TwelverShia.net Forum

What happened in Saqifa?

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

iceman

Re: What happened in Saqifa?
« Reply #120 on: November 11, 2017, 04:04:16 AM »
I'm cool as ice dude. I'm just highlighting the silliness of your Columbus-like approach.

Narrations are accepted as is, and remember when the companions would narrate a piece of history, they'd paraphrase, and would not reveal every minute detail.

You're asking the same question without taking on board, and addressing the counter points me, and brother zaid_ibn_ali made. I advise you to review the entire thread from the start. It can't be arsed to go around the clock with you on this. In short, ignore the way it was arranged, and direct your attention that most of the companions had accepted (including 'Ali) Abu Bakr as the new sheriff.

If you're going to clutch at straws, and look for random reasons to doubt the integrity of the Ansar whom Allah (SWT) has promised Jannah many times in the Qur'an, then answer the following questions for me first:

- Why did 'Ali randomly accept to be Caliphah knowing that many of the other companions were not around to be consulted like Anas ibn Malik, and many others?
- We know 25/26 years prior, 'Ali himself was not happy for not being consulted, so why was 'Ali himself being two faced on this occasion?

This is what you said,

"ignore the way it was arranged"

Listen to yourself and here it is again,

"ignore the way it was arranged"

This is exactly what it's all about. And this is what makes it illegitimate.

Let me repeat that we are not discussing individuals or personalities. It's not about whether every single person was present or available. What was Saqifa all about? Do you want me to repeat it over and over again. You are trying to divert the attention by bringing Ali in to this.

Optimus Prime

Re: What happened in Saqifa?
« Reply #121 on: November 11, 2017, 04:27:19 AM »
I'm cool as ice dude. I'm just highlighting the silliness of your Columbus-like approach.

Narrations are accepted as is, and remember when the companions would narrate a piece of history, they'd paraphrase, and would not reveal every minute detail.

You're asking the same question without taking on board, and addressing the counter points me, and brother zaid_ibn_ali made. I advise you to review the entire thread from the start. It can't be arsed to go around the clock with you on this. In short, ignore the way it was arranged, and direct your attention that most of the companions had accepted (including 'Ali) Abu Bakr as the new sheriff.

If you're going to clutch at straws, and look for random reasons to doubt the integrity of the Ansar whom Allah (SWT) has promised Jannah many times in the Qur'an, then answer the following questions for me first:

- Why did 'Ali randomly accept to be Caliphah knowing that many of the other companions were not around to be consulted like Anas ibn Malik, and many others?
- We know 25/26 years prior, 'Ali himself was not happy for not being consulted, so why was 'Ali himself being two faced on this occasion?

This is what you said,

"ignore the way it was arranged"

Listen to yourself and here it is again,

"ignore the way it was arranged"

This is exactly what it's all about. And this is what makes it illegitimate.

Let me repeat that we are not discussing individuals or personalities. It's not about whether every single person was present or available. What was Saqifa all about? Do you want me to repeat it over and over again. You are trying to divert the attention by bringing Ali in to this.

All your points have been comprehensively tackled, and refuted in this very thread. Anyone with a functional brain cells will be able to deduce this fact quite comfortably.

'Ali, and billions of others over the past 1428 years have regarded Abu Bakr's appointment as the Amir as just, and legal within boundaries of the shariah. Thus, your isolated, and bias view is fit for the recycling bin.

I raised 'Ali's appointment as Amir because there are striking parallels between the two. If you applied your mind, you would have realised that, but since it's filled with hateful clout, I'm sure common sense is hard to come by.

Engaging with you is like flogging a dead horse. Everything in the association with the Shia mind is morally and spiritually corruptive. The corruption of their faculty of reason and the derangement of the Aql have blinded their zombie followers to the degree that they no longer bring the dimension of the Aakhirat into their lives.

I'm retiring from the thread. :D
« Last Edit: November 12, 2017, 01:35:09 PM by MuslimK »

zaid_ibn_ali

Re: What happened in Saqifa?
« Reply #122 on: November 11, 2017, 11:57:06 AM »
Iceman has a tendency to ignore posts which he can't answer.

Brother abu Muhammad has already pointed out the complete fallacy in your entire assertion that saqifa was illegitimate due to the way it was carried out. As he mentioned, you are saying it would have only been legitimate if all the principles of shura had been followed.

You are very confused indeed.

None of it should matter to you as either way you are a twelver shia & your sect believes Ali was the infallible Imam.

Thus the whole discussion about the democratic nature of selecting a leader whilst the living Imam was alive is nothing but a sin according to your sect.

Your confusion is partly understandable. You have conceded before that the Quran mentions shura. Sunni's follow this concept. Yet you are torn between this realisation & your upbringing as a shia.

This whole thread demonstrates that you are torn between accepting the Quranic concept of shura which is what sunni's believe (but shia reject) & your Imami background.

InshAllah the more you research the topic the more you will understand.


