Notes 281The break with the Jews and Christians is examined in M. J. Kister, “Do Not
Assimilate Yourselves... ,” in Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam (1989). For more
on Muhammad’s monotheistic pluralism, see Mohammed Bamyeh, The Social Ori-
gins of Islam (1999), pp. 214–15. With the conquest of Persia, the Zoroastrians, who
are given special mention in the Quran (22:17) and who have a “book” (the Gathas)
which is older than both the Jewish and Christian texts, eventually become included
in the ahl al-Kitab. Who the Sabians were is difficult to say. Apparently, some reli-
gious groups, including a few Christian and Hindu sects, eagerly took on the Sabian
identity during the Muslim conquests in order to be counted as People of the Book
and thus be considered dhimmi. Nabia Abbot’s research on the early Muslim rela-
tions with the Jews can be found in Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri, vol. 2 (1967).
The practice of reading the Torah was, according to Abbot, characteristic of “the
early Muslims’ preoccupation with non-Islamic thought and literature,” especially
the literature of the Peoples of the Book.
- The Rightly Guided Ones
The story of Muhammad’s death is derived from Ibn Hisham, trans. Guillaume,
pp. 1012–13. Goldziher’s quote is from Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law, p.
31–32; see also his Muslim Studies (1971). John Wansbrough’s theories can be found
in the previously cited Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation
(1977), as well as The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation
History (1978). Sarjeant’s review of Wansbrough’s Quranic Studies and Cook and
Crone’s Hagarism is from the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1978). Dale F. Eick-
elman provides a social anthropologist’s perspective on the “false prophets” in
“Musaylima,” Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient (1967). For more on
the ahl al-bayt, see M. Sharon, “Ahl al-Bayt—People of the House,” in Jerusalem
Studies in Arabic and Islam (1986). It should be noted that Sharon considers the term
ahl al-bayt to be a designation that was not formulated until the Umayyad period.
While this may be true, the sentiment behind the term (that it gave the Banu
Hashim a preeminent role in society) was thoroughly understood even before
Muhammad’s death. For the opposite view on the religious influence of the early
Caliphate, see Patricia Crone and Martin Hinds, God’s Caliph: Religious Authority in
the First Centuries of Islam (1986).
By far the best analysis of the succession question is Wilferd Madelung’s The
Succession to Muhammad (1997). To say that this chapter relies on Professor
Madelung’s work would be an understatement. I also recommend Rafiq Zakaria’s
The Struggle Within Islam (1988); Abu Bakr’s speech is from page 47. Zakaria also
provides a valuable analysis of Umar’s Caliphate on pages 48–53. See also M. A. Sha-
ban’s Islamic History (1994), pp. 16–19, and Moojan Momen’s fabulous primer on
Shi‘ism, An Introduction to Shi‘i Islam (1985), pp. 9–22; Momen notes that Ibn Han-
bal records ten different traditions in which Ali is referred to as Muhammad’s
“Aaron,” p. 325. Watt’s quote is from Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, p. 36.
Umar’s physical description as well as his quote regarding kinghood is taken
from the New Encyclopedia of Islam, edited by Cyril Glasse, p. 462. For the affair of
the necklace see al-Tabari, pp. 1518–28. Though traditions claim that Umar was the
first Caliph to use the title Amir al-Mu’manin, there is evidence to suggest that this
title was used by Abu Bakr as well.
Noeldeke’s excellent essay on the Quran can be found in the Encyclopaedia
Britannica, 9th ed., vol. 16 (1891); Caetani’s article “Uthman and the Recension
of the Koran” is from The Muslim World (1915). For examples of variant readings of