Saqifa - ATT: Iceman

[Hadrami]

Instead on Kian's thread, you can discuss this topic here.

After the demise of the Prophet (s), Ansar gathered in Saqifa before everybody else goes there, announcing Sa'd b. 'Ubada who was a well-reputed companion of the Prophet (s) and the head of Khazraj as their candidate for caliphate. However, it was opposed by some Muhajirun who took caliphate to be their right. Each group mentioned their virtues and intimacy with the Prophet (s), considering itself to deserve the occupation of caliphate more than the other one.

When Ansar failed to seize the power, they suggested that they share it with the Muhajirun. But this strategy failed too, and when Muhajirun overtook the power, Sa'd b. 'Ubada who was a candidate for caliphate did not give up and threatened to launch a battle against Muhajirun.
 
Will talk about this further.

[Hadrami]

if Saad was well reputed and head of Khazraj, but people still chosed Abu Bakr, doesnt it mean that he was more well reputed even among the Ansar? Couldn't the Ansar said no and refused Abu Bakr? What's the shia's excuse?

[iceman]

if Saad was well reputed and head of Khazraj, but people still chosed Abu Bakr, doesnt it mean that he was more well reputed even among the Ansar? Couldn't the Ansar said no and refused Abu Bakr? What's the shia's excuse?

What do you think would have happened if the Ansaar refused Abu Bakr just has the Muhjeroon refused Saad? It would have turned violent. But why didn't the Muhjeroon accept and honour the Ansaar?

I was given a Hadith about showing love and obedience towards the Ansaar, so what happened to the Hadith? Why not let the funeral procession take place and then gather all the important and high ranking individuals in this very important decision. Why rush?

People didn't choose Abu Bakr willingly, the Ansaar argued the case then accepted so that it doesn't turn violent. The Muhajir present there were well known for their confrontational stance and violent and threatening behaviour.

[iceman]

if Saad was well reputed and head of Khazraj, but people still chosed Abu Bakr, doesnt it mean that he was more well reputed even among the Ansar? Couldn't the Ansar said no and refused Abu Bakr? What's the shia's excuse?

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.

The “superiority” of the Quraysh which Abu Bakr flaunted in Saqifa, before the Ansar, was a pre-Islamic theme which he revived to reinforce his claim to khilafat.

[iceman]

if Saad was well reputed and head of Khazraj, but people still chosed Abu Bakr, doesnt it mean that he was more well reputed even among the Ansar? Couldn't the Ansar said no and refused Abu Bakr? What's the shia's excuse?

This is what Hani said;

"See? Even the way you write gives hints of personality worship. For regular Muslims, Wala' & Bara' are associated with God Almighty, even the Prophet (saw). However, your version skips the most important elements of religion, all the way to certain family members of a chosen Messenger (saw). I sense your sect misses the point of this entire religion, ignores the universality of the messages and reduces itself to a political party backing an Arab tribe, much similar to times of Jahiliyyah."

Take a look at Abu Bakr's speech at Saqifa and see who is backing an Arab tribe. All that Hani accuses me is going on in Abu Bakr's speech

[Mythbuster1]

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.

The “superiority” of the Quraysh which Abu Bakr flaunted in Saqifa, before the Ansar, was a pre-Islamic theme which he revived to reinforce his claim to khilafat.

Asalam alaikum

 I just had to answer this simplicity and other brothers will fill you in on the rest......... This is from the bringer of Quran Mohammed saw.....
.....https://sunnah.com/urn/634660.....https://sunnah.com/muslim/43/1.

You do know it's the argument of the Christian  west to downplay the importance or closeness of quraish to Nabi Mohammed saw by classing it as racism and saying He saw only cared about His saw's own tribe!......You are doing likewise on Abu Bakr siddique ra whether you realise or not.

Wasalam

[Mythbuster1]

https://sunnah.com/muslim/43/1

https://sunnah.com/urn/634660

[Hadrami]

if Saad was well reputed and head of Khazraj, but people still chosed Abu Bakr, doesnt it mean that he was more well reputed even among the Ansar? Couldn't the Ansar said no and refused Abu Bakr? What's the shia's excuse?

What do you think would have happened if the Ansaar refused Abu Bakr just has the Muhjeroon refused Saad? It would have turned violent.

Ok, so shia excuse was it could turned violent. So the sunnah of shia imam is to let people go against Allah's command? What a joke 😁

But why didn't the Muhjeroon accept and honour the Ansaar?

Wrong question. Why did Ansar which was the largest camp in Madina chosed Abu Bakr? Didnt they know Ali was already a caliph/imam?

