Succession to Muhammad: Who was the rightfully guided successor and why?

[Dawnofhope]

Like many Baha'is in the West, I grew up with Christianity, and later embraced a new religion because of the progressive social teachings and the universal and inclusive teachings. The move from Christianity to the Baha'i Faith seemed to be a natural progression. Baha'i communities in the West don't have a strong or overtly Islamic feel to them.

As I've been a Baha'i for nearly 30 years I've become increasingly interested to learn more about the Islamic traditions and history of Islam. One key issue is the succession of Muhammad, that has ultimately led to the division between Shi'a and Sunni Islam. Divisions emerged early in the first century of the Muslim community. A few months prior to his death, Muhammad delivered a sermon at Ghadir Khumm where he announced that Ali ibn Abi Talib would be his successor. After the sermon, Muhammad ordered the Muslims to pledge allegiance to Ali. Both Shia and Sunni sources agree that Abu Bakr, Umar ibn al-Khattab, and Uthman ibn Affan were among the many who pledged allegiance to Ali at this event. However, just after Muhammad died, a group of approximately fourteen Muslims met at Saqifa, where Umar pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr then assumed political power, and his supporters became known as the Sunnis. Despite that, a group of Muslims kept their allegiance to Ali. These people, who became known as Shias, held that while Ali's right to be the political leader may have been taken, he was still the religious and spiritual leader after Muhammad.

Eventually, after the deaths of Abu Bakr and the next two Sunni leaders, Umar and Uthman, the Sunni Muslims went to Ali for political leadership. After Ali died, his son Hasan ibn Ali succeeded him, both politically and, according to Shias, religiously. However, after six months, he made a peace treaty with Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan, which stipulated that, among other conditions, Muawiya would have political power as long as he did not choose who would succeed him. Muawiya broke the treaty and named his son Yazid ibn Muawiya his successor, thus forming the Umayyad dynasty. While this was going on, Hasan and, after his death, his brother Husain ibn Ali, remained the religious leaders, at least according to the Shia. Thus, according to Sunnis, whoever held political power was considered the successor to Muhammad, while according to Shias, the twelve Imams (Ali, Hasan, Husain, and Husain's descendants) were the successors to Muhammad, even if they did not hold political power.

In addition to these two main branches, many other opinions also formed regarding succession to Muhammad.

Succession to Muhammad - Wikipedia

Along with anyone who is interested I'd like to better understand this schism within Islam. Who were the rightly guided leaders of Islam and why? Are there parallels between the schism of Catholicism and the Protestant movement in Christianity? What if anything can bring about reconciliation between Shi'a and Sunni and is this even a concern for Muslims?

 

[Marcion]

Sadly divisive tendencies are visible in many paths. The Buddhists also fell apart in so many sub-sects just like the Christians did. The propounder tries to keep the unity but personal strife breaks the unity after his death. Christianity seems to have been divided from the start, probably because the mission of Yeshua was aborted after such a short time.

Here thee major Protestant churches merged back into one larger united Protestant church after years of more loose oecumenical services. The churches here are shrinking so this also saves money. There are still oecumenical services going which are mixed Roman Catholic and Protestant.

 

[LuisDantas]

Abu Bakr then assumed political power, and his supporters became known as the Sunnis. Despite that, a group of Muslims kept their allegiance to Ali. These people, who became known as Shias, held that while Ali's right to be the political leader may have been taken, he was still the religious and spiritual leader after Muhammad.

I had a sense that the division was fairly gradual, and those names took decades to fully consolidate. I may be wrong.

Have you read Lesley Hazleton's book, "After the Prophet"? It is very informative. Sympathetic to the Shia perspective and perhaps incomplete in that regard, but informative nonetheless. It has a fairly detailed discussion of the Incident of Pen and Paper and of the Battle of the Camel.

Who were the rightly guided leaders of Islam and why?

As I understand it, no one. The fatal flaw is not and probably has never been in who was given significance after Muhammad's death, but rather in the very insistence on lending so much authority to specific people. That attitude by its turn was enabled, made possible, by the previous and even more serious mistake of lending so much authority to Muhammad and the Qur'an previously.

Islaam very much insists on dooming itself to inner strife, precisely because it is so demanding of a strong central authority. Such deep reliance on the mystique of a righteous leader can only result in tragedy, and did, and does still.

