashidun Caliphs who had ruled the Islamic nations after the death of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. It has been called Rashidun Caliphate because it followed Prophet Muhammad's approach. Al- Rashidun Caliphs were characterized by good conduct, wisdom, and good thinkers, which allowed them to face difficulties and be fine representatives of the Islamic nation by developing laws and methods that set people's life everywhere and every time which give them stability and security. This study included a research plan, introduction, and Prophet Mohammad's views on ruling power after his death, then the delegation of Omar Ibn Al Khattab by Abu Bakr Al Sadiq, and the death of Othman Bin Affan and finally the research presents the Islamic opinions about Ali Bin Abi Talib the fourth caliph as a ruler.

First: The Messenger’s ( Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him) position on the issue of governance after him

  1. Considering the narrations and jurisprudential opinions about what the Messenger did, whether he recommended or did not recommend
  2. The Saqifa meeting, the conflict between the Muhajireen and the Ansar, the position of Ali and his companions, the end of the deliberations, and the private pledge of allegiance.
  3. Banu Hashim’s position on choosing Abu Bakr

Second: Abu Bakr’s succession to Omar bin Al-Khattab

  1. The circumstances that helped Abu Bakr choose Omar bin Al-Khattab as the caliph of the Muslims
  2. The position of the Companions on Abu Bakr’s appointment of Omar bin Al-Khattab
  3. The circumstances that led Omar to make the Shura decision and the ideas that came to Omar’s mind.

Third: Highlights on the killing of Othman bin Affan

- Circumstances of Othman’s killing

Fourth: Ali bin Abi Talib, the fourth Rightly Guided Caliph

  1. The various opinions and narrations of Imam Ali’s accession and the position of the Companions and the people of Egypt regarding pledging allegiance to him
  2. The Battle of the Camel, the Battle of Siffin, Al-Nahrawan, and the Kharijites.
  3. The Messenger of God ( Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him) died without recommending the leadership of the nation to anyone, leaving behind him the basic principles represented in the Qur’an and Sunnah, and the experience of the Islamic nation.

The crisis faced by the Islamic nation revolved around three main points: the personality of the new president, his duties and powers, and his qualities. However, the idea of ​​authority itself was the reason for the launch of the apostasy movement, which emerged as resistance from the tribal trend to the Islamic trend and resistance to central state authority.

Keywords: Prophet's death, Al saqifah meeting, Omar Ibn Al khattab ruling, Othman's death, Ali Bin Abi talib


The messenger’s position on the issue of governance after him.

Most narratives agree that the Messenger died after performing the Hajj in Mecca and returning to Medina after an illness that lasted a short period that ended with his transfer to the Supreme Comrade in Rabi’ al-Awwal of the eleventh year of the Hijra, and that he did not leave any bequest to anyone after him.1 However, jurisprudential sources have a different opinion. It indicated that the Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace, was thinking about the issue of ruling after him and that he saw Abu Bakr as the only candidate. His prayers were narrated from him saying, “I intended to send to Abu Bakr and his son, so I would promise that those who would say would say or those who wish would wish Muslim’s narration of his saying (may God’s prayers and peace be upon him) to Aisha, “Call for me Abu Bakr and your brother so that I can write a letter, for I fear that someone who wishes will wish and someone will say, ‘I am better’.” Then she said, “God will reject and the believers will repel” or “God will repel and the believers will reject,” and in another narration, “God and the believers will refuse but Abu Bakr These narrations, if true, indicate.

However, the Messenger refrained from making a covenant with Abu Bakr because his choice would be a decree from God and the choice of the nation, and if he had done so, it would have become an followed Sunnah and a legitimate constitution, and this would result in the confiscation of the nation’s right to choose its Imam.1 But the Messenger ordered Abu Bakr to pray and not anyone else, which suggests Tamira to lead the Muslims. Al-Bukhari narrated on the authority of Aisha, saying, “When the Messenger of God fell ill with the illness in which he died, prayer came, and he gave permission and said, ‘Pass Abu Bakr so that he may lead the people in prayer.’ Then he was told that Abu Bakr is a man.”

Then he said, “Bring on to Abu Bakr, so that he may lead the people in prayer.” He was told that Abu Bakr is a miserable man, and if he stood in your place, he would not be able to lead the people in prayer. He repeated it, and they repeated it for him, so he repeated it a third time, and he said, “You are the companions of Joseph. Please pass by Abu Bakr, so that he may lead the people in prayer. It is clear from these narrations that The Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace, sought to appoint Abu Bakr as successor, but he feared that it would become an imposed Sunnah, and the nation would lose its right to elect its president, which is a constitutional, Qur’anic right legislated in accordance with the legal rule of Shura.4

However, historical sources indicate that the Messenger did not take any action regarding the matter of ruling after him and left the matter to the nation. Narrations also indicate that the situation after the death of the Messenger became more dangerous. The Companions divided into three political groups, each of which believed it had the right to rule the Muslims. Ibn Ishaq says, “When the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, died, this neighborhood of the Ansar sided with Saad bin Ubadah in Saqifa Bani Sa’idah, and he isolated himself from Ali bin Abi Talib, Al-Zubayr bin Al-Awwam, and Talha bin Ubayd Allah is in the house of Fatima, and the rest of the immigrants sided with Abu Bakr and Usayd ibn Hudayr sided with them”, meaning that the Khazraj hastened to meet in the Saqifah and began to invite one of their masters, Saad ibn Ubadah, and when Abu Bakr and Omar learned of the meeting, they rushed to him, and Abu Bakr joined them later. Ubaidah and thus three blocs emerged around the Caliph after the Messenger of God (Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him) Al-Bukhari, Muhammad bin Ismail bin Ibrahim Al-Jaafari, Al-Sahih, Damascus and Beirut, Dar Ibn Kathir, 1993, 7 parts:5

The first bloc: It includes the majority of the Ansar, which gathered in Al-Saqifah, supporting the nomination of Saad bin Ubadah, the master of Al-Khazraj.Worship of the master of Khazraj.

The second bloc: The Hashemites, some Umayyads, Talha and Al-Zubayr, who believe that Ali has the right to the caliphate.6

The third bloc: leaned towards Abu Bakr and was active and included the majority of the immigrants. It seems that they had an understanding before the Saqifa meeting, and what suggests this is that Abu Bakr and Abu Ubaidah spoke on behalf of the immigrants in the Saqifa.

