Good question - what if Ali had not been murdered like Muhammad & Uthman were also, by Aisha & Abu Bakr.<quoted text>
I thankyou .
Your description of what was written reveals animosity between Muslims there and then prior to the death of Muhammad ,my curiousity asks of what sort of Islam we would see if Ali had inherited .
What would islam have been like ?
Ali did rule briefly (after a camel fight with Aisha/Bakri tribe, Ali & the medinites won).
By all accounts he was a weak & vacillating leader - sufist like and emphasizing the spiritually of a heavenly god rather than place, object & ritual worship. Remember at this stage islam was in civil war and Ali was trying to find a middle ground between the explicit pagan rutyalism of the Bakri (sunni) and the Jewish ishmaelite higher spirit man image, non object non place bound vision of muhammad. Judaism is characterized by the exclusivity of their god to believers, and so Ali's islam perhaps was too close and undifferentiated from Judaism - it would have most likely folded back into it as just another bizarre ethnic cult variation with no hallmark or iconic features.
This is still the problem with Shia today / apart from the murder of Ali and that muhammads chosen heir was denied... It's pretty much the same.
So Abu Bakr was spot on in that if you are going to lie - make it a big lie. If you are to have a heresy and wipe out & capture your rivals (the medinites/ishmaelites/jews) via a silly impressionable peon (Muhammad) then make it a big heresy. Tell massive lies, say Mecca was eternal, Abraham went there, the Quran was dictated by an angel in a cave, that there was only one Kaaba, it was eternal, the Sabean Haj was of Allah, Hubal was a spirit too not just a stone idol, the black stone was pieces of Allah's face fallen from heaven, all these 'symbols' represent literalism and tangible proofs (which Abu Bakr also owned) to pagan superstitious ignorant people.
In short : Muhammad was a trained jewish ishmaelite missionary sent to spy on & convert the quareeshi at Mecca. He was weak and succumbed to paganism. Abu Bakr then leveraged Muhammad to combine with the pagan Medina tribes to attack the Jews & moderate ishmaelites to sieze power & control.
Aisha, the pact between Abu Bakr & Muhammad then strayed, perhaps desperate to have a heir, in all likelihood Muhammad at his age with the sex rituals he participated in, and in the middle of a ghonerea plague.. would have been infertile.
Aisha's failure to produce a surviving heir and then the fallout between Muhammad & Abu Bakr meant Muhammad got scared, tried to back out, seek another path, & another heir - he went back to his jewish roots and intellectualize & 'abstract' islam, and disinherit Abu Bakr from what was his.
Ali failed to take it anywhere because he wasn't the right person and lacked the skills & support.
Abu Bakr was easily able to kill off Uthman & Ali and then take islam into a more virulent pagan literal and prescriptive set of lies & falsehoods.
Of course he could not openly scorn or mock Muhammad - because he Abu Bakr had made himself made muhammad a 'messenger'(not a prophet) of Allah..
So like how politicians speak of those before them with faint praise, muhmmmad was written out of the Quran (read it - muhammmad is allowed to say nothing in the first person, a tiny sura at the back) and now the Bakri had won.
All Muslims today - Shia or Sunni prostrate to Abu Bakr's objects, a god of his tribes making, a place of them only, a heaven earth portal that moved to where he wanted it to be. They quote from a Quran that he doctored and structured as he wanted it to be. They believe the myths and evil that he dribbled into muhammads ear as the metaphoric Gabriel.
Abu Bakr ; the father of the Islamic heresy. Muhahammad a weak stooge, murdered.. too weak to resist evil, or to be a victim of it.
Ali ; an unfortunate victim of convience, not up
to the task.