Episode 15: Kharijites and arbitrations

The unprecedented loss of Arab life at the battle of Siffin put an end to any illusions of the sanctity of muslim blood, an important pillar underpinning the umma’s unity. Arabs began withdrawing their support for the caliph in growing numbers, revealing the resurgence of the old political order of tribal elites. Amid these transformations, Syrian and Iraqi delegates met to discuss the possibility of a peaceful resolution to the question of who would lead the umma following the bloody stalemate between the two.

Glossary

• ‘Amr ibn il ‘As: If Malik al Ashtar dominated the actual battle of Siffin, ‘Amr commanded its political aftermath even more decisively. His arbitration proposal divided his opponents, and his masterful conduct at both meetings cinched the deal for Mu’awiya in all the ways that truly mattered. Again I feel the need to remind listeners that ‘Amr is a deeply respected figure in early muslim history, especially praised in the Egypt he so loved to govern. The mosque he built when he first governed there – renovated a few times since – still stands in the Fustat neighborhood of its massive capital Cairo. If his behavior sounds scandalous, you should know it’s not how he comes out in the sources, where he’s clever, wily, and quick-witted. 
• Abu Musa al Ash’ari: This early muslim is the ultimate centrist, he was close to all the other prominent muslims of his generations but had no love for the Hashemite clan. His moral rectitude is obvious in the sources, and it’s part of the reason that Malik al Ashtar had first agitated for his original appointment to Kufa under Othman. Abu Musa hated disunity above all else however, and he would have preferred Ali only govern the men who’d pledged to him instead of fighting the Meccan faction. This neutrality actually made him a good choice for unbiased arbitration, though a terrible choice if you were looking for a proponent of Ali’s. His credulity at both arbitrations (though especially the latter) is sometimes plainly pointed out, at others derided in our sources, but never denied. He seems to have genuinely thought he was helping to pick the next caliph.
• Al Ash’ath bin Qays: This Yemenite tribal lord was either terrible at being an ally to the caliph – which is plain unlikely- or good at going through the motions of being his ally while doing the most damage to his cause, which is what I think was going on. It’s clear that the weaker the two claimants to power were, the more they needed him, and his behavior made it clear that he didn’t want either of them to win. His insistence on Abu Musa as the representative for the Iraqi side shows how he appealed to neutrality instead, and all he truly wanted was to be considered politically important, like a kingmaker. 
• Malik al Ashtar: Malik disappears from the scene as abruptly as he had first appeared, and his loss was felt by the caliph personally, but especially strategically. Malik’s effectiveness could not be overstated, and unlike tribal leaders his support was truly irreplaceable. If Mu’awiya really had boasted of arranging his end, then he must have fully understood just how decisive it would be: he was right to dub Malik Ali’s right hand. 
• Mohammad bin abi Bakr: The tragic end of the caliph’s stepson weighed on Ali very heavily, and I agree with Dr. Wilfred Madelung in his assessment that histories sometimes ignore just how transformative it was, leaving the caliph more sombre than ever. He was an early victim of the ugly resurgence of tribal politics, which will quickly become very relevant to our story.
• The Kharijites: Etymologically speaking, their name can be retranslated as “the seceders” and any group which chose to leave the community was seen as willingly departing from the prophet’s legacy of Arab unity. These were often tribes who for whatever reason now opposed both Hashemite and Umayyad claims to the caliphate, and felt like spilling muslim blood in pursuit of their aims was no longer beyond the pale. Their motivations were virtually always tribal, but I’ve often seen them mischaracterized as ideological or egalitarian even.