The Middle East today is not just a region of oil wealth, collapsed states, and proxy wars. It is a battlefield haunted by a decision made in 632 CE, the year the Prophet Muhammad died. That decision, or, more accurately, that power struggle, over who should lead the Muslim community after Muhammad set into motion a chain of blood feuds, betrayals, and massacres that still dictate the politics of the region.
Understanding today’s geopolitics requires tracing the origins of that divide. To see why Shia militias cry “Ya Husayn” as they march into battle, why Sunnis dismiss Shia as “rafidah” (rejectors), and why Iran and Saudi Arabia fight over every capital from Beirut to Sana’a, you must begin in Medina, in June 632, when Muhammad’s death left a power vacuum no one could fill without blood.
The Crisis After Muhammad’s Death
When Muhammad died on June 8, 632 CE, Islam was barely two decades old. He had united fractious Arabian tribes, destroyed pagan sanctuaries, and set the foundations of a new empire. But he left no written instructions on succession. His only surviving child was Fatimah, married to Ali ibn Abi Talib, Muhammad’s cousin and one of his earliest followers. Many believed Ali, by both kinship and merit, was the obvious successor. But politics moved faster than piety. While Ali and the Prophet’s family prepared the burial, a group of influential Muslims gathered at the Saqifah of Banu Sa’ida, an open hall in Medina. The Ansar (local Medinan converts) wanted leadership for themselves, fearing domination by the Quraysh (Meccan elite). But Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr, two of Muhammad’s closest companions, rushed to seize the moment. Abu Bakr argued that leadership must remain with the Quraysh, Muhammad’s tribe, to preserve unity. In a hurried pledge, he was named caliph, “successor.”