So to begin, I'll start with the issue of the Sahabah, and Abu Bakr (RA) specifically.
As a Shi'i, I was taught to believe that the Sahabah were a gang of hypocrites - criminals who betrayed the Prophet and oppressed his family basically from the second he died. The word "Saqifah" invoked only evil connotations and was the embodiment of this betrayal.
As a youngster growing up, I actually took pride in being a "Rafidi". I would actually use this as a nickname even in video games and email accounts, that's how proud of it I was.
This is my old Battlefield 2 account:
http://spieler-daten.de/bf2_stats/RafidhFunny right?
Almost every (private) lecture I attended involved cursing of the Sahabah - either outwardly, or with innuendo. This never happened in public lectures, because Shi'is try to keep this as hidden as possible.
As time went on, however, I came to have serious doubts about these views, as I'll explain below, focusing mainly on Abu Bakr (RA).
Abu Bakr as-Siddique (RA) in the eyes of a Shi'iAs a Shi'i, Abu Bakr's case was clearcut. He was the instigator of this betrayal and by far the most despised of the companions in my eyes. The major reason, ofcourse, was that he was 'Aisha's father, so he recieved a double dose of curses whenever his name was mentioned. Not to mention, he stole Fadak from Fatima and made up some hadith from the Prophet to justify it. He was a thief and a devil. Not to mention he was a coward - remember how he was scared and about to betray the Prophet in the cave? I could never understand how Sunnis thought so highly of him - they were clearly misguided and ignorant people.
However, as time went on, certain facts came to light about Abu Bakr, and some doubts started creeping into my mind regarding him.
For example, he was one of the first people to become a Muslim. According to authentic reports, he was the first adult male to embrace Islam. Shi'is ofcourse deny this, and when I asked this question to a more "learned" Hajj, he said "no, more like the twenieth or thirtieth". Upon further research, it became clear that the consensus was that he was definitely the first adult male to embrace Islam. This complicated matters.
Let us assume he wasn't the first male - let's accept for arguments sake that Abu Bakr was the 30th male to embrace Islam. Either way, the same questions come to light. Clearly, he didn't embrace Islam when it was strong and the Prophet had many followers. Whether he was the first or the 30th, he embraced Islam when it was weak, and its future was very cloudy.
So why did this evil man accept Islam when so few others did?
Did he recieve any wealth because of it? No - the Prophet had no wealth to give him, and Abu Bakr was already a wealthy man.
Did he recieve power? Sure, Abu Bakr was from a minor tribe of Quraish, maybe his accepting Islam would give him more power? The answer to that is no - he didn't get any power from becoming Muslim, infact, he lost power as the chiefs of Quraish now viewed him negatively.
How about respect? Maybe Abu Bakr wanted people's respect by becoming a Muslim? No - Abu Bakr got the complete opposite, he actually lost respect, and authentic reports state that he was actually beaten up several times.
These were very tricky questions for me as a Shi'i. They didn't add up with the overall evil image we have of Abu Bakr. How is it possible to reconcile his later actions with his earlier actions? His earlier apparently sincere acceptance of Islam when it was weak and powerless, and his later actions as the chief tyrant who oppressed Ahlul Bayt and stole their rights?
36 Replies
17266 Views
August 12, 2015, 05:45:42 AM
