Historical Origins of Sunnism and Shī‘ism Historians often focus on the turbulent nature of early Islamic history, in particular on the period immediately after the death of the Prophet Muḥammad and during the first century of Islam. The Prophet died in 632 CE, after a remarkably successful career that brought together the divergent and warring tribes of Arabia. These tribes became allied to Medina, the seat of power at the time of the Prophet. Conversions to Islam included individuals and clans, and, sometimes, whole tribes. At the time of the Prophet’s death, the Medinan community was comprised largely of Meccan migrants (muhājirūn) and the Medinan Muslims (ansār): each of which retained their tribal identities in addition to being Muslim. The Prophet’s death meant the community of Muslims – primarily situated in Medina, but also surrounding regions – were left without a leader. Even before the Prophet was buried, leading figures within the Medinan Muslim community met at the meeting place of Saqīfah in Medina to debate and discuss the issue of leadership, and to appoint a new leader. Key figures from the Meccan Muslims in Medina also joined the leadership debate. In this debate, the tribal identities of both groups (the Medinan Muslims as well as the Meccan Muslims from the Quraysh tribe) were on full display. The Medinan Muslims had provided the support that was necessary for the 10 years (622–632 CE) of success that the Prophet achieved during his residence in Medina. They felt, therefore, that they should have a stronger say in the legacy of the Prophet and the political domain that he created. Conversely, the Meccan Muslims insisted that pre-Islamic tribal identities were still politically relevant in the eyes of the Arabs. In addition, the Meccan Muslims argued that the Prophet himself was from Mecca, and therefore a leader emerging from the Medinan tribes would not be politically expedient; the surrounding tribes, they argued, would only recognize a Meccan leader. The debates were heated and the Meccan participants, headed by senior figures such as ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb and Abū Bakr, prevailed. In the meeting, ‘Umar nominated Abū Bakr to be the leader (caliph) of the community. Abū Bakr had been a close adviser to the Prophet and was close to him throughout his prophetic career. ‘Umar’s nomination of Abū Bakr led to the acceptance of Abū Bakr by a significant number of participants but also rejection by some leaders of Medina. Despite all the difficulties in the meeting, Abū Bakr became the leader of the community, the Prophet’s first successor, who came to be known as the “First Rightly Guided Caliph.”

Despite the conflict, the appointment of a leader in Medina was supported by the majority of the community at the time, and this political leadership remained within the Meccan Muslim community. Before Abū Bakr died (in 634 CE) he nominated another Meccan Muslim, ‘Umar, to be the leader of the community. In turn, just before his death, ‘Umar nominated six people (all of whom were Meccans), one of whom was potentially to succeed him. One of these was ‘Uthmān, who subsequently became the leader after ‘Umar’s death. ‘Alī became the fourth caliph after a turbulent ending to ‘Uthmān’s caliphate, which resulted in ‘Uthmān’s assassination. Following the assassination, divisions within the Muslim community increased significantly: namely, a split between those who were pro-‘Uthmān and those who opposed him. Although ‘Alī remained the leader for 4–5 years, his rule was marred by conflicts and wars between various camps in the Muslim community. ‘Alī himself eventually faced a violent death at the hands of his opponents. The first century of Islam can be described as fluid in nature, and following these events as well as heated debates on the nature of religious and political authority in early Islam, it took roughly 200 years for the basic ideas of Sunnism and Shī‘ism to develop into what they are today. In relation to early theological questions, one of the earliest to arise was how to define a Muslim believer, as opposed to a hypocrite (munāfiq). Questions were asked about the limits of tolerance as far as the definition of a Muslim and a person’s key beliefs were concerned. The distinction between a Muslim and non-Muslim and a believer and unbeliever was also debated, and ideas in relation to these issues were refined. Whereas debates such as these unfolded in the first century, the second and third centuries of Islam were characterized by the emergence of distinct Sunnī and Shī‘ah identities. Adherents to Sunnism asserted the importance of broad consensus in the community and placed their faith in the community’s guidance in relation to political questions. Put simply, they emphasized that authority should be vested in the community. For