WI:Muhammad named a successor?

First, who would be the most likely person he would name? Ali?

Second, how would this affect the further development of the religion? Of course, the answer to this depends on the answer to the first question, but it would at least seem that there would be no basis for the split between Shias and Sunnis. If Muhammad chose Ali as successor, how would the different groups of Muslims, the emigrants (muhajirun) and the supporters (ansar) react to this? How would the various beduin groups in Arabia react? If the Ridda wars still happen, would the rebels get more or less support or would it not have any consequences on these wars? Would the attacks on the Byzantine and Sassanid empires still happen?
 
This is actually a fairly flawed question. Abu Bakr had the full support of most of the early Muslim to the point that any contention to his rule was disregarded. Further, it wasn't Ali ibn Talib who was the most likely to take a piece of the government or rule; it was Abu Sufyan, the former ruler of Makkah and close relative of Muhammad and the one who had the most claims to royalty in terms of Arab tribal tradition. In terms of who Muhammad would name, it would be Abu Bakr, he was the closest to Muhammad and had been with him the longest, Ali was a youngster and in no position to take the reigns of leadership, nor would he want the role considering the position Abu Bakr inherited.

The so called Sunni-Shi'i split has only a small amount of influence from the fact Abu Bakr was chosen instead of Ali ibn Talib. It is only the major criteria for Zayydi Shi'i who comprise the moderate Shi'i community. When you look at the history and critically read it, it is perhaps clear, that Shi'ism was the reaction by formerly non muslim communities to the new Calipahte, especially in Kufa, southern Iraq and Northern Iran which became the powerbases of the Shi'i movement and then later in Northern Africa in places like southern Tunisia. Shi'i believes only became an actual proto movement during the reign of Uthman ibn Affan when the preacher Abdullah ibn Saba al-Himyari arrived in Makkah and began preaching that Ali was Allah. This sort of mantra was the common epithet of the early Shi'i who would later be called the Ghulat or the exaggerators.

So, there would still be a Shi'i like religion regardless of the successor in Islam, Ali was just the excuse for the new series of religious beliefs which birthed Shi'i. You can clearly see this by reading the works of Shi'i scholars, who rarely speak on the transfer of power but on how Ali was the prophet and that Ali was deputy of Allah or that the family of Ali is the foundation of the earth and those within are infallibles with godlike powers walking on water and such. Islam is doomed to not be united in actuality, it is impossible to organically create a movement like Islam across vast lands within two decades and expect there to not be cracks. Islam also already had two break away groups before Shi'i Islam and the arrival of Abdullah ibn Saba al-Himyari; in the Murji'ah and Khawarij movements, the latter which existed while Muhammad was alive. These two groups also defined early Islam much more so perhaps than the Shi'i, the Khawarij for instance led directly and indirectly to the fall of the Abbasid and Umayyad caliphates and assassinated numerous figures, including Ali ibn Talib. Curious too, when you look at the early Shi'i who are supposed to be the defenders of the family of Muhammad, but then ally and fight actively with the Khawarij against the Umayyads despite the Khawarij killing Ali ibn Talib, it shows readers clearly, that the Shi'i much like the Khawarij where a religious group that began not due to Ali, but as a rebellion and resistance to the Umayyad caliphate and specifically an animosity between Iraqis and Syrians.
 
Succession disputes could still crop up, just later. Even if Mohammed recognized the talents of someone who is still a teen when he's old and appoints him to his successor's successor (it's possible, Hadrian did just that), he can't appoint further successors who aren't even born yet.
 
Further, it wasn't Ali ibn Talib who was the most likely to take a piece of the government or rule; it was Abu Sufyan, the former ruler of Makkah and close relative of Muhammad and the one who had the most claims to royalty in terms of Arab tribal tradition.

