Shattering the Mirage: A Response to ‘Abdul Hussain Sharaf al Din’s al Muraja’at: Letter 79 and 80

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

Letter 79

 

Safar 23, 1330

 

I. Consensus Endorses al Siddiq’s Caliphate

 

If what you have said about the covenant and the will, as well as the clear texts, is proven accurate, then what can you say about the nation’s consensus to nominate [Abu Bakr] al Siddiq? Its consensus is an unequivocal proof that testifies to his statement salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam: “My nation’s consensus shall never occur regarding anything wrong,” and his statement, peace be upon him and his progeny, “My nation’s word shall never be misleading;” so, what do you have to say about that?

 

Sincerely,

S

 

Letter 80

 

Safar 24, 1330

 

I. No Consensus

 

We say that the meaning of his salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam statements: “My nation’s consensus shall never occur regarding anything wrong,” and “My nation’s word shall never be misleading,” is that he salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam negates the error, or the misguidance, of the issue regarding which the nation arbitrates; thus, the nation will be reaching a unanimous endorsement in that issue’s regard. This is the meaning of such traditions, and nothing else. As regarding the matter which is considered by a group of individuals of the nation who decided to carry it out, successfully forcing it even on those who had a say, their carrying it out does not prove its validity. The pledge of allegiance taken at the saqifa was not an issue regarding consultation; rather, it was something which was undertaken by the second caliph and by Abu ‘Ubaidah and a group of their friends, then they took by surprise those who actually had the authority to do and undo, assisted by contemporary circumstances. Thus, did they finally achieve what they had aspired. Abu Bakr himself declared that the oath of allegiance which he had received was conducted neither in accordance with consultation nor wisdom. He did so when he delivered a sermon at the dawn of his caliphate in which he apologized to the public saying: “The allegiance which I have received is a rash slip from the evil of which Allah has protected us, and there was a presentiment regarding dissension.”[1] ‘Umer testified to the same fact in front of many eye-witnesses when he delivered a sermon from the pulpit of the Prophet’s Mosque one Friday shortly before the conclusion of his reign, a sermon the news of which became widely publicized. Al Bukhari has included it in his Sahih,[2] and I would like to quote it for you here verbatim:

“It has come to my knowledge that someone[3] has said that if ‘Umer dies, he will swear the oath of allegiance to so-and-so; therefore, let nobody hesitate from saying that the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr was a slip that was driven home, for it was exactly so, yet Allah protected us from the evil of its consequences… Whoever swears the oath of allegiance to someone prior to consulting others, doing so only out of fear of being killed if he did not, then he should not do it at all [and accept death instead]…[4] One of the rumours circulated about us when Allah took His Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam away from us is that the Ansar differed from us in their views; they all assembled at the saqifa [shed] of Bani Sa’idah; besides them, ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam and al Zubair, and their followers, differed, too…” He continued to point out what had happened at the shed, the disputes and differences of opinion, the voices that rose out of concern for the safety of the religion, etc. It was under those circumstances that ‘Umer swore allegiance to Abu Bakr. It is a fact well-known by those who research the events that prevented the members of the Prophet’s household ‘alayh al Salam, the custodians of the Message, from attending the allegiance [inauguration] ceremony. They were detained at ‘Ali’s house together with Salman, Abu Tharr al Ghifari, al Miqdad ibn al Aswad al Kindi, ‘Ammar ibn Yasir, al Zubair ibn al Awwam, Khuzaymah ibn Thabit, Abu ibn Ka’b, Farwah ibn ‘Amr ibn Wadqah al Ansari, al Bara’ ibn ‘Azib, Khalid ibn Sa’d ibn al ‘As al Amawi, and many others. So, how can it be said that there was a consensus in spite of the fact that all these men, including Muhammad’s progeny ‘alayh al Salam, who are to the nation like the head to the body, the eyes to the face, the descendants of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the custodians of his knowledge, the ones who are peers only to and the companions of the Book of Allah, the arks of the nation’s redemption, and the gates of its salvation, the nation’s protection against straying, and the standard-bearers of its guidance, as we have proven above…,[5] did not attend? But their dealing requires no proof if conscientiously discerned.

Both Bukhari and Muslim,[6] in their sahihs, in addition to many other renown traditionists and historians, have all proven the fact that ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam did not participate in the allegiance process, and that he did not reconcile and make peace except after the mistress of the ladies of the world ‘alayh al Salam had joined her father salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam [in Paradise], six months thereafter, compelled by the general Islamic interest during those very critical circumstances. The testimony to these facts comes from ‘Ayesha herself who says: “Al Zahra’ ‘alayh al Salam boycotted Abu Bakr and did not speak to him after the demise of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam till she died, and when ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam made peace with them, he accused them of depriving him of his place in the caliphate.” This hadith, as you can see, does not mention anything about his swearing the oath of allegiance to them. How thought-provoking his statement is when he addresses Abu Bakr thus: If you had argued with them, kinship claiming, Then others are closer to the Prophet and more deserving; And if through consultation you took control, How so when those with counsel were not there at all?![7]

Al ‘Abbas ibn ‘Abdul-Muttalib had used the same argument with Abu Bakr, as Ibn Qutaybah discusses him on page 16 of his book Al Imama wal Siyasa, telling him once: “If you demanded what you demanded through kinship to the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, then you had confiscated our own. If you had demanded it due to your position among Muslims, then ours is a more prestigious than yours. If this affair is accomplished when the believers are pleased with it, then it cannot be so as long as we are displeased therewith.”

So; tell me where is the consensus you are talking about, having heard what the uncle of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, the one who was his father’s peer, stated, in addition to the statement of his cousin, brother and executor of his will, as well as the statements of all his household and kin?

 

Sincerely,

 

Sh

———————————–

[1] This is quoted by Abu Bakr Ahmed ibn ‘Abdul-’Aziz al Jawhari in his book Al Saqifa and by Ibn Abul-Hadid on page 132, Vol. 1, of his Sharh Nahjul Balaghah.

[2] Refer to the sahih, his chapter on the stoning of the woman who becomes pregnant out of adultery if she gets married, page 119, Vol. 4. It is also quoted by several authors of books of tradition and history such as Ibn Jarir and al Tabari who discuss the events of the year 11 in the tarikh [history] book of each, and it is transmitted by Ibn Abul-Hadid on page 122, Vol. 1, of his Sharh Nahjul Balaghah.

[3] The one who is making a statement is Ibn al Zubair, and his statement is: “By Allah! As soon as ‘Umer dies, I will swear the oath of allegiance to ‘Ali, for allegiance to Abu Bakr was a slip by the nation that safely passed by.” ‘Umer, therefore, was extremely angry, and he delivered the said sermon. This is stated by many of those who have commented on al Bukhari. Refer to the explanation of this hadith in al Qastalani’s Sharh, page 352, Vol. 11, and you will find the author quoting al Balathiri with regards to surnames, admitting the authenticity of this hadith according to its endorsement by both sheikhs.

[4] In his commentary on this hadith, Ibn al Athir has stated that the statement’s gist is that they feared being murdered. The meaning of the whole hadith, therefore, is something like: “The allegiance must come as a result of consultation and consensus; so, if two men split from the group and one of them swears the fealty of allegiance to the other, then they both have departed from the group and consensus. If one receives the oath of allegiance, then he should not be one of them; rather, they both have to be isolated from the group that agrees to distinguish its own Imam from the rest. Otherwise, if one of them receives the oath of allegiance, after having committed a heinous act which caused the group to do without them, then there is no guarantee that both persons will commit murder.” It is one of the dictates of the justice described by ‘Umer who passed such a judgment on himself and his friend just as he passed it on others. Prior to his said sermon, he had stated the following: “Swearing the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr was a slip against whose evil Allah has protected us; so, you should kill whoever repeats it.” This statement became extremely famous, and many narrators of historical events transmitted it, including scholar Ibn Abul-Hadid on page 123, Vol. 1, of his Sharh Nahjul Balaghah.

[5] Refer to Letter No. 6 and its following pages up to the end of Letter No. 12, and you will come to know the prestige meted to Ahlul Bayt, peace be upon them.

[6] Refer to al Bukhari’s Sahih, and read the last lines of his chapter on Khaybar’s campaign on page 39, Vol. 3. Also refer to Muslim’s Sahih, to his chapter on the Prophet’s statement: “We do not leave behind us anything, for whatever we leave is for charity,” in his treatise on holy wars and biographies on page 72, Vol. 2, and you will find the matter as we have detailed it.

[7] Both of these poetic verses are included in Nahjul Balaghah. Ibn Abul-Hadid has said so while explaining them in his Sharh Nahjul Balaghah, page 319, Vol. 4, adding, “His statement is addressed to Abu Bakr, for Abu Bakr argued with the Ansar at the saqifa, saying: ‘We are the progeny of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his nutshell;’ so, when he argued about the allegiance, claiming that it was done by those who had a say, ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam said: ‘As regarding your argument with the Ansar saying that you belong to the progeny of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and are among his kin, others are closer in kinship to him than you; as regarding your argument of being elected and that the masses are pleased with you, there many sahaba who were not present there; so, how can it be called consensus?’” Sheikh Muhammad ‘Abdoh has made two comments on these verses summarizing what Ibn Abul-Hadid has said while explaining them.

 

Discussions

While any discerning reader might question the academic integrity of al Muraja’at, it would be naïve to overlook the book’s remarkable success as a propaganda tool. ‘Abdul Hussain’s ability to sidestep cold facts and still construct a seemingly reasonable, yet fundamentally flawed argument is a testament to the fact that his supposed interlocutor is not genuinely engaged in a balanced debate; instead he is depicted as gradually embracing ‘Abdul Hussain’s viewpoint. This strategic shift overcomes the challenge of engaging in genuine exchange to a one-sided exposition of his own views. It is an ingenious loophole to avoid the need to address any substantial criticism from an actual objective respondent. By controlling both sides of the conversation, he maintains the illusion of fairness and reasonableness, that can easily mislead the unsuspecting reader.

On the matter of Ijma’, or consensus, ‘Abdul Hussain employs a similarly divergent tactic. He distracts from the epistemological underpinnings of Ijma’ and its correct understanding and application by presenting an alternative that appears reasonable at first glance. This strategy of reinterpreting core principles exemplifies his broader approach of rhetorical subterfuge. Rather than participating in genuine scholarly debate, he reconstructs an alternative narrative which doesn’t stand up to scrutiny when subjected to objective academic investigation.

 

The flawed argument

‘Abdul Hussain, arguing on behalf of Sheikh Salim al Bishri, posits that even if one concedes the authenticity of the Ahadith of Wasiyyah, the Ijma’ of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum on the Caliphate of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu stands as sufficient evidence of its validity.

This argument, however, is flawed on multiple counts. The legislative authority of Ijma’ is derived as an extension of the revealed sources—Qur’an and Sunnah—and does not operate independently of them. Ijma’ exists to address matters where textual sources are silent, not to contradict them. Furthermore, Ijma’ plays a critical role in defining the meaning of textual sources, thereby eliminating any speculation regarding their interpretation.

To claim that Ijma’ can validate the Caliphate of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu in the presence of authentic Ahadith of Wasiyyah is fundamentally antithetical to the principles of Islamic Legal Theory. Ijma’ derives its authority precisely because it does not contravene the explicit directives found in the Qur’an and Sunnah. Instead, it serves to clarify and apply these sources in situations where they are silent or ambiguous. Thus, invoking Ijma’ to override an established textual source is clearly a misapplication that one would not expect from a novice, let alone a scholar of the stature of the Sheikh al Azhar!

Moreover, the historical events surrounding the succession after the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam demise, particularly the deliberations at Saqifah and the subsequent pledges of allegiance in the Masjid, reflect a clear Ijma’ among the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum to the absence of any authentic Wasiyyah in favour of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu being the appointed successor.

At Saqifah Bani Sa’idah, the Ansar had already identified a leader, Sa’d ibn ‘Ubadah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, who was about to be sworn in. When Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and Abu ‘Ubaidah radiya Llahu ‘anhum intervened, the Ansar radiya Llahu ‘anhum abandoned Sa’d ibn ‘Ubadah radiya Llahu ‘anhu after having debated on whether there could be a leader from both the Ansar and Muhajirun. Eventually, they agreed on a leader from Quraysh in accordance with the Prophetic directive.

When it came to choosing a leader from Quraysh, Abu Bakr suggested either ‘Umar or Abu ‘Ubaidah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, they declined and nominated Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu instead. This is another Ijma’; the validity of Caliphate was contingent on the nominee being from Quraysh. A requirement of this nature deals yet another blow to the allegations of there being any Wasiyyah!

We have previously established without any doubt that the behaviour of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, as well as other members of the Ahlul Bayt, is also consistent with this notion.[1] Authentic Ahadith indicate that ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu inquired whether they should seek a clear directive from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam regarding succession. ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu himself advised against it, expressing concern that if the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam declined their request now, it would permanently damage their prospects for leadership in the future. This hesitation highlights the absence of any prior Wasiyyah that unequivocally appoints ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu as the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam designated successor.

Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma relates:

 

أن عبد الله بن عباس أخبره أن علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه خرج من عند رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في وجعه الذي توفي فيه فقال الناس يا أبا حسن كيف أصبح رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال أصبح بحمد الله بارئا فأخذ بيده عباس بن عبد المطلب فقال له أنت والله بعد ثلاث عبد العصا وإني والله لأرى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم سوف يتوفى من وجعه هذا إني لأعرف وجوه بني عبد المطلب عند الموت اذهب بنا إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فلنسأله فيمن هذا الأمر إن كان فينا علمنا ذلك وإن كان في غيرنا علمناه فأوصى بنا فقال علي إنا والله لئن سألناها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فمنعناها لا يعطيناها الناس بعده وإني والله لا أسألها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم

‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas reported that ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu came out from the presence of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam during the illness in which he passed away. The people asked, “O Abu Hassan, how is the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam this morning?”

He replied, “All praise be to Allah, he is well this morning.”

‘Abbas ibn ‘Abdul Muttalib took him by the hand and said to him, “By Allah, in three days’ time you will be someone’s subject. By Allah, I think that the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam will die from this illness. I recognise the look of death on the faces of the Banu ‘Abdul Muttalib when they are dying. Let us go to the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and ask him who will take charge over this matter (Caliphate). If it is for us, we will know, and if it is for someone else, we will know and he can advise him to take care of us.”

‘Ali replied, “By Allah, if we ask him for it and he refuses us, then the people will never give it to us afterwards. By Allah, I will not ask it from the Messenger of Allah.”^[2]

 

Additionally, it has been previously established that after the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam passing, ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu offered to pledge allegiance to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu.[3] However, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not extend his hand to accept it, indicating his acknowledgment of the prevailing consensus and the delicate political context. This deliberate action underscores the absence of an explicit Prophetic mandate for ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu succession, thereby further reinforcing the foundations of the Ijma’ which will feature in this round of responses.

 

Definition and Explanation of Ijma’

In providing the definition of Ijma’, we look towards Badr al Din al Zarkashi in his work al Bahr al Muhit, where he has surveyed the entire spectrum of scholarly discourse on Islamic Legal Theory and represents the tradition in its maturity.

He defines Ijma’ in the following terms:

 

هو اتفاق مجتهدي أمة محمد ﷺ بعد وفاته في حادثة على أمر من الأمور في عصر من الأعصار

Ijma’ is the agreement of the Mujtahids of the Ummah of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam after his death on an emergent matter concerning any particular incident in a given era.[4]

 

He then proceeds to elaborate on the qualified expressions that this definition entails:

 

فخرج اتفاق العوام فلا عبرة بوفاقهم ولا خلافهم ويخرج أيضا اتفاق بعض المجتهدين

وبالإضافة إلى أمة محمد خرج اتفاق الأمم السابقة وإن قيل بأنه حجة على رأي لكن الكلام في الإجماع الذي هو حجة

وقولنا بعد وفاته قيد لا بد منه على رأيهم فإن الإجماع لا ينعقد في زمانه صلى الله عليه وسلم كما سنذكره

وخرج بالحادثة انعقاد الإجماع على الحكم الثابت بالنص والعمل به

وقولنا على أمر من الأمور يتناول الشرعيات والعقليات والعرفيات واللغويات

وقولنا في عصر من الأعصار ليرفع وهم من يتوهم أن المراد بالمجتهدين من يوجد إلى يوم القيامة وهذا التوهم باطل فإنه يؤدي إلى عدم تصور الإجماع والمراد بالعصر منا من كان من أهل الاجتهاد في الوقت الذي حدثت فيه المسألة وظهر الكلام فيه فهو من أهل ذلك العصر ومن بلغ هذا بعد حدوثها فليس من أهل ذلك العصر

This definition deliberately excludes the consensus of the general public, whose opinions hold no authoritative weight. It also precludes the agreement of only a subset of mujtahids, (as Ijma’ requires the consensus of all Mujtahids of an era).

