Abstinence from Pledgin Allegiance to Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra)
Hazrat Sa‘d bin Ubadah’s (ra) name is especially mentioned as one of those whom the Ansar wanted to elect as their Khalifa after the demise of the Holy Prophet (sa). Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad Sahib (ra) has also written in Sirat Khatamun-Nabiyyin that the Ansar were strongly in favour of electing him as the Khalifa as he was also the leader of his tribe. When Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra) was elected as the Khalifa, Hazrat Sa‘d (ra) bin Ubadah remained in doubt regarding the matter, or was hesitant even before this due to the insistence of the Ansar for him to be made the Khalifa.
It is narrated by Humaid bin Abdur Rahman:
“When the Messenger (sa) of Allah passed away, Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra) was in the outskirts of Medina. He removed the cloth from his blessed face and kissed it, and said, ‘May my father and mother be sacrificed for you; how pure was your countenance when you were alive and even now when you have passed away.’ He then said, ‘I swear by the Lord of the Ka‘bah that Muhammad (sa) has passed away.’ Then Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra) and Hazrat Umar (ra) quickly left for Saqifah Bani Sa‘idah. When both of them had arrived, Hazrat Abu Bakr(ra) spoke first and began mentioning all the excellences of the Ansar that were revealed in the Holy Quran, not omitting any detail therefrom and also those that were mentioned by Holy Prophet (sa). He further said, ‘You know full well that the Messenger (sa) of Allah once said, “If all the people were to walk in one direction and the Ansar were to walk in another, I would walk in the direction of the Ansar.”’ Then addressing Hazrat Sa‘d (ra), Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra) said, “O Sa‘d (ra)! Do you remember in a gathering in which you were also seated, the Messenger (sa) of Allah said that the Quraish have a rightful claim to Khilafat? Those that are righteous will follow the righteous individuals from the Quraish and the evil ones from among the people will follow the evil ones of the Quraish.” Sa‘d (ra) replied, “Indeed, you speak the truth. We are viziers and you are the leaders.”
(Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Vol. 1, pp. 158 – 159, Musnad Abi Bakr Siddique, Hadith no. 18, Dar-ul-Haith, Cairo, 1994)
Regarding this incident, in al-Tabaqat-ul-Kubra, it is stated:
“Upon the demise of the Holy Prophet (sa), Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra) sent a message to Hazrat Sa‘d (ra) bin Ubadah that he ought to come and perform the Bai‘at [pledge of allegiance] as everyone had performed the Bai‘at, including the people of his tribe. He replied, ‘By Allah! I will not perform the Bai‘at until I have shot all the arrows in my quiver and until I, along with the people of my tribe who are with me, have fought against you.’” (According to this reference, he refused to perform the Bai’at)
When this news reached Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra), Bashir bin Sa‘d (ra) said, “O Khalifa of the Prophet (sa)! He has rejected and is persistent upon it.” That is, he is persistent in his refusal. “He will not pledge allegiance to you even if he were to be killed. Moreover, he will only be killed once his children and tribesmen are killed along with him. Similarly, they cannot be killed unless the entire tribe of Khazraj is killed; and the tribe of Khazraj can certainly not be killed unless the tribe of Aus is killed. Therefore, you should not advance towards them as the matter has now become clear to people and he cannot cause you any harm.” In other words, the majority of his tribe had pledged allegiance. “Hence, it does not matter if he [i.e., Hazrat Sa‘d (ra)] has refused to do so, for he is alone and has been abandoned by his people.” Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra) accepted the advice of Hazrat Bashir (ra) and left Hazrat Sa‘d (ra) alone.
