Sunni Caliphate System

[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.

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

Believe me I have no negative perception about anyone let alone Abu Bakr who was one of the very first to embrace Islam and his character, performance, achievements and merits are there all the way through.

My point and discussion is not about individual/s or character/s, it's about consultation (Shura) and its principles and circumstances along with its method and procedure, how it was conducted and what actually happened and went on. It's about the Suni Khilafat system and how it works. And me trying to understand and get to know it.

Thanks for your response. I must say, very well said and put forward! This is exactly the kind of response and discussion that I am looking for.

[iceman]

What one should ask themselves is 'why were only three prominent companions from the Muhajireen present at Saqifa? Were men such as Ali and the other members of Banu Hashim, Uthman, Talha, Zubair, Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas not prominent?

The modern day Sunni scholar El Awa manages to clarify this incorrect approach as follows:

"To consider the Muhajirin as party is incorrect because those of the Muhajirin who attended the Saqifa meeting were Abu Bakr, Umar b. Al Khattab, and Abu 'Ubaida b. al-Jarrah. The Muhajirin had not delegated them any authority nor did they represent any specific political group connected with them".
 
On the political system of the Islamic State, by Muhammad S. El Awa page 32 (American Trust Publications, Indiana)

[iceman]

No mention of the Qoran, Sunah, ijma or qiyas at Saqifa. In the eyes of the Wahabies "The sources for the creed ('aqeedah) are: The Book of Allah, the authentic Sunah of his Messenger (s) and the consensus (ijma) of the Pious Predecessors"

In addition to this, the four Ahl'ul Suna Imams have added the principle of Qiyas (analogical reasoning). Curiously the debate at Saqifa was devoid of all four principles, why is that? We believe that everything is contained with Allah (swt)'s book.

As it was Omar himself who had said just days earlier "the Qur'an is sufficient for us" then why did he not plead to the parties to turn to the Book of Allah (swt) and reach a conclusion in light of Allah (swt)'s commands?

General Precepts of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, by Shaykh Naasir al-Aql, English translation by Abu 'Aaliyah Surkheel ibn Anwar Sharif, page 13 (Message of Islam First edition, 1999)

[iceman]

The Sunah was also not used or suggested, comments on tribal superiority were given precedence, nothing else. Ijma (consensus of the companions) a pivotal part if Islamic jurisprudence in the eyes of the Ahl'ul Sunah was not even entertained.

Abu Bakr and Omar did not seek the counsel of the other companions as to whether or not they should proceed to the Saqifa and discuss the issue of succession. Why did these two prominent companions take it upon themselves to go to the Saqifa? Why did they ignore the principle of ijma?

[iceman]

Words of the Hanafi scholar, Allamah Shibli Numani:

"It is apparently surprising that no sooner did the Prophet die than the struggle for Caliphate commenced and even the burial of the body of the Founder of Islam became a matter of secondary consideration in the quarrels that arose over the question of succession. Who can for a moment conceive the spectacle of the Prophet lying dead, while those who asserted their love and attachment towards him in his lifetime, without even waiting to look to his remains being suitably interred, were hurrying away to see that others did not secure the headship of the state for themselves!

[iceman]

Umdahthul Qaree Volume 11 page 167 Bab Rajm

Saheeh al Bukharee, Sharh Kirmanee, Volume 23 page 219

Irshad al Saree Volume 10 page 35

All three contain the proud admission of Omar:

"By Allah, when matters that we were faced with following the death of the Prophet, namely his Ghusl, shrouding and funeral, we deemed the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr to be of greater importance"

[Khaled]

Believe me I have no negative perception about anyone let alone Abu Bakr who was one of the very first to embrace Islam and his character, performance, achievements and merits are there all the way through.

My point and discussion is not about individual/s or character/s, it's about consultation (Shura) and its principles and circumstances along with its method and procedure, how it was conducted and what actually happened and went on. It's about the Suni Khilafat system and how it works. And me trying to understand and get to know it.

Thanks for your response. I must say, very well said and put forward! This is exactly the kind of response and discussion that I am looking for.

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

I don't think there is such thing as "Sunni khalifat system"; not at least in the way you are trying to frame it بارك الله فيك.  Muslims as a whole, for the exception of the 12er Shi'as, believe in the verse (42:38) to be a general verse which calls to consultation as a general principle.  You shouldn't think of Shura as some sort of political system like the one found in the United States today for example, nor should you think of it as an act of worship like prayer with conditions, pillars, sunan etc.  Rather, consultation is exactly what the ayah says it is, an issue that is between us.  In the US, we have a system that we might like and works for us, while in a tribal society things would work differently.  So you shouldn't try to understand it as a "Sunni khalifat system" and try to understand it that non-12ers simply don't believe in an infallible Imam (neither in its obligation nor in its actual possibility) and therefore, the system is different for each time and place.  It was even different in each time each Khalifah was chosen.  Interestingly, Imam Ali رضي الله عنه didn't come in through consultation, I am wondering why you don't seem to have a problem with that?