Optimus Prime

Re: What happened in Saqifa?
« Reply #123 on: November 11, 2017, 04:49:56 PM »
Iceman has a tendency to ignore posts which he can't answer.

Brother abu Muhammad has already pointed out the complete fallacy in your entire assertion that saqifa was illegitimate due to the way it was carried out. As he mentioned, you are saying it would have only been legitimate if all the principles of shura had been followed.

You are very confused indeed.

None of it should matter to you as either way you are a twelver shia & your sect believes Ali was the infallible Imam.

Thus the whole discussion about the democratic nature of selecting a leader whilst the living Imam was alive is nothing but a sin according to your sect.

Your confusion is partly understandable. You have conceded before that the Quran mentions shura. Sunni's follow this concept. Yet you are torn between this realisation & your upbringing as a shia.

This whole thread demonstrates that you are torn between accepting the Quranic concept of shura which is what sunni's believe (but shia reject) & your Imami background.

InshAllah the more you research the topic the more you will understand.



Exactly. He just jumps past the explanations we've provided, and spins his own counter questions without fully understanding/responding.

The majority accepted his leadership, and followed his political orders. If the your followers accept, and obey you, then how can anyone in their rightful mind suggest such leadership is consider void centuries later?

What's also interesting is during the discussion at Saqifah, there were 3 candidates being nominated, Abu Bakr, Umar, and Sa'd ibn 'Ubadah. This tells us, they were having a genuine disagreement, and therefore was no underlying conspiracy which, is the retarded Shia narrative.

iceman

Re: What happened in Saqifa?
« Reply #124 on: November 13, 2017, 11:41:23 PM »
Enough has been said and discussed about Saqifa. Now let the people make up their own mind. Reality and facts are there. You can stick to your understanding and I'll stick to mine. I believe in the freedom to believe in what you want and the rigjt disagree. And you should calm down and give it a rest as well.

Optimus Prime

Re: What happened in Saqifa?
« Reply #125 on: November 15, 2017, 02:06:22 PM »
Enough has been said and discussed about Saqifa. Now let the people make up their own mind. Reality and facts are there. You can stick to your understanding and I'll stick to mine. I believe in the freedom to believe in what you want and the rigjt disagree. And you should calm down and give it a rest as well.

Okay!!!

Abu Muhammad

Re: What happened in Saqifa?
« Reply #126 on: November 16, 2017, 06:28:53 PM »
Enough has been said and discussed about Saqifa. Now let the people make up their own mind. Reality and facts are there. You can stick to your understanding and I'll stick to mine. I believe in the freedom to believe in what you want and the rigjt disagree. And you should calm down and give it a rest as well.

@iceman, you still haven't clarified this:

@iceman, I was asking you this:

Now, it's upon you to prove otherwise showing where in Quran and Sunnah that the Saqifa is illegitimate, which you have been evading all along.

But you bring me quranic verses and hadith to support the argument that Allah has already appointed someone to lead the ummah after the demise of Prophet (saw). Even though the point you were trying to prove was that Quran and Sunnah are not silent with regard to leadership after Prophet (saw), without realizing it, you are telling us that Saqifa, in itself, was illegitimate no matter how it was conducted. Because the leader had already been appointed by Allah.         

Dude, you are actually rebutting yourself. Do you aware of that? All your rants in this thread were basically about Saqifa was illegitimate because of no proper shura was done and it's unfair. You then said that if it were properly conducted, Saqifa would have been legitimate:

At least it was conducted fairly, justly, properly and reasonably. It's legitimate because of the procedure and method. No one could argue or challenge this.

You are such a confused soul.
Make up your mind, dude:
1. Illegitimate because of the selection process was unfair, etc.; or
2. Illegitimate because of a leader has already been appointed?


Which one bro?

iceman

Re: What happened in Saqifa?
« Reply #127 on: November 17, 2017, 05:06:43 AM »
Enough has been said and discussed about Saqifa. Now let the people make up their own mind. Reality and facts are there. You can stick to your understanding and I'll stick to mine. I believe in the freedom to believe in what you want and the rigjt disagree. And you should calm down and give it a rest as well.

@iceman, you still haven't clarified this:

@iceman, I was asking you this:

Now, it's upon you to prove otherwise showing where in Quran and Sunnah that the Saqifa is illegitimate, which you have been evading all along.

But you bring me quranic verses and hadith to support the argument that Allah has already appointed someone to lead the ummah after the demise of Prophet (saw). Even though the point you were trying to prove was that Quran and Sunnah are not silent with regard to leadership after Prophet (saw), without realizing it, you are telling us that Saqifa, in itself, was illegitimate no matter how it was conducted. Because the leader had already been appointed by Allah.         

Dude, you are actually rebutting yourself. Do you aware of that? All your rants in this thread were basically about Saqifa was illegitimate because of no proper shura was done and it's unfair. You then said that if it were properly conducted, Saqifa would have been legitimate:

At least it was conducted fairly, justly, properly and reasonably. It's legitimate because of the procedure and method. No one could argue or challenge this.

