The issue of succession following the death of the Islamic prophet Muhammad is the central issue in the schisms that divided the early Muslim community in the first century of Islamic history into numerous schools and branches. The two most prominent branches that emerged from these divisions are Sunni and Shia as well as Ibadi branches of Islam. Sunni Islam and Ibadi Islam asserts that Abu Bakr rightfully succeeded Muhammad through a legitimate process of election. In contrast, Shia Islam holds that Ali ibn Abi Talib was Muhammad's designated successor.
These differing viewpoints on succession stem from varying interpretations of early Islamic history and the hadiths, which are the attributed sayings of Muhammad. Sunni Muslims contend that Muhammad did not explicitly appoint a successor, leaving the choice of leadership to the Muslim community. They recognize the legitimacy of Abu Bakr's rule, who was elected at Saqifah, as well as that of his successors, collectively known as the Rashidun caliphs.
Conversely, Twelver Shia Muslims believe that Muhammad had explicitly designated Ali as his heir, notably during the Event of Ghadir Khumm, following the revelation of verse 5:67 in the Quran. According to Twelver Shia doctrine, the subsequent rulers after Muhammad are considered illegitimate, with Ali and his lineage of eleven divinely-appointed Twelve Imams being the rightful successors. The last of these Imams, Mahdi, entered occultation while he was still a young child in 260 AH (874 CE) due to threats from his enemies. The anticipated return of Mahdi holds significance for most Muslims, although different sects maintain varying perspectives on this matter. In Shia Islam, the awaited Mahdi refers to the return of this lost Imam, while in Sunni Islam, it refers to a savior who follows a normal birth and growth phase. However, both groups share the view that the Mahdi will revive Islam as the inheritor of Muhammad's spiritual legacy.
To put it simply, Sunnis argue that Muhammad did not leave behind a material inheritance, and that what he left behind belonged to the public treasury and should be used for the poor of the Muslim community. Shiites, on the other hand, argue that these assets are the right of Muhammad's descendants, and that withholding them is an injustice and a usurpation of rights. Furthermore, Shiites claim that Muhammad's spiritual legacy and representation are also the right of his descendants through Ali and Fatima, and that this has been usurped, while Sunnis maintain that this is a merit-based representation supported by consensus within the Muslim community.
Historiography
Most Islamic history was transmitted orally until after the rise of the Abbasid Caliphate. Historical works of later Muslim writers include the traditional biographies of Muhammad and quotations attributed to him—the sira and hadith literature, last one on the basis of isnad- which provide further information on Muhammad's life. The earliest surviving written sira is Sirat Rasul Allah (Life of God's Messenger) by Ibn Ishaq (d. 761 or 767 CE). Although the original work is lost, portions of it survive in the recensions of Ibn Hisham (d. 833) and Al-Tabari (d. 923). Many scholars accept these biographies although their accuracy is uncertain. Studies by Schacht and Goldziher have led the scholars to distinguish between legal and historical traditions. According to Watt, although legal traditions could have been invented, historical material may have been primarily subject to "tendential shaping" rather than being invented. While classical Islamic scholarship developed methodologies such as the science of biography and the "chain of imputation" to evaluate the reliability -usually varies according to religious sects- of these manaqib narratives, prominent figures like Ibn Khaldun introduced critical historiographical methods, emphasizing the importance of context and the systematic evaluation of historical data. On the other hand modern Western scholarship seeks to support traditional narratives with objective data such as archaelogical findings and supporting external sources.(see also: Historical criticism)
The compilation of hadiths is a vital element of the first three centuries of Islamic history. Early Western scholars mistrusted the later narrations and reports, regarding them as fabrications. Caetani considered the attribution of historical reports to Ibn Abbas and Aisha as mostly fictitious, preferring accounts reported without isnad by early historians such as Ibn Ishaq. Madelung has rejected the indiscriminate dismissal of everything not included in "early sources", instead judging later narratives in the context of history and compatibility with events and figures. The only contemporaneous source is The Book of Sulaym ibn Qays (Kitab al-Saqifah) by Sulaym ibn Qays (died 75-95 AH or 694-714 CE). This collection of hadith and historical reports from the first century of the Islamic calendar narrates in detail events relating to the succession. However, there have been doubts regarding the reliability of the collection, with some believing that it was a later creation given that the earliest mention of the text only appears in the eleventh century. Limited archaeological evidence suggests that the Rashidun period lacked a distinct Islamic identity, and that its early conquests were likely a secular Arabic expansion rather than a religiously-Islamic driven expansion.
