2

I asked in history stackexchange.

Sunni source is that the first four Chaliphs are "properly" elected.

However, some Syiah disagree.

This one says, for example,

https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/58430/did-ali-say-that-only-muhammads-descendants-can-rule?noredirect=1#comment176183_58430

In reference to comments, the idea that the first three caliphs were "elected" is also contested. If the electoral excludes some of the most prominent companions of the Prophet and involves coercion, it can't be called an "election" and this was the case for Saqifa the first "election" which was more like a factional coup d'état. The second caliph was also appointed not elected. You may want to post a separate question on this but you can also consult Madelung's comprehensive account of post-prophetic politics.

So in case of Abu Bakr, it seems that some prominent companions are not excluded. Is there a reasoanable reason why they're not included? What coercion he's talking about?

The reason I asked this is because in politic, this is a very normal game.

Suharto, for example, is always "elected". By who? By MPR. Who elect members of MPR? About 50% is chosen by Suharto.

So in a very good sense, the whole thing is just a show. Suharto isn't really elected. He just elect himself by electing those who will elect him in MPR.

So who elect Abu Bakr? Same trick? He's elected by consensus among those who like him?

1

This answer covers the viewpoint of the Ahl al-Sunnah. You should realize that this is a controversial subject with a lot of disagreement and alternative narratives among the sects.

The caliph is nominated by the following means:

  • By the preceding Imam. For example some hold the belief the Prophet ﷺ left indications regarding whom should succeed him. The factions have differed over whether it was Abu Bakr, Ali or Abbas. Abu Bakr appointed Umar. Umar appointed a group to choose from themselves who agreed on Uthman.

  • By the consultation and giving of allegiance of the majority of Ahlul Hal wal Aqd (أهل الحل والعقد). These are the senior scholars, leaders and representatives of the people. In the case of the rashidun caliphs they were the prominent Muhajirin and Ansar who were in Medinah. Abu Bakr was chosen by this method as well. Ali was chosen by this method.

  • By dominating using force. None of the rashidun caliphs were selected by this method.

Regarding the first caliph there was initially disagreement on the matter, however the Muslims eventually all agreed on Abu Bakr and consensus was established. Similarly consensus was established on Umar and Uthman.

References: Tafsir al-Qurtubi, Islamic Jurisprudence and its Proofs

-1

According to Shi'ite view, the holy Prophet Peace be upon him and his household, determined Imam Ali, peace be upon him, from the very beginning of his prophethood, maybe first at the very ceremony in which he invited his closer family and tribe's members, where Kuffar was making joke of Abu-Talib peace be upon him, for he should obey his son due to what the holy prophet said. The last serious determination of Imam Ali Peace be upon him, as his Caliph, was at the last sermon, in Qadeer-e-Khom. The sermon is by itself a long speech, only the most famous sentence from it being "من کنت مولاه، فهذا علی مولاه", and that's after Allah had already stated in his book that:

النَّبِيُّ أَوْلَىٰ بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ مِنْ أَنفُسِهِمْ

The Prophet has more authority over the believers than themselves

which yields into

وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ وَلَا مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَى اللَّـهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَمْرًا أَن يَكُونَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ ۗ وَمَن يَعْصِ اللَّـهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلَالًا مُّبِينًا

It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error.

But some people disregard this fact and interpret that sentence by merely saying, whoever likes me, should also like this Ali.

Anyway, in Saqifah, when Imam Ali PBUH was engaged in funeral managing of the holy prophet PBUH, Ansar have had gathered in a place called Saqifah Bani Saa`edah, to determine the Caliph after the holy prophet, PBUH. Soon after, Muhajereen joined them, but they were claiming that the Caliph should be selected fro Quraish. Different people from Ansar and Muhajereen were nominating their own candidate, and Abu-bakr was hardly a candidate. People were somewhat aggressive then towards others not thinking like them, and in such a situation Umar asked Abu-Bakr to open his arm. Abu-bakr did and Umar gave priviledge to him, then some others. Some Sahaba denied to accept it, some left the city, some opposed and gathered in the house of Imam Ali and Fatimah, PBUT, the only hoe with still a door open to the mosque of the holy prophet, PBUH.

This is not the case that people were giving their votes with free will (even according to Shi'ite view, any accept Abu-Bakr's ruler ship scaring for their lives, not because of Abu-Bakr, but scaring from Umar) and one was selected, as you concluded it is a normal game in politics. Even, in Ahl-ul-Jamaa`t's one of most authenticated books of Hadeeth, Umar himself has had a sermon at the end of his life, confessing that I did so, because I was afraid The Ummah will loose its integrity, and whoever did what I and Abu-Bakr did on that day, kill both of them immediately!

After Abubakr, no election was done, AbuBakr just seleted Ummar as the Caliph after him.

After Umar, the election was done actually by one person, between 6 candidate who were introduced by Umar, Imam Ali PBUH being one among them, and not the one who had the superior vote. Uthman was elected finally when Imam Ali PBUH refused the conditions put forward in the sitting, enforcing the next Caliph to rule the society by the Sunnah of Sheikhain (Abu-Bakr & Uthman), besides Quran and Sunnah of the holy prophet, PBUH.

Uthman didn't determine the Caliph after himself, and indeed according to Shi'ite view, Uthman was killed by Muslims who were suffering misbehavior of Uthman's government, so even if Uthman has had introduced a Caliph, no one was going to listen to it. It was then the first time after the holy prophet PBUH that people gathered around a person to force him to accept to be a Caliph, and Imam Ali PBUH was elected as Caliph.


These are history. Certainly, many of those who know themselves as Sunni, if understand that AbuBakr and Umar were not sound Muslims, will never continue to like them; and many of those who know themselves as Shia, if understand the those two were righteous and real believers in Islam, will stop hating them. This is because, Allah is the one we like, and we like the holy prophet for Allah like him and like us to like him. The same is true about Imam Ali PBUH for us, and I guess Abu Bakr and Umar for Ahlul-Jamaa`ah.

However, history is also important. History of Islam, specifically, is a rich source of knowledge about Islam and psychology of believers and hypocrites, friends and enemies, so that we can also better understand Quran and Ahadeeth. But I added that much to also mention why we insist on unification of all Muslims, specifically when Islam is continuously under attacks by common enemies.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.