Sunni Caliphate System

[iceman]

Which Sunah did Abu Bakr follow when he appointed his successor Omar and which Sunah did Omar follow when he strategically appointed a Council of 6 and imposed a condition which he knew Ali would not accept to choose his successor?

Calm down boy........none of them APPOINTED, they NOMINATED as answered above, stop TWISTING it.

Ali ra had problems when He came to power, that's another story and you can open a thread up for that if you want and other knowledgeable brothers can answer you, I am done answering you on shura v divine Imamate and which is right according to Quran and sunnah.

Ali didn't have any problems. When he came into power people looked for excuses to rebel against him. He was the rightly guided Khalifa of the Muslims and those who opposed him and rebelled, used their influence to wage war amongst the Muslims and cause division were the ones who were wrong. This is another area where your double standards kick in.

Shura is consultation and this takes place before you select a leader and not the other way around as you've put it. Where the first was selected coincidently and not everyone was involved and present. Heck they didn't even gather in Saqifa for the purpose of choosing a leader for the Ummah. The heads of the Ansaar only gathered there to do their thing.

The first named and appointed his successor and you claim this is also Shura. What's this got to do with Shura and who did Abu Bakr consult and when? Your posts as well as you are absolutely twisted. You have different scenarios and things happened differently on each and every occasion. You just don't want to admit it.

[Mythbuster1]

Wow you are trying hard with your posts, ok shura is a part of governance, my bad for writing in haste,  but the bottom line is Shura/consultation it's principle lies in Quran and circumstances is prophet saw, as examples I gave you ayah from Quran (previous post) as well as the Hadith posted below in sahih Muslim.

you keep beating your drums about Abu Bakr ra selecting His successor when infact it's allowed as long as the candidate is fit for the office, to us Muslims they 2 were with the prophet saw and they were praised by Him a lot and the 2 were pious and god feariing good men, they didn't have any issue or problem with the Muslims everyone gave them bayah you are really clutching on straws again, youre desperate I know, but it's not a divine process my friend, even after selection every one agreed and gave bayah just like Ali ra gave bayah to Umar ra. In fact we have Hadith from sahih Muslim in which prophet saw names His successor (just to counter your argument)............."A’isha reported that Allah’s Messenger (saw) in his (last) illness asked me to call Abu Bakr, her father, and her brother too, so that he might write a document, for he feared that someone else might be desirous (of succeeding him) and that some claimant may say: I have better claim to it, whereas Allah and the Faithful do not substantiate the claim of anyone but that of Abu Bakr.”(Sahih Muslim #5878).https://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=31&translator=2&start=10

As for Umar ra not choosing but leaving it to the council to choose them that is also allowed in shura.........."it has been narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah b. 'Umar who said: I was present with my father when he was wounded. People praised him and said: May God give you a noble recompense! He said: I am hopeful (of God's mercy) as well as afraid (of His wrath) People said: Appoint anyone as your successor. He said: Should I carry the burden of conducting your affairs in my life as well as in my death? (So far as Caliphate is concerned) I wish I could acquit myself (before the Almighty) in a way that there is neither anything to my credit nor anything to my discredit. If I would appoint my successor, (I would because) one better than me did so. (He meant Abu Bakr.) If I would leave You alone, (I would do so because) one better than me, i. e. the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), did so. 'Abdullah says: When he mentioned the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) I understood that he would not appoint anyone as Caliph."sahih Muslim 4485.
https://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=20&translator=2&start=10


Any other angle?

Now you use yazid as a strawman in your final desperate attempt lol Why are you obsessed with the guy? Look he wasn't a rashidun khalif he was a king a monarch a bad king bad ruler nothing to do with shura at all, he wasn't chosen by the people, he isn't an example you should be using, it's like you are desperate in trying to portray shura in a negative light by using him as an example when he has nothing to do with shura.

[Mythbuster1]

Which Sunah did Abu Bakr follow when he appointed his successor Omar and which Sunah did Omar follow when he strategically appointed a Council of 6 and imposed a condition which he knew Ali would not accept to choose his successor?

Calm down boy........none of them APPOINTED, they NOMINATED as answered above, stop TWISTING it.

