Ali or Abu Bakr

[iceman]

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.

[iceman]

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.

[Hani]

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.

[Hani]

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.

[Hani]

"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.

[iceman]

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.

[muslim720]

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.

[Shia not Rafidi]

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?

[Hadrami]

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

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.

[muslim720]

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.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

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.

[Lyrics Noha]

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

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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) ?