Ṣiffīn

Ṣiffīn (4,605 words) , a famous battle (37/657), or rather a series of duels and skirmishes between the ʿIrāḳīs under the caliph ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib [q.v.] and the Syrians under the governor of Syria Muʿāwiya [q.v.]. The battle was a major factor in shaping the regional and political identity of both the ʿIrāḳī S̲h̲īʿīs and the Syrian Umayyads (cf. Muk̲h̲taṣar Taʾrīk̲h̲ Dimas̲h̲ḳ li- Ibn ʿAsākir, ed. al-Naḥḥās et alii, Damascus 1404/1984 ff., xxiii, 46: naḥnu ahlu ’l-S̲h̲ām, naḥnu aṣḥāb Ṣiffīn cf. P. Crone, Slaves on horses. The evolution of the Islamic polity, Cambridge 1980, 203, n. 30). The political and theological debates about the battle, and about the conflict between ʿAlī and Muʿāwiya in general, form the backdrop to many contradictory claims throughout Islamic historiography, in particular those regarding the biography of some of the Prophet’s Companions (or alleged Companions) which have their roots in the dispute about the number of Companions on each side. In addition, S̲h̲īʿī apologetics account for some of the reports about Muḥammad’s leniency at al-Ḥudaybiya [q.v.]. The site of the battle, Ṣiffīn, was a ruined Byzantine village not far from al-Raḳḳa, located a few hundred yards from the right bank of the Euphrates (al-Dmawarī, 178, 1. 18). It is now identified with the village Abū Hurayra near al-Raḳḳa (al-D̲ h̲ahabī, Taʾrīk̲h̲ al-islām. ʿAhd alk̲h̲ulafāʾ al-rās̲h̲idīn, ed. Tadmurī, Beirut 1407/1987, 537n.). The armies stayed on the battlefield for a long time before the outbreak of hostilities (they are said to have faced each other for 77 days; Ibn Kat̲h̲īr, Bidāya, Beirut 1974, vii, 275, l. 14; cf. al-Mad̲jlisī, Biḥār al-anwār, Tehran 1376/1957 ff., xxxii, 434, 572-3). This reflects the troops’ ̲ aversion to the shedding of the blood of other Muslims. After all, units on both sides belonged to the same tribes. Moreover, there were cases in which two cousins, or a father and his son, faced each other (Naṣr b. Muzāḥim, Waḳʿat Ṣiffīn, ed. Hārūn, Cairo 1401/1981 [= henceforth: WṢ], 334-5, 443; two sons of the famous K̲ h̲ālid b. al-Walīd [q.v.] fought on opposite sides: Ibn al-Kalbī, Ḏjamharat al-nasab, ed. Nād̲jī̲ Ḥasan, Beirut 1407/1986, 88; cf. Ibn ̲ Mākūlā, al-Ikmāl, ed. al-Yamānī, Ḥaydarābād 1381/1962, i, 36-7). The battle ended in Ṣafar 37/July 657 with an arbitration agreement that led to a split between ʿAlī and the K̲ h̲ārid̲jites [q.v.], who demanded that the fight go on until one side was victorious. ̲ It is extremely difficult to establish the course of the battle and the precise chronology of its stages. The reason is by no means a lack of source material, since a huge literary output exists on Ṣiffīn, much of which is still unexplored. The reports on the battle include the description of short episodes whose arrangement often creates an illusion of successive events; Islamic historiography typically sacrifices the overview for a plethora of atomistic detail (cf. Wellhausen, Arab kingdom, Eng. tr. 80: “The description [of the battle] is a mass of one-sided traditions dealing with episodes, and the attempt of the editor to make a mosaic unity of it is a failure. There is a lack of inward connection; you cannot see the wood for the trees”). The compilers of the 2nd Islamic century were certainly not uninterested in reconstructing the course of events, but they were limited by the nature of the atomistic source material at their disposal. We stand on relatively firm ground when we deal with evidence about the identity of the tribal units on both sides, the names of the leading warriors (as opposed