After this, when Hazrat Umar (ra) was appointed as the Khalifa, one day, he came across Sa‘d (ra) and said, “What do you say, O Sa‘d (ra)?” He replied, “What do you say, O Umar (ra)?” This is a conversation between the two. Hazrat Umar (ra) asked, “Are you the same as you were before?” Sa‘d (ra) replied, “I am the same as before,” i.e., despite the fact that Hazrat Umar (ra) had been elected to the station of Khilafat and many people had pledged their allegiance, however, Hazrat Sa‘d had not done so. Following this, Hazrat Sa‘d (ra) said, “By God! Your companion [i.e., Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra)] was dearer to me than you.” Following this, Hazrat Sa‘d (ra) said, “By God! I have woken up in a state that I do not appreciate you as my neighbour.” Hazrat Umar (ra) replied, “Whoever dislikes the company of his neighbour should move away from him.” Hazrat Sa‘d (ra) replied, “I will not forget these words, and shall move to a neighbourhood that is better than being with you.” This was according to the estimation of Hazrat Sa‘d (ra). A short while later, towards the early part of Hazrat Umar’s (ra) Khilafat, Hazrat Sa‘d (ra) migrated to Syria.
(al-Tabaqat-ul-Kubra Li ibn Sa‘d, Vol. 3, Sa‘d bin Ubadah, p. 312, Dar Ihyaa al-Turath al-Arabi, Beirut, Lebanon, 2002)
In relation to Hazrat Sa‘d, there is another narration in which it is stated that he pledged allegiance to Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra). Hence, in Tarikh al-Tabari, it is stated:
وَاتَّبَعَ الْقَوْمُ عَلَى الْبَیْعَۃِ، وَبَایَعَ سَعْدٌ
Meaning, one by one, the entire tribe pledged allegiance to Hazrat Abu Bakr(ra) and Hazrat Sa‘d(ra) also pledged allegiance to him.
(Tarikh al-Tabari, Vol. 3, p. 266, Dar-ul-Fikr, Beirut, 2002)
Nevertheless, Hazrat Musleh Maud (ra) has presented various aspects as to why it is important to pledge allegiance to Khilafat, what the status of Khilafat is and what the significance of this act of Hazrat Sa‘d (ra) is. Hazrat Musleh Maud (ra) stated in one of his Friday sermons:
“Qatal also refers to severing one’s ties. After the demise of the Holy Prophet (sa), the companions began to differ in who should be appointed as the Khalifa; the Ansar were of the opinion that it was their due right for Khilafat to remain within them as they were the natives of that area. They said that at the very least, if there was to be a Khalifa from among the Muhajireen, there should also be one from among the Ansar, that is there should be two Khalifas. Banu Hashim were of the opinion that Khilafat was their due right as the Holy Prophet (sa) belonged to their family. Although the Muhajireen were of the opinion that the Khalifa ought to be from among the Quraish, as the people of Arabia would never obey anyone who did not belong to the Quraish. They did not suggest anyone in particular, rather they wished to leave the matter of appointment to an election, i.e., whoever the Muslims chose would be considered the appointed Khalifa of God Almighty. When they expressed this opinion, the Ansar and Banu Hashim agreed to this. However, one companion could not comprehend this matter. This was that very companion, whom the Ansar wanted to elect as the Khalifa. Perhaps he considered this to be an insult to him or he may not have been able to truly understand this matter. In any case, whatever the reason was, he said that he was not prepared to pledge allegiance to Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra).
“In certain books of history, a saying of Hazrat Umar (ra) is recorded in which he said:
اُقْتُلُوْا سَعْدًا
Meaning, ‘Kill Sa‘d,’ however, Hazrat Umar (ra) did not kill him, nor did anyone else. Some expert linguists have said that in his statement, Hazrat Umar (ra) only meant to sever ties with Sa‘d (ra). In other historical sources, it is also stated that Hazrat Sa‘d (ra) would regularly go to the mosque, but would offer his prayers separately and then leave, and no other companion would speak to him. Thus, one interpretation of the phrase ‘Kill Sa‘d’, is to sever ties with him and for everyone to disassociate with him.”
