Here you go. Be warned...it's long:
Ok, so here’s the argument:
Let’s begin with the traditional narrative: At Muhammad’s death, there is a power struggle between Abu Bakr and Ali. The supporters of Abu Bakr’s claim are the Sunnis, the supporters of Ali’s claim are the Shi’ite. The Sunnis believe that leadership should be elected from those who deserve it, the Shi’ite believe it should be passed down Muhammad’s bloodline. The Sunnis win out and Abu Bakr takes power. Over time, these two groups have various fights resulting in the civil war termed the Fitnah. There are major theological which are a direct result of differences on where spiritual authority rests.
My response: None of this makes sense. Let’s start at the beginning.
At Muhammad’s death, there is supposedly a struggle between Abu Bakr and Ali over who should be the leader. This doesn’t make sense. Ali is far too young to be a contender for leadership. Remember, this is still in the early stages of Islam, so everyone is used to the pre-Islamic leadership structure. The leader is traditionally the sheikh, an elder of the tribe who brings wisdom and experience to the table. Abu Bakr, at 61 years old, fits that bill. Ali? He’s in his early 30’s. No one will take his leadership seriously. And that’s something that is very important because whoever takes leadership is going to face rebellion. What happens when you have an extremely strong leader and he dies? People start rebelling. They test how much power the successor can exert over them. They splinter away from the empire and try to carve their own niche. The Muslims in Madinah know this is going to happen and putting a 30 year old in charge is going to give ammunition to those who want to rebel. They’ll argue (and rightly so in the eyes of the Arabs) that people who put a child in charge have no right to rule over them. Arabs considered manhood to begin at the age of 40 and the title of sheikh was usually given to those who passed the age of 60 or showed extraordinary wisdom at a younger age (like 5-10 years younger, not 30 years younger). So why would, upon Muhammad’s death, people start putting their support around Ali? Why suddenly is a 30 year old an acceptable leader whereas it was unthinkable just yesterday?
Now, the argument people with the traditional narrative make is that this situation is completely different. The age no longer matters because we’re dealing with the son-in-law of Muhammad. That takes precedence over his age which people will ignore because he’s Muhammad’s son-in-law. Two problems with this. Number one, there’s no evidence that Muhammad instructed that Ali was to succeed him. So why would a group of Muslims suddenly decide that this was something they had to do, overrule tribal custom in order to make Ali the leader? Number two, and this is a big one…..what about his other son-in-law?
What, you say??? Other son-in-law?? Where’d this guy come from? What if I told you Muhammad had another son-in-law? Also of the Quraish tribe. And, closer in age to the important 60 where you become a sheikh. Enter, Uthman ibn Affan. Comes from a powerful clan, Banu Umayyah. Extremely rich. Has the unanimous respect of the Muslims. Has administrative experience, governing Madinah in the absence of his father-in-law Muhammad. One of the scribes of Muhammad. Someone who’s memorized the Qur’an in its entirety. In short, someone who possesses all the characteristics which would make someone say that Ali should be the leader. And, to top it off, he’s a double son-in-law. He married Muhammad’s daughter Ruqayyah who passed away of smallpox. He then marries Muhammad’s other daughter Umm Kulthum, making him the only man to be a double son-in-law of Muhammad (there are four daughters total). If we’re going to be talking about bloodline and succession, why isn’t the power struggle between Abu Bakr and Uthman? Why is Uthman strangely absent at this point of the narrative?
But wait, the plot thickens. Not only is Uthman absent in this narrative, but Shi’ite sources paint Uthman in a very negative light. He’s a conniving capitalist who made his money in the market buying and selling whereas Ali worked hard chopping wood to make ends meet. Where is this coming from? Why are the Shi’ite who are supposed to be the ones that want the bloodline of Muhammad to be the leaders not only not elevating Uthman, but also sidelining him, making him look unfit for leadership?
I hope your head is spinning because non of this is making sense. The traditional narrative is breaking down because the facts don’t add up. Now, here’s my argument:
The reason none of this narrative makes sense is because it’s constructed backwards. The Sunni-Shi’ite split occurs at a later point in history and then the narrative is constructed to explain why the split occurred. So what did happen?
At Muhammad’s death, there is a dispute over where power should be. But it’s not between Abu Bakr and Ali. It’s not even between two people. It’s between two tribes. Muhammad is of the Quraish tribe. They are the most prestigious tribe amongst the Arabs because they claim direct descent from Abraham. However, they are not from Madinah. They’re from Makkah. Madinah’s powerful tribe is the Khazraj. However, they have no recognition outside Madinah as Madinah is (at this point in time) an agricultural town with little to show for itself. The question then, is where should the next leader come from? The Quraish? Tribe of the Muhammad, respected through the peninsula? Or the Khazraj, Madinah’s tribe, the tribe of the city that Muhammad made his adopted home? The dispute is swiftly resolved by a speech from Abu Bakr. He commends the Ansar (Khazraj + Aws, the other tribe in Madinah) and tells them that the Arabs will never recognize a leader outside the Quraish. He then reminds them of a statement where Muhammad had said that the leader of the Muslims should be from the Quraish. He nominates two men. At this point, the Khazraj withdraw their claim. Why so easily you may wonder? Two reasons. One, Muhammad’s statement even after his death is law. Multiple people witness that he did indeed say that the leader must be from the Quraish. Second, Abu Bakr has a valid point. Remember back to what I said about rebellion being inevitable? Well, put a non-Quraish member as leader and that’s just as bad as putting a 30 yr old as leader. People will find any excuse to rebel and this will be one more thing they can cite when they rebel. So, the dispute is over before it can progress any further. The next day Abu Bakr is the leader, chosen unanimously.
Where is Ali in all this? Taking care of burial arrangements, etc. Strange? No, not if you realize that he had no inclination towards becoming the leader because it’s so completely out of his sphere at this point. So he’s detached from the politics at this point. Some might argue, hey, maybe he felt slighted that this happened. Maybe he did want to become leader and the power struggle occurred afterwards.
To that, I point to something which removes any doubt that Ali and Abu Bakr had no animosity towards each other. Ali names his son Abu Bakr. And what’s more, he names his son Abu Bakr after the Abu Bakr. How can I be so sure you may ask? Because Abu Bakr was not a given name. In fact, the Abu Bakr’s real name isn’t Abu Bakr–it’s Abdullah. Abu Bakr is a title given to him that he became known by to everyone. So Abu Bakr isn’t a name that was common or that people named their children because it wasn’t a given name. Until Abu Bakr became who he did. Then, people named their children after him. What I’m getting at is that Abu Bakr isn’t a common name like Ali, Uthman, Hasan, or Husain. If it was, you could argue that it’s coincidence that Ali named is son Abu Bakr, or that he really liked that name. But no, he had to have named his son after the Abu Bakr. And you definitely wouldn’t name your son after the man who usurped your right to rule.

BY SLN26/Reddit community