to the battie order at any given stage of the fighting) and the weapons and military tactics employed. Significantly, although S̲h̲īʿī and pro-S̲h̲īʿī compilers are responsible for most of the literary output on this battle available to us now, Muʿāwiya’s army is described in no less detail than ʿAlī’s. The equal attention paid to the formation of both armies can be demonstrated by the following example which takes us back to the earliest days of Islamic historiography. We have a detailed description of the rival armies going back to Ḥabīb b. Abī T̲ h̲ābit al-Kūfī who died in ca. 120/738 and whose S̲h̲īʿī sympathies cannot be doubted (K̲ h̲alīfa b. K̲ h̲ayyāṭ, Taʾrīk̲h̲, ed. Zakkār, Damascus 1968, i, 221-2; al-Mizzī, Tahd̲ h̲īb al-kamāl, ed. Maʿrūf, Beirut 1405/1985 ff., v, 358-63;. WṢ, 324; al-Balād̲h̲urī, Ansāb, i, ed. Ḥamīdullāh, Cairo 1959, 174, no. 420; cf. A. Noth, The early Arabic historical tradition. A source-critical study, 2nd ed., in collaboration with L.I. Conrad, tr. M. Bonner, Princeton 1994, 111-14). Since the forces were made up of tribal units (M. Hinds, The banners and battle cries of the Arabs at Ṣiffīn (657 A.D.), in al-Abḥāth, xxiv [1971], 3-42), the tribal politics of ʿAlī’s and Muʿāwiya played a crucial role. However, the ideological factor should not be underestimated since the élites on both sides included people motivated by religious considerations. Some ʿIrāḳīs who doubted the legitimacy of the fighting kept away altogether, preferring to be stationed for the time being in border garrisons (WṢ, 97, 115-16). The ʿUt̲h̲māniyya or proʿUt̲h̲mān tribesmen from Kūfa and Baṣra shifted to the part of the D̲ jazīra [q.v.] which was ̲ under Muʿāwiya’s control (WṢ, 12), as did the Tamīmī Ḥanẓala b. al-Rabīʿ, a Ḳādisiyya [q.v., section 2] veteran who at the time of ʿUt̲h̲mān was the governor’s deputy in Kūfa (kāna ’lk̲h̲alīfata mina ’l-amīr ; Sayf b. ʿUmar, K. al-Ridda..., ed. al-Samarrai, Leiden 1995, 19). Kindīs who disliked ʿAlī left Kūfa when he came there, and went to Ruhā in the D̲ jazīra. ̲ Reportedly, they could not bear to abide in a place where ʿUt̲h̲mān was being cursed. At Ṣiffīn, they fought with Muʿāwiya (M. Lecker, Kinda on the eve of Islam and during the ridda, in JRAS [1994], 333-56, at 345-7; Ibn Ḥabīb, K. al-Muḥabbar, ed. I. Lichtenstaedter, Ḥaydarābād 1361/1942, 295). The people of al-Raḳḳa were then ʿUt̲h̲māniyya, including a tribal leader of the Asad, Simāk b. Mak̲h̲rama, who defected from ʿAlī with one hundred fellow-tribesmen and then convinced six hundred more to join him (WṢ, 146). But even among those who chose to remain in Kūfa, there was no unanimous support for ʿAlī’s policies. When he left for Ṣiffīn, people in Kūfa who had little respect for him became outspoken (istak̲h̲affā ʿAliyyan fa-lammā k̲h̲arad̲ ja̲ ẓaharū). Moreover, the man whom ʿAlī left in charge of Kūfa, Abū Masʿūd al-Anṣārī, was foolish enough to express indifference regarding the outcome of the battle and was dismissed immediately after ʿAlī’s return from the battlefield (al-Ṭabarānī, al2 Muʿd̲ jam ̲ al-kabīr , ed. al-Salafī, Cairo 1400/1980 ff., xvii, 195). Some of ʿAlī’s troops returned while on the way to the battlefield (WṢ, 156). This was the outcome of fierce and at times cynical propaganda tactics in which Muʿāwiya was on the whole more successful than ʿAlī (on how the former won the support of S̲h̲uraḥbīl b. al-Simṭ al-Kindī and turned him into a propagandist, see al-Dīnawarī, 169-70; E.L. Petersen, ʿAlī and Muʿāwiya in early Arabic tradition, Copenhagen 1964, 31-2). Muʿāwiya performed better than his rival with regard to material benefits