It is well-known that the most divisive figure in terms of sectarian memory is 'Ali ibn Abi Talib. A key component of Ali's character, both to Sunnis and to Shi'a, is his repeated failure to be appointed as the unanimous leader of the umma. Even when he was finally appointed, it was over a fractured state on the verge of a civil war. The memory of Abu Bakr, 'Umar, and 'Uthman is naturally divergent depending upon the identity, sources, patronage, and academic pedigree of a given author. Drawing upon the fields of mnemohistory and historiography, this paper will explore the presentations of the moments when each of these three men were appointed in sources written by Sunni authors (such as Ibn al-'Adim’s Bughyat al-Talab fi Ta'rikh Halab, Ibn al-Athir’s al-Kamil fi al-Ta'rikh, Ibn Kathir’s al-Bidaya wa-l-Nihaya, and others), those written by Shi'i authors (such as al-Ya'qubi’s Ta'rikh and al-Mas'udi’s Muruj al-Dhahab), and a selection critical earlier sources (such as al-Dinawari’s al-Akhbar al-Tiwal, Baladhuri’s Ansab al-Ashraf, and of course al-Tabari’s Ta'rikh al-Rusul wa-l-Muluk). The paper’s scope will expand beyond the moments of appointment—which, as “well-known” sites of memory, are likely to offer little in the way of substantive disagreement, even among sources of divergent sectarian perspective—and will instead focus on the elements of the narrative that “set up” those moments to communicate the authors’ intended meanings. This paper will explore not only the literary-narrative strategies these authors have for communicating their intended meanings, but also attempt to trace evolutions in the stories and to tie those developments to contemporaneous events. Most especially, this paper will demonstrate that these stories— patently important in their own right—have a second (and perhaps more important) function: establishing the appropriate context—be it Sunni or Shi'i—for the divisive careers of 'Ali and his descendants.

The transition from the Rashidi to the Umayyad caliphate signifies politically a turning point in the early Islamic history. The first Umayyad caliph, Mu‘awiya b. Abi Sufyan (r. 41-60/ 661-680), came to power after bloody civil war, remembered in Islamic sources as the first fitna. He also was the first Muslim ruler to turn caliphate into hereditary succession by ordering his governors to take the oath of allegiance (bay‘a) for his son Yazid (r. 60-64/ 680-683). Mu’awiya’s unprecedented move represented for many Muslims a rapture from traditional models of rulerlship set by previous caliphs. These political transformations deepened tensions and debates within early Islamic community regarding the question of succession and legitimate leadership. This dramatic turn of events led to the emergence of oppositional factions against the Umayyads, such as the ‘Alids, Kharijites, and the Zubayrids. The proposed paper analyzes the earliest Islamic views regarding Mu‘awiya’s decision to appoint Yazid as his successor and investigates the religio-political reactions to this move. The paper places an emphasis on the role of ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Abi Bakr (d. 58/666) in the Hijazi opposition to Mu‘awiya’s controversial move. It also evaluates the extent to which his image as an oppositional leader changes over the time and reasons behind these transformations. The paper also gives insights into some of the legitimizing strategies that Umayyads applied against their adversaries. Methodologically, the paper follows primarily a comparative textual analysis of relevant accounts presented by early Muslim authors, particularly Qur’anic exegetes, belletrists, and historians. The paper, therefore, sheds light on the role that tafsir and ?adith literature played in the evolution of early Islamic historical writing. The interaction between these literary genres will demonstrate that historical construction of events sometimes are more affected by narrative arrangement and the authors’ agenda than sources accessibility. In doing so, the study will also touch upon the problematic nature of Islamic sources for the construction of the earlier stages of Islamic history as they were not contemporaneous to the events they purport to describe.