[Hadrami]

let me make it clear that when Ansar chosed Abu Bakr as their imam which according to shia is an act of kufr, the analogy is like them accepting Abu Bakr & others to refuse zakat or fasting etc because they are afraid it could turned violent. See how ridiculous your excuse is? Why cant you take the logical narrative which was Ansar respect and love Abu Bakr instead of making up laughable excuses?

[iceman]

let me make it clear that when Ansar chosed Abu Bakr as their imam which according to shia is an act of kufr, the analogy is like them accepting Abu Bakr & others to refuse zakat or fasting etc because they are afraid it could turned violent. See how ridiculous your excuse is? Why cant you take the logical narrative which was Ansar respect and love Abu Bakr instead of making up laughable excuses?

According to the Hadith that Hani mentioned one should love, respect and follow the Ansaar. Now the Ansaar gathered in Saqifa, why? To select their leader. Did Abu Bakr and Omar allow them? No they didn't. So why didn't they obey and follow the Hadith?

Another question that why did the Ansaar gather in Saqifa on their own to select their leader? Because they knew and were witnessing the events what the Mohajeroon were up to. What ever happened in Saqifa and what ever the outcome, was this according to the Qoran and Sunah? The answer is clearly NO.

[iceman]

We do not accept the outcome of Saqifa. Anything that goes against the Qoran and Sunah we absolutely and completely reject. This is the foundation of our faith. We and our faith and belief stand by with Allah (s) and his Messenger (s). You can accept and follow what ever incident you like and its outcome.

We belive in and follow the two weighty things. It is strange how Hani preaches about Thaqalain and its meaning and where he absolutely and completely accepts one weighty thing without any fuss or objection but raises suspicion and casts doubt about the other.

The Prophet (s) mentioned two weighty things and not just one so why not have the same view about the Qoran just as the progeny? Why not do exactly with the Qoran what you think and did with the Progeny?

Do what the Christians have done with the Bible. Just consider the Qoran as just a weighty thing and a very old book and move along with times and generation. You have different thought about the Progeny and you hold on to the other weighty thing the Prophet (s) left behind without any ifs and buts?

[iceman]

Take a look at the following questions.
mma (people) found itself in a state of utter bewilderment.

1. Did Muhammad, the Messenger of God, and the Founder of the Government of Medina, consider himself qualified to appoint his own successor or not?

2. What could be the possible, hypothetical reason(s) for Muhammad's failure to appoint his own successor?

3. Since Muhammad did not appoint his own successor, did he charge the Muslim community with the task of electing or selecting its own leader?

4. Since the Muslim community lacked guidance for the selection of a leader, did the companions of Muhammad, by their common consent, and before appointing a leader (or even after appointing a leader) prepare a set of rules or guidelines to which they adhered (subsequently)?

5. What was the attitude and the conduct of the principal companions of Muhammad toward the leadership of the Muslim community after his death?

6. What was the practice of Muhammad in regard to the selection and appointment of officers?

7. What is Quran's verdict on Muhammad's practice?

8. What did Muhammad actually do about his succession?

9. What actually happened after the death of Muhammad?

10. What importance does the question of succession have in history in general?

Give it a go!

[iceman]

The best guarantee of the security of the State that Mohammad (s) had founded, was in informing the Muslims who would be their leader after his own death. The security of the State would, in fact, be fatally compromised if he failed to inform his followers who would succeed him as its Chief Executive.

No Muslim would dare to imagine that Mohammad, the Messenger of God, would say or do anything detrimental to the interests of Islam. Nor would any Muslim dare to imagine that Mohammad (s) would say or do anything illogical.

The assumption that Mohammad (s) did not appoint his own successor, and did not introduce him to the Muslim umma, is supported neither by facts nor by logic. Facts and logic are on his side – perennially and inevitably. It was in the outhouse of Saqifa that the logic of history went awry.

[Link]

The whole Quran would be giving examples on how to elect our religious, social, and political leaders rather than the theme it has to submit to God's leaders who guide by his Authority if Saqifa was per God's will.  It would be the primary guidance that would enlighten humans on what steps they must take to ensure they pick the right leader.

The fact that Quran did talk about leadership in detail but didn't emphasize once on how people should go about electing their own leader, is enough for the believer to realize there is something wrong, it is not that of guidance to elect your own leaders.

It could not be silent on the issue of leadership as that most important subject pertaining on how to go about submitting to God. 

A book said to be from God but is silent about leadership and government and kingship and power and authority cannot be from God.

This is an essential need for humanity, but the fact is people don't like the answer of the Quran. So they play around with all the verses talking about the subject, disconnect from one another, and make all the relevant examples as just stories of the ancients.