You are such a confused soul.
Make up your mind, dude:
1. Illegitimate because of the selection process was unfair, etc.; or
2. Illegitimate because of a leader has already been appointed?


Which one bro?

We are discussing the Ahle Sunah point of view here so it can't be the second one. As far as the first one is concerned that doesn't apply either. WHY? Because there was no selection process in Saqifa to begin with. It wasn't a public assembly/gathering or a planned/organised event.

One more time, who gathered in Saqifa and why? Some heads of the Ansar to select THEIR OWN LEADER. How many Muhajir turned up and why? ONLY THREE to stop the Ansar from going ahead and being the cause of dividing the Ummah in to sectarian/tribal division. Where was the rest of the important personalities and why? They didn't have a CLUE about what was going on and they were busy with the funeral processions.

Nobody gave any authority what so ever to those handful of individuals present in Saqifa to proceed ahead with choosing a leader for the entire Ummah. So talking about the first one whether the selection process was fair and just or not is out of the question because there was no process to begin with and the gathering of those HANDFUL OF INDIVIDUALS wasn't for that purpose.

Those gathered wanted to select THEIR OWN LEADER for God knows why and those three that turned up wanted to prevent something terrible from happening. But eventually something terrible did happen. They took the matter in to their own hands and then imposed the hasty decision through means of violence and threatening behaviour and if people didn't accept and comply then division was threatened. People started to accept for various reasons and unfortunate circumstances.

Abu Muhammad

Re: What happened in Saqifa?
« Reply #128 on: November 21, 2017, 03:23:26 AM »
You are such a confused soul.
Make up your mind, dude:
1. Illegitimate because of the selection process was unfair, etc.; or
2. Illegitimate because of a leader has already been appointed?


We are discussing the Ahle Sunah point of view here so it can't be the second one. As far as the first one is concerned that doesn't apply either. WHY? Because there was no selection process in Saqifa to begin with. It wasn't a public assembly/gathering or a planned/organised event.

Nope, it can't be from the view of Ahlus Sunnah because the argument you presented does not follow the methodology of Ahlus Sunnah when deriving certain ruling.

I asked you to show from the very fundamental sources of Ahlus Sunnah i.e. Quran & Sunnah how did Saqifa become illigitimate, you failed to do that. The best you can give was non-Sunni view.

So, the best I can say that your view is from Ahlul Hawa i.e. those who follow their own whims. All were coming from your own wishful thinking.

iceman

Re: What happened in Saqifa?
« Reply #129 on: December 09, 2019, 01:36:19 AM »
Ok Muslim 720, since you're yapping on about Saqifa and Imamah on a different thread so I decided to bring it back out for you. This is the right thread to discuss Saqifa and the appointment of Abu Bakr. What do you make out of the following. Go for it. Stick to a thread and what is being discussed.

Saqifa is one of the most dramatic events in Islamic History that ultimately led to a victorious Abu Bakr attaining the station of Khalifa following the death of the Prophet(saww).  The episode actually begins from the point that Rasulullah(saww) died, upon receiving news of the Prophet (saws)'s death the companions who were ordered by the Prophet(saww) to join the expedition led by Usamah returned to Madinah. Three key figures Abu Bakr, Umar and Abu Ubaydah were participants in this aborted expedition, and Sunni Imam Khandlawi adds that when returning to Medina:

"Usamah along with 'Umar and Abu 'Ubaidah (Radiallahu 'Anhum) returned to Madinah and went straight to the [residence of the] Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu 'alaihi was Sallam) who had passed away".
Hayatus Sahaba, by Maulana Khandlawi, translated by Majid Ali Khan, Volume 1 p 541
 
(a) Hadhrath Umar receives information that the Ansar have gathered at the Saqifa
Numani identifies the fact that Hadhrath Umar had personal receipt about a meeting the Ansar were involved in. This was not general information available to all the Sahaba, this was information given privately to Hadhrath Umar:

"It is related by Omar that as they were seated in the Prophet's house a man cried out all of a sudden from outside: 'O son of Khattab (Omar) please step out for a moment'. Omar told him to leave them alone and go away as they were busy in making arrangements for the burial of the Prophet. The man replied that an incident had occurred i.e., the Ansar were gathering in force in the Thaqifah Bani Sa'idah and, as the situation was grave, it was necessary that he (Omar) should go and look in to the matter lest the Ansar should do something which would lead to a war. On this Omar said to Abu Bakr, 'Let us go'.
 Al Faruq, by Allamah Shibli Numani, Vol 1 p 87

The modern Sunni scholar Dr Rahim in his simplified analysis of history writes:
"Being informed of the proceedings of the Ansars, Abu Bakr, Umar and Abu Ubaidah hastened to the meeting place and were there just in time to interrupt the finalization of the Ansars choice of Sa'd ibn Ubaidah to the successorship of the Prophet. Ali was at that time busy in preparing the coffin of the Prophet, and did not know anything about the meeting of the Ansars to elect a successor".
 A Short history of Islam, by Dr Rahim, page 57, printed Ishaquia Press, Karachi

