TwelverShia.net Forum

Sunni Shia Discussion Forum => Sahabah-AhlulBayt => Topic started by: confusedshia on October 23, 2017, 07:54:05 PM

Title: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: confusedshia on October 23, 2017, 07:54:05 PM
Salam,

I have read numerous Shia articles which rely on reports from the tarikh of Tabari, and other sources. Could someone please answer the following questions:

1. Why did the ansar decide to host a secret event at saqifa? The Shia claim that it's because the ansar were lead to believe that some of the sahabah wanted to prevent Ali ibn Abu Talib from becoming the Prophet's first successor.

2. The Shias argue that Abu Bakr and Umar were not invited to saqifa, it was just an event for the ansar that they decided to gatecrash. What is the Sunni response?

2. The Shia claim that Umar got very violent and punched one of the ansar in the face - do the Sunnis accept or deny this?

3. Is it true that Umar withdrew his sword and threatened some of those present?

4. Why wasn't Imam Ali invited or informed about this event?
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Link on October 24, 2017, 03:07:48 AM
Salam who cares bro.

Stop reflecting so much on what people say, Quran contains all guidance, and you should begin to reflect more and more on this, instead of what people, for Quran contains the truth regarding the religion, as did all holy books.

One thing to reflect about is how were holy books in the past supposed to be followed and is the Quran different in that regard or is the same religion and same way by whence God distinguishes for himself who he wants and guides to himself who he pleases?
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Hani on October 24, 2017, 04:25:35 AM
I have a whole book on it:
http://www.twelvershia.net/2017/02/17/book-saqifah-shura/
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: MuslimK on October 24, 2017, 06:54:14 PM
Salam,

I have read numerous Shia articles which rely on reports from the tarikh of Tabari, and other sources. Could someone please answer the following questions:

1. Why did the ansar decide to host a secret event at saqifa? The Shia claim that it's because the ansar were lead to believe that some of the sahabah wanted to prevent Ali ibn Abu Talib from becoming the Prophet's first successor.

2. The Shias argue that Abu Bakr and Umar were not invited to saqifa, it was just an event for the ansar that they decided to gatecrash. What is the Sunni response?

2. The Shia claim that Umar got very violent and punched one of the ansar in the face - do the Sunnis accept or deny this?

3. Is it true that Umar withdrew his sword and threatened some of those present?

4. Why wasn't Imam Ali invited or informed about this event?

Walaikum Salam wr wb,

1. This is ridiculous claim. So Ansar gathered in Saqifa because they thought someone wanted to prevent Ali from becoming the Caliph but then decided to make someone among themselves (Saad bin Ubada) as the leader?

Plus, the report in Tarikh Tabari is a very a weak one. See this post (http://forum.twelvershia.net/general-sunni-vs-shia/ansar-saqifa-new-video-from-rafida-channel/msg15748/#msg15748).

2. Abubakr and Omar's presence in Saqifa prevented the crisis. According to Shia scholar Tabatbaie the final decision by Muslims in Saqifa was taken for the WELFARE of the Muslim community.

3. Any evidence for this claim?

4. Because it was a gathering of the Ansar. This is another strong proof that there was no appointment of Ali in Ghadir and the Ansar (majority of Madina) had no clue about it. It also answers the first question.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on October 24, 2017, 10:39:56 PM
Salam,

I have read numerous Shia articles which rely on reports from the tarikh of Tabari, and other sources. Could someone please answer the following questions:

1. Why did the ansar decide to host a secret event at saqifa? The Shia claim that it's because the ansar were lead to believe that some of the sahabah wanted to prevent Ali ibn Abu Talib from becoming the Prophet's first successor.

2. The Shias argue that Abu Bakr and Umar were not invited to saqifa, it was just an event for the ansar that they decided to gatecrash. What is the Sunni response?

2. The Shia claim that Umar got very violent and punched one of the ansar in the face - do the Sunnis accept or deny this?

3. Is it true that Umar withdrew his sword and threatened some of those present?

4. Why wasn't Imam Ali invited or informed about this event?

Walaikum Salam wr wb,

1. This is ridiculous claim. So Ansar gathered in Saqifa because they thought someone wanted to prevent Ali from becoming the Caliph but then decided to make someone among themselves (Saad bin Ubada) as the leader?

Plus, the report in Tarikh Tabari is a very a weak one. See this post (http://forum.twelvershia.net/general-sunni-vs-shia/ansar-saqifa-new-video-from-rafida-channel/msg15748/#msg15748).

2. Abubakr and Omar's presence in Saqifa prevented the crisis. According to Shia scholar Tabatbaie the final decision by Muslims in Saqifa was taken for the WELFARE of the Muslim community.

3. Any evidence for this claim?

4. Because it was a gathering of the Ansar. This is another strong proof that there was no appointment of Ali in Ghadir and the Ansar (majority of Madina) had no clue about it. It also answers the first question.

You've said it yourself that the Ansar (majority of Madina) had no clue about it. This has exactly been my point all along that the Ansar didn't gather in Saqifa, only a few people or minority from the Ansar gathered there. Now what tragedy did Abu Bakr and Omar stop from suddenly going there? Which civil war did they prevent?

What was the reason for these handful of people to gather in Saqifa? What was the purpose and why? Why did the Shaykhain suddenly rush off without informing the others? What risk or harm was there to inform the others and take them along? Who gave the Shaykhain or what authority did they have to proceed and make decisions without consulting (Shura) others?

If the minority Ansar gathered in Saqifa and went ahead, how would this cause a civil war? There decision still would have been criticised and condemned since they had no right to proceed as such. And last how long are you going to defend and protect Saqifa, the Shaykhain and the coincidental and illegitimate and immature decision made and reached in Saqifa when all the facts go against it.

The gathering was wrong, the decision was immature and the selection and procedure was illegitimate. All you're doing is trying your utmost to defend and justify it.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Hadrami on October 25, 2017, 12:15:52 AM
First you need to throw out those years of indoctrination that sahaba were evil. Without that, what happened makes sense & shia conclusion doesnt make sense.

1. look at how shia use the word SECRET. How can a public meeting in a known public gathering place = a secret meeting? How can shia said Ansar wanted Ali but instead nominate their own?

2. Again use your common sense. If Ansar didnt want them why abandoned their first choice and instead chosed the "gatecrasher"? Did Abu Bakr came with a huge army and forced Ansar?

2. ok so a "gatecrasher" came to a meeting uninvited, punched an ansar and chosed Abu Bakr and then told ansar to choose him and then they just did. Makes sense?

3. same as no 2.

4. i thought Ansar wanted him to be a leader, hence a SECRET meeting from Abu Bakr. So it was a secret from Ali too then. If Ali came, he would be a "gatecrasher" too eh?

Follow shia story then one story will just contradict another. It doesnt make sense.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: MuslimK on October 25, 2017, 01:49:24 PM
You've said it yourself that the Ansar (majority of Madina) had no clue about it. This has exactly been my point all along that the Ansar didn't gather in Saqifa, only a few people or minority from the Ansar gathered there. Now what tragedy did Abu Bakr and Omar stop from suddenly going there? Which civil war did they prevent?

What was the reason for these handful of people to gather in Saqifa? What was the purpose and why? Why did the Shaykhain suddenly rush off without informing the others? What risk or harm was there to inform the others and take them along? Who gave the Shaykhain or what authority did they have to proceed and make decisions without consulting (Shura) others?

If the minority Ansar gathered in Saqifa and went ahead, how would this cause a civil war? There decision still would have been criticised and condemned since they had no right to proceed as such. And last how long are you going to defend and protect Saqifa, the Shaykhain and the coincidental and illegitimate and immature decision made and reached in Saqifa when all the facts go against it.

The gathering was wrong, the decision was immature and the selection and procedure was illegitimate. All you're doing is trying your utmost to defend and justify it.

Yes, the Ansar had no clue about the so called appointment of Ali at Ghadir. The heads of Ansar, who were the representatives of majority of Madina Aws and Khazraj, gathered in Saqifa.

The outcome of Saqifa was a successful one. History is witness. The men who became leaders spread the message of Islam to far lands and changed the course of history. Your argument about it 1400 years later is childish, brings no benefit and your action only causes Fitna.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on October 25, 2017, 08:44:39 PM
First you need to throw out those years of indoctrination that sahaba were evil. Without that, what happened makes sense & shia conclusion doesnt make sense.

1. look at how shia use the word SECRET. How can a public meeting in a known public gathering place = a secret meeting? How can shia said Ansar wanted Ali but instead nominate their own?

2. Again use your common sense. If Ansar didnt want them why abandoned their first choice and instead chosed the "gatecrasher"? Did Abu Bakr came with a huge army and forced Ansar?

2. ok so a "gatecrasher" came to a meeting uninvited, punched an ansar and chosed Abu Bakr and then told ansar to choose him and then they just did. Makes sense?

3. same as no 2.

4. i thought Ansar wanted him to be a leader, hence a SECRET meeting from Abu Bakr. So it was a secret from Ali too then. If Ali came, he would be a "gatecrasher" too eh?

Follow shia story then one story will just contradict another. It doesnt make sense.

Don't start losing yourself. Get a grip. Firstly it's got nothing to do with Companionship or any of the companions. I've said it before and I will say it again that the character, performance and achievement of any of the companions or rulers have got nothing to do with it.

Saqifa was not a public event or gathering. It was an incident which ended up as such. An event or public gathering is pre organised and pre planned. There is a reason and purpose for it.

Just a handful of Ansar suddenly gathered in Saqifa. Why and what ever the purpose surely the Shaykhain weren't happy with it and as the informer companion (Obaida) said, "something terrible is about to happen".  There was no consultation because there was no gathering. Vast majority were in mourning and the funeral processions were going on.

Stop being stubborn and arrogant and accept reality and facts. It was an incident and not an event. It shouldn't have happened. And the decision was made amongst a handful of people who had no authority or right to proceed on behalf of the vast majority and the Ummah regarding such an important matter.

It was unjust and unfair. It was wrong and unreasonable. The decision was coincidental and hasty with no ligetamacy what so ever. And most of all it was against Qoran and Sunah. It wasn't based on Shura.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Hani on October 26, 2017, 03:56:13 AM
So much inaccuracy in this thread, again guys return to the books.

As for the guy above saying a "Handful", there are no numbers listed in any source, there was clearly quite a few individuals there, including the top leaders of the Ansar. Heck Sa`d himself commands the majority of Ansar and his word is law among them. Masters of the Aws and Khazraj were all present. As for the Muhajirin, Abu Bakr, `Umar, aba `Ubaydah and those that followed later, these are the highest elements whose leadership and opinions are known.

Of course, Saqifah, due to the sudden way it occurred,  did not include important parties such as Banu Hashim, banu Umayyah or bani Zuhrah.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on October 26, 2017, 11:37:59 AM
So much inaccuracy in this thread, again guys return to the books.

As for the guy above saying a "Handful", there are no numbers listed in any source, there was clearly quite a few individuals there, including the top leaders of the Ansar. Heck Sa`d himself commands the majority of Ansar and his word is law among them. Masters of the Aws and Khazraj were all present. As for the Muhajirin, Abu Bakr, `Umar, aba `Ubaydah and those that followed later, these are the highest elements whose leadership and opinions are known.

Of course, Saqifah, due to the sudden way it occurred,  did not include important parties such as Banu Hashim, banu Umayyah or bani Zuhrah.

Absolutely, one should return to the books. The reason for inaccuracy is that certain individuals are losing count because of twisting and turning things to justify Saqifa and give it some kind of legitimacy.

There are no numbers of how many were present in Saqifa. But one thing is for sure that they were a minority.
Will continue.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on October 26, 2017, 12:12:31 PM
legitimate
1, Conforming to the law or to rules.
"his claims to legitimate authority"
synonyms: legal, lawful, licit, legalized, authorized, permitted, permissible, allowable, allowed, admissible, recognized, sanctioned, approved, licensed, statutory, constitutional, within the law, going by the rules, above board, valid, honest, upright; More

2, Able to be defended with logic or justification; valid.
"a legitimate excuse for being late"
synonyms: valid, sound, admissible, acceptable, well founded, justifiable, reasonable, sensible, tenable, defensible, supportable, just, warrantable, fair, bona fide, proper, genuine, plausible, credible, believable, reliable, understandable, logical, rational
"these are legitimate grounds for unease"

Saqifa wasn't according to any of the above. Constitution (Shura) was out of the question because it wasn't a public gathering or event. And all parties weren't present and available. Vast majority didn't have a clue about this incident. Even the Shaykhain weren't aware about it. So how was this a public gathering or event?

Later on people started to become aware of what all of a sudden happened. Some started to accept or come to terms with it. Abu Bakr was a good man this, that and the other. It doesn't matter, it wasn't LEGITIMATE full stop.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on October 26, 2017, 12:53:24 PM
Something all of a sudden and out of the blue happened. One thing led to another and we ended up with this that or the other. And we're speaking about and amongst the minority here. Later on people started to accept it for one reason or the other and some objected and complained but later either accepted or came to terms with it or some didn't accept but went along with it rather than causing or being the cause of division or civil war.

One needs to accept reality and facts here and believe that this doesn't make it right and legitimate. What is wrong is wrong and wrong doesn't become a right by people accepting it or coming to terms with it.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Abu Muhammad on October 26, 2017, 02:26:42 PM
Something all of a sudden and out of the blue happened. One thing led to another and we ended up with this that or the other. And we're speaking about and amongst the minority here. Later on people started to accept it for one reason or the other and some objected and complained but later either accepted or came to terms with it or some didn't accept but went along with it rather than causing or being the cause of division or civil war.

One needs to accept reality and facts here and believe that this doesn't make it right and legitimate. What is wrong is wrong and wrong doesn't become a right by people accepting it or coming to terms with it.

@iceman

Question: You claimed Saqifa gathering was wrong and illegitimate. Does that make the appointment of Abu Bakar as Caliph wrong and illegitimate as well? If yes, why?
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on October 26, 2017, 06:02:08 PM
Something all of a sudden and out of the blue happened. One thing led to another and we ended up with this that or the other. And we're speaking about and amongst the minority here. Later on people started to accept it for one reason or the other and some objected and complained but later either accepted or came to terms with it or some didn't accept but went along with it rather than causing or being the cause of division or civil war.

One needs to accept reality and facts here and believe that this doesn't make it right and legitimate. What is wrong is wrong and wrong doesn't become a right by people accepting it or coming to terms with it.

@iceman

Question: You claimed Saqifa gathering was wrong and illegitimate. Does that make the appointment of Abu Bakar as Caliph wrong and illegitimate as well? If yes, why?

Very good question. First of all I didn't claim. Who am I to claim. Reality and facts clearly tell you what happened. If one doesn't want to accept it or wants to believe otherwise then that is a different matter.
Will continue.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Abu Muhammad on October 26, 2017, 09:16:15 PM
Very good question. First of all I didn't claim. Who am I to claim. Reality and facts clearly tell you what happened. If one doesn't want to accept it or wants to believe otherwise then that is a different matter.
Will continue.

"reality" and "facts" are fixed but NOT somebody's "claim". What is "claim" if not an "interpretation" of the event itself...

I can also give someone else "claim" of what happenned in Saqifa. For example, I quoted Umar Al-Khattab himself. As reported in Bukhari, he said:

‏‏.‏ ثُمَّ إِنَّهُ بَلَغَنِي أَنَّ قَائِلاً مِنْكُمْ يَقُولُ وَاللَّهِ لَوْ مَاتَ عُمَرُ بَايَعْتُ فُلاَنًا‏.‏ فَلاَ يَغْتَرَّنَّ امْرُؤٌ أَنْ يَقُولَ إِنَّمَا كَانَتْ بَيْعَةُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ فَلْتَةً وَتَمَّتْ أَلاَ وَإِنَّهَا قَدْ كَانَتْ كَذَلِكَ وَلَكِنَّ اللَّهَ وَقَى شَرَّهَا وَلَيْسَ مِنْكُمْ مَنْ تُقْطَعُ الأَعْنَاقُ إِلَيْهِ مِثْلُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ،

And then, it came to me that some of the people said "When Umar died, I'll give bay'ah to such-a-such person". One should not deceive oneself by saying that the pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was given in hurry and it worked well. No doubt, it was like that, but Allah saved (the people) from its shortcomings, and there is none among you who has the qualities of Abu Bakr.

Umar only saw that the appointment of Abu Bakar was done in rush and could have been done better but never he saw it as illegitimate nor wrong. And that for one example.

In fact, same goes to all major Scholars of Ahlus Sunnah. None of them saw the event as illegitimate and wrong. If I want, I could throw that back to you and say that is the "reality and facts" since nobody among the most learned men throughout our history claimed that the appointment of Abu Bakar as illegitimate nor wrong. They were among the greatest minds in Islamic sciences and have studied all the evidences and I trust their judgement way above yours. But I will expect you to come and said, "that's how Sunnis interpret the event".

So, coming back to your point above, what you have done so far in this forum was just laying your "claim" and never "reality nor facts". And your "claim" was merely your interpretation of the event itself.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Hani on October 27, 2017, 03:03:25 AM
So much inaccuracy in this thread, again guys return to the books.

As for the guy above saying a "Handful", there are no numbers listed in any source, there was clearly quite a few individuals there, including the top leaders of the Ansar. Heck Sa`d himself commands the majority of Ansar and his word is law among them. Masters of the Aws and Khazraj were all present. As for the Muhajirin, Abu Bakr, `Umar, aba `Ubaydah and those that followed later, these are the highest elements whose leadership and opinions are known.

Of course, Saqifah, due to the sudden way it occurred,  did not include important parties such as Banu Hashim, banu Umayyah or bani Zuhrah.

Absolutely, one should return to the books. The reason for inaccuracy is that certain individuals are losing count because of twisting and turning things to justify Saqifa and give it some kind of legitimacy.

There are no numbers of how many were present in Saqifa. But one thing is for sure that they were a minority.
Will continue.

They were definitely a minority BUT they were also the cream of the crop and the masters of the people. It is not required to have the majority present during any Bay`ah in the early Islamic days.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Hani on October 27, 2017, 03:13:47 AM
legitimate
1, Conforming to the law or to rules.
"his claims to legitimate authority"
synonyms: legal, lawful, licit, legalized, authorized, permitted, permissible, allowable, allowed, admissible, recognized, sanctioned, approved, licensed, statutory, constitutional, within the law, going by the rules, above board, valid, honest, upright; More

2, Able to be defended with logic or justification; valid.
"a legitimate excuse for being late"
synonyms: valid, sound, admissible, acceptable, well founded, justifiable, reasonable, sensible, tenable, defensible, supportable, just, warrantable, fair, bona fide, proper, genuine, plausible, credible, believable, reliable, understandable, logical, rational
"these are legitimate grounds for unease"

Saqifa wasn't according to any of the above. Constitution (Shura) was out of the question because it wasn't a public gathering or event. And all parties weren't present and available. Vast majority didn't have a clue about this incident. Even the Shaykhain weren't aware about it. So how was this a public gathering or event?

Later on people started to become aware of what all of a sudden happened. Some started to accept or come to terms with it. Abu Bakr was a good man this, that and the other. It doesn't matter, it wasn't LEGITIMATE full stop.

There was definitely a very long period of consultation during Saqifah, not all parties were present but most sides were in fact represented.

The people generally accepted the outcome because those who consulted during Saqifah were people of leadership and authority. Only a minority had an issue with the decision and that minority soon changed its mind.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Najamsethii484 on October 27, 2017, 12:26:55 PM
what happened in saqifah was that 3 thugs of arabia runned away from Prophet Saww funeral and wanted to take over and get caliphate and didnt care about to attend Prophet Saww funeral and took over gave people bribery and took over and destroyed Muslims so much that we is in this state now that all media is targeting Muslims just because after Prophet Muhammad Saww 3 thugs of arabia and muawiyah and yazeed took over and wanted to destroy Islam but couldnt do that because of Ahlulbayt AS and banu umayya and banu saqifah only converted to Islam because they had no options left and they came in as enemy of Islam and ruled for 1000 years and damaged Muslims and showed them a false religion called sunnism and wahabism extremism version of their jews beliefs im very much sure that sunnism came from jews
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Abu Muhammad on October 27, 2017, 12:48:46 PM
what happened in saqifah was that 3 thugs of arabia runned away from Prophet Saww funeral and wanted to take over and get caliphate and didnt care about to attend Prophet Saww funeral and took over gave people bribery and took over and destroyed Muslims so much that we is in this state now that all media is targeting Muslims just because after Prophet Muhammad Saww 3 thugs of arabia and muawiyah and yazeed took over and wanted to destroy Islam but couldnt do that because of Ahlulbayt AS and banu umayya and banu saqifah only converted to Islam because they had no options left and they came in as enemy of Islam and ruled for 1000 years and damaged Muslims and showed them a false religion called sunnism and wahabism extremism version of their jews beliefs im very much sure that sunnism came from jews

@iceman

This is what you called as grievances, bitterness, hatred and envy... the real one... surely he found those from your own sect's books... 😊😊
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on October 27, 2017, 01:30:16 PM
Very good question. First of all I didn't claim. Who am I to claim. Reality and facts clearly tell you what happened. If one doesn't want to accept it or wants to believe otherwise then that is a different matter.
Will continue.

"reality" and "facts" are fixed but NOT somebody's "claim". What is "claim" if not an "interpretation" of the event itself...

I can also give someone else "claim" of what happenned in Saqifa. For example, I quoted Umar Al-Khattab himself. As reported in Bukhari, he said:

‏‏.‏ ثُمَّ إِنَّهُ بَلَغَنِي أَنَّ قَائِلاً مِنْكُمْ يَقُولُ وَاللَّهِ لَوْ مَاتَ عُمَرُ بَايَعْتُ فُلاَنًا‏.‏ فَلاَ يَغْتَرَّنَّ امْرُؤٌ أَنْ يَقُولَ إِنَّمَا كَانَتْ بَيْعَةُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ فَلْتَةً وَتَمَّتْ أَلاَ وَإِنَّهَا قَدْ كَانَتْ كَذَلِكَ وَلَكِنَّ اللَّهَ وَقَى شَرَّهَا وَلَيْسَ مِنْكُمْ مَنْ تُقْطَعُ الأَعْنَاقُ إِلَيْهِ مِثْلُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ،

And then, it came to me that some of the people said "When Umar died, I'll give bay'ah to such-a-such person". One should not deceive oneself by saying that the pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was given in hurry and it worked well. No doubt, it was like that, but Allah saved (the people) from its shortcomings, and there is none among you who has the qualities of Abu Bakr.

Umar only saw that the appointment of Abu Bakar was done in rush and could have been done better but never he saw it as illegitimate nor wrong. And that for one example.

In fact, same goes to all major Scholars of Ahlus Sunnah. None of them saw the event as illegitimate and wrong. If I want, I could throw that back to you and say that is the "reality and facts" since nobody among the most learned men throughout our history claimed that the appointment of Abu Bakar as illegitimate nor wrong. They were among the greatest minds in Islamic sciences and have studied all the evidences and I trust their judgement way above yours. But I will expect you to come and said, "that's how Sunnis interpret the event".

So, coming back to your point above, what you have done so far in this forum was just laying your "claim" and never "reality nor facts". And your "claim" was merely your interpretation of the event itself.

Omar was part of the incident and part of the decision so therefore part of the problem. So it's obvious that he's not going to go against something that he was part of and involved in.

Take a look at Omar's words;  "no doubt it was like that". Also 'the appointment of Abu Bakr was done in a RUSH and could have been done BETTER'.

There you have it. No need to say anymore. Enough has been said already. You want to continue to justify this then by all means carry on.

No public gathering or event. All parties were not present and involved. No fair choice of selection of candidates. No principles or circumstances mentioned. No rules or regulations put down. No procedure or method laid down for fair conduct. No consultation.   No majority. Basically NO NOTHING.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Abu Muhammad on October 27, 2017, 01:35:09 PM
Very good question. First of all I didn't claim. Who am I to claim. Reality and facts clearly tell you what happened. If one doesn't want to accept it or wants to believe otherwise then that is a different matter.
Will continue.

"reality" and "facts" are fixed but NOT somebody's "claim". What is "claim" if not an "interpretation" of the event itself...

