What happened in Saqifa?

[confusedshia]

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?

[Link]

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?

[Hani]

I have a whole book on it:
http://www.twelvershia.net/2017/02/17/book-saqifah-shura/

[MuslimK]

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.

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.

[iceman]

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.

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.

[Hadrami]

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.

[MuslimK]

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.

[iceman]

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.

[Hani]

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.

[iceman]

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.

[iceman]

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.

[iceman]

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.

[Abu Muhammad]

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?

[iceman]

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.

[Abu Muhammad]

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.

[Hani]

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.

[Hani]

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.

[Najamsethii484]

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

[Abu Muhammad]

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... 😊😊

[iceman]

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.