Talk:Abu Bakr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Archive

[edit] Archiving

I just spent a half-hour or so archiving the talk page for Umar. I see that this page needs archiving too. Could someone else do it? I'm swamped. Zora 23:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing all reference to Shi'a views

Blingpling arrived and edited out all references to Shi'a views, leaving only a Sunni view. I reverted. This is not acceptable. WP practice is to recognize all notable POVs and there are enough Shi'a to be notable. It makes the article more complicated, but that can't be helped. Zora 11:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I edited some grammar, language and deleted some portions that tried to show bias towards either of the major islamic sects, sunnism and shiasm. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for publishing religious sectarian disputes.--Blingpling 05:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
(Moved here from top of page by Rich Farmbrough 13:52 26 February 2006 (UTC).)


Just focus on Enccyclopedia rather then Shai and sunni views. i will remove changes beacuse no other article then this have views life this.

Khalidkhoso 14:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secular Readers

I am not Muslim and I am ignorant of Islam.

Please respectfully present all sides of any controverial aspects so that I may learn from all and decide for myself.

When one suppresses another's view, one's own credibility is sacrificed.

[edit] Why?

"He was one of the last people anyone would have expected to convert to the faith preached by his kinsman Muhammad." Can someone clarify why this is so? Stoa 19:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC

Perhaps that needs to be expanded. According to Watt (Muhammad at Mecca, Muhammad at Medina, still the most detailed studies of Muhammad's life), most of the people who converted to Islam were "little people". Slaves, widows, young men of no standing. But Abu Bakr is said to have been a man of substance in the community.

I can see why you don't like the statement -- it needs to be expanded. I'm busy right now, but I'll try to do it later. Remind me. Or slog through Watt and do it yourself, if you'd like :) Zora 11:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] REQUEST TO CLARIFY THE POINTS MENTIONED BELOW

Assalam alay kum!

1)can i now why the article has been edited again although i have mentioned that the article is being edited.

2)And can i know why the sects i.e. ( sunni & shaia )are being mentioned reguarly ?

3) And if the answer is that it is a public page THEN has the author have information of all the 41 names mentioned in the main page and if the answer is NO than I kindly request you for the sake of the almigty stop the folowing.

Please note that i am not going to start the editing all the reaming names till i don`t get the reply

Wating desperately for your answer ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.254.62.74 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 21 April 2006.

I'm afraid I don't understand the question. I'm guessing that English is not your first language, and that things would go better if we could converse in YOUR language, but unless you speak French or Tongan, I'm of no use. Zora 11:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

My questions are very clear Regarding No.1) Although i have deleted the article and added a message that the ,page is under construction, today the same article has been uploaded.

2)There was really no Need of mentioning about the views of sects, because we are not intrested weather the reader is sunni or seia, this particular articles are for all man kind and there is no need to insert particular sects views or opinions. And our Aim is to spread peace and love for the Almight which our (shaikhs) did

3) This linkage / Chain /silsila is not the property of any one nor it belongs to any one . This are the names of that great people who sacrificed their entire life in the way of ALLAHA the almighty with out any intention or expectations. And hence any kind of disrespect cannot be tolerated. The Article which was not presented in respect- -ful manner and was totally misguiding people. And hence it has been deleted once again —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.254.62.74 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 April 2006.

  1. You have to take our word for the fact that your questions really weren't at all clear. They're now becoming a bit clearer.
  2. We don't allow editors simply to delete articles and take them over, forbidding other people to edit them. Nor do we allow editorial comments like "this page is under construction".
  3. Who is the "we" who are not interested? If you mean that you're not interested, that might well be true — but the article isn't written simply for you. Our aim is not to spread peace and religious beliefs — we're an encuclopædia, and our aim is to present the facts clearly.
  4. Your final point is still not very clear, but you seem to be demanding that we edit articles to your liking.
  5. If you continue to blank this article, you will be blocked from editing
  6. Please sign your comments, using four tildes (~~~~). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

After the last comments, I'm guessing that the anon is from a Sufi order that traces its silsila, chain of transmission, to Abu Bakr, and that the anon feels that his order's view of Abu Bakr is the correct one. Zora 19:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is designed to present the facts in an objective manner. Doing so involves stating all of the notable opinions on a subject, ESPECIALLY a religious subject. Opinions of sects are often the only viewpoints available in such cases, though Abu Bakr is fairly well documented in secular documents. Bakr definitely was the first caliph - and the fact that his succession caused the split between Sunni and Shi'a that has been a major issue for a large part of Muslim history is a very notable fact. While you're correct that Wikipedia isn't concerned with the sect of Islam which the reader follows - or whether the reader is a Muslim at all - the sects are part of "all man kind" and are worth mentioning. If you are part of a sect that isn't mentioned, you're welcome to add that your sect (so long as it is notable enough to talk about - that is, not just a small community mosque) has differing beliefs on Abu Bakr's life/succession to the caliphate/etc. I fail to see where we are being disrespectful towards the great figures of Islam. Rarr 00:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] references

Under the section titled "Death" there is a reference to (Age of Faith, Durant, p. 187). This book is not under the references though. If someone has the information, please add it formally to the references.

