Why was Abu Bakr absent from the Prophet's burial?

[Student_of_Deen]

19 hours ago, Shahjee12145 said:

i think many sunnis even dont know who Hazrat Salman Farsi (AS) is and Hazrat Miqdad (RA) and many other loyals companions of Prophet Muhammad Saww 

Are you trying to insult Sunnis or make people laugh ? Seriously just stick to the topic man. 

[Student_of_Deen]

20 hours ago, Shahjee12145 said:

overall abu bakr and omar and uthman never deserved the caliphate because they dont have any impact on Islam whatsoever they did was for themself and not for Islam............

Seriously just stop it there brother. You`re only making a joke out of yourself. Even the staunch enemies of the first 3 Khulafahs (May Allah be well pleased with them) don`t dare to say their actions & decisions were not for Islam. If Allah had not used them and the thousands of other Sahabas and Taba`eens for his cause then who knows perhaps you & all the people who shamelessly insults and curse them would probably not be Muslims today. 

Edited April 28, 2017 by Student_of_Deen

[Student_of_Deen]

3 hours ago, QuranandAhlulbayt said:

I believe the most effective way to debate sunni brothers/sisters on this is by comparing the third Caliph, Uthman ibn Affan, to Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s. Compare their batle history the key moments they had in islam during the lifetime of the prophet [saw], and their own dispute and arguments. And then, many of them - at least in their hearts- will question on what basis Uthman ibn Affan was superior to Ali a.s?

You do know that Sunnis don`t really like comparing and making distinction between Sahaba right ? Anyways in “Nahjul balagha” (sermon 163) Syedina Ali himself called Uthman bin affan equal in knowledge. 

In “Nahjul balagha” (sermon 163) you can read that when people went to Amir al-mu’minin in a deputation and complained to him through what they had to say against `Uthman, and requested him to speak to him on their behalf and to admonish him for their sake, he went to see him (the caliph) and said:

by Allah, I do not know what to say to you. I know nothing which you do not know, nor can I lead you to any matter of which you are not aware. You certainly know what we know, we have not come to know anything before you which we could tell you; nor did we learn anything in secret which we should convey to you. You have seen as we have seen and you have heard as we have heard. You sat in the company of the Prophet of Allah as we did. (Abu Bakr) Ibn Abi Quhafah and (`Umar) ibn al-Khattab were not more close by acting in accordance to truth than you, since you are nearer than both of them to the Prophet of Allah through kinship, and you also hold relationship to him by marriage which they do not hold.

 

[guest051217]

3 hours ago, Student_of_Deen said:

You do know that Sunnis don`t really like comparing and making distinction between Sahaba right ? Anyways in “Nahjul balagha” (sermon 163) Syedina Ali himself called Uthman bin affan equal in knowledge. 

In “Nahjul balagha” (sermon 163) you can read that when people went to Amir al-mu’minin in a deputation and complained to him through what they had to say against `Uthman, and requested him to speak to him on their behalf and to admonish him for their sake, he went to see him (the caliph) and said:

by Allah, I do not know what to say to you. I know nothing which you do not know, nor can I lead you to any matter of which you are not aware. You certainly know what we know, we have not come to know anything before you which we could tell you; nor did we learn anything in secret which we should convey to you. You have seen as we have seen and you have heard as we have heard. You sat in the company of the Prophet of Allah as we did. (Abu Bakr) Ibn Abi Quhafah and (`Umar) ibn al-Khattab were not more close by acting in accordance to truth than you, since you are nearer than both of them to the Prophet of Allah through kinship, and you also hold relationship to him by marriage which they do not hold.

 

 

Ya Akhi, it is clear from the ahlus-sunnah that they regard Abu Bakr ibn quhafa,, Umar ibn khattab, and Uthman ibn affan to be above Ali ibn abi talib. They might not want to compare them to one another, but they do make clear distinction.