[Hadrami]

According to the Hadith that Hani mentioned one should love, respect and follow the Ansaar. Now the Ansaar gathered in Saqifa, why? To select their leader. Did Abu Bakr and Omar allow them? No they didn't. So why didn't they obey and follow the Hadith?

So now you want to twist the hadith and said it is about "follow the Ansar"? Hani clearly said the hadith about Ali & Ansar do not mean that we should follow everything they did. You did not read Hani's reply did you? 😊

Another question that why did the Ansaar gather in Saqifa on their own to select their leader?

Because they have never heard Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam told them they should elect Ali or Abu Bakr or anyone. Sunni's answer is so logical & simple, no crazy conspiracy theory at all 😁

Because they knew and were witnessing the events what the Mohajeroon were up to. What ever happened in Saqifa and what ever the outcome, was this according to the Qoran and Sunah? The answer is clearly NO.

Oh really, the Ansar knew what Abu Bakr/Umar were up to and you believed they opposed that and yet still selected Abu Bakr. Whats the point of that gathering then? The more excuses, the more laughable it is

[iceman]

According to the Hadith that Hani mentioned one should love, respect and follow the Ansaar. Now the Ansaar gathered in Saqifa, why? To select their leader. Did Abu Bakr and Omar allow them? No they didn't. So why didn't they obey and follow the Hadith?

So now you want to twist the hadith and said it is about "follow the Ansar"? Hani clearly said the hadith about Ali & Ansar do not mean that we should follow everything they did. You did not read Hani's reply did you? 😊

Another question that why did the Ansaar gather in Saqifa on their own to select their leader?

Because they have never heard Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam told them they should elect Ali or Abu Bakr or anyone. Sunni's answer is so logical & simple, no crazy conspiracy theory at all 😁

Because they knew and were witnessing the events what the Mohajeroon were up to. What ever happened in Saqifa and what ever the outcome, was this according to the Qoran and Sunah? The answer is clearly NO.

Oh really, the Ansar knew what Abu Bakr/Umar were up to and you believed they opposed that and yet still selected Abu Bakr. Whats the point of that gathering then? The more excuses, the more laughable it is

Why did only the Ansaar gather in Saqifa to appoint a leader a successor to Muhammad (s) when this should be the responsibility of the entire Ummah as a whole and should involve everybody, all parties concerned and involved should have took part.

What was the sudden urge and need to gather in Saqifa on your own when the funeral processions are going on and the Muslim Ummah is in state of shock and mourning?

The Shaykhain were only informed of this secret gathering. And when they got to know they quietly slipped away with one named individual, why? Why weren't the others informed?

The Ansaar gathered to select their own leader because of the stance of certain reputable Muhajir who had influence and position. They (Ansaar) knew that the these Muhajir will not accept Ali and will not allow him to succeed.

They saw the pattern of disobedience by not joining Osama's army, not allowing the Prophet (s) to write a will when he asked for pen and paper and caused a fuss over it. The secrecy and planning  was whispered around and got to the Ansaar.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

According to the Hadith that Hani mentioned one should love, respect and follow the Ansaar. Now the Ansaar gathered in Saqifa, why? To select their leader. Did Abu Bakr and Omar allow them? No they didn't. So why didn't they obey and follow the Hadith?

So now you want to twist the hadith and said it is about "follow the Ansar"? Hani clearly said the hadith about Ali & Ansar do not mean that we should follow everything they did. You did not read Hani's reply did you? 😊

Another question that why did the Ansaar gather in Saqifa on their own to select their leader?

Because they have never heard Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam told them they should elect Ali or Abu Bakr or anyone. Sunni's answer is so logical & simple, no crazy conspiracy theory at all 😁

Because they knew and were witnessing the events what the Mohajeroon were up to. What ever happened in Saqifa and what ever the outcome, was this according to the Qoran and Sunah? The answer is clearly NO.

Oh really, the Ansar knew what Abu Bakr/Umar were up to and you believed they opposed that and yet still selected Abu Bakr. Whats the point of that gathering then? The more excuses, the more laughable it is

Why did only the Ansaar gather in Saqifa to appoint a leader a successor to Muhammad (s) when this should be the responsibility of the entire Ummah as a whole and should involve everybody, all parties concerned and involved should have took part.

What was the sudden urge and need to gather in Saqifa on your own when the funeral processions are going on and the Muslim Ummah is in state of shock and mourning?

The Shaykhain were only informed of this secret gathering. And when they got to know they quietly slipped away with one named individual, why? Why weren't the others informed?

The Ansaar gathered to select their own leader because of the stance of certain reputable Muhajir who had influence and position. They (Ansaar) knew that the these Muhajir will not accept Ali and will not allow him to succeed.