Also, if someone wants to take it on try to convert the references to the ref format. In the text add <ref>source</ref>, and then at the bottom below the "see also" section add ==Notes== <references />

That will make it much easier to follow references, and most pages are migrating over to that format. Cuñado - Talk 16:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Role at time of Muhammad's Death

Reza Aslan, in his book "No God but God. The origins, evolution and future of Islam" recounts a tradition (based, according to his own notes, on the early Muslim historian Abu Hisham) that, at the time of Muhammad's death, some people including the future Caliph Umar refused to accept that the Prophet was dead, believing that he had been taken to heaven "like Moses" (or Jesus according to Christians, Aslan doesn't add) and would return shortly. Abu Bakr is said to have put a stop to that (this is before he was chosen to be Caliph), saying "If anyone worships Muhammad, Muhammad is dead; if anyone worships God, God is alive, immortal". Does anyone agree that this is quite relevant - in that Islam could have taken a wholly different (and to me, much less appealing) direction if the opposite viewpoint, which has no followers in modern Islam today, had emerged as Islamic doctrine? -Lewis

I agree. And this speech should be added to the main article. In fact, this is considerd one of the most important speeches in Islamic history accordind to some historians.

[edit] Arabic spelling of Abu Bakr

I believe that the inclusion of the Arabic spelling of "Abu Bakr" ( ابو بكر ) would improve this article.


[edit] International consensus regarding the first Caliph of Islam

"International scholarly consensus lists him as the first Muslim Caliph." ... no comments, im not reverting this time... --Striver 00:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Did it anyway. AladinSE, There is not a consensus just because you wish it to be there. He is the caliph of Sunni Islam. Those who say that he is a caliph of ISLAM are either Sunnis or people who are ignorant of Shi'a views. --Striver 21:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
AladinES keeps insisting that since most westerners have been ignorant about Shi'a Islam and have not bothered to distinguish between Sunni and Shi'a Islam, thus writing "Caliph of Islam" instead of "Caliph of Sunni Islam", that this ignorance from non-Muslims should be prove conclusive that he is in fact the "Caliph of Islam". Non-sense. Lets not forget all other things they have been ignorant of. Remeber the term "muhammadan"? Maybe we need to rename Islam to Muhammadanism? --Striver 10:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Now is Truthpedia reverting. Shi'a still do not accept Abu Bakr as their caliph, no matter what Sunnis or some ignorantly formulated western says, so i am reverting the POV. --Striver 23:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not a Shia propaganda website. I have given you multiple academic and journalistic sources illustrating that the international consensus is that Abu Bakr is listed and considered as the first Caliph of Islam. Shia reservations have been CLEARY DENOTED. You may NOT delete material that has been backed up by reliable sources just because of your highly partisan dogmatic crusade. Also, use proper descriptive section titles, do not insert my handle as a title.--AladdinSE 01:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not use any picture showing any Sahaba

It is aganist Islam to use Picture images for Sahaba. so i took it off. Khalidkhoso 14:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see my reply in the section below. Wikipedia is not written by Muslims for Muslims, and is not censored to protect anyone's "sensibilities". Zunaid©® 15:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] why you are using shia and Sunni views?

Hello every one why in this article 2 views are shown, if this way then every article in Wikipedia should be shown with such way ,but i have not seen this so i will make changes after this if any one have any thing to say then say it.?waiting

Khalidkhoso 14:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Certainly when it comes to the Caliphate, which is the very reason for the Sunni/Shia split, it is essential to present the two views. Without such a discourse the article could and should rightly be considered incomplete. If there are other articles where the differing views are warranted then please add them, but don't try to present this article from a single viewpoint. It does a disservice to the reader. Having read over it again, the Shia view seems to be reduced to a couple of sentences and should perhaps be expanded to provide balance. Zunaid©® 15:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits of 12 January 2007

I restored the depiction of Abu Bakr's death per WP:NOT censored. This is not an encyclopedia for Muslims by Muslims, thus the picture should not be removed on the grounds that it offends anyone's sensibilities (cf. cartoons controversy and its talk page for a similar situation). I've also commented out so long (but did not delete) the extremely long list of sources quoted for the "doors of the mosque" refutation. Such a long list is poor encyclopedic style and looks ugly in the article. Only the most prominent one or two sources should be chosen as examples and presented in the article. Zunaid©® 15:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've cross-posted the following responses from User:Khalidkhoso here from my talk page: Zunaid©® 16:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Zunaid , u knw in Islam ,we are not allowed to use picture for any shahba karam(fallowers of Muhammad(PUBH)).i removed it why have u restored it ?if u allow this picture for any one shahbab (even in movies there faces are not shown.)then why r u using picture images for them.please look forward my request. Khalidkhoso 15:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

which article ,please lemme know i want to be part of it. (in many movies by iranian many Imam are shown with faces,if u use picture for any one them then it will be for all,u knw wat i am trying to say).please lemme know link to discuss it. Khalidkhoso 15:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

During Muhram Many Nasori(shia), show man on picture (telling every buddy that is Ali Bin Talib).if u use image for Hazart abu bakur (R.A) then any one can use that iamge for Hazart Ali. Khalidkhoso 15:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title "Siddiq"

'Siddiq' means 'believer', not 'truthful'. 'Truthful' would be 'Sadiq' or 'Sadouq'.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Slackerlawstudent (talk • contribs)

the Encyclopedia of Islam says: "He was later known as al-Siddīq, the truthful, the upright, or the one who counts true ...", so both meanings are supported it seems. ITAQALLAH 21:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My friend, the title comes from the story of the Prophet's Night Journey to Jerusalem and then up through the Heavens. As Muhammad recounted the details of his journey, the Meccan pagans would repeatedly scoff and mock him, considering his story to be pure fancy. Abu Bakr, on the other hand, would only reply to each detail recounted by Muhammad about the Journey by saying "Sadaqt" ('you have spoken the truth'). Because Abu Bakr believed Muhammad's story when everyone else did not, Muhammad conferred upon him the title of "Siddiq", the Believer, or He of Great Faith.

