53. A collective rejection to the Caliphate of Abu Bakr
As for ‘Ijma’, or ‘agreement’, the writer says at the end of ‘Ismat. The Shia Imamia regard this method as being void and null because of the pressure on an Imam amidst the people. The writer adds that the Shia have chosen to disregard the consensus (Ijma) of Sunnis who did the same to give a legitimacy to the caliphate of Abu Bakr.
Let us explain here that it had no bearing on the caliphate of Abu Bakr at all. An Imam should enter into consensus (Ijma); else, he has no validity. To give value or credit or authenticity to an ‘Ijma’ in which the Imam might not have participated is wrong and not valid.
Next, Abu Bakr did not carry any consensus. He became caliph on the strength of terror, and tyranny. People were forced to acknowledge his authority. Is it a consensus? So; why wasn’t that consensus present with Ali Bin Abi Talib? Why didn’t the men of importance among the Bani Hashem, not surrender to his authority? But the writer still calls it a consensus ‘Ijma’. If Ijma (consensus) was the way or a salutary ground that gives validity to the caliphates; why didn’t Omar go through it? No ‘Ijma’ (consensus) took place; however Omar became caliph.
The criterion cannot be conceived? They advocate and they act differently. Othman as well came to power through a committee of six men appointed by Omar. Where had the ‘Ijma’ gone? They act as though public opinion means something to them. However what is obvious, is that they did not care at all about the ‘Ijma’ or consensus that is the public opinion.
The obvious and apparent evidence points out that three men came to power in three different ways. One, with a so called ‘Ijma’ (consensus), another, no consensus at all, just by force, the third, by a pre-appointed six men committee. Mawiyah too openly made his resurgence to the caliph of his time, Ali.
He was a dictator, he cared for neither law nor rule, and no power limited him. Where was the ‘Ijma’ consensus now? The writer ignores that the ‘Ijma’ was scalped, and changed to meet their demands. The writer knows well that those rulers and caliphs had no popular backing nor a publish support. The ‘Ijma’ then was a slogan, a protect, and no more. If a real ‘Ijma’, or in our acquainted term, a referendum were to be launched they would see who would succeed and who would lose.
Caliphs such as Abu Bakr, Othman and Mawiyah were put into power by a few people who were motivated by their own interests. They met and agreed; they designed, decided and acted - there always hung a veil and they named this secrecy as a referendum ‘Ijma’. Tyranny stood at hand to come to their aid.