In present day we see people working in the army, are paid fixed salaries. My question is were the combatants during reign of 4 rightly guided caliphs paid any renumeration besides spoils of war. I'm asking this because, if we read the biographies of prophet and companions we see moderate to perfect altruism, same can be said about combatants if the only source of income is spoils of war. And at times muslims didnt win battles, which will result in no gain in spoils. Searching the internet is yielding results, that they were paid once a year in Muharram, without any source and no information is provided if a person is forced to return before muharram.

I mean fighting for the ridda wars at least seems obvious. People have refused to pay Zakat and became against the Muslim rulers by for example following the false prophets like Musailimah and Sajjah. But what is the correct justification (or historical background) for attacking 'Iraq? If these were preventive strikes, so how did the Muslims come to know about any attack or conspiracy? If not what was the motivation? I wonder if jizya played a role... Especially when one reads that many sahaba have became rich.

I understand that in Shia Islam the first three Rashidun are grasped as unlawful political successors of Muhammad in leading the Ummah and in any case unfit to lead justly by their verity to replace Ali as caliph. I have read in the past that some "Shia" scholars alleged the Quran as not entirely divine due to Uthman's edits but this paradigm came up from individual "Shia" persons, not from any of the current Shia sect. Is there a current Shia sect that rejects Uthman's edit of the Quran so to accept only some part of the Quran or to use an edited Quran of their own?

I must make it absolutely clear that I am not passing judgment, and I am not seeking explanations or justifications. I am not interested in whether the Rashidun military offensives were right or wrong. I am interested in whether these accounts align with Muslim historical scholarship, or if perhaps they are considered exaggerations, or perhaps even malicious lies. Here is a small sample of the military actions I'm referring to: - At the battle of Dhu'l-Kassa, Abu Bakr pursued the retreating Bedouin, inflicting "great slaughter" on them. - After his return to Medina, Abu Bakr published a summons to all the apostate tribes, warning them that if they did not repent, their fighting men would be cut to pieces and their women & children taken captive. - After the battle of Al-Buzakha, Abu Bakr issued a general amnesty, except for those who had killed Muslims during the battle; these were executed, in whatever manner they had killed their victims. This was in fulfillment of a vow he had made at the battle of Rabadha. - At Yemama, the Muslims forced their way into the walled garden of the Beni Hanifa and killed everyone, thousands of them. - At 'Ain-at Tamr, Khalid Ibn al-Walid, the Sword of God, had every man in the garrison beheaded, and the women & children given to the Muslim soldiers. - At the battle of Hadramaut, the approaches to the city were filled with the bodies of the dead. Abu Bakr ordered that the fighters be given no quarter. The Muslims killed all the men and took all the women captive. This is a small but representative sample of the accounts of warfare under Abu Bakr. The offensives and punishments under Omar are described similarly. I must restate: I am not judging, and I am not asking why they did these things, whether it was justified, or whether it was right or wrong. What I would like to know is how well such accounts align with Muslim historical scholarship. Because this is StackExchange, I'm not asking for community opinions. I'm asking about scholarly opinions. References to English-language books would be much appreciated, or English translations of Arabic-language books.

At the time of Muhammad () one could say that the Islamic government had his base in Medina or wherever he actually was. As far as I know there were no state officials nor a treasury etc. these kinds of things have come later due to the extension of the "Empire" and other facts. To make this question reasonably focused: I'd like to have a list of the major introductions in terms of the public administration that have been created during the time of the four Rashidi caliphs () and the necessity leading to it! Historical evidences are highly appreciated.

I heard that in the offspring of Imam Ali bin Abu-Talib (may Allah be pleased with him and honor his face), there were ones who were called: * Abu-Bakr * Omar * 'Aisha Is this true? could you mention them (or some at least)?

Need info on this question: Did any of the Rashidun Caliphs (or their descendants or the sahaba) marry their direct cousin (daughter of maternal/paternal uncle or aunts)? If yes, then please inform the complete name of the wife and husband that did so that I can check it in their family tree. Since there are some who say quote "cousin marriage has been a normal practice since the time of Prophet Muhammad (SAW)". But who really did that at the time closest to Muhammad? As far as I know, only Muhammad (SAW) did it. Note: Ali and Fatima (Peace be upon them) weren't cousins. I'm asking about cousin marriages only.

Do Prophet's successors have the right to alter or abolish parts of Prophet's Sunnah or Sharia Law? The second caliph Umar bin al-Khattab (رضی الله عنه), for example, is known for having forbidden the practice of Mut'ah in marriage and Hajj which were allowed by the Holy Prophet. Can his decision be genuinely justified?

Spawned from this question what is the requirements for becoming and remaining a Caliph (or ruler in general) according to Islam? Is there any requirement at all or whoever could reach the power and get the pledge of allegiance (even through force and intimidation) is righteous to be treated as a Caliph, rebelling against whom being forbidden? *I believe the requirements should be general such that they hold about the 4 first Caliphs as well.*

I know there are at least two versions of the history of the first caliphs, i.e., how those people came to be caliphs: * A simplified version, where the first three caliphs were elected by popular vote, and Ali by six representatives. * A more detailed version, involving a quarrel between Umar and Ali, and Abu Bakr being elected at a meeting, which Ali wasn't invited to. Are there any more versions? Why is there no single canonical one? Are different versions supported by different groups?