Religion Islamic: Sunni-Shiite Schism - Essay Example

The Sunni-Shiite divide is rooted in history and, more specifically, in the crisis of succession within which the umma was enveloped in the immediateaftermath of the Prophet's death. When the Prophet died in 632, the community was relatively unprepared to deal with the consequences and implications of his demise and it was within an environment of unpreparedness, within the context of a religion which was barely two decades old and embattled that the Muslims were called upon to select a successor to the Prophet. On the day of the Prophet's death, 8th June 632CE, the Medinian Muslims, or the Ansar, gathered at Saqifat Bani Sa'ida in Hijaz to discuss both the immediate and the long-term future of the Muslims. The question of the umma's future was immediately predicated on the community's choice of leadership and it was, thus, determined that the umma could not remain without such a figure for long. The Ansar, represented by the Khazraj and the Aws tribes, determined that both the future of the nascent religion and the welfare of the community demand the immediate selection of a leader. Abu Bakr and Umar, who, alongside Ali Bin Abi Taleb, are controvertibly regarded as the Prophet's closest companions, were not present at the Saqifa at that time. Upon, however, being informed of the gathering, they rushed to participate. The Muhajirun, however, were not informed of the gathering and, thus, the Meccan Muslim immigrants were not represented at this seminal meeting. Within the context of the Sunni-Shiite division, the identity of the participants, or those present at Saqifat Bani Sa'ida is of critical importance. As noted in the preceding, while the Ansar were represented in their collectivity, the Muhajirun were not and then, later, only by Abu Bakr and Umar. More significantly, Ahl Al Bayt were not present. As Ibn Ishaq (1982, 201-206) quite explicitly notes in his Sira, the Prophet's closet family, those being Ali, Fatima Al Zahra, and Khadija bint Abu Bakr, were not present at Saqifat Bani Sa'ida as they were preparing the Prophet's body for burial. The implication here is not only that their opinion was neither given nor taken but, from the Shiite perspective, that one of those who would have figured as the natural choice for succession was not present: Ali Ibn Abi Taleb. It is within the context of the absence of most of the Muhajirun and the totality of Ahl Al Bayt that Abu Bakr become the Prophet's successor, the umma's first caliph. Yawm al-Saqifa, as reported by Ibn Ishaq (qtd. In Ibn Hashem, 1994, 127-131), was a prolonged and acerbic affair. The Ansar were, from the outset, adamantly opposed to the selection of either a member of Ahl al Bayt or a Muhajir, preferring one of their own. Abu Bakr addressed the Ansar's opposition, arguing that the only a member of Quraysh, Mecca's leading clan, could possibly maintain the Islamic umma and sustain its unity. The reasons, as given by Abu Bakr, were the universal recognition of Quraysh's nobility and its worthiness of leadership. It was, thus, that Abu Bakr suggested that those present select either Umar or him as the Prophet's successor (Ibn Hashem, 1994, 127-131). Needless to say, the Ansar maintain their opposition, with the aforementioned being carried forth by one of their more powerful tribal chiefs, Bashir ibn Sa'd ibn Tha'laba. Indeed, utterly rejected the notion of governance by either Umar or Abu Bakr, the Ansar suggested that they elected their own leader and the Muhajirun their own. At this point, Ibn Ishaq (1982, 209), reports that the meeting went temporarily out of control to the extent that it seemed that the umma had already, only hours after the Prophet's death, divided amongst itself. This was, apparently, Umar's sentiments, whereupon he responded to the said proposal by taking hold of Abu Bakr's hand and swearing an oath of allegiance to him as the leader of the umma. The Ansar, as Ibn Ishaq (1982, 210) continues, however, were not to succumb easily and Sa'd ibn Ubada, the leader of the Khazraj Ansar protested loudly. The response to that, according to Umar and as reported by Ibn Ishaq, was that some of those present attacked Ubada, culminating in his death. The day following Yawn al-Saqifa, the Muslims gathered for prayer and Umar seized the opportunity to praise Abu Bakr, remind those present of the closeness of his companionship to the Prophet, and urge the umma to give him the bayah. Al Bukhairi reports that the majority of those present did. There were, however, some notable dissenters, chiefly Ali's supporters and, according to some accounts at least, Ali Ibn Abi Taleb himself (qtd in Imam, 2004, 108). The above-stated constitutes a straightforward account of the events of Saqifat Bani Sa'ida. The actual events which transpired within, not to mention the tensions which erupted during the selection process, however, remain a topic of controversy especially as Sunni and Shiite accounts, not to mention, interpretations, are divergent. Certainly, Sahih Ibn Muslim, Sahih Al Bukhari and Sirat Ibn Ishaq all cover this historical event to varying degrees but, the fact is that none provide a pictorial, objective eye-witness account of the events. Instead, Saqifat Bani Sa'ida tends to be projected from personalized, subjective perspectives, dependant upon the conveyor's own sentiments. This has been affirmed by numerous Islamic scholars, some of whom have maintained that Ahl al Bayt were deliberately kept away from the Saqifa while others insist that this was far from the truth and that Abu Bakr selection as successor was influenced and determined by the Prophet himself (Al Ashmawy, 1996, 46-49). That Yawn al Saqifa should emerge as a point of departure in the latter history of