Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Rate this topic


Haydar Husayn

Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

(salam)

Sahih Bukhari volume 8, Hadith 817:

Narrated Ibn `Abbas:

I used to teach (the Qur'an to) some people of the Muhajirln (emigrants), among whom there was `Abdur Rahman bin `Auf. While I was in his house at Mina, and he was with `Umar bin Al−Khattab during `Umar's last Hajj, `Abdur−Rahman came to me and said, "Would that you had seen the man who came today to the Chief of the Believers (`Umar), saying, 'O Chief of the Believers! What do you think about so−and−so who says, 'If `Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such−and−such person, as by Allah, the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr was nothing but a prompt sudden action which got established afterwards.' `Umar became angry and then said, 'Allah willing, I will stand before the people tonight and warn them against those people who want to deprive the others of their rights (the question of rulership). `Abdur−Rahman said, "I said, 'O Chief of the believers! Do not do that, for the season of Hajj gathers the riff−raff and the rubble, and it will be they who will gather around you when you stand to address the people. And I am afraid that you will get up and say something, and some people will spread your statement and may not say what you have actually said and may not understand its meaning, and may interpret it incorrectly, so you should wait till you reach Medina, as it is the place of emigration and the place of Prophet's Traditions, and there you can come in touch with the learned and noble people, and tell them your ideas with confidence; and the learned people will understand your statement and put it in its proper place.' On that, `Umar said, 'By Allah! Allah willing, I will do this in the first speech I will deliver before the people in Medina."

Ibn `Abbas added: We reached Medina by the end of the month of Dhul−Hijja, and when it was Friday, we went quickly (to the mosque) as soon as the sun had declined, and I saw Sa`id bin Zaid bin `Amr bin Nufail sitting at the corner of the pulpit, and I too sat close to him so that my knee was touching his knee, and after a short while `Umar bin Al−Khattab came out, and when I saw him coming towards us, I said to Sa`id bin Zaid bin `Amr bin Nufail "Today `Umar will say such a thing as he has never said since he was chosen as Caliph." Sa`id denied my statement with astonishment and said, "What thing do you expect `Umar to say the like of which he has never said before?" In the meantime, `Umar sat on the pulpit and when the callmakers for the prayer had finished their call, `Umar stood up, and having glorified and praised Allah as He deserved, he said, "Now then, I am going to tell you something which (Allah) has written for me to say. I do not know; perhaps it portends my death, so whoever understands and remembers it, must narrate it to the others wherever his mount takes him, but if somebody is afraid that he does not understand it, then it is unlawful for him to tell lies about me. Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married person (male & female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, 'By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book,' and thus thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. And the punishment of the Rajam is to be inflicted to any married person (male & female), who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if the required evidence is available or there is conception or confession.

And then we used to recite among the Verses in Allah's Book: 'O people! Do not claim to be the offspring of other than your fathers, as it is disbelief (unthankfulness) on your part that you claim to be the offspring of other than your real father.' Then Allah's Apostle said, 'Do not praise me excessively as Jesus, son of Marry was praised, but call me Allah's Slave and His Apostles.'

