Triple Assassination at Saqifah - An Islam alternate timeline

Wait what happens to Aisha? She is one of the most significant figure in OTL but i have not seen her getting mention? Or did i miss it and she was also assassinated at the Saqifah too?
Good question. She wasn’t mentioned because, while she would be of great prominence among the Ummah, ofc, the conditions in which she rose to take a more important political role in OTL don’t exist ITTL. So she would be like the other Sahaba, respected and beloved but not much outside of that.
Aisha was also not in opposition to Ali until he was accused of assassinating Uthman, who never even is Caliph ITTL. Aisha is pro Ali here.
 
Good question. She wasn’t mentioned because, while she would be of great prominence among the Ummah, ofc, the conditions in which she rose to take a more important political role in OTL don’t exist ITTL. So she would be like the other Sahaba, respected and beloved but not much outside of that.
Aisha was also not in opposition to Ali until he was accused of assassinating Uthman, who never even is Caliph ITTL. Aisha is pro Ali here.
I see. I also see that Muhsin death is butterfly away? Since he was an infant when he died IOTL. What happens to Uthman, Talha and Saad ibn Abi Waqqas?? Do they become part of the shura council ITTL?
 
I see. I also see that Muhsin death is butterfly away? Since he was an infant when he died IOTL. What happens to Uthman, Talha and Saad ibn Abi Waqqas?? Do they become part of the shura council ITTL?
Yes, Muhsin is complicated but I decided to go with the Shia version, in which he died after Fatima was attacked and therefore died before being born. ITTL without Abu Bakr and Umar getting power, Ali’s home isn’t attacked and Fatima and Muhsin live longer.
In the Sunni version, Fatima would’ve died of depression anyways 6 months after Muhammad, and Muhsin of natural causes in infancy (whatever that means).

I think I did mention Talha and Uthman, but yeah all of them as part of the Shura. Some aren’t as important ITTL because they were closer to Umar and Abu Bakr to they were benefitted by them being caliphs, but here Zubayr and Ali were the first two, which changes who was benefitted. In this case, the Banu Hashim were clearly the ones benefitted. The good side for Uthman’s fate here is that he isn’t hated by the Ummah and accused of corruption and nepotism lol.
 
Good question. She wasn’t mentioned because, while she would be of great prominence among the Ummah, ofc, the conditions in which she rose to take a more important political role in OTL don’t exist ITTL. So she would be like the other Sahaba, respected and beloved but not much outside of that.
Aisha was also not in opposition to Ali until he was accused of assassinating Uthman, who never even is Caliph ITTL. Aisha is pro Ali here.
She never was against Ali in OTL.
 
She never was against Ali in OTL.
Aisha? She rose in open rebellion to Ali's succession as Caliph alongside Talha and Zubayr, as they believed Ali was responsible for Uthman's assassination.

If that's not being against Ali then I don't know what is.
 
I don’t understand the wank premise. Sons of Ali never showed much capability for governance or fighting wars. They seemed naive and of belief they should rule due to their blood, to the point they decided to fight thousands with dozens and got themselves killed.
 
I don’t understand the wank premise.
I think I've shown clearly the ways the Caliphate has done better (less corruption, less restrictions on generals mainly Khalid, etc). But basically I saved the initial dispute for power due to a certain group wanting to keep the family of the Prophet away from power. That's the initial premise from which everything else comes.
Sons of Ali never showed much capability for governance or fighting wars.
Kinda crazy to say this when Hasan ruled as Caliph in OTL and even signed a treaty with Mu'awiya in which the latter was meant to give the Caliphate back to Hasan (or later Husayn as Hasan died). Then through the initial split of the radical Kharijites from the Shias and the systematic persecution of the Umayyads against the family of the Prophet and the Shias, their support greatly decreased (or more like, became quiescent). But even then, the Imams went on to be respected individuals and some of the most renowned Islamic scholars in early Islamic history (Al-Baqir, As-Sadiq, etc).

Seems like someone might be a little biased against the Alids because saying they were incompetent and incapable is just not accurate. Not to mention that to even bring their OTL counterparts up when they were born and grew up in totally different contexts ITTL is not accurate either.
 
