dominate over people merely through his high esteem by ‘Umar. Once encountering Mu‘āwiya going and accompanied majestically by his retinue, ‘Umar asked about the ground. Mu‘āwiya responded that the more the enemy spies multiply, the more our grandeur has to heighten; yet, I will abide by what you command.
“By no means do I enjoin him nor prohibit him”, said ‘Umar.
Mu‘āwiya himself deemed his firm standing as consequence of ‘Umar’s way of behaving towards him. Reacting against objections to Mu‘āwiya, ‘Uthmān said that how he was ever able to depose him designated by ‘Umar.
Nevertheless, Imām ‘Alī’s response to him in this respect was, “Although Mu‘āwiya held ‘Umar in reverence, he now does perform whatever without taking counsel with you”.
What ‘Umar frequently stated was, “You are naming Kasrā (title of Sassanian kings) and Caesar whereas Mu‘āwiya is amongst you.”
Succeeding ‘Uthmān’s assassination, in his remarks addressing people, Mu‘āwiya announced that he has been the caliph of ‘Umar as well as ‘Uthmān amongst them. In ‘Uthmān’s tenure Damascus was regarded as his security zone. He did banish Kūfa reciters along with Abūdhar there. Mu‘āwiya did expel them from Damascus soley owing to retaining his position and likewise avoiding their influence on nation. Damascus has been trained by Mu‘āwiya and in the course of the Umayya’s governorship the in-depth devotion of its dwellers to them clearly manifested the fact.
 Mukhtasar Tārīkh Dimashq, vol.IX, p.161
 al-‘Iqd al-farīd, vol.I, p.15, vol.V, p.114; Mukhtasar Tārīkh Dimashq, vol.XXV, p.18; once Mu‘āwīya was complained at the presence of ‘Umar. ‘Umar said, “Leave us away from reproaching Quraysh’s young man and his son of the prophet’s descendant. Mukhtasar Tārīkh Dimashq, vol.XXV, p.18. This is most likely to be attributed to ‘Umar
 al-Ghadīr, vol.IX, p.35. From Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.V, pp.88,90. Djāhiz said, “One of the most significant reasons of the Sufyānids for substantiating Mu‘āwīya’s caliphate was his own statement. He stated, “This is a position thereto ‘Umar has designated me. Never did he depose me since he designated me whereas he designated no emir unless he deposed him or at least he was incensed by his actions and summoned him. Neither did he depose me nor was incensed. He did consign Damascus thoroughly to me and succeeding him. ‘Uthmān did reinforce me; Rasā’il al-Djāhi¨, al-Rasā’il al-siyāsiya, p.385
 Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.IV, p.550
 al-Fakhrī, p.77, Mukhtasar Tārīkh Dimashq, Vol.XXV, p.30
 Waq‘at Siffīn. P.32; Mukhtasar Tārīkh Dimashq, vol. XXV, p.30.
 Tabaqāt al-kubrā, vol.IV, p.229; al-Ghadīr, vol.VI, p.304; vol.IX, p.373
It is quoted that the Umayya rulers have attested in the presence of “Saffāh” that they considered no relative for the Holy Prophet (s) save the Umayya.
Mu‘āwiya has been quoted as stating, (نحن شجرة رسول الله (ص “We are from the lineage of Allāh’s Apostle.”
Furthermore, under the guises of the revelation amanuensis and Khāl al-Mu‘minīn (the uncle of the faithful) he did strive in order to fortify his religious stance. He compelled a number of hadith (tradition) narrators as well to fabricate tens of hadiths concerning his supremacy and disseminate them among people.
Mu‘āwiya’s rule was the one and the only experience of a ruler who flourished to secure the sovereignty by employing coercion as well as devising political stratagems vis-a-vis all prevailing political-religious or perhaps tribal and regional disputes. Until then neither a military expedition had been occurred, nor had duress been officially manipulated in order to obtain the political authority. And now how can it be ever justified whereas the rule was thoroughly established by force? It should be borne in mind that this very fact had to be endorsed like other political facts emerging at the beginning of caliphate term that afterwards did turn legitimately into a governmental theory. In order to secure allegiance, when a sovereign could suppress all the dissenters through his political authority, Djamā‘a (congregation) has subsequently appeared. What dilemma was now there for those who stressed the concept of community and said that they would be the last ones swearing an oath of allegiance? Under the pretext of the self of Community, they, heedless of how the ruler has secured the authority, swore allegiance to a caliph with whom all were agreed. Mu‘āwiya himself declared that he had secured the caliphate neither through nation’s amity, nor with their gratification but by sword. Mu‘āwiya named that year as “the
 Murūdj al-dhahab, vol.III, p.33; al-Nizā‘ wa l-takhāsum, p. 28
 Mukhtasar Tārīkh Dimashq, vol.XI, p.87; It has been narrated that there were some in Damascus saying; “If Mu‘āwīya is not a prophet, he is at least half of a prophet”; See also Bahdjat al-madjālis, vol.I, p.550. And once one of his devotees met him, he, as a salutation, addressed him, “O Allāh’s Messenger!” See also al-Awā’íl, Tustarī, p.163; Regarding the person who cursed ‘Alī in front of Mu‘āwīya, Ahnaf Ibn Qays asserted, “By Allāh if he knew your gratification was in cursing all the prophets, he would certainly do so.”; al-‘Iqd al-farīd, vol.IV, p.113
 As an instance, it has been quoted from the Holy prophet as stating, والأمناء عندالله ثلاثة, جبرئيل وأنا ومعاويه “In sight of Allāh the trustees are three, Djibri’īl (Gabriel), Mu‘āwīya and me” Such narations have been discussed in detail by Ibn ‘Asākir; Mukhtasar Tārīkh Dimashq, vol.XXV, pp. 5-16
 al-‘Iqd al-farīd, vol.IV, p.81
year of Djamā‘a”. Touching upon that Mu‘āwiya not only secured the authority that year, but also he held sway over other members of the Shuwrā (council), Muhādjirūns and Ansārs, Djāhi¨ has stated, “Mu‘āwiya named that year as عام الجماعة “The year of Community” whereas that year was, عام فُرقةٍ وقهر وجبر وغلبة “The year of separation, wrath, constraint and predominance.”
The year therein Imamate turned into monarchism and Kasrā system and caliphate became usurped and Caesarean. Afterwards, the principle of “Sovereignty does belong to the one who suppress others” turned an incontrovertible principle in political Fiqh (religious jurisprudence) of Sunnism.
