Sunnis Do Not Believe the Prophet (ص) appointed a Successor!!

DISCLAIMER: Shias believe that the Prophet appointed Imam Ali as his successor, while Sunnis believe the Prophet did not appoint a successor.

Appointing a Successor

The appointing of a successor that will run the affairs of the nation after you die is perhaps the most important duty a leader will have to undertake towards the end of his life. When Alexander the Great was about to die, he was asked who was to be his successor. He replied, “The strongest.” These two words led to half a century of strife and civil war, with rival factions and warlords battling each other in order to grab hold of the reins of power. Thus, we see it is neither feasible nor realistic that the Holy Prophet passed away without appointing a successor to hold the Muslim nation together at that tough time. When the Prophet died thousands of Muslims apostatized and it was undeniably a very testing period in the history of Islam. The question thus poses itself, why did the Prophet not appoint the ruler that would run the Muslim state after him. This would have saved the Muslims from falling into various bloody conflicts about who will lead them.The importance of leaving a successor is emphasized by the following narrations:

Amir asked: “When was the oath of allegiance given to Abu Bakr?”

“The very day the Messenger of Allah died,” he (Saeed) replied. “People disliked to be left even part of the day without being organized into a community”

(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.1, p.195)

We see that the Messenger of Allah’s apparent decision not to appoint a successor had led to a power struggle which threatened to rend Islam into rival factions. By appointing a successor, this could have been prevented yet our Sunni brothers are insisting selecting a ruler via Shura or consultation is the best way to go! In my opinion, selecting a ruler via consultation is a recipe for disaster with each party transfixed and determined in getting their man in power leading feuds, wars and bloodshed and this did indeed happened several times in Islam’s history.

A very important observation is that the Prophet, whenever he departed the city of Medina, appointed a leader in his absence who would run the city for the duration of the Prophet’s absence which could be many months. For example, when the Prophet went for the Battle of Tabuk, he appointed Imam Ali as leader, when he was away for the valedictory pilgrimage he appointed Abu Dujana etc. This begs the question as to why no consultation was employed to select them. Every time the Prophet went away for a few months he appointed a leader, yet he never appointed a leader when he was going to pass away?

A discussion ensued between Imam Ridha and a Sunni scholar:

Abul Hassan al-Ridha said to Ibn Rameen, “When the Prophet left Medina, did he leave a leader behind?” He said, “Yes, he did such as Ali.” Al-Ridha said, “The people of Medina did not have the right to choose the leader so that you are not left misguided.” Ibn Rameen said, “He feared for them strife and discord.” Al-Ridha replied, “If strife had occurred, the Prophet could have sorted it out when he returned.” Ibn Rameen said, “That is less preferable.” Al-Ridha said, “Did he appoint a leader to rule after his death?” Ibn Rameen said, “No.” Abul Hassan al-Ridha said, “But death is greater than travel, so how did he appoint a leader over the nation when he travelled but now when he died!?”

Some Sunnis have said that if the Messenger of Allah had appointed a successor, it would have been akin to installing a dictator to rule over the Muslims without consent and this would be considered tyranny. I beg to differ, as when the Messenger of Allah does something, it is considered a matter of religion and so there is no room for consultation. The Messenger appointing Imam Ali as his successor was due to divine commands, and so this is not considered to be tyranny. Is alcohol or pig being haram considered tyranny? Another important observation we make is that by appointing a successor, the Holy Prophet was simply doing what the previous Prophets and Messengers had done, and this is found in the Quran as we shall now see.

The Holy Quran

The Sunni propagandists often time say that the divine appointment of a leader over the people is a concept absent from the book of Allah. This is a lie:

And their prophet said to them: Surely Allah has raised Talut to be a king over you. They said: How can he hold kingship over us while we have a greater right to kingship than he, and he has not been granted an abundance of wealth? He said: Surely Allah has chosen him in preference to you, and He has increased him abundantly in knowledge and physique, and Allah grants His kingdom to whom He pleases, and Allah is Amplegiving, All-Knowing. (The Holy Quran 2:247)

We see from the above holy verse, that Talut who was neither a Messenger, Prophet or Imam was appointed by Allah to be king over the people – “Surely Allah has chosen him”, “Allah grants His kingdom to whom He pleases”, “”Surely Allah has raised Talut to be a king over you.”

A couple of verses that Sunnis frequently pose to us to prove leadership is determined by shura are “conduct their affairs by mutual consultation” (42:38) and “consult with them upon the conduct of affairs” (3:159). Indeed, the Shia do not disagree with the concept of consultation and in fact we see the Prophet employed it many times with his companions such as in the Battle of Khandaq it was Salman who had the idea to dig the trench etc. However, this does not mean that the Prophet’s successor was to be chosen by consultation. No one can claim the holy verse is applicable in every scenario. When a group of people approached the Prophet and told him that they would convert to Islam on the condition that they still be allowed to drink alcohol, the Prophet said no. There was no room for consultation or anything of the sort.

Sunni Narrative Praises Abu Bakr, Denigrates the Holy Prophet (ص)

The Sunni narrative of the events that transpired after the Holy Prophet’s demise which culminated in the election of Abu Bakr at the assembly hall (saqifa) of an Ansari tribe, portrays Abu Bakr and Omar as Batman and Robin style heroes who saved the day. The Ansar were about to elect one of their own as caliph, and this would have led to violent bloodshed, so Abu Bakr and Omar went over there and they saved the day, and prevented civil war.Indeed, if an Ansari had been elected there would have been bloodshed due to the reluctance of Quraysh to have the Ansar rule over them. The situation was certainly very tense, and a civil war could easily have been triggered.