It may well be basically correct to accuse the Sunni and their predecessors, going back to Umar and Abu Bakr, of caring too much about political power. But it is just as true, if not more, that the Shia insistence on having a central religious leader is much worse still.

Worse yet, neither side has much of a choice. The Qur'an itself insists that Muslims must support each other even as it keeps encouraging them to accuse each other of not being good enough Muslims. There is simply no support, no approval of anything resembling a solution to that dilemma that does not involve decisive authoritarian measures - or, ultimately, the realization that the whole enterprise is wasteful and undefensable, and that Islaam should be let go of as the unsustainable proposal that it always was.

Are there parallels between the schism of Catholicism and the Protestant movement in Christianity?

To an extent, although the contrasts may be more enlightening than the similarities. Allow me to briefly discuss the 11th century Schism and then the Reformation of the 16th century.

But first, allow me too to say that I find it noteworthy that both situations happened well after the strife between Shia and Sunni sects had consolidated itself, and it is at least conceivable that Islaam may have paved the way for such escalations of extremism to become a socially acceptable practice, much as the current banalization of Islaam's extremism enables anti-islamism to an often obscene extreme.

The idea of the Caliphate - a central political and military leader with authority over all Muslims - is, to some extent, comparable to Rome's ambition of being a central leader for Christianity as a whole. In both situations the Sunni / the Vatican expected a measure of political influence that the Orthodox Patriarchs / the Shia found unwarranted and excessive, and refused their support at the expense of continuous conflict.

However, the Muslim history of their inner conflicts seems to be very consistently far more bloodthirsty than Christianity tends to be (despite very frequent yet unsupported and apparently unsustainable claims to the contrary). To this day one of the most visible displays of Shia devotion is the remembrance of the Battle of Karbala, the Day of Ashura, which often makes the devout literally bleed themselves out of passion. Such proud victimism is not conductive to mutual acceptance among Muslims, let alone mutual support.

It is a plain, objective fact that, for all of its own flaws, Christianity has managed its own inner strifes with a lot more success, and we have every reason to expect that trend to continue.

What if anything can bring about reconciliation between Shi'a and Sunni and is this even a concern for Muslims?

I just can't conceive of any path to reconciliation that still has an use for Islaam proper. Of course, Muslims are in a far better position to speak on this matter than I am. Then again, they also have a lot more incentive and opportunity than I do, yet there is no obvious evidence that they know better.

Sadly divisive tendencies are visible in many paths. The Buddhists also fell apart in so many sub-sects just like the Christians did. The propounder tries to keep the unity but personal strife breaks the unity after his death. Christianity seems to have been divided from the start, probably because the mission of Yeshua was aborted after such a short time.

I think that the similarities are misleading here, and there is a need to examine things a bit deeper.

If I may, allow me to suggest that there is violent division (which happened in Islaam arguably even before Muhammad died) and there is constructive differentiation. There is a world of difference between the Shias and the Sunnis disagreeing on who has the authority to succeed Muhammad and, say, Hindus and Buddhists disagreeing on whether Buddha existed and whether he qualifies as an Avatar of Vishnu. The former is supposed to be of far lesser significance than the later, yet it is very clear that the practical consequences tell a very different history. Why? To be blunt, because Muslims are over-reliant on authority, while other paths have a healthier respect for individual discernment and mutual acceptance.

 

[Krishna7]

The Hindu scriptures say that Lord Buddha was an incarnation of Lord Vishnu.

 

[LuisDantas]

The Hindu scriptures say that Lord Buddha was an incarnation of Lord Vishnu.

That is off-topic, but isn't it a non-universal interpretation?

 

[Shia Islam]

Like many Baha'is in the West, I grew up with Christianity, and later embraced a new religion because of the progressive social teachings and the universal and inclusive teachings. The move from Christianity to the Baha'i Faith seemed to be a natural progression. Baha'i communities in the West don't have a strong or overtly Islamic feel to them.