promised to tribal leaders in return for their loyalty. Muʿāwiya appears to have been less scrupulous, possibly because his standing was more precarious than his rival’s (see, for example, WṢ, 306; Ibn Aʿt̲h̲am al-Kūfī, Futūḥ, Beirut 1406/1986”, iii-iv, 50-1; cf. Muk̲h̲taṣar Taʾrīk̲h̲ Dimas̲h̲ḳ, vii, 397). ʿAlī, on the other hand, perhaps due to self-confidence and the better prospects for which he hoped in the conflict, applied strict measures to governors who embezzled state money, and this led to their defection. Among the tribal leaders alienated by ʿAlī mention should be made of D̲ jarīr b. ʿAbd Allāh al̲ Bad̲jalī, ̲ ʿUt̲h̲mān’s governor in Hamad̲h̲ān, who was dismissed by ʿAlī after the battle of the ] (WṢ, 15). He moved to Ḳarḳīsiyā [q.v.] together with men of his tribal Camel [see al-d̲jamal ̲ group, the Ḳasr of the Bad̲jīla, ̲ and later joined Muʿāwiya. As a result, few of the Ḳasr fought at Ṣiffīn on ʿAlī’s side (WṢ, 60-1). On the whole, Muʿāwiya’s ḥilm or “well-considered opportunism” (E.L. Petersen, ʿAlī and Muʿāwiya. The rise of the Umayyad caliphate, 656-661, in AO, xxiii [1959], 157-96, at 180; also idem, ʿAlī and Muʿāwiya in early Arabic tradition, 12, 118-19) was more fruitful than ʿAlī’s strictness. The latter reacted to the defection of D̲ jarīr b. ʿAbd ̲ Allāh al-Bad̲jalī ̲ by destroying his court in Kūfa (WṢ, 61). Far more influential than D̲ jarīr was another tribal leader, al-As̲h̲ʿat̲h̲ b. Ḳays [q.v.] of Kinda, ̲ who, unlike D̲ jarīr b. ʿAbd Allāh, fought at Ṣiffīn on ʿAlī’s side (WṢ, 140; cf. Lecker, Kinda, 355; ̲ for As̲h̲ʿat̲h̲’s position among his fellow-tribesmen see idem, Judaism among Kinda and the ridda of Kinda, in JAOS, cxv/4 [1995], section 2). ʿUt̲h̲mān safeguarded al-As̲h̲ʿat̲h̲’s loyalty by appointing him governor of Ād̲h̲arbayd̲jān ̲ [q.v.]. He was still its governor for some time under ʿAlī (al-Balād̲h̲urī, Futūḥ, 329, 1. 7; Ibn al-Faḳīh, 294, 1. 2; Crone, Slaves on horses, 110), but after the Battle of the Camel he was dismissed (al-Ṭabarī, i, 3254). ʿAlī also dismissed alAs̲h̲ʿat̲h̲ from the riʾāsa of Kinda and Rabīʿa (WṢ, 137; Ibn Aʿt̲h̲am, Futūḥ, iii-iv, 64-5, 194; Ibn Abi ’l-Ḥadīd, S̲h̲arḥ Nahd̲ j ̲ al-balāg̲h̲ a2, ed. Ibrāhīm, Cairo 1378/1959 ff., iv, 74-5). At the most crucial stage in the fighting, al-As̲h̲ʿat̲h̲ supported the arbitration which was to cost ʿAlī both his title, that of amīr al-muʾminīn, and then his life. With regard to the defection of these leaders of the Yemen, it should be borne in mind that most of Muʿāwiya’s troops at Ṣiffīn belonged to Yemen while most of ʿAlī’s troops were of the Nizār b. Maʿadd [q.v.], i.e. Rabīʿa and Muḍar [q.v.] (Ch. Pellat, Une risāla inédite de Ǧāḥiẓ sur l’arbitrage entre ʿAlī et Muʿāwiya (Risāla fī ’l-ḥakamayni...), in al-Mas̲h̲riq, lii [1958], 417-91, at 426-7). In addition to these tribal leaders ʿAlī lost the support of ʿUbayd Allāh, son of the caliph ʿUmar b. al-K̲ h̲aṭṭāb, who fled to Muʿāwiya for fear that ʿAlī might execute him for having avenged his father’s assassination by murdering innocent Persians. ʿUbayd Allāh was killed at Ṣiffīn, where he commanded Muʿāwiya’s cavalry (Muk̲h̲taṣar Taʾrīk̲h̲ Dimas̲h̲ḳ, xv, 345, 34651). While with regard to the formation of the two camps we stand on relatively firm ground, this is not the case with regard to the figures given for warriors and casualties. For example, the two armies were supposed to have been of about the same size, each including 150,000 warriors (WṢ, 156). Another report mentions that in ʿAlī’s camp there were 100,000 men or more, while on Muʿāwiya’s side there were 130,000 (WṢ, 157; but cf. WṢ, 226; K̲ h̲alīfa b. K̲ h̲ayyāṭ, Taʾrīk̲h̲, i, 218-19). However, far more important for the study of early Islamic historiography are the conflicting statistics and contradictory claims made by the two camps about the Islamic credentials of their respective supporters. No sooner was the battle over than polemics began. The terrible bloodshed during ʿAlīs rule, at Ṣiffīn and elsewhere, had to be accounted for and justified and the positions of both sides had to be fortified. Eschatology was employed, the most widespread theme being the claim made by ʿAlī’s camp that the Prophet foretold the killing of ʿAlī’s aged supporter, ʿAmmār b. Yāsir [q.v.], by “the rebel band” (al-fiʾa al-bāg̲h̲ iya). Interestingly, Muʿāwiya’s alleged response to this is recorded: “The one who killed him was the one who sent him out (to the battlefield)”; with these words, our pro-S̲h̲īʿī informant continues, Muʿāwiya was deceiving the fools among the people of Syria (WṢ, 343; cf. E. Kohlberg, The development of the Imāmī Shīʿī doctrine of jihād, in ZDMG, cxxvi [1976], 64-86, at 69-70, 73-6). Kaʿb al-Aḥbār foretold the battle of Ṣiffīn; the Banū Isrāʾīl fought nine times at that very place until they destroyed one another. The Arabs, Kaʿb added, would fight there the tenth battle until they slaughtered one another and hurled at each other the same stones hurled by the Banū Isrāʾīl (Nuʿaym b. Ḥammād, K. al-Fitan, ed. Zakkār, Beirut 1414/1993, 31). This is an attempt to explain the disastrous event which was hard to account for. The scale of the slaughter was unimaginable in terms of traditional Arab warfare. Also, a report putting the total number of dead from both camps at 70,000 has its origin in an eschatological tradition of Kaʿb (Ibn Abi ’l-Dunyā, al-ls̲h̲rāf fī manāzil al-as̲h̲rāf ed. K̲ h̲alaf, Riyāḍ 1411/1990, 271). Beside establishing that ʿAlī’s supporters were in the right, eschatology was to teach the Muslims that Ṣiffīn was part of a scheme of world history, the understanding of which was beyond human grasp. Some of the polemics surrounding Ṣiffīn are associated with ʿAlī’s conduct during the negotiations which led to the arbitration agreement. The truce itself, the arbitration and ʿAlī’s relinquis̲h̲ing in the agreement of the title amīr al-muʾminīn all belong to the crucial theological debate which accompanied the emergence of the K̲ h̲ārid̲jites. The S̲h̲īʿī ̲ apologists justified ʿAlī’s conduct by referring to the Prophet’s agreement with the Ḳurays̲h̲ [q.v.] at al-Ḥudaybiya, which was met with opposition from many of the Prophet’s Companions who were reportedly willing to fight the Ḳurays̲h̲. Moreover, the Prophet relinquished his tide rasūl allāh (see esp. al-Bayhaḳī, Dalāʾil al-nubuwwa, ed. Ḳalʿad̲jī,̲ Beirut 1405/1985, iv, 147, where the scribe of the Ḥudaybiya agreement is ʿAlī himself; the Prophet informs him that he will live through the same experience; WṢ, 508). The analogy with alḤudaybiya is even more explicit in a version of this report, according to which it was Muʿāwiya’s father, Abū Sufyān, who demanded that the Prophet remove from the agreement his prophetic tide (Ibn Aʿt̲h̲am, Futūḥ, iii-iv, 197). It seems that the apologetic need to justify ʿAlī’s attitude at Ṣiffīn influenced the shape, if not the contents, of the Ḥudaybiya story (cf. Ibn ʿAsākir, Taʾrīk̲h̲ madīnat Dimas̲h̲ḳ, from ʿUbāda b. Awfā to ʿAbd Allāh b. T̲ h̲uwab, 396; al-Balād̲h̲urī, Ansāb, iii, ed. al-Dūrī, Wiesbaden 1398/1978, 44). But there was more to the link between the story of Ṣiffīn and the Prophet’s biography. S̲h̲īʿī historical tradition sought to establish that the Prophet’s cousin and