Mohammed nominates a successor and succession policy

I'm not sure what his policy on succession was (or whether he did nominate a successor), but here goes.

What would have happened if Mohammed, seeing divisions among his people, prays to God and asks for a way to determine who should succeed him? He then receives this wisdom from God, and the information is then enshrined in the Qu'ran. Using this, he chooses a man (I would presume it's a man given the culture) to be his spiritual heir and tells his flock how the succession is to work and what is required for a man to be eligible for succession.

At first glance, this would head off the split between Abu Bakr and Ali at least at the start: no one in their right mind would go against a man chosen specifically by the Prophet.

Everything would depend on what the qualifications for succession would be. The most obvious thing that comes to mind is that the candidate must be deeply spiritual and capable of serving as the equivalent of a philosopher king, using the teachings of Islam to do the best good for the people of the community as stipulated in the Qu'ran (specifically, by understanding the ends and purposes to which the laws were intended to reach and using whatever means necessary to achieve those ends that does not violate the moral code described in the text). For some reason Augustine's City of God comes to mind.

The early Muslims have plenty to go on in this area. You can assume that there is at least one person in the inner circle who is well aware of the intricacies of Christianity and Judaism. One thing that one may want to think of is that the words of prior prophets like Moses and Jesus may be valid if no later prophet overrides them. After all, if Mohammed's mission was to remind the world of what the God of Abraham originally intended, not complaining about something implies that it was right.

Keep in mind I'm not THAT familiar with Islam, so I hope I don't upset anyone by asking this.
 
Didnt this happen in otl according to shia accounts? He said whoever had Muhammad as his Maula (master) should also consider Ali his Maula.
 
This could lead to a tradition of appointment, the previous caliph appoints the next one

This is otl, almost every Caliph was appointed, aside from the cases of transitions due to new regimes wherein caliphs were killed, surrendered title, etc etc etc...

@acgoldis According to nearly all Shi'a, Muhammad (SAW) did not need to appoint the next Caliph, but Allah did so.

"And know that Allah's Messenger has come within your midst. Had he listened to you in many things, you would have made things difficult for yourselves . But Allah made you love faith (according to Shi'a, Ali ibn Abi Talib) and adorned it within your hearts (Hassan and Husayn) and He made you abhor disbelief (Abu Bakr) and wickedness (Umar ibn al-Khattab) and disobedience (Uthman ibn Affan). Quran 49:7

This is just one example from their tafsir of the Quran. However there are many more examples of their opinion at display, especially within al-Kafi, where the title Caliph is beyond the rights gifted within the common Sunni tradition, and this is a deep area of discourse.

Regardless, all the Caliphs were appointed nearly. Thus, Muhammad (SAW) proclaiming a direct successor is not really changing anything from otl and according to mainstream Sunni opinions, Abu Bakr was appointed or intended as Caliph. While Shurha/Khawarij believe that Abu Bakr deserved the title, and Shi'a reject his faith or religion altogether and make takfir (excommunication) upon him and his successors aside from Ali ibn Abi Talib.
 
Top