Mohammed announces a succession plan for Islam

How would the world have developed if Mohammed promulgated a succession plan for Islam, based on what was typical for royalty at the time? Specifically, the eldest son becomes the spiritual heir of Islam if one exists and so forth. Would this prevent the Sunni-Shiite split and lead to a Muslim Pope or something like that?

I apologize if this is what he did and it didn't work -- I don't know :)
 
And yes, we can assume daughters inherit the title in the absence of sons, and if you try to overthrow the rightful heir to cut your place in line you are excommunicated.
 
How would the world have developed if Mohammed promulgated a succession plan for Islam, based on what was typical for royalty at the time? Specifically, the eldest son becomes the spiritual heir of Islam if one exists and so forth. Would this prevent the Sunni-Shiite split and lead to a Muslim Pope or something like that?

I apologize if this is what he did and it didn't work -- I don't know :)

Well the problem is that Muhammed had no sons.

The Shia Sunni split occurred becuase the family of Uthman (Muhammed's 4th cousin and son in law )
and the family of Ali (Muhammed's 3rd cousin and son in law) fought over the succession.

The family of Uthman became the Umayyad dynasty, the family of Ali became the Fatimid dynasty

Also important were the family of Abdullah ibn Abbas (1st cousin of Muhammed)
who became the Abbasid dynasty.

So you'll likely still end up with the split happening.


middle_east_caliphates.jpg
 
Last edited:
Muhammad didn't have a son. But he did adopt Ali, and married him to Fatima. Ali is then clearly the "blood heir" to Muhammad. Umar, Uthman and others might act as his ministers, since Ali himself had little desire to rule.
 
That would be pretty much what the Shia wanted. Ali wasn't Muhammad's son (in fact Muhammad had no sons), but he was Muhammad's cousin and was married to Muhammad's daughter Fatima. So he would have the strongest claim, and Muhammad would probably choose him if he were planning on a royal family type deal.
 

scholar

Banned
And yes, we can assume daughters inherit the title in the absence of sons, and if you try to overthrow the rightful heir to cut your place in line you are excommunicated.
They'd never do this, Muslim society was an agnatic clan structure. Uncles succeed, brothers succeed, male cousins succeed. You might be able to ensure that daughters can inherit something (which they already do, technically), but you cannot ever name a daughter an heir. It acts fundamentally against the idea that men are the controllers and managers of property and politics who act as the protectors and warriors of the household. At best, you can say that women can succeed if every male in the immediate branch of the clan is dead, but it is assumed that women will marry into other clans making such a move not so much inheritance, but giving away one clan's property to another.

Muhammad made a great push towards egalitarianism by stating that as believers, persons, and human beings men and women are equal - but it was not absolute equality and should not be confused as such.
 
That would be pretty much what the Shia wanted. Ali wasn't Muhammad's son (in fact Muhammad had no sons), but he was Muhammad's cousin and was married to Muhammad's daughter Fatima. So he would have the strongest claim, and Muhammad would probably choose him if he were planning on a royal family type deal.

From what I know Muhammad loved Ali and Fatima. But when Muhammad got sick and was about to die he chose another man to head the main religious duties instead of himself which clearly indicates that he did not plan on a royal type deal.
And this appreciation of 'golden blood line' did not appear at once. IIRC two adult sons of Ali and Fatima (Muhammad's grandsons) were butchered in a battle by some Muslim Arabs who did not make a big deal out of it. It seems they did not care too much about such things.

The royal monarchical tendency appeared later and seems to be a perversion of the initial pure Islam.

p.s. I mean if there had been a son/sons of Muhammad and their descendants they might have been killed the same way as the sons of Ali and Fatima, that was my point.
 
Last edited:
Muhammad didn't have a son. But he did adopt Ali, and married him to Fatima. Ali is then clearly the "blood heir" to Muhammad. Umar, Uthman and others might act as his ministers, since Ali himself had little desire to rule.

That would be pretty much what the Shia wanted. Ali wasn't Muhammad's son (in fact Muhammad had no sons), but he was Muhammad's cousin and was married to Muhammad's daughter Fatima. So he would have the strongest claim, and Muhammad would probably choose him if he were planning on a royal family type deal.

This is the Shia claim. However Uthman was also Muhammed's son in law and cousin and his family had more political connections and so his family defeated the Shia claim. So its not so clear cut.
 
Top