What is Reddit's opinion of The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

No, I meant non-academic non-Muslim. I can see why it looks like a typo though : )

Lesley Hazleton (I initially misspelled her name) is a journalist and popular non-fiction writer, she is not a historian or expert on religion and does not write peer reviewed academic papers and/or books. I'm also pretty confident she doesn't read or write Arabic, or at least didn't when she wrote the book; academics working in Islamic studies must be able to read Arabic (maybe there are exceptions). That doesn't mean her books aren't well researched, she primarily consults an English translation of At-Tabari, and makes this clear throughout the book.

I think that someone without an academic background (in history, religion or a related field) looking for an overview would usually benefit more from reading a non-academic book, however, as they're much more accessible to the general public. However, academics can write popular nonfiction too.

An example of an academic book would written by a non-Muslim academic on this topic would be Wilfred Madelung <em>The Succession to Muhamamd: A Study of the Early Caliphate</em>. I can't recommend it (or recommend against it) because I haven't read it, but I hear it is the one of the most important (if not the most important) non-Muslim texts on the subject. Unlike many of his Western predecessors, Madelung chose to make extensive use of hadith in writing his history.

If the Ayats I quoted are only relevant to when Prophet (pbuh) was alive, than by logic it means they are not relevant anymore. This makes it your belief, which is fine, but that's not my belief. I do not believe there is anything in Qu'ran that is irrelevant for any time as it is a final Book of final Prophet and it requires interpretation because Prophet is not among us. According to Shi'a belief, the Imam is the interpreter as per 4:59 (referenced at original source).

Since we know this topic is endless and we are not here to convert each other, I will gratefully end this with an acknowledgement of your reference to Arabic grammar. From my end, I recommend you research the event of Saqifa through Wilfred Madelung's The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate, a scholarly and detailed study.

Wa'salaam.

Wa ‘alaykumu s-salam!

You may like to read up on the history of the succession to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.). Wilfred Madelung’s <em>The Succession to the Muhammad</em>, published by Cambridge University Press, is an academic exploration of the subject which also happens to “take up the Shi’i cause, arguing in defence of the succession” of Imam Ali (a.s.).

Najam Haider’s <em>Shi’i Islam: An Introduction</em>, also published through Cambridge University Press, is an excellent general introduction to the history of Shi’ism and the beliefs of the Twelvers, the Zaydi, and (IIRC, also) the Isma’ili.

I think the FGM rate indeed horrible. Luckily it has been largely solved( http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/sep/08/iraqi-kurdistan-female-genital-mutilation-fgm) & (''The Stop FGM in Iraqi-Kurdistan Campaign will serve as a model for the Stop FGM in the Middle East Campaign that will begin in 2013. '' http://www.endvawnow.org/en/articles/725-public-education.html). As you can see, the Kurdish solution has even been praised as a model for the other ethnicities in the region.

Now it will be used for FGM campaign for Arabs(Yemen:http://www.stopfgmmideast.org/countries/yemen/ , http://www.refworld.org/docid/46d5787ec.html). As you can see, FGM came from Arabs to Kurds. Historians have discribed the matter as a byproduct of Arab conquests where Yemen settlers came living in Northern Mesopotamia(http://www.amazon.com/Succession-Muhammad-Study-Early-Caliphate/dp/0521646960).

So as you can see, Arabs still do FGM in Yemen and other Arab countries.

But let's not derail the topic: why do so many Shia Arabs in Iraq hit themselves to death? It is a sin in islam to hurt yourself, why then do it?

> Does this mean that the shias agree with the temporal authority of Abubakkar or do they believe that the temporal and spiritual authority should have gone to Hazrat Ali.

Again, you have to ask yourself, does it matter what a group of people believe now about what happened in the history? If yes, than you have to ask, to serve what purpose? We can't change the history now, can we? So the question, whether Shia's agree or disagree with the temporal authority of Abu Bakr, is a non-starter, because technically there is no choice. What we all know that Imam Ali accepted the role of third Caliph which has its own implication. However, Imam Ali's spiritual authority is a foundational matter for all Shi'as and Sufis in Islam and there is no doubt about that.

> Could it have been possibly that the common people of that time mis/interpreted the hadith of the pond to have meant that Hazrat Ali was given spiritual authority, and so they felt no ill intent when allowing Abubakkar to take over the temporal authority?

Possibly yes, or no. I have no idea. What matters is what we believe today, i.e, the living people.

> Currently I am trying to form a coherent picture of what happened then, preferably some picture that can satisfy both sides of the story to some degree.

Yes, there is no better and current source out there than The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate.

Here's a link to Amazon which has description and comments. http://www.amazon.com/The-Succession-Muhammad-Study-Caliphate/dp/0521646960