The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate

The struggle over the succession to the spiritual and temporal authority of the Prophet Muhammad (SAAWS) disclosed deep fault lines in the Muslim community and eventually led to a fracture which persists to the present. This contest was both bitter and bloody. As a result, objectivity is in short supply among the partisans of either side. Primary and secondary historical sources suffer from profound biases. Sadly the atmosphere remains highly charged today.Professor Madelung is a meticulous historian. He carefully examines the various and often differing historical reports as he leads step by step to his interpretation He focuses on the primary sources themselves rather than merely repackaging and repeating what other historians - both Western and Muslim - have said . Where he differs from prior interpretations, he sets forth his argument in detail.Most of the historical records from this time were orally transmitted over an extended period and only written down much later. This raises the possibility of honest error in the chain of transmission as well as the opportunity for manipulation or fabrication. And, as is well known, sometimes several people present at the same event come up quite honestly with different accounts.Attempting to sort out what is true from what is not is a difficult process. It consists of evaluating the reliability or biases of each of the reporters in the chain of transmission (the isn'd). Then comparing different reports on the same event to discover areas of agreement as well as logical inconsistencies. However, rarely does this process settle the issue beyond doubt. The historian must then draw upon his own resources to decide among conflicting versions.At its heart, history is a matter of interpretation. While it's usually taken as a given that the "facts" are known, this is often not the case, as shown in this book in several places (e.g. the date of the Battle of al-Naharawan. But once the events are assumed as facts, the historian has to use his own critical judgment to ascribe causes to events and motives to the participants in those events.As humans, historians bring their beliefs, preferences and aversions to this task both consciously and unconsciously. A lack of objectivity can arise in several ways.It can arise from being a partisan on one side in an event.It can arise because a historian's first encounter in his field of study was with partisans of one side or another who framed the debate on a topic in a particular way which later influenced his own approach to the topic. Sometimes this may be a direct transmission of a bias. Sometimes it may be indirect: the historian uncritically absorbs the common belief in that country as the correct version of events.It can also come from getting too sympathetic to the subject of study - becoming an advocate - "localitis" in US Foreign Service jargon.As well, bias in writing can come from deeply held worldviews. One would expect quite different analyses of the same events from Marxist and capitalist historians. Often this is not a case of conscious bias, but rather results from the contents of the historian's tool kit.Just as the historian must understand the potential biases in his sources in order to properly pursue his craft, so too must the critical reader of history understand the background and potential biases of the historian he reads. And understand that complete objectivity is an ideal and not realistic condition.That shouldn't be troubling to the sophisticated student: there can well be several reasonable different interpretations to the same event. The truth is more likely to be found in balancing several different views - in order to achieve the widest perspective.According to his biography, Professor Madelung began his Islamic studies at the University of Cairo. I understand but do not know for a fact that his