A counterargument is a method that undermines an argument or deters someone from pursuing a particular line of argument. Naturally Ibn al-Hashimi has adopted this approach in his article, advancing several arguments to force the Shia to abandon their criticism of Umar. Unfortunately he has sought to do so through distortion and deception and has thus served only to humiliate himself in the process.
Ibn al Hashimi stated:
The point that most Shia propagandists never wish to mention is the fact that the Prophet fainted immediately after making his request. Perhaps some of them would try to deny this, but we find that it is written in their own books. Shaykh Mufid, the classical Shia scholar of the tenth century, writes:He (the Prophet) fainted from the fatigue which had come upon him and the sorrow which possessed him.
He remained unconscious for a short time while the Muslims wept and his wives and the women and the children of the Muslims and all of those present raised great cries of lamentation. The Apostle of Allah recovered consciousness and looked at them. Then he said: “Bring me ink and parchment so that I may write for you, after which you will never go astray.”
Again he fainted and one of those present rose to look for ink and parchment.
“Go back,” Umar ordered him.
(Kitab Al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, p.130)
From this account it is very clear how dire the Prophet’s situation was. The Prophet kept fainting and he was into and out of consciousness. Immediately after the Prophet asked for the pen and paper, he fainted. This is a key point that the Shia propagandists do not mention! It was only after the Prophet fainted that Umar ibn al-Khattab said to the people (not to the Prophet) that bringing a pen and paper was no longer appropriate. The Shia propagandists portray the matter as if the Prophet said something and then Umar refused the Prophet on his face. Far from it! The Prophet asked for the pen and paper, but then he fainted; it was after the Prophet fainted that Umar felt that the Prophet’s request no longer applied in the changed circumstances.
From Shaykh Mufid’s account of the event of the pen and paper, one thing is very clear: the Prophet fainted immediately after making his request. When the Prophet regained consciousness, he awoke to a room full of bickering and quarreling people. When Umar told the man not to bring the pen and paper, this was during the time the Prophet was unconscious. Therefore, Umar was not talking back to the Prophet or anything of the sort. The Prophet was unconscious during this time and the people did not at all refuse the Prophet’s order to his face. The Prophet awoke to the noise and chaos of their arguments amongst each other, and this is what angered the Prophet. When the Prophet asked for the pen and paper, he was conscious, but the situation and circumstance had–according to Umar ibn al-Khattab–changed when the Prophet fainted and became unconscious.
By citing this reference what prescisely is Ibn al Hashimi seeking to prove? Does it place a blanket over the conduct of Umar? Does it mean that Umar did not:
All of the above matters are proven whether the Prophet (s) was or was not in a conscious state, this in no way alters the manner in which we should judge Umar’s conduct. Whilst this Mufid reference in no way exonerates the conduct of Umar, rather it affirms his atrocious behaviour; our readers should know that we know….
Let us begin by highlighting the dishonesty committed the author for he failed to translate those wonderful words that have remained a consistent thorn in his throat. The reference actually ends in this way:
فقال له عمر: ارجع، فإنه يهجر
“Go back, he is talking nonsense” Umar ordered him.
Returning our actual argument in this regard, unable to cite a single Sunni source to evidence that the Prophet (s) was unconscious he has sought reliance on the view offered by a Shia scholar! Since when is the opinion of a Shia scholar accepted by Ibn al Hashimi? The text of Mufid is not a narration, he is merely citing his personal opinion that is not corroborated by any other Shia source suggesting the Prophet (s) lost and then regained consciousness when issuing the instruction. Herein lays the entire crux of Ibn al Hashimi’s article. He has relied on Mufid’s opinion that the Prophet (s) was unconscious and has then weaved it into all of the Sunni traditions that he cites, thus creating an impression that the Sunni traditions say the same. The reality is he has ‘relied’ on a Shia opinion to back up his argument, when his own texts do not substantiate his stance! Ibn al Hashimi seems to have forgotten the rules of polemical debate. You quote the texts of the other side to convince your opponents
in a debate, so at best this text should convince the Shia to accept that the Prophet (s) was slipping in and out of consciousness. Ibn al Hashimi is not entitled to rely in this text as fact unless his texts likewise corroborate the fact that the Prophet (s) was losing and regaining consciousness but they do not, the Sahihayn demonstrate clearly that the Prophet (s) from the point of issuing the instructions to telling the Sahaba to get out was conscious throughout – so how can he produce this Shia opinion as fact? It is like a lawyer seeking to discredit the eye witness testimony of a witness during cross examination, when CCTV evidence places his client at the crime scene at the time in question. The cross examination would only be relevant if it corroborated his defence case, when it does not then such cross examination is futile. Applying this to the facts here Ibn al Hashimi has no right to rely on the evidence of a Shia source to convince his Sunni readership, unless he can prove the same state of unconsciousness from Sunni works. The fact that he cannot means that he is unable to rely on this line of argument. The harsh reality for Ibn al Hashimi is that none of his Sunni texts have any authentic narration suggesting that the Prophet (s) lost consciousness when issuing instructions to write a will, Ibn al Hashimi has suggested this without any nass to back up his claim, it is therefore completely baseless.
As for the referencing of Shaikh Mufid, we wish to make it clear that opinion remains a point of view, it may be by from a learned scholar but it carries no weight unless it has textual evidence (Quran / Hadith / Historical narrations) that enable us to arrive at such a conclusion. In such circumstances people are not duty bound to accept and adhere to this opinion. If Ibn al Hashimi objects to this line of argument then allow us to cite his own rejection of the Bin Baz Fatwa on Misyaar marriage:
Ibn al Hashimi stated:
There is no doubt that Shaykh Bin Baz was one of the most eminent scholars of the Ahl as-Sunnah. And yet that does not mean that he (or any other scholar) was infallible. With regards to the Shaykh’s opinion about marriage with intention to divorce, then it is known that his opinion on the matter is considered Shaadh (i.e. an anomaly). An opinion that is considered Shaadh is worse than a weak opinion but rather it is lower than that and considered invalid. A Shaadh opinion is not within the realms of valid ikhtilaf; therefore, it is not a permissible opinion to take by anyone. We love and respect the Ulema as-Sunnah, but we should not be shy to disassociate ourselves from opinions that go against the Quran and Sunnah. One Shaadh opinion cannot possibly overcome the majority opinion of the rest of the Ulema. So we say that Shaykh Bin Baz made a sincere mistake and there is no blame in that.
It is important to remember that the Sunnis do not have popes or ayatollahs with the ability to declare Halal and Haram; that is something we believe only Allah Almighty can do. If someone contradicts Allah’s Laws, we are free to reject those opinions, and in fact, we must do that. At the same time, we should not attack Shaykh Bin Baz, because we know that all great scholars in the past had mistakes and nobody was perfect. Indeed, it is a truism that what defines a good scholar is that out of one hundred rulings, ninety-nine of them will be good and only one of them will be Shaadh. This differs from the poor “scholar” who out of one hundred rulings will have ninety-nine or a hundred Shaadh opinions. We say that Shaykh Bin Baz was of the former group; just because he had a Shaadh opinion on this issue, this does not mean that we can condemn him for that, and if we did that, then we would have to condemn all the great scholars of the past, since so many of them had one or two Shaadh opinions. I truly believe that Allah Almighty showing us the imperfection of even the greatest scholars is His Way of reminding us of His Own Perfection and Supreme Nature.
There is a massive difference between opinion and Fatwa. An opinion would not necessarily have any proof to substantiate it; it is merely a point of view. When we refer to a Fatwa we are entering into a completely different terrain, for here a scholar issues an edict on the basis of Nass that for Salafis is the Quran, Sunnah and the way of the Salaf. Shaykh Bin Baz accordingly issued a Fatwa allowing a Salafi male to marry a woman with the intention of divorcing his spouse at a later date, on the proviso that he keeps this intention a secret.
Is it not curious that Ibn al Hashimi deems the Fatwa of his own Salafi scholar unacceptable, but is happy to embrace the opinion of a Shia scholar who in his opinion is a Kaafir? Taking a leaf out of the Ibn al Hashimi book, if he is allowed to reject a Fatwa of his learned Shaykh we are likewise entitled to reject the opinion of our Shaykh.