What one should ask themselves is 'why were only three prominent companions from the Muhajireen present at Saqifa? Were men such as Ali and the other members of Banu Hashim, Uthman, Talha, Zubair, Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas not prominent?

The modern day Sunni scholar El Awa manages to clarify this incorrect approach as follows:

"To consider the Muhajirin as party is incorrect because those of the Muhajirin who attended the Saqifa meeting were Abu Bakr, Umar b. Al Khattab, and Abu 'Ubaida b. al-Jarrah. The Muhajirin had not delegated them any authority nor did they represent any specific political group connected with them".
 
On the political system of the Islamic State, by Muhammad S. El Awa page 32 (American Trust Publications, Indiana)

There was only three as you know from the passages you quoted from Tabari, because it was a quick decision that was made after the Ansar gathered at Saqifah.  I'm surprised you would ask such a question considering you are quoting from Tabari.

As far as your quote, two questions come to mind, 1) who is Muhammad S. El Awa and 2) and how does this relate to our discussions.

The rest of your quotes seems to indicate that you DO have a "negative perception" of Abu Bakr and Omar رضي الله عنهما.  They also are pretty much rephrasing of your first post.  Since I already answered here, I don't feel like rephrasing it again.

As far as your quote from Shibili, please have a read here http://www.twelvershia.net/2015/08/29/6-misquotation-of-shibli-al-numanis-al-faruq/

You should be careful quoting from al-islam.org, Shiapen etc.  These website are known to be run by people who are big on misquoting.

[iceman]

Believe me I have no negative perception about anyone let alone Abu Bakr who was one of the very first to embrace Islam and his character, performance, achievements and merits are there all the way through.

My point and discussion is not about individual/s or character/s, it's about consultation (Shura) and its principles and circumstances along with its method and procedure, how it was conducted and what actually happened and went on. It's about the Suni Khilafat system and how it works. And me trying to understand and get to know it.

Thanks for your response. I must say, very well said and put forward! This is exactly the kind of response and discussion that I am looking for.

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

I don't think there is such thing as "Sunni khalifat system"; not at least in the way you are trying to frame it بارك الله فيك.  Muslims as a whole, for the exception of the 12er Shi'as, believe in the verse (42:38) to be a general verse which calls to consultation as a general principle.  You shouldn't think of Shura as some sort of political system like the one found in the United States today for example, nor should you think of it as an act of worship like prayer with conditions, pillars, sunan etc.  Rather, consultation is exactly what the ayah says it is, an issue that is between us.  In the US, we have a system that we might like and works for us, while in a tribal society things would work differently.  So you shouldn't try to understand it as a "Sunni khalifat system" and try to understand it that non-12ers simply don't believe in an infallible Imam (neither in its obligation nor in its actual possibility) and therefore, the system is different for each time and place.  It was even different in each time each Khalifah was chosen.  Interestingly, Imam Ali رضي الله عنه didn't come in through consultation, I am wondering why you don't seem to have a problem with that?

What one should ask themselves is 'why were only three prominent companions from the Muhajireen present at Saqifa? Were men such as Ali and the other members of Banu Hashim, Uthman, Talha, Zubair, Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas not prominent?

The modern day Sunni scholar El Awa manages to clarify this incorrect approach as follows:

"To consider the Muhajirin as party is incorrect because those of the Muhajirin who attended the Saqifa meeting were Abu Bakr, Umar b. Al Khattab, and Abu 'Ubaida b. al-Jarrah. The Muhajirin had not delegated them any authority nor did they represent any specific political group connected with them".
 
On the political system of the Islamic State, by Muhammad S. El Awa page 32 (American Trust Publications, Indiana)

There was only three as you know from the passages you quoted from Tabari, because it was a quick decision that was made after the Ansar gathered at Saqifah.  I'm surprised you would ask such a question considering you are quoting from Tabari.

As far as your quote, two questions come to mind, 1) who is Muhammad S. El Awa and 2) and how does this relate to our discussions.

The rest of your quotes seems to indicate that you DO have a "negative perception" of Abu Bakr and Omar رضي الله عنهما.  They also are pretty much rephrasing of your first post.  Since I already answered here, I don't feel like rephrasing it again.