I can also give someone else "claim" of what happenned in Saqifa. For example, I quoted Umar Al-Khattab himself. As reported in Bukhari, he said:

‏‏.‏ ثُمَّ إِنَّهُ بَلَغَنِي أَنَّ قَائِلاً مِنْكُمْ يَقُولُ وَاللَّهِ لَوْ مَاتَ عُمَرُ بَايَعْتُ فُلاَنًا‏.‏ فَلاَ يَغْتَرَّنَّ امْرُؤٌ أَنْ يَقُولَ إِنَّمَا كَانَتْ بَيْعَةُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ فَلْتَةً وَتَمَّتْ أَلاَ وَإِنَّهَا قَدْ كَانَتْ كَذَلِكَ وَلَكِنَّ اللَّهَ وَقَى شَرَّهَا وَلَيْسَ مِنْكُمْ مَنْ تُقْطَعُ الأَعْنَاقُ إِلَيْهِ مِثْلُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ،

And then, it came to me that some of the people said "When Umar died, I'll give bay'ah to such-a-such person". One should not deceive oneself by saying that the pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was given in hurry and it worked well. No doubt, it was like that, but Allah saved (the people) from its shortcomings, and there is none among you who has the qualities of Abu Bakr.

Umar only saw that the appointment of Abu Bakar was done in rush and could have been done better but never he saw it as illegitimate nor wrong. And that for one example.

In fact, same goes to all major Scholars of Ahlus Sunnah. None of them saw the event as illegitimate and wrong. If I want, I could throw that back to you and say that is the "reality and facts" since nobody among the most learned men throughout our history claimed that the appointment of Abu Bakar as illegitimate nor wrong. They were among the greatest minds in Islamic sciences and have studied all the evidences and I trust their judgement way above yours. But I will expect you to come and said, "that's how Sunnis interpret the event".

So, coming back to your point above, what you have done so far in this forum was just laying your "claim" and never "reality nor facts". And your "claim" was merely your interpretation of the event itself.

Omar was part of the incident and part of the decision so therefore part of the problem. So it's obvious that he's not going to go against something that he was part of and involved in.

Take a look at Omar's words;  "no doubt it was like that". Also 'the appointment of Abu Bakr was done in a RUSH and could have been done BETTER'.

There you have it. No need to say anymore. Enough has been said already. You want to continue to justify this then by all means carry on.

No public gathering or event. All parties were not present and involved. No fair choice of selection of candidates. No principles or circumstances mentioned. No rules or regulations put down. No procedure or method laid down for fair conduct. No consultation.   No majority. Basically NO NOTHING.

There lies your problem. IN-RUSH and COULD HAVE BEEN DONE BETTER never equal to your claim as ILLEGITIMATE and WRONG.

Try harder next time.

By the way, any comments on the "Sunnis Scholars" part?
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Abu Muhammad on October 27, 2017, 02:28:05 PM
Very good question. First of all I didn't claim. Who am I to claim. Reality and facts clearly tell you what happened. If one doesn't want to accept it or wants to believe otherwise then that is a different matter.
Will continue.

"reality" and "facts" are fixed but NOT somebody's "claim". What is "claim" if not an "interpretation" of the event itself...

I can also give someone else "claim" of what happenned in Saqifa. For example, I quoted Umar Al-Khattab himself. As reported in Bukhari, he said:

‏‏.‏ ثُمَّ إِنَّهُ بَلَغَنِي أَنَّ قَائِلاً مِنْكُمْ يَقُولُ وَاللَّهِ لَوْ مَاتَ عُمَرُ بَايَعْتُ فُلاَنًا‏.‏ فَلاَ يَغْتَرَّنَّ امْرُؤٌ أَنْ يَقُولَ إِنَّمَا كَانَتْ بَيْعَةُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ فَلْتَةً وَتَمَّتْ أَلاَ وَإِنَّهَا قَدْ كَانَتْ كَذَلِكَ وَلَكِنَّ اللَّهَ وَقَى شَرَّهَا وَلَيْسَ مِنْكُمْ مَنْ تُقْطَعُ الأَعْنَاقُ إِلَيْهِ مِثْلُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ،

And then, it came to me that some of the people said "When Umar died, I'll give bay'ah to such-a-such person". One should not deceive oneself by saying that the pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was given in hurry and it worked well. No doubt, it was like that, but Allah saved (the people) from its shortcomings, and there is none among you who has the qualities of Abu Bakr.

Umar only saw that the appointment of Abu Bakar was done in rush and could have been done better but never he saw it as illegitimate nor wrong. And that for one example.

In fact, same goes to all major Scholars of Ahlus Sunnah. None of them saw the event as illegitimate and wrong. If I want, I could throw that back to you and say that is the "reality and facts" since nobody among the most learned men throughout our history claimed that the appointment of Abu Bakar as illegitimate nor wrong. They were among the greatest minds in Islamic sciences and have studied all the evidences and I trust their judgement way above yours. But I will expect you to come and said, "that's how Sunnis interpret the event".

So, coming back to your point above, what you have done so far in this forum was just laying your "claim" and never "reality nor facts". And your "claim" was merely your interpretation of the event itself.

Omar was part of the incident and part of the decision so therefore part of the problem. So it's obvious that he's not going to go against something that he was part of and involved in.

Take a look at Omar's words;  "no doubt it was like that". Also 'the appointment of Abu Bakr was done in a RUSH and could have been done BETTER'.

There you have it. No need to say anymore. Enough has been said already. You want to continue to justify this then by all means carry on.

No public gathering or event. All parties were not present and involved. No fair choice of selection of candidates. No principles or circumstances mentioned. No rules or regulations put down. No procedure or method laid down for fair conduct. No consultation.   No majority. Basically NO NOTHING.

There lies your problem. IN-RUSH and COULD HAVE BEEN DONE BETTER never equal to your claim as ILLEGITIMATE and WRONG.

Try harder next time.

By the way, any comments on the "Sunnis Scholars" part?

Oh... by the way, I add further. IN-RUSH could still be LEGITIMATE and COULD HAVE BEEN DONE BETTER could still be CORRECT, in case you do not aware...☺
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on October 27, 2017, 05:52:20 PM
Very good question. First of all I didn't claim. Who am I to claim. Reality and facts clearly tell you what happened. If one doesn't want to accept it or wants to believe otherwise then that is a different matter.
Will continue.

"reality" and "facts" are fixed but NOT somebody's "claim". What is "claim" if not an "interpretation" of the event itself...

I can also give someone else "claim" of what happenned in Saqifa. For example, I quoted Umar Al-Khattab himself. As reported in Bukhari, he said:

‏‏.‏ ثُمَّ إِنَّهُ بَلَغَنِي أَنَّ قَائِلاً مِنْكُمْ يَقُولُ وَاللَّهِ لَوْ مَاتَ عُمَرُ بَايَعْتُ فُلاَنًا‏.‏ فَلاَ يَغْتَرَّنَّ امْرُؤٌ أَنْ يَقُولَ إِنَّمَا كَانَتْ بَيْعَةُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ فَلْتَةً وَتَمَّتْ أَلاَ وَإِنَّهَا قَدْ كَانَتْ كَذَلِكَ وَلَكِنَّ اللَّهَ وَقَى شَرَّهَا وَلَيْسَ مِنْكُمْ مَنْ تُقْطَعُ الأَعْنَاقُ إِلَيْهِ مِثْلُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ،

And then, it came to me that some of the people said "When Umar died, I'll give bay'ah to such-a-such person". One should not deceive oneself by saying that the pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was given in hurry and it worked well. No doubt, it was like that, but Allah saved (the people) from its shortcomings, and there is none among you who has the qualities of Abu Bakr.

Umar only saw that the appointment of Abu Bakar was done in rush and could have been done better but never he saw it as illegitimate nor wrong. And that for one example.

In fact, same goes to all major Scholars of Ahlus Sunnah. None of them saw the event as illegitimate and wrong. If I want, I could throw that back to you and say that is the "reality and facts" since nobody among the most learned men throughout our history claimed that the appointment of Abu Bakar as illegitimate nor wrong. They were among the greatest minds in Islamic sciences and have studied all the evidences and I trust their judgement way above yours. But I will expect you to come and said, "that's how Sunnis interpret the event".

So, coming back to your point above, what you have done so far in this forum was just laying your "claim" and never "reality nor facts". And your "claim" was merely your interpretation of the event itself.

Omar was part of the incident and part of the decision so therefore part of the problem. So it's obvious that he's not going to go against something that he was part of and involved in.

Take a look at Omar's words;  "no doubt it was like that". Also 'the appointment of Abu Bakr was done in a RUSH and could have been done BETTER'.

There you have it. No need to say anymore. Enough has been said already. You want to continue to justify this then by all means carry on.

No public gathering or event. All parties were not present and involved. No fair choice of selection of candidates. No principles or circumstances mentioned. No rules or regulations put down. No procedure or method laid down for fair conduct. No consultation.   No majority. Basically NO NOTHING.

There lies your problem. IN-RUSH and COULD HAVE BEEN DONE BETTER never equal to your claim as ILLEGITIMATE and WRONG.

Try harder next time.

By the way, any comments on the "Sunnis Scholars" part?

Oh... by the way, I add further. IN-RUSH could still be LEGITIMATE and COULD HAVE BEEN DONE BETTER could still be CORRECT, in case you do not aware...☺

Enough has been said on and about Saqifa. If you want to continue with your arrogance and stubbornness and keep beating around the bush then that is up to you. As far as I'm concerned it has been openly discussed and in depth. Now let the people decide and make up their own mind. You keep blowing your trumpet on your lost case.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: zaid_ibn_ali on October 28, 2017, 01:49:58 PM
@iceman

You seem to have way too much time on your hands. Seems like getting the last word in every thread gives you some sort of satisfaction?

The irony of a twelver shia trying to tell us that saqifa was illegal as it was not proper consultation!

Abu Bakr & Umar were two men.
Ali, Salman, Miqdad, Ammar & also the two other superhuman Imams Hasan & Husayn were greater in number than the two.
In fact 3 superhuman Imams could take out a whole army right?

Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on October 28, 2017, 02:21:29 PM
@iceman

You seem to have way too much time on your hands. Seems like getting the last word in every thread gives you some sort of satisfaction?

The irony of a twelver shia trying to tell us that saqifa was illegal as it was not proper consultation!

Abu Bakr & Umar were two men.
Ali, Salman, Miqdad, Ammar & also the two other superhuman Imams Hasan & Husayn were greater in number than the two.
In fact 3 superhuman Imams could take out a whole army right?

You're being ridiculous. Stop being silly. It's got nothing to do with personalities and individuals. Don't categories or divide and make it look like its this v that or these against them. They all were great companions of the Prophet (s) and each and everyone played their role in promoting and defending Islam by working with and alongside the Prophet (s). So please just put this childish nonsense aside.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on October 28, 2017, 02:29:39 PM
It was just an incident. After the funeral processions were over and a few days of mourning and grieving had past then it was planned and organised and everyone got together and had a fair say, also candidates were chosen justly and fairly and it was conducted in the right manner then Ali along with a few made the announcement that we, the Ummah of the Prophet (s) have unanimously chosen Abu Bakr as our leader or Abu Bakr has received the most nominations or votes so therefore he will govern us.

Come on and have some honesty. Saqifa was a drama. It had and has no legitimacy what so ever. Later on people accepted it or came to terms with it or tolerated it for the sake of peace and unity is totally a different matter.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: zaid_ibn_ali on October 28, 2017, 03:25:42 PM



You're being ridiculous. Stop being silly. It's got nothing to do with personalities and individuals. Don't categories or divide and make it look like its this v that or these against them. They all were great companions of the Prophet (s) and each and everyone played their role in promoting and defending Islam by working with and alongside the Prophet (s). So please just put this childish nonsense aside.

So Abu Bakr & Umar were great companions who played their role in promoting & defending Islam?
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on October 28, 2017, 03:34:38 PM



You're being ridiculous. Stop being silly. It's got nothing to do with personalities and individuals. Don't categories or divide and make it look like its this v that or these against them. They all were great companions of the Prophet (s) and each and everyone played their role in promoting and defending Islam by working with and alongside the Prophet (s). So please just put this childish nonsense aside.

So Abu Bakr & Umar were great companions who played their role in promoting & defending Islam?

LOL. See what I mean. There you go again avoiding the subject. What can I say. By doing things properly, fairly, Reasonably and justly don't you think they would have been even greater? Ali and his followers became even bigger and greater by remaining tolarent and patient and not getting personal and stubborn and committing towards violence and threatening behaviour just to get their way.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on October 28, 2017, 04:27:46 PM
@iceman

You seem to have way too much time on your hands. Seems like getting the last word in every thread gives you some sort of satisfaction?

The irony of a twelver shia trying to tell us that saqifa was illegal as it was not proper consultation!

Abu Bakr & Umar were two men.
Ali, Salman, Miqdad, Ammar & also the two other superhuman Imams Hasan & Husayn were greater in number than the two.
In fact 3 superhuman Imams could take out a whole army right?

This is something you don't understand or want to understand. It's not about taking on. It's about avoiding division. It's about avoiding violence an preventing civil war. Do you honestly believe that when the vast majority knew about Saqifa they accepted it openly and whole heartedly?

People objected and complained about this. They opposed and condemned it. But the words are there of Omar concerning those who opposed and were gathered at the residence of Ali. Now whether Omar carried out the threats or not but opposition was there and so was the disappointment.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: zaid_ibn_ali on October 28, 2017, 05:21:36 PM
@iceman

You said they were all great companions who defended & promoted Islam. I asked a simple question, does this include Abu Bakr & Umar?

You seem at conflict with yourself, with your scholars, with us, with everyone.

Taqiyyah at display here?

Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on October 28, 2017, 09:43:37 PM
@iceman

You said they were all great companions who defended & promoted Islam. I asked a simple question, does this include Abu Bakr & Umar?

You seem at conflict with yourself, with your scholars, with us, with everyone.

Taqiyyah at display here?

We are talking about Saqifa and its legitimacy. You keep bringing in personalities and try to turn away from the actual topic. If you so desperately want to speak about the virtues and qualities of the Shaykhain then by all means start a thread and I will contribute.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on October 29, 2017, 02:36:52 PM
As far as conflict and taqeya are concerned I'm just pointing out your arrogance and stubbornness and your one sided views.

You're just obsessed in a handful of companions and are making sure no finger is pointed at them and everything they did was right and just. You clearly suffer from PERSONALITY WORSHIP. You just don't want to admit it.

Did the first three ever get anything wrong or shouldn't have done? Especially the Shaykhain?
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on October 29, 2017, 03:00:31 PM
If the Shias can't see anything right with the first three especially the Shaykhain then you can't see anything wrong with them. So what's the difference?
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Hadrami on October 30, 2017, 09:12:06 AM
Shia always contradict what they believe to be their imam's action. According to them Imam let usurper to lead for the sake of unity, but shia have been barking for a thousand year to destroy the unity 😀
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on October 30, 2017, 11:09:01 AM
Shia always contradict what they believe to be their imam's action. According to them Imam let usurper to lead for the sake of unity, but shia have been barking for a thousand year to destroy the unity 😀

LOL. LOL again. Destroy unity? We don't accuse our Muslim brothers and sisters of Kufr or spill their blood. We believe in a better and safer system than yours which is according to the Qoran and Sunah (Imamah). You believe in something that the Shaykhain suddenly, dramatically and coincidently kicked of and then try to justify it through consultation. Keep trying. The people aren't blind or stupid.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Abu Muhammad on October 30, 2017, 05:57:42 PM
We are talking about Saqifa and its legitimacy. You keep bringing in personalities and try to turn away from the actual topic. If you so desperately want to speak about the virtues and qualities of the Shaykhain then by all means start a thread and I will contribute.

@iceman, you still didn't respond to this:

@iceman

Question: You claimed Saqifa gathering was wrong and illegitimate. Does that make the appointment of Abu Bakar as Caliph wrong and illegitimate as well? If yes, why?
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on October 30, 2017, 11:01:20 PM
We are talking about Saqifa and its legitimacy. You keep bringing in personalities and try to turn away from the actual topic. If you so desperately want to speak about the virtues and qualities of the Shaykhain then by all means start a thread and I will contribute.

@iceman, you still didn't respond to this:

@iceman

Question: You claimed Saqifa gathering was wrong and illegitimate. Does that make the appointment of Abu Bakar as Caliph wrong and illegitimate as well? If yes, why?

The answer to your question means we have to start from the beginning again. I didn't claim in fact reality and facts clearly show and tell that the decision was illegitimate and immature.

Who gathered in Saqifa? The Ansar. Majority? No just a minority. Why? To select THEIR OWN LEADER. Why? What for? What was the need and reason? This clearly shows and tells that something was wrong.

The funeral processions of the Messenger (s) were going on. The Muslim Ummah were in a state of shock and loss, they were mourning.

Omar was informed of this minor gathering and was told that something TERRIBLE was about to happen. It's obvious that something was very wrong. But I'm not going to put my opinion forward. People can make their own judgement.

The decision reached in Saqifa was coincidental. The few there had no right what so ever to proceed when the majority were not aware and present.

Like I said before it was conducted justly, fairly and properly. It wasn't according to the rules and regulations of the Quran or Sunah.

Consultation doesn't mean just a handful or minority can take matters into their own hands and proceed on behalf of the entire community/nation.

You and I are both aware that Abu Bakr's appointment was illegitimate. It was wrongly conducted and then forced upon the others either through threatening behaviour or violence.

But lets not go that far. Abu Bakr was and is recognised as the first Khalifa of the Muslims but his appointment was NOT LEGITIMATE. Because it wasn't conducted fairly and properly, justly and reasonably. Also the choice of candidates wasn't conducted again fairly and properly.

The funeral processions were over and a few days of mourning past. An event should have been pre planned and pre organised were everyone gathered and placed their vote. Also prior to this a list of candidates should have been created. And those who wanted to take part in the election/selection of becoming a leader should have been given the equal and fair opportunity to put their name and application forward.

Come on, I'm not a child or delinquent and neither are you.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on October 30, 2017, 11:22:41 PM
We are talking about Saqifa and its legitimacy. You keep bringing in personalities and try to turn away from the actual topic. If you so desperately want to speak about the virtues and qualities of the Shaykhain then by all means start a thread and I will contribute.

@iceman, you still didn't respond to this:

@iceman

Question: You claimed Saqifa gathering was wrong and illegitimate. Does that make the appointment of Abu Bakar as Caliph wrong and illegitimate as well? If yes, why?

Question: You claimed Saqifa gathering was wrong and illegitimate. Does that make the appointment of Abu Bakar as Caliph wrong and illegitimate as well? If yes, why?
[/quote]

The answer to your question means we have to start from the beginning again. I didn't claim in fact reality and facts clearly show and tell that the decision was illegitimate and immature.

Who gathered in Saqifa? The Ansar. Majority? No just a minority. Why? To select THEIR OWN LEADER. Why? What for? What was the need and reason? This clearly shows and tells that something was wrong.

The funeral processions of the Messenger (s) were going on. The Muslim Ummah were in a state of shock and loss, they were mourning.

Omar was informed of this minor gathering and was told that something TERRIBLE was about to happen. It's obvious that something was very wrong. But I'm not going to put my opinion forward. People can make their own judgement.

The decision reached in Saqifa was coincidental. The few there had no right what so ever to proceed when the majority were not aware and present.

Like I said before it wasn't conducted justly, fairly and properly. It wasn't according to the rules and regulations of the Quran or Sunah.

Consultation doesn't mean just a few, a handful or minority can take matters into their own hands and proceed on behalf of the entire community/nation.

You and I are both aware that Abu Bakr's appointment was illegitimate. It was wrongly conducted and then forced upon the others either through threatening behaviour or violence. But lets not go that far.

Abu Bakr was and is recognised as the first Khalifa of the Muslims but his appointment was NOT LEGITIMATE. Because it wasn't conducted fairly and properly, justly and reasonably. Also the choice of candidates wasn't conducted again fairly and properly.

The funeral processions should have come first and be completed and over. And a few days of mourning should have passed. An event should have been planned and organised were everyone gathered and placed their vote.

Also prior to this a list of candidates should have been created. And those who wanted to take part in the election/selection of becoming a leader should have been given the equal and fair opportunity to put their name and application forward.

Come on, I'm not a child or delinquent and neither are you. Don't be so arrogant and stubborn, don't become so blind and jammed that reality and facts, sense and logic, reason and meaning doesn't have any worth and value. Think about your time in graves and your position on judgement day.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Hani on October 31, 2017, 05:14:30 AM
I think Abu Bakr's appointment was the best thing that ever happened, if a meeting like Saqifah had taken place and anybody else was chosen it would have been civil-war.

As for you folks trying to reduce the matter into a monarchy where Hashemites, Umayyads or whoever else thinks they're a superior bloodline, you won't convince the new educated generation of Muslims, we will reject it outright for the backwards concept that it is.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on October 31, 2017, 09:15:12 PM
I think Abu Bakr's appointment was the best thing that ever happened, if a meeting like Saqifah had taken place and anybody else was chosen it would have been civil-war.

As for you folks trying to reduce the matter into a monarchy where Hashemites, Umayyads or whoever else thinks they're a superior bloodline, you won't convince the new educated generation of Muslims, we will reject it outright for the backwards concept that it is.

First of all thanks for joining us. Secondly it's not about what you and I think, it's about reality and facts which we're finding very hard to accept and digest. Thirdly you're absolutely right if Abu Bakr's appointment wasn't accepted they (Shaykhain) would have kicked off a civil war it didn't go their way.

If the Ansars did choose a leader what was wrong with that? Their candidate was also a great companion of the Prophet (s) and a very worthy and important individual. What would have gone wrong or what was the harm in Shaykhain coming along and giving allegiance to him? I'm sure everyone would have eventually accepted and followed like in Abu Bakr's case.

Why did Omar just secretly and quietly inform Abu Bakr about what terrible was about to happen in Saqifa? What was so terrible? And why wasn't anybody else informed? Because if they were informed and the choosing of a leader was conducted fairly and properly then do you think the Shaykhain would have got their way? Hey, just a thought by the way.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Abu Muhammad on November 01, 2017, 05:07:27 PM
The answer to your question means we have to start from the beginning again. I didn't claim in fact reality and facts clearly show and tell that the decision was illegitimate and immature.

Who gathered in Saqifa? The Ansar. Majority? No just a minority. Why? To select THEIR OWN LEADER. Why? What for? What was the need and reason? This clearly shows and tells that something was wrong.

The funeral processions of the Messenger (s) were going on. The Muslim Ummah were in a state of shock and loss, they were mourning.

Omar was informed of this minor gathering and was told that something TERRIBLE was about to happen. It's obvious that something was very wrong. But I'm not going to put my opinion forward. People can make their own judgement.

The decision reached in Saqifa was coincidental. The few there had no right what so ever to proceed when the majority were not aware and present.

Like I said before it wasn't conducted justly, fairly and properly. It wasn't according to the rules and regulations of the Quran or Sunah.

Consultation doesn't mean just a few, a handful or minority can take matters into their own hands and proceed on behalf of the entire community/nation.

You and I are both aware that Abu Bakr's appointment was illegitimate. It was wrongly conducted and then forced upon the others either through threatening behaviour or violence. But lets not go that far.

Abu Bakr was and is recognised as the first Khalifa of the Muslims but his appointment was NOT LEGITIMATE. Because it wasn't conducted fairly and properly, justly and reasonably. Also the choice of candidates wasn't conducted again fairly and properly.

The funeral processions should have come first and be completed and over. And a few days of mourning should have passed. An event should have been planned and organised were everyone gathered and placed their vote.

Also prior to this a list of candidates should have been created. And those who wanted to take part in the election/selection of becoming a leader should have been given the equal and fair opportunity to put their name and application forward.

Come on, I'm not a child or delinquent and neither are you. Don't be so arrogant and stubborn, don't become so blind and jammed that reality and facts, sense and logic, reason and meaning doesn't have any worth and value. Think about your time in graves and your position on judgement day.

@iceman,

You keep on repeating your claim about illegitimacy of the selection of Abu Bakar as Caliph. And your basis is as those in red above.

Are you saying that IF the appointment of Abu Bakar after the death of Rasulullah (saw) was conducted fairly, properly, justly and reasonably (and also the choice of candidates was conducted again fairly and properly), HE WILL THEN BECOME A LEGITIMATE CALIPH?
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 01, 2017, 08:15:28 PM
The answer to your question means we have to start from the beginning again. I didn't claim in fact reality and facts clearly show and tell that the decision was illegitimate and immature.

Who gathered in Saqifa? The Ansar. Majority? No just a minority. Why? To select THEIR OWN LEADER. Why? What for? What was the need and reason? This clearly shows and tells that something was wrong.

The funeral processions of the Messenger (s) were going on. The Muslim Ummah were in a state of shock and loss, they were mourning.

Omar was informed of this minor gathering and was told that something TERRIBLE was about to happen. It's obvious that something was very wrong. But I'm not going to put my opinion forward. People can make their own judgement.

The decision reached in Saqifa was coincidental. The few there had no right what so ever to proceed when the majority were not aware and present.

Like I said before it wasn't conducted justly, fairly and properly. It wasn't according to the rules and regulations of the Quran or Sunah.

Consultation doesn't mean just a few, a handful or minority can take matters into their own hands and proceed on behalf of the entire community/nation.

You and I are both aware that Abu Bakr's appointment was illegitimate. It was wrongly conducted and then forced upon the others either through threatening behaviour or violence. But lets not go that far.

Abu Bakr was and is recognised as the first Khalifa of the Muslims but his appointment was NOT LEGITIMATE. Because it wasn't conducted fairly and properly, justly and reasonably. Also the choice of candidates wasn't conducted again fairly and properly.

The funeral processions should have come first and be completed and over. And a few days of mourning should have passed. An event should have been planned and organised were everyone gathered and placed their vote.

Also prior to this a list of candidates should have been created. And those who wanted to take part in the election/selection of becoming a leader should have been given the equal and fair opportunity to put their name and application forward.

Come on, I'm not a child or delinquent and neither are you. Don't be so arrogant and stubborn, don't become so blind and jammed that reality and facts, sense and logic, reason and meaning doesn't have any worth and value. Think about your time in graves and your position on judgement day.

@iceman,

You keep on repeating your claim about illegitimacy of the selection of Abu Bakar as Caliph. And your basis is as those in red above.

Are you saying that IF the appointment of Abu Bakar after the death of Rasulullah (saw) was conducted fairly, properly, justly and reasonably (and also the choice of candidates was conducted again fairly and properly), HE WILL THEN BECOME A LEGITIMATE CALIPH?

I don't keep repeating it you keep on asking the same thing over and over again. If something isn't according to a method or procedure, it hasn't been conducted fairly and properly then....Where is common basic sense? Has it gone awol?
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 01, 2017, 08:37:34 PM
The matter is crystal clear about Saqifa. All you're doing is beating around the bush by going in circles. The two top heavy weights, Farid and Hani, clearly have understood and got the message. That is why they're keeping their distance, especially Farid.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Abu Muhammad on November 01, 2017, 09:48:50 PM
The matter is crystal clear about Saqifa. All you're doing is beating around the bush by going in circles. The two top heavy weights, Farid and Hani, clearly have understood and got the message. That is why they're keeping their distance, especially Farid.

With due respect to Farid and Hani, what about these heavyweight of Ahlus Sunnah. Even by force and no shura but still legitimate. Are these major scholars of Ahlus Sunnah also "beating around the bush"?:

1. Ibn Hanbal wrote that if a Khalifa has seized power, it is haram to fight him. However, he must meet his responsibilities under Islam.

2. Ash-Shafi'i believed that a person who seizes power and then is accepted by the people is a legitimate Khalifa.

3. An-Nawawi believed that if someone forces himself on the ummah, but is qualified, then he should be accepted by the people to avoid Muslim bloodshed and to preserve Muslim unity. An-Nawawi also claimed that if the new Khalifa subsequently does not follow the sunnah of the Prophet precisely, it would be still be questionable to fight against him because of the paramount importance of avoiding Muslim bloodshed and disunity.

4  Ibn Khaldun, Al-Asqalani and Al-Juwayni all believed that forceful seizure of power by someone is legitimate as long as he follows Islam as the new Khalifa.

5. Ibn Taymiya wrote that after someone has seized power, he is legitimate so long as he follows the Qur'an and Sunnah.


Do you have anything to say?

http://www.2muslims.com/directory/Detailed/225505.shtml
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 01, 2017, 10:07:18 PM
The matter is crystal clear about Saqifa. All you're doing is beating around the bush by going in circles. The two top heavy weights, Farid and Hani, clearly have understood and got the message. That is why they're keeping their distance, especially Farid.

With due respect to Farid and Hani, what about these heavyweight of Ahlus Sunnah. Even by force and no shura but still legitimate. Are these major scholars of Ahlus Sunnah also "beating around the bush"?:

1. Ibn Hanbal wrote that if a Khalifa has seized power, it is haram to fight him. However, he must meet his responsibilities under Islam.

2. Ash-Shafi'i believed that a person who seizes power and then is accepted by the people is a legitimate Khalifa.

3. An-Nawawi believed that if someone forces himself on the ummah, but is qualified, then he should be accepted by the people to avoid Muslim bloodshed and to preserve Muslim unity. An-Nawawi also claimed that if the new Khalifa subsequently does not follow the sunnah of the Prophet precisely, it would be still be questionable to fight against him because of the paramount importance of avoiding Muslim bloodshed and disunity.

4  Ibn Khaldun, Al-Asqalani and Al-Juwayni all believed that forceful seizure of power by someone is legitimate as long as he follows Islam as the new Khalifa.

5. Ibn Taymiya wrote that after someone has seized power, he is legitimate so long as he follows the Qur'an and Sunnah.


Do you have anything to say?

http://www.2muslims.com/directory/Detailed/225505.shtml

Very nicely put forward. Of course I have something to say. First of all where does consultation (shura) go, which we've been yapping on about all this time?

Secondly what would you say about those who rebelled against the 4th Khalifa? What category would you put them in?

Thirdly the second part of the third point, where does Yazeed fit in all this? He was the 6th or 7th, if you include Hassan's 6 month Khilafat period, Khalif of the Muslims.

And lastly what about Hussein who refused allegiance to Yazeed? What are these heavyweights views according to the points I have raised?

Sidenote; It's all about trying to save the reputation of a few individuals especially the Shaykhain. That's the bottom line and that's why discussions as such are dragged on. I know it's going to be hard for you to accept but lovely discussion I must say.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Abu Muhammad on November 01, 2017, 10:29:08 PM
The matter is crystal clear about Saqifa. All you're doing is beating around the bush by going in circles. The two top heavy weights, Farid and Hani, clearly have understood and got the message. That is why they're keeping their distance, especially Farid.

With due respect to Farid and Hani, what about these heavyweight of Ahlus Sunnah. Even by force and no shura but still legitimate. Are these major scholars of Ahlus Sunnah also "beating around the bush"?:

1. Ibn Hanbal wrote that if a Khalifa has seized power, it is haram to fight him. However, he must meet his responsibilities under Islam.

2. Ash-Shafi'i believed that a person who seizes power and then is accepted by the people is a legitimate Khalifa.

3. An-Nawawi believed that if someone forces himself on the ummah, but is qualified, then he should be accepted by the people to avoid Muslim bloodshed and to preserve Muslim unity. An-Nawawi also claimed that if the new Khalifa subsequently does not follow the sunnah of the Prophet precisely, it would be still be questionable to fight against him because of the paramount importance of avoiding Muslim bloodshed and disunity.

4  Ibn Khaldun, Al-Asqalani and Al-Juwayni all believed that forceful seizure of power by someone is legitimate as long as he follows Islam as the new Khalifa.

5. Ibn Taymiya wrote that after someone has seized power, he is legitimate so long as he follows the Qur'an and Sunnah.


Do you have anything to say?

http://www.2muslims.com/directory/Detailed/225505.shtml

Very nicely put forward. Of course I have something to say. First of all where does consultation (shura) go, which we've been yapping on about all this time?

Secondly what would you say about those who rebelled against the 4th Khalifa? What category would you put them in?

Thirdly the second part of the third point, where does Yazeed fit in all this? He was the 6th or 7th, if you include Hassan's 6 month Khilafat period, Khalif of the Muslims.

And lastly what about Hussein who refused allegiance to Yazeed? What are these heavyweights views according to the points I have raised?

Sidenote; It's all about trying to save the reputation of a few individuals especially the Shaykhain. That's the bottom line and that's why discussions as such are dragged on. I know it's going to be hard for you to accept but lovely discussion I must say.

The whole point from the very beginning is that when it comes to specifically about the methodology of selecting a khalifa, according to Ahlus Sunnah, both Quran and Sunnah are silent about it. That's why you found that even by force is considered legitimate by those heavyweight of Ahlus Sunnah. Those scholars are the real mujtahid of Ahlus Sunnah.

What you are trying to do here is actually imposing your limited reasoning unto Ahlus Sunnah and be like a Mujtahid (even though without any qualifications to be one) declaring the appointment of Abu Bakr as illegitimate. All by your own limited reasoning.

You know what. The real reason why you Twelvers declared the selection of Abu Bakr as illegitimate is because you believe the selection was going against the instruction of Allah and Rasulullah (saw). That instruction was that Ali was divinely appointed to lead ummah after the demise of Rasulullah (saw). Not because of that unfair, unproper, etc. crap like you said.

That's also the reason, I believe, why you didn't answer my question below:

"Are you saying that IF the appointment of Abu Bakar after the death of Rasulullah (saw) was conducted fairly, properly, justly and reasonably (and also the choice of candidates was conducted again fairly and properly), HE WILL THEN BECOME A LEGITIMATE CALIPH?"


Now who is actually beating around the bush?
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 01, 2017, 11:36:27 PM
The matter is crystal clear about Saqifa. All you're doing is beating around the bush by going in circles. The two top heavy weights, Farid and Hani, clearly have understood and got the message. That is why they're keeping their distance, especially Farid.

With due respect to Farid and Hani, what about these heavyweight of Ahlus Sunnah. Even by force and no shura but still legitimate. Are these major scholars of Ahlus Sunnah also "beating around the bush"?:

1. Ibn Hanbal wrote that if a Khalifa has seized power, it is haram to fight him. However, he must meet his responsibilities under Islam.

2. Ash-Shafi'i believed that a person who seizes power and then is accepted by the people is a legitimate Khalifa.

3. An-Nawawi believed that if someone forces himself on the ummah, but is qualified, then he should be accepted by the people to avoid Muslim bloodshed and to preserve Muslim unity. An-Nawawi also claimed that if the new Khalifa subsequently does not follow the sunnah of the Prophet precisely, it would be still be questionable to fight against him because of the paramount importance of avoiding Muslim bloodshed and disunity.

4  Ibn Khaldun, Al-Asqalani and Al-Juwayni all believed that forceful seizure of power by someone is legitimate as long as he follows Islam as the new Khalifa.

5. Ibn Taymiya wrote that after someone has seized power, he is legitimate so long as he follows the Qur'an and Sunnah.


Do you have anything to say?

http://www.2muslims.com/directory/Detailed/225505.shtml

Very nicely put forward. Of course I have something to say. First of all where does consultation (shura) go, which we've been yapping on about all this time?

Secondly what would you say about those who rebelled against the 4th Khalifa? What category would you put them in?

Thirdly the second part of the third point, where does Yazeed fit in all this? He was the 6th or 7th, if you include Hassan's 6 month Khilafat period, Khalif of the Muslims.

And lastly what about Hussein who refused allegiance to Yazeed? What are these heavyweights views according to the points I have raised?

Sidenote; It's all about trying to save the reputation of a few individuals especially the Shaykhain. That's the bottom line and that's why discussions as such are dragged on. I know it's going to be hard for you to accept but lovely discussion I must say.

The whole point from the very beginning is that when it comes to specifically about the methodology of selecting a khalifa, according to Ahlus Sunnah, both Quran and Sunnah are silent about it. That's why you found that even by force is considered legitimate by those heavyweight of Ahlus Sunnah. Those scholars are the real mujtahid of Ahlus Sunnah.

What you are trying to do here is actually imposing your limited reasoning unto Ahlus Sunnah and be like a Mujtahid (even though without any qualifications to be one) declaring the appointment of Abu Bakr as illegitimate. All by your own limited reasoning.

You know what. The real reason why you Twelvers declared the selection of Abu Bakr as illegitimate is because you believe the selection was going against the instruction of Allah and Rasulullah (saw). That instruction was that Ali was divinely appointed to lead ummah after the demise of Rasulullah (saw). Not because of that unfair, unproper, etc. crap like you said.

That's also the reason, I believe, why you didn't answer my question below:

"Are you saying that IF the appointment of Abu Bakar after the death of Rasulullah (saw) was conducted fairly, properly, justly and reasonably (and also the choice of candidates was conducted again fairly and properly), HE WILL THEN BECOME A LEGITIMATE CALIPH?"


Now who is actually beating around the bush?

You haven't answered any of my points. I didn't think you could. I'm not putting forward my reason or understanding just putting forward reality and facts.

The answer to your question which I will not avoid like you and here it comes in detail;

The funeral processions were over and a few days of mourning had past. An event was planned and organised for a very important decision that needs to be made which effects the whole of the Ummah. A leader needs to be chosen who will govern the Muslims and take care of their affairs both internally and externally, both home and foreign affairs as well as protection and defence (army). He will be the successor to the Prophet (s).

A list of candidates is prepared and those interested put forward their names and application. All and everyone participate in this election/selection and the one who receives the most votes is selected/elected and that turns out to be Abu Bakr.

This is legitimate and acceptable and I most certainly wouldn't have had a problem with this despite my faith and belief of a divine successor.

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.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 01, 2017, 11:56:58 PM
And you mentioned that Qoran and Sunah are silent on selecting/electing a leader according to Ahle Sunah,  you've lost me here, what is Shura all about and where does it go then?

Are you telling me that there is no indication in Qoran and Sunah about such an important matter?
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Hani on November 02, 2017, 04:10:31 AM
I think Abu Bakr's appointment was the best thing that ever happened, if a meeting like Saqifah had taken place and anybody else was chosen it would have been civil-war.

As for you folks trying to reduce the matter into a monarchy where Hashemites, Umayyads or whoever else thinks they're a superior bloodline, you won't convince the new educated generation of Muslims, we will reject it outright for the backwards concept that it is.

First of all thanks for joining us. Secondly it's not about what you and I think, it's about reality and facts which we're finding very hard to accept and digest. Thirdly you're absolutely right if Abu Bakr's appointment wasn't accepted they (Shaykhain) would have kicked off a civil war it didn't go their way.

If the Ansars did choose a leader what was wrong with that? Their candidate was also a great companion of the Prophet (s) and a very worthy and important individual. What would have gone wrong or what was the harm in Shaykhain coming along and giving allegiance to him? I'm sure everyone would have eventually accepted and followed like in Abu Bakr's case.

Why did Omar just secretly and quietly inform Abu Bakr about what terrible was about to happen in Saqifa? What was so terrible? And why wasn't anybody else informed? Because if they were informed and the choosing of a leader was conducted fairly and properly then do you think the Shaykhain would have got their way? Hey, just a thought by the way.

Hello Mr.Reality & Facts.

First of all, you have no evidence that Abu Bakr wished to start a civil war. If anything, I can accuse `Ali of wanting to start a civil-war, thank God he was stopped. I can quote from al-Kafi that `Ali went around asking people to support him against Abu Bakr, I can quote from al-Kafi that `Ali asked his supporters to shave their heads and meet him in preparation for battle but thank God no one showed up. So your first accusation, I can flip it against you and against `Ali and make him look VERY BAD. What kind of a person would attempt to destroy the Islamic nation for their own desires of leadership.

Ansar's candidate was very worthy, but the Arabs of the time were not going to accept anyone from other than Quraysh, that was the socio-political system. Sa`d's Khilafah would have caused greater rifts and anarchy. This is why the Prophet (saw) insisted that the Imams after him be from Quraysh.

As for "informing others", the whole matter was sudden, the man that came to the Prophet's (saw) house informed `Umar that there was a calamity taking place that may cause a war, `Umar was alarmed, he called Abu Bakr and informed him, this was sufficient since Abu Bakr was more than worthy of handling any situation as his leadership and authority were without question. The family was preoccupied with the washing and mourning, it is un-acceptable for them to be distracted by politics. The three Companions went to resolve it and they discussed with a few others along the way. When they reached the location, they realized the situation was more alarming than expected, the safest option was for the matter to be settled then and there. It couldn't wait.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Najamsethii484 on November 02, 2017, 02:00:40 PM
I think Abu Bakr's appointment was the best thing that ever happened, if a meeting like Saqifah had taken place and anybody else was chosen it would have been civil-war.

As for you folks trying to reduce the matter into a monarchy where Hashemites, Umayyads or whoever else thinks they're a superior bloodline, you won't convince the new educated generation of Muslims, we will reject it outright for the backwards concept that it is.

First of all thanks for joining us. Secondly it's not about what you and I think, it's about reality and facts which we're finding very hard to accept and digest. Thirdly you're absolutely right if Abu Bakr's appointment wasn't accepted they (Shaykhain) would have kicked off a civil war it didn't go their way.

If the Ansars did choose a leader what was wrong with that? Their candidate was also a great companion of the Prophet (s) and a very worthy and important individual. What would have gone wrong or what was the harm in Shaykhain coming along and giving allegiance to him? I'm sure everyone would have eventually accepted and followed like in Abu Bakr's case.

Why did Omar just secretly and quietly inform Abu Bakr about what terrible was about to happen in Saqifa? What was so terrible? And why wasn't anybody else informed? Because if they were informed and the choosing of a leader was conducted fairly and properly then do you think the Shaykhain would have got their way? Hey, just a thought by the way.

Hello Mr.Reality & Facts.

First of all, you have no evidence that Abu Bakr wished to start a civil war. If anything, I can accuse `Ali of wanting to start a civil-war, thank God he was stopped. I can quote from al-Kafi that `Ali went around asking people to support him against Abu Bakr, I can quote from al-Kafi that `Ali asked his supporters to shave their heads and meet him in preparation for battle but thank God no one showed up. So your first accusation, I can flip it against you and against `Ali and make him look VERY BAD. What kind of a person would attempt to destroy the Islamic nation for their own desires of leadership.

Ansar's candidate was very worthy, but the Arabs of the time were not going to accept anyone from other than Quraysh, that was the socio-political system. Sa`d's Khilafah would have caused greater rifts and anarchy. This is why the Prophet (saw) insisted that the Imams after him be from Quraysh.

As for "informing others", the whole matter was sudden, the man that came to the Prophet's (saw) house informed `Umar that there was a calamity taking place that may cause a war, `Umar was alarmed, he called Abu Bakr and informed him, this was sufficient since Abu Bakr was more than worthy of handling any situation as his leadership and authority were without question. The family was preoccupied with the washing and mourning, it is un-acceptable for them to be distracted by politics. The three Companions went to resolve it and they discussed with a few others along the way. When they reached the location, they realized the situation was more alarming than expected, the safest option was for the matter to be settled then and there. It couldn't wait. i liked the answer of very famous scholar and teacher and university founder named Aligarh university in India sir syed ahmed khan from india when asked about saqifah what would you have done if you were there he answered in a very funny mood that i would have nominated myself for caliph hahahaha what he meant was that all undeserving was there so why cant i try hahahah this is the value of abu bakr and omar and uthman caliphate system that no one cares about it and take it seriously expect nawasib
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 02, 2017, 02:57:27 PM
I think Abu Bakr's appointment was the best thing that ever happened, if a meeting like Saqifah had taken place and anybody else was chosen it would have been civil-war.

As for you folks trying to reduce the matter into a monarchy where Hashemites, Umayyads or whoever else thinks they're a superior bloodline, you won't convince the new educated generation of Muslims, we will reject it outright for the backwards concept that it is.

First of all thanks for joining us. Secondly it's not about what you and I think, it's about reality and facts which we're finding very hard to accept and digest. Thirdly you're absolutely right if Abu Bakr's appointment wasn't accepted they (Shaykhain) would have kicked off a civil war it didn't go their way.

If the Ansars did choose a leader what was wrong with that? Their candidate was also a great companion of the Prophet (s) and a very worthy and important individual. What would have gone wrong or what was the harm in Shaykhain coming along and giving allegiance to him? I'm sure everyone would have eventually accepted and followed like in Abu Bakr's case.

Why did Omar just secretly and quietly inform Abu Bakr about what terrible was about to happen in Saqifa? What was so terrible? And why wasn't anybody else informed? Because if they were informed and the choosing of a leader was conducted fairly and properly then do you think the Shaykhain would have got their way? Hey, just a thought by the way.

Hello Mr.Reality & Facts.

First of all, you have no evidence that Abu Bakr wished to start a civil war. If anything, I can accuse `Ali of wanting to start a civil-war, thank God he was stopped. I can quote from al-Kafi that `Ali went around asking people to support him against Abu Bakr, I can quote from al-Kafi that `Ali asked his supporters to shave their heads and meet him in preparation for battle but thank God no one showed up. So your first accusation, I can flip it against you and against `Ali and make him look VERY BAD. What kind of a person would attempt to destroy the Islamic nation for their own desires of leadership.

Ansar's candidate was very worthy, but the Arabs of the time were not going to accept anyone from other than Quraysh, that was the socio-political system. Sa`d's Khilafah would have caused greater rifts and anarchy. This is why the Prophet (saw) insisted that the Imams after him be from Quraysh.

As for "informing others", the whole matter was sudden, the man that came to the Prophet's (saw) house informed `Umar that there was a calamity taking place that may cause a war, `Umar was alarmed, he called Abu Bakr and informed him, this was sufficient since Abu Bakr was more than worthy of handling any situation as his leadership and authority were without question. The family was preoccupied with the washing and mourning, it is un-acceptable for them to be distracted by politics. The three Companions went to resolve it and they discussed with a few others along the way. When they reached the location, they realized the situation was more alarming than expected, the safest option was for the matter to be settled then and there. It couldn't wait.

And a very BIG HELLO to you as well. It's so nice of you to come out and join us. Welcome. First of all your post clearly tells me you're in to this personality clash; 'You said this about Abu Bakr so I can also say this about Ali'. You can say or do what ever you like or want about Ali because Ali is not just ours, Ali is not our personal possession,  he belongs to the Prophet (s) and is connected to the Muslims. Why is it that you guys always try to create a situation such as 'Sahaba v Ahle Bayth or us v you or this v that etc'.

You've said your bit now here is mine, it doesn't matter whether it's Ali or Abu Bakr, both were and are related to the Prophet (s) and are iconic figures with in Islamic history and for the Muslims. Both have their character, performance and achievements and have worked together and alongside the Prophet (s) to promote Islam. So you can put this technique and tactic aside of Abu Bakr v Ali or I can say this and that as well about Ali because we're not talking about individuals or personalities what we're discussing is consultation (shura) and reality and facts surrounding Saqifa and its legitimacy.

You haven't gone through the thread or just didn't bother or probably couldn't respond to my questions and points.

Why did some of the Ansar (minority) all of a sudden gather in Saqifa? What was the need or the sudden urge? Surely something wasn't right. Surely something was wrong. What did they witness or see that they decided all of a sudden and gathered Saqifa in an emergency to go their separate and own way?

Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 02, 2017, 03:13:48 PM
All you are doing Hani is coming up with excuses, ifs and buts. I've been told that the Ahle Sunah believe there is no clear indication in and from the Qoran and Sunah about selecting/ electing a leader. And the Ahle Sunah also believe that the Prophet (s) didn't name and appoint anyone to govern after him. I'm not going to dwell on this but in fact move the matter and discussion forward.

Consultation (shura) if this is the method and procedure that one needs to take to select/elect their leader then surely there must be principles and circumstances on how to proceed. There must be rules and regulations that one must abide by. There has to be a fair, just and proper way to conduct it.

Or do you just go as you please or what ever evolves or comes out or be it planned and organised or coincidental and hasty just accept it and give it the stamp of consultation and the seal of approval no matter how unfair, unjust and unreasonable it is, looks or sounds?
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Hani on November 02, 2017, 06:41:53 PM

And a very BIG HELLO to you as well. It's so nice of you to come out and join us. Welcome. First of all your post clearly tells me you're in to this personality clash; 'You said this about Abu Bakr so I can also say this about Ali'. You can say or do what ever you like or want about Ali because Ali is not just ours, Ali is not our personal possession,  he belongs to the Prophet (s) and is connected to the Muslims. Why is it that you guys always try to create a situation such as 'Sahaba v Ahle Bayth or us v you or this v that etc'.

That sounds liker "No answer" to me. I didn't know `Ali belonged to the Prophet (saw), how much did he buy him for? I thought he was a free man. Let's also say Abu Bakr belongs to the entire nation then, loved by 1.5 billion Muslims. As for Sahabah vs Ahlul-Bayt, that's your thing bro, you're guys always comparing and character assassinating individuals to make your own Imams look cool.