son-in-law, ʿAlī, continued the former’s fight against the infidels who were now led by the son of the Prophet’s arch-enemy, Muʿāwiya son of Abū Sufyān (for the presentation of ʿAlī’s d̲ jihād as ̲ an extension of Muḥammad’s d̲ jihād see Kohlberg, The development, 70-1). ʿAlī rode on the ̲ Prophet’s mare and she-mule and wore the Prophet’s black turban (WṢ, 403; H. Eisenstein, Die Maultiere und Esel des Propheten, in Isl., lxi [1985], 98-107, at 106). ʿAmrnār b. Yāsir allegedly said that he had fought Muʿāwiya’s chief counsellor, ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ [q.v.] three times (i.e. at the time of the Prophet), and that the battle of Ṣiffīn was the fourth (al- Balād̲h̲urī, Ansāb, i, 171). The Umayyad army is referred to as the aḥzāb or combined forces, with reference to the battle of the moat (k̲h̲andaḳ) between the Prophet and Ḳurays̲h̲ led by Abū Sufyān. Finally, Muʿāwiya’s brother, ʿUtba, is supposed to have mentioned at Ṣiffīn the Umayyads killed by ʿAlī in the battle of Badr [q.v.] (al-Balād̲h̲urī, Ansāb, iv/a, ed. M. Schloessinger, rev. M.J. Kister, 99). The other party answered with reference to the Islamic prestige of its own men which similarly went back to the Prophet. A black piece of garment raised by ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ on the tip of a spear was a banner (liwāʾ) tied for him by the Prophet (i.e. giving him command over an expedition force; WṢ, 215). Another case in point was that of Ziml b. ʿAmr of the ʿUd̲h̲ra [q.v.], who fought on Muʿāwiya’s side. One of the two reports included in the section of Ibn Sa’d (i/2, 66-7) which deals with ʿUd̲h̲ra’s delegation to Muḥammad (wafd ʿUd̲ h̲ra) is in fact the story of Ziml’s conversion to Islam. The Prophet reportedly tied for him a banner which was carried by Ziml at Ṣiffīn (Ibn Ḥad̲jar, ̲ Iṣāba, ii, 567-8). Al-Balād̲h̲urī (Ansāb, ms. Reisülküttap Muṣṭafā Efendi 597, fol. 188a) significantiy includes a report on Ziml’s visit to the Prophet and the banner given to him in the section of the Ansāb dealing with Ṣiffīn. AlBalād̲h̲urī adduces the report from Ibn al-Kalbī (< his father) and he probably took it from Ibn al-Kalbī’s monograph on Ṣiffīn. The report on Ziml’s banner, which seeks to establish that the Prophet gave his blessing to Ziml’s support of Muʿāwiya, is precisely the kind of report one expects Umayyad propaganda to have used. The competition over Islamic prestige is also reflected in various statistics. In ʿAlī’s camp there were 2,800 Companions, 25 of whom were killed (al-ʿĪṣāmī, Simṭ al-nud̲ jūm ̲ al-ʿawālī, Cairo 1380, ii, 454). Those killed in ʿAlī’s camp included 25 Badr veterans (Yāḳūt, Muʿd̲ jam ̲ albuldān, s.v. Ṣiffīn). One scholar claimed that 70 Badr veterans fought at Ṣiffīn (i.e. on ʿAlī’s side). However, this was rejected by others: in ʿAlī’s camp there was only one Badr veteran, K̲ h̲uzayma b. T̲ h̲ābit (Ibn ʿAdī, al-Kāmil fī ḍuʿafāʾ al-rid̲ jāl, ̲ Beirut 1404/1984, i, 239). One claim puts the number of Badr veterans in ʿAlī’s camp at 130, and Saʿīd b. D̲ jubayr reportedly ̲ stated that among ʿAlī’s troops there were 900 Anṣār and 800 Muhād̲jirūn (Biḥār al-anwār, ̲ xxxii, 572). It is recorded that 800 of the Companions who pledged their allegiance to the Prophet at al-Ḥudaybiya fought with ʿAlī and 63 of them were killed, including ʿAmmār b. Yāsir (al-D̲ h̲ahabī. Taʾrīk̲h̲ al-islām. Ahd al-k̲h̲ulafāʾ al-rās̲h̲idīn, 545; R. Veselý, Die Anṣār im ersten Bürgerkriege (36-40 d. H.), in ArO, xxvi [1958], 36-58, at 51-2, is not fully aware of the polemical value attached to these statistics). Beside confirming that ʿAlī was in the