Continuing with the discussion (I had some free time :D ):
In the historical context, Medina was not the perfect egalitarian society that we all like to believe in so much. Yes, the basic socio-political structure and foundations had been defined by the Prophet of Islam but the ideal creation had not been achieved by the time of the Prophet’s death, which happened only 11 years After Hijrat. The Islamic community was still in its infancy and continuously threatened by wars waged by the enemy, and the people had varying degrees of understanding of Islam, its fundamentals and its principles. To illustrate: Despite the clear ruling that everyone was equal and none had any right above another, there did exist people in Medina who couldn’t bear to see slaves having an equal status. These people were former masters.
Muhammad’s (pbuh) religion was radical. It affected and touched every person, from the oppressed to the oppressor, the weak to the powerful and the poor to the wealthy. It struck at the heart of the tribal socio-political order in place at that time in Arabia. And with its message of slaves and masters being equal, it affected no one more than the wealthy and all-powerful clans of Arabia. Of all the Clans, none was more powerful and influential than the Banu Omayya branch of the Quraysh. Therefore none had greater reason to despise and oppose Muhammad’s message than Banu Omayya.
It was during the bloodless Conquest of Mecca that amnesty was granted to certain individuals of the Omayya family such as Abu Sufyan who waged wars against the Prophet but later (conveniently?) converted to Islam. It was only a few decades after the death of the Prophet that the old orders prevailed and the Banu Omayya dynasty was established by none other than Muawiyah Ibn Abu Sufyan.
We can now ask had there been such a perfect society (including the Companions) in Medina, would the establishment of old orders have come into existence? And most importantly what was the essentially flawed system from which such an establishment (i.e. a Monarchy) came into existence when there was no concept of this system (which was more suited to Caesar and Khusro), in Deen-e-Muhammadi?
Now, leaving those questions aside for a while, let’s discuss the dynamics of Caliphate. How did the Caliphate come about and what was the criterion for becoming a Caliph? Was it really a great democratic system, based upon the consultation of the majority? Or was it, as it seems to someone familiar with history, a great coup occurring at the single most vulnerable time in Islamic History?
Just as the Prophet of God, that noble saviour of mankind was breathing his last in this world, some Ansaars (Helpers) and a few (three actually) Mohajirs (Migrants) including eminent personalities as Abu Bakr and Umar gathered at a place called Saqifah Bani Saidah to decide who would succeed the Prophet. There was no one from Banu Hashim, the Prophet’s family, present at this small out-of-town gathering. Ali, Abbas and the rest of the Hashemites with a few Companions were engaged in the funeral and burial preparations of the Prophet.
Here are the minutes of the meeting at Saqifah - all historically correct:
ANSAARS: We helped the Prophet in his mission. We accepted Islam. We struggled hard for the sake of Islam. So we are entitled to the leadership. We suggest that leadership be given to Sa’ad b. Ubadah (ansaar). [Sa’ad is ill but is still brought to Saqifah]
MOHAJIRS: We are from the same city as the Prophet. We gave up and left everything for the sake of the Prophet and Islam. We are entitled to leadership.
The discussion heats up. The Mohajirs, led by Umar insist everyone pays allegiance to Abu Bakr.
ABU BAKR: Mohajirs were the first to embrace Islam. They were persecuted and tortured by the idolaters but still refused to give up. We (mohajirs) must be the rulers and you (ansaars) the Viziers.
There is a clash between Umar and Hubab b. Al-Mundhir. Hubab refutes Abu Bakr’s claims and says the Ansaar must act to take leadership otherwise it will be taken from them. Umar naturally disagrees and reiterates the claim of leadership of Mohajirs is stronger being the Companions of Muhammad and that they would never accept the rule of Ansaars.
Bashir b. Sa’ad a cousin of Sa’ad b Ubadah addresses his kinsmen stating the Prophet was from Quraysh therefore his successor should be from among them. He supports Umar’s view. Abu Bakr then states his view that allegiance should be given to Umar or Abu Ubaydah upon which Umar replies that Abu Bakr is more worthy of allegiance due to reasons of his being the first to follow the Prophet, his accompanying him in the Cave and also leading the prayers in place of the Prophet.
