-
Ridda Wars (Abu Bakr Fight Against Zakat Rejecters)
What grounds would abu bakr رضي الله عنه have to kill anyone who rejects zakah to him? If the essence of Islamic leadership is amruhum shura baynahum and one of the factions do not accept the leader then the leader must be illegitimate.
So if they didn’t accept him as a leader then 9:5 of فإن تابوا وأقاموا الصلاة وآتوا الزكاة wouldn’t apply.
So on what grounds was this blood shed and what are the references?
It is even said that Umar disagreed with him and that he freed the slaves he had taken during these wars
-
6 Replies
-
Ridda Wars (Abu Bakr Fight Against Zakat Rejecters)
updated 2 years, 10 months ago
2 Members
·
6
Replies
-
The consultation takes different forms in different societies and scenarios. In the tribal society of the Arabs, it was the Quraysh who were supposed to be the leaders. They had been enjoying this office from the days pre-Islamic. Now the it was mandate of the tribes of Quryash to decide who would be their leader. The mandate to choose a leader was with Quraysh already. So they chose Abu Bakr and he was the legitimate leader of course. Then he decided according the the verse of Quran to fight those who denied to pay Zakat. The rebels were not only denying Zakat, but they were violating the established norm of not obeying the Qurayshid leader, whom the majority of the Arabs had accepted him their leader as per the established norm of Quraysh being the leaders.
-
Well that’s what I’m saying- it clearly wasn’t amruhum shura baynahum then it was just following the norms of the Arabs from before. And the norms surely also included that a close relative be handed down the position which I’m sure you know is what the shias argue for also.
Being qurayshid is not the issue- I am trying to highlight- rather the idea that some argue that ali should’ve been the caliph.
Also how can you apply the verse of itmamul hujjah from 9:5 and apply it to the subjects of your state? I mean for the mushriks it was either death or islam. But your citizens are already Muslims and say that they are so sure for zakah if you take it as a tax you can sanction and maybe also for prayer though you would be saying then that abu bakr also conducted itmamul hujjah which is weird.
Furthermore even Umar freed the slaves of abu bakr and disagreed with his killing of slaves. It seems it also led to many injustices as there are reports of khalid bin waleed killing nuwayrah bin Malik and being reprimanded but there are no reports of any Diyarbakir or qisas rather even his wife is taken by khalid.
-
Diyat or qisas *
-
-
It was quraysh who were supposed to be the leaders even before Islam. Among different tribes of quraysh it was the tribe of Banu umayyah whi had been the political leaders and Banu Hashim were religious leaders. Ali was a yougman who had no political stature in the time of the prophet. He was never offered any post nor even led a war despite being a good fighter.
So he had no prospects to be considered for caliphate.
Abu bakr waged the war against the deniers of zakat in the light of the verse 9:5 which says that unless they repent establish prayer and pay zakat only then they could save their necks. Since they demoed the third essential, they were fought rightfully.
What Khalid bin waleed did was a transgression. We know it did happen in situations like this. The one who took step at that time has his justifications which can be accepted and rejected. In this case it was found not right.
-
My lack of knowledge in relation to Ali’s pre Islamic status means I cannot respond to your first points.
However when it comes to 9:5 how can we argue that this is a correct interpretation? This was meant for the prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and those who denied him. How can it be applied after him? Today can we kill those who don’t pray and give zakat in a Muslim state? We can’t check nowadays if people pray all their 5 prayers how could they have done so back then? Where in the quran does it say zakat has to be given to the state? The amr is to the individual and the individual is told how to split his wealth.
And this is not the only issue- if these people denied abu bakr as the khalifa then it means that your claims that ‘the leaders were always from bani hashim’ are wrong. If they were true then why would people have denied their zakat and said they would just delegate it themselves?
As for malik ibn nuwayrah great we agree it was a wrong action. Two issues stem from this- how can we in good faith say khalid رضي الله عنه ? And where was the qisas. Qisas is fard and if abu bakr knew it was wrong then where is the justice?
-
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
