# The First Four Caliphs of Islam

*Exported from [Holy-Writings.com](https://www.holy-writings.com/) on 2026-06-20 — 1 clipping.*

---

> Source: Bahá'í Library Online (bahai-library.com), curated by Jonah Winters. Used by permission of the curator. Original citation: Betsy Omidvaran, The First Four Caliphs of Islam, bahai-library.com.
> ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
> 
> The First Four Caliphs of Islam
> Betsy Omidvaran
> 
> Abstract
> This paper was originally written for submission during the final year of an
> undergraduate Degree in Arabic. Many Bahá’ís appear to know little about
> Islam and most of they do know is based on the Shi’i tradition, which does
> not constitute the mainstream of Islamic studies in general. It was thought that
> this overview, presented from a perspective of Western scholarship, of the first
> four caliphs, known as “rightly-guided”, would help a Bahá’í readership put
> the subject into a broader perspective than exists at present.
> 
> At the time of the death of Muhammad in 632 CE, Islam and the Islamic
> community were vibrant, active and expanding. They controlled most of the Arabian
> Peninsula and had already begun to expeditions north into Syria and west into
> Africa. The two great empires, the Byzantine (East Roman) to the north-west
> (covering present-day Syria, Palestine, Turkey and Egypt) and the Sassanian
> (Persian) to the north-east (covering present-day Iran and Iraq), had exhausted
> themselves in warring with each other. In the few years after 610, Persia had taken
> over most of the Byzantine lands and even almost besieged Constantinople, and only
> in 628 had Byzantium regained the territory and taken the Persian capital. The
> Byzantine Emperor made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 630, two years before the
> death of Muhammad.
> From the perspective of a historian, the thirty years after the death of
> Muhammad are very problematic. There are very few historical sources from
> Byzantium covering this period and they generally date from one or two centuries
> later. The most important are Nicephorus (late eighth century) and Theophanes (early
> ninth). There are numerous non-historical sources, such as sermons, religious tracts
> and poetry, which can reveal a few details if carefully sifted: there would not be
> enough detail to get any kind of clear picture. The Islamic sources, on the other
> hand, are voluminous and detailed. They, too, however, date from a later period.
> Three of the best-known and reliable are al-Baladhuri, al-Tabari and al-Ya’qubi, all
> from the late ninth century, but are held to be based on much earlier materials. In
> the past twenty years, much work has been done to critically examine the sources,
> as well as to communicate between those who specialise in Byzantium and those
> who specialise in Islam (from Kaegi). Most experts still accept, with a variety of
> caveats, the broad outline of events as they are presented in the Islamic sources.
> (Bahá’ís are inestimably privileged in that that their history is so well-documented in
> the contemporaneous records of writers like Nabíl-i-A’zam).
> Muhammad’s death, which occurred on 8 June 632 CE, was unexpected, and
> He had left no clear instructions as to His successor. Thus, His followers had to
> decide how the governance of the community would be organised and how it would
> continue to progress and expand. There were three main groupings within the central
> body of the Muslims: the ansar, the natives of Medina who had invited the
> persecuted Muslims there from Mecca, the muhájírun, the early Muslims who
> followed Muhammad from Mecca to Medina, and the Meccans, who converted later
> 
> and after the Prophet overcame Mecca. After some initial discussion of the rights of
> these three groups, they finally agreed on Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr had been one of
> the earliest Muslims, accompanying Muhammad on His emigration from Mecca to
> Medina, and had been asked by Muhammad to lead the prayers during His illness.
> Abu Bakr was determined to carry forward the programme for expansion that
> Muhammad had initiated. However, his first priority had to be the re-conquest of
> the tribes who had pledged their allegiance to Muhammad, a series of conflicts
> known as the Riddah Wars. Riddah is usually translated as “apostasy,” and many
> of the tribes felt that they had a treaty with Muhammad which did not have to be
> honoured after His death. This was seen as apostasy from their declared Islamic
> faith. In the process, the other tribes which had been waiting to see the outcome of
> these conflicts and some of those who had never been under the banner of Islam
> were won over. Another aspect of this problem was that a number of people had
> arisen even before Muhammad’s death who claimed to be prophets, on a par with
> Him, to their particular tribes. They had seen this as their opportunity. Success in
> re-establishing Muslim control was a major achievement of his reign as Caliph, the
> name which he took for the office of successor to the Prophet; without this
> accomplishment, the future unified expansion of the Islamic community could not have
> taken place.
