Abu bakr and Umar RA

[JayshAllah]

Shukran brother Jaysh your efforts in this direction are much appreciated

May Allah reward you.

Assalamu alaikum!

I will try to answer this question, taking into account that this is a chapter from my graduation paper

Wa Alaykum As-Salam,

Your summary of the event is good, except two things I'd like to comment on, Insha-Allah.

The third position was held by those that supported Ali ibn Abu Talib, as he was his relative, and to whom the Prophet adressed several times with "my brother" and "my heir".

(1) As for referring to Ali [ra] as "brother", then the Prophet [s] similarly addressed Abu Bakr [ra] as his brother, and this is recorded in the Sahihayn. I can pull out the quote if you wish, Insha-Allah. The Shia arguments are funny because they will find a quote where the Prophet [s] calls Ali [ra] to be his brother, and no Sunni will deny this. And yet, since when can you only have only one brother???? And even more than this, if the Shia would like to claim Ali's right over Abu Bakr simply because the Prophet [s] called Ali [ra] his "brother", then Abu Bakr [ra] has an even greater right since the Prophet [s] called Abu Bakr [ra] not only his brother but also his father!! And we all know that "father" is a higher position than brother!

(2) As for the claim that the Prophet [s] called Ali [ra] as "his heir", this is no doubt based on weak and inauthentic narrations! So we do not accept this!

Ali, on this time, being a member of the Prophet's family was busy preparing for the funeral.

Yes, but more specifically, Ali [ra] was doing Ghusl of the Prophet's body, a task which is reserved for a handful of close relatives. The rules in Fiqh say that as FEW people as possible should be in the room when the body is washed, in order to maintain the Haya of the body. And Fiqh further specifies that the close relatives should do it. We read:

“The dead body should preferably be washed by a relative.”

(Everyday Fiqh, Vol.1, by Abdul Aziz Kamal, http://muslim-canada.org/fiqhch29.html)

And:

“At the washing, only people whose presence is needed may stay.”

(Fiqh-us-Sunnah, Vol.4, Sayyid Saabiq)

And we read further:

"The majority of jurists are of the opinion that washing the body of a dead Muslim is a fard kifayah or a collective obligation. If some people attend to it, it is done on behalf of all, as commanded by Allah’s Messenger, peace be upon him, and practiced by the Muslim community."

(Fiqh-us-Sunnah, Vol.4, Sayyid Saabiq)

In other words:

1. The Prophet’s body should have been washed by his close relatives.
2. No other extra person should be present except those absolutely necessary from amongst his relatives.
3. The obligation to wash the Prophet’s body is a communal obligation; the Prophet’s relatives removed any obligation from the shoulders of the rest of the community, including Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) .

My point is that Abu Bakr [ra] ONLY missed the Ghusl, not the FUNERAL, which he most definitely attended. All of this means that the Shia are barking for no reason. Abu Bakr [ra] only missed the Ghusl, something he [ra] couldn't take part in any way. As for the funeral, Abu Bakr [ra] was most definitely there for that.

Not only did Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) help out with the burial, he was actually the one who is credited with deciding where the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was to be buried. We read:

" The task of washing the body being over, the Companions were divided over the place of burial. Abu Bakr then said: “I have heard from the Messenger of Allah that every Prophet is buried at the spot where he has breathed his last.” The Prophet’s bedding was accordingly removed from the place and a grave was dug for him at the spot. "

(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.246)

But later on, when Abu Sufyan approached him and summoned to take the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr,

I don't think Abu Sufyan [ra] asked Ali [ra] to take Baya'ah to Abu Bakr [ra], but rather Abu Sufyan [ra] said that he himself was ready to swear allegiance to Ali [ra] and back him with soldiers AGAINST Abu Bakr [ra].

I think maybe you just had a typo there. So just clearing it up.


Anyways, otherwise your summary was good. I don't mean to nitpick. Just wanted to make it a bit clearer Insha-Allah.

[Nahla Naji]

I think maybe you just had a typo there. So just clearing it up.


Anyways, otherwise your summary was good. I don't mean to nitpick. Just wanted to make it a bit clearer Insha-Allah.

Assalamu alaikum!
Masha Allah, thanks for the specifications, may Allah reward you... I understood exactely your intentions, don't worry, and when it comes to Islam, to what we do for Allah, any help is wellcomed, any corrections, any specifications, because we work for Allah and our intentions is to bring the truth to light...
Jazak Allah khair...

[Encaphlon]

Salaam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh

Dear brother, JayshAllah, could you please give some references on, Rasoolallah calling Abu bakr (RA), his father and brother?

May allah swt reward you!

