Abu Bakr and team fooled Muslims

Did Abu Bakr have the consensus (ijmaa’) of Muslims? Usamah b. Zaid’s argument

 

Usamah b. Zaid’s army

The best argument that the opponents can advance against the Shias to validate claims of Abu Bakr’s caliphate is consensus (ijmaa’). They claim that Abu Bakr by virtue of consensus was most suited for caliphate. In other words, the Muslims of the time, including the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) leading companions, selected Abu Bakr as the caliph and hence he deserves the position more than other companions like Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.).

Reply

The argument of consensus is the biggest falsehood propagated to justify shifting caliphate from Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.), the rightful heir of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), to Abu Bakr, the usurper.
The incident regarding Usamah b. Zaid’s army is one of the many proofs that destroy Abu Bakr’s claim to caliphate based on consensus of the companions.

It should be remembered that Usamah b. Zaid was appointed the commander of an army by the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) and was ordered to proceed towards Syria to crush the aggression of the enemy. The Noble Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had declared that anyone who did not pay heed to the command of Usamah was a hypocrite. Thus, at the time of the demise of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and the proceedings of Saqifah, Usamah was away from Medina at a place called Jurf (near Medina), proceeding towards Syria (following the command of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.)).

On usurping the caliphate, Abu Bakr wrote a letter to Usamah.

The contents of the letter were as follows – ‘From Abu Bakr, the caliph of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) of Allah to Usamah b. Zaid. Now then! The Muslims have taken refuge in me and have chosen me for the leadership of caliphate and made me their chief after the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) of Allah….Thus, when my letter reaches you, you may come to me and like other Muslims, swear allegiance to me. You may even permit Umar b. Khattab to be free from under your leadership and stay with me here for I need him. Thereafter, you may proceed towards the frontline as directed by the Prophet (s.a.w.a.).’

When the letter reached Usamah, he read it and replied: ‘From Usamah Ibn Zaid, the freed slave of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) of Allah, to Abu Bakr b. Abi Qahafah. Now then! Your letter has reached me, but it is completely incongruous from the beginning till the end.’

‘First you claim to be the caliph of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and then say that the Muslims gathered around you and chose you as their leader? If it was such, then they would have pledged allegiance at your hands in the Prophet’s Mosque and not at Saqifah Bani Saaedah.’ (Meaning if Abu Bakr was the caliph of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) why was he in need of the approval and selection of the Muslims? And even then, why would they approve of his choice in Saqifah, instead of Masjid al-Nabawi?)

‘Furthermore you request me to excuse Umar b. Khattab from the army for the reason that you need him! Know that he has already stayed away on his own without my permission and it is not lawful for me to excuse anyone for the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) himself had deputed them for this battle under my command. In this matter there is no difference between you and Umar, that both of you have stayed behind, and violation of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)’s command after his demise is similar to disobeying him during his lifetime.’

‘You very well know that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had ordered you and Umar to proceed towards this expedition under my command while the opinion and command of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) regarding you is better and preferable to your own opinions regarding yourselves. Your position was not hidden from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) who made me your commander and not you my commander. Thus opposing the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) is hypocrisy and deceit…’

• Uyoon al-Balaaghah fi Uns al-Hadhir wa Naqlah al-Musaafir of Shaikh Abbas al-Qummi (r.a.)
This incident shows that Abu Bakr was not selected with the consensus of Muslims. Rather, he was imposed by a handful of conspiring ones upon the Muslim ummah. The majority of Muslims were deceived into paying him allegiance with the argument of consensus.

The majority of Muslims were not even present in Medina (forget Saqifah) at the time of Abu Bakr’s selection. Based on the Holy Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) standing instructions, they were on an expedition to Syria under Usamah b. Zaid’s leadership. Yet this large group of Muslims, who were not present in Medina and had not given allegiance to Abu Bakr, were being ordered to pay fealty following the footsteps of the minority of Muslims!

Consensus is when the minority accepts the decision of the majority. In case of Abu Bakr’s caliphate, consensus has been redefined as the majority submitting to the minority.

Take lesson, O people of vision!

 

Why Abubakr Denied Fadak - The Real Motive

The famous Sunni scholar Ibn Abil-Hadid Mu’tazali has said about his discourse with a fellow Sunni scholar concerning the truthfulness of the Prophet’s daughter: 

“I asked Ali Ibn Fareqi, a distinguished teacher of Madrassat-al-Gharbiyya of Baghdad: "Was Fatema truthful in making the claim ?" (regarding her patrimony of the orchard of Fadak, which the Caliph had seized on the pretext that Prophets do not leave inheritance – despite the explicit words of the Qur’an that Solomon inherited David)

He answered: "Yes!"

I said: "Did Abu Bakr know that she was a truthful lady?"

Again he answered: "Yes."

I then asked: "Then why did the Caliph not give back to her that which she was entitled to?"

At that moment the teacher smiled and said with great dignity: 

"If he had accepted her word on that day and had returned Fadak to her on account of her being a truthful lady and without asking for any witnesses, she could very well use this position for the benefit of her husband on the following day by saying, “my husband, Ali is entitled to the caliphate.” And then the Caliph would have been obliged to surrender the caliphate to Ali on account of his having acknowledged her to be a truthful lady. However, in order to obviate any such claim or dispute he deprived her of her undisputed right!"

Reference : Sharh-i Nahjul Balaghah by Ibn Abil Hadid, page 284.

Abubakr Fled from the Battlefield .....!!!!!

Allah the Almighty says in the Holy Quran,

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا لَقِيتُمُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا زَحْفًا فَلَا تُوَلُّوهُمُ الْأَدْبَارَ 
وَمَن يُوَلِّهِمْ يَوْمَئِذٍ دُبُرَهُ إِلَّا مُتَحَرِّفًا لِّقِتَالٍ أَوْ مُتَحَيِّزًا إِلَىٰ فِئَةٍ فَقَدْ بَاءَ بِغَضَبٍ مِّنَ اللَّهِ وَمَأْوَاهُ جَهَنَّمُ ۖ وَبِئْسَ الْمَصِيرُ

O you who have believed, when you meet those who disbelieve in battle, do not turn back [in flight]. 
And whoever turns his back to them on such a day, unless maneuvering for war or joining [another] company, has certainly incurred the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell - and wretched is the destination. 
Surah Anfaal – verse 15 – 16.

On the first day of the battle of Khaibar, the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) gave the Muslim flag of leadership to Abu Bakr (l.a.), who led the Muslim army against the Jews.

Suffering a defeat after a short battle, he (Abu Bakr (l.a.)) fled with his tail between his legs.

The next day the Muslim flag was given to Umar (l.a.).

But before he reached the place of battle, he (Umar (l.a.)) fled in panic.

The Battle of Khaibar was an important event of the Prophet's life, recorded in detail by historians of both sects. Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Ispahani in his Hilyatu'l-Auliya, Volume I, page 62, Muhammad Bin Talha Shafi'I in Matalibu's-Su'ul, page 40, from the Sira of Ibn Hisham, Muhammad Bin Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in Kifayatu't-Talib, Chapter 14, and many others Sunni scholars have recorded this event.

But the most authentic narrations are those of two great scholars: Muhammad Bin Isma'il Bukhari, who writes in his Sahih, Volume II, printed in Egypt, 1320 A.H., page 100, and Muslim Bin Hujjaj, who writes in his Sahih, Volume II, printed in Egypt, 1320 A.H., page 324, that

"Caliph Umar fled from the battlefield on two occasions."

Among the many clear proofs on this point are the unambiguous verses of Ibn Abi'l-Hadid the Mu'tazilite, known as "Alawiyyat-e-Sab'a, in praise of Ameerul Momineen Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s.).

Regarding the "Gate of Khaibar," he says:

Have you heard the story of the Conquest of Khaibar? 
So many mysteries are linked together which bewilder even the wise mind! 
These two (Abu Bakr and Umar) had no competence or acquaintance with bearing a flag (leading an army). 
They did not know the secret of maintaining the honor of a flag, 
They covered it with scorn and took to their heels, 
Though they knew that fleeing from the battlefield is tantamount to infidelity. 
…

Ibn Abi'l-Hadid addressing them (Abu Bakr and Umar) says further: "I apologize for you, for your defeat and fleeing, since everyone dislikes death and loves life. Like all others, you too did not like death although there is no immunity from death. But you could not court death."

In the battles of Uhud and Hunain again Abu Bakr (l.a.) and Umar (l.a.) fled from the battle field like infidels. As reported by Tabrini and others, they left the Prophet alone among the infidels.

Is it possible that those who turned their backs to the enemy leaving the Holy Prophet alone to face the enemy were the loved ones of Allah and His Prophet?

Allah in the Holy Qur'an. says: 

وَإِنَّ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ لَمَن يُؤْمِنُ بِاللَّهِ وَمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكُمْ وَمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْهِمْ خَاشِعِينَ لِلَّهِ لَا يَشْتَرُونَ بِآيَاتِ اللَّهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا ۗ أُولَٰئِكَ لَهُمْ أَجْرُهُمْ عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ سَرِيعُ الْحِسَابِ

"O you who believe! Whoever of you turns away from his religion, soon Allah will bring another people; He loves them and they love Him, lowly before the believers, mighty against the infidels, striving hard in Allah's way, and they fear not the censure of any censurer; this is the grace of Allah. He gives it to whomsoever He desires." 
Surah Ale Imran verse 199

Abu Ishaq Imam Ahmad Tha'labi, writes in his Kashfu'l-Bayan that the above verse was revealed in praise of Ameerul Momineen Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) because no other person possessed the attributes mentioned in it. In the Battle of Uhud, when Abu Bakr (l.a.) and Umar (l.a.) and other companions fled, and the enemy's 5,000 troops attacked the Muslims, the only person who stayed with the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) until victory was achieved was Ameerul Momineen Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.).

