See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330936704

Sons of the Muhājirūn: Some comments on Ibn al-Zubayr and Legitimizing

Power in Seventh-Century Islamic History

Chapter · December 2014

CITATIONS READS

2 490

1 author:

Ryan J. Lynch
Columbus State University
7 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ryan J. Lynch on 07 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Contents

Emanuele E. Intagliata and Bethan N. Morris

Preface: Evaluating the ‘Edinburgh Seventh-Century
Colloquium’ Experience 1

Alex Woolf
Sutton Hoo and Sweden Revisited 5

Heidi Stoner
Kings without Faces: An Examination of the
Visual Evidence for Kingship in the Seventh Century 19

Austin Mason
The Early English Cult of Saints in Long-Term Perspective 39

Richard Broome
Approaches to the Frankish Community in the Chronicle of
Fredegar and Liber Historiae Francorum61

Paolo Forlin
The Periphery during the Seventh Century:
The Rise of a New Landscape within the Core of the
Alps. Climate Change, Land Use and the Arrival
of the Lombards in the Eastern Trentino, Northern Italy
(Sixth–Seventh Centuries ad)87
vi

Jörg Drauschke
The Development of Diplomatic Contacts
and Exchange between the Byzantine Empire
and the Frankish Kingdoms until the
Early Eighth Century 107

José Cristóbal Carvajal López,

Julio Miguel Román Punzón,
Miguel Jiménez Puertas and
Javier Martínez Jiménez
When the East Came to the West:
The Seventh Century in the Vega of Granada
(South-East Spain): Visigoths, Byzantines and Muslims 135

Ine Jacobs
From Early Byzantium to the Middle Ages
at Sagalassos 163

Giuseppe Cacciaguerra, Antonino Facella and

Luca Zambito
Continuity and Discontinuity in Seventh-Century Sicily:
Rural Settlement and Economy  199

Marie Legendre
Islamic Conquest, Territorial Reorganization and Empire
Formation: A Study of Seventh-Century Movements of
Population in the Light of Egyptian Papyri 235

Ryan J. Lynch
Sons of the Muhājirūn: Some Comments on
Ibn al-Zubayr and Legitimizing Power in
Seventh-Century Islamic History 251
 vii

Mehrnoush Soroush
Irrigation in Khuzistan after the Sasanians:
Continuity, Decline, or Transformation? 269

Thomas J. MacMaster
Afterword: Why the Seventh Century?
The Problem of Periodization across Cultures 291

Notes on Contributors 299

Index305
Ryan J. Lynch

Sons of the Muhājirūn: Some Comments on Ibn

al-Zubayr and Legitimizing Power in Seventh-
Century Islamic History1

For most of modern scholarship, the story of the second Islamic civil war,
or fitna, is typically a story of Umayyad success and strength in the face
of adversity. It is a story of the foundation of what we can firmly call an
Islamic identity. It is a story of reform. And it is usually the story of ‘Abd al-
Malik b. Marwān (r. ad 685–705/ah 65–86), the Caliph of the Marwanid
dynasty who successfully trampled rebellion and restored unity to the
Islamic realm. It has far less often been the story of the so-called usurper
himself, ‘Abd Allāh b. al-Zubayr b. al-‘Awwām (d. ad 692/ah 72). The
questions of why Ibn al-Zubayr chose to challenge Umayyad rule and, more
importantly, how he was able to gain backing as he set about to do so have
rarely been considered.2 This is especially the case when considering the
plethora of modern studies on the first fitna. These issues, however, can
help to provide useful information on the development of leadership and
authority in the early Islamic community prior to the reign of the trium­
phant ‘Abd al-Malik.

1 I would like to thank Robert Hoyland, Harry Munt, and Joshua Olsson for their
critique of early drafts of this article. Any remaining errors are, of course, my own.
2 There are exceptions to this, namely Chase Robinson’s recent effort on the reign of
‘Abd al-Malik, which dedicates a major portion of the work to a reconsideration
of Ibn al-Zubayr’s reign. Elsewhere, Gernot Rotter and ‘Abd al-Ameer Dixon both
produced important works on the second civil war more generally, but with far less
focus on the questions over Ibn al-Zubayr’s rise and legitimization. See Robinson
2007; Rotter 1982; Dixon 1971.
252 Ryan J. Lynch

