What happened in Saqifa?

[iceman]

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

[zaid_ibn_ali]

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

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

[iceman]

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

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

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

[zaid_ibn_ali]

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

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

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

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

[iceman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look at it which ever way you want. Just because Abu Bakr and Omar were this, that and the other doesn't change things. It is what it is.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

Violence by who? Umar? Lol was Ali & everyone else all so scared of one person? Please...

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

[iceman]

Violence by who? Umar? Lol was Ali & everyone else all so scared of one person? Please...

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

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

[zaid_ibn_ali]

Violence by who? Umar? Lol was Ali & everyone else all so scared of one person? Please...

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

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

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

Invalid & pointless comparison.

[iceman]

Violence by who? Umar? Lol was Ali & everyone else all so scared of one person? Please...

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

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

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

Invalid & pointless comparison.

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

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

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

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

Wake up man!

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

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

[zaid_ibn_ali]

Violence by who? Umar? Lol was Ali & everyone else all so scared of one person? Please...

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

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

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

Invalid & pointless comparison.

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

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

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

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

Wake up man!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Optimus Prime]

icedude,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

[iceman]

Violence by who? Umar? Lol was Ali & everyone else all so scared of one person? Please...

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

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

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

Invalid & pointless comparison.

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

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

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

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

Wake up man!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[iceman]

icedude,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[zaid_ibn_ali]

Violence by who? Umar? Lol was Ali & everyone else all so scared of one person? Please...

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

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

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

Invalid & pointless comparison.

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

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

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

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

Wake up man!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[iceman]

We have a leader and government in North Korea, is it legitimate? We have monarchy in Saudi Arabia but leader and government, is it legitimate? I can give you many examples of leaders, rulers and governments in various countries who are recognised by the international community but are not legitimate.

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

[Optimus Prime]

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

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

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

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

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

[zaid_ibn_ali]

We have a leader and government in North Korea, is it legitimate? We have monarchy in Saudi Arabia but leader and government, is it legitimate? I can give you many examples of leaders, rulers and governments in various countries who are recognised by the international community but are not legitimate.

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

Salman & yassir were meant to be shia. Staunch followers of their infallible Imam Ali, yet they became KEY PARTS as GOVERNORS in what you call an illegitimat government, but even worse a government that was the enemy of Ali.

[iceman]

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

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

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

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

Okay! *take a deep breath*

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

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

Example 1:

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

Example 2:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Once again the words of Obayd;

"SOMETHING TERRIBLE IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN".

I will continue on your other points but calm down. RELAX!

[Optimus Prime]

I'm cool as ice dude. I'm just highlighting the silliness of your Columbus-like approach.

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

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

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

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

[Abu Muhammad]

@iceman, I was asking you this:

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

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

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

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

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