Abu Sufyan? But he had been fighting against Muhammad for many years. Would he have been accepted as leader? I think that this would have lead to a lot more conflict than what happened in OTL, that is that Abu Bakr became the caliph. I have just started reading a book on the subject, and at least according to this book Abu Bakr was proclaimed caliph in a way that was almost like a coup. The book is written in Norwegian, so here is my translation: "A group of those closest to the Prophet, gathered the same day that he died and appointed one of the elder, Abu Bakr, to lead the community from then on. This "electoral committee was self-chosen and hardly covered all opinions among the Muslims. The divide between emigrants and supporters was now obvious. The emigrants wanted to build on the traditional structures and the powerful families in Mecca in order to maintain peace and continuity. The supporters in Medina were concerned about what was happening and wanted, as far as possible, to break with the old structures and build new ones, build on Islam. Only this way, they could avoid being dominated by the old Mecca families. The group that appointed Abu Bakr was made up completely by emigrants. The supporters were kept outside and had not had time to find their own candidate". However, they were pressured into accepting Abu Bakr as leader, and he was accepted as leader as the entire Muslim community".

Anyway, my idea here was more to discuss what the consequences would have been if Muhammad had named a successor. If he had named Ali, how would that have affected the further development? I assume that Ali in this case would have had a different role in the history of Islam than in OTL. A split might still occur, but maybe in a different way.

Succession disputes could still crop up, just later. Even if Mohammed recognized the talents of someone who is still a teen when he's old and appoints him to his successor's successor (it's possible, Hadrian did just that), he can't appoint further successors who aren't even born yet.

A possibility here is that each caliph would name his successor, somewhat like Trajan named Hadrian and Hadrian named Antonius Pius.
 
Well that isn't a necessarily accurate description of what occurred, but like you said, it isn't the discussion.

A declared successor would likely end the early Islamic system of a proto electing process and usher in earlier, the succession by dynasty or the Dawlah (meaning the state, but then meaning the dynasty). Ali in this scenario might never get the chance to be caliph and the possibility of a strongman such as Khalid ibn Walid becomes more apparent, or the later Yazid ibn Mu'awiyya. This would have the effect of galvanizing Khawarij even more as they attack the excesses of the Caliphate bin declaring a leader (so called excess).

In terms of Ali's role; it depends. Like I have said, the reason for Ali ibn Talib's love seems to not stem from any legitimacy he had. Many of the ghulat of the time openly proclaimed him Allah or deputy of Allah; such titles that none of the early Arab Muslim would have accepted, this points to a religious development detached from the events of Muhammad (SAW). Or also the views of groups like the Rafidhi who either believe all the sahabi were kuffar or that the Quran is distorted or that Jabril made a mistake in giving the Quran to Muhammad instead of Ali. The only group that would not exist is the Zayydiyah who's only substantial difference from Ahl Sunnah is they believe that Ali take precedence for some undefined reason.

Basically, my argument and a large percentage of those in the study of the Islamic caliphates is that Shi'i viewpoints grew as a resistance to the Caliphate of the Umayyad and a smaller amount from the perceived treachery against Ali by Mu'awiyyah and the inability of Uthman ibn Affan to control the new state. So Shi'i would still exist and perhaps in an even more radical position.

Abu Sufyan had reverted to Islam, which was to be trusted religiously. Further, his legitimacy as an Arab elite still held much weight. As much as Islam affected Arabs, it did not change them completely. Arabs were still lovers of their history and the kinship that bound them together, thus, Abu Sufyan could very well be accepted as leader especially if he actively tried.
 