Wa asalaam

[aliq]

This particular narration in Tabari is weak and inauthentic. You Shia do not even accept it when we quote FOUR SAHIH narrations from Al-Kafi to prove to you that Umar [ra] married Ali's daughter Umm Kulthoom [ra]. So why in the world should we accept the weak and inauthentic narration from a HISTORIAN, Al-Tabari, who has heavily criticized by the HADITH SCHOLARS for including weak and inauthentic narrations in his book?!?! On the one hand, you won't even accept narrations from your MOST AUTHENTIC BOOK, yet you expect us to accept a WEAK narration from a book that was heavily criticized by the Hadith scholars.

In the Name of the Most High
assalam o 'alaykum

Sidi, kindly oblige us with the evidence that it is weak. also was it considered weak by all in unanimity or by a specific generation of scholars, i.e later generation who put together the isma al-rijal works or the earlier?

even the Nahj al Balagha admits that 'Ali conferred his daughter (s) to marry, so he "others" can be blessed with the honor of being associated with the fmaily of the Prophet. this is not a shi'i or ahlal sunna issue. even the Aalim Network on the Shi'ite site www.al - islam.org admits that the marriage did take place. this is not something new. i don't see why one should bring this as an issue to the fore, when it is not an issue, walLahu Alam

the Preface to the work from Tabari - he makes it abudantly clear that his role to put the history work was to gather all traditions - weak or authentic and did not judge them. he specifically states, that he left this job for the other, i.e the later generations. so the criticism by later generations on Tabari was on his work and not on the persona of Tabari. if i recall, there was a suggestion that Tabari might have had some shi'i leanings - i don't know if it was your able self or some one else. but let's make the distinction clear. if Tabari had not disclosed what he disclosed in the preface to his work, why is he then the subject of criticism?

the issue of abu Bakrs (r) regret can't be easily wiped from the annals of history. it did happen. even Shibli Numani admits to this fact in his work, 'al-Faruq', that abu Bakr (r) and Umar (r) after the affair had settled at Saqifa approached Fatimas (r) house, with an intent that was not to offer comfort or solace, but suggestive that they were fearful that it was a house of "fitna".

a few years ago, Shaykh Gibril Haddad had engaged the shi'ites in discussion on soc.religion.islam and this issue came up. it has some relevant information to the discussion at hand, though oddly enough he does not suspect that the tradition that you speak of is weak.

one can read it here, insha 'Allah

and if you read through the Shi'i-Sunni issues on www.livingIslam.net - there is a Q&A posed to Shaykh Gibril about Fatimas (r) anger with reference to abu Bakr (r) - and he had suggested in a response (which is in the soc.religion.islam thread) that when Fatimas (r) anger subsided, she forgave abu Bakr (r). perhaps, abu Bakrs (r) remorse was genuine, despite the forgiveness of Fatima (r).

my perspective is simple: history as we know it, either within the ahlal sunna or even the shi'ite for that matter is really geared towards their sectarian positions, each dedicated to their cause.

i bid you peace, ali.q

[aliq]

Count how many of them there were. At most, twenty? Thirty? Let's even say 100? (In fact, the number was no more than a handful, lol.)

How can this compare to the 33,000 Sahabah who swore allegiance to Abu Bakr [ra]!!!! THIRTY THREE THOUSAND.

that is the point! the prominent and early reverts to Islam did not - they were gathered in Fatimas house. they were after all the elite of the Companions - whose opinions were sought by even the Caliphs later in their lives.

it is and continues to be the moral supremacy that counts and not a numerical superiority. if you are from the land of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Iqbal your national poet, also known as Iqbal Lahori to the persians, balanced out the critique to modern democracy as something that weighs the "count" of the individuals and not the "weight" of their position. quite apt, if you ask me today.

here are some of the names that were in Fatimas house

i. Hudhayfa b. al-Yaman
ii. Khuzayma b. Thabit (Dhu`sh-Shahadatayn)
iii. Abu Ayyub al-Ansari
iv. Sahl b. Hunayf,
v. Uthman b. Hunayf
vi. Ubayy b. Ka'b
vii. Ammar ibn Yasir
viii. Salman al-Farisi
ix. Az-Zubayr b. al-`Awwam

any ways - if you ask me - if abu Bakr (r) and Umar (r) were already given or were aware that the Community would given them their baya (as you have suggested 33,000 souls - then why squabble over these few individuals, and make a point to visit Fatima and Ali - not to console them - but with intentions laced with holding on to the consequences of their grip on power. they were very well aware of the moral dillemma which faced them.

it was a principled stand that Ali, Fatima and the rest of the Companions took - particularly against 33,000 individuals if you ask me - quite a principled one.

God bless you always, ali.q

[Sad ibn Abu Waqqas]

the Preface to the work from Tabari - he makes it abudantly clear that his role to put the history work was to gather all traditions - weak or authentic and did not judge them. he specifically states, that he left this job for the other, i.e the later generations. so the criticism by later generations on Tabari was on his work and not on the persona of Tabari. q

This is exactly what the Shi'is and others fail to understand when they quote traditions from Tabari and expect Sunnis to accept them.

