The system of appointing a crown prince for ruling is considered to be a “Munkar” (evil act) in the Islamic ruling system and it contradicts Islam completely. This is because the authority belongs to the Ummah and not to the Khaleefah. If the Khaleefah represents the Ummah in authority, which remains always hers, how could He give this authority to someone else? What Abu Bakr did for ‘Umar was not to appoint him as a crown prince, but merely a selection by the Ummah during the lifetime of the Khaleefah, and then the Bay’ah took place after his death.
Despite all this, Abu Bakr took a great deal of care in his speech to make it clear that it was not a succession; so He made it dependant on the people’s consent. He addressed the people once his mind was made up about who was going to nominate and He said: “Do you accept the one I designate for you? For by Allah (swt) have not spared any effort and I have not chosen a relative.” On this same basis, ‘Umar nominated his son ‘Abdullah with the “Six” whom He considered to have the right of selecting a Khaleefah, and stipulated that his son would not have a say in the matter (of Khilafah) whatsoever, but would merely voice his opinion, thus making sure that there was not the slightest doubt that it was not an appointment of a crown prince. This was contrary to what Mu’awiya did by appointing his son Yazeed that contradicts the Islamic system. The reasons that led Mu’awiya to innovate this “Munkar” were:
1. He used to understand the state leadership as monarchy and not Khilafah. This was clearly demonstrated in his speech to the people of Al-Kufa once peace was established. He said: “O people of Al-Kufa! Do you think I fought you over the prayer, Zakat and Hajj, when I knew all along that you do pray, give the Zakat and perform the Hajj? No, I fought against you because I wanted to preside over you and over your necks; and Allah has given me that though you disliked it. Beware, any money and blood which has flowed in this Fitna will go unavenged, and every condition I accepted (before peace was reached) is under my two feet (i.e. have no value).”
Ibn Aby Sheebah also narrated in his book (Musannaf) from the way of Said bin Suwaid, He said: Mu’awiyah prayed the juma’ah for us in the nakheelah, and then He gave us khutbah (preach)…
Al-Bukhari also narrated this in the Great History.
Look at him when He admits that He contradicts Islam. He also admitted that He fought people to preside over them and over their necks. He goes beyond this to that which is more offensive and grevious by saying to the people that every condition He agreed to had come under his two feet. Whereas Allah (swt) says:
“Fulfill your oaths, verily you are responsible for them.” [TMQ Al-Isra’: 34]
From this statement, you can see that He declares that He does not abide by Islam. The manner by which Yazid was elected even clearly demonstrates that He deliberately intended to contradict Islam, for the sake of making him the crown prince according to his own understanding. This is because He sought the opinion of all the people, but nobody agreed with him. He used money, and still nobody responded except those who had no place in society and carry no weight in the sight of the Muslims. Then He resorted to the sword. Historians like Ibn Kathir and Ibn al-Athir narrated that after his Wulah (governers) failed to take the Bay’ah to Yazid in Hijaz, Mu’awiya went there himself accompanied by the army and loaded with money. He summoned the prominent figures and said to them: “You have known my conduct towards you and my familial ties with you, Yazid is your brother and your cousin. I wanted you to propose Yazid for the Khilafah, so that you would be the ones who remove and appoint, who put people in authority and collect and distribute the funds. ‘Abdullah ibn Al-Zubayr replied to him that He should either choose what the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) did, when He (pbuh) did not designate anyone, or what Abu Bakr did, or what ‘Umar did? Mu’awiya became angry and He asked the rest of the people, and their reply was the same as Ibnul-Zubayr. Upon this Mu’awiya said: “You have been warned! I am going to speak a word, and I swear by Allah that if any of you replied to me by uttering a word on that occasion, He would not utter another word before the sword had reached his neck. So every man has only to spare himself.” Then He ordered the chief of his guards to place two men behind every prominent person of Hijaz and every opponent, with the instructions that if any of them answered him back with agreement or disagreement, to strike his neck with their swords.
Thus, Mu’awiya executed his plan in appointing his son Yazeed.
The basis upon which Mu’awiya depended on in appointing his son Yazeed after him contradicts Islam. ‘Umar described it by saying: “If a man gave authority to someone because of a relationship or a friendship between them while there were among the Muslims men better qualified than him, He would betray Allah, His Messenger and the believers.”
2. Mu’awiya manipulated the Shari’ah texts and misinterpreted them. Islam has left the right of choosing the Khaleefah in the hands of the Muslims. The Messenger of Allah (pbuh), did so, and He left the matter to the Muslims to choose who was best to run their affairs. However, Mu’awiya misapplied the implementation of the Bay’ah by making the ruling after him to his son Yazeed as the Byzantians and Sasans used to do, so He used tricks by taking the Bay’ah to Yazeed during his lifetime.
3. Mu’awiya’s method of Ijtihad in political matters used to be based on benefit. Therefore, He made the Shari’ah laws conform to the reality at hand and not to treat it, so He interpreted the rules to conform to that issuse. He should have followed the Islamic method of Ijtihad by making the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of His Messenger (pbuh) the basis for his Ijtihad and not taking the material benefit as a basis. He should have taken the Islamic laws to solve the problems of his time and not take the problems of his time to treat the Islamic laws, by twisting, changing and violating these laws.
It is worth mentioning that appointing the son, as a crown prince did not make the son Khaleefah after his father. He was rather appointed by a new Bay’ah that is taken from the people, as a contrac and obedience, after the death of the previous Khaleefah. However, the implementation of the Bay’ah was sometimes done badly. So, instead of taking it by free will, it was taken by force. Anyhow, the Bay’ah was, at all times, the method of appointing the Khaleefah during the life of the Islamic State. Thus, the Khilafah was convened to him by the Bay’ah and not by hereditary transmission or succession to power.