As with much during the foundational period of Islamic history, legiti-

macy and the landscapes of power are problematic issues to consider. While
there has been prodigious work conducted by modern scholars over the
last several decades regarding legitimacy in early Islam, these efforts have
tended to focus largely on the issues of the maintenance of legitimacy once
an individual had come to power, or on the period after the second fitna
and its repercussions.3 The authors of the Arabic literary sources that have
survived and discuss the seventh century were writing from a period long
after the events depicted had been settled but where the process of recording
those events was still in its infancy. This leaves us the task of interrogating
the surviving material for insight into not only the Arabic historical pro-
cess, but information on how these later generations codifying both law
and history remembered the formative events of their society.
By the time of the death of the Umayyad Caliph Mu‘āwiya in ad
680/ah 60, there were only a small number of Muslims who were still
alive that could claim legitimacy in the same forms as Ibn al-Zubayr. A
member of the tribe of Quraysh and, more specifically, the Banū Hāshim,
and closely related to the Prophet himself, Ibn al-Zubayr’s relation to the
Prophet Muḥammad via a largely female bloodline would have been a
powerful legitimizing force. It is one which deserves some attention for the
consideration of just why he found significant support over his Umayyad
counterparts in Syria. What I would like to suggest is the distinct possibility
that Ibn al-Zubayr legitimized himself and his claim to the Caliphate due
to his close kinship to Muḥammad, through both marriage and a blood
relationship. Living in a generation where the overwhelming majority
of early converts and immediate family of the Prophet had already died,
his genealogical claims differentiated himself from both his immediate
Sufyanid predecessors and his Marwanid rivals.

3 For the maintenance and articulation of legitimacy, see Crone and Hinds 1990; Uri
2003. For questions of legitimacy in the Umayyad period following the second fitna,
see Judd 2008; Alajmi 2013. The primary exception to this, which focuses on the role
of the oath of allegiance (bay‘a) in late antiquity and early Islam, is Marsham 2009.
Some Comments on Ibn al-Zubayr and Legitimizing Power 253

The questions surrounding kinship as an association with the Prophet

in the early Islamic period – and in particular during the first century of
the religion – are extremely difficult to answer. However, they must be
thoroughly considered in an attempt to contemplate the status of a figure
such as Ibn al-Zubayr, and how he could have gained such a significant
amount of support for more than a decade. At the root of this question is
the role of kinship among the Arabs in the seventh century ad/first cen-
tury ah. Kinship held a long-established role in pre-Islamic Arab society
and likely still came to define much of the earliest Islamic decades, pro-
viding continuity in the midst of substantial shifts in power in the region
throughout the century. While the revelation of the Qur’ān intended to
diminish the importance of kinship compared to belief in the one God,
it does not directly address the issues of kinship amongst believers, which
would have likely still played an important role in this period.4 In this
society, while it was possible for an individual of low birth to raise their
standing through good and respectable labours, there was a limit to how
far one could improve their station. Thus, for instance, the pre-Islamic
poet ‘Urwa b. al-Ward earned praise for his good deeds and his skill in
his occupation, but was continually maligned for his poor lineage via his
mother, often referred to as the ‘son of the stranger’ (ibn al-gharība) despite
his pure Arab heritage from both parents.5 A strong genealogical founda-
tion, however, provided the basis for great social standing and political
power. The arrival of Islam was intent on shaking the social hierarchy by
stratifying those who believed from those who did not, but the surviving
material – even the literary sources – shows the endurance and the vital
nature of kinship within this society.

4 For instance, Qur’ān 58:22 asserts that believers should not be friendly with those
that oppose God and his messengers, ‘even though they were their fathers or their
sons, or their brothers, or their kindred’ and similarly Qur’ān 9:23–24: ‘Oh believers!
Do not take for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they prefer disbelief over
belief …’ before going on to say that God does not guide disobedient people who
believe kinship and wealth are more important than striving in the way of God.
5 For a brief discussion of this, see Obermann 1955: 262; Arazi 2012; Donner 1998:
104.
254 Ryan J. Lynch

Previous scholarship has often chosen to focus on the role of sacred

geography as the most important legitimizing factor of Ibn al-Zubayr’s
Caliphate. His settlement in Mecca almost immediately following the death
of Mu‘āwiya lead to a strong association with the sanctuary there, often
being referred to as the refugee of the sanctuary (al-‘ā’idh bi-al-bayt). The
importance of sacred geography is demonstrated in many of the sources,
including in the History of al-Ya‘qūbī (d. ad 897–898/ah 248), who
bestows upon Ibn al-Zubayr the title of Caliph (Khalīfa), explaining that
‘he who controls the two sanctuaries in Mecca and Medina and leads the
pilgrimage thus merits the Caliphate.’6 It is also coupled with the appear-
ance of the monumental Dome of the Rock mosque in the ḥaram al-sharīf
of Jerusalem in the same period.7 One should not discount the further
development of Mecca and the Ka‘ba as a holy centre during the reign of
Ibn al-Zubayr, nor the important role his location likely played in pro-
viding him with sanctuary to consolidate his support.8 But to view his
location as the sole legitimizing factor in his rise to power is to ignore
numerous other references in the surviving material intent on attacking

6 al-Ya‘qūbī, Tā’rīkh, 321; translation from Robinson 2007: 34.

