| Major Difference: There
is a serious difference of opinion between Sunni and Shia Muslims on the issue
of Imamat. Sunnis don’t believe in Imamat
and do not recognize the 12 Imams as their leaders. Where as Shia consider Imamat
as one of the fundamental belief of Islam and recognize all the 12 Imams as the
legitimate successors of the Holy Prophet (sws).
Sunnis believe in Khilafat as a substitute of Imamat. According to Sunni beliefs,
the Holy Prophet did not say anything about his succession or appointed anyone
in his lifetime to be his successor. Shia believe that the Holy Prophet nominated
Hazrat Ali as his successor and expressed his decision explicitly at several occasion.
There
are numerous verses in the Holy Quran, ahadith of the Prophet (sws) and historical
events, both in Sunni and Shia authentic books, which are more than enough to
enlighten the Muslim Ummah to remove this controversy. But this is possible only
if they sincerely wish to resolve the matter rationally and peacefully. We
are discussing the issue briefly in an academic manner just for the sake of understanding
and unity of Muslim Ummah. The whole issue of Imamat
and Khilafat can be divided into two major parts.
Did the Holy Prophet (sws) appoint anyone as his successor to continue his mission
after him or not ? If he appointed, then whom
did he appoint and what was the primary criteria of his appointment ?
First
Case - Sunni Standpoint All Sunni scholars, without any
difference of opinion, say that the Holy Prophet did not appoint anyone as his
successor nor he left any guidelines regarding his succession. They
are also unanimous in believing that the Holy Prophet (sws) never made any nomination
in favor of Hazrat Abu Bakr or Omar or Osman or anyone else nor is there any indication
of their Khilafat in the Quran or Hadith. If this is
acceptable by all Sunni scholars then it solves 50% of the dispute. Because, if
Prophet has not mentioned anyone as his successor then there shouldn’t be
any resistance from their side to accept anyone as the first Khalifa, whether
he be Hazrat Ali (as), or anybody else. In fact, if Quran
and Prophet are totally silent on this matter, as Sunnis believe, then the whole
belief of Khilafat should not be considered as a religious issue. In
this way, the Khilafat of Hazrats Abu Bakr will simply become a historical event
which has no concern with the religious faith. If this
is the case, then Sunnis should not accuse Shias, if they do not accept the Khilafat
of Hazratr Abu Bakr, Omar and Osman, as they are not rejecting any Divine injunction
or religious order. Thus, from Sunni point of view, even
if Hazrat Ali was not appointed by the Prophet as his successor, Shias have the
right to accept him as Khalifa in the same way as Sunnis accept Hazrats Abu Bakr,
Omar and Osman their Khalifa. Hence, from Sunni standpoint,
one can arrive at a conclusion that the issue of Khilafat is not a religious matter,
and as it is not a fundamental article of the Islamic faith, the acceptance or
rejection of Khalifas equally makes no difference to the person concerned. If
we do not accept Hazrat Abu Bakr as the legitimate Khalifa, It is just as not
recognizing any ruler of a Muslim country. If some people of Pakistan or Iran
do not recognize the democratically elected president of their country, it wouldn’t
be a sin. Thus, Sunnis, according to their own belief,
have no right to criticize Shias if they do not recognize the Khalifas which were
solely nominated or elected by the people and not appointed by Allah or His messenger. | 