Since the inception of his revolt against Imām ‘Alī (a), Mu‘āwiya’s legal mainstay has been his recourse to his kinship with ‘Uthmān in addition to his self-introduction as his next of kin. He alleged that the assassin of ‘Uthmān had been ‘Alī (a) and he as his next of kin would retaliate his assassins. And gradually it turned into hereditary transfer of caliphate from ‘Uthmān to Mu‘āwiya in the view of Damascus dwellers, for materializing which Mu‘āwiya himself played a pivotal role. Prior to this, it should be taken into consideration that Mu‘āwiya deemed himself the successor of Qurayshī power which had transferred from Abū Bakr and ‘Umar to ‘Uthmān. We earlier referred to Muhammad Ibn Abī Bakr’s letter to Mu‘āwiya therein the former had reproached him for his insistence on inequity about ‘Alī (a).
As its response, Mu‘āwiya wrote, “Your father and I during our prophet’s lifetime had held ‘Alī’s right incontestable and had indeed discerned his supremacy; nevertheless, usurping his right, your father and ‘Umar, after prophet’s departure, were the ever-first ones who summoned him to swear allegiance to them. He did swear allegiance under duress, they two, yet, granted naught as an allotment to him. After those two, ‘Uthmān secured the authority. If it were assumed a blunder, your father had blundered for the first time and we were all his accomplices, yet if it were approved, we emulated your father. If you intend to reproach, you had better reproach your father first.”
From the beginning of his revolt against ‘Uthmān, Mu‘āwiya was doing his utmost to exploit him. Once he requested ‘Uthmān to proceed to him in Damascus in order to be immune from the dissenters, ‘Uthmān rejected however. Later on, when the revolt aggravated, Mu‘āwiya found no
 Risālat al-Djāhi¨ fi Banū Umayya, p. 124 in al-Nizā‘ wa l-takhāsum
 Ansāb al-ashrāf, Vol.II, pp.393-397; Waq‘at Siffīn, p.118, Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, vol.III, p.188; Murūdj al-dhahab, vol.III, p.10; Samt Nudjūm al-‘awālī, vol.II, p.465
 al-kāmil fi l-tārīkh, vol.III, p.157. Mu‘āwīya definitely intended to prepare the ground for his succession through his coming to Damascus
alternative except ‘Uthmān’s assassination. He could abuse the people’s confidence in Damascus in this regard. Mu‘āwiya accordingly never aided ‘Uthmān until ‘Uthmān eventually perceived it when deeply in trouble, hence he wrote a reproving letter to him. Immediately in the wake of ‘Uthmān’s assassination as well as his wife’s escaping to Damascus, Mu‘āwiya proposed to her but she declined.
He, in his letters to Imām ‘Alī (a), asserted, “Our caliph ‘Uthmān is assassinated oppressedly and since Allāh has said, ‘When one is murdered oppressedly, we have assigned a power for his guardian’, we are more preferable to ‘Uthmān and his descendants.” Mu‘āwiya’s stress on ‘Uthmān’s succession had culminated in an influence on Sunnis’ historical-political line of thinking that for two centuries thereafter Kūfa Shi‘ite Muslims, other than the Shi‘ite Muslims and few Sunnis, imagined that Orthodox Caliphs were merely three and following them the only possible and legitimate caliph was Mu‘āwiya. Afterwards, the notion of “Tarbī‘“ was broached by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal wherein ‘Alī (a) had been introduced the fourth caliph.
Having composed numerous verses of poems as laudation for the Umayya, Farazdaq has manifested in his poetry the assumption that the Umayya regarded themselves as ‘Uthmān’s heirs apparent. In a poem addressing ‘Abd al-Malik Ibn Marwān, he has composed,
سربال ملك عليهم غير مسلوب
تراث عثمان كانو الاولياء له
“They are the custodians of ‘Uthmān’s inheritance and this royal robe can by no means be divested.”
He in another poem addressing Walīd Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik, has certified that his caliphate has been transferred from ‘Uthmān and elsewhere he has composed addressing Yazīd Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik that the caliphate has been transferred from ‘Uthmān to Mu‘āwiya and then to him among the Umayya,
به نصـر الله النبـي محمـدا 
ورثت ابن حرب وابن مروان والذي
 Being requested for an aid by ‘Uthmān, Mu‘āwīya along with two others came to Medina and went to ‘Uthmān overnight. “Have you brought any helper?”, ‘Uthmān questioned
 Nathr al-durr, vol.IV, p.62; Balāghāt al-nisā’, p.139; al-‘Iqd al-farīd, vol.VI, p.90
 al-Ghārāt, p.70
 Dīwān Farazdaq, Vol.I, p.25
 Ibid, vol.II, p.210
 Dīwān farazdaq, vol.II, p.210
 Ibid, vol.I, p.114
“You are the heir of Harb’s son, Marwān’s son and the heir of the one with whose assistance Allāh made Muhammad (s) vanquish (he has probably meant ‘Uthmān by the last one)”
And for Walīd Ibn Yazīd he has composed,
كانت تراث نبينا المتخيّر
ورثوا مشورُتها لعثمان التي
“They are the heirs of Shuwrā (the council) which designated ‘Uthmān, the Shuwrā which is the inheritance of the Chosen Prophet’s caliphate.”
Djāhi¨ has also specified that Mu‘āwiya justified his right for caliphate through ‘Uthmān’s blood.
Mu‘āwiya, from the outset of his opposition to ‘Alī (a), announced that he did never seek after caliphate but as a matter of fact he had already prepared himself for securing caliphate. At the very starting point of caliphate, Imām ‘Alī (a) urged Mu‘āwiya’s envoy to inform him that under no circumstances was he was contented with his emirate over Damascus, nor would the nation be gratified with it. His inward aim was overt for the majority but seemingly he commenced to delude them. Prior to Djamal war, he wrote to Zubayr that he had secured allegiance from Damacsus people for him and if he accomplished to conquer Iraq, he would definitely encounter no trouble in Damascus. Zubayr became very thrilled at the letter. Irrespective of Zubayr, Mu‘āwiya must have elaborated to what way he had acceded for an admissible caliph to be designated. Consequently, he propounded “Muslims’ Council” in this respect. Within the letters written to a number of celebrities of Medina from Siffīn, he had referred to this issue already discussed in Siffīn event. Mu‘āwiya was determined to absorb one of the political figures of Quraysh mainly from those attending the councilin order to exploit him politically because Imām had censured him for neither of those from Quraysh in Damascus was permitted in the council and their caliphate was unauthorized. In a letter to Imām ‘Alī (a) as well, Mu‘āwiya did propound the issue of Council. There matters were on no accounts serious on the part of Mu‘āwiya.
