TwelverShia.net Forum
Sunni Shia Discussion Forum => General Sunni-Shia => Topic started by: Shia not Rafidi on February 26, 2019, 06:43:20 AM
-
السلام علیکم
BROTHERS IN ISLAM, i have a couple of confusions arose in my mind..
- On which Basis People chose Abu Bakr ra as their Caliph, was he Superior to all the ummah after Prophet PBUH or it was a need of time people chose him..?
- Suppose Ali ra was there too in Saqifa gathering, would've people chosen him or still Abu Bakr?
- If it was Abu Bakr's RA superiority, then how come he is superior to the person for whom Prophet Pbuh said "Looking at his face is worship, uttering his name is worship, he is with Quran and Quran is with him" and many more..
GIVE A LOGICAL EXPLANATION INSTEAD OF SHOWING AHADITH
-
السلام علیکم
BROTHERS IN ISLAM, i have a couple of confusions arose in my mind..
Walaikum Salam,
- On which Basis People chose Abu Bakr ra as their Caliph, was he Superior to all the ummah after Prophet PBUH or it was a need of time people chose him..?
People chose him both because of his high status as well as his suitability to lead. He was indeed the most successful ruler.
- Suppose Ali ra was there too in Saqifa gathering, would've people chosen him or still Abu Bakr?
If Ali was there, he would asked the people to put their hands over the hand of Abubakr, just like Omar did.
Keep in mind Ansar gathered to appoint Saad bin Ubadah but when their choice was rejected they eventually agreed on Abubakr. If people in Saqifa wanted Ali they would have mentioned him at least once.
- If it was Abu Bakr's RA superiority, then how come he is superior to the person for whom Prophet Pbuh said "Looking at his face is worship, uttering his name is worship, he is with Quran and Quran is with him" and many more..
One can answer this by the saying of the Prophet (saw): If the eman (Faith) of the Ummah is one side, and Abubakr's on the other side, Abubakr's eman would out-weigh that of the Ummah's.
Not to forget the Mutawatir saying of Ali: The Best of this Ummah after the Prophet (saw) are Abubakr and Omar.
Just to add: A person maybe the most virtuous of people, but he may not be a good statesman compared to another candidate.
-
One can answer this by the saying of the Prophet (saw): If the eman (Faith) of the Ummah is one side, and Abubakr's on the other side, Abubakr's eman would out-weigh that of the Ummah's.
where did this come from, i haven't seen any Hadith like this before.. Reference and grading?
-
There are couple of points to ponder.
1) Ali was sidelined.
2) Ali was never given a chance to present why he should lead.
3) When Fatima protested not a lot of support was shown.
4) Did the people of Madina want to bring back the Ummawi and Hashimi wars?
5) Even if Ali and Fatima presented their point would people still prefer Abu Bakr due to stability?
6) The Shia who criticize the sahaba were they able to bring any of the 12 Imams to become rulers?
-
السلام علیکم
BROTHERS IN ISLAM, i have a couple of confusions arose in my mind..
- On which Basis People chose Abu Bakr ra as their Caliph, was he Superior to all the ummah after Prophet PBUH or it was a need of time people chose him..?
Initially, it was need of time. But those who gave him bayah(who werent present in Saqifa), reflected upon this issue and realized that, he is the best person after Prophet(saws) and IMPORTANTLY they realized that Prophet(saws) appointed Abu bakr(as) to lead people in matter of deen, thus they chose him to lead people in worldly affairs.
- Suppose Ali ra was there too in Saqifa gathering, would've people chosen him or still Abu Bakr?
I don't think so. Because Prophesied that believers would choose Abu bakr(as), without a mention to the location.
- If it was Abu Bakr's RA superiority, then how come he is superior to the person for whom Prophet Pbuh said "Looking at his face is worship, uttering his name is worship, he is with Quran and Quran is with him" and many more..
GIVE A LOGICAL EXPLANATION INSTEAD OF SHOWING AHADITH
None of the Hadeeth is authentic, all are weak which you mentioned. The Mutwattir hadeeth states that as per Ali(as) himself , Abu bakr(as) was the best person after Prophet(saws).
-
السلام علیکم
BROTHERS IN ISLAM, i have a couple of confusions arose in my mind..
- On which Basis People chose Abu Bakr ra as their Caliph, was he Superior to all the ummah after Prophet PBUH or it was a need of time people chose him..?
- Suppose Ali ra was there too in Saqifa gathering, would've people chosen him or still Abu Bakr?
- If it was Abu Bakr's RA superiority, then how come he is superior to the person for whom Prophet Pbuh said "Looking at his face is worship, uttering his name is worship, he is with Quran and Quran is with him" and many more..
GIVE A LOGICAL EXPLANATION INSTEAD OF SHOWING AHADITH
Salaam. When the Prophet s.a.w had passed away and his funeral preparations were being made, the Ummah was in a state of mourning based on loss and shock. A few companions of the Prophet s.a.w, who were also the heads of the Ansaar, gathered in a place called Saqifa to select and choose their own leader. Why and what made them decide to do this is a separate and a very important question.
A companion of the Prophet s.a.w known as Ubaid Ibne Al Jarrah somehow came to know of this secret gathering in Saqifa and what these companions decided to do. He (Ubaid) went looking for Abu Bakr and or Umar. Why did he (Ubaid) just want to seek only the intention of these two (Abu Bakr and Umar) is also a separate and very important question. But Ubaid found and got the intention of Umar.
-
السلام علیکم
BROTHERS IN ISLAM, i have a couple of confusions arose in my mind..
- On which Basis People chose Abu Bakr ra as their Caliph, was he Superior to all the ummah after Prophet PBUH or it was a need of time people chose him..?
- Suppose Ali ra was there too in Saqifa gathering, would've people chosen him or still Abu Bakr?
- If it was Abu Bakr's RA superiority, then how come he is superior to the person for whom Prophet Pbuh said "Looking at his face is worship, uttering his name is worship, he is with Quran and Quran is with him" and many more..
GIVE A LOGICAL EXPLANATION INSTEAD OF SHOWING AHADITH
Salam `Alaykum,
Answers in order of questions,
1- Abu Bakr's appointment was not pre-planned, it happened due to circumstance. Those who were present at Saqifah were major influential Muslim figures from among the Muhajirin and Ansar, they ended up making the right decision. Abu Bakr is known as the Prophet's (saw) right hand man, his best friend since before the time of Islam, a knowledgeable jurist, an intelligent leader. I firmly believe he was the most superior of all the nation after the Prophet (saw).
2- If `Ali was in Saqifah, seeing as though as opposed to Abu Bakr and `Umar, `Ali was actively seeking to assume leadership. Knowing the character of Abu Bakr and `Umar, it is very possible they would have pushed for `Ali's caliphate if he were present and if he demanded it directly. Also the Ansar would have backed off quicker. I say, thank God `Ali was not there because having an inexperienced young man lead the nation at a sensitive time would've destroyed everything the Prophet (saw) had built.
3- The Hadith of looking at his face isn't authentic, also it doesn't signify superiority or any leadership qualities. Similar virtues can be quoted for other Sahabah.
-
Ubaid tried to get Umar's attention but Umar told him to go away because he was also busy with the Prophet's s.a.w funeral arrangements. Then Ubaid said to Umar that something terrible is about to happen. This is how he got Umar's attention. They both looked for Abu Bakr. When they found him all three slipped away to Saqifa. Why didn't they bother to inform the others and bring the matter to their attention is also a separate and very important question.
-
Salaam. When the Prophet s.a.w had passed away and his funeral preparations were being made, the Ummah was in a state of mourning based on loss and shock. A few companions of the Prophet s.a.w, who were also the heads of the Ansaar, gathered in a place called Saqifa to select and choose their own leader. Why and what made them decide to do this is a separate and a very important question.
A companion of the Prophet s.a.w known as Ubaid Ibne Al Jarrah somehow came to know of this secret gathering in Saqifa and what these companions decided to do. He (Ubaid) went looking for Abu Bakr and or Umar. Why did he (Ubaid) just want to seek only the intention of these two (Abu Bakr and Umar) is also a separate and very important question. But Ubaid found and got the intention of Umar.
Let me answer your post while I'm at it.
A large number of Ansar gathered at Saqifah headed by the leaders of the Ansari clans and those of most influence.
They believed that at that critical time, Islam was weak and they needed to address the important issue of leadership so the nation can reunite and face the coming challenges.
The Ansar viewed themselves as most worthy since the stronghold of Islam (i.e Madinah) belongs to them, they are the strongest and most numerous, their leaders are obeyed among the people.
The companion isn't called "Ubaid Ibne Al Jarrah", his name is `Amir aba `Ubaydah bin al-Jarrah. He knew of the meeting because it wasn't a "secret", please quote me a single Hadith that describes that meeting as being a "secret".
Aba `Ubaydah sought Abu Bakr and `Umar since they're known as the most respected and top of the Prophet's (saw) companions. People listen to their opinions and respect their status. (PS. the man who came to inform Abu Bakr & `Umar was not aba `Ubaydah, it was another person. They met abu `Ubaydah outside and he followed them to Saqifah)
-
Ubaid tried to get Umar's attention but Umar told him to go away because he was also busy with the Prophet's s.a.w funeral arrangements. Then Ubaid said to Umar that something terrible is about to happen. This is how he got Umar's attention. They both looked for Abu Bakr. When they found him all three slipped away to Saqifa. Why didn't they bother to inform the others and bring the matter to their attention is also a separate and very important question.
When `Umar came out and heard, he went back in and told Abu Bakr to come out and hear what the man had to say (The man was not aba `Ubaydah fyi). When Abu Bakr heard the Ansar were going to give Bay`ah, he literally ran towards the location to stop them. He didn't have time to call his own friends and supporters, this is why when Abu Bakr got there, he was vastly outnumbered by the Ansar. If Abu Bakr had time to bring his allies and supporters he would have had a much easier time standing up to the leadership of the Ansar.
-
Salam `Alaykum,
Answers in order of questions,
1- Abu Bakr's appointment was not pre-planned, it happened due to circumstance. Those who were present at Saqifah were major influential Muslim figures from among the Muhajirin and Ansar, they ended up making the right decision. Abu Bakr is known as the Prophet's (saw) right hand man, his best friend since before the time of Islam, a knowledgeable jurist, an intelligent leader. I firmly believe he was the most superior of all the nation after the Prophet (saw).
2- If `Ali was in Saqifah, seeing as though as opposed to Abu Bakr and `Umar, `Ali was actively seeking to assume leadership. Knowing the character of Abu Bakr and `Umar, it is very possible they would have pushed for `Ali's caliphate if he were present and if he demanded it directly. Also the Ansar would have backed off quicker. I say, thank God `Ali was not there because having an inexperienced young man lead the nation at a sensitive time would've destroyed everything the Prophet (saw) had built.
3- The Hadith of looking at his face isn't authentic, also it doesn't signify superiority or any leadership qualities. Similar virtues can be quoted for other Sahabah.
Allow me to answer while I'm at it.
"Abu Bakr's appointment was not pre-planned"
I agree to the above.
"It happened due to circumstance"
It was a coincidental decision based on unfortunate circumstances. We aren't talking about the character of Abu Bakr. That's got nothing to do with it. Just the nature and circumstances of how the whole episode unfolded.
Like I said before, it wasn't a planned or arranged public gathering, assembly or event for the purpose to choose and select a leader where all important personalities got their say and where there was a selective choice of candidates based on equality and fairness.
"Those who were present at Saqifah were major influential Muslim figures from among the Muhajirin and Ansar"
No, this is not correct and neither is it based on true historical facts.
Only the heads of the Ansaar gathered in Saqifa. Why and what for is a very important and crucial question. There were no Muhajir there. Not even one because it was just the heads of Ansaar that gathered there.
The companion I mentioned and you corrected his name got to know about it. Why just he? Nobody else had the slightest clue of Saqifa. Not even the Shaykhain. Why? If this isn't secrecy then I don't know what is.
The companion in question who happened to be a Muhajir got the attention of Umar and they found and informed Abu Bakr. All three of them quietly slipped away to Saqifa. Why? To stop something terrible from happening. No Muhajir was present at Saqifa prior to these three turning up. Not even a single Muhajir. Why?
"they ended up making the right decision"
Right decision according to whom? And who gave these three the authority and right to make such an important decision on behalf of the entire Ummah who didn't have a clue what was going on. If this isn't secrecy then I don't know what is.
Why did the three end up there? To stop the Ansaar from selecting THEIR OWN LEADER.
"Abu Bakr is known as the Prophet's (saw) right hand man"
"I firmly believe he was the most superior of all the nation after the Prophet (saw)"
You need to back this up. You need to prove this. They're just words at the moment. The same can be said about Ali or anyone else as a matter of fact.
-
Umar said: “And lo, they (the Ansar) were trying to cut us off from our origin and wrest authority from us. When he (an Ansari) had finished (his speech), I wanted to speak, for I had prepared a speech in my mind which pleased me much. I wanted to produce it before Abu Bakr and I was trying to soften a certain asperity of his; but Abu Bakr said, ‘Gently, Umar.'
You accept the above? Where do you see or hear Muhajir and Ansaar gathering to select a leader.
He (Abu Bakr) said: ‘All the good that you have said about yourselves (the Ansar) is deserved. But the Arabs will recognize authority only in this clan of Quraysh, they being the best of the Arabs in blood and country. I offer you one of these two men: accept which you please.' Thus saying he took hold of my hand and that of Abu Ubayda b. al-Jarrah's...”
Muhammad, the Messenger of God, had not been dead an hour yet when Abu Bakr revived the arrogance of the Times of Ignorance by claiming before the Ansar that the Quraysh, the tribe to which he himself belonged, was “better” than or “superior” to them (the Ansar) “in blood and country!”
How did Abu Bakr know about this “superiority” of the Quraysh? Qur’an and its Bringer, Muhammad, never said that the tribe of Quraysh was superior to anyone or that it had any superiority at all.
In fact, it were the Quraysh who were the most die-hard of all the idolaters of Arabia. They clutched their idols, and they fought against Muhammad and Islam, with cannibalistic fury, for more than twenty years. The Ansar, on the other hand, accepted Islam spontaneously and voluntarily. They entered Islam en bloc and without demur.
Do you agree to the above or would you like to refute it and why.
-
السلام علیکم
BROTHERS IN ISLAM, i have a couple of confusions arose in my mind..
I answered previous post in the light of authentic Sunni reports. I'll try to respond, on purely logical basis.
- On which Basis People chose Abu Bakr ra as their Caliph, was he Superior to all the ummah after Prophet PBUH or it was a need of time people chose him..?
The most important thing which you should ponder over is, why would Ansar gather in Saqifa, if Ali(ra) was appointed as Caliph as per Shia narrative. And ironically, why would they leave their claim, after hearing the command of Prophet(saws), yet not appoint Ali(ra), who allegedly was appointed by Prophet(Saws).
- Suppose Ali ra was there too in Saqifa gathering, would've people chosen him or still Abu Bakr?
Think it the other way. If Abu bakr(as) and the few Muhajirs wouldn't have reached Saqifa, and Ansar would have succeeded in appointing a Caliph from them and giving allegiance to him, then what would have happened in the Ummah. How much blood-shed it would have caused.
- If it was Abu Bakr's RA superiority, then how come he is superior to the person for whom Prophet Pbuh said "Looking at his face is worship, uttering his name is worship, he is with Quran and Quran is with him" and many more..
GIVE A LOGICAL EXPLANATION INSTEAD OF SHOWING AHADITH
Invalid question! You can't demand answers for a question, basing it on unreliable reports and then ask not to respond using ahadith.
-
Who is the most honoured according to Allah?
Verily, the most honored of you in the sight of God is he who is most righteous of you. (Chapter 49; verse 13)
And what does Abu Bakr say;
:He (Abu Bakr) said: ‘All the good that you have said about yourselves (the Ansar) is deserved. But the Arabs will recognize authority only in this clan of Quraysh, they being the best of the Arabs in blood and country. I offer you one of these two men: accept which you please.' Thus saying he took hold of my hand and that of Abu Ubayda b. al-Jarrah's...”
Note this bit,
"But the Arabs will recognize authority only in this clan of Quraysh, they being the best of the Arabs in blood and country"
Why the Arabs will recognize authority only in this clan of Quraysh?
"they being the best of the Arabs in blood and country" is this according to the Qur'an?
-
Umar learned of this (i.e. the gathering of the Ansar at Saqifah) and went to the Prophet’s house and sent (a message) to Abu Bakr, who was in the building…[Umar] sent a message to Abu Bakr to come to him. Abu Bakr sent back (a message) that he was occupied (i.e. with caring for the Prophet’s body), but Umar sent him another message, saying: “Something (terrible) has happened that you must attend to personally.” So he (Abu Bakr) came out to him…
(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.10, p.3)
So why and what made the Ansaar gathered in Saqifa. I thought you (Hani) said that the Muhajir and Ansaar gathered in Saqifa. Name one Muhajir at Saqifa prior to the Shaykhain and Ubaid turning up. Something terrible has happened. What something terrible. What's wrong with people gathering in Saqifa to select a leader if the Shaykhain aren't present. Why is this terrible. And why is Umar only grabbing the attention of Abu Bakr and insisting the he (Abu Bakr) must attend personally.
Come on guys, it's time to be honest with yourselves.
-
Come on guys, it's time to be honest with yourselves.
Says the LIAR who cannot be honest enough to admit he LIED.
😊
-
Allow me to answer while I'm at it.
"Abu Bakr's appointment was not pre-planned"
I agree to the above.
"It happened due to circumstance"
It was a coincidental decision based on unfortunate circumstances. We aren't talking about the character of Abu Bakr. That's got nothing to do with it. Just the nature and circumstances of how the whole episode unfolded.
Like I said before, it wasn't a planned or arranged public gathering, assembly or event for the purpose to choose and select a leader where all important personalities got their say and where there was a selective choice of candidates based on equality and fairness.
"Those who were present at Saqifah were major influential Muslim figures from among the Muhajirin and Ansar"
No, this is not correct and neither is it based on true historical facts.
Only the heads of the Ansaar gathered in Saqifa. Why and what for is a very important and crucial question. There were no Muhajir there. Not even one because it was just the heads of Ansaar that gathered there.
The companion I mentioned and you corrected his name got to know about it. Why just he? Nobody else had the slightest clue of Saqifa. Not even the Shaykhain. Why? If this isn't secrecy then I don't know what is.
The companion in question who happened to be a Muhajir got the attention of Umar and they found and informed Abu Bakr. All three of them quietly slipped away to Saqifa. Why? To stop something terrible from happening. No Muhajir was present at Saqifa prior to these three turning up. Not even a single Muhajir. Why?
"they ended up making the right decision"
Right decision according to whom? And who gave these three the authority and right to make such an important decision on behalf of the entire Ummah who didn't have a clue what was going on. If this isn't secrecy then I don't know what is.
Why did the three end up there? To stop the Ansaar from selecting THEIR OWN LEADER.
"Abu Bakr is known as the Prophet's (saw) right hand man"
"I firmly believe he was the most superior of all the nation after the Prophet (saw)"
You need to back this up. You need to prove this. They're just words at the moment. The same can be said about Ali or anyone else as a matter of fact.
I feel like a lot of this has been answered by my previous posts, when I said influential Muhajirun were there, I meant Abu Bakr, `Umar and Ibn al-Jarrah. Although not numerous, they have very high representative power, it's recorded historically that the Muhajirun were very fond of Abu Bakr's appointment and backed him up fully. (PS. other members of the Muhajirin followed later)
Again, no secrecy. Ansar didn't care to notify the Shaykhayn but they didn't keep the meeting a secret, it was public and plenty of clans were there. Every person Abu Bakr & `Umar met along the way knew about it. We already stated the reason why the Ansar didn't feel any need to notify every single person in a previous post. They also had a prophecy from the Prophet (saw) and were worried about their families and children.
It was the right decision as clearly proven by history, Islamic empire was solidified, opponents were vanquished, Muslims flourished, Islam spread in the lands. Nothing more is required to prove it was the right decision.
Abu Bakr's superiority is the easier thing to prove, `Ali himself admits it in numerous occasions and it's Mutawatir.
-
Umar said: “And lo, they (the Ansar) were trying to cut us off from our origin and wrest authority from us. When he (an Ansari) had finished (his speech), I wanted to speak, for I had prepared a speech in my mind which pleased me much. I wanted to produce it before Abu Bakr and I was trying to soften a certain asperity of his; but Abu Bakr said, ‘Gently, Umar.'
You accept the above? Where do you see or hear Muhajir and Ansaar gathering to select a leader.
He (Abu Bakr) said: ‘All the good that you have said about yourselves (the Ansar) is deserved. But the Arabs will recognize authority only in this clan of Quraysh, they being the best of the Arabs in blood and country. I offer you one of these two men: accept which you please.' Thus saying he took hold of my hand and that of Abu Ubayda b. al-Jarrah's...”
Muhammad, the Messenger of God, had not been dead an hour yet when Abu Bakr revived the arrogance of the Times of Ignorance by claiming before the Ansar that the Quraysh, the tribe to which he himself belonged, was “better” than or “superior” to them (the Ansar) “in blood and country!”
How did Abu Bakr know about this “superiority” of the Quraysh? Qur’an and its Bringer, Muhammad, never said that the tribe of Quraysh was superior to anyone or that it had any superiority at all.
In fact, it were the Quraysh who were the most die-hard of all the idolaters of Arabia. They clutched their idols, and they fought against Muhammad and Islam, with cannibalistic fury, for more than twenty years. The Ansar, on the other hand, accepted Islam spontaneously and voluntarily. They entered Islam en bloc and without demur.
Do you agree to the above or would you like to refute it and why.
Easy to refute
`Umar's statement is correct, some of the Ansar knew the Muhajirin had more of a right to it but had certain fears and anxieties, so they justified for themselves the right to leadership and they justified for themselves sidelining their Muhajir brothers. It's a good thing Abu Bakr got there in time to try and reason with them.
Abu Bakr's statement about Quraysh, is true. He was talking politics first and foremost, Arabs of the time were simple and viewed blood relations as a main criteria for leadership. Choosing an Ansari could've caused a rift, this is why the Prophet (saw) insisted "The Caliph after me must be from Quraysh." He (saw) knew the Arabs well enough and wanted to avoid bloodshed. He (saw) was also sure that Quraysh would elect a man from the Muhajirin, this did in fact happen, even Abu Suffiyan was pushing for the Muhajirin from among the Quraysh.
A potential issue with your objection is that you come from a sect that sanctifies bloodlines and places major emphasis on lineage.
-
I thought you (Hani) said that the Muhajir and Ansaar gathered in Saqifa.
That's because you misunderstood my post. I meant after the arrival of those three Muhajirin, who were later followed by other Muhajirin, Saqifah became a gathering of both groups. I wasn't talking about who got there first.
-
That's because you misunderstood my post. I meant after the arrival of those three Muhajirin, who were later followed by other Muhajirin, Saqifah became a gathering of both groups. I wasn't talking about who got there first.
That's fine. You can stick to what you want to believe in. Yes, it's not about who got there first, second or anything else. My belief is that there was no public gathering, assembly or event that was organised to choose/select a leader for the Ummah. And there was no choice of candidates based on equality and fairness. There was no method or procedure to select/elect a leader. Basically there was nothing.
Abu Bakr's nomination was not according to any law or constitution. It wasn't according to Qur'an and Sunnah, and that is consultation. Because people weren't even aware of this coincidental decision made by a handful of people which yes was later on imposed on the rest. The only people who were going to cause a civil war were the ones mentioning it, if they didn't get their way.
Look, we go by sense and logic and look at reality and facts. You can go by what ever you want. That's your business. We ain't responsible for you and you won't be questioned about us.
-
Easy to refute
`Umar's statement is correct, some of the Ansar knew the Muhajirin had more of a right to it but had certain fears and anxieties, so they justified for themselves the right to leadership and they justified for themselves sidelining their Muhajir brothers. It's a good thing Abu Bakr got there in time to try and reason with them.
Abu Bakr's statement about Quraysh, is true. He was talking politics first and foremost, Arabs of the time were simple and viewed blood relations as a main criteria for leadership. Choosing an Ansari could've caused a rift, this is why the Prophet (saw) insisted "The Caliph after me must be from Quraysh." He (saw) knew the Arabs well enough and wanted to avoid bloodshed. He (saw) was also sure that Quraysh would elect a man from the Muhajirin, this did in fact happen, even Abu Suffiyan was pushing for the Muhajirin from among the Quraysh.
A potential issue with your objection is that you come from a sect that sanctifies bloodlines and places major emphasis on lineage.
How exactly did the Muhajir have more of a right over it. Where does consultation go and what does it mean. Justify and prove this. Abu Bakr had to get there first otherwise they wouldn’t have got their way if they didn't use the civil war tactic.
Abu Bakr's statement on Quraysh is against the Qur'an and Sunnah and what ever the Prophet s.a.w stood for. And that is equality and fairness. You choose based on character, performance, achievement and merits. Not colour, race, nationality, tribe etc. Why on earth would choosing an Ansari cause a rift. If this was the case then that means they couldn't shake off the traditions of the time of ignorance. If he knew the Arabs well and wanted to avoid bloodshed then he would have named and appointed someone to begin with.
-
Let me answer your post while I'm at it.
A large number of Ansar gathered at Saqifah headed by the leaders of the Ansari clans and those of most influence.
They believed that at that critical time, Islam was weak and they needed to address the important issue of leadership so the nation can reunite and face the coming challenges.
The Ansar viewed themselves as most worthy since the stronghold of Islam (i.e Madinah) belongs to them, they are the strongest and most numerous, their leaders are obeyed among the people.
The companion isn't called "Ubaid Ibne Al Jarrah", his name is `Amir aba `Ubaydah bin al-Jarrah. He knew of the meeting because it wasn't a "secret", please quote me a single Hadith that describes that meeting as being a "secret".
Aba `Ubaydah sought Abu Bakr and `Umar since they're known as the most respected and top of the Prophet's (saw) companions. People listen to their opinions and respect their status. (PS. the man who came to inform Abu Bakr & `Umar was not aba `Ubaydah, it was another person. They met abu `Ubaydah outside and he followed them to Saqifah)
"They believed that at that critical time, Islam was weak and they needed to address the important issue of leadership so the nation can reunite and face the coming challenges"
What critical time. Islam was weak, how. They needed to address the important issue of leadership, why. Why didn't the Prophet s.a.w address it, if it was that important. So the nation can reunite, why. Where was the division and where did it come from. You need to answer these with a logical explanation. The Prophet s.a.w had just passed away and all of a sudden there was chaos. How did this come about.
"Aba `Ubaydah sought Abu Bakr and `Umar since they're known as the most respected and top of the Prophet's (saw) companions"
Please do back this up. Words aren't enough.
Superiority of the Quraysh. In fact, it were the Quraysh who were the most die-hard of all the idolaters of Arabia. They clutched their idols, and they fought against Muhammad and Islam, with cannibalistic fury, for more than twenty years. The Ansar, on the other hand, accepted Islam spontaneously and voluntarily. They entered Islam en bloc and without demur.
-
That's fine. You can stick to what you want to believe in. Yes, it's not about who got there first, second or anything else. My belief is that there was no public gathering, assembly or event that was organised to choose/select a leader for the Ummah. And there was no choice of candidates based on equality and fairness. There was no method or procedure to select/elect a leader. Basically there was nothing.