Additionally, the qualifying term “of the Ummah of Muhammad” excludes the consensus of previous nations, even if it is argued to be authoritative in some opinions, since our discussion is about consensus that is binding.

The condition “after his death” is crucial because Ijma’ cannot be established during the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam lifetime as we shall later explain.

By specifying “in an emergent matter,” the definition excludes consensus on issues that are already clearly established by explicit texts and their application.

The phrase “on any particular matter” is inclusive, not restricted only to religious rulings but also includes matters of reason, convention, and those of a linguistic nature as well.

Lastly, “in any given era” clarifies that Ijma’ is tied to the specific scholars alive at the time the issue arises. It dispels the misconception that Ijma’ is suspended until the agreement of scholars across all times until the Day of Judgment is reached. Instead, it pertains to those capable of ijtihad when the issue emerges, at the exclusion of those who might come later.[5]

 

Doctrinal Foundations for Ijma’

The doctrinal basis for the legal authority of Ijma’ originates from the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and rational discourse. Although no singular verse or hadith unequivocally and independently establishes the authority of Ijma’, a collection of Ayat and Ahadith collectively affirm the Ummah’s protection from error, as a form of collective ‘Ismah. This doctrine of collective infallibility forms the foundation for the idea that the consensus of the Muslim Ummah must inherently be free from error.

The concept of Ijma’ from the perspective of Sunnis, which is founded on the collective infallibility of the Ummah’s consensus, stands in stark contrast to the Shia doctrine of the ‘Ismah of the Twelve Imams. The Shia believe the Twelve Imams to be individually infallible and divinely appointed to lead the community after the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. This doctrine holds that each Imam possesses divine protection from error, making their individual rulings and interpretations infallible.

These two concepts are mutually exclusive: the authority of Ijma’ is based on the collective agreement and infallibility of the Ummah, whereas the ‘Ismah of the Imams relies on the alleged infallibility of those specific individuals. For as long as they exist, the idea of Ijma’ is inconceivable.

 

Reinventing a narrative

‘Abdul Hussain conflates the events that transpired at Saqifah Bani Sa’idah with the concept of Ijma’ on the Caliphate of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He further introduces a condition for Ijma’ that it must be established through a consultative process—a condition seemingly invented to fit his narrative.

In this twisted version of events, he implies that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was deliberately excluded from the consultation at Saqifah and subsequently coerced into pledging allegiance to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. The portrayal in al Muraja’at suggests that the three Muhajirun present at Saqifah had conspired beforehand to advance their personal agendas.

Contrary to this narrative, the Ijma’ acknowledged by the Ahlus Sunnah refers to the consensus of the notable Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum—specifically those who are part of the Ahl al Hall wa al ‘Aqd (the people of authority and decision making)[6]. This group, which includes ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, eventually endorsed the proceedings at Saqifah. Through this consensus, the Ummah collectively recognised the legitimacy of Abu Bakr’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu Caliphate as the first successor to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. In support of this we present the statement  of Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu himself; ‘Amr ibn Sufyan relates:

 

عن عمرو بن سفيان قال لما ظهر علي رضي الله عنه على الناس يوم الجمل قال أيها الناس إن رسول الله ﷺ لم يعهد إلينا في هذه الإمارة شيئا حتى رأينا من الرأي أن نستخلف أبا بكر فأقام واستقام حتى مضى لسبيله ثم إن أبا بكر رأى من الرأي أن يستخلف عمر فأقام واستقام حتى ضرب الدين بجرانه

When ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu emerged victorious over the people on the Day of Jamal, he said, “O people, the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not leave us any directive regarding this leadership. However, we saw fit, based on our discretion, to appoint Abu Bakr as the successor. He assumed the position, led well, and remained steadfast until he passed on. Then Abu Bakr deemed it appropriate to appoint ‘Umar as his successor. He too assumed the position, led with integrity, and remained steadfast until he firmly established the religion.”[7]

 

Much can be said about this quote in terms of inferences, but the most significant takeaways are that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu confirms that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not appoint a successor and that he was in agreement with the candidacy of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

All the quotations that ‘Abdul Hussain, or any other detractor, might cite about ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu misgivings after Saqifah have nothing to do with the candidacy of Abu Bakr, but are instead reflections of personal grievances for feeling excluded from the decision-making process at the time. Once apprised of the situation and the manner in which events unfolded at Saqifah, all the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum supported that decision and unanimously accepted Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu as the successor to the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

On this particular point ‘Abdul Hussain is at pains to establish a narrative of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu opportunistically usurping the Caliphate in a conspiracy with ‘Umar and Abu ‘Ubaidah radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. He centers his focus on the fact that there was no consultation, and he alludes to a Khutbah allegedly delivered by Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu in justification of the rash decision to appoint himself as the Khalifah.

Before addressing the concerns about the reliability of this alleged Khutbah, it is important to clarify that the events at Saqifah did, in fact, involve consultation. Most of the key decision-makers of the Ummah were present, and the exchanges between the Muhajirun and the Ansar constituted a consultative process, with active participation from both sides. What was indeed unexpected was the immediate oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. However, this followed sufficient deliberation and resolution of the issue at hand.

The haste that is often spoken of in the context of Saqifah pertains not to the deliberations themselves, but to the immediate formalisation of Abu Bakr’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu leadership through Bay’ah. This urgency was motivated by the need to prevent civil unrest, as the Ansar were on the verge of swearing allegiance to Sa’d ibn ‘Ubadah radiya Llahu ‘anhu before the Muhajirun intervened.

We do not intend to belabour the point of the calculated and deliberate misquotations found in al Muraja’at. The discerning reader will by now recognise the recurring nature of such omissions and misstatements.

The alleged Khutbah attributed to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu at the beginning of his Caliphate justifying his nomination is ascribed to al Jawhari in his work titled al Saqifah and to Sharh Nahj al Balaghah by Ibn Abi al Hadid.

Below is the full quotation, including the section that ‘Abdul Hussain chose to truncate. While we do not rely on this particular narration due to its questionable transmission, the complete text profoundly undermines the argument presented in al Muraja’at. Ironically, the very narration that is supposed to support ‘Abdul Hussain’s stance actually refutes it!

 

…ثم قام أبو بكر فخطب الناس واعتذر إليهم وقال إن بيعتي كانت فلتة وقى الله شرها وخشيت الفتنة وأيم الله ما حصرت عليها يوم قط ولقد قلدت أمرا عظيما مالي به طاقة ولا يدان ولوددت أن أقوى الناس عليه مكاني وجعل يعتذر إليهم فقبل المهاجرون عذره وقال علي والزبير ما غضبنا إلا في المشورة وإنا لنرى أبا بكر أحق الناس بها إنه لصاحب الغار وإنا لنعرف له سنه ولقد أمره رسول الله ﷺ بالصلاة بالناس وهو حي

Then Abu Bakr stood up, addressed the people, and apologised to them. He said, “My appointment as leader was a sudden occurrence whose evil outcome Allah protected us from. I feared discord.

By Allah, I did not desire it for a single day. Indeed, I have been entrusted with a great responsibility for which I have no strength or ability. I would have preferred that the most capable person take my place.” He continued to express his apologies to them. The Muhajirun accepted his apology.