7 The last several decades have brought much discussion on the dating of the Dome
of the Rock, specifically surrounding a line in the inscriptions of the inner façade
which originally proclaimed ‘Abd al-Malik as its builder in the year ad 691–692/
ah 72. The controversy has focused on whether the year ah 72 was the start or
end of construction. Sheila Blair broke from previous scholarship by suggesting that
this was the beginning of construction of the mosque rather than its completion, but
Jeremy Johns and others have convincingly reasserted it as a completion date. This
has interesting implications for a discussion of Ibn al-Zubayr and the considerable
power he wielded over his rivals in the second fitna, as the construction of the Dome
of the Rock may have been ‘Abd al-Malik’s attempt at creating a new pilgrimage site
while Ibn al-Zubayr firmly controlled the traditional locations of western Arabia. For
more on this, see Blair 1992: 59–87; Johns 2003: 411–436, but especially 424–426.
8 The majority of the sources state that Ibn al-Zubayr and others fled from Syria not
only to avoid having to give the oath of allegiance to Yazīd, but more specifically, to
seek the sanctuary and protection provided by the holy sites, where fighting is said
to have been completely illicit.
Some Comments on Ibn al-Zubayr and Legitimizing Power 255

his genealogical credentials, as well as the important place kinship had

always held in Arab society.
What seems certain is that all of the earliest successors of Muḥammad
enjoyed a close kinship to the Prophet primarily through marriage. Although
the pre-Islamic ties of tribal kinship with the Prophet were strong amongst
many of the earliest Companions, not everyone could claim this connec-
tion – and fewer still would have had the ability to claim an actual blood
relation. The status and legal definition of a Companion had yet to be
established through a form of consensus (ijmā‘ ); the factors which separated
the prestige of one member of the community from another in the first
century of Islam likely differed from later Muslims’ assumed understand-
ing of this status. The earliest Caliphs who reigned during the interven-
ing years between the death of Muḥammad and the death of the Caliph
Mu‘āwiya all shared a direct kinship with the Prophet: Abū Bakr was the
father in-law of the Prophet through the marriage of his daughter, ‘Ā’isha;
‘Umar was the father in-law of the Prophet through the marriage of his
daughter, Ḥafṣa; ‘Uthmān was the son in-law of the Prophet through his
marriage to the Prophet’s daughters, Ruqayya (until her death in ad 624/
ah 2) and ‘Umm Kulthūm; ‘Alī was a cousin and son in-law of the Prophet
through his marriage to the Prophet’s daughter Fāṭima; and Mu‘āwiya was
the Prophet’s brother in-law through the Prophet’s marriage to Mu‘āwiya’s
sister, Ramla. It was not until Mu‘āwiya’s designation of his son Yazīd as his
successor that this more direct kinship to the Prophet ended, and it was
then that the sources universally record that Ibn al-Zubayr and al-Ḥusayn
b. ‘Alī refused to give the oath of allegiance to this new Caliph. That the
two are remembered as refusing to confirm Yazīd’s right to rule suggests
not only an issue with this new form of succession by primogeniture over
communal confirmation (shūrā), but also with Yazīd’s claim to rule more
generally.
Where, then, does this leave Ibn al-Zubayr? ‘Abd Allāh b. al-Zubayr
was born to the new Islamic community shortly after it had emigrated from
Mecca to Medina in the hijra. He is recorded in various sources as having
been the first Muslim born to the community following their emigration,
256 Ryan J. Lynch

sometime during the year ah 2 (ad 623–624).9 His father, al-Zubayr

b. al-‘Awwām, was a Companion of significant standing via precedence
(sābiqa).10 He had converted to Islam very early, with some reports sug-
gesting that he was the fourth or fifth convert to the new religion;11 he was
present at the shūrā which elected ‘Uthmān as the third Caliph; and he
was one of ten Muslims who are remembered in at least one tradition as
having the Prophet himself promise entrance to Paradise.12 His mother,
Asmā’ bt. Abī Bakr, also afforded him prestige. A Companion and very early
convert to Islam herself, she was the daughter of the first Caliph, Abū Bakr
al-Ṣiddīq. More than simply being born to pious, early believers, this par-
entage provided Ibn al-Zubayr with an extremely prestigious pedigree; the
first Caliph Abū Bakr was his maternal grandfather; Khadīja, the Prophet’s
first wife, was his great paternal aunt; ‘Ā’isha bt. Abī Bakr, another wife
of the Prophet, was his maternal aunt; and quite importantly, Ṣafiyya bt.
‘Abd al-Muṭṭalib, who was the paternal aunt of the Prophet, was his pater-
nal grandmother. This therefore made al-Zubayr, as Sandra Campbell has
identified, ‘as closely related to the Prophet as was ‘Alī, [b. Abī Ṭalib] but
through a female line.’13 This close kinship to the Prophet may itself have
been a powerful legitimizing force within the early Islamic community
for not just the sons of ‘Alī, but also for others, including Ibn al-Zubayr,
who was not only the second cousin of both al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn, but
the first cousin once removed of the Prophet himself, and a nephew of the
Prophet through two of his marriages.14

9 Ibn Sa‘d, Kitāb al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kabīr, 483; Ibn Qutayba, Kitāb al-Ma‘ārif, 224–225;
Ibn Ḥajar, Kitāb al-Iṣāba fī tamyīz al-Ṣaḥāba.
10 For a discussion on the importance of sābiqa in early claims to leadership, see
Afsaruddin 2002: 36–112.
11 Hasson 2012.
12 Hadīth 4649, Bāb fī al-Khulafā’, in Abū Dāwūd, Sunan Abī Dāwūd.
13 Campbell: 2003: 69–70.
14 A first cousin once removed is so-called as it is refers to two people for whom a
first cousin relationship is one generation removed, Ibn al-Zubayr being the son of
Muḥammad’s first cousin, al-Zubayr.
Some Comments on Ibn al-Zubayr and Legitimizing Power 257

