The fundamental difference concerning Abu Bakr between Sunni and Shia Muslims lies in their stance on his legitimacy as the first leader of the Muslim community after the death of the Prophet Muhammad.
The Historical Context of the Split
Following the passing of the Prophet Muhammad, the nascent Muslim community faced the critical question of succession – who should lead them? This pivotal moment in history led to the divergence that created the two major branches of Islam we know today: Sunni and Shia.
According to historical accounts, including the provided reference, the distinction arose from the different individuals or groups the early Muslims chose to follow as their leader:
- Those who followed the Prophet's closest companion (Abu Bakr) became known as Sunni (the followers of the Prophet's example – Sunnah).
- Those who followed the Prophet's cousin and son-in-law ('Ali) became known as Shi'a (the followers of the Party of 'Ali – Shi'atu Ali).
Thus, Abu Bakr is central to the definition and historical origin of the Sunni identity.
Sunni Perspective on Abu Bakr
For Sunnis, Abu Bakr was the rightful first Caliph (successor) of the Prophet Muhammad. They believe he was chosen for this role through a process involving consultation and consensus among prominent companions, reflecting the will of the community. Sunnis deeply respect Abu Bakr as one of the "Rightly Guided Caliphs" (al-Khulafa ar-Rashidun), known for his piety, closeness to the Prophet, and leadership during a critical period. His leadership is seen as legitimate and in accordance with the Prophet's example (Sunnah).
Shia Perspective on Abu Bakr
Shias hold a different view regarding the succession. They believe that leadership after the Prophet Muhammad was meant to remain within his family, specifically designated by divine instruction through the Prophet. They believe that 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, the Prophet's cousin and son-in-law, was the rightful successor and the first Imam. While Shias generally respect Abu Bakr as a companion of the Prophet, they do not accept him as the legitimate first Caliph. From their perspective, the leadership should have passed directly to 'Ali.
Key Difference Summarized
The difference concerning Abu Bakr can be succinctly put as a disagreement over the legitimacy of his leadership immediately after the Prophet Muhammad.
| Aspect | Sunni View | Shia View |
|---|---|---|
| Succession Principle | Based on consensus/election | Based on divine designation within the Prophet's family |
| Abu Bakr's Role | The legitimate first Caliph | Not the legitimate first successor |
| Figure Followed Initially | Abu Bakr (leading to the name "Sunni") | 'Ali (leading to the name "Shi'a") |
Insights into the Difference
- The Sunni perspective views Abu Bakr's selection as following the Sunnah (path or example) of the Prophet in terms of community decision-making for leadership.
- The Shia perspective views the Prophet's actions and sayings as indicating divine appointment for 'Ali, making his succession the only legitimate path.
- This foundational disagreement over the first successor profoundly influences subsequent views on leadership, religious authority, and historical interpretations within each branch.
In essence, the historical choice to follow Abu Bakr or 'Ali defines the initial split between Sunnis and Shias, making Abu Bakr a figure central to understanding the origin of the Sunni school of thought.