Abu Bakr's nomination was not according to any law or constitution. It wasn't according to Qur'an and Sunnah, and that is consultation. Because people weren't even aware of this coincidental decision made by a handful of people which yes was later on imposed on the rest. The only people who were going to cause a civil war were the ones mentioning it, if they didn't get their way.
Look, we go by sense and logic and look at reality and facts. You can go by what ever you want. That's your business. We ain't responsible for you and you won't be questioned about us.
I believe what I believe in based on the history books I read. I disagree with everything you said above of course as it is based on propaganda and extreme bias. Also there was consultation between the leadership of Muhajirun and Ansar at Saqifah. Nobody ever said that every single Muslim is to be consulted, consultation is sufficient when the majority of major parties are represented in some way or another, you're confusing consultation with democracy. The only missing parties at Saqifah were banu Zuhrah, banu Umayyah and banu Hashim, all of whom paid allegiance to Abu Bakr willingly and voluntarily.
-
How exactly did the Muhajir have more of a right over it. Where does consultation go and what does it mean. Justify and prove this. Abu Bakr had to get there first otherwise they wouldn’t have got their way if they didn't use the civil war tactic.
Abu Bakr's statement on Quraysh is against the Qur'an and Sunnah and what ever the Prophet s.a.w stood for. And that is equality and fairness. You choose based on character, performance, achievement and merits. Not colour, race, nationality, tribe etc. Why on earth would choosing an Ansari cause a rift. If this was the case then that means they couldn't shake off the traditions of the time of ignorance. If he knew the Arabs well and wanted to avoid bloodshed then he would have named and appointed someone to begin with.
All of this was answered, no need to repeat.
-
"They believed that at that critical time, Islam was weak and they needed to address the important issue of leadership so the nation can reunite and face the coming challenges"
What critical time. Islam was weak, how. They needed to address the important issue of leadership, why. Why didn't the Prophet s.a.w address it, if it was that important. So the nation can reunite, why. Where was the division and where did it come from. You need to answer these with a logical explanation. The Prophet s.a.w had just passed away and all of a sudden there was chaos. How did this come about.
"Aba `Ubaydah sought Abu Bakr and `Umar since they're known as the most respected and top of the Prophet's (saw) companions"
Please do back this up. Words aren't enough.
Superiority of the Quraysh. In fact, it were the Quraysh who were the most die-hard of all the idolaters of Arabia. They clutched their idols, and they fought against Muhammad and Islam, with cannibalistic fury, for more than twenty years. The Ansar, on the other hand, accepted Islam spontaneously and voluntarily. They entered Islam en bloc and without demur.
You're just repeating yourself now, all of it was addressed, some of this information is very basic and I'm surprised you don't know it. To save myself and you the time, open a few history books to read how Islam was in danger and who were the prominent personalities in Seerah. I don't have time to educate you on every little thing.
You can also choose to remain in ignorance if you can't be bothered researching.
-
You're just repeating yourself now, all of it was addressed, some of this information is very basic and I'm surprised you don't know it. To save myself and you the time, open a few history books to read how Islam was in danger and who were the prominent personalities in Seerah. I don't have time to educate you on every little thing.
You can also choose to remain in ignorance if you can't be bothered researching.
Don't accuse me of ignorance when you can't come up with any logical explanation of anything I've asked. I've researched and so have you. We both know the decision in Saqifa was immature, coincidental, unreasonable and illegitimate. Later on whether people accepted it and for what ever reason or people were made to accept it doesn't make it right and legitimate. There were only three Muhajir out of thousands. Get your facts right. And the three turned up to stop the Ansaar from selecting a leader from among themselves.
-
On which Basis People chose Abu Bakr ra as their Caliph, was he Superior to all the ummah after Prophet PBUH or it was a need of time people chose him..?
There is nothing I despise more than speaking without proof; without citing ahaadith, anyone can say anything in regards to the election of Abu Bakr (ra) and that allows for people's biases to overcloud reality. However, I will participate in this discussion to show how neutral and fair Sunnis are when it comes to leadership after the Prophet (saw).
Logically, since his qualities would force me to cite ahaadith, he was elected for his age and life experiences. He was the first man to accept Islam. A nine or ten year old would have no problem acclimating to a new life and belief system; try doing the same when you have attained maturiy. Having said that, if I were there, I would have voted for Abu Bakr (ra) too even if Imam Ali (ra) was present there. Then again, I would have no problems pledging allegiance to Imam Ali (ra) if he was elected instead.
Suppose Ali ra was there too in Saqifa gathering, would've people chosen him or still Abu Bakr?
