Muhammad died
in 632, having been the religious and political ruler of the Muslim state since
it was created in 622, and clearly someone else had to take charge of affairs
in his absence. But who would this be, and how would he be chosen? One solution
proposed was that the communal elders should get together and choose the
most suitable candidate from amongst Muhammad’s tribe (Quraysh). This is what
Sunnis think, and such a consultation (shura) is the basis on which some of the
earliest caliphs were selected. But what if Muhammad himself, with God’s
inspiration, had actually nominated a suitable successor in his lifetime?
Shiites believe that this is what happened and that ‘Ali was chosen; according
to them the office passes through ‘Ali’s direct descendants from one generation
to the next. As seen in Chapter 1, Shiites could not
always agree on the precise line of the imam’s descent, which created further
schisms. What if ‘Ali turned out to be a disappointing leader, as those who
would become the Kharijites thought? For them, the caliph should simply be the
most suitable candidate for the job, regardless of lineage (and when ‘Ali
turned out not to be the one, they killed him). Others thought that a leader’s
ability to take control of the state should be the decisive factor. After all,
if God is guiding events, and He brings power into the hands of a
particular person or family, who can argue? This was the Umayyad point of view.
The list can be greatly extended, but the point should be clear: not only did
the caliphate fail to unite the umma, it was the chief cause of divisions
within it. And instead of unleashing the umma’s collective power, Muslims
throughout the course of Islamic history have expended much of their
intellectual and physical energies fi ghting amongst themselves about it.