Asad Ahmed’s prosopographical study of the religious elites of the early

Islamic Ḥijāz has advocated for the importance of the female cognate in
Arab kinship well into the ‘Abbasid era. There are a number of accounts in
the historical record focusing on not just the standing of the kin of ‘Alī but,
specifically, the kin of the Prophet’s daughter Fāṭima: in one particularly
telling instance, the historian al-Ṭabarī (d. ad 923/ah 310) records that
the Caliph Hishām b. ‘Abd al-Malik challenged the authority of Zayd b. ‘Alī
on the grounds that he was the son of ‘Alī not by Fāṭima, but by a concu-
bine.15 In this way, a female related closely to the Prophet was remembered
as strongly bolstering the legitimacy of a claimant, whereas a weakness in
another female’s genealogy substantially damaged that claim. The closer
one’s kinship could be tied to the Prophet, the greater claim to legitimacy
they had. This prominence of the female lineage extended beyond the
importance placed on a direct line from the Prophet, though. There was
clear importance attached to the lineage of the female line throughout
the seventh century. This is suggested not only by the struggles of the
pre-Islamic poet ‘Urwa mentioned above, but by numerous anecdotes in
the written sources. These suggest, for instance, that the majority of the
Caliph ‘Uthmān’s land grants and high-standing appointments to posi-
tions within the Islamic world went to members of his family through his
female line.16 Furthermore, despite his father’s position, Yazīd b. Mu‘āwiya
is said to have struggled to gain the support of many of the Arab tribes
not involved in the Quḍā‘a alliance with his father as they ‘[would] never
pay allegiance to the son of a Kalbī woman.’17 Ahmed’s study has led him
to assert that ‘the qualitative analysis leads increasingly to the conviction

15 ‘Hishām said to [Zayd]: ‘I have heard that you are thinking of the caliphate and
wanting it. But you will not obtain it, since you are the son of a slave girl (wa-anta ibn
ama).’ al-Ṭabarī, The History of al-Ṭabarī Vol. XXVI, 12–13 (1675–1676). For all refer-
ences to the work of al-Ṭabarī, I have provided page numbers to the original Arabic
source in parentheses, referring to M. J. de Goeje’s edition listed in the bibliography.
16 Ahmed 2010: 106–134.
17 Crone 1994: 44–45; Marsham 2009: 90–91.
258 Ryan J. Lynch

that cognate [female] links were at least as important as agnatic relations

for socio-politics on the ground.’18
In one of the earliest biographical dictionaries that we have on the
Companions, Ibn Sa‘d’s (d. ad 845/ah 230) Kitāb Ṭabaqāt al-Kabīr, we
find an entry on Ibn al-Zubayr which emphasizes the close relationship
he shared with the Prophet, providing more than enough information to
offer him a high status and a close association with his memory. The much
later (and very Sunnī) biographical dictionary by Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī
(d. ad 1449/ah 852) contains very similar information to that of Ibn
Sa‘d, and both include several elements which are seemingly utilized as
anecdotes when it comes to legitimizing these individuals born to the new
community. When Ibn al-Zubayr was born, his mother is reported to have
carried him to Muḥammad where the Prophet himself prepared food for
him by chewing it, fed him, blessed him, and had his name called out at the
beginning of prayer.19 All of these actions are mentioned by both authors
as similarly taking place with the births of other prominent children to the
community of believers, including both sons of ‘Alī, al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn.
Furthermore, the Prophet is even remembered as having bestowed upon
his wife ‘Ā’isha the kunya of ‘Umm ‘Abd Allāh (the mother of ‘Abd Allāh
[b. al-Zubayr]) as a testament to this close relationship between the two.20
These accounts seem to serve the interest of not only presenting the figure
of Muḥammad as a nurturing leader of the young community, but more
importantly, they establish the close link afforded to these children with
the Prophet himself.21

18 Ahmed 2010: 13.

19 Ibn Sa‘d, Kitāb al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kabīr, 473–475; Ibn Ḥajar, Kitāb al-Iṣāba fī tamyīz
al-Ṣaḥāba, 69.
20 al-Zubayrī, Nasab Quraysh, 237.
21 The children of the young community often have these stories linking them and
Muḥammad. While they are often unique, they all seem to provide the same pur-
pose. Ibn Sa‘d includes, for instance, a lengthy discussion on the quality of the hair
of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn, before recounting how the Prophet cut some of it when
they were born.
Some Comments on Ibn al-Zubayr and Legitimizing Power 259