Since you consider both meanings to be valid, I suggest including both in the article, which is what I have done (even though I personally believe the Encyclopedia of Islam is incorrect in this). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slackerlawstudent (talk • contribs)

i think i should complete the quote from EoI: "He was later known as al-Siddīq, the truthful, the upright, or the one who counts true; the last meaning is supported by the tradition that he alone immediately believed Muhammad's story of his night journey (isra)." the last rendering (which i highlighted in bold) basically means the one who believes, the one who confirms as true etc. so there is no conflict between what you are saying and what the EoI is saying. also, when you post on talk pages, please remember to sign using the four tildes ~~~~, which will then put your signature there. ITAQALLAH 15:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] His Status in Islam


i have added the section "His Status in Islam", it needs citation but all this is common knowledge among muslims.--Rami.b 10:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to my brother Rami and all contributers, Abu Bakr's official status in Islam is 'first Caliph' and unofficially, he was the 'first adult male' to convert and second male after the young Ali ibn Abi-Talib. Also, he is mentioned in the Qur'an and he is of the Muhajirun. All other attributes are highly questionable, because of the Sunni/Shi'a schism. However, his status as one of the Top Companions in the same league as Umar and Ali can be accepted. The elevation of Abu Bakr to give him highest rank contradicts his and Umar's belief that Ali had greatest knowledge of Qur'an and that Ali was closer to Muhammad according to the Hadith in which Ali's relationship to Muhammad is compared to Harun's relationship with Musa. Also, according to certain Sunni Hadith Collections, the Prophet is alleged to have declared, 'if there was to be a prophet after be, he would undoubtedly be Umar.' This is proof enough that Abu Bakr's status is not as clean-cut as you make it to be. Thank you


There is no Sunni/Shia schism it would be a schism if shia made up some 50% of the muslim population at best they are a small sect making up some 5% of the total muslim population which is enough to note a difference of opinion not some clearly contested view on the matter. Secondly all i have quoted is from authentic and verified sources which must be taken into account if we are to gain a clear picture of the matter. According to most Sunni scholars [and thus worthy of quoting] this is his position in Islam, your pointing out Ali's position is a conclusion you have come up with based on interpreting these quotes for your self, there rank according to Sunni Scholars is Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman then Ali ie the order of there Khalifat. Having the most knowledge of the Quran does not mean your level of Ihsan [moral perfection] is the highest. Al khidr had more knowledge than moses but yet moses was closer to Allah than him. please sign you comment even with a fake name, to many anon posts by different people makes it hard to know who is who.--Rami.b 02:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


Regarding the hadith about Umar and thus highlighting the need to look at proper sources for an explanation of these ahadith;

It is related by Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, and Ahmad. It is elucidated by the two hadiths in Tirmidhi (which he graded hasan) whereby "Allah has engraved truth on the tongue of `Umar and his heart" and "If there were a prophet after me verily it would be `Umar." Tirmidhi adds to the muhaddath narration that according to Ibn `Uyayna "spoken to" means "made to understand" (mufahhamun), while in his narration Muslim adds: "Ibn Wahb explained "spoken to" as meaning "inspired" (mulhamun)," and this is the majority's opinion according to Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari (7:62:#3689) who adds "spoken to" means "by the angels." Nawawi and Ibn Hajar said respectively in Sharh Sahih Muslim and Fath al-Bari:

The scholars have differed concerning "spoken to." Ibn Wahb said it meant: "inspired" (mulhamun). It was said also: "Those on the right, and when they give an opinion it is as if they were spoken to, and then they give their opinion. It was said also: the angels speak to them... Bukhari said: "Truth comes from their tongue." There is in this a confirmation of the miracles of saints (wa fihi ithbatu karamat al-awliya). Nawawi, Sharh Sahih Muslim Kitab 44 Bab 2 #2398.

The one among [Muslims] who is "spoken to," if his existence is ascertained, what befalls him is not used as basis for a legal judgment, rather he is obliged to evaluate it with the Qur'an, and if it conforms to it or to the Sunna, he acts upon it, otherwise he leaves it.Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari (1989 ed.) 7:62-63 #3689.

Ibn Hajar also stated in his commentary on that hadith. What is meant by the hadith is the perfection of the quality of ilham (inspiration) in `Umar, not its total lack in other Muslims, and Allah knows best.--Rami.b 02:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Brother, Salam Your reply has increased my admiration of you, since it proves you are not ignorant. Also, your reply has no trace of disrespect to me or to any of the subjects in question, which I find helpful. Thank you. To your addition to the article, meaning His Status in Islam which focuses on narrations which, according to your unwritten sources, are related to Abu Bakr, I offered a few objections which you kindly read. Unfortunately, you may have misunderstood me. My opinion was, to be out of the Sunni/Shi'a debate, Abu Bakr, Umar and Ali (and also Zayd) have near eequal footing when it comes to status. The Quranic verses quoted in your piece in the article are accepted by some scholars to be related to Abu Bakr. Many Sunni scholars and most if not all Shi'a scholars reject them. So it is not correct in my view to enter them in the article as simply 'His Status in Islam'. Possibly stating whose view you are implementing when it comes to each Hadith or verse is a good way of neutralising the view. Also, your opinion of the Shi'a being only a minority and (forgive me if I misunderstood) not worth mentioning their view is a complete enforcement of one view upon another just because of number. Wikipedia is a site where all views about a subject, as long as they are authentic, can be and better be written. No view of the majority must be represented for the whole community without observing the view of the minority. I also remind you that the Shi'a are still moslems and believe in Islam. The addition 'His Status in Islam' represent all the Islamic Community, Sunni and Shi'a alike. However, we know this not to be true. Except for the fact that Abu Bakr was a Companion of the Prophet, was officially the first Caliph of the Moslems, was with Muhammad in the Cave, and first adult-male to convert, after the young Ali. Also, the Shi'a are not only 5% but 15%. Numbers are not worth anything because according to the Holy Qur'an most people do not believe. (11:17) Also, a Hadith accepted by both sects: I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate. Whoever wishes to enter it must pass Ali first. I point to the words, 'whoever' and 'first'. Therefore, the ranking you give is your opinion not any scholar's. Ali believed without ever being a pagan or an unbeliever. Abu Bakr however did have such a history.