The meeting that took place under the portico (saqifa) of the Banu Sa'ida clan immediately after the Prophet Muhammad's death in 632 is of momentous significance in the Muslim political imagination. The heated debates that ensued between various Arab clans jockeying for power eventually culminated in the election of Abu Bakr as the first caliph of the fledgling Muslim community. While there has been much scholarly discussion in the field of Islamic historiography about how medieval Muslim historians reported and narrated the Saqifa meeting to fit their own ideological ends, not much attention has been given to its role in political discourses. This paper fills that gap by examining how Sunni jurists and theologians from the tenth to the twelfth century utilized reports of various episodes in the Saqifa meeting as legal precedents in constructing the Sunni theory of the caliphate, especially with regard to subjects such as the necessity of the caliphate, the qualifications of the caliph, the methods of appointing a caliph, and Sunni-Shi'ite polemics regarding the legitimacy of Abu Bakr and 'Ali as rightful successors to Muhammad. Through a close reading of legal and theological works such as al-Mawardi's al-Ahkam al-sultaniyya, Abu Ya'la's al-Mu'tamad fi usul al-din, and al-Nasafi's Tabsirat al-adilla, I argue that the Saqifa meeting lent itself to varying interpretations over time, such that a given report on a particular episode of the meeting could be used to argue for radically contrasting positions regarding the caliphate. For instance, the anecdote in which Abu Bakr urged those present at the meeting to pledge the oath of allegiance to either 'Umar b. al-Khattab or Abu 'Ubayda b. al-Jarrah has been used by some writers to justify the legality of appointing a less excellent candidate (al-mafdul) as caliph; others, however, viewed this episode as demonstrating the need to support only the most excellent candidate (al-afdal) for the caliphate. Such varied interpretations of the Saqifa meeting were rooted in different visions of ideal Islamic rulership upheld by various Sunni schools of law and theology. By tracing the diverse ways in which medieval Muslim thinkers deployed historical narratives in constructing political discourses, this paper ultimately sheds light on the fluid boundaries between historical writing and political theorizing.

After the Prophet Muhammad, the most contested figure in Islamic history would be his son-in-law, ‘Ali b. Abi Talib. Within a few centuries of his death, ‘Ali became a respected authority in both Sunni and Shi‘i Islam, with the latter tradition primarily dedicated to his legacy. However, his nearly universal portrayal in Muslim literature as a pious authority obscures a centuries-long process of contestation and rehabilitation. This paper considers the methods that Sunni hadith specialists employed to reconcile expectations regarding ‘Ali’s character and image in Sunnism with the vast number of disparate accounts about him. As a sect, Sunnism encompasses Muslims who doctrinally differ from one another considerably on the subject of ‘Ali and the ahl al-bayt. For example, a few prominent Hanbalis rejected Sufi veneration of the Prophet’s relatives and hagiographical literature glorifying them. Sunnis with competing theological commitments, whether to pro-‘Alid sentiment or anti-Shi‘i polemics dealt with the early source material differently. Pro-‘Alids consistently accepted and transmitted hadith that exalted ‘Ali, while early ‘Uthmaniyya and pro-Umayyads depicted him and his followers as a scourge in the community and the source of sedition. Beginning in the ninth century, the compilers of Sunni hadith literature faced a great challenge in sifting through these conflicting narratives. How did they reconcile early portrayals of ‘Ali with their own vision of early Islamic history and what constituted orthodoxy? Although these authors are portrayed as engaging in this selective process with an air of objectivity by simply relying on narrators who were trustworthy and avoiding those who were not, the reality was much more complex. Hadith scholars clearly judged reports by their contents even when they cited problems in the chain of transmission as principal reasons for their negative assessment. When confronting a hadith that was understood to be anti-’Alid or too zealously pro-‘Alid authors utilized their editorial privilege in at least seven different ways to revise it. They include the partial or complete omission of controversial material, obfuscation of the identities of key figures, charitably reinterpreting events, the circulation of counter reports and a few other methods. This study examines hermeneutical techniques scholars utilized in the transmission and reception of hadith about ‘Ali.