As far as your quote from Shibili, please have a read here http://www.twelvershia.net/2015/08/29/6-misquotation-of-shibli-al-numanis-al-faruq/

You should be careful quoting from al-islam.org, Shiapen etc.  These website are known to be run by people who are big on misquoting.

Wa aliakum assalam. It seems to you I have a negative perception but I really don't. Just trying to understand and reason with what went on. The information I put forward to you and which I'm trying to understand is from a Suni site.

We do not believe that the Messenger (s) passed away without naming his successor, without pointing out someone to govern after him.

We do not believe that the Prophet (s) died leaving the Ummah in disarray and leaving the Qoran and Sunah into the hands of who ever got into power.

The second, third and the 4th got murdered and I'm sure you're aware of what happened to Khilafat and where it went from there.

If the Prophet (s) didn't name and appoint anyone to govern then surely there should have been an indication to a just and fair method and system to elect/select and govern.

Otherwise one is indirectly accusing the Prophet (s) of negligence, carelessness and irresponsibility.

What we believe in is logical, sensible and according to Qoran and Sunah. You don't have any ups and downs, ifs and buts, good or bad or right and wrong when it comes to our Imams. Also the link and the lineage is clear and there. No suspicion or doubt.

[Khaled]

Wa aliakum assalam. It seems to you I have a negative perception but I really don't. Just trying to understand and reason with what went on. The information I put forward to you and which I'm trying to understand is from a Suni site.

No, you're quote mining from al-islam.org and shiapen, that's why you used those quotes.

We do not believe that the Messenger (s) passed away without naming his successor, without pointing out someone to govern after him.

Most non-12ers who believe this (I personally don't) believe the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم left Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه as a successor.  However, from my perspective, the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم didn't leave a successor because if he did, some people may go to extremes and take these people as infallible or even go to the level of worshiping them.  Personally, I think the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم's actions were the best ولله الحمد.

We do not believe that the Prophet (s) died leaving the Ummah in disarray and leaving the Qoran and Sunah into the hands of who ever got into power.

We don't believe the Ummah went into disarray.  That's your perspective, I belive the Ummah during the times of the 4 Caliphs, the Ummayids and Abbassids were the greatest Ummah of all time.

The second, third and the 4th got murdered and I'm sure you're aware of what happened to Khilafat and where it went from there.

Again, I think the Ummah was great up until around the 1700s and is the greatest civilization of all time.  Different perspectives I suppose.

If the Prophet (s) didn't name and appoint anyone to govern then surely there should have been an indication to a just and fair method and system to elect/select and govern.

I think the way it was after the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم was just and that the Qur'an suggests Shura.  I personally think the reign of Abu Bakr, Uthman, and especially Omar رضي الله عنهم as literally the best time in history.

What we believe in is logical, sensible and according to Qoran and Sunah. You don't have any ups and downs, ifs and buts, good or bad or right and wrong when it comes to our Imams. Also the link and the lineage is clear and there. No suspicion or doubt.

What you believe is something you read into the Qur'an and Sunnah.  It is not found according to ALL Muslim sects, except the Shi'as, who are historically the furthest removed from the Qur'an and Sunnah.

[Abu Muhammad]

If the Prophet (s) didn't name and appoint anyone to govern then surely there should have been an indication to a just and fair method and system to elect/select and govern.

Otherwise one is indirectly accusing the Prophet (s) of negligence, carelessness and irresponsibility.

I know the topic is about Sunni Caliphate but it intrigued me to the top when someone made the claim that Twelvers method is logical and sensible by closing one eye to their history.

Since your 12th imam does not do any governing after his ghayba kubra, what system or method did he leave you guys to govern among yourselves while he is away? If none, can I accuse your 12th imam for negligence, carelessness and irresponsible too?

What we believe in is logical, sensible and according to Qoran and Sunah. You don't have any ups and downs, ifs and buts, good or bad or right and wrong when it comes to our Imams. Also the link and the lineage is clear and there. No suspicion or doubt.

You are wrong. Go and study your 12th imam and come back to us with evidences showing that he has a clear lineage without suspicion or doubt. The evidences must be rock solid to uphold your claim as "clear and without suspicion and doubt".

[Link]

I believe two views can be proven in Quran.

During the presence of a leader appointed by God, all must come to obey him, and he is a leader whether people obey him or not, a King whether people obey him or not, because God is the True King in all that.

During the absence of a leader, there is no such thing as "authority" or "government" but we must resort to democratic anarchy.