studies there focused on the Fatimid Dynasty, which was founded by Ismai'lis. one of the several branches of Shi'ism Currently, in addition to his faculty position at Oxford, he is a Senior Research Fellow at the Isma'ili institute in London. Professor Madelung has written widely on medieval Islamic communities, including Twelver Shi'ism, Zaydism, and Ismai'lism.Does this necessarily mean that he is biased? Or that I am accusing him of bias? No. I have no reason to make that judgment.However, I mention this because there may be a tendency to ascribe complete objectivity to Professor Madelung because he is an "outsider" and thus presumed not to be partial to one side or another. Especially by those in whose favor he may seem to have decided. A note of caution is therefore warranted.Like any historical work, we should read this book with a very critical eye, paying particular attention to places where the author draws conclusions on critical issues to see whether there is a reasonable alternative conclusion that might have been drawn. If so, then we should carefully examine his argument to see if it rings true for us. We should also ask if the author has asked all the relevant questions. Like political polling sometimes the way the question is posed affects the answer received.This book is a truly a very important work because of the light it sheds on a very critical period for the Muslim community, one which still has relevance today. It also discloses that the fissures in the community on this issue existed from the very beginning. It is also a foundation work which will provide a platform for other scholars to build upon and to explore this and related questions. Finally, it is also significant because it is a master work which gives an insight into the historical method and how the historian should undertake his craft.Is it the final word on this topic? Probably not. While it is a powerful interpretation well argued and well documented, it is an interpretation, not revelation. As such, it is subject to challenge and re-interpretation. Another approach might come up with a different conclusion. For example, assuming the precedence of the direct descendants of the Prophet (SAAWS) to the succession as a given, could there be justified reasons other than tribal politics why this right might be deferred? The special needs of the community at the moment? Or the relative state of the individuals involved: maturity, experience, judgment, etc? A regency does not deny the principle of succession. In this vein, what were the events in the Yemen which gave rise to Ghad'r Khumm? Why did the Prophet (SAAWS) not designate a successor? Was he unaware of the fissures in the community? Professor Madelung tantalizing hints at this line of inquiry on page 18.Because of the detailed nature of this work, it is not an easy read. There is an abundance - at some times what appears to be an over abundance of detail, though this will be especially useful for scholars.There are two additional points I found interesting.First, in evaluating the right of the Imam Ali (AS/KAW) to the succession, Professor Madelung argues chiefly from the Qur'anic precedence in inheritance accorded to members of a prophet's family and not from the assertion of any special hereditary spiritual knowledge or quality in (the) ahl al bayt.Second, this is profoundly disturbing read. Rather than disputes over fundamental principles, much of the conflict is ascribed to tribal and clan politics as well as assorted petty and not so petty grievances. None of the protagonists - most of whom are distinguished names in the history of the faith - emerges unscathed from having serious shortcomings exposed. All this is immensely sad and disappointing. That Islam has withstood these frailties in its community is perhaps a testimony to its strength and origin. And perhaps a call to its adherents to heed the admonition in Sura 3:103.