right, the Prophet’s Companions, and in particular the Badr veterans among them, testify to the truthfulness of the Prophet’s statements on which ʿAlī based his bid for power (Biḥār al-anwār, xxxiii, 147-51 = Kitāb Sulaym b. Ḳays al-Kūfī, Nad̲jaf ̲ n.d., 149 ff.). Unlike ʿAlī’s companions, the two Anṣār who fought with Muʿāwiya could not boast of having participated in the “Aḳaba meeting, or the battle of Badr, or the battle of Uḥud (WṢ, 445, 448-9; for a list of the Companions who fought with ʿAlī in the battles of the Camel and Ṣiffīn, see Ibn Ḥabīb, Muhabbar, 289-93; it is followed by a list of the Companions who fought with Muʿāwiya at Ṣiffīn, 293-6; cf. alD̲ h̲ahabī, op. cit., 547). The effect of the ʿAlī-Muʿāwiya conflict on early Islamic historiography can be illustrated by the conflicting biographical details given for a central figure in Muʿāwiya’s camp, the Ḳuras̲h̲ī Busr b. Abī Arṭaʾa al-ʿĀmirī. Busr’s Companion status was disputed; the Syrians claimed that he heard the Prophet when he was a small boy (i.e. that he could transmit ḥadīt̲h̲ on the Prophet’s authority). The counterclaim was that Busr was born two years before the Prophet’s death and did not transmit any ḥadīt̲h̲ from him (Ibn Ḥad̲jar, ̲ Iṣāba, i, 289-90; Muk̲h̲taṣar Taʾrīk̲h̲ Dimas̲h̲ḳ, v, 182-3). The battle of Ṣiffīn was a popular topic among compilers of historical monographs. We find among them S̲h̲īʿīs, scholars of S̲h̲īʿī sympathies and Sunnīs. The same compilers often compiled monographs about related topics such as maḳātil (cf. S. Gùnther, Maqâtil literature in medieval Islam, in JAL, xxv [1994], 192-212, at 200-1; U. Sezgin, Abū Miḫnaf. Ein Beitrag zur Historiographie der umaiyadischen Zeit, Leiden 1971, 103 n. 15; note that in the reports on Ṣiffīn some of the episodes are entitied “maḳtal so-and-so”; al-Dīnawarī, 188, 190, 191, 195, 198). The Mowing list (which does not claim to be exhaustive) contains scholars known to have compiled monographs dealing with Ṣiffīn during the first three and a half centuries of the Islamic era. Obviously, their monographs overlap, probably considerably so; some of those listed were not compilers in the real sense of the word but merely transmitters of monographs compiled by others. It is the differences between the monographs, not their similarities, which define the particular features of each of them. For example, the name and tribal affiliation of the Syrian warrior who killed ʿAmmār b. Yāsir were disputed. Al- Balād̲h̲urī (Ansāb, ms., fols. 188a-9a) cites various claims made by al-Wāḳidī, Abū Mik̲h̲naf Ibn al-Kalbī and al-Madāʾinī and which are probably taken from these authors’ monographs on Ṣiffīn. al-d̲juʿfī 1. D̲ jābir b. Yazīd al-D̲ juʿfī ̲ ̲ in Suppl.]; GAS, i, 307; U. Sezgin, ̲ ̲ (d. 128/746; [see d̲jābir Abū Miḫnaf, 103 n. 15, 133-4; J. van Ess, Theologie und Gesellschaft im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert Hidschra. Eine Geschichte des religiosen Denkens im frühen Islam, Berlin and New York 1991 ff., i, 294-8). 2. Yaḥyā al-D̲ juʿfī’s Kitāb Ṣiffīn is known through a quotation (al-D̲ h̲ahabī, op. cit., 539). ̲ 3. Abān b. Tag̲h̲ lib al-Bakrī (d. 141/758-9; al-Ṭihrānī, al-D̲ h̲arīʿa ilā taṣānīf al-s̲h̲īʿa, Nad̲jaf ̲ 1355/1936 ff., xv, 52, no. 333; E. Kohlberg, al-Uṣūl al-arbaʿumiʾa, in JSAI, x [1987], 128-66, at 143; al-Nad̲jās̲ ̲ h̲ī, Rid̲ jāl, ̲ ed. al-Nāʾīnī, Beirut 1408/1988, i, 76). 