Historical overview
Saqifa
In the immediate aftermath of Muhammad's death in 11/632, a gathering of the Ansar (Medinan Muslims) took place at the Saqifa (lit. 'courtyard') of the Banu Sa'ida clan, while Muhammad's close relatives were preparing for his burial. The conventional wisdom is that the Ansar met there to decide on a new leader for the Muslim community among themselves, with the intentional exclusion of the Muhajirun. The leading candidate was possibly Sa'd ibn Ubada, a companion of Muhammad and a chief of the Banu Khazraj, the majority tribe of the Ansar. Their motive has been questioned by Madelung and Jafri, who contend that the Ansar only wanted to re-establish their control over their city, Medina. When they found out about the meeting via an informant, Abu Bakr and Umar rushed to the Saqifa, accompanied by Abu Ubaida. These three companions were the only members of the Muhajirun in the Saqifa meeting, possibly accompanied by some relatives and servants. Once there, Abu Bakr warned the Ansar that Arabs will not recognize the rule of anyone outside of Muhammad's tribe, the Quraysh. The Muhajirun, Abu Bakr argued, were the best of Arabs in lineage and location, had accepted Islam earlier, and were closer to Muhammad in kinship. Abu Bakr then reportedly invited the Ansar to choose Umar or Abu Ubaida as Muhammad's successor. Since his two candidates lacked any realistic chance of success, this manoeuvre presented Abu Bakr as an acceptable alternative to Umar and Abu Ubaida for the Ansar.
Someone countered Abu Bakr with the suggestion that the Quraysh and the Ansar should choose their separate rulers among themselves. A heated argument ensued until Umar asked Abu Bakr to stretch his hand and pledged allegiance to the latter, followed by others. In the process, Sa'd was beaten into submission by Umar, which indicates that a substantial number of the Ansar must have initially refused to follow Umar's lead. Otherwise, there would have been no need to beat up their chief Sa'd, according to Madelung.
Muhammad had been buried by the time the Saqifa meeting ended, with the exclusion of Abu Bakr from the funeral rites. The authority of Abu Bakr was precarious at first, until Umar secured the pledges of allegiance from the Medinans with help from the Banu Aslam and Banu Aws tribes. In chronological order, Abu Bakr obtained the backing of Uthman and of the Banu Umayyad, of Sa'd and Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf, of the Banu Zuhra, of Zubayr, and finally of Ali.
The Banu Hashim and some companions of Muhammad gathered at Ali's house in protest after learning about the appointment of Abu Bakr. Among them were Muhammad's uncle Abbas and Zubayr. These held Ali to be the rightful successor to Muhammad, possibly referring to the announcement by the latter at the Ghadir Khumm. Ordered by Abu Bakr, Umar then led an armed mob to Ali's residence and threatened to set the house on fire if Ali and his supporters would not pledge their allegiance to Abu Bakr. The scene soon grew violent, but the mob retreated without Ali's pledge after his wife Fatima pleaded with them. During this time period Madelung says that Ali could see nothing but hypocrisy in Abu Bakr's tears and his claims to love Muhammad's family.
Abu Bakr soon placed a boycott on Ali and also on Muhammad's clan, the Banu Hashim, to abandon their support for Ali. The boycott was successful, and those who initially supported Ali gradually turned away and pledged their allegiance to Abu Bakr. Most likely, Ali did not pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr until his wife Fatima died within six months of her father Muhammad. In Shia sources, the death (and miscarriage) of the young Fatima are attributed to an attack on her house to subdue Ali at the order of Abu Bakr. Sunnis categorically reject these allegations. After Fatima's death and in the absence of popular support, Ali is said to have relinquished his claims to the caliphate for the sake of the unity of a nascent Islam, In contrast with Muhammad's lifetime, Ali is believed to have retired from public life during the caliphates of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman, which has been interpreted as a silent censure of the first three caliphs.
