Early Islamic history is a tough nut to crack, whether it be through methodology or through its often narrow focus. This is exacerbated by the fact that so many texts emerged decades after the fact, generally drawing on oral traditions (which can be accurate, but aren't necessarily so). Madelung's book is very much a work of early Islamic history. Rather than looking at the "big picture," he's most interested in the factional feuds that led to the Sunni-Shi‘a split. In the end, Madelung comes out more on the side of the Shi‘a than the Sunni.

Because the Prophet Muhammad never designated a successor, the inheritor of temporal power (not necessarily spiritual--Muhammad was the last prophet in the Islamic tradition, after all) was elected by the Companions of the Prophet, and they selected Abu Bakr, Muhammad's father-in-law through his wife, ‘A'isha. The legend goes that the successor desired by the Shi‘a, ‘Ali--Muhammad's son-in-law through his daughter Fatima, had no qualms about this and immediately pledged his loyalty to Abu Bakr. Following Abu Bakr, Islamic leaders elected ‘Umar, who was assassinated. Then came ‘Uthman, whose death led to the fitna, or first internal Islamic war. Finally, ‘Ali was elected caliph and was killed before the fitna came to an end. With the death of ‘Ali, the era of the rashidun, or the Rightly Guided Ones, came to an end.

It is at this point that the Sunni and Shi‘a diverge. After all, the Shi‘a did receive their chosen caliph through ‘Ali. However, they believed that the future line of the caliphate should continue through the family of the Prophet, rather than spreading outwards into other families. Madelung argues here that Muhammad likely would have been on their side. Much has been made of the opposition to kingship (mulk) held by early Muslims, and this claim is often extrapolated to say that Muhammad would have opposed any hereditary succession. Moreover, critics of hereditary succession point to Muhammad's lack of sons surviving into adulthood, claiming that God did not want his sons to survive in order to prevent the possibility of hereditary rule.

Madelung's argument, then, hinges on Qur‘anic understandings of prophethood and succession. If I'm not mistaken, Madelung argues that the entirety of Old Testament (or Jewish) prophets belonged to the family, often succeeding one another, although not always in terms of temporal power. This is something emphasized in the Qur‘an and, as the word of God, Muhammad would have taken the importance of hereditary succession seriously. While it's true that Muhammad did not have sons, arguments made by critics ignore that Muhammad did have grandsons and sons-in-law (like ‘Ali) who could take on the mantle.

The bulk of this book is a discussion of the debates that took place between these two factions before formal schism with the death of ‘Ali. ‘A'isha, Muhammad's wife and daughter of Abu Bakr, seems to play a particularly large role in this narrative, opposing ‘Ali and the faction in favor of heredity at every turn.

This was a hard book for me to get through, but I feel that I learned a lot from it. I'm curious to see how other scholars have responded, so I'll take some time to read follow-up works in the future. I do know, however, that this book is highly respected within the field for its ability to disentangle debates that are otherwise really hard to make sense of.