How on earth did that submission of Ibn Taymiyyah even ever...

How on earth did that submission of Ibn Taymiyyah even ever make any sense to him at all?! Why do these people suddenly lose their simple logic whenever discussions involving Amir al-Muminin ‘Ali b. Abi Talib come up? As for our Shaykh’s insistence on the “uniqueness” of Abu Bakr’s khilafah in salat during the Prophet’s illness, then, there are two issues. One, as we will demonstrate in this book, there is NO reliable proof of it - to begin with!

All that our Sunni brothers can muster together are nothing but a set of severely contradictory riwayat which only muddle up the entire picture. Such kinds of irreconcilable reports are never accepted as valid testimonies. Two, even if it is agreed, for the sake of argument, that Abu Bakr ever led the salat on the order of the Prophet, then there is very little “merit” in it for him, if any at all. He then would have been a khalifah in salat only, which was the weakest form of khilafah .

He would have had no authority whatsoever to give commands to the Muslim soldiers, or to administer the Muslim society, or to pass judgments in disputes. Basically, he had no administrative, military or judicial authority in his alleged khilafah .

By contrast, when Amir al-Muminin was made the khalifah of Madinah by the Messenger during the Battle of Tabuk, the former had full authority to lead Muslims in salat in the Prophet’s mosque, command the Muslim armed forces stationed with him in the city, administer the affairs of its inhabitants and give judgments in any disputes that arose among them! How can anyone rationally consider the largely empty khilafah of Abu Bakr as superior to that of ‘Ali? How do these people reason?

The issue of Abu Bakr’s alleged appointment as prayer-leader is usually raised by our brothers from the Ahl al-Sunnah in debates over khilafah . Their logic always is – since the Prophet deputized Abu Bakr to lead the salat in his mosque, then he was automatically declaring the latter, implicitly, as his khalifah after his death.

However, even Ibn Taymiyyah is unable to completely ignore the fallacy of this mainstream Sunni premise: ليس كل من يصلح للاستخلاف في الحياة على بعض الأمة يصلح إن يستخلف بعد الموت فإن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم استخلف في حياته غير واحد و منهم من لا يصلح للخلافة بعد موته Not all who are qualified to be appointed khalifahs during the lifetime (of the Muslim ruler) over part of the Ummah are equally qualified to be appointed as khalifahs after the death (of the ruler).