‘Ali and al Zubair said, “Our only grievance was about the consultation process[8]. We believe that Abu Bakr is the most deserving of this position. He is the Companion of the Cave, we respect his age, and indeed, the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam instructed him to lead the people in prayer while he was still alive.”[9]

 

In the translated version of al Muraja’at, the translator renders the term faltah as “a rash slip.” However, a more nuanced understanding of the term encompasses the idea of something occurring suddenly, unexpectedly, or without prior planning. So the word faltah conveys meanings associated with swiftness, spontaneous action, or something done in haste. It can also imply an event that unfolds without prior deliberation, and at times with the intent to prevent further chaos or disorder.

Below is a detailed explanation of the term by the imminent scholar Majd al Din ibn al Athir:

 

ومنه حديث عمر إن بيعة أبي بكر كانت فلتة وقى الله شرها أراد بالفلتة الفجأة ومثل هذه البيعة جديرة بأن تكون مهيجة للشر والفتنة فعصم الله من ذلك ووقى والفلتة كل شيء فعل من غير روية وإنما بودر بها خوف انتشار الأمر وقيل أراد بالفلتة الخلسة أي إن الإمامة يوم السقيفة مالت إلى توليها الأنفس ولذلك كثر فيها التشاجر فما قلدها أبو بكر إلا انتزاعا من الأيدي واختلاسا

وقيل الفلتة آخر ليلة من الأشهر الحرم فيختلفون فيها أمن الحل هي أم من الحرم فيسارع الموتور إلى درك الثأر فيكثر الفساد وتسفك الدماء فشبه أيام النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بالأشهر الحرم ويوم موته بالفلتة من وقوع الشر من ارتداد العرب وتخلف الأنصار عن الطاعة ومنع من منع الزكاة والجري على عادة العرب في ألا يسود القبيلة إلا رجل منها

In the context of the hadith of ‘Umar, “Indeed, the appointment of Abu Bakr was a faltah, whose evil Allah protected us from,” the term faltah refers to a sudden occurrence.

The circumstances surrounding an event like this Bay’ah has potential for internal discord and strife, but Allah safeguarded from that.

The term faltah denotes anything done without premeditation or careful thought; in this case, it was done hastily due to the fear of chaos spreading.

Another interpretation suggests that faltah implies an act done stealthily or by surprise. This means that the leadership on the day of Saqifah leaned towards becoming a position that some coveted, with potential for considerable contention. Abu Bakr being appointed to leadership by swiftly taking it from the hands of others[10], almost as if by catching it from their hands.

Another explanation for the term faltah refers to the last night of the sacred months, during which there is uncertainty whether the period remains sacred or has ended. Historically, people used to rush to settle scores, leading to widespread turmoil and bloodshed.

This analogy likens the days of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to the sacred months and his death to a faltah, comparing the emergence of potential evil such as the apostasy of the Arabs, the Ansar’s [initial] reluctance to pledge allegiance, the refusal to pay Zakat by some, and the Arab tradition that only a man from their own tribe should lead.[11]

 

The actual Khutbah by Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu differs considerably from what has been cited previously. The narrators of this version have patched together a series of different events and provided an entirely different version of events. The description of the Bay’ah of Abu Bakr in this manner is actually done by ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

 

Establishing an accurate timeline of events

In order to have an accurate point of reference, we need to establish a timeline of events and an accurate version of what was said during the period between the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam passing and the appointment of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu as the Khalifah.

For the sake of convenience, we reproduce what Hafiz Ibn Kathir relates in al Bidayah wa al Nihayah:

 

ذلك أنه ﷺ  لما مات كان الصديق رضي الله عنه قد صلى بالمسلمين صلاة الصبح وكان إذ ذاك قد أفاق رسول الله ﷺ إفاقة من غمرة ما كان فيه من الوجع وكشف ستر الحجرة ونظر إلى المسلمين وهم صفوف في الصلاة خلف أبي بكر فأعجبه ذلك وتبسم صلوات الله وسلامه عليه حتى هم المسلمون أن يتركوا ما هم فيه من الصلاة لفرحهم به وحتى أراد أبو بكر أن يتأخر ليصل الصف فأشار إليهم أن يمكثوا كما هم وأرخى الستارة وكان آخر العهد به ﷺ فلما انصرف أبو بكر رضي الله عنه من الصلاة دخل عليه وقال لعائشة ما أرى رسول الله ﷺ إلا قد أقلع عنه من الوجع وهذا يوم بنت خارجة يعني إحدى زوجتيه وكانت ساكنة بالسنح شرقي المدينة فركب على فرس له وذهب إلى منزله وتوفي رسول الله ﷺ حين اشتد الضحى من ذلك اليوم وقيل عند زوال الشمس والله أعلم

When the Prophet Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was on his last, Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu had just led the Muslims in the Fajr prayer. At that moment, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam regained consciousness from the intensity of his illness. He drew back the curtain of his room and looked upon the Muslims who were standing in rows behind Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu in prayer. This sight pleased him greatly and he smiled. The Muslims were so overjoyed at seeing him that they almost abandoned their prayer. Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was about to step back to join the row, but the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam signaled to them to remain as they were, then he let the curtain fall. This was the last time they saw him alive.

After the prayer, Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu went to see him and said to ‘Aisha, “I believe the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam condition has improved from his illness. This is the day of [visiting] the daughter of Kharijah,” referring to one of his wives who lived in the area of Sunh, east of Madinah. He then mounted his horse and rode to his home. Later that day, during the intense heat of the forenoon, the Prophet Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam passed away. Some reports say it was at the time of the sun’s zenith. Allah knows best.

 

He goes on to relate the events that transpired at Saqifah Bani Sa’idah as described by ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu who was an eye-witness to the proceedings.[12] Our comments shall appear as footnotes to the narration since interspersing it with comments detracts from the general flow of the narration and since it needs to be read in its entirety to appreciate the context.

Bear in mind that is the same incident which is quoted in piecemeal in al Muraja’at; except there it is distorted and stripped of any context.

قال الإمام أحمد ثنا إسحاق بن عيسى الطباع ثنا مالك بن أنس حدثني ابن شهاب عن عبيد الله بن عبد الله بن عتبة بن مسعود أن ابن عباس أخبره أن عبد الرحمن بن عوف رجع إلى رحله قال ابن عباس وكنت أقرئ عبد الرحمن بن عوف فوجدني وأنا أنتظره وذلك بمنى في آخر حجة حجها عمر بن الخطاب فقال عبد الرحمن بن عوف إن رجلا أتى عمر بن الخطاب فقال إن فلانا يقول لو قد مات عمر بايعت فلانا فقال عمر إني قائم العشية إن شاء الله في الناس فمحذرهم هؤلاء الرهط الذين يريدون أن يغصبوهم أمرهم

قال عبد الرحمن فقلت يا أمير المؤمنين لا تفعل فإن الموسم يجمع رعاع الناس وغوغاءهم وإنهم الذين يغلبون على مجلسك إذا قمت في الناس فأخشى أن تقول مقالة يطير بها أولئك فلا يعوها ولا يضعوها مواضعها ولكن حتى تقدم المدينة فإنها دار الهجرة والسنة وتخلص بعلماء الناس وأشرافهم فتقول ما قلت متمكنا فيعون مقالتك ويضعونها مواضعها قال عمر لئن قدمت المدينة سالما صالحا لأكلمن بها الناس في أول مقام أقومه

فلما قدمنا المدينة في عقب ذي الحجة وكان يوم الجمعة عجلت الرواح صكة الأعمى قلت لمالك وما صكة الأعمى قال إنه لا يبالي أي ساعة خرج لا يعرف الحر والبرد أو نحو هذا فوجدت سعيد بن زيد عند ركن المنبر الأيمن قد سبقني فجلست حذاءه تحك ركبتي ركبته فلم أنشب أن طلع عمر فلما رأيته قلت ليقولن العشية على هذا المنبر مقالة ما قالها عليه أحد قبله قال فأنكر سعيد بن زيد ذلك وقال ما عسيت أن يقول ما لم يقل أحد