4. Abū Mik̲h̲naf Lūṭ b. Yaḥyā (d. 157/774; his Kitāb Ṣiffīn = ms. Ankara, Saib 5418; GAS, i, 309, no. 4; U. Sezgin, Abū Miḫnaf, 103-6, 123-45; Yāḳūt, Udabāʾ2, ed. ʿAbbās, Beirut 1993, v, 2253; alNad̲jās̲ ̲ h̲ī, ii, 192). His great-grandfather, Mik̲h̲naf b. Sulaym, was at one time ʿAlī’s governor in Iṣfahān and was killed at Ṣiffīn (Ibn al-Kalbī, Nasab Maʿadd, ed. Ḥasan, Beirut 1408/1988, ii, 482; Ibn Ḥad̲jar, ̲ Iṣāba, vi, 55; U. Sezgin, Abū Miḫnaf, 219, 225; it is noteworthy that one of his monographs was entitied Kitāb Ak̲h̲bār āl Mik̲h̲naf b. Sulaym al-Nad̲jās̲ ̲ h̲ī, ii, 192; cf. al-Ṭabarī, i, 3266). 5. ʿUmar b. Saʿd al-Asadī (d. perhaps ca. 180/796; GAS, i, 311; U. Sezgin, Abū Miḫnaf, 104 n., 137-45, Hinds, The banners, 5). 6. His̲h̲ām b. Muḥammad Ibn al-Kalbī [see al-kalbī , section 2] (d. 204/819; van Ess, Theologie und Gesellschaft, i, 301; D̲ h̲arīʿa, xv, 53, no. 345; GAS, i, 271; it is probably quoted in Ibn Kat̲h̲īr, Bidāya, vii, 261, 1. 11). Both His̲h̲ām’s greatgrandfather and his grandfather reportedly fought at Ṣiffīn on ʿAlī’s side (Ibn al-Kalbī, Nasab Maʿadd, ii, 628). 7. Abū Hud̲h̲ayfa Isḥāḳ b. Bis̲h̲r (d. 206/821; GAS, i, 294; Yāḳūt, Udabāʾ 2, ii, 623, 1. 5; al- Nad̲jās̲ ̲ h̲ī, i, 194-5). 8. Abū Isḥāḳ Ismāʿīl b. ʿĪsā al-ʿAṭṭār (d. 232/847; GAS, i, 294; U. Sezgin, Abū Miḫnaf, 103 n.). 9. Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. ʿUmar al-Wāḳidī (d. 207/823; GAS, i, 297, no. 7; Yāḳūt, Udabāʾ 2, vi, 2598, l. 12). A passage from this book (see S̲h̲arḥ Nahd̲ j ̲ al-balāg̲h̲ a2, ii, 267-8; Biḥār al-anwār, xxxiii, 340) indicates that al-Wāḳidī’s book went beyond the battle of Ṣiffīn to include ʿAlī’s war against the K̲ h̲ārid̲jites (cf. al-Ṭabarī, i, 3384, l. 2). ̲ 10. Abū ʿUbayda Maʿmar b. al-Mut̲h̲annā (d. ca. 210/825) compiled Kitāb al-Ḏjamal wa-Ṣiffīn ̲ (Fihrist, 54, l. 5; it is probably quoted in al-Dāraḳuṭnī, al-Muʾtalif wa ’l-muk̲h̲talif, ed. Muwaffaḳ b. ʿAbd Allāh, Beirut 1406/1986, ii, 561). 11. Naṣr b. Muzāḥim al-Tamīmī al-Kūfī al-ʿAṭṭār (d. “212/827) compiled the famous Waḳʿat Ṣiffīn (Yāḳūt, Udabāʾ 2, vi, 2750; GAS, i, 313). 12. Abū Bakr ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad Ibn Abī S̲h̲ayba/Ibrāhīm b. ʿUt̲h̲mān [see ibn abī s̲h̲ayba ] (d. 235/849; Fihrist, 229, l. 11; GAS, i, 108; al-Mizzī, Tahd̲ h̲īb al-kamāl, xvi, 34-42). His monograph probably corresponds, at least partially, to the chapter entitled Bāb mā d̲ h̲ukira fī Ṣiffīn (and possibly also Mā d̲ h̲ukira fī ’l-K̲ h̲awārid̲ j ̲ which immediately follows it), in Ibn Abī S̲h̲ayba, Muṣannaf (ed. al-Afg̲h̲ ānī, Bombay 1399/1979 ff., xv, 288-333; cf. Noth-Conrad, The early Arabic historical tradition, 34). 13. Abu ’l-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Madāʾinī (d. 235/850; GAS, i, 315, no. 16; cf. G. Rotter, Zur Überlieferung einiger historischer Werke Madāʾinīs in Ṭabarīs Annalen, in Oriens, xxiii-xxiv [1974], 103-33, at 115-19; S̲h̲arḥ Nahd̲ j ̲ al-balāg̲h̲ a2, xxi, 264; Biḥār al-anwār, xxxiii, 298). The book (which is probably quoted in al-Balād̲h̲urī, Ansāb, ms., fols. 183b-184a, 188a) goes beyond the battle of Ṣiffīn to include ʿAlī’s war against the K̲ h̲ārid̲jites (cf. S̲h̲arḥ Nahd̲ j ̲ al̲ balāg̲h̲ a 2, vi, 134-5; Biḥār al-anwār, xxxiii, 340). 14. Abū Isḥāḳ Ibrāhīm b. al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī al-Kisāʾī al-Hamdānī, better known as Ibn Dīzīl (d. 281/894; GAS, i, 321; D̲ h̲arīʿa, xv, 52, no. 335; Petersen, ʿAlī and Muʿāwiya in early Arabic tradition, 159; S̲h̲arḥ Nahd̲ j ̲ al-balāg̲h̲ a 2, xxi, 264; Biḥār al-anwār, xxxii, 491; xxxiii, 300-2, 303). The overlapping of Ṣiffīn monographs can here be demonstrated by reference to several quotations from this monograph (the fragment from Ibn Dīzīl <... Naṣr b. Muzāḥim, in Ibn Kat̲h̲īr, Bidāya, vii, 255, l. 5, is found—with differences—in WṢ, 147-8; see also Bidāya, 259-60, = WṢ, 188-91; Bidāya, 269, l. 18 - WṢ, 324; other passages from Ibn Dīzīl in Bidāya, vii, 261, ll. 9,-4, 264, l. 14, go back to D̲ jābir al-D̲ juʿfī). Ibn Dīzīl’s book goes on to describe ʿAlī’s fighting ̲ ̲ against the K̲ h̲ārid̲jites (S̲h̲arḥ Nahd̲ j ̲ al-balāg̲h̲ a 2, ii, 269-71, 276, 310-11; Biḥār al-anwār, xxxiii, ̲ 345-7). 