WI: Ali violently resisted Abu Bakr's claim to the Caliphate

After the death of the Prophet Muhammad IOTL one of his close followers, Abu Bakr, was chosen by a small group of leading Muslims to succeed Muhammad as the political leader of the Muslim Community. Muhammad's cousin Ali, however, was also favored by many to succeed the Prophet. Despite this, however, the decision to appoint Abu Bakr was made without Ali's input. This dispute was the origin of the Sunni and Shia denominations of Islam we have today.

Whether or not Ali accepted Abu Bakr's ascension is disputed, but what is certain is that he didn't engage in violent resistance to Abu Bakr. So what I'm wondering is, what would have happened if Ali had decided to take up arms against Abu Bakr and his supporters? What might the outcome be? How might this impact Islam theologically, philosophically, or politically? Does this conflict permanently prevent the Arab Conquests, or does it simply delay them?

Here are a few thoughts I have on the matter;

Medina had been the center of power during Muhammad's reign, and it would therefore definitely be fought over. Which ever of the two failed to gain control of the city initially would force the other to set up a power base in Mecca. Assuming something like this happens, we probably get two forms of Islam, one being centered around Medina, and one being centered around Mecca, with each form minimizing the importance of the other.

I can also see at least 2 different Qurans coming out of it. There were attempts to put together a Quran IOTL during the reigns of Abu Bakr and Omar, with the version that Muslims today are familiar with today being completed during the reign of Uthman. In such a conflict codifying the words and teachings of the Prophet would be of the utmost importance. IOTL Ali is said to have completed a version of the Quran himself, with the only difference between it and the final version we are familiar with being the order of the books. In this hypothetical conflict I could see each version of Islam adopting a different Quran.

Another wildcard thrown into this conflict would be the Apostate Wars. IOTL after Muhammad died a bunch of Arab tribes that had sworn allegiance or made an alliance with Muhammad did not continue any form of loyalty to Abu Bakr. These tribes had justified their breaking of ties with Abu Bakr on their alliance of allegiance being with Muhammad, and not with his political apparatus in Medina. Some of these tribes that broke with Medina had converted to Islam, and some had not. Abu Bakr, with backing of advisers, declared those politically breaking with Medina as also engaging in Apostasy, whom you could justly kill, unlike a faithful Muslim. So in this conflict not only do you have Ali going to war with Abu Bakr, you also have Nomadic Arab tribes breaking with Abu Bakr, creating a multi-polar civil war.
I'm not quite sure there would even BE much of a religious split. Umar was not a guy who messed around; if both major Islamic traditions have texts recording him being very clear about putting Ali down if he split the Ummah, I would take him at face value. There's a passage written by one of the older Orientalists (I think Noldeke but don't quote me) that says something like "Abu Bakr was legitimately the people's favorite, though he was chosen by an illegitimate council." Ali and the Banu Hashim at that point didn't have anything approaching the Iraqi faction that would develop into the Shiatul Ali, so there would be no seperate political group to become the basis of a new religious schism like there was when Yazeed murdered Hussain and his family in Karbala. Abu Bakr and Umar would probably lose some legitimacy amongst Muslims, but one has to remember that outside of Banu Hashim, Ali doesn't have much popular support in the wider Ummah at the time of the Prophet's death. That's why he could be cut out of the Shura without so much as a grumbling from the masses IOTL. A fully rebelling Ali might even get painted as a renegade after his execution, and with no faction to immortalize his point of view, that opinion would then simply become orthodoxy.
Last edited: