Incident of Saqifa: Difference between revisions

The proponents of this theory do not see it unlikely that the Helpers were informed of a plan devised by a group of the Immigrants for the succession to the Prophet (s).  

Some other scholars maintain that the gathering at the Saqifa was a result of the following factors:

- Because of their great sacrifices, the Helpers regarded the new religion of Islam as their own child and did not see anyone as more compassionate to it as themselves.

- The Helpers were afraid that the Quraysh would try to take revenge on them, as their prominent figures were killed by the Helpers during the battles at the time of the Prophet (s). This worry may have been reinforced by the fact that the Prophet (s) had informed them of the oppression of the rulers after him against them and had instructed the Helpers to remain patient.  

- According to some scholars, the Helpers felt that the Quraysh would not accept the sayings of the Prophet (s) regarding Ali’s (a) succession to him. According to some others, Abu Bakr announced in the mosque of the Prophet (s) that the Apostle of God (s) had died. So a group of the Medinans gathered around him and pledged their allegiance to him as the successor of the Prophet (s). This created a misunderstanding in the minds of a group of the Helpers that it was permissible to appoint a caliph other than Imam Ali (a), which led to the gathering at the Saqifa.

Ali (a) and Ahl al-Bayt (a), together with some of the Immigrants and Helpers—such as Abbas b. Abd al-Mutallib, Fadl b. Abbas, Zubayr b. Awamm, Khalid b. Saʿid, Miqdad b. Amr, Salman al-Farsi, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, Ammar b. Yasir, Baraʾ b. ʿAzib, and Ubayy b. Kaʿb—opposed the election of Abu Bakr as the caliph.  

Some of these figures pointed out in several occasions that Abu Bakr was not qualified to be the successor to the Prophet. Some of their statements in this regard include the following:

*In his conversations with the people, Salman al-Farsi called the allegiance at the Saqifa a mistake and stated that the succession to the Prophet (s) was the right of Ahl al-Bayt (s), which would lead the society to all good.

*Abu Dharr was not in Medina on the day of the Event of the Saqifa and was informed of what had happened when he arrived in the city. It is reported that he spoke about the right of Ahl al-Bayt (s) to the caliphate as soon as he was informed of the event, and once more during the caliphate of Uthman. He said that the caliphate of Ahl al-Bayt (s) would bring about abundant blessings and good.

*Towards the end of his life, Umar b. al-Khattab said in a public lecture, “The allegiance with Abu Bakr was a slip that occurred and God saved the people from its evil. Whoever acts in that way for choosing the caliph, kill him!”

*When Abu Sufyan, who had been sent by the Prophet (s) on a mission out of Medina, returned and was informed of the demise of the Prophet (s) and the allegiance at the Saqifa, he asked about the reaction of Ali (a) and Abbas b. Abd al-Muttalib. When he was told that they had kept their silence, he said, “By God, if I stay alive, I will take their feet to high places … I see dust that would not descend unless by a rain of blood.” It is reported that he recited some poems in favor of Ali and criticizing Abu Bakr and Umar.

*Many years later, in a letter to Muhammad b. Abi Bakr, Muʿawiya wrote, “Your father and his Faruq were the first ones who deprived Ali of his right and opposed him. They collaborated and urged Ali to pledge his allegiance to them. When Ali refused, they made wrong decisions and dangerous plans against him, so Ali pledged his allegiance to them.”

The historians agree that Ali (a) did not pledge his allegiance to Abu Bakr on the day of the Saqifa. However, there is disagreement as to when and if he pledged his allegiance afterwards. Al-Shaykh al-Mufid maintains that “the view of the scholars of the Shiʿa and the true opinion is that Amir al-Muʿminin Ali b. Abi Talib (a) never pledged his allegiance to Abu Bakr.” During the first days after the Saqifa, when the supporters of Abu Bakr tried to force him to pledge his allegiance to Abu Bakr, Imam Ali (a) said to them, “I am more deserving of the caliphate than you, and I will not pledge my allegiance to you. You are more deserving of pledging your allegiance to me. You took the caliphate away from the Helpers arguing that … because you were closer to the Prophet and were his kin, you were more deserving of the caliphate than them. Now, I argue against you by the same reasons that you mentioned against the Helpers. If you fear God, be fair with me, and accept from me the same thing that the Helpers accepted from you; otherwise, you will have knowingly done wrong”.

It is reported that after the Event of the Saqifa and before the demise of Fatima (a), Ali (a) and Fatima (a) would go together to the houses and gatherings of the Helpers and ask them for support. The helpers would say in response, “O daughter of the Prophet! We have already pledged our allegiance to Abu Bakr. Had Ali (a) come forth, we would not have chosen anyone else.” Then Ali (a) would respond, “Was I to leave the Prophet (s) unburied and argue about the caliphate?!”

After the Event of the Saqifa, Fatima (a) severely opposed it and proclaimed that it was a transgression of the instructions of the Prophet (s). She articulated her opposition most clearly in her sayings when the supporters of Abu Bakr besieged her house and tried to force Ali (a) to pledge his allegiance to Abu Bakr and also in her well-known Fadakiyya Sermon, which she delivered at the mosque of Medina.  