Secondly, Nahjul Balagha is not a book we consider 'saheeh' nahjul balagha. The author cherry-picked narrations attributed to Ali a.s for their eloquence, without giving the isnaad. When looking into the corpus of history books, we find many of these sermons in Al Kafi, whilst many are also from sunni works, like Tabari, for instance, and sunni historians. Hence Nahjul Balagha is not in and of itself, hujjah and a sermon in it can be used to conclusively prove something, without ascertaining the reliability of the sermon.

Now, i am not claiming this sermon is not reliable, because i need to look into its' intepretation. However, let us examine the relationship Ali ibn Abi Talib had with Uthman ibn Affan:

I would like you all to read the following hadith:

Narrated Ibn Al-Hanafiya:

If `Ali had spoken anything bad about `Uthman then he would have mentioned the day when some persons came to him and complained about the Zakat officials of `Uthman. `Ali then said to me, "Go to `Uthman and say to him, 'This document contains the regulations of spending the Sadaqa of Allah's Apostle so order your Zakat officials to act accordingly." I took the document to `Uthman. `Uthman said, "Take it away, for we are not in need of it." I returned to `Ali with it and informed him of that. He said, "Put it whence you took it.

http://sunnah.com/bukhari/62/67

 

Points to raise:

 

1.Incase someone tries to play down this incident, the narrator himself has stated that If Ali a.s were to speak ill about Uthman, then he surely would have mentioned this incident. This hi-lights that even the narrator recognised how offensive this was to Ali a.s. Furthermore, the narrator (to sunni's) was not a shia - and hence this is not a shiee distortion.

2. Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s does not feel  Uthman is conducting the spending of the Sadqah properly, and sends a document where he orders them to abide by the document, which contains the instruction and sunnah of the way Muhammed s.a.w has done so. [Again - rightly guided?].

3. Uthman, the third caliph, states 'Take it away, for we are not in need of it'. [The value he places on Ali a.s's advice]

 

[This is not the only time when Ali a.s and Hazrat Uthman have clashed]. Look below:

I saw `Uthman and `Ali. `Uthman used to forbid people to perform Hajj-at-Tamattu` and Hajj-al- Qiran (Hajj and `Umra together), and when `Ali saw (this act of `Uthman), he assumed Ihram for Hajj and `Umra together saying, "Lubbaik for `Umra and Hajj," and said, "I will not leave the tradition of the Prophet (ﷺ) on the saying of somebody."

http://sunnah.com/bukhari/25/49

and another Saheeh hadith[in nisai]:

"I heard 'Ali binHusain narrating from Marwan, that 'Uthman forbade Mut'ah and joining Hajj and "Umrah. 'Ali said; 'Labbaika bi Hajjatin wa 'Umratin ma'an Here I am, (O Allah) for Hajj and "Umrah together. 'Uthman said: 'Are you doing this when I have forbidden it?' 'Ali said; 'I will not give up the Sunnh of the Messenger of Allah for any of the people.''

 

 

 

[Student_of_Deen]

18 hours ago, QuranandAhlulbayt said:

Ya Akhi, it is clear from the ahlus-sunnah that they regard Abu Bakr ibn quhafa,, Umar ibn khattab, and Uthman ibn affan to be above Ali ibn abi talib. They might not want to compare them to one another, but they do make clear distinction.

Yes it`s true but it`s mainly because of the order given in the hadith of Ashra e Mubashira and also the order in which the first four rightly guided Khulafah (Syedina Hassan was fifth rightly guided khalifah even if for a short period), May Allah be well pleased with them all. But we don`t really like to make distiction among Sahaba and say he was greater than him and he was better than him. 

 

18 hours ago, QuranandAhlulbayt said:

Secondly, Nahjul Balagha is not a book we consider 'saheeh' nahjul balagha. The author cherry-picked narrations attributed to Ali a.s for their eloquence, without giving the isnaad. When looking into the corpus of history books, we find many of these sermons in Al Kafi, whilst many are also from sunni works, like Tabari, for instance, and sunni historians. Hence Nahjul Balagha is not in and of itself, hujjah and a sermon in it can be used to conclusively prove something, without ascertaining the reliability of the sermon.

Now, i am not claiming this sermon is not reliable, because i need to look into its' intepretation.

