Customer Reviews

The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This book has been a flashpoint of controversy between Shi'i and Sunni Muslims since this has turned out to be a rare instance where a non-Muslim scholar [a status that ostensibly gives him an objective position wherewith the sectarian divided can be breached for the sake of historical truth] arrives at a conclusion somewhat in harmony with the Shi'i view of things. Unfortunately, the flurry of sectarian debate has overshadowed a work of great scholarly importance [exhibit a: the reviews written prior to this one] by an author who himself-as far as anyone can know for certain at least-had no intentions of propagating one tradition over the other.

The virulent Sunni opposition of the Sunni Muslims to this book relates mostly to the portrayal of Abu Bakr as a schemer, Umar as a bullying hothead, and Uthman as a rich fat-cat with a taste for nepotism while Ali is the rightful heir to the prophetic office. That is what the offended would get from the book. Actually, Madelung has a much more nuanced opinion of all the Caliphs which is the product of a mixture of deep admiration and criticism. Most frustrating to the Sunni Muslim, I would imagine, is how Madelung version of the events makes such ideas as ta'diil al-SaHabah wa-l-taba'iin, al-fitrah, etc. seem absurd and untenable [which many more progressive would admit are].

Most problematic within the work is the use of sources throughout. I don't mean this in the sense conveyed in the ramblings of one reviewer ["Dr. Siddiqui"] who seems to lack any coherent understanding of textual dynamics involved within Madelung's various texts. For example, just citing a text does not equal an endorsement thereof; rather, what is important is how the text is integrated into the larger structure of the argument and how controversial texts are placed within a hierarchy of certitude and historical criticism. Madelung here is about as meticulous as one could be. Moreover, he has to be for he write *against* the pro-Sunni grain of almost all of what has been written in the entire corpus of Western scholarship hitherto.

Madelung, in reality, is a rather conservative scholar. His approach is optimistic-meaning that he doesn't side with the skeptical branch of scholarship that rejects all the details and accepts reluctantly, often with extensive revision, the general outlines of the Muslim historical record. After all, ALL of the sources we have today on these events were written/compiled hundreds of years after the events they claim to record while simultaneously be the result of considerable political tumult.

Whatever side of these debates you fall, one has to admit that Madelung has written the most authoritative and interesting interpretation of the sources hitherto committed to writing. The case he makes from the Qur'an for Muhammad having intended Ali to follow him as the leader of the community is very crafty. His portraits of the intricacies of tribal conflicts and personal ambitions are masterful and stunningly lucid. Under his pen, these complex events regain a certain new-life. By the end of the book, Madelung makes one realize how astonishing it was that Muslim history actually took the direction it did, albeit while slaughtering many `sacred cows' in the process...

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.

Madelung starts off in the introduction with how a lot of things regarding the Shia-sunni conflict have been taken for granted, citing the major works in the area, such as Lammens and Caetani. He then gradually works his way from the time of the death of the Prophet till the martyrdom of Ali. No where in his book would you find him forcing his opinion on you. The sources and the references he gives are thorough, very well established and agreed by all. He usually tries to quote directly from the book he is refering to before he comments on the information, hence you are left free to disagree with any conclusion that Madelung may have drawn. A truly scholarly work. This book was definitely needed. I don't think any one should now hold opinions regarding the Shia sunni debate without going through this book first!

Reading this book together (or after) the book Origins and Early development of Shia Islam by H M Jafri, would help greatly in understanding the book, since Madelung does not discuss the life of the Prophet and hence the readers will miss out on a number of events which occured during the life of the Prophet which the Shia claim indicate his nomination of Ali as his successor. Most notable of these events being that of Ghadir Khumm.

This is a well-researched, well-written book on the history of the early caliphate. I realize that some (sunni muslims) will find the analysis in this book to be somehow unflattering, but I think it is very hard to refute Madelung's arguments (other than by adopting the rigid, orthodox view that the Companions of Prophet Muhammad were infaillible), which are based on a deep knowledge of the original sources (unparalleled even in the muslim world) and overall are very logical and make a lot of sense (the Companions were, after all, human beings, capable of great deeds, but not all of them were above having personal ambitions - as the inter-muslim wars after the death of Uthman show too well). As for Muawiyah, the author does a very good job of debunking the evil, rotten seeds of his personality. Highly recommended !

I have read this book and found it a good and painstaking work of historical value.

If you read it as a Muslim, Shia or Sunni, you may like or dislike some of its contents because it does not wholly represent your beliefs. That does not mean that the entire presentation is biased or based on incredible sources.

Whilst I agree with the views expressed by Dr. Siddiqi about certain points raised by him, I cannot totally reject the entire work for some blemishes on the part of the researcher. Can anyone name any work of research of a subject, over a century old, which is one hundred percent right?

Undoubtedly Prof. Madelung has picked certain sources which were either biased or unreliable but he surely did not force the reader to accept them. A researcher's job is to present what he finds and leave the reader to make his own conclusions.