The Ansar gathered in Saqifa Bani Sa`idah to pledge allegiance to Saad bin Ubadah, the leader of the Khazraj, and they invoked their virtue in Islam, and that they were “the people of glory, numbers, and power, and the people of Medina.” Saad bin Ubadah addressed a group of Ansar, saying “Be tyrannical about this matter, for it is yours rather than the people” in When Abu Bakr protested while demanding the leadership of the Quraysh, saying: “They are his guardians and his clan, and the people have the most right to this matter after him.” It is true that Saad bin Ubadah, the leader of the Khazraj, was the most prominent influential figure in the matter.7

Al-Saqifa was from the Ansar, but Abu Bakr, Omar, and Abu Ubaidah from the Muhajireen were more powerful. When the supporters felt the strength of the position of the immigrants and their argument that they were the family of the Messenger of God and the people of the precedent in Islam, Al-Hubab bin Al-Mundhir bin Haram stood up and pointed out that the people of Medina were the ones who supported the Messenger and the Muslims, as they declared their Islam and declared openly, saying, “By God, they did not worship God openly except in your country.. The Arabs did not convert to Islam except with your swords, for you are the people who have the greatest share in this matter, even though I refuse father of the people, there is a prince among us, and some of you are a prince. And his leadership, and we are his guardians and his clan, is nothing but a falsehood. These are all indications that there is a major struggle for power at this stage, which is clearly represented by Saad bin Ubadah’s categorical refusal to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr, when he said, “By God, if the jinn had gathered for you with the humans, they would not have pledged allegiance to you.” In fact, he did not pledge allegiance, but rather addressed Abu Bakr, saying, Oh community of immigrants, you envy me the emirate. But what weakened the position of the Ansar was that they were hesitant and unsure of themselves, because the Muhajireen were “the companions of the Messenger of God and the first ones, who were his clan and his friends.” And the Aws were envious of the Khazraj, so some of the Aws said, “By God, even if the Khazraj made it over you once, they would still have influence over you with that virtue, unless they made you an eternal share, so stand up and pledge allegiance.”

It also seems that the Muhajireen had an understanding between them before the Day of Saqifa, and there is no meaning for Abu Bakr al-Siddiq going to the Ansar, nor an explanation for the Ansar considering him a representative of the Muhajireen. This is supported by the hadith of Omar after the Day of Saqifa, where he says: “He was the best of us when his Prophet died, and that Ali, al-Zubayr and those with him left behind.” On our behalf in the house of Fatima, and the entire Ansar lagged behind us, and the emigrants gathered to Abu Bakr, so I said to Abu Bakr: Go with us to these brothers of ours from the Ansar, and we went to secure them.

What was striking in the meeting was the absence of Ali bin Abi Talib and some men from Banu Hashim and those with them, such as Talha and Al-Zubair, as it was said that they were busy preparing the Messenger of God. If the Messenger was buried on the same day of his death and the Saqifa meeting took place the next day, then why did these people not attend the Saqifa meeting? Dr. Faleh Hussein believes that Bani Hashim and those who stood with them were not able to form a majority of the Muhajireen and Ansar that would stand in the face of the majority formed by Abu Bakr, Omar, and Abu Ubaidah, whom the majority of the Muhajireen and Ansar sided with. However, the Hashemites were nominating Ali bin Abi Talib and believed that the presidency should be in the house of the Prophet. It was narrated that Al-Abbas said to Ali upon the death of the Prophet, “Extend your hand and I will pledge allegiance to you... and your family will pledge allegiance to you. If this matter were to be said, it would not be said. Then Ali said: And who seeks this matter except us. Rather, Ibn Ishaq narrated that Al-Abbas and Ali Ibn Abi Talib were thinking about the issue of the succession of the Messenger of God during his illness, and they discussed it before his death and even on the morning of that day In which he died, according to the narration, Al-Abbas said to Ali, “Take us to the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace. If this matter is among us, we will know it, and if it is among others, we will command it, so he recommended us to the people. He said: Ali said to him, “By God, I will not do it. By God, if we prevent him, we will not.” We will give it to no one after him.” However, this narrative is questionable, because it undermines the principle of the will (the Messenger’s will to Ali or to Abbas), which both the Alawites and Abbasids later claimed, and it is expected that this narrative was developed for subsequent political reasons.

Abu Bakr al-Siddiq was able to succeed the Muslims after the death of the Messenger by electing the vast majority of them in Saqifa Bani Sa`idah, despite the dissatisfaction of the Hashemites, led by Ali, who said, protesting against the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr, “O community of immigrants, do not remove the authority of Muhammad among the Arabs from his home and his palace to... Your turn and defend his family from his position among the people and his right, for by God we have more right to him because we are the Ahl al-Bayt.” He also said, “You took this matter from the Ansar and argued against them by being related to the Prophet, and you took it from us, Abu Bakr received the pledge of allegiance from the majority in Saqifah, despite the opposition of Saad bin Ubadah, Ali bin Abi Talib, and Banu Hashim next, who pledged allegiance after delaying, especially Ali bin Abi Talib, and after a not-so-short period of time, as the narratives differ on the day of Ali bin Abi Bakr’s pledge of allegiance. Some of them made it on the second day, and some of them made it on the second day. Some make it on the third day, and some make it after the death of Lady Fatima, that is, after two to six months, sometimes eight months.8–10 But Abu Bakr's old age had an important impact on his election. When Ali protested against his pledge of allegiance to him, Abu Ubaidah replied to him, “Oh cousin, you are young, and these are the sheikhs of your people, and you do not have the same experience and knowledge of things as them”. So the meaning of Abu Bakr’ election was a victory for the free election system in choosing the caliph over the inheritance system. One of the qualities that helped in the election of Abu Bakr was that he was “the second of the two when they were in the cave, and the successor of the Messenger of God to pray, and prayer is the best religion of the Muslims”.

The Saqifa meeting and its aftermath had an important impact on the direction taken by the institution of the Caliphate throughout the Rashidun period. Abu Bakr was chosen by election, and he emphasized the idea of ​​the imamate for one nation and rejected the idea of ​​multiple leaders. It is noted in the election of Abu Bakr the combination of characteristics stemming from tribal custom and Islamic concepts. His election was also a practical decision for the Quraysh caliphate, despite the instability of the idea in political thought until the third century AH. Abu Bakr pledged the private pledge of allegiance in the shed, and after that he pledged the public pledge of allegiance in the mosque, and this tradition became followed in the pledge of allegiance ceremonies in subsequent periods.

Subsequently, Abu Bakr took the title of Caliph of the Messenger of God (Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him) to determine his duties in succeeding the Messenger of God in power. From the beginning, Abu Bakr defined his tasks in the statement he delivered at the general pledge of allegiance, which were to achieve truth, justice, equality, continue jihad, and above all, adherence to the Book of God and the Sunnah of His Prophet, which is the basis of legitimacy.11 Abu Bakr recognized the rights of the nation and its role in evaluating and correcting the behavior of the Caliph. The Caliph fulfills his duty in accordance with the rules of the Qur’an and Sunnah. However, the way in which people should be governed was not specified.

Choose Omar

Abu Bakr felt the necessity of covenanting after him to avoid problems. It seems that Abu Bakr took this step because of what happened after the death of the Messenger and because of the division over the rule.12 He said, “Oh God, I did not want anything but their reconciliation and I feared strife for them”. But accounts conflicted about how this idea was implemented. Some narratives indicate that Abu Bakr consulted Abd al-Rahman bin Awf and Othman bin Affan praised him for choosing Omar, and Abd al-Rahman said despite his fear of Omar’s harshness, “By God, he is better than what you think of him,” and Othman said, “O God, tell him that his secret is better than his open, and that there is no one like him among us”. Abu Bakr also consulted with a number of the Companions, including the Muhajireen and Ansar, and Usayd ibn Hudair said, “No one stronger than him will do this matter”.