Ibn al Hashimi stated:
Of course, the Shia will never be silent until and unless we quiet them ourselves. They will continue to pester us, criticizing Umar for why he said that the Quran is sufficient. And they will say “what did Umar mean by that” and other such things. To end such a discussion, we refer the Shia reader to a Hadith from their own books, in which their Infallible Imam said the exact same thing that Umar did. We read:Rayyan says I said to Imam Reza (A.S.) “What do you say about the Quran?” So he replied “It is the speech of Allah; do not exceed and move ahead of it, and do not seek guidance from other than it; otherwise, you would go astray.”
(Bihar al-Anwar, Vol.92, p.117,
http://smma59.wordpress.com/tag/hadithguidence-of-ahlulbayt/)
So if the Shia would like to criticize Umar for saying that the Quran is sufficient, then let them take even more criticism towards their Infallible Imam who said that we should not seek guidance from any other than the Quran!
First of all let us make it very clear that the tradition relied upon by Ibn al-Hashimi is weak since it contains Ibn Masroor who is unknown.
In his desperate attempt to find a similar statement in Shia texts which was uttered by his legendry hero, the author had no other choice than to take the cited tradition out of context and hence equate it with the remarks of Umar. The two statements can never be compared as they were made in different contexts.
Ibn al Hashimi needs to stay clear of such deviant tactics. He is fully aware that the Hadith narrators would seek to provide an explanation of a Hadith by placing similar traditions under a specific explanatory chapter. If we are going to apply this type of methodology then we read this tradition in Sahih Bukhari, the Book of Zakat Volume 2, Book 24, Number 498:
Narrated ‘Adi bin Hatim heard the Prophet saying:
“Save yourself from Hell-fire even by giving half a date-fruit in charity.”
Should we on the basis of this tradition conclude that protection from Hell-fire is only available to those that give charity and not to those performing obligatory practices such as Salat, Saum and Hajj? On the face of it, this is what the tradition suggests, but then we need to look at the chapter wherein this tradition is placed to understand the context. When we look at the Chapter we see it is called:
‘Protect yourself from Hell-fire even with a half date, or with a little object of charity and Allah’s statement:
‘And the likeness of those who spend their wealth seeking Allah’s pleasure with sicerity (till the end of the verse) with all kinds of sincerity’ (2:265:266)’
One can hence understand from this chapter the context of the Hadith, and it makes it clear that chapter only deals with the topic of Zakat as a protection from Hell-Fire it does not necessarily mean other forms of worship are not given the same level of protection froim eternal damnation
The statement of the Imam does not mean that Imam Ali Raza (as) was of the opinion that Quran was ‘the only source of guidance’ since the Shia books are replete with statements from our Imams (as) wherein they have emphasized the importance of adhering to the Quran and Ahlulbayt (as). Rayyan, a Shia scholar asking this question to our Imam (as) in itself proves by default that the Ahulbayt (as) are that source of guidance ajunct to the Quran.
According to Sunnies, to believe that the ‘Quran is sufficient’ is a Khariji belief as has been attested by Imam Dhahabi in Tazkirah tul Hufaz, Volume 1 page 3:
”He didn’t say that ‘Quran is sufficient’ as the Khawarij do”
If Ibn al Hashimi is going to insist the Umar’s outburst was correct then we would suggest that he likewise acknowledge that he is a Khariji.
As part of their efforts to defend Umar’s conduct during the pen and paper episode, they issue a counter claim against Imam Ali bin Abi Talib (as) and suggest that whilst writing the treaty of Hudabiyah, he showed insolence and disobedience towards the Prophet (s).
Ibn al Hashimi stated:
When the Prophet asked Ali (may Allah be well-pleased with him) to erase something during the Treaty of Hudaybiyya, Ali refused to do so and disputed with the Prophet about that. On the other hand, Umar did not dispute with the Prophet: when Umar said what he said, the Prophet was actually unconscious. It was the other Sahabah that Umar was addressing when he said: “The Prophet is seriously ill and you have the Quran; so the Book of Allah is enough for us.”
Ibn al Hashimi stated:
When the Prophet asked Ali (may Allah be well-pleased with him) to erase something during the Treaty of Hudaybiyya, Ali refused to do so and disputed with the Prophet about that. On the other hand, Umar did not dispute with the Prophet: when Umar said what he said, the Prophet was actually unconscious. It was the other Sahabah that Umar was addressing when he said: “The Prophet is seriously ill and you have the Quran; so the Book of Allah is enough for us.”
Reply One- The Nawasib would have criticised Imam Ali bin Abi Talib (as), no matter what he had done
Whilst Imam Ali (as) wasn't personally prepared to redact these words with his own hands, he didn't prevent the Messenger of Allah (s) from striking them out himself.
Just look at how low these Nawasib can stoop, they are ready to find faults in Ali bin Abi Talib (as) in order to provide a veil for the sin committed by their hero client. We must remind the Nawasib that the Holy Prophet (s) had stated:
“Do not find faults in Ali”
Imam Nasiruddin Albaani declared it ‘Hasan’ in Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahiha, Volume 5 page 262.
But we are in fact satisfied to see such an attitude from our opponents since it confirms their ‘Nawasib’ status. The irony is had Imam Ali (as) redacted these words, todays Nawasib would have cited this as an example of Maula Ali (as) denying his (s) Prophethood. The refusal of Imam Ali (as) here was in fact his confession of the Prophethood of Muhammad (s) before the disbelievers and an invitation to them to embrace the truth.
Whilst the Prophet (s) could not accomplish the desire of Allah (swt) during his own tenure, it was left to his successor Ali Ibne Abi Talib (as) to take up the mantle of fighting the hypocrites, as such Imam 'Ali (as) fulfilled the command of Allah (swt) pursuant to this verse. Likewise, in Hudaybiyah, Rasulullah (s) completed the task sought from Imam Ali (as) by reading and amending the words in the treaty of Hudaybiyyah. Similarly, Imam Ali (as) completed the task sought from Rasulullah (s) by fighting the hypocrites, as such he fulfilled the Qur'anic instruction sought from Allah (swt) to do so.
When we examine the conduct of Imam Ali (as) at Hudaibya, we see no evidence of him seeking to obstruct / prevent the order rather he said that he of his own accord could not physically scrub out the name of the Prophet (s). We can link this to the promise made at Dhul Ashira that he (s) would help the Prophet (s) as such when he was physically fighting for the Prophethood of Muhammad (s) it was impossible for him to then scrub out his title from the document. The Prophet (s) recogised this and placed his hand over his (as).
The analogy which the Nawasib are trying to draw between the two incidents doesn’t really hold up because Imam Ali bin Abi Talib (as) didn’t omit the phrase “Prophet of Allah” as he (as) was the witness to the prophethood of Muhammad (s). But that has a spiritual aspect which narrow-minded Nawasib will never grasp. The point is, a rational and unbiased person can NEVER compare the incident of Thursday wherein Umar insulted Prophet (s) with that of the treaty of Hudaibiyah unless the Nawasib can prove that:
It is only when the Nawasib can prove the above cited points pertaining to the incident of Hudaibiyah treaty, and ONLY then that they will be entitled to compare the two incidents otherwise nothing can absolve Umar from his conduct on that Thursday. Our readers should be reminded that it was not just the duty to obey the Prophet (s) that was violated, Umar and his party had breached numerous Quranic verses such as raising a hue and cry in the presence of the Holy Prophet (s) and believing that he was talking non-sense. There is nothing from the incident of Hudaibya to suggest that Imam Ali (as) had conducted himself in such an atrocious manner.
Imam Nawawi has recorded in his book al-Minhaj, Volume 12 page 135:
“What Ali [ra] did falls under the ambit of preferred etiquette because he realized that the Prophet (s) was not compelling him to erase it by himself, which is why he (the Prophet) did not criticize him. Had he (the Prophet) compelled him to erase it by himself, Ali would not have been permitted to refuse it and the Prophet would have not remained silent about (Ali’s) disobedience.”
