 | | Introduction | | The Historical Facts | | Analysis of the events | | The issues raised at the Saqifa | | Assessing Sunni justifications of Saqifa | | Some crucial observations | | Burial of the Prophet (saww) |
|
|  | |
Following are the related topics for this article:
|
|  | | | | You can email the details of this article to a friend. | |  |
| Burial of the Prophet
The Saqifa meeting was given preference to the Prophet (saaws)'s funeral
This is an attested fact. These prominent men were debating over the Prophet (saaws) successor whilst his body was being laid to rest. Is this not truly amazing? Allah (swt) sent 124,000 Prophet's to guide mankind. Is there any evidence that when these Prophets' died; their companions failed to attend their funerals, and instead chose to participate in the selection of their immediate successors? If no such precedent exists then why did the Seal of Prophet (saaws)'s companions adopt this approach?
It is common for a person to become the subject of stern condemnation and ridicule of he fails to attend a friend or relatives funeral. It can lead to friendships ending and families becoming divided because we will all die one day and it is expected that those closely linked to the deceased will attend. Relatives frequently fly thousands of miles to reach a deceased loved one's funeral. Compare this to men who were close associates of the Holy Prophet (saaws). Rather than remain close to him and participate in his funeral they departed from the very room where his body was laid to rest, entered the debate at Saqifa, never looking back, never asking for proceedings to be delayed until after the funeral, they preferred the lengthy discussion of who will lead the Ummah than the funeral of the Leader of mankind. We would ask our readers to spare some time to these points. Lest there remain any doubt over the events as described by us we will shall quote the words of the Hanafi scholar, Allamah Shibli Numani:
"It is apparently surprising that no sooner did the Prophet die than the struggle for Caliphate commenced and even the burial of the body of the Founder of Islam became a matter of secondary consideration in the quarrels that arose over the question of succession. Who can for a moment conceive the spectacle of the Prophet lying dead, while those who asserted their love and attachment towards him in his lifetime, without even waiting to look to his remains being suitably interred, were hurrying away to see that others did not secure the headship of the state for themselves!
It is still more surprising that this act is attributed to the persons (Abu Bakr and Omar) who are the brightest stars of the Islamic firmament and the unpleasantness of the act becomes still more poignant when it is remembered that those persons who were connected with the Prophet by ties of blood and kinsmanship ('Ali and the Banu Hashim) were naturally affected by his death and the sad bereavement prostrated them with grief, which, coupled with their anxiety to perform the last offices to the dead, hardly left the room for ulterior considerations".
 Al Farooq, by Allamah Shibli Numani, translated by Maulana Zafar Ali Khan Vol 1 p 85-86
In the end what transpired at the Saqifa is astounding, even to the casual observer. Even Shibli Numani, a die-hard defender of the institution, has written of the event with much astonishment based upon his pre-suppositions of the character of those involved at the Saqifa. The contemporary Saqifi'ites par excellence are Hizb ut-tahrir, a political group dedicated since the 1950s to reviving the now dead institution of the khlilafath of man in the presence of Allah's Khalifa in the form of the Twelfth Imam of the Shi'i. With this sole objective in mind this group have sought to underplay the political dissensions to the authority of the Khalifa of man as well as to rewrite history, this is what they state in their key document 'The Khilafah':
"The Ijma'a of the Sahaba to establish a Khaleefah manifested itself emphatically when they delayed the burial of the Prophet (saw) (sic) after his death whilst engaged in appointing a successor to him, despite the fact that the burial of the dead person is fard, and that is haram upon those who are supposed to prepare for his burial to engage themselves in anything else until they complete the burial. The Sahabah were obliged to engage themselves in preparing the burial of the Prophet (saw) (sic), instead some of them engaged themselves in appointing a Khaleefah rather than carrying out the burial, and some others kept silent on this engagement and participated in delaying the burial for two nights despite their ability to deny the delay and their ability to bury the Prophet (saw) (sic). So this was an Ijma'a to engage themselves in appointing a Khaleefah rather than to bury the dead. This could not be legitimate unless the appointment of a Khaleefah is more obligatory than the burial of the dead."
The Khilafah, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Al-Khilafah Publications, London, pp.3-4
The point made is that the meeting at the Saqifa was haram, undoubtedly haram since the priority incumbent by the ordinances of Islam are to bury the dead as fast as possible. This is the Seal of all Prophets!
The second point made is that the Saqifa was a shameful meeting as it was occurring while the Seal of Prophets was being buried.
The third point is that the Holy Prophet would not leave the Muslims in such a dilemma - one that the authors would have us believe took the Muslims to the level of committing a sin - he left a successor.
The fourth point made is that what gave the companions the right to appoint a Khalifa when that was not their prerogative, and still more since the man who was Allah's Khalifa was duped and was not kept informed while he shouldered the burden of burying the Holy Prophet?