Reportedly, the dwellers of Damascus at first had sworn allegiance to him as an emir not Amīr al-Mu’minīn (the Commander of the Faithful) but in the wake of ‘Alī’s martyrdom he pretended to the caliphate, so the nation
 Diwān Farazdaq. vol.I, p.336; al-Umawiyyūn wa l-Khilāfa, pp.13-15, other verser are mentioned besides the aforesaid poems.
 Rasā’il al-Djāhi¨, al-Rasā’il al-siyāsiyya, pp.345-346
 Waq‘at Siffīn, p.28
 A‘yān al-shī‘a, vol.III, Section 2, p.12
 Waq‘at Siffīn, p.58
 al-Imāma wa l-siyāsa, vol.I, p.121
did swear allegiance to him as Amīr al-Mu’minīn. Since the inception, he decided to secure allegiance as the one seeking retaliation for ‘Uthmān’s blood and as the emir coveting not caliphate so that this responsibility would be entrusted to the Council. It is hinted in “Al-Imāma wa al-Sīyāsa” that prior to Siffīn, Mu‘āwiya had secured allegiance as an emir.
Mu‘āwiya wrote to Hims governor to secure allegiance for him in the same way Damascus people had sworn. Affirming that they would certainly not assemble for retaliating ‘Uthmān’s blood without a caliph, the nobles of Damascus were not convinced to swear allegiance to Mu‘āwiya as an emir. As a result, the dwellers of Hims were the ever-first ones swearing allegiance to Mu‘āwiya as a “caliph”. After the spread of the news in Damascus the people thereof did swear allegiance to him as well. It is stated that Hadjdjādj Ibn Wasma had been the first one addressing him as a caliph and being gratified at it.
Procuring caliphate for Mu‘āwiya had been confronted with another hindrance and it was that he was by no means among the precedented Muslims. He together with his father as well as most members of the family had battledwith Islam and subsequent to his conversion to Islam he was among Tulaqā (the captives whom Allāh’s Apostle set free after a triumph). It was a contemptuous lable.
Although Mu‘āwiya had fulfilled to reinforce his position somewhat in Damascus by introducing himself as “Khāl al-Mu‘minīn” and “the revelation amanuensis” as well as relying on ‘Umar’s and ‘Uthmān’s assistance, Hidjāz and Iraq were both well-acquainted with his nature. Once ‘Umar had saud that caliphate did only belong to Badr participants but if neither of them were survived, caliphate would be for Uhud participants as long as even one were alive, yet, caliphate would neverever be entrusted to Tulaqā, nor to their descendants. It is probable that this narration had been ascribed to ‘Umar; however, it should have been engraved in Muslims’ minds after him. In his remarks in Siffīn, ‘Ammār had said that they, the Umayya, had had no background in Islam in order to be entitled to be the guardians of the nation or be abided by. Even ‘Abd Allāh Ibn ‘Umar
 Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.V, p.161.; Mukhtasar Tārīkh Dimashq, vol. XXV, p.27
 Waq‘at Siffīn, p.82
 al-Imāma wa l-siyāsa, Vol.I, p.100
 Waq‘at Siffīn, pp.78,80
 Mukhtasar Tārīkh Dimashq, vol.IX, p.161
 Tabaqāt al-kubrā, vol.III, p.342; Mukhtasar Tārīkh Dimashq, vol.25, p.42
 Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.V, p.39
responding Mu‘āwiya’s letter also wrote, “O Mu‘āwiya, what do you have to do with caliphate? You are from Tulaqā!”
Enclosing with the letter of ‘Umar’s son, a number of verses belonging to a poet from among Ansār were dispatched reading that Mu‘āwiya was too minor to converse about the council participants. And once ‘Alī (a) reprimanded Mu‘āwiya when he expressed his ideas about allotments among Muhādjirūn and Ansār and told him that such affairs have no pertinence to Tulaqā!
When Mu‘āwiya set out to Medina to assure the opposers of Yazīd’s succession to the throne, ‘Āyisha dissented and accused him of her brother Muhammad’s murder. She reiterated, “You are from among Tulaqā for whom caliphate is interdicted.”
This defect was not of significance for Mu‘āwiya, however, who had surmounted more formidable hurdles. Not only did he designate himself enforcedly as Muslims’ caliph, but he nominated his son, infamous for being a debauchee, for that very rank as well.
The Umayya’ rule was also a kind of Qurayshī one; therefore, it was on no accounts distinct from the former ones. This circumstance was perpetuated in the ‘Abbāsids dynasty too. Now what merits consideration is to perceive when the prerequisite of being from Quraysh had become one of the indispensable prerequisites for caliphate. We already discussed that the prerequisite of being from Quraysh had never been stipulated among prerequisites of Fiqh for caliphate. Although the Shi‘ite Muslims, the Twelvers, had faith in Imamate belonging exclusively and citedly to ‘Alī (a) and his descendants, those even believing not in citation never considered the element of being from Quraysh a prerequisite for caliphate. Hudhayfa had been quoted subsequent to swearing allegiance to ‘Alī(a) as saying that he had would in no way swear allegiance to any Qurayshī after him. This utterance by one of the renowned Companions (disciples) does justify that the prerequisite of being from Quraysh had by no means been treated legitimate and incontrovertable. Nontheless, the Umayya who were the principal substructure of Quraysh with securing the authority, propounded the prerequisite of being from Quraysh in earnest and Hadith-fabricaters began fabricating Hadiths in this respect. It has been quoted from Mu‘āwiya
 Waq‘at Siffīn, p.63
 Waq‘at Siffīn, p.64
 Nahdj al-balāgha, letter 28
 al-Futūh, vol.IV, p.237
 Ansāb al-ashrāf, Vol.II, p.216
as alleging that this empire and caliphate has been laid amongst Quraysh except whom no other one has the eligibility of a caliph.