A possibility here is that each caliph would name his successor, somewhat like Trajan named Hadrian and Hadrian named Antonius Pius.
In Classical times, this was the standard accepted legal practice for succession. Hereditary political office never had any legal basis in Shari'a law, so all Caliphs who inherited the post were actually considered to beappoined by their predecessor (who often happened to be their father, uncle, brother or cousin, but nevermind; in some cases it was required that someone else approved to nomination of too a close family member, in order to give it a semblance of it being more than legal fiction). In early times it was more complicated and it is no entirely clear that a Caliph had a right to appoint his successor unilaterally (for instance, Umar clearly felt he could not do just that, if the accounts of Uthman's selection are to be believed). Note that there was legal discussion for the appointment of two successors in a row by a given Caliph, which was considered valid, but subject to change by the first successor if he saw fit (there's a fairly detailed case-by-case analysis of this point in al-Mawardi's book on the Caliphate). In theory, it was always considered legally possible for the suited representatives to assemble and pick whoever they wanted among the qualified as a Caliph. Usually nomination by the reigning Caliph was the way it was done, on the often fictional but logical basis that HE represented the community better than anyone else couldn by the nature of his post.
 
On topic, I agree that Muhammad would have likely picked Abu Bakr if had to pick a successor (although Umar is also a possibility). I do not think that Ali had a real chance, although some sources mention support for him when Abu Bakr was chosen. Too young, and he was on bad terms with some important people (such as A'isha).
This of course, unless MUhammad feels God was ordering him otherwise.
 
Would you elaborate on the Khawarij movement being around during Muhammad's lifetime, please? I've never heard of that and it's an area I am familiar with.

"Then someone from the Quryaish arose and said; "rasulallah (SAW) gave to those from among the Nejd but not to us (Hijazi), then the prophet (SAW) said "I gave it to them so they could come closer to the deen, because they love coin (or money)...' then a man arose, he had a big beard, two big cheeks with small eyes, a forward sloping face and a shaved head and said "Fear Allah (swt), O Muhammad (no SAW, showing his disdain)', the prophet (SAW) then said 'who could obey Allah (SWT), if I disobey Allah (SWT)? Allah (SWT) trusts me over all men upon earth and you trust me not.' Then the man turned his back and left. Khalid bin Walid then approached and said, "Ya Rasullallah, give me permission to slag him.' The prophet then replied, "from his lineage will come a people who recite the Quran very well, but it will never reach their throats, they will kill Muslims, and will not fight the mushrikeen, and they will leave the deen like an arrow leaves the bow. If I meet them (or you), I will kill then like the people of Aad."

Narrated by Abu Sa'id al-Khidree
Saheeh by Bukhari and Muslim

The man in the story was from among the Qadri tride that would make up the backbone of the Khawarij army at Nahrawan and the base of their support at the battle of Siffin. Khawarijism is the old soul of the Arab personified into a religion, or at least the Bedouin among the Arab, those who resist.
 
"Then someone from the Quryaish arose and said; "rasulallah (SAW) gave to those from among the Nejd but not to us (Hijazi), then the prophet (SAW) said "I gave it to them so they could come closer to the deen, because they love coin (or money)...' then a man arose, he had a big beard, two big cheeks with small eyes, a forward sloping face and a shaved head and said "Fear Allah (swt), O Muhammad (no SAW, showing his disdain)', the prophet (SAW) then said 'who could obey Allah (SWT), if I disobey Allah (SWT)? Allah (SWT) trusts me over all men upon earth and you trust me not.' Then the man turned his back and left. Khalid bin Walid then approached and said, "Ya Rasullallah, give me permission to slag him.' The prophet then replied, "from his lineage will come a people who recite the Quran very well, but it will never reach their throats, they will kill Muslims, and will not fight the mushrikeen, and they will leave the deen like an arrow leaves the bow. If I meet them (or you), I will kill then like the people of Aad."

Narrated by Abu Sa'id al-Khidree
Saheeh by Bukhari and Muslim

The man in the story was from among the Qadri tride that would make up the backbone of the Khawarij army at Nahrawan and the base of their support at the battle of Siffin. Khawarijism is the old soul of the Arab personified into a religion, or at least the Bedouin among the Arab, those who resist.

It is clearer now. Still, Kharijism as we know it formed later, although it clung to nomadic lifestyles of the Prophet's time
indeed.
 
As John7755 said, the question is flawed. But I Will give an other reason for it.

The question is flawed in terms of capacity. Muhammad did not name a successor because he could not do It for political reasons. Muhammad was not all-powerful. He was an outsider and the dominant families of Mecca had their revenge and took back control at the end of his life. Consider the conditions of Muhammad's death and you Will see that he had already lost control and was kind of made powerless.
 
Would a female leader have been accepted? I strongly doubt it. As long as Muhammad did not have a son, I would assume that Ali would be the most likely candidate from his family. He was both his cousin and his son-in-law.

No, I don't imagine that would go over very well. Muhammad would have to have Divine Sanction to name his daughter as his successor and it would probably still be a very unpopular move and a difficult transition.

Also, while it doesn't answer OP's first question, like at all, with regards to the second question, I can't imagine things proceeding much like OTL just by a massive POD such as Fatima as successor.

Fatima, then Aisha, perhaps?

Two women in row would be immensely unpopular. AFAIK/R, Fatima and Aisha weren't on great terms anyway. Better for Fatima to be succeeded by one of her sons with Ali.
 
Better for Fatima to be succeeded by one of her sons with Ali.
I am not an expert on history of Islam. Actually far from it.
But I do remember one fact which stuck in my memory:
Two adult (grown-up) sons of Fatima were killed in battle by the Muslims...
...and that did not send psychologic shock waves through the Islamic world. This thing went pretty unnoticed.

I mean these fallen young men were flesh and blood of the prophet, they were his grandsons.

I guess for the early Islam blood relationship, being related in kinship with the prophet was not that important. The reasons are not clear to me as it seems inconsistent with the Arabic traditional mentality of the time.
 
I am not an expert on history of Islam. Actually far from it.
But I do remember one fact which stuck in my memory:
Two adult (grown-up) sons of Fatima were killed in battle by the Muslims...
...and that did not send psychologic shock waves through the Islamic world. This thing went pretty unnoticed.

I mean these fallen young men were flesh and blood of the prophet, they were his grandsons.

I guess for the early Islam blood relationship, being related in kinship with the prophet was not that important. The reasons are not clear to me as it seems inconsistent with the Arabic traditional mentality of the time.

Hasan ibn Ali died in his mid 40s in seclusion. He had ascended to the title of caliph but hesistated and surrendered his power and title away. He was one who was adverse to power and sought to live a life away from court intrigue and war. Early sources claim he was poisoned but there is no way to know for certain.

Husayn ibn Ali died rebelling against the caliph of Islam, hence no outrage. It was an extremely troubling and tragic event and one where Yazid is deemed somewhat tyrannical, yet, he was legitimately rebelling and the law of sharia is clear on the punishment.
 
I would not put it in terms of law because the law, in such cases, is nothing but the veil of political interest and the will of the winner.

I think It is more accurate to put it into power politics terms and into cultural-sociological terms.

As I previously said, Muhammad was an outsider. He had for a time circumvented the most powerful families of Mecca but the fact that he left no son turned him into a lame duck at the end of his life.

It is logical that Abu Bakr succeeded Muhammad as Caliph. Abu Bakr belonged to one of the most powerful families of the Qurayshi tribe. And he embodied both loyalty from the start to Muhammad and cooperation with the most important meccan families.

It is even more telling that Umar succeeded Abu Bakr. Umar is the Saint Paul of Islam : same pattern with his Damascus' way. And Umar embodied the meccans who had fought Muhammad before sincerely converting and joining him. He is the one who saved the muslims at the battle of Uhud and who made possible Muhammad's victory against his staunchest meccan opponents.

As for Uthman, he also belonged to a prominent family of the Qurayshi and happen to be Muhammad's first cousin (by his mother who was sister of Muhammad's father). And he too was married to daughters of Muhammad.

All this was about power politics, prominent aristocratic families prevailing and contracting or strengthening family/dynastic ties with Muhammad.
 
Top