[1] When the people collected in the Saqīfah of Banū Sā‘idah in connection with the election, even those who were not present there were made to follow the decision taken there, and the principle was adopted that those present at the election had no right to reconsider the matter or to break the allegiance and those not present could do nothing but acquiesce in the agreed decision. But when the people of Medina swore allegiance at the hands of Amīr al-mu’minīn, the Governor of Syria (Mu‘āwiyah) refused to follow suit on the ground that since he was not present on the occasion he was not bound to abide by it, whereupon Amīr al-mu’minīn gave a reply in this sermon on the basis of these accepted and agreed principles and conditions which had been established among these people and had become uncontrovertible namely that: “When the people of Medina and the anṣār and the muhājirūn have sworn allegiance on my hand, Mu‘āwiyah had no right to keep aloof from it on the ground that he was not present on the occasion, nor were Ṭalḥah and az-Zubayr entitled to break the pledge after swearing allegiance.” On this occasion, Amīr al-mu’minīn did not argue on the strength of any saying of the Prophet which would serve as his final say about the caliphate, because the grounds for refusal in his case was in respect of the modus operandi of the principle of election. Therefore, in keeping with the requirements of the situation a reply based on the agreed principles of the adversary could alone quieten him. Even if he had argued on the strength of the Prophet’s command it would have been subjected to various interpretations and the matter would have been prolonged instead of being settled. Again Amīr al-mu’minīn had seen that soon after the death of the Prophet all his sayings and commands had been set aside. Therefore, how after the lapse of a long time, could one be expected to accept it when habit had been established to follow one’s free will against the Prophet’s sayings.