Ali ra had problems when He came to power, that's another story and you can open a thread up for that if you want and other knowledgeable brothers can answer you, I am done answering you on shura v divine Imamate and which is right according to Quran and sunnah.

Ali didn't have any problems. When he came into power people looked for excuses to rebel against him. He was the rightly guided Khalifa of the Muslims and those who opposed him and rebelled, used their influence to wage war amongst the Muslims and cause division were the ones who were wrong. This is another area where your double standards kick in.

Shura is consultation and this takes place before you select a leader and not the other way around as you've put it. Where the first was selected coincidently and not everyone was involved and present. Heck they didn't even gather in Saqifa for the purpose of choosing a leader for the Ummah. The heads of the Ansaar only gathered there to do their thing.

The first named and appointed his successor and you claim this is also Shura. What's this got to do with Shura and who did Abu Bakr consult and when? Your posts as well as you are absolutely twisted. You have different scenarios and things happened differently on each and every occasion. You just don't want to admit it.

Yes He Ali ra had problems.....Number 1 being not to rule not to be a khalif!! He didn't want to rule, just like Abu Bakr ra,  the people chose him coz of the circumstances surrounding the martyrdom of Uthman ra, the rest is your opinion void of facts or truths, I ain't interested.

You are really getting boring now, I will just answer as below if I believe your getting repetitive

Answered in previous post, saqifa hurts but I've answered your just repeating.

Again same repetitive question on Abu Bakr ra choosing and not selecting, snap out of it I have answered you........and you finish off with ad hom attack.

Another angle?

[Abu Muhammad]

The first named and appointed his successor and you claim this is also Shura. What's this got to do with Shura and who did Abu Bakr consult and when? Your posts as well as you are absolutely twisted. You have different scenarios and things happened differently on each and every occasion. You just don't want to admit it.

"It is incorrect to state that Shura (mutual consultation) was not done in the nomination of Umar (رضّى الله عنه) . Before Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) finalized his decision to appoint Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , he in fact mutually consulted the prominent Muslims, including Abdur Rahman ibn Awf (رضّى الله عنه) , Uthman bin Affan (رضّى الله عنه) , Ali ibn Abi Talib (رضّى الله عنه) , and Talhah ibn Ubayd-Allah (رضّى الله عنه) . During the nomination of Uthman bin Affan (رضّى الله عنه) , the Shura council consisted of six representatives; the same is the case with the nomination of Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , in which at least this many prominent figures mutually consulted each other. The only difference here was that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) met the prominent figures seperately, as opposed to conjoining them in one room at the same time, as Umar (رضّى الله عنه) would do in the nomination of Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) . Based on this fact, it would be a lie to say that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) did not use Shura."

(@iceman, for the rest of the article, please click the link below)

https://islamistruth.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/how-did-umar-ibn-al-khattab-رضی-الله-عنه-became-caliph/amp/

[iceman]

The first named and appointed his successor and you claim this is also Shura. What's this got to do with Shura and who did Abu Bakr consult and when? Your posts as well as you are absolutely twisted. You have different scenarios and things happened differently on each and every occasion. You just don't want to admit it.

"It is incorrect to state that Shura (mutual consultation) was not done in the nomination of Umar (رضّى الله عنه) . Before Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) finalized his decision to appoint Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , he in fact mutually consulted the prominent Muslims, including Abdur Rahman ibn Awf (رضّى الله عنه) , Uthman bin Affan (رضّى الله عنه) , Ali ibn Abi Talib (رضّى الله عنه) , and Talhah ibn Ubayd-Allah (رضّى الله عنه) . During the nomination of Uthman bin Affan (رضّى الله عنه) , the Shura council consisted of six representatives; the same is the case with the nomination of Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , in which at least this many prominent figures mutually consulted each other. The only difference here was that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) met the prominent figures seperately, as opposed to conjoining them in one room at the same time, as Umar (رضّى الله عنه) would do in the nomination of Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) . Based on this fact, it would be a lie to say that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) did not use Shura."

(@iceman, for the rest of the article, please click the link below)

https://islamistruth.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/how-did-umar-ibn-al-khattab-رضی-الله-عنه-became-caliph/amp/

Thank you. This is the kind of response I was looking for, free of sarcasm and prejudice. My point has never been about the person/s or to speak about any individual/s. I just want to speak about and stick to the point that if one doesn't believe in Imamah/divine guidance after the Messenger (s) and he (s) didn't name and appoint his successor then what procedure/method does one have and follow to choose a leader after the Messenger (s) and what is the system of governance and what are the principles and circumstances relating to them. That is all.

