The Saqifa

Introduction

In the year eleventh of Hijra the vicissitude played its first performance; turned a page among the pages of the glorious history of Islam that were worded by the Divine light -- all of them faith, truth, 'JIHAD', sacrifice, pride, power, honor, glory, justice, mercy, brotherhood and humanity.

Such a page glaring with good and superiority was turned aside by the vicissitude as soon as that hallowed light was extinguished from the earth. And the page with a blurred script received the Muslims from its BOOK.

Says God:

"If he died or were slain, will you then turn back on your heels?" (Chap. 3-Verse 139)

Indeed, who believes Quran a Divine Revelation, and he who brought it does not speak incited by lust, would carry no doubt that in that great historical event or that celestial thunderbolt in the death of the Savior of humanity there was a boundary separating the two periods-each completely differing from the other; that one, drawing the person and the precious near to God; and this one, turning against Him backward.

Then, we now face a thing already happened;

The Prophet has died!

Perhaps the Muslims turned back on their heels. All of them? Now I know not. -- But..., curse on this but, anyway --the event was evident of this upset.

I beg your attention, my reader! Please think openly and find out for me an even of import took place immediately after the Prophet's death and overtook all the Muslims its drizzle. Do you find other than the event of SAQIFA? Do you know that the Shia purport this very event in their interpretation of the holy Quranic verse?

If we delve into SAQIFA, we are searching into the greatest happening that befell in Islam, the first one after the Prophet's passing away; and this verse has a bearing thereon.

Therefore, I told in the introduction that a group came out of that while others sank down. The centipede of the event gave raise to beliefs and propensities in phases several and various tiresome for a seeker of Truth. Before I enter into the dispute of SAQIFA I do not see wrong if I claim that the interpretation of this Quranic verse covers the events of "RADDA"1 during the caliphate of Abu Baker.

But, I can not coast certainty for this assumption because the verse clearly indicates the change that happens after the Prophet's death immediately besides the plural form in which it addresses to all Muslims. AHL AL-RADDA (the people of rejection) was very few.

They did not constitute even a minority. In whatever a way we suppose; yet, they were still in most maximum the least minimum.

Above all, we find them -- the cardinal ones whom we call the people of 1- "RADDA" means reject on. In history the events are recorded under the name RADDA. Those who rejected Abu Baker's caliphate are Known by The people of Rejection" (AHL ALRADDA) and all of them were massacred by Khalid Bin Waleed. (TRANSLATOR)

rejection' -- those who had claimed prophet hood and those who were their followers. Muailama and his followers, Taliha and his associates; all of them were in the days of the Prophet. Their affair flourished after the Prophet's death. The only exemption goes to Sajah al-Tamima.

She did not enjoy any importance and later she united with Musailama. As for Al-Aswad al-Anasi, he was killed in the Prophet's days. His sympathizers adopted his way later on. As for Alqama Bin Alaye, he became a pagan in the very days of the Prophet. Om Rafal Bint Malik and her associates too had a similar fate.

This being the case, it does not sound wise to say: "These were the people who reverted back after the Prophet's death." It is far from justice to conclude in that way. No one will agree who is blessed with a salubrious thought and a free opinion.

As for Malik Bin Nowaira; he compromised Sajah as Ka'ab al-Qarzi had done with the Prophet -- to maintain peace and renounce war. But the compromise had no bearing on 'RADDA'. It was in the interests of Muslims that there should be no assault by Sajah on those lands remote from the Muslims' centre. This was a desired thing much aspired for.

If at all that compromise was a fault; it was repented by him and his people as did Wakee and Sama'a who too had compromised with Sajah. And the Muslims who were fighting accepted their repentance.

Abu Baker atoned for the murder of Malik by paying blood money when Khalid murdered him and slept with the wife of the murdered in the same night of the murder. Then, the reversion, the gist of the verse, how could be interpreted?

Malik, if at all could be counted among 'The people of rejection' (AHL AL- RADDA), can not be considered at fault. But, it is upon them to defend the deed and extenuate the act of his murderer because the murderer was that day the hero of Muslims and their leader.

Let Malik be a pagan deserved the murder; it is not our concern to blame Malik what he deserved and what he was deprived of as long as the prestige of Khalid is protected and he guarded from censure! Omar Bin Khattab wanted to punish Khalid for murdering Malik and debauchery with the wife of the murdered. But Abu Baker refrained from doing so.

The excuse he put forward was this: "Khalid endeavored but erred." The error of the endeavorers should be respected? This is from the early pages of a long record of Abu Baker. He openly violated the law of Islam.

Mutam'mam, brother of Malik, upbraided Abu Baker in these lines:

"You called him to God; Then killed him for what? Had he called you by any odd? Have never used a cheating rod." Abu Baker only lied in reply: "I did not call him nor did I kill him."

The history extenuates Malik. But some of the writers of this time insist upon his pagan hood because of their insistence to defend Khalid.

Well, who are the 'People of Rejection' other than those?

Those who refused the 'ZAKAT!'

Who are they? Their names? Names of their tribes? I wish one had pointed them to me. I delved in history. The history gathers, groups, gleans, and sifts; but no name comes out other than the already mentioned ones.

There is a well-known saying of Abu Baker: "If I am restricted by tying my knees; yet, I shall fight them for it."2 He uttered these words to a delegation of Taliha (who had claimed the prophet hood) to announce their compromise which was that they eschew the ZAKAT but perform the prayers.

Accordingly it could be supposed that there might have had been other several unknown groups too who did not undergo the yoke of ZAKAT while they did perform the prayers.

It is just disobedience; and not pagan hood or disowning God. Had it been so they would have not prayed either? When they prayed; they have worshipped God. So how can they be termed as pagans? There is no proof to indicate their disowning the ZAKAT as obligation.

As such they can not be said to have rejected the essentialities of religion and, therefore, can not be classified as pagans. The thing that is known about them (if ever they existed other than those who had claimed prophet hood) was their unwillingness to pay the ZAKAT.

But all this can not obtenebrate the claim that they rejected to yield to the authority of Abu Baker which had sprung without consultation of the Muslims, a popular base, as said by Omar Bin Khattab himself.3 His authority and his leadership were not acknowledged. So, why to pay the ZAKAT and to whom? Perhaps they demanded the caliphate should go to him whom the Prophet had desired. But, the history ignored their demand.

These possibilities neither lose their credibility nor could they be obliterated by history. The Shias have stored in them their claim. What is the proof for us to believe them? As the history has neglected their names and their tribes let us better ignore the very existence of them.

However, if a writer could establish the reversion at the first happening in Islam, the position of the subsequent happenings does not concern him. The first incident is sufficient enough to him to cater the analysis.

First of all I see myself as desperate as my reader to see what the Prophet did to solve die difference when he would be no more; whether a will Suggesting his successor, or a ground to be resorted to, or the matter left to itself and along with they too. This dispute has a strong hold on the subject of our discussion depending on the analysis of many incidents. So, in these four premises shall run our pen?

One: The Prophet's stand towards the caliphate Two: The Prophet's intention to avoid the difference Three: Yielding to SAQIFA 2- The pronoun 'it' refers to ZAKAT. (TRANSLATOR) 3- Yielding to the authority of Abu Baker was a tawdry. God shielded its evil/ mischief. (TRANSLATOR)