Addressing the dwellers of Medina who hesitated to swear allegiance to Yazīd, Rawh Ibn Zinbā‘ belonging to the tribe of Djudhām and from among the devotees of the Umayya in Damascus said, “We are not soliciting you to swear allegiance to the tribes of Lakhm, Djudhām or Kalb, ولكنا ندعوكم الى قريش ومن جعل الله له هذا الأمر واختصّه “We are summoning you toward Quraysh and the one for whom Allāh has uniquely assigned this authority, namely Yazīd Ibn Mu‘āwiya.”
The counterfeit Hadiths prevailing were plentiful among which were “The one disdaining Quraysh has indeed disdained Allāh”. “The formost Imāms for the nation are the ones from Quraysh.” It is astonishing that to substantiate their nobleness, they availed themselves of their consanguinity with Allāh’s Apostle(s), though they antagonized his close kins.
The Umayya’s Quraysh-oriented policy was manifest in Umayya’s ruthlessness against Ansār.
Akhtal, an Umayya poet, had composed, “Quraysh is the possessor of the entire virtuousness and greatness whereas contemptability is under the turban of Ansār. Enumerating the grounds for his triumph over ‘Alī (a), Mu‘āwiya referred to his fine relation with Quraysh.
Mu‘tazila has indicted Mu‘āwiya for initiating fatalism in the Islamic world. It can be avowed that faith in fatalism in Arab world has had it’s
 al-Fitna wa waq‘at al-djamal, p. 109; from: Min dawlat ‘Umar ilā dawlat ‘Abd al-Malik, p. 109
 al-Bayān wa l-tabyīn, Vol.I, p.300; al-Shuwrā fi l-‘Asr al-umawī, p.34; Later on, when two Umayya (‘Abd Allāh Ibn ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz with Sulaymān Ibn Hishām) performed their prayers led by one of Khāridjites, an outsider composed,
الم تر انّ الله أظهر دينه وصلّت قريش خلف بكر بن وائل
Not you know Allāh’s religion won while Quraysh performed its prayer behind the tribe of Bakr Ibn Wā’il
al-Bayān wa l-tabyīn, vol.I, p.343, vol.II, p.265; Shi‘r al-khāridjites, p.208, from Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.VIII, p.365, vol.III, p.137; Tārīkh al-tabarī, Vol.II, p.1913
 Mukhtasar Tārīkh Dimashq, vol.III, p.318, vol.VI, p95; al-Basā’ir wa l-dhakā’ir, p.35
 Mukhtasar Tārīkh Dimashq, vol.VI, p.148
 al-Bayān wa l-tabyīn, vol.II, p.67
 al-Aghānī, vol.XVI, pp.35-36; al-Shi‘r wa l-shu‘arā’, p.302; see: al-Bayān wa l-tabyīn, vol.I, p.63
 al-Bayān wa l-tabyīn, vol.II, p.115
 Tabaqāt al-mu‘tazila, p.6; Fadl al-I‘tizāl wa Tabaqāt al-mu‘tazila, p.143, al-Awā’íl, Abū Hilāl Askarī, vol.II, p.125
antecedent in Dark Age as those of a number of Christians and the Jews of Hidjāz. Also succeeding the emergence of Islam, much or less, a number of people have inflamed the subject of fatalism; on the contrary, the fact is that this belief predominated in the Umayya’s tenure and gradually turned into a principle in tribal disputes. Employing this principle on caliphate has been revealed in the well-know utterance ascribed to ‘Uthmān. The revolters’ insistence was his dethrone but in return ‘Uthmān acknowledged that he would never ever remove the robe which Allāh had made him wear.
It was wholly evident that he attributed his caliphate to Allāh whereas it was in reality emanated from ‘Abd al-Rahmān Ibn ‘Awf’s notion. Mu‘āwiya did take considerable strides in this regard. Mu‘āwiya is quoted as saying, as the entire affairs are under Allāh’s control, endeavors are all in vain.
Elsewhere he said, “This caliphate is a decree from among Divine decrees along with a destiny from among Divine destinies.”
Reacting to ‘Āyisha’s dissent from the succession of Yazīd, Mu‘āwiya responded, “This affair is a Divine destiny but which no one has any other alternative.”
In his famous sermon, Ziyād Ibn Abīh, Mu‘āwiya’s governor in Basra and Kūfa declaimed, “O people, we are all the politicians and the advocates of yours. We govern you with recourse to the power bestowed by Allāh.”
In addition, Yazīd in his inaugural sermon, stated that since his father had been a servant from among Allāh’s servants, Allāh, magnanimous enough, bestowed him the caliphate. Now He has laid it with him.
In an answer to ‘Uthmān’s son who objected to Yazīd’s succession and said, “It was our father after whom you secured the authority”.
Mu‘āwiya said, “This sovereignty is what Allāh has granted us.”
 Hayāt al-sahāba, vol.III, p.529
 Mukhtasar Tārīkh Dimashq, vol.IX, p.85 (هذه الخلافة أمر من أمرالله وقضاء من قضاء الله)
 al-Imāma wa l-siyāsa, vol.I, p.205, Aswad Ibn Yazīd narrated, he enquired ‘Āyisha “Is not it surprising that a man from Tulaqā (the released) is disputing with Muhammad’s companions on caliphate?”
“No need to surprise” ‘Āyisha replied, It is سلطان الله “a Divine power” that Allāh grants to both debauchees and the righteous; as Pharaoh ruled Egypt for four hundred years; Mukhtasar Tārīkh Dimashq, vol.XV, p.42
 al-Futūh, vol.IV, p.180, al-Bayān wa l-tabyīn, vol.II, p.49; Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol,V, p.220; al-‘Iqd al-farīd, vol.IV; al-Kāmil fi l-tārīkh, vol.III, p.449; Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, Vol.XVI, p.202; Djamharat Khutab al-‘arab, vol.II, p.273; al-umawīyyūn wa l-Khilāfa, p.25
 al-Imāma wa l-siyāsa, vol.I, p.225; Akhbār al-tiwāl, p.226; Ansāb al-Ashrāf, vol.IV, p.299, No.798
 al-Imāma wa l-siyāsa, vol.I, p.214
To induce Mu‘āwiya to introduce his son a caliph, Miskīn Dāramī composed,
يُبوئه الرّحمن حيث يزيد
فـإن اميرالمؤمنين يزيـد
بني خـلفاء الله مهـلاً فأنّما
اذا المنبـر الغربي خلّاه ربـّه
“O descendants of Allāh’s caliphs, slow down, Allāh will rest the rule anywhere He ordains. When the western pulpit of Damascus voided (when Mu‘āwiya passed away), Yazīd would be Amīr al-Mu’minīn.”