Islam and later be identified as the day on which the umma split into al Bakireyoun (supports of Abu Bakr) and al-Alaweyoun (supporters of Ali) should hardly be surprising. To all intents and purposes, the fate of the umma rested upon the succession and, naturally, upon the successor himself. Many of those present at Saqifat Bani Sa'ida were fully cognizant of this fact and, accordingly, referenced the Prophet's own legacy, as in his ahadith and sira when making their decision (Al Ashmawy, 1996, 46-49). To this extent, the supporters of Abu Bakr, chief amongst whom were Umar, legitimize his succession through reference to the Prophet's explicit request that Abu Bakr lead the prayers on his stead. Even though they largely acknowledge the validity of this historic event, the Shiite maintained it to be inconclusive insofar as succession, implying both spiritual and political leadership is concerned. Compounded to that, they seek the de-legitimisation of Abu Bakr's succession by referring to the Prophet's final pilgrimage, and the words he spoke at Ghadir Khum: And then he [Muhammad] took Ali by the hand and said to the people: "Do you not acknowledge that I have a greater claim on each of the believers than they have on themselves" and they replied: "Yes!" and then he took Ali's hand and said: "Of whomsoever I am Lord, then Ali is also his Lord. Oh God! Be thou the supporters of whoever supports Ali and the enemy of whoever opposes him (Jafri, 1978, 15). Proceeding from the above stated, it is evident that the succession, or the decision made on Yawm al-Saqifa was alternately supported and negated by reference to the Prophet's ahadeeth, in which instance, the umma was left vulnerable to disagreement and division, or fitna. To exacerbate matters and to further compound the discontent which some felt as regards the succession of Abu Bakr, Ahl al Bayt, as earlier noted, were not present at the meeting. In Ibn Sa'd's (1940, 126-133) account of Yawm al Saqifa, incontrovertibly one of the earliest known, all of Ali, Fatima, and (although of lesser importance) al-Abbas are very conspicuously absent. They play no role at all in either al Saqifa or in its immediate aftermath, the general bayah which was to follow the day after. In direct comparison, they figure strongly in Al Tabari's (1998, 1815-1830) account of the events, where all three are portrayed as intransigent and staunch opponents to the succession of Abu Bakr. Devoting an entire chapter to Ali's opposition to Abu Bakr and his supposed refusal to give him his bayah, Al Tabari (1998, 1815-1830) suggests that Ali's intransigence was largely a consequence of his wife, Fatma al Zahraa's influence. The fact, however, remains that Fatma al-Zahraa was to die a few short weeks after the Prophet, yet Ali did not change his position until much later. Indeed, he remained opposed to the decision taken at Saqifat Bani Sa'ida, winning the support of some factions of al Ansar, who were, from the outset, opposed to Abu Bakr's succession, and Bani Hashem. It was not until the realization dawned on all that the umma was on the brink of an irreconcilable division over the succession that Ali finally gave Abu Bakr his allegiance. By that time, however, it was too late to halt the rida wars. The importance of Yawm al Saqifa cannot be minimized within the context of either Islamic history or theological philosophy. For the first time since the birth of Islam, its adherents were without their Messanger and the Prophet's Companions, both from amongst al Muhajirun and al Ansar were called upon to select a successor as would preserve both the faith and the unity of the Muslim community. They could not. The precise reasons for failure remain contested but what most agree upon is that the roots of the division do not simply lie in the decision taken on Yawm al Saqifa but in the absence of Ahl al Bayt from the meeting itself. Absence, compounded with an evident rejection of the decision taken on that day, is at the core of the Sunni-Shiite schism. This is amply evidenced in the fact that, as told by Ibn Abi l'Hadid (1945, 11), the very day following Yam al Saqifa, twelve of the Muhajirun arose when Abu Bakr entered a mosque and began to recite the virtues of Ali, his heroism, the depth of his faith and the extent of his spirituality, effectively disputing Abu Bakr's claim to the caliphate. Needless to say, Abu Bakr's supporters responded in kind. That this should occur with a day following both the death of the prophet and Yawm Al Saqifa established the seminal role which the latter played in the irreconcilable division of the community. In the final analysis, there is little doubt that the Sunni-Shiite schism is a consequence of a vast array of theological, philosophical and historical disagreements. The implication therefore is that to pin the division down to a single event/incident would be both fallacious and indefensibly simplistic. The essay concedes to that and acknowledges the complex nature of the causal factors which informed and instigated the division. It, however, takes the position that the founding block of the dispute, of the Sunni-Shiite division, incontrovertibly lies in Yam al Saqifa, whether in the absence of Ahl al Bayt from it or in the decision to declare Abu Bakr the prophet's successor. References El Ashmawy, M.S. (1996) Political Islam. Cairo: Madbuli Al Sagher. Ibn Abi l-Hadid (1945) Sharh nahj al balagha. Cairo: Madbuli Al Sagher. Ibn Hashim (1994) Al Siyrah. Cairo: Madbuli.. Ibn Ishaq (Ibn Hashim) (1982). The Life of the Apostle of. God. Beirut: Zakkar. Ibn Sa'd. (1940) Tabakat. Cairo: al Hilal. Jafri, S.H.M. (1978) The origins and Early Development of Shiite Islam. Kum: Group of Muslims. Tabari (1998) Tarikh, Vol I. Cairo: Maktabat Al Azhar. Read More