You've said your bit now here is mine, it doesn't matter whether it's Ali or Abu Bakr, both were and are related to the Prophet (s) and are iconic figures with in Islamic history and for the Muslims. Both have their character, performance and achievements and have worked together and alongside the Prophet (s) to promote Islam. So you can put this technique and tactic aside of Abu Bakr v Ali or I can say this and that as well about Ali because we're not talking about individuals or personalities what we're discussing is consultation (shura) and reality and facts surrounding Saqifa and its legitimacy.

Do you have split personality disorder? It sounds like now you're praising Abu Bakr, previously you were accusing him of creating civil-war for his own self-interest.

In Saqifah, some of the biggest heads of the Muslim nation consulted and reached a decision.


You haven't gone through the thread or just didn't bother or probably couldn't respond to my questions and points.

This is a very basic thread, nothing of importance was brought up tbh.

Why did some of the Ansar (minority) all of a sudden gather in Saqifa? What was the need or the sudden urge? Surely something wasn't right. Surely something was wrong. What did they witness or see that they decided all of a sudden and gathered Saqifa in an emergency to go their separate and own way?



The "minority" were the LEADERS of the Ansar, they are the ones who are heard and respected among them. Those present represented the vast majority of the Ansar. They gathered suddenly because the Prophet (saw) died suddenly, and they felt the need to fill the gap and saw they were most worthy of leading the Ummah. If you don't think there was a sudden need in those crucial times, then forgive me but you're clueless about politics and Arab culture. As for Abu Bakr, `Umar, aba `Ubaydah and those that followed, these were some of the biggest heads of the Muhajirin, they represent the vast majority of the Muhajirin and are obeyed. It is unfortunate that banu Hashim weren't present due to the circumstance, but those present are more than enough to give legitimacy to ANY Caliph.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Hani on November 02, 2017, 06:44:32 PM
All you are doing Hani is coming up with excuses, ifs and buts. I've been told that the Ahle Sunah believe there is no clear indication in and from the Qoran and Sunah about selecting/ electing a leader. And the Ahle Sunah also believe that the Prophet (s) didn't name and appoint anyone to govern after him. I'm not going to dwell on this but in fact move the matter and discussion forward.

Consultation (shura) if this is the method and procedure that one needs to take to select/elect their leader then surely there must be principles and circumstances on how to proceed. There must be rules and regulations that one must abide by. There has to be a fair, just and proper way to conduct it.

Or do you just go as you please or what ever evolves or comes out or be it planned and organised or coincidental and hasty just accept it and give it the stamp of consultation and the seal of approval no matter how unfair, unjust and unreasonable it is, looks or sounds?

Consultation is a principal of life, human beings can develop their own advanced political systems to take care of their worldly affairs. One thing's for sure, the Imami system is the WORSE system I've seen throughout my reading of history, with useless, powerless so called leaders and a guy who went to hiding for 1,200 years without a trace, no one can ever benefit from such a dull system to the extent that your Mullas realized they needed Wilayat-ul-Faqih to replace him.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: zaid_ibn_ali on November 02, 2017, 07:41:31 PM
@iceman

The irony of accusing others of personality worship when your whole sect is based on Ali, a non prophet.

Back to the subject, its been made clear again & again that the main heads of the ansar & muhajireen were at saqifa & theu agreed on Abu Bakr.
Yes banu hashim were not present. It wasn't a conspiracy as the banu hashim were busy were busy with funeral arrangements.
Besides there was nothing to stop the banu hashim to call the selection of Abu Bakr null & void & to call for another meeting. They didn't do this though. Which clearly shows they accepted the decision.

Ali, a lion during the Prophet saw time, but no longer a lion after the Prophet saw left according to shia logic.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 02, 2017, 09:32:55 PM

And a very BIG HELLO to you as well. It's so nice of you to come out and join us. Welcome. First of all your post clearly tells me you're in to this personality clash; 'You said this about Abu Bakr so I can also say this about Ali'. You can say or do what ever you like or want about Ali because Ali is not just ours, Ali is not our personal possession,  he belongs to the Prophet (s) and is connected to the Muslims. Why is it that you guys always try to create a situation such as 'Sahaba v Ahle Bayth or us v you or this v that etc'.

That sounds liker "No answer" to me. I didn't know `Ali belonged to the Prophet (saw), how much did he buy him for? I thought he was a free man. Let's also say Abu Bakr belongs to the entire nation then, loved by 1.5 billion Muslims. As for Sahabah vs Ahlul-Bayt, that's your thing bro, you're guys always comparing and character assassinating individuals to make your own Imams look cool.

You've said your bit now here is mine, it doesn't matter whether it's Ali or Abu Bakr, both were and are related to the Prophet (s) and are iconic figures with in Islamic history and for the Muslims. Both have their character, performance and achievements and have worked together and alongside the Prophet (s) to promote Islam. So you can put this technique and tactic aside of Abu Bakr v Ali or I can say this and that as well about Ali because we're not talking about individuals or personalities what we're discussing is consultation (shura) and reality and facts surrounding Saqifa and its legitimacy.

Do you have split personality disorder? It sounds like now you're praising Abu Bakr, previously you were accusing him of creating civil-war for his own self-interest.

In Saqifah, some of the biggest heads of the Muslim nation consulted and reached a decision.


You haven't gone through the thread or just didn't bother or probably couldn't respond to my questions and points.

This is a very basic thread, nothing of importance was brought up tbh.

Why did some of the Ansar (minority) all of a sudden gather in Saqifa? What was the need or the sudden urge? Surely something wasn't right. Surely something was wrong. What did they witness or see that they decided all of a sudden and gathered Saqifa in an emergency to go their separate and own way?



The "minority" were the LEADERS of the Ansar, they are the ones who are heard and respected among them. Those present represented the vast majority of the Ansar. They gathered suddenly because the Prophet (saw) died suddenly, and they felt the need to fill the gap and saw they were most worthy of leading the Ummah. If you don't think there was a sudden need in those crucial times, then forgive me but you're clueless about politics and Arab culture. As for Abu Bakr, `Umar, aba `Ubaydah and those that followed, these were some of the biggest heads of the Muhajirin, they represent the vast majority of the Muhajirin and are obeyed. It is unfortunate that banu Hashim weren't present due to the circumstance, but those present are more than enough to give legitimacy to ANY Caliph.

LOL. Stop being being, childish you're a grown man. Both Abu Bakr and Ali were the companions of the Prophet (s). And you saying 'if you say this about Abu Bakr then I can also say that about Ali" what does this mean? Say what ever you want. Be my guest. Don't turn this into a personality clash.

Who made Abu Bakr and Omar the heads of the Muhajir. Their personality and character is on one side but they didn't discuss this minor situation with anyone. They didn't even inform anyone. On who's authority did they slip away? No one gave them the authority to speak on behalf of the Muhajir.

The Arabs wouldn't allow this and the tribes wouldn't accept that are all excuses. But still this could have been resolved justly and conducted fairly. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Saqifa has NO legitimacy, the Shaykhain had NO authority to speak on behalf of the Muhajir or the community and Abu Bakr's appointment wasn't conducted fairly and justly.

You can rant and rave as much as you want. I understand your feeling but let the people make up their own mind. All facts have been put forward and the matter had been discussed thoroughly. You can continue to defend and protect the Shaykhain and their doings. But for me it's not about the Shaykhain but about reality and facts. It's about the truth and what is right and just. And nothing should be more important than that.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 02, 2017, 09:41:07 PM
@iceman

The irony of accusing others of personality worship when your whole sect is based on Ali, a non prophet.

Back to the subject, its been made clear again & again that the main heads of the ansar & muhajireen were at saqifa & theu agreed on Abu Bakr.
Yes banu hashim were not present. It wasn't a conspiracy as the banu hashim were busy were busy with funeral arrangements.
Besides there was nothing to stop the banu hashim to call the selection of Abu Bakr null & void & to call for another meeting. They didn't do this though. Which clearly shows they accepted the decision.

Ali, a lion during the Prophet saw time, but no longer a lion after the Prophet saw left according to shia logic.

You haven't answered any of my questions or addressed any of the points. I am not going to engage in sectarian warfare with you or get involved in personality worship or clash. No need to discuss individuals just stick to the subject.

The Shaykhain had NO AUTHORITY, were given NO AUTHORITY so therefore Saqifa had NO LEGITAMCY and Abu Bakr's appointment wasn't conducted justly and fairly.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: zaid_ibn_ali on November 02, 2017, 10:20:29 PM
@iceman

The irony of accusing others of personality worship when your whole sect is based on Ali, a non prophet.

Back to the subject, its been made clear again & again that the main heads of the ansar & muhajireen were at saqifa & theu agreed on Abu Bakr.
Yes banu hashim were not present. It wasn't a conspiracy as the banu hashim were busy were busy with funeral arrangements.
Besides there was nothing to stop the banu hashim to call the selection of Abu Bakr null & void & to call for another meeting. They didn't do this though. Which clearly shows they accepted the decision.

Ali, a lion during the Prophet saw time, but no longer a lion after the Prophet saw left according to shia logic.

You haven't answered any of my questions or addressed any of the points. I am not going to engage in sectarian warfare with you or get involved in personality worship or clash. No need to discuss individuals just stick to the subject.

The Shaykhain had NO AUTHORITY, were given NO AUTHORITY so therefore Saqifa had NO LEGITAMCY and Abu Bakr's appointment wasn't conducted justly and fairly.

What questions of yours? You post around 100 times a day. You expect me to read every one of your countless posts?

Only a deluded sectarian bigot would say that a selection of a leader by the MAIN HEADS of MAJORITY of the MAIN GROUPS carries no weight ar all because ONE PERSON was not there.

You keep saying stop turning things into personality worship, yet your entire argument is based on this premise of ALI, infact your whole religion is.

Hani was right in questioning if you have split personality.
One minute you bang on like a sunni, next minute you're the anti-sunni hardcore twelver.

Please make your arguments more concise, more coherent & definately more consistent.

You're all over the place.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 03, 2017, 04:11:01 AM
Code: [Select]
@iceman

The irony of accusing others of personality worship when your whole sect is based on Ali, a non prophet.

Back to the subject, its been made clear again & again that the main heads of the ansar & muhajireen were at saqifa & theu agreed on Abu Bakr.
Yes banu hashim were not present. It wasn't a conspiracy as the banu hashim were busy were busy with funeral arrangements.
Besides there was nothing to stop the banu hashim to call the selection of Abu Bakr null & void & to call for another meeting. They didn't do this though. Which clearly shows they accepted the decision.

Ali, a lion during the Prophet saw time, but no longer a lion after the Prophet saw left according to shia logic.

You haven't answered any of my questions or addressed any of the points. I am not going to engage in sectarian warfare with you or get involved in personality worship or clash. No need to discuss individuals just stick to the subject.

The Shaykhain had NO AUTHORITY, were given NO AUTHORITY so therefore Saqifa had NO LEGITAMCY and Abu Bakr's appointment wasn't conducted justly and fairly.

What questions of yours? You post around 100 times a day. You expect me to read every one of your countless posts?

Only a deluded sectarian bigot would say that a selection of a leader by the MAIN HEADS of MAJORITY of the MAIN GROUPS carries no weight ar all because ONE PERSON was not there.

You keep saying stop turning things into personality worship, yet your entire argument is based on this premise of ALI, infact your whole religion is.

Hani was right in questioning if you have split personality.
One minute you bang on like a sunni, next minute you're the anti-sunni hardcore twelver.

Please make your arguments more concise, more coherent & definately more consistent.

You're all over the place.

Calm down. Don't get too personal. Enough has been said on the coincidental and dramatic incident called Saqifa. I'm not interested in your emotional and personal tactics. Now let the people decide and make up their own mind.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Zahra on November 03, 2017, 04:40:36 AM
Code: [Select]
@iceman

The irony of accusing others of personality worship when your whole sect is based on Ali, a non prophet.

Back to the subject, its been made clear again & again that the main heads of the ansar & muhajireen were at saqifa & theu agreed on Abu Bakr.
Yes banu hashim were not present. It wasn't a conspiracy as the banu hashim were busy were busy with funeral arrangements.
Besides there was nothing to stop the banu hashim to call the selection of Abu Bakr null & void & to call for another meeting. They didn't do this though. Which clearly shows they accepted the decision.

Ali, a lion during the Prophet saw time, but no longer a lion after the Prophet saw left according to shia logic.

You haven't answered any of my questions or addressed any of the points. I am not going to engage in sectarian warfare with you or get involved in personality worship or clash. No need to discuss individuals just stick to the subject.

The Shaykhain had NO AUTHORITY, were given NO AUTHORITY so therefore Saqifa had NO LEGITAMCY and Abu Bakr's appointment wasn't conducted justly and fairly.

What questions of yours? You post around 100 times a day. You expect me to read every one of your countless posts?

Only a deluded sectarian bigot would say that a selection of a leader by the MAIN HEADS of MAJORITY of the MAIN GROUPS carries no weight ar all because ONE PERSON was not there.

You keep saying stop turning things into personality worship, yet your entire argument is based on this premise of ALI, infact your whole religion is.

Hani was right in questioning if you have split personality.
One minute you bang on like a sunni, next minute you're the anti-sunni hardcore twelver.

Please make your arguments more concise, more coherent & definately more consistent.

You're all over the place.

Calm down. Don't get too personal. Enough has been said on the coincidental and dramatic incident called Saqifa. I'm not interested in your emotional and personal tactics. Now let the people decide and make up their own mind.
You need to calm down. You're really emotional and too sensitive, heck most of Shia men are.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Hani on November 03, 2017, 05:21:03 AM

LOL. Stop being being, childish you're a grown man. Both Abu Bakr and Ali were the companions of the Prophet (s). And you saying 'if you say this about Abu Bakr then I can also say that about Ali" what does this mean? Say what ever you want. Be my guest. Don't turn this into a personality clash.

Who made Abu Bakr and Omar the heads of the Muhajir. Their personality and character is on one side but they didn't discuss this minor situation with anyone. They didn't even inform anyone. On who's authority did they slip away? No one gave them the authority to speak on behalf of the Muhajir.

The Arabs wouldn't allow this and the tribes wouldn't accept that are all excuses. But still this could have been resolved justly and conducted fairly. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Saqifa has NO legitimacy, the Shaykhain had NO authority to speak on behalf of the Muhajir or the community and Abu Bakr's appointment wasn't conducted fairly and justly.

You can rant and rave as much as you want. I understand your feeling but let the people make up their own mind. All facts have been put forward and the matter had been discussed thoroughly. You can continue to defend and protect the Shaykhain and their doings. But for me it's not about the Shaykhain but about reality and facts. It's about the truth and what is right and just. And nothing should be more important than that.


Out of this entire rant above the only point you made was "Who says Abu Bakr has leadership position among Muhajirs", aside from the fact that he's actually the most popular Muhajir because he accompanied the Prophet (saw) in his Hijrah. And aside from the fact that the Prophet (saw) appointed him during his own life in position of leadership in multiple occasions. There are a ton of historical evidence to show that Abu Bakr was a revered figure and from the top heads if not the top head of the Muhajirin and the preferred candidate of Quraysh.

If that's your only issue, it's an easy issue to resolve.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Najamsethii484 on November 03, 2017, 11:57:49 AM
what happened in saqifah was that 3 thugs of arabia runned away from Prophet Saww funeral and wanted to take over and get caliphate and didnt care about to attend Prophet Saww funeral and took over gave people bribery and took over and destroyed Muslims so much that we is in this state now that all media is targeting Muslims just because after Prophet Muhammad Saww 3 thugs of arabia and muawiyah and yazeed took over and wanted to destroy Islam. but couldnt do that because of Ahlulbayt AS. and banu umayya and banu saqifah only converted to Islam because they had no options left and they came in as enemy of Islam and ruled for 1000 years and damaged Muslims and showed them a false religion called sunnism and wahabism extremism version of their jews beliefs im very much sure that sunnism came from jews thats why Muslims are suffering nowadays because of banu umayya and banu saqifah. almost every Sunni Nasibi in this world doesnt know about Islam and is unaware what actually Islam is because of extremist sunnis.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 03, 2017, 01:51:10 PM
Code: [Select]
@iceman

The irony of accusing others of personality worship when your whole sect is based on Ali, a non prophet.

Back to the subject, its been made clear again & again that the main heads of the ansar & muhajireen were at saqifa & theu agreed on Abu Bakr.
Yes banu hashim were not present. It wasn't a conspiracy as the banu hashim were busy were busy with funeral arrangements.
Besides there was nothing to stop the banu hashim to call the selection of Abu Bakr null & void & to call for another meeting. They didn't do this though. Which clearly shows they accepted the decision.

Ali, a lion during the Prophet saw time, but no longer a lion after the Prophet saw left according to shia logic.

You haven't answered any of my questions or addressed any of the points. I am not going to engage in sectarian warfare with you or get involved in personality worship or clash. No need to discuss individuals just stick to the subject.

The Shaykhain had NO AUTHORITY, were given NO AUTHORITY so therefore Saqifa had NO LEGITAMCY and Abu Bakr's appointment wasn't conducted justly and fairly.

What questions of yours? You post around 100 times a day. You expect me to read every one of your countless posts?

Only a deluded sectarian bigot would say that a selection of a leader by the MAIN HEADS of MAJORITY of the MAIN GROUPS carries no weight ar all because ONE PERSON was not there.

You keep saying stop turning things into personality worship, yet your entire argument is based on this premise of ALI, infact your whole religion is.

Hani was right in questioning if you have split personality.
One minute you bang on like a sunni, next minute you're the anti-sunni hardcore twelver.

Please make your arguments more concise, more coherent & definately more consistent.

You're all over the place.

Calm down. Don't get too personal. Enough has been said on the coincidental and dramatic incident called Saqifa. I'm not interested in your emotional and personal tactics. Now let the people decide and make up their own mind.
You need to calm down. You're really emotional and too sensitive, heck most of Shia men are.

Lol. Are you for real. If I was emotional and sensitive then I would be making the same remarks full of bitterness, grievance and full of hate as them. They speak as though they hold a grudge and as we're from a different plant and or species. So please keep your remarks to yourself if you can't contribute positively.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Najamsethii484 on November 03, 2017, 01:58:53 PM
iceman brother they will only lie and they have no answer so they get frustrated only
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 03, 2017, 02:22:54 PM
iceman brother they will only lie and they have no answer so they get frustrated only

They start the thread and if you start to discuss with them and anything how ever little or slight goes against Khilafat or especially the Shaykhain they start to get personal by getting down and dirty. They start to speak with bitterness and envy They're severely into personality worship. WHY? Because they can't seem to see or expect anything wrong with the first three especially the Shaykhain.

Oh they're very quick to point fingers at, not Ali but their 4th rightly guided Khalifa of the Muslims that he made mistakes and got things wrong or should have done things differently during his Khilafat period but when it comes to the first three especially the Shaykhain then this is exactly where the personality worship starts and kicks in.

They will completely disregard reality and facts, bring in things and matters that are irrelevant to the subject and thread and if that doesn't work then they will start to get personal with you by their dirty tactics and start to toy with you such as making insulting remarks or humiliating points.

Not one word, not a single word on or as for instance,

'Alhamdo-Lillah we are Ahle Sunah and here is what we are and why we are'

These handful of people are so unfortunate or should I say damned by Allah that they can't be honest and truthful. They haven't been blessed with the privilege to say who they are, what they are and why they are.

They use the Ahle Sunah banner to launch their dirty and filthy propaganda to cause and strengthen the sectarian division within Muslims. And they have become so blind with this sectarian division disease that they can't think and see straight. They have no regards for reality and facts, for right and wrong or for what is true and false.

These handful of people are the hate mongers or the hooligans of our Muslim religion and community. And it is because of them and their kind that Islam and the Muslims are looking bad and ugly globally.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 03, 2017, 02:35:27 PM

LOL. Stop being being, childish you're a grown man. Both Abu Bakr and Ali were the companions of the Prophet (s). And you saying 'if you say this about Abu Bakr then I can also say that about Ali" what does this mean? Say what ever you want. Be my guest. Don't turn this into a personality clash.

Who made Abu Bakr and Omar the heads of the Muhajir. Their personality and character is on one side but they didn't discuss this minor situation with anyone. They didn't even inform anyone. On who's authority did they slip away? No one gave them the authority to speak on behalf of the Muhajir.

The Arabs wouldn't allow this and the tribes wouldn't accept that are all excuses. But still this could have been resolved justly and conducted fairly. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Saqifa has NO legitimacy, the Shaykhain had NO authority to speak on behalf of the Muhajir or the community and Abu Bakr's appointment wasn't conducted fairly and justly.

You can rant and rave as much as you want. I understand your feeling but let the people make up their own mind. All facts have been put forward and the matter had been discussed thoroughly. You can continue to defend and protect the Shaykhain and their doings. But for me it's not about the Shaykhain but about reality and facts. It's about the truth and what is right and just. And nothing should be more important than that.


Out of this entire rant above the only point you made was "Who says Abu Bakr has leadership position among Muhajirs", aside from the fact that he's actually the most popular Muhajir because he accompanied the Prophet (saw) in his Hijrah. And aside from the fact that the Prophet (saw) appointed him during his own life in position of leadership in multiple occasions. There are a ton of historical evidence to show that Abu Bakr was a revered figure and from the top heads if not the top head of the Muhajirin and the preferred candidate of Quraysh.

If that's your only issue, it's an easy issue to resolve.

LOL. If you want to speak about leadership and authority then this is where you should compare and see Character, performance and achievement wise. The selection of who is better or best and who should have the authority by being the leader should not be by choice but by performance and achievement and by merits and privilege.

If that's the route you want to go down then I suggest you open your mind and sight then you will only come to see why Ali was far better and greater than Abu Bakr in fact all of the Sahaba. Look at matters fairly and justly without prejudice or being bias.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Hani on November 03, 2017, 05:49:25 PM
Compare Abu Bakr's Caliphate with Ali's to see that Abu Bakr's achieved 10 times more important accomplishments than Ali, from defeating foreign Byzantines, to destroying false prophets, to collecting the Qur'an, to preventing a Fitnah between the Answer and Quraysh, to establishing Islam as a political Force, to fulfilling the Prophets (saw) promises, to preventing his relatives and children from assuming authority, to spending his entire personal wealth for Islam, to risking his life in battles even though he was a frail old man, to being chosen many times by the Prophet (saw) as leader of armies, leader of Hajj and leader of prayer etc... There's actually no comparison between Abu Bakr and Ali.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: MuslimK on November 03, 2017, 06:21:38 PM
I find it funny when a follower of the Imami sect tries to compare Abubakr with Ali and talks about looking at matters in a fair and just manner when we all know his sect's stance towards Abubakr

@Iceman If you were fair and just you would have not ignored the historical reality. Abubakr's caliphate and his achievements for Islam during that short period is enough to prove your theory wrong. And I am not even talking about his contributions and sacrifices for Islam during Prophet's (saw) time - the list would be very long.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 03, 2017, 06:32:28 PM
Compare Abu Bakr's Caliphate with Ali's to see that Abu Bakr's achieved 10 times more important accomplishments than Ali, from defeating foreign Byzantines, to destroying false prophets, to collecting the Qur'an, to preventing a Fitnah between the Answer and Quraysh, to establishing Islam as a political Force, to fulfilling the Prophets (saw) promises, to preventing his relatives and children from assuming authority, to spending his entire personal wealth for Islam, to risking his life in battles even though he was a frail old man, to being chosen many times by the Prophet (saw) as leader of armies, leader of Hajj and leader of prayer etc... There's actually no comparison between Abu Bakr and Ali.

TALK IS CHEAP and has always been, and here is the fairness and justice, BE IT YOU OR ME. Lets cut out the cheap talk, personal crap and the sectarian rife,  I dare you to start a thread about the comparison between Abu Bakr and Ali since you so desperately want to go down that road.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 03, 2017, 07:51:21 PM
Muslimk and Hani, what are we afraid of then? Well if it's that simple then start a fresh thread.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: zaid_ibn_ali on November 03, 2017, 08:34:22 PM
@iceman & najam

Your double act is not fooling anyone.

Maybe some of the 'heavyweights' are not responding as there's nothing to respond to. There's no academic nature to your posts. Just plain trolling.
I like it when there are academic discussions. There are brothers here who are quite resourceful in such discussions, but its a shame that we don't seem to have even one serious shia poster who posts anything of any academic or informative value.



Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Abu Muhammad on November 03, 2017, 09:15:55 PM
And you mentioned that Qoran and Sunah are silent on selecting/electing a leader according to Ahle Sunah,  you've lost me here, what is Shura all about and where does it go then?

Shura was laid down in the Quran as a generic principle in conducting our affairs only. No details were given on what, who, when and how. We read in Ash-Shura, verse 38:

وَالَّذِينَ اسْتَجَابُوا لِرَبِّهِمْ وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَأَمْرُهُمْ شُورَىٰ بَيْنَهُمْ وَمِمَّا رَزَقْنَاهُمْ يُنْفِقُونَ

(Sahih International)
And  those  who  have  responded  to  their  lord  and  established  prayer  and  whose  affair  is [determined  by]  consultation  among  themselves,  and  from  what  We  have  provided  them, they  spend.


As you can see, the verse is generic and:
a) It covers the affairs of people in general and nothing specific about appointment of leaders.
b) It does not indicate who should be consulted and what they should be consulted about i.e. no explanation about shura methodology is given.

This is the closes you can get about selecting a leader via shura in the Quran. From a generic verse. Even so, you can clearly see that the verse indicates that shura is only praiseworthy and not mandatory.

Therefore, nothing wrong at all if heavyweight of Ahlus Sunnah said that even the appointment of a leader by force, it is still considered legitimate as as long as their rule not against Quran and Sunnah because of shura is praiseworthy and recommended and not mandatory.

There are 2 more verses where shura is mentioned. But none of them with regard to selecting a leader:

Sura Ali-Imran, Ayah 159:

فَبِمَا رَحْمَةٍ مِنَ اللَّهِ لِنْتَ لَهُمْ ۖ وَلَوْ كُنْتَ فَظًّا غَلِيظَ الْقَلْبِ لَانْفَضُّوا مِنْ حَوْلِكَ ۖ فَاعْفُ عَنْهُمْ وَاسْتَغْفِرْ لَهُمْ وَشَاوِرْهُمْ فِي الْأَمْرِ ۖ فَإِذَا عَزَمْتَ فَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُتَوَكِّلِينَ

(Sahih International)
So  by  mercy  from Allah ,  [O  Muhammad],  you  were  lenient  with  them.  And  if  you  had been  rude  [in  speech]  and  harsh  in  heart,  they  would  have  disbanded  from  about  you. So  pardon  them  and  ask  forgiveness  for  them  and  consult  them  in  the  matter.  And when  you  have  decided,  then  rely  upon Allah .  Indeed, Allah loves  those  who  rely  [upon Him].


The verse is about the appointed leader himself i.e. Rasulullah (saw) consulting others. Not specifically about selection of leaders. And as you can see, no explanation about its methodology like the previous verse.

Sura Al-Baqarah, Ayah 233:

وَالْوَالِدَاتُ يُرْضِعْنَ أَوْلَادَهُنَّ حَوْلَيْنِ كَامِلَيْنِ ۖ لِمَنْ أَرَادَ أَنْ يُتِمَّ الرَّضَاعَةَ ۚ وَعَلَى الْمَوْلُودِ لَهُ رِزْقُهُنَّ وَكِسْوَتُهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ ۚ لَا تُكَلَّفُ نَفْسٌ إِلَّا وُسْعَهَا ۚ لَا تُضَارَّ وَالِدَةٌ بِوَلَدِهَا وَلَا مَوْلُودٌ لَهُ بِوَلَدِهِ ۚ وَعَلَى الْوَارِثِ مِثْلُ ذَٰلِكَ ۗ فَإِنْ أَرَادَا فِصَالًا عَنْ تَرَاضٍ مِنْهُمَا وَتَشَاوُرٍ فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْهِمَا ۗ وَإِنْ أَرَدْتُمْ أَنْ تَسْتَرْضِعُوا أَوْلَادَكُمْ فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ إِذَا سَلَّمْتُمْ مَا آتَيْتُمْ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ ۗ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرٌ

(Sahih International)
Mothers may breastfeed their children two complete years for whoever wishes to complete the nursing [period]. Upon the father is the mothers' provision and their clothing according to what is acceptable. No person is charged with more than his capacity. No mother should be harmed through her child, and no father through his child. And upon the [father's] heir is [a duty] like that [of the father]. And if they both desire weaning through mutual consent from both of them and consultation, there is no blame upon either of them. And if you wish to have your children nursed by a substitute, there is no blame upon you as long as you give payment according to what is acceptable. And fear Allah and know that Allah is Seeing of what you do.


The verse is with regard to family matter and not about selection of leaders.

As for Sunnah, shura was mainly used by Rasulullah (saw) in the context of verse 159 of Sura Ali-Imran above. With regard to selecting leader after his (saw) death via shura, silent.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 03, 2017, 09:28:21 PM
@iceman & najam

Your double act is not fooling anyone.

Maybe some of the 'heavyweights' are not responding as there's nothing to respond to. There's no academic nature to your posts. Just plain trolling.
I like it when there are academic discussions. There are brothers here who are quite resourceful in such discussions, but its a shame that we don't seem to have even one serious shia poster who posts anything of any academic or informative value.

LOL. Let the viewers be the judge of that. You can rant on as much as you want because that's all I seem to be getting for sometime. That's all you seem to strive on. You can't even justify Saqifa so where else do you desire to go from here?
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: zaid_ibn_ali on November 03, 2017, 09:50:28 PM
@iceman & najam

Your double act is not fooling anyone.

Maybe some of the 'heavyweights' are not responding as there's nothing to respond to. There's no academic nature to your posts. Just plain trolling.
I like it when there are academic discussions. There are brothers here who are quite resourceful in such discussions, but its a shame that we don't seem to have even one serious shia poster who posts anything of any academic or informative value.

LOL. Let the viewers be the judge of that. You can rant on as much as you want because that's all I seem to be getting for sometime. That's all you seem to strive on. You can't even justify Saqifa so where else do you desire to go from here?

I think you watch too much c factor or pop idol.

Saqifa is justified as it was accepted by all the main muslim heads at the time including Ali as he never called for a new vote or selection.

You have failed to countrr the point that the KEY FIGURES of the clans of the ansar & muhajireen were there & accepted it.

Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Abu Muhammad on November 03, 2017, 09:51:50 PM
@iceman & najam

Your double act is not fooling anyone.

Maybe some of the 'heavyweights' are not responding as there's nothing to respond to. There's no academic nature to your posts. Just plain trolling.
I like it when there are academic discussions. There are brothers here who are quite resourceful in such discussions, but its a shame that we don't seem to have even one serious shia poster who posts anything of any academic or informative value.

LOL. Let the viewers be the judge of that. You can rant on as much as you want because that's all I seem to be getting for sometime. That's all you seem to strive on. You can't even justify Saqifa so where else do you desire to go from here?

LOL... what you did all these while was keep on ranting that Saqifa is illegitimate. The illegitimacy was purely based on your own reasoning.

Nowhere inside hundreds, if not thousands, of your posts have you proven Saqifa was illegitimate based on Quran or Sunnah... LOL
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 05, 2017, 06:42:50 PM
@iceman & najam

Your double act is not fooling anyone.

Maybe some of the 'heavyweights' are not responding as there's nothing to respond to. There's no academic nature to your posts. Just plain trolling.
I like it when there are academic discussions. There are brothers here who are quite resourceful in such discussions, but its a shame that we don't seem to have even one serious shia poster who posts anything of any academic or informative value.

LOL. Let the viewers be the judge of that. You can rant on as much as you want because that's all I seem to be getting for sometime. That's all you seem to strive on. You can't even justify Saqifa so where else do you desire to go from here?

LOL... what you did all these while was keep on ranting that Saqifa is illegitimate. The illegitimacy was purely based on your own reasoning.

Nowhere inside hundreds, if not thousands, of your posts have you proven Saqifa was illegitimate based on Quran or Sunnah... LOL

Was the gathering in Saqifa a public gathering/assembly? Was it a planned and organised event? What was the reason and purpose for those who gathered there?
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Abu Muhammad on November 05, 2017, 06:50:47 PM
@iceman & najam

Your double act is not fooling anyone.

Maybe some of the 'heavyweights' are not responding as there's nothing to respond to. There's no academic nature to your posts. Just plain trolling.
I like it when there are academic discussions. There are brothers here who are quite resourceful in such discussions, but its a shame that we don't seem to have even one serious shia poster who posts anything of any academic or informative value.

LOL. Let the viewers be the judge of that. You can rant on as much as you want because that's all I seem to be getting for sometime. That's all you seem to strive on. You can't even justify Saqifa so where else do you desire to go from here?

LOL... what you did all these while was keep on ranting that Saqifa is illegitimate. The illegitimacy was purely based on your own reasoning.

Nowhere inside hundreds, if not thousands, of your posts have you proven Saqifa was illegitimate based on Quran or Sunnah... LOL

Was the gathering in Saqifa a public gathering/assembly? Was it a planned and organised event? What was the reason and purpose for those who gathered there?

So what? Your argument was that the gathering was illegitimate and you failed to prove that from Quran and Sunnah.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 05, 2017, 06:53:10 PM
@iceman & najam

Your double act is not fooling anyone.

Maybe some of the 'heavyweights' are not responding as there's nothing to respond to. There's no academic nature to your posts. Just plain trolling.
I like it when there are academic discussions. There are brothers here who are quite resourceful in such discussions, but its a shame that we don't seem to have even one serious shia poster who posts anything of any academic or informative value.

LOL. Let the viewers be the judge of that. You can rant on as much as you want because that's all I seem to be getting for sometime. That's all you seem to strive on. You can't even justify Saqifa so where else do you desire to go from here?

LOL... what you did all these while was keep on ranting that Saqifa is illegitimate. The illegitimacy was purely based on your own reasoning.

Nowhere inside hundreds, if not thousands, of your posts have you proven Saqifa was illegitimate based on Quran or Sunnah... LOL

Was the gathering in Saqifa a public gathering/assembly? Was it a planned and organised event? What was the reason and purpose for those who gathered there?

So what? Your argument was that the gathering was illegitimate and you failed to prove that from Quran and Sunnah.

What, you can't answer my questions or you don't want to?☺
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 05, 2017, 06:59:08 PM
How many Muhhajir were there when the Prophet (s) died? Any idea? Just an approximate figure. And how many of them were present in Saqifa? ☺

And just for you, if something isn't just and fair, it isn't reasonable and meaningful, it its not legitimate how can it be according to Qoran and Sunah? Don't label and value Qoran and Sunah so easy and cheap.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Abu Muhammad on November 05, 2017, 07:04:59 PM
You must be more knowledgeable than Asy-Syafii, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and other heavyweight of Ahlus Sunnah who didn't find anything contradicting to the Quran and Sunnah... Congratulation on becoming a mujtahid...
LOL

That's just prove what I said previously:

LOL... what you did all these while was keep on ranting that Saqifa is illegitimate. The illegitimacy was purely based on your own reasoning.

Nowhere inside hundreds, if not thousands, of your posts have you proven Saqifa was illegitimate based on Quran or Sunnah... LOL
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 05, 2017, 07:15:23 PM
You must be more knowledgeable than Asy-Syafii, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and other heavyweight of Ahlus Sunnah who didn't find anything contradicting to the Quran and Sunnah... Congratulation on becoming a mujtahid...
LOL

That's just prove what I said previously:

LOL... what you did all these while was keep on ranting that Saqifa is illegitimate. The illegitimacy was purely based on your own reasoning.

Nowhere inside hundreds, if not thousands, of your posts have you proven Saqifa was illegitimate based on Quran or Sunnah... LOL

😀Is that it😄.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Abu Muhammad on November 05, 2017, 07:19:09 PM
You must be more knowledgeable than Asy-Syafii, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and other heavyweight of Ahlus Sunnah who didn't find anything contradicting to the Quran and Sunnah... Congratulation on becoming a mujtahid...
LOL

That's just prove what I said previously:

LOL... what you did all these while was keep on ranting that Saqifa is illegitimate. The illegitimacy was purely based on your own reasoning.

Nowhere inside hundreds, if not thousands, of your posts have you proven Saqifa was illegitimate based on Quran or Sunnah... LOL

😀Is that it😄.

Yup... because I have never seen you quoting anything from Quran to prove your point. Nothing...😊
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 05, 2017, 07:40:48 PM
Don't worry. I absolutely understand your position along with your heavyweight scholars. If you accept then the foundation of your belief and faith along with the reputation and honour of the Shaykhain goes straight out of the window.

So a constant denial and a continuous confrontational stance is very important on your behalf. You will continue to discuss based on arrogance and stubbornness rather than realty and facts.☺

Reality and facts are not made up by me, you or anyone else. They are there and be it incident or event are based on reality and facts.

Here's another one, where was consultation (shura) in Saqifa? Vast majority didn't have a clue what was going on. Only three out of what...thousands of Muhajir were present in Saqifa, Abu Bakr, Omar and Obayd.

Why did the heads of the Ansar all of a sudden and out of the blue gather in Saqifa to select THEIR OWN LEADER?

This tells you that things were going AWOL. SOMETHING WASN'T RIGHT.
What was the reason for Obayd to inform Omar of what was about to happen in Saqifa? Ever thought why he was just looking for Omar and why Omar only informed Abu Bakr and why just only the three of them slipped away quietly to Saqifa?

Not to make a such an important decision on and behalf of the Ummah because they had no reason and authority to do that but to prevent the Ansaar going their separate way.

How long are you going to drag this on? You haven't proven from the Qoran or Sunah that Saqifa was legitimate. 
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Abu Muhammad on November 05, 2017, 07:58:30 PM
Don't worry. I absolutely understand your position along with your heavyweight scholars. If you accept then the foundation of your belief and faith along with the reputation and honour of the Shaykhain goes straight out of the window.

So a constant denial and a continuous confrontational stance is very important on your behalf. You will continue to discuss based on arrogance and stubbornness rather than realty and facts.☺

Reality and facts are not made up by me, you or anyone else. They are there and be it incident or event are based on reality and facts.

Here's another one, where was consultation (shura) in Saqifa? Vast majority didn't have a clue what was going on. Only three out of what...thousands of Muhajir were present in Saqifa, Abu Bakr, Omar and Obayd.

Why did the heads of the Ansar all of a sudden and out of the blue gather in Saqifa to select THEIR OWN LEADER?

This tells you that things were going AWOL. SOMETHING WASN'T RIGHT.
What was the reason for Obayd to inform Omar of what was about to happen in Saqifa? Ever thought why he was just looking for Omar and why Omar only informed Abu Bakr and why just only the three of them slipped away quietly to Saqifa?

Not to make a such an important decision on and behalf of the Ummah because they had no reason and authority to do that but to prevent the Ansaar going their separate way.

How long are you going to drag this on? You haven't proven from the Qoran or Sunah that Saqifa was legitimate. 

How many times should I say this. Even with force, let alone without shura, the selection is still legit. Because why? Because Quran and Sunnah is silent with regard to appointment of leaders after Prophet (saw). That's Ahlus Sunnah view.

Now, it's upon you to prove otherwise showing where in Quran abd Sunnah that the Saqifa is illegitimate, which you have been evading all along.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Link on November 05, 2017, 08:16:23 PM
Because why? Because Quran and Sunnah is silent with regard to appointment of leaders after Prophet (saw). That's Ahlus Sunnah view.

A highly irrational view given Quran says it has not neglected anything pertaining to guidance and given all the kinds of examples and parables pertaining to guiding humanity.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 05, 2017, 11:57:03 PM
Don't worry. I absolutely understand your position along with your heavyweight scholars. If you accept then the foundation of your belief and faith along with the reputation and honour of the Shaykhain goes straight out of the window.

So a constant denial and a continuous confrontational stance is very important on your behalf. You will continue to discuss based on arrogance and stubbornness rather than realty and facts.☺

Reality and facts are not made up by me, you or anyone else. They are there and be it incident or event are based on reality and facts.

Here's another one, where was consultation (shura) in Saqifa? Vast majority didn't have a clue what was going on. Only three out of what...thousands of Muhajir were present in Saqifa, Abu Bakr, Omar and Obayd.

Why did the heads of the Ansar all of a sudden and out of the blue gather in Saqifa to select THEIR OWN LEADER?

This tells you that things were going AWOL. SOMETHING WASN'T RIGHT.
What was the reason for Obayd to inform Omar of what was about to happen in Saqifa? Ever thought why he was just looking for Omar and why Omar only informed Abu Bakr and why just only the three of them slipped away quietly to Saqifa?

Not to make a such an important decision on and behalf of the Ummah because they had no reason and authority to do that but to prevent the Ansaar going their separate way.

How long are you going to drag this on? You haven't proven from the Qoran or Sunah that Saqifa was legitimate. 

How many times should I say this. Even with force, let alone without shura, the selection is still legit. Because why? Because Quran and Sunnah is silent with regard to appointment of leaders after Prophet (saw). That's Ahlus Sunnah view.

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

'Because Quran and Sunnah is silent with regard to appointment of leaders after Prophet (saw). That's Ahlus Sunnah view.'

What an absolute joke. Quran (Allah) and Sunah (Prophet) are both silent on such an important and crucial matter? And this is what you believe in?

Ok.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Link on November 06, 2017, 12:18:21 AM
Don't worry. I absolutely understand your position along with your heavyweight scholars. If you accept then the foundation of your belief and faith along with the reputation and honour of the Shaykhain goes straight out of the window.

So a constant denial and a continuous confrontational stance is very important on your behalf. You will continue to discuss based on arrogance and stubbornness rather than realty and facts.☺

Reality and facts are not made up by me, you or anyone else. They are there and be it incident or event are based on reality and facts.

Here's another one, where was consultation (shura) in Saqifa? Vast majority didn't have a clue what was going on. Only three out of what...thousands of Muhajir were present in Saqifa, Abu Bakr, Omar and Obayd.

Why did the heads of the Ansar all of a sudden and out of the blue gather in Saqifa to select THEIR OWN LEADER?

This tells you that things were going AWOL. SOMETHING WASN'T RIGHT.
What was the reason for Obayd to inform Omar of what was about to happen in Saqifa? Ever thought why he was just looking for Omar and why Omar only informed Abu Bakr and why just only the three of them slipped away quietly to Saqifa?

Not to make a such an important decision on and behalf of the Ummah because they had no reason and authority to do that but to prevent the Ansaar going their separate way.

How long are you going to drag this on? You haven't proven from the Qoran or Sunah that Saqifa was legitimate. 

How many times should I say this. Even with force, let alone without shura, the selection is still legit. Because why? Because Quran and Sunnah is silent with regard to appointment of leaders after Prophet (saw). That's Ahlus Sunnah view.

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

'Because Quran and Sunnah is silent with regard to appointment of leaders after Prophet (saw). That's Ahlus Sunnah view.'

What an absolute joke. Quran (Allah) and Sunah (Prophet) are both silent on such an important and crucial matter? And this is what you believe in?

Ok.

I will tell you how Quran would look like if Shurah was legitimate. It would have given ample stories of the past of how communities got together in absence of a Guide from God being apparent and appoint good leaders.

It would have done that non-stop. But it has done the opposite. It has narrated how people pick their leaders but said that has lead them to the hell-fire. That is what it emphasized on with respect to choosing leaders instead of submitting to the leaders God has appointed and has emphasized through out why he appoints Prophets as Leaders who guide by his command along with books that have explaination to all things, and made the books the leader through the leaders it appoints and made the leaders it appoints leaders through the book.

They go together.

And what did Prophet emphasize on?  "I leavy you two weights, Quran and my family...."
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 06, 2017, 12:23:38 AM
O Dawud! Surely we have made you a viceroy (Khalifa) in the land, so judge between men with justice and do not follow desire, lest it should lead you astray from the path of Allah (as for) those who go astray from the path ofAllah, they shall surely have a severe punishment because they forgot the day of reckoning.” (3:26)

"And when your Lord said to the angels, I am going to place in the earth a khalifah, they said: what! Will You place in it such as shall make mischief in it and shed blood, and we celebrate Your praise and extol Your holiness? He said: surely I know what you do not know.” (2:30)

Here a question arises that when God appointed a khalifah (according to the verse 2:30), was that appointment
exclusive to Adam or not? The answer is negative. As we saw before Dawud was khalifah. Certainly Moses, Jesus, the Noble Prophet (S) and some other prophets were also khalifah. Some scholars use the following verse as one of their reasons to prove that it was not exclusive to Adam.

"And He is who has made you successors (Khalifa) in the land and raised some of you above others by (various) grades, that He might try you by what He has given you.” (6:165)

Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 06, 2017, 12:49:08 AM
Khalifa;

In the Holy Qoran the word ‘Khalifa’ sometime is being used as one person and sometime as a group people. Strange enough, in the Holy Quran you will never find a verse mention that Khalifa (Successor) choice is in the hand of human being, except on one occasion where Prophet Musa (a.s) chosed his brother Harun (a.s) who was also a Prophet from God and follow His command. In all situation it is only Allah to chose or appoint Khalifa.

The responsible of a Khalifa is to Judge people with justice, act rightly and follow not vain desire or the path of mischief-makers, these we can learn from these chapters and verses 38:26 and 7:142

Khalifa  38:26  – God Chose

“O’ Daud! Verily WE have appointed thee a vicegerent (Khalifa) on earth, so judge thou between the people with justice and follow not vain desire, ….

Akhlifuni Musa (a.s) chose Harun (a.s) not people – 7:142

Said Moses unto his brother Aaron;

“Take thou my place among my people, Act rightly and follow not the path of the mischief-makers"

We are also promised by God that He will send a Khalifa at the end of the world to rescue Muslim from the cruel situation. This we can read verse 24:55

Liyastakhlifanahum   24:55 – God Chose

God has promised unto those of you who believe and do good deeds that He will certainly appoint them successors in the earth as He appointed successors those before them….

Here are the rest verses of Khalifa from the Holy Quran are as follow :

Khalifa  2:30  --  God Chose

When said thy Lord unto the angels: ‘Verily I (intend to) appoint a vicegerent in the earth..

Khalaifa  10:73 ( Noah) – God Chose

But they belied him so We delivered him and those with him in the Ark, and We made them successors..

Khulafaa  7:69   (Hud after Qaum Noah) – God Chosen

….And remember ye when He made you successors after Noah’s people

Khulafaa   7:74  (Qaum Saleh After Ad)  -- God Chose

And remember when He made you successors after the (people) Ad.

Khalaifa 35:39 (general) – God chose

“He is the One Who made you the successors (of those who preceded you) in the earth..”
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 06, 2017, 01:15:48 PM
Are you still going to say that Allah (Qoran) is silent on selecting a Khalifa, successor, a vicegerent? The previous two posts were Allah (Qoran) for you and inshallah we will move on to the Prophet (Sunah) next.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: zaid_ibn_ali on November 06, 2017, 02:38:30 PM
Khalifa;

In the Holy Qoran the word ‘Khalifa’ sometime is being used as one person and sometime as a group people. Strange enough, in the Holy Quran you will never find a verse mention that Khalifa (Successor) choice is in the hand of human being, except on one occasion where Prophet Musa (a.s) chosed his brother Harun (a.s) who was also a Prophet from God and follow His command. In all situation it is only Allah to chose or appoint Khalifa.

The responsible of a Khalifa is to Judge people with justice, act rightly and follow not vain desire or the path of mischief-makers, these we can learn from these chapters and verses 38:26 and 7:142

Khalifa  38:26  – God Chose

“O’ Daud! Verily WE have appointed thee a vicegerent (Khalifa) on earth, so judge thou between the people with justice and follow not vain desire, ….

Akhlifuni Musa (a.s) chose Harun (a.s) not people – 7:142

Said Moses unto his brother Aaron;

“Take thou my place among my people, Act rightly and follow not the path of the mischief-makers"

We are also promised by God that He will send a Khalifa at the end of the world to rescue Muslim from the cruel situation. This we can read verse 24:55

Liyastakhlifanahum   24:55 – God Chose

God has promised unto those of you who believe and do good deeds that He will certainly appoint them successors in the earth as He appointed successors those before them….

Here are the rest verses of Khalifa from the Holy Quran are as follow :

Khalifa  2:30  --  God Chose

When said thy Lord unto the angels: ‘Verily I (intend to) appoint a vicegerent in the earth..

Khalaifa  10:73 ( Noah) – God Chose

But they belied him so We delivered him and those with him in the Ark, and We made them successors..