However, there is a different narration that indicates that some of the Companions feared the reign of Abu Bakr and Omar. This is because during his illness, Abu Bakr requested that Omar be brought to him in the presence of Talha bin Ubaid Allah, Al-Zubayr bin Al-Awwam, Othman bin Affan, Saeed bin Zaid and other companions who felt that he preferred Omar, so they went out to the mosque and sent for Ali bin Abi Talib, then they all discussed choosing Omar and said: “The successor of the Messenger of God is Omar’s successor, and the people have learned that our Islam was before Omar’s Islam and there was a lot of domination over the people and what is in it and no authority for him, so bring us in to ask him. If Omar uses it, we will talk to him about it and delay it.” And We delayed it, so they did.” After that, Abu Bakr went out to the mosque and informed the people of his choice of Omar. It is noted from this narration of Al-Sha’bi that there are Alawite tendencies, as he ignored Abu Bakr’s consultation with Uthman ibn Affan. This also suggests a lack of recognition of Uthman’s role in choosing Omar and the actions he did. Writing Abu Bakr’s covenant for him, the narration also showed that Omar was not the only person who met the qualities of the next caliph, as there was someone more deserving of the caliphate than him, namely Ali bin Abi Talib.

There are other narrations that show that the opposition to Omar was represented in the person of Talha bin Ubaid Allah and Ali bin Abi Talib, who went to Abu Bakr and warned him against appointing Omar bin Al-Khattab as his successor because of his harshness,fearing13 for the people’s fear of his severity if he appointed them as successor. They made him swear not to do so, saying, “So what are you saying to your Lord?” However, Abu Bakr said: “Because I know God and Omar better than you both, I say, I have appointed the best of your family as successors over them. These fears were echoed on the lips of other companions, saying: “He left behind us a harsh man. If he had ruled over us, he would have been harsher.” And be harsh”.14

It is noted from the above that Omar bin Al-Khattab was the only and most prominent candidate among the Companions because of his qualities and ability to carry out the affairs of the nation, and the narratives show that Abu Bakr explained to the nation the reasons for his choice of Omar because he was the most capable of people to carry out the tasks of ruling after him, and he responded to the doubters by choosing him because of his confidence in Omar and his ability. And his eligibility to rule, as he said, “I granted them the best of them, the strongest over them, and the most keen of them on what He guided them”. However, Abu Bakr consulted those close to him and the leaders of the people of Medina, and he did not want to be alone in his opinion, so they advised him of Omar, and this idea was supported by them. It also appears that Omar’s choice came after long thought, as Abu said Bakr, “By God, I have not given up my effort nor have I been close to a relative”. Here the picture is clear in the selection of Omar bin Al-Khattab because he was the strongest candidate for the caliphate. For his eligibility and for being more The most influential figures in the caliphate of Abu Bakr. This became clear from Talha’s remark when he addressed Abu Bakr, protesting against Omar’s excessive interference in matters of government: Are you the prince or Omar? Omar said, ‘But obedience is mine,’ so he remained silent.

On the other hand, Omar’s service in Islam was important, as Abu Bakr was not related to a relative, and here the idea of ​​inheritance in power is negated. Also, Omar was not from a prominent faction of Quraysh, but was chosen for his qualifications and abilities, and these are Islamic advantages that contradict tribal traditions. Thus, Omar bin Al-Khattab was appointed successor on Tuesday of Jumada al-Akhirah in the year 13 AH. During the reign of Omar, the principle of selection took another form when Omar entrusted this task to six prominent Quraishi immigrants, with one of them assuming the caliphate.

Shura Omar Othman's choice

The issue of governance preoccupied Omar ibn al-Khattab’s thinking during his life, and three trends are evident here involving Omar ibn al-Khattab’s thinking during his life on the issue of governance: The first trend refers to Omar’s refusal to covenant with anyone after him. Al-Waqidi mentions that Omar said before he was stabbed, “I do not know what to do with the nation of Muhammad”.And he was asked to appoint a successor after him, but he refused. Al-Waqidi mentions that Abdullah bin Omar asked his father to appoint him as a successor, but he refused, saying, “If he appoints a successor, he has appointed someone better than me as a successor, and if he leaves And if I leave, then he who is better than me has left, and the best guidance is the guidance of Muhammad, and if I do not appoint anyone as a successor, he will submit to me, and the second trend indicates that Ibn Abbas suggested to Omar to place the matter in the hands of a man of the Companions, and he mentioned Ali, Talha, Abd al-Rahman, Uthman, Sa`d, and al-Zubayr, so he responded.” This matter is only suitable for someone who is strong without weakness and generous without extravagance.” As for the third trend, Omar bin Al-Khattab was thinking of making the matter a shura, saying, “There are men who say that the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr was for his own freedom, may God protect him from its evil, and that the pledge of allegiance to Omar was without consultation, and the matter after me is a shura.” In the first, it is clear that he was not inclined to appoint a caliph after him. The second is that he was not completely reassured about the appointment of a man from among the Companions after him, and he had reservations about each of them and may not find general acceptance in naming one of them. The third is that the idea of ​​shura was brewing in Omar’s mind during his life and did not Be a vessel. Al-Miswar bin Makhramah mentions that Omar said, “If I die, then your command will go to these six people who left the Messenger of God and he was satisfied with them: Ali Ibn Abi Talib, his counterpart Al-Zubayr, Abd al-Rahman bin Awf, his counterpart Uthman, Talha and his counterpart Saad bin Malik”.

When Omar appealed, he was advised to appoint his son Abdullah as successor, but he refused and explained that his son was an ascetic in matters of governance, saying, “We have no interest in your affairs, and if I praise them, I desire them for any of my family? According to Omar’s family, one man among them should be held accountable and asked about the nation of Muhammad.” And when he asked He refused to entrust it to any of the Muslims, saying, “I do not want to bear it, alive or dead”. Here it seems that the idea of ​​Shura was the most acceptable to him. Perhaps it was taken from the Meccan Mullah Council before Islam, where the leaders of the tribe would sit and discuss its affairs.

Omar ibn al-Khattab specified the Shura Council in six people, who were the leaders of the emigrant Quraysh and among the ten who were promised Paradise, and the Messenger of God died satisfied with them. The reason for their choice was that Omar knew the position of each one of them among the Quraysh and the people, as he said, “I looked and found that you are the leaders of the people and their leaders, and this matter will only happen.” In you. But he had some reservations about each of them; He was afraid of Ali because of his humor and his young age, and of Othman because of his nervousness And his love for his family and his people, and his burden on people’s necks, and he fears Abdul Rahman for his weakness, and from Saad, he is a man of good faith.

Harb is not suitable for politics. As for Al-Zubayr, he has some harshness and some stinginess, and he is afraid of Talha due to his pride and arrogance. It seems that Othman and Ali were the most prominent of the six candidates, and Omar felt this. Al-Sha’bi says,15 “Omar had no doubt that this matter would happen to one of the two men, Ali and Othman, for he addressed them, saying: “O Ali, perhaps these will know to you your kinship to the Prophet16 and your son-in-law and what God has given you.” Of jurisprudence and knowledge, if you are appointed to this matter, then fear God in it. Then he called Uthman and said, “O Uthman, perhaps these people know your son-in-law from the Messenger of God and your age. If you are appointed to this matter, then fear God in it and do not carry the family of Abu Muait on the necks of the people.” Both candidates are similar. In their marriage with the Messenger of God and in their precedence to Islam, Othman is older than Ali in age, and this is an indication of the influence of Arab traditions in choosing the ruler.