فجلس عمر على المنبر فلما سكت المؤذن قام فأثنى على الله بما هو أهله ثم قال أما بعد أيها الناس فإني قائل مقالة قد قدر لي أن أقولها لا أدري لعلها بين يدي أجلي فمن وعاها وعقلها فليحدث بها حيث انتهت به راحلته ومن لم يعها فلا أحل له أن يكذب علي إن الله بعث محمدا ﷺ بالحق وأنزل عليه الكتاب فكان مما أنزل عليه آية الرجم فقرأناها ووعيناها وعقلناها ورجم رسول الله ﷺ ورجمنا بعده فأخشى إن طال بالناس زمان أن يقول قائل لا نجد آية الرجم في كتاب الله فيضلوا بترك فريضة قد أنزلها الله عز وجل فالرجم في كتاب الله حق على من زنى إذا أحصن من الرجال والنساء إذا قامت البينة أو كان الحبل أو الاعتراف ألا وإنا قد كنا نقرأ لا ترغبوا عن آبائكم فإن كفرا بكم أن ترغبوا عن آبائكم ألا وإن رسول الله ﷺ قال لا تطروني كما أطري عيسى بن مريم فإنما أنا عبد فقولوا عبد الله ورسوله

وقد بلغني أن قائلا منكم يقول لو قد مات عمر بايعت فلانا فلا يغترن امرؤ أن يقول إن بيعة أبي بكر كانت فلتة ألا وإنها كانت كذلك ألا إن الله وقى شرها وليس فيكم اليوم من تقطع إليه الأعناق مثل أبي بكر

وإنه كان من خبرنا حين توفي رسول الله ﷺ أن عليا والزبير ومن كان معهما تخلفوا في بيت فاطمة بنت رسول الله ﷺ وتخلفت عنا الأنصار بأجمعها في سقيفة بني ساعدة واجتمع المهاجرون إلى أبي بكر فقلت له يا أبا بكر انطلق بنا إلى إخواننا من الأنصار

فانطلقنا نؤمهم حتى لقينا رجلان صالحان فذكرا لنا الذي صنع القوم فقالا أين تريدون يا معشر المهاجرين فقلت نريد إخواننا هؤلاء من الأنصار فقالا لا عليكم أن لا تقربوهم واقضوا أمركم يا معشر المهاجرين فقلت والله لنأتينهم فانطلقنا حتى جئناهم في سقيفة بني ساعدة فإذا هم مجتمعون وإذا بين ظهرانيهم رجل مزمل فقلت من هذا قالوا سعد بن عبادة فقلت ما له قالوا وجع

فلما جلسنا قام خطيبهم فأثنى على الله بما هو أهله وقال أما بعد فنحن أنصار الله وكتيبة الإسلام وأنتم يا معشر المهاجرين رهط منا وقد دفت دافة منكم يريدون أن يختزلونا من أصلنا ويحضنونا من الأمر فلما سكت أردت أن أتكلم وكنت قد زورت مقالة أعجبتني أردت أن أقولها بين يدي أبي بكر وقد كنت أداري منه بعض الحد وهو كان أحلم مني وأوقر

فقال أبو بكر على رسلك فكرهت أن أغضبه وكان أعلم مني وأوقر والله ما ترك من كلمة أعجبتني في تزويري إلا قالها في بديهته وأفضل حتى سكت فقال أما بعد فما ذكرتم من خير فأنتم أهله ولم تعرف العرب هذا الأمر إلا لهذا الحي من قريش هم أوسط العرب نسبا ودارا وقد رضيت لكم أحد هذين الرجلين أيهما شئتم وأخذ بيدي ويد أبي عبيدة بن الجراح فلم أكره مما قال غيرها وكان والله أن أقدم فتضرب عنقي لا يقربني ذلك إلى إثم أحب إلي أن أتأمر على قوم فيهم أبو بكر إلا أن تغير نفسي عند الموت

فقال قائل من الأنصار أنا جذيلها المحكك وعذيقها المرجب منا أمير ومنكم أمير يا معشر قريش فقلت لمالك ما يعني أنا جذيلها المحكك وعذيقها المرجب قال كأنه يقول أنا داهيتها قال فكثر اللغط وارتفعت الأصوات حتى خشيت الاختلاف فقلت ابسط يدك يا أبا بكر فبسط يده فبايعته وبايعه المهاجرون ثم بايعه الأنصار ونزونا على سعد بن عبادة فقال قائل منهم قتلتم سعدا فقلت قتل الله سعدا

قال عمر أما والله ما وجدنا فيما حضرنا أمرا هو أوفق من مبايعة أبي بكر خشينا إن فارقنا القوم ولم تكن بيعة أن يحدثوا بعدنا بيعة فإما أن نبايعهم على ما لا نرضى وإما أن نخالفهم فيكون فيه فساد فمن بايع أميرا عن غير مشورة المسلمين فلا بيعة له ولا بيعة للذي بايعه تغرة أن يقتلا

قال مالك فأخبرني ابن شهاب عن عروة أن الرجلين اللذين لقياهما عويم بن ساعدة ومعن بن عدي

قال ابن شهاب وأخبرني سعيد بن المسيب أن الذي قال أنا جذيلها المحكك وعذيقها المرجب هو الحباب بن المنذر

وقد أخرج هذا الحديث الجماعة في كتبهم من طرق عن مالك وغيره عن الزهري به

Imam Ahmed narrates that Ishaq ibn ‘Isa al Tabba’ reported from Malik ibn Anas, who narrated from Ibn Shihab, from ‘Ubaidullah ibn ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Utbah ibn Mas’ud, that Ibn ‘Abbas related:

I used to teach ‘Abdur Rahman ibn ‘Awf the Qur’an, and he found me while I was waiting for him. This happened at Mina during ‘Umar ibn al Khattab’s final pilgrimage. ‘Abdur Rahman said, “A man came to ‘Umar ibn al Khattab and said, ‘If ‘Umar dies, I will pledge allegiance to so-and-so.’[13] ‘Umar responded, ‘This evening, if Allah wills, I will address the people and warn them about these individuals who wish to usurp their authority.’”

‘Abdur Rahman continued, “I advised him, ‘O Amir al Mu’minin, do not do so, for the occasion of Hajj gathers all sorts of people, including the commoners and the disorderly, and they tend to dominate the gatherings. I fear that if you speak to the crowd, those who do not comprehend your words will misinterpret them and spread them improperly. Instead, wait until you return to Madinah, the city of migration and the Sunnah, where you can speak directly to the knowledgeable and noble among the people. There, you can deliver your message clearly and ensure it is understood and conveyed accurately.’ ‘Umar replied, ‘If I reach Madinah safely, I will speak to the people at the first opportunity.’

When we arrived in Madinah at the end of Dhu al Hijjah, on a Friday, I hastened to attend the prayer early, “like a blind man finding his way” (The narrator says: I asked Malik what this means, and he explained, ‘A blind man leaves without considering the time, being unaware of heat or cold’). I found Sa’id ibn Zaid already there at the right corner of the minbar. I sat close to him, with my knee touching his. It wasn’t long before ‘Umar arrived. I remarked, ‘He will say something today from this minbar that no one before him has ever said.’ Sa’id ibn Zaid expressed doubt, questioning what ‘Umar could possibly say that had not been said before.

‘Umar then ascended the minbar. When the muadhin had finished the call to prayer, ‘Umar praised Allah as He deserves and began his speech, ‘O people, I intend to say something which has been destined for me to say. I do not know, perhaps this will be my final address. Therefore, let those who understand it convey it wherever their riding animals take them, and let those who do not understand it not distort my words.

Allah sent Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam with the Truth and revealed to him the Book. Among the revelations was the verse of stoning, which we read, comprehended, and memorised. The Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam implemented the stoning punishment and so did we after him. I fear that in the future, people may say, ‘We do not find the verse of stoning in the Book of Allah,’ thus they will be led astray by abandoning an obligation that Allah has revealed. [14] Indeed, stoning is a legitimate punishment in the Book of Allah for those who commit adultery and are married, both men and women, provided there is conclusive proof, pregnancy, or confession.

