Response to Chapter 3 Entitled “Analysis of the Events”
Response to Chapter 3 Entitled “Analysis of the events”
Answering-Ansar says
Hadhrath Umar’s behavior upon hearing that the Prophet (saaws) is deceased
We quoted the speech of Hadhrath Umar, it should be remembered that Hadhrath Abu Bakr had heard of the Prophet (saaws)s death, the news had been sent out to the neighboring areas. Hadhrath Umar was in Madinah, so there was no doubt that he knew that the Prophet (saaws) was dead. Despite this al Tabari informs us that Hadhrath Umar was threatening to kill anyone who conveyed the Prophet (saaws)’s demise to anyone. Why, knowing that the Prophet (saaws) was dead was Hadhrath Umar seeking to deny the truth, to the extent that he even vowed in God’s name that he (saaws) was alive? Why was he reporting to threats of amputation if the truth was made known?
We have already addressed this point in our article: Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was very emotional over the loss of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) and he had entered the first stage of grief which is denial. The American Psychiatric Association (AMA) states in “Grief Counseling”:
The first stage of grief is denial of the loss…The thought of permanent loss is so painful that persons deny their loss in order to avoid facing the painful feelings. Denial of loss causes a flight from reality. Parkes et al. state that persons in denial may (thereby psychologically) minimize their loss…
Often the bereaved refuse to face the reality of the loss, and may go through a process of not believing, and pretending that the person is not really dead…This denial can take several forms: Denying the facts of the loss. The bereaved may manifest symptoms that range from slight reality distortions to full blown delusions. There may be attempts to keep the body in the house, retaining possessions ready for use when the deceased returns, or keeping the room of the deceased untouched for years…
The bereaved may invent stories, sometimes so complex as to be bizarre, to explain away the deceased’s absence…in spite of having seen the deceased’s body with one’s own eyes…[we would] intuitively assume that the bereaved would affirm the loss on seeing the deceased’s body or attending the funeral; however, this is not the case: the distortions of reality can sometimes become firmer with such “evidence.” This paradoxical effect is believed to be a result of the intensely emotional and traumatizing nature of such “evidence” (i.e. seeing the dead body) which causes the bereaved to have a flight from reality as a defense mechanism…
The bereaved may at first seem to accept the news of a loved one’s death, but later this may not be the case after having viewed the body (especially if the body is mangled, etc.) or attending the funeral…the more emotional and traumatic the experience, the higher the likelihood…of a flight from reality…
Such people will reject, often violently, any others who seek to affirm the loss that the patient has denied…Anger is a grief reaction commonly associated with denial, usually directed towards the harbinger of the news of the loss as well as those who seek to affirm the loss or those who reject the denial…these people require careful and appropriate grief counseling…
(Grief Counseling, American Psychiatric Association)
Our Shia brothers often bring up Umar’s denial as some sort of proof against him, but if anything, it serves as a strong proof that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) loved the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) so deeply that he could not face this loss of his loved one. His denial was a psychological defense mechanism. The author of this article has himself went through his psychiatry rotation in medical school, and can say without any shadow of doubt that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was displaying a textbook presentation of denial.
It should also be noted that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) would later apologize to those he threatened. His apology speech is mentioned in “The History of al-Tabari” (Vol.9, p.200-201).
Answering-Ansar says
[Was] Hadhrath Umar under the view that the Prophet (saaws) was super-human and could never die?
Why should Answering-Ansar ask this question unless they are ignorant of the historical record? Even a novice Islamic historian knows that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) himself explained the reason why he thought that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) had not died. Umar (رضّى الله عنه) said:
“Do you know, Ibn Abbas, what prompted me to speak as I did when the Messenger of Allah died? …By Allah, nothing prompted me (to utter those words) but that I used to read the following [Quranic] verse: ‘We have set you up as a moderate nation so that you may act as witness of mankind, as the Messenger is a witness for you.’ (Quran, 2:143) By Allah, I thought that the Messenger of Allah would remain among his people until he could witness for them to their last deeds. That was what prompted me to say what I said.”
(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.9, p.201)
So why would Answering-Ansar ask such an ignorant question such as “was Umar (رضّى الله عنه) under the view that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was super-human and could never die?” Umar (رضّى الله عنه) himself clearly said that he did in fact think that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) could die but that he thought that he would be the last of them to die (i.e. after the death of all the Sahabah). This was based on the verse in the Quran in which Allah says that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was acting as a witness over them (i.e. the Sahabah), and it was on this basis that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) reasoned that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) must literally witness the acts and deeds of the Sahabah until each and every one of them died.
Naturally, this sort of rationalization by Umar (رضّى الله عنه) may seem far-fetched, but having gone through my psychiatry rotation in medical school, the author must concur with the American Psychiatry Association:
The bereaved may invent stories, sometimes so complex as to be bizarre, to explain away the deceased’s absence…in spite of having seen the deceased’s body with one’s own eyes…
(Grief Counseling, American Psychiatry Association)
Furthermore, it is well-known that many Shia claim that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) is omnipresent even today, and they cite as evidence the same Quranic verse (2:143). They argue that this verse says that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) is a witness over us and this can only mean that he is omnipresent, witnessing everything that we do. If the Shia can believe such a blasphemous idea, then why should they of all people have anything against Umar (رضّى الله عنه) temporarily thinking that perhaps the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) would be the last of them to die?
The sort of rationalization used by Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was an elobarate defense mechanism. If anything, this shows how strongly Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was affected by the Prophet’s death and it dispels the myth perpetrated by the Shia that these Sahabah did not love the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم).
Answering-Ansar says
Hadhrath Umar felt that his request should be refused because he was not in the right frame of mind? Why the sudden change in attitude?
This is obfuscation of the truth of the incident to which Answering-Ansar is referring to. Umar (رضّى الله عنه) had decided against giving the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) a pen because he felt that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was overwhelmed with pain and instead of worrying about others he should worry about himself. This was a gesture of love and kindness on the behalf of Umar (رضّى الله عنه) . It is similar to Ali (رضّى الله عنه) who refused the Prophet’s request while signing the Treaty of Hudaibiya; the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) asked Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to erase something and Ali (رضّى الله عنه) refused to do so, out of love for the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم). Likewise, did Umar (رضّى الله عنه) decide against giving the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) a pen, out of love for the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) who was in a great deal of pain and should rest.
In any case, we shall write another article Insha-Allah on the (non)incident of the pen and paper. This episode has absolutely no relevance to the discussion at hand, and it is only too typical of the Shia propagandist to bring up side topics in a debate.
Answering-Ansar says
What we find most interesting is that a few years earlier Hadhrath Umar was of the opinion that not only could the Prophet (saaws) die, he was dead. This occurred during the Battle of Uhud when Khalid bin Waleed mounted an onslaught on the Muslims, the enemy raised the battle cry that the Prophet (saaws) had been killed Hadhrath Umar was amongst those companions who had left the Prophet (saaws)’s side and sought refuge in the mountains…
Just compare the two different approaches, Hadhrath Umar had heard that the Prophet (saaws) was dead. Without inquiring in to the matter he abandoned fighting and took refuge in the mountains. What better time would there have been for Hadhrath Umar to had shown his affection for the Prophet (saaws) by urging the companions not to listen to rumor. Why did Hadhrath Umar not insist that the Prophet (saaws) could not die? Why did he not seek to console the dejected troops by asserting that if the Prophet (saaws) was indeed missing it was due to the fact that he was in communication with Allah (swt) as Musa (as) was when he descended to Mount Sinai? Why did Hadhrath Umar not insist that the companions ignore rumors of the Prophet (saaws)’s death and continue to fight? Rather than dropping his sword, what better time would there have been for Hadhrath Umar to hold aloft his sword and declare to the Muslims that ‘the Prophet (saaws) cannot die let us continue the fight, I will kill anyone who says that the Prophet (saaws) is dead’. Yet we read that Hadhrath Umar chose to adopt a more relaxed attitude, he was quite content to listen to the rumor and accept it.
Now look at the completely different response upon the death of the Prophet (saaws), now Hadhrath Umar was holding his sword aloft threatening those who said that the Prophet (saaws) was dead. Alas if only that same vehemence had been adopted in Uhud.