Eventually we will find out how the caliphate simply denoting the succession of Allāh’s Apostle(s) at first, gradually conveyed the sense of Divine caliphate. The cardinal matter in Mu‘āwiya’s caliphate was that he did abolish the tradition of caliphate and declared monarchism officially in stead. By “officially” what we intend is that prior to that in ‘Uthmān’s tenure the ground had been paved for monarchism (discussed earlier in the section concerning ‘Uthmān). Narrated by Ibn ‘Asākir, on hearing the news of ‘Uthmān’s murder, Thumāma Ibn ‘Adī, one of the prophet’s disciples, wept and stated that he was among those taking the “Prophetic caliphate” from “Muhammad’s household” and turning it into a despotic monarchy.
Although of ‘Uthmān’s was murdered, a great number of people dissented him, later on account of the Umayya dominion they acquitted and cleansed ‘Uthmān of all those flaws. Nevertheless, they still did somewhat cleave to the principle that Mu‘āwiya’s dominion equals a termination to caliphate era and a commencement to monarchism. This conversion by no means did make them doubt its legitimacy. As a matter of fact, they justified that legitimacy is something and the perfectness of the rule something else.
Regarding this very conversion, a
Hadith is attributed to the Holy prophet (s) as stating,
These Hadiths do never seem authentic. What should be taken into account is that Mu‘āwiya was pleased with using the term of monarchism about himself. Mu‘āwiya constantly repeated, أنا اول الملوك “I am the first monarch.”
 al-umawiyyūn wa l-Khilāfa, p.65. From al-Shi‘r wa l-shu‘arā’, vol.I, p.544; al-Aghānī, vol.20, p.212; Khazānat al-adab, vol.III, p.59; Shi‘r Miskīn, p.33
 Ibid, vol.V, p.344
 Ibid, vol V, p.344
 Musnad Ahmad, vol.IV, p.273; vol.V, p.44,50,404; al-Djāmi‘ al-Sahīh (Sunan al-Tirmidhī) أنا اول الملوك وآخر خليفه “I am the first monarch and the last caliph;” Mukhtasar Tārīkh Dimashq, vol.XXV, p.55; Kitāb al-fitan, No.48
In order to fortify his authority and
erase all traces of caliphate, it was possible for him to
counterfeit such a Hadith as many other instances have been
seen. Ka‘b al-Ahbār
one of the admirers of ‘Uthmān and Mu‘āwiya stated
that in the Old Testament he had found Allāh’s Apostle(s) as
the one who would be born in Mecca, migrate to Tāba and
whose rule is in Damascus.
And this might have made Mu‘āwiya think of transmitting the
Holy Prophet’s pulpit as well as his waking-cane from Medina
It is also quoted from Abū Hurayra as stating,
And in another narration, one of those possesing bibles had told to Mu‘āwiya that he had noticed his attribute within the Divine Books as the one who would for the first time turn caliphate into monarchism, yet, Allāh is merciful and forgiving after all. The Hadith according to which caliphate would last for thirty years had been narrated by Sufayna who was reportedly one of the prophet’s Mawālī (freed slaves).
He affirmed that he had heard from the prophet (s) saying, الخلافة ثلاثون عاماَ ثم يكون بعد ذلك الملك “Caliphate lasts for thirty years and after which monarchism appears.”
Consequently, he reckoned that two years for Abū Bakr, ten years for ‘Umar, twelve years for ‘Uthmān and six years for ‘Alī (a).
However, it is known that Imām’s authority did merely lasted for four years and nine months not longer. A further reckoning was narrated by Mas‘ūdī as follows, two years, three months and eight days for Abū Bakr, ten years and six months for ‘Umar, eleven years, eleven months and thirteen days for ‘Uthmān, four years, seven months minus afew days for ‘Alī (a) and eight months and ten days for Hasan (a) that altogether equals
 Sunan al-Dārimī, vol.I, p.6
 Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.V, p.237-238; al-Kāmil fi l-tārīkh, vol.III, p.463, 464
 Ibid, vol.IV, p.346
 Musnad Ahmad, vol.IV, p.185
 al-Kāmil fi l-lughat wa l-adab, vol.II, p.191
 Musnad Ahmad, vol.V, p.220,221; Tirmidhī has narrated the aforegoing quotation from Sa‘īd Ibn Djamhān quoted from "Sufayna";
He quoted from Sa‘īd telling Sufayna, “The Umayya is of this opinion that caliphate belongs to them.”
“They are lying, they are the kings and from the worst kinds” he answered.
Al-Djāmi‘ al-Sahīh, vol.IV, p.503; al-Nizā‘ wa l-takhāsum, p.70; Tirmidhī has added that the Umayya had claimed that caliphate was lain among them by the Holy Prophet(s)
precisely thirty years. Primarily other Hadiths dealing with caliphate are virtually of this category unless, the conclusive evidence vindicate their authenticity otherwise.
The narration of, [ان الخلفاء من قريش الى أن تقوم الساعة[2 “Caliphate does belong to Quraysh until the Day of Judgement” would be of this type as well unless in compliance with our belief it corresponded to Nass (textual nomination) of Imām ‘Alī (a) together with his succeeding Imāms.
Heedless of the origin of the Hadith, the historical evidence indicated the start of a thoroughgoing monarchism within the domain of the Islamic caliphate. The term of monarchism as a substitute for caliphate equates to the existence of despotism which is deemed as one of the fundamental features of the rule. As the completion of the narration of this very Hadith “after thirty years” has come, ثم تكون ملكاَ عاضاَ جبرية“After which monarchism forcibly appears.”
The noticeable instances of which were Kasrā’s rule in Iran and those of Caesar’s and Heraclitus’s in Rome and Damascus. Mu‘āwiya was a great enthusiast for the background of Damascus in particular. Muslims were all well acquainted with these two rulers.
In one of his sermons concerning Qāsitīn (the oppossers), Imām ‘Alī (a) said, “Combat Allāh’s foes, those striving to extingish Allāh’s light. Battle against the misled wrongdoers, the felons who are neither Qur’ān recitors, nor religious jurisprudents, scholars of paraphrase and those having no background in Islam. I do swear by Almighty Allāh that if they could secure the authority, they would undoubtedly perform what was done by Kasrā and Heraclitus.”