Abd Rahman b. Awf says the virtues of none in the Ansaar camp can be compared to that of Abu Bakr Umar or Ali. This is taken up by Mundhir Al Aqram and the rest of the Ansaars who shout that they will only give their allegiance to Ali. At this point, seeing the split, Umar asks Abu Bakr to extend his hand and he and Bashir pay allegiance to Abu Bakr. The others follow. Again there is argument between Umar and Sa’ad, who leaves the meeting.
The group proceed to the Mosque of the Prophet and announce Abu Bakr’s leadership. People are told to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr. Because of these affairs, these two eminent Companions could not attend the burial of the Prophet. None of the other well-known Companions such as Talha, Zubair, Abu Dhar, Salman Ubay b Ka’b and Hudhaifa etc were present at Saqifah.
Now, lets say we can excuse the meeting at Saqifah which was taking place as the Prophet was being buried. Let’s suppose and agree with our Sunni brothers and sisters that despite all the mutawaatir hadith and narrations, the Prophet had not appointed a successor during his lifetime and that Ali had no natural right to leadership and successor ship. We will ignore the fact that neither Abu Bakr nor Umar upheld the consultative method when each appointed his successor at his deathbed. We won’t ask on what merit their successors were appointed. Instead let’s see who was more entitled to leadership based upon the criteria set at the Saqifah “consultation”. The criteria was NOT who had most knowledge because if had been, who could deny Ali the claim to leadership when the Prophet had stated numerous times “I am the City of Knowledge and Ali is its Gate”. The single criterion set was that of closeness in relationship to the Prophet. Even in this respect, Ali comes foremost. Even based on this weakest of weak criteria for entitlement to leadership, Ali is way ahead of others.
Ali knew as did everyone else his right to leadership had been trampled upon. He expresses his feelings about this in his famous sermon of Ash-Shiqshiqiyya in Nahjul Balaghah – the collection of Ali’s sermons, letters and words of wisdom. His rightful inheritance (by whatever standard used) was snatched from him and yet he didn’t take a stand to fight to regain what he thought of as being rightfully his, except for not giving his allegiance. After the murder of Uthman, people came to Ali for leadership. Ali refused. They forced him to accept their allegiance, making Allah a witness between them.
It was during his Caliphate Ali had to contend with Muawiyah ibn Abu Sufyan, who during the Caliphate of Uthman had been made governor of Syria and now ruled it as his own independent kingdom, refusing to give allegiance to Ali. Muawiyah revolted against the Caliph Ali and fought battles against him such as that of Siffeen in which prominent Companions like Ammar b. Yassir were killed. It was during this era Ali moved his centre of governance from Medina to Kufa, Iraq. As Dr Shariati states at this time, “Ali was all alone”. From one side he was facing attack from Muawiyah and the other was dissension from within his own ranks, from the Kharijites, the same people had forced their allegiance upon him and now accused him of being a disbeliever (naozobillah). In the end it was a Khariji, Ibn Muljim who murdered Ali while Ali was engaged in prayer.
Muawiyah declared himself to be the Caliph and declared the year to be the Year of the Jama’ah (Year of Majority), coining the word Ahl As Sunnah wa’l Jama’ah meaning the Party of the Majority and considered Shias (Followers) of Ali to be rivals. He however knew after Ali the rightful claim to leadership was Hassan Ibn Ali’s. He knew too that a majority of people recognised Hassan’s legitimate claim to leadership and therefore wrote a peace treaty which Hassan accepted with conditions. One of the conditions was that Muawiyah could not declare his son Yazid as his successor. Hassan was subsequently poisoned in Medina. Hussain the brother of Hassan and son of Ali also lived in Medina, the city of his Holy Grandfather. It wasn’t long before Muawiyah knew he was on his death bed. In deliberate contravention of his treaty, he appointed Yazid as his successor. And thus from the inherently flawed system of Saqeefah, Yazid b. Muawiyah b. Abu Sufyan of the Omayya lineage became the Caliph, the “Ameerul Momineen” of the Muslim nation-states. A lamentable state of affairs, a black day in the history of Islam.
to name a few) and were naturally considered to be Shias. They were persecuted and killed relentlessly. Therefore if anyone had contact with them, they too automatically became suspect in the views of the ruling authority.