I think I've shown clearly the ways the Caliphate has done better (less corruption, less restrictions on generals mainly Khalid, etc). But basically I saved the initial dispute for power due to a certain group wanting to keep the family of the Prophet away from power. That's the initial premise from which everything else comes.

Kinda crazy to say this when Hasan ruled as Caliph in OTL and even signed a treaty with Mu'awiya in which the latter was meant to give the Caliphate back to Hasan (or later Husayn as Hasan died). Then through the initial split of the radical Kharijites from the Shias and the systematic persecution of the Umayyads against the family of the Prophet and the Shias, their support greatly decreased (or more like, became quiescent). But even then, the Imams went on to be respected individuals and some of the most renowned Islamic scholars in early Islamic history (Al-Baqir, As-Sadiq, etc).

Seems like someone might be a little biased against the Alids because saying they were incompetent and incapable is just not accurate. Not to mention that to even bring their OTL counterparts up when they were born and grew up in totally different contexts ITTL is not accurate either.

I’m just reading into it objectively. Both Ali and his sons ruled poorly considering the constant rebellions, loss of support and their ultimate assasination/attempts at assasination by their most ardent supporters. While other caliphs prior had achievements in fields of law, conquest, economy etc Ali’s and Hassan’s caliphate is just them running around trying to unsuccessfully put out fires. The soldiers who knew Ali, , knew Muhammad etc simply refused to fight to the point he couldn’t launch an attack on Syria. They were both rigid, unable to account for circumstances and ultimately paid for it with their lives. If their names were Charles Angevin we’d not think much about them or their reign. I am also not bringing up their actions against them when done in the normality of their time. If I did I’d be saying much worse things.
 
Aisha? She rose in open rebellion to Ali's succession as Caliph alongside Talha and Zubayr, as they believed Ali was responsible for Uthman's assassination.

If that's not being against Ali then I don't know what is.
That is the shia narrative. Acoording to the Sunni view Aisha's, Talha's and Zubayr's intention was to reconcile. The Khawarij who killed Uthman are blamed for starting the battle.

There is another problem I have with your TL. I doubt converting churches to mosques and attacking civilians would have been allowed by a Rashidun caliph.
 
