WHY the theory of Non-Appointment is highly improbable and entirely illogical.

One fact which cuts to the root of the Theory of Non-appointment is that its advocates are unable to find any sensible explanation' or show any reasonable grounds for why the Prophet (P) should have adopted this attitude of "non-cooperation", so to speak, towards this very important problem of the Caliphate. 

Without this explanation, no intelligible history of the Caliphate can be written. In fact, a true conception and thorough understanding of the History of Islam and the Muslim peoples is absolutely impossible without a correct answer to this very essential question. The entire course of Islamic History, for good or for bad was shaped by the way in which this problem was handled after the death of the Prophet (P). The innumerable wars and massacres which throughout the long period of Islamic rule almost continuously drenched the Muslim world with blood and eventually brought it to a sad close, and the sighs and sorrows of countless Muslim widows and orphans that saddened the heart of man and brought the wrath of God upon erring humanity, can be traced directly, with not a single "missing link", to the wrong and sinful manner in which this problem was approached on the death of the Prophet (P). I say sinful, because it implied a cotumacious disregard of the orders and wishes of the Prophet (P), implicit obedience to which had been enjoined by the Qur'an, On account of this, Islamic History became a long tragedy of errors, from the horrible massacre of Karbala' to the more recent times of Aurangzeb whom a misguided zeal to serve his religion induced to invade the Shia States of Deccan, and thus clear the way right up to Delhi for the pagan Marahattas. How the succession to the State acquired by Muhammad was to be regulated was the question. They rejected the principle of selection or nomination as not having been ordered by the Prophet (P); but at the same time they could not formulate any rules of their own. Sometimes the nomination of one man, sometimes the nomination of six candidates, out of whom the candidates themselves were to select one man -a queer method of succession- bur no definite rule was fixed. The organisers of the opposition to' the Prophet were afraid of an open and free election; "Umar said publicly that the manner in which Abu Bakr was elected to the Caliphate was a calamity from Whose evil effects God saved the Muslims; he ordered that no,one in future should attempt that method, and in the event that anyone did, both he and his candidate Would he beheaded.   1

 1.  Al-Bukhari: Bab "Rajm-Al-Hubla min az-zina Idha Absanat";

   At'Tabari: Vol. 3, pg. 200;

   Ibn Althir: 'Tarikh-Al-Kamil", Vol. 2, p, 124;

  Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal: "Musnad", Vol. 1, p. 55;

  Ibn Hajar Al-Makki:-"As-Sawa'iq", Chptr 1. Fasl 1pg. 5;

  Mohib At-Tabari': "Al-Riyad-At-Nadra", Part 2, Fasl 3, p. 164;

  Ibn Hisham: "Sirat-Al-Nabi:", Vol. 4', p. 338;
    .
  Ibn-Kathir Al-Shami; "Tarikh", Vol. 5, p. 245.

 From all the different methods adopted, only one principle seems to emerge, and that is "Get your man in by any means you can". Obviously the result was reversion to the Rule of Might, which destroyed the spirit of Islam. 

Any rational human being Would realise that the Theory of Non-appointment is untenable, unreasonable and illogical, and this will be apparent When we consider the following points:




1.    There is no explanation of, nor reasonable grounds for the silence of the Prophet regarding the Caliphate. 

2.    There is nothing in the Qur'an requiring the Prophet to observe this silence. 

3.    The first Caliph nominated 'Umar as his successor, and 'Umar nominated six persons as the  only allowable candidates, from amongst whom one candidate was to be selected as the Caliph by those candidates themselves.

4.    As affirmed by the first two Caliphs, they were anxious to nominate their successors for two reasons, viz.

(i)     in the interests of Islam. and to guard against confusion and commotion, the nomination of their successors was absolutely essential: 

ii)     they would have to answer before God as to what arrangement they had made for the leadership of the Ummah after them, and also as to the personality of the Caliph they had appointed. 

5.    Was not the Prophet then also aware of this immediate necessity and of his liability to answer before God? 

6.    The people themselves never demanded the right to appoint the Caliph; on the other hand. they would implore the dying Caliph to nominate his successor. 

7.    Did the constitution of the theocratic state founded by the Prophet demand that he should not select or nominate his successor, or that he should put a seal on his lips on this point?

8.  There was no precedent of a Prophet keeping silence on this point. On the contrary, everyone of them nominated his own son or relative as his successor. 

9.    Did the Prophet consider each and everyone of his followers to be equal in the qualifications required of his successor, and thus not mind which of them happened to step into his place? Was there no likelihood of an undesirable person installing himself in power and elbowing out, by fair means Or foul, a more fit and deserving person? 

10.    Were the people fit and qualified to choose the Caliph by election'? 

11.   In view of the Prophet's claim that he was the last messenger of God to man, and that Islam was to continue till the end of the world, does it stand to reason that he would not give even a passing thought to the question of the succession? 

12.    In view of the fact that the Prophet claimed to have direct communion with God, is not this omission unbelievable?

        I will  expand  most of the above points in turn, INsha Allah

Categories: English