Imam Ali (ra) was not physically present, however, it was not a "out of sight, out of mind" situation. After all, Imam Ali (ra) was asked to give bayyah so it is not like he was forgotten altogether. That is point number one.
The second point is that the very fact that Ansar were already gathered there (to choose one of their own) suggests that they never considered Imam Ali (ra) [thereby rendering the Ghadeer argument useless]. Sure, it also suggests that they did not see Abu Bakr (ra) as a candidate either, at least initially, but Abu Bakr's (ra) presence and Imam Ali's (ra) absence did not matter. There was a case made for Abu Bakr's (ra) superiority and he did not make that case himself. In short, sense prevailed and people realized that the one best suited for the job was Abu Bakr (ra).
If it was Abu Bakr's RA superiority, then how come he is superior to the person for whom Prophet Pbuh said "Looking at his face is worship, uttering his name is worship, he is with Quran and Quran is with him" and many more..
You ask us to show logical evidence without citing ahaadith and then you quote a weak narration yourself. Maybe I should have commented on this point first thereby saving myself all the typing, lol.
-
You ask us to show logical evidence without citing ahaadith and then you quote a weak narration yourself. Maybe I should have commented on this point first thereby saving myself all the typing, lol.
So that is a weak narration. Are you sure buddy?
-
السلام علیکم
BROTHERS IN ISLAM, i have a couple of confusions arose in my mind..
- On which Basis People chose Abu Bakr ra as their Caliph, was he Superior to all the ummah after Prophet PBUH or it was a need of time people chose him..?
- Suppose Ali ra was there too in Saqifa gathering, would've people chosen him or still Abu Bakr?
- If it was Abu Bakr's RA superiority, then how come he is superior to the person for whom Prophet Pbuh said "Looking at his face is worship, uttering his name is worship, he is with Quran and Quran is with him" and many more..
GIVE A LOGICAL EXPLANATION INSTEAD OF SHOWING AHADITH
wa alaykumsalam
You ask us to give logical explanation, not ahadith, but on your 3rd point you mention hadith :D
Abu Bakr ra was not just superior in his iman as the first muslim man who accepted Prophet's pbuh message, he was superior in his sacrifice and obedience to Prophet pbuh command. There is 1 example which really strikes me and shows how much he was on another level of iman and leadership. That was his insistence in sending usama bin zayd ra army when many companions try to convince him to do otherwise.
Imagine this, lots or apostate tribes were gathering to destroy madina, instead of keeping usama's army to keep madina safe which is safe and logical thing to do, instead he sent them away as per Prophet's pbuh command. Logic will say that he weaken madina and invite enemy to attack, but he didn't care, because he want to fulfill Prophet's command more than anything else. That shows out of this world iman and obedience to Prophet's pbuh and the result was that the roman empire was so intimidated and could not believe how after such a huge trial (Prophet's pbuh death), increasing number of rebel tribes who were ready to pounce etc can a leader of such a small nation shows that much confidence. That shows a pious and genius leadership quality. He was superior to Ali ra in iman, leadership, humbleness, zuhd and many other aspect.
-
So that is a weak narration. Are you sure buddy?
An good portion of scholars, except one or two, have deemed it as inauthentic or weak. However, your criteria was logic not ahaadith so allow me logically deconstruct this hadith. If looking at Imam Ali's (ra) face was worship, one would have felt the need to make an image of him to benefit from it and that would introduce shirk in the religion.
-
We can put hadiths & sectarian following aside & lets history speak for itself.
Nobody comes even close to Abu Bakr (RA) & Umar (RA) in terms of leadership. Look at their leadership & look at the leadersip of anyone else. There is no comparison.
What makes Abu Bakr’s (RA) leadership even greater is that he faced the biggest challenge of all: succeeding the Holy Prophet (SAW).
Shia can make as much excuses as they want as to why Ali’s (RA) leadership was not as successful. The truth is no excuse the shia make can compare to the biggest task & challenges Abu Bakr (RA) faced & he & Umar (RA) were the greatest leaders in Islamic history. It must pain the shia so much that none of their infallible Imams came even close to their acheivements.
-
This is a fact after Hazrat Muhammad SAWW no one is better than Mola Ali as.This is not because I am SHIA this is a real fact which we came to know through Quran Hadiith & history .
https://www.lyricsnoha.com
-
This is a fact after Hazrat Muhammad SAWW no one is better than Mola Ali as.This is not because I am SHIA this is a real fact which we came to know through Quran Hadiith & history .
https://www.lyricsnoha.com
As per Mola Ali(as) , the best person after hazrat Muhammad(saws) was Imam Abū bakr(as). This Hadith is mutawattir. Why do Shias don’t want Sunnis to follow Ali(as) ?