The organizers of the opposition to the Prophet were afraid...

The organizers of the opposition to the Prophet were afraid of an open and free election; UMAR said publicly that the manner in which ABU BAKR was elected to the Caliphate was a calamity from whose evil effects God saved the Muslims; he ordered that no one in future should attempt that method, and in the event that anyone did, both he and his candidate would be beheaded. From all the different methods adopted, only one principle seems to emerge, and that is "Get your man in by any means you can".

Obviously the result was reversion to the Rule of Might, which destroyed the spirit of Islam. Any rational human being would realize that the Theory of Non-appointment is untenable, unreasonable and illogical, and this will be apparent when we consider the following points: There is no explanation of, nor reasonable grounds for the silence of the Prophet regarding the Caliphate. There is nothing in the QUR'AN requiring the Prophet to observe this silence.

The first Caliph nominated UMAR as his successor, and UMAR nominated six persons as the only allowable candidates, from amongst whom one candidate was to be selected as the Caliph by those candidates themselves. As affirmed by the first two Caliphs, they were anxious to nominate their successors for two reasons, viz.

In the interests of Islam, and to guard against confusion and commotion, the nomination of their successors was absolutely essential; They would have to answer before God as to what arrangement they had made for the leadership of the UMMAH after them, and also as to the personality of the Caliph they had appointed. Was not the Prophet then also aware of this immediate necessity and of his liability to answer before God?

The people themselves never demanded the right to appoint the Caliph; on the other hand, they would implore the dying Caliph to nominate his successor. Did the constitution of the theocratic state founded by the Prophet demand that he should not select or nominate his successor, or that he should put a seal on his lips on this point? There was no precedent of a Prophet keeping silence on this point. On the contrary, every one of them nominated his own son or relative as his successor.

Did the Prophet consider each and every one of his followers to be equal in the qualifications required of his successor, and thus not mind which of them happened to step into his place?