(O people!) I have been informed that a speaker amongst you says, 'By Allah, if `Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such−and−such person.' One should not deceive oneself by saying that the pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was given suddenly and it was successful. No doubt, it was like that, but Allah saved (the people) from its evil, and there is none among you who has the qualities of Abu Bakr. Remember that whoever gives the pledge of allegiance to anybody among you without consulting the other Muslims, neither that person, nor the person to whom the pledge of allegiance was given, are to be supported, lest they both should be killed. And no doubt after the death of the Prophet we were informed that the Ansar disagreed with us and gathered in the shed of Bani Sa`da. `Ali and Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us, while the emigrants gathered with Abu Bakr. I said to Abu Bakr, 'Let's go to these Ansari brothers of ours.' So we set out seeking them, and when we approached them, two pious men of theirs met us and informed us of the final decision of the Ansar, and said, 'O group of Muhajirin (emigrants) ! Where are you going?' We replied, 'We are going to these Ansari brothers of ours.' They said to us, 'You shouldn't go near them. Carry out whatever we have already decided.' I said, 'By Allah, we will go to them.' And so we proceeded until we reached them at the shed of Bani Sa`da. Behold! There was a man sitting amongst them and wrapped in something. I asked, 'Who is that man?' They said, 'He is Sa`d bin 'Ubada.' I asked, 'What is wrong with him?' They said, 'He is sick.' After we sat for a while, the Ansar's speaker said, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' and praising Allah as He deserved, he added, 'To proceed, we are Allah's Ansar (helpers) and the majority of the Muslim army, while you, the emigrants, are a small group and some people among you came with the intention of preventing us from practicing this matter (of caliphate) and depriving us of it.' When the speaker had finished, I intended to speak as I had prepared a speech which I liked and which I wanted to deliver in the presence of Abu Bakr, and I used to avoid provoking him. So, when I wanted to speak, Abu Bakr said, 'Wait a while.' I disliked to make him angry. So Abu Bakr himself gave a speech, and he was wiser and more patient than I. By Allah, he never missed a sentence that I liked in my own prepared speech, but he said the like of it or better than it spontaneously. After a pause he said, 'O Ansar! You deserve all (the qualities that you have attributed to yourselves, but this question (of Caliphate) is only for the Quraish as they are the best of the Arabs as regards descent and home, and I am pleased to suggest that you choose either of these two men, so take the oath of allegiance to either of them as you wish. And then Abu Bakr held my hand and Abu Ubaida bin `Abdullah's hand who was sitting amongst us. I hated nothing of what he had said except that proposal, for by Allah, I would rather have my neck chopped off as expiator for a sin than become the ruler of a nation, one of whose members is Abu Bakr, unless at the time of my death my own−self suggests something I don't feel at present.' And then one of the Ansar said, 'I am the pillar on which the camel with a skin disease (eczema) rubs itself to satisfy the itching (i.e., I am a noble), and I am as a high class palm tree! O Quraish. There should be one ruler from us and one from you.' Then there was a hue and cry among the gathering and their voices rose so that I was afraid there might be great disagreement, so I said, 'O Abu Bakr! Hold your hand out.' He held his hand out and I pledged allegiance to him, and then all the emigrants gave the Pledge of allegiance and so did the Ansar afterwards. And so we became victorious over Sa`d bin Ubada (whom Al−Ansar wanted to make a ruler). One of the Ansar said, 'You have killed Sa`d bin Ubada.' I replied, 'Allah has killed Sa`d bin Ubada.' `Umar added, "By Allah, apart from the great tragedy that had happened to us (i.e. the death of the Prophet), there was no greater problem than the allegiance pledged to Abu Bakr because we were afraid that if we left the people, they might give the Pledge of allegiance after us to one of their men, in which case we would have given them our consent for something against our real wish, or would have opposed them and caused great trouble. So if any person gives the Pledge of allegiance to somebody (to become a Caliph) without consulting the other Muslims, then the one he has selected should not be granted allegiance, lest both of them should be killed."

Sahih Muslim Book 31, Number 5877:

Ibn Abu Mulaika reported:

I heard A'isha as saying and she was asked as to whom Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) would have nominated his successor if he had to nominate one at all. She said: Abu Bakr. It was said to her: Then whom after Abu Bakr? She said: Umar. It was said to her. Then whom after 'Umar ? She said: Abu Ubaida b. Jarrah, and then she kept quiet at this.

Is it a coincidence that the three people the Prophet (pbuh) would allegedly have chosen as successor after him were the same three Muhajirs that were at Saqifa? Or did `Aisha make it up? Which is more plausible?

By the way, in case anyone is wondering, Abu `Ubaida's full name is Abu `Ubaida `Amir ibn `Abdullah ibn al-Jarrah, so these are the same persons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

We know Abu Bakr who was present in Saqifa to claim the caliphate never presented us with any evidence that he was nominated by the Prophet or deserve the caliphate. Umar al-Khattab who was also present at Saqifa did not have anything to back Abu Bakr's claim to caliph.

You can see in one of my topic where I've asked multiple times to present us with hadiths where Abu Bakr was nominated as Prophet's successor http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234995352-why-didnt-abu-bakr-narrate-a-single-proof/

Don't you find it surprising that the daughter of the first caliph had to defend his father's position by claiming she heard something from the Prophet. And it is not a coincidence that we don't hear the name of the 4th caliph in her hadith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Is it a coincidence that the three people the Prophet (pbuh) would allegedly have chosen as successor after him were the same three Muhajirs that were at Saqifa? Or did `Aisha make it up? Which is more plausible?