Last edited:
That is the shia narrative. Acoording to the Sunni view Aisha's, Talha's and Zubayr's intention was to reconcile.
Modern historians emphasize that Aisha was a key player in the rebel mobilization against Ali. It is kind of undeniable given the Battle of the Camel itself and the context leading up to it. Aisha rebelled against Ali and publicly blamed Uthman's assassination on him (not only as per Shia sources, but as per some Sunni sources and also as per modern historians like Wilfred Madelung). Talha and Zubayr are certainly more controversial, given the fact that Talha helped Ali finally be elected as a Caliph; but there are hints like he refusing to go to Ali's ceremony and had to be forced to by al-Ashtar (again, as per Madelung). It is also the Sunni narrative that Talha and Zubayr did NOT pledge for Ali, though modern historians do not believe this.
There is another problem I have with your TL. I doubt converting churches to mosques and attacking civilians would have been allowed by a Rashidun caliph.
I don't know where you get this from when a Mosque was built where a Christian church once stood in Damascus. The Caliphate reused many aspects of the old empires/cultures they conquered, and I don't see why Churches or holy places in general would not be the case. Umar avoided to adapt the Church of the Holy Sepulcher into a Mosque but that was a choice of his, not Caliphal doctrine. (And remember Umar died at Saqifah ITTL!).
Attacking civilians in what sense? As far as I know, Ali was the only Rashidun Caliph who actively forbade his troops from attacking and raping civilians during sieges and battles (he also forbade raiding).
I’m just reading into it objectively. Both Ali and his sons ruled poorly considering the constant rebellions, loss of support and their ultimate assasination/attempts at assasination by their most ardent supporters.
Ali was pushed aside from the moment the Prophet died. This is why I decided to have a POD for this TL as early as Saqifah. Ali would always have a very powerful group not wanting him in power because they simply did not want the family of the Prophet in power for their own sake. Same reason why Al-Abbas was pushed aside. But if we get here it just depends which version you believe the most.
What is not up to debate really is that Ali was a very correct man that cracked down on Uthman's and Mu'awiya's corruption and that's why he had so many enemies. He also had very egalitarian measures that as they were applied after Uthman's reign that was full of favors and nepotism, caused great controversy and only put more of the powerful people against Ali. He was on top of all this at the very least a competent general given all the battles he fought in and the fact he won a series of battle in the early Fitna.
Also the Kharijites were religious extremists who just had a completely different view of what the Qu'ran and early Islam really was. This is held by both Shias and Sunnis. I'm pretty sure they would have even turned against Muhammad if he lived long enough (and some people do argue certain figures within the Ummah turned against Muhammad in his final days!). To call them Ali's "ardent supporters" is kind of laughable, given how much the man who assassinated Ali and had also planned the Assassinations of Amr and Mu'awiya, hated Ali and blamed him for the "decadence of the Caliphate". Just people that were too far gone.
Not to mention that the Kharijites turned against Ali because he mediated peace with Mu'awiya.
While other caliphs prior had achievements in fields of law, conquest, economy etc Ali’s and Hassan’s caliphate is just them running around trying to unsuccessfully put out fires
In Ali's entry in this same thread I mention his policies as a Caliph, which is basically what he did in OTL. The difference ITTL is that this policies remain for longer and are more formally established. If you do not think that is an achievement, I'm afraid you're just biased. Ali's military career is also remarkable and long predates his time as a Caliph.
The soldiers who knew Ali, , knew Muhammad etc simply refused to fight to the point he couldn’t launch an attack on Syria.
Again, during the start of the Fitna, Ali had the upper hand and it was not until the Kharijites left his side that things began to get complicated.
They were both rigid, unable to account for circumstances and ultimately paid for it with their lives
This convinced me you are the reincarnation of Mu'awiya x'Dx'D
You just hate the Prophet's family. I imagine you have your reasons to hold such a grudge, but please don't release your hatred here! I am just trying to do some alternate history and this is just not the place to bring up your hatred for the Ahl-al-Bayt.
Hope this settles the argument.
 
Modern historians emphasize that Aisha was a key player in the rebel mobilization against Ali. It is kind of undeniable given the Battle of the Camel itself and the context leading up to it. Aisha rebelled against Ali and publicly blamed Uthman's assassination on him (not only as per Shia sources, but as per some Sunni sources and also as per modern historians like Wilfred Madelung). Talha and Zubayr are certainly more controversial, given the fact that Talha helped Ali finally be elected as a Caliph; but there are hints like he refusing to go to Ali's ceremony and had to be forced to by al-Ashtar (again, as per Madelung). It is also the Sunni narrative that Talha and Zubayr did NOT pledge for Ali, though modern historians do not believe this.

I don't know where you get this from when a Mosque was built where a Christian church once stood in Damascus. The Caliphate reused many aspects of the old empires/cultures they conquered, and I don't see why Churches or holy places in general would not be the case. Umar avoided to adapt the Church of the Holy Sepulcher into a Mosque but that was a choice of his, not Caliphal doctrine. (And remember Umar died at Saqifah ITTL!).
Attacking civilians in what sense? As far as I know, Ali was the only Rashidun Caliph who actively forbade his troops from attacking and raping civilians during sieges and battles (he also forbade raiding).

Ali was pushed aside from the moment the Prophet died. This is why I decided to have a POD for this TL as early as Saqifah. Ali would always have a very powerful group not wanting him in power because they simply did not want the family of the Prophet in power for their own sake. Same reason why Al-Abbas was pushed aside. But if we get here it just depends which version you believe the most.
What is not up to debate really is that Ali was a very correct man that cracked down on Uthman's and Mu'awiya's corruption and that's why he had so many enemies. He also had very egalitarian measures that as they were applied after Uthman's reign that was full of favors and nepotism, caused great controversy and only put more of the powerful people against Ali. He was on top of all this at the very least a competent general given all the battles he fought in and the fact he won a series of battle in the early Fitna.
Also the Kharijites were religious extremists who just had a completely different view of what the Qu'ran and early Islam really was. This is held by both Shias and Sunnis. I'm pretty sure they would have even turned against Muhammad if he lived long enough (and some people do argue certain figures within the Ummah turned against Muhammad in his final days!). To call them Ali's "ardent supporters" is kind of laughable, given how much the man who assassinated Ali and had also planned the Assassinations of Amr and Mu'awiya, hated Ali and blamed him for the "decadence of the Caliphate". Just people that were too far gone.
Not to mention that the Kharijites turned against Ali because he mediated peace with Mu'awiya.

