Professor Mahmoud M. Ayoub is able to provide us with almost painfully granular details of the historical Rule of the four “Rightly Guided” caliphs in his book, The Crisis of Muslim History. He accomplishes this largely through the voices of Muslim historians and traditionalists, noting that (1) this formative period is covered by “only a few specialized studies not readily accessible to the student of religion” [vii], and the primary sources relied upon “were written by men who were themselves deeply engaged in the centuries-long debates” concerning the outcome. [4]
For example, Ayoub provides orations and sermons “attributed” to the four Rightly-Guided Caliphs. He notes that the material is included to “reflect their status in Muslim piety rather than what they may or may not have said”. [156] The use of this is to show how these Rulers wanted Muslims to conduct themselves – for example, “the humility, piety, and upright conduct” with an “unshakable commitment to justice and clemency in managing the affairs of their subjects”.
Therefore the suggestion can be drawn from this record that the “facts” are not what we can place our confidences upon. Perhaps the absence of corroboration and records points us to this reading. What is far more important is the examplar: Not what a man did, but what standards are to be drawn for Rulers and communities. And these standards are preserved in Qur’an. Surely what is important is whether Muslims should be “just” and whether the Community tolerates and welcomes the diversity of creation, as is clearly taught in the Scripture. Qur’an 5:48; 5:69; 29:46.
The question Ayoub tabled was whether the “history” is really possible. History does not write itself, and depends upon eyewitnesses. It makes no sense to disqualify the witnesses for the bias of being there. Ayoub uses the narratives as “context”, while admitting that “the actual events surrounding this crisis were soon shrouded with thick layers of myth, legend, and ideological considerations…”. [4]
Although most accounts lack corroboration from multiple or objective sources, or suffer gaps in the record, by selecting a diversity of these voices, Ayoub hopes to find a “good measure of credibility”. This methodology is brilliant. By employing diversity to find history, he shows us how our differences can be used to find unity.
Doctor Ejaz Naqvi, writing in The Three Abrahamic Testaments shows dozens of passages in the Qur’an which compliment diverse communities, and give examples of debate and disagreement. Diversity is Beauty, one of the profound themes in the Qur’an. (al-Qamar 54:49).
Ayoub appears to agree with Professor Najam Haider, who acknowledges “We have very few sources in the first century of Islam.” This bare record does not mean we table its finding forever. Indeed, volumes of history can be written from silences, from gaps. What is the significance of the lack of evidence? And archeology has been opening up every year in the Holy Lands.
The historical silence about Islam immediately after the death of the Prophet in 632 can be taken as an irenic irony. Ayoub suggests this pursuit in his description of how Ibn Qutaybah describes “the boisterous encounter between ‘Ali and Abu Bakr and ‘Umar” as “an irenic account”. [20]. The characterization follows the acknowledgement that “immediately after his accession to the caliphate, Abu Bakr had to wage bloody wars against neighboring tribes that sought either to secede from the new Islamic order or to present rival claimants to Muhammad’s prophetic authority.” [7]
Two sources which can answer the perplexity of what Ayoub describes as “the crisis” are offered by Ayoub. He notes that “classical sources” reveal three heads of traditional authority which were actually brought to bear, and of course, there was the revenant authority of the Prophet himself. As for traditional authority, it was a product of “the tribal genius of Arab society in which a chief enjoyed social prestige rather than political authority” [22]. These factors are visible from the events which clearly took place. Ayoub describes these factors:
“These were, first, blood or tribal relationship to Muhammad; second, priority in entering into Islam, and hence the length of the period of companionship (suhbah) with the Prophet; and finally, social status. It is noteworthy that none of these considerations is purely religious.”
And of course the second source would be the Qur’an itself. It is not true that the Qur’an was silent about the ruler, authority, legitimacy, succession, and heirship. But that is another subject. Here we find Ayoub’s methodology for presenting history to serve as the model for finding unity.