Omar organized some measures and appointed Suhaib, servant of Abdullah bin Jadaan, to lead the prayers. He ordered the killing of everyone who failed to pledge allegiance and set the period of choice at three days. He was ordered to wait for Talha's return and he was absent with money he had in the company, but Talha did not appear until after the death of Omar, and he pledged allegiance to Uthman after the matter had been settled for him. Abd al-Rahman had a prominent role in organizing the Shura Council, and the Shura Council was limited to six of the Muhajireen and specifically from the Quraish, not the Ansar, and here is confirmation of what was stated in al-Saqeefa regarding the caliphate being limited to the Quraish. The first Shura Council was held during the life of Omar bin Al-Khattab, but it did not lead to any results Nothing resulted, then the second council was held after his death, and the details of what took place in the second meeting were somewhat confusing. Narrations indicated that Abd al-Rahman bin Awf removed himself and his cousin Saad from the field of selection, because they had not reached a decision regarding choosing one of them and the discussion had gone on for a long time. And Abdul Rahman took the initiative to choose one of them.

Sources tell us that Al-Zubair conceded to Ali, and that Tulayha conceded to Uthman because of their kinship with them. Al-Zubayr is the cousin of Ali and Talha Taymi and he hates Banu Hashim, just as Saad gave up his right to the Shura Council to Uthman and here Abd al-Rahman tried to find out the opinion of the nation and the Companions about the candidate, so he consulted the nobles of the people and the commanders of the soldiers, and even tried to find out the opinion of the common people and their rabble, and he found them referring to Uthman, which makes him feel the role of The Umayyad propaganda proved successful in making people turn towards Uthman. Since the conquest of Mecca, the Umayyads have been trying to regain their influence and they actually succeeded in doing so during the period of the first two caliphs. Abdul Rahman’s kinship with Othman also had an impact on the latter’s choice. This is what Ali was afraid of, when he said that Saad “does not disagree with his cousin Abd al-Rahman, and Abd al-Rahman, Uthman’s son-in-law, they do not disagree about it, so Abd al-Rahman will give it to Othman or Othman will give it to Abd al-Rahman,” and that he was frank with Abd al-Rahman when he chose Othman, saying, “His love... is not This is the first day you demonstrated against us.”

On the morning of the election day, Abdul Rahman made following the policies of Abu Bakr and Omar the basis for candidacy, and asked both Uthman and Ali to swear an oath to follow the Holy Qur’an, the Sunnah of His Prophet, and the guidance of the two Sheikhs, and not deviate from them. Ali responded with reservations, saying, “I hope to do and work to the best of my knowledge and energy,” and when Abd al-Rahman repeated the question to him, saying: “On my own diligence.” As for Uthman, Abd al-Rahman agreed to his condition, saying: “Oh God, yes,” and in another narration, “Yes, I will not leave him nor leave any of it”. It seems that Ali was aware of the fear of the Quraysh about the entry of the caliphate among the Banu Hashim, for fear that it would not leave them, as he said: “The people look at the Quraysh, and the Quraysh looks at its house and says: ‘My guardian over you is the Banu Hashim. It will never leave them,’ and it was not.”Among other Quraysh people, you exchanged it among yourselves.” Uthman’s answer had the effect of putting him ahead of Ali, and the pledge of allegiance to him was fulfilled, and he and Abdul Rahman and the people of the Shura Council, then the people. Othman's old age had an impact on his advancement.

They shed light on the killing of Othman

During the caliphate of Othman, the first major crisis occurred after the wars of apostasy, which was the first strife that occurred between Muslims. Historians explain this by complaining about Othman, as they hold him responsible for the actions that led to his death. Historical sources are full of talk about the causes of strife, but there are basic factors for it. Othman was criticized for his fanaticism toward his relatives, his appointment of governorates to them, and the removal of senior companions. Saad bin Abi Waqas was removed from Kufa in the year 26 AH, and Al-Walid bin Uqba bin Abi Muait took his place. Then he dismissed him and Sa’id bin Al-Aas took his place in the year 30 AH. Both of them were Umayyads, just as Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari was dismissed.

Al-Ash'ari from Basra, and Abdullah bin Amer bin Kariz Al-Umawi took his place in the year 29 AH. Omar died, and Muawiyah was in charge of the Jordanian army and Damascus, so Othman added to him Homs, Qinnisrin, and Palestine in the year 31 AH, which angered the companions who saw that these were new to Islam, and he was among those who protested against him. Ali bin Abi Talib, Talha bin Ubaid Allah, and Al-Zubair for disobeying Omar’s will, saying, “Didn’t Omar instruct you not to carry the family of Abu Mu’it and the Umayyads on the necks of the people, but he did not answer them with anything”. Abu Dhar al-Ghafari also criticized him, saying: “You use boys and marry the children of freed men.”

He also criticized Uthman for his closeness to his cousin Marwan ibn al-Hakam and the latter’s control over Uthman and his influence. In return, he rejected the advice of the Companions to him regarding that. Ali ibn Abi Talib said, “Uthman does not want anyone to advise him to take the cover of deceitful people..”, as he said, blaming Uthman. I am satisfied with Marwan, and I am not satisfied with you, unless you deviate from your religion and your mind.... By God, Marwan has no opinion or religion... You have taken away your honor and your affairs have been defeated”.

It appears that the Companions saw that Othman opened the way to the influence of the Umayyads, so much so that Marwan addressed the delegations of the people of the cities (Basra, Kufa, and Egypt) coming to Medina in the year 35, saying, “You have come to want to snatch our kingdom from our hands. Get out of us. By God, if you throw us away, something will happen to you from us that will not please you or you.” Thank you Raghib for your opinion. Go back to your homes. By God, we are not defeated by what is in our hands. He also criticized Uthman for not monitoring the charity workers, for Muawiyah’s lack of freedom of action, and for giving gifts to his relatives that Muslims considered to be in violation of the Sunnah of Abu Bakr and Omar. He gave Abdullah bin Khalid bin Usayd fifty thousand dirhams, and Al-Hakam bin Abi Al-Aas gave Qada’ah alms, which amounted to three hundred thousand dirhams, just as Al-Walid bin Uqba took money from the Muslims’ treasury and did not return it, and when Abdullah bin Masoud, the treasurer of the Kufa treasury, objected to this, Othman ordered By dismissing the latter, Ibn Masoud began cursing Uthman and that he had changed and changed the life of the Messenger of God, so Uthman ordered him to be taken to Medina, where he treated him. Othman treated him harshly and ordered him to be beaten. The people became dissatisfied with Othman’s behavior in the treasury, which they considered to be the Muslims’ money from open land, and they were more deserving of their spoils. When the people denied Othman’s action, they sent Ali bin Abi Talib to him to speak to him. Othman replied, “There is a surplus of money left, so what do I have?” I do not do what I want with virtue! I was not an imam”, but he was content with deposing Al-Walid bin Uqba from Kufa and returning Saeed bin Al-Aas as its governor.