An important theme present in the later Sunnī Arabic historical

material is the idea that Muḥammad was the seal of the Prophets (Khātim
al-Nabīyyin) without heir,22 and from the perspective of ‘Alīd or Shī‘ī
sources, the only individuals who had a genealogical claim to leadership
of the community as Ahl al-Bayt (the family of the house [of the Prophet])
were the family of ‘Alī. However, these positions were likely a later develop-
ment not native to the seventh century itself. Moshe Sharon has discussed
the issues surrounding the early definition of Ahl al-Bayt extensively, and
has highlighted the different groups the term may have represented in the
earliest centuries of Islam. While the term in later ‘Alīd and Shī‘ī sources is
deeply connected to the family of ‘Alī and the Prophet’s daughter Fāṭima,
there is plenty of evidence to suggest that as with much in the foundational
period of Islam, this was an evolution. Later ‘Abbasid-era sources deline-
ate the Ahl al-Bayt as the descendants of Muḥammad’s grandfather, ‘Abd
al-Muṭṭalib or of his great-grandfather, Hāshim.23 Such a stance would have
suited many parties in the early ‘Abbasid period quite well, of course. This
left both the descendants of Ibn ‘Abbās (the dynasty’s eponym), and the
descendants of ‘Alī firmly within the Prophet’s nearest kin, while it easily
excluded the vast majority of Umayyad rulers who shared no blood or mari-
tal relationship with this branch of Quraysh, let alone with the Prophet
directly. Looking even earlier, though, Sharon convincingly argues that the
Banū Umayya were even able to legitimize themselves as Ahl al-Bayt because
of an earlier definition, later discredited and eventually forgotten, which
viewed the great-great grandfather of the Prophet, ‘Abd Manāf, as the earli-
est delineator of the Prophet’s nearest kin rather than ‘Abd al-Muṭṭalib.24 In
both this broad definition descending from ‘Abd Manāf and the far more
limited descent from ‘Abd al-Muṭṭalib, however, Ibn al-Zubayr fits within
the Ahl al-Bayt of the Prophet.
We are left to speculate on much of what occurred during the second
fitna due to the myriad problems of early Islamic historiography – first

22 For a full discussion of this issue, see Powers 2009: especially 50–57.
23 Sharon 1991: 137–139.
24 Ibid., 139–143.
260 Ryan J. Lynch

and foremost, that the earliest of these sources were written more than one
hundred years after the events of the civil war. Added to this is the delicate
situation of a Companion and relative of the Prophet, namely Ibn al-Zubayr,
engaged in open conflict with fellow Muslims. Within this amount of
time, a narrative of the events would have had time to develop and crys-
tallize. Perhaps owing to this process, we have no surviving sources which
explicitly state that Ibn al-Zubayr legitimized himself and consolidated his
power over his rivals by way of genealogy. This is not surprising; after all,
the short-lived claim to power of the Zubayrids is not something that the
‘Alīds would have chosen to remember due to their own extremely limited
interpretation of the Prophet’s nearest kin, and the ‘Abbasids would have
had little desire to focus on any rival genealogical claim that could have
threatened their own legitimacy. But within the surviving literary sources,
there are numerous anecdotes which hint at a process to purge the standing
of Ibn al-Zubayr in the earliest centuries of Islamic historiography, largely
by defaming his character.
That statements were made which accuse Ibn al-Zubayr of being a
pretender to authority whose house was undeserving, hints at an underly-
ing necessity to degrade his claims by later parties, lest their own authority
be challenged by outside parties again. That these statements were ever
made implies that some historians and/or transmitters, especially those
who may be classified as ‘Alīd or proto-Shī‘ī and placed great importance
on their own genealogical credentials, believed his claims to power were
strong enough to necessitate later attempts to minimize or belittle this
status – even though he was long dead. Marginalizing a rival claimant to
authority – especially when their bloodline continued and could potentially
challenge the successors of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn – was still an important
consideration.
Among the most telling of these attempts is found in the historian
al-Balādhurī’s (d. ca. ad 892/ah 279) Ansāb al-Ashrāf in an account on
the authority of al-Madā’inī, where Mālik b. Hubayra reportedly asks the
Umayyad Caliph Mu‘āwiya what he believes of his tribal brethren from
the Ḥijāz. After naming and describing several such individuals, Mu‘āwiya
comes to Ibn al-Zubayr, saying:
Some Comments on Ibn al-Zubayr and Legitimizing Power 261

I have seen Ibn al-Zubayr, and I find him to be a man where, when one thing would
be sufficient for him, instead makes out of it ten, and he attempts to gain a position
by contrivance which he was not qualified for (yuḥāwilu amrān laysa min ahlihi).25

