One who is unfit for warfare is unfit for caliphate
History is witness that companions fled from battles of Uhud, Khaybar and Hunain. Some of these companions went on to rule the Muslims after the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) citing constant companionship as a virtue which made them eligible candidates for the caliph of the Prophet!
In this regard, Sayyed Ibn Tawoos (r.a.), leading Shia scholar, writes:
Among the abnormal matters of the Muslim majority is that they selected as caliph a person which their own reports suggest that he fled from the battles of Khaybar and Hunain and numerous other battles while their books promise the deserter from battle:
And whoever shall turn his back to them on that day — unless he turns aside for the sake of fighting or withdraws to a company — then he, indeed, becomes deserving of Allah’s wrath, and his abode is hell; and an evil destination shall it be. (Surah Anfal (8): 16).
The one who is not fit for warfare, nor for leading in battle, nor for managing forces to ease the affairs of Muslims, nor for obeying Allah’s and His Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) command in matters of warfare in the lifetime of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), or he is not fit for balancing the affairs of the nation and in warding off fear of retribution from enemies, how can he be fit for caliphate which is comprised of warfare and mobilizing the army, regulating all the people and cities after the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) demise?!
- Al-Taraif v 2 p 397
Fleeing from battles raises questions on the ability and qualification of the so-called caliphs to rule the Muslims, since warfare is an inseparable part of leadership. When the ‘caliphs’ were found wanting in this area (among others) in the very presence of the Prophet, where is the question of them leading the Muslims after the Prophet (s.a.w.a.).