‘Ammār also regarding Qāsitīn said that ‘Uthmān’s assassination was a pretext to them until, ليكونوا بذلك جبابرةَ ملوك“ The oppressors became monarchs.”
It was the approach that Mu‘āwiya had singled out in order to secure the authority and govern an Islamic land. He himself divulged, “By Almighty Allāh I did neverever combat for the sake of performing prayers, observing fast, pilgrimage nor paying Zakāt (poor-rate as prescribed by Islam). You
 Murūdj al-dhahab, vol.II, p.429. It merits consideration that those fabricating Hadiths have been trying to be accurate in calculation.
 al-Djāmi‘ al-Sahīh, Kitāb al-fitan, No.49
 Musnad Ahmad, vol.IV, p.273; Kitāb Muslim, Kitāb al-zuhd, No.4
 Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.V, p.78
 Murūdj al-dhahab, vol.V, p.39
yourself were acting them all. I did combat to dominate you and although Allāh bestowed it to me, you never contented.”
On entering Kūfa he announced that the one swearing not allegiance to him would in no way be secure. He set a three-day respite for allegiance. Quoted from Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr and Djāhi¨, he did secure allegiance from the nation as loathing for ‘Alī (a).
In a letter to ‘Abd Allāh Ibn Dja‘far to swear allegiance to Yazīd, he had written, “If you swear allegiance, you will be adored; otherwised, you will be coerced.” 
Allegedly, he had ordered to slay the one who avoids swearing. About figures like Qays Ibn Sa‘d, having a kind of influence, he secured allegiance by clasping his hand and compelling him to pat his hand whereas Qays was refraining.
Mu‘āwiya’s aristocratic lifestyle and his procedures adopted in caliphate, pompted Sa‘d Ibn Abī Waqqās as well to address him a “monarch” when meeting. In Damascus he was determined to find the works created about ruler’s biographies in Damascus. Later on, Djāhi¨ recorded that Mu‘āwiya turned the rule into the rule of Kasrā and Caesar. Historians have also introduced him as the ever-first monarch. And Sa‘īd Ibn Musayyib affirmed that Mu‘āwiya was the first one converting caliphate into monarchism. Mughīra Ibn Shu‘ba described Mu‘āwiya as an emir and specified that there should be a difference between a peasant and an emir. Reportedly, the first one who substituted, ملك يوم الدين “Master of the Day of
 Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, vol.16,46; Mukhtasar Tārīkh Dimashq, vol.XXV, pp.43,45
 Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.III, p.47
 Bahdjat al-madjālis, vol.I, p.99; al-Bayān wa l-tabyīn, vol.II, p.105
 al-Imāma wa l-siyāsa, vol.I, p.201
 Hayāt al-sahāba, vol.II, p.441
 Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, vol.XVI, p.48-49
 Mukhtasar Tārīkh Dimashq, vol.VIII, p.210; Tārīkh Ya‘qūbī, vol.II,.217; al-Musannaf, ‘Abd al-Razzāq, vol.I, p.291
 Muntakhabāt al-tawārīkh li-Dimashq, p.81 quoted from Min dawlat ‘Umar ilā dawlat ‘abd al-malik, p.146
 Rasā’il al-Djāhi¨, Rasā’il al-kalāmiyya, p.241
 Tārīkh Khulafā’, pp. 196,203
 Tārīkh Ya‘qūbī, vol.II, p.232
 Tabaqāt al-kubrā, vol.VI, p.20
Judgment” for مالك يوم الدين “Owner of the Day of Judgment” was Mu‘āwiya.
Ya‘qūbī has enumerated what he did as indications of monarchism as follows, being seated on a platform and making others sit in a lower position, singling out the best propertys of the people and allotting them all to himself. He commanded to devote whatsoever Iranian kings had possessed in farmlands or anywhere else to him.
Mu‘āwiya’s status was so conspicuous that ‘Umar had named him Kasrā in his tenure. It should be asserted that Mu‘āwiya was set to establish a “caliphate of Islamic royalty”. He considered himself as a king but described as a caliph concerning old traditions. Making efforts to transport Prophets’ pulpit from Medina to Damascus, he intended to fortify his Islamic strength although he could never succeed.
Mawdūdī has itemized a number of characteristics for clarifying the distinction between Mu‘āwiya’s monarchism and his predecessors’ caliphate as follows, first, the way of designating a caliph converted. In spite of his predecessors who never rose up for caliphate, Mu‘āwiya in any way exerted to gain the caliphate. As soon as he secured the authority, no one was able to dissent him. Anyone had to swear on oath of allegiance to him.
It was what Mu‘āwiya himself had confessed, “I was absolutely aware of nation’s discontent with my caliphate; however, I secured it by sword”.
It gradually culminated in hereditary caliphate by Mu‘āwiya. Secondly, the lifestyle of the caliphs converted. Following the approaches of monarchism of Iran and Rome did commence from Mu‘āwiya’s tenure on. The third feature is concerned with Bayt al-Māl (public fund). At this juncture, public treasury changed in to the king’s and his lineage’s personal wealth. No one had the right to reprimand the government for the accounts thereof. Fourthly, it was the termination of freedom of speech. At this period, not a single one had an ability to enjoin the good nor prohibit the evil. This new process began in Mu‘āwiya’s term after Hudjr Ibn ‘Adī’s assassination. Fifthly, it was the end of freedom of judiciary branch. The end of the council-oriented government was the sixth characteristic of a monarchical government. The seventh was the emergence of racial and tribal
 Akhbār Isbahān, vol.II, p.255
 al-Bad’ wa l-tārīkh, vol.VI, p.6; Tārīkh Ya‘qūbī, vol.II, p.232
 Tārīkh Ya‘qūbī, vol.II, p.233
 al-Isāba, vol.III, p.434
 Tārīkh al-tabarī, vol.V, p.230-240
 al-Bidāya wa l-nihāya, vol.VIII, p.132
prejudices. And also elimination of superiority for law has been deemed as the eighth feature.
Mawdūdī has represented many historical instances for each characteristic.
In Mu‘āwiya’s term, one of the crucial issues was the Shi‘ites beliefs amongst a number of people specifically Iraqis. We have already discussed the emergence of Shi‘ism. Now we are to evaluate the interactions between Shi‘ite Muslims and the Umayya.