To the lay-person this may seem like a viable argument, but to anyone who has gone through psychiatry in medical school, Answering-Ansar’s argument would seem sophomoric at best. We read:
The bereaved may invent stories, sometimes so complex as to be bizarre, to explain away the deceased’s absence…in spite of having seen the deceased’s body with one’s own eyes…[we would] intuitively assume that the bereaved would affirm the loss on seeing the deceased’s body or attending the funeral; however, this is not the case: the distortions of reality can sometimes become firmer with such “evidence.” This paradoxical effect is believed to be a result of the intensely emotional and traumatizing nature of such “evidence” (i.e. seeing the dead body) which causes the bereaved to have a flight from reality as a defense mechanism…
The bereaved may at first seem to accept the news of a loved one’s death, but later this may not be the case after having viewed the body (especially if the body is mangled, etc.) or attending the funeral…the more emotional and traumatic the experience, the higher the likelihood…of a flight from reality…
(Grief Counseling, American Psychiatric Association)
Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, a Swiss psychiatrist, is the one credited with having systematized the “stages of grief” used by psychiatrists and psychologists worldwide. The five stages of grief are: denial, anger, bargaining, grieving, and acceptance. According to Dr. Kubler-Ross, however, there is a lag time before a person enters the period of grief. It is this lag time which she termed as the “period of shock.” Dr. Kubler-Ross described shock as a feeling of “unreality”, or a feeling of numbness. During this time period, the first thing a person does is immediately stop doing whatever he is doing, or even drop whatever he is holding and fall down.
It is quite clear that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was in shock when he heard the rumor of the Prophet’s death during the Battle of Uhud. He immediately stopped doing whatever he was doing (i.e. fighting), dropped whatever he was holding (i.e. dropped his sword), and fell down in a state of non-responsiveness. Had things developed further, it is likely that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) would have entered into the next phase, or the first stage of grief (which comes after shock). Had Umar (رضّى الله عنه) seen the Prophet’s mutilated corpse on the battlefield of Uhud, then this would definitely be characterized as an “emotional and traumatic experience” that could cause “a flight from reality.” However, such an event did not take place, and instead the Sahabah were reassured that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was in fact alive, thereby cutting short the cycle of grief. In other words, Answering-Ansar’s conspiracy theories do not have any medical basis whatsoever, as Umar’s reaction was a classic textbook case. It should be noted that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was known to be a highly emotional and dramatic person, so it is not at all strange that he would react in such a strong manner. Was it not Umar (رضّى الله عنه) who was complimented by the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) for this very trait, a quality that he used in the protection of Islam against the Enemies of Allah?
Answering-Ansar says
There was clearly more to it, something was happening and even the staunch Sunni scholar Numani admits that the actions of Hadhrath Umar in denying the death of the Prophet (saaws) and threatening to kill those who spread the news was because:
“Omar may have deemed it politic to suppress the news as there was a large number of hypocrites in Madinah who were only waiting for the Prophet’s death to ferment trouble”.
Al Faruq, by Allamah Shibli Numani, Vol 1 p 87
This was simply a theory by one author and it has no basis. Modern psychiatry and psychology have afforded us an opportunity to clearly understand the basis for Umar’s denial of the Prophet’s death, and therefore, it seems altogether unnecessary to probe into the matter further.
Answering-Ansar says
The reality is Hadhrath Umar was merely seeking to stall time he was waiting for Hadhrath Abu Bakr to arrive from Sukh [sic]. Whilst some might view Hadhrath Umar’s actions as the actions of a devastated distraught man,
Answering-Ansar has outdone themselves in creating a very fanciful and creative conspiracy theory. Instead of viewing things as an unbiased person who would naturally assume that indeed Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was a distressed and distraught man, the Shia put on their conspiracy caps and ask us to believe that this was all some sort of ploy. And of course, they make such grandoise claims without a shred of evidence to back themselves up.
We need not even deal with Answering-Ansar’s conspiracy tales, but let us play along: the Shia argument is that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) denied the Prophet’s death in order to prevent Ali (رضّى الله عنه) from declaring himself Caliph in the absence of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) . If indeed this was the case, then why would the Shaikhayn immediately head out towards Saqifah leaving Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and others of the Banu Hashim at the Prophet’s house? Would this then not be the ideal time for Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to declare his Caliphate, in the presence of his supporters from his own family? If what Answering-Ansar is claiming is true, then the last thing the Shaikhayn would do is leave Ali (رضّى الله عنه) un-supervised! If Umar (رضّى الله عنه) feared that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) would declare his Caliphate in the absence of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) , then why would Umar (رضّى الله عنه) inform Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) that they must head out towards Saqifah? Surely, the Shia arguments make no sense!
Answering-Ansar says
one will note how swiftly these feelings of distress evaporate upon Hadhrath Abu Bakr’s inaugural speech, in which he quoted a Qur’anic verse that the Prophet (saaws) like other men could also die. With the recital of this verse Hadhrath Umar became convinced that the Prophet (saaws) was dead…
Normally the response of a distressed man would be to become traumatized by the tragic loss of a loved one and to develop symptoms of shock and horror at the devastating news. Hadhrath Umar reacted very differently his shock is temporary it completely evaporates within a matter seconds, he in fact makes such a remarkable recovery that he is well and confident enough to make a journey to the Saqifa, put the death behind him and debate about the Khilafath.