Uthman was also criticized for his increased fever more strictly than Omar was. But Othman had to have a fever as a result As a result of the increase in charity camels during his reign, they amounted to about forty thousand, but this increase in the Hima was at the expense of a lot of lands belonging to the Arab tribes, and Othman was not satisfied with the increase in the Himah, but rather gave permission to some of his workers to benefit from the Himah on their behalf, as he did by granting Marwan bin Al-Hakam a free tax. A well in one end of the fever. As for protesting against his collecting the Qur’an and burning the copies of some tribes, Abu Bakr preceded him in this when he feared that the Qur’an would be lost due to the large number of reciters killed in the battle of Al-Yamamah in the wars of apostasy, but the reason that prompted Uthman to take this step was the disagreement among the people regarding the recitations until strife was on the verge. That it falls among them, as some of them disbelieved in the recitations and each tribe became fanatical towards its reciter. The opposition to Othman in this step was represented by the regional tendency of the Egyptians, which appeared in the support of all of Egypt for its reader.17 Al-Sijistani mentions in the words of Hudhayfah bin Al-Yaman his saying, “By God, none of the people of this country - Kufa - Kufa - He refuses to read this Sheikh, meaning Ibn Masoud, and none of the people of Yemen - Basra wants to read this Sheikh, meaning Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari”.

Compiling the Qur’an means limiting the influence of the reciters and limiting the decentralized trend, and this is the secret of the uproar over Uthman, and the best support. Therefore, no one accused the Caliph of distortion, so the Qur’an brought together the strongest example of the clash between the tribal trend and the Islamic trend.

However, the most prominent reason for the resentment against Othman is the problem of giving. Abu Bakr was equal in giving, but Omar ibn al-Khattab was more generous in giving according to his closeness to the Messenger of God, precedence, precedence, and singing in Islam, and Omar died based on preference. Othman followed the path of Omar in preference, as the first six years of Othman’s caliphate witnessed a wide movement in The conquests were accompanied by an abundance of spoils, and then the conquerors settled in the new areas and owned the land. However, the conquests of Kufa remained less than the conquests of Basra, so the people of Basra reached Kerman, Sijistan, and the general regions of Khorasan, and their imports of spoils were large, which This increased their giving and brought about a significant improvement in their financial situation, which created relative calm for them, unlike Kufa, whose problems remained. The people of Kufa “disgraced preference and made it rude, and they disagreed about it and hardly showed it because they had no argument and the people were against them, so it was when the right to them emerged.” Or a Bedouin or a editor whose speech became permissible, so they increased and the people decreased until evil prevailed”. Here we notice a complaint about the financial system that was established during the time of Omar and a complaint about the material disparities between the Quraysh and others. We see that the disagreement with the Quraysh was tribal in its basis, but the financial disparity and social development made it stronger and more severe, because the cessation of the movement of conquests meant a decline in income for the tribes.

Also, allowing the exchange of lands in the conquered countries for others in Medina and Mecca without those who returned among them losing their rights to the crops increased the feelings of the successors or the successors who were not comfortable and did not accept the preference, which increased the discontent and the resulting economic gap between the predecessors and the successors, in addition to the differences in Fortune is the field of giving and status. Among the problems that exacerbated the resentment against Othman was his disposal of the Sawafi land, and his feudal vassalage to some of the companions and those close to him. And those close to him because he considered that disposing of Al-Sawafi was the right of the Imam, so Adi bin Hatem Al-Ta’i allotted Al-Ruhaa, Jarir bin Abdullah Al-Bajli allocated land on the shore of the Euphrates, and Wael Al-Hadrami allocated what was to Zawraa. The first conquerors from the people of Al-Qadisiyah found that Al-Sawafi lands had shrunk and that the economic field had shrunk, which is What the people of Kufa felt led to their explosion in the council of its governor, Saeed bin Abi Al-Aas, when Saeed discussed in the presence of notables and readers from the people of Kufa, including Malik bin Al-Harith, Al-Ashtar Al-Nakha’i, Zaid and Sa’sa, the sons of Suhan Al-Abdian, and Harqus bin Zuhair Al-Saadi... The matter of Al-Sawad and Al-Jabal, and when the discussion became heated, Saeed said, “Al-Sawad is the orchard of Quraysh.” Al-Ashtar said, “Will you make the points of our spears, and what God has bestowed upon us, a garden for you and your people? By God, if anyone were to shoot at it, he would knock a lottery and it would take root from it.”

Here it becomes clear that the tribes did not feel comfortable with the Sultan of Quraish, who benefited from the fae and the wool, and the differentiation in giving, as Al-Ashtar and those with him from the faces of Kufa began to criticize Uthman and Al-Ashtar actively called for the removal of Saeed. Al-Ashtar said, “I have come to you from the Commander of the Faithful, Othman, and I left Saeed wanting On the decrease of your women to one hundred dirhams, and the people of affliction among you were reduced to two thousand, and he says, “What is the matter with the nobility of women and this premium between these two just people,” and he claims that your booty is the orchard of Quraysh? It seems that the riot affected the common people, the subordinates and the auxiliaries, even the armed Ashtar near Basra to prevent Saeed from returning to Kufa, and here a very sensitive problem was raised in Kufa, which is giving. What increased the complaints of the tribes was the commercial activity of Quraish, their enrichment, and their benefit from the conquest movement and their acquisition of land. As the Quraysh realized the importance of the land and acquired vast lands, and some of them accumulated great wealth, Uthman made room for them at the beginning of his caliphate, and most of the governors were from Quraysh, which increased the frustration of the tribesmen with the Quraysh’s dominance and monopolization of the caliphate; Muawiyah addressed the Kufans whom Uthman sent to the Levant in the year 34 AH following the quarrel between Saeed bin Al-Aas and Al-Ashtar, saying, “I have heard that you took revenge on the Quraysh, even though the Quraysh had not been considered humiliated as you were.” A man from the people said: As for what you mentioned about the Quraysh, it was not more. The Arabs did not forbid it in the pre-Islamic period, so we feared...”

This view has an echo in what was represented in the position of a man towards Abdul Qais, who said, addressing Al-Zubayr and Talha in the year 36 AH: “Oh community of immigrants, you were the first to respond to the Messenger of God, so you had a merit. Then the people entered Islam as you entered, and when the Messenger of God died, you pledged allegiance to a man from among you. By God, you did not agree with us.” In some of this, he appointed a man from among you as your successor, but you did not consult us about it, so we agreed and submitted. When the prince died, the matter was assigned to six people, so you chose Uthman and pledged allegiance to him without consulting us. The bottom line is that the revolution against Othman represents a revolt of the tribes against the Quraish to monopolize money and power in the first place. Othman fell victim to circumstances that were not of his making, but rather the result of the development of the Islamic nation and the change in its circumstances. The motives that led to his killing were a mixture of economic, social, political and administrative factors, which are There is also a conflict of interests between some influential people from the Umayyad tribe and the rest of the tribes, and a conflict between the interests of the people of the past in Islam and the rivals. It is also a problem between the center and the peripheries, and it is also a revolution of the fighters against the financial policy pursued by Omar ibn al-Khattab and followed by Uthman, and it is in the end a result. A clash between the tribal trend and the Islamic trend. It was a revolution of the Arab tribes against the Quraysh, and thus it was a revolution of the cities against the authority of the Hijaz and Medina. This revolution ended with the killing of the Caliph, who represented that authority. The importance of the role of the tribes in the sedition against Othman is highlighted, as they had a role since then in choosing the Caliph and installing him in his position after he had been This role is limited to Medina and the senior companions of the Muhajireen and Ansar.10

