الخلافة لا تنعقد لشخص بالتعيين أو بتسميته وليّ عهد، لأنها عقد بين المسلمين والخليفة. ولكي ينعقد هذا العقد يُشترط أن يبايع المسلمون، وأن يقبل من بايعوه البيعة. والتعيين أو تسمية ولي العهد لا يحقق ذلك، فلا تنعقد به الخلافة. وبناءً على ذلك، لا تنعقد الخلافة إذا رشّح الخليفة شخصاً آخر ليخلفه، لأنه لا يملك حق عقدها. والخلافة حقٌّ للمسلمين لا للخليفة، فالمسلمون هم الذين يعقدونها لمن يشاءون. ولذلك فإنه من الخطأ أيضاً أن يعيّن الخليفة شخصاً آخر، أي أن يعده بالمنصب، لأن ذلك إعطاء لشيءٍ لا يملكه، وهو محرّم شرعاً. فإذا عيّن الخليفة خليفةً آخر، سواء كان ابنه أو قريبه أو غيرهما، كان ذلك محرّماً ولم تنعقد الخلافة له أبداً، لأن أصحاب الحق في العقد لم يجتمعوا عليه، فيكون عقداً بغير تفويض صحيح، وبالتالي باطلاً.

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.

هغه ادعاوې چې ابوبکر صدیق ؓ عمر فاروق ؓ نومول کړی و، او عمر ؓ د «شپږو کسانو» نوم وړاندې کړی و، او صحابه کرامو ؓ اعتراض ونه کړ او چوپ پاتې شول، چې دا د عمومي اجماع نښه ده، دا ادعاوې د ولیعهد نومولو یا ټاکلو د جواز څرګندونه نه کوي. ځکه ابوبکر ؓ خلیفه نه و ټاکلی، بلکه یوازې د مسلمانانو څخه مشوره یې کړې وه چې څوک یې خلیفه غواړي، او علي ؓ او عمر ؓ د نوماندانو په توګه وړاندې شول. مسلمانانو د ابوبکر ؓ د خلافت په وروستیو درې میاشتو کې په اکثریت سره عمر ؓ وټاکه. د ابوبکر ؓ له وفات وروسته مسلمانان راغلل او عمر ؓ ته یې بیعت وکړ؛ یوازې بیا وو چې د خلافت قرارداد ورسره وشو. ځکه تر هغه دمه، یعنې تر بیعت دمخه، هغه خلیفه نه و او خلافت هغه ته نه و تړل شوی، نه د ابوبکر ؓ د نومولو له مخې، نه د مسلمانانو د ټاکنې له مخې. خلافت یوازې هغه وخت تړل شو چې دوی ورته بیعت وکړ او هغه یې ومانه. په اړه د عمر ؓ د «شپږو کسانو» د نوم وړاندیز، دا یوازې د مسلمانانو د غوښتنې په ځواب کې د دوی د نوم وړاندې کول وو. بیا عبدالرحمن بن عوف ؓ مسلمانانو څخه مشوره وکړه چې د شپږو څخه کوم یې خلیفه غواړي. نو اکثریت علي ؓ ته تمایل وښود، که چیرې هغه د ابوبکر ؓ او عمر ؓ د کړنو تعقیب کوي، که نه نو عثمان ؓ ته. کله چې علي ؓ د ابوبکر ؓ او عمر ؓ د کړنو تعقیب کولو څخه انکار وکړ، عبدالرحمن ؓ عثمان ؓ ته بیعت وکړ، او بیا مسلمانانو هم هغه ته بیعت وکړ.

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.

لهذا فإن عقد الخلافة لعثمان كان ببيعة الناس، لا بتعيين عمر، ولا باختيار الناس. فلو لم يعطوه بيعتهم، ولو لم يقبل هو منصب الخلافة، لما انعقدت. ولذلك فإن بيعة المسلمين للخليفة أصل أساسي، ويحرم عقد الخلافة بتعيين ولي عهد أو بالنص عليه، لأنها عقد ولاية يجب أن تستوفي أحكام العقود.

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.