A'isha came to that conclusion due to his status and Abu Ubaidah was no small fry. Read his biography.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

A'isha came to that conclusion due to his status and Abu Ubaidah was no small fry. Read his biography.

So someone asks Aisha who the Prophet (pbuh) would have nominated, and she starts speculating? Wouldn't it have been better to keep quiet?

But ok, if Abu Ubaidah really was so great, then I suppose you just see it as a happy coincidence that the three best Muhajirs just happened to be the ones who were at Saqifa?

On the other hand, it is strange that she said Abu Ubaida, and not Uthman, who seems the have been regarded as the third best by everyone else (at least according to Ibn Umar), or that she did at least not mention his name before stopping her list.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Number 7:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

We used to compare the people as to who was better during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle . We used to regard Abu Bakr as the best, then 'Umar, and then 'Uthman.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Number 47:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

During the lifetime of the Prophet we considered Abu Bakr as peerless and then 'Umar and then 'Uthman (coming next to him in superiority) and then we used not to differentiate between the companions of the Prophet.

So what's going on? Did Ibn Umar not know what he was talking about? How can Abu Ubaida be worthy of succeeding the Prophet (pbuh) above Uthman, yet just be one of those companions who isn't differentiated between?

You have to admit there are a lot of coincidences here. Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman are the three best suited to succeeding the Prophet (pbuh) according to Aisha, and they are the ones who happen to be at Saqifa. Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman were regarded as clearly above everyone else by the companions according to Ibn Umar, yet Abu Bakr sees it fit to appoint Umar without consultation, but Umar doesn't see it fit to choose Uthman. Uthman has to go through a selection process, but gets chosen anyway, even though it was apparently offer to Ali (as) first.

It's kind of odd that there was any deliberation at all if Uthman was seen as so clearly superior, then you would think that either Umar would have appealed to that in chosing Uthman, or the other 5 members of the Shura would have instantly recognised Uthman's right above their own. Similarly, it is strange that Abu Bakr and Umar didn't use their known clear superiority over everyone else in claiming their right to rule. Instead all they made reference to was the right of the Quraish to rule due to them apparently being the best of the Arabs.

Incidentally, that argument was a rather strange one to use, since if the Quraish are the best of the Arabs, then the Banu Hashim are the best of the Quraish, so shouldn't one of them have been Khalifa?

Sahih Muslim, Book 30, Number 5653:

Wathila b. al−Asqa' reported: I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying:

Verily Allah granted eminence to Kinana from amongst the descendants of Isma'il and he granted eminence to the Quraish amongst Kinana and he granted eminence to the Quraish amongst Banu Hashim and he granted me eminencece from the tribe of Banu Hashim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Note that there is a difference between what A'isha was asked and what Ibn Omar was asked. The former was asked about more likely to be appointed. The latter was about who he saw as the best overall Muslim.

Now, is it necessary that the best Muslim be better the best leader? I don't think so. One can be pious, generous, brave, and hold many good qualities, but lack the charisma to lead. One could argue that Abu Ubaidah's resume was stronger than that of Uthman when it came to tasks involving leadership.

Most importantly, the opinion of A'isha is just that, an opinion. It isn't set in stone.

Ironically, I found a narration in which she said that the Prophet (pbuh) would have had Zaid bin Haritha succeed him if he lived longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I know there is a difference, but it's hard to believe that someone who was considered by Aisha only one of the three most deserving people to succeed the Prophet (pbuh) could at the same time just be considered one among many equal Companions.

You say it is just her opinion, but don't you think it is a bit irresponsible given her position to answer a question about who the Prophet (pbuh) would have chosen as successor with such a definitive statement? It doesn't seem like she was asked for her opinion to me, rather the questioner was relying on her assumed inside knowledge. I have to assume that the questioner went away with the impression that this was the opinion of the Prophet (pubh) and not Aisha, since she gave no indication that it was hers, and didn't seem to display much uncertainty.

Ibn Umar didn't say who he considered to be the best overall Muslim, he takes it upon himself to speak for all Muslims, and say that they as a group used to consider Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman to be the best, and that the others weren't differentiated between. How could Abu Ubaida, who could maybe just be considered an 'ordinary person' by this criteria, rule over someone who was his clear superior, like Uthman?

As for charisma being required for leadership, I wonder what Umar would have to say about that? Didn't he make it a point to emphasise that success was only due to Allah, and individual personalities were not so important? Wasn't this one of the main reasons that he removed Khalid ibn Waleed from his position?