As I've been a Baha'i for nearly 30 years I've become increasingly interested to learn more about the Islamic traditions and history of Islam. One key issue is the succession of Muhammad, that has ultimately led to the division between Shi'a and Sunni Islam. Divisions emerged early in the first century of the Muslim community. A few months prior to his death, Muhammad delivered a sermon at Ghadir Khumm where he announced that Ali ibn Abi Talib would be his successor. After the sermon, Muhammad ordered the Muslims to pledge allegiance to Ali. Both Shia and Sunni sources agree that Abu Bakr, Umar ibn al-Khattab, and Uthman ibn Affan were among the many who pledged allegiance to Ali at this event. However, just after Muhammad died, a group of approximately fourteen Muslims met at Saqifa, where Umar pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr then assumed political power, and his supporters became known as the Sunnis. Despite that, a group of Muslims kept their allegiance to Ali. These people, who became known as Shias, held that while Ali's right to be the political leader may have been taken, he was still the religious and spiritual leader after Muhammad.

Eventually, after the deaths of Abu Bakr and the next two Sunni leaders, Umar and Uthman, the Sunni Muslims went to Ali for political leadership. After Ali died, his son Hasan ibn Ali succeeded him, both politically and, according to Shias, religiously. However, after six months, he made a peace treaty with Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan, which stipulated that, among other conditions, Muawiya would have political power as long as he did not choose who would succeed him. Muawiya broke the treaty and named his son Yazid ibn Muawiya his successor, thus forming the Umayyad dynasty. While this was going on, Hasan and, after his death, his brother Husain ibn Ali, remained the religious leaders, at least according to the Shia. Thus, according to Sunnis, whoever held political power was considered the successor to Muhammad, while according to Shias, the twelve Imams (Ali, Hasan, Husain, and Husain's descendants) were the successors to Muhammad, even if they did not hold political power.

In addition to these two main branches, many other opinions also formed regarding succession to Muhammad.

Succession to Muhammad - Wikipedia

Along with anyone who is interested I'd like to better understand this schism within Islam. Who were the rightly guided leaders of Islam and why? Are there parallels between the schism of Catholicism and the Protestant movement in Christianity? What if anything can bring about reconciliation between Shi'a and Sunni and is this even a concern for Muslims?

It seems that you are well educated about Islam

What I would like to add..
Is that both Shia and Sunnis believe that Islam is the final religion..

Moreover, the prophet prohibit Muslims from interpreting the Quran based on their own opinions..

Also, for more than a century, the Sunni Caliphs prohibited the Sunnis from writing the Hadiths (the Sayings) of the prophet..

This final point may be related to Umar's order to burn the library of Alexandria, and the magnificent Persian libraries, where many of the human old literatures were lost because of this bad decision, including the books of the Christians, the Jews, the Romans and the Greek..I say there is a connection between banning the writing of the Hadith and burning these great ancient libraries, as how can they prohibit Muslims from writing the sayings of their prophet while keeping the writings of the others?!!

Returning to the main topic..
With all of these points kept in mind, there is a need for the Islam to survive and to reach the far future generations without distortion, there is a need for prophets or prophet-like people within Islam, just as Judaism had many prophets, Islam is expected to have many prophet-like people, as Muhammad is the final prophet...and the Hadiths clearly support this argument, as for instance, both the Sunnis and the Shiites report the prophet's saying:

“I have left with you something, which if you strictly adhere to, you shall never go astray–The Book of Allah and my progeny.”

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Like many Baha'is in the West, I grew up with Christianity, and later embraced a new religion because of the progressive social teachings and the universal and inclusive teachings. The move from Christianity to the Baha'i Faith seemed to be a natural progression. Baha'i communities in the West don't have a strong or overtly Islamic feel to them.

As I've been a Baha'i for nearly 30 years I've become increasingly interested to learn more about the Islamic traditions and history of Islam. One key issue is the succession of Muhammad, that has ultimately led to the division between Shi'a and Sunni Islam. Divisions emerged early in the first century of the Muslim community. A few months prior to his death, Muhammad delivered a sermon at Ghadir Khumm where he announced that Ali ibn Abi Talib would be his successor. After the sermon, Muhammad ordered the Muslims to pledge allegiance to Ali. Both Shia and Sunni sources agree that Abu Bakr, Umar ibn al-Khattab, and Uthman ibn Affan were among the many who pledged allegiance to Ali at this event. However, just after Muhammad died, a group of approximately fourteen Muslims met at Saqifa, where Umar pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr then assumed political power, and his supporters became known as the Sunnis. Despite that, a group of Muslims kept their allegiance to Ali. These people, who became known as Shias, held that while Ali's right to be the political leader may have been taken, he was still the religious and spiritual leader after Muhammad.