15. Abū Isḥāḳ Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad al-T̲ h̲aḳafī, one of whose ancestors was ʿAlī’s governor in Madāʾin (d. 283/896; GAS, i, 321; Yāḳūt, Udabāʾ2, i, 105, l. 8; Ḏh̲ arīʿa, xv, 52, no. 334). 16. Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. Zakariyyā b. Dīnār al-Baṣrī, a mawlā of the Banū G̲ h̲alāb, compiled a monograph entitled Ṣiffīn al-kabīr (d. 291/904; U. Sezgin, Abū Miḫnaf 104 n.; D̲ h̲arīʿa, xv, 52, no. 340; Fihrist, 108, l. 14; al-Nad̲jās̲ ̲ h̲ī, ii, 240-1), and another entitied: 17. Ṣiffīn al-ṣag̲h̲ īr or al-muk̲h̲taṣar. Note, however, that he also transmitted some of D̲ jābir al̲ D̲ juʿfī’s monographs, including Kitāb Ṣiffīn (Muḥsin al-Amīn, Aʿyān al-S̲h̲īʿa, Beirut 1356/1938 ̲ ff., xv, 200). In addition, he transmitted at least some of Abū Mik̲h̲naf’s monographs which were transmitted, several decades earlier, by Ibn al-Kalbī (al-Nad̲jās̲ ̲ h̲ī, ii, 192-3). 18. Muḥammad b. ʿUt̲h̲mān al-Kalbī (GAS, i, 314; Hinds, The banners, 6-7). Instead of “al- Kalbī”, read perhaps: “al-ʿAbsī”: Abū D̲ jaʿfar Muḥammad b. ʿUt̲h̲mān b. Muḥammad b. Abī ̲ S̲h̲ayba al-ʿAbsī (d. 297/910; GAS, i, 164) was the nephew of ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad Ibn Abī S̲h̲ayba mentioned above at no. 12 (cf. S. Leder, Das Korpus al-Hait̲am ibn ʿAdī (st. 207/822). Herkunft, Überlieferung, Gestalt früher Texte der Aḫbār Literatur, Frankfurt a. M. 1991, 258-9). 19. Abu ’l-Abbās Aḥmad b. ʿUbayd Allāh al-T̲ h̲aḳafī,, nicknamed ḥimār al-ʿuzayr (d. 314/926; Yāḳūt, Udabāʾ 2, i, 364, 367, l. -2). 20. Ibn Aʿt̲h̲am al-Kūfī compiled Ibtidāʾ k̲h̲abar waḳʿat Ṣiffīn (presumably d. in 314/926; GAS, i, 329). 21. Abu ’l-Ḳāsim al-Mund̲h̲ir b. Muḥammad al-Ḳābūsī (d. at the beginning of the 4th century; GAS, i, 323; U. Sezgin, Abū Miḫnaf, 104 n.). 22. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Yaḥyā al-D̲ jalūdī al-Azdī al-Baṣrī (d. 332/944; E. Kohlberg, A medieval ̲ Muslim scholar at work. Ibn Ṭāwūs and his library, Leiden 1992, 333, no. 547; U. Sezgin, Abū Miḫnaf, 104 n.; al-Nad̲jās̲ ̲ h̲ī, ii, 54). (M. Lecker) Bibliography (in addition to references given in the article): Ibn Aʿt̲h̲am al-Kūfī, Futūḥ, i-ii, 556-91, iii-iv, 3192 Biḥār al-anwār, xxxii, 351-619, xxxiii, 7-324 J. Wellhausen, The Arab kingdom and its fall, tr. M.G. Weir, Calcutta 1927, 75-83 = Das arabische Reich und sein Sturz, Berlin 1902, 47-53 C. Brockelmann, Naṣr ibn Muzāḥim, der älteste Geschichtschreiber der Schia, in ZS, iv (1926), 1-23 N.A. Faris, Development in Arab historiography as reflected in the struggle between ʿAlī and Muʿāwiya, in Historians of the Middle East, ed. B. Lewis and P.M. Holt, London 1962, 435-41 E.L. Petersen, Studies on the historiography of the Alī-Muʿāwiyah conflict, in AO, xxvii (1963), 83118 M. Hinds, The Siffin arbitration agreement, in JSS, xvii (1972), 93-129 A.A. Duri, The rise of historical writing among the Arabs, ed. and tr. L.I. Conrad, Princeton 1983, 47-8 A. Palmer, The seventh century in the West-Syrian chronicles, Liverpool 1993, index, s.v. Ṣiffīn. Cite this page Lecker, M., “Ṣiffīn”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. Consulted online on 01 March 2022 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_SIM_7018> First published online: 2012 First print edition: ISBN: 9789004161214, 1960-2007