They set out to go to the Saqifa on the way we read that Abu Ubaydah joins them. He did not leave with them from the Prophet’s(saaws) residence so we presume that he must have met them at a specific place. On route two companions whom Hadhrath Umar recounts as "pious fellows" seek to discourage them from proceeding further. They reject the plea and make their way to the Saqifa.
 1. The history of al Tabari, Volume 9 page 188, English translation by Ismail Poonawalla
 2. The history of al Tabari, Volume 9 page 192, English translation by Ismail Poonawalla
 
(b) Discussions at Saqifa
The meeting at Saqifa was a gathering of the Ansar, Hadhrath Abu Bakr, Hadhrath Umar and Abu Ubaydah were the only members of the Muhajireen who attended the meeting. Upon arrival at the Saqifa one of the Ansar stood up and began to extol the virtues of the Ansar. Upon hearing this:
 1. The history of al Tabari, Volume 9 page 186, English translation by Ismail Poonawalla
 2. The history of al Tabari, Volume 9 page 193, English translation by Ismail Poonawalla

"Umar said: When I saw that they wanted to cut us from our root and wrest authority from us, I wanted to make a speech, which I had composed in my mind. As I used to treat Abu Bakr with gentle courtesy to some extent and considered him more sober and gentler than me I conferred with him about the speech. When I wanted to speak he said gently so I did not like to disobey him...He said 'Now then: O men of the Ansar, you deserve all the fine qualities that you have mentioned about yourselves, but the Quraysh, for they represent the best in lineage and standing. I am pleased to offer you one of these two men, render your oath of allegiance to any one of them you like. Thus saying he took hold of my hand and that of Abu Ubaydah b. al-Jarrah".
 The history of al Tabari, Volume 9 page 193, English translation by Ismail Poonawalla

Poonawalla, the translator of this edition of al-Tabari then adds a further segment of the speech of Hadhrath Abu Bakr to the Ansar, under footnote 1343:
"Baladhuri, Ansab cites the speech of Abu Bakr which shows how he argued against the Ansar. He states: "We are the first people to accept Islam. We are in the Center among the Muslims with respect to our position, and we are the noblest with respect to our lineage, and we are the nearest to the Messenger of God in relationship. You are our brethren in Islam and our partners in religion...The Arabs will not submit themselves except to this clan of Quraysh...You had not better compete with your Muhajirun brethren for what God has decreed for them".
 The history of al Tabari, Volume 9 page 193, footnote 1343, English translation by Ismail Poonawalla

In extolling the virtues of the Muhajireen, Hadhrath Abu Bakr also said that they were:
"the first on earth to worship Allah and were the patrons and the clan of the Prophet who tolerated and suffered with him and adversities and injuries inflicted upon them by their own folk who disbelieved them and all other people opposed them and alienated them".
 Tarikh al Tabari Vol 3, p 219 quoted from 'On the political system of the Islamic State' by Muhammad S. El-Awa, p 30

Halabi further expands on Hadhrath Abu Bakrs' words:
"We are the relatives of the Apostle...and therefore we are the people who are entitled to the caliphate...It will be advisable to have the leadership among us and for you to be the Viziers".
Sirah, by al Halabi,Volume 3 page 357

While Hadhrath Abu Bakr had put forward the names of Hadhrath Umar and Abu Ubaydah as his choice of successors, they declined, this is what their reply was, as is quoted by the Sunni historian Yaqubi:
"By God we cannot give preference over you while you are the companion of the Messenger of God and the second of the two [in the cave at the time of the Hijrah]". Abu Ubaydah put his hand on Abu Bakr's hand and Umar did the same [in ratifying the bargain]. The Meccans who were with them did the same. Then Abu Ubaydah cried "O people of the Ansar, you were the first to help [the Prophet] so do not be the first to change and convert back to paganism". Next Abd al-Rahman b. Awf stood up and said, 'O people of the Ansar, although you do not have among you [anyone] like Abu Bakr, Umar and Ali'. [Thereupon] Mundhir b. al-Aqram stood up saying, 'We do not deny the merits of those you have mentioned. Indeed there is among you a person with whom if he seeks authority, none will dispute [i.e. Ali]".
Tarikh, by al Yaqubi, Volume 2 page 113-114, quoted from History of Tabari, Volume 9 English translation by Ismail Poonawalla p 193 - 194

What happens next is a proposed compromise by Hubab i.e. that there be two Khalifa, one from the Ansar the other from the Quraysh. Hadhrath Umar immediately rejected the proposal:
"How preposterous! Two swords cannot be accommodated in one sheath. By God the Arabs will never accept your rule since their Prophet is not from you, but they will not reject the rule of one from whom is their Prophet. If anyone refuses our authority, we will [produce] a clear rebuttal and an evident proof. Who would dispute us with regard to Muhammad's authority and rule except the falsely guided one, or the erring one, or the one damned when we are his close associates and kinsfolk".
History of Tabari, English translation, p 194 see footnote 1347 quoted Tabari Vol 1 p 1841

