WI: The Rashidun Caliphate wins the First Fitna

Well, the Rashidun Caliphate is a historiographical construction ex post, more than it is an actual institutional setup. All sides in the First Fitna seemed to have believed to be following a "Rashid" (rightly guided and legitimate) claimant.
Historical accounts we have were mostly written either:
a) under the Abbasids, and their behest, meaning that they wanted to undermine the Umayyads as much they could, while not endorsing Ali too much
b) under the Abbasids, by Shiites, which means they approved of Ali and demonized the Umayyads.
Which means that we have relatively little historical accounts that discuss the Umayyad claim approvingly, even if they won.
From this, it is easy to see how Mu'awiya ends up widely perceived as an usurper, even if a somewhat justified one (since he won). But there was not indentifiable "Rashidun" political project or ideal opposing him at time (which is part of why he won), except perhaps among some Alid supporters.
In all likelyhood, the First Fitna would have seen the end of the "Rashidun" power system even if the Umayyads lost.
If Ali had won, you'd likely have a dynastic Caliphate anyway (under the Alids). Perhaps you could defer that in the unlikely event that Talha and Zubayr ended up as leader of the winning faction, but that would still likely call for a later Fitna in which either the Zubayrids or some other closely connected kinship line ends up holding the reins.
 
Last edited:
@Falecius I would agree to this answer! However, do you mean to say the Abbasids were Shi’a? Alliance in dislike of the Umayyad is a separate issue to legitimately be of the Shi’a even in a loose sense. Khawarij and Shi’a frequently aligned together in revolt as part of anti-Syrian politics, yet they are diametrically opposed to each other independently (the Zanj revolt exemplified how the Zanj suffered from Khawarij-Shi’a sectarianism).
 
@Falecius I would agree to this answer! However, do you mean to say the Abbasids were Shi’a? Alliance in dislike of the Umayyad is a separate issue to legitimately be of the Shi’a even in a loose sense. Khawarij and Shi’a frequently aligned together in revolt as part of anti-Syrian politics, yet they are diametrically opposed to each other independently (the Zanj revolt exemplified how the Zanj suffered from Khawarij-Shi’a sectarianism).
No, I was not implying that the Abbasids were Shi'a, I was actually taking for granted that they were not, even though loose Alidism was part of their earliest base of support, as you say, on the basis of shared opposition to the Umayyads.
 
Top