> At the same time as he was prosecuting these wars, with the support of the
> Meccans and Medinans and nearby tribes, he sent expeditions north to Palestine and
> to Mesopotamia, as the Prophet had been planning to do before His death. The
> success of Abu Bakr’s two enterprises, internal and external, were interlinked since
> “[t]he Arabian tribes would probably never have been conquered had not the
> conquests in the north provided an attractive solution to the internal economic
> problems of the peninsula. The first northern expeditions were merely raiding parties
> aiming at plunder not conquest. The latter only followed when the weakness of the
> enemy was revealed.” (1)
> The main general of the Riddah Wars was Khalid ibn al-Walid, a Meccan from
> a powerful clan who had lately converted. Once the wars within the peninsula were
> successful, he took it upon himself to begin venturing into the territory of the
> weakened Sassanian Empire, where the booty to be gained was rich. In 634 Abu
> Bakr sent four separate contingents into Byzantine territory, which indicated that they
> were not looking for a military confrontation, but for the fruits of raiding. (2)
> However, the Byzantine Empire took the threat seriously and sent an army to meet
> them. The Muslims requested reinforcements and Abu Bakr felt it was too
> dangerous to use the tribesmen who had just been overcome in the Riddah Wars,
> so he directed Khalid and his army in Iraq to go to their assistance. Khalid
> assumed command of the combined forces and they won a decisive victory at
> Ajnadayn.
> Abu Bakr died before he heard the news of the victory. His term as Caliph
> lasted for only two years, from 8 June 632 to his death on 23 August 634, but it
> was very eventful, providing a crucial foundation for future growth and development.
> Before his death he designated Umar ibn al-Khattab as his successor. ‘Umar was
> also one of the Muhájírun, commanded respect among the Muslim community and
> had proposed Abu Bakr as leader upon the Prophet’s death. He added the title
> 
> Amir ul-Mu’minin (“prince of the believers”) to the title of Caliph. He was known
> for his integrity and ability, and he provided a firm foundation for the future
> administration of the vast territory that the Arabs were to control. For example, he
> set up the diwan system for dividing the spoils of war and a clear revenue system
> for subjugated people, which was important for the continuity of the empire.
> Unlike Abu Bakr, ‘Umar favoured the Muhájírun over the ansar, and among the
> newly converted Meccans, he favoured the rich and powerful Umayyad clan, which
> would have implications in the future. In addition, “‘Umar’s first act was to reverse
> Abu Bakr’s policy towards the ex-rebels of the ridda. He not only allowed but
> even encouraged their participation in the raids on Sasanian territories... It was the
> most meaningful step towards the unification of the Arabs.” (3) During ‘Umar’s reign
> from 23 August 634 to 4 November 644, the first and greatest conquests were
> achieved by the Muslim armies.
> There is a historiographical problem here, described by Kennedy:
> 
> The Arab conquests in Syria and Iraq pose the historian an unusual
> problem. The Arab literary sources which describe them are very full...
> They are, on the other hand, hopelessly confused about the chronology and
> order of the main events. (4)
> 
> That said, it is possible to give a general description of the events. In Palestine and
> Syria against the Byzantine Empire following the victory at Ajnadayn in 634, there
> were a number of sieges and small confrontations. The last and most major battle
> was that on the Yarmuk River, probably in 636 or 637, which led to the final fall
> of Damascus and the breaking of the Byzantine army in Syria. The Byzantine
> Emperor Heraclius at this point abandoned Syria. In early 638, the Muslims took
> Jerusalem and, as the Patriarch would surrender only to the Caliph himself, ‘Umar
> travelled to Jerusalem, the first and only time that he travelled from Medina to the
> scene of the conquests. The Umayyad Mu’awiya ibn Abi Sufyan was appointed
> governor of Syria, and he set about establishing garrison towns and settling it with
> divisions of the conquering army.
> In relation to the Sassanian Empire, “… in the summer of 637, 20000 Persians
> were decisively defeated by a far smaller Arab force at Qadisiya. The Arabs
> followed up their victory by capturing the Persian capital of Ctesiphon... and
> occupied the whole of Iraq.” (5) A decisive victory was won by the Arabs at
> Nihavand in 642. The battle for most of the remainder of the Sassanian Empire
> went on for several more years, with successive Sassanian kings retreating into the
> mountains and trying desperately to hold on.
> A small force had gone into Egypt, although the ‘Umar had initially been reluctant
> to sanction it, and laid siege to Alexandria. In 641, they gained control of
> Alexandria by treaty. Four years later, Byzantium made an effort to regain it but
> failed in the end.
> The Muslim community during the caliphates of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar went from
> strength to strength. Muslim authority within Arabia was firmly established and the
> unity of the Muslim community largely maintained. The conquests included victory
> over the two most powerful empires of the day and a vast expansion of the lands
> 
> over which they had hegemony, from southern Arabia west into Iran, north to the
> border of Anatolia and east into Egypt. It seems from this record that these first
> twelve years comprised all gain and virtually no setbacks, and so it was. However,
> some of the seeds of future setbacks had been sown and these became evident
> during the reigns of the next two Caliphs.
> ‘Umar was murdered on 3 November 644 by a slave. Although the details are
> unclear, it seems that it was not for political but for personal reasons. His successor,
> Uthman ibn Affan, was chosen by a shura, appointed by ‘Umar on his deathbed.
> This was a group of six likely successors, who were to consult among themselves
> and decide who the successor would be. The six included ‘Alí, the Prophet’s cousin
> and the husband of His daughter, Fatimah, and the final choice was between ‘Alí
> and Uthman. Uthman, like Mu’awiya, the governor of Syria mentioned above, was
> a member of the family Umayya. Although Uthman himself was an early convert to
> Islam, his election represents a victory for the Meccans who were later converts to
> Islam and who still carried their previous sense of superiority to other Arabs. He
> was weak in character and easily influenced by members of his family to appoint
> members of powerful Meccan families to important posts. By this time, the conquests
> had come up against geographical barriers and, while the domains continued to
> expand, the expansion was not at anything approaching the rate of that during the
> reigns of the first two Caliphs.