What we now present to you are Hadhrath Umar's own commentary of what went on following his rejection of Hubab's proposal, he is narrating this event to the people during his period as Khalifa:
"Voices rose and clamorous speech waxed hotter. I feared [total] disagreement so I said to Abu Bakr, 'Stretch out your hand so that I may give you the oath of allegiance'. He did so and I gave [him] the oath of allegiance; the Muhajirun followed and then the Ansar. [In so doing] we jumped on Sa'd b. Ubadah so someone said that we had killed him. I said, '[May] God kill him! By God, nothing was mightier than the rendering of the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr. We feared that if [we] left [without rendering the oath of allegiance], no agreement would be hammered out later. It was either to follow the Ansar in what we did not like, or else to oppose them, which would have led to disorder (fasad)".
History of Tabari, English translation, Volume 9 p 194

What Hadhrath Umar seems to have forgotten when recollecting the event is the fact that not all those present in the Saqifa gave Bayya to Hadhrath Abu Bakr, and they were adamant that their loyalties lay with another man:
"Umar stood up saying, "Who among you would be agreeable to leave Abu Bakr whom the Prophet gave precedence?" and he gave him the oath of allegiance. The people followed [Umar]. The Ansar said, or some of them said "We will not give the oath of allegiance [to anyone] except Ali".
History of Tabari, English translation, Volume 9 p 186
 
Those debating at Saqifa were the Ansar (vast bulk of the tribe) and what historians have incorrectly quoted the Muhajireen. The Sunni group Idara Isha'at e diniyat (P) Ltd. undoubtedly fully aware of the true facts seek to convince their readership that a free and frank debate involving all the companions occurred, they write:

"After the demise of Rasulullah Sallallahu alahi wa sallam all the prominent Sahaba Radhialllahu anhum gathered at a place called the Saqifa Bani Saad".
 Aqaaidul Islam, by Idara Isha'at e diniyat, English translation by Moulana Zahier Ahmad Ragie, published by Idara Isha'at e diniyat, page 127

What one should ask this group is 'why were only three prominent companions from the Muhajireen present at Saqifa? Were men such as Hadhrath Ali and the other members of Banu Hashim, Hadhrath Uthman, Talha, Zubair, Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas not prominent?

The modern day Sunni scholar El Awa manages to clarify this incorrect approach as follows:

"To consider the Muhajirin as party is incorrect because those of the Muhajirin who attended the Saqifa meeting were Abu Bakr, Umar b. Al Khattab, and Abu 'Ubaida b. al-Jarrah. The Muhajirin had not delegated them any authority nor did they represent any specific political group connected with them".
 On the political system of the Islamic State, by Muhammad S. El Awa page 32 (American Trust Publications, Indiana)
 
(c) No mention of the Qur'an, Sunnah, ijma or qiyas at the Saqifa
In the eyes of the Wahabies "The sources for the creed ('aqeedah) are: The Book of Allah, the authentic Sunnah of his Messenger sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam and the consensus (ijma) of the Pious Predecessors" 1. In addition to this, the four Ahl'ul Sunna Imams have added the principle of Qiyas (analogical reasoning). Curiously the debate at Saqifa was devoid of all four principles, why is that? We believe that everything is contained with Allah (swt)'s book. As it was Hadhrath Umar himself who had said just days earlier "the Qur'an is sufficient for us" then why did he not plead to the parties to turn to the Book of Allah (swt) and reach a conclusion in light of Allah (swt)'s commands?
 General Precepts of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, by Shaykh Naasir al-Aql, English translation by Abu 'Aaliyah Surkheel ibn Anwar Sharif, page 13 (Message of Islam First edition, 1999)

The Sunnah was also not used or suggested, comments on tribal superiority were given precedence, nothing else. Ijma (consensus of the companions) a pivotal part if Islamic jurisprudence in the eyes of the Ahl'ul Sunnah was not even entertained. Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar did not seek the counsel of the other companions as to whether / or not they should proceed to the Saqifa and discuss the issue of succession. Why did these two prominent companions take it upon themselves to go to the Saqifa? Why did they ignore the principle of ijma?

(d) The Saqifa meeting was given preference to the Prophet (saaws)'s funeral
This is an attested fact. These prominent men were debating over the Prophet (saaws) successor whilst his body was being laid to rest. Is this not truly amazing? Allah (swt) sent 124,000 Prophet's to guide mankind. Is there any evidence that when these Prophets' died; their companions failed to attend their funerals, and instead chose to participate in the selection of their immediate successors? If no such precedent exists then why did the Seal of Prophet (saaws)'s companions adopt this approach?

