I have tried to understand why Muhammad was not explicit about succession, but all I have found are sectarian answers. One group says Muhammad was explicit, another group says Muhammad deliberately left the matter to the will of the Umma. But I've read a number of (secular, non-sectarian) biographies and other books about Muhammad, and I find nothing in them that would explain why there is disagreement on the matter.
Are there any scholars who explore Muhammad's reasons for not being explicit, without bringing in sectarianism, or appealing to Muhammad's superhuman qualities, or appealing to divine wisdom? Scholars who analyze the issue from a secular standpoint?
Edit: I am not interested in which sect is "correct", or whose view is "stronger", or which POV is more "viable". I am interested in Muhammad's reasons for not being explicit. Here's why I can't accept any claims that he was indeed explicit: the Qur'an addresses Muhammad's family problems (the scandal over Aisha in the desert), and the proper formality to be observed when interacting with Muhammad. Although I have not read the Hadith, I have heard that they even go so far as to address issues of personal hygiene. I am shocked that while these issues are enshrined in Islam's holy writings, there is not a single word about succession therein. I am very curious about the reasons for this rather glaring omission.
Edit #2: I am not interested in Qur'anic allusions or implicit references. If Islam's holy writings are explicit about Muhammad's family matters and personal hygiene, I am wondering why the issue of succession was addressed only by allusions and implicit references, not whether the allusions and implicit references are considered valid as a means of choosing Muhammad's successor.