In Ali's entry in this same thread I mention his policies as a Caliph, which is basically what he did in OTL. The difference ITTL is that this policies remain for longer and are more formally established. If you do not think that is an achievement, I'm afraid you're just biased. Ali's military career is also remarkable and long predates his time as a Caliph.

Again, during the start of the Fitna, Ali had the upper hand and it was not until the Kharijites left his side that things began to get complicated.

This convinced me you are the reincarnation of Mu'awiya x'Dx'D
You just hate the Prophet's family. I imagine you have your reasons to hold such a grudge, but please don't release your hatred here! I am just trying to do some alternate history and this is just not the place to bring up your hatred for the Ahl-al-Bayt.
Hope this settles the argument.

Ali also raped civilian captives after battles tho. Forbidding rape during a battle to keep army cohesion doesn’t make him that amazing.

The Prophet sent to us Ali, and among the female captives was a slave girl who was the finest of the female captives, and he apportioned the Khums (one-fifth of war booty given to the Prophet and his family). Ali divided the shares, and his head was dripping (after taking a ritual bath following sexual intercourse with the slave-girl). We said: "O Abu al-Hasan (i.e. Ali), what is this?!" Ali replied: "Did you not see the slave-girl who was among the female captives? I divided the shares and apportioned Khumus. Then she became part of the Khumus. Then she became part of the household of the Prophet, and then she became part of the house of Ali, and (thus) I had sexual intercourse with her. a letter is written to the prophet complaining of Alis conduct. He said: “Do not hate him, if you used to love him increase your love for him, By the one in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad the share of the house of Ali in the Khumus is better than a slave girl.


Yes he was pushed away. All without a civil war or rebellions breaking out. Why is that? If he was so loved and great why did people not really care? Why did people dislike such an amazing person? Ali had no chance to crack down on anything before he became caliph so that would not be a reason for others to hate him or oppose him before he became one. Ali was a competent warrior, but not a good general. He knew how to fight and kill people but not how to strategize. The battles he led were bloody and ultimately Muawiyah won.

All medieval rule was based on favors and nepotism. Isn’t wanting Prophets family to lead by the merit of their blood alone nepotism? Would Hassan succeeding Ali not count as nepotism?

It doesn’t matter if Kharijites existed as a sect before they split off, the men who were forming it were former Ali’s supporters. And yes they turned on Ali for compromising. Now ask yourself why would people who grew up with Ali and supported him and lived with him under his rule blame him for caliphates problem with no reason for it?

In the story those are achievements yes. But in real life he had none really. Just firefighting rebellions, ending the Rashidun caliphate and getting himself killed.

I am not releasing hatred. Ali is loved by Muslims but I’m just observing him as a historical figure without attachments.
 
@Vabasion can you please post a source of this story about Ali?

Musnad Ahmad 22967

Full Hadith:

22967. Narrated Buraydah:

I hated Ali as I had never hated anyone. And I loved a man from the Quraysh (i.e., Khalid ibn al-Walid) whom I loved only because of his hatred for Ali. This man was sent in command of the cavalry, and I accompanied him only because of his hatred for Ali.

We obtained some female captives. He wrote to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ to send someone for the Khumus (one-fifth of war booty given to the Prophet ﷺ). He sent to us Ali, and among the female captives was a slave-girl who was the finest of the female captives, and he apportioned the Khumus. He divided the shares, and his head was dripping (after taking a ritual bath following sexual intercourse with the slave-girl).