Ironically, I found a narration in which she said that the Prophet (pbuh) would have had Zaid bin Haritha succeed him if he lived longer.

Could he have been counted as part of the Quraish? And on what basis could Zayd have been considered more worthy of succeeding him than the others?

It also begs the question as to why the Prophet (pbuh) would have been willing to appoint Zayd, but nobody else, despite the superiority of several other Companions over him being clearly established.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
How could Abu Ubaida, who could maybe just be considered an 'ordinary person' by this criteria, rule over someone who was his clear superior, like Uthman?

Superiority is not a requirement for khilafa according to Sunnis.

Could he have been counted as part of the Quraish? And on what basis could Zayd have been considered more worthy of succeeding him than the others?

The narration says that Zaid was never in an army except as a leader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

The narration says that Zaid was never in an army except as a leader.

Of course, I have not seen this hadith you are talking about but your two statements are quite contradictory. In the first instance, you claimed that the Prophet (pbuh) is saying that had Zayd lived long enough, he would have been made the successor while in the second post, you are saying that it only says that he was in no army except as a leader? If your second post gives the right information, then how did you ever get to the conclusion that the Prophet (pbuh) had wanted him to succeed if he lived long enough.

These Ahadith also show one other important point. Sunnis today claims that the Prophet (pbuh) had not left a successor and had left it on the Ummah to decide who the Khalifa will be but the companions in the hadith about Aisha seems to have thought that the Prophet (pbuh) would have had an opinion about who the successor. Why, then, are Shias blamed if they ask for a clear Divine command regarding Khilafa when they are following one of the "stars of guidance" - a companion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

That's a good point. Which is why, as I said, these are just opinions by A'isha. It isn't based on "inside information".

So someone goes up to the most beloved and most knowledgeable wife of the Prophet (pbuh) and asks her who the Prophet (pbuh) would have chosen as successor if he really had to, and she gives her own opinions without a hint of clarification that she didn't get it from him? Strange. Wouldn't it have just been better to say "Allahu A`lam", or just say she doesn't know, but in her opinion it would be x, y, z?

Is it correct in your view to give out unsubstantiated opinions about what the Prophet (pbuh) would have done in such and such a situation?

Edited by Haydar Husayn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Of course, I have not seen this hadith you are talking about but your two statements are quite contradictory. In the first instance, you claimed that the Prophet (pbuh) is saying that had Zayd lived long enough, he would have been made the successor while in the second post, you are saying that it only says that he was in no army except as a leader? If your second post gives the right information, then how did you ever get to the conclusion that the Prophet (pbuh) had wanted him to succeed if he lived long enough.

The hadith says both. Al-Nasa'ee narrated:

أخبرنا أحمد بن سليمان قال أنا محمد بن عبيد قال أنا وائل بن داود قال سمعت البهي يحدث أن عائشة كانت تقولما بعث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم زيد بن حارثة في جيش قط إلا أمره عليهم ولو بقي بعده لاستخلفه

"The Prophet (pbuh) never put Zaid bin Haritha in an army except as it's leader, and if he stayed (alive), he would have made him his khalifa."

So someone goes up to the most beloved and most knowledgeable wife of the Prophet (pbuh) and asks her who the Prophet (pbuh) would have chosen as successor if he really had to, and she gives her own opinions without a hint of clarification that she didn't get it from him? Strange. Wouldn't it have just been better to say "Allahu A`lam", or just say she doesn't know, but in her opinion it would be x, y, z?

Well, her statement didn't have any affect on who was to be chosen as khalifa, but this was decades after the saqeefa, since Ibn Abi Mulaika is a young tabi'ee. So, in this context, she hasn't really done anything that should cause any suspicion on your part. Seriously. Has this narration had any affect on how Sunnis revere Abu Bakr, Omar, or Abu Ubaidah? Does anyone today say that Abu Ubaidah is the third best sahabi because of this opinion?

If she wanted her view to be seen as a fact, she may as well have attributed this to the Prophet (pbuh). She could have said, "The Prophet (pbuh) said that my father is to be khalifa, and then Omar, and then Abu Ubaidah."

Sunnis today claims that the Prophet (pbuh) had not left a successor and had left it on the Ummah to decide who the Khalifa will be but the companions in the hadith about Aisha seems to have thought that the Prophet (pbuh) would have had an opinion about who the successor.

