Saqifa

Saqifah, also known as "Saqifa Bani Saeda" or Saqifat Bani Sa'ida, was the roofed building [1], of the tribe, or banu, of Sa'ida, of the faction of the Khazraj, of the city of Medina in the Hijaz, northwestern Arabia.

Significance of Saqifah

On the day that the Muslim prophet Muhammad died, June 8 in 632 CE, the Muslims originally from Medina, the Ansar, gathered in the saqifah to discuss the future of the Muslim community. There were two factions in the Ansar, the Khazraj and the Aws; both were present. However, the Muslim emigrants from Mecca, the Muhajirun, had not been notified of the gathering. When Muhammad's companions Abu Bakr and Umar learned of the gathering, they rushed to the meeting. After a tumultuous debate, the details of which are highly contested, those gathered there gave their allegiance, or bay'ah, to Abu Bakr as the new leader of the Muslims.

The name of the house is used as shorthand for the event, or the gathering, which was a crucial turning point in the history of Islam. There were a number of Muslims who felt that Ali ibn Abi Talib, Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, should have been the new leader. They initially refused to take the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr and were known as Rafidi, or refusers. Ali himself refused to take the oath. After a period of time -- long or short, this also is a matter of debate -- Ali and his party submitted. However, the Rafidi never ceased to feel that there had been a miscarriage of justice at Saqifah. Over time, disaffection with the government of the caliphs, or successors to Muhammad, increased to the extent that the Shi'a, or Shi'at Ali, the party of Ali, split from the majority Sunni Muslims.

Ibn Ishaq's account

One of the earliest accounts of Saqifah is to be found in Ibn Ishaq's sira, or biography of Muhammad. It is based on the words of Umar himself, as reported to Ibn Ishaq by Ibn Al-Abbas.

According to this account, after the death of Muhammad the Ansar gathered at the Bani Sa'ida's saqifah while the closest relatives of Muhammad, Fatima and Ali and their relatives, were preparing Muhammad's body for burial. The Muhajirun had gathered with Abu Bakr and Umar. Abu Bakr suggested that they join the Ansar. On the way, the Mahajirun learned that the Ansar were prepared to choose a leader without consulting them. Abu Bakr and Umar hastened to the meeting, where Abu Bakr addressed the Ansar.

Abu Bakr argued that only a leader from the Quraysh, Mecca's leading clan, could keep Muhammad's state intact. Only the Quraysh were universally recognized as a noble clan, worthy of leadership. He suggested that the meeting choose either Umar or Abu Ubayda (both Quraysh) as a leader.

One of the Ansar suggested that the Ansar should choose a leader and the Meccans should choose their own leader. The meeting became loud and unruly. Umar is reported to have said that he feared that the Muslim state would dissolve then and there. He seized Abu Bakr's hand and loudly swore fealty to him as the leader of the Muslims. The Muhajirun hurriedly followed, and then, after an altercation, the Ansar. (The Muhajirun "jumped on" the leader of the Khazraj faction of the Ansar, Sa'd ibn 'Ubada, as detailed on p. 686 of Guillaume's translation of Ibn Ishaq.) According to Madelung's book The Succession to Muhammad, Umar described the event as a falta, a precipitate arrangement (p. 30).

The next day, the Muslim community of Medina gathered for prayers and Umar spoke, praising Abu Bakr and urging the community to swear allegiance to him. Ibn Ishaq says that they did so.

A Sunni view of Saqifah

Many Sunni accounts of Saqifah omit some of the uglier details. They record only that the companions of Muhammad gathered and after much deliberation, chose Abu Bakr as the leader. They omit any mention of the apparently ad hoc nature of the meeting, of the absence of some of those most concerned (Ali and Muhammad's other relatives), of the squabbles and fights in the saqifah, and of Umar's desperate bid to unite the community behind Abu Bakr.

However, a good case could be made for the Sunni view of the succession if one considers the events that followed the meeting in the saqifah. The Muslims, following pre-Islamic custom, believed that each member of the tribe should personally give his (or perhaps her) allegiance to the new leader. If the Muslims NOT at the meeting had refused to do so, the group would have split. However, all the Muslims, including Ali and the Rafidi, did eventually give their allegiance, their bay'ah, to Abu Bakr. They valued the unity of the ummah, the Muslim community, over their first preferences for the leadership. It could additionally be argued that if Umar had not acted as he did, the community would have dissolved, and that Umar, and the community, acted out of necessity. (This, of course, assumes that Umar was telling the truth about the events at the saqifah.)

The Shi'a view of Saqifah

Preceding events

Shi'a accounts of the matter argue for a deep-laid plot on the part of Abu Bakr and Umar to seize the leadership from the rightful heir, Ali and advanve many arguments for their view. Shi'a believe that Muhammad had repeatedly made known to the community his wishes regarding a successor, namely, that Ali should follow him. Shia belive that Muhammad did so most prominantly in Ghadire Khumm.

Shia view this event with the events of the preceding days in mind, beliving it gives important context to this event.

It is established that on Muhammads last Thursday, in the Event of Pen and Paper he was about to announce his will, something that would "forever prevent them from going astray". However, a commotion started by Umar prevented Muhammad. Later on Saturday Muhmmad sent Abu Bakr, Umar and Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah away with Usamas Dispatchment ^{answering-ansar.org, even though they objected. Shia belive that on Sunday, in the Event of the prayer, Abu Bakr violated Muhammads order regarding not leaving the dispatchmend and tried to set precedense of himself as the new leader, wich lead him to leave Medina after having been rebuked by Muhammad.}

With this, the Shia belive there was a pattern of Abu Bakr and Umar acting contrary to Muhammad's wishes, and also expains how and why people acted the way they did in this event.

Umar delayed maters

Shia give the episode immediately following the death of Muhammad, as a proof of the complicity of Abu Bakr and Umar. Althogh Sunni portray Umar being deranged with grief when he found that Muhammad had died, Shia content that Umar promised "By Allah!" that "Allah's Apostle is not dead!" ^{Bukhari. Umar said:}

"Some of the hypocrites allege that the Messenger of God is dead. By God, he is not dead but has gone to his Lord as Moses ibn Imran went and remained hidden from his people for forty days. Moses returned after it was said that he had died. By God, the Messenger of God will [also] return and will cut off the hands and feet of those who allege that he is dead" ^Tabari.

The burial could not proceed while Umar stubbornly refused to compromise. Some sources claim that the 13 year old Ibn Abbas aproach Umar and tried to stop him from threatening people, however, Umar ignored him.

Shia reject that Umar was deranged by grief, as Sunnis claim, and argue that Umar had no problem stating Muhammas was dead when he fled the battlefield of Uhud. Shie argue as follow: In that event, eight years earlier, Umar had heard the eneies rumors that Muhammad had died, and decided to belive them and concluded that there was no reason to fight any longer and left the battfield, rather than encourage people to dissmis the rumors. However, in this event, he knew that Muhmmad was dead, since the women were beating their faces and crying at Muhammad's house, a sure sign that Muhammad had really died. Yet, here in the Mosque Umar was still proclaiming Muhammad had not died ^{life of mohammad, even though the news had spread all the way to Abu Bakr, two miles away. answering-ansar.org. And also, the same Umar had opposed Muhammad, when he wanted to write his will only 4 days earlier, claiming that Muhammad was delirious. bukhari answering-ansar.org.}

Abu Bakr was informed

When Abu Bakr heard that Muhammad had died, he was in a town named As-Sunah, a city two miles from Madinah ^{Tabari. He road back to Muhammad on horse Bukhari. It took Abu Bakr three durations (hours, prayes, unspecified) to return to Medina from As-Sunah Tabari. When Abu Bakr returned, Umar was still threatening people, scarying some people to the extent that it is reported that they left Islam Bukhari.}

When he came to Medina, he visited Muhamamds body and then he spoke to the crowd. He mentioned vers 3.144 from the Quran:

And Muhammad is no more than an apostle; the apostles have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, he will by no means do harm to Allah in the least and Allah will reward the grateful.

