Village Journals
Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.
Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.
Why was the burial of the Prophet (S) really delayed..
According to Al-Bidayah Wa-al-Nihayah (Ibn Katheer), there is complete agreement among scholars that the Prophet died on Monday afternoon (or in the late forenoon). Ibn Katheer has cited Ahmad ibn Hanbal as having reported that the Prophet (pbuh) was buried sometime after sunset on Tuesday. According to one of the narratives of Ibn Sa`d, (as cited by Ibn Katheer), the Prophet (pbuh) was buried during daytime on Tuesday. According to Ibn Hishaam, the burial took place in the middle of Tuesday night.
Thus, as we can see, even though there is some difference of opinion regarding the time between the death and the burial of the Prophet (pbuh), yet the difference is not as long as the cited author has mentioned it to be.
One of the major reasons for the time interval between the death and the burial of the Prophet (pbuh) was related to the great significance of the Prophet's person in the eyes of the believers, on the one hand, and the particular method in which the burial prayer for the Prophet (pbuh) was organized, on the other. It is unanimously narrated in almost all the books of Seerah that the burial prayer for the Prophet (pbuh) was not organized in a congregation. On the contrary, all the Muslims came to the Prophet's room in groups of three and would pay their respects and pray for the Prophet (pbuh). The first to come were men, then women and finally children. This went on until all the Muslims had paid their respects and offered their prayers for the Prophet (pbuh).
Seen in the perspective of the foregoing explanation, it is quite apparent that the short delay in the burial of the Prophet (pbuh) was for quite natural reasons, which had nothing to do with the appointment of the Khaleefah. It would be gross misrepresentation of the facts to say that the burial of the Prophet (pbuh) was delayed due to the reasons stated in the cited paragraph.
It seems that the author has derived his opinion from the incident that took place at the Saqeefah of Banu Saaidah. According to various narratives reported in books of history and Seerah, it was brought to the notice of the Muhaajireen (the original residents of Mekkah) that the Ansaar (the locals of Medinah) were proposing a division of rule between the two groups (of Muhaajireen and Ansaar) by appointing a ruler from each of the two groups. This obviously was a very dangerous proposal and would have resulted in a division in the Muslims. At getting this information, Abu Bakr (ra) and Omar (ra) went to the Saqeefah and succeeded in resolving the potential problem. This explanation should also adequately clarify that it was actually not the immediate appointment of a 'Khaleefah', as the cited author has contended, but a resolution of a potentially fatal situation for which Abu Bakr and `Omar went to the Saqeefah. It is quite predictable that had it not been for the grave situation, arising from the proposal of the Ansaar, the appointment of the Khaleefah may easily have been delayed for a few hours, until after the Prophet's burial had taken place in the proper manner.
It should further be kept in mind that perpetuation of rule for an existing organized collectivity is not a religious obligation, but rather a political reality. The point, as I have stated in a number of my earlier responses, is not that the appointment of a ruler is a religious obligation of the Muslims. On the contrary, the point, in fact, is that an immediate appointment of a successor - at the death of an existing ruler - is one of the essential political requirements for the maintenance of the existing organized collectivity. A delay in this appointment is likely to result in a political division of the existing organized collectivity. It is because of this obvious nature of the immediate appointment of a successor to a dead ruler that you will hardly find any difference of opinion or any practical deviation, from this aspect, in the various organized nations of the world.
'The King is dead. Long Live the King', is a befitting representation of this political phenomenon.
- Moiz Amjad, at understanding-islam.com
Thus, as we can see, even though there is some difference of opinion regarding the time between the death and the burial of the Prophet (pbuh), yet the difference is not as long as the cited author has mentioned it to be.
One of the major reasons for the time interval between the death and the burial of the Prophet (pbuh) was related to the great significance of the Prophet's person in the eyes of the believers, on the one hand, and the particular method in which the burial prayer for the Prophet (pbuh) was organized, on the other. It is unanimously narrated in almost all the books of Seerah that the burial prayer for the Prophet (pbuh) was not organized in a congregation. On the contrary, all the Muslims came to the Prophet's room in groups of three and would pay their respects and pray for the Prophet (pbuh). The first to come were men, then women and finally children. This went on until all the Muslims had paid their respects and offered their prayers for the Prophet (pbuh).
Seen in the perspective of the foregoing explanation, it is quite apparent that the short delay in the burial of the Prophet (pbuh) was for quite natural reasons, which had nothing to do with the appointment of the Khaleefah. It would be gross misrepresentation of the facts to say that the burial of the Prophet (pbuh) was delayed due to the reasons stated in the cited paragraph.
It seems that the author has derived his opinion from the incident that took place at the Saqeefah of Banu Saaidah. According to various narratives reported in books of history and Seerah, it was brought to the notice of the Muhaajireen (the original residents of Mekkah) that the Ansaar (the locals of Medinah) were proposing a division of rule between the two groups (of Muhaajireen and Ansaar) by appointing a ruler from each of the two groups. This obviously was a very dangerous proposal and would have resulted in a division in the Muslims. At getting this information, Abu Bakr (ra) and Omar (ra) went to the Saqeefah and succeeded in resolving the potential problem. This explanation should also adequately clarify that it was actually not the immediate appointment of a 'Khaleefah', as the cited author has contended, but a resolution of a potentially fatal situation for which Abu Bakr and `Omar went to the Saqeefah. It is quite predictable that had it not been for the grave situation, arising from the proposal of the Ansaar, the appointment of the Khaleefah may easily have been delayed for a few hours, until after the Prophet's burial had taken place in the proper manner.
It should further be kept in mind that perpetuation of rule for an existing organized collectivity is not a religious obligation, but rather a political reality. The point, as I have stated in a number of my earlier responses, is not that the appointment of a ruler is a religious obligation of the Muslims. On the contrary, the point, in fact, is that an immediate appointment of a successor - at the death of an existing ruler - is one of the essential political requirements for the maintenance of the existing organized collectivity. A delay in this appointment is likely to result in a political division of the existing organized collectivity. It is because of this obvious nature of the immediate appointment of a successor to a dead ruler that you will hardly find any difference of opinion or any practical deviation, from this aspect, in the various organized nations of the world.
'The King is dead. Long Live the King', is a befitting representation of this political phenomenon.
- Moiz Amjad, at understanding-islam.com
Comments on this journal
It is possible that Asma bint Umays was in Imam Ali and Syeda Fatima Zehra's house during her illness and death. It is written that Caliph Abu Bakr tried to speak with Janab-e-Fatima during her illness, what conversation or lack of took place is cited in various books.
However, it is not absolute that just because Asma bint Umays was inside the house that it is mandatory that Abu Bakr must know every occurrance tha takes place in the holy house.
If Syeda Fatima requested privacy and confidentiality, then Asma's decency would garuntee that. She has a right to only involve her close family members after having suffered so much, and being a holy lady--the only blood of Muhammad s.a.w, I highly doubt that she engaged in unecessary interactions with foreign men.
Was it the custom of Mecca or the custom of Medina? And than tell us who dug this grave according to which custom?
why should I quote that Abdur Rehman bin Auf (R) was also present at the burial, and he was among FOUR that lowered the Rasool's (S) body into his grave, while ABU BAKR and UMAR looked on...
did it really take that long for Banu Saqeefah to take place... especially in a time when all of Medina came to pay respects to the Rasool (S), by three's?
let us here your elaboration on this one as well...