|
The Succession to Muhammad concerns the varying aspects of successorship of Muhammad after his death, comprising who might be considered as his successor to lead the Muslims, how that person should be elected, the conditions of legitimacy, and the role of successor. Different answers to these questions have led to several divisions in the Muslim community since the first century of Muslim history—most notably giving rise to Sunnis, Shias and Kharijites. From a historic viewpoint as recorded, with Muhammad's death in AD 632, disagreement broke out over who should succeed him as leader of the Muslim community. None of Muhammad's sons survived into adulthood, therefore direct hereditary succession was never an option. Umar (Umar ibn al-Khattab), a prominent companion of Muhammad, nominated Abu Bakr. Others added their support and Abu Bakr was made the first caliph. This choice was disputed by some of Muhammad's companions, who held that Ali (Ali ibn Abi Talib), his cousin and son-in-law, had been designated his successor.〔See: * * * * 〕 Later, during the First Fitna and the Second Fitna the community divided into several sects and groups, each of which had its own idea about successorship. After the Rashidun caliphate turned into Monarchies and Sultanates, Sunnis held power in most areas of Muslim history. Shias have emerged as their opposition. From a religious viewpoint, Muslims later split into two groups, Sunni and Shia. Sunnis assert that even though Muhammad never appointed a successor, Abu Bakr was elected first caliph by the Muslim community. The Sunnis recognize the first four caliphs as Muhammad's rightful successors. Shias believe that Muhammad explicitly named his successor Ali at Ghadir Khumm and Muslim leadership belonged to him who had been determined by divine order. The two groups also disagree on Ali's attitude towards Abu Bakr, and the two caliphs who succeeded him: Umar and Uthman ibn Affan. Sunnis and the Zaydis tend to stress Ali's acceptance and support of their rule, while the Twelver Shia claim that he distanced himself from them, and that he was being kept from fulfilling the religious duty that Muhammad had appointed to him. Sunnis maintain that if Ali was the rightful successor as ordained by God, then it would have been his duty as leader of the Muslim nation to make war with these people (Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman) until Ali established the decree. The Twelver Shias contend that Ali did not fight Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman, because he was foretold by Muhammad about how the political tide will turn against Ali after his demise and was advised not to wage war against them. The Twelver Shia also say that he did not have the military strength nor the willingness to wage a civil war amongst the Muslims.〔Sahih Bukhari (5.57.50 )〕 The Twelver Shia say Ali also believed that he could fulfil his role of Imamate without this fighting. Zaydis do not agree with the Twelver Shia. After the death of Abu Bakr, Ali raised Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr. Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr was the son of Abu Bakr and was raised by Ali.〔Nahj al-Balagha Sermon 71, Letter 27, Letter 34, Letter 35〕 When Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr was killed by the Ummayads,〔 Aisha, the wife of Muhammad—also a renowned scholar of her time—raised and taught her nephew Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr. Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr's mother was from Ali's family and Qasim's daughter Farwah bint al-Qasim was married to Muhammad al-Baqir and was the mother of Jafar al-Sadiq. Therefore, Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr was the grandson of Abu Bakr the first caliph and the grandfather of Jafar al-Sadiq.Zaydis, the largest group amongst the Shia before the Safavid Dynasty and currently the second largest group, believe that on the last hour of Zayd ibn Ali (the uncle of Jafar al-Sadiq), he was betrayed by the people in Kufa who said to him: "May God have mercy on you! What do you have to say on the matter of Abu Bakr and Umar ibn al-Khattab?" Zayd ibn Ali said, "I have not heard anyone in my family renouncing them both nor saying anything but good about them...when they were entrusted with government they behaved justly with the people and acted according to the Qur'an and the Sunnah"〔The waning of the Umayyad caliphate by Tabarī, Carole Hillenbrand, 1989, p37, p38〕〔The Encyclopedia of Religion Vol.16, Mircea Eliade, Charles J. Adams, Macmillan, 1987, p243. "They were called "Rafida by the followers of Zayd"〕 The differences between the Sunni and Shia amplified after the Safavid invasion of Persia and the subsequent Safavid conversion of Iran to Shia Islam were due to the politics between the Safavids and the Ottoman Empire.