Yes... I also agree with your point of nominating a successor like Abu Bakr RA did... From my understanding there are a couple of points in this, one of which you have already mentioned... that Umar RA was obviously the best or at least one of the best to be nominated... But more importantly perhaps what needs to be considered is that people willfully gave pledge to Umar RA... It was a nomination that the people willingly accepted... When Ameer Mawviyah nominated Yazid, people were not willing to accept it and Mawviyah tried to bribe them and plead with them but people were not giving him support so he then forced them and the historians have written that he ordered two soldiers to stand behind the important Muslims with their swords drawn out and if they did not agree to give pledge to Yazid, their heads should be chopped off... That is not a nomination rather oppression for obvious reasons...
We should also remember that Umar RA when he was attacked and was about to pass away gave a few names and told Muslims to select their leader from amongst them and then the list was reduced to Usman and Ali RA... This list did not include his son Ibn Umar who many Muslims considered would have been a worthy leader himself!!!
I also agree with your point about giving the vote to all Muslims... I quoted that opinion from the scholars that I have studied who have put efforts in reviving the thought about the functioning of the Islamic State and Unity of Muslims... My understanding is that such a system where all people choose their Khaleefa simply cannot happen in the initial return... So we are talking about a time perhaps after a few years of establishment where the state works to improve the economic and social matters of Muslims, focus on education and also to instill responsibility and Taqwa (genuine fear of God) in people... Go down hard on corruption and theft... perhaps then we have a generation that can choose their leaders wisely... The way these scholars have explained it is that the election for Caliph can be done by shortlisting candidates from the council of representatives... In this manner common men who have worked for the good of their people can be presented to the citizens for their choice of the office of the Caliph...
But perhaps most importantly... this discussion is in the context that we can certainly adopt new methods to administer and develop statecraft...
Another example that occurred to me was the adoption of records system that Umar RA adopted after the conquest of Persia... Umar used that to record and compile the names of the soldiers in the standing army and that helped in setting up their fixed monthly wages... Often we Muslims forget that there is no restriction for Muslims in using latest science, technology and administrative advancement within our religion...
As for not restricting the election of the leader to the scholars well I think we should actually EXCLUDE all scholars from such election because Islam is not a theocracy... there is no such thing as clergy in Islam... the role of scholars is to teach and advise Muslims rather than rule...
But yes of course a scholar if he has good administrative capability can also become a representative of Muslims and leader as well... I believe in Fiqh (jurisprudence) there are a few conditions which a leader for Muslims should have... These include being Male, Muslim, Just, Free, Sane and a few other qualities that I cant remember at the top of my head now...
The new Caliph can be called Ameer Ul Momineen which is a good enough title... He can also be called Caliph because simply speaking he is the leader of Muslims to rule Muslims according to the justice of Islam... I think there would be no problem with his official title... and as Muslims we are all to act as Godly people inviting people to God and his mercy and message... The Caliph is the leader who then organizes all the affairs of Muslims... which sadly speaking in our current reality are completely messed up...
Legitimacy of the Caliphate has one yard stick that we can measure it with... that is... is the Caliphate representing Islam... Are Muslims able to live in peace and harmony in such a state... Are the poor and the orphans and the widows being looked after... Is the Caliph a decent man ruling with Justice... Are Muslims being looked upon by the world as a super power that strikes fear in the hearts of unjust and evil people...
or perhaps you are asking about the very first of the new Caliphs? Well he has to have the support of the powerful amongst the Muslims... I said this before... I believe that the Armies in the Muslim world are the key to this revival... Our uncles and cousins and brothers serving in the armed forces need to look at this system, study all the books they can find about it, so when the time comes that Allah rewards us with the blessing of a good leader, they can keep check on the leadership and correct him if he deviates from the right plan... I say this again and again... We will never be able to come out of the current sad situation and reality unless we start talking about completely changing the system that we are stuck in today... At least we should have an open mind for this alternative... It served Muslims very well for hundreds of years as a whole, there is no reason to think that it cannot serve us now...
The pledge is a two way process... We give pledge to the leader that we will obey his leadership and he gives us this pledge that he will serve us as our leader... It is like a contract between the Caliph and the Ummah... Neither parties should break this pledge and if they do, the contract gets broken... So the Caliph does not have to pledge to the Imam of Kabaa...
There is a hadith about Mahdi which states that Mahdi will bring out the standard of the Prophet saw... This flag is in Istanbul at Topkapi Palace today... This is why some scholars say that the Caliphate would come back from Turkey again... God knows best...
Oh come on Santro... How can you say 70 percent of Muslims have had pre marital ***... True we have a lot of problems but I would say rather the opposite is true of such a thing... Most Muslims actually have good Jazba about Islam... and even if someone has indulged in sin, as long as there is no evidence against them, we cannot go around punishing people on mere suspicion...
Your point about Hadood on women who are punished despite suffering Zina Bil Jabr (****) is the very sad reality that we should change... Hadood in the absence of the rest of the system of Islam has become a tool for the powerful to oppress the poor and for the strong Zalim to destroy the weak Mazloom...
I dont know if DNA can be used in the courts as evidence... I have nt looked into it in detail yet... If it is not accepted, perhaps there could be a reason for this like avoiding someone being framed for a crime they did not commit... I shall inshaAllah ask my mentor about this issue... A quick search however brought up the following link...
DNA Analysis as Court Evidence in Criminal Cases | IslamToday - English
Masalam