Battle of the Camel

The Battle of the Camel, also known as The Battle of Basra took place outside of Basra, Iraq, in 36 AH. The battle was fought between the largely Kufan forces of the fourth Rashidun caliph Ali and the rebelling Uthmaniyya led by Aisha, Talha and Zubayr. Ali was the cousin and son-in-law of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, while Aisha was a widow of Muhammad, and Talha and Zubayr were both early converts to Islam and prominent companions. Ali emerged victorious from the battle, Talha and Zubayr were both killed, and Aisha was sent back to Hejaz afterward. The triumvirate had revolted against Ali to avenge the assassination of the third Rashidun caliph Uthman, although Aisha and Talha are both known to have actively opposed him. The three also called for the removal of Ali from the caliphal office and for a Qurayshite council with Talha and Zubayr to appoint his successor.

Background

Opposition to Uthman

Ali frequently accused the third caliph Uthman of deviating from the Quran and the Sunna, and he was joined in this criticism by most of the senior companions, including Talha and Zubayr. Uthman was also widely accused of nepotism, corruption, and injustice, and Ali is known to have protested his conduct, including his lavish gifts for his kinsmen. Ali also protected outspoken companions, such as Abu Dharr and Ammar, against the wrath of the caliph. Ali appears in early sources as a restraining influence on Uthman without directly opposing him. Some supporters of Ali were part of the opposition to Uthman, joined in their efforts by Talha and Zubayr, who were both companions of Muhammad, and by his widow Aisha. The last was critical of Uthman for religious innovations and nepotism, but also objected to him for reducing her pension. Among the supporters of Ali were Malik al-Ashtar and other religiously learned . These wanted to see Ali as the next caliph, though there is no evidence that he communicated or coordinated with them. Ali is also said to have rejected the requests to lead the rebels, although he might have sympathized with their grievances, and was thus considered a natural focus for the opposition, at least morally. It is also likely that some companions supported the protests with the hope of either deposing Uthman, or changing his policies, thus underestimating the severity of the opposition to Uthman.

Assassination of Uthman

As their grievances mounted, discontented groups from provinces began arriving in Medina in 35/656. On their first attempt, the Egyptian opposition sought the advice of Ali, who advised them to send a delegation to negotiate with Uthman, unlike Talha and Ammar ibn Yasir, who might have encouraged the Egyptians to advance on the town. Ali similarly asked the Iraqi opposition to avoid violence, which was heeded. He also acted as a mediator between Uthman and the provincial dissidents more than once to address their economic and political grievances. In particular, he negotiated and guaranteed on behalf of Uthman the promises that persuaded the rebels to return home and ended the first siege. Ali then urged Uthman to publicly repent, which he did. The caliph soon retracted his statement, however, possibly because his secretary Marwan had convinced him that repentance would only embolden the opposition. On their way back home, some Egyptian rebels intercepted an official letter ordering their punishment. They now returned to Medina and laid siege to Uthman's residence for a second time, demanding that he abdicate. The caliph refused and claimed he was unaware of the letter, for which Marwan is often blamed in the early sources. Ali and another companion sided with Uthman about the letter, and suspected Marwan, while a report by the Sunni al-Baladhuri suggests that the caliph accused Ali of forging the letter. This is likely when Ali refused to further intercede for Uthman. That Ali was behind the letter is the opinion of Leone Caetani. Giorgio Levi della Vida is unsure, while Wilferd Madelung strongly rejects the accusation, saying that it "stretches the imagination" in the absence of any evidence. In turn, he accuses Marwan, the bellicose secretary of Uthman, while Hugh Kennedy holds Uthman responsible for the letter. Uthman was assassinated soon afterwards in the final days of 35 AH by the Egyptian rebels who stormed his residence in Medina.