Ali bin Abi Talib, the fourth rightly guided caliph

Caliph Othman bin Affan was killed and Ali bin Abi Talib was chosen. As for how he was chosen, narrations vary and conflict. Some narrations indicate that Ali was not the only candidate, but that there was Talha bin Ubaidullah Al-Taymi, who almost had the matter completed had it not been for Ali’s appearance at the right time, and that people tended to Talha to pledge allegiance to him when Caliph Uthman was killed, and that Ali went to his home and a man met him and said “Look at a man who killed his cousin and robbed him of his kingdom.” So he turned back until he rose to the pulpit of the mosque, and the people paid attention to him and left Talha and turned to him and pledged allegiance to him. ... Not one of the people of Badr remained except that they came to Ali and said to him: We do not see anyone more deserving of it than you, so extend your hand to pledge allegiance to you, so Talha, Al-Zubayr, Saad, and all of the Prophet’s companions pledged allegiance to him”. But there are other narrations that mention that the tribesmen who killed Uthman turned to Ali, and that Talha and Al-Zubair did not pledge allegiance to Ali until after Al-Ashtar threatened them with death. It is narrated that Al-Ashtar drew his sword and said, addressing Talha when he delayed in pledging the pledge of allegiance: “By God, you will pledge allegiance to Ali or I will behead you.” So Talha said, “Where is it?” The smuggler pledged allegiance to him, and Al-Zubayr pledged allegiance to him.” And in another narration, “And Talha pledged allegiance to him unwillingly, with the sword above his head”.

The people explain the reasons for their choice of Ali due to his virtue, his precedence in Islam, and his closeness to the Messenger of God, “When Othman was killed and entered his house, the companions of the Messenger of God came to him and said: This man has been killed and the people must have an imam, and we do not find today anyone more deserving of this matter than you. I am not more important to the people.” There is no one closer than the Messenger of God”, and it is true that Ali initially rejected the matter and asked for the matter to be consultative, but he agreed after they insisted on him a lot.

Consequently, Imam Ali was chosen under pressure from the tribes that stormed Medina, especially the Iraqis who supported and supported him, then from the people of Medina and the Hashemites, and support for him was strongest among the Ansar, despite the presence of some opposition to him from some figures aspiring to power who failed to pledge allegiance to him. The city was under the control of Saif Al-Amsar, so the circumstances of choosing Ali were very critical, as the nation was threatened with division, so the tribesmen realized the seriousness of the situation, so they rushed to Ali; He is one of the six Shura Councils, in addition to his precedence, his kinship, and his marriage to the Messenger of God. Ali’s influence and the support of the Ansar and the Hashemites for him were the deciding factors in his election in those circumstances. The strife did not end with the election of Ali, but rather events continued. Imam Ali, from the beginning, followed the Islamic trend in a turbulent tribal environment. Ali’s first step in removing Uthman’s governors was not a mistake, but rather an act consistent with the traditions of the caliphate. But he came amidst the rise of tribal traditions and the victory of this trend, so Muawiyah Ibn Abu Sufyan demanded the blood of Uthman on a tribal basis. Retribution and imposing punishments are the state’s duty and right, not the right of relatives. The fact that many people gathered around Muawiyah indicates the strength of the tribal trend and the favorable circumstances.

The departure of Talha and Al-Zubair and the battle of the came

The beginning of the movement against Ali was in Mecca, and the narratives differ in that. It is mentioned that Talha and Al-Zubayr came to Aisha in Mecca, and they called her to leave because Othman was killed unjustly, and they called on her to demand the return of the Shura Council, as Omar had left them to do so. So Aisha started saying: Othman was killed unjustly, and I call on you to demand. with his blood and to restore the matter by Shura”, and another indicates that Aisha received the news of the killing of Othman while she was on her way to Mecca, so she returned and began calling on the people to retaliate. She said, “So plot something and then rise up against this mob”. The narrations show us that Talha, Al-Zubayr, and Aisha went out to retaliate.

They went out to take revenge on the killers of Othman, and to call for the return of the matter to the Shura Council of Omar bin Al-Khattab, which suggests not implicitly recognizing the pledge of allegiance to Ali. The factor demanding the blood of Uthman was an important reason for the exit of Talha and al-Zubayr, who, when they pledged allegiance to Ali, demanded retaliation from Uthman’s killers, otherwise the prestige of the caliphate would be lost and it would no longer have authority or order, but Ali hesitated. It is not possible to turn a blind eye to the narrations that talk about the ambition of Talha and Al-Zubair for the caliphate. They both asked Ali to appoint them as governors of Kufa and Basra, but he refused, and in another, Al-Zubair addressed Ali shortly before the camel and said, “I do not see you in this matter, nor is I more worthy of it than we are”. With a reminder of Talha’s position after the killing of Uthman, although some researchers emphasized that the departure of Talha and Al-Zubayr was motivated by a demand for Uthman’s blood and the restoration of the Shura (shura) order.

These demands found great resonance with the Umayyads, who wanted to confuse Ali. Ibn Utham says, “The Banu Umayyah spoke and raised their heads when Talha and Al-Zubayr came to Aisha, and they continued to incite her to demand the blood of Uthman”, until Ya’la bin Umayyah and Abdullah bin Aamir prepared the rebels with money, camels, and weapons.

The rebels marched to Basra because it had money. It was the most comfortable of the cities during the time of Uthman and the least critical, and it had supporters and advocates for Talha and Al-Zubayr. The departure of Aisha was a motivation for many to leave “in support of the weight and sanctity of the Messenger of God”. In fact, this call had an impact in the people’s abandonment of Uthman ibn Hanif, Ali’s governor. They arrived in Basra and joined Aisha. At the time when Talha and Al-Zubayr were able to seize Basra, Ali had left the city for Rabza in order to march to Muawiyah, who refused to surrender and pledge allegiance to Ali. While he was there, news came to him of Talha and Al-Zubayr and what they had done in Basra, including their killing of a number of men, claiming their participation in the killing. Othman, so he went to fight them, heading to Kufa because “the people of Kufa Kufa is more beloved and among them are the heads of the Arabs and their notables”. This is despite the advice of some of the companions to Ali not to leave the city, telling him that if he left it he would never return to it, so Ali Ibn Abi Talib camped in Dhi Qar near Kufa and took it as his center, so the tribes left. To support him in Dhi Qar, the two sides met in the Battle of the Camel on the tenth of Jumada al-Akhirah in the year 36 AH. The battle ended with the killing of Talha and al-Zubayr, and Aisha returned to Medina, and the Umayyad rebels joined Muawiyah in the Levant. Ali took a tolerant stance towards the rebels, so he preserved the people of Basra’s property and granted them amnesty, and this was followed by taking a prisoner. Pledge of allegiance from the people of Basra, even the wounded and the women who are safe.

The battle of Siffin and the emergence of the Kharijites

When Ali finished with the people of Basra, he headed towards the Levant to subjugate Muawiyah, who came out with a tribal call based on revenge for Othman and refused to pledge allegiance to Ali. He worked to fuel the idea of ​​revenge for Othman’s blood, as he placed Othman’s shirt and the fingers of Naila (Othman’s wife, who cut off her fingers while defending him) on the pulpit and wrote. With the news to the outskirts of the Levant.” So the people jumped up to him and cried for a year while he was on the pulpit with their fingers stuck in it, and the men from the people of the Levant were instructed not to sleep on the mattresses until they had killed the killers of Uthman and whoever offered anything inferior to them or their souls had perished.