Sunnīs, part of Muslim identity was the degree to which they followed the example of the Prophet: that is, his sunnah. As long as a Muslim followed the sunnah of the Prophet and the book of God (the Qur’ān), then he or she was considered to be authentically connected to Sunnī Islam, at least in its key aspects. A Sunnī Muslim, therefore, accepts that political authority is vested in the community, and that the consensus of the community is the guiding principle for understanding and following the sunnah and the Qur’ān. The Shī‘ah, however, adopted a different view: the Prophet’s spiritual (alongside his political) authority needed to be maintained in the postprophetic context. The Shī‘ah came to believe that this spiritual authority could solely be passed down through the Prophet’s descendants. The hereditary line, according to the Shī‘ah, continued from the Prophet to his son-in-law, ‘Alī, and then to ‘Alī’s children. Crucially, for the Shī‘ah, postprophetic leadership was outlined by the Prophet himself, and, accordingly, ‘Alī was expected to be the Prophet’s rightful successor. A number of statements are drawn on by the Shī‘ah to support this position. In one ḥadīth, for example, the Shī‘ah report that the Prophet said, “Alī is from me and I am from ‘Alī” (Momen 1985, p. 17). They also identified a range of other sayings that have been attributed to the Prophet on this question. The Shī‘ah also refer to an event that, according to them, occurred in Ghadīr Khumm (located between Mecca and Medina) in 632 CE, just before the Prophet died. According to the report, the Prophet declared he was leaving two very important things that together would prevent the Muslim community from going astray: the Qur’ān – the Book of God – and ‘itrah – the Prophet’s family (understood as represented by ‘Alī). (See http:// www.al-islam.org/ghadir/incident.htm for a range of views on this issue from a Shī‘ah point of view.)

Sunnism The term “Sunnī” comes from the Arabic term sunnah. “Sunnah” refers to “the normative practice of the Prophet, as in the phrase ahl al-sunnah wa al-jamā‘ah, the people of the sunnah and the community [or collectivity]” (Berkey 2003, pp. 142–143). Sunnī Islam is the dominant expression of Islam, and it is currently followed by approximately 80–85% of Muslims around the world (Mathewson Denny 2009). In the early centuries, Sunnī Islam developed its own legal and theological schools and a specific political theory (ibid.). As such, its difference from Shī‘ism is twofold: the distinction between Sunnī and Shī‘ī Islam “rests in the first place upon different memories of what occurred in the earliest years of Islam, and second on radically different views of the nature and locus of religious authority” (Berkey 2003, p. 142). For Sunnīs, the central idea is “that the community as a whole had got things right, that at least in broad outlines it was following the will of God” (ibid.). This is epitomized in the famous statement attributed to the Prophet: “My community will never agree upon an error” (ibid.). The emphasis on community and communal consensus lent itself to the development of jurisprudence as a way of managing this approach. That is to say, alongside the development of Sunnism emerged the legal system of sharī‘ah: “the privileging of the consensus of the community brings us to the central question of the law, and of the formation of a science of jurisprudence” (ibid., p. 143). In relation to this, Berkey (ibid., p. 146) argues: The formation of Islamic law constituted a critical step in the consolidation of a unifying if not entirely uniform Muslim identity, a means for delineating what it meant to be a Muslim while at the same time accommodating the growing diversity of outlook and practice within the Muslim community. Overall, there are four sources or principles (uṣūl) of Islamic law according to Sunnism. The first is the Qur’ān, Islam’s primary text. The second is the sunnah, the normative behavior of the Prophet, which culminated in six canonized ḥadīth collections. The third source is qiyās (analogical reasoning), a method of legal interpretation to be used “where no clear, explicit, revealed text or general consensus existed” (Esposito 2011, p. 83). The fourth source is ijmā‘ (the consensus of the community). While the idea of community was, in the first instance, tied to the whole Sunnī community, over time it was redefined “in a more restricted sense as the community of legal scholars or religious authorities who act on behalf of and guide the entire Muslim community” (ibid., p. 83). There are four schools of law (madhāhib; singular madhhab) that developed as extensions of Sunnī legal thought. Each is named after a leading figure of the school, but they are ultimately the culmination of many legal scholars’ work. The schools consolidated by the tenth