The Test of Commitment to Wilayah in the Saqifah Bani Sa’idah and Contemporary Iran
The Saqifah Bani Sa’idah event is widely regarded as one of the most consequential turning points in Islamic history. More than a political development that occurred immediately after the martyrdom of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him and his family), it is viewed as a defining moment that shaped the future direction of the Muslim community and its relationship with divinely guided leadership.
The study of Islamic history is not merely a chronological examination of past events. Rather, it is an effort to understand the principles that govern the rise and decline of societies, the interaction between divine guidance and human choice, and the long-term consequences of collective decisions (Mutahhari 12). Within the Shia understanding of history, it serves as a benchmark for assessing the Muslim community’s commitment to the covenant established by the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his family) and its willingness to uphold divinely designated leadership.
According to Islamic sources, while the Muslim community was still mourning the passing of the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his family), a group assembled at the Saqifah Bani Sa’idah and selected a political leader through consultation among influential members of the community. Many Islamic scholars consider this decision to be contrary to the declaration issued at Ghadir Khumm, where Imam Ali (Peace be upon him) was introduced as the Prophet’s successor (Pishvaei 214).
From a Shia theological perspective, the significance of the Saqifah extends beyond the question of political authority. It represents a broader shift in the model of religious leadership and social guidance. Consequently, the event is often interpreted as a turning point whose effects extended into the intellectual, spiritual, and civilizational development of the Muslim world.
Against this background, comparing the Saqifah Bani Sa’idah and contemporary Iran is not intended as a simple historical analogy. Rather, it is an attempt to explore a recurring question in Islamic history: How do societies respond when confronted with the challenge of loyalty to legitimate religious leadership? Every generation encounters moments in which political calculations, social pressures, and religious commitments intersect. The choices made at such moments often shape the future of entire communities.
This study, therefore, seeks to examine the following question: What structural similarities can be identified between the test of commitment to wilayah in the aftermath of the Saqifah and the challenges faced by contemporary Iranian society? Furthermore, why has modern Iran succeeded in preventing the recurrence of a Saqifah-like pattern despite facing significant internal and external pressures?
A Review of the Saqifah Bani Sa’idah Event: Backgrounds and Motivations
According to numerous historical accounts, shortly after the demise of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him and his family), while Imam Ali (Peace be upon him) and the members of Banu Hashim were occupied with the funeral rites and burial preparations, an important political gathering took place at the Saqifah Bani Sa’idah. During this meeting, a number of prominent members of the Ansar and the Muhajirun deliberated over the future leadership of the Muslim community and ultimately pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr.
One of the detailed descriptions of this event is provided by Abdel Fattah Abdel Maqsood, who portrays the atmosphere of political urgency that prevailed in Medina at the time: “While Ali tended to his grief and washed the Prophet’s body in his room, another movement—rooted in urgent political calculations—was surging through Medina. The Ansar rushed to the Saqifah, gathering around Sa’d ibn ‘Ubadah to secure their position in the new state. When Umar heard the news, he rushed to Abu Bakr, and together they took Abu ‘Ubaydah and made their way to the suffocating Saqifah, filled with shouts and tribal clamor. There, a fierce verbal battle unfolded: The ambitions of Aws and Khazraj mixed with the fears of the Muhajirun, while old tribal rivalry sparked in their eyes. Abu Bakr calmed the uproar as Umar applied harsh pressure, until hands were struck in allegiance to Abu Bakr—in the absence of Banu Hashim, and in the absence of the man whom Ghadir had called out to” (Abdel Maqsood 215-222).
From the perspective of many Muslim historians and scholars, the decisions made at the Saqifah represented a departure from the guidance provided at Ghadir Khumm. At the same time, even scholars who approach the event from different theological perspectives generally agree that the Saqifah was shaped by a complex combination of political, social, and tribal considerations. Jafri emphasizes that the debates inside the Saqifah were heavily driven by deeply rooted tribal insecurities and power dynamics that Islam had suppressed but not entirely eradicated. The fear of losing autonomy forced both the Ansar and the Muhajirun into a hasty political compromise, demonstrating how immediate worldly calculations and group interests can easily eclipse long-term religious covenants at critical historical turning points (Jafri 51-53).
The motivations behind the Saqifah can be examined through three major factors:
-The Persistence of Tribal Considerations
Despite Islam’s unifying influence, tribal affiliations continued to shape political behavior. Wilferd Madelung argues that the debates at Saqifah reflected underlying tensions between the Ansar and the Muhajirun (45). Likewise, Mutahhari interprets the event as a case in which political expediency and inherited social habits competed with explicit religious guidance (45).