In fact democratic anarchy with sincerity to implement revelation and knowledge, to a degree, is needed even during times of Imams. That is the whole structure must assume no one has true authority until proven with insight. And what is followed with insight, is not really, that of authority taught by people. Even God doesn't want to be followed blindly but he wants people to see the path they are walking and the proofs he advocates.

That is how the light will rule, and it happens to be those who possess the authority, are those who are the witnesses, the lights in the darkness, the doors to God by which we will see.

Authority in other senses of the word, that people actually have the right to govern without proof from God or teach laws without proof from God and informing people with knowledge,  much of Quran condemns that.

And the Taghut consisted of many types of leaders in many areas of life, many types of illusions of Iblis to make people take their focus away from the light that is connected to them.

Sometimes there is benefit to the leaders and proofs from God being present, but sometimes it becomes harmful and detrimental to humanity, when the so called followers are not obeying, believing lies attributed to them, and equating their leadership and authority to others who are not appointed by God and really following the latter in the name of following the Imams which is what happened during time of our Imams.

The Quran remains a clarification of all things pertaining to guiding humans. It has all they need, but we must begin to reflect,  and build the foundational themes of it, through that everything will become easy.

[Link]

And what I meant by "no such thing as authority or government" I was talking in realms of political power.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

And what do you know, @hani, it seems Ibn Uthaymeen says even if the sultan drinks alcohol in Hajj, he is still "wajib al-taa'a".

Alhamdulillah on the ni3ma of aql

[Abu Muhammad]

And what do you know, @hani, it seems Ibn Uthaymeen says even if the sultan drinks alcohol in Hajj, he is still "wajib al-taa'a".

Alhamdulillah on the ni3ma of aql

What does his personal sin got to do with obeying his ruling as long as that ruling does not going against Quran and Sunnah?

By the way, which one of these make more sense:
1. Obeying physically existed ruler whose ruling is still in accordance to Quran and Sunnah despite his personal issues; or
2. Obeying ruler who no one knows where he is despite having in existence for more than 1,100 years (I have no idea what kind of obeying is this if nobody knows where he is, let alone hearing his ruling). ☺

Alhamdulillah on the ni3ma of aql.

[iceman]

And what do you know, @hani, it seems Ibn Uthaymeen says even if the sultan drinks alcohol in Hajj, he is still "wajib al-taa'a".

Alhamdulillah on the ni3ma of aql

What does his personal sin got to do with obeying his ruling as long as that ruling does not going against Quran and Sunnah?

By the way, which one of these make more sense:
1. Obeying physically existed ruler whose ruling is still in accordance to Quran and Sunnah despite his personal issues; or
2. Obeying ruler who no one knows where he is despite having in existence for more than 1,100 years (I have no idea what kind of obeying is this if nobody knows where he is, let alone hearing his ruling). ☺

Alhamdulillah on the ni3ma of aql.

I would prefer the second one since it's been longer than that for Eesa as well as Khizar and no one has a clue where they are either. I'm not trying to justify the 12th or his occultation but I don't think you have a clue about Shia imamat and the understanding of occultation and the reasons for and behind it.

If you don't want to accept and follow who and what Allah has chosen for you then Allah does let you get on with it in and this is the case we believe in about the 12th. As far as Muslims taking matters into their own hands since the death of the Messenger (s) you tell me how wonderful have things exactly turned out for the Muslims up til now?

[Abu Muhammad]

And what do you know, @hani, it seems Ibn Uthaymeen says even if the sultan drinks alcohol in Hajj, he is still "wajib al-taa'a".

Alhamdulillah on the ni3ma of aql

What does his personal sin got to do with obeying his ruling as long as that ruling does not going against Quran and Sunnah?

By the way, which one of these make more sense:
1. Obeying physically existed ruler whose ruling is still in accordance to Quran and Sunnah despite his personal issues; or
2. Obeying ruler who no one knows where he is despite having in existence for more than 1,100 years (I have no idea what kind of obeying is this if nobody knows where he is, let alone hearing his ruling). ☺

Alhamdulillah on the ni3ma of aql.

I would prefer the second one since it's been longer than that for Eesa as well as Khizar and no one has a clue where they are either. I'm not trying to justify the 12th or his occultation but I don't think you have a clue about Shia imamat and the understanding of occultation and the reasons for and behind it.

If you don't want to accept and follow who and what Allah has chosen for you then Allah does let you get on with it in and this is the case we believe in about the 12th. As far as Muslims taking matters into their own hands since the death of the Messenger (s) you tell me how wonderful have things exactly turned out for the Muslims up til now?

