WI: Ali ibn Abi Talib won the Battle of Siffin?

[Mystique]

I've been a regular lurker on this forum for a while, and decided to pick this account back up again. Being a Muslim IRL, this PoD has always fascinated me, so I decided to post on the forum and see what you fine folk think, with the idea of maybe making a timeline if there's some interest in it.

So in our timeline, Ali ibn Abi Talib came to blows with Muawiyah at the battle of Siffin. This occured due to a crisis caused by the assasination of the previous Caliph, Uthman. Ali became the Caliph after Uthman was killed, but a group led by Aisha, Talha and Zubayr disputed this and raised a force, which led to the battle of the Camel, which Ali pretty much decisively won. However, the prior governor of Syria, Muawiyah also disputed Ali's succession and also decided to go to war with Ali, with his justification being that Ali should have crushed the assassins of Uthman. Uthman and Muawiyah went to blows at Siffin, and in our world the battle was going in Ali's favour until Muawiyah managed to call off the battle using the Qur'an. The two arbitrated and hashed out an agreement, but Ali didn't live much longer as he was killed by the Khajirites who were furious that he made peace with a rebel.

What if this didn't happen, though? Say Ali's army completely crushed Muawiyah, maybe even killing him. What would happen in this instance? Of course he'd have pretty much absolute political authority - there would be nobody else who could challenge him and he'd become the unchecked ruler of one of the world's greatest powers.

Another idea could be interesting. In the arbitration process, the idea was put forward that Ali and Muawiyah should duel in single combat and the winner would become ruler of the Rashidun. Muawiyah rejected this because it was obvious that Ali would win any bout between them - his skill in combat was bordering on super-human (at least according to Islamic tradition). What if Muawiyah had a total brainfart and accepted, though? Obviously Ali would win, but the fact that he decided on arbitration would still piss off the Khajirites, maybe leading to his assasination. That would be rather dark for the Islamic world, with the Rashidun Caliphate put into an effective state of anarchy that could allow the Byzantines to crush Islam once and for all.

Whatever the case (and presuming Ali survives), what does he do? The Byzantines were angling towards Muawiyah in the First Fitna, and Ali would probably want to punish them for that, but any campaign into Byzantine territory, whether in Anatolia or Africa, would require Ali to gather the support of Syrians and Egyptians who had pretty decisively decided to align with Muawiyah. That could be risky, and it could very well be the case that Ali instead, after consolidating control, march eastwards to bring the vast land of India to heel. A more eastern oriented Islam would be interesting - if Ali suceeds in his conquest, modern Islam could stretch all the way to Vietnam, with the indigenous religions of South and South East Asia wiped out.

I'm interested to know your thoughts on this. If you'd be interested in a timeline on this, let me know!

 

[kholieken]

It not certain that Ali would have complete victories. Umayyad dynasties success as first dynasties of Islam is because tribal alliance that Muawiyah has as power base. This could still resist Ali and push Muawiyah brother/son as anti-Ali candidates. Even if they bow down and accept Ali suzerainities, Ali would need accomodate various faction that exist.

 

[Silver01]

I think ali migth do a byzantine campaing to save to gather support from victories of course ali could make a terrible choice and instead of massive raids could go for a major campaign goal which can end an easy goal would be take back Armenia which Constans II retook during the fitna.

 

[Mystique]

It not certain that Ali would have complete victories. Umayyad dynasties success as first dynasties of Islam is because tribal alliance that Muawiyah has as power base. This could still resist Ali and push Muawiyah brother/son as anti-Ali candidates. Even if they bow down and accept Ali suzerainities, Ali would need accomodate various faction that exist.

This is true, but Ali also had at least some tribes aligned with him (as seen by the fact he controlled Arabia itself, where most tribes resided). I assume that Ali would probably face the same issues with tribes that Muawiyah did.

 

[Metempsychosis]

A more eastern oriented Islam would be interesting - if Ali suceeds in his conquest, modern Islam could stretch all the way to Vietnam, with the indigenous religions of South and South East Asia wiped out.

Considering how Islam developed in southern Vietnam and Indonesia of OTL, I think "wiped out" is a bit of a misunderstanding of how Islam took over in these regions of the world.

Going back to your original question, @John7755 يوحنا is probably more of an expert on early Islam, but an Alid victory in the Fitnas may well wipe away the distinctions between OTL Sunni and Shi'a. Perhaps an alternate distinction arises. Perhaps an alternate version of the Khawarij become more mystical after a disillusionment over Ali, and they become active in promoting a kind of "republican" Islam?

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

There are the usual problems in that we have little firm knowledge of 7th century events in that part of the world. But I don't see any reason for Ali not to found a caliphatal system at least as stable as the Ummayyad. Here are some questions:

1. Is the center of the Caliphate now in Iraq? Probably yes, at Kufa. It gets centered on Iraq early, though Kufa may prove sufficient and Baghdad not get constructed.

