The Sectarian Conflict between the Umayyad Caliph al-Naṣir and the Fatimid Shiʿa (300–350 AH / 913–960 CE)

Abstract

      This study examines the sectarian conflict between Caliph al-Nasir of the Umayyads and the Fatimid Shia in Western Islam (300–350 AH/913–960 CE), analyzing religious and political factors behind their sectarian discourse. It explores how Sunni–Shia divisions affected political legitimacy and identity formation in Al-Andalus and the Maghrib.

      The study employs a historical-analytical approach, reviewing primary sources such as chronicles, letters, sermons, and numismatic evidence from Umayyad and Fatimid sources. It also draws on modern scholarly works to clarify the conflict's intellectual and political contexts. The analysis emphasizes military and propaganda clashes in North Africa and Al-Andalus, comparing Sunni and Ismaili narratives to provide a balanced perspective.

      The findings show that sectarian conflict was not merely religious but also a strategic effort to enhance political legitimacy. Abd al-Rahman al-Nasir’s declaration as Caliph in 316 AH / 929 CE and the construction of Madinat al-Zahra were responses to Fatimid claims of Aldi and Ismaili legitimacy. Both sides used sermons, coinages, and tribal alliances to bolster their authority. Military clashes in the Maghrib resulted in temporary Umayyad control of coastal areas, with Fatimid influence inland. After the Fatimids moved to Egypt in 358 AH / 969 CE, fighting lessened, but sectarian rivalry left a lasting impact on Al-Andalus.

The study reveals that the sectarian conflict between Caliph al-Nasir and the Fatimid Shia formed a pivotal aspect of the Islamic West's history, linking religious disagreements to political objectives. It supports the idea that sectarian differences can justify authority and shape foreign policy, while also helping to maintain internal unity in Al-Andalus against external threats. The study suggests ongoing analysis of propaganda texts to understand how sectarian agitation operates and considers how intellectual differences can be leveraged as opportunities for coexistence rather than conflict.