Similarly Muhadith Abdul Haq Dehalwi stated in Madarij un Nabuwah, Volume 1 page 212:
“Ali’s refusal to delete these words does not constitute disobedience, had this been the case he would have abandoned decorum, on the contrary he did the exact opposite, this demonstrates the extreme depth of love that he possessed”
Regarding the stance of Ali bin Abi Talib (as) at Hudabiyah Ibn al Hashimi stated:
Would the Shia now accuse Ali of disobedience to the Prophet, or of insubordination? Certainly not. The Shia, like the Sunnis, say that Ali refused the Prophet out of love and respect for him. We read:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 408:
Volume 4, Book 53, Number 408:
…So Ali bin Abi-Talib started writing the treaty between them. He wrote, “This is what Muhammad, Apostle of Allah has agreed to.” The (Meccans) said, “If we knew that you (Muhammad) are the Apostle of Allah, then we would not have prevented you and would have followed you. But write, ‘This is what Muhammad bin Abdullah has agreed to..’” On that Allah’s Apostle said, “By Allah, I am Muhammad bin Abdullah, and, by Allah, I am Apostle of Allah.” Allah’s Apostle used not to write, so he asked Ali to erase the expression of “Apostle of Allah”. On that Ali said, “By Allah, I will never erase it!” Allah’s Apostle said (to Ali), “Let me see the paper.” When Ali showed him the paper, the Prophet erased the expression with his own hand.
Regarding the stance of Ali (as), the Nasibi author has tried to bring the Shia report on par with the Sunni reports and sought to depict a shared consensus whilst in reality there is a marked difference. The Sunni reports do indeed portray Ali bin Abi Talib (as) as indulging in disobedience towards the Prophet (s) whilst the Shia reports mention the grounds that Ali bin Abi Talib (as) gave for his stance, there is hence no reason for Ibn al-Hashimi to downplay the malicious Sunni reports on the stance of Ali bin Abi Talib (as). When no Sunni report mentions the reasons to explain why Ali bin Abi Talib (as) did not erase those particular words no Nasibi can claim that ‘Ali refused the Prophet out of love and respect for him’.
As for the Shia report, Ibn al-Hashimi has also cited the Shia tradition in this manner:
Perhaps the knee-jerk reaction of the e-Shia would be to deny this narration; to deal with such a claim, we refer the reader to a source considered very reliable to the Shia. Shaykh Mufid, the eminent Shia scholar of the tenth century, writes:Other things connected with (the expedition to) al-Hudaybiyya are (as follows): When Suhayl ibn Amir saw them and came towards their position, he begged the Prophet for peace. Inspiration came down on the Prophet in answer to that, and that he should make the Commander of the Faithful (Ali) his writer on that day and the one who would take down the peace treaty in his handwriting.
The Prophet said to him: “Ali, write down: In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate.”
“This is something which is being written between us and you, Muhammad,” Suhayl ibn Amir intervened. “Therefore begin with something which we accept and write: ‘In your name, O God.’”
The Prophet said to the Commander of the Faithful: “Remove what you have written and write: ‘In your name, O God.’”
“If it was not for the fact that I obey you, O Apostle of Allah, I would not remove: ‘In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate,’” the Commander of the Faithful replied. Then he removed it and wrote: “In your name, O God.”
Then the Prophet told him: “Write: This is what the Apostle of Allah and Suhayl ibn Amir have agreed upon.”
However, Suhayl ibn Amir again intervened, saying: “If I accepted this description of you in this document which being made between us, I would have admitted Prophethood to you; otherwise by agreeing to that I would be witnessing against myself or at least expressing with my tongue. Remove this name and write: ‘This is what Muhammad ibn Abdullah has agreed upon.’”
“Indeed, by Allah, he is truly the Apostle of Allah despite your arrogance,” said the Commander of the Faithful (Ali).
“Write his name as the condition which must be carried out,” retorted Suhayl.
“Suhayl, woe on you, cease from your obstinate behavior,” the Commander of the Faithful said to him.
“Remove it, Ali!” the Prophet ordered him.
“Apostle of Allah,” he said, “my hand will not move to remove your name from association with Prophethood.”
(Kitab al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, p.81)
The English translation done by the author is fine apart form the following sentence:
“He said: O Allah’s messenger, my hand cannot move to erase your name from the prophethood.”
This was the sole reason Ali bin Abi Talib (as) could not have removed the name title ‘Apostle of Allah’. There is a massive difference between REFUSING an order and being INCAPABLE to carry out an order, until those in a higher position guide on how to resolve it. Let us expans on this with an example:
“Professional regulations mean that a lawyer is INCAPABLE of claiming any interest accrued in his client’s clients bank account. If the client were to issue instructions allowing the lawyer to take the interest earned, the lawyer will need to turn to his regulatory body that will direct him on what to do, and how to do it. Prior to that the lawyer’s hands were tied, he could not do it”.
Whilst there wasn’t any ‘personal’ loss of Ali bin Abi Talib (as) in erasing the title of the Prophet (s) evidenced by the fact that he had already erased ‘In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate’ Imam Ali (as) was INCAPABLE of physically removing those words of his own accord. This is because the Quran deems Ali bin Abi Talib (as) to be the witness [Shahid] to Muhammad (s)’ station of ‘Nabuwah’ itself – hence removing Muhammad (s)’s association with the station of ‘Nabuwah’ would have actually meant to also disassociate himself from the status of being a ‘witness’ to his Prophethood. When the Prophet (s) asked that Ali (as) remove his title from the document he had done so in a manner to show to the world the relationship the Prophet (s) and Ali bin Abi Talib (as) had in terms of ‘clear proof’ and ‘‘witness’ which we read in Surah Hud, Ayah 17 and most relevantly, as can be evidenced in Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Volume 4 page 410:
Recorded ibn Abi Hatim and Ibn Mardweh and Abu Naeem in al-Marifa (book) from Ali bin Abi Talib [ra] that he said: ‘About each man from Qurash, a verse of Quran has been revealed’. A man said: ‘What has been revealed about you?’. He (Ali) replied: ‘You haven’t read Hud’s chapter ‘{ Is he then who has with him clear proof from his Lord, and a witness from Him recites it}’ Allah’s messenger is who has with him clear proof from his lord and I’m the witness from him.’
We also read:
“Recorded ibn Mardewh and Ibn Asakir from Ali [ra] that he said about the verse that Allah’s messenger is who has with him clear proof from his lord, and I’m the witness from him”.
We also read:
Ibn Mardweh recorded in other context from Ali [ra] that he said: ‘Allah’s messenger (pbuh) said: ‘{ Is he then who has with him clear proof from his Lord }’ its me ‘{ and a witness from Him recites it}’ its Ali’.
Similarly in prominent Shia book Usool al-Kafi, Volume 1 page 190 we read:
Umar al-Halaal said: ‘I asked Abu al-Hasan (as) about Allah’s almighty statement ‘{ Is he then who has with him clear proof from his Lord, and a witness from Him recites it}’. He replied: ‘The commander of believers (a) is the witness, and Allah’s messenger (s) is who has with him clear proof from his Lord’.
Shaykh Baqar Majlesi said in Mirat al-Uqool, Volume 2 page 341:
‘Mutawatir from Shia sources’.
Moreover, in this regard Allamah al-Bahrani has recorded some among the several traditions in his book Tafseer al-Burhan, Volume 4 pages 89-95.
Thus, the discussion has made it clear Prophet (s)’s stance of asking Ali bin Abi Talib (as) to remove both of those phrases and then Ali (as)’s stances at both of the times were all based on the Quranic knowledge that both of those revered personalities possessed and which layman like us cannot grasp the rhetoric, let alone the Nawasib.
Imam Ali (as) as the divinely designated witness to Prophethood, knew what he was doing was in complete conformity with the Book that he possessed a complete knowledge of. Our position can be strengthen by our referencing these two Sunni references:
Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri narrated: “The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: “Among you is one who will fight for the interpretation of the Qur’an just as I fought for its revelation”. We were very excited, and among us were Abubakr and Umar. Abubakr asked, “Am I the one?” and the Holy Prophet (pbuh) answered “No”. Umar too asked, “Is it I” and the Holy Prophet (pbuh) replied, “No; but it is the one who is mending the shoe”, meaning Ali (who was mending the shoe of the Holy Prophet). Therefore we visited Ali to convey the good news to him, but he did not even raise his head, as if he had already heard it from the Messenger of Allah (pbuh)”.
Al-Mustadrak, Volume 3 page 122. Both Imam al-Hakim and Imam al-Dhahabi have declared it ‘Sahih’.
