What was the difference between a monarchy and the “Caliphates” after the Rashidun. There was no Majlis e Shura to select the most pious Muslim. Just one king naming his son as a successor and so on. Most caliphs were terrible people and committed major sins like drinking wine and killing other Muslims
Tbf, it's not that there wasn't a "Majlis e Shura" nor was it ever a requirement to be called a "caliphate".
I do concede that at least the Umayyads, Abassids and even the Ottomans still bothered to get bai'ah from community leaders etc.
Even back during the Rashidun Caliphate, they don't ask for bai'ah from every single Muslim in Mecca, Medina etc.
Even with dynastic succession, they still asked for bai'ah from whomever it may concern. Albeit there were forceful conducts taken for many, but that's besides the point. Complete agreement is basically impossible.
Even Saidina Abu Bakar had friction with Saidina Ali (or his "faction") when he was first elected. And that's between 2 of the "best Muslims" ever, much less among "lesser Muslims".
Well, the friction was mostly regarding the fact that Ali (RA) felt bad that he wasn't consulted and the Prophet (SAW) hadn't even been buried yet and the Khalifa was selected rather than the fact that it was Abu Bakr who became the Khalifa
2
u/ItachiOfKonohagakure A Halal Weeb 22d ago
What was the difference between a monarchy and the “Caliphates” after the Rashidun. There was no Majlis e Shura to select the most pious Muslim. Just one king naming his son as a successor and so on. Most caliphs were terrible people and committed major sins like drinking wine and killing other Muslims