-Selfishness and Power Seeking
A group’s monopolization of the caliphate shifted governance from a value-based system to a traditional political order. Many Muslim thinkers view the Saqifah as an enduring lesson on power and moral responsibility. As Imam Khamenei states, it shows how the love of power can lead a group to seize control while another remains silent – a dynamic condemned by Imam Ali (Peace be upon him) (“Speech”).
-Insufficient Political and Religious Insight
Many Muslims failed to appreciate the significance of leadership in preserving the Prophet’s mission, allowing short-term political considerations to eclipse long-term religious commitments. Early sources show that Imam Ali (Peace be upon him) sought support, yet only a small group remained committed when sacrifice became necessary. Jafri evaluates this resistance not as a personal grievance, but as a principled constitutional protest that registered a historical and theological veto against the Saqifah model (64-65).
This interpretation is often linked to the Quranic warning that the death of a prophet must not lead a community to abandon its principles or revert to previous patterns of behavior (Quran 3:144).
The Saqifah and the Test of Commitment to Wilayah
Following the events at the Saqifah, Imam Ali (Peace be upon him) found himself confronted with a political reality that differed fundamentally from his appointment by the Prophet at Ghadir Khumm. While a significant number of Muslims pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr, Imam Ali (Peace be upon him) initially refrained from doing so and devoted himself to the funeral rites of the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his family) and the compilation of the Quran.
According to numerous historical accounts, several attempts were subsequently made to secure Imam Ali’s allegiance. During these exchanges, he repeatedly referred to the covenant of Ghadir and the responsibilities that he believed had been entrusted to him by the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his family). The tensions surrounding these events eventually extended to the household of Fatima al-Zahra (Peace be upon her), where a number of supporters of Imam Ali (Peace be upon him) had gathered.
Abdel Fattah Abdel Maqsood describes the situation as a confrontation between two competing visions of authority, one grounded in political consensus and the other grounded in divine designation. In his account, the atmosphere surrounding the house of Fatima (Peace be upon her) reflected the intensity of the disagreement that had emerged within the Muslim community immediately after the Prophet’s passing: “Some men from Banu Hashim and distinguished companions withdrew from pledging allegiance to Abu Bakr and gathered in Fatima’s house, believing the truth had been diverted. Umar, knowing full well who was inside, set out with fire and threats. Standing at her door, he called out harshly: ‘By Him in whose hand is my soul, either you come out, or I will burn this house down on whoever is inside!’ When told Fatima was in there, he arrogantly replied: ‘Even if she is!’ Fire approached the wooden door—the door before which the Prophet had often stood to ask permission. At that moment, Fatima came out, and with a sorrowful, weakened voice, cried out to her departed father: ‘O father, O Messenger of God, what have we encountered after you from Ibn al-Khattab and Ibn Abi Quhafah!’” (Abdel Maqsood 223-230).
Reports concerning the gathering at the house of Imam Ali (Peace be upon him) appear in a variety of historical sources. Al-Tabari, for example, records that Umar ibn al-Khattab approached the house in which Ali, al-Zubayr, Talhah, and several Muhajirun were present and demanded that they join the public pledge of allegiance: “Umar ibn al-Khattab came to the house of Ali, while Talhah, al-Zubayr, and some of the Muhajirun were inside with him. Umar said: ‘By God, either you come out and give your oath of allegiance, or I will burn the house down on you!’ Al-Zubayr came out with his sword drawn, but he stumbled, and the sword fell from his hand. They rushed upon him and seized him” (186-187).
Within Shia historiography, these events occupy a central place because they are viewed not merely as a political disagreement, but as a test of loyalty to the divinely appointed Imam. The significance of the episode, therefore, lies not only in the actions of political leaders, but also in the responses of ordinary believers, tribal elites, and influential companions.
A recurring theme in Islamic sources is the limited number of individuals who remained firmly committed to supporting Imam Ali (Peace be upon him) despite the changing political circumstances. Narrations attributed to Sulaym ibn Qays describe efforts by Imam Ali (Peace be upon him) to remind prominent Muslims of their commitments and to mobilize support among those who had previously expressed loyalty to him. Yet when practical sacrifice and public resistance became necessary, only a small number remained steadfast (Hilali 146).