We said: “O Abu al-Hasan (i.e., Ali), what is this?!” He said: “Did you not see the slave-girl who was among the female captives? I divided the shares and apportioned the Khumus, and she became part of the Khumus. Then she became part of the household of the Prophet ﷺ, and then she became part of the house of Ali, and I had sexual intercourse with her.”

So the man wrote to the Prophet of Allah ﷺ, and I said: “Send me.” So he sent me to attest (to what he had written).

I started to read the letter, and I said: “It is the truth.” He (ﷺ) grabbed my hand and the letter and said: “Do you hate Ali?” I said: “Yes.” He said: “Do not hate him. If you used to love him, then increase your love for him. By the One in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, the share of the house of Ali in the Khumus is better than a slave-girl.”

After the Messenger of Allah ﷺ spoke, there was none among the people more beloved to me than Ali.

Musnad Ahmad 22967. Classed sahih by al-Arna’ut.
 
Last edited:
It's a passage often brought up by Islamophobes to argue that Islam allows r*pe. But there's nothing about it indicating such a thing, nor the slave being an underaged girl. It's a passage about Ali making a maid servant from the prisoners of war his wife.

Now, I'll be very clear about this: stop the argument now. It's becoming a religious debate and this is absolutely not the place for it. I do not care for your personal believes and I don't like that you're usurping my alternate history thread to rant about Islam and whatever you feel like. So please, stop or I'll have to report you.
 
Muhammad ibn Ali al-Baqir
Sixth Rashidun Caliph: Muhammad ibn Ali al-Baqir
(728-736)


Muhammad ibn Ali was the son of Ali ibn al-Husayn and Fatima bint al-Hasan. Therefore, he is a symbol of the unified Hasanid and Husaynid branches of the Ahl-al-Bayt, which strengthened his chances of succession as Caliph and which made him very renowned within the Ummah. Not many could say they had the honor of having al-Hasan and al-Husayn as their grandfathers.
Like his father, he was born too late to meet the Prophet in person. However, like his father, that did not stop the Prophet from giving him his famous honorary title and, in his specific case, sending al-Baqir his regards through the last of the Sahaba: Jabir ibn Abd Allah. Back in the days of the Prophet Muhammad, he told Jabir that he would meet a man called al-Baqir, and asked him to send his own regards to that man. Jabir spent most of his later years looking for al-Baqir, until Zayn al-Abidin presented his son to him. Despite being blind at that point, it is said Jabir immediately knew that the little Muhammad ibn Ali was indeed al-Baqir and kissed his forehead before finally sending the Prophet's regards.
The title al-Baqir is an abbreviation of Baqir al-'ilm, which means "he who splits knowledge open", in reference to his great wisdom. Muhammad al-Baqir was a renowned scholar from a very young age. His mother, Fatima bint al-Hasan, was often called "Sadiqa", the truthful one, due to her great devoutness and truthfulness. Al-Baqir usually attributed his scholar nature to his mother, who seems to have forged the character of the young Muhammad.
He grew up during the later years of Ali ibn Abi Talib's reign, and later during his grandfather's, al-Hasan, reign. He was surrounded by great religious dedication and truthfulness, as a member of the family of the Prophet. Despite the capital being in Kufa, he was born and raised in Medina, and there he also received his education. He showed great intelligence from a very early age, and soon became the favorite son of Zayn al-Abidin among the Ummah. This caused some tensions with his brother Zayd, who despite also being popular failed to be as renowned as al-Baqir.
Throughout his father's reign, Muhammad al-Baqir began to teach and gathered dozens of followers. He wrote several books in which he detailed some of his sermons. He began writing the Umm al-Kitab during his early years as a teacher, being a book that contained the answers to certain questions asked to him by his students and other scholars. It would only be published by his disciple Jabir ibn Yazid, however. He also wrote the Al-Manasik, which was a treatise on the rituals of the Hajj. He left several commentaries on the Qu'ran that would later be passed down by his disciples.
Once he became Caliph, he wrote the Musnad al-Khalifa al-Baqir (Scripture of the Caliph al-Baqir), which consists of six volumes and discusses doctrines and laws. The book mentions legal issues like divorce, manumission, testimony, inheritance, marriage, funerals; ritual practices like supplications, tahara, prayer, fasting, zakat and hajj; and more doctrinal matters like monotheism, the Caliphate, iman and kufr. The doctrines of this work would later be expanded and reworked by his son Ja'far, who would use it alongside Zayn al-Abidin's Risalat al-Hoquq and the previous Caliphs' teachings to reform and standardize Sharia or Islamic Law. His brother Zayd would reply to this text of his and focus more importance on the doctrine of the Imamate, which would be a form of protest against the no longer well-guided Caliphate (in his view).
Seal of Muhammad al-Baqir
His election came with great controversy. The Shura was really split between the two popular sons of Zayn al-Abidin: Zayd ibn Ali and Muhammad al-Baqir. Abd Allah ibn Ali was also a candidate, but barely had support. In the end, Muhammad was victorious by little margin, and inherited a Caliphate that was at its territorial peak, in great economic shape and in relative stability.
However, following his brother's self-imposed exile to Tabaristan alongside his followers, the stability began to fall apart.