> His reign lasted for twelve years, from 4 November 644 to 17 June 656. Many
> of his appointees to administrative posts were causing discontent among the residents
> of their areas. In the end a group of discontented soldiers from the army in Egypt
> came to Medina to complain to the Caliph, caused turmoil in Medina and in the
> process he was killed. “The murder marks a turning point in the history of Islam.
> The slaying of a Caliph by rebellious Muslims established a mournful precedent and
> gravely weakened the religious and moral prestige of the office as a bond of unity
> in Islam.” (6)
> Despite the weaknesses of his reign, ‘Uthman made an important contribution to
> the religious unity of Islam. By his time, discrepancies had arisen in people’s
> memories of the sacred text of Islam, the Qur’án, and different readings were
> beginning to lead to disputes. ‘Uthman arranged for the text to be collected and
> regularised, so that there was only one authentic version. “For the history of Islam,
> this editing of the Qur’án was the most important and fruitful achievement of the
> reign of ‘Uthman.” (7)
> Following ‘Uthman’s death, ‘Alí was acknowledged as Caliph and most of the
> remaining companions of the Prophet in Medina pledged their allegiance to him. But
> he immediately began to face opposition and problems. ‘Alí had been closely
> associated with the ansar in Medina, which led to opposition from the Muhájírun of
> the Quraysh tribe, who had been in the ascendant under ‘Uthman. Several of them
> left to find military assistance elsewhere; ‘Alí was forced to follow in order to find
> his own military support, and the two armies met in the Battle of the Camel. ‘Alí’s
> army won. “But for the first time there had been civil war among the Muslims, the
> gate of fitna, a strife, had been opened and, like Pandora’s box, once opened it
> was impossible to close.” (8)
> 
> ‘Alí felt the need to restore a spirit to the administration more in keeping with
> the religion of Muhammad and began to remove many of ‘Uthman’s appointees,
> whom he felt were not living up to the standards of Islam. He was able to
> establish his authority in most areas of the empire, with the exception of Syria,
> where Mu’awiya had control. He refused to be removed and, as he was ‘Uthman’s
> closest living relative, he demanded that ‘Uthman’s murderers be punished before he
> would recognise ‘Alí as Caliph. Unfortunately for ‘Alí, he was dependent for
> support on some of the people of the city of Kufa, who had been implicated in
> the murder. ‘Alí led an army against Mu’awiya and they met at Siffin in 657. ‘Alí
> was obliged to agree to the arbitration proposed by Mu’awiya, and they chose two
> arbitrators, and agreed to meet again in a year. This greatly weakened ‘Alí, as he
> showed himself to be dealing with Mu’awiya on equal terms, and much of his
> support melted away. When the year was up, the result of the arbitration seemed
> to favour Mu’awiya and both continued to look for support. During this period a
> faction of his supporters formed a separate group who criticised his resort to
> arbitration and what they felt was his betrayal of his position. They came to be
> known as Kharijites (Khawarij) and continued to make an impact on the Islamic
> community for centuries, by their insistence on purity and frequent resort to violence.
> ‘Alí was assassinated in 661 by one of these erstwhile supporters and Mu’awiya
> became Caliph, the beginning of the Umayyad Caliphate.
> The Shi’ih branch of Islam would say that the setbacks began at the very
> beginning as they quote a tradition in which the Prophet Himself had appointed ‘Alí
> to succeed Him. They believe that this was ignored to the detriment of the progress
> of Islam.
> Thus ended the rules of the four Rightly-Guided Caliphs. During the reigns of the
> first two, the gains greatly exceeded the setbacks, but during the reigns of the
> second two, setbacks multiplied and while the territorial gains were preserved, the
> vast potential was greatly hampered.
> 
> References
> 1. Lewis, Bernard, The Arabs in History (London: Hutchinson University Library,
> 1966), p. 52
> 2. Shaban, M.A., p. 25
> 3. Ibid., p. 28.
> 4. The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates, p. 59.
> 5. Lewis, p. 54
> 6. Ibid., p. 61
> 7. Spuler, Bertold, The Age of the Caliphs (Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers, 1995),
> p. 31
> 8. Kennedy, p. 76.
> 
> Bibliography
> Donner, Fred McGraw, The Early Islamic Conquests (Princeton: Princeton University
> Press, 1981).
> Kennedy, Hugh, The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphs (Essex, Longman
> Group, 1986).
> 
> Lewis, Bernard, The Arabs in History (London: Hutchinson University Library,
> 1966).
> Shabban, M.A., Islamic History, A.D. 600-750 (Cambridge: Cambridge University
> Press, 1971).
> Spuler, Bertold, The Age of the Caliphs (Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers,
> 1995).
>
> — *The First Four Caliphs of Islam (Used by permission of the curator)*