Another blatant lie. Answering-Ansar is claiming that as soon as Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) came and said those words that suddenly Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was alright. Far from it. Umar (رضّى الله عنه) said:
“By Allah, when I heard Abu Bakr reciting it, my legs could not support me and I fell down at the very moment of hearing him reciting it, declaring that the Prophet had died.”
(Sahih Bukhari: Volume 5, Book 59, Number 733)
What exactly evaporates in a matter of seconds? Umar (رضّى الله عنه) does not immediately smile and waltz to Saqifah, as Answering-Ansar is portraying. Instead, upon hearing Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) confirm the Prophet’s death, Umar’s legs gave away and he fell to the ground in grief and devestation. And this state of devestation continued for some time, and then slowly Umar (رضّى الله عنه) got the will-power to help taking care of the Prophet’s funeral arrangements. And then only after some more time did a man rush to Umar (رضّى الله عنه) begging him to come out; Umar (رضّى الله عنه) at first rebuffed this man, but only assented to the man’s desire after he was convinced that it was a national state of emergency.
As a side-note, Answering-Ansar says “his shock is temporary it completely evaporates within a matter seconds.” To anyone having gone through medical school, such a statement is laughable, considering the fact that the very definition of the word “shock” is that it is temporary and fleeting! A truly laughable mistake of the Answering-Ansar lay-persons.
Answering-Ansar says
The Inside Informant - why the secrecy?
We learn how Hadhrath Umar receives exclusive information of the meeting at Saqifa. The man from the Ansar specifically calls Hadhrath Umar outside.
Keeping the spirit of conspiracy theory, Answering-Ansar now uses cloak-and-dagger terms such as “the inside informant.” Is this for dramatic effect? If so, it is a complete failure and only shows how desperate and far-fetched the Shia theories are. Indeed, this was not the work of the Israeli Mossad or the American CIA, but rather it was only one singular man who had witnessed what was happening at Saqifah, saw that the Ansars were ready to declare war on the Muhajirs, and then quickly went to the Prophet’s house to warn of this danger. And at the Prophet’s Mosque, this man saw Umar (رضّى الله عنه) and so informed him of what was happening. Unfortunately, reality is more mundane than the Shia sensationalists imply: a man informed Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , that is all. Nothing more sensational than that.
Answering-Ansar says
Hadhrath Umar learns that the Ansar have gathered inside the Saqifa he calls Hadhrath Abu Bakr and the both set off in the direction of the meeting. The information is kept hidden from all the other companions. In this day and age one regularly learns of public outcry’s when information is hidden from the public information which is in the public interest, which they might want I say it could for example be on an issue which concerns there future well being of the country’s citizens. Now the question one must ask here is ‘Was the issue of a secret meeting which could lead to civil strife’ not in the public interest?’ Did the companions not have a right to know about it? What right did Hadhrath Umar have to keep the matter a secret? If the meeting was so crucial why could other prominent companions not also have been told invited to attend? Why was this information so ‘top secret’?
Once again, Answering-Ansar has resorted to using Mission Impossible words, such as “top secret.” We wonder how any unbiased person can take Shia history seriously, as it is all based on a giant conspiracy theory. In any case, what exactly was top secret? Was there any evidence at all that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) hid the information from anyone? All that happened was that they decided to rush towards Saqifah in order to diffuse the problem. There is no evidence that they were hiding this information. In fact, we find that on the way Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) met Abu Ubaidah (رضّى الله عنه) , and they told Abu Ubaidah (رضّى الله عنه) about the situation quite openly. Furthermore, they met two Ansars on the way, and the Shaikhayn (Abu Bakr and Umar) even informed them about their intentions of going to Saqifah. So quite contrary to what Answering-Ansar is saying, there is no “top secret” and the Shaikhayn openly told people they met what was going on. However, they were in a rush to go to Saqifah and therefore they did not have the time to “round up the troops”.