This is somewhat half correct. I mean, the Sunni narrative points out that the Prophet (pbuh) ordered Abu Bakr to lead the prayers. However, for us to assume that every opinion about the Prophet (pbuh) has indicated that it should be Abu Bakr, then Omar, then Abu Ubaidah would need proof, especially when we know that Abu Ubaidah died early.

Why, then, are Shias blamed if they ask for a clear Divine command regarding Khilafa when they are following one of the "stars of guidance" - a companion.

How is this relevant...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

The hadith says both. Al-Nasa'ee narrated:

أخبرنا أحمد بن سليمان قال أنا محمد بن عبيد قال أنا وائل بن داود قال سمعت البهي يحدث أن عائشة كانت تقولما بعث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم زيد بن حارثة في جيش قط إلا أمره عليهم ولو بقي بعده لاستخلفه

"The Prophet (pbuh) never put Zaid bin Haritha in an army except as it's leader, and if he stayed (alive), he would have made him his khalifa."

Look at this statement, she just says "he would have made him his khalifa", not "I think he would have made him his khalifa", or "it's probable that he would have made him his khalifa". How can anyone interpret that any other way than that the Prophet (pbuh) told her that or at least gave some very strong indications in that direction?

Well, her statement didn't have any affect on who was to be chosen as khalifa, but this was decades after the saqeefa, since Ibn Abi Mulaika is a young tabi'ee. So, in this context, she hasn't really done anything that should cause any suspicion on your part. Seriously. Has this narration had any affect on how Sunnis revere Abu Bakr, Omar, or Abu Ubaidah? Does anyone today say that Abu Ubaidah is the third best sahabi because of this opinion?

I never said it did serve any purpose in who was chosen as khalifa, or that Sunnis took any notice of the hadith. It could potentially serve as useful propaganda though, in raising the status of certain individuals above others. It is particularly reassuring to think that the 3 Muhajirs that we know were at Saqifa were also the ones who the Prophet (pbuh) thought were best suited to lead the Ummah.

If she wanted her view to be seen as a fact, she may as well have attributed this to the Prophet (pbuh). She could have said, "The Prophet (pbuh) said that my father is to be khalifa, and then Omar, and then Abu Ubaidah."

Except that would make absolutely no sense from a historical perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Note that there is a difference between what A'isha was asked and what Ibn Omar was asked. The former was asked about more likely to be appointed. The latter was about who he saw as the best overall Muslim.

Now, is it necessary that the best Muslim be better the best leader? I don't think so. One can be pious, generous, brave, and hold many good qualities, but lack the charisma to lead. One could argue that Abu Ubaidah's resume was stronger than that of Uthman when it came to tasks involving leadership.

Most importantly, the opinion of A'isha is just that, an opinion. It isn't set in stone.

Ironically, I found a narration in which she said that the Prophet (pbuh) would have had Zaid bin Haritha succeed him if he lived longer.

Who you are to decide who have power to lead or not. Dont you sound like those jews who made argument against the leadership of Talut??!!!! When quran has clearly given the outlines of qualities that make person eligible to lead nation then your thinking has no meaning.

Allah says in Quran;

2:247 Their Prophet said to them: "Allah hath appointed Talut as king over you." They said: "How can he exercise authority over us when we are better fitted than he to exercise authority, and he is not even gifted, with wealth in abundance?" He said: "Allah hath chosen him above you, and hath gifted him abundantly with knowledge and bodily prowess: Allah granteth His authority to whom He pleaseth. Allah careth for all, and He knoweth all things." this story is not for you bedtime comfort but contains lesson to learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Look at this statement, she just says "he would have made him his khalifa", not "I think he would have made him his khalifa", or "it's probable that he would have made him his khalifa". How can anyone interpret that any other way than that the Prophet (pbuh) told her that or at least gave some very strong indications in that direction?

She already explains her reasonings in the narration itself. She doesn't need the Prophet (pbuh) to tell her anything for her to arrive at this conclusion.

You are aware that there is a whole category of hadiths called mawqoof narrations in which the hadith stops at the sahabi and doesn't reach the Prophet (pbuh) right? Even though these opinions have weight, there are cases when scholars have rejected the opinions of the sahaba.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

She already explains her reasonings in the narration itself. She doesn't need the Prophet (pbuh) to tell her anything for her to arrive at this conclusion.

So you think it is sound reasoning to say that the fact that Zayd was always chosen as the leader of any army he was a part of necessitates that he would have been chosen as khalifa by the Prophet (pbuh)?

It's hard to understand how in light of the fact that the Prophet (pbuh) supposedly never chose anyone to be khalifa, nor gave any real indication whatsoever about how a khalifa should be chosen, that she would be so sure he would have chosen Zayd at all. What was it about Zayd that made him so much better suited to being Khalifa that he should be worthy of being appointed, but not Abu Bakr, Umar, Abu Ubayda, Uthman, or Ali (as)? The fact that he was always the leader of an army doesn't really explain it.

You are aware that there is a whole category of hadiths called mawqoof narrations in which the hadith stops at the sahabi and doesn't reach the Prophet (pbuh) right? Even though these opinions have weight, there are cases when scholars have rejected the opinions of the sahaba.

My interest here isn't how much weight is given to these narrations, it is to discuss the fact that such things were said in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
So you think it is sound reasoning to say that the fact that Zayd was always chosen as the leader of any army he was a part of necessitates that he would have been chosen as khalifa by the Prophet (pbuh)?

It is logical. Of course, it is incorrect since the khilafa is supposed to be in Quraish. Once again, opinions.

My interest here isn't how much weight is given to these narrations, it is to discuss the fact that such things were said in the first place.

Ijtihadaat play a role of course. A narration by the Prophet (pbuh) can cause differences of opinion, like for example the narration of Bani Quraidhah in which he ordered the companions to not pray Asr except when they get to Bani Quraidah. Some took it literally. Others believed he said it so that they would hasten and were afraid of missing out.

So, no, Sunnis don't believe that the companions were perfect. They were all individuals with their own opinions and their own ijtihadaat which led them to sometimes differ when it came to specifics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

It is logical. Of course, it is incorrect since the khilafa is supposed to be in Quraish. Once again, opinions.

Can you explain the reasoning to me, because I don't fully understand it?

Are you saying that the rule of a khalifa that is not from the Quraish would be illegitimate?

In your opinion, why did Abu Bakr not make reference to a hadith from the Prophet (pbuh) saying that the khalifa had to be from the Quraish, and instead he simply said that it is because the Quraish were "the best of the Arabs as regards descent and home"? Wouldn't the words of the Prophet (pbuh) have carried more weight?

Ijtihadaat play a role of course. A narration by the Prophet (pbuh) can cause differences of opinion, like for example the narration of Bani Quraidhah in which he ordered the companions to not pray Asr except when they get to Bani Quraidah. Some took it literally. Others believed he said it so that they would hasten and were afraid of missing out.

So, no, Sunnis don't believe that the companions were perfect. They were all individuals with their own opinions and their own ijtihadaat which led them to sometimes differ when it came to specifics.

Or like about when it came to rebelling against a legitimate Caliph? Their ijtihad overruled the clear instructions of the Prophet (pbuh)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Can you explain the reasoning to me, because I don't fully understand it?

Everyone has their own criteria of what makes the best leader. Some would say intellect. Others would say piety. One could use a specific merit attributed to the Prophet (pbuh) to come to the conclusion of who the best suited for khilafa is. (i.e. Hadith Al-Manzila, Al-Ghadeer)

Are you saying that the rule of a khalifa that is not from the Quraish would be illegitimate?

No. The obligation of following the caliph includes even those that come from Quraish, which is clear in other hadiths. Regarding how the hadith should be applied in cases of shura is another matter which I haven't studied.

In your opinion, why did Abu Bakr not make reference to a hadith from the Prophet (pbuh) saying that the khalifa had to be from the Quraish, and instead he simply said that it is because the Quraish were "the best of the Arabs as regards descent and home"? Wouldn't the words of the Prophet (pbuh) have carried more weight?

No idea. As you are implying, his statement may have been a reference to that. However, one could only come to that conclusion due to the existence of the hadith(s) about Quraish. One cannot just assume that every opinion by every sahabi is a quote by the Prophet (pbuh) said.

Or like about when it came to rebelling against a legitimate Caliph? Their ijtihad overruled the clear instructions of the Prophet (pbuh)?

That didn't come to mind when I wrote those words, but yes, ijtihad can lead one to go directly against an order, unintentionally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...