Ibn al-Zubayr is thereby described as making claims to leadership already

during the reign of Mu‘āwiya and during the lifetime of al-Ḥasan b. ‘Alī,
something which none of the other historical sources make any mention
of. Of key importance is this attempt to disparage the claims to leadership
of Ibn al-Zubayr by projecting his claims backward in time, depicting him
as constantly seeking power for himself, and by suggesting that he was not
qualified for leadership of the community.26
Within the History of al-Ṭabarī also reside some of the more direct
mentions to the genealogy held by Ibn al-Zubayr and its role in legitimizing
his claims. Upon the death of Mu‘āwiya when Muslims of standing were
summoned to give the oath of allegiance to his son Yazīd, Ibn al-Zubayr
and al-Ḥusayn b. ‘Alī seized the opportunity to flee Syria before they gave
Yazīd the bay‘a. They fled to Mecca a night apart from each other,27 and
thereafter resisted the summons of Yazīd and his governors, even forcibly
defeating an army of Yazīd’s sent to return them to Syria. After having
sought refuge in Mecca, al-Ḥusayn began to contemplate leaving the holy
city on his fateful journey to Kūfa. He and Ibn al-Zubayr discussed the
leadership of their community and their standing within it:
Then Ibn al-Zubayr came and talked to him [al-Ḥusayn] for a time, saying ‘I do not
know why we have left things to these people and stood idly by. We are the sons of
the Muhājirūn [the emigrants] and should be the ones in control of this government
rather than they.’28

25 al-Balādhurī, Ansāb al-Ashrāf, Vol. 4/1, 16; Campbell 2003: 72.

26 With the Arabic word ahl often having a genealogical meaning.
27 There is a variation within the sources on whether Ibn al-Zubayr and al-Ḥusayn left
for Mecca together or separately, with the accounts which opt to depict the two
traveling separately later presenting Ibn al-Zubayr as complicit in al-Ḥusayn’s death.
28 al-Ṭabarī, The History of al-Ṭabarī, Volume XIX, 67 (274).
262 Ryan J. Lynch

This account of al-Ṭabarī’s portrays Ibn al-Zubayr as trying to convince

al-Ḥusayn to leave the Ḥijāz for his supporters in Iraq, thereby leaving him
free to make his own claim to authority, but al-Ḥusayn wisely sees through
this ruse, saying:

Nothing in the world would please him more than my leaving the Ḥijāz for Iraq.
He realizes that he has no share in this affair while I am present, for the people will
never consider him equal to me. Therefore, he would love for me to go away from
here so that he can have a free hand.29

While this account shares an obvious sympathy with the ‘Alīds and their
supporters, it presents the position that Ibn al-Zubayr was suited for a claim
to power based on his position within the early community. Al-Ḥusayn’s
genealogy, however, placed him above Ibn al-Zubayr in precedence for
leadership as the direct grandson of the Prophet. It also demonstrates that
these later narrative sources which were partisan to the family of ‘Alī remem-
bered, at the very least, an assumed challenge to al-Ḥusayn’s authority by
Ibn al-Zubayr. The entire account reeks of the inevitability of al-Ḥusayn’s
impending death at Karbalā’, as everyone around him except Ibn al-Zubayr
warns him of the dangers of the journey and the treacherousness of the
Iraqis, but the martyr al-Ḥusayn chooses to leave for his death anyway. Ibn
al-Zubayr is therefore portrayed as being partially complicit in the death
of al-Ḥusayn.30 With the way the entire situation is presented, the narra-
tive then removes the only person with a greater genealogical claim to
leadership of the Islamic community, and Ibn al-Zubayr is thereafter free
to assume leadership himself.

29 Ibid.
30 Other sources, however, provide quite a different depiction of Ibn al-Zubayr that
portrays him as supporting Ḥusayn’s claim rather than deceitfully plotting a rival’s
downfall. Such instances can be found in Ibn Khayyāt, Tā’rīkh, 282–283; al-Balādhurī,
Ansāb, vol. 4/1, 62–63; in the admittedly pro-Zubayrid account by al-Zubayrī, Nasab
Quraysh, 239; Ibn A‘tham al-Kufī, Kitāb al-Futūḥ, 133. These differences are thoroughly
discussed in Campbell 2003: 63–67.
Some Comments on Ibn al-Zubayr and Legitimizing Power 263

This lingering recognition in the accounts chosen by al-Ṭabarī of Ibn

al-Zubayr’s standing continues later, when he is urged to publicly seek the
bay‘a from his supporters:
Ibn al-Zubayr’s companions rose to him and declared, ‘Man, make public your accept-
ance of the oath of allegiance, for no one remains now that al-Ḥusayn is dead who
can dispute this affair with you.’ The people had been giving the oath of allegiance
to him secretly, while he was saying publicly that he was seeking refuge at the Sacred
Mosque [only]. He told them not to be too hasty.31

Interestingly, al-Balādhurī includes an almost identical report, but says

that rather than through simple public acclimation of Ibn al-Zubayr, his
standing earned him selection for the Caliphate specifically by a council,
a shūrā.32 This was in the same manner that the Caliph Uthmān had been
earlier elected, and as Patricia Crone has discussed, was often the method
dissenters preferred when hoping to challenge the legitimacy of another
authority figure, especially when kinship played an import role.33 Later, a
messenger from the Umayyad Marwān b. al-Ḥakam arrived in Mecca in
an attempt to convince Ibn al-Zubayr to give up his claim and return to
Syria. Ibn al-Zubayr provided his response in the form of a poem where
he personally cites his genealogy to embolden his claim:

I am from a tree (origin, nab‘) that is hard to break,

when the reeds and the ‘ushar are easily bent.
I will not be tender toward anything except the right that I am demanding,
until the stone is tender to the tooth of one who chews.34

While the word nab‘ can be read to have a meaning of ‘origin’ or ‘spring’, the
rest of the poem’s association with plant life suggests a reading of ‘tree’, a

31 al-Ṭabarī, Caliphate of Yazīd, 190 (396–397).