Thanks for adding up more confusion. Eisa and Khizr are not the imam of this ummah. Hence, their whereabout are not of our interest to know. Unlike your 12th imam. Leader but not leading the ummah... hmm...😏

[iceman]

And what do you know, @hani, it seems Ibn Uthaymeen says even if the sultan drinks alcohol in Hajj, he is still "wajib al-taa'a".

Alhamdulillah on the ni3ma of aql

What does his personal sin got to do with obeying his ruling as long as that ruling does not going against Quran and Sunnah?

By the way, which one of these make more sense:
1. Obeying physically existed ruler whose ruling is still in accordance to Quran and Sunnah despite his personal issues; or
2. Obeying ruler who no one knows where he is despite having in existence for more than 1,100 years (I have no idea what kind of obeying is this if nobody knows where he is, let alone hearing his ruling). ☺

Alhamdulillah on the ni3ma of aql.

I would prefer the second one since it's been longer than that for Eesa as well as Khizar and no one has a clue where they are either. I'm not trying to justify the 12th or his occultation but I don't think you have a clue about Shia imamat and the understanding of occultation and the reasons for and behind it.

If you don't want to accept and follow who and what Allah has chosen for you then Allah does let you get on with it in and this is the case we believe in about the 12th. As far as Muslims taking matters into their own hands since the death of the Messenger (s) you tell me how wonderful have things exactly turned out for the Muslims up til now?

Thanks for adding up more confusion. Eisa and Khizr are not the imam of this ummah. Hence, their whereabout are not of our interest to know. Unlike your 12th imam. Leader but not leading the ummah... hmm...😏

The title of this thread is;
'SUNNI CALIPHATE SYSTEM'
I really don't want to be accused of going of topic/subject or discussing something that is unrelated to the thread. Start one off about the 12th and his occultation and lets see what happens.☺

[Hani]

And what do you know, @hani, it seems Ibn Uthaymeen says even if the sultan drinks alcohol in Hajj, he is still "wajib al-taa'a".

Alhamdulillah on the ni3ma of aql

That's Ibn `Uthaymin's Madhab when it comes to leadership, he believes a rebellion will bring more corruption to the lands of Islam and that we must be patient with our rulers, to advise them and supplicate God for them while avoiding their wrath and concentrating on building society. (If u review the history of nations you'll see that 9/10 rebellions end in disaster)

On the other hand, many Sunnies hold a different Madhab when it comes to rebelling. That if the coast is clear and the conditions are right, one can rebel and remove the tyrant rulers by force for the sake God. The history of Ahlul-Sunnah testifies to this as we've rebelled against our rulers numerous times as opposed to Twelver Shia whose rebellions can't even be counted on the fingers of the one hand.

I respect both opinions (both have evidence) as long as intentions are sincerely for the sake of God.

[Najamsethii484]

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

Believe me I have no negative perception about anyone let alone Abu Bakr who was one of the very first to embrace Islam and his character, performance, achievements and merits are there all the way through.

My point and discussion is not about individual/s or character/s, it's about consultation (Shura) and its principles and circumstances along with its method and procedure, how it was conducted and what actually happened and went on. It's about the Suni Khilafat system and how it works. And me trying to understand and get to know it.

Thanks for your response. I must say, very well said and put forward! This is exactly the kind of response and discussion that I am looking for. brother im so tired of abu hurairahs fake narrations its no point of discussing with jahil and liars like abu hurairahs followers who couldnt find his father whole life he is not a narrator of real Hadiths only fake hadiths he is narrator of so Imam Ali AS said silence is best reply to a fool

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

And what do you know, @hani, it seems Ibn Uthaymeen says even if the sultan drinks alcohol in Hajj, he is still "wajib al-taa'a".

Alhamdulillah on the ni3ma of aql

That's Ibn `Uthaymin's Madhab when it comes to leadership, he believes a rebellion will bring more corruption to the lands of Islam and that we must be patient with our rulers, to advise them and supplicate God for them while avoiding their wrath and concentrating on building society. (If u review the history of nations you'll see that 9/10 rebellions end in disaster)

On the other hand, many Sunnies hold a different Madhab when it comes to rebelling. That if the coast is clear and the conditions are right, one can rebel and remove the tyrant rulers by force for the sake God. The history of Ahlul-Sunnah testifies to this as we've rebelled against our rulers numerous times as opposed to Twelver Shia whose rebellions can't even be counted on the fingers of the one hand.

I respect both opinions (both have evidence) as long as intentions are sincerely for the sake of God.

Lol, your sideshot on the Shi'a is out of order, since it's hard for a minority to topple a majority.