From this perspective, the true significance of the Saqifah extends beyond the question of political succession; it became a test of priorities. Individuals were compelled to choose between competing considerations: tribal loyalties and religious commitments, political stability and perceived religious obligation, personal interests and collective responsibility. This is why the Saqifah remains relevant across generations. The event shows that recognizing the truth intellectually is not always sufficient. Historical turning points often require moral courage, social sacrifice, and a willingness to bear personal costs.
The central question is not merely whether people possessed knowledge; information alone does not guarantee correct action. Instead, the decisive factor is the inability to act in accordance with one’s convictions when faced with fear, uncertainty, and social pressures—a failure that exposes the true hierarchy of priorities governing a person’s life.
Accordingly, the lesson drawn from the Saqifah is not confined to the first generation of Muslims. It represents a recurring challenge in human history: the challenge of remaining committed to legitimate leadership when that commitment demands sacrifice. The test of wilayah, in this understanding, is, therefore, not merely a theological doctrine but a practical measure of faithfulness, responsibility, and historical awareness.
The Underlying Reasons for the Failure to Accompany the Imam
One of the most important questions raised by the events following the Prophet’s demise is why a considerable portion of the Muslim community failed to support Imam Ali (Peace be upon him), despite his indisputable merit and their knowledge of his divine appointment at Ghadir Khumm. The answer requires a deeper examination of the relationship between personal character, social priorities, and political decision-making.
Al-Sharif al-Murtada, in his classical work Al-Shafi fi al-Imamah, deconstructs the failure to support Ali (Peace be upon him) despite explicit knowledge of Ghadir. He argues that this failure was not intellectual ignorance, but a structural collapse of spiritual rectitude caused by deeply rooted inner vices—specifically hubb al-riyasah (love of worldly power) and political envy. These unpurified ailments acted as cognitive veils (hujub), leading elites to engage in opportunistic rationalizations (ta’wil) that prioritized tribal interests and political pragmatism over divine commands. Al-Murtada’s analysis implies that commitment to wilayah requires continuous alignment of the heart through self-knowledge (Ma’rifat al-Nafs), as cognitive awareness alone is easily compromised under worldly temptations (3:210-215).
History shows that even those who participated in rigorous struggles and devotions could fail to experience true spiritual awakening. Lacking internal purification, they became deceived by their own deeds. Worship and jihad are hollow if they fail to transform one’s lifestyle or readjust core priorities. At critical junctures—such as the requirement to obey the infallible Imam—such individuals prioritize personal expediencies (family, career, wealth, status) over the Imam’s mandate. Spiritual ailments—pride, fear, hypocrisy—act as chains that strip the soul of its capacity to recognize, obey, or support the Imam.
Ultimately, the abandonment of Imam Ali (Peace be upon him) must be traced back to distorted prioritization frameworks and the lack of soundness in people’s hearts. It is impossible to possess spiritual rectitude and correct discernment while remaining devoid of the insight and courage required to choose unwavering support for the Imam of one’s time.
Fatima al-Zahra (Peace Be Upon Her): Complete Devotion to the Cause of Wilayah
The study of Islamic history is not merely an examination of historical events and personalities. Rather, it is an effort to understand how individuals responded to critical moments that shaped the future of the Muslim community. Every reaction—whether resistance, silence, compromise, or steadfastness—contains lessons that extend beyond its own time and continue to speak to later generations.
Among the most significant responses to the events following the Prophet’s demise was that of Fatima al-Zahra (Peace be upon her). In Shia thought, her position occupies a unique place because it represents one of the clearest examples of unwavering loyalty to wilayah during a period of profound political and social uncertainty.
Fatima (Peace be upon her) did not endure humiliation, injury, illness, and ultimately martyrdom merely to defend her husband; rather, she sacrificed her social standing, health, and everything she possessed in absolute support of the Imam of her time. For this reason, Fatima’s public positions following the Saqifah are understood as expressions of principled commitment rather than personal grievance. Her speeches, public statements, interactions with leading figures of the community, and even her continued expressions of grief are interpreted as deliberate efforts to preserve what she regarded as the truth of the matter and to prevent the normalization of a political development she believed to be unjust. The primary historical evidence for this unyielding stance is preserved in the oldest surviving non-Shia anthology of female eloquence, Balaghat al-Nisa’ by Ibn Tayfur (d. 280 AH). In his documentation of Fatima’s historic speeches—both in the public mosque of Medina and later on her deathbed to the women of the Ansar—she masterfully deconstructs the political psychology of the Saqifah shift. Fatima (Peace be upon her) condemns the community’s retreat from the divine text into old tribal pragmatism, warning them that displacing the leadership from the ‘anchors of Prophethood’ would yield nothing but systemic, long-term civilizational bleeding (Ibn Tayfur 12-19).