32 ‘Wa qad kāna Ibn al-Zubayr yubāya‘ sirrān ‘alā al-shūrā’, al-Balādhurī, Ansāb, vol 4/1,
304. A separate mention comes on the authority of al-Madā’inī (ibid. 303). Both
conflict with al-Ṭabarī, who makes no mention of a shūrā; al-Ṭabarī, Caliphate of
Yazīd, 190 (396–397).
33 For more on this, see Crone 2001: 3–39.
34 al-Ṭabarī, Caliphate of Yazīd, 192 (398).
264 Ryan J. Lynch

metaphor for the strength and quality of Ibn al-Zubayr’s lineage in contrast
to the reeds and ‘ushar (milkweeds), his rival claimants to power.
Mu‘āwiya’s decision to designate his son, Yazīd, as his successor was
a major water-shed moment in the early Islamic period: according to the
traditions, Abū Bakr and ‘Uthmān had been elected by shūrā; ‘Umar had
been chosen by his predecessor as the most qualified member of the com-
munity, and at a period where the community was still small enough for
this selection to have been more easily confirmed.35 The first designated
Umayyad successors to Mu‘āwiya, however – Yazīd and Mu‘āwiya b. Yazīd
– were born well after the death of the Prophet and had limited kinship
to him – Yazīd being a nephew through his aunt, and therefore lower in
genealogical precedence. It seems unsurprising that it is in this period during
the reigns of Yazīd and his son, Mu‘āwiya b. Yazīd that we find prominent
Muslims refusing to render the oath of allegiance, eventually leading to
Ibn al-Zubayr publicly claiming the Caliphate and the ensuing gain of a
substantial following in regions outside of the Ḥijāz.
Al-Balādhurī discusses the animosity between Ibn ‘Abbās and Ibn
al-Zubayr, before he records an account from the mouth of Ibn ‘Abbās
himself which praises the genealogy of the failed Caliph:

As for [Ibn al-Zubayr’s] father, he was a disciple (ḥawārī, often a title of honor for
al-Zubayr) of the Messenger of God; as for his grandfather, he was the Companion
of the Cave, meaning Abū Bakr; and as for his mother, she was the possessor of the
girdle (an epithet earned during the trek from Mecca to Medina in the ḥijra); and
as for his maternal aunt, she was ‘Ā’isha, the mother of the believers; and as for his
paternal aunt, she was Khadīja, the wife of the Prophet; and as for the paternal aunt
of the Messenger of God, Ṣafiyya, she was his grandmother. In addition, he was
upright in Islam and had memorized the Qur’ān (qāri’ ). By God, I myself regard him
in a way that I did not even regard Abū Bakr, nor ‘Umar! [However,] Ibn ‘Abī al-‘Āṣ
walked out in a show of boldness (baraza yamshī al-qudumīya), meaning ‘Abd al-
Malik, while he turned his tail (lawā dhanabahu) [and hid], meaning Ibn al-Zubayr.36

35 Crone 2001: 15.

36 al-Balādhurī, Ansāb al-Ashrāf, Vol. 3, 40.
Some Comments on Ibn al-Zubayr and Legitimizing Power 265

By the time that al-Balādhurī was committing these comments on Ibn al-
Zubayr to writing, the second fitna and its repercussions were foregone
conclusions for the author. It was left to these ‘Abbasid scholars to make
sense of and synthesize the reports which had come down to them, and
this particular report encapsulates much of the historical processes of the
ninth century. To the author, Ibn al-Zubayr had a stellar pedigree which
would provide him a minimum amount of respect across the accounts.
It was a distant reality, however, in an era where claims of legitimacy via
kinship belonged exclusively to the ‘Abbasid house and the descendants of
‘Alī. In the end, his purported character flaws – in this particular instance,
his lack of courage and resolve – presented a reasonable explanation as to
why he was doomed to failure against the determination and assertiveness
of ‘Abd al-Malik.
But even here, that Ibn al-Zubayr’s genealogy is raised and praised in
the highest of terms strongly suggests that it played an important role in
legitimizing him during the events of the second fitna. Even centuries after
the events in question, all of the literary sources are concerned – whether
positively or negatively – with his genealogy and, especially, his close kin-
ship to the Prophet. While the surviving Arabic material provides serious
restrictions on what we can say ‘actually occurred’ during the foundational
events of the seventh century, it seems likely that Ibn al-Zubayr’s kinship
to the Prophet helped him to earn the support – albeit fleeting – of a sub-
stantial portion of the Islamic world.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

al-Balādhurī, Ansāb al-Ashrāf. Vol. 3, ed. A. A. al-Dūrī. Beirut: Franz Steiner, 1978.
, Ansāb al-Ashrāf. Vol. 4/1, ed. I. ‘Abbās. Beirut: Franz Steiner, 1979.
Ibn A‘tham al-Kufī, Kitāb al-Futūḥ. Vol. 5. Ḥaydarābād: Maṭbaʿa Majlis Dāʼira
al-Maʿārif al-ʿUthmānīya, 1972.
266 Ryan J. Lynch