Eventually, after the deaths of Abu Bakr and the next two Sunni leaders, Umar and Uthman, the Sunni Muslims went to Ali for political leadership. After Ali died, his son Hasan ibn Ali succeeded him, both politically and, according to Shias, religiously. However, after six months, he made a peace treaty with Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan, which stipulated that, among other conditions, Muawiya would have political power as long as he did not choose who would succeed him. Muawiya broke the treaty and named his son Yazid ibn Muawiya his successor, thus forming the Umayyad dynasty. While this was going on, Hasan and, after his death, his brother Husain ibn Ali, remained the religious leaders, at least according to the Shia. Thus, according to Sunnis, whoever held political power was considered the successor to Muhammad, while according to Shias, the twelve Imams (Ali, Hasan, Husain, and Husain's descendants) were the successors to Muhammad, even if they did not hold political power.

In addition to these two main branches, many other opinions also formed regarding succession to Muhammad.

Succession to Muhammad - Wikipedia

Along with anyone who is interested I'd like to better understand this schism within Islam. Who were the rightly guided leaders of Islam and why? Are there parallels between the schism of Catholicism and the Protestant movement in Christianity? What if anything can bring about reconciliation between Shi'a and Sunni and is this even a concern for Muslims?

The Quran, does not explicitly mention Ali, as the divinely ordained Successor of Muhammad. Therefor, the successorship after Muhammad has been a point of conflict between Muslims. Those who reject Ali, as divinely selected Imam, argue that there is no such a thing in the Quran.
It can be said that, both Shias and Sunnis have a Promised Mahdi in their traditions, who suppose to judge and establish the truth. Thus such disagreements must be left for Him to judge. However, since Mahdi is not explicitly mentioned in the Quran, the belief in a Mahdi among the Muslims seems to have been fading too.
It only remains the Day of Resurrection which is the Day God judges between them.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thank you for your well considered response.

I had a sense that the division was fairly gradual, and those names took decades to fully consolidate. I may be wrong.

Have you read Lesley Hazleton's book, "After the Prophet"? It is very informative. Sympathetic to the Shia perspective and perhaps incomplete in that regard, but informative nonetheless. It has a fairly detailed discussion of the Incident of Pen and Paper and of the Battle of the Camel.

I haven't read the book and am really wanting to better understand the schism better.

As I understand it, no one. The fatal flaw is not and probably has never been in who was given significance after Muhammad's death, but rather in the very insistence on lending so much authority to specific people. That attitude by its turn was enabled, made possible, by the previous and even more serious mistake of lending so much authority to Muhammad and the Qur'an previously.

Islaam very much insists on dooming itself to inner strife, precisely because it is so demanding of a strong central authority. Such deep reliance on the mystique of a righteous leader can only result in tragedy, and did, and does still.

It may well be basically correct to accuse the Sunni and their predecessors, going back to Umar and Abu Bakr, of caring too much about political power. But it is just as true, if not more, that the Shia insistence on having a central religious leader is much worse still.

Worse yet, neither side has much of a choice. The Qur'an itself insists that Muslims must support each other even as it keeps encouraging them to accuse each other of not being good enough Muslims. There is simply no support, no approval of anything resembling a solution to that dilemma that does not involve decisive authoritarian measures - or, ultimately, the realization that the whole enterprise is wasteful and undefensable, and that Islaam should be let go of as the unsustainable proposal that it always was.

Do bear in mind that Islam is the fastest growing religion on the planet set to overtake Christianity as the largest in about 50 years. That doesn’t make it right of course, but many people don’t share your perspective or mine.

Succession after the death of a prophet is important for all the Abrahamic Faiths. I appreciate its very different from the way many Buddhists and Hindus would see their religion. Joshua was the leader of the Hebrew people after Moses, and Moses also made provision for judges and priests. Jesus appointed Peter. Muhammad appointed Ali. Baha'u'llah appointed His son Abdu'l-Baha. Why is it important?

1/ Maintenance of unity and avoidance of schism.

2/ Communities need good leadership and exemplary role models.

3/ Religious communities require someone who is authorised to interpret the sacred writings.

I do agree that Islam has become fatally flawed.