(Khutbat-e-Mahmud, Vol. 16, pp. 81-82 – Friday Sermon, 1 February 1935)
Further writing about this incident of Hazrat Sa‘d (ra) bin Ubadah, Hazrat Musleh Maud (ra) further stated in the extract from the sermon quoted:
“In a previous sermon, I mentioned an Ansari Companion and that after the demise of the Holy Prophet (sa), some of the Ansar Companions believed that the Khalifa ought to be chosen from among the Ansar. However, the Muhajireen – especially Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra) – explained to them that this choice would not be beneficial for the Muslim Ummah, because the Muslims would never accept this, i.e., for a Khalifa to be chosen from among the Ansar. Subsequently, the Muhajireen and the Ansar gathered together and mutually agreed that everyone ought to perform the Bai’at [Pledge of Allegiance] at the hands of someone from the Muhajireen. Eventually, they unanimously agreed that this person ought to be Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra).”
It was not possible for everyone to unanimously agree upon one particular individual from among the Ansar. Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra) as well as other companions (ra) explained that this decision would not be beneficial. Nonetheless, it was decided that the Khalifa ought to be chosen from among the Muhajireen and thus, it was unanimously agreed that this should be Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra).
Hazrat Musleh Maud (ra) then further states:
“In that sermon, I said that when Hazrat Sa‘d showed reluctance to perform the Bai‘at, Hazrat Umar (ra) said:
اُقْتُلُوْا سَعْدًا
meaning to kill Sa‘d, however, neither did Hazrat Umar (ra) kill Hazrat Sa‘d (ra) nor did any other companion (ra). In fact, he remained alive until the Khilafat of Hazrat Umar (ra).” As mentioned in one of the previous extracts, Hazrat Sa‘d (ra) remained alive until the Khilafat of Hazrat Umar (ra) and passed away in Syria. “Hazrat Sa‘d (ra) migrated to Syria and passed away there. Scholars of the past have concluded from this that the meaning of Hazrat Umar’s (ra) statement was not to physically kill Hazrat Sa‘d (ra), rather it only meant to sever ties with him. Furthermore, in the Arabic language, qatal – to kill – has many other connotations as well. Despite the fact that in the Urdu language, qatal only means to kill someone, however, when Qatal is used in the Arabic language, it has many other meanings, among which one is to sever ties with someone. From the statement of Hazrat Umar (ra), the grammarians have inferred that Hazrat Umar (ra) did not mean to kill, but rather to sever ties, keep a distance and not to speak with him. Otherwise, if from this he meant to kill him, then why did Hazrat Umar (ra) – who possessed great zeal – not kill Sa‘d himself? Or why did anyone from among the companions not kill him? Hazrat Umar (ra) did not kill him and even though Hazrat Sa‘d (ra) remained alive until his Khilafat, he was not killed. According to some narrations, Hazrat Sa‘d (ra) remained alive even after the Caliphate of Hazrat Umar (ra) and no companion lifted a finger against him.”
Nonetheless, it is evident from this that the meaning of “kill” was only to sever ties and not carry it out in its literal sense. Even though this Companion remained in seclusion away from the other Companions – Hazrat Sa‘d (ra) moved away from everyone – but nobody attacked him.
Hazrat Musleh Maud (ra) further states:
“I presented the example that if one sees a dream in which a person is killed, the interpretation of that dream could be of severing ties or boycotting that individual.” Hazrat Musleh Maud (ra) is referring back to one of his previous sermons. Hazrat Musleh Maud (ra) further continues:
“After the sermon, one of our members mentioned to me that although Sa‘d (ra) did not perform the Bai‘at, yet he was included in all matters of consultation,” i.e., the individual claimed that despite not performing the Bai‘at, Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra) sought his advice on different matters. Hazrat Musleh Maud (ra) then says, “There could only be two reasons why this individual said this regarding Hazrat Sa‘d (ra); either he wished to refute my interpretation (i.e., he rejects the lexical meaning of qatal as mentioned by Hazrat Musleh Maud (ra) and hence assuming that the companions did not sever ties with him), or he thinks that refusing to pledge allegiance to Khilafat is not a significant crime.” The second reason for the aforementioned statement by this individual could be that according to him, refusing to pledge allegiance to Khilafat was not a significant matter, because although Sa‘d (ra) did not perform the Bai‘at, he was still consulted on different matters.