Having said all that, we must correct Answering-Ansar on another point, simply for the sake that they are saying ridicolous things that cannot go un-corrected. Answering-Ansar asks “Was the issue of a secret meeting which could lead to civil strife not in the public interest?” We are very sorry to burst Answering-Ansar’s bubble, but in such a situation any capable leader would in fact deem it in the national interest to keep such information surpressed from the public. If the news were to become disseminated that the Ansars were ready to enforce their Caliph over everyone else (even through the force of arms), this would have resulted in civil disorder, mass chaos, and public pandemonium. Angry people from other tribes would get up in arms and march out to fight the Ansars so that their own Caliph could be instated. It is in fact a very fortuitous thing that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) went with only two Companions instead of a whole pack of Muhajirs. Had he done the latter, it is likely that the Ansars would feel threatened and things would easily have gone to blows. The Shaikhayn and Abu Ubaidah (رضّى الله عنه) were in fact an envoy of peace whose sole purpose was to prevent the Ansars from angering the masses. Indeed, whilst on the way to Saqifah, these three Muhajirs did in fact meet an Ansar who told them to go back to their own people and declare their own Caliph. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) instead chose to be very political in this very precarious situation and diffuse the situation in a careful–as opposed to reckless–manner. In any case, this is all a non-issue because Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) had no time to gather the Muhajirs as the Ansars were only moments away from declaring their own Caliph; the Shaikhayn therefore could afford no waste of time (i.e. they could not take out the time to round up the Muhajirs) and instead rushed to Saqifah posthaste.
Answering-Ansar says
The venue
One would have expected the forum for debating the issue of succession would be a grand one, but the reality is it took place at a place “where Arabs would meet to scheme evil activities”. 1
Ghiyathu’l lughat, by Ghiyath’d-Din, p 228 by Muhammad ibn Jalaladeen Rampuri Ghiyathu’din (Nawal Kishor Press, Lucknow, 1867)
Why should an issue of such primary importance be discussed in a place such as this? Would you consider this to be an appropriate to discuss the selection of any post let alone that of the Prophet (saaws)’s successor? Why this small secret venue? Would a better venue not had been the Prophet (saaws)’s Mosque - where all could attend and speak freely upon the matter? Why did the three Muhajireen not raise this option? They raise no objection to the venue and the issue is thawed out between the two parties.
The Ghiyathu’l lughat by Ghiyath’d-Din…? What on earth is that? What kind of obscure and unheard of text are the Shia propagandists trying to pass off as an “authoratative Sunni text” when we have never heard of it? In fact, based on the name, this text is likely a dictionary of some sort.
In any case, the Shaikhayn and Abu Ubaidah (رضّى الله عنه) were not the ones to choose the venue. As has been discussed thoroughly, it was the Ansars who assembled at Saqifah and the three Muhajirs were forced to go there in order to stop them from nominating their own Caliph. The Ansars were the cause of the gathering. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) were forced to proceed to Saqifah in order to prevent a civil war. The election of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was something un-premeditated and purely spontaneous. To this effect, Umar (رضّى الله عنه) said:
“The pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was an un-premeditated spontaneous affair which was (then only later) ratified.”
(Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817)
When Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), Umar (رضّى الله عنه), and Abu Ubaidah (رضّى الله عنه) arrived at Saqifah, they came to know of the resolve of the Ansars (i.e. in seeking to nominate their own man to Caliphate); and so these three Muhajirs attempted to persuade the Ansars to change their minds. The Ansars waivered and the Muhajirs jumped on this opportunity to resolve the conflict. Some people might ask: why didn’t the Shaikhayn or Abu Ubaidah (رضّى الله عنه) suggest delaying the nomination of the Caliph until all of the Muhajirs (such as Ali) could be summoned? Umar (رضّى الله عنه) himself explained the reason:
“…because we were afraid that if we left the people (without rendering the oath of allegiance), they might (in our absence) give the pledge of allegiance after us to one of their men…”
(Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817)
In a slightly different version, Umar (رضّى الله عنه) explained:
“We feared that if we left (without rendering the oath of allegiance), no agreement would be hammered out (with the Ansar) later. (And if they then elected one of their own men) it was either to follow the Ansar in what we did not approve of (i.e. disobey the Prophet’s words), or else oppose them (i.e. with the sword), which would have led to disorder (fasad).”
(History of al-Tabari, Vol. 9, p.194)
Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) would later say to Ali (رضّى الله عنه):
“Had I delayed the matter, it would have posed a greater danger to the unity, integrity, and solidarity of Islam. How could I send for you when there was no time?”
(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.276)
Answering-Ansar says
The Parties
Those debating at Saqifa were the Ansar (vast bulk of the tribe) and what historians have incorrectly quoted the Muhajireen.
We don’t know what Answering-Ansar is saying here due to their poor writing abilities. What they wrote above is not a sentence. We would respond if we knew what they meant to say.
