How was the Khilāfat of Ḥaḍrat ‘Umar(ra) and Ḥaḍrat ‘Uthmān(ra) Established?

At this instance the doubt may arise in someone’s heart that if in light of the Islāmic teaching, an Amīr or Khalīfah must be appointed by consultation and election, why then was Ḥaḍrat ‘Umar(ra), the second Khalīfah, not appointed in this manner? As a matter of fact, he was appointed by Ḥaḍrat Abū Bakr(ra), the first Khalīfah himself. Furthermore, why was the appointment of Ḥaḍrat ‘Uthmān(ra), the third Khalīfah, not done so by public opinion? Instead, Ḥaḍrat ‘Umar(ra) limited this right to six or seven Companions. Finally, why is it that the Amīrs of the Banū Umayyah and Banū ‘Abbās, etc., would always appoint their own successors, who were generally sons, or close relatives? At times, they would even decide that after them, such and such person would be the Amīr, then so and so and then so and so! In their era, why is it that consultation and elections never took place for the appointment of an Amīr?

In order to clarify this doubt, firstly we take up the question which relates to the Khilāfat of Ḥaḍrat ‘Umar(ra). It should be known that undoubtedly, in the establishment of Khilāfat and leadership, consultation and elections are necessary. However, as we have already mentioned above, as far as the nature of this method of consultation and election, and its details are concerned, Islām has not imposed any specific conditions or limitations. In fact, Islām has left secondary questions of this nature open to be decided by differing circumstances and it is obvious that consultation and election can take on different forms at various times. On this basis, if one contemplates, in actuality, the Khilāfat of Ḥaḍrat ‘Umar(ra) is also proven to have been established according to the principle of consultation and election. The Khilāfat of Ḥaḍrat ‘Umar(ra) was settled when Ḥaḍrat Abū Bakr(ra), who was himself an elected Khalīfah, was about to pass away. At the time, the effects of the rebellion of apostasy had not yet faded away and the system of Khilāfat was also in its early stages. Ḥaḍrat Abū Bakr(ra) felt that Ḥaḍrat ‘Umar(ra) was the most appropriate and worthy individual for Khilāfat in the future, but if the election of the Khalīfah was left to the public vote, it was possible that due to the apparently stern disposition of Ḥaḍrat ‘Umar(ra), his name may not be presented in the election. This could have opened the door to further unrest in the community of the Holy Prophet(sa). For this reason, Ḥaḍrat Abū Bakr(ra) called upon the learned Companions and sought their counsel. After this consultation, Ḥaḍrat Abū Bakr(ra) appointed Ḥaḍrat ‘Umar(ra) as his successor, who was not a relative, nor was he from the same tribe,1 even though at the time, the very son and other near relatives of Ḥaḍrat Abū Bakr(ra) were also present in great number. Now, every individual can understand that this method cannot be considered as being opposed to the system of consultation and election at all. The reason being that firstly, Ḥaḍrat Abū Bakr(ra) did not make this decision by himself, rather, he did so after consulting various learned Companions. Secondly, Ḥaḍrat Abū Bakr(ra) was himself an elected Khalīfah, due to which his verdict represented the voice of the people in one respect. Furthermore, he did not appoint any of his own relatives as the Khalīfah, rather, he elected a completely unrelated person and in this way it could not be presumed that the people would provide biased advice with the thought that the person in consideration was a close relative of the Khalīfah of the time. In this case, it cannot be assumed in the least that a way of consultation and election was not employed; rather, this shall also be considered a form of consultation. In addition to this, there was also a clear prophecy of the Holy Prophet(sa) with relation to the Khilāfat of Ḥaḍrat ‘Umar(ra),2 and for this reason, no Muslim could have held an objection against his Khilāfat. Quite the contrary, everyone accepted it with the utmost satisfaction of heart.

The second question relates to the Khilāfat of Ḥaḍrat ‘Uthmān(ra). Firstly, although his election took place within a small group, it was still a form of consultation nonetheless,3 and it cannot be said that his Khilāfat was established as a result of the decision of his predecessor. Islām has not interfered with respect to the details of the specific method of election or consultation, rather, has left them to be settled by the circumstances of varying times. Hence, the method of limited consultation, which was employed for the Khilāfat of Ḥaḍrat ‘Uthmān(ra) cannot be deemed to contradict Islāmic teaching at all; especially when it is taken into account that Ḥaḍrat ‘Abdur-Raḥmān bin ‘Auf(ra), who was the President of the consultative body that elected Ḥaḍrat ‘Uthmān(ra), personally consulted many learned Companions himself and decided the matter of his Khilāfat after gauging the public opinion first.4 Then, the circumstances of the time were such that if this issue had been left to the public opinion completely, it was possible that some form of unrest may have broken out. In addition to this, Ḥaḍrat ‘Umar(ra) elaborated that although my son would be a member of the consultation, he would not have the right to be elected as the next Khalīfah.5 Moreover, it should also be remembered, that just as in the case of Ḥaḍrat ‘Umar(ra), there was a prophecy of the Holy Prophet(sa) regarding the Khilāfat of Ḥaḍrat ‘Uthmān(ra).6 For this reason, no Muslim levelled an allegation against his Khilāfat.