Great article bro Hani - I really do envy your attention to detail.
Barak-Allahu feek brother, most of this is not from my pocket but I took a lot from scholars, books and researchers.
InshaAllah soon I'll try to write something answering apparently logical question of:
"Why Rasul-Allah (saw) never appointed a leader?"
Although before I write a refutation of that, I'd love to hear answers by you guys to this seemingly logical question.
Yes, I used to use this argument alot back in the days. It would be the first argument I'd make to a Sunni.
This question is thought of as a trump-card by Shiites. They believe that Ahlul Sunnah have no answer to it. They even compare it with leaving a will. They'll say, "Doesn't the Qur'an order a Muslim to leave a will? Then how can the Prophet (saws) not have left a will?" As if leaving a will has anything to do with appointing a leader. A will is a personal document, setting out one's affairs. Well, we know that the Prophet (saws) did indeed leave a will, and he still didn't appoint a successor in it.
The overriding argument that the Shiites make is, "How can the Prophet not have left a successor? Why would he leave the people after him without any leadership?" The point that they try to make is that by not appointing a successor the Prophet (saws) failed in his mission, and let the religion be corrupted at the end.
Well, to this I say that the Shiites cannot have their cake and eat it too. How so? Well:
Shiites claim that he appointed 'Ali (ra) as his successor. Well, we know that 'Ali (ra) was not accepted as the successor after the Prophet (saws). So we are left with the following conclusions:
a) All the Muslims were unaware that 'Ali (ra) was appointed the successor. If so, the Prophet (saws) failed in delivering the message. He clearly did a poor job in informing the Muslim masses of 'Ali (ra)'s appointment.
b) The Muslims did know about 'Ali (ra)'s appointment, but they all rejected it. If so, the Prophet (saws) failed in his mission. He failed to reform the Arabs, and at the end of it the Muslims whom the Prophet (saws) spent decades educating abandoned his religion the moment he died. This ofcourse is the belief of the Shiites, because they cannot possibly accept option a). If Shiites want to believe that 'Ali (ra) was the appointed successor, then they must believe that basically all the Muslims after the Prophet (saws)'s death were hypocrites, apostates and kuffar.
I mean, how can we possibly consider the Prophet (saws) to have been a successful Messenger if this is the case? Was Prophethood just about delivering a message, or was it about changing the people? Clearly the people were not changed, and clearly they did not respect the Prophet (saws). This ofcourse flies in the face of all the facts that we possess.
Did the Prophet (saws) appoint a leader?ANSWER: NO, THE PROPHET (SAWS) DID NOT SPECIFY WHO WOULD LEAD THE MUSLIMS AFTER HIM.This was not his mission. His mission did not include appointing a successor, because he cannot have a successor. He is the last of the Prophets. I do not believe the term "khalif" is rightfully translated as "successor". It is better translated as "deputy" or something similar.
His mission was to deliver the message, to reform the people and the society, teach them halal & haram, teach them the compulsory and recommended acts, inform them of the Day of Judgement and so on.
The point of his mission is that if he is successful in teaching the people, then the people should be able to take care of themselves after him. This includes choosing a suitable leader.
Infact, the Prophet (saws) did teach the people about leadership.
He himself appointed people to rule when he left a place. The Shiites take this as a lesson that he must have left a successor, and the argument is "If he appointed someone in his place when he left a town, how can he not have appointed someone when he left the people for good!?!".
As usual, the Shiites muddle up and confuse the issue, as is typical of extremists.
The lesson that they should take, instead, is that when the Prophet acted as a leader, he was demonstrating how a person should lead. Appointing a representative when he left a town was indeed emulated by the Khalifs after him - by appointing governers and deputies to represent them.
We know that the Prophet (saws) would allow the companions to convey their opinions in certain matters. Such as the Treaty of Hudaybiyah, when the companions argued, or the Battle of the Trench, when they recommended building a ditch and other similar cases.
What does this show?
To the Shiites, ofcourse, any arguing that the companions did is evidence that they are kuffar who liked to argue with the Prophet. As usual, the extremist and nonsensical conclusion.
Rather, it shows that the Prophet (saws) encouraged consultation and a spirit of community. He was teaching the Muslims to govern their affairs through consultation and as a community.
Long story short, what did the Muslims do when the Prophet (saws) died? Did they kill each other of leadership and destroy Islam?
No - they elected the best man amongst them, and then the best man after him, and they strengthened Islam and made the Ummah into a superpower.
So did the Prophet (saws) fail in his mission? On the contrary, he succeeded as no Prophet succeeded before him, and we Muslims will never achieve the power that we once had until we emulate those who the Prophet (saws) taught with his own hands.
----
That's my rambling answer, I look forward to the more scholarly and academic answer from Hani.