The Khilafah post is not contracted to a person by a designation or by being named as a crown prince, for it is a contract between the Muslims and the Khaleefah. In order to be contracted it is stipulated that the Muslims should give the Bay’ah, and the person they gave their Bay’ah should accept it. Designation or appointing of a crown prince does not fulfill that so that cannot contract Khilafah. Accordingly, the contract of Khilafah is not contracted if a Khaleefah nominated another Khaleefah to succeed him, for He does not have the right to contract it. Khilafah is also the right of the Muslims and not of the Khaleefah, thus the Muslims contract it to whomsoever they wish. Therefore it is wrong as well for the Khaleefah to designate someone else, i.e. to promise him the post. For it would be giving him something He does not own; which legally forbidden. So if the Khaleefah designated another Khaleefah, whether He was his son or his relative or any other, this would be forbidden and the Khilafah would never be contracted to him. This is because those who own the contract did not convene it; therefore it would be an uncommisioned contract and thus invalid.

As for the claims that Abu Bakr had designated ‘Umar and that ‘Umar had designated the “Six” and that the Sahabah did not object and kept silent, indicating general consensus. These claims do not in fact indicate the permissibility of designating or appointing of a crown prince. This is because Abu Bakr had not designated a Khaleefah but merely consulted the Muslims regarding whom they wanted to be their Khaleefah, and ‘Ali and ‘Umar were nominated as candidates. The Muslims then chose ‘Umar by a majority during the last three months of Abu Bakr’s Khilafah. After his death, the Muslims came and gave their Bay’ah to ‘Umar; only then was the Khilafah post contracted to him. For up to that moment, i.e. before the Bay’ah, He was not a Khaleefah and the Khilafah had not yet been contracted to him, neither by Abu Bakr’s nomination, nor by the Muslims choice. It was contracted only when they gave him their Bay’ah and when He accepted it. As for ‘Umar’s designation of the “six”, this was merely a nomination for them in response to the Muslims request. Then ‘Abdul-Rahman ibn Awf consulted the Muslims as to which of the six they wanted to become their Khaleefah. So most of them chose ‘Ali if He adhered to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar’s actions, otherwise ‘Uthman. When ‘Ali declined to follow the actions of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar’, ‘Abdul Rahman gave his Bay’ah to ‘Uthman and then the Muslims gave him their Bay’ah.

Therefore, the Khilafah was contracted to ‘Uthman by the people’s Bay’ah and not by ‘Umar’s nomination, nor by the people’s choice. For if people had not given him their Bay’ah and if He had not accepted the Khilafah post. This would not have been contracted. Therefore, the Bay’ah of the Muslims to the Khaleefah is fundamental, and it is forbidden to contract Khilafah by appointing a crown prince or by designation, for it is a contract of authority (Wilayah) that should fulfill the rules of contracts.