Hazrat Musleh Maud (ra) states:
“A poet once stated:
تَا مَرْد سُخَن نَگُفْتَہ بَاشَد
عَیْب وہُنْرَشْ نَہُفْتَہ بَاشَد
Meaning, a person’s flaws and faults are concealed only until they remain silent.” At times when a person speaks, they unveil their shortcomings. As long as they remain silent, their faults remain concealed, but on occasions they speak ignorantly, thereby uncovering their own shortcomings. Hazrat Musleh Maud (ra) further states,
“The statement of this person, (i.e., the one who inferred that Hazrat Sa‘d (ra) was included in matters of consultation and commented on the sermon of Hazrat Musleh Maud (ra)) indicates that either he wishes to diminish the significance of pledging allegiance to Khilafat, or he wishes to exhibit his knowledge. However, both of these matters are incorrect; to exhibit one’s knowledge will not prove beneficial, because this statement is so far from the truth, that upon hearing this, a wise person would simply be amused. With regard to the lives of the companions (ra), there are three well known books of Islamic history; any event pertaining to the history of the companions (ra) can be found in these books and they are: Tahzeeb al-Tahzeeb, Al Asabah and Usdul Ghabah. All three of them mention that Sa‘d lived the remainder of his life away from the companions (ra) and after migrating to Syria, he passed away there. Furthermore, some lexicons have referred to this incident while discussing the meaning of the word qatal.”
Hazrat Musleh Maud (ra) then states:
“The fact of the matter is that there were sixty or seventy Companions with the name Sa‘d. Among them one of them was Sa‘d (ra) bin Abi Waqas, who was one of the Asharah Mubasharah [ten companions who were given glad tidings of Paradise by the Holy Prophet (sa)], and appointed as Commander and Chief by Hazrat Umar (ra) and was included in all matters of consultation. It seems as if the person who raised this allegation (with reference to the sermon of Hazrat Musleh Maud (ra)), did so out of his ignorance and hearing the name ‘Sa‘d’. He failed to distinguish as to which Sa‘d was being referred to. Instead he immediately passed remarks about my sermon. I was not making reference to Sa‘d (ra) bin Abi Waqas, who was a Muhajir [those who migrated from Mecca], rather the companion I was referring to was from among the Ansar [Muslims native to Medina]. Aside from these two, there were many other companions with the name ‘Sa‘d’; there were approximately sixty or seventy such companions. The Sa‘d I was referring to was Sa‘d (ra) bin Ubadah. In actuality, the Arabs used a limited number of names; often in the same village there would be many people with the same name. If someone wished to find a person, they would call them by his father’s name. For example; they would not use the name Sa‘d or Saeed, rather they would say Sa‘d (ra) bin Ubadah or Sa‘d (ra) bin Abi Waqas. Similarly, if they were unable to locate the person based on their father’s name, they would refer to the person by their rank or status and where this was not possible still, they would then use the name of the individual’s tribe.
“Therefore, among the circles of historians, there has been an extensive debate as regards one particular individual with the name Sa‘d as his name was similar to many other companions by that name. Hence, whenever historians have referenced this name, they have written that they are referring to the ‘Ausi Sa‘d’, or the ‘Khazraji Sa‘d’ [i.e., referring to their tribes]. It is evident that this individual (i.e., the one who criticised or passed these remarks) has misunderstood the different individuals with the same name and has thoughtlessly raised this allegation. Such comments do not serve to increase understanding, rather it serves as a means of unveiling one’s ignorance.”