Moreover, we used to recite a verse, ‘Do not turn away from your fathers; it is disbelief to turn away from your fathers.’ And the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, ‘Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians exaggerated in praising ‘Isa, the son of Maryam. I am but a slave of Allah, so say, ‘The slave of Allah and His Messenger.’[15]

I have heard that some among you say, ‘If ‘Umar dies, I will pledge allegiance to so-and-so.’ Let no one be deceived by saying, ‘The Bay’ah (pledge of allegiance) to Abu Bakr was a spontaneous event.’ Indeed, it was a sudden occurrence (Faltah), but Allah protected us from its potential harm. Today, there is no one among you whose approval is sought as was sought for Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu.[16]

When the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam passed away, ‘Ali, al Zubair, and those with them secluded themselves in the house of Fatimah, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.[17] Meanwhile, the Ansar gathered in Saqifah Bani Sa’idah, and the Muhajirun assembled with Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

I said to Abu Bakr, ‘Let us go to our brothers among the Ansar.’ We set off and were met by two righteous men who informed us about the Ansar’s gathering. They asked, ‘Where are you going, O group of Muhajirun?’ I replied, ‘We are heading to our brothers among the Ansar.’ They advised, ‘It is best if you do not approach them; resolve your own matter first.’ I insisted, ‘By Allah, we will go to them.’[18]

We arrived at Saqifah Bani Sa’idah to find them assembled. In their midst was a man wrapped up in his shawl. I inquired, ‘Who is this?’ They replied, ‘Sa’d ibn ‘Ubadah.’ I asked, ‘What is wrong with him?’ They said, ‘He is unwell.’

When we sat down, their orator stood up, praised Allah as He deserves, and said, ‘As for what follows, we are the Ansar of Allah, the principal battalion of Islam. While you, O assembly of Muhajirun, are a smaller group within our larger community. Nevertheless, some among you have come forward, attempting to undermine our position and deprive us of our rightful role in this matter.’

When he finished, I wanted to speak, as I had prepared a speech that I liked and intended to deliver before Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. However, Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu asked me to wait, so I disliked to displease him, for he was more composed than me and displayed more forbearance than I did. By Allah, he did not leave out a single word from my speech that I had liked, but he articulated it in his way, better and more comprehensively, until he finished.

Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu then said, ‘O people, whatever virtue you mentioned about yourselves is acknowledged as true. However, the Arabs do not recognise leadership except among this tribe of Quraysh, who are the most noble in lineage and residence. I am pleased to offer you one of these two men, choose whomever you wish.’ He then took my hand and that of Abu ‘Ubaidah ibn al Jarrah.’[19]

I disliked nothing of what he said except this proposal, for, by Allah, to have my neck struck off avoiding a sin would be less grievous to me than to rule over a people among whom there is Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, unless, perhaps, at the moment of death, my soul entices me towards something that I do not currently perceive.

A man from the Ansar then said, ‘I am its worn-down stick and its firmly propped palm. From us, there should be a leader, and from you, O Quraysh, there should be a leader.’ (The narrator said: I asked Malik, ‘What does he mean by “I am its worn-down stick and its firmly propped palm”?’ He replied, ‘It is as if he is saying, “I am the expert who can solve its complexities.”’)

At this point, voices began to get raised and confusion ensued, causing me to fear division. I then said to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, ‘Extend your hand!’ He extended his hand, and I pledged allegiance to him, followed by the Muhajirun and then the Ansar in swift succession. We converged upon Sa’d ibn ‘Ubadah[20], and someone from their ranks said, ‘You have killed Sa’d.’ I replied, ‘May Allah slay Sa’d.’[21]

‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu concluded, ‘By Allah, we did not find anything more appropriate during the circumstances we faced than pledging allegiance to Abu Bakr. We feared that if we departed without a unanimous pledge, the people might later choose a different leader. Either we would have to pledge allegiance to someone we did not agree with, or we would oppose them, leading to conflict.

Therefore, whoever pledges allegiance to a leader without consultation with the Muslims, neither he nor the one to whom he pledges allegiance should be considered legitimate, as both are at risk of being killed.’”[22]

Malik informed me that Ibn Shihab, narrating from ‘Urwah, identified the two men they met as ‘Uwaym ibn Sa’idah and Ma’n ibn ‘Adi.

Ibn Shihab also reported that Sa’id ibn al Musayyab said the person who declared, “I am its worn-down stick and its firmly propped palm,” was al Hubab ibn al Mundhir.

This narration has been documented by various scholars in their works through multiple chains from Malik and others, as transmitted by al Zuhri.[23]

 

This concludes what transpired at Saqifah in brief. Naturally, the details of the exchanges between the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum are recorded across many works.

In what follows are authentic narrations that not only corroborate the chain of events, whilst the details vary across different versions of the hadith. After citing a few of these narrations, Ibn Kathir continues:[24]

 

قلت كان هذا في بقية يوم الاثنين فلما كان الغد صبيحة يوم الثلاثاء اجتمع الناس في المسجد فتممت البيعة من المهاجرين والأنصار قاطبة وكان ذلك قبل تجهيز رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم تسليما كثيرا

وقال محمد بن إسحاق حدثني الزهري حدثني أنس بن مالك قال لما بويع أبو بكر في السقيفة وكان الغد جلس أبو بكر على المنبر وقام عمر فتكلم قبل أبي بكر فحمد الله وأثنى عليه بما هو أهله ثم قال أيها الناس إني قد كنت قلت لكم بالأمس مقالة ما كانت مما وجدتها في كتاب الله ولا كانت عهدا عهده إلي رسول الله ﷺ ولكني كنت أرى أن رسول الله سيدبر أمرنا يقول يكون آخرنا وإن الله قد أبقى فيكم كتابه الذي به هدى رسول الله ﷺ فإن اعتصمتم به هداكم الله لما كان هداه له وإن الله قد جمع أمركم على خيركم صاحب رسول الله ﷺ وثاني اثنين إذ هما في الغار فقوموا فبايعوه فبايع الناس أبا بكر بيعة العامة بعد بيعة السقيفة

ثم تكلم أبو بكر فحمد الله وأثنى عليه بما هو أهله ثم قال أما بعد أيها الناس فإني قد وليت عليكم ولست بخيركم فإن أحسنت فأعينوني وإن أسأت فقوموني الصدق أمانة والكذب خيانة والضعيف فيكم قوي عندي حتى أريح عليه حقه إن شاء الله والقوي فيكم ضعيف حتى آخذ الحق منه إن شاء الله لا يدع قوم الجهاد في سبيل الله إلا ضربهم الله بالذل ولا تشيع الفاحشة في قوم قط إلا عمهم الله بالبلاء أطيعوني ما أطعت الله ورسوله فإذا عصيت الله ورسوله فلا طاعة لي عليكم قوموا إلى صلاتكم يرحمكم الله وهذا إسناد صحيح

فقول وليتكم ولست بخيركم من باب الهضم والتواضع فإنهم مجمعون على أنه أفضلهم وخيره

I say: This took place during the remainder of Monday. Then, on the following day, Tuesday morning, the people gathered in the Masjid, and the pledge of allegiance was completed by both the Muhajirun and the Ansar in their entirety. This occurred before the preparations for the funeral of the Messenger of Allah, may abundance of peace and blessings from Allah be upon him.

Muhammad ibn Ishaq reported: al Zuhri narrated to me, that Anas ibn Malik radiya Llahu ‘anhu related to him saying: When Abu Bakr was given the pledge of allegiance at Saqifah, the following day, Abu Bakr sat on the pulpit. ‘Umar stood up and spoke before Abu Bakr, praising Allah and extolling Him with what He is worthy of, and then said, “O people, I said to you yesterday something that was neither found in the Book of Allah nor a directive from the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Rather, I thought that the Messenger of Allah would outlive us and always take charge of our affairs.

However, Allah has kept His Book among you, which guided the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. If you hold fast to it, Allah will guide you as He guided him. Allah has united your matters on the best among you, the companion of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the second of the two when they were in the cave.[25] So rise and pledge allegiance to him.” The people then gave their general pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr after the pledge at Saqifah.