The excuse is that the opinion of the companion overrides the Qur'an and the Sunnah since Ijma'a (of a handful of Muhajirs) is given as the excuse. But Ijma'a came after the Qur'an and Muhammad (saws). And Ijma'a is a belief of the followers of the institution, and we the Shi'i who follow the family can here point out that the Qur'an and Sunnah override Ijma'a when the opinion of the companions overrides the Qur'an. It is clear that this concept was developed by the followers of the companions after analyzing history. At no point did the companions say that the Khilafath of Hadhrath 'Abu Bakr came about via ijma. On the contrary as we have stated earlier Hadhrath Umar had stated that it was a mistake, no consultation took place, meaning the ijma of the companions was not sought.
The Shi'i follow Allah, the Holy Prophet and the Khalifas of Allah.
The Shi'i were with Imam Ali when he buried the Holy Prophet. Some who were not involved in the burial as they were more distant and thus their absence would not be missed were defending the cause of the Khalifa of Allah by plotting how to take on the subversion of the Muhajir's, when the three Muhajirs interrupted their meeting and made Hadhrath Abu Bakr the Khalifa, in so doing not attending the funeral!
The Shi'i do not follow the companions when the companions humiliate the decorum that exists at the funeral of the Seal of prophets. What an insult. Terms are broken off between families, and understandably, when due respect is not shown at a funeral - this was the funeral of Hadhrath Muhammad (saaws) himself.
The group, a political party, finally ease the sense of outrage they have acknowledged as being due to the companions, by presenting the burial - its actual timing - as a fact - while 2 sets of traditions which contradict each other exist. We believe that the Holy prophet was buried on time. This group believes otherwise, and blatantly does so that Hadhrath Abu Bakr is made attendant at the burial if not in the actual funeral proceedings.
Was the burial delayed?
If for arguments sake we accept the contention that the desire was to hold up proceedings so that a Khalifa could be appointed would the better approach not have been to delay the funeral? It is alleged that this was done intentionally so that a Khalifa would be appointed but the true facts are that the meeting was a secret and the other companions had no idea that discussion over leadership was taking place. Had they known there would certainly have been more that just three Muhajireen attending the Saqifa. There was no reason for any type of delay the Prophet (saaws) was dead and in accordance with Islamic rites he was to be buried forthwith. There were no reasons to hold up proceedings. Why should the funeral of the Seal of Prophets be delayed for Hadhrath Abu Bakr to get there on time? It was Abu Bakr's job to get to the dead person of the Holy Prophet (saaws), and not the job of the deceased person of Hadhrath Muhammad (saws) to wait for Hadhrath Abu Bakr!
The reports that suddenly place Hadhrath Abu Bakr at the scene cannot be true. Hadhrath Muhammad (saaws) passed away on the Monday, the discussions at the Saqifa were from Sunday until Tuesday. Funerals are not held up for 2 days so that an associate can arrive there. The funeral goes ahead even sometimes if the next of kin cannot reach, as in Islam it is fard to bury the dead immediately. One does not conduct the funeral prayers and then lock the body up for 2 days so one man can arrive. The real facts are evident from the search for the gravedigger. There were two gravediggers during that period in time the Muhajireen 'Abu Ubayda and the Ansar 'Abu Talha Zayd bin Sahl. Al Abbas sent two men to find either of them, only 'Abu Talha was located 1. Where was 'Abu Ubaydah? Had he been there do you not think that he would have insisted that as a prominent companion he undertake the task? Would he have not want to participate in this honor? Any man would have been proud to do this, would 'Abu Ubaydah had declined if he had been there? Would any man decline such an honor? We think not, clearly 'Abu Ubaydah was nowhere to be seen at the time of the burial he was with Hadhrath 'Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar at the Saqifa. Whilst Ibn Ishaq continues the narratives stating that discussion then took place as to the burial site and that Hadhrath 'Abu Bakr suggested the Prophet (saaws)'s burial place this does not tally up with the fact that 'Abdullah ibne Abbas had arranged for grave diggers. It is common sense you select an area and then bring a gravedigger not the other way round! The Prophet Muhammad (saws) is superior to Hadhrath Abu Bakr. Sunni Islam is suggesting that the person of Hadhrath Abu Bakr was superior to a Holy Prophet no longer in this Earthly domain. We would say that one hair from the Holy Prophet is superior to the life of Hadhrath Abu Bakr. They allege such impudence to Hadhrath Abu Bakr that he did not show even himself.
Sirat by Ibn Hisham, page 1019-1020
The Shi'i will not add insult to injury by suggesting, as this group does, that the funeral was delayed for a further 2 days (in a desert climate) just to provide Hadhrath Abu Bakr with some cursory dignity in the supposed capacity that he was at the funeral as well as at the Saqifa as the funeral got delayed for 2 days, when it is fard (obligatory) to bury the dead immediately. Hadhrath Abbas told the people to bury the Prophet (saaws) quickly as the body like any other would begin to smell 1.