A verse that came after the battle of Uhud as a responce to those who stoped fighting since they belived Muhammad to be dead. And then Abu Bakr said -- in the words reported by Ibn Ishaq:

"O men, if anyone worships Muhammad, Muhammad is dead; if anyone worships God, God is alive, immortal." (Guillaume, p. 683)

At this, Umar stoped his threats. The Shi'a say that this whole episode was a charade, arranged so that Abu Bakr, Umar, and their followers would have more time to plot their coup against Ali.

Information of the meating

While Umar and Abu Bakr where in Muhammad house, a Ansar called out Umar personaly and informed him of the meeting in the shed of Banu Sa'ida. Umar informed called out Abu Bakr and informed only him about it. Shia belive this to be another proof of the complicity. Umar and Abu Bakr left for the meeting without mentioned it to the Banu Hashim or anybody else present in Muhammads house, and instead left them to tend for Muhammads body. Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah joined them on the way while they were going to the meeting.

Shia also point out that Umars desicion to abandon the funeral preparations and walking to a political meating does not support the notion that he was emotionaly devatated to the point of derangment a few moments ago ^{answering-ansar.org.}

The meeting

There, Abu Bakr offered as argument that one of the Ansar would not be accepted as leader by the Muhajerin, and that only a Muhajerin can lead, since they are closer relatives to Muhammad and they endured strong oppresion from the enemies of Islam. Then came a proposed compromise by Hubab, that there be two succesors, one from the Ansar the other from the Quraysh. Umar refused the prosal, arguing that there can not be two succesors. He argued that the Arabs (Muhajerin) would never accept a the rule of a people from whom their prophet is not from, but the Ansar would accept the rule of someone who is from the same people as their prophet.

As voices became louder, Abu Bakr proposed that Umar or Abu Ubaydah should be given the oath of aligance. Upon that proposal, Umar stood up saying, "Who among you would be agreeable to leave Abu Bakr whom the Prophet gave precedence?" and gave his oath of aligance to Abu Bakr. Abu Ubaydah did the same thing and the meccans present did the same. Then Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf said "O people of the Ansar, although you do not have among you [anyone] like Abu Bakr, Umar and Ali."

Thereupon Mundhir ibn al-Aqram stood up saying, "We do not deny the merits of those you have mentioned. Indeed there is among you a person with whom if he seeks authority, none will dispute [i.e. Ali]".

Then some of the Ansar present gave their oath to Abu Bakr, while the others Ansar said "We will not give the oath of allegiance [to anyone] except Ali" ^Tabari

The meeting was very rushed and ended with Abu Bakr being the one chosen to rule, even though none of Muhammads close relatives or Banu Hashim participiated in it ^{[2]. Ali was at the time preparing the coffin of Muhmmad and did not know anything about the meeting [3], answering-ansar.org.}

Shia mention people prominent Sahaba not present in meeting, in a effort to demostrate that the elders and prominent Sahaba where not included and therefore had the meeting no validity:

1. Ali
2. Uthman
3. Talha
4. Zubair
5. Sa'ad ibn Abu Waqqas

Further, they argue that those three people held where not representants of the muhajiren ^{answering-ansar.org}

Aftermath

Shia further quote Umar in Sahih Bukhari:

"And no doubt after the death of the Prophet we were informed that the Ansar disagreed with us and gathered in the shed of Bani Sa'da. Ali and Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us, while the emigrants gathered with Abu Bakr."[4]. When

In other words, The Ansar where having a meeting, and some Muhajireen sided with Umar and Abu Bakr. Among those is people like Khalid ibn Walid. some Muhajireen opposed Abu Bakr and Umar, namely the Banu Hashim, Zubair and "whoever was with them" .

According to Tabari, When this news reached Zubair, he drew his sword saying:

"I will not put it back until the oath of aligance is give to Ali!" ^tabari.

Shia belive that the event evolved into the Siege of Fatimahs house.

See also

The events of Saqifah are only some of the issues involved in the Succession to Muhammad. See that article for a broader discussion.

References

• Guillaume, A. The Life of Muhammad, Oxford University Press, 1955
• Madelung, W. The Succession to Muhammad, Cambridge University Press, 1997

External links

• answering-ansar.org - Shia site