I agree with you that Shi`a never say it`s Saheeh Nahjul Balagha. I don`t know if Shi`a consider this sermon unauthentic, if they do then I will delete it and take my words back. 

 

19 hours ago, QuranandAhlulbayt said:

I would like you all to read the following hadith:

Narrated Ibn Al-Hanafiya:

If `Ali had spoken anything bad about `Uthman then he would have mentioned the day when some persons came to him and complained about the Zakat officials of `Uthman. `Ali then said to me, "Go to `Uthman and say to him, 'This document contains the regulations of spending the Sadaqa of Allah's Apostle so order your Zakat officials to act accordingly." I took the document to `Uthman. `Uthman said, "Take it away, for we are not in need of it." I returned to `Ali with it and informed him of that. He said, "Put it whence you took it.

http://sunnah.com/bukhari/62/67

 

Points to raise:

 

1.Incase someone tries to play down this incident, the narrator himself has stated that If Ali a.s were to speak ill about Uthman, then he surely would have mentioned this incident. This hi-lights that even the narrator recognised how offensive this was to Ali a.s. Furthermore, the narrator (to sunni's) was not a shia - and hence this is not a shiee distortion.

2. Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s does not feel  Uthman is conducting the spending of the Sadqah properly, and sends a document where he orders them to abide by the document, which contains the instruction and sunnah of the way Muhammed s.a.w has done so. [Again - rightly guided?].

3. Uthman, the third caliph, states 'Take it away, for we are not in need of it'. [The value he places on Ali a.s's advice]

 

[This is not the only time when Ali a.s and Hazrat Uthman have clashed]. Look below:

I saw `Uthman and `Ali. `Uthman used to forbid people to perform Hajj-at-Tamattu` and Hajj-al- Qiran (Hajj and `Umra together), and when `Ali saw (this act of `Uthman), he assumed Ihram for Hajj and `Umra together saying, "Lubbaik for `Umra and Hajj," and said, "I will not leave the tradition of the Prophet (ﷺ) on the saying of somebody."

http://sunnah.com/bukhari/25/49

and another Saheeh hadith[in nisai]:

"I heard 'Ali binHusain narrating from Marwan, that 'Uthman forbade Mut'ah and joining Hajj and "Umrah. 'Ali said; 'Labbaika bi Hajjatin wa 'Umratin ma'an Here I am, (O Allah) for Hajj and "Umrah together. 'Uthman said: 'Are you doing this when I have forbidden it?' 'Ali said; 'I will not give up the Sunnh of the Messenger of Allah for any of the people.''

 

 

 

if it proves anything then it`s that there were difference opinions among the Sahaba on matters of Fiqh. Ahlus Sunnah never denied that and despite their difference of opinion, they did not turned on each other but allowed each other to apply their knowledge and ijtihad on matters of fiqh. 

Anyways where did you got that last hadith from Sunan Nisai ? I did a quick search but was unable to find it. 

[Shahjee12145]

23 hours ago, Student_of_Deen said:

Are you trying to insult Sunnis or make people laugh ? Seriously just stick to the topic man. 

brother i have not insulted sunnis and not trying to make anyone laugh im talking the truth only.

[Shahjee12145]

abu bakr was absent from burial because he was worldly desired man and didnt care about Prophet Muhammad Saww and even forced Hazrat Bilal RA to leave the country because he didnt gave bayah to him and secondly he was in saqifah to take over and he did and all sunni scholars admit that he was in saqifah to decided about his caliphate which he didnt deserved and why Imam Ali As didnt do anything was because he was Imam of Muslim Ummah and secondly he didnt have worldy desire like abu bakr and if he had done something to abu bakr then now majority of Muslim ummah would have said that he wanted power and that was not Imam Ali As who did thing like that and who done wrong to him then will surely burn in hell forever InshAllah

Edited April 30, 2017 by Shahjee12145

[Faruk]

On ‎29‎-‎4‎-‎2017 at 1:14 PM, Student_of_Deen said:

But we don`t really like to make distiction among Sahaba and say he was greater than him and he was better than him. 

This is a political motivated dogma. The term Sahaba as understood used by Ahlus Sunnah is not Quranic.

In Quran there is distinction between the Sabiqun, the Tulaqaa and some groups inbetween.

Ahlus Sunnah considers them all the same to justify the leadership of Muawiya and Yazid above Imam Ali a.s. and other Imams.

The muslims who performed Hijra and Jihad fisabilillah when Islam was in its natal stage are diffirent from those who fought Islam and who became muslim to save their lives after Fath Makkah.

Edited April 30, 2017 by Faruk

[Student_of_Deen]

On 30/04/2017 at 5:56 PM, Shahjee12145 said:

abu bakr was absent from burial because he was worldly desired man and didnt care about Prophet Muhammad Saww and even forced Hazrat Bilal RA to leave the country because he didnt gave bayah to him and secondly he was in saqifah to take over and he did and all sunni scholars admit that he was in saqifah to decided about his caliphate which he didnt deserved and why Imam Ali As didnt do anything was because he was Imam of Muslim Ummah and secondly he didnt have worldy desire like abu bakr and if he had done something to abu bakr then now majority of Muslim ummah would have said that he wanted power and that was not Imam Ali As who did thing like that and who done wrong to him then will surely burn in hell forever InshAllah

Fine i`m done with you. I think I have given you enough chances to present your evidence to back your claim but you have failed. 

[Student_of_Deen]

On 30/04/2017 at 6:03 PM, Faruk said:

Ahlus Sunnah considers them all the same to justify the leadership of Muawiya and Yazid above Imam Ali a.s. and other Imams.

You`re accusing us of considering the leadership of other rulers over a Rashid (Rightly guided) caliph ? Sorry I`m not going to argue with you either. 

[Faruk]

57 minutes ago, Student_of_Deen said:

You`re accusing us of considering the leadership of other rulers over a Rashid (Rightly guided) caliph ? Sorry I`m not going to argue with you either. 

To regard all Sahaba the same is not Quranic.

To regard Muawiyah and Yazid on the same level with Imam Ali a.s. and his two sons a.s. is even worse.

 

Edited May 1, 2017 by Faruk

[Student_of_Deen]

1 hour ago, Faruk said:

To regard all Sahaba the same is not Quranic.

To regard Muawiyah and Yazid on the same level with Imam Ali a.s. and his two sons a.s. is even worse.

 

Are you kidding me ? There is no match between Ameer Mu`awiyah and Syedina Ali despite the fact that both were Sahabis. Ameer Mu`awiyah cannot even come close to a rightly guided Caliph from Ashra e Mubashira. Any Sunni can tell you that Ameer Mu`awiyah was a Sahabi but he couldn`t be compared with Syedina Ali. 

and who on earth told you Sunnis believe Yazid to be on the same level with Syedna Hassan and Hussein ? Now you`ve given me genuine reason to doubt you were ever a true Sunni. Heck even very ignorant Sunnis do not consider Yazid a good guy, let alone call him on the same level with two great sahabis and grandsons of the Prophet (Peace and blessings be upon them). 

[Faruk]

16 minutes ago, Student_of_Deen said:

Any Sunni can tell you that Ameer Mu`awiyah was a Sahabi but he couldn`t be compared with Syedina Ali. 

What is a Sahabi? Is it a Quranic term? A pillar of Iman? What exactly?

 

 

16 minutes ago, Student_of_Deen said:

and who on earth told you Sunnis believe Yazid to be on the same level with Syedna Hassan and Hussein ? Now you`ve given me genuine reason to doubt you were ever a true Sunni. Heck even very ignorant Sunnis do not consider Yazid a good guy, let alone call him on the same level with two great sahabis and grandsons of the Prophet (Peace and blessings be upon them). 

Then how can you consider Yazid a caliph and call those who find him an illegitimate ruler deviated?

Edited May 1, 2017 by Faruk

[Ya_isa (as)]

What was muaviyeh Ameer of exactly ..? Abu sufyan fought the Holy Prophet (pbuh&hf), muaviyeh fought Imam Ali (as), Yazid fought Imam Hussein (as),  sufyani will fight Imam Mahdi (as) do you not see the pattern ? Open your heart! Muaviyeh had Imam Ali (as) cursed on the minbar for how many decades ..?? Who poisoned Imam Hassan (as) ...... then you call him a sahaba and ameer..... 

Edited May 1, 2017 by Ya_isa (as)

[zyzz]

On 2017-4-27 at 2:35 AM, Student_of_Deen said:

First provide your evidence based on which you are making this claim that Abu Bakr and Umar (May Allah be well pleased with them both) were absent at the Prophet`s (Peace and blessings be upon him) funeral.  

Again provide your evidence please. 

Wow this thread got derailed hard. Anyways, apologies for taking so long to respond, I have been busy.

 

The first claim, Abu Bakr and Umar were absent from the Prophet's (saww) burial:

حدثنا ابن نمير عن هشام بن عروة عن أبيه أن أبا بكر وعمر لم يشهدا دفن النبي (ص) ، كانا في الانصار فدفن قبل أن يرجعا.

Ibn Numair narrated form Hisham bin Urwah who narrated from his father (Urwa) that Abu Bakr and Umar were not present at the time of burial of the Prophet (s), they were with Ansar and He was buried before they had returned.
Al-Musnaf Ibn Abi Shaybah Volume 8 page 58

 

The second claim, the Ansar were choosing a leader for themselves and not the entire ummah:

...the Ansar were assembled with Sad bin 'Ubada in the shed of Bani Saida. They said (to the emigrants). "There should be one 'Amir from us and one from you." Then Abu Bakr, Umar bin Al-Khattab and Abu 'baida bin Al-Jarrah went to them...

Sahih al-Bukhari 3667, 3668

https://sunnah.com/bukhari/62/19

[Student_of_Deen]

7 hours ago, zyzz said:

Wow this thread got derailed hard. Anyways, apologies for taking so long to respond, I have been busy.

No problem.

7 hours ago, zyzz said:

The first claim, Abu Bakr and Umar were absent from the Prophet's (saww) burial:

حدثنا ابن نمير عن هشام بن عروة عن أبيه أن أبا بكر وعمر لم يشهدا دفن النبي (ص) ، كانا في الانصار فدفن قبل أن يرجعا.

Ibn Numair narrated form Hisham bin Urwah who narrated from his father (Urwa) that Abu Bakr and Umar were not present at the time of burial of the Prophet (s), they were with Ansar and He was buried before they had returned.
Al-Musnaf Ibn Abi Shaybah Volume 8 page 58

What is the grading of this report ?

7 hours ago, zyzz said:

The second claim, the Ansar were choosing a leader for themselves and not the entire ummah:

...the Ansar were assembled with Sad bin 'Ubada in the shed of Bani Saida. They said (to the emigrants). "There should be one 'Amir from us and one from you." Then Abu Bakr, Umar bin Al-Khattab and Abu 'baida bin Al-Jarrah went to them...

Sahih al-Bukhari 3667, 3668

https://sunnah.com/bukhari/62/19

It says they left to meet the Ansar but it doesn`t says they missed the funeral. 

[Student_of_Deen]

16 hours ago, Ya_isa (as) said:

What was muaviyeh Ameer of exactly ..? Abu sufyan fought the Holy Prophet (pbuh&hf), muaviyeh fought Imam Ali (as), Yazid fought Imam Hussein (as),  sufyani will fight Imam Mahdi (as) do you not see the pattern ? Open your heart! Muaviyeh had Imam Ali (as) cursed on the minbar for how many decades ..?? Who poisoned Imam Hassan (as) ...... then you call him a sahaba and ameer..... 

In`sha Allah I can reply to your questions/objections but seriously I don`t want to derail someone`s thread. 

 

[zyzz]

13 minutes ago, Student_of_Deen said:

What is the grading of this report ?

Abdullah bin Numair: 

• Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p542)
• Dhahabi said: ‘Hujja’ (Al-Kashif, v1 p604)

Hisham bin Urwah: 

• Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-tahdib, v2 p267)
• Dhahabi said: ‘Abu Hatim said Thiqah’ (Al-Kashif, v2 p337)

Urwah bin al-Zubair: 

• Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p671)
• Dhahabi said: ‘Thabt’ (Al-Kashif, v2, p18).