Ansab al Ashraf, by Baladhuri, Volume 1 page 567
The true facts can be assessed in the account narrated with a full isnad by Abdullah ibne Abbas. He states:
"(The body of the) Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, remained on the bier from Monday when the sun was declining, till Tuesday when the sun was declining. The people said funeral prayers over him when the body was on the bier close to (the site of) his grave. When they wanted to bury him, they moved it towards the site of his feet and then the body was placed inside and Al-Abbas Ibn Aal Muttalib, al Al Fadl Ibn Al Abbas, Qutham Al Abbas, 'Ali ibn Abi Talib and Shuqran having entered the grave".
Tabaqat by Ibn Sa'd,Volume 2 page 372 English translation by S.Moinul Haq, Kitab Bahavan publishers
Two facts emerge from this account:
- The Prophet (saaws) body laid in state from Monday.
- 2. The body was close to the burial "site of the grave" - this proves that a grave had already been dug on the Monday. Neither Hadhrath 'Abu Bakr, Umar or 'Abu Ubaydah were present they were at Saqifa. This tallies up with the failed attempt to locate the whereabouts of 'Abu Ubaydah when the time came to dig a grave. The decision to take 'Abu Ubaydah was indeed very shrewd thinking. Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar both wanted to attend the funeral and yet they also wanted to participate in the Saqifa discussions. The best way to achieve this would be to seek to delay the funeral prayers, what better way could there be to do it than take the gravedigger of Makka away from the locality. This might cause delay as a search would be conducted to find him, stalling enough time for them to wind up proceedings at Saqifa and then return triumphantly in time for 'Abu Ubaydah to dig the grave and for them to attend the funeral. This thinking of course did not materialize as discussions went on far longer than was expected and by that time the grave had been dug and the Prophet (saaws) had been buried.
As we said, a group that is based on a fundamental injustice- the khalifath of man - Hizb ut-tahrir bends history when rationality suggests they are preaching on a fundamentally false premise from the outset - to re-establish man's khilafat, and the historical evidences that the Holy Prophet was buried on time but without Hadhrath Abu Bakr present as he was at the Saqifa exist, and indeed are vouchsafed for by the scorn heaped upon him from the Holy Prophet's daughter Fatima (sa) for not attending her father's funeral.
If any doubt remains with regards to the non attendance of Abu Bakr, Umar and Abu Ubaydah at the funeral of the Prophet (s), then allow us cite the following Sunni commentaries of Saheeh al Bukharee:
- Umdahthul Qaree Volume 11 page 167 Bab Rajm
- Saheeh al Bukharee, Sharh Kirmanee, Volume 23 page 219
- Irshad al Saree Volume 10 page 35
All three contain the proud admission of Umar:
"By Allah, when matters that we were faced with following the death of the Prophet, namely his Ghusl, shrouding and funeral, we deemed the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr to be of greater importance"
Can there not be anything clearer than Umar's own admission? If Nasabi still wish to deny it, then allow us to round up the matter with a narration from Kanz al Ummal Volume 3 page 140, Bab Khala Fatha ma'al Amara:
"Urwa narrates that Abu Bakr and Umar were not present at the time of burial, the Prophet (s) was buried before they had returned"
Rather than feel ashamed at this fact, The Ahl'ul Sunnah Ulema feel proud at the actions of their leaders, Mull Ali Qari in Sharra Fiqa Akbar, p 175 (publishers Muhammad Saeed and son, Qur'an Muhall, Karachi ) as follows in his discussion on Imamate…
"….the Sahaba viewed the appointment of the Imam as so important that they preferred it to attending the Prophet's funeral, because the Muslims need an Imam so that orders can be made on Jihad, and so that Islamic Laws can be implemented".
Some final points to ponder over
- If a father dies then any decent respectable son will abandon all his normal duties top tend to his his afther's dead body. The respect afforded by Abu Bakr and Umar, did not even reach that of a deceased father, they left his body to indulge in political games.
- If a man dies, a loyal friend will immediately abandondon his normal duties and tend to his funeral rites. Abu Bakr and Umar didn't even afford respect to Rasulullah (s) that would have been afforded to a deceased close friend.
- In Islamic culture / lands, if a traveller dies in a local area, local residents will immediately abandon what they were dping to ensure that the decsaesed traveller is washed, shrouded and buried. Abu Bakr and Umar did not even gice Rasulullah (s) the respect that would be afforded a deceased traveller.
- If a pious man's son in law dies, a respectable father in law shall immediately abandon everything so as to participate in the burial rites of his dead son in law. Rasulullah (s) was also the son in law of the Shaykhayn, when he (s) died, their daughters had become widows. Abu Bakr and Umar did not even give any consideration for their bereaved daughter's, and went missing from the funeral.