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal in his Fadail al-Sahabah, Volume 1 page 674 No. 922 records:
Amr ibn Jubshi narrates:
Al-Hasan ibn Ali delivered a sermon to us on the death of Ali, saying: ‘Yesterday, you were separated from a man who none from the past ever surpassed in knowledge and whom none will ever equal in knowledge’.
The margin writer of the book Wasiullah Muhammad bin Abbas has decalred it ‘Sahih’ while Imam Albaani has declared it ‘Hasan’ in Silsila Sahiyah, Volume 5 page 660 Tradition 2496.
As the ‘witness’ he could not physically strike out those words, as this was a position delegated to him by Allah (swt). You can look at any law in any country, it is a fact that a claimant can withdraw his claim (as the Prophet did) BUT there is a no provision for a witness to withdraw his supporting testimony! The only way Ameerul Mumineen could carry out this instruction was for the Prophet (s) to intervene and direct and physically strike out his name. The Prophet (s) recognised this which is why he placed his hand over that of Imam Ali (as)’s. Central to this is the inability until the senior authority intervenes.
We have proven how futile it is for the Nawasib to draw an analogy between the two incidents is flawed and the stance of Ali bin Abi Talib (as) at Hudabiyah can never be compared to the one taken by Umar at the tragic Thursday wherein he not only prevented Prophet’s to write a will after which the Muslims would not deviate after him but he also took part in a hue and cry. There was no issue of of Umar being incapable of implementing the ORDER he REFUSED to do it and remonstrated with the Prophet (s) preventing others from doing so and questioned his sanity. This is willful intention to disobey; there is no mitigation that would explain away Umar’s conduct due to him being incapable of doing this! Compare this to the conduct of Imam Ali (as) at Hudaibya when the Prophet asked that he erase his title from the agreement, he (as) did not raise questions over the mental sate of Prophet nor did he reject / refuse to implement the task when the Prophet (s) assisted him so as to overcome his dilemma. When the Prophet (s) placed his hand over Ali (as)’s he removed whatever the Prophet (s) had asked him to do, he deleted the word Rasulullah (s) that he had initially recorded in the document as per the Prophet’s instructions, but was unable to sunbsequently delete them without the direct intervention of the Prophet (s). When the Prophet (s) placed his hand over Imam Ali (as)’s he did not push the Prophet (s) away, or continue his protest he did exactly as the Prophet (s) had ordered. Now how can a Nasibi compare this with Umar’s case wherein the his (s) ‘initial’ request for writing materials was ‘rejected’ by Umar, as we have already quoted a ‘Sahih’ narration from Musnad Ahmad, Vlume 3 page 346:
Jabir said: the prophet (pbuh) asked for a paper to write his will which no one would get astray after it , thus Umar objected until he rejected it.
Sahih al Bukhari contains a detailed narration about the peace treaty at Hudaibya, following its agreement between Rasulullah (s) and he Kuffar of Makkah, Umar sought to express his discontent as follows in Sahih al-Bukhari 2731, 2732
حَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، أَخْبَرَنَا مَعْمَرٌ، قَالَ أَخْبَرَنِي الزُّهْرِيُّ، قَالَ أَخْبَرَنِي عُرْوَةُ بْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ، عَنِ الْمِسْوَرِ بْنِ مَخْرَمَةَ، وَمَرْوَانَ، يُصَدِّقُ كُلُّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا حَدِيثَ صَاحِبِهِ قَالَ خَرَجَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم زَمَنَ الْحُدَيْبِيَةِ، حَتَّى كَانُوا بِبَعْضِ الطَّرِيقِ قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم " إِنَّ خَالِدَ بْنَ الْوَلِيدِ بِالْغَمِيمِ فِي خَيْلٍ لِقُرَيْشٍ طَلِيعَةً فَخُذُوا ذَاتَ الْيَمِينِ ". فَوَاللَّهِ مَا شَعَرَ بِهِمْ خَالِدٌ حَتَّى إِذَا هُمْ بِقَتَرَةِ الْجَيْشِ، فَانْطَلَقَ يَرْكُضُ نَذِيرًا لِقُرَيْشٍ، وَسَارَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم حَتَّى إِذَا كَانَ بِالثَّنِيَّةِ الَّتِي يُهْبَطُ عَلَيْهِمْ مِنْهَا، بَرَكَتْ بِهِ رَاحِلَتُهُ. فَقَالَ النَّاسُ حَلْ حَلْ. فَأَلَحَّتْ، فَقَالُوا خَلأَتِ الْقَصْوَاءُ، خَلأَتِ الْقَصْوَاءُ. فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم " مَا خَلأَتِ الْقَصْوَاءُ، وَمَا ذَاكَ لَهَا بِخُلُقٍ، وَلَكِنْ حَبَسَهَا حَابِسُ الْفِيلِ، ثُمَّ قَالَ وَالَّذِي نَفْسِي بِيَدِهِ لاَ يَسْأَلُونِي خُطَّةً يُعَظِّمُونَ فِيهَا حُرُمَاتِ اللَّهِ إِلاَّ أَعْطَيْتُهُمْ إِيَّاهَا ". ثُمَّ زَجَرَهَا فَوَثَبَتْ، قَالَ فَعَدَلَ عَنْهُمْ حَتَّى نَزَلَ بِأَقْصَى الْحُدَيْبِيَةِ، عَلَى ثَمَدٍ قَلِيلِ الْمَاءِ يَتَبَرَّضُهُ النَّاسُ تَبَرُّضًا، فَلَمْ يُلَبِّثْهُ النَّاسُ حَتَّى نَزَحُوهُ، وَشُكِيَ إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم الْعَطَشُ، فَانْتَزَعَ سَهْمًا مِنْ كِنَانَتِهِ، ثُمَّ أَمَرَهُمْ أَنْ يَجْعَلُوهُ فِيهِ، فَوَاللَّهِ مَا زَالَ يَجِيشُ لَهُمْ بِالرِّيِّ حَتَّى صَدَرُوا عَنْهُ، فَبَيْنَمَا هُمْ كَذَلِكَ، إِذْ جَاءَ بُدَيْلُ بْنُ وَرْقَاءَ الْخُزَاعِيُّ فِي نَفَرٍ مِنْ قَوْمِهِ مِنْ خُزَاعَةَ، وَكَانُوا عَيْبَةَ نُصْحِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم مِنْ أَهْلِ تِهَامَةَ، فَقَالَ إِنِّي تَرَكْتُ كَعْبَ بْنَ لُؤَىٍّ وَعَامِرَ بْنَ لُؤَىٍّ نَزَلُوا