Quote

It says they left to meet the Ansar but it doesn`t says they missed the funeral. 

 

Yes I know. That narration is solely evidence for my 2nd claim (the Ansar were picking a leader amongst themselves, not the entire ummah. They believed that after the death of the Prophet (saww), each tribe should govern itself).

[Student_of_Deen]

19 hours ago, zyzz said:

Abdullah bin Numair: 

• Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p542)
• Dhahabi said: ‘Hujja’ (Al-Kashif, v1 p604)

Hisham bin Urwah: 

• Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-tahdib, v2 p267)
• Dhahabi said: ‘Abu Hatim said Thiqah’ (Al-Kashif, v2 p337)

Urwah bin al-Zubair: 

• Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p671)
• Dhahabi said: ‘Thabt’ (Al-Kashif, v2, p18).

Were any of these narrators eyewitness of event of this event ?

 

19 hours ago, zyzz said:

Yes I know. That narration is solely evidence for my 2nd claim (the Ansar were picking a leader amongst themselves, not the entire ummah. They believed that after the death of the Prophet (saww), each tribe should govern itself).

 

Ahle Sunnah never denied the Ansar were picking a leader amongst themselves. The thing is some Ansars were insistent that the leader we choose will govern entire Madinah and if anyone refused his authority then they will be dragged out of Madinah. 

This was the reason why Abu Bakr (May Allah be pleased with him) left in the first place because he knew if they elected a leader among themselves then the Muhajireen and others were going to be in trouble. It could`ve led to clan against clan, tribe against tribe civil war. 

Edited May 3, 2017 by Student_of_Deen

[Faruk]

On ‎3‎-‎5‎-‎2017 at 7:46 AM, Student_of_Deen said:

Ahle Sunnah never denied the Ansar were picking a leader amongst themselves. The thing is some Ansars were insistent that the leader we choose will govern entire Madinah and if anyone refused his authority then they will be dragged out of Madinah. 

This was the reason why Abu Bakr (May Allah be pleased with him) left in the first place because he knew if they elected a leader among themselves then the Muhajireen and others were going to be in trouble. It could`ve led to clan against clan, tribe against tribe civil war. 

So if one wanted to have the power all he had to do is to join this election and be sure he'd be the one chosen?

Smart move.

But what about the condemnation of Umar regarding this 'shura' which he expressed a long time after it?

According to sunni sources Imam Ali a.s. did withheld for six months.

Umar also regretted it later on.

This doesn't feel good.
 

Edited May 4, 2017 by Faruk

[Student_of_Deen]

1 hour ago, Faruk said:

So if one wanted to have the power all he had to do is to join this election and be sure he'd be the one chosen?

Smart move.

But what about the condemnation of Umar regarding this 'shura' which he expressed a long time after it?

According to sunni sources Imam Ali a.s. did withheld for six months.

Umar also regretted it later on.

This doesn't feel good.
 

Look man why are you dragging every thread away from the topic ? What happened, what didn`t happened, whether it was right or wrong etc are different discussions. 

The topic of this thread is Why was Abu Bakr Absent from the Prophet`s burial. Which by the way none of you have been able to prove so far. 

[Faruk]

36 minutes ago, Student_of_Deen said:

Look man why are you dragging every thread away from the topic ? What happened, what didn`t happened, whether it was right or wrong etc are different discussions. 

The topic of this thread is Why was Abu Bakr Absent from the Prophet`s burial. Which by the way none of you have been able to prove so far. 

If Abu Bakr and Umar were absent then it was because of this.

[Student_of_Deen]

On 2017-5-4 at 4:20 PM, Faruk said:

If Abu Bakr and Umar were absent then it was because of this.

They were not absent. I think even the OP has realized it. 

[Faruk]

On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Student_of_Deen said:

They were not absent. I think even the OP has realized it. 

Proof?

[power]

22 minutes ago, Faruk said:

Proof?