Given what you have written above, if you quote a tradition from Tabari to prove a point then the burden of proof is on you to show that the tradition is reliable and not weak.

Until you can show that a tradition from Tabari is sound, we have no reason to accept it or base anything on it.

[aliq]

So yes, at first Ali [ra] was in an argument with Abu Bakr [ra], but later he was reconciled and gave his Bayah. Why on earth would Ali [ra] give Bayah to a "usurper"!?

to me the answer is rather simple - giving baya to abu Bakr (r) did not diminish in any way 'Alis (r) superiority in understanding and interpretating the law, him holding the keys to the esoteric sciences, and this station of Wilayat. even Tahir ul-Qadri makes a point in a short book-let the title of which, if i recall is with reference to those who 'Deny the Wilayat of 'Ali' - since he treats the subject of Wilayat in its more broadest and its more spiritual and esoteric aspect as well. in this sense, than abu Bakr (r) was not a usurper at all, since this "is knowledge" that is granted and bestowed from the Almighty

i will not comment though on abu Bakrs (r) own position, God Knows Better. i rather look at the issue from the angle of where it offers a benefit and does not drive a wedge.

i hope that you can under-stand the issue from a much broader perspective, rather than from a pure shi'i or ahlal sunna division. read about Alis own opinion about the Caliphate in the Nahj al-Balgaha and his refusal to take it upon him-self, when people begged him after Uthman (r) died. it is an eye-opener.

regards, ali.q

[Sad ibn Abu Waqqas]

my perspective is simple: history as we know it, either within the ahlal sunna or even the shi'ite for that matter is really geared towards their sectarian positions, each dedicated to their cause.

i bid you peace, ali.q

If you want to talk about history that is dedicated to a sectarian cause, then you should focus on Shi'ites, or Christians, or other groups. Leave the well-known Sunni scholars of hadith out of it.

[Sad ibn Abu Waqqas]

to me the answer is rather simple - giving baya to abu Bakr (r) did not diminish in any way 'Alis (r) superiority in understanding and interpretating the law, him holding the keys to the esoteric sciences, and this station of Wilayat. even Tahir ul-Qadri makes a point in a short book-let the title of which, if i recall is with reference to those who 'Deny the Wilayat of 'Ali' - since he treats the subject of Wilayat in its more broadest and its more spiritual and esoteric aspect as well. in this sense, than abu Bakr (r) was not a usurper at all, since this "is knowledge" that is granted and bestowed from the Almighty

i will not comment though on abu Bakrs (r) own position, God Knows Better. i rather look at the issue from the angle of where it offers a benefit and does not drive a wedge.

i hope that you can under-stand the issue from a much broader perspective, rather than from a pure shi'i or ahlal sunna division. read about Alis own opinion about the Caliphate in the Nahj al-Balgaha and his refusal to take it upon him-self, when people begged him after Uthman (r) died. it is an eye-opener.

The Nahj ul Balagha does not have even a single authentic chain of transmission back to Ali :rah:

It is not a legitimate proof for anything, even if it makes for good reading now and then.

[aliq]

This is exactly what the Shi'is and others fail to understand when they quote traditions from Tabari and expect Sunnis to accept them.

Given what you have written above, if you quote a tradition from Tabari to prove a point then the burden of proof is on you to show that the tradition is reliable and not weak.

Until you can show that a tradition from Tabari is sound, we have no reason to accept it or base anything on it.

In the Name of the High
assalam o 'alaykum

i think that if Shibli Numani in his work 'al-Faruq' can bring this tradition to the fore, and despite his raising no criticism and even according it a possibility - due to the personal nature of Umar (r), when he approached Fatimas (r) house, speaks mounds on the dilemma we face here.

the ahlel bayt site - grossly mis-quotes the "context" of when Numani treats the issue, since the article with the specific issue is raised. that in and of itself, speaks mounds on the frustration to dis-credit that such an incident happened at all.

in-fact, if you read through the links that i gave you from Shaykh Gibril Haddad discussion on soc.religion.islam - there is no mention of this being weak. there is even a second reference i gave for you to read, another opinion from Shaykh Gibril on the www.livingislam.net web site. i gather that you did not read those, and hasted to pen a response.

additionally, there are other historical works that back-up that this incident happended. the details differ, but the fact that abu Bakr (r) and Umar (r) did not approach the house of Fatima (r) with a non-hostile intent, i.e perhaps for offering consolation or sorrowness on the death of her father, but for reasons that lie at the heart of the shi'i and ahlal sunna divide.

you ought to pusue the specific volume when this issue is treated in detail, and there are copious footnotes from other historical works that backup this claim. i only know that that specific volume was translated by Ismail K Poonawaala (SUNY Press).

regards, ali.q