The Saqifa meeting is an interesting read which if you have studied, will show that one of Abu Bakr's arguments for the leadership of the Quraysh was their close kinship with the Prophet. This argument of Abu Bakr should have lead him to Ali, cousin, son-in-law and first disciple of Muhammad. Ali was not present in that meeting. Abu Bakr was a man of exceptional quality and I do not doubt that. But the hadith that the sun never rose or set on anyone better than Abu Bakr is clearly propaganda. Muhammad himself, the prophets, the messengers, the angels all have failed - but Abu Bakr who was probably once a pagan, yet he saw the truth and became a Moslem. Therefore, I beseech you to judge what you read or hear with care, especially if you are going to post it for others to read. According to the Holy Quran, those who were first in faith come first in matters of faith. This is in itself, an elevation of Abu Bakr and Ali against Umar and Uthman. As for the fact that ihsan and taqwa are more important in the eyes of God than knowledge, I will agree, But taqwa according to the Quran gives a person their status and rank in the eyes of God. (Inn akramakum ind'Allahu atqakum) I will ask you to look at the article for Ali (since you believe his ihsan is lower than Abu Bakr's) and check the view of the Sunni scholars. You will see firstly that the article is neutral where all parties, even the minority of minorities, have their say. Ten compare all the views on Ali with the views of Abu Bakr. Read what non-moslems say of Ali. Listen to what Ali says of himself, the world, Muhammad, etc. Then compare with Abu Bakr. I hope you will not be blinded, and will be honest and respectful as I have been. I have not downgraded Abu Bakr. Nor have I unnecessarily and untruthfully elevated Ali. All I did was like I am recommending to everyone. Read both articles and compare. In your heart you will know and God knows best. Thank you (Call me Catz)

Regarding who these verses refer to there is some disagreement among sunni scholars but as far as i know his overall status has reached a level of consensus among sunni scholars of this ummah. Certainly shia would disagree they do not accept the first three Khalifah of islam so that is a moot point and not relevant becouse of the fact shia did not exist in the time of Abu Bakr, Umar or even Uthman so anything they have to say on the matter can only be third or fourth hand knowledge based on there own interpretation of these events while the sunni view is not so clearly weak.
Anything the shia have to contribute is nothing but refutation rebuttal and polemics, this page is dedicated to his biography not politics, frankly there group did not exist at the time of the events to dispute anything, thus the conclusion that his biography should be writen from sunni sources which can be verified and traced back to there origions. The shia have nothing but interpretation and no actual primary sources to prove there case as far as i am aware.
Regarding the title "His status in Islam" shia are a sect in Islam while Sunni's are not, i am certain you know what the word shia means. They may disagree with this but by the definition of what a sect is this is there reality. I did not mean to imply the shia are not muslim certainly i believe they are but the title was also a general one which is applicable considering the reality of the two groups. Last official figure on world shia population i saw put there numbers at 8-10%. Shia are primarily a political group the reason why they differ so much from sunni's is becouse they reject an overwhelming number of sahhaba [prophets companions] for political rather than religious reasons thus there entire corpus of ahadith is extremely small when compared to the sunni colection which consequently resulted in a difference in legal matters and more of a reliance on ijtihad [personnal legal reasoning], my point is they have fewer reliable sources than sunni's.
You said:
"Holy Qur'an most people do not believe. (11:17)" literally you have accused most muslims of being Kufar this clearly is an unorthodox and personnel interpretation of the verse.
"Also, a Hadith accepted by both sects: I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate. Whoever wishes to enter it must pass Ali first. I point to the words, 'whoever' and 'first'." This goes back to my argument of knowledge verses Ihasn which you have agreed to.

"Therefore, the ranking you give is your opinion not any scholar's." You have already admitted that sunni scholars place Abu Bakr at the head of this Ummah so how can it only be my personnel view?

"Ali believed without ever being a pagan or an unbeliever. Abu Bakr however did have such a history." Your emphasis and personnel interpretation which is limited by not being versed in the Islamic sciences, this is not the place for polemics.
"But the hadith that the sun never rose or set on anyone better than Abu Bakr is clearly propaganda." By stating it is a hadith you have agreed to the words being our prophets are you now accusing our prophet of lying? Again your personnel interpretation of the matter and adding to clear primary evidence what is not explicitly stated in them.

"but Abu Bakr who was probably once a pagan, yet he saw the truth" He was never a pagan prior to islam and one of the few people who did not believe in Idols of his own volition not that it means anything really your are the person making an issue of this and stating it proves something when in reality this is nothing but commentary of events.

"This is in itself, an elevation of Abu Bakr and Ali against Umar and Uthman." no it is not since Umar converted latter and is still considered above many who came beffore him. that verse is referring to the early muslim on a general not explicit basis.
"Ali (since you believe his ihsan is lower than Abu Bakr's) and check the view of the Sunni scholars. You will see firstly that the article is neutral where all parties, even the minority of minorities, have their say." For shia Ali is the main figure and the reason for there existence, anything they have to say about Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman is nothing more than polemics or commentary.
"I have not downgraded Abu Bakr. Nor have I unnecessarily and untruthfully elevated Ali. All I did was like I am recommending to everyone. Read both articles and compare. In your heart you will know and God knows best. Thank you (Call me Catz)." even if all the evidance in the world was presented to you no person except a scholar is qualified to understand and interprate a matter, you have presented nothing but your own personnel unqualified view.
Regarding Ihsan [moral perfection] when compared to knowledge "no one will be saved on the Day of Resurrection except him who brings to Allaah a clean heart [al-Shu.ara. 26:89] This verse encompasses all our actions in this life, no one is saying or implying Ali did not have an extremely high degree of ihsan but simply that Abu bakr was higher.
Br it is not to dificult to sign up with a fake email and create a nickname.--Rami.b 06:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the article itself it only states "Abu Bakr’s high rank is indicated, among other signs," so i dont see an issue realy.--Rami.b 07:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Salam Brother, As you have done, I have also analysed your words and I wish to ask you some questions on those matters which I would be grateful if you replied. You said that my views were based on my own personal 'unorthodox' interpretation. I reminded you that Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman's status as the Companion with most merit one after each other is not a view among all Sunni Scholars. I claim this from your own words: Regarding who these verses refer to there is some disagreement among sunni scholars but as far as i know his overall status has reached a level of consensus among sunni scholars of this ummah. Indeed, the ranking that you propose is totally against the Quran. It is again your personal view that you interpret the Quranic verse وَالسَّابِقُونَ السَّابِقُونَ {10} as general. In your opinion that verse is referring to the early muslim on a general not explicit basis. Actually, according to the Science of Quran, the verse is probably 'mutashabih' and 'specific'. In the early days of Islam, the number of Muslims was not large enough to be generalised. Each new convert was ranked in merits of the faith after the foremost. Ali was the first male and then possibly Zayd or Abu Bakr. Your 'personal' interpretation does not hold much weight when compared with Yusuf Ali's translation of that verse: Template:And those Foremost (in Faith) will be Foremost (in the Hereafter). Also, I see you have stressed your uninterest in the Shia view by first degrading them because of their number and second because of their title. First I reminded you that number is not significant. A view may still be valid even if carried by a few. An example is the Christian-Moslem debate over Jesus. Numbers specify that the Christian view should be the only view. Yet we see in wikipedia, Islam's view on the subject, despite smaller than Christianity's, has been included. Second is that the title is as you mentioned Shi'a. This word has multiple meanings and so therefore your assumption that it solely means sect is unscholarly. Shi'a has been used in the Qur'an, in the Hadith and in the words of Ahl-ul-Bayt. In the Quran it has been translated as way, party, follower and also sect. A well known Hadith supported by certain High-ranking Sunni Scholars has been recorded. A narration reports:

“ Muhammad said to Ali: "Glad tiding O Ali! Verily you and your companions and your partisians (Shi'a) will be in Paradise." Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, a 16th century Sunni Islamic scholar provides a commentary for this tradition, saying:

“ The Shia of Ali are the Ahl al-Sunnah since they are those who love Ahl al-Bayt as Allah and His Prophet ordered. But others (i.e., other than Sunnis) are the enemies of Ahl al-Bayt in reality for the love outside the boundary of law is the great enmity, and that was the reason for their fate. Also, the enemies of Ahl al-Bayt were al-Khawarij and their alike from Syria, not Muawiyah and other companions because they were Muteawweloon, and for them is a good reward, and for Ali and his Shia is a good reward! [4] A narration attributed to Ibn Abbas reports:

“ When the verse "Those who believe and do righteous deeds are the best of the creation [5]" was revealed, the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) said to Ali: "They are you and your partisians (Shi'a)." He continued: "O Ali! (On the day of Judgment) you and your partisians (Shi'a) will come toward Allah well-pleased and well-pleasing, and your enemies will come angry with their head forced up. Ali said: "Who are my enemies?" The Prophet (PBUH&HF) replied: "He who disassociates himself from you and curses you . And glad tiding to those who reach first under the shadow of al-'Arsh on the day of resurrection." Ali asked: "Who are they, O the Messenger of Allah?" He replied: "Your partisians (Shia), O Ali, and those who love you." [6] ”

As for the Ahl-ul-Bayt, From Imam Baqir's, the Fifth Ahlul Bayt Imam and fourth grandson of Muhammad, conversation with Jabir al-Ju'afi

“ O Jabir! How can someone who claims to follow us [Ahlul Bayt] be content with only loving us? I Swear that our partisians (Shia) is one who carries out his duty to Allah and fears him. Our partisians (Shia) are known by their humility, modesty, exceeding remembrance of Allah, fasting, Prayer, being sympathetic and helpful towards the poor, their reading of the Quran, saying nothing about a person except concerning his good actions, and they are the most trustworthy among those close to them... [12]

And from Ja'far ibn Muhammad, the sixth Imam,

“ Our Shi'a are compassionate among each other. When they are alone or when they hold a private meeting, they remember Allah. Verily, the remembrance of us is of the remembrance of Allah. When we are remembered Allah has been remembered and when our enemy is remembered, Satan has been remembered.