Answering-Ansar says
The Sunni group Idara Isha’at e diniyat (P) Ltd. undoubtedly fully aware of the true facts seek to convince their readership that a free and frank debate involving all the companions occurred, they write:
“After the demise of Rasulullah Sallallahu alahi wa sallam all the prominent Sahaba Radhialllahu anhum gathered at a place called the Saqifa Bani Saad”.
Aqaaidul Islam, by Idara Isha’at e diniyat, English translation by Moulana Zahier Ahmad Ragie, published by Idara Isha’at e diniyat, page 127
This is just a poor translation. It should read: “After the demise of Rasool-Allah (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), all the prominent Sahabah (from the Ansar) gathered at a place called Saqifah…” This is evident from the very next sentence in which the author says: “Among them were also those Sahabah whom Rasool-Allah had given the glad tidings of Paradise in this world.” The author would not have used the word “also” if he had truly meant to imply that all of the Sahabah were present at Saqifah; such an implication would obviate the need to use the term “also”.
Answering-Ansar says
What one should ask this group is ‘why were only three prominent companions from the Muhajireen present at Saqifa? Were men such as Hadhrath Ali and the other members of Banu Hashim, Hadhrath Uthman, Talha, Zubair, Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas not prominent?
We have already repeatedly responded to this accusation. The Ansars were just about to finalize the nomination of their own Caliph; Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) had to rush towards Saqifah before this could happen. There was, therefore, no time to round up the Muhajirs. In reality, the fact that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) took along with him only two people is a strong evidence that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) had no intention of taking the Caliphate for himself, because if this had been the case, then he surely would have taken along with him more of his own supporters.
It should be noted that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) mentioned in detail during his Caliphate that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) went to Saqifah only in order to caution the Ansars against taking any action that would spark a civil war. When Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) left for Saqifah, he had no intention whatsoever of becoming Caliph himself; had this been the case, then surely Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) would have brought along more than two of his supporters. Surely, if what our Shia brothers portray is true, then shouldn’t Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) have brought with him a whole mass of his supporters and friends? Instead, he went with only two Companions to a large group of the Ansars. At Saqifah, there were thus only three Muhajirs who were far outnumbered by the Ansars. This would be a less than ideal situation for a Muhajir like Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه): Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) would have only two supporters whereas Saad ibn Ubaadah (رضّى الله عنه) had a whole gathering of Ansars to back him! Common sense dictates that if Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) had conspired to take the Caliphate for themselves, then surely they would have brought along with them more Muhajir friends of theirs.
This fact cannot be stressed enough, as it completely vindicates Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) of all suspicion. These two men were so unaware of such a happening that they went to Saqifah with no more than one man with them! Had they desired to take the Caliphate, then what prevented them from taking along with them a strong group of their supporters? Why did they not take along Uthman bin Affan (رضّى الله عنه), Khalid bin Waleed (رضّى الله عنه), Muawiyyah ibn Abu Sufyan (رضّى الله عنه), etc? If this was a coup d’état as the Shia claim, then it had to be the worst planned operation ever in the history of humanity. The Ansars were the great majority at Saqifah and they were ready to pledge Baya’ah to one of their own men; if Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) wanted to further his own claim to the Caliphate, he should have brought enough of his supporters to overwhelm the Ansars. Instead, he came with only two Companions. Indeed, it was not a grab for power at all, but rather Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), Umar (رضّى الله عنه), and Abu Ubaidah (رضّى الله عنه) set out only to counsel the Ansars, hoping that their veteran status would straighten out the Ansars.
The reality is that it is not right to complain about how Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was not taken along to Saqifah. How can anyone complain of this when the Shaikhayn did not even bring along their closest friends and supporters? Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) didn’t find the need to bring along Ali (رضّى الله عنه)–or any of the other Muhajir Sahabah, for that matter–because they had no idea whatsoever that an election would take place. Instead, they went only to prevent the Ansars from electing their own leader: it was well-known that if the Ansars announced themselves the leaders, then the other tribes would fail to recognize them, declare their own leader, and fall into civil war.
Answering-Ansar says
Arguments based on tribal affiliation
At Saqifa the central argument advanced by both sides was over tribal superiority. The entire event consisted of arguments over which side was better. The Saqifa managed to re-ignite the differences that The Holy Prophet (saaws) had throughout his mission sought to eliminate. He had declared that both tribes were brothers, it was a far cry from the famous sermon during the Final Pilgrimage when the Prophet (saaws) said all are equal in Allah (swt)’s eyes and that the closest to Allah (swt) are those who are pious. This sermon had been completely erased at Saqifa tribal rivalries that during the lifetime of the Prophet (saaws) had been subdued were rekindled. A ‘them’ and ‘us’ attitude was quite evident if one analyses the speeches given.