[iceman]

Omar learned of this (i.e. the gathering of the Ansar at Saqifah) and went to the Prophet’s house and sent (a message) to Abu Bakr, who was in the building…[Omar] sent a message to Abu Bakr to come to him. Abu Bakr sent back (a message) that he was occupied (i.e. with caring for the Prophet’s body), but Umar sent him another message, saying: “Something (terrible) has happened that you must attend to personally.” So he (Abu Bakr) came out to him…

(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.10, p.3)

"Something terrible has happened"?
What was so terrible about the Ansaar gathering in Saqifa?

[iceman]

Is the following true?
It is related by Umar that as they were seated in the Prophet’s house, a man cried out all of a sudden from outside: “O Son of Khattab (i.e. Umar), pray step out for a moment.” Umar told him to leave them alone and go away as they were busy in making arrangements for the burial of the Prophet. The man replied that an incident had occurred: the Ansar were gathering in force at Saqifah Bani Sa’idah, and–as the situation was grave–it was necessary that he (Umar) should go and look into the matter lest the Ansar should do something which would lead to a (civil) war. On this, Umar said to Abu Bakr: “Let us go.”

(Al Faruq, by Allamah Shibli Numani, Vol 1, p.87)

If yes then was the gathering in Saqifa about consultation and choosing a leader for the Ummah? Or did the Shaykhain rush there to prevent something terrible from happening?

[iceman]

Is the following true?
The) Ansar said: “In case they reject our Caliph, we shall drive them out from Al-Medinah at the point of our swords.” However, the few Muhajirs in the assembly protested against this attitude and this led to a dispute and disorder of a serious nature and a war between the Muhajirs and Ansars seemed possible. When the situation took this ugly turn, Mughirah ibn Shubah left the trouble spot and came to the Prophet’s Mosque to relate what was going on in Saqifah Banu Sa’idah.

(Tareekh Al-Islam, Vol.1, p.273-274)

Is this exactly what was going on in Saqifa? Was this consultation?

[iceman]

So the two of them (Abu Bakr and Umar) hurried toward them (the Ansar); they met Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah (on the way), and the three of them marched towards them (the Ansar).

(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.10, p.3)

Only three rushed to Saqifa? What about the other important individuals, shouldn't this be conducted properly, fairly and justly? This was about the Ummah and everyone should have had a fair say.

[iceman]

In a situation packed with confusion, disorder, anger, and emotion, only a man like Abu Bakr could do what was necessary. When Umar made an attempt to say something, Abu Bakr put a check on him for he knew that the emotionally charged Umar could mishandle the already deteriorating situation. Abu Bakr himself rose to speak…

(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.274)

Is this consultation?

[iceman]

I (Umar) told Abu Bakr that we should go to our brothers, the Ansar, so we went off to go to them, when two honest fellows met us (on the way) and told us of the conclusion the people (the Ansar) had come to (i.e. to declare their own Caliph). They (the two honest fellows) asked us where we were going, and when we told them, they said that there was no need for us to approach them and we must make our own decision (i.e. elect our own Muhajir Caliph).

(Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.685)

[iceman]

The following information is from a Suni site,
The reality is that it is not right to complain about how Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was not taken along to Saqifah. How can anyone complain of this when the Shaikhayn did not even bring along their closest friends and supporters? Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) didn’t find the need to bring along Ali (رضّى الله عنه)–or any of the other Muhajir Sahabah, for that matter–because they had no idea whatsoever that an election would take place. Instead, they went only to prevent the Ansar from electing their own leader: it was well-known that if the Ansar announced themselves the leaders, then the other tribes would fail to recognize them, declare their own leader, and fall into civil war.

My objection is that the Shaykhain went only to prevent the Ansaar from choosing their own leader and they had no idea that an election would take place there.

How on earth would suddenly and coincidentally an election take place when there was only a handful of Muhajir present there? One can't and shouldn't even think of this. This is what I've said all along that why did the Shaykhain end up there? And how can you justify Abu Bakr's selection and base it on Shura?

