Re: What Happened At Saqeefah (1)
— April 4, 2014
Salam Ustaz. All what U have said regarding Saqeefah and d
nomination of Abubakr lacks legal proofs even in Sunni books hence, what
Mal Turi said is what we see in Ur books of reference. +234807 933 44 00
Assalamu alaikum, may Allah bestow more wisdom on you. I just read your rejoinder on what happened at Saqeefah (1). I’m trying hard to comprehend this statement “…My position regarding the Caliphate is like that of the pole in relation to the millstone” what does Imam Ali mean pls?… Your piece of Saqeefah, very interesting and cogent proof posed before the shi’as in the write-up is your statement “….I keep wondering why a shi’ah scholar will bother to us us “non-Muslims” to support a position.” May Allah protect us from the indoctrination of shi’ism. Lawal Lokogoma from mx +234705 582 28 25
You equally cleverly avoided the main issues viz;
1. How do you elect leaders in an Islamic setting?
2. Why is the mode different in all the 4 khulafau Rashidun ?
And although needless to repeat what a brother sent to you ….”If the prophet (SAWA) did not appoint a successor why did others appointed theirs just 2 years after and whose SUNNA were they following or is it an acceptable BID A.?”
Bissalam. Isa Mukhtar, Unity Bank Plc, Plot 785 Herbert Macaulay Way, CBD, Abuja, Nigeria, Tel: +234-9 2342553, 4616700 IMukhtar@unitybankng.com
Let me thank my Shi’ah friend, Isa Mukhtar for his vigilance on my write-ups, especially concerning Shi’ism. Often times he will be the first to person respond, even before I see the paper, LEADERSHIP FRIDAY; he normally reads the online version, and sends his queries almost immediately. The above email was actually a merger of two correspondences that he sent at different occasion on Saqeefah and other issues.
Isa Mukhtar’s questions on how to ‘elect leaders in an Islamic setting’, and ‘Why is the mode different in all the 4 khulafau Rashidun?’ are pregnant with issues. He even quoted ‘what a brother sent to’ me: ….”If the prophet (SAWA) did not appoint a successor why did others appointed theirs just 2 years after and whose SUNNA were they following or is it an acceptable BID A.?”
I cannot remember seeing any such message from the brother, but that will not stop me addressing the issues.
There is only a very thin line between the British monarchy and the Shia imams – both claim that their authority to rule is by birth right and God’s blessing – chosen by Him. It is called The Divine Right of Kings; they rule, not by the will of the subjects, but by the will of God.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, during coronations and ordainment into the monarchy, anoints British monarchs with Holy oils. Thus, the British Royal Family’s motto is Dieu Et Mon Droit (God and my (birth) Right – i.e. I rule with God’s blessing).
The shi’ah see the Imamate in the light of divine authority. Occupants of that office are divinely appointed, based on God’s choice, and that no other person has any right in such bestowment. To them, the issue of minority or majority is non-existent in what they see as God’s government. He alone has the prerogative of declaring the leader; the people have no say other than submit themselves to, and obey the designated Imam, and those to come from that lineage, because accepting him is submission to God’s will – The Divine Right of Imam, you may say.
What we see today among the shi’ah people of Iran of trying to trace Imamate lineage to establish divine right to the office, had its roots in fire-worship of their ancestors. The Persians had belief in “the Divine Right of their king (Chosroes), and that his spirit moved from one king to another through his descendants. When these fire-worshippers “converted” to Islam, they adapted this idea, claiming that the Imamah passed down from one Imam to another through his descendants.” Therefore, what many people failed to understand is this mixing, by Shi’ah-Iran, of their fire-worshipping and Zoroastrian practises of old with Islam.
My friend, Isa Mukhtar and his brother, whosoever that is, see succession to the leadership of the Ummah after Allha’s Messenger (SAW), through Raafidhi Shi’ah lens with its Magian, Zoroastrian foundation. Observation through this Shi’ah lens reveals imposition of leadership on the people, willy-nilly, as it is something decided by God.
Electing ‘leaders in an Islamic setting’ is by seeking the consent of the governed. In other words, such leader ‘requires the approval of the Muslim Ummah.’ This vital requirement of contractual agreement between the leader and the people is conspicuously absent in Shi’ism. The Sunni modus operandi is Shura, mutual consultation (Quran, 42:38), in electing the leader. That was the process adopted in choosing the four Rightly Guided Caliphs; it was not based on hereditary succession or the “divine right of the Imams”!