It is common for a person to become the subject of stern condemnation and ridicule of he fails to attend a friend or relatives funeral. It can lead to friendships ending and families becoming divided because we will all die one day and it is expected that those closely linked to the deceased will attend. Relatives frequently fly thousands of miles to reach a deceased loved one's funeral. Compare this to men who were close associates of the Holy Prophet (saaws). Rather than remain close to him and participate in his funeral they departed from the very room where his body was laid to rest, entered the debate at Saqifa, never looking back, never asking for proceedings to be delayed until after the funeral, they preferred the lengthy discussion of who will lead the Ummah than the funeral of the Leader of mankind. We would ask our readers to spare some time to these points. Lest there remain any doubt over the events as described by us we will shall quote the words of the Hanafi scholar, Allamah Shibli Numani:

"It is apparently surprising that no sooner did the Prophet die than the struggle for Caliphate commenced and even the burial of the body of the Founder of Islam became a matter of secondary consideration in the quarrels that arose over the question of succession. Who can for a moment conceive the spectacle of the Prophet lying dead, while those who asserted their love and attachment towards him in his lifetime, without even waiting to look to his remains being suitably interred, were hurrying away to see that others did not secure the headship of the state for themselves!

It is still more surprising that this act is attributed to the persons (Abu Bakr and Omar) who are the brightest stars of the Islamic firmament and the unpleasantness of the act becomes still more poignant when it is remembered that those persons who were connected with the Prophet by ties of blood and kinsmanship ('Ali and the Banu Hashim) were naturally affected by his death and the sad bereavement prostrated them with grief, which, coupled with their anxiety to perform the last offices to the dead, hardly left the room for ulterior considerations".
 Al Farooq, by Allamah Shibli Numani, translated by Maulana Zafar Ali Khan Vol 1 p 85-86

If any doubt remains with regards to the non attendance of Abu Bakr, Umar and Abu Ubaydah at the funeral of the Prophet (s), then allow us cite the following Sunni commentaries of Saheeh al Bukharee:

Umdahthul Qaree Volume 11 page 167 Bab Rajm
Saheeh al Bukharee, Sharh Kirmanee, Volume 23 page 219
Irshad al Saree Volume 10 page 35
All three contain the proud admission of Umar:

"By Allah, when matters that we were faced with following the death of the Prophet, namely his Ghusl, shrouding and funeral, we deemed the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr to be of greater importance"

Can there not be anything clearer than Umar's own admission? If Nasabi still wish to deny it, then allow us to round up the matter with a narration from Kanz al Ummal Volume 3 page 140, Bab Khala Fatha ma'al Amara:

"Urwa narrates that Abu Bakr and Umar were not present at the time of burial, the Prophet (s) was buried before they had returned"

Rather than feel ashamed at this fact, The Ahl'ul Sunnah Ulema feel proud at the actions of their leaders, Mull Ali Qari in Sharra Fiqa Akbar, p 175 (publishers Muhammad Saeed and son, Qur'an Muhall, Karachi ) as follows in his discussion on Imamate

"the Sahaba viewed the appointment of the Imam as so important that they preferred it to attending the Prophet's funeral, because the Muslims need an Imam so that orders can be made on Jihad, and so that Islamic Laws can be implemented".

 

(e) Conclusion

The contention that Sunni Islam believes in a democratic system of Caliphate has no bearing on reality. Democratic election never took place at the Saqifa, the whole Ummah did not vote on the issue. More importantly to describe the concept of khilafth as democratic if kufr, the famous Gettysburg address had described democracy as "The Government of the people, appointed by the people for the people". This is contrary to Islamic Sharia, which is based on the fact that sovereignty belongs to Allah (swt) not the people. It is like confusing democracy with the concept of shura (consultation) of the entire community, then this likewise did not occur Hadhrath Umar was not voted by the Muslim Ummah, Hadhrath Abu Bakr nominated him. Hadhrath Uthman was voted by a committee of six men not the Muslim public at large. Mu'awiya took the reigns by force not through election. Similarly the Banu Ummayya rule that followed had no democratic system of Caliphate rather we had what the late Wahabie scholar Maudoodi describes as 'Mulukiyat' (Kingdom) where there was hereditary succession.

The point made is that the meeting at the Saqifa was haram, undoubtedly haram since the priority incumbent by the ordinances of Islam are to bury the dead as fast as possible. This is the Seal of all Prophets!

The second point made is that the Saqifa was a shameful meeting as it was occurring while the Seal of Prophets was being buried.

The third point is that the Holy Prophet would not leave the Muslims in such a dilemma - one that the authors would have us believe took the Muslims to the level of committing a sin - he left a successor.

The fourth point made is that what gave the companions the right to appoint a Khalifa when that was not their prerogative, and still more since the man who was Allah's Khalifa was duped and was not kept informed while he shouldered the burden of burying the Holy Prophet?