Khulafaa  7:69   (Hud after Qaum Noah) – God Chosen

….And remember ye when He made you successors after Noah’s people

Khulafaa   7:74  (Qaum Saleh After Ad)  -- God Chose

And remember when He made you successors after the (people) Ad.

Khalaifa 35:39 (general) – God chose

“He is the One Who made you the successors (of those who preceded you) in the earth..”

Everything you posted from the Quran was regarding the prophets beung khalifa/representatives of Allah on earth.

What on earth has that got to do with Abu Bakr or Ali?

The Quran gives general guidance to the muslims to consult amongst themselves.



Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 06, 2017, 02:54:55 PM
Khalifa;

In the Holy Qoran the word ‘Khalifa’ sometime is being used as one person and sometime as a group people. Strange enough, in the Holy Quran you will never find a verse mention that Khalifa (Successor) choice is in the hand of human being, except on one occasion where Prophet Musa (a.s) chosed his brother Harun (a.s) who was also a Prophet from God and follow His command. In all situation it is only Allah to chose or appoint Khalifa.

The responsible of a Khalifa is to Judge people with justice, act rightly and follow not vain desire or the path of mischief-makers, these we can learn from these chapters and verses 38:26 and 7:142

Khalifa  38:26  – God Chose

“O’ Daud! Verily WE have appointed thee a vicegerent (Khalifa) on earth, so judge thou between the people with justice and follow not vain desire, ….

Akhlifuni Musa (a.s) chose Harun (a.s) not people – 7:142

Said Moses unto his brother Aaron;

“Take thou my place among my people, Act rightly and follow not the path of the mischief-makers"

We are also promised by God that He will send a Khalifa at the end of the world to rescue Muslim from the cruel situation. This we can read verse 24:55

Liyastakhlifanahum   24:55 – God Chose

God has promised unto those of you who believe and do good deeds that He will certainly appoint them successors in the earth as He appointed successors those before them….

Here are the rest verses of Khalifa from the Holy Quran are as follow :

Khalifa  2:30  --  God Chose

When said thy Lord unto the angels: ‘Verily I (intend to) appoint a vicegerent in the earth..

Khalaifa  10:73 ( Noah) – God Chose

But they belied him so We delivered him and those with him in the Ark, and We made them successors..

Khulafaa  7:69   (Hud after Qaum Noah) – God Chosen

….And remember ye when He made you successors after Noah’s people

Khulafaa   7:74  (Qaum Saleh After Ad)  -- God Chose

And remember when He made you successors after the (people) Ad.

Khalaifa 35:39 (general) – God chose

“He is the One Who made you the successors (of those who preceded you) in the earth..”

Everything you posted from the Quran was regarding the prophets beung khalifa/representatives of Allah on earth.

What on earth has that got to do with Abu Bakr or Ali?

The Quran gives general guidance to the muslims to consult amongst themselves.

If you open up your heart a little and widen up mind a bit, it is Allah who decides for mankind. Not mankind who decides for mankind. Allah created heaven and earth and what ever in between. Allah created Angels, Genies and humans. Allah decided on who is going to be what. Allah decided on who are going to be Messengers, Prophets, successors, vicegerents etc. And after the final Messenger he became silent and left it to Abu Bakr and Omar to decide who is going to succeed Muhammad and be a Khalifa to mankind?
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Abu Muhammad on November 07, 2017, 03:50:31 AM
Are you still going to say that Allah (Qoran) is silent on selecting a Khalifa, successor, a vicegerent? The previous two posts were Allah (Qoran) for you and inshallah we will move on to the Prophet (Sunah) next.

@iceman,

Waiting from the sunnah before I start comenting...
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 07, 2017, 11:04:51 AM
Now the Prophet (Sunah);

It was narrated that Jaabir ibn Samurah said: I entered upon the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) with my father, and I heard him say:

"This matter will not end until there have been among them twelve caliphs.” Then he said something that I could not hear, and I said to my father: What did he say? He said: “All of them will be from Quraysh.”

Narrated by al-Bukhaari (no. 7222); Muslim (no. 1821).

According to other versions also narrated by Muslim:

“Islam will continue to prevail through twelve caliphs.”

“This religion will continue to prevail and be strong until there have been twelve caliphs.”

According to the version narrated by al-Bukhaari, it says: “There will be twelve rulers.” Then he said something I did not hear, and my father said that he said: “All of them will be from Quraysh.”
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 07, 2017, 11:09:56 AM
Another one from the Qoran;

"Surely, Allah chose Adam and Nuh (Noah) and the descendants of Ibrahim (Abraham) and the descendants of `Imran above the nations. Offspring one of the other; and Allah is Hearing, Knowing. 3:34”
“Then We gave the Book for an inheritance to those whom We chose from among Our servants. 35:32”

Note: 'AND THE DESCENDENTS OF'. Not just the Prophets and Messengers but also THE DESCENDENTS.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Abu Muhammad on November 07, 2017, 01:38:07 PM
Is that all from the Sunnah? I think you can do better than that.

Or do you require my assistance to list down the other hadiths to support your argument?
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 07, 2017, 03:54:59 PM
Is that all from the Sunnah? I think you can do better than that.

Or do you require my assistance to list down the other hadiths to support your argument?

😃 The list is endless be it Qoran and Sunah, reality and facts or sense and logic. Allah created Adam and from there mankind began, grew and evolved. Allah was so concerned about his creation (mankind) that he put in place a Khalifa (Adam) even before mankind evolved and started to grow in numbers. He sent a total of 124,000 for the guidance and governance of mankind.

Yes as Messengers and Prophets but Allah chose and decided.  But.....yes, there is a but that after the last Messenger Allah suddenly out of the blue became silent on the successor to Muhammad (s) and a vicegerent and Khalifa for mankind and the Muslim Ummah? Allah suddenly backed off and the Prophet just didn't bother about such an important and crucial issue. But the Shaykhain thought it was crucial and very important.

We can go on and on and on with this but.....yes there is a but on my behalf as well. And that is we need to protect and defend the Shaykhain, their reputation and honour. For this constant denial, confrontational stance, a stubborn attitude and behaviour full of arrogance is vital. I understand that suspicions will be raised and doubts will cast regardless through ifs and buts. At the end of the day we are responsible for ourselves and not each other. And we will be questioned about ourselves and not each other. So I suggest you worry about yourselves rather than trying your best to prove us wrong.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: zaid_ibn_ali on November 07, 2017, 06:10:31 PM
@iceman

The only real proof you had is the hadith of the 12.
The problem with this is that it doesn't say they are from ahle bayt nor does it name them.
Just because your sect conjured up the imaginary 12th Imam to fit into this hadith doesn't mean your belief is same as that prophesied.

As for saqifa, key figures were consulted & this is following the guidelines in the Quran which states consultation is what the muslims must do.

Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 07, 2017, 06:55:37 PM
@iceman

The only real proof you had is the hadith of the 12.
The problem with this is that it doesn't say they are from ahle bayt nor does it name them.
Just because your sect conjured up the imaginary 12th Imam to fit into this hadith doesn't mean your belief is same as that prophesied.

As for saqifa, key figures were consulted & this is following the guidelines in the Quran which states consultation is what the muslims must do.
[/quote

😃 You can undermine and reject the principles of our belief and faith as much as you want but one thing is for sure, Saqifa was an unfortunate incident and the Shaykhain rushed there to prevent something terrible from about to happen and that is to stop the Ansars going their separate way.

Saqifa wasn't a public gathering or an organised event. There was no consultation there because the vast majority didn't have a clue and the Shaykhain were given no authority to act on behalf of the Muhajir. Abu Bakr's appointed was coincidental and hasty with no approval or merit what do ever and Saqifa had no legitimacy. And we all know how the decision was forced on those who opposed it.

Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 07, 2017, 06:58:28 PM
You can undermine and reject the principles of our belief and faith as much as you want but one thing is for sure, Saqifa was an unfortunate incident and the Shaykhain rushed there to prevent something terrible from about to happen and that is to stop the Ansars going their separate way.

Saqifa wasn't a public gathering or an organised event. There was no consultation there because the vast majority didn't have a clue and the Shaykhain were given no authority to act on behalf of the Muhajir. Abu Bakr's appointed was coincidental and hasty with no approval or merit what do ever and Saqifa had no legitimacy. And we all know how the decision was forced on those who opposed it.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 07, 2017, 07:28:00 PM
Abu Bakr was chosen as the leader of the Muslim Ummah not by the heads of the Muhajir and Ansar, not by a public assembly/gathering, not by a planned and organised event, not through a just and fair election process or a selection procedure, there was no consultation there because vast majority weren't present in fact didn't have a clue, there was no gathering/assembly in Saqifa for the reason and purpose to make such a crucial and important decision for and behalf of the Ummah. So in what possible way was Abu Bakr's appointment as Khalifa of the entire Ummah legitimate? How exactly was it just, fair and right?
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: zaid_ibn_ali on November 07, 2017, 08:49:55 PM
Abu Bakr was chosen as the leader of the Muslim Ummah not by the heads of the Muhajir and Ansar, not by a public assembly/gathering, not by a planned and organised event, not through a just and fair election process or a selection procedure, there was no consultation there because vast majority weren't present in fact didn't have a clue, there was no gathering/assembly in Saqifa for the reason and purpose to make such a crucial and important decision for and behalf of the Ummah. So in what possible way was Abu Bakr's appointment as Khalifa of the entire Ummah legitimate? How exactly was it just, fair and right?

Are you saying the heads from the ansar & muhajirs weren't there?
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 07, 2017, 10:25:10 PM
Abu Bakr was chosen as the leader of the Muslim Ummah not by the heads of the Muhajir and Ansar, not by a public assembly/gathering, not by a planned and organised event, not through a just and fair election process or a selection procedure, there was no consultation there because vast majority weren't present in fact didn't have a clue, there was no gathering/assembly in Saqifa for the reason and purpose to make such a crucial and important decision for and behalf of the Ummah. So in what possible way was Abu Bakr's appointment as Khalifa of the entire Ummah legitimate? How exactly was it just, fair and right?

Are you saying the heads from the ansar & muhajirs weren't there?

How many Muhajir were there? Only three yeh, do you agree? Abu Bakr, Omar and Obayd. Were these three sent by the Muhajir community to take part in selecting a leader for the Ummah? Why were they gathered there? To prevent a situation or to make an important and crucial decision on behalf of the entire Ummah? Who gave them the authority? 😊
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: zaid_ibn_ali on November 08, 2017, 01:45:31 AM
Abu Bakr was chosen as the leader of the Muslim Ummah not by the heads of the Muhajir and Ansar, not by a public assembly/gathering, not by a planned and organised event, not through a just and fair election process or a selection procedure, there was no consultation there because vast majority weren't present in fact didn't have a clue, there was no gathering/assembly in Saqifa for the reason and purpose to make such a crucial and important decision for and behalf of the Ummah. So in what possible way was Abu Bakr's appointment as Khalifa of the entire Ummah legitimate? How exactly was it just, fair and right?

Are you saying the heads from the ansar & muhajirs weren't there?

How many Muhajir were there? Only three yeh, do you agree? Abu Bakr, Omar and Obayd. Were these three sent by the Muhajir community to take part in selecting a leader for the Ummah? Why were they gathered there? To prevent a situation or to make an important and crucial decision on behalf of the entire Ummah? Who gave them the authority? 😊

Abu Bakr & Umar were the two biggest figures! That says a lot.
Also if saqifa was illegitimate why didn't all those who were not there all protest & select their own leader?

Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 08, 2017, 02:10:18 AM
Abu Bakr was chosen as the leader of the Muslim Ummah not by the heads of the Muhajir and Ansar, not by a public assembly/gathering, not by a planned and organised event, not through a just and fair election process or a selection procedure, there was no consultation there because vast majority weren't present in fact didn't have a clue, there was no gathering/assembly in Saqifa for the reason and purpose to make such a crucial and important decision for and behalf of the Ummah. So in what possible way was Abu Bakr's appointment as Khalifa of the entire Ummah legitimate? How exactly was it just, fair and right?

Are you saying the heads from the ansar & muhajirs weren't there?

How many Muhajir were there? Only three yeh, do you agree? Abu Bakr, Omar and Obayd. Were these three sent by the Muhajir community to take part in selecting a leader for the Ummah? Why were they gathered there? To prevent a situation or to make an important and crucial decision on behalf of the entire Ummah? Who gave them the authority? 😊

Abu Bakr & Umar were the two biggest figures! That says a lot.
Also if saqifa was illegitimate why didn't all those who were not there all protest & select their own leader?

Abu Bakr and Omar were this and that, see what I mean. It's got nothing to do with characters and individuals and their personal circumstances. People did protest but violence and threatening behaviour was used to impose this decision on some.

Others accepted it because Abu Bakr was a good man according to them and some came to terms with it because to further object would result in civil war and sectarian division. And people wanted to avoid this.

Look at it which ever way you want. Just because Abu Bakr and Omar were this, that and the other doesn't change things. It is what it is.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: zaid_ibn_ali on November 08, 2017, 02:15:37 AM
Violence by who? Umar? Lol was Ali & everyone else all so scared of one person? Please...

Fact is the peoole ACCEPTED IT including Ali. Something you cannot do. I'll go with Ali over you all day.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 08, 2017, 03:23:10 AM
Violence by who? Umar? Lol was Ali & everyone else all so scared of one person? Please...

Fact is the peoole ACCEPTED IT including Ali. Something you cannot do. I'll go with Ali over you all day.

READ HISTORY. Do a bit of research. Was everybody scared of Yazeed, just one person as well? Do you accept Yazeed as Khalifa? People also accepted and came to terms with Yazeed. He was the 6th Khalifa of the Muslims. Just because you accept something doesn't justify it or make it right. We're talking about legitimacy, legality, something being according to constitution. It's time to wake up don't you think?.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: zaid_ibn_ali on November 08, 2017, 12:24:23 PM
Violence by who? Umar? Lol was Ali & everyone else all so scared of one person? Please...

Fact is the peoole ACCEPTED IT including Ali. Something you cannot do. I'll go with Ali over you all day.

READ HISTORY. Do a bit of research. Was everybody scared of Yazeed, just one person as well? Do you accept Yazeed as Khalifa? People also accepted and came to terms with Yazeed. He was the 6th Khalifa of the Muslims. Just because you accept something doesn't justify it or make it right. We're talking about legitimacy, legality, something being according to constitution. It's time to wake up don't you think?.

Yazid had power as he inherited an entire rule/government from his father, including an army.

Invalid & pointless comparison.

Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 08, 2017, 04:56:30 PM
Violence by who? Umar? Lol was Ali & everyone else all so scared of one person? Please...

Fact is the peoole ACCEPTED IT including Ali. Something you cannot do. I'll go with Ali over you all day.

READ HISTORY. Do a bit of research. Was everybody scared of Yazeed, just one person as well? Do you accept Yazeed as Khalifa? People also accepted and came to terms with Yazeed. He was the 6th Khalifa of the Muslims. Just because you accept something doesn't justify it or make it right. We're talking about legitimacy, legality, something being according to constitution. It's time to wake up don't you think?.

Yazid had power as he inherited an entire rule/government from his father, including an army.

Invalid & pointless comparison.

You select which points you want to comment on and totally disregard the others. 😊 Lets stick to the subject.

Just because Abu Bakr and Omar were this, that and the other how does this make things right and normal?

If tomorrow a Muslim country or certain Airlines or business belonging to Muslim countries start to serve or allow the serving of alcohol because they have international clients/customers and people start to accept or don't object then would that make it normal, acceptable and lawful?

What are you going to say to the above? Lets say for instance Saudi Airlines, Etihad or Emirates start to serve alcohol and or food which is not halal for their international customers/clients then what are you going to say, since nobodies objecting or concerned about it then it's lawful? No action  had been taken or why isn't anybody doing anything about it so that makes it acceptable and legitimate?

Wake up man!

How about Moawiya, he challenged the 4th rightly guided Khalifa of the Muslims and what did that bring? A bloody and dark period in Islamic history.

You can come up with as much excuses ad you want, Saqifa was not legitimate. And the appointment of Abu Bakr wasn't constitutional and lawful.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: zaid_ibn_ali on November 08, 2017, 05:32:05 PM
Violence by who? Umar? Lol was Ali & everyone else all so scared of one person? Please...

Fact is the peoole ACCEPTED IT including Ali. Something you cannot do. I'll go with Ali over you all day.

READ HISTORY. Do a bit of research. Was everybody scared of Yazeed, just one person as well? Do you accept Yazeed as Khalifa? People also accepted and came to terms with Yazeed. He was the 6th Khalifa of the Muslims. Just because you accept something doesn't justify it or make it right. We're talking about legitimacy, legality, something being according to constitution. It's time to wake up don't you think?.

Yazid had power as he inherited an entire rule/government from his father, including an army.

Invalid & pointless comparison.

You select which points you want to comment on and totally disregard the others. 😊 Lets stick to the subject.

Just because Abu Bakr and Omar were this, that and the other how does this make things right and normal?

If tomorrow a Muslim country or certain Airlines or business belonging to Muslim countries start to serve or allow the serving of alcohol because they have international clients/customers and people start to accept or don't object then would that make it normal, acceptable and lawful?

What are you going to say to the above? Lets say for instance Saudi Airlines, Etihad or Emirates start to serve alcohol and or food which is not halal for their international customers/clients then what are you going to say, since nobodies objecting or concerned about it then it's lawful? No action  had been taken or why isn't anybody doing anything about it so that makes it acceptable and legitimate?

Wake up man!

How about Moawiya, he challenged the 4th rightly guided Khalifa of the Muslims and what did that bring? A bloody and dark period in Islamic history.

You can come up with as much excuses ad you want, Saqifa was not legitimate. And the appointment of Abu Bakr wasn't constitutional and lawful.

Your airlines analogy makes no sense nor does it have any relevance to the subject whatsoever.

If the airline is relevant to the well being of the ummah then the righteous prominent Islamic figures will object. Whether its relevant to the ummah or not is a different topic.

What definately was relevant to the ummah was the election of Abu Bakr.

History testifies that apart from some rebels who refused to pay zakat, the rest of the ummah accepted him as leader. History also testifies that the appointment of Abu Bakr & Umar were the greatest eras in Islam after the Prophet saw.

Saqifa was not 2017 where you have polling stations or voting centres.

Besides if it was illegitimate & so was Umar's rule then the likes of Salman farsi & Ammar ibn Yasser were also part of an illegitimate government.



Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Optimus Prime on November 08, 2017, 06:29:19 PM
icedude,

There is no doubting that Abu Bakr's appointment to the caliphate was done in haste, and doesn't truly represent the ideal manner in the way it should have been organised. Having said that, there was little choice because a civil war was then only moments away.

One point you need to consider, is there was not much opposition from any companions except in the way it was conducted. This is why the Banu Hashim were clearly furious. There is a difference. The exception to this was Sa'd ibn 'Ubadah.

You also have to remember that the Battle of Rida took place during this time. All the companions of Madinah rallied around Abu Bakr, and he sent them to deal with those murtads who refused to pay Zakat, and those who claimed Prophethood. Both expeditions were a resounding success. Now, whether you believe these expeditions were just in their own right, the fact is you can't kick start such an enterprise if you didn't have the support of your local community, and troops. Just because there was no register available accounting for everyone's vote doesn't mean they were opposed for reasons mentioned above.

Don't forget 'Ali was also declared the Calipah in the spur of the moment in similar circumstances. 'Ali's plead for democratic election was knocked for 6. The people realised the fitna that was brewing in all sectors of the Ummah had to be quelled, so 'Ali accepted their oath of allegiance despite a number of companions not being present.

It is suffice to say Abu Bakr's rise to leadership was not carried out in the ideal manner, but it doesn't render illegitimate either. Strangely, and ironically enough, there is a narration where Abu Bakr offered everyone a re-collection, but 'Ali of all people refused this idea, and insisted he remains in office, so he did!  ;D

Abu Bakr (ra) took the Bay`ah at Saqifa and then it was followed by the general Bay`ah from the nation at the Prophet’s (SAWS) mosque, later `Ali (ra) and al-Zubayr (ra) came to offer their Bay`ah to him as we read, and this is what happened after it.

حدثنا أبو حفص عمر بن أيوب السقطي ، قال : حدثنا محمد بن معاوية بن مالج ، قال : حدثنا علي بن هاشم ، عن أبيه ، عن أبي الجحاف ، قال : قام أبو بكر رضي الله عنه بعدما بويع له وبايع له علي رضي الله عنه وأصحابه قام ثلاثا ، يقول : ” أيها الناس ، قد أقلتكم بيعتكم هل من كاره ؟ قال : فيقوم علي رضي الله عنه أوائل الناس يقول : ” لا والله لا نقيلك ، ولا نستقيلك قدمك رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ، فمن ذا الذي يؤخرك ”

[abu Hafs `Umar bin Ayyub al-Siqati told us, Muhammad bin Mu`awiyah bin Malaj said, `Ali bin Hisham told us, from his father, from abu al-Jahhaf that he said:

Abu Bakr (ra) stood up three times after he received Bay`ah from `Ali (ra) and his companions, saying: “O people, I shall return your Bay`ah to you, does anyone dislike this?” he said: So `Ali (ra) would stand among the first of them and say: “No by Allah we shall not let you retire, if the messenger of Allah (SAWS) placed you ahead (means leading Salat), then who can put you behind?”]

source: al-Shari`ah lil-Aajurri (b.280 – d.360 AH)

Comments:

This narration does not originate from “Nawasib”, it has three narrators who are Shia:

1- `Ali bin Hashim is a Kufan who is a Shia and is from a Shia family but is “Saduq”.
2- His father, Hashim bin Burayd is a stubborn Shia, but is a Thiqah.
3- Dawoud bin Suwayd is an extremist Shia from Kufa, but his narrations are authenticated by Ahmad, al-Thawri, al-Nasa’i, al-`Asqalani & al-Razi.

Taken from: http://www.twelvershia.net/2013/05/02/abu-bakr-ra-gave-up-the-khilafah-and-wished-to-retire/

Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 08, 2017, 11:00:20 PM
Violence by who? Umar? Lol was Ali & everyone else all so scared of one person? Please...

Fact is the peoole ACCEPTED IT including Ali. Something you cannot do. I'll go with Ali over you all day.

READ HISTORY. Do a bit of research. Was everybody scared of Yazeed, just one person as well? Do you accept Yazeed as Khalifa? People also accepted and came to terms with Yazeed. He was the 6th Khalifa of the Muslims. Just because you accept something doesn't justify it or make it right. We're talking about legitimacy, legality, something being according to constitution. It's time to wake up don't you think?.

Yazid had power as he inherited an entire rule/government from his father, including an army.

Invalid & pointless comparison.

You select which points you want to comment on and totally disregard the others. 😊 Lets stick to the subject.

Just because Abu Bakr and Omar were this, that and the other how does this make things right and normal?

If tomorrow a Muslim country or certain Airlines or business belonging to Muslim countries start to serve or allow the serving of alcohol because they have international clients/customers and people start to accept or don't object then would that make it normal, acceptable and lawful?

What are you going to say to the above? Lets say for instance Saudi Airlines, Etihad or Emirates start to serve alcohol and or food which is not halal for their international customers/clients then what are you going to say, since nobodies objecting or concerned about it then it's lawful? No action  had been taken or why isn't anybody doing anything about it so that makes it acceptable and legitimate?

Wake up man!

How about Moawiya, he challenged the 4th rightly guided Khalifa of the Muslims and what did that bring? A bloody and dark period in Islamic history.

You can come up with as much excuses ad you want, Saqifa was not legitimate. And the appointment of Abu Bakr wasn't constitutional and lawful.

Your airlines analogy makes no sense nor does it have any relevance to the subject whatsoever.

If the airline is relevant to the well being of the ummah then the righteous prominent Islamic figures will object. Whether its relevant to the ummah or not is a different topic.

What definately was relevant to the ummah was the election of Abu Bakr.

History testifies that apart from some rebels who refused to pay zakat, the rest of the ummah accepted him as leader. History also testifies that the appointment of Abu Bakr & Umar were the greatest eras in Islam after the Prophet saw.

Saqifa was not 2017 where you have polling stations or voting centres.

Besides if it was illegitimate & so was Umar's rule then the likes of Salman farsi & Ammar ibn Yasser were also part of an illegitimate government.


You can carry on with this, that and the other as much as you want but one thing has clearly been ESTABLISHED that Saqifa was ILLEGITIMATE!
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 08, 2017, 11:25:23 PM
icedude,

There is no doubting that Abu Bakr's appointment to the caliphate was done in haste, and doesn't truly represent the ideal manner in the way it should have been organised. Having said that, there was little choice because a civil war was then only moments away.