(The) Ansar said: “In case they reject our Caliph, we shall drive them out from Medina at the point of our swords.” However, the few Muhajirs in the assembly protested against this attitude and this led to a dispute and disorder of a serious nature and a war between the Muhajirs and Ansars seemed possible. When the situation took this ugly turn, Mughirah ibn Shubah left the trouble spot and came to the Prophet’s Mosque to relate what was going on in Saqifah Banu Sa’idah.

(Tareekh Al-Islam, Vol.1, p.273-274)

The Sunni narrative says Abu Bakr and Omar saved the Muslim ummah. However, while Abu Bakr and Omar are praised for helping to prevent a civil war, the Sunnis are inadvertently criticizing the Holy Prophet. His supposed failure to appoint a successor almost ripped the Muslim ummah into shreds, and may have led to thousands of deaths in an all-out civil war. In other words, according to the Sunnis, Abu Bakr and Omar picked up the pieces.

It cannot be argued that the Prophet could not foresee this as trouble had been brewing between the Ansar and Muhajirs, and it is well-known that the new Meccan converts still had jahil tendencies. So this begs the question as to why the Prophet was supposedly willing to risk the lives of so many people and cause a split in the ummah by not appointing a successor?!

In spite of what some e-Sunnis have been saying on the internet, the Sunni belief is that the Holy Prophet did not appoint a successor, and in the words of Omar in the narration below “left the matter undecided”.

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 9, Book 89, Number 325:

It was said to 'Umar, "Will you appoint your successor?" Umar said, "If I appoint a Caliph (as my successor) it is true that somebody who was better than I (i.e., Abu Bakr) did so, and if I leave the matter undecided, it is true that somebody who was better than I (i.e., Allah's Apostle) did so."

Recently, some Sunni kids have been saying the Prophet wanted Abu Bakr to succeed him but fell short of making a formal declaration. They base this on the idea Abu Bakr supposedly led the prayer during the illness of the Messenger of Allah. However, even if we accept the story as true, this in no way says the Prophet wanted him as successor (a point to note is that if the Prophet wanted Abu Bakr as successor, does this not spoil the fun and nullify the purpose of Shura).

We see that towards the end of his life, according to Sunnis, the Prophet made similar gestures and said similar things to the other companions.

“Follow Umar after me, wherever he might be.”

(Tareekh al-Tabari, Vol.9, pp.170-171)

“I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate. Whoever wants knowledge let him come through the gate.”

(Mustadrak, Hakim, Volume 3)

It is important to mention that the Prophet asking Abu Bakr to lead the prayers is unverified and unauthenticated to us, and so is Abu Bakr actually doing so. There is also the possibility that Aisha was the one who said the Prophet asked Abu Bakr to lead the salat. This may offend the sensibilities of Sunni readers, but we ask them to refer to the tafsir of Surat al-Tahreem. In every Sunni tafsir, as well as in Sahih Bukhari, in a nutshell it is narrated that Aisha told the Prophet that he had the odor of maghafeer, when she knew this was not true. We shall write an article about this at a later date, but I would like my Sunni brothers to realize that claiming Aisha said something that was not true is not a deviation, because this is found in the Holy Quran and its commentary.

Who is the best man after the Messenger of Allah (ص)?

Imam Ali was the best of the companions of the Prophet, and this is the position held by the rightly guided Ahl al-Tashayyu’. To the Sunnis, Abu Bakr, followed by Omar, were superior to Imam Ali and all the other companions. To support this statement they provide many ahadith such as one were Imam Ali supposedly states he would cut off the head or flog anyone who said he was superior to Abu Bakr. The funny thing is I didn’t see Imam Ali displaying this passion when he abstained from giving bay’ah to Abu Bakr until Fatima passed away nor did I see him show so much love for Abu Bakr when his wife died angry with him due to Fadak, which Ali opposed Abu Bakr about. Additionally, is there any shar’ii basis for flogging someone who considers Ali superior to Abu Bakr? In that case, according to the Sunnis, Aisha should be flogged:

Jumayy’ Ibn Umayr narrated:
I entered with my mother asking Aisha about Ali and I heard her behind a screen saying, “You ask me about a man and by God I do not know a man more beloved to the Prophet than Ali and a woman more beloved to the Prophet than Fatima.” This hadith is authentic but [Bukhari and Muslim] do not report it.

(Mustadrak, Hakim, Volume 3, #4731)

Abdullah Ibn Buraida narrates that his father said, “The most beloved of women to the Prophet was Fatima, and the most beloved of men was Ali.” This hadith is authentic but [Bukhari and Muslim] do not report it.

(Mustadrak, Hakim, Volume 3, #4735)

On the same note, it was a widespread notion amongst the companions and the tabi’un that Ali was superior to Abu Bakr. In his commentary about Aban Ibn Taghlib, a companion of Imam Jafar al-Sadiq, Sheikh al-Dhahabi writes in Mizan Al-Itidal fi Naqd Al-Rijal, “Aban Ibn Taghlib used to consider Ali superior to Abu Bakr and Omar…this Shiism without extremism was widespread amongst tabi’een and tabu tabi’een…if we were to discard them because of their bidah we would have to discard many of the Prophet’s hadiths which would be a bigger bidah.”

The above two authentic narrations completely nullify the Sunni claim that Abu Bakr and Aisha are the most beloved man and woman to the Prophet.Therefore, we notice that the divine appointment of rulers has a precedent in the Quran, and so it is out of line for the Sunnis to be demonizing it and labeling it as tyranny. Another interesting point we see is that the children of Israel did not even want Talut to be their king i.e. he did not have “consent of the governed” yet their opposition did not have any value – Talut was the best person for the job.Sir John Glubb says: “Mohammed was not dead an hour before the struggle for power threatened to rend Islam into rival factions.”