In the 11th year of the Hijrah...

In the 11th year of the Hijrah, the Prophet made a solemn pilgrimage to Makkah, known as Hajjat al-wadā' [the Farewell Pilgrimage].[^3] During his return, he stopped on the 18th of Dhul-Hijjah at the pond of Ghadīr Khumm in front of 120,000 Muslims.

Shī'ite commentators point to the event of Ghadīr as the definitive proof, not only of the fulfillment of the Prophet's mission, but of God's permanent commitment to the preservation of Islām by the concession of a wilāyah to His Final Messenger.[^4]The perfection and completion of Islām was conditioned and dependent on the designation of the Prophet's successor for, as we read in the Qur'ān [5:3], the Messenger and the guidance go hand and hand.

As a result, both the Prophethood and the Imāmate must follow the same path. Zayd ibn al-Arqam relates that “the first to visit and congratulate 'Alī were Abū Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthmān, Talhah, and Zubayr: the congratulations and the bay'ah [oaths of loyalty] continued until sunset.[^5]What stands out from this and other trustworthy and authentic Sunnī traditions is that when the Prophet publicly appointed 'Alī as his successor and executor, placing his wilāyah in his descendants, neither Abū Bakr nor 'Umar ibn al-Khattāb, who ended up preceding 'Alī in the succession of the historical Caliphate, contested the matter nor did they have the audacity to claim any special rights.

Abū Bakr never insisted upon his superiority over 'Alī. He never claimed to have more right to rule over the Muslims and for them to obey him. To be precise, the event that unleashed an endless series of internal division, known by Arab historians as the fitnah [insubordination / sedition], came quite unexpectedly. It coincides with Abū Bakr, the son of Abū Quhāfah, being illegitimately appointed as the successor of the Prophet.

His appointment took place through the collusion of powerful interests. It was they who granted him the leadership of the Islāmic community by means of a pre-Islāmic consultative assembly [ shūrā ].[^6] When commenting on this practice, Modernist Sunnī scholars commonly claim that Abū Bakr was recognized as Caliph through a “democratic” election, based on the decision and consensus of a majority.[^7]This gives the false impression that this ancient form of consultation is comparable to the modern democratic systems found in the Western world.

It must be recalled, though, that the people did not participate in this elective act in the political sense that we understand it today.