Moreover, the caliphates of Abū Bakr and ʿUmar form part of the perfection of Muhammad’s prophethood and messengership—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—and are among the things demonstrating that he was a true Messenger, not merely one king among many.

For kings customarily favor their relatives * with positions of authority for several reasons. The first is that they love their relatives more than outsiders, owing to the natural human inclination toward one’s kin. The second is that their relatives desire to preserve their rule to a degree that an outsider does not, for the strength and honor of one’s relative are also strength and honor for oneself. A ruler who had no relatives would rely on his slave-retainers and clients, draw them close, and seek their support. This practice is found among the kings of Muslims and disbelievers alike.

Thus, when the (kings) (1) of the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties ruled as monarchs, they preferred their relatives * (2) and their clients (3) over others for positions of authority. This was one of the means by which they sustained their rule.

The same was true of dynastic rulers such as the Buyids and Seljuks, and of all other kings in the East and West, Syria and Yemen, and elsewhere.

Likewise, this is true of the kings of the disbelievers, whether from the People of the Book or the polytheists, as seen among the Frankish kings and others. It is also seen in the house of Genghis Khan, where kings continue to come from the reigning king’s relatives. They say, “This man is of noble stock, while that man is not of noble stock”—meaning that the former is one of the king’s relatives.

Given this, the appointment of Abū Bakr and ʿUmar after the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—rather than his uncle al-ʿAbbās and his cousins: ʿAlī, ʿAqīl, and Rabīʿah ibn al-Hārith ibn ʿAbd al-Muttalib,