Several historical reports indicate that Fatima (Peace be upon her) openly opposed the outcome of the Saqifah and defended the claim of Imam Ali (Peace be upon him) to leadership. One frequently cited report attributes the following statement to Umar: “After the Prophet, Ali, and Zubayr and their companions rose up against us, and assembled in Fatima’s house,” illustrating that the house of Fatima (Peace be upon her) had become a focal point for those who disagreed with the new political arrangement (“Lesson 27: Brief History of the Saqifah”).
Some historical sources further describe a period during which Fatima (Peace be upon her) distanced herself from those who, she believed, had failed to uphold their commitments after the Prophet’s passing. In this understanding, her actions constituted a moral protest intended to preserve the historical memory of what had occurred and to prevent future generations from viewing the events as insignificant or uncontested (Saduq 186).
From this perspective, Fatima’s legacy extends beyond the immediate political circumstances of her time. She becomes a model of principled resistance, demonstrating that commitment to truth sometimes requires individuals to endure personal hardship, social isolation, and even physical suffering in order to defend what they believe to be right.
Shia thought, therefore, regards Fatima al-Zahra (Peace be upon her) not merely as a witness to history, but as one of its most influential actors. Her response to the Saqifah is presented as an enduring lesson on the responsibilities of believers during times of crisis. Commitment to wilayah, according to this understanding, is not limited to verbal affirmation; it requires conscious action, perseverance, and a willingness to bear the consequences of defending one’s convictions.
The Consequences of Popular Complicity with the Saqifah
According to Shia belief, the significance of the Saqifah extends far beyond the immediate question of political succession. It is understood as a pivotal moment whose consequences influenced the future direction of the Muslim community, shaping not only political authority but also the manner in which religious guidance would be transmitted and implemented in society.
The mission of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him and his family) was not limited to establishing a political order. Rather, it sought to transform individuals and societies by connecting them to divine guidance and cultivating moral, spiritual, and social excellence. Throughout the twenty-three years of prophetic leadership, the foundations of an Islamic civilization were established, and a framework was introduced through which future generations could continue along this path. The event of Ghadir Khumm represented the continuation of that mission through the leadership of Imam Ali (Peace be upon him) and the line of the infallible Imams who would succeed him. In this understanding, the Imamate was not simply a political institution; it was the divinely designated mechanism through which authentic religious guidance and human development would continue after the Prophet’s passing.
From this perspective, the developments at the Saqifah marked a departure from the model established at Ghadir. Shia scholars argue that when a community chooses a path different from the one prescribed by divine guidance, the consequences extend beyond a single generation. Leadership decisions influence the values, institutions, priorities, and intellectual development of society for decades and even centuries.
For this reason, the debate surrounding the Saqifah has never been confined to the personalities involved. Rather, it concerns two different conceptions of authority and governance. One model emphasizes leadership through divine designation, while the other relies primarily upon political consultation and communal agreement. Imam Khomeini in Wilayat al-Faqih: Al-Hukumah al-Islamiyyah systematically rejects the secularized, consultative model of governance popularized by the Saqifah paradigm, which treats political authority as an unguided human affair. Instead, he posits that the divine mandate for executing Islamic law did not terminate with the occultation of the infallible Imam; rather, it devolves upon the just and capable jurist (faqih) who serves as the deputy of the infallible Imam (Khomeini 24-30).
From this perspective, the most enduring lesson of the Saqifah is the recognition that collective choices carry long-term historical consequences. Decisions made during moments of crisis rarely remain confined to their immediate context; rather, they often determine the direction of future generations. The responsibility borne by a community at critical historical junctures is, therefore, immense, as the effects of its choices may continue long after the original actors have passed from the scene.
Accordingly, the importance of the Saqifah lies not only in understanding the past, but also in appreciating the relationship between leadership, public responsibility, and historical destiny. The event serves as a reminder that societies are shaped not merely by their leaders, but also by the willingness—or unwillingness—of their members to uphold the principles they profess to believe.
A Comparative Analysis of the Saqifah Bani Sa’idah and Contemporary Iran
The purpose of a comparative analysis of the Saqifah Bani Sa’idah and contemporary Iran is not to equate two historical periods separated by more than fourteen centuries, nor to claim that their political circumstances are identical. Rather, the comparison seeks to identify recurring patterns in the relationship between religious leadership, public responsibility, and collective decision-making.