Controversies and early accusations
The exile of Zayd ibn Ali was shocking to many, especially within the Ahl-al-Bayt, and was very quickly blamed upon Muhammad. The recently elected Caliph found himself getting accused from all fronts of having exiled his brother. After two more members of the Shura followed Zayd to Tabaristan, the situation only got worse for him. Several members of the Shura tried to force him into abdication within his first few months of reign, but ultimately failed due to Al-Baqir's popularity among the Ummah. Eventually, Muhammad managed to set the record straight and prove he did not exile his brother, and that it had been self imposed.
Immediately after his rise, several of his disciples were given important roles in madrasah (some even built at Medina and Kufa exclusively for themselves) and even political positions within the Caliphate. For such, he was accused of nepotism, and once again was pressured by the Shura. This time, they managed to force Muhammad into dismissing several of his disciples from their recently earned positions of power. However, he continued to build two great madrasah and houses of wisdom (or libraries) in Medina and Kufa respectively; in which his disciples were given important roles and funding from the state for their teachings.
In only two years of rule, Al-Baqir had already faced major backlash from the Shura, who went from greatly supportive of him to skeptical. For such, the Caliph secluded himself at his palace in Kufa and continued to give sermons to his disciples and to do his writings. He rejected many proposals for further campaigns, not wanting to risk the apparent stability of the Caliph for further expansion. His seclusion also meant that the governors of the provinces could act more autonomously, with only the Shura acting as a regulator; and that allowed the worsening of the conditions of the Maghreb and Al-Andalus.
With the Bani Umayya in firm control of Al-Andalus, it seemed oddly suspicious that Abd al-Aziz ibn Musa died in strange circumstances in 729, leaving the position of governor of Ifriqiya without a holder. Normally, his son would have taken over, but he had failed to earn the respect of the local officials. Instead, Al-Walid ibn Abd al-Malik was elected as the governor of the province. Ironically, the officials that put him in power were swiftly removed from power in favor of other Bani Umayya or Kharijites. Al-Walid then began to plot against the governor of Egypt, though not before applying the same reforms made by his cousin Mu'awiya back in Al-Andalus.
Through the 730s, taxes were added in Ifriqiya and Al-Andalus that were exclusive to non-Arabs, even if they were Muslim. This was in direct opposition to the policies of the Caliphate and the Shura back in Kufa, but they were too busy with internal matters of politics and debates. And with the seclusion of the Caliph, the Banu Umayya only had free reins to do what they pleased.
Exorbitant taxes were enforced on non-Arabs in general, and many of them were outright enslaved. This caused the Berber majority of the provinces to join the Khawarij movement en masse and soon the Umayya governors found themselves facing a massive opposition from the locals. Their own Kharijite officials, which they had used to gain political power, began to plot against them as they fundamentally disagreed with their approach.
In 732, the governor of Ifriqiya, Al-Walid, was to meet and have dinner with several of his commanders and officials at Kairouan. Everything went normally, until suddenly dozens of Berber soldiers stormed into the room. The Kharijite officials stood up and joined in with the Berbers, who handed them weapons of their own. The governor and his family were massacred, except for his son Masrur, who managed to escape the city disguised as a woman.
This marked a spike in Kharijite activity, as they took over Ifriqiya, the Maghreb and then began to rise up in rebellion in Al-Andalus. In 733, Mu'awiya and his family were encircled at a house they were hiding in and they were all massacred. The entire city of Cordoba was put under siege and all Banu Umayya were persecuted. It is said only Masrur, Sufyan ibn Mu'awiya and al-Asbagh ibn Muhammad survived after the brutal persecution of the Banu Umayya and their relatives.
Masrur fled north to Al-Andalus, thinking it would be safe for him there. However, a slave trader told him not to go to Cordoba and he instead went to the port in Cartagena to flee to Marseille, where he stayed until the Fitna began. Once that happened, he crossed the north of Italy until he reached the lands of the Avars, where he would settle and live the rest of his days; marrying an Avar woman and having a family. One of his sons would go on to meet Mojmir I, but more on that when the time comes.
As for Sufyan, he fled to the north as well, but was captured by a band of Franks who sold him as a slave to some Dumnonian nobles. Sufyan ended up being freed during an Gaelic raid against the weak Dumnonians, and was taken back to the kingdom of Meath, where he lived the last days of his life as a part of the court of the local king.
Al-Asbagh ibn Muhammad was the only one to escape towards the south, into the Maghreb. However, after almost being identified by some Kharijite Berbers, he joined a Sanhaja caravan into the Sahara. There, he spent several months crossing the Sahara until he reached Koumbi Saleh, the capital of the Wagadu empire.
gold dinar of Al-Walid I (OTL)
Muhammad al-Baqir finally came out of seclusion in 733 to address the clear threat in the western end of his empire. He began to gather a massive army at Fustat, in charge of his brother Abd Allah. However, a series of Azariqa revolts in Fars forced him to retreat from Fustat once enough forces had been gathered to march on Ifriqiya and recapture it from the Kharijites.

