The Succession

The caliph is the guardian and trustee of the Muslims.

• He looks after them as long as he lives.

It follows that he should also look after their affairs after his death. Therefore, he should appoint someone to take charge of their affairs as he had done (while alive), whom they can trust to look after them as they had trusted him then.

Such appointment of a successor is recognized as part of the religious law through the consensus of the (Muslim) nation, (which says) that it is permissible and binding when it occurs. Thus, Abu Bakr appointed ‘Umar as his successor in the presence of the men around Muhammad. They considered (this appointment) permissible and considered themselves obliged by it to render obedience to ‘Umar.

Likewise, ‘Umar appointed six persons, the remnant of the ten (men to whom Paradise had been guaranteed), 328 to be members of (an electoral) council (shura), and he put it up to them to make the choice for the Muslims. Each one deferred to (the judgment) of the next man, until it was the turn of ‘Abd-arRahman b. ‘Awf. He applied his independent judgment and discussed the matter with the Muslims.

He found that they agreed upon ‘Uthman and ‘Ali. He (himself) preferred ‘Uthman as the person to receive the oath of allegiance, because (‘Uthman) agreed with him concerning the obligation to follow the example of the two shaykhs (Abu Bakr and ‘Umar) in every case, without making use of his independent judgment.

Thus, ‘Uthman was confirmed, and it was considered necessary to obey him. A great number of the men around Muhammad were present on the first and on the second (occasion). 329 None of them expressed the slightest disapproval. This shows that they were agreed upon the correctness of the procedure and recognized its legality.

It is recognized that consensus constitutes proof. No suspicion of the imam is justified in this connection, even if he appoints his father or his son his successor. He is trusted to look after the affairs of the Muslims as long as he lives. He is all the more responsible for not tolerating while he is (alive the possibility that there might arise evil) developments after his death.

This is against those who say that (the imam) is suspect with regard to (the appointment of) his son or father, and also against those who consider him suspect with regard to (appointment of) his son only, not his father. In fact, he could hardly be suspected in this respect in any way.

Especially if there exists some reason for (the appointment of a successor), such as desire to promote the (public) interest or fear that some harm might arise (if no successor were appointed), suspicion of the imam is out of the question. This, for instance, was the case with Mu’awiyah’s appointment of his son 330

The action met with agreement of the people, and, therefore, is in itself an Yazid.

argument for the problem under discussion (namely, that the imam is not suspect with regard to whomever he might appoint). But Mu’awiyah himself preferred his son Yazid to any other successor, because he was concerned with the (public) interest of preserving unity and harmony among the people, (and realized that hecould achieve this purpose only by appointing Yazid), since the men who possessed executive authority, that is, the Umayyads, agreed at that time upon Yazid. The Umayyads were then agreeable to no one except (Yazid). The Umayyads constituted the core (group) of the Quraysh and of all the Muslims, and possessed superiority (Mu’awiyah,) therefore, preferred (Yazid) to anyone else who might have been considered more suited for the caliphate.

He passed over the superior person in favor of the inferior one, 331 because he desired to preserve agreement and harmony, which is the more important thing in the opinion of the Lawgiver (Muhammad). No other motive could be expected of Mu’awiyah. His probity and the fact that he was one of the men around Muhammad preclude any other explanation. The presence of the men around Muhammad on that occasion and their silence are the best argument against doubt in this matter. They were not persons to tolerate the slightest negligence in matters of the truth, nor was Mu’awiyah one of those who are too proud to accept the truth.

They were all above that, and their probity precludes it. The fact that ‘Abdallah b. ‘Umar avoided the issue must be ascribed to his general avoidance of participation in any business, whether permissible or forbidden. He is well known for this (kind of attitude). Ibn az-Zubayr was the only one left to oppose (Mu’awiyah’s) appointment, upon which the great mass had agreed. Small minorities of persons holding divergent opinions, it is well known, (are treated by jurists as not authoritative).

After Mu’awiyah, caliphs who were used to choose the truth and to act in accordance with it, acted similarly. Such caliphs included the Umayyads ‘Abd-al-Malik and Sulayman and the ‘Abbasids as-Saffah, al-Mansur, al-Mahdi, and ar- Rashid, and others like them whose probity, and whose care and concern for the Muslims are well known. They cannot be blamed because they gave preference to their own sons and brothers, in that respect departing from the Sunnah of the first four caliphs. Their situation was different from that of the (four) caliphs, who lived in a time when royal authority as such did not yet exist, and the (sole) restraining influence was religious. Thus, everybody had his restraining influence in himself. Consequently, they appointed the person who was acceptable to Islam, and preferred him over all others. They trusted everybody who aspired to (the caliphate) to have his own restraining influence.

After them, from Mu’awiyah on, the group feeling (of the Arabs) approached its final goal, royal authority. The restraining influence of religion had weakened. The restraining influence of government and group was needed. If, under those circumstances, someone not acceptable to the group had been appointed as successor (to the caliphate), such an appointment would have been rejected by it.

The (chances of the appointee) would have been quickly demolished, and the community would have been split and torn by dissension. Someone asked ‘Ali= “Why do the people disagree concerning you, and why did they not disagree concerning Abu Bakr and ‘Umar?” ‘Ali replied= “Because Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were in charge of men like me, and I today am in charge of men like you.” 331a He referred to the restraining influence of Islam.

When al-Ma’mun appointed ‘Ali b. Mitsa b. Ja’far asSadiq his successor and called him ar-Rida, the ‘Abbasids greatly disapproved of the action. They declared invalid the oath of allegiance that had been rendered to al-Ma’mun, and took the oath of allegiance to his uncle Ibrahim b, al-Mahdi. There was so much trouble, dissension, and interruption of communications, and there were so many rebels and seceders, that the state almost collapsed, 332 Eventually, al-Ma’mlin went from Khurasan to Baghdad and brought matters back to their former conditions. Such (differences as the one just cited between caliphate and royal authority)must be taken into consideration in connection with (the problem of) succession.

Times differ according to differences in affairs, tribes, and group feelings, which come into being during those (times). Differences in this respect produce, differences in (public) interests, and each (public interest) has its own particular laws. This is a kindness shown by God to His servants.

However, Islam does not consider preservation of (the ruler’s) inheritance for his children the proper purpose in appointing a successor. The (succession to the rule) is something that comes from God who distinguishes by it whomsoever He wishes.

It is necessary in (appointing a successor) to be as wellintentioned as possible. Otherwise, there is danger that one may trifle with religious institutions. God’s is the kingdom (royal authority). 333 He gives it to those of His servants to whom He wants to give it.