Ali had previously sent several delegations to Muawiyah urging him to abandon his opinion, spare the blood of Muslims, and return to Islam. To the group, but Muawiyah insisted on his position, relying on the support of the people of the Levant for him and his cause, and he rallied against the Iraqis who were from the beginning disunited, divided, and differing in loyalty and trends.18 There are the Muhajireen, the Ansar, the nobles of the tribes, the people of al-Qadisiyah, the days, the narrators, and then a group of reciters, which strengthened their disagreement, and disagreement arose early on Ali’s front. Some of them called for marching directly to the Levant, and others called for caution and writing to the people of the Levant, and this led to accusations of Accusing the appeasement party of contacting Muawiyah, and when they were threatened, some of them followed Muawiyah to the Levant, and some Iraqis preferred not to fight their brothers in the Levant. When Ali wanted to march to the Levant, a man from Fazara called Irbid bin Rabi’ah intercepted him and said to him: “Do you want to march us to our brothers from the people of the Levant so that we can kill them for 19you, just as you led us to our brothers from the people of Basra so we killed them? No, by God, we will not do it”.

The Iraqi and Syrian sides met in Siffin in the year 36 AH, and the fighting continued in the form of skirmishes until Muharram in the year 37 AH. When Muawiyah realized defeat, he responded to the idea of ​​Omar bin Al-Aas by raising the Qur’an and using the Book of God to protect us from bloodshed. This scheming on the part of the Levantines led to division and conflict among Ali’s followers, and he was forced in the end, under pressure from the majority in his army, to accept arbitration. However, the Iraqis’ disagreement was not limited to accepting or rejecting arbitration, but rather extended to appointing the person who would represent them in the arbitration matter, as they were chosen. Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari, after long discussions, despite the will of Ali bin Abi Talib, who nominated Abdullah bin Abbas. As for the Levantines, they chose Amr bin Al-Aas, and both parties wrote a letter of arbitration in which the name of Ali bin Abi Talib was mentioned, stripped of his title "Commander of the Faithful". After reading the book on arbitration, the dispute arose again among the Iraqis about the idea of ​​arbitration from its foundations. Some extremists opposed it, justifying that “there is no judgment but God” and that it is not permissible for men to arbitrate in a matter of God’s affairs. The discussion and debate continued among the ranks of the Iraqis on the way back from Siffin to Kufa, “the people went out to Siffin while they were friends and loved ones, and they returned as enemies who hated each other and brandished each other with whips”. Before their arrival in Kufa, a group of Ali’s army, who rejected arbitration, defected and camped in Harura near Kufa, and from here historians called them the Huriya or the Court.

A section of the court entered Kufa and they prayed behind Ali in the mosque and often interrupted him during the sermon They preached, repeating their slogan, “There is no judgment but for God.” They continued to call on Ali to reject arbitration and not enforce Abu Musa al-Ash’ari. When Ali refused and insisted on not breaking his promise, the court gave up on convincing him. They consulted on their matter and elected Abdullah bin Wahb al-Rasibi as their imam and wrote to their supporters in Basra to meet them. In Nahrawan, the Basrans joined their brothers in Nahrawan and their number was 500 men led by Masar bin Fadaki Al-Tamimi.

The Kharijites had hardly even reached Nahrawan Al-Nahrawan until the news accused the arbitration of failure, so they decided to go to the Levant to settle the matter with Muawiyah. Ali tried to win them over, but they refused, and when he despaired of anyone joining him, he decided to go to the Levant, but his companions insisted on him that he had to fight the court first, so Ali was forced to submit, and he tried to convince them to change and avoid sedition. And bloodshed, but they refused, so he fought them and defeated them in Safar in the year 38 AH. Despite Ali's victory over the people of Nahrawan, revolts continued against him Those who demanded revenge for those killed in Nahrawan, and Ali continued to fight them until he fell at the hands of Abd al-Rahman bin Muljam al-Kharji, who Many of his relatives were killed in Nahrawan, 20,21 and the tribes reacted violently. Anyone who follows the people who led the rebellion against Ali, starting with the rejection of arbitration and what followed, finds that these people were from the northern Arab tribes that converted to Islam late and did not have a civilized heritage, and their members continued to represent the Bedouin tendency that did not accept submission to central authority, especially since that authority was concentrated in the Quraysh. The followers of the early Kharijites were from the “Arabs of Bakr and Tamim”, and they were also from the apostate tribes, and most of them participated in the revolt against Uthman, as they said to him when he hesitated to accept arbitration, “O Ali, answer the people to the Book of God when you are called, otherwise we will kill you as we killed Uthman.” and there was not one of the early Muslims among them, and the first Khawarij were not among the reciters, but these joined the Khawarij The Kharijites, including Harqus ibn Zuhair al-Saadi, was one of those who prevented Saeed ibn al-Aas from returning to Kufa, and he was one of those who marched to the Levant, so Ibn Abbas says, “Bring what you resented against the son-in-law of the Messenger of God, the Muhajireen, and the Ansar, and upon them the Qur’an was revealed, and not one of them is among you.” They replied, “No.” They quarreled with the Quraysh, for God Almighty said about them, “Rather, they are a hostile people” (Al-Zukhruf: 85). Here it becomes clear that resentment against the Quraysh and their monopolization of power is the reason behind the Kharijites’ demand for shura, and the idea of ​​shura that they called for was nothing but a rejection of the authority of the Quraysh, which means a direct continuation of the central authority.22–26

This is clear from the development of the Kharijites’ theory of the institution of caliphate, in which they did not stipulate Qurayshi lineage. Rather, they included the followers and women in their call, and that it is not necessary for the imam to be an Arab, except for the Shura Council, which they meant. What is the religious call, but rather a religious justification that they adopted for the revolution against the legitimate caliph? The majority of the Kharijites adhered to the Shura Council because they saw the victory of the Umayyads as a new victory for Quraysh over the rest of the Arabs, so they adhered to the Islamic principle and called for absolute election. After that, a new phase of the Kharijite movements began that continued throughout the Umayyad era.

The general context of Ali’s succession was confused and largely dominated by regional and tribal tendencies. Ali moved towards Kufa, where there was money and men, but his position in Iraq was embarrassed. But the tribal tendency is strong. Kufa is tribal in terms of its population and tribes, preserving Bedouin traditions, not yet influenced by urban traditions, and does not understand the idea of ​​a state. Ali followed the Islamic trend among them, and this was not compatible with the Kufans, who favored their interests, so he clashed with them in every crisis. In the Battle of the Camel, the Kufans spoiled Ali’s opportunity to reach an understanding with his opponents and stop bloodshed, and they attacked without his knowledge after preparing for the negotiations and caused those bloody incidents. In Siffin, they forced him to referee by force after they were tired of fighting, and imposed on him.