century CE. The independent development of jurisprudence first took shape under the Umayyad dynasty. Under the ‘Abbāsīds, legal science was developed in a more systematic way. In particular, this involved the development of hermeneutical concepts such as maṣlaḥah, the derivation and application of a juridical ruling that is in the public interest; qiyās, the use of analogy; ijtihād, independent reasoning; and istiḥsān, the preference for a ruling that a jurist deems most appropriate under the circumstances. As the work of the jurists ( fuqahā) became increasingly systematic, different schools of thought began to unfold (Takim 2003). In the early years, development of the various legal schools was tied to geographic place, and, as such, they were influenced by local particularities (ibid.). The Mālikī school, for example, is attributed to Mālik b. Anas (d. 179/795), and was based in Medina. This school of law put a strong emphasis on the practices of the people of Medina. This is based on the idea that these practices were largely based on those of the Prophet himself as he spent the last ten years of his life there. Today, this school is dominant in North, Central, and West Africa. The Ḥanafī school is attributed to Abū Ḥanīfah (d. 150/767), and was based in Kūfah. Rather than just developing legal points or rulings according to the traditions of the Prophet, the Ḥanafī school emphasized reason to some extent in the development of jurisprudence (Takim 2003). Today, this school is dominant in the Arab Middle East and South Asia. The Shāfi‘ī school is attributed to Muḥammad b. Idrīs al-Shāfi‘ī (d. 205/820). For Shāfi‘ī, jurisprudence must be based on the Book of God and the sunnah of the Prophet. It is through the ḥadīth we must get a sense of what the sunnah of the Prophet was, he argued. Shāfi‘ī’s approach fundamentally impacted the subsequent development of Sunnī jurisprudence. Today, this school is dominant in East Africa, southern Arabia, and Southeast Asia. The Ḥanbalī school is attributed to Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (d. 241/855). According to this school, the traditions of the prophet are fundamentally superior to any form of human reasoning in relation to how law is derived. Today, this school is dominant in Saudi Arabia (Esposito 2011, p. 85) 

Sunnī Theology Among Muslims, a range of theological debates began in the very first century of Islam. These intensified over the course of the second and third centuries. For Sunnī Muslims, the most important theological school is that of Ash‘arīs, associated with the theologian Abū al-Ḥasan ‘Alī b. Ismā‘īl al-Ash‘arī (d. 331/942). Al-Ash‘arī was initially associated with the most influential theological school of the third century of Islam
the Mu‘tazilah
which adopted a strong rationalist position on theological matters. However, he came to reject and criticize many of the positions of the Mu‘tazilah. Although al-Ash‘arī did not completely disregard the use of reason in theological matters, he adopted some of the positions held by the Mu‘tazilah’s opponents, who were strongly literalist. In that sense, al-Ash‘arī can be seen as following a middle position between the strong rationalist and literalist trends in theological thinking at the time. Gradually, the theological ideas adopted by this middle position came to be accepted as part of the most influential Sunnī theological thought. (Saeed 2006, pp. 67–69). Some of the important theological ideas of the Ash‘arīs include: • The first duty of a human being is to know God. Although it is possible to know God through reason, the obligation to know comes through revelation, which is therefore superior to reason. • There is nothing like God in creation. In describing God, we should primarily use those attributes of God that are mentioned in the Qur‘ān. The attributes of power, knowledge, life, will, hearing, speech, and sight subsist in God eternally and are inherent in God’s Essence. • The Qur’ān is the immutable, eternal, and uncreated word of God. • Sinful acts do not have a bearing on the faith of a Muslim. This is essentially a rejection of the Mu‘tazilī position that committing a grave sin may lead to a Muslim’s loss of faith. • It is possible to see God in the next life in a manner that is appropriate, which may not be the way we see in this world. • Human beings do not possess the power to originate or complete an act; that power belongs to God alone. However, they have the ability to freely choose between right and wrong. This means they are responsible for their choices (Saeed 2006, pp. 67–69). The second most important school of theology for Sunnīs is the Maturīdīs. While there are differences between them and the Ash‘arīs, the similarities far outweigh their differences. These two schools of theology remain dominant to this day in Sunnī Islam