Beyond any doubt, Shi‘ite Muslims have always been Mu‘āwiya’s archenemies as the Khāridjites were considered as other foes for him. Nevertheless, the Khāridjites were not of great significance. The universal pessimism on the part of Muslims about them, their oppression as well as their baseless position-taking had resulted in having no support among people. On the contrary, Shi‘ite Muslims particularly in Iraq were all endowed with a mighty support like Imām ‘Alī (a) and others from Ahl al-Bayt (Prophet’s infallible household).
The culture disseminated by Imām ‘Alī (a) in Iraq was indeed thoroughly Islamic and although people had to keep silence under Mu‘āwiya’s compulsion, they were all able to distinguish ‘Alī’s truthfulness and Mu‘āwiya’s wrongfulness.
Mu‘āwiya and with his agents confronted this process with diverse ways, from reconciliation and gentleness to vast harshness. The latter was wide-ranging especially in Iraq. Creating hatred for ‘Alī (a) was one the most critical approach used. Mu‘āwiya and other Umayyads succeeding him have persistently been endeavoring to wipe ‘Alī (a) off the face of the earth and introduce him as an element, aggressive, bloodthirsty and the like. In Holy Prophet’s term and later on in caliphs’ terms and his own caliphate especially, Imām ‘Alī’s life verified his unique glory in both scientific and practical domains. His sermons were narrated chest by chest. The statements regarding his scientific supremacy, the Hadiths quoted from the Holy Prophet (s) concerning his excellence as well as his praiseworthy and extraordinary judgments were all recounted by people to one another in hadith assemblies. These all led to dissemination of that culture among people, the culture which prompted Imām ‘Alī’s disciples to retain this affection for him even at the cost of their martyrdom. And above all, this culture could naturally perpetuate among Imām ‘Alī’s descendants, from Prophet’s household. Inasmuch as the Umayya had perceived this fact, they
 Khilāfat wa mulūkiyyat, pp. 118-207
consequently were determined to stigmatize the Imām, express their disgust for him in every assembly and curse him. Ibn Abi l-Hadīd has written a chapter entitled “the hadiths counterfeited by Mu‘āwiya concerning ‘Alī (a) through stimulating a number of disciples and Tābi‘īn” in his book.
Marwān Ibn Hakam was asked why they were doing so, he
Principally, the Umayya’s sovereignty could never perpetuate except the policy of insulting ‘Alī (a). Cursing His Excellency, highlighting other caliphs as well as introducing them as superior to ‘Alī (a) were constantly pursued. As stated by some, since Hadith-fabricators aimed to approach the Umayya with recourse to these Hadiths, most Hadiths concerned with disciples’ virtues had been fabricated in the Umayya’s tenure. At this juncture, individuals like ‘Āyisha were introduced as a source for Hadiths and others like Zayd Ibn Thābit, being on ‘Uthmān’s side, were appointed to be the source of advice on legal or religious matters for Mu‘āwiya. Attributing Hadiths by Imām ‘Alī (a) to himself or others was among what Mu‘āwiya did so that others could at times attribute them to Mu‘āwiya as well. Djāhi¨ who had realized the fact denied the attribution of such Hadiths to Mu‘āwiya owing to the fact that he had no relation with the devout.
This Hadith narrated by Imām, [ما رأيت سرفاَ الا الي جانبها حق مضيّع[7 “I have seen no lavishment unless someone’s right was disregarded therein” was ascribed to Mu‘āwiya.
In another case, one of Imām’s Hadiths was attributed to a Bedouin. “We ascribe ‘Alī’s letter to Muhammad Ibn Abī Bakr to Abū Bakr”, Mu‘āwiya himself had confessed.
‘Alī’s malediction to the Kūfiyāns was attributed to ‘Umar.
 Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, vol.IV, p.63
 Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.I, p.184
 Fadjr al-islām, p.213
 al-Bayān wa l-tabyīn, vol.II, p.303
 al-Musannaf, ‘Abd al-Razzāq, vol.X, p. 267
 al-Bayān wa l-tabyīn, vol.II, p.61
 Tārīkh Khulafā’, p.247
 Madjma‘ al-amthāl, vol.I, p.651
 al-Ghārāt, vol.I, p.251
 al-Bad’ wa l-tārīkh, vol.VI, pp.27-28
Insulting and cursing ‘Alī was prolonged as a tradition until it was ceased in ‘Umar ‘Abd al-‘Azīz’s time. Mu‘āwiya himself stressed that it must be spread to the extent that the offspring mature with this slogan, the youths grow old and no one narrates his excellence. From among the disciples, some contributed to Mu‘āwiya in this regard. There existed a Hadith by Abū Hurayra concerning the mischief-making among the nation that says it is about ‘Alī, yet, the Holy Prophet (s) has cursed such a person. It has also been narrated that Mu‘āwiya rewarded Samura Ibn Djundab with 400,000 dhms to alege that the following verse had been revealed about ‘Alī (a),
وَمِنْ النَّاسِ مَنْ يُعْجِبُكَ قَوْلُهُ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَيُشْهِدُ اللَّهَ عَلَى مَا فِي قَلْبِهِ وَهُوَ أَلَدُّ الْخِصَامِ.
“And among men is the one whose speech about this worldly life causes you to wonder, and he calls on Allāh to witness as to what is in his heart, yet he is the most violent of adversaries.”
Ibn Abi l-Hadīd has written that Mu‘āwiya had stimulated a number of disciples to narrate some Hadiths against Imām ‘Alī(a) among whom were Abū Hurayra, ‘Amr Ibn ‘Ās, Mughīra Ibn Shu‘ba and ‘Urwa Ibn Zubayr.
In his letters to his agents in cities, Mu‘āwiya wrote, “The Hadiths regarding ‘Uthmān’s virtues are being augmented in cities, as soon as you received my letter, urge people to begin narrating the excellences of companions and caliphs and also narrate a Hadith contradicting any Hadith narrated concerning Abū Turāb’s (Imām ‘Alī) virtues.”
Accordng to Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, most of them in order to get closer to the Umayya fabricated Hadiths expressing disciples’ excellences. To replace the Hadith about the brotherhood between ‘Alī(a) and the Holy Prophet (s), they counterfeited it therein the Prophet(s) stated, “If I intended to designate a successor for myself, he would undoubtedly be Abū Bakr.”