I have established in my response to Sheikh Turi on Saqeefah that Abu Bakr became Caliph through Shura under the consensus reached between the Ansar and three Muhajirs. I have shown also that, given the circumstance in which the Saqeefah meeting was convened, many prominent Muhajirs were not in attendance. To rectify this omission occasioned by the Ansar, a General Bay’ah was held a day later, in which 33,000 Sahaabah swore their oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr. This bay’ah, “consent of the governed”, gave Abu Bakr the contractual right to rule over the people.
The Rightly Guided Caliphs were chosen through the same process. They way of achieving this process may vary from one companion to another, but the purpose was the attainment of people’s approval through mutual consultation.
Overtaken by ill-health, Abu Bakr consulted a number of Companions regarding their position on the next caliph. He summoned Abdur Rahman bin Awf and said: “Tell me about Umar ibn Khattab.” Abdur Rahman replied: “You are asking me about something of which you know better…By Allah, he is even better than the opinion you hold about him.” Then he (Abu Bakr) called Uthman bin Affan and asked him: “Tell me about Umar ibn Khattab.” Uthman replied: “You know him better than us.” Abu Bakr said: “Still, O Abu Abdullah!” Uthman answered: “Indeed, in my opinion, his inner self is better than his outer self and no one among us can parallel him.”
Abu Bakr did not stop there. He consulted all the prominent leaders of Ansar and Muhajirs on the eligibility of Umar. He consulted Sa’eed ibn Zayd and Usayd ibn Al-Hudayr – as well as other great leaders of the Ansar and the Muhajirs. Usayd said: “Indeed, after you O Abu Bakr, I consider him (Umar) the best… No one is more suited to bear the burden of this Caliphate.”
The only dissenting voices in the Shura process to Umar’s caliphate were Abdur Rahman ibn Awf and Talhah. These nay voices however, joined the ayes after listening to Abu Bakr’s exposition of the matter.
This consultation was widened with the involvement of all major figures of the Ansar and the Muhajirs who gave their “consent of the governed” to Umar. During that enlarged meeting, Abu Bakr said to the people:
“I have not appointed any relative of mine as Caliph, and I have not installed Umar as Caliph on my own. I have rather done it only after holding consultations with men of sound judgment. Are you then agreed to his being your Caliph?”
Hearing this, they (the masses) said: “We all agree with your choice and opinion.”
Following this, he (Abu Bakr) said: “You should then carry out Umar’s orders and obey him.”
During his final days on earth, Umar appointed six persons, the remnant of the ten (men to whom Paradise had been guaranteed), to be members of (an electoral) council (shura), and he put it up to them to make the choice for the Muslims. Umar said to them:
“I have deliberated on the matter of Caliphate and have reached the conclusion that there is no difference among the people in this affair as long as it is one of you. If there is any difference, it is within you. Therefore, this matter is entrusted to the six of you: Abdur Rahman, Uthman, Ali, Zubayr, Talhah and Saad.” He concluded by adding, “This matter will remain amongst you alone…deliberate (amongst yourselves)! Choose one of you.”
A tiebreaker was obviously needed among this six-man Board of Electors, so Umar including his son Abdullah with a caveat: he will not be a candidate for Caliphate. He said:
“Abdullah ibn Umar will be there as adviser, but he shall have nothing to do with the matter (i.e. of being Caliph)…If three approve of one of them, and three approve of another, get Abdullah ibn Umar to make a decision.”
Uthman was elected as the next Caliph. Talhah was not able to take part in that assignment as he has travelled outside Madeenah. He returned on the day that people pledged their allegiance to Uthman. He was asked to give his own oath to Uthman, but he asked: “Do all Quraish approve of him?” And he was told they did.
He came to Uthman and the latter (Uthman) said: “You still have your options open; if you refuse to give me the oath of allegiance; I shall reject the Caliphate (for myself).”
Talhah said: “Will you really reject it?”
Uthman replied that he would.
Talhah asked: “Have all the people given you the oath of allegiance?”
Uthman replied that they had.