The “us vs them” debate at Saqifah was between the Ansars on the one hand and the Muhajirs on the other hand. Neither the “Ansars” nor the “Muhajirs” were a tribe and therefore it is incorrect to say that this was a debate about tribal rivalries or Assabiyyah (bigotry/tribalism). The Ansars were made up of the Aws and the Khazraj, who have historically been warring tribes; in fact, before the advent of Islam, the Aws and the Khazraj had been locked into a hundred year long Hatfield and McCoy feud. So how then can the Shia refer to the Ansars as a tribal unit? The term “Ansars” (Helpers) therefore did not at all refer to a specific tribal group but rather it was a term bestowed upon those who helped the Muhajirs. As for the Muhajirs, they were a small segment of the Quraish who were historically in opposition to the rest of the Quraish. The “Muhajirs” (Emigrants) were a group not defined by their tribal affiliation but rather on the merit of having been of those who emigrated in the Cause of Allah. These were two groups defined not by their lineage but rather by their merits and deeds; therefore, the question arose as to whether the leadership should fall to those who emigrated in the Path of Allah or those who helped them.
The spirit of Islam is that people should be awarded based upon their merits and accomplishments, not because of their lineage or family. The three Muhajirs were arguing for the Caliphate based upon their merits, accomplishments, and service for Islam. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) argues:
“(We were) the first on earth to worship Allah (in Islam) and we were the patrons (of the Prophet) and the supporting group of the Prophet. (It is we) who tolerated (great suffering) and suffered with him (through many) adversities…”
(History of al-Tabari, Volume 3, p.219)
The arguments Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) made on his own behalf were all about good deeds, merits, and accomplishments; therefore, we cannot accuse him of Assabiyyah (bigotry/tribalism). Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) himself only furthered the religious and spiritual arguments (i.e. the merits of the Muhajirs), and he only mentioned the practical and socio-political arguments (i.e. the position of the Quraish in relation to the other tribes) as the views held by the general public, not by himself; the latter were important only insofar as maintaining the unity of the fledgling Muslim empire. This distinction–between religious and socio-political reasons–is important to understand.
Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was not saying that he himself viewed the Ansars as inferior because of their tribal affiliations. In fact, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) acknowledged the greatness and accomplishments of the Ansars. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) only reminded the Ansars that whereas they themselves acknowledged the greatness of the Ansars, this was not true for the masses of Arabia. Again, this was not the view of the Shaikhayn but rather the very real public opinion of the various tribes of Arabia. The Shia propagandists may accuse Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) of “inventing” this excuse and using the public opinion as a guise for their own selfish interests; however, unfortunately for them, it was the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) himself who voiced these concerns and the Shaikhayn were simply repeating what the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) had said. The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) had said:
“After me, the political authority shall be transferred to the Quraish.”
(Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hambal, vol. 3, p. 183)
The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) clearly explained the reason for this:
“People (of Arabia) in this matter (i.e. leadership) follow the Quraish. The believers of Arabia are the followers of their believers and the disbelievers of Arabia are the followers of their disbelievers.”
(Muslim, Kitabu’l-Imarah)
Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) said:
“(O Ansar) you are our brethren in Islam and our partners in religion…but the Arabs will not submit themselves except to this clan of Quraish…we (the Quraish) are in the center among the Muslims with respect to our position…”
(The History of al-Tabari, Volume 9, p.193)
Likewise, we read:
He (Abu Bakr) said: “All the good that you have said about yourselves (O Ansars) is deserved. But the Arabs will recognize authority only in this clan of Quraish, they being (considered) the best of the Arabs in blood and country. I offer you one of these two men (Umar and Abu Ubaidah): accept whom you please.’ ”
(Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah)
Notice that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) himself acknowledged the greatness of the Ansars, but he was merely pointing out that the Arab masses did not feel the same way. Likewise, did Umar (رضّى الله عنه) say that “the rest of Arabia would never accept a non-Quraish (leader).” It was not the Shaikhayn’s own viewpoint, but rather it was the view of the various tribes that had only recently come into the folds of Islam after the Quraish of Mecca had converted to Islam en masse. Before the Islamic era, these tribes had looked to the Quraish as their leaders and they would not accept it if anyone imposed some other leadership on them. We have discussed this issue in depth in our article: “Saqifah: A Sunni View”.