The period of early 'fitnas' in Islam is surpassed in its significance only by its relative obscurity among the lay public - which is a shame because understanding the dynamics of the intra-Arab strife that followed Mohammad is helpful in understanding the currents underlying Islamic history right down to this day. It is here that Wilfred Madelung excels in this book by meticulously following the various political factions and bouts of moves and counter-moves that characterised the disputed succession to Mohammad.The book's narrative starts off with the death of the Prophet who left behind a confederation of hitherto loosely related tribal clans that had started succeeding beyond their wildest dreams in snatching riches and territory from the exhausted Roman and Sassanid Empires of the near East. Mohammad left behind no principles to determine who should succeed him - or at least he was not explicit about them during his life or on his deathbed. That sparked off the debate between whether temporal power should vest in members of his household (later the 'Shias') or in the most deserving man drawn from the broader pool of his tribe (later the 'Sunnis'), the Quraysh. While Wilfred Madelung is sympathetic to the Shia belief that Mohammad at least gave some indications that he considered his family members exalted and hence more deserving of leadership of the Arabs, the fact remains that through a combination of opportunism and factional politics, his closest male relative, Ali, the husband of his daughter was bypassed and a triumvirate of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman deftly maneuvered him out of the way and hoisted Abu Bakr on the throne of the Caliphate - mainly by promoting the concept of Shura or consultation to arrive at a consensus on the best man. In many ways, this relative democracy was driven by the existing tribal norms of election by consensus and was a conscious attempt to stay away from the dynastic despotism that characterised the Caesars and the Khusros of Rome and Persia against whom the Arabs had risen in revolt.The story gets more complicated by the time we come to the tenure of Uthman - whatever his virtues, Uthman was increasingly seen as someone promoting nepotism and concentrating power among his family, including the scions of Muhammad's opponent, Abu Sufyan - Muawiya and Marwan (more on them later) by giving them plum governorships and doing little to rein in excesses committed by them. His alienation of different factions engendered a revolt by the troops stationed in Egypt which first besieged his residence and then attacked and killed him - the first instance of a Muslim caliph being killed by Muslims.This finally brought Ali to power but the story becomes complicated with his initial ascent being opposed by Aisha, the favourite wife of the Prophet who accused him of doing little to save Uthman - this led to the Battle of the Camel with Ali facing off against Aisha, the first Muslim on Muslim battle. Ali prevailed and neutralized the threat of Aisha but his success was overshadowed by the beginning of the first Fitna. Muawiya, the wily politician governing Syria, sensing his opportunity pretended to oppose Ali on the grounds of his leniency in punishing the killers of his kinsman Uthman - the Syrian troops of Muawiya and Ali's army faced off in battle but the two sides called off fighting and opted for negotiations even though Ali's party was ascendant - this enraged some of Ali's Egyptian followers - probably the people responsible for Uthman's death who thought they were in a position to eliminate the threat of Muawiya for good and now instead faced the prospect of the two sides agreeing on some punishment against them - these formed the core of the Kharijite rebels who clashed militarily with Ali and one of their members eventually killed Ali.This left the field open for Muawiya - first, he 'bought over' one of Ali's sons and became the virtual unchallenged commander of all Muslims. In a cruel irony, the Arabs who had rebelled against the despotism of the Caesars and the Khusros of Rome and Persia now had their very own despot in the form of Muawiya - an even bigger irony given his status as the son of Abu Sufyan, one of Mohammad's bitterest opponents. Muawiya had every intention of leaving behind dynastic rule on the Arabs and in anointing his son Yazid as his successor, broke the system of Shura and consultation for good among the Arabs. This engendered the Second fitna with Yazid fighting off the claims of Hussein, another son of Ali, who was decisively defeated and killed in the Battle of Karbala, the momentous battle that defines the schism between Sunnis and Shias (partisans of Hussein and hence of the House of Ali). Once again, in a supreme irony, the grandson of Abu Sufyan prevailed against the grandson of Mohammad, who lay dead in the sands of Iraq. By now, power over the Arab Empire was firmly enough entrenched among the family of Muawiya and his clan for the dynasty to be referred to as the Umayyads (after an ancestor) and they became the ruling House of the Arabs for the next 150 years till the Abbasid revolution.It is a credit to the author that he tells this narrative in a gripping enough manner for any lay reader to broadly follow the plot and keep track of the various complex political machinations and shifting political alliances that characterised the period. It is very hard to keep track of all the various personages involved and the author sometimes lets his erudition get the better of him (it's hard to imagine that any lay readers would be as familiar with some of the more obscure Arab personages of the period in the manner he sometimes introduces them - I lost track of the number of times he wrote things like 'X bin Y, the son of A bin Z of the XYZ clan who was related to ABC bint EFG the daughter of the chief of the xxx') - still, the broad outline of the story is clear enough and this book, even though its price is eye-popping , is worth every penny and every moment invested.

The book came in excellent condition and promptly. Although the price for this book is extremely high the content and material is well worth it! I absolutely love this book!In an unbiassed scholarly manner, this author lays out all the evidence before us as it relates to the matter of the succession after the passing of Prophet Mohammed. There are plenty and more than enough material and western/English scholarly literature that leans towards the dominating Sunni interpretation and worldview of Islam. This is a refreshing perspective of not only the Shia understanding of the succession to Prophet Muhammad but also a far more rational one. He puts forth very rational arguments as to why the Shia see it the way they do. At times throughout this book it does get a bit dry and technical, but it's so worth it when you push through that and get to some amazing mind blowing facts about Islam's early history.

Refreshing explanation and evaluation from an academic view.

Good research however the writing style is a bit complicated and hard to understand the who picture. Poor quality printing is another factor that does not attract reader to focus on reading. Overall it's a good research.

Interesting

No comment