Is Abu Bakr the rightly guided Caliph???

Dear Brothers and Sisters,
Without hurting your feelings I would Like to post a question for all of us to ponder without any prejudice.
Allah (s.w.t.) sent Islam which was explained to us by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.).

Now the Holy Prophet taught us how to pray and he himself used to pray properly and on time.He taught us how to fast and he also used to fast.He taught us how to do Haj, Pay Zakat, and other acts of religion, and he also used to do the aforesaid acts.

Now Allah (s.w.t.) tells in the Quran that a person should make his will before dying. The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) also told us to make a will, then is it possible that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) who himself told us to make a will himself would not do so.

Did the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) not make a will and appoint a successor so that there is no confusion about Islam after him.?????

Now there can be two answers to this.

1. He made a will and appointed a successor
2. He did not make a will and did not appoint a successor.

Before we move ahead lets peep in to history and study what happened after the death of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.). and how Abubakar was appointed as the first caliph.

After the death of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) people assembled at a place called Saqifa e Bani Saadat. and there they elected abubakar as the first caliph. Thus abubakar was elected as the first caliph on the whims and fancy of a few people. The details of this is available in various sunni books.

Now coming back to our first answer.

1. The Holy Prophet made a will and did appoint a caliph.

Now if the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) had already appointed a caliph then the people did not have any right to appoint abubakar as the caliph via elections. Abubakr is the elected representative of the people as we elect via general elections he is not the representative of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w). Obeying and following him in now way is incumbent on the people and his  khilafat is in now was justifiable as the successor ship of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) as he was appointed by the people and not the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.). Now if the Holy Prophet had already appointed a caliph then electing some one is going against the orders Allah (s.w.w.) and the order of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.), and is usurping the rights of the rightfully appointed caliph. Thus the khilafat of Abubakar is wrong and against the orders of Allah (s.w.w.) and the orders of the Holy Prophet (s..w.w.)

Now discussing the second answer.

2. The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w) did not make a will and did not appoint a successor.

The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) never went against the commands of Allah (s.w.w.) and never disobeyed him. His not appointing a successor means that Allah (s.w.w.) did not want to appoint one. Did Allah (s.w.t.) commit a mistake by not appointing a successor to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) and the people rectified it by appointing abubakar. The Holy Prophet not selecting anybody to succeed him means that Allah (s.w.t.) did not want the affairs of the religion to go into the hands of anybody. Thus electing abubakar once against means going against the commands of Allah (s.w.t.). Here also the khilafat of abubakar is against the orders of Allah (s.w.t.)  and the orders of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.).

Thus the khilafat of abubakar is wrong and unislamic. When goes the khilafat of abubakar then automatically goes down the khilafat of umar and usman.

I do not want to  hurt  your feelings and would like to ponder over what I have said without prejudice. I would welcome any comments and arguments and would infact be very happy if some one guides me to the right path if I am wrong.

Any body needing further references to what happened at Saqifa  can visit the following link

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/saqifa/en/index.php

Allahhafiz.