They saw the pattern of disobedience by not joining Osama's army, not allowing the Prophet (s) to write a will when he asked for pen and paper and caused a fuss over it. The secrecy and planning  was whispered around and got to the Ansaar.

Your replies are getting more lame each time.

I hate to break it to you, but here's something you need to understand:

The world did not & does not revolve around Ali.

The ansar wanted to install one of their own & if they felt Ali was chosen by the prophet then they would have chosen Ali too.
In the end they accepted Abu Bakr.

One thing you cannot deny is history. Abu Bakr & Umar were the two greatest leaders the ummah ever had after the Prophet (saw). Not Ali nor anyone else.

Just look at their achievements, their rule.

They were greater leaders than all the other leaders of the ummah put together including Ali.

Ali had his merits & may have been superior to others in terms of knowledge etc but in terms of leadership there are only two i.e the shaykhan.

So those that accepted the leadership of Abu Bakr & Umar made the best decision as the Ummah florished to its greatest point under their rule.

[iceman]

The Ansaar gathered in Saqifa to chose their own tribal leader. No one gave them the authority to decide on behalf of the Prophet (s) who shall succeed him and neither on behalf of the Ummah who shall be their leader.

When Abu Bakr and Omar heard of this they quietly slipped away with only one person with them. They opposed the Ansaar and put them off the idea. It's all there in history. One thing led to another and the outcome was that Abu Bakr became Khalifa by a minority.

The majority were in mourning and weren't aware of what was going on behind the scenes in secrecy. Those days we didn't have the technology that we have now.

This is a different situation than where as the funeral was done and a few days of mourning went by and everybody got together and took part and finally reached a collective decision that Abu Bakr was elected as Khalifa and successor to the Prophet (s).

It was a coincidence in Saqifa and it was conducted fairly or properly. The procedure and process was entirety wrong. So accept the facts which you don't respond to and get over it.

[Abu Muhammad]

@iceman,

Quick one. Just want to ask you what are the factors that you think motivate both Abu Bakr and Umar to be the caliphs?

[Mythbuster1]

Take a look at the following questions.
mma (people) found itself in a state of utter bewilderment.

1. Did Muhammad, the Messenger of God, and the Founder of the Government of Medina, consider himself qualified to appoint his own successor or not?

2. What could be the possible, hypothetical reason(s) for Muhammad's failure to appoint his own successor?

3. Since Muhammad did not appoint his own successor, did he charge the Muslim community with the task of electing or selecting its own leader?

4. Since the Muslim community lacked guidance for the selection of a leader, did the companions of Muhammad, by their common consent, and before appointing a leader (or even after appointing a leader) prepare a set of rules or guidelines to which they adhered (subsequently)?

5. What was the attitude and the conduct of the principal companions of Muhammad toward the leadership of the Muslim community after his death?

6. What was the practice of Muhammad in regard to the selection and appointment of officers?

7. What is Quran's verdict on Muhammad's practice?

8. What did Muhammad actually do about his succession?

9. What actually happened after the death of Muhammad?

10. What importance does the question of succession have in history in general?

Give it a go!

I will try........

1) He Prophet saw COULD have IF there was a call from Allah swt to do so to appoint a divine leader but there is NO clear evidence from Quran and sunnah, but there is clear evidence of CONSULTATION!!!

2) He Noble Prophet saw NEVER failed nauzobillah for He saw NEVER mentioned such or did anything to appoint anyone, He saw always CONSULTED with companions. No secrets.
(Astaghfirullah you should NEVER look at the Prophet saw as a failure nor you should attempt to portray likewise just to win an argument)

3) Yes CONSULT

4) They voted according to shura consultation which is explained in Quran as well

5) Brilliant Islam expanded and grew under the conduct of the principle companions who were chosen by consultation

6) Prophet saw as a leader didn't need to call a council or shura to appoint officers, even though He saw did ask other companions when appointing, He saw never appointed for succession, positions yes succession no, unless a divine revelation came then it was an order from above,but it never did. It's the job of a leader to appoint his officer and consult in the process.

7) It's on par with message of Nabi Mohammed saw to the T.......but no mention of following a divine successor from Quran or sunnah tho.

He Nabi saw NEVER appointed, He saw did CONSULT with companions, no such thing as succession through family blood lines in Islam.

9) It's clear what happened at saqifa.......They followed the Quran and Sunna and chose a leader through......SHURA CONSULTATION according to the Quran and sunnah of Nabi Mohammed saw.

10) No importance of divine succession for it's a fairytale made up unless you have clear evidence from the Quran.
As for succession in leadership then it was important and the principal companions ra showed their leadership credentials in their Imamate over the umma at their respective times and no Muslim was against their rule unless you was a hater of the sunnah.