The dispute that the successor to muhammad needed to be a blood relative led to what split in islam

The succession to Muhammad raises questions about the leadership of Islam after his death: Muhammad's successor, how they should be elected, conditions of legitimacy and the role of successor. Answers to these questions have led to several divisions in the Muslim community since the first century of Muslim history, giving rise to the Sunni, Shia and Khawarij schools. After Muhammad's death in AD 632, disagreement broke out over who should succeed him as leader of the Muslim community. Since none of his sons survived into adulthood, hereditary succession was not an option. Umar (Umar ibn al-Khattab), a prominent companion of Muhammad, nominated Abu Bakr. Others added their support, and Abu Bakr was made the first caliph. This choice was disputed by some of Muhammad's companions, who believed that Ali (Ali ibn Abi Talib), his cousin and son-in-law, had been designated his successor.[1] During the First and Second Fitnas the Islamic community divided into a number of groups, each of which had a specific idea about successorship. After the Rashidun caliphate evolved into monarchies and sultanates, Sunnis held power in most areas; Shias emerged in opposition.Welcome

:what is edwards's purpose for giving this sermon? which elements likely make the argument effective for a puritan audience?