The excuse is that the opinion of the companion overrides the Qur'an and the Sunnah since Ijma'a (of a handful of Muhajirs) is given as the excuse. But Ijma'a came after the Qur'an and Muhammad (saws). And Ijma'a is a belief of the followers of the institution, and we the Shi'i who follow the family can here point out that the Qur'an and Sunnah override Ijma'a when the opinion of the companions overrides the Qur'an. It is clear that this concept was developed by the followers of the companions after analyzing history. At no point did the companions say that the Khilafath of Hadhrath Abu Bakr came about via ijma. On the contrary as we have stated earlier Hadhrath Umar had stated that it was a mistake, no consultation took place, meaning the ijma of the companions was not sought.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2019, 01:41:32 AM by iceman »

iceman

Re: What happened in Saqifa?
« Reply #130 on: December 24, 2019, 11:03:33 PM »
The below is from a Sunni site,

'It was in this precarious situation that the Ummah needed a strong and capable leader to quickly replace the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) before the various groups split apart in complete disarray and utter chaos. It was in this atmosphere that the people needed to declare a Caliph posthaste in order to quell any rebellion'

And the Prophet s.a.w wasn't aware of the above. Of course he was. He saw the signs and the behaviour of the companions. All the talk and whispers. That's why he asked for pen and paper. What else do you think he was going to write. But the Shaykhain and their clan were there to derail it. No excuses.

Amir asked: “When was the oath of allegiance given to Abu Bakr?”

“The very day the Messenger of Allah died,” he (Saeed) replied. “People disliked to be left even part of the day without being organized into a community (jama’ah).”

(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.1, p.195)

muslim720

Re: What happened in Saqifa?
« Reply #131 on: December 25, 2019, 12:27:57 AM »
I don't really know what happened at Saqeefa but I know that it has been the cause of discomfort for millions of Rawaafidh for centuries.  May Allah (swt) bless the Day of Saqeefa.  Wallaahi, if I was an innovator, I'd have declared the Day of Saqeefa as a bigger Eid in the face of the farce known as "Eid al-Ghadeer".  I would also celebrate "Fadak Day".  Rawaafidh hoped to get land; they got lun instead.

We should start our own meme to counter "BULB".  It should read, "Every day is Fadak nahi mila and every LUN is up Rawaafidh's".
« Last Edit: December 25, 2019, 12:30:55 AM by muslim720 »
"Our coward ran from those in authority" - Iceman (admitting the truth regarding his 12th Imam)

Adil

Re: What happened in Saqifa?
« Reply #132 on: December 25, 2019, 12:48:30 AM »
...

Parts of this post are too inappropriate bro.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2019, 12:52:20 AM by Adil »

muslim720

Re: What happened in Saqifa?
« Reply #133 on: December 25, 2019, 12:52:18 AM »
Parts of this post are too inappropriate bro.

Salaam alaykum wa rahmatullah my dear brother!

May Allah (swt) bless you for speaking out against an inappropriate post.  I admit it is highly inappropriate and it is not my habit to talk like this but these Rawaafidh, especially this Iceman POS, cannot be reasoned with in any other way but their own.

So, with sincere apologies to all my brothers and sisters on this site, every day is Fadak Day and every lun is up Rawaafidh's!
"Our coward ran from those in authority" - Iceman (admitting the truth regarding his 12th Imam)

iceman

Re: What happened in Saqifa?
« Reply #134 on: December 25, 2019, 01:13:17 AM »
How true and exact is the following. Don't hesitate to put your opinion forward.

The book Saheeh Bukhari, compiled by Abu Abdillah Muhammad Ibn Ismail, later known as Imam Bukhari, is regarded as an important segment of the six so called authentic books (Sehaah-e-Sittah) of the Ahle Sunnah. After the Holy Quran, these six books are of utmost importance to the Sunnis when compared to other books. All the contents of these books are considered to be authentic and reliable and hence the term Saheeh.

Bukhari has quoted the second caliph Umar Ibn Khattab extensively on what transpired at the Saqifah of Bani Saa’edah:

Says Umar: Following the demise of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), news reached us that the Ansaar (Immigrants) had assembled at the Saqifah-i-Bani Saa’edah. I told Abu Bakr, ‘Let us go there so that we join our Ansaar brethren.’

Abu Bakr obliged and we reached Saqifah together. Ali, Zubair and their companions were not with us. At Saqifah, we observed that a group of Ansaar had brought someone with them who was completely covered. It was Sa’d ibn Ubaadah running a very high temperature. We sat besides them. A man from the Ansaar stood up and as had been decided, after praising Allah began to speak, ‘We are the friends and lovers of Allah. We are the soldiers and the strength of Islam. But you, O Muhaajireen, are few in number and …’

I (Umar) thought of replying but Abu Bakr pulled my sleeves and quietened me. He then himself stood up, and God is witness, said what I wanted to and he said it better than me.

