Mohammad names a successor

After the Prophet Mohammad died, there was a split within the Islamic community over who would succeed him. One faction elected his father in law, Abu-Bakr, as the first caliph, claiming this was laid down in Mohammad's sunnah. However, another faction claimed that Mohammad wanted his son-in-law and cousin Ali ibn Abi Talib to succeed him. Eventually, the schism became too great and Islam was split in two between the two factions, which now call themselves the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Even when Abu-Bakr began the Rashidun Caliphate, the Shi'ites refused to recognize him nor his three successors as legitimate successors to Mohammad.

Today, Sunnis now make up between 87%-90% of Muslims and several major countries in the Middle East or North Africa regions (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and Syria) are predominantly Sunni. While most Sunnis and Shi'ites get along, Sunni extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda and ISIL consider Shi'ites to be heretics and several of their terrorist attacks have been aimed at Shi'ites. The Islamic world today is defined by this schism with the two major Islamic powers, Saudi Arabia and Iran, on different sides of this religious divide.

So, what if the Prophet Mohammad lived long enough to officially announce his successor, thereby preventing the schism?
 

Perkeo

Banned
Was the succession issue really the cause or just the excuse to justify a rivalry between Arab and Persian Muslims?

In Christianity, both schisms were mostly about the Pope's claim to leadership. Of Martin Luthers 95 Thesis, I couldn't even find five that the Catholic Church still denies.
 
The Shi’i did not arise from this. There at the time was no faction that claimed that Ali Ibn Talib was to succeed the prophet Muhammad Ibn Abdullah. All Shi’i Ulema agree that there was no vocal faction for Ali Ibn Talib at the time, since, Allah instructed Ali to remain humble and not become enraged at his injustice.

Some Twelver Shi’i Ulema claim that Salman al-Farisi was the only supporter of Ahl ul-Bayt (family of Muhammad Ibn Abdullah) at the time of Abu Bakr. Others claim the number to be three of the Salaf that supported Ahl ul-Bayt. None though, claim there was any inclination towards a conflict over the Khilafah, with a faction of Ali present (Shi’i).

This is also a great simplification of Islam into two camps. When the reality is more nuanced, especially the farther to the past we extend.
 
Was the succession issue really the cause or just the excuse to justify a rivalry between Arab and Persian Muslims?

In Christianity, both schisms were mostly about the Pope's claim to leadership. Of Martin Luthers 95 Thesis, I couldn't even find five that the Catholic Church still denies.

No, traditionally, Iran was only primarily Shi’i in its northern sections, especially Mazandran, Gilan or Azerbayjan. So, such arguments though seemingly plausible with the post Safavid Islam, are incorrect for the IX century and what not.
 
Last edited:
Having lived in Northern Ireland during the height of the troubles and having been exposed to the nuanced dance between the 18+ factions in Lebanon; my simplistic contribution to this thread is that over time regardless of the true root cause of a split between what would have appeared to have been a homogeneous group of like minded indivduals, the issue ultimately comes down to power and control. In short, the cause for the split is no longer relevant. Therefore, even if a successor had been named, whether it was 50, 100 or even 250 years later, there would still be a power struggle.
 
Top