From a Shia perspective, the Saqifah represents a historical test of loyalty to divinely guided leadership. The significance of that event lies not merely in its political outcome, but in the choices made by individuals and groups when confronted with competing priorities. For this reason, many Shia thinkers regard the Saqifah as a recurring historical paradigm rather than an isolated event confined to the first century of Islam.
Within this framework, contemporary Iran is often presented as a society that has faced a similar challenge under different historical conditions. The central question is whether a community can preserve its connection to the principle of wilayah during periods of political pressure, social uncertainty, and external confrontation.
Shia political thought maintains that during the era of the Major Occultation, the responsibility of religious and political leadership falls upon the Wilayat al-Faqih. To understand why contemporary Iran succeeded where the early Ummah (Muslim community) stumbled, it is essential to trace the historical evolution of the Shia political doctrine. As Sabrina Mervin observes in her comprehensive study, the concept of wilayah was never a static theological dogma; rather, it underwent a profound transformation over centuries of occultation, evolving from a personal bond of spiritual loyalty to the infallible Imams into a fully institutionalized theory of political authority managed by the jurists (Mervin 120-125).
According to this interpretation, the Islamic Revolution of Iran represented more than a political transformation. It reflected an effort to organize society around a model of governance inspired by Islamic principles and guided by religious leadership. As a result, the survival of this system is linked to a constant test of commitment to wilayah and its principles. One of the most significant similarities drawn between the Saqifah and contemporary challenges concerns the role of public participation. In both cases, leadership alone is not considered sufficient. The success or failure of a political and religious project ultimately depends upon the willingness of ordinary people to support, defend, and preserve it.
Another important point of comparison involves the role of elites. Historical accounts of the Saqifah frequently highlight the influence of prominent tribal leaders and political figures in shaping the outcome of events (Pishvaei 302). Likewise, contemporary societies are profoundly affected by the decisions of intellectual, political, cultural, and economic elites. When elites become detached from foundational principles, they can contribute to confusion and division within society. Conversely, when they act responsibly, they can help strengthen social cohesion and public awareness.
The issue of public awareness also occupies a central place in both contexts. Shia analyses of the Saqifah often emphasize the consequences of insufficient insight regarding the significance of leadership. In contemporary Iran, there is a similar emphasis on the importance of political awareness, media literacy, and what Imam Khamenei has called the “Jihad of Clarification” (Khamenei, “Jihad of Clarification”). According to this view, modern conflicts are fought not only through military means but also through narratives, perceptions, and information.
The comparison further highlights the role of external pressure. The early Muslim community faced military threats, tribal rivalries, and political uncertainty during a period of transition. Contemporary Iran has likewise experienced prolonged external pressures, including sanctions, diplomatic isolation, security threats, and media campaigns (Khamenei, “In Iran’s Recent Unrest”). While the nature of these challenges differs substantially from those of the first Islamic century, both situations test a society’s ability to remain committed to its principles under difficult circumstances.
From the perspective advanced in this study, the primary lesson derived from this comparison is that every society eventually faces moments in which commitment to its foundational values is tested. The specific circumstances may change, but the underlying challenge remains similar: whether short-term interests, political expediency, and social pressures will prevail, or whether a community will remain faithful to the principles upon which it is established.
The experience of contemporary Iran demonstrates that a society can successfully navigate such tests when religious leadership, public participation, and collective awareness reinforce one another. In this interpretation, the continued steadfastness of the Islamic Republic is viewed as evidence that the pattern represented by the Saqifah need not be repeated whenever a community encounters historical uncertainty. To deeply grasp the psychological and theoretical mechanisms that enabled contemporary Iran to avert a Saqifah-like outcome, one can look into the psychoanalytic reading of Shia political evolution. As Lamote, Besson, and Sauret argue through a Lacanian lens, the historical trauma of the Saqifah followed by the long era of Occultation generated a structural sense of ‘absence’ and ‘loss’ within the Shia collective subconscious, which for centuries manifested primarily as a mystical quest (Lamote et al. 2-5). However, the foundational shift in contemporary Iran, spearheaded by Imam Khomeini, effectively re-channeled this latent psychological energy. By institutionalizing the Wilayat al-Faqih, the Islamic Revolution transformed that historical longing for divine authority into an active, political-revolutionary movement. Consequently, contemporary Iranian society was able to bridge the psychological gap between the spiritual ideal and political reality, mobilizing the masses to protect the contemporary manifestation of wilayah against modern cognitive and geopolitical subversions (Lamote et al. 7-10). Thus, the Islamic Revolution in Iran can be understood as a collective and successful passage through the test of commitment to wilayah—a test in which the early Ummah failed at the Saqifah.