2. Do the Alids put the non-Arab Islamic converts on an equal footing with the Arabs? Probably yes, given that this developed into a Ummayyad weakness, and the Ummayyads were more plugged into the pre-Islamic Arab power structure. But early on, this leaves the Caliphate vulnerable to a coup similar to what Ali faced. It will be more stable compared to the Ummayyad later on.

3. Is the Calphitate hereditary? Probably also yet, given all the OTL Caliphates were and so was the Imanite. But not necessarily.

4. How does the development of Islam change? This depends greatly on Ali's successors. One thing that gets butterflied away is anything resembling Shiism, since I think it really depended on being the "out" party within Islam.

I think to a large extent you get a Caliphate a lot like the Abbassid Caliphiate, but a century early.

 

[Silver01]

oh and no Kharijite movement

 

[Metempsychosis]

oh and no Kharijite movement

Or a radically different one with Shi'a elements.

 

[Tosa Inu]

Ali's indecisiveness and defeat did caused the Islamic government as was initially conceived by the Prophet (PBUH) as more or less Egalitarian Republic, to turn into more Autocratic/Monarchic bent.

A victorious Ali, if we go with Sunni Tradition, it will ended up in a some continuation of Rashidun "Republic" where the leader is elected by acclamation done by a Majlis. Yes, Ali did dispute Abu Bakr's rise, but he eventually accepted that, and if Muawiyah was stopped there, I predict a Reform in the Ummah to strengthen the Republican system rather than the outright Monarchist bent made by the Ummayads.

...

Well, the Shia tradition would be the reverse, as Ali was meant to be the first Imam and if he win here, he would create an outright dynasty.

 

[Ursogulos]

The Byzantines were angling towards Muawiyah in the First Fitna, and Ali would probably want to punish them for that, but any campaign into Byzantine territory, whether in Anatolia or Africa, would require Ali to gather the support of Syrians and Egyptians who had pretty decisively decided to align with Muawiyah

Well, the latter might be possible if Muawiya (ra) was more shrewd( Let's face it, Muawiya is no Muawiya if he's a brainfart, part of the reason he's my favourite sahaba after the 4 caliphs). He invite Ali(ra) into an arbitration over who scores more against Byzantine as this event describes:

Caesar of the Romans:

“We know what occured between you and Ali (Ibn Abi Talib), and we see that you are more worthy of the Khilafah, so if you order me, I will send you an army that will bring you the head of Ali.”

Response from Muawiyah to Heraclius:

“Two brothers dispute and what is it to you to enter between them? If you are not silent, I will send you an army that starts with you and ends with me, that will bring me your head so I can gift it to Ali.”

That would be rather dark for the Islamic world, with the Rashidun Caliphate put into an effective state of anarchy that could allow the Byzantines to crush Islam once and for all.

Byzantines might be able to reconquer some area but Let's not forget Amr Ibn As (ra) and Abdullah Bun Zubayer(ra). Either will act as the supporter of Hasan( ra) who would claim his father's mantle. A completely different caliphate where Hasan would negate for his weakness through cunning of Amr and resoluteness of Zubayer.

 

[Mystique]

Considering how Islam developed in southern Vietnam and Indonesia of OTL, I think "wiped out" is a bit of a misunderstanding of how Islam took over in these regions of the world.

I of course know how Islam developed in Indochina OTL. My thought was that a more eastern oriented Islam would have pushed even further eastwards militarily, spreading Islam into Indochina and Indonesia by the sword as opposed to gradual conversion. Though these are just musings and I haven't thought about it seriously, haha

There are the usual problems in that we have little firm knowledge of 7th century events in that part of the world. But I don't see any reason for Ali not to found a caliphatal system at least as stable as the Ummayyad. Here are some questions:

1. Is the center of the Caliphate now in Iraq? Probably yes, at Kufa. It gets centered on Iraq early, though Kufa may prove sufficient and Baghdad not get constructed.

It could be the case that Ali might decide to base his Caliphate at Mecca or Medina. The Meccan Muhajirun and Medinan Ansar were his biggest supporters after all. Though it is more probable that he bases himself at Kufa, though it could be the case that Baghdad is a natural place to put a capital, considering both Babylon and Ctesiphon were constructed in the same general area.

2. Do the Alids put the non-Arab Islamic converts on an equal footing with the Arabs? Probably yes, given that this developed into a Ummayyad weakness, and the Ummayyads were more plugged into the pre-Islamic Arab power structure. But early on, this leaves the Caliphate vulnerable to a coup similar to what Ali faced. It will be more stable compared to the Ummayyad later on.