أَعْدَادَ مِيَاهِ الْحُدَيْبِيَةِ، وَمَعَهُمُ الْعُوذُ الْمَطَافِيلُ، وَهُمْ مُقَاتِلُوكَ وَصَادُّوكَ عَنِ الْبَيْتِ. فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم " إِنَّا لَمْ نَجِئْ لِقِتَالِ أَحَدٍ، وَلَكِنَّا جِئْنَا مُعْتَمِرِينَ، وَإِنَّ قُرَيْشًا قَدْ نَهِكَتْهُمُ الْحَرْبُ، وَأَضَرَّتْ بِهِمْ، فَإِنْ شَاءُوا مَادَدْتُهُمْ مُدَّةً، وَيُخَلُّوا بَيْنِي وَبَيْنَ النَّاسِ، فَإِنْ أَظْهَرْ فَإِنْ شَاءُوا أَنْ يَدْخُلُوا فِيمَا دَخَلَ فِيهِ النَّاسُ فَعَلُوا، وَإِلاَّ فَقَدْ جَمُّوا، وَإِنْ هُمْ أَبَوْا فَوَالَّذِي نَفْسِي بِيَدِهِ، لأُقَاتِلَنَّهُمْ عَلَى أَمْرِي هَذَا حَتَّى تَنْفَرِدَ سَالِفَتِي، وَلَيُنْفِذَنَّ اللَّهُ أَمْرَهُ ". فَقَالَ بُدَيْلٌ سَأُبَلِّغُهُمْ مَا تَقُولُ. قَالَ فَانْطَلَقَ حَتَّى أَتَى قُرَيْشًا قَالَ إِنَّا قَدْ جِئْنَاكُمْ مِنْ هَذَا الرَّجُلِ، وَسَمِعْنَاهُ يَقُولُ قَوْلاً، فَإِنْ شِئْتُمْ أَنْ نَعْرِضَهُ عَلَيْكُمْ فَعَلْنَا، فَقَالَ سُفَهَاؤُهُمْ لاَ حَاجَةَ لَنَا أَنْ تُخْبِرَنَا عَنْهُ بِشَىْءٍ. وَقَالَ ذَوُو الرَّأْىِ مِنْهُمْ هَاتِ مَا سَمِعْتَهُ يَقُولُ. قَالَ سَمِعْتُهُ يَقُولُ كَذَا وَكَذَا، فَحَدَّثَهُمْ بِمَا قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم. فَقَامَ عُرْوَةُ بْنُ مَسْعُودٍ فَقَالَ أَىْ قَوْمِ أَلَسْتُمْ بِالْوَالِدِ قَالُوا بَلَى. قَالَ أَوَلَسْتُ بِالْوَلَدِ قَالُوا بَلَى. قَالَ فَهَلْ تَتَّهِمُونِي. قَالُوا لاَ. قَالَ أَلَسْتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ أَنِّي اسْتَنْفَرْتُ أَهْلَ عُكَاظٍ، فَلَمَّا بَلَّحُوا عَلَىَّ جِئْتُكُمْ بِأَهْلِي وَوَلَدِي وَمَنْ أَطَاعَنِي قَالُوا بَلَى. قَالَ فَإِنَّ هَذَا قَدْ عَرَضَ لَكُمْ خُطَّةَ رُشْدٍ، اقْبَلُوهَا وَدَعُونِي آتِهِ. قَالُوا ائْتِهِ. فَأَتَاهُ فَجَعَلَ يُكَلِّمُ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم نَحْوًا مِنْ قَوْلِهِ لِبُدَيْلٍ، فَقَالَ عُرْوَةُ عِنْدَ ذَلِكَ أَىْ مُحَمَّدُ، أَرَأَيْتَ إِنِ اسْتَأْصَلْتَ أَمْرَ قَوْمِكَ هَلْ سَمِعْتَ بِأَحَدٍ مِنَ الْعَرَبِ اجْتَاحَ أَهْلَهُ قَبْلَكَ وَإِنْ تَكُنِ الأُخْرَى، فَإِنِّي وَاللَّهِ لأَرَى وُجُوهًا، وَإِنِّي لأَرَى أَوْشَابًا مِنَ النَّاسِ خَلِيقًا أَنْ يَفِرُّوا وَيَدَعُوكَ. فَقَالَ لَهُ أَبُو بَكْرٍ امْصُصْ بَظْرَ اللاَّتِ، أَنَحْنُ نَفِرُّ عَنْهُ وَنَدَعُهُ فَقَالَ مَنْ ذَا قَالُوا أَبُو بَكْرٍ. قَالَ أَمَا وَالَّذِي نَفْسِي بِيَدِهِ لَوْلاَ يَدٌ كَانَتْ لَكَ عِنْدِي لَمْ أَجْزِكَ بِهَا لأَجَبْتُكَ. قَالَ وَجَعَلَ يُكَلِّمُ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَكُلَّمَا تَكَلَّمَ أَخَذَ بِلِحْيَتِهِ، وَالْمُغِيرَةُ بْنُ شُعْبَةَ قَائِمٌ عَلَى رَأْسِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَمَعَهُ السَّيْفُ وَعَلَيْهِ الْمِغْفَرُ، فَكُلَّمَا أَهْوَى عُرْوَةُ بِيَدِهِ إِلَى لِحْيَةِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم ضَرَبَ يَدَهُ بِنَعْلِ السَّيْفِ، وَقَالَ لَهُ أَخِّرْ يَدَكَ عَنْ لِحْيَةِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم. فَرَفَعَ عُرْوَةُ رَأْسَهُ فَقَالَ مَنْ هَذَا قَالُوا الْمُغِيرَةُ بْنُ شُعْبَةَ. فَقَالَ أَىْ غُدَرُ، أَلَسْتُ أَسْعَى فِي غَدْرَتِكَ وَكَانَ الْمُغِيرَةُ صَحِبَ قَوْمًا فِي الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ، فَقَتَلَهُمْ، وَأَخَذَ أَمْوَالَهُمْ، ثُمَّ جَاءَ فَأَسْلَمَ فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم " أَمَّا الإِسْلاَمَ فَأَقْبَلُ، وَأَمَّا الْمَالَ فَلَسْتُ مِنْهُ فِي شَىْءٍ ". ثُمَّ إِنَّ عُرْوَةَ جَعَلَ يَرْمُقُ أَصْحَابَ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم بِعَيْنَيْهِ. قَالَ فَوَاللَّهِ مَا تَنَخَّمَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم نُخَامَةً إِلاَّ وَقَعَتْ فِي كَفِّ رَجُلٍ مِنْهُمْ فَدَلَكَ بِهَا وَجْهَهُ وَجِلْدَهُ، وَإِذَا أَمَرَهُمُ ابْتَدَرُوا أَمْرَهُ، وَإِذَا تَوَضَّأَ كَادُوا يَقْتَتِلُونَ عَلَى وَضُوئِهِ، وَإِذَا تَكَلَّمَ خَفَضُوا أَصْوَاتَهُمْ عِنْدَهُ، وَمَا يُحِدُّونَ إِلَيْهِ النَّظَرَ تَعْظِيمًا لَهُ، فَرَجَعَ عُرْوَةُ إِلَى أَصْحَابِهِ، فَقَالَ أَىْ قَوْمِ، وَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ وَفَدْتُ عَلَى الْمُلُوكِ، وَوَفَدْتُ عَلَى قَيْصَرَ وَكِسْرَى وَالنَّجَاشِيِّ وَاللَّهِ إِنْ رَأَيْتُ مَلِكًا قَطُّ، يُعَظِّمُهُ أَصْحَابُهُ مَا يُعَظِّمُ أَصْحَابُ مُحَمَّدٍ صلى الله عليه وسلم مُحَمَّدًا، وَاللَّهِ إِنْ تَنَخَّمَ نُخَامَةً إِلاَّ وَقَعَتْ فِي كَفِّ رَجُلٍ مِنْهُمْ، فَدَلَكَ بِهَا وَجْهَهُ وَجِلْدَهُ، وَإِذَا أَمَرَهُمُ ابْتَدَرُوا أَمْرَهُ وَإِذَا تَوَضَّأَ كَادُوا يَقْتَتِلُونَ عَلَى وَضُوئِهِ، وَإِذَا تَكَلَّمَ خَفَضُوا أَصْوَاتَهُمْ عِنْدَهُ، وَمَا يُحِدُّونَ إِلَيْهِ النَّظَرَ تَعْظِيمًا لَهُ، وَإِنَّهُ قَدْ عَرَضَ عَلَيْكُمْ خُطَّةَ رُشْدٍ، فَاقْبَلُوهَا. فَقَالَ رَجُلٌ مِنْ بَنِي كِنَانَةَ دَعُونِي آتِهِ. فَقَالُوا ائْتِهِ. فَلَمَّا أَشْرَفَ عَلَى النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَأَصْحَابِهِ، قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم " هَذَا فُلاَنٌ، وَهْوَ مِنْ قَوْمٍ يُعَظِّمُونَ الْبُدْنَ فَابْعَثُوهَا لَهُ ". فَبُعِثَتْ لَهُ وَاسْتَقْبَلَهُ النَّاسُ يُلَبُّونَ، فَلَمَّا رَأَى ذَلِكَ قَالَ سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ مَا يَنْبَغِي لِهَؤُلاَءِ أَنْ يُصَدُّوا عَنِ الْبَيْتِ، فَلَمَّا رَجَعَ إِلَى أَصْحَابِهِ قَالَ رَأَيْتُ الْبُدْنَ قَدْ قُلِّدَتْ وَأُشْعِرَتْ، فَمَا أَرَى أَنْ يُصَدُّوا عَنِ الْبَيْتِ. فَقَامَ رَجُلٌ مِنْهُمْ يُقَالُ لَهُ مِكْرَزُ بْنُ حَفْصٍ. فَقَالَ دَعُونِي آتِهِ. فَقَالُوا ائْتِهِ. فَلَمَّا أَشْرَفَ عَلَيْهِمْ قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم " هَذَا مِكْرَزٌ وَهْوَ رَجُلٌ فَاجِرٌ ". فَجَعَلَ يُكَلِّمُ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم، فَبَيْنَمَا هُوَ يُكَلِّمُهُ إِذْ جَاءَ سُهَيْلُ بْنُ عَمْرٍو. قَالَ مَعْمَرٌ فَأَخْبَرَنِي أَيُّوبُ عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، أَنَّهُ لَمَّا جَاءَ سُهَيْلُ بْنُ عَمْرٍو قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم " لَقَدْ سَهُلَ لَكُمْ مِنْ أَمْرِكُمْ ". قَالَ مَعْمَرٌ قَالَ الزُّهْرِيُّ فِي حَدِيثِهِ فَجَاءَ سُهَيْلُ بْنُ عَمْرٍو فَقَالَ هَاتِ، اكْتُبْ بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَكُمْ كِتَابًا، فَدَعَا النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم الْكَاتِبَ، فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم " بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ ". قَالَ سُهَيْلٌ أَمَّا الرَّحْمَنُ فَوَاللَّهِ مَا أَدْرِي مَا هُوَ وَلَكِنِ اكْتُبْ بِاسْمِكَ اللَّهُمَّ. كَمَا كُنْتَ تَكْتُبُ. فَقَالَ الْمُسْلِمُونَ وَاللَّهِ لاَ نَكْتُبُهَا إِلاَّ بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ. فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم " اكْتُبْ بِاسْمِكَ اللَّهُمَّ ". ثُمَّ قَالَ " هَذَا مَا قَاضَى عَلَيْهِ مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ". فَقَالَ سُهَيْلٌ وَاللَّهِ لَوْ كُنَّا نَعْلَمُ أَنَّكَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ مَا صَدَدْنَاكَ عَنِ الْبَيْتِ وَلاَ قَاتَلْنَاكَ، وَلَكِنِ اكْتُبْ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ. فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم " وَاللَّهِ إِنِّي لَرَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَإِنْ كَذَّبْتُمُونِي. اكْتُبْ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ". قَالَ الزُّهْرِيُّ وَذَلِكَ لِقَوْلِهِ " لاَ يَسْأَلُونِي خُطَّةً يُعَظِّمُونَ فِيهَا حُرُمَاتِ اللَّهِ إِلاَّ أَعْطَيْتُهُمْ إِيَّاهَا ". فَقَالَ لَهُ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم " عَلَى أَنْ تُخَلُّوا بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَ الْبَيْتِ فَنَطُوفَ بِهِ ". فَقَالَ سُهَيْلٌ وَاللَّهِ لاَ تَتَحَدَّثُ الْعَرَبُ أَنَّا أُخِذْنَا ضُغْطَةً وَلَكِنْ ذَلِكَ مِنَ الْعَامِ الْمُقْبِلِ فَكَتَبَ. فَقَالَ سُهَيْلٌ وَعَلَى أَنَّهُ لاَ يَأْتِيكَ مِنَّا رَجُلٌ، وَإِنْ كَانَ عَلَى دِينِكَ، إِلاَّ رَدَدْتَهُ إِلَيْنَا. قَالَ الْمُسْلِمُونَ سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ كَيْفَ يُرَدُّ إِلَى الْمُشْرِكِينَ وَقَدْ جَاءَ مُسْلِمًا فَبَيْنَمَا هُمْ كَذَلِكَ إِذْ دَخَلَ أَبُو جَنْدَلِ بْنُ سُهَيْلِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو يَرْسُفُ فِي قُيُودِهِ، وَقَدْ خَرَجَ مِنْ أَسْفَلِ مَكَّةَ، حَتَّى رَمَى بِنَفْسِهِ بَيْنَ أَظْهُرِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ. فَقَالَ سُهَيْلٌ هَذَا يَا مُحَمَّدُ أَوَّلُ مَا أُقَاضِيكَ عَلَيْهِ أَنْ تَرُدَّهُ إِلَىَّ. فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم " إِنَّا لَمْ نَقْضِ الْكِتَابَ بَعْدُ ". قَالَ فَوَاللَّهِ إِذًا لَمْ أُصَالِحْكَ عَلَى شَىْءٍ أَبَدًا. قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم " فَأَجِزْهُ لِي ". قَالَ مَا أَنَا بِمُجِيزِهِ لَكَ. قَالَ " بَلَى، فَافْعَلْ ". قَالَ مَا أَنَا بِفَاعِلٍ. قَالَ مِكْرَزٌ بَلْ قَدْ أَجَزْنَاهُ لَكَ. قَالَ أَبُو جَنْدَلٍ أَىْ مَعْشَرَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ، أُرَدُّ إِلَى الْمُشْرِكِينَ وَقَدْ جِئْتُ مُسْلِمًا أَلاَ تَرَوْنَ مَا قَدْ لَقِيتُ وَكَانَ قَدْ عُذِّبَ عَذَابًا شَدِيدًا فِي اللَّهِ. قَالَ فَقَالَ عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ فَأَتَيْتُ نَبِيَّ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقُلْتُ أَلَسْتَ نَبِيَّ اللَّهِ حَقًّا قَالَ " بَلَى ". قُلْتُ أَلَسْنَا عَلَى الْحَقِّ وَعَدُوُّنَا عَلَى الْبَاطِلِ قَالَ " بَلَى ". قُلْتُ فَلِمَ نُعْطِي الدَّنِيَّةَ فِي دِينِنَا إِذًا قَالَ " إِنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ، وَلَسْتُ أَعْصِيهِ وَهْوَ نَاصِرِي ". قُلْتُ أَوَلَيْسَ كُنْتَ تُحَدِّثُنَا أَنَّا سَنَأْتِي الْبَيْتَ فَنَطُوفُ بِهِ قَالَ " بَلَى، فَأَخْبَرْتُكَ أَنَّا نَأْتِيهِ الْعَامَ ". قَالَ قُلْتُ لاَ. قَالَ " فَإِنَّكَ آتِيهِ وَمُطَّوِّفٌ بِهِ ". قَالَ فَأَتَيْتُ أَبَا بَكْرٍ فَقُلْتُ يَا أَبَا بَكْرٍ، أَلَيْسَ هَذَا نَبِيَّ اللَّهِ حَقًّا قَالَ بَلَى. قُلْتُ أَلَسْنَا عَلَى الْحَقِّ وَعَدُوُّنَا عَلَى الْبَاطِلِ قَالَ بَلَى. قُلْتُ فَلِمَ نُعْطِي الدَّنِيَّةَ فِي دِينِنَا إِذًا قَالَ أَيُّهَا الرَّجُلُ، إِنَّهُ لَرَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَلَيْسَ يَعْصِي رَبَّهُ وَهْوَ نَاصِرُهُ،
`Umar bin Al-Khattab said, "I went to the Prophet (ﷺ) and said, 'Aren't you truly the Messenger of Allah?' The Prophet (ﷺ) said, 'Yes, indeed.' I said, 'Isn't our Cause just and the cause of the enemy unjust?' He said, 'Yes.' I said, 'Then why should we be humble in our religion?' He said, 'I am Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and I do not disobey Him, and He will make me victorious.' I said, 'Didn't you tell us that we would go to the Ka`ba and perform Tawaf around it?' He said, 'Yes, but did I tell you that we would visit the Ka`ba this year?' I said, 'No.' He said, 'So you will visit it and perform Tawaf around it?' " `Umar further said, "I went to Abu Bakr and said, 'O Abu Bakr! Isn't he truly Allah's Prophet?' He replied, 'Yes.' I said, 'Then why should we be humble in our religion?' He said, 'Indeed, he is Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and he does not disobey his Lord, and He will make him victorious. Adhere to him as, by Allah, he is on the right.'