So it is clearly not as you have stated: shia did not exist in the time of Abu Bakr, Umar or even Uthman so anything they have to say on the matter can only be third or fourth hand knowledge based on there own interpretation of these events while the sunni view is not so clearly weak.

Now you see that their view is neither weak nor second-hand. In fact, The etymology and origin of the phrase Shi'at Ali is according to both Shi'a and Sunni sources a phrase that was used by the Islamic prophet Muhammad himself, initially used as a title for a group of followers of Ali in praise.

Shah Abdul Aziz, a 19th century Sunni Deobandi Islamic scholar writes:

“ The title Shia was first given to those Muhajireen and Ansar who gave Bayah to Ali (may Allah enlighten his face), they were his steadfast faithful followers during his (Ali’s) khilafat, they remained close to him, and they always fought his enemies, and kept on following Ali’s commands and prohibitions the true Shia are these who came in 37 Hijri [1] ”

The First Four Companions of Ali are the well-known Companions of Muhammad: Miqdad Abu Dharr Salman Al-Muhamade Ammar ibn Yasir

So your view is completely personal and not well-researched.

Anything the shia have to contribute is nothing but refutation rebuttal and polemics, this page is dedicated to his biography not politics, frankly there group did not exist at the time of the events to dispute anything, thus the conclusion that his biography should be writen from sunni sources which can be verified and traced back to there origions. The shia have nothing but interpretation and no actual primary sources to prove there case as far as i am aware.

The above paragraph is your statement repeated. It did not support your arguement and it did not support your intelligence and tolerance. I was surprised at this biased view that the Shia have nothing to contribute but refutation rebuttal and polemics. However, there was a single statement I fouond true and honest and fair. this page is dedicated to his biography not politics Biography is according to the dictionary of Merriam-Webster, accesible from Internet:

1 : a usually written history of a person's life 2 : biographical writings as a whole 3 : an account of the life of something (as an animal, a coin, or a building)

Therefore, your addition to the article, namely His Status in Islam is unnecessary. It is good for knowledge of the Sunni point of view (not all scholars) but since the man was not historically introduced (religiously rather), we should take into account all views of the man to make a conclusion on who he was. If there a contradicting views, it should be written down. Of course, to be fair, the Sunni point of view should be stronger, but the Shia view should not be neglected. What we should definitely avoid, is representing the whole (especially on such a subtle subject) and writing the view (based on personal and common belief) in an encyclopedia which people use and accept. I say based on personal and common belief because you said so: I have added the section "His Status in Islam", it needs citation but all this is common knowledge among muslims. According to your words, this should be a biography, not common views which does not reflect the whole faithfully.

Now your view on the Sunni. You claimed that Shia were not in existence while Sunnis were. In fact this is a total misconception. If anything, it is the reverse, the total opposite which is true. At the time of the Holy Prophet, all were known as Muslims. However, as I have mentioned, the Prophet titled a certain group (The Four Companions) Shiat-Ali, because of their devotion to Ali. The title Sunni is not given to anyone. Ali was muslim. Salman was muslim. Ammar as well. Abu-dharr too. Miqdad was muslim as well. Also Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and many others. The true title of Sunnis today (Note: I mean who we call Sunnis nowadays) is actually Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jamaa'h (Arabic: أهل السنة والجماعة) Wikipedia identifies them thus:

They represent the branch of Islam that accepted the caliphate of Abu Bakr due to him being chosen by majority, thus elections, or Shurah, in the caliphate being the first distinguishing factor in Sunni Islam. Most Sunni lawyers define themselves as those Muslims who are rooted in one of the four orthodox schools of Sunni law (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafii or Hanbali).

So, the first and foremost identification, is their acceptance of Abu Bakr as Caliph. This was afetr the Prophet's death and therefore after the creation of the title Shia. Yet, nobody in the days of the Four Caliphs was known as Sunni. The name was purely out of existance. Indeed, check Sunni Islam on wikipedia and the History Section is empty. At the time of my writing, the section is no there. It does not state where the movement began. But in another description, the Sunnis are identified thus: The term Ahl as-Sunnah wa'l-Jama`ah applies to all the Muslims who follow any one of the four prominent and sahih Fuqaha (Muslim jurists): 1) Imam Malik ibn Anas, 2) Imam Abu Hanifah 3) Imam Shafi`i 4) Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, for these four Imams were the topmost scholars of that time described in the hadith in Sahih Muslim: "The best century is my century, then the one following it, then the one following that."

A problem arises already. Who are these four imams are central to the way Sunnis interpret the Quran and the Prophet's Sunnah? Research shows that 4)Ibn Hanbal and 3)Shafi'i were students of the first two. More research shows us that the first two were students of Ja'far ibn Muhammad al-Sadiq, the sixth Imam of the Shia and a grandson of the Prophet. Also, according to the hadith in Sahih Muslim, the generation closer to Muhammad is of better quality. (Of course, this possibly does not mean that individuals in later generations are worse, but the hadith can be said as representing the generation as a whole with no specification in individual terms) According to that hadith, Imam Ja'far, being an exceptional teacher acknowledged by all schools of thought in the two branches (Sunni/Shia) should be better in quality than his students. Yet, he is not a source of madhhah, yet his students are. Also, they are further away from Muhammad and Abu Bakr than Ali and his Four Companions. So, in fact, the Sunnis are followers of a maddhab derived from a later generation, whereas the Shia have had their maddhab established by the Prophet himself.