It is never fair to appreciate or condemn any work just on the basis of a small amount of its contents. Fairness demands that the whole work should be judged and opinion formed

The most revealing part of the book for me was that about Mua'wiya spread over nearly 80 pages who proclaimed himself to be Khalifatul-Muslimeen and I really cannot understand how and why muslims accepted him as one. It clearly demonstrates that the people at large of Muawiya's time were either totally misled or were not true muslims! And yet, even today some people still insist to give respect to him as a Companion of the Prophet and as a 'khalifa'. Should a person of his character be allowed to retain the piety of being the companion of the Prophet?

Madelung does not support the shias at all. This is a misconception, he clearly states that Ali was not infalliable, and that the LATER generations of his followers in the face of ummayyad repression and vilifiation of his character extolled his virtues to such an extent that they made him equal [or even greater] to the Prophet[saw] ....
Only those sunnis who cannot bear criticizm of muawiyah or uthman will call it pro-shia.
Also madelung clearly praises umar , moreover he says that Ali and majority of his followers did not have such a big problem with the first 2 caliphs.
Lastly there is a 3 line mention of ghadeer , on which shias mostly base their claim

This book is a very valuable work, and Dr. Siddiqui's review really puzzles me. Generally, to review a book, one should READ the book. Dr. Siddiqui's review indicates that either didnt read the book or perhaps flipped a few pages. For example: 1. Dr. Siddiqui claims that Madelung "uses such discredited sources like L. Caetani", however Madelung's whole book is a rebuttel to Caetani. He only cites Caetani to show how he was completely wrong! This is absolutely clear in the book: Madelung disagreed with Caetani's claims. Either Dr. Siddiqui didnt read the book, didnt understand it, or wrote something intentionally misleading. 2. Madelung mainly uses 'Sunni' sources, Tabari and Hadith, there are no stories or incidents that he uses that cannot be found in accepted Sunni texts. 3. The conclusions made by Madelung are not shia alone. He makes the point that many of the early sunni muslims did not agree w/much of what present sunnis bevlive. For example many sunnis did not consider Muawaiya a blessed companion. It can be said that all of Madelung's conclusions have been made by muslims (Sunni and Shia) before. 4. In no way does Madelung insult Islam, the Prophet Muhammad (S) or the other companions. He writes about Islam in a respectful manner, contrary to Dr. Siddiquis misleading review.
Dr. Siddiqui writes Madelung uses sources 'discredited for their bias, prejudice and partiality', however after reading his review, one is left with the feeling that Dr. Siddiuqi writes with as much bias, prejudice and partiality toward Madelung Caetani writes about Islam.
Great book, not perfect (but only the QURAN is anyways), but well worth a dispassionate read.

Mr Siddique has, instead of writing an unbiased review, has given a story which clearly explains his "beliefs" and does not encourage open minded research. To get to the "truth" one has to keep his mind open and be sincere to his intentions. If the intentions are to justify the forefathers then even God will not help as He Himself has stated in Qur'an that man does not get anything except what he strives for. This is an excellent research even though I personally may not agree with many of its conclusions. Human progress lies in open and fair scholarship and the author of the book should be congratulated for taking a step in this direction.

This book is a very valuable work, and Dr. Siddiqui's review really puzzles me. Generally, to review a book, one should READ the book. Dr. Siddiqui's review indicates that either didnt read the book or perhaps flipped a few pages. For example: 1. Dr. Siddiqui claims that Madelung "uses such discredited sources like L. Caetani", however Madelung's whole book is a rebuttel to Caetani. He only cites Caetani to show how he was completely wrong! This is absolutely clear in the book: Madelung disagreed with Caetani's claims. Either Dr. Siddiqui didnt read the book, didnt understand it, or wrote something intentionally misleading. 2. Madelung mainly uses 'Sunni' sources, Tabari and Hadith, there are no stories or incidents that he uses that cannot be found in accepted Sunni texts. 3. The conclusions made by Madelung are not shia alone. He makes the point that many of the early sunni muslims did not agree w/much of what present sunnis bevlive. For example many sunnis did not consider Muawaiya a blessed companion. It can be said that all of Madelung's conclusions have been made by muslims (Sunni and Shia) before. 4. In no way does Madelung insult Islam, the Prophet Muhammad (S) or the other companions. He writes about Islam in a respectful manner, contrary to Dr. Siddiquis misleading review.
Dr. Siddiqui writes Madelung uses sources 'discredited for their bias, prejudice and partiality', however after reading his review, one is left with the feeling that Dr. Siddiuqi writes with as much bias, prejudice and partiality toward Madelung Caetani writes about Islam.
Great book, not perfect (but only the QURAN is anyways), but well worth a dispassionate read.

A most comprehensive and prolific piece of work. The author should be congratulated for picking up on an area that is essential for the proper understanding of the Shia and their beliefs. Although, I did not agree with the author's analysis of certain historical events, nevertheless this work should be viewed as a platform upon which further research shall be based. This book shall challenge the 'packaged' history that the Western academics and Orientalists have accepted about Islam. The book also illustrates a wider principle of the extent to which interested parties can influence the recording of historical events and the interpretation that is attached to them. I have rated the book 10 due to the scholarship and the independence/originality of the work.