We read the following golden words of Umar spoken at Hudabiyah:
“I did not entertain any doubt about the prophethood of the Holy Prophet since I accepted Islam except on that day of Hudaibiyah”
1. Musanaf Abdulrazaq, Volume 5 page 332
2. Sahih ibn Haban, Volume 11 page 224
3. Al-Mujam al-Kabir by Tabarani, Volume 20 page 14
4. Zaad al-Maad by Ibn Qayim, Volume 3 page 257
Observation
The Quran imposes upon believers a duty to obey Allah and Rasulullah (s) unconditionally, Allah (swt) says:
يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓا۟ أَطِيعُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا۟ ٱلرَّسُولَ
O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger
(Surah Nisa verse 59)
And the specific characteristics of the believers are identified by Allah (swt) as follows#
وَٱلَّذِينَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِمَآ أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ وَمَآ أُنزِلَ
And who believe in that which is revealed unto thee (Muhammad)
(Surah al Baqarah verse 4)
And the believers are instructed as follows:
يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ لَا تُقَدِّمُوا۟ بَيْنَ يَدَىِ ٱللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِۦ ۖ
O ye who believe! Be not forward in the presence of Allah and His messenger
(Surah Hujuraat verse 1)
How should we assess the manner in which Umar was conversing with Rasulullah (s) in light of these verses? Can any sincere believer contemplate ever speaking to Rasulullah (s) in such an insolent manner? The amazing thing is Umar remained unconvinced by the responses that Rasulullah (s) gave and sought the counsel of Abu Bakr to allay his concerns by putting those same questions to him. If it is suggested that Umar's conduct here evidenced courage and bravery here, we should point out the attributes were missing when Rasulullah (s) (prior to the Ridhwan negotiations) instructed Umar to go out to the Kuffar and Makka, but according to Shibli Numani:
"the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) chose 'Umar (Allah be pleased with him) to settle peace terms. But 'Umar (Allah be pleased with him) begged to be excused as the Quraish were thirsting for his blood and he had none of his tribesmen in Mecca to shield him"
Siratun Nabi Volume 2 page 138
This begs the question, was Rasulullah (s) not aware the Umar had to tribesmen there? The correct approach would have been for Umar to have said:
لبیک یا رسول الله
I'm coming Rasulullah (s) , without fearing the consequences, after all Allah (swt) provides His guarantee
بَلِ ٱللَّهُ مَوْلَىٰكُمْ ۖ وَهُوَ خَيْرُ
But Allah is your Protector, and He is the Best of Helpers.
(Surah Aale Imran verse 150)
Clearly, Umar didn't have faith in this verse, he was fearful that harm would come to him in Makka as he had no clansman there to protect him
Ibn al Hashimi stated:
Ali Had Lost His Senses According to the Shia?The Shia create a very big outcry over the words “is he delirious.” Let us analyze whether or not their indignation is over those words or rather simply over who said them. In the famous Sharh Nahjul Balagha, we read a Shia narration in which Ali ibn Abi Talib was wounded and bleeding; Ali ordered his son, Abdullah, to rub his cheek on the ground (i.e. in order to stop the bleeding). According to the Shia, when Abdullah heard this request, he thought that his father had lost his senses and he refused the request. We read the following Shia narration:
When the Amir al-Mu’mineen (Ali) was wounded, people turned aside from him. He (Ali) was spattered all over with blood and he had not offered his morning prayers (yet). He was told: “Prayer, O Amir al-Mu’mineen!”
He (Ali) raised his head and said: “A person who missed his prayer has no share in Islam!” Then he stood up with a jerk and blood gushed out of the wound. He said: “Give me a piece of cloth.” He wrapped it around the wound, offered his prayer and remembered Allah; then he spoke to his son Abdullah: “O Abdullah, rub my cheek on the ground.”
Abdullah says:
“I did not do it. I thought he had lost his senses! He (Ali) repeated the same thing: ‘My son, rub my cheek on the ground.’ I did not do it again. He (Ali) repeated himself the third time, (saying): ‘Why don’t you rub my cheek on the ground?’ Now I could see that he was in his senses. He himself could not do it out of pain and weakness. I touched his cheek to the ground. I saw the outer hairs of his beard; they were clogged with dust. He cried until the dust gummed onto his eyes.”
(Sharh Nahjul Balagha, by Ibn abi al-Hadid)
Is not the Shia anger over the word “delirious” a bit pretentious when we find that Ali’s own progeny, one of the Ahlel Bayt, says that their first Infallible Imam “has lost his senses?”
All we can do is applaud the audacity of this shameless, deceitful author who started out the argument with this sensational headline ‘Ali Had Lost His Senses According to the Shia?’. Let us look at his claims closely by underlining those segments that highlight his deception:
“Let us analyze whether or not their indignation is over those words or rather simply over who said them. In the famous Sharh Nahjul Balagha, we read a Shia narration in which Ali ibn Abi Talib was wounded and bleeding; Ali ordered his son, Abdullah, to rub his cheek on the ground (i.e. in order to stop the bleeding). According to the Shia, when Abdullah heard this request, he thought that his father had lost his senses and he refused the request. We read the following Shia narration”
The over emphasis by Ibn al-Hashimi on this report being a Shia source proves that he knew precisely what he was doing. Full marks should be given to the author for strictly adhering to the principles of his ancestors who had once snatched a piece of land and then fabricated the ‘evidence’ to support their crime.
O Nasibi, have a heart, the book Sharah Nahjul Balagha is not a Shia book rather a Sunni Mutazali book written by Ibn al-Hadeed Mutazali. If Ibn al Hashimi possesses an ounce of moral courage then we invite him to cite an actual Shia source that contains the cited alleged incident.
Ibn al Hashimi stated:
The Prophet’s Family Forced Him to Take MedicineThe Shia propagandists malign Umar ibn al-Khattab for supposedly “disobeying” the Prophet’s orders, despite the fact that he (Umar) did so out of love for the Prophet. And yet, it was around that same time period (i.e. during the Prophet’s final days) that the Ahlel Bayt (including Ali, Abbas, Fatima, and the Prophet’s wives) would also “disobey” the Prophet out of love for him. The similarities between the two incidents will surely cause the Shia to rethink his position.
As the Prophet’s condition worsened, his family was gathered around him and demanded that he take medication for his illness. But the Prophet categorically refused to do so, and forbade his family members–including Ali, Abbas, Fatima, and his wives–from giving him any sort of medication. And yet, these relatives of the Prophet disobeyed his direct order and chose instead to forcibly administer medication to the Prophet. It was their opinion that the Prophet was being negligent in taking care of his own self, namely because his noble nature was to worry about others without any care for himself. In any case, the Prophet was so angered by this gesture that he punished them by making them drink the medication themselves.
Here, we narrate a few of the narrations about this incident:
All of his family–his wives, his daughter [Fatima], al-Abbas, and Ali–gathered (round him). Asma said “This pain of his is nothing but pleuritis, so force him to take medicine.” We did so, and, after he had recovered, he inquired who had done that to him.
(Tareekh al-Tabari, Vol. 9, p.178)Then he (the Prophet) came down and entered his house and his pain increased until he was exhausted. Then some of his wives gathered around him, Umm Salamah and Maymoona–and some of the wives of the Muslims (among them Asma)–while his uncle Abbas was with him, and they agreed to force him to take medicine. Abbas said, “Let me force him,” but they did it (instead). When he recovered, he asked who had treated him (with medication) thus. When they told him it was his uncle…he (the Prophet) asked why they had done that..when he asked why they had done that, his uncle said: “We were afraid that you would get pleuritis.” He (the Prophet) replied: “This is a disease which Allah would not afflict me with. Let no one stop in the house until they have been forced to take this medication (i.e. as a punishment)”
(Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.680)They agreed to force him to take medicine. Al-Abbas said, “Let me force him,” and the (the Messenger of Allah) was forced.
(Tareekh al-Tabari, Vol. 9, p.178)We (the Ahlel Bayt) forced the Messenger of Allah to take medicine during his illness. He said not to force him, but we said that the sick man does not like medicine. After he recovered, he (the Prophet) said: “Let not one remain in the house until (everyone of you) has been forced to take this medicine…”
(Tareekh al-Tabari, Vol. 9, p.177)When they said that they were afraid that he (the Prophet) might have pleuritis, he (the Prophet) said: “It is from Satan and Allah would not inflict it on me.”
