What happened in Saqifa?

[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.

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?

[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.

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...☺

[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.

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.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

@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?

[iceman]

@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.

[iceman]

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.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

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?

[iceman]

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.

[iceman]

@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.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

@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?

[iceman]

@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.

[iceman]

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?

[iceman]

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?

[Hadrami]

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 😀

[iceman]

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.

[Abu Muhammad]

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?

[iceman]

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.

[iceman]

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.

[Hani]

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.

[iceman]

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.