[iceman]

Consultation (Shura) is a way and method mentioned to govern or how to govern which is the opposite of dictatorship. It is not a method or way to choose your leader or successor and most certainly not after the Prophet (s). But lets say that it is or such way and method needs or wants to be taken then surely and most certainly it should be done fairly, justly, properly and with in reason. And all parties concerned should be involved and the gathering should be for such purpose.

[iceman]

It was in this precarious situation that the Ummah needed a strong and capable leader to quickly replace the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) before the various groups split apart in complete disarray and utter chaos. It was in this atmosphere that the people needed to declare a Caliph posthaste in order to quell any rebellion. We read:

Amir asked: “When was the oath of allegiance given to Abu Bakr?”

“The very day the Messenger of Allah died,” he (Saeed) replied. “People disliked to be left even part of the day without being organized into a community (jama’ah).”

(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.1, p.195)

If this is true then what was the need for Saqifa? And the Ansaar gathered there to choose a leader, why wasn't their candidate acceptable according to the Shaykhain and why would the Shaykhain not unite behind and with the Ansaar?

In other words the Ansaar gathered there to select a leader, why didn't the Shaykhain let them get on with it and then just rally around and behind the Ansaar and give allegiance to the new leader Saad?

Why wete the Shaykhain not willing to accept an Ansari as a leader of the Ummah and  threatened the Ansaar with civil war if things didn't go their way?

[Khaled]

...Why wete the Shaykhain not willing to accept an Ansari as a leader of the Ummah and  threatened the Ansaar with civil war if things didn't go their way?

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

In my copy of Tabari (3/205-206) Abu Bakr says this as an explanation:

وَقَالَ: أَمَّا بَعْدُ يَا مَعْشَرَ الأَنْصَارِ، فَإِنَّكُمْ لا تَذْكُرُونَ مِنْكُمْ فَضْلا إِلا وَأَنْتُمْ لَهُ أَهْلٌ، وَإِنَّ الْعَرَبَ لا تَعْرِفُ هَذَا الأَمْرَ إِلا لِهَذَا الْحَيِّ مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ، وَهُمْ أَوْسَطُ الْعَرَبِ دَارًا وَنَسَبًا، وَلَكِنْ قَدْ رَضِيتُ لَكُمْ أَحَدَ هَذَيْنِ الرَّجُلَيْنِ، فَبَايِعُوا أَيَّهُمَا شِئْتُمْ.

O Group of Ansar!  You did not mention a quality except that you were worthy of it.  But that Arabs does not know this issue (i.e. governance) to anyone except this "hayy" from Quraysh; they have the best lineage and abode among the Arabs.  So, I have approved for you either one of these two men (Omar or Abu Ubaydah), so pledge your allegiance to whoever you want.

I hope that helps إن شاء الله

[iceman]

...Why wete the Shaykhain not willing to accept an Ansari as a leader of the Ummah and  threatened the Ansaar with civil war if things didn't go their way?

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

In my copy of Tabari (3/205-206) Abu Bakr says this as an explanation:

وَقَالَ: أَمَّا بَعْدُ يَا مَعْشَرَ الأَنْصَارِ، فَإِنَّكُمْ لا تَذْكُرُونَ مِنْكُمْ فَضْلا إِلا وَأَنْتُمْ لَهُ أَهْلٌ، وَإِنَّ الْعَرَبَ لا تَعْرِفُ هَذَا الأَمْرَ إِلا لِهَذَا الْحَيِّ مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ، وَهُمْ أَوْسَطُ الْعَرَبِ دَارًا وَنَسَبًا، وَلَكِنْ قَدْ رَضِيتُ لَكُمْ أَحَدَ هَذَيْنِ الرَّجُلَيْنِ، فَبَايِعُوا أَيَّهُمَا شِئْتُمْ.

O Group of Ansar!  You did not mention a quality except that you were worthy of it.  But that Arabs does not know this issue (i.e. governance) to anyone except this "hayy" from Quraysh; they have the best lineage and abode among the Arabs.  So, I have approved for you either one of these two men (Omar or Abu Ubaydah), so pledge your allegiance to whoever you want.

I hope that helps إن شاء الله

Thanks.