Talhah said: “Then I approve; I shall not go against the general consensus.” He gave Uthman the oath of allegiance.
Assalamu alaikum, may Allah bestow more wisdom on you. I just read your rejoinder on what happened at Saqeefah (1). I’m trying hard to comprehend this statement “…My position regarding the Caliphate is like that of the pole in relation to the millstone” what does Imam Ali mean pls?… Your piece of Saqeefah, very interesting and cogent proof posed before the shi’as in the write-up is your statement “….I keep wondering why a shi’ah scholar will bother to us us “non-Muslims” to support a position.” May Allah protect us from the indoctrination of shi’ism. Lawal Lokogoma from mx +234705 582 28 25
You equally cleverly avoided the main issues viz;
1. How do you elect leaders in an Islamic setting?
2. Why is the mode different in all the 4 khulafau Rashidun ?
And although needless to repeat what a brother sent to you ….”If the prophet (SAWA) did not appoint a successor why did others appointed theirs just 2 years after and whose SUNNA were they following or is it an acceptable BID A.?”
Bissalam. Isa Mukhtar, Unity Bank Plc, Plot 785 Herbert Macaulay Way, CBD, Abuja, Nigeria, Tel: +234-9 2342553, 4616700 IMukhtar@unitybankng.com
Let me thank my Shi’ah friend, Isa Mukhtar for his vigilance on my write-ups, especially concerning Shi’ism. Often times he will be the first to person respond, even before I see the paper, LEADERSHIP FRIDAY; he normally reads the online version, and sends his queries almost immediately. The above email was actually a merger of two correspondences that he sent at different occasion on Saqeefah and other issues.
Isa Mukhtar’s questions on how to ‘elect leaders in an Islamic setting’, and ‘Why is the mode different in all the 4 khulafau Rashidun?’ are pregnant with issues. He even quoted ‘what a brother sent to’ me: ….”If the prophet (SAWA) did not appoint a successor why did others appointed theirs just 2 years after and whose SUNNA were they following or is it an acceptable BID A.?”
I cannot remember seeing any such message from the brother, but that will not stop me addressing the issues.
There is only a very thin line between the British monarchy and the Shia imams – both claim that their authority to rule is by birth right and God’s blessing – chosen by Him. It is called The Divine Right of Kings; they rule, not by the will of the subjects, but by the will of God.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, during coronations and ordainment into the monarchy, anoints British monarchs with Holy oils. Thus, the British Royal Family’s motto is Dieu Et Mon Droit (God and my (birth) Right – i.e. I rule with God’s blessing).
The shi’ah see the Imamate in the light of divine authority. Occupants of that office are divinely appointed, based on God’s choice, and that no other person has any right in such bestowment. To them, the issue of minority or majority is non-existent in what they see as God’s government. He alone has the prerogative of declaring the leader; the people have no say other than submit themselves to, and obey the designated Imam, and those to come from that lineage, because accepting him is submission to God’s will – The Divine Right of Imam, you may say.
What we see today among the shi’ah people of Iran of trying to trace Imamate lineage to establish divine right to the office, had its roots in fire-worship of their ancestors. The Persians had belief in “the Divine Right of their king (Chosroes), and that his spirit moved from one king to another through his descendants. When these fire-worshippers “converted” to Islam, they adapted this idea, claiming that the Imamah passed down from one Imam to another through his descendants.” Therefore, what many people failed to understand is this mixing, by Shi’ah-Iran, of their fire-worshipping and Zoroastrian practises of old with Islam.
My friend, Isa Mukhtar and his brother, whosoever that is, see succession to the leadership of the Ummah after Allha’s Messenger (SAW), through Raafidhi Shi’ah lens with its Magian, Zoroastrian foundation. Observation through this Shi’ah lens reveals imposition of leadership on the people, willy-nilly, as it is something decided by God.
Electing ‘leaders in an Islamic setting’ is by seeking the consent of the governed. In other words, such leader ‘requires the approval of the Muslim Ummah.’ This vital requirement of contractual agreement between the leader and the people is conspicuously absent in Shi’ism. The Sunni modus operandi is Shura, mutual consultation (Quran, 42:38), in electing the leader. That was the process adopted in choosing the four Rightly Guided Caliphs; it was not based on hereditary succession or the “divine right of the Imams”!