Maysara al-Matghari
Painting of two berber rebels

This time allowed the different Kharijite rebels spread across Al-Andalus, the Maghreb and Ifriqiya to meet and organize with each other. Among the many different leaders of each Kharijite group was Maysara al-Matghari. A lowborn Berber water-carrier of the Imteghren tribe, who served under the Caliphal army. Despite his complete lack of relevant background, and his humble profession, his righteousness, devoutness and piety was said to simply be unmatched.
He had ended his service after the bad conditions of his people were made evident, and he returned to the Maghreb to lead a protest. Alongside a group of Berbers from his tribe, he presented a series of complaints to the governor, but they were ignored. In response, the tribe ordered one of their scribes to write and send a letter to Kufa. This, however, was intercepted at Kairouan by the local Umayyad governor. He was one of the Berbers who understood that what was happening to them was against Islamic Law, but still had great resentment at the Caliphs for their inability to intervene against the corrupt governors of the provinces.
Like most of his people, Maysara turned to the Kharijites in desperation and adhered to the Sufrite sect, which was one of the more moderate ones. However, he would have no reservations in collaborating with the Azariqa and the Najdat, the most radical of the Kharijites. Eventually, he rose as the chieftain of the Matghari rebels. He participated in the assassination of Al-Walid, gaining prominence for being the one to land the final blow to the corrupt governor. From there, he continued to lead his people during the following operations of capturing surrounding towns, persecuting the Banu Umayya and their relatives, as well as corrupt officials that got away. He quickly earned the respect of the Arab Kharijites (veterans of the original revolts who had fled to the Maghreb) due to his piety and dedication to Islam. Maysara was also very dedicated to his new Kharijite ways, frequently consulting with the elder Kharijites of the first generation that remained alive.
In 733, the Berbers (mainly the Ghomaras, Berghwata and Miknasa) and the Arab Kharijites (mostly Himyarite and Bedouin nomads, with some members of Quraysh) met at Tangier after conquering it. There, the chieftains of the tribes and the local heads of the Kharijite sects prepared their plans for the takeover of the provinces of Ifriqiya, Al-Andalus and Al-Faranj. That would be the initial part of the plan, which would be followed by an invasion of Egypt and then the conquest of Syria and Arabia, to completely seize control of the Caliphate. They also formed a council, mostly formed by Kharijite scholars and Berber chieftains, to elect a rightful Khawarij Caliph as per the criteria of the elders and scholars, and strictly adhering to their versions of the Qu'ran. In the end, Maysara al-Matghari was chosen as the most righteous and fit, and became the first Khawarij Caliph.
The proclamation of Maysara, with no blood connection whatsoever to the Prophet, as a Caliph outraged the Shura and the Ummah back in the East. Al-Baqir pressured his brother Abd Allah, as now his throne was threatened by a parallel and illegitimate Caliph. It also marked the beginning of the First Fitna; the first major civil war in the Islamic world.