One point you need to consider, is there was not much opposition from any companions except in the way it was conducted. This is why the Banu Hashim were clearly furious. There is a difference. The exception to this was Sa'd ibn 'Ubadah.

You also have to remember that the Battle of Rida took place during this time. All the companions of Madinah rallied around Abu Bakr, and he sent them to deal with those murtads who refused to pay Zakat, and those who claimed Prophethood. Both expeditions were a resounding success. Now, whether you believe these expeditions were just in their own right, the fact is you can't kick start such an enterprise if you didn't have the support of your local community, and troops. Just because there was no register available accounting for everyone's vote doesn't mean they were opposed for reasons mentioned above.

Don't forget 'Ali was also declared the Calipah in the spur of the moment in similar circumstances. 'Ali's plead for democratic election was knocked for 6. The people realised the fitna that was brewing in all sectors of the Ummah had to be quelled, so 'Ali accepted their oath of allegiance despite a number of companions not being present.

It is suffice to say Abu Bakr's rise to leadership was not carried out in the ideal manner, but it doesn't render illegitimate either. Strangely, and ironically enough, there is a narration where Abu Bakr offered everyone a re-collection, but 'Ali of all people refused this idea, and insisted he remains in office, so he did!  ;D

Abu Bakr (ra) took the Bay`ah at Saqifa and then it was followed by the general Bay`ah from the nation at the Prophet’s (SAWS) mosque, later `Ali (ra) and al-Zubayr (ra) came to offer their Bay`ah to him as we read, and this is what happened after it.

حدثنا أبو حفص عمر بن أيوب السقطي ، قال : حدثنا محمد بن معاوية بن مالج ، قال : حدثنا علي بن هاشم ، عن أبيه ، عن أبي الجحاف ، قال : قام أبو بكر رضي الله عنه بعدما بويع له وبايع له علي رضي الله عنه وأصحابه قام ثلاثا ، يقول : ” أيها الناس ، قد أقلتكم بيعتكم هل من كاره ؟ قال : فيقوم علي رضي الله عنه أوائل الناس يقول : ” لا والله لا نقيلك ، ولا نستقيلك قدمك رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ، فمن ذا الذي يؤخرك ”

[abu Hafs `Umar bin Ayyub al-Siqati told us, Muhammad bin Mu`awiyah bin Malaj said, `Ali bin Hisham told us, from his father, from abu al-Jahhaf that he said:

Abu Bakr (ra) stood up three times after he received Bay`ah from `Ali (ra) and his companions, saying: “O people, I shall return your Bay`ah to you, does anyone dislike this?” he said: So `Ali (ra) would stand among the first of them and say: “No by Allah we shall not let you retire, if the messenger of Allah (SAWS) placed you ahead (means leading Salat), then who can put you behind?”]

source: al-Shari`ah lil-Aajurri (b.280 – d.360 AH)

Comments:

This narration does not originate from “Nawasib”, it has three narrators who are Shia:

1- `Ali bin Hashim is a Kufan who is a Shia and is from a Shia family but is “Saduq”.
2- His father, Hashim bin Burayd is a stubborn Shia, but is a Thiqah.
3- Dawoud bin Suwayd is an extremist Shia from Kufa, but his narrations are authenticated by Ahmad, al-Thawri, al-Nasa’i, al-`Asqalani & al-Razi.

Taken from: http://www.twelvershia.net/2013/05/02/abu-bakr-ra-gave-up-the-khilafah-and-wished-to-retire/

Calm down and listen, Abu Bakr was a good man, he had knowledge and information, age and experience, his character, performance and achievement is there, hie reign as Khalifa was successful, he was God fearing and law abiding, he ment and did well, he was this that and the other,

I am not talking about this but what I am talking about is Saqifa was not a public assembly/gathering, it was not a planned and organised event to choose a leader for the Muslim Ummah.

Some, not all but some of the heads of the Ansar all of a sudden gathered in Saqifa to choose/select THEIR OWN LEADER. Why? This clearly tells you that something was wrong right from the very start. Why on earth did they all of a sudden gather to choose/select THEIR OWN LEADER?

When informed about this terrible situation (sectarian division) Abu Bakr and Omar left the Prophet's (s) funeral procession with the informer to prevent this from happening. So the coincidental and unfortunate decision that suddenly turned out was NOT LEGITIMATE.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: zaid_ibn_ali on November 09, 2017, 12:44:30 PM
Violence by who? Umar? Lol was Ali & everyone else all so scared of one person? Please...

Fact is the peoole ACCEPTED IT including Ali. Something you cannot do. I'll go with Ali over you all day.

READ HISTORY. Do a bit of research. Was everybody scared of Yazeed, just one person as well? Do you accept Yazeed as Khalifa? People also accepted and came to terms with Yazeed. He was the 6th Khalifa of the Muslims. Just because you accept something doesn't justify it or make it right. We're talking about legitimacy, legality, something being according to constitution. It's time to wake up don't you think?.

Yazid had power as he inherited an entire rule/government from his father, including an army.

Invalid & pointless comparison.

You select which points you want to comment on and totally disregard the others. 😊 Lets stick to the subject.

Just because Abu Bakr and Omar were this, that and the other how does this make things right and normal?

If tomorrow a Muslim country or certain Airlines or business belonging to Muslim countries start to serve or allow the serving of alcohol because they have international clients/customers and people start to accept or don't object then would that make it normal, acceptable and lawful?

What are you going to say to the above? Lets say for instance Saudi Airlines, Etihad or Emirates start to serve alcohol and or food which is not halal for their international customers/clients then what are you going to say, since nobodies objecting or concerned about it then it's lawful? No action  had been taken or why isn't anybody doing anything about it so that makes it acceptable and legitimate?

Wake up man!

How about Moawiya, he challenged the 4th rightly guided Khalifa of the Muslims and what did that bring? A bloody and dark period in Islamic history.

You can come up with as much excuses ad you want, Saqifa was not legitimate. And the appointment of Abu Bakr wasn't constitutional and lawful.

Your airlines analogy makes no sense nor does it have any relevance to the subject whatsoever.

If the airline is relevant to the well being of the ummah then the righteous prominent Islamic figures will object. Whether its relevant to the ummah or not is a different topic.

What definately was relevant to the ummah was the election of Abu Bakr.

History testifies that apart from some rebels who refused to pay zakat, the rest of the ummah accepted him as leader. History also testifies that the appointment of Abu Bakr & Umar were the greatest eras in Islam after the Prophet saw.

Saqifa was not 2017 where you have polling stations or voting centres.

Besides if it was illegitimate & so was Umar's rule then the likes of Salman farsi & Ammar ibn Yasser were also part of an illegitimate government.


You can carry on with this, that and the other as much as you want but one thing has clearly been ESTABLISHED that Saqifa was ILLEGITIMATE!

So were Salman farsi & ammar ibn Yassir governors/members of an illegitimate government?

Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 09, 2017, 10:16:16 PM
We have a leader and government in North Korea, is it legitimate? We have monarchy in Saudi Arabia but leader and government, is it legitimate? I can give you many examples of leaders, rulers and governments in various countries who are recognised by the international community but are not legitimate.

Those leaders who are appointed or parties (political) who get into authority through a constitution or a fair, just and legal system and/or procedure are legitimate and have legitimacy.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Optimus Prime on November 09, 2017, 10:23:25 PM
Quote

Calm down and listen, Abu Bakr was a good man, he had knowledge and information, age and experience, his character, performance and achievement is there, hie reign as Khalifa was successful, he was God fearing and law abiding, he ment and did well, he was this that and the other,

I am not talking about this but what I am talking about is Saqifa was not a public assembly/gathering, it was not a planned and organised event to choose a leader for the Muslim Ummah.

Some, not all but some of the heads of the Ansar all of a sudden gathered in Saqifa to choose/select THEIR OWN LEADER. Why? This clearly tells you that something was wrong right from the very start. Why on earth did they all of a sudden gather to choose/select THEIR OWN LEADER?

When informed about this terrible situation (sectarian division) Abu Bakr and Omar left the Prophet's (s) funeral procession with the informer to prevent this from happening. So the coincidental and unfortunate decision that suddenly turned out was NOT LEGITIMATE.

Okay! *takes a deep breath*
 
I think you're reading into it too much icedude.
 
Illegitimacy of a Caliphate in Islam is not measured by the number of head-count who're present, and who vote Yes/No. This is where you're slipping. Abu Bakr's election was not your typical presidential campaign. Once more, the fact there are reports of only one individual (Sa'd ibn 'Ubadah) refusing to giving the oath of allegiance, and no one else is a sign of collective acceptance. If you've studied the Seerah, you will many examples of this.
 
Example 1:
 
At Badr, when the Prophet (SAW) is asking for opinions whether they should lock horns with the Quraish or not, Sa'd ibn Muad spoke on the behalf of the Ansar (who made the bulk of that army). The Prophet (SAW) was beaming for joy after Sa'd's momentous commitment, and he (SAW) did not start asking all the Ansar individually.
 
Example 2:
 
When Banu Qurayza were sentenced to death for their treacherous felony, Sa'd spoke on behalf of ALL of Madinah. This is confirmed by the Prophet (SAW) who concurs by saying to the nearest meaning "he has enforce the sentenced of Allah (SWT) himself".
 
Regarding your snide profundity of the Ansar. The Ansar were merely engaged in discussions at the time. There is nothing to suggest, they were ready to declare their leader there and then. This is nothing but empty air speculation. I don't see a problem with that, or anything to suggest it was a conspicuous move.
 
The Prophet's (SAW) body was still being prepared at this stage, and how many people can you fit inside those small huts? What did you expect everyone else to be doing? I'm sure some were still moaning the loss of the Prophet (SAW), some were attending to the needs of their families, some were doing business, and some couple were making out - who knows right? The Ansar decided to engage in a political discussion to whom the next leader will be - so what?! What else did you expect them to be doing? Playing noughts, and crosses?
 
If the suddenness of Ansar to appoint a leader makes you question their integrity in any shape or form, then how do you explain, or perceive them submitting to the Hadith of the Prophet (SAW), that Abu Bakr narrated to them how Caliphah will begin with Quriash? They surrendered to the instruction of the Prophet (SAW) in a heartbeat. That dedication to the Sunnah totally anal-shuns any critic against them, they were plotting, and planning for their own selfish gain. Refer to the Hadith of Saqifah, and read the entire narration.
 
'Ali himself through authentic narrations (where the narrators in the chain are also Shia) accepted, approved and was content with Abu Bakr's rein. Like zaid_ibn_ali said - if he was cool with it, then it's no surprise why billions of Muslims who came years later are also at peace with it. Throwing baseless, and sceptical theories in the open is not going to change that. Allah (SWT) himself will confirm that Abu Bakr was the only befitting person to assume leadership on the Day of Judgement, Insh'Allah.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: zaid_ibn_ali on November 10, 2017, 02:31:01 AM
We have a leader and government in North Korea, is it legitimate? We have monarchy in Saudi Arabia but leader and government, is it legitimate? I can give you many examples of leaders, rulers and governments in various countries who are recognised by the international community but are not legitimate.

Those leaders who are appointed or parties (political) who get into authority through a constitution or a fair, just and legal system and/or procedure are legitimate and have legitimacy.

Salman & yassir were meant to be shia. Staunch followers of their infallible Imam Ali, yet they became KEY PARTS as GOVERNORS in what you call an illegitimat government, but even worse a government that was the enemy of Ali.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on November 10, 2017, 04:49:58 PM
Quote

Calm down and listen, Abu Bakr was a good man, he had knowledge and information, age and experience, his character, performance and achievement is there, hie reign as Khalifa was successful, he was God fearing and law abiding, he ment and did well, he was this that and the other,

I am not talking about this but what I am talking about is Saqifa was not a public assembly/gathering, it was not a planned and organised event to choose a leader for the Muslim Ummah.

Some, not all but some of the heads of the Ansar all of a sudden gathered in Saqifa to choose/select THEIR OWN LEADER. Why? This clearly tells you that something was wrong right from the very start. Why on earth did they all of a sudden gather to choose/select THEIR OWN LEADER?

When informed about this terrible situation (sectarian division) Abu Bakr and Omar left the Prophet's (s) funeral procession with the informer to prevent this from happening. So the coincidental and unfortunate decision that suddenly turned out was NOT LEGITIMATE.

Okay! *take a deep breath*

I think you're reading into it too much icedude.

Illegitimacy of a Caliphate in Islam is not measured by the number of head-count who're present, and who vote Yes/No. This is where you're slipping. Abu Bakr's election was not your typical presidential campaign. Once more, the fact there are reports of only individual refusing to giving the oath of allegiance, and no one else is a sign of collective acceptance. If you've studied the Seerah, you will many examples of this.

Example 1:

At Badr, when the Prophet (SAW) is asking for opinions whether they should lock horns with the Quraish or not, Sa'd ibn Muad spoke on the behalf of the Ansar (who made the bulk of that army). The Prophet (SAW) was beaming for joy after Sa'd's momentous commitment, and he (SAW) did not start asking all the Ansar individually.

Example 2:

When Banu Qurayza were sentenced to death for their treacherous felony, Sa'd spoke on behalf of ALL of Madinah. This is confirmed by the Prophet (SAW) who concurs by saying to the nearest meaning "he has enforce the sentenced of Allah (SWT) himself".

Regarding your snide profundity of the Ansar. The Ansar were merely engaged in discussions at the time. There is nothing to suggest, they were ready to declare their leader there and then. This is nothing but empty air speculation. I don't see a problem with that, or anything to suggest it was a conspicuous move.

The Prophet's (SAW) body was still being prepared at this stage, and how many people can you fit inside those small huts? What did you expect everyone else to be doing? I'm sure some were still moaning the loss of the Prophet (SAW), some were attending to the needs of their families, some were doing business, and some couple were making out - who knows right? :o The Ansar decided to engage in a political discussion to whom the next leader will be - so what?! What else did you expect them to be doing? Playing noughts, and crosses?

If the suddenness of Ansar to appoint a leader makes you question their integrity in any shape or form, then how do you explain, or perceive them submitting to the Hadith of the Prophet (SAW), that Abu Bakr narrated to them how Caliphah will begin with Quriash? They surrendered to the instruction of the Prophet (SAW) in a heartbeat. That dedication to the Sunnah totally anal-shuns any critic against them, they were plotting, and planning for their own selfish gain. Refer to the Hadith of Saqifah, and read the entire narration.

'Ali himself through authentic narrations (where the narrators in the chain are also Shia) accepted, approved and was content with Abu Bakr's rein. Like zaid_ibn_ali said - if he was cool with it, then it's no surprised why billions of Muslims who came years later are also at peace with it. Throwing baseless, and sceptical theories in the open is not going to change that. Allah (SWT) himself will confirm that Abu Bakr was the only befitting person to assume leadership, Insh'Allah. :)

Ok, now it's your turn to take a deep breath and you also need to calm your nerves. For heaven's sake it's just a discussion so don't get all charged up.

Why did Obayd come looking for Omar? Just a question that comes to mind. There were many other companions so why keep it quiet and why only Omar? Why not make an announcement or just come and inform? And why did Omar inform only Abu Bakr? What was so secretive about this?

Also when Obayd informed Omar what exactly did he say to Omar? 'something TERRIBLE is about to happen'. Now if you don't seem to see a problem with some heads of Ansar gathering in Sakifa then why did Obayd seem to have a problem with it? And Abu Bakr and Omar also seemed to have a problem with it because they suddenly rushed to Sakifa.

Once again the words of Obayd;

"SOMETHING TERRIBLE IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN".

I will continue on your other points but calm down. RELAX!
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Optimus Prime on November 10, 2017, 08:48:16 PM
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?
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Abu Muhammad on November 10, 2017, 10:55:03 PM
@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. Made up your mind, dude. Illegitimate because of the selection process was unfair, etc. or illegitimate because of a leader has already been appointed?
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman 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.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Optimus Prime 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
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: zaid_ibn_ali 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.

Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Optimus Prime 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.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman 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.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Optimus Prime 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!!!
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Abu Muhammad 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?
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman 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.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Abu Muhammad 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.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman 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.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman 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)
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: muslim720 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".
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Adil on December 25, 2019, 12:48:30 AM
...

Parts of this post are too inappropriate bro.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: muslim720 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!
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman 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.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman 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.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: muslim720 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!
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: muslim720 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!
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman 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!
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: muslim720 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".
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on December 25, 2019, 02:00:10 AM
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".

Since you've become so weak and desperate, that you've turned to Urdu to cover up your filthy language that you're coming out with now, this is just for you and your ears only.

https://youtu.be/wVRfT_0FFWs

https://youtu.be/T4wyUlOfgC4
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on December 25, 2019, 02:19:44 AM
Since you've become so weak and desperate, that you've turned to Urdu to cover up your filthy language that you're coming out with now, this is just for you and your ears only.

https://youtu.be/wVRfT_0FFWs

https://youtu.be/T4wyUlOfgC4

https://youtu.be/d2wGhrD-IZU
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: muslim720 on December 25, 2019, 02:24:49 AM
https://youtu.be/T4wyUlOfgC4

Wait, tera to taytay phus ho gaya!

When brothers shared a clip featuring the same zindeeq, Zammer Akhtar Naqvi, you renounced him and saw nothing wrong with his perverted message!  All of a sudden, he is someone worth listening to now.

You just proved my slogan right.  Lun lag gaye hai tabhi to tera Naqvi itna uchchal uchchal ke bolta hai, lol.

Every day is Saqeefa and every lun is up Rawaafidh's!
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on December 25, 2019, 04:01:18 AM
Wait, tera to taytay phus ho gaya!

When brothers shared a clip featuring the same zindeeq, Zammer Akhtar Naqvi, you renounced him and saw nothing wrong with his perverted message!  All of a sudden, he is someone worth listening to now.

You just proved my slogan right.  Lun lag gaye hai tabhi to tera Naqvi itna uchchal uchchal ke bolta hai, lol.

Every day is Saqeefa and every lun is up Rawaafidh's!

"Lun" ? I wonder where you keep getting this from.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Adil on December 25, 2019, 05:31:14 PM
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

It's not about reasoning with him bro. Quite clearly ice man is a time waster and the vast majority of his conversations with people aren't even about a topic.

Firstly as you know, we are commanded to speak good or to remain silent. Secondly there is a lot of benefit from not speaking to him rudely - less sins for yourself, it gives a better appearance of Muslims, ice man generally is a gift for us - I'm adamant that his posts do not help any shias who read the forum and may even cause them to increase doubts in shiaism.

We have an audience for our posts, tonnes of people read them, we need to make our posts count. Imagine if some shia who already has doubts is reading your post, he may just bite back on his doubt and his pride may activate by seeing the language used, so think about how your posts may affect those readers.

This isn't a lecture to you either. I am sure you are a better Muslim than me.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: muslim720 on December 26, 2019, 12:15:07 AM
It's not about reasoning with him bro. Quite clearly ice man is a time waster and the vast majority of his conversations with people aren't even about a topic.

Firstly as you know, we are commanded to speak good or to remain silent. Secondly there is a lot of benefit from not speaking to him rudely - less sins for yourself, it gives a better appearance of Muslims, ice man generally is a gift for us - I'm adamant that his posts do not help any shias who read the forum and may even cause them to increase doubts in shiaism.

We have an audience for our posts, tonnes of people read them, we need to make our posts count. Imagine if some shia who already has doubts is reading your post, he may just bite back on his doubt and his pride may activate by seeing the language used, so think about how your posts may affect those readers.

This isn't a lecture to you either. I am sure you are a better Muslim than me.

I agree with everything you have said - except the bit that I am a better Muslim than you - but I have had it with their lies.

Believe me when I say this - and let this Iceman khabeeth read this - that I used to think that it was the "evil" Sunnis who had marginalized the Shias instead of including a fifth school called Jaffari along with Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali and Hanafi.  In fact, I used to dislike Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra) because I used to think that the "evil" Sunnis cannot accept a second or third opinion, due to their love for the first two (ra), when it comes to succeeding the Holy Prophet (saw).

Turns out that these Rawaafidh scum - though I consider Shias to be Muslims but upon massive misguidance - believe that Imam Ali (ra) was appointed by Allah (swt) which automatically makes every person who accepted Caliphate to be kafir along with those who supported these Caliphs.

I religiously attended Muharram lectures from 2012 - 2018 and learned how weak, in fact ugly, their beliefs are!  I still respected them.  However, the straw that broke the camel's back was when I found out that they curse the children of Imam Hassan (ra) and even from among the descendants of Imam Hussain (ra), there are those whom they curse only because they did not believe in their fairytale Imamah or believed in a different lineage of Imams (ra).

They start their dawah with the lie that they are supporters of Ahlul Bayt (ra) and there is not another Muslim sect that curses the Ahlul Bayt (ra) - Mothers of the Believers (ra), uncles of the Holy Prophet (saw), cousins of the Holy Prophet (saw), descendants of the Holy Prophet (saw) - as much as they do.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on December 26, 2019, 03:24:50 AM
It's not about reasoning with him bro. Quite clearly ice man is a time waster and the vast majority of his conversations with people aren't even about a topic.

Firstly as you know, we are commanded to speak good or to remain silent. Secondly there is a lot of benefit from not speaking to him rudely - less sins for yourself, it gives a better appearance of Muslims, ice man generally is a gift for us - I'm adamant that his posts do not help any shias who read the forum and may even cause them to increase doubts in shiaism.

We have an audience for our posts, tonnes of people read them, we need to make our posts count. Imagine if some shia who already has doubts is reading your post, he may just bite back on his doubt and his pride may activate by seeing the language used, so think about how your posts may affect those readers.

This isn't a lecture to you either. I am sure you are a better Muslim than me.

If he truly was a better Muslim than you then he would definitely behave better. This ain't the first time he's burst his bubble. And it surely won't be the last.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on December 26, 2019, 03:34:05 AM
I agree with everything you have said - except the bit that I am a better Muslim than you - but I have had it with their lies.

Believe me when I say this - and let this Iceman khabeeth read this - that I used to think that it was the "evil" Sunnis who had marginalized the Shias instead of including a fifth school called Jaffari along with Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali and Hanafi.  In fact, I used to dislike Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra) because I used to think that the "evil" Sunnis cannot accept a second or third opinion, due to their love for the first two (ra), when it comes to succeeding the Holy Prophet (saw).

Turns out that these Rawaafidh scum - though I consider Shias to be Muslims but upon massive misguidance - believe that Imam Ali (ra) was appointed by Allah (swt) which automatically makes every person who accepted Caliphate to be kafir along with those who supported these Caliphs.

I religiously attended Muharram lectures from 2012 - 2018 and learned how weak, in fact ugly, their beliefs are!  I still respected them.  However, the straw that broke the camel's back was when I found out that they curse the children of Imam Hassan (ra) and even from among the descendants of Imam Hussain (ra), there are those whom they curse only because they did not believe in their fairytale Imamah or believed in a different lineage of Imams (ra).

They start their dawah with the lie that they are supporters of Ahlul Bayt (ra) and there is not another Muslim sect that curses the Ahlul Bayt (ra) - Mothers of the Believers (ra), uncles of the Holy Prophet (saw), cousins of the Holy Prophet (saw), descendants of the Holy Prophet (saw) - as much as they do.

I've already given you an example of this. If I go to a few small towns or villages and attend Sunni mosques am I suppose to paint an ugly picture about the entire Sunni faith and community at large because of this. It's like certain non Muslims trying to paint a picture of Islam and the Muslims at large by looking and taking Militants who commit terror in the name of Islam. How would you represent Britain? By mentioning the BNP and the EDL. How would you represent America. By mentioning the KKK. Wake up man.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on December 26, 2019, 04:25:30 AM
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".

☺😊😀😁😄😃😁😅😂 You can't provoke me. 😊 Teray bandeh ko tho kayamat thak expose kar geh. Ab sari zindagi uss ki safaya deteh raho aur uss ko bachateh pirteh raho.

When the Prophet s.a.w wanted to write something then they forgot the Prophet s.a.w and remembered they had the Qur'an. In Saqifa they somehow forgot the Qur'an and the Prophet s.a.w and turned to tribalism. During Fadak they couldn't provide anything from the Qur'an then turned back to a hadith. Basically you make up your principles and priorities as you go along. Just look at the situation and circumstances and pick what suits you. Lo ab bachateh piro ineh.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on December 26, 2019, 01:01:38 PM
https://youtu.be/WABDnIPlYeg
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: muslim720 on December 26, 2019, 10:58:32 PM
☺😊😀😁😄😃😁😅😂 You can't provoke me. 😊 Teray bandeh ko tho kayamat thak expose kar geh. Ab sari zindagi uss ki safaya deteh raho aur uss ko bachateh pirteh raho.