Umar later criticized the Saqifa affair, "The oath of allegiance for Abu Bakr was a falta [i.e., a precipitate and ill-considered deal], but God averted the evil of it." This was a reference to the exclusion of the majority of the Muhajirun and particularly Muhammad's kin, whose participation was vital for a legitimate outcome at the Saqifa. Possibly because of its questionable legal authority, Umar also warned Muslims against ever following the example of Saqifa. Similar concerns about the legitimacy of the Saqifa are raised by contemporary authors. Some have further criticized the Saqifa affair as a "backroom deal" and a "coup" which was heavily influenced by the pre-Islamic tribal politics. The evil of the falta which, Umar thought, had been averted by God would erupt later in the form of the First Fitna, suggests Madelung.
Rashidun caliphs
Abu Bakr adopted the title of khalifat rasul Allah, commonly translated as the successor to the messenger of God. This was shortened to khalifa, from which the word caliph arose. Abu Bakr's tenure as the caliph lasted just over two years. Though he was appointed caliph by those at Saqifah, Abu Bakr designated Umar as his successor, reportedly against the advice of the Quraysh elders. Umar was instrumental in the ascension of Abu Bakr to the caliphate.
In 644, on his deathbed, Umar tasked a committee of six with choosing the next caliph among themselves. The committee included Ali, Uthman ibn Affan, and his brother-in-law, Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf. The tie breaker vote belonged to Abd al-Rahman, Othman's brother-in-law, and it has been suggested that the makeup and configuration of this committee left a small possibility for the nomination of Ali.
In the final showdown, Abd al-Rahman offered the caliphate to Ali on two conditions: first, he should follow the way of the Quran and the Sunnah of Muhammad, and second, he should follow the example of Abu Bakr and Umar. Ali is said to have accepted the first condition but declined the second one, adding that he would rely only on his own judgment in the absence of any precedent from the Quran or the Sunnah. Abd al-Rahman then presented the same conditions to Uthman who readily accepted them. It has been suggested that Abd al-Rahman was well aware of Ali's disagreements with the past two caliphs and that Ali, known for his sincerity, would have inevitably rejected the second condition.
Uthman's reign was marked with widespread accusations of nepotism. Under Uthman's rule, his tribe, the Banu Umayya, is said to have regained its pre-Islamic influence and power. Uthman installed his relatives, including his cousin, Muawiya, to rule the Islamic territories. According to Glassé, Uthman was assassinated by rebels in 656, in a climate of growing dissension against the despotism of the Banu Umayya.
Shortly after the assassination of Uthman, the caliphate was offered to Ali, who declined the position at first. Aslan attributes Ali's initial refusal to the polarizing impact of Uthman's murder on the community, while Durant writes that, "[Ali] shrank from drama in which religion had been displaced by politics, and devotion by intrigue." In the absence of any serious opposition and urged particularly by the Ansar and the Iraqi delegations, Ali eventually accepted the first pledges of allegiance in the Prophet's Mosque in Medina. It appears that Ali personally did not force anyone for a pledge though the strong pro-Ali atmosphere of Medina might have exerted some pressure on his opponents. In particular, Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas, Abdullah ibn Umar and Usama ibn Zayd refused to acknowledge the authority of Ali. Talha and Zubayr, both companions of Muhammad with ambitions for the high office, likely gave their pledges though they later broke their oaths, claiming that they had pledged their allegiance to Ali under public pressure. There is, however, less evidence for violence here than in Abu Bakr's election, according to Madelung.
Ali inherited the internal problems of Uthman's reign. Immediately after his election, Ali quelled an armed insurrection led by Aisha, a widow of Muhammad, and Talhah and Zubayr. Afterwards, Uthman's governor of Syria, Muawiya, declared war on Ali and a long and indecisive civil war ensued. The first four caliphs are referred to by the Sunni as the Rashidun (rightly-guided) caliphs, though only Ali is recognized by the Twelver Shia.