[iceman]

Lets say for example Obaidah went to Ali instead of Omar and told him what was about to happen in Saqifa and Ali went with Ammar or Abu Zar, and exactly the same thing happened, one thing led to another and guess what.....Ali ended up being Khalifa.

Would you call this consultation based on justice, fairness and reasoning towards others? Oh but Ali is a good man, he is from Ahle Bayth he is this that and the other. It doesn't matter and that's not the point. This is not just and fair. It hasn't been carried out fairly and justly. Well people would accept it or did accept for what ever reason one or the other, I'm afraid it's wrong and hasn't been conducted properly and legitimately.

[iceman]

Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) then said:

“Allah is my witness that we are not pressing the claim of the Quraish because of any selfish interest. The proposal is prompted in the interest of the solidarity of Islam (i.e. to maintain unity and prevent civil war). To give you a proof of our sincerity, I declare before you that I do not covet the office. Here are Umar and Abu Ubaidah. You may choose any one of these.”

(Khalifa Umar bin al-Khattab, Chapter of “Death of the Prophet”)

Abu Bakr said that they were only there to prevent civil war? Well why would there be civil war and who would start it.

[Khaled]

Lets say for example Obaidah went to Ali instead of Omar and told him what was about to happen in Saqifa and Ali went with Ammar or Abu Zar, and exactly the same thing happened, one thing led to another and guess what.....Ali ended up being Khalifa.

Would you call this consultation based on justice, fairness and reasoning towards others? Oh but Ali is a good man, he is from Ahle Bayth he is this that and the other. It doesn't matter and that's not the point. This is not just and fair. It hasn't been carried out fairly and justly. Well people would accept it or did accept for what ever reason one or the other, I'm afraid it's wrong and hasn't been conducted properly and legitimately.

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

I hope everything is going well with you إن شاء الله.

Had Abu Obaydah gone to Ali رضي الله عنهما and the same scenario played out, I would say the same thing I say now, it was the best possible scenario to a bad situation and الحمدلله their action "saved Islam."  I would also side with the overwhelming Sahabah who approved and pledged allegiance to it.  I wouldn't, however, use it to attack Ali رضي الله عنه's character, nor as an example that Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه was a divinely appointed Imam.

Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) then said:

“Allah is my witness that we are not pressing the claim of the Quraish because of any selfish interest. The proposal is prompted in the interest of the solidarity of Islam (i.e. to maintain unity and prevent civil war). To give you a proof of our sincerity, I declare before you that I do not covet the office. Here are Umar and Abu Ubaidah. You may choose any one of these.”

(Khalifa Umar bin al-Khattab, Chapter of “Death of the Prophet”)

Abu Bakr said that they were only there to prevent civil war? Well why would there be civil war and who would start it.

I want to first of all say that I am amazed that you can read that quote and still come away with a negative perception of Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه.

Second of all, I think the answer is found in the previous quote, he feared that the "Arabs" would not accept leadership from anyone other than Quraysh.  Therefore, the civil war would be between the Muslims/Arabs and he feared that would cause a war that could possibly end the spreading of Islam.  Practical thinking that actually saved the deen, may Allah have mercy and be pleased with Abu Bakr, as well as Omar, Uthman and Ali رضي الله عنهم أجمعين

[Hadrami]

After the Messenger (s) we follow the Messenger (s) and have accepted and taken the two weighty things he has left behind for us, 1. The book of Allah which we take just as you and 2. The progeny which you along with the Sahaba have rejected.

OK, so there are 2 things that are left behind for us, but only 1 is available and another one is hidden for 1000+ yr

Imam (Al Mahdi) is present but not available. He is in Occultation. Read the meaning and get the understanding about occultation before speaking. Because the Imam is not available due to occultation our substitute is ijtihad and we follow a Mujtahid.

Yep, in the end you follow us by following fallible scholars. No infallible to guide you. In short, its like someone saying "hey, i will leave you this so you can make use of it, but i will hide it so you cant find and use it"

Learn, understand and get to know by asking and listening.

No mate, you have to learn to understand that occultation belief is the exact opposite & contradict your imamah belief. Thats why your scholars need a philosophical mumbo jumbo just to explain ghayba because they know it is a contradiction of your "we always need infallible imam to guide us" belief