He appointed Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari to represent him, and he was not one of his loyalists, and Ali explained that to them explicitly, "He is not trustworthy. He left me and let the people down on me, then he fled until I secured him months later." When Abdullah bin Abbas suggested, Al-Ash'ath protested, "No, by God, Midrian will not rule on it until The Hour will come, but make him a man from the people of Yemen if they make him a man from Mudar.” And when he warned against the deception of Yemen in front of the Quraysh, Al-Ashtar said: “By God, for them to rule with some of what we dislike and one of them from the people of Yemen is more beloved to us than for some of what we find in their ruling to be “Mudhar.” Muawiyah's victory was a victory for the tribal trend again, as he came out on a tribal basis demanding the blood of his cousin. It was portrayed to the Syrians that Ali was a ally of the killers of Uthman, and his marriage to Maysoon bint Bahdal al-Kalbiyah (from Kalb al-Yamaniyya) was a strong tribal support for him, so he followed a tribal policy, appeasing the tribal leaders, getting close to the poets, and using cunning and cunning.


It is clear from the above that the Rashidun caliphate was elective, but the methods of election varied between free choice, as happened in the selection of Abu Bakr and Ali, and naming that was preceded by consultation and confirmed by the pledge of allegiance, as appeared in the selection of Omar, and then choosing the caliph by Shura from among prominent men, who elected whomever they agreed upon. Among them, as Othman was chosen. Consequently, the principle of choice did not settle on a specific method, but rather the existing circumstances controlled the definition of its forms. Some characteristics were noted in the Caliph that represent the two main trends in Islamic and tribal society. Islamism means: precedence in Islam, closeness to the Messenger of God, piety and jurisprudence, while tribalism means age, sophistication, experience, ability, Ability, lineage. As for the Qurayshi, they practically settled on the qualities required of the candidate, and the selection process took into account the principle of the contract and pledge of allegiance. This indicates an agreement between the Caliph and the nation on the policy of matters according to the Book of God and the Sunnah of His Prophet (and the Sunnah of the Salaf entered after the death of Abu Bakr). It is also noted that the selection process was limited to the Companions. And in Medina or among those who came to it from the cities, as happened in the election of Ali.



Conflicts of interest

The author declares that there are no conflicts of interest.


  1. The Devil’s Dressing, Cairo, Amiriyah Printing Department, 2nd Ed. 1928.
  2. Al-Bukhari, Muhammad bin Ismail bin Ibrahim Al-Jaafari (d. 265 AH), Al-Sahih, Damascus and Beirut, Dar Ibn Kathir. 1993;7 parts.
  3. Ibn Hisham, Abu Muhammad Abd al-Malik (d. 213 AH), The Biography of the Prophet by Ibn Hisham, verified, compiled, and indexed by Mustafa al-Saqqa, Ibrahim al-Abiyari, Abd al-Hafiz Shalabi, Cairo, al-Babbi. 1934;4 parts.
  4. Al-Douri, Abdul Aziz. Introduction to the history of early Islam. Beirut. 1960.
  5. Al-Kufi IA, Ibn Muhammad AMA (d. 314 AH), Beirut AF, et al. Kitäb Al-Buyri. 1986;8 parts.
  6. Al-Duri, Islamic systems: caliphate, taxes, diwans, ministry, Baghdad, Najib press, 1st Ed. 1950.
  7. Al-Tabari, Muhammad bin Jarir Al-Tabari (d. 310 AH), History of the Messengers and Kings, edited by Muhammad Abu Al-Fadl Ibrahim, Cairo, Dar Al-Maaref. 1960-1968;10 parts.
  8. Al-Yaqoubi, Ahmed bin Abi Yaqoub (d. 284 AH), History of Al-Yaqoubi, Beirut, Dar Sader, 1960;2 parts.
  9. Hussein Faleh. Research into the emergence of the Islamic State, Center for Arab Unity Studies, Beirut. 2010.
  10. Hamdan, Samir Mahmoud Abdel Latif. The caliphate: its origins and development in medina in the time of the Rashidun, unpublished master’s thesis, University of Jordan. 1975.
  11. Khalifat Awad. The rise of the Ibadi, Amman, 1978.
  12.  Khair al-Din Yujhus Sui. The development of political thought among the sunnis, the formative period: from its beginning until the first third of the fourth century AH, Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Jordan, 1990.
  13. Al-Baladhuri, Abu Abbas Ahmad bin Yahya (d. 279 AH), Genealogies of Ashraf, edited by Suhail Zakkar and Riad Zirkli, Beirut, Dar Al-Fikr, 1996;13 parts.
  14. Ibn al-Jawzi, Abdul Rahman bin Ali bin Muhammad, (597 AH), Biography of Omar bin al-Khattab, edited by Taher al-Hamwi and Ahmed Kilani, the Great Commercial Library. Egypt.
  15. Abu Yusuf, Yaqoub bin Ibrahim, (d. 182 AH) Al-Kharaj, Cairo, Salafi Press, 1933.
  16. Al-Hadid IA, Hibatullah AHAH, (d. 656 AH). Explanation of Nahj Al-Balagha, edited by Muhammad Abu Al-Fadl Ibrahim, Dar Revival of Arab Heritage, 1st Ed, Beirut, Al-Hayat Library House. 1967;21 parts.
  17. Ibn Saad, Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Muni’ (d. 230 AH). The great book of classes in the noble biography of the prophet, Beirut, Dar Sader. 1957;8 parts.
  18. Al-Sijistani, Abdullah bin Suleiman bin Al-Ash’ath bin Ishaq (d. 316 AH), The Qur’ans, edited by Athar Jaafari, Al-Rahmaniyah Press, 1st Ed, Egypt 1355 AH.
  19. Al-Jahiz, Amr bin Bahr (d. 250 AH). A treatise on the two rulings, and the correction of the commander of the faithful Ali Ibn Abi Talib regarding his action, edited by Blatt, Al-Mashreq Magazine, year 52, Lebanon. 1958.
  20. Ibn Muzahim, Nasr al-Manqari (d. 212 AH). The Battle of Siffin, edited by Abdul Salam Muhammad Haroun, The Modern Arab Foundation, 2nd Ed, Cairo, 1382 AH.
  21. Al-Masoudi, Ali bin Al-Hussein bin Ali (d. 346 AH). Meadows of gold and substantial minerals, edited by Youssef Asaad Dagher, Beirut, Dar Al-Andalus for printing and publishing, 1st Ed, 1965;4 parts.
  22. Muslim, Abu Al-Hussein Muslim bin Hajjaj Al-Qushayri Al-Naysaburi (d. 261 AH), Al-Sahih. He presented it, authenticated it, explained it, and his hadiths were published by Ahmed Shams Al-Din, Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyyah, Muhammad Ali Baydoun Publications, 1st Ed, 1998;5 parts.
  23. Al-Sharif, Deeb Saeed Deeb. The emergence of the Kharijite movement and the development of their extremist movements until the end of the caliphate of Abd al-Malik bin Marwan (37-86 AH / 657-705 AD), unpublished master’s thesis, University of Jordan. 1990.
  24. Al-Mardawi, Mahmoud. Caliphate between theory and practice, Studies in Political Jurisprudence, Dunn, D.M., 1983.
  25. Anonymous author. Imamate and politics, edited by Ali Shiri, Beirut, Dar Al-Adwaa. 1990.
  26. The Holy Quran.
Creative Commons Attribution License

©2024 Haroun. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and build upon your work non-commercially.