As well as having served in public office for forty years as commander-in-chief of Syria and as head of the Arab Empire, Mu'awiya was a brother-in-law of the prophet Muhammad and had allegedly served as his scribe, and yet he has a rather negative image in ninth-century Muslim histories. His opposition to Ali in the first civil war, during which many prominent Muslims died, and the nomination of his own son Yazid as his successor were perceived as unforgivable acts by later generations. Even Mu'awiya's success in putting in place a framework for governing the lands that the Arabs had newly acquired was criticized. Later scholars were unanimous that whereas the caliphs in Medina (Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman, and 'Ali) had ministered to their subjects in fairness and piety, Mu'awiya had transformed this just rule into dynastic and autocratic dominion after the fashion of Byzantine and Persian emperors. "He was the first to have bodyguards, police-force and chamberlains. . . . He had somebody walk in front of him with a spear, took alms out of the stipends and sat on a throne with the people below him. . . . He used forced labour for his building projects . . . and confiscated people's property for himself. . . . He was the first to turn this matter [the Caliphate] into mere kingship."
       The anguish and bloodshed occasioned by the first civil war and the growing concentration of power in the hands of a small elite certainly tarnished Mu'awiya's image. Yet 'Uthman had already inaugurated a nepotistic style of government and 'Ali had been complicit in the first civil war, so why were these two labelled as divinely guided, along with Abu Bakr and 'Umar, whereas Mu'awiya and his successors were depicted as tyrants? • In God's Path, pp. 133-134