Succession dispute and the battle of the Camel

The reign of ‘Alī bore the marks of a counter-caliphate. By the norms of the early caliphate it lacked legitimacy. ‘Alī was not chosen by a shūrā of the most eminent Early Companions which ‘Umar had stipulated as a condition for valid succession. Nor had he the backing of the majority of Quraysh who under Abū Bakr's constitution had been recognized as the ruling class solely entitled to decide on the caliphate.

Yet ‘Alī himself was firmly convinced of the legitimacy of his own claim based on his close kinship with the Prophet, his intimate association with, and knowledge of, Islam from the outset, and his merits in serving its cause. The criteria for legitimate rule laid down by Abū Bakr and ‘Umar were irrelevant from his perspective. He had told Abū Bakr that his delay in pledging allegiance to him as successor to Muḥammad was based on his belief in his own prior title. He had not changed his mind when he finally gave his pledge to Abū Bakr and then to ‘Umar and to ‘Uthmān. He had done so for the sake of the unity of Islam when it was clear that the Muslims had turned away from him, the rightful successor of Muḥammad. Whenever the Muslim community, or a substantial part of it, would turn to him, it was not only his legitimate right, but his duty, to take upon himself its leadership.

The murder of ‘Uthmān left the rebels and their Medinan allies in control of the capital with Ṭalḥa and ‘Alī as potential candidates for the succession. There seems to have been some support among the Egyptians for Ṭalḥa, …