They had fabricated the hadith of “Khawkha” opposite to Hadith of “Sadd al-Abwāb”.
 Tārīkh Khulafā’, p.243
 Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, vol.IV, p.57; al-Nasā’ih al-kāfiya, p.72
 al-Īdāh, pp.210-211; Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, vol.IV, p.63 It is probable that this Hadith is attributed to Abū Hurayra and he Himself has not narrated it.
 Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, Ibn Abi l-Hadīd,vol.I, p.361 (the four-volume edition)
 Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, Ibn Abi l-Hadīd,vol.I, p.63
 Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, vol.XI, p.44
 Ibid, vol.XI, p.49
Mu‘āwiya was extremely bound to curse Imām ‘Alī (a) as the conclusion of his sermons. He even compelled Imām’s disciples to go up the pulpit and curse him. Any agent of Mu‘āwiya who did not abide by the tradition of cursing was deposed and replaced right away. He had eaniced people into daring not to name their babies ‘Alī but call them Mu‘āwiya instead.
He had announced that if anyone narrated the excellences of ‘Alī, he would never warrant his security. Subsequently all preachers expressed their disgust for Imām ‘Alī (a) and cursed him. However, in return he commanded his agents to support the one narrating ‘Uthmān’s excellences. A great number also lived either in Damascus or Iraq who loathed Imām ‘Alī (a) for their kins’ murder. And now the opportunity was provided to them to disclose their rancor by insulting and cursing him. When Harīz Ibn ‘Uthmān was asked why he cursed Imām (a) seventy times every morning and night, his response was, “How can I abstain from it whereas he has beheaded my forefathers with suspicion.”
We will discuss later that the pressure exercising on Ahl al-Bayt was wholly for the sake of hindering ‘Alī’s name to be commemorated. As one of the reasons for murdering Hasan Ibn ‘Alī(a) by poison, Ibn Djawzī has pointed to his entry into Damascus which was naturally intolerable. All of these harsh treatments in order to wipe ‘Alī’s name off the face of the earth occasioned people not to have the courage to narrate ‘Alī’s virtues. Awzā‘ī, a renowned traditionist, did narrate nothing concerned with Ahl al-Bayt’s virtues save the Hadith to inform the revelation of the verse of “Tathīr” (purification) about them, the same as Zuhrī who narrated not more than a virtue. It seemed quite natural that all these repeated and universal curses could eventually influence people’s hearts, particularly in Hidjāz and Damascus, and gradually change public opinions. It was, in every respect, what Mu‘āwiya sought. Because Islamic leadership lay with Imām ‘Alī,
 Ibid, vol.IV, pp. 56-57
 al-‘Iqd al-farīd, vol.II, p.298; Ikhtiyār Ma‘rifat al-ridjāl, pp.66,101-102; Ma‘rifat sahāba, vol.II, p. 236
 Turāthunā, No.10, pp.143-144
 Shadhārāt al-dhahab, vol.I, p.148
 Concerning Mu‘āwīya Ibn ‘Abd Allāh Ibn Dja‘far; Ansāb al-ashrāf, section 4
 Sharh nahdj al-balāgha, Ibn Abi l-Hadīd, vol.XI, p.44; Bihār, vol.IV, p.125
 Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol.I, p.184
 al-Madjrūhīn, vol.I, p.268
 Tadhkirat al-khawās, Ibn Sa‘d, p.212
 Usd al-ghāba, vol.II, p.20
eliminating him could lead to elimination of the religion from the society. As an emphasis, Mu‘āwiya secured allegiance from people by prerequisite of loathing ‘Alī (a) in the same mannar that he had forced them for the first time to swear.
Mu‘āwiya’s another action facing Shi‘ite Muslims was excercising compulsion. The manifestation of his rancor to Imām and Shi‘ite Muslims was in his brutal treatments. Imām Hasan Mudjtabā’s martyrdom, a conspiracy by Mu‘āwiya, was in line with this very policy. It is what historical sources have reported and accordingly, they have in truth discredited Mu‘āwiya among Muslims. The opposition of Umm al-Mu‘minīn (mother of the faithful, ‘Āyisha) in Imām’s burial beside the Prophet (s) exhibited the immense oppressedness of Imām together with his Shi‘ite Muslims. Mu‘āwiya who believed that it was not feasible to delude the people of Iraq in the same way as silly people of Damascus, he had to choose the route of slaying and chastizing. Besides, Iraqi dwellers, including both Shi‘ite Muslims and non-Shi‘ite Muslims, were so sensitive that even a slight irritation could result in chanting bitter slogans against the Umayya although they were all obedient under the sword of Ziyād and Hadjdjādj. The common term describing Shi‘ite Muslims was “Turābiyya” in the Umayya’s tenure. It was derived from “Abū Turāb”, (the father of soil), the title use by the Umayya for scorning Imām ‘Alī (a); nevertheless, later on a number of “Ghulāt” (the Exaggerators) availed themselves of it for proving the Divinity of Imām ‘Alī.
Slaying Shi‘ite Muslims had begun since Imām ‘Alī’s term. After Imām’s forces dispersed and there was no security found but in Iraq, Mu‘āwiya deployed his troops along with some envoys to various areas among whom were Busr Ibn Artāt, Sufyān Ibn ‘Awf Ghāmidī and Dahhāk Ibn Qays. Their responsibility in cities was to trace and, فيقتلوا كلّ من وجده من شيعة علي “Kill any Shi‘ites they noticed at Mu‘āwiya’s behest.”
Busr set out to Medina were he martyred many of ‘Alī’s disciples and enthusiasts and demolished their houses as well. He then went to Mecca and Sarāt respectively and slayed any Shi‘ite Muslim he discovered. Ultimately, he left there for Nadjrān and martyred ‘Abd Allāh Ibn ‘Abd al-Muddān as well as his son. Earlier we presented a profile of his crimes.
Among areas that Busr passed en route and plundered was an area the residents of which were from the tribe of Hamdān, ‘Alī’s Shi‘ite Muslims.
 Bahdjat al-madjālis, vol.I, p.99; al-Bayān wa l-tabyīn, vol.II, p.105
 Ibid, vol.I, p.550
 al-‘Iqd al-farīd, vol.V, p.115
 Tardjamat al-imām al-Hasan, p.184