Abu Bakr said, ‘O company of Ansaar! You are surely the recipient of the attributes which you have described and you have achieved them. But, Caliphate and government is only the right of the Quraish because they are renowned for their nobility and lineage, manners and conduct throughout the Arabian Peninsula and enjoy an undisputed position. It is only for your betterment that I do this, I present before you two people so that you may choose whomsoever you wish for the Caliphate. Saying this, Abu Bakr caught hold of my hand and that of Abu Ubaidah and presented us before the crowd. I disliked the last suggestion. While another Ansaar stood up and commented:

اَنَا جَذِيْلُهَا الْمَحْكُ وَ عَذِيْقُهَا الْمُوْجَبُ-

I am among you (O Ansaar) like a stick with which camels are driven or that tree which provides shade. If it is so, O Muhajireen! Then appoint a ruler amongst you and we will appoint one from amongst us. A great commotion erupted at this statement. We witnessed great opposition and rivalry. I took advantage of this commotion and said to Abu Bakr, ‘Extend your hand so that I may pay allegiance to you.’ Abu Bakr complied and I paid allegiance to him. Having done this, we gathered near Sa’d Bin Ubadah…. After this entire episode, if somebody pays allegiance to the Caliphate of any other caliph without the consultation of the Muslims, adhere neither to the follower nor the allegiance taker, for both are liable for capital punishment.

Saheeh Bukhari, Kitabul Hudud, Baabul Rajmul Hablaa, 4/ 119-120

Seerae Ibne Hisham, 4/ 336-338 Kanz al-Ummaal, 3/ 139- Hadith 2326

Note the following bit. Abu Bakr says;

"But, Caliphate and government is only the right of the Quraish because they are renowned for their nobility and lineage, manners and conduct throughout the Arabian Peninsula and enjoy an undisputed position"

How on earth did Abu Bakr reach this. Where did he get this idea from. And where is consultation. Is this consultation. People don't be afraid to embrace the truth. There was no consultation in Saqifa what so ever. The drama unfolded when the Prophet s.a.w asked for pen and paper. The stance of the Shaykhain and their intentions started to emerge and come clear. Their loyalty towards Muhammad s.a.w and what he had to wite and offer really became clear. They knew what he was going to write. That's why the fuss was created to derail the matter.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2019, 01:15:57 AM by iceman »

iceman

Re: What happened in Saqifa?
« Reply #135 on: December 25, 2019, 01:19:40 AM »
Salaam alaykum wa rahmatullah my dear brother!

May Allah (swt) bless you for speaking out against an inappropriate post.  I admit it is highly inappropriate and it is not my habit to talk like this but these Rawaafidh, especially this Iceman POS, cannot be reasoned with in any other way but their own.

So, with sincere apologies to all my brothers and sisters on this site, every day is Fadak Day and every lun is up Rawaafidh's!

☺😊😀😁😃😄😅😂 That's all you'll be getting out of me. Try your best. The reaction that you so desirely want to see coming out of me in response won't be happening.

muslim720

Re: What happened in Saqifa?
« Reply #136 on: December 25, 2019, 01:20:56 AM »
That's why the fuss was created to derail the matter.

Humein Saqeefa aur land mubaarak, aap logo ko lun mubaarak!

Every day is Saqeefa/Fadak and every lun is up Rawaafidh's!
"Our coward ran from those in authority" - Iceman (admitting the truth regarding his 12th Imam)

muslim720

Re: What happened in Saqifa?
« Reply #137 on: December 25, 2019, 01:22:00 AM »
☺😊😀😁😃😄😅😂 That's all you'll be getting out of me. Try your best. The reaction that you so desirely want to see coming out of me in response won't be happening.

I can see your discomfort.  Aksar lun ke maamle, I mean land ke maamle, pecheeda hotay hai!
"Our coward ran from those in authority" - Iceman (admitting the truth regarding his 12th Imam)

iceman

Re: What happened in Saqifa?
« Reply #138 on: December 25, 2019, 01:23:56 AM »
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.

Only a few days earlier, Umar had withheld pen, paper and ink from Muhammad when the latter was on his deathbed, and wished to write his will. A will, Umar said, was unnecessary because “the Book of God is sufficient for us.” But in Saqifa, he and Abu Bakr forgot that Book, according to which superiority is judged not by blood and country but by piety. In that Book this is what we read:

Verily, the most honored of you in the sight of God is he who is most righteous of you. (Chapter 49; verse 13)

In the sight of God only those people are superior who have high character, who are God-fearing and who are God-loving. But the one thing to which Abu Bakr and Umar did not advert in Saqifa, was the Book of God. Before entering Saqifa, they had forgotten that the body of the Apostle of God was awaiting burial; and after entering, they forgot the Book of God – a curious “coincidence” of forgetfulness!

muslim720

Re: What happened in Saqifa?
« Reply #139 on: December 25, 2019, 01:28:11 AM »
a curious “coincidence” of forgetfulness!

A perfect conclusion indeed!  Aaye thhay land lene, lun lekar waapas chale gaye.  Aur jab pehla aur doosra Imam (ra) ne hukumat ki, tab bhi land nahi mila.  Ab land ko chhoddkar, lun ko pakaddkar jhulas rahe hai.  Indeed, "a curious 'coincidence' of forgetfulness".
"Our coward ran from those in authority" - Iceman (admitting the truth regarding his 12th Imam)

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2145 Views
Last post May 02, 2017, 11:46:47 PM
by Farid
121 Replies
16631 Views
Last post October 08, 2017, 05:13:24 PM
by wannabe
9 Replies
5513 Views
Last post January 31, 2020, 04:02:46 AM
by Rationalist