But if, instead, he refers whatever is disputed back to the Book and the Sunnah (1), there would then be no need for an explicit text designating him in order to preserve the religion (2), for the religion is preserved without him.
In sum, regarding the explicit designation of a particular person: if what is meant is that he must be obeyed as the Messenger is obeyed in everything he commands (3), prohibits, and declares permissible; that (4) no one may (* dispute with him over anything, just as [he] (5) may not *) (6) dispute with the Messenger; that he alone determines rulings; and that the Ummah’s relationship to him is as it was to the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—then such a status (7) belongs to no one after the Messenger, nor is it possible for anyone else. For no one after him receives revelation as he did, and no one knows everything the Messenger knew. Thus, no means remains by which anyone could equal him—neither from his own side nor from the Lord Most High.
If what is meant by explicit designation is that it informs the Ummah that this person has a greater right than anyone else to assume authority over them, that his governance is more beloved to Allah and His Messenger and more beneficial for them in their religion and worldly affairs, or anything similar demonstrating that he has the greatest right to precedence in the Caliphate of Prophethood, then there is no doubt that the many texts bearing these meanings establish the caliphate of Abu Bakr.
If what is meant is that he commanded them to follow him, just as Abu Bakr commanded them to follow Umar, and formally charged them to do so—then, if he knew that the Ummah (8) would do so, refraining was better