Ibn Ḥajar, Kitāb al-Iṣāba fī tamyīz al-Ṣaḥāba. Vol. 2. Cairo: Maṭbaʿa al-Saʿāda, 1905.
Ibn Khayyāt, Tā’rīkh. Vol. 1, ed. S. Zakkār. Damascus: Wizāra al-Thaqāfa wa-al-SiyāḤa
wa-al-Irshād al-Qawmī, 1967.
Ibn Qutayba, Kitāb al-Ma‘ārif. Ed. S. Okacha. Cairo, 1960.
Ibn Sa‘d, Kitāb al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kabīr. Vol. 6, ed. A. M. ‘Amr. Cairo: al-Nāshir Maktaba
al-Khānjī, 2001.
al-Ṭabarī, Tā’rīkh al-Rusul wa-al-Mulūk. Ed. M. J. de Goeje. Leiden: Brill, 1879–1901.
, The History of al-Ṭabarī, Volume XIX: The Caliphate of Yazīd b. Mu‘āwiyah. Tr.
I. K. A. Howard. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990.
, The History of al-Ṭabarī, Vol. XXVI: The Waning of the Umayyad Caliphate. Tr.
C. Hillenbrand. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989.
al-Ya‘qūbī, Tā’rīkh. Vol. 2, ed. M. Th. Houtsma. Leiden: Brill, 1883.
al-Zubayrī, Nasab Quraysh. Ed. E. Lévi-Provençal. Cairo: Dār al-Ma’ārif, 1953.

Secondary Literature

Afsaruddin, A. (2002). Excellence and Precedence: Medieval Islamic Discourse on

Legitimate Leadership. Leiden: Brill.
Ahmed, A. Q. (2010). The Religious Elites of the Early Islamic Ḥijāz: Five Prosopographi-
cal Case Studies. Oxford: Linacre College Unit for Prosopographical Research.
Alajmi, A. (2013). ‘Ascribed vs. Popular Legitimacy: The Case of al-Walīd II and
Umayyad ‘ahd’, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 72(1), 25–33.
Arazi, A. (2012). ‘’Urwa b. al-Ward.’ In Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Leiden:
Brill. <http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/
urwa-b-al-ward-COM_1304> accessed 06 May 2014.
Blair, S. (1992). ‘What is the Date of the Dome of the Rock?’. In J. Raby and J. Johns
(eds), Bayt al-Maqdis: ‘Abd al-Malik’s Jerusalem, Vol. 1, 59–87. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Campbell, S. (2003). Telling Memories: The Zubayrids in Islamic Historical Memory.
Doctoral dissertation, Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles.
Crone, P. (1994) ‘Were the Qays and Yemen of the Umayyad Period Political Parties?’
Der Islam, 71 (1), 1–57.
(2001) ‘Shūrā as an Elective Institution’, Quaderni di Studi Arabi, 19, 3–39.
and Hinds, M. (1990). God’s Caliph: Religious Authority in the First Centuries
of Islam. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dixon, A. A. (1971). The Umayyad Caliphate, 65–86/684–705: A Political Study.
London: Luzac.
 Some Comments on Ibn al-Zubayr and Legitimizing Power 267

Donner, F. (1998). Narratives of Islamic Origins: The Beginnings of Islamic Historical

Writing. Princeton: The Darwin Press.
Hasson, I. (2012). ‘al-Zubayr b. al-‘Awwām’. In Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition.
Leiden: Brill. <http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-
of-islam-2/al-zubayr-b-al-awwam-SIM_8189> accessed 06 May 2014.
Johns, J. (2003). ‘Archaeology and the History of Islam: The First Seventy Years’, Journal
of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 46 (4), 411–436.
Judd, S. (2008). ‘Reinterpreting al-Walīd b. Yazīd’, Journal of the American Oriental
Society, 128 (3), 439–458.
Marsham, A. (2009). Rituals of Islamic Monarchy: Accession and Succession in the First
Muslim Empire. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Obermann, J. (1955). ‘Early Islam’. In R. C. Dentan (ed.), The Idea of History in the
Ancient Near East, 237–310. New Haven; Yale University Press.
Powers, D. (2009). Muḥammad is Not the Father of Any of Your Men: The Making of
the Last Prophet. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Robinson, C. (2007). ‘Abd al-Malik. Oxford: Oneworld Publications.
Rotter, G. (1982). Die Umayyaden und der Zweite Bürgerkrieg. Wiesbaden: Franz
Steiner.
Rubin, U. (2003). ‘Prophets and Caliphs: The Biblical Foundations of Umayyad
Authority’. In H. Berg (ed.), Method and Theory in the Study of Islamic Origins,
73–99. Leiden: Brill.
Sharon, M. (1991). ‘The Umayyads as Ahl al-Bayt’, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and
Islam, 14, 115–152.

View publication stats