The History of Islam (3). From Omar’s Assassination to the Great Fitna: The Cracking of the Center

When the State Devours its Children

By: Alaa Al-Khatib

19/02/2026

The history of nations teaches us that the moment of collapse does not begin at the borders, but at the center. After years of spectacular expansion, the nascent state did not fall to the blows of the Romans or the Persians; instead, it fractured from the heart of Medina. We are facing a classic case in the sociology of the state: when the speed of imperial expansion outpaces the institution’s ability to regulate and contain, the danger of collapse arises from within the state, not from the outside. In this article, we dismantle how the “dispute” transformed from a scholarly disagreement over text into a struggle for sovereignty and de facto reality.

The Assassination of Omar: The End of Strict Stability

The assassination of Omar ibn al-Khattab was not merely a political crime; it was the collapse of the “Strict Centralization” model. Omar represented the “Prestige of Decision” and the power of regulation that prevented regional commanders from turning into feudal lords in the Amsar (The garrison cities or newly established provinces). His death opened the door to the deferred question of sovereignty: How can a state be managed without binding rules for the transition of power?

Before his death, Omar formed a committee of six companions from Quraysh (The Prophet’s tribe and the political elite) to choose a successor from among themselves. This “Shura of the Six” (Consultative Council) was the first institutional political exercise, but it lacked a “Constitution” to protect the next Caliph from the ambitions of rising elites. Although it was an attempt to institutionalize the transition of power, it restricted the choice to the “Quraysh Elite,” which later deepened the sense of marginalization among other tribes and paved the way for the socio-political conflict that exploded during the reign of Othman.

Omar represented the “Prestige of the State” in its highest form. His murder meant the absence of the charismatic personality capable of curbing the regional leaders. While the assassin (Abu Lu’lu’a al-Majusi) acted on a personal grievance regarding Kharaj (Land tax) and taxation, historical accounts suggest that the general context carried signs of resentment from some Mawali (Non-Arab subjects or converts) or those disadvantaged by the Islamic expansion and the fall of old empires, specifically the Persian one.

Some accounts describe Omar as the “Locked Door” against Fitna (Civil strife or sedition). With his death, this door swung wide open, giving rise to social transformations manifested in two primary phenomena:

1. Wealth Accumulation: The absence of Omar’s strict oversight allowed capital to accumulate in the hands of the elites.

2. The Rise of Asabiyyah: Tribalism (Social solidarity based on kinship), which Omar had suppressed through his rigorous justice, began to resurface in demands for high offices and governorships.

Omar’s assassination was a “Structural Shift”; the state after him was no longer the state it was before. It transitioned from “Administrative Austerity” and absolute central discipline to a phase of “Political Fluidity,” which eventually led to the Great Fitna and the subsequent establishment of the Umayyad State.

The Choice of Othman: The Beginning of Social Transformation in Power

With Othman ibn Affan, the state entered a new phase where wealth inflated due to imperial expansion, and the “Quraysh Aristocracy” rose to prominence, specifically the Umayyad House (Othman’s clan).

Structural analysis reveals that the protests were not merely “religious”; they were a protest from the “Peripheries” (The provinces) against the “Center’s” (Medina) monopoly over decision-making and resources, and the perceived favoritism toward Othman’s Umayyad relatives. The siege and assassination of the Caliph marked the moment when the “Sanctity of the Ruler” fell before the “Will of Power.” The state lost its capacity for arbitration and became a direct adversary in the conflict.

While Omar viewed authority as a “Central Trust,” Othman viewed it as Silat al-Rahm (Kinship ties) and a tribal entitlement for the Umayyad Asabiyyah. He appointed relatives like Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh over Egypt and Marwan ibn al-Hakam as a chief minister—noting that some of these figures had been previously ostracized during the Prophetic era. However, the most dangerous move was his decision to “Free the Companions.” Omar had prevented high-ranking companions from leaving Medina to keep the “Head” in control of the “Elite.” Othman allowed them to depart and own estates in the provinces, transforming the companions from “Central Advisors” into “Feudal Lords and Power Centers” in the regions. Here, the features of a Financial Empire began to consume the simplicity of the early state.

The Siege of Othman: Opposition Moves to Action

The rebels besieged Caliph Othman in his house in Medina. This siege was a massive political event characterized by organized opposition, direct pressure on the head of authority, a failure of mediation, and the collapse of the center’s prestige, ending in assassination. For the first time, the sanctity of the head of authority was broken from within the Ummah (The Muslim community) itself. This was the moment the state entered the phase of Open Internal Conflict.

Ali and the Caliphate: Legitimacy in a Divided Environment

The succession of Ali ibn Abi Talib occurred in a climate of turmoil, division, accusations, and demands for Qisas (Retribution/Legal retaliation) for Othman’s blood. Thus, the Caliph began his reign while the state was already fractured. The Islamic state under Ali was no longer an environment of “foundation,” but an environment of Deep Crisis.

The battles of al-Jamal (The Camel) and Siffin were not mere historical “sedition,” but a struggle over the “Definition of Legitimacy.” For the first time, the state’s army faced another army from within the same community. Here, religion transformed into a “Language of Justification”; each side raised a divine slogan to mask a purely political decision. The acceptance of Arbitration (Tahkim) at Siffin was an admission that the sword alone was no longer sufficient to impose sovereignty, and that political negotiation had returned to rule the scene above the blades of swords.

Consider this terrifying paradox: the number of Muslims who fell by each other’s swords within months in the battles of al-Jamal and Siffin (some accounts cite 70,000 at Siffin and 10,000 at al-Jamal) far exceeded the casualties in the long years of war against the Great Byzantine and Persian Empires. These numbers are not just statistics; they are an announcement of the “Suicide of the Utopian Model.” The sword that was once pointed outward to open the world turned inward to the heart to settle a struggle over the “Chair” and sovereignty.

Religion here did not prevent conflict; rather, it entered the conflict as a set of opposing justifications. It did not overcome tribalism or the power struggle; instead, tribalism returned forcefully, manifesting in the struggle between the Hashimites (Ali’s clan) and the Umayyads. When a state enters an internal war of legitimacy, Sectarian-Political Divisions are born. The struggle between Ali and Muawiya was a conflict between the model of a “State based on Religious Seniority” (Ali) and a “State based on the power of Asabiyyah and Tribal Alliances” (Muawiya).

Conclusion

What we witness in this fracture is not a lack of faith, but a natural “Sociological Struggle” in the rise of empires. The state was no longer a puritanical “Missionary Group”; it had become a complex entity where tribalisms, interests, and regionalism clashed.

The slogan “No Rule but God’s” (La Hukma Illa Lillah), raised by the Kharijites (A group that seceded from Ali), was not jurisprudence; it was “Political Excommunication” aimed at stripping everyone of sovereignty. We have seen: the assassination of the head of authority, a crisis in the distribution of influence, regional opposition, siege, civil war, and sectarian-political division. The state here did not collapse, but it lost its “Initial Innocence.”

In the next article, we will see how this bloody chapter concluded with the establishment of the Umayyad State, where the Caliphate ended and “Griping Monarchy” (Al-Mulk al-Adood) began.

——————-

You might want to read the full paper at this link:

History of Islam (full article): Islam Between the Sacred and the Human

Or you might be interested in reading the rest of the series:

1. Sovereignty and Negotiation: An Analytical Reading of the Formation of the “Medinan Polity”
2. Post-Founder Era: The Struggle for Legitimacy and the Test of Survival. The Saqifa, the Ridda, and the Conquest
3. From Omar’s Assassination to the Great Fitna: The Cracking of the Center. When the State Devours its Children
4. From Caliphate to Kingdom: The Birth of the Empire, The Umayyad Dynasty
5. The Global Empire: The Labor of Nationalities and the Making of the Muslim Mind. The Power vs. The Jurist
6. The Breaking of the Center: The Era of Sultans and the Making of Orthodoxy
7. The Era of Fracture: Crusaders, Mongols, and the Fiqh of Siege
8. The Tunnel of Stagnation and the Shock of Awakening
9. The Crossroads: Aborted Enlightenment and the Rise of Ideology
10. The Historical Trial: Toward an Islam Without Idols