Conclusion: Preventing the Reproduction of the Saqifah
This study has explored the structural and historical parallels between the test of commitment to wilayah after the Saqifah and the challenges of contemporary Iran. The Saqifah, as demonstrated through classical and modern sources, is not merely a static historical episode but a recurring sociopolitical paradigm. It reveals how deeply rooted tribal interests, worldly pragmatism, and a lack of political insight can lead a community to deviate from divinely designated leadership—even when individuals intellectually recognize the truth.
In contrast to the early Ummah’s fragmentation, contemporary Iranian society has built a resilient shield against the recurrence of the Saqifah. Through the institutionalization of the Wilayat al-Faqih, the traditional Shia concept of divine guidance was transformed from a mere spiritual quest into an active revolutionary framework of governance. Despite unprecedented external pressures—including economic sanctions and cognitive warfare—Iran’s resilience remains anchored in three pillars: the theological legitimacy of juristic leadership, public awareness reinforced by the Jihad of Clarification, and a collective historical memory shaped by early Islamic lessons. Ultimately, the Saqifah Bani Sa’idah and contemporary Iran demonstrate that a religious society can successfully navigate historical turning points when a deep understanding of wilayah and spiritual self-knowledge govern its collective priorities.
Works Cited
Abdel Maqsood, Abdel Fattah. Al-Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib. Vol. 1, Dar al-Raed al-Arabic, 1980.
Al-Murtada, Al-Sharif. Al-Shafi fi al-Imamah. Edited by Al-Sayyid Abd al-Zahra al-Alawi, Mu’assasat al-Sadiq, Arabic, 1985.
Al-Ṭabari, Abu Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Jarir. The History of al-Ṭabarī, Volume IX: The Last Years of the Prophet. Translated and annotated by Ismail K. Poonawala, State University of New York Press, 1990.
Hilali, Sulaym ibn Qays. Kitab Sulaym ibn Qays al-Hilali. Al-Hadi Publications, Arabic, 1995.
Ibn Tayfur, Ahmad ibn Abi Tahir. Balaghat al-Nisa’. Edited by Ahmad al-Alfi, Al-Matba’ah al-Amiriyyah, Arabic, 1908.
Jafri, S. Husain M. The Origins and Early Development of Shi’a Islam. Oxford UP, 2000.
Khamenei, Ali. “In Iran’s Recent Unrest, the Enemies’ Comprehensive Plot Failed Due to Their Miscalculations.” Khamenei.ir, 12 Jan. 2023, english.khamenei.ir/news/9416/In-Iran-s-recent-unrest-the-enemies-comprehensive-plot-failed.
—. “Jihad of Clarification Is a Necessity and the Way to Overcome Propaganda.” Khamenei.ir, 9 Jan. 2023, english.khamenei.ir/print/9424/Jihad-of-clarification-is-a-necessity-and-the-way-to-overcome.
—. “Speech at a Meeting with University Professors and Students in Shiraz.” 19 Sept. 2008.
Khomeini, Ruhollah. Wilayat al-Faqih: Al-Hukumah al-Islamiyyah [The Guardianship of the Jurist: Islamic Government]. Institute for Compilation and Publication of Imam Khomeini’s Works, 1970.
Lamote, Thierry, Dina Germanos Besson, and Marie-Jean Sauret. “From Mystical Quest to Political Movement: A Lacanian Analysis of Shia Islam.” Ágora: Estudos em Teoria Psicanalítica, vol. 23, 2020, pp. 2-10.
“Lesson 27: Brief History of the Saqifah.” Al-Islam.org, al-islam.org/roots-religion/lesson-27-brief-history-saqifah.
Madelung, Wilferd. The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate. Cambridge UP, 1997.
Mervin, Sabrina. A History of Shi’i Islam. I.B. Tauris, 2011.
Mutahhari, Morteza. Philosophy of History. Sadra Publications, 2008.
Pishvaei, Mahdi. The History of Islam. Ma’aref Publications, 2012.
The Quran: With a Phrase-by-Phrase English Translation. Translated by Ali Quli Qarai, ICAS Press, 2004.
Saduq, Muhammad ibn Ali. Ilal al-Shara’i. Vol. 1, Maktabat al-Davari, Arabic, 1966.