Shaikh Al-Sunnah and Lisaan al-Ummah (i.e. Imam al-Baqillani) stated that the there is no requirement that a person must be Quraishi in order to be Caliph. He stated that a person must simply belong to the majority group. This is also stated by Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Muhammad Riya-Ad-Deen, namely that the leader must simply belong to the group in the majority. Because the Quraishis were the majority group at the time of the Prophet’s death, therefore the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said the Caliph must be Quraishi. Again, this was based on the principle of majority rule, not upon Assabiyyah (bigotry/tribalism).
In any case, the Shia are the last ones who have the right to criticize anyone of Assabiyyah. The entire argument of the Shia is based upon the idea that the leadership of Islam must remain in one particular lineage (i.e. the Banu Hashim); they reject Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) based on the fact that he was born of the wrong family, an argument based in Assabiyyah. The Shia say that Nahjul Balagha contains the letters and sermons of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) ; of course, the Sunnis know that many of these letters and sermons are fabrications. Nonetheless, let us read what the Shia consider to be authentic. We read:
“Your ancestor, Ummayya was not equal to our ancestor, the famous Hashim, neither Harb, another ancestor of yours, was equal to our Abdul Muttalib…What is more, no freed-slave can be considered equal to a Muhajir and one coming from a doubtful lineage cannot claim to be equal to those who come from the noble parentage…”
(Nahjul Balagha, Letter 17, http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/index.htm)
What could be more biggotted than this Shia saying, namely that a freed-slave cannot be considered equal to a Muhajir or that one coming from a doubtful lineage cannot claim to be equal to those who come from a noble one? Is this not the essence of Assabiyyah? Compare this to the Sunnis who have a saying that even an Abyssinian slave can be the Caliph; the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said in a Sunni Hadith:
“I admonish you to fear Allah, to listen and obey (your leader) even if an Abyssinian slave is appointed as your leader.”
(Sunan Abu Dawud and Al-Tirmidhi)
Such is the bigotry in the Shia faith, in which leadership and Caliphate can only go to those of the right lineage and not to those of “lowly” descent. The Shia propagandists attempt to justify this by saying that the Sunnis also say that the leadership must remain within the Quraish. However, this is obfuscation of the truth: the strongest viewpoint amongst the Sunnis–that held by Shaikh Al-Sunnah–is that the requirement is simply that the leader must come from the majority group, which in this case was of course the Quraish.
The reason that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) acknowledged that the leadership should remain within the Quraish was because he respected the right of the people to decide for themselves who would be their Caliph; to impose upon them someone that the vast majority of the people reject would not at all be just. The Arabian and Islamic tradition was established that among the various groups present, only that group assumed the political authority which enjoyed the confidence of the majority of the people. At the time of the Prophet’s death, this was the Quraish of Mecca and not the Ansars (i.e. Aws and Khazraj) of Medinah.
It should be noted that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was not at all being racist or discriminatory. But rather, he was applying the principles of self-determination and popular sovereignty that are accepted today by international law. To give a proper analogy: the former USSR was made up of many republics, including Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Armenia, etc. Of these, Russia is the most dominant. Would it be fair to impose an Armenian on the masses when they would not recognize him? Surely not! It would only be fair and just for a Russian to be the leader of the USSR because only he would be accepted by the vast majority of the people. Likewise, in Islamic Law, the leader must be accepted by the masses who pledge their Baya’ah to him; if the masses do not pledge their Baya’ah to a person, then he cannot be Caliph over them as that would be tyranny.
To conclude the matter, the leadership remained with the Quraish due to the principle of popular sovereignity and self-determination. The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was not at all saying that the Quraish were superior based on their lineage, and in fact, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) warned against such Assabiyyah (tribalism/bigotry) in multiple Hadith. Instead, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was merely saying that the Quraish were fit to be the rulers because they commanded the support of the masses of Arabia.
On the other hand, the Shia argument is that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) created a dynastic rulership in which he imposed his own family upon the masses. This is tyranny and oppression. Notice the difference between what the Sunnis say (i.e. the Prophet wanted that group to rule which had the most popular base of support) and what the Shia say (i.e. the Prophet’s family should be imposed upon the masses despite the fact that 33,000 Sahabah did not want this). What the Sunnis say is based upon the principles of self-determination and popular sovereignity, whereas what the Shia say is based upon tyranny and Assabiyyah (bigotry/discrimination). There is a world of difference between allowing the majority to have their way on the one hand, and imposing one’s own family on the unwilling masses on the other hand.
Written By: Ibn al-Hashimi, www.ahlelbayt.com
|
|