The question now is what that course of action was. If it is taken to be the consensus of the opinion of the community, then it cannot truly take place; as in such consensus, acquiescence of every individual is necessary ; but taking into account ,the difference in human temperaments ,it seems impossible that they would agree on any single point. Nor is there any example, where on such matters, there has been no single voice of dissent. How then can such a fundamental need be made dependent on the occurrence of such an impossible event ; need on which converges the future of Islam and the good of the Muslims. Therefore, mind is not prepared to accept the criterion nor is tradition in harmony with it, as al-Qazi ‘Adud ad-Din as-‘Iji has written in Sharh al-mawaqif:
You should know that caliphate cannot depend upon unanimity of election because no logical or traditional argument can be advanced for it.
In fact, when the advocates of unanimous election found that unanimity of all votes is difficult, they adopted the agreement of the majority as a substitute for unanimity, ignoring the difference of the minority. In such a case also, it often happens that the force of fair and foul or correct and incorrect ways turns the flow of the majority opinion in the direction where there is neither individual distinction nor personal merit as a result of which , competent persons remains hidden while incompetent individuals stand forward. When capabilities remains so curbed and personal ends stand in the way as hurdles, how can there be expectations for the election of correct person. Even if it is assumed that all voters have independent unbiased view, that none of them has his own objective and that none has any other consideration, it is not necessary that every verdict of the majority should be correct and that it cannot go astray. Experience shows that after experiment, the majority has held its own verdict to be wrong. If every verdict of the majority is correct, then its first verdict should be wrong because the verdict which holds it wrong is also that of the majority. In this circumstance, if the election of the caliphate goes wrong, who would be responsible for the mistake and who should face the blame for the ruination of the Islamic polity. Similarly, on whom would be the liability for the bloodshed and slaughter following the turmoil and activity of the elections? When it has been seen that those who sat in the audience of the Holy Prophet (AS) could not be free of mutual quarrel and strife, how can others avoid it.
If, with a view to avoid mischief, it is left to the people of authority to choose anyone they like, then here too the same friction and conflict would prevail because, here again, convergence of human temperaments on one point is not necessary nor can they be assumed to rise above personal ends. In fact here the chances of conflict and collision would be stronger because if not all , at least most of them would themselves be candidates for that position and would not spare any effort to defeat their opponent, creating impediments in his way as best as possible. Its inevitable consequences would be mutual struggle and mischief mongering. Thus it would not be possible to ward off the mischief for which this device was adopted and instead of finding the proper individual, the community would just become an instrument for the achievement of personal benefits of the others. Again, what would be criterion for these people in authority? The same as has usually been , namely, whoever collects a few supporters and is able to create commotion in any meeting by use of forceful words, would count among the people of authority. Or, would capabilities also be judged ? If the mode of judging the capabilities is again this very common vote, then the same complications and conflicts would arise here too; to avoid which, this way was adopted. If there is some other standard, then instead of judging capabilities of the voters by it, why not judge the person who is considered suitable for the position in view. Further, how many persons in authority would be enough to give a verdict? Apparently a verdict once accepted would be precedent for good and the number that would give this verdict would become the criterion for future as al-Qazi al-‘Adud ad-Din al-Iji writes:
Rather the nomination of one or two individuals by the people in authority is enough because we know that the companions who were strict in religion deemed it enough as the nomination of abu baker by oomer and of oosman by abd ar-rehman ( Sharh al-mawaqif, p: 351)
This is the account of the “unanimous election” in the hall of Bani Si-dah and the activity of the consultative assembly, that is, one man’s action has been given the name of unanimous election and one individual’s deed given the name of consultative assembly; abu baker had well understood this reality that election means the vote of a person or two only, which is to be attributed to common simple people. That is why he ignored the requirements of unanimous election, majority vote or method of choosing through electoral assembly and appointed oomer by nomination. Aeicha also considered that leaving the question of caliphate to the vote of few particular individuals means inviting mischief and trouble. She sent a word to oomer on his death saying:
Do not leave the Islamic community without a chief. Nominate a caliph for it and leave it not without an authority as otherwise I apprehend mischief and trouble.