(Tareekh al-Tabari, Vol. 9, p.178)If the Shia would like to take offense at the idea of the Prophet being called “delirious”, then would they also like to take offense to the idea that he would be afflicted by a disease from Satan? Would any Shia like to criticize the Ahlel Bayt for disobeying the Prophet here? Instead, the Shia–like ourselves–say that those of the Ahlel Bayt were simply worried about the Prophet’s wellbeing more than even the Prophet was worried about himself. Their so-called “disobedience” was out of love for the Prophet and there can be no blame on them for that. Likewise, Umar asking the Prophet to rest cannot possibly be construed as something blameworthy.
Let us make it clear the Shia do take offence at the idea of the Prophet being called “delirious”, and also take offence to the idea that he would be afflicted by a disease from Satan. By citing this reference Ibn al Hashimi hopes that the Shia reassess how they judge Umar’s conduct during the calamity of Thursday. How precisely does he intend on creating doubts amongst the Shia when he is citing a Sunni source? It is like a Christian citing the Bible to convince a Muslim of the divinity of Isa (as)! Ibn al Hashimi seems to have yet again forgotten about the rules relating to Sunni / Shia polemics wherein you convince your opponents by citing their source, not your own. Tragically by citing this reference Ibn al Hashimi has scored a spectacular own goal. Moreover since Ibn al Hashimi has a new found fervour of merging Sunni and Shia sources when ascertaining the facts surrounding the final days of the Prophet (s) to create a seamless depiction allow us to throw into the equation Tafsir Qummi that sheds light on the above reference by suggesting that Ayesha tried to poison the Prophet (s). Ibn al Hashimi will you embrace this narration that pieces together further evidence to the event citied by you, in the same way that you incorporated the Mufid reference into the Sunni sources when presenting the calamity of Thursday to your supporters?
Ibn al Hashimi by citing this reference and the unacceptable slander of the Prophet (s) by his relatives has sought to suggest that no fingers should be pointed at Umar’s conduct during the calamity of Thursday when these relatives said worse they suggested that Satan had overcome him. We might deem such language atrocious but such an allegation is acceptable to Ibn al Hashimi since his Sect believes that the Prophet (s) was so affected by Satan that Allah (swt) had to send Gibrael to perform surgery on him:
We read in Sahih Muslim Book 001, Number 0310:
It is narrated on the authority of Anas b. Malik that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: (the angels) came to me and took me to the Zamzam and my heart was opened and washed with the water of Zamzam and then I was left (at my place).
The next hadith (0311) depicts the greater involvement of Satan:
Anas b. Malik reported that Gabriel came to the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upo him) while he was playing with his playmates. He took hold of him and lay him prostrate on the ground and tore open his breast and took out the heart from it and then extracted a blood-clot out of it and said: That was the part of Satan in thee. And then he washed it with the water of Zamzam in a golden basin and then it was joined together and restored to it place. The boys came running to his mother, i.e. his nurse, and said: Verily Muhammad has been murdered. They all rushed toward him (and found him all right) His color was changed, Anas said. I myself saw the marks of needle on his breast.
Despite this, the surgery (according to Sunni sources) proved unsuccessful since the Prophet (s) during his mission was so affected by Satan that he recited Satanic verses assuming they were from the Creator. We read in Tafseer Dur al-Manthur that:
Al-Bazaar and Al-Tabarani and Ibn Mardaweh and al-Ziya’ has narrated through a chain of all trustworthy (Thiqa) narrators by the way of Saeed Ibn Jubayr, from Ibn Abbas that Prophet (s) recited the words of Surah Najm in the following manner:
“Have you then considered the Lat and the Uzza And Manat, the third, the last? These are the lofty (idols), verily their intercession is sought after.”
Mushrakeen became delighted on hearing this from Holy Prophet (s) and said that their idols have also been mentioned in Quran. Then Gebrail came and said to Prophet (s): “Recite same revelation and Quran which I have brought.” Prophet (s) again recited the words:
“Have you then considered the Lat and the Uzza And Manat, the third, the last? These are the lofty (idols), verily their intercession is sought after.”
Gebrail said: “I had not brought these words, these are from Satan”. Then the following verse was revealed:
[22:52] “And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet, but when he desired, the Shaitan made a suggestion respecting his desire; but Allah annuls that which the Shaitan casts, then does Allah establish His communications, and Allah is Knowing, Wise”.”
As one can see, Sunni Islam draws up a clear nexus between Satan and the Prophet (s), if his mind and body were affected by Satan then it would be perfectly acceptable to suggest that his senses were likewise affected by Iblis! Ibn al Hashimi has no qualms whatsoever with this type of belief for he is content with suggestions that the Prophet was called “delirious”, and likewise takes no offence with the idea that he would be afflicted by a disease from Satan – all is in complete conformity with wonderful Sunni depictions of the Prophet (s).
It is also worthy to note that Ibn al-Hadeed has recorded this incident with no chain of narration, so even if for arguments sake this was a Shia source it would be of no value as it contains no chain.
Ibn al Hashimi stated:
If the Prophet was really going to write a will appointing Ali as his successor, then why didn’t the Prophet do that before his death? The event of the pen and paper happened on a Thursday, whereas the Prophet died on a Monday. The Prophet had more than three days to write such a will, and yet he did no such thing; no Sunni or Shia source indicates that the Prophet wrote this will in the three days after the event of Thursday. The Shia claim that Umar prevented the Prophet from writing about Ali in his will, so we wish to ask: was Umar ibn al-Khattab with the Prophet 24/7 for three days straight? Of course not. We know that this is not the case, and even Shia narratives tell about how Ali and a few close family members were with the Prophet alone in his final days. And yet, the Prophet did not write any such document in his last three days.
What prevented the Prophet from writing this will to Ali during those three days after the event of Thursday? What is interesting–and a point that negates the Shia claims completely–is that Ali himself never claimed that the Prophet was writing a will for him. No reliable Sunni or Shia account exists in which Ali ever mentions the “event of Thursday” as a proof for his Caliphate. Ali contested the Caliphate of Abu Bakr as well as the Caliphate of Uthman, and in both instances he and his advocates brought forth certain proofs as to why he (Ali) should be the Caliph over them (i.e. Abu Bakr and Uthman). And yet, never did Ali mention the incident of the pen and paper; surely if it is as the Shia claim it was, then Ali and his party would have mentioned that day of Thursday as a strong proof for Ali’s claim to the Caliphate, and yet the Hadith and historical literature is devoid of any such references in the lifetime of Ali.
The truth of the matter is that the Prophet did not say what it was that he wished to write on that day, and nobody knows what it was, so why and how do the Shia claim that they know what it was? The matter is part of al-Ghaib (the Unseen), knowledge of which is denied to humanity, so whoever claims to know with certainty what that information was can only be a liar and/or fool. Today, we see how the Shia claim that the matter was the appointment of Ali, and yet how can they know what the matter was when the Prophet never mentioned it, nor did Ali, Abbas, Ibn Abbas, Hasan, or Hussain ever claim to know what it was!
If Ali knew that the Prophet wrote a will in his favor, then why did he not use this as a proof for his Caliphate? When Ali contested the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and Uthman, he (Ali) brought forth many proofs to bolster his claims against the two, and yet never did he mention any will to be written in his name. We find that the Shia narrative is based on pure guesswork: what basis do they have to claim that it was the appointment of Ali? Why couldn’t we claim that that the Prophet wanted to write down something else such as the date of Laylat al-Qadr (the Night of Power) or even the appointment of Abu Bakr? If the Shia insist that the Prophet was going to write his will in favor of Ali, then what prevents us from claiming that in actuality it was for Abu Bakr? There is no proof either way. If the Shia bring up proofs, then we too have our proofs, such as the nomination of Abu Bakr as Imam of the prayers!
Had Imam Ali (as) written up the document at a later date, a document that would have committed to writing his coronation at Ghadir Khumm, such a document would have had no binding value in the opinion of Umar and his associates, they would have suggested that Ali (as) has cajoled the Prophet (s) into writing a will in his favour, those that would have benefited from the instruction did not care for it, thus making the contents of any such will completely redundant. If Umar and his party were not prepared to accept any written instruction made by the Prophet (s) three days prior to his death on account of his mental state, why would they accept a written instruction in favour of Ali (as) scribed by Ali (as), after that date? Its very contents would have been rejected forthwith, with Umar suggesting that they were either doctored