Then Abu Bakr spoke, praising Allah and extolling Him with what He is worthy of, and then said, “O people, I have been appointed over you, though I am not the best among you. If I do well, help me; and if I do wrong, correct me. Truthfulness is a trust and lying is treachery. The weak among you is strong in my eyes until I return his right to him, Allah willing; and the strong among you is weak until I take the right from him, Allah willing. No people abandon jihad in the path of Allah except that Allah strikes them with humiliation. Nor does indecency become widespread among a people except that Allah envelops them in calamity. Obey me as long as I obey Allah and His Messenger, but if I disobey Allah and His Messenger, then I have no right to your obedience. Stand for your prayer, may Allah have mercy on you.”

This narration is authentic.

His statement, “I have been appointed over you, though I am not the best among you,” was an expression of humility and modesty, for they were unanimous in their belief that he was the best and most virtuous among them.

 

Ibn Kathir goes on to cite the narration of Abu Sa’id al Khudri by way of al Bayhaqi[26]. In this version we learn that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu actually pledged his allegiance early on.

 

وقال الحافظ أبو بكر البيهقي أخبرنا أبو الحسن علي بن محمد بن علي الحافظ الإسفراييني حدثنا أبو علي الحسين بن علي الحافظ حدثنا أبو بكر محمد بن إسحاق بن خزيمة وإبراهيم بن أبي طالب قالا حدثنا بندار بن بشار حدثنا أبو هشام المخزومي حدثنا وهيب حدثنا داود بن أبي هند حدثنا أبو نضرة عن أبي سعيد الخدري قال قبض رسول الله ﷺ واجتمع الناس في دار سعد بن عبادة وفيهم أبو بكر وعمر قال فقام خطيب الأنصار فقال أتعلمون أن رسول الله ﷺ كان من المهاجرين وخليفته من المهاجرين ونحن كنا أنصار رسول الله ﷺ ونحن أنصار خليفته كما كنا أنصاره قال فقام عمر بن الخطاب فقال صدق قائلكم أما لو قلتم غير هذا لم نتابعكم وأخذ بيد أبي بكر وقال هذا صاحبكم فبايعوه فبايعه عمر وبايعه المهاجرون والأنصار قال فصعد أبو بكر المنبر فنظر في وجوه القوم فلم ير الزبير قال فدعا بالزبير فجاء فقال قلت ابن عمة رسول الله ﷺ وحواريه أردت أن تشق عصا المسلمين فقال لا تثريب يا خليفة رسول الله فقام فبايعه ثم نظر في وجوه القوم فلم ير عليا فدعا بعلي بن أبي طالب فجاء فقال قلت ابن عم رسول الله ﷺ وختنه على ابنته أردت أن تشق عصا المسلمين قال لا تثريب يا خليفة رسول الله فبايعه هذا أو معناه

…وقد رواه البيهقي عن الحاكم وأبي محمد بن أبي حامد المقرئ كلاهما عن أبي العباس محمد بن يعقوب الأصم عن جعفر بن محمد بن شاكر عن عفان بن سلم عن وهيب به ولكن ذكر أن الصديق هو القائل لخطيب الأنصار بدل عمر وفيه أن زيد بن ثابت أخذ بيد أبي بكر فقال هذا صاحبكم فبايعوه ثم انطلقوا فلما قعد أبو بكر على المنبر نظر في وجوه القوم فلم ير عليا فسأل عنه فقام ناس من الأنصار فأتوا به فذكر نحو ما تقدم ثم ذكر قصة الزبير بعد علي فالله أعلم

وقد رواه الإمام أحمد عن الثقة عن وهيب مختصرا

وقد رواه علي بن عاصم عن الجريري عن أبي نضرة عن أبي سعيد الخدري فذكر نحو ما تقدم

وهذا إسناد صحيح محفوظ من حديث أبي نضرة المنذر بن مالك بن قطعة عن أبي سعيد سعد بن مالك بن سنان الخدري وفيه فائدة جليلة وهي مبايعة علي بن أبي طالب إما في أول يوم أو في اليوم الثاني من الوفاة وهذا حق فإن علي بن أبي طالب لم يفارق الصديق في وقت من الأوقات ولم ينقطع في صلاة من الصلوات خلفه كما سنذكره وخرج معه إلى ذي القصة لما خرج الصديق شاهرا سيفه يريد قتال أهل الردة كما سنبينه قريبا

Al Hafiz Abu Bakr al Bayhaqi reported with a continuous chain by way of Abu Nadrah, from Abu Sa’id al Khudri who said:

The Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam passed away, after which the people gathered in the house of Sa’d ibn ‘Ubadah. Among them were Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. Then, a speaker from the Ansar stood up and said, “You know that the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was from the Muhajirun and his successor must also be from the Muhajirun. We were the supporters of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and we will be the supporters of his successor just as we were his supporters.”

Then ‘Umar ibn al Khattab stood up and said, “Your speaker has spoken the truth. Had you said anything else, we would not have agreed with you.” He then took the hand of Abu Bakr and said, “Here is your companion, so pledge allegiance to him.” ‘Umar pledged allegiance to him, followed by the Muhajirun and the Ansar.

Abu Bakr then ascended the pulpit and looked at the faces of the people, but he did not see al Zubair. He called for al Zubair, who came, and Abu Bakr said, “The cousin of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his disciple, did you intend to split the unity of the Muslims?” Al Zubair replied, “There is no blame, O Khalifah of the Messenger of Allah,” and he pledged allegiance to him.

Abu Bakr then looked at the faces of the people and did not see ‘Ali. He called for ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, who came, and Abu Bakr said, “The cousin of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his son-in-law, did you intend to split the unity of the Muslims?” ‘Ali replied, “There is no blame, O Khalifah of the Messenger of Allah,” and he pledged allegiance to him.

Al Bayhaqi then narrated it via a different chain from ‘Affan ibn Muslim, from Wahb. However, in this version, it is mentioned that Abu Bakr himself addressed the Ansar’s speaker instead of ‘Umar. It also states that Zaid ibn Thabit took Abu Bakr’s hand and said, “Here is your companion, so pledge allegiance to him,” and then they went to him. When Abu Bakr sat on the pulpit, he did not see ‘Ali and asked about him. Some of the Ansar went to bring him, and the narration proceeds similarly, mentioning the story of al Zubair after ‘Ali. Allah knows best.

Imam Ahmed narrated it through a trustworthy narrator by way of Wahb in an abridged form.

‘Ali ibn ‘Asim also narrated it from al Jariri, from Abu Nadrah, from Abu Sa’id al Khudri, mentioning details similar to those previously discussed.

This is an authentic and well-preserved chain of narration from Abu Nadrah al Mundhir ibn Malik ibn Quta’ah, from Abu Sa’id Sa’d ibn Malik ibn Sinan al Khudri.

This narration holds significant value, as it indicates that ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib pledged allegiance either on the first day or the second day after the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam passing. This is accurate, as ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu never distanced himself from Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu at any time nor did he cease to perform prayers behind him, as will be mentioned. He also accompanied him to Dhu al Qassah when Abu Bakr went out with his sword unsheathed, intending to fight the apostates, as we will explain shortly. [27]

 

Ibn Kathir goes on to cite a narration by way of al Bayhaqi and al Hakim with a chain to al Sha’bi:

 

الشعبي عن شقيق بن سلمة قال قيل لعلي استخلف علينا فقال ما استخلف رسول الله ﷺ فأستخلف ولكن إن يرد الله بالناس خيرا جمعهم على خيرهم كما جمعهم بعد نبيهم ﷺ على خيرهم

إِسْنَادٌ جَيِّدٌ وَلَمْ يُخَرِّجُوهُ

Al Sha’bi relates from Abu Waʾil who said: It was said to ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, “Will you not appoint a successor over us?”

He replied, “The Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not appoint a successor, so I shall not appoint one. However, if Allah wills good for the people, He will unite them after me upon the best among them, just as He united them after their Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam upon the best among them.”