And also - you reminded me of my quoting of the Quran. I had quoted part of a verse: most people do not believe. (11:17) I brought this as Quranic proof that numbers mean nothing. Most will not believe in God, yet obviously, according to the Quran, most are wrong. Of course all true muslims believe in God. Therefore, God knows best; he who is true is good in the sight of God. We need not argue on that. However, this simple point that I made, you turned into an interpretation of an interpretation which was so far from the truth I felt I had to mention. I had said in the context of 'the insignificance of numbers': Also, the Shi'a are not only 5% but 15%. Numbers are not worth anything because according to the Holy Qur'an most people do not believe. (11:17)

Then you judged. And you judged wrongly. You accused me of accusing others. What a double-accusation indeed!

literally you have accused most muslims of being Kufar this clearly is an unorthodox and personnel interpretation of the verse.

The above is your statement. Where did I say that? You claim that my 'interpretation' is clearly 'personal' and 'unorthodox' and that this 'interpretation' is 'takfir' which as you know most certainly, relates 'kufr' to others. Ironically, I did not give my interpretation - so therefore you can not judge it by labelling it 'personal' and 'unorthodox'. However, I did hint at a possible interpretaion I had made. I said it was about the insignificance of numbers. You said it is 'literally' calling most muslims Kafar. How did you read into that so deep? Your imagination? All I had written was:

Also, the Shi'a are not only 5% but 15%. Numbers are not worth anything because according to the Holy Qur'an most people do not believe. (11:17)

In fact, you made an interpretation of my paragraph. Well, I must say it is clearly unorthodox and personal.

I brought to your honourable attention, the honourable hadith:

I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate. Whoever wishes to enter it must pass Ali first.

And I urged you to note the words whoever and first. By your answer I know that you fleetingly passed by it. The reason that I singled out those words will become clear to you. By 'whoever', the Holy Prophet implies everyone and anyone: also Abu Bakr. By 'first', he is establishing Ali as the way to his knowledge and that Ali must be met first, then the Prophet. So, with the death of the Holy Prophet, the wisdom and knowledge of prophethood should be sought through Ali. This is the knowledge of the Quran, of the prophethood, of certain events, of certain key sciences. Surely, with Ali's knowledge and justice and NOT with his Ihsan, one can be an effective and noble leader. That is to say, if Abu Bakr had greater Ihsan.

However, there is no proof that both sides can agree, that Abu Bakr had greater leadership qualities than the rest of the Muslims.

Indeed there are authentic proofs from Sunni scholars, that prove that Abu Bakr and Umar required the knowledge, aid and hindsight of Ali.

From Umar: "If Ali had not been there, Umar would have been perished O Abu'l-Hasan,! I hope I am not alive when you are not among us"

And Abu Bakr and Umar both had angered the Prophet greatly. This should be proof that they were not fit to succeed him.

For example Abu Bark angered Fatima over inheritance. He doubted her truthfulness. The same woman whom the Prophet told:

A narration attributed to Anas ibn Malik reports:

“ The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Sufficient for you among the women of the world are Maryam the daughter of ‘Imraan. Khadijah bint Khuwaylid, Fatimah bint Muhammad and Aasiyah the wife of Pharaoh." ” Sunnis tend to view this as Sahih and have included it in Sunan al-Tirmidhi[2]

And another hadith is related to this:


A narration attributed to Miswar bin Makhramali reports:

“ Allah's apostle said: The sons of Hisham b. Mughira have asked my permission to marry their daughter with 'Ali b. Abi Talib (that refers to the daughter of Abu Jahl for whom 'All had sent a proposal for marriage). But I would not allow them, I would not allow them, I would not allow them (and the only alternative possible is) that 'Ali should divorce my daughter (and then marry their daughter), for my daughter is part of me. He who disturbs her in fact disturbs me and he who offends her offends me. [1]

Of course Ali did not divorce her, but remained with her until she passed away.

Shia do not agree with the wording of the text but agree with the essence that he who offends Fatima offends the Prophet. Abu Bakr did so.

As for Umar, he is commonly known to be the some people mentioned in the narration.

Ibn Abbas:

"The Messenger of God said bring me a tablet (lawh) and an inkpot (dawat), so that I can write for you a document, after which you will not go astray ... Some people said that The Messenger of God was talking deliriously". [2]

As for my mistake, I apologise. I did not intend to make you think I had agreed that the following was a hadith of my opinion:

the sun never rose or set on anyone better than Abu Bakr

I do not think it is a hadith. To shia I know it is not. But again, over a little mistake that I made, you have decided to falsely accuse me of accusing the Holy Prophet. I have not and I will not accuse him of such or of any other matter. Yet you wish to accuse me of accusation. I asked for your respect in the last post which I believe you did not observe. You also said:

Your emphasis and personnel interpretation which is limited by not being versed in the Islamic sciences...

I thank you for you pre-judgement. Anyhow, instead of arguing the case for your addition to the article, namely His Status in Islam, you have accused me and you have deemed worthless the words of millions of Shias. You also added the statement:

even if all the evidance in the world was presented to you no person except a scholar is qualified to understand and interpret a matter, you have presented nothing but your own personnel unqualified view.

You are very keen on defining my view. I feel flattered.

The purpose of this post was to answer each of your claims and stand firm on the opinion that His Status in Islam is neither accurate nor scholarly as it should be on a neutral encyclopedia.