Jab mut'ah ki paidaish safaya ki baat karte hai to aisa hota hai jaise Hindu butparast Tawheed ka dawa kar raha ho!


Quote
When the Prophet s.a.w wanted to write something then they forgot the Prophet s.a.w and remembered they had the Qur'an. In Saqifa they somehow forgot the Qur'an and the Prophet s.a.w and turned to tribalism. During Fadak they couldn't provide anything from the Qur'an then turned back to a hadith. Basically you make up your principles and priorities as you go along. Just look at the situation and circumstances and pick what suits you. Lo ab bachateh piro ineh.

Our principles are based on winning.  Restrained your first "infallible" (ra) from answering the call (bringing pen and paper), won at Saqeefa and took over Fadak.  You wanted land and we gave you a lun which keeps giving 1400 years after the fact.  Ab maze le lo!

According to your narrative, your "infallibles" (ra) lost when in power and without!  With control over atoms and having the knowledge of unseen, they kept walking into blunder after blunder.  In fact, they literally committed suicide, as per your theology.

Bas, ab lun laga hai to uchchhalte raho, lol.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on December 26, 2019, 11:24:19 PM
Jab mut'ah ki paidaish safaya ki baat karte hai to aisa hota hai jaise Hindu butparast Tawheed ka dawa kar raha ho!


Our principles are based on winning.  Restrained your first "infallible" (ra) from answering the call (bringing pen and paper), won at Saqeefa and took over Fadak.  You wanted land and we gave you a lun which keeps giving 1400 years after the fact.  Ab maze le lo!

According to your narrative, your "infallibles" (ra) lost when in power and without!  With control over atoms and having the knowledge of unseen, they kept walking into blunder after blunder.  In fact, they literally committed suicide, as per your theology.

Bas, ab lun laga hai to uchchhalte raho, lol.

"Jab mut'ah ki paidaish safaya ki baat karte hai to aisa hota hai jaise Hindu butparast Tawheed ka dawa kar raha ho!"

Mut'ah tho rasool keh daur ki baath thi. Thum jano or us waqth keh logh janeh kaun mut'ah ki aulad thi aur kis neh kis keh sath kya kia.

"Our principles are based on winning"

You're telling me. I know. BY HOOK OR BY CROOK, it doesn't matter, we need to have and get our way. They didn't even spare the Prophet s.a.w. Rasool ka lehaz bhi na raka.

"You wanted land and we gave you a lun which keeps giving 1400 years after the fact"

What is this LUN that you keep on mentioning. Where do you keep getting it from. Na un ki galthia na un keh juram kabhi chup sakteh hai. Na tum chupa sakteh ho. Jithna marzi uchal kar dekh lo. Jithni bakwas karni hai kar lo. What is Saqifa and Fadak, wo tho medhan chor kar bagh geh teh. Tum un hi ki aulad lagteh ho.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: muslim720 on December 26, 2019, 11:38:50 PM
Thum jano or us waqth keh logh janeh kaun mut'ah ki aulad thi aur kis neh kis keh sath kya kia.

Lekin mut'ah ke dallay aur bhhaddwe to aaj kal business karte hai.  Zaraa Iran aur Iraq jaa kar dekho.


Quote
You're telling me. I know. BY HOOK OR BY CROOK, it doesn't matter, we need to have and get our way. They didn't even spare the Prophet s.a.w. Rasool ka lehaz bhi na raka.

Kya kare, when Imam Ali (ra) himself cowered in Umar's (ra) presence - by not bringing pen and paper - then beygaano se kya gilaa!  Apne hi beywafaa, kamzor aur darpok nikle to auro se kya gila!


Quote
What is this LUN that you keep on mentioning. Where do you keep getting it from. Na un ki galthia na un keh juram kabhi chup sakteh hai. Na tum chupa sakteh ho. Jithna marzi uchal kar dekh lo. Jithni bakwas karni hai kar lo. What is Saqifa and Fadak, wo tho medhan chor kar bagh geh teh. Tum un hi ki aulad lagteh ho.

What is Saqeefa and Fadak?  They are trophies to the victors!  Whether they fought or fled from battles, one thing is certain: not a single one of your "infallibles" (ra) dared to stand toe-to-toe with them.  In fact, they gave up their own land to one and daughter (Umm Kulthum) to another, hahaha!  To main unka aulaad nahi hoo lekin wo aapke Ahlul Bayt (ra) ke daamaad hai aur daamaad ka hamesha izzat banaye rakhna chahiye.  To beghairat insaan, izzat karo Umar (ra) ki jo tumhaare Imam (ra) ka daamaad thhaa aur 2 aur Imamo (ra) ka jija!
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Adil on December 26, 2019, 11:40:21 PM
I agree with everything you have said - except the bit that I am a better Muslim than you - but I have had it with their lies.

Believe me when I say this - and let this Iceman khabeeth read this - that I used to think that it was the "evil" Sunnis who had marginalized the Shias instead of including a fifth school called Jaffari along with Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali and Hanafi.  In fact, I used to dislike Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra) because I used to think that the "evil" Sunnis cannot accept a second or third opinion, due to their love for the first two (ra), when it comes to succeeding the Holy Prophet (saw).

Turns out that these Rawaafidh scum - though I consider Shias to be Muslims but upon massive misguidance - believe that Imam Ali (ra) was appointed by Allah (swt) which automatically makes every person who accepted Caliphate to be kafir along with those who supported these Caliphs.

I religiously attended Muharram lectures from 2012 - 2018 and learned how weak, in fact ugly, their beliefs are!  I still respected them.  However, the straw that broke the camel's back was when I found out that they curse the children of Imam Hassan (ra) and even from among the descendants of Imam Hussain (ra), there are those whom they curse only because they did not believe in their fairytale Imamah or believed in a different lineage of Imams (ra).

They start their dawah with the lie that they are supporters of Ahlul Bayt (ra) and there is not another Muslim sect that curses the Ahlul Bayt (ra) - Mothers of the Believers (ra), uncles of the Holy Prophet (saw), cousins of the Holy Prophet (saw), descendants of the Holy Prophet (saw) - as much as they do.

I see, you spent quite a lot of time amongst them. I understand why there is little patience left.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: muslim720 on December 26, 2019, 11:52:22 PM
I see, you spent quite a lot of time amongst them. I understand why there is little patience left.

I cannot stand liars!  Zero patience is what I have for them.  Everything they say is a lie or misrepresentation of reality.  From Saqeefa to Muawiya to Saudi Arabia, every lie they propagate on one matter discredits another one or more of their lies on another issue.  Look at Iceman, for example.  He maintained that I "haven't been to any Shia mosque".  Finally I challenged him to a mubahala and the coward he is, he backed out.  When I reminded him of his lie, he asked me to "jog his memory" and show him where he claimed that I have never been to any Shi'i mosque.  And literally, I had to go three to four posts back ON THE SAME THREAD to find his exact words saying, "You haven't been to any Shia mosque. Just a tactic played by you".

These people are expert deceivers; too bad they don't try their luck in haath ki safaaee where they can garner praise for magic tricks, pick-pocketing and other tricks.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on December 27, 2019, 12:19:26 AM
https://youtu.be/zCPIHLOIRN0

This Scholar is Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'ah. And his views are of Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'ah.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on December 27, 2019, 12:46:06 AM
https://youtu.be/zCPIHLOIRN0

This Scholar is Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'ah. And his views are of Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'ah.

https://youtu.be/b2LYWMXNaAE
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: muslim720 on December 27, 2019, 04:24:22 AM
https://youtu.be/zCPIHLOIRN0

This Scholar is[/u] Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'ah. And his views are of Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'ah.

How can a scholar be Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah and also have views of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah?
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Mythbuster1 on December 27, 2019, 05:34:03 PM
https://youtu.be/zCPIHLOIRN0

This Scholar is Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'ah. And his views are of Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'ah.

Hahahaha engineer maulvi 😂😂😂😂 no one respects this guy and he hasn’t much of a following he doesn’t represent NO ahlu sunnah at all........come on icepop please use major scholars and NOT YouTube famed wannabes 😂😂😂

Just as much as he is likely an ahlu sunnah scholar you are likely to be a syed.......in your head😂😂😂
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Mythbuster1 on December 27, 2019, 05:37:15 PM
How can a scholar be Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah and also have views of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah?

He is clutching on straws and uses YouTubers as scholars who don’t represent NOTHING!

😂
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Adil on December 27, 2019, 08:43:51 PM
I cannot stand liars!  Zero patience is what I have for them.  Everything they say is a lie or misrepresentation of reality.  From Saqeefa to Muawiya to Saudi Arabia, every lie they propagate on one matter discredits another one or more of their lies on another issue.  Look at Iceman, for example.  He maintained that I "haven't been to any Shia mosque".  Finally I challenged him to a mubahala and the coward he is, he backed out.  When I reminded him of his lie, he asked me to "jog his memory" and show him where he claimed that I have never been to any Shi'i mosque.  And literally, I had to go three to four posts back ON THE SAME THREAD to find his exact words saying, "You haven't been to any Shia mosque. Just a tactic played by you".

These people are expert deceivers; too bad they don't try their luck in haath ki safaaee where they can garner praise for magic tricks, pick-pocketing and other tricks.

I agree that religious shia are normally deceptive people due to shiaism's teachings such as taqiyya. Maybe they're not bad people but following shiaism just gives them bad attributes.  Ice man's main purpose here is to troll or time waste or aggravate tbh. The best revenge against someone like him to is carry on destroying their religion piece by piece. Every ex-shia who becomes a proper Muslm is a slap in the face to him.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on December 27, 2019, 11:12:49 PM
Lekin mut'ah ke dallay aur bhhaddwe to aaj kal business karte hai.  Zaraa Iran aur Iraq jaa kar dekho.


Kya kare, when Imam Ali (ra) himself cowered in Umar's (ra) presence - by not bringing pen and paper - then beygaano se kya gilaa!  Apne hi beywafaa, kamzor aur darpok nikle to auro se kya gila!


What is Saqeefa and Fadak?  They are trophies to the victors!  Whether they fought or fled from battles, one thing is certain: not a single one of your "infallibles" (ra) dared to stand toe-to-toe with them.  In fact, they gave up their own land to one and daughter (Umm Kulthum) to another, hahaha!  To main unka aulaad nahi hoo lekin wo aapke Ahlul Bayt (ra) ke daamaad hai aur daamaad ka hamesha izzat banaye rakhna chahiye.  To beghairat insaan, izzat karo Umar (ra) ki jo tumhaare Imam (ra) ka daamaad thhaa aur 2 aur Imamo (ra) ka jija!

"Lekin mut'ah ke dallay aur bhhaddwe to aaj kal business karte hai.  Zaraa Iran aur Iraq jaa kar dekho"

I've been and I've seen on numerous occasions. Nothing of the sort is there that you and in the way and manner you mention. Now if a handful of people just a few misuse or abuse something then that is a crime. You using it and trying to show that this is how that entire community is or this is what their faith stands for which is what you're exactly trying to do is exactly what propaganda is.

"Kya kare, when Imam Ali (ra) himself cowered in Umar's (ra) presence - by not bringing pen and paper - then beygaano se kya gilaa!  Apne hi beywafaa, kamzor aur darpok nikle to auro se kya gila!"

Picking on Ali and making it personal isn't going to wash away the stains in history. Neither are cheap excuses based on ifs and buts. The Prophet s.a.w asked for pen and paper, Umar objected. The others disagreed with Umar. Some sided with Umar and the others opposed. You decided on which party was right and which wrong. The Prophet s.a.w wanted to write something for them all so they won't go astray after him. Some went astray right in front of him. The matter is simple and straightforward as other matters. But you want to make kichari out of it to divert attention.

Waha peh koi beganay hai hee nahi teh. Sab apnay teh. Wesay tho uneh muhib e rasool ketay pirteh ho, jab zimedari ki baath athi hai tho uss waqth beyganay ho janeh hai. What kind of dramabazi is this.

"What is Saqeefa and Fadak?

Very simple answer. Quran ki khilafwarzi. Rasool keh waqth Qur'an hi kafi tah. Saqifa or Fadak keh waqth Qur'an ko chor dia. Jo cheez jab suit kareh useh pakar lo. Jab na kareh useh chor kar dusri pakar lo. Jo tumareh mufad meh hai useh leh lo. This is how you go as well.

"They are trophies to the victors!"

Nothing to show in battle. That's where the real victors were. Gasab e haq is no trophy.

"not a single one of your "infallibles" (ra) dared to stand toe-to-toe"

Those who stood toe to toe in battle could have easily done it here. But this is something the narrow minded and the arrogant don't understand. You go toe to toe in battle, not in the community. In battle it brings victory and honour. But in the community it brings unrest and civil clash. Take a look at your 4th rightly guided Caliph, those who went toe to toe with him,  what did it bring. A dark and stained period within Islamic history. And a very bad name and image for the Muslims.

"In fact, they gave up their own land to one and daughter (Umm Kulthum) to another, hahaha!

It's something we and some Sunnis don't accept. If it was true then the 'hahaha' wouldn't be there. 😊

Izzat ki nahi jathi balkeh kamai jathi hai. Jino neh rasool ki izzat nahi ki na uss ka lehaz raka, Ali neh useh beti dhi? Dadeh pardadeh ko kaun beti detha hai. Yeh tumareh ha rawaj ho gah. Na Ali keh ha, na hamareh ha. Fatima ka rishta manganeh ai teh tho Prophet s.a.w neh mu pehar lya aur khali hath lota dia. Aur Ali neh dada pardadah ko beti di? SubhanAllah. Zara aql seh kam lo.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: muslim720 on December 27, 2019, 11:43:40 PM
I've been and I've seen on numerous occasions. Nothing of the sort is there that you and in the way and manner you mention. Now if a handful of people just a few misuse or abuse something then that is a crime.

Stop lying!  It is an "act of Sunnah" and highly encouraged in your books and by your scholars.


Quote
Picking on Ali and making it personal isn't going to wash away the stains in history.

I am not picking on Imam Ali (ra), naudhubillah!  I am restating your beliefs and contextualizing them.  If you don't like it, blame your own aqeedah.  Not my fault that the "lion of Allah" was side-lined and kept in check.  Cats are kept in check, not lions.


Quote
The Prophet s.a.w asked for pen and paper, Umar objected. The others disagreed with Umar. Some sided with Umar and the others opposed. You decided on which party was right and which wrong.

What was Imam Ali (ra) doing?  Did he move a muscle to apply corrective course of action or was he scared to speak over, and confront, Umar (ra)?


Quote
Very simple answer. Quran ki khilafwarzi. Rasool keh waqth Qur'an hi kafi tah. Saqifa or Fadak keh waqth Qur'an ko chor dia. Jo cheez jab suit kareh useh pakar lo. Jab na kareh useh chor kar dusri pakar lo. Jo tumareh mufad meh hai useh leh lo. This is how you go as well.

Hum ko to Qur'an bhi mil gaya, Sunnah bhi, Saqeefa bhi aur Fadak.  Deen aur duniya mil gaya.  Aapne land maanga, lun mil gaya.  To bas, ab usse lattak kar jhoolte raho!


Quote
Nothing to show in battle.

Who conquered more lands for Islam?  Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra) or Imam Ali (ra)?  During whose time did fitnah became widespread, Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra) or Imam Ali (ra)?


Quote
You go toe to toe in battle, not in the community. In battle it brings victory and honour. But in the community it brings unrest and civil clash.

So Imam Ali (ra) did not want to fight for his "Divinely Ordained Wilayah" or Fadak, so as to not disturb the peace in the community, but he had no issues bringing an army to Syria to fight Muawiya.  In other words, Imam Ali (ra) - as per your ideology - considered bayyah from Muawiya more important than Wilayah, Fadak and the peace among Muslims.


Quote
It's something we and some Sunnis don't accept.

The marriage of Umm Kulthoom (ra) to Umar (ra) is mentioned in both Shi'i and Sunni books so you can continue to burn in the misery of denying it while also having to live with that fact.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Mythbuster1 on December 28, 2019, 02:39:04 PM
Iceman using engineers videos who is a nobody in Pakistan and thinks he represents us Sunni Muslims in pskistan😂😂😂😂😂

What a lun!😂
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on December 28, 2019, 11:52:34 PM
Iceman using engineers videos who is a nobody in Pakistan and thinks he represents us Sunni Muslims in pskistan😂😂😂😂😂

What a lun!😂

When I point out a Sunni scholar then the answer is 'well he doesn't represent us'. When I point out something from a Sunni book then the answer is 'we don't accept that'. 😆
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on December 29, 2019, 12:20:28 AM
Stop lying!  It is an "act of Sunnah" and highly encouraged in your books and by your scholars.


I am not picking on Imam Ali (ra), naudhubillah!  I am restating your beliefs and contextualizing them.  If you don't like it, blame your own aqeedah.  Not my fault that the "lion of Allah" was side-lined and kept in check.  Cats are kept in check, not lions.


What was Imam Ali (ra) doing?  Did he move a muscle to apply corrective course of action or was he scared to speak over, and confront, Umar (ra)?


Hum ko to Qur'an bhi mil gaya, Sunnah bhi, Saqeefa bhi aur Fadak.  Deen aur duniya mil gaya.  Aapne land maanga, lun mil gaya.  To bas, ab usse lattak kar jhoolte raho!


Who conquered more lands for Islam?  Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra) or Imam Ali (ra)?  During whose time did fitnah became widespread, Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra) or Imam Ali (ra)?


So Imam Ali (ra) did not want to fight for his "Divinely Ordained Wilayah" or Fadak, so as to not disturb the peace in the community, but he had no issues bringing an army to Syria to fight Muawiya.  In other words, Imam Ali (ra) - as per your ideology - considered bayyah from Muawiya more important than Wilayah, Fadak and the peace among Muslims.


The marriage of Umm Kulthoom (ra) to Umar (ra) is mentioned in both Shi'i and Sunni books so you can continue to burn in the misery of denying it while also having to live with that fact.

"Stop lying!  It is an "act of Sunnah" and highly encouraged in your books and by your scholars"

Not true the way you put it. This has already been explained. I'll explain it again.

"I am not picking on Imam Ali (ra), naudhubillah!  I am restating your beliefs and contextualizing them.  If you don't like it, blame your own aqeedah.  Not my fault that the "lion of Allah" was side-lined and kept in check.  Cats are kept in check, not lions"

The Prophet s.a.w asked for a pen and paper. This wasn't a family only gathering where family matters or grievances needed to be discussed and sorted out. The Prophet s.a.w wanted to write something for the Sahaba so they don't go astray. Umar quickly objected and used words he shouldn't have. Others opposed and some sided with Umar. Voices were raised and fuss was created just as in Saqifa when the Ansar were going to elect a leader for the Ummah but the Shaykhain quickly rushed their to object and stop the Ansar. Ali's job here and there isn't to fuel the situation further. Those who didn't care what the Prophet s.a.w had to write and offer what blame are you trying to put on Ali here. Excuses won't and can't cover what was said and happened.

"What was Imam Ali (ra) doing?  Did he move a muscle to apply corrective course of action or was he scared to speak over, and confront, Umar (ra)?"

What course of action did you want Ali to apply. He did confront Umar. He along with other Sahaba challenged Umar over it. Just as many Sahaba along with Usman opposed the decision in Saqifa and were gathered in the house of Ali to discuss the matter.

"Hum ko to Qur'an bhi mil gaya, Sunnah bhi, Saqeefa bhi aur Fadak.  Deen aur duniya mil gaya.  Aapne land maanga, lun mil gaya.  To bas, ab usse lattak kar jhoolte raho"

Na uneh neh Qur'an ka khayal raka na Sunnah ka lehaz. Na aap ko sharam ai. Saqifa aur Fadak dunyavi tha jis ko uneh neh deen ko chor kar pakar liya. And what is this lun you keep mentioning. Where do you keep getting it from.

"Who conquered more lands for Islam?  Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra) or Imam Ali (ra)?"

Shaykhain were conquerors? Justify conquering from Qur'an and Sunnah. And they conquered what? They couldn't conquer khaibar. They miserably failed. What are you talking about.

"During whose time did fitnah became widespread, Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra) or Imam Ali (ra)?"

The ones who caused fitnah were the ones who opposed and challenged Ali. During Abu Bakr and Umar's time people had their differences with them but never cause fitna and broke up the Ummah. They didn't take the differences with the Shaykhain that far and became so selfish that they didn't care what harm came and to whom.
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Mythbuster1 on December 29, 2019, 03:28:08 PM
When I point out a Sunni scholar then the answer is 'well he doesn't represent us'. When I point out something from a Sunni book then the answer is 'we don't accept that'. 😆

Yes that’s EXACTLY right, you are using unknown youtubers passing them off as scholars 😂😂😂😂

How old are you?😜

So Yasir khabeeth is your scholar and you follow him.........shall I post his vids up and say he represents shiism?

Are you really that THICK?!?
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: iceman on December 29, 2019, 11:49:49 PM
Yes that’s EXACTLY right, you are using unknown youtubers passing them off as scholars 😂😂😂😂

How old are you?😜

So Yasir khabeeth is your scholar and you follow him.........shall I post his vids up and say he represents shiism?

Are you really that THICK?!?


"How old are you?" Same age as you 😀

"Are you really that THICK?" Not thicker than you 😁

"So Yasir khabeeth is your scholar and you follow him.........shall I post his vids up and say he represents shiism?"

The ones you pick and choose are my scholars and the ones I pick and choose aren't yours 😂
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: Mythbuster1 on December 30, 2019, 12:03:23 PM

"How old are you?" Same age as you 😀

"Are you really that THICK?" Not thicker than you 😁

"So Yasir khabeeth is your scholar and you follow him.........shall I post his vids up and say he represents shiism?"

The ones you pick and choose are my scholars and the ones I pick and choose aren't yours 😂

Thick as a plank of wood😂😂😂

The ones YOU pick YOU reckon they are ahlu sunnah scholars........I only replied we can do the same with khabeeth.

Are you really THICK? 😉
Title: Re: What happened in Saqifa?
Post by: muslim720 on December 30, 2019, 07:09:09 PM
Not true the way you put it. This has already been explained. I'll explain it again.

Apparently, you know more than your own scholars and even Imams (ra).  After all, you rejected the authentic hadith from Al-Kafi by way of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq (ra).


Quote
The Prophet s.a.w asked for a pen and paper. This wasn't a family only gathering where family matters or grievances needed to be discussed and sorted out. The Prophet s.a.w wanted to write something for the Sahaba so they don't go astray. Umar quickly objected and used words he shouldn't have. Others opposed and some sided with Umar.

How would you distinguish between those who wanted to bring a pen and paper and those who did not? 


Quote
Voices were raised and fuss was created just as in Saqifa when the Ansar were going to elect a leader for the Ummah but the Shaykhain quickly rushed their to object and stop the Ansar.

Would you say that participants in Saqeefa, and the process emanating from this meeting, were supporters of what transpired?


Quote
What course of action did you want Ali to apply.


Bring the pen and paper.


Quote
Saqifa aur Fadak dunyavi tha jis ko uneh neh deen ko chor kar pakar liya.

We all know who foam at the mouth making mentions of Saqeefa and Fadak.  A day does not go by in a Shi'i majlis when a direct or indirect reference is made to either one of the two whereas I do not recall a day in my life visiting Sunni mosques and occasions where the two were mentioned.  Clearly shows who is running after dunya!


Quote
They couldn't conquer khaibar. They miserably failed. What are you talking about.

Compare Khaibar to spreading Islam from China in the east to Morocco in the west.  No comparison!

Maybe the Shaykhain (ra) learned from their failure at Khaibar whereas Imam Ali (ra) forgot even the bits he knew.


Quote
The ones who caused fitnah were the ones who opposed and challenged Ali. During Abu Bakr and Umar's time people had their differences with them but never cause fitna and broke up the Ummah. They didn't take the differences with the Shaykhain that far and became so selfish that they didn't care what harm came and to whom.

....because the Shaykhain (ra) had put a lid on the fitnah-mongers whereas Imam Ali (ra) fell into the trap of accepting the same troublemakers as his "partisans".