Role of Ali in the assassination

Ali played no role in the deadly attack, and his son Hasan was injured while guarding Uthman's besieged residence at the request of Ali. He also convinced the rebels not to prevent the delivery of water to Uthman's house during the siege. Beyond this, historians disagree about his measures to protect the third caliph. Ali is represented by al-Tabari as an honest negotiator genuinely concerned for Uthman. Husain M. Jafri and Madelung highlight multiple attempts by Ali for reconciliation, and Martin Hinds believes that Ali could not have done anything more for Uthman. Reza Shah-Kazemi points to Ali's "constructive criticism" of Uthman and his opposition to violence, while Moojan Momen writes that Ali mediated between Uthman and the rebels, urging the former to alter his policies and refusing the requests from the latter to lead them. This is similar to the view of John McHugo, who adds that Ali withdrew in frustration when his peace efforts were thwarted by Marwan. Fred Donner and Robert Gleave suggest that Ali was the immediate beneficiary of Uthman's death. This is challenged by Madelung, who argues that Aisha would have not actively opposed Uthman if Ali had been the prime mover of the rebellion and its future beneficiary. He and others observe the hostility of Aisha toward Ali, which resurfaced immediately after his accession in the Battle of the Camel. Laura Veccia Vaglieri notes that Ali refused to lead the rebellion but sympathized with them and possibly agreed with their calls for abdication. Hossein Nasr and Asma Afsaruddin, Levi Della Vida, and Julius Wellhausen believe that Ali remained neutral, while Caetani labels Ali as the chief culprit in the murder of Uthman, even though the evidence suggests otherwise. Mahmoud M. Ayoub notes the often pro-Umayyad stance of the Western classical orientalists, with the exception of Madelung.

Ali and retribution for Uthman

Ali was openly critical of the conduct of Uthman, though he generally neither justified his violent death nor condemned the killers. While he did not condone the assassination, Ali probably held Uthman responsible through his injustice for the protests which led to his death, a view for which Ismail Poonawala cites Waq'at Siffin. Madelung sides with this judgement of Ali from a judicial point of view, saying that Uthman probably did not sanction the murder of Niyar ibn Iyad Aslami, which triggered the deadly raid on his residence, but he obstructed justice by preventing an investigation into the murder, fearing that his aide Marwan was behind it. Still, in his letters to Mu'awiya and elsewhere, Ali insisted that he would bring the murderers to justice in due course, probably after establishing his authority. Quoting the Shia al-Ya'qubi and Ibn A'tham al-Kufi, Ayoub suggests that a mob from various tribes murdered Uthman and that Ali could have not punished them without risking widespread tribal conflict, even if he could identify them. Here, Farhad Daftary and John Kelsay say that the actual murderers soon fled Medina after the assassination, a view for which Jafri cites al-Tabari. Closely associated with Ali was Malik al-Ashtar, a leader of the, who had led the Kufan delegation against Uthman, even though they heeded Ali's call for nonviolence, and did not participate in the siege of Uthman's residence. A leading Egyptian rebel with links to Ali was his stepson, Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, who is reported to be among those who killed Uthman. Some authors have rejected this accusation, though most sources seem to agree that Muhammad confronted Uthman shortly before his death and rebuked him for his conduct. These two men and some other supporters of Ali were implicated by Mu'awiya in the assassination of Uthman. As such, some authors suggest that Ali was unwilling or unable to punish these individuals. The revenge for Uthman soon became the agenda for two revolts against Ali.

Election of Ali

When Uthman was killed in 656 CE by the Egyptian rebels, the potential candidates for caliphate were Ali and Talha. The Umayyads had fled Medina, and the provincial rebels and the Ansar were in control of the city. Among the Egyptians, Talha enjoyed some support, but the Basrans and Kufans, who had heeded Ali's call for nonviolence, and most of the Ansar supported Ali. Some authors add the Muhajirun to the above list of Ali's supporters. The key tribal chiefs also favored Ali at the time. The caliphate was offered by these groups to Ali, who was initially reluctant to accept it, saying that he preferred to be a minister. Some early reports emphasize that Ali then accepted the caliphate when it became clear that he enjoyed popular support, reporting also that Ali demanded a public pledge at the mosque. Perhaps he also accepted the caliphate so as to prevent further chaos, but his nomination by the rebels left Ali exposed to accusations of complicity in Uthman's assassination. It appears that Ali personally did not force anyone for pledge and, among others, Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, Abd-Allah ibn Umar, Sa'id ibn al-As, al-Walid ibn Uqba, and Marwan likely refused to give their oaths, some motivated by their personal grudges against Ali. On the whole, Madelung suggests that there is less evidence for any violence here than in the case of Abu Bakr, even though many broke with Ali later, claiming that they had pledged under duress. At the same time, that the majority favored Ali in Medina might have created an intimidating atmosphere for those opposed to him.