I also add that your implication that Abu Bakr had higher Ihsan than Ali or any other of the Prophet's Companions can not be proven. According to the Sunni sources, Abu Bakr is the best of the Prophet's followers, Umar would have been the Prophet after Muhammad if the latter would not have been the last prophet, Ali is the first in knowledge after Muhammad, and also according to the following Hadith,

Hadith-i da'wat-i 'ashirah is a famous Hadith in Islam. According to the hadith, when Muhammad was still living in Mecca with just few followers, he received a Quranic verse:

"come out openly and warn the people of your own clan." (Quran 26:214) He then invited his still-unbelieving relatives of Bani Hashim for luncheon. Forty of them came and ate. After the meal he asked:

"I know of no one who has brought to his people better things than I have brought to you. God has commanded me to invite you to draw toward Him. Who is there who will assist me in this matter and be my brother and inheritor (wasi) and vicegerent (khalifah) among you?" According to the hadith, all remained silent but Ali, still a teenager and the only Muslim among the Prophet's clan, who exclaimed:

"I shall be your deputy and aide." Muhammad repeated the question two more times, with no one but Ali responding each time. Muhammad then said:

"Ali is henceforth my brother, inheritor, and vicegerent (Arabic: Khalif). You must obey him." Then Abu Lahab, the uncle of the Prophet Muhammad jokingly said to the then leader of the Banu Hashim, Abu Talib (d.ca.619) another uncle who remained unconverted until his death:

Your nephew told you to obey your son!


So, which to follow, and which to write in Wikipedia? Officially and historically speaking, Abu Bakr IS the First Caliph of the Muslims. Yet His Status in Islam is clearly justifying the view and generalising it to represent the opinion of all muslims around the world. Therefore, change either the title or the content.

I recommended you to read about the Saqifa from all angles and judge with a pure heart. In fact you have not realised that I am only simply saying that the title of your addition is misleading and the contents are questionable, sourceless, and unreasonable - also inaccurate concerning a large proportion of the muslim community.

Thank you - 80.229.185.93 07:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Catz007

If there is no reply by 6 May, I will delete the addition based on the following reasons:

-Its claim to be representing Abu Bakr's status from Islamic POV is rejected since 15% of Muslims do not agree -It contains no citation, and all sources are vague and ambiguous -It contains texts assuming them to be hadith, yet they are incompatible with Islamic belief (the sun and Abu Bakr) -It is promotion of the man and not a biographical account -The addition is in some places irrelevant -It has no structure and the text appears merely to be a copy/paste addition -It contains texts which it claims to be hadith, and these contradict other major Sunni-accepted ahadith -It contains a text which it claims to be hadith, where it is narrated from Aisha. It is clearly biased and against the Shia cause. This would not have been a problem if the Shia view had been added. -It has no support from Sunni sources and no arguments from the Shia side.

Template:It is therefore considered not suitable and unscholarly and will be deleted if no decent argument is bropught against the above claims.

80.229.185.93 17:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Catz007

[edit] The New article

going to soon replace this article with the new article which will be inshallah more comprehensive. with following headings.


1 Early life
2 During Prophet Mohammad's ear
2.1 Conversion to Islam
2.2 After conversion to Islam
2.3 Persecution of the Quraish
2.4 Last years in Makkah
2.5 Migration to Madinah
2.6 Life in Madinah
2.7 Death of Prophet Mohammad
3 Election of Abu Bakr as a Caliph
4 Reign as a Caliph
4.1 Ridda Wars
4.1.1 Shia view
5 The Qur'an
5.1 Military expansion
5.2 Invasion of Sasannid Persian Empire
5.3 Invasion of Eastern Roman Empire
6 Death
6.1 Family
7 Legacy
7.1 Sunni view
7.2 Shia view
7.3 western historians view


Mohammad Adil 06:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quality of writing

This page seriously needs some proof reading.

--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. 202.216.122.52 11:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is very disappointing

Given the importance of this man, to the history of Islam and therefore to the history of thought, it is very disappointing to see the poor quality of contributions to this debate. As an interested reader of no religious affiliation, I would like to see articles conforming to minimum standards of English (the language of this encyclopedia) and of academic accountability. Really folks, I mean no disrespect, I want to learn. Please turn your attention outwards from sectarian squabbling and give the respectful sceptic a chance to understand. TheSpidermonkey 22:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

How does this version compare? → AA (talk) — 23:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I think in writing a new article of Abu Bakr i have done enough research and an encylcopedia article cant be writen in hero worship style ! so staying cool in limits of wikipedia this article provides necessary information, (as far as i think), if some one have any request to extend any perticular section of the article, then plz tell, i will try to do inshallah.

Mohammad Adil 09:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't the information (although some academic accountability, i.e. academic citations, have been called for), rather, it is the grammar used in the article. It is of very poor quality and, being that this is the ENGLISH wikipedia site, should be improved. 202.216.122.52 11:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 4 men and 4 women?

In the "After conversion" section their appears to be a mistake. It says he liberated 4 male slaves and 4 female slaves. Then it says the men are...and it lists 8 people. Can somebody fix this? BCapp 10:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frequent spelling reverts

I don't speak Arabic and I have no strong opinions about the transliterations of Arabic names, but several people have made changes across the article, changing "Mecca" to "Makkah," for example. I think we should make sure that spellings match with Wikipedia's other articles on these topics, and at the very least that when we make spelling changes, we don't break links. Thanks! Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 14:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said before I am not bothered if it's Mecca or Makkah. There was a consensus at Talk:Mecca/Archive02#Spelling in title and within article and Talk:Mecca/Archive02#Poll: Spelling of Mecca / Makkah and so the article is at Mecca. There are also a couple of comments at Talk:Mecca#Makkah or Mecca. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

The following sentences in the article contradict each other: It is said that he didn't worship idols since his youth and Abu Bakr was an idolater before conversion to Islam. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)