WI No Shia/Sunni split after Muhammad's death?

What other cleavages could have occurred if the question of successor had never been brought up? What if Muhammad had explicitly detailed a succession order? What if he'd had a son?

Would the Islamic world have remained even more united for an even longer period of time? Would Islam's spread have been stronger? Or would the lack of "competition" have been bad for the various powers?

I looked through about 10 pages of threads with "Islam" in the title and was surprised to see very, very little discussion on this particular POD.
 
The problem is that there is no hard evidence of Shi'i following Muhammad's death during the reign of Abu Bakr & Umar. Shi'i only appeared during the reign of Uthman, following the arrival of the Khawarij which were present at the time of Muhammad and during the reign of Abu Bakr. The Shi'i are a non issue until mid Umayyad period, so it really doesn't matter for early Islam and has little effect on unity of the Ummah.
 
If Ali wasn't betrayed by his own officers at Siffin and Muawiya killed, there never would have been a split and Hasan ibn Ali succeeds him.

At that point, it depends on whether the Ummah will accept ruler decided solely upon lineage rather than election.
 
If Ali wasn't betrayed by his own officers at Siffin and Muawiya killed, there never would have been a split and Hasan ibn Ali succeeds him.

At that point, it depends on whether the Ummah will accept ruler decided solely upon lineage rather than election.


Hasan did succeed him in a way, he was just far too weak to control the reign of power in 7th century Ummah. The succession ideally would've been Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Muawiyah, Husayn and Yazid. Further at Siffin Ali's problem is the Khawarij which had instigated this whole issue via the assignation of Uthman and then attacking the Muawiyah camp starting Siffin, they were going to betray Ali if he didn't fight and defeat Muawiyah as this was their idea of Khilafah one in which Allah decides upon the battle.
 
Ali was betrayed because there were several controversies in Islam. The Kharijites opposed both sunnism and Ali's way.

So anyway, there will be divisions in Islam as surely as there were divisions in judaism, buddhism, christianism, ... Etc.

As soon as the founder is dead, divisions are unavoidable.
 
Ali was betrayed because there were several controversies in Islam. The Kharijites opposed both sunnism and Ali's way.

So anyway, there will be divisions in Islam as surely as there were divisions in judaism, buddhism, christianism, ... Etc.

As soon as the founder is dead, divisions are unavoidable.


In what way was Ali opposed to Ahl Sunnah? Other than random Hadith from Shi'i there is no evidence in history that Ali was opposed to the line of ruling.

The Khawarij, which before this where called Haruriyyah, supported Ali as the Caliph over Muawiyah and Uthman before him, the betrayal was all due to Ali's supposed anti Sharia actions at Siffin, chiefly the peace agreement between he and Muawiyah.
 
Ali was betrayed because there were several controversies in Islam. The Kharijites opposed both sunnism and Ali's way.

So anyway, there will be divisions in Islam as surely as there were divisions in judaism, buddhism, christianism, ... Etc.

As soon as the founder is dead, divisions are unavoidable.

This is true, I believe the Kharijite schism has evidence of an even earlier split than the Sunni - Shia division. So yes, division in religion is inevitable, however the nature of the division as well as how severely it is felt can be changed. Perhaps some PODs can make the division much less severe? Like less feud between the two sects? The biggest way would probably make Islam much less successful earlier on, as Christianity's early split offs were not that violently created, due to its position as a minor religion.
 
The problem is that there is no hard evidence of Shi'i following Muhammad's death during the reign of Abu Bakr & Umar. Shi'i only appeared during the reign of Uthman, following the arrival of the Khawarij which were present at the time of Muhammad and during the reign of Abu Bakr. The Shi'i are a non issue until mid Umayyad period, so it really doesn't matter for early Islam and has little effect on unity of the Ummah.
So what would be a better POD to avoid particularly the Sunni/Shia split?
Ali was betrayed because there were several controversies in Islam. The Kharijites opposed both sunnism and Ali's way.

So anyway, there will be divisions in Islam as surely as there were divisions in judaism, buddhism, christianism, ... Etc.

As soon as the founder is dead, divisions are unavoidable.
I agree, but I think it might be possible for there to be a bunch of small splinter groups and less of the huge divide between Sunni/Shia nations.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
i think Sunni/Shia split is fairly minor. Early Muslim army is extremely successful, so there are Medina leadership (which more distance and less on the ground influence on military matter), Syria / Damascus leadership (which more military matters handled, and on the front during war of expansion), and several other Expeditionary armies ( Khurasan, Egypt, etc ). the fact that Caliphate until Abbasid time is successful in controlling this many disparate army with great distance is extremely remarkable achievement, Mongols only stay united for three generations.

Muslims splitting to numerous groups is far more likely, avoiding any split and maintaining unity is extremely difficult. There are numerous reasons why leadership on Medina and Damascus would eventually conflict. anyone less capable than Muawiyyah would likely cause more split. and its very unlikely Medinan candidate (even if its Muhammad son, not his son in law) could control various armies from distant city in desert.
 
i think Sunni/Shia split is fairly minor. Early Muslim army is extremely successful, so there are Medina leadership (which more distance and less on the ground influence on military matter), Syria / Damascus leadership (which more military matters handled, and on the front during war of expansion), and several other Expeditionary armies ( Khurasan, Egypt, etc ). the fact that Caliphate until Abbasid time is successful in controlling this many disparate army with great distance is extremely remarkable achievement, Mongols only stay united for three generations.

Muslims splitting to numerous groups is far more likely, avoiding any split and maintaining unity is extremely difficult. There are numerous reasons why leadership on Medina and Damascus would eventually conflict. anyone less capable than Muawiyyah would likely cause more split. and its very unlikely Medinan candidate (even if its Muhammad son, not his son in law) could control various armies from distant city in desert.


Precisely, the reason the armies so far and wide could be controlled during the Umayyad period was the decentralized manner by which war was raised in their doctrine, where every tribe had war incumbent upon than rather than massed mobilization favored by other major states before and afterwards. The real problem is keeping militant and lightly experienced groups at home from taking advantage of the situation and starting rebellions, such as the Khawarij Berber revolt or the anomaly Abbasid revolt.

I wouldn't say Shi'i are minor, especially after the early Umayyad period, they dominate the cities of Kufa, Najaf and Karbala and are all over the place sprinkled around east Arabia, Libya and Maghreb, further they were actively revolutionary in the Umayyad period, often times allying with the Khawarij like at Jamijan. But yes, the Rashidun petiod Shi'i did not exist till Uthman at least and were minor by all accounts except the famous Abdullah ibn Sabah. The reason Khawarij were the major threat coming right out the gate was the fact that they as a sect was developing far before the Shi'i during the life of Muhammad in tribes like the Qurra one of the original vectors of Kharijism.

And yes, the whole Muhammad son thing really doesn't matter.
 
So what would be a better POD to avoid particularly the Sunni/Shia split?

I agree, but I think it might be possible for there to be a bunch of small splinter groups and less of the huge divide between Sunni/Shia nations.


The reign of Uthman I suppose, but I really can't see how you can do anything to stop it, it is so difficult to stop some form of Shi'i veneration of the hero Ali that it is almost impossible to answer. However, I think one way it can be done (possibly) is killing Abdullah ibn Sabah in his crib, lessen Zoroastrian/Non Abrahamic influence on Iraqi Islam (impossible but whatever), have Husayn and Yazid come to terms and Husayn either becomes caliph or accepts Yazid and then find inventive ways to write out the following imams and find ways to kill any dissenting views on Ali especially hero worship and the like.

Shi'ism is legitimately so complex that each category of it requires a different solution.
 
The reign of Uthman I suppose, but I really can't see how you can do anything to stop it, it is so difficult to stop some form of Shi'i veneration of the hero Ali that it is almost impossible to answer. However, I think one way it can be done (possibly) is killing Abdullah ibn Sabah in his crib, lessen Zoroastrian/Non Abrahamic influence on Iraqi Islam (impossible but whatever), have Husayn and Yazid come to terms and Husayn either becomes caliph or accepts Yazid and then find inventive ways to write out the following imams and find ways to kill any dissenting views on Ali especially hero worship and the like.
Thanks; I'll look into some of these.

Shi'ism is legitimately so complex that each category of it requires a different solution.
That's for sure.
 

jahenders

Banned
If he'd either had a son (designated as successor) or some other explicitly named successor and future succession plan, it would have delayed a split. However, as Islam grew and time passed, some split is highly likely -- whether over some later succession, over doctrine, or purely over political boundaries/issues. One need only look to the Millenia-long struggle of monarchies -- it's REAL hard to maintain clear succession for over a few hundred years.

What other cleavages could have occurred if the question of successor had never been brought up? What if Muhammad had explicitly detailed a succession order? What if he'd had a son?

Would the Islamic world have remained even more united for an even longer period of time? Would Islam's spread have been stronger? Or would the lack of "competition" have been bad for the various powers?

I looked through about 10 pages of threads with "Islam" in the title and was surprised to see very, very little discussion on this particular POD.
 
If he'd either had a son (designated as successor) or some other explicitly named successor and future succession plan, it would have delayed a split. However, as Islam grew and time passed, some split is highly likely -- whether over some later succession, over doctrine, or purely over political boundaries/issues. One need only look to the Millenia-long struggle of monarchies -- it's REAL hard to maintain clear succession for over a few hundred years.

Speaking of son....What if his stillborn son Ibrahim lives? How does this change the potential split? How old would he have been at the Prophet's death?
 
Speaking of son....What if his stillborn son Ibrahim lives? How does this change the potential split? How old would he have been at the Prophet's death?

Qasim ibn Muhammad was born in 603 and died shortly before his second birthday.

If he had lived, Muhammad likely would not have remarried, and he would have been 29 when Muhammad died.

Abd-Allah ibn Muhammad was the other son by Khadija and had he lived he would have been 17 when Muhammad died.

Ibrahim if he had lived would have been 2 years of age.

Only Qasim would have had the potential clout to have succeeded Muhammad likely because he would have been present from the start of the Prophethood and fought in the battles forthwith and likely been the Champion instead of Ali at Badr.
 
Top