I have established in my response to Sheikh Turi on Saqeefah that Abu Bakr became Caliph through Shura under the consensus reached between the Ansar and three Muhajirs. I have shown also that, given the circumstance in which the Saqeefah meeting was convened, many prominent Muhajirs were not in attendance. To rectify this omission occasioned by the Ansar, a General Bay’ah was held a day later, in which 33,000 Sahaabah swore their oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr. This bay’ah, “consent of the governed”, gave Abu Bakr the contractual right to rule over the people.
The Rightly Guided Caliphs were chosen through the same process. They way of achieving this process may vary from one companion to another, but the purpose was the attainment of people’s approval through mutual consultation.
Overtaken by ill-health, Abu Bakr consulted a number of Companions regarding their position on the next caliph. He summoned Abdur Rahman bin Awf and said: “Tell me about Umar ibn Khattab.” Abdur Rahman replied: “You are asking me about something of which you know better…By Allah, he is even better than the opinion you hold about him.” Then he (Abu Bakr) called Uthman bin Affan and asked him: “Tell me about Umar ibn Khattab.” Uthman replied: “You know him better than us.” Abu Bakr said: “Still, O Abu Abdullah!” Uthman answered: “Indeed, in my opinion, his inner self is better than his outer self and no one among us can parallel him.”
Abu Bakr did not stop there. He consulted all the prominent leaders of Ansar and Muhajirs on the eligibility of Umar. He consulted Sa’eed ibn Zayd and Usayd ibn Al-Hudayr – as well as other great leaders of the Ansar and the Muhajirs. Usayd said: “Indeed, after you O Abu Bakr, I consider him (Umar) the best… No one is more suited to bear the burden of this Caliphate.”
The only dissenting voices in the Shura process to Umar’s caliphate were Abdur Rahman ibn Awf and Talhah. These nay voices however, joined the ayes after listening to Abu Bakr’s exposition of the matter.
This consultation was widened with the involvement of all major figures of the Ansar and the Muhajirs who gave their “consent of the governed” to Umar. During that enlarged meeting, Abu Bakr said to the people:
“I have not appointed any relative of mine as Caliph, and I have not installed Umar as Caliph on my own. I have rather done it only after holding consultations with men of sound judgment. Are you then agreed to his being your Caliph?”
Hearing this, they (the masses) said: “We all agree with your choice and opinion.”
Following this, he (Abu Bakr) said: “You should then carry out Umar’s orders and obey him.”
During his final days on earth, Umar appointed six persons, the remnant of the ten (men to whom Paradise had been guaranteed), to be members of (an electoral) council (shura), and he put it up to them to make the choice for the Muslims. Umar said to them:
“I have deliberated on the matter of Caliphate and have reached the conclusion that there is no difference among the people in this affair as long as it is one of you. If there is any difference, it is within you. Therefore, this matter is entrusted to the six of you: Abdur Rahman, Uthman, Ali, Zubayr, Talhah and Saad.” He concluded by adding, “This matter will remain amongst you alone…deliberate (amongst yourselves)! Choose one of you.”
A tiebreaker was obviously needed among this six-man Board of Electors, so Umar including his son Abdullah with a caveat: he will not be a candidate for Caliphate. He said:
“Abdullah ibn Umar will be there as adviser, but he shall have nothing to do with the matter (i.e. of being Caliph)…If three approve of one of them, and three approve of another, get Abdullah ibn Umar to make a decision.”
Uthman was elected as the next Caliph. Talhah was not able to take part in that assignment as he has travelled outside Madeenah. He returned on the day that people pledged their allegiance to Uthman. He was asked to give his own oath to Uthman, but he asked: “Do all Quraish approve of him?” And he was told they did.
He came to Uthman and the latter (Uthman) said: “You still have your options open; if you refuse to give me the oath of allegiance; I shall reject the Caliphate (for myself).”
Talhah said: “Will you really reject it?”
Uthman replied that he would.
Talhah asked: “Have all the people given you the oath of allegiance?”
Uthman replied that they had.
Talhah said: “Then I approve; I shall not go against the general consensus.” He gave Uthman the oath of allegiance.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Thundergist Entertainment
comment here Now