- If the Imam of a Mosque dies, his congregagtion will automatically set aside their normal chores and prioritse tending to the funeral rites, Abu Bakr and Umar did not even afford the Prophet (s) respect on par woth that of a Mosque Imam, by abandoning participation in the burial rites of the Prophet (s).
- If someone dies in a local neighbourhood, his neighbours due to the fact that they live nearby will ensure they are visible and present in the burial rites, at all points up until he is laid to rest. Abu Bakr and Umar afforded the Prophet (s) less respect than would be given to a deceased neighbour.
- If a teacher dies, his loyal students will laeve all theor daily chores to tend to the dead body, from washing through to the funeral. Abu Bakr and Umar did not even afford Rasulullah (s) the respect that students would afford their deceased teacher.
- Would any Muslim be happy at the thought that upon his death, his beast friends will choose not to attend, and his body will remain unburied for three days? How can a matter that no rational person would deem unpalatable be okay when it comes to the Prophet (s)?
- The books of the Ahl'ul Sunnah attest to the fact that when Abu died, his funeral took place first and the baya to Umar occurred afterwards. Similarly when Umar died, he was buried firs and the baya to Uthman took place afterwards. Why was the same approach applied that had been done in relation to the Prophet (s). Were Abu Bakr and Umar laid in state for three days, and not buried until the Khaleefa was appointed?
- Hafsa and Ayesha had become widowed at the death of the Prophet. Would any reasonable women find it acceptable that her father failefd tp participated in her deceased husband's funeral? The Shaykhayn were so cold hearted that they did not even have any care for the feelings of their widowed daughters. Daughters are in a state of shick and distress and the father's are squabbling over leadership.
- The Shari'ah is clear that the deceased needs to be buried as a matter of urgency, as such Abu Bakr and Umar also violated this Ismalic edict, since the delay in burial was on account of them.
The Shi'i find the attempts of the followers of the institution to defend the institution to the detriment of the Holy Prophet, the Seal of Prophets, as he is laid into the grave of the Last Prophet, frankly deplorable.
But then the Saqifa was a deplorable incident. Little wonder that Ghazali himself, passed his fatwa of censorship, deeming discussion of the events surrounding the death of the Holy Prophet and the event of the Saqifa one of the 4 that were banned and made haram (forbidden) to discuss because they had the potential to create hatred of the companions (bughs as Sahaba) 1. Despite this, it was the outcome of the meeting at the Saqifa that decided the path of one group of Muslims, and set them apart from the original Muslims. The followers of the institution are thus most aptly called the Saqifi'ites.
Al Sawaiq al Muhriqa by Ahmad ibn Hajar al Makki, page 223
Allamah Shahrastani, as we noted in our article 'obedience to the Prophet (s)', dispute between Muslims 1. This was between those who took the side of the Holy Prophet (saaws) and those who took the side of Hadhrath Umar. Here at the Saqifa the dispute had transformed into a political animal, one that ruled Madina. The dispute had become formalized into an institution. The followers of the companions are the inheritors of the legacy of this institution. They are called most aptly the Saqifi'ites, because they follow what began there and what came from it. The institution of the khilafat of man was born illegitimately in a house of evil, and on top of this purely political creation would be draped the ordinances of a modified Islamic code centered on the institution of the companions, an institution joined at the hip to the institution of man's khilafath, since the companions created the khilafath. The first Saqifi'ites were 3: Hadhrath Abu Bakr, Hadhrath Umar and Hadhrath Abu Ubayda. It was this incident that would shape the future history of Islam, as El Awa comments:
1. Al Mihal al Nahal, by Allamah Muhuummud b. Add'al Karim Shahrastani, page 18 - English translation "Sects and Divisions" by A.K.Kazi and J.G.Flynn (publishers Kegan Paul International, First Edition 1984)
 Obedience to the Prophet (saww)
"The Saqifa meeting and the agreement of the Muslims which resulted in entrusting Abu Bakr with the leadership of the Islamic State was an event of profound magnitude. It was important not only in the political history of the Islamic State but also in terms of its ramifications in the overall history of Islam".
On the political system of the Islamic State, by Muhammad S. El Awa page 34 (American Trust Publications, Indiana)
This was a conspiracy, often called the greatest conspiracy in history, and did not arise in genius but in a manipulated historical accident, and has been shaking the world ever since owing to the significance of usurping the authority of the Khalifa of Allah. |
Al Farooq, by Allamah Shibli Numani, translated by Maulana Zafar Ali Khan Vol 1 p 85-86
Tabaqat by Ibn Sa'd,Volume 2 page 372 English translation by S.Moinul Haq, Kitab Bahavan publishers
On the political system of the Islamic State, by Muhammad S. El Awa page 34 (American Trust Publications, Indiana)