〔The Heirs Of The Prophet Muhammad: And The Roots Of The Sunni-Shia Schism By Barnaby Rogerson ()〕 The Zaydis were also forced to convert. To consolidate their position, the Safavids also exploited the deep-rooted differences between areas formerly under the Persian Sassanid Empire and areas formerly under the Byzantine Roman Empire, dating back as far as the Roman–Persian Wars and the Byzantine–Sassanid Wars. For the first time in the history of Islam, the Safavids also established a hierarchical organization of the Shiite clergy and institutionalised the books written by Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Kulayni (864- 941), Ibn Babawayh (923-991), and Nasir al-Din al-Tusi (1201-1274) as the law.〔Connections: The Quarterly Journal - Volume 5 - Page 64 An important Shia manual is Al-kafifi 'ilm al-din by Muhammad ibn-Ta'qub al-Kulayni. Other important manuals were written by ibn-Babawayh (Man la-yahdurhu al-faqih) and al-Tusi (Tahdhib al-ahkam)()〕〔(Encyclopedia of Islam By Juan Eduardo Campo Page 654 )〕 After the demise of the Safavid dynasty, the new ruler of Persia, Nader Shah (1698 to 1747) himself a Sunni attempted to improve relations with Sunni nations by propagating the integration of Shiism by calling it Jaafari Madh'hab.〔Nadir Shah and the Ja 'fari Madhhab Reconsidered, Ernest Tucker, Iranian Studies, Vol. 27, No. 1/4, Religion and Society in Islamic Iran during the Pre-Modern Era (1994), pp. 163-179, Published by: International Society for Iranian Studies ()〕 Since Jafar al-Sadiq himself disapproved of people who disapproved of his great grand father Abu Bakr the first caliph. Jafar al-Sadiq himself gave priority to the Qur'an and the Hadith and felt that Islam was completed during the time of Muhammad and wanted people to refer to the Quran therefore Jafar al-Sadiq (702-765) did not write any books. Since Jafar al-Sadiq and Zayd ibn Ali did not them selves write any books. But they worked closely with imam Abu Hanifa and imam Malik ibn Anas the oldest branch of the Shia, the Zaydis to this day and originally the Fatamids, use the Hanafi jurisprudence, as do most Sunnis.〔Islamic Finance: Law, Economics, and Practice By Mahmoud A. El-Gamal Page 122 ()〕〔The Encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Political, Social and Military History edited by Spencer C. Tucker, Priscilla Mary Roberts Page 917 ()〕〔The Iraq Effect: The Middle East After the Iraq War By Frederic M. Wehrey Page 91 ()〕 ==Historiography== Most of Islamic history seems to have been primarily transmitted orally until after the rise of the Abbasid Caliphate.〔A consideration of oral transmissions in general with some specific early Islamic reference is given in Jan Vansina's ''Oral Tradition as History''.〕 The historical works of later Muslim writers include the traditional Muslim biographies of Muhammad and quotes attributed to him (the sira and hadith literature), which provide further information on Muhammad's life. The earliest surviving written sira (biographies of Muhammad and quotes attributed to him) is ''Sirah Rasul Allah''(''Life of God's Messenger'') by Ibn Ishaq (d. 761 or 767 CE). Although the original work is lost, portions of it survive in the recensions of Ibn Hisham (d. 833 CE) and Al-Tabari (d. 923 CE). Many, but not all, scholars accept the accuracy of these biographies, though their accuracy is unascertainable. Studies by J. Schacht and Goldziher has led scholars to distinguish between the traditions touching legal matters and the purely historical ones. According to William Montgomery Watt, in the legal sphere it would seem that sheer invention could have very well happened. In the historical sphere however, aside from exceptional cases, the material may have been subject to "tendential shaping" rather than being made out of whole cloth. Modern Western scholars are much less likely than Sunni Islamic scholars to trust the work of the Abbasid historians. Western historians approach the classic Islamic histories with varying degrees of circumspection. Hadith compilations are records of the traditions or sayings of Muhammad. These might be defined as the biography of Muhammad perpetuated by the long memory of his community for their exemplification and obedience. The development of hadith is a vital element during the first three centuries of Islamic history. There had been a common tendency among earlier western scholars against these narrations and reports gathered in later periods; such scholars regarding them as later fabrications. Leone Caetani considered the attribution of historical reports to `Abd Allah ibn `Abbas and Aisha as mostly fictitious while proffering accounts reported without ''isnad'' by the early compilers of history like Ibn Ishaq. Wilferd Madelung has rejected the stance of indiscriminately dismissing everything not included in "early sources" and in this approach tendentious alone is no evidence for late origin. He does not reject the narrations which have been complied in later periods; trying to judge them in the context of history and on the basis of their compatibility with the events and figures. The only contemporary source is The Book of Sulaym ibn Qays or ''Kitab al-Saqifah'' which was written by Sulaym ibn Qays (death: 75-95 AH (694-714)). This is a collection of hadith and historical reports from 1st century of the Islamic calendar and narrates the events which relate to the succession in detail.〔See: * * * * 〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Succession to Muhammad」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|