What happened in Saqifa?

[Abu Muhammad]

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?

[iceman]

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?

[iceman]

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.

[Abu Muhammad]

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

[iceman]

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.

[Abu Muhammad]

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?

[iceman]

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.

[iceman]

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?

[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.

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.

[Najamsethii484]

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

[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.

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?

[iceman]

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?

[Hani]

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.

[Hani]

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.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

@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.

[iceman]

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.

[iceman]

@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.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

@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.

[iceman]

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.

[Zahra]

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.