Abu Bakr And Umar In shib Abi Talib?

[sunnidoubts]

History testifies that when Hadhrath Muhammad (saaws) declared his Prophethood (saaws), the Quraysh1 subjected the Bani Hashim to a boycott. Hadhrath Abu Talib alayhis 'salam took the tribe to an area called Shib Abi Talib where they remained for three years, suffering from immense hardship. Where were Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar during that period? They were in Makkah so why did they not help the Noble Prophet (Salla Allahu ta'ala 'alayhi wa Sallam) (saaws)? If they were unable to join the Prophet (saaws) at the Shib Abi Talib is there any evidence that they provided any type of support (food etc), breaching the agreement that the Quraysh boycott all food / business transactions with Bani Hashim?

1. "the Quraysh gathered together to confer and decided to draw up a document in which they undertook not to marry women from Banu Hashim and the Banu al Muttalib, or to give them women in marriage, or to sell anything to them or buy anything from them. They drew up a written contract to that effect and solemnly pledged themselves to observe it. They then hung up the document in the interior of the Ka'bah to make it even more binding upon themselves. When Quraysh did this, the Banu Hashim and the Banu al-Muttalib joined with 'Abu Talib, went with him to his valley and gathered round him there; but 'Abu Lahab 'Abd al Uzza b. 'Abd al-Muttalib left the Banu Hashim and went with the Quraysh supporting them against 'Abu Talib. This state of affairs continued for two or three years, until the two clans were exhausted, since nothing reached any of them except what was sent secretly by those of the Quraysh who wished to maintain relations with them". (Taken from The History of al-Tabari, Volume 6 page 81 - Muhammad at Mecca, translated by W.Montgommery & M.V. MacDonald).

2. "These days were very hard with them and very often they had to feed on the leaves TALH or plantain" (taken from Siratun Nabi by Shibli Numani Vol 1 p 218, English translation by M. Tayyib Bakhsh Budayuni.)

[Imam]

Bismillahir-Rahmanir-Rahim,

Wa'laykum as Salaam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakaatuhu


Although the questioner lives upto his name 'sunni doubts' nevertheless the Sunnis are not doubtful of your question. I quote:

"Where were Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar during that period?"

No book of history has ever testified the absence of Sayyadina Abu Bakr and Sayyadina Umar (may Allah be pleased with both of them), from the event of Shi'ab-e-Abi Talib. First of all, you need to check the dates of the embracement of the religion of Islam of these two great personalities. We can therefore say, that Sayyadina Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) was the first of all adult men who embraced Islam. This is a general consensus of all Muslims, of the Ahl-as-Sunnah wal Jama'ah.

Secondly, had Sayyadina Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) also embraced Islam, before the events of the 'Shi'ab-e-Abi Talib'?

In answer to this, you will find on a unanimous scale, that Hadrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) had accepted the religion of Islam six years into the announcement of Prophethood by the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon Him), as the announcement to prophethood was made at the age of forty. The events of 'Shi'ab-e-Abi-Talib, were however ongoing for a period of three years, afterwhich the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon Him) had migrated to Madinah. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon Him) resided in Madinah for a period of ten years, as His life in this world was for sixty three years. From this information, you will find that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon Him) was fifty, when they were confined to the Shi'ab, and His age was forty six when Sayyadina Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) accepted Islam, as His blessed age, at the time of migration to Madinah was fifty three.

Although the books of history recall this boycott of the Quraysh, from the Banu-Hashim, nevertheless, it was still a boycott from all the known Muslims, particularly those who were from the Banu-Hashim. This does not mean to say that Sayyadina Abu-Bakr and Sayyadina Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) were absent.

Similarly, if there was other Companions of the Messenger (peace be upon Him), it does not mean that they were not Muslims. If Khalid bin Walid, and Abu Sufyan accepted Islam at a later stage, we are not going to discuss their lives prior to their embracement of Islam, or we are not going to say that they were not Muslims all together. This would be unfair, and unjust.

People normally adhere to their own political ideology of the group that they belong to. However this does not mean that it can give rise to the doubts that they place upon the two great personalities. It is their own duty to seek the truth from authentic literature, which is used as proof and evidence throughout the Muslim world. What we prevent is all the ideologies of modern day Muslims, which say that Hadrat 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was greater in rank and station, than Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman (may Allah be pleased with all of them). Nor do we claim that the 'panj tan paak' are still living physically amongst us, or that the four khalifas will be born again, fight against each other and Hadrat 'Ali will win. We definitely dont believe that after the crisis and martyrdom of Imam Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) at karbala in 61h. was a cause for the Mahdi to arrive in 72h!!

May Allah the Almighty keep us all in His mercies from such ideologies, which are only invented to make political ends meet.

So have you given the slightest thought that those who sacrificed their families, their wealth, their homes, their businesses for the Mercy of the Both Worlds (peace be upon Him) were not present at the Shi'ab-e-Abi Talib, yet they had openly declared that they were Muslims? Do you think that the kuffar of Makkah had given them leave to remain in Makkah purely for the sake of such idiologies which were to be invented for the future, yet they were the real personalities who were to protect the Prophet (peace be upon Him) from the harm of the Kuffar of Makkah? Or did you think that they were isolated in a different place, and did not want to face tha affliction that their beloved was going through at the time of the 'Shi'ab'?

Indeed none of the above is true, for if it was, then it would lead you to misguidance. It is our duty to uphold the esteem, honour, respect and reverence of all those who had given up their lives for the sake of the Noble Messenger (peace be upon Him). When He was hungry, they were hungry too. When He was thirsty, they were thirsty too. When all ties had been cut off from Him, all their ties were cut off too. When He travelled, they travelled too. Do you not see the amount of times Sayyadina Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) drew out his sword in order to slay anyone who tried to demean the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon Him). What about the migration to Madinah, who was the closest to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon Him)? The climb of the mountain of 'Thawr'? The descension of the verses 'wa laa tahzann innallaha ma'anaa'? And even today, who is it that still rests in their resting stations in Madinah-tul-Munawwarah alongside the bier of the Most beloved Messenger of Allah (peace be upon Him).

From which books can the absence of Sayyadina Abu Bakr, and Sayyadina Umar (may Allah be pleased with them), from the 'Shi'ab-e-Abi-Talib' be proven from? If anyone can prove from orthodox Sunni texts, provided that they are authentic, and authoritative, then i as the Imam of this website will pack my bags, and say goodbye. This is my challenge. Provided that the above question, alongwith it's condition is fulfilled ......


May Allah the Almighty give us all the correct guidance, in revering, respecting, honouring and esteeming all those, who were the closest to the Most Beloved Messenger of Allah (peace be upon Him), at all times, (ameen).


M. Waseem Ashrafi