In the Battle of Hunain, Hamidi in his Jam'-e-Bainu's-Sahihain and Halabi in his Siratu'l- Halabiyya, Volume III, page 123, say that Abu Bakr (l.a.), Umar (l.a.) and other companions fled, except four: Ameerul Momineen Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) and Abbas, who were in front of the Prophet, Abu Sufyan b. Harith held the reins of the Prophet's horse, and Abdullah b. Mas'ud stood on his left.

What was Abu Bakr’s biggest regret ???

It has been established in the preceding pages beyond a shadow of doubt that the caliph’s cohorts initially laid siege to Hazrat Faatemah’s (s.a.) house to intimidate the inmates and when that did not have the desired effect, they attacked the house by setting it aflame. In this way, the hooligans violated the sanctity of the house and that of its inmates about whom the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had made innumerable recommendations, some of which have been outlined in the initial chapters. The attack and ensuing violation are established facts and none can raise any doubts whatsoever.

Even Ibne Taiymiyyah did not find anything objectionable as far as the veracity of the chain of incidents is concerned.

If there are still some people who doubt the attacks then they are worse than Ibne Taymiyyah who at least accepts their occurrence. And if some of the deniers include Shiahs, then it is a matter of regret how they can consider themselves as lovers of Ahle Bait (s.a.w.a.) while denying the wrongdoing of the Ahle Bait’s oppressors, a fact accepted by the Shiahs of the oppressors (i.e. Sunnis and Wahhabis)!

The attack was considered with such alacrity and ferocity that it makes one wonder what they were expecting to find over there. Were they expecting to find some wealth or property of Allah that had been embezzled by the inmates through recovery of which they sought proximity of Allah and His Prophet (s.a.w.a.)?![1]

Indeed, it was clear very soon to the oppressors the extent of their wrongdoing. That is why it is narrated that when Abu Bakr’s death was imminent, he confessed:

‘I do not feel remorse over any worldly affair save three actions which I regret performing. Likewise, I feel remorse over three actions which I abandoned while it would have been better if I had performed them. I wish I had sought the answers from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) for three questions…’

This narration is very important although we will only elaborate on the portion that is relevant in this discussion.

وددت انی لم اکشف بیت فاطمہ عن شئی و ان کانوا قد غلقوہ علی الحرب وددت انی کنت سالت رسول اللہ لمن ھٰذا الامر فلا ینازعہ احد

“I wish I had not forced Faatemah to open her house, even if it had been locked for battle.

I wish I had asked the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) about the identity of his successor so I would not oppose him on any matter.”

Although apparently remorseful, do these words of the caliph ring with sincerity?

If indeed he was remorseful and honest then why did he claim ignorance of the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) successor while he was present in Ghadeer?

Was he not among the first ones to congratulate the successor of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)?

Was he not aware of the numerous incidents related to the successorship of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)?

Abu Bakr’s confession can be traced in Taarikhe Tabari.

In addition to this, one can refer to Iqd al-Fareed of Ibn Abde Rabbeh, Al-Amwaal of the great memoriser of the Quran and traditionalist Imam Abu Abeed Qaasim Ibn Salaam, Muruj al-Zahab of Mas’oodi, Al-Imaamah wa al-Siyaasah of Ibne Qutaybah al-Dainoori.[2]

Also notable is that these references have survived despite attempts to distort historical incidents and narrations, as noted earlier. For instance, on referring to Al-Amwaal one finds that instead of ‘I wish I had not forced ….’ it is recorded as ‘I wish I had not done such and such thing.’

It is clear that this is the handiwork of the distortionists. Over here, they deleted reference to a specific event and replaced it with a general reference.

We reiterate a point we have been making consistently in the book – how does one expect to find an accurate representation of the entire chain of events in the face of such distortion?

It is unfortunate that the defrauders of truth have tricked people with lies and a large number of Muslims have fallen prey to them.

---

[1]             Minhaaj al-Sunnah, vol. 8, pg. 291

[2]             Kitaab al-Amwaal, pg. 131; Imaamah wa al-Siyaasah, vol. 1, pg. 18; Taarikhe Tabari, vol. 3, pg. 430; Muruj al-Zahab; Iqd al-Fareed, vol. 2, pg. 254