Probably not. It may be the case that Ali was more pro non-Arab then Muawiyah was, but he is still ultimately tied down by the fact that his supporters are mostly Arabs (non-Arabs did not play a great role in the First Fitna to the best of my knowledge). We may not see some of the draconian attitudes that the Ummayads put in place regarding the non-Arab converts (such as forcing them to be adopted by an Arab family) but I think that non-Arabs will still be seen as a sort of "second-class Muslim" that could inspire further dissent. If Ali put forward some sort of radical equality idea, this could really piss off the Arabs and lead to his overthrow.

3. Is the Calphitate hereditary? Probably also yet, given all the OTL Caliphates were and so was the Imanite. But not necessarily.

Also probably not. Ali's problem with the Shura system was not that it was innately democratic, but that he thought that the case for him being elected Caliph was so obvious (with Muhammad declaring that "anyone whose guardian is me, then 'Ali is his guardian") that every pious Muslim should have accepted his caliphate. That being the case, it may be likely that Ali continues the Rashidun 'Republic'.

4. How does the development of Islam change? This depends greatly on Ali's successors. One thing that gets butterflied away is anything resembling Shiism, since I think it really depended on being the "out" party within Islam.

I think to a large extent you get a Caliphate a lot like the Abbassid Caliphiate, but a century early.

For sure, anything resembling Shi'ism, at least in its' Twelver / Ismaili variety probably gets butterflied away, considering Ali won the succession crisis. An interesting variant of Shi'ism named Zaydism could be the orthodox variant of Islam today, considering that it is essentially similar to Sunnism except that they condemn Muawiyah and his allies in rising against Ali, but accept the Caliphate of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman.

Byzantines might be able to reconquer some area but Let's not forget Amr Ibn As (ra) and Abdullah Bun Zubayer(ra). Either will act as the supporter of Hasan( ra) who would claim his father's mantle. A completely different caliphate where Hasan would negate for his weakness through cunning of Amr and resoluteness of Zubayer.

This could happen, though there would still be some instability considering that both Caliphate claimants died. I imagine that the Byzantines would be able to at the very least take Armenia. A campaign in Africa, as what the Ummayads did IOTL, probably won't happen.

 

[Silver01]

I imagine that the Byzantines would be able to at the very least take Armenia.

they already did Constans II led a campaign to Armenia in 661

 

[Nivek]

Response from Muawiyah to Heraclius:

If anything Ali could charge against the ere to unify the forces and that would hurt badly then, plus Ali did wanted to expand North,he wasn't the great knight for nothing

 

[Ursogulos]

If anything Ali could charge against the ere to unify the forces and that would hurt badly then, plus Ali did wanted to expand North,he wasn't the great knight for nothing

Hmm so even Ali winning the fitna doesn’t butterfly the imminent siege of Constantinople.

 

[Nivek]

Hmm so even Ali winning the fitna doesn’t butterfly the imminent siege of Constantinople.

You Could consider it a state policy among the Muslims at the time, especially as they bore little love for the ERE, Ali especially, he lost personal friends during the martyrdom of Palestine

 

[Silver01]

If anything Ali could charge against the ere to unify the forces and that would hurt badly then, plus Ali did wanted to expand North,he wasn't the great knight for nothing

that would not be the best option Constans II has not left for Italy yet, the first thematic reforms were dealt with fine for the first years following the fitna it wasnt till Constans II left that Mu'awiya I increased the raids , i do not think Ali had he won in 657 would have attacked in the same year he would need to consolidate first

 

[Nivek]

This could happen, though there would still be some instability considering that both Caliphate claimants died. I imagine that the Byzantines would be able to at the very least take Armenia. A campaign in Africa, as what the Ummayads did IOTL, probably won't happen.

Why not? Initiative was heavily prized in the rashidun era and Ali would want victories for prestige

 

[Evil Crusader]

Hmm so even Ali winning the fitna doesn’t butterfly the imminent siege of Constantinople.

That it probably does, as it's quite possible something like the Battle of the Masts does not happen or results in a lesser victory, leaving balance of maritime power more contested.

 

[Silver01]

That it probably does, as it's quite possible something like the Battle of the Masts does not happen or results in a lesser victory, leaving balance of maritime power more contested.

But the battle already happened unless you are referring to that Ali wouldn't use his naval warfare as much as the Umayyads did

 

[Monk78]

If Ali wins
Sahl b huneyf an ansar is governor of Syria
Arab meritocracy of umar is restored
BUT with Ansar and Allies of banu Hashim ascendant and Umayyad’s and their Allies relegated to minor roles
No change for Persian non Arab Muslims , the Alid attitude of mukhtar time towards non Arabs was not out of religious conviction but political necessity.
Ali later yrs are essentially Umars caliphate restored with minor differences