Beginning of the Fitna, and the end of Al-Baqir
Abd Allah only managed to put an end to the Azariqa rebels in 735, and was forced to stop at Damascus to let his exhausted men rest. In the meantime, Maysara had magnificently led the Khawarij armies into crushing victories against the weak local Rashidun garrisons of Ifriqiya and Al-Faranj. All of Al-Andalus and Ifriqiya were firmly under control of the rebels, who managed to capture Kairouan after a brutal siege in 734. Maysara then moved towards Al-Faranj, where he was currently subjugating the Baskunisi.
Al-Baqir was heavily criticized for his seeming inaction, and his family suffered the consequences. Abd Allah was dismissed as commander of the army, and instead, Mus'ab ibn Thabit, a descendant of Zubayr, was put in charge. After his ascension to power, he began to press for Al-Baqir's abdication in the Shura, rallying decent amounts of support. However, he was unable to push the Caliph into surrendering. In response, Al-Baqir suggested replacing Mus'ab with al-Mundhir, a descendant of Muhsin and the current governor of Qunstantiniya. Seeing as his proposal was unpopular, however, he decided against carrying it out.
Mus'ab moved his men to Fustat, where he gathered Sudanese, Beja and Habasha reinforcements. This helped refresh a severely exhausted army of veterans from previous wars and rebellions. With this force, the Zubayrid general finally marched towards Ifriqiya in early 736. His march was interrupted at Tripoli when he received the news of the tragedy that had struck Kufa.
While having dinner with some members of the Shura at his palace, a group of armed Azariqa Kharijites had infiltrated disguised as his guards. Once inside the same room as the Caliph, they killed the genuine guards and brutally stabbed Al-Baqir and the members of the Shura to death. The fifteen men were shortly after captured and executed, saving at least the Caliph's family.
Nizari assassination (OTL)
Despite the recent unpopularity of the secluded ruler, his death was still perceived like a major tragedy, especially as it had come at the hands of the Kharijites. The news hit the Ummah precisely like a stab to the heart, and a great ceremony followed in the ceremonial and religious capital of Medina, becoming the second to last Rashidun Caliph to be buried in the Mosque of the Prophet.
Mus'ab stopped his march and returned to Kufa, knowing that an election was coming. Ja'far ibn Muhammad insisted on being present as well, as the obvious candidate to succeed his father, but Al-Mundhir advised him against it. Instead, Ja'far was taken to Qunstantiniya to prevent a tragedy, given the belief that the sons of the Caliph were next in line for assassination. The hiding of the sons of the Caliph left no immediate successor ready to face the Fitna, which discarded them immediately for the Shura. The council offered the throne to Zayd, who still was in Tabaristan, but he refused. This led to a final decision between two candidates: Mus'ab ibn Thabit and Al-Mundhir ibn Ismail. The direct Muhsinid lineage of the latter certainly brought interest to him as a genuine option, but the younger, more militarily experienced Mus'ab rose as Caliph, partially due to his own reputation and due to his lineage from Zubayr, as well as descent from the Prophet through a daughter of Ali and Fatima.
Thus, Mus'ab was proclaimed Caliph and returned to Tripoli as such.
 
Last edited:
Next entry will be about Maysara al-Matghari, though overall more focused on the Fitna as well. So don't worry if it felt like his rise as Kharijite Caliph and his subsequent campaigns of consolidation felt too summarized. I'll tackle them more in detail next :)
 
Top