It is reported that Fatima (a) further referred to the Saqifa in the last days of her life, when the women of the Helpers came to visit her, as a violation of the Prophet’s commands and warned about the consequences of this disobedience for the future of Islam.  

In 1910, the Belgian scholar Henri Lammens (1862-1937) published an article entitled “Triumvirate of Abu Bakr, ʿUmar, and Abu ʿUbayda,” in which he argued that the close cooperation of these three men in the lifetime of the Prophet (s) and their plans for the succession resulted in the caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar. Had Abu ʿUbayda not died during the caliphate of Umar, he would have certainly become the third caliph. Although Lammens does not speak of a conspiracy to attain the caliphate, his claim certainly implies this term. He claims that Aʿisha and Hafsa informed their father of all the hidden thoughts and decisions of their husband.

The Italian orientalist Leone Caetani talks about a deep rift between Abu Bakr and Banu Hashim, and considers Abu Bakr’s claim to succession in the Event of the Saqifa surprising. He indirectly accepts the seriousness of Ali’s claim to the succession. Later, Caetani affirmed Lammens’ theory of the triumvirate of Abu Bakr, Umar and Abu Ubayda.

In his book The Succession to Muhammad, Madelung has thoroughly explores the topic of the succession to the Prophet (s). Unlike most historians, he believes that the gathering at the Saqifa was not initially intended to choose a successor for the Prophet (s). The Helpers simply thought that after the demise of the Prophet (s), the allegiance to him had expired and the integrity of the society was in danger. So they decided to choose a ruler from themselves for their own city, Medina. This is why they gathered without informing the Immigrants, whom they thought would return to Mecca. And those who did not want to return, the Helpers thought, would have no problem with the rule of a Helper over Medina. Madelung maintains that it was only Abu Bakr and Umar who believed that the successor of the Prophet (s) should rule over all the Arabs, and the Qurashites are the only ones deserving of the succession. He holds that prior to the demise of the Prophet (s), Abu Bakr had the plan to become the successor of the Prophet (s) and to surpass his rivals, the most important of whom were Ahl al-Bayt (a). The gathering at the Saqifa provided an opportunity for Abu Bakr to reach his goal. In that gathering, he first suggested that Umar and Abu Ubayda, who did not have any chance, should succeed the Prophet (s). It is clear that this suggestion was not serious and was intended only to create arguments among the participants and lead to the conclusion of the session in his favor.  

Madelung believes that the point made by some Sunnis and Western scholars that Ali (a) was not a serious candidate because of his young age and inexperience compared to Abu Bakr and Umar is false and that there are other reasons why Ali was not chosen for the caliphate.   

The Shia believe that the gathering at the Saqifa and its result were violations of the clear instructions of the Prophet (s) regarding the succession. The Shia have appealed to some Quranic verses, historical events, and hadiths mentioned in Sunni sources, the most significant of which is the Event of Ghadir. According to the Shia, in that event, the Prophet (s) introduced the succession of Ali (a) to himself as the perfection of his prophetic mission.  

Muhammad Rid Muzaffar mentions seventeen massively transmitted or well-known hadiths related to the events in which the Prophet (s) clearly or with some ambiguity pointed to the succession of Ali (a) to himself, such as the Event of Warning the Close Kin, Hadith al-Ghadir, the Even of the Covenant of Brotherhood, the battles of Khandaq and Khaybar, the Hadith of the Fixer of the Shoes, and such hadiths as the following: “Ali is of me and I am of Ali, and he is the guardian of all believers after me,” “For every prophet, there is an executor of his will, and the executor of my will and my inheritor is Ali b. Abi Talib,” and “I am the city of knowledge, and Ali is its gate.” The verses 5:55, 33:33, and 3:61 are among the Quranic verses which Shiite apologists use to demonstrate the succession of Ali (a) to the Prophet (s).  

• The siege of and the raid on the house of Fatima (a) to force Ali (a) to pay his allegiance to Abu Bakr—an incident which let to the martyrdom of Fatima (a).  

• Confiscation of Fadak: Some historians maintain that the purpose of the confiscation of Fadak was to weaken Ahl al-Bayth (s) economically. This measure would strengthen the rule of the first caliph and would prevent the family of the Prophet (s) from opposing the caliph’s rule.  

• The tragedy of Karbala: According to some scholars, the course that was taken for choosing the Prophet’s successor in the Event of Saqifa led to a chaos in how a caliph was to be chosen: once in the middle of a conflict between the Helpers and a few individuals from the Quraysh, once with the will of the first caliph, once in a six-member council, and once with Muʿawiya appointing his son Yazi as his successor and requiring everyone to pledge his allegiance to him—to a person who caused the tragedy that took place in Karbala.  

One of the sources of jurisprudence among Sunnis is the principle of consensus, which is also used to justify the election of Abu Bakr in the Event of the Saqifa.  

According to some Shiite scholars, the Sunnis have used the principle of consensus against the Shiite view on imamate and in order to negate the need for an infallible Imam. They initially used it to justify the decision made at the Saqifa and then extended it to other doctrines.  

The Event of Saqifa and its details are recorded in the sources of Islamic history, such as Tarikhal-Tabari and Tarikh al-Yaʿqubi. There are also a number of monographs that specifically deal with this episode and provide an analysis of its details. Some of the most significant of these monographs are the following: