their hands and within the Banu Hashim. Hereditary succession Lammens believes that Arabs disliked hereditary leadership while Madelung limits this attitude to Bedouin Arabs. Among the Quraysh, he argues, hereditary leadership was not uncommon, reflecting their belief that noble qualities were inherited. This view is echoed by Aslan. Afsaruddin and Sharon maintain that kinship was not a factor in early Islam whereas Amir-Moezzi and Mavani have challenged this point. In particular, Mavani writes that tribal values were deeply entrenched in the Arab society of that time, according to which kinship and noble lineage were the primary marks of identity and source of authority. Keaney believes that leadership was hereditary in the traditional Arab society and something that ran in families in a broad sense of the word. Lewis () says that the Arab tradition was to choose the from a single family. However, Ali was Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law which, he claims, carries little weight. Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham narrate that Umar in his speech famously said, "The oath of allegiance for Abu Bakr was a [i.e., a precipitate and ill-considered deal], but God averted the evil of it." Alternatively, the Sunni al-Baladhuri quotes Umar in his Ansab as saying, "By God, the oath of allegiance for Abu Bakr was no ," adding that Muhammad had already designated Abu Bakr as his successor. In another narration by al-Baladhuri, Umar calls it a lie that the Saqifa affair was a . Madelung rejects both of the reports by al-Baladhuri as highly unlikely. Legitimacy Madelung suspects that Umar considered the Saqifa affair a because it excluded from decision making the majority of the Muhajirun and particularly Muhammad's kin, whose participation was vital for a legitimate outcome. Possibly because of its questionable legal authority, Umar also warned Muslims in his speech against ever following the example of Saqifa. Similar concerns are raised by Abbas and Momen. Walker adds that Muhammad's relatives were disgruntled by Abu Bakr's hasty appointment which denied them a voice in the matter. Jafri notes the prominence of Abu Bakr but comments that his appointment was the decision of a group of companions, hastily forced upon others, and its success was due to the delicate group conflicts in Medina. Some contemporary authors have further criticized the Saqifa affair as a "backroom deal" and a "coup" which was heavily influenced by the pre-Islamic tribal politics. The evil of the which,