Here is my take. Muhammad was just as much a prophet and political-religious leader as Moses or King David in the Hebrew Bible. In that sense He is the real deal. He appointed Ali and from what we know of Ali he was a man of outstanding integrity and character. Ali then appointed Husayn and we have a succession of Imams who were legit. The Caliphs have often been dodgy, and the institution of the Caliphate prone to abuse and corruption. The last Imam or rightfully appointed successor for Islam was Muhammad ibn Al-Hasan born 869 AD. This is the view of the Shi'a Twelvers which for better or worse Baha’is agree with. Its all largely irrelevant now as Islam has lacked effective leadership for so long.

Does leadership or a designated head of a religion in some way undermine an individuals’ personal journey within that faith? It can do, but it can also be an assistance for the above reasons. Islam has always struggled with consistent and effective leadership after the prophets death.

The Quran, regardless of its origins, needs to be understood within the historic context through which it was revealed. Teachings and Laws that were necessary in the 7th century may no longer be applicable now. Chopping off a hand for theft was a practical approach to punish thieves in the absence of prisons or programs to reform behaviour. So the Quran like the Torah and Gospels can be considered as the best guidance for the age in which they were revealed. Huge problems arise of temporal laws and universal Teachings are confused.

The question as to whether or not Muhammad was a prophet of God and whether the Quran constitutes Divine Revelation we won’t agree on. I do agree the schism between Sunni and Shi’a is irreparable.

To an extent, although the contrasts may be more enlightening than the similarities. Allow me to briefly discuss the 11th century Schism and then the Reformation of the 16th century.

But first, allow me too to say that I find it noteworthy that both situations happened well after the strife between Shia and Sunni sects had consolidated itself, and it is at least conceivable that Islaam may have paved the way for such escalations of extremism to become a socially acceptable practice, much as the current banalization of Islaam's extremism enables anti-islamism to an often obscene extreme.

The idea of the Caliphate - a central political and military leader with authority over all Muslims - is, to some extent, comparable to Rome's ambition of being a central leader for Christianity as a whole. In both situations the Sunni / the Vatican expected a measure of political influence that the Orthodox Patriarchs / the Shia found unwarranted and excessive, and refused their support at the expense of continuous conflict.

However, the Muslim history of their inner conflicts seems to be very consistently far more bloodthirsty than Christianity tends to be (despite very frequent yet unsupported and apparently unsustainable claims to the contrary). To this day one of the most visible displays of Shia devotion is the remembrance of the Battle of Karbala, the Day of Ashura, which often makes the devout literally bleed themselves out of passion. Such proud victimism is not conductive to mutual acceptance among Muslims, let alone mutual support.

It is a plain, objective fact that, for all of its own flaws, Christianity has managed its own inner strifes with a lot more success, and we have every reason to expect that trend to continue.

Interesting and well thought out comparison. There are certainly parallels between Roman/ Vatican power and the Caliphate. I wouldn’t underestimate how violent Christianity has been, both with and outside its faith. Its easy to lose sight of that as Islam captures the limelight for all the wrong reasons.

American nationalism and Christian fundamentalism remain closely linked and I wouldn’t rule out another war in the near future, just because tensions between the US and North Korea have eased.

I just can't conceive of any path to reconciliation that still has an use for Islaam proper. Of course, Muslims are in a far better position to speak on this matter than I am. Then again, they also have a lot more incentive and opportunity than I do, yet there is no obvious evidence that they know better.

It would be useful to hear from Muslims. How much regard would they give to infidels and apostates anyhow?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

It's Islam's business, of course.

Still, I get irked whenever someone claims bloodline is the deciding factor.

"Rey is super OP, so she must be a Skywalker, Kenobi, or Palpatine."

The Force can do whatever it wants with whoever it wants. There are Force trees arguably more powerful with the Force than any Jedi or Sith.

Besides, Rey is definitely a descendant of Bastila, LOL.

 

[Vinayaka]

It's Islam's business, of course.

Still, I get irked whenever someone claims bloodline is the deciding factor.

Bloodlines certainly didn't work well with some of the royalty bloodlines in Europe. It resulted in more than a few total nutcases in power. In the spiritual realm one would think the wise one should pass leadership onto the next wisest one, or a younger well spiritually qualified one. This is generally how it's done in monasteries of Buddhist and Hindu lineages. Not sure abut in Taoist ones. The Catholic system of papal succession makes far more sense as well. But then in celibate communities, there is no bloodline.