This narration has a sound chain of transmission but has not been recorded in the Sahih collections.[28]

 

Elsewhere he states:

 

ومن تأمل ما ذكرناه ظهر له إجماع الصحابة المهاجرين منهم والأنصار على تقديم أبي بكر وظهر برهان قوله ﷺ يأبى الله والمؤمنون إلا أبا بكر وظهر له أن رسول الله ﷺ لم ينص على الخلافة عينا لأحد من الناس لا لأبي بكر كما قد زعمه طائفة من أهل السنة ولا لعلي كما يقوله طائفة الرافضة ولكن أشار إشارة قوية يفهمها كل ذي لب وعقل إلى الصديق كما قدمنا

Whoever reflects deeply on what we have mentioned will clearly see the consensus of the Companions—both the Muhajirun and the Ansar—on the precedence of Abu Bakr.

This also becomes evident from the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam statement, “Allah and the believers refuse anyone except Abu Bakr.” It is apparent to such a person that the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not explicitly designate any specific individual as his successor, neither Abu Bakr as claimed by a faction among the Ahlus Sunnah, nor ‘Ali as asserted by a group of the Rafidah.

However, he made a strong indication, understood by every person of sound mind and reason, pointing towards al Siddiq, as we have previously mentioned.[29]

 

The evidence that have featured in this round is corroborated by so many other narrations which outline the merits and virtues of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. The sheer abundance of those authentic narrations is a testament to the statement of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu about Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu being peerless in his candidacy.

These narrations cited here decisively refute the false narrative proposed by ‘Abdul Hussain, suggesting that the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam family did not participate in the Bay’ah of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. The burden of proof to substantiate the claim that the authority to appoint a Khalifah lies solely with the Ahlul Bayt is on ‘Abdul Hussain. To date, he has not brought a single shred of evidence that supports his contentions about the Ahlul Bayt. Moreover, the fact that Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha sought her inheritance from Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu further validates his recognised leadership. Although she disagreed with Abu Bakr’s decision not to accede to her request, her very act of making the request indicates her acknowledgment of his authority.

We have also demonstrated that the legitimacy of anyone’s claim to caliphate is contingent upon the approval of the Ahl al Hall wa al ‘Aqd. In the case of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu this was achieved at Saqifah and endorsed at the later pledge of allegiance which was attended en masse. The initial absence of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and al Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhu was due to them feeling marginalised from the decision-making process, not because they did not support the Caliphate of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. The only Sahabi of significance in this matter who refrained from actually taking Bay’ah was Sa’d ibn ‘Ubadah radiya Llahu ‘anhu owing to his disappointment, but not his disapproval. He did not disapprove of the candidacy of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. The next round of discussions features Sa’d ibn ‘Ubadah and it is there where we shall discuss his decision not to do Bay’ah as well as the misunderstanding about the delay in ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu Bay’ah.

 

NEXT⇒ LETTER 81 and 82 

---

[1] See discussions under Letter 30.

[2] Sahih al Bukhari, Kitab al Maghazi, Hadith: 4182.

[3] See Letter 70.

[4] Al Bahr al Muhit, vol. 6 pg. 379.

[5] Ibid.

[6] The Arabic term Ahl al Hall wa al ‘Aqd literally means “those who loosen and fasten”, contextually it refers to a group of responsible individuals who possess the requisite knowledge, integrity, and authority to make binding decisions on behalf of the community.

[7] Kitab al Sunnah by Ibn Abi ‘Asim, Hadith: 1218; Kitab al I’tiqad by al Bayhaqi, Hadith: 348.

[8] Meaning that they had been excluded.

[9] Sharh Nahj al Balaghah, vol. 1 pg. 132.

[10] Meaning Sa’d ibn ‘Ubadah radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

[11] Al Nihayah, pg. 945.

[12] Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, vol. 8 pg. 81.

[13] Some have said that the person spoken of as a candidate for succession is Talhah ibn ‘Ubaidullah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, others have said that it refered to a person from the Ansar, and there is another view that attributes the statement to al Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhu in favour of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. See Fath al Bari, vol. 1 pg. 338.

[14] Here ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu is prefacing the contention that upon his death, they would pledge allegiance to a certain individual just as had been the case when Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was appointed. This idea existed at the time of the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam passing because the Ansar did not find explicit Qur’anic guidance about the Caliphate being restricted to the Quraysh and sought to instill their own leader. He is clarifying that there are aspects of Islamic law, like the rulings on stoning and lineage, which, although their texts are not in the Qur’an based on its final rendition; their rulings, however, are well-established and known among the other learned Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum.

[15] ‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu intent was to caution against impulsive actions and to remind everyone that the authority of the Sunnah complements and clarifies what is not explicitly detailed in the Qurʾan. This applies to the conditions for appointing a Khalifah, which are grounded in the teachings of the Sunnah and should be followed to ensure unity and prevent discord within the Ummah.

[16] ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu is pointing out that the unique set of circumstances that arose at the time of the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam passing was not a baseline for nominating a Khalifah. Since the matter had been settled and that Fitnah avoided, going forward the nomination of a leader would only be on the basis of consultation among the Ahl al Hall wa al ‘Aqd.

[17] This explains the absence of ‘Ali, al Zubair and others from Saqifah. It was not that they were deliberately excluded by Abu Bakr or ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. On the contrary, when news had reached them about the Ansar convening a council at Saqifah, they hastened to intervene before a problematic situation would emerge.

[18] This exonorates the Muhajirun of any nefarious motives. Had the matter unfolded according to ‘Abdul Hussain’s narrative, it would have sufficed for Abu Bakr to solicit the support of the Muhajirun before proceeding to Saqifah and simply coerce the Ansar into acceptance. The same can be extended to the arguments that are made about ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. The Muhajirun were outnumbered by the Ansar at Saqifah, and it was the compelling reasons for why the candidacy of a person from Quraysh to lead the Ummah that led the Ansar to abandon their candidate and support Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Had there been compelling reasons for the exclusivity of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu for leadership, the Sahabah would have abandoned Abu Bakr in favour of him. However, since they did not do so and since ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and all those who were with him swore their allegiance to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu in the Masjid, the matter was concluded.

[19] This demonstrates that the urgency of the situation warranted a nominee from Quraysh. Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was not seeking leadership for himself and most certainly did not exploit the absence of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. In fact, their absence was not seen as consequential since he was acting on behalf of all the Muhajirun. His later encounters with ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu illustrates that there was no bad sentiment towards ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

[20] Meaning that we approached him persistently, urging him to join in the pledge of allegiance.

[21] Implying treating him as if he were dead, effectively ignoring his presence or influence. ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu intended to invalidate Sa’d’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu claim with the harshest and most decisive words, as nullifying someone’s actions and stripping them of their influence is akin to metaphorically ‘killing’ them.

[22] ‘ Abdul Hussain’s insinuation that ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu exhibited double standards by initiating the Bay’ah of Abu Bakr in a similar manner fails to consider the full context. ‘Umar’s caution was against a pre-emptive nomination lacking the endorsement of the Ummah’s decision-makers. The process of selecting a leader was set into motion with the Ansar’s gathering at Saqifah. Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and Abu ‘Ubaidah radiya Llahu ‘anhum primarily did not seek to unilaterally appoint a leader when they set off to meet their brothers from the Ansar; rather, their aim was to prevent the Ansar from making an independent decision that did not align with the Shari’ah’s requirements.

The incident at Saqifah is better understood as an ad hoc decision-making process, contrasting with the private nomination ‘Umar warned against. His sermon highlighted the potential misuse of the precedent at Saqifah by pre-emptively asserting allegiance to a specific candidate without broad consultation. Such a bay’ah would lack legitimacy due to the absence of key stakeholders. At Saqifah, the presence of essential stakeholders validated the Bay’ah.

The subsequent formalisation of the Bay’ah among the rest of the residents of Madinah the following day is where the notion of Ijma’ on the legitimacy of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate originates, contrary to the erroneous claims made in al Muraja’at.

[23] Musnad Ahmed, vol. 1 pg. 449, Hadith: 391; Sahih al Bukhari, Hadith: 6830. These two references amongst many other cite the hadith in its entirety. Other collections have excerpts of the hadith.

[24] Al Bidayah wal Nihayah, vol. 8 pg. 88.

[25] Alluding to the verse revealed about Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu in Surah al Tawbah.

[26] Kitab al I’tiqad, Hadith: 337.

[27] Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, vol. 8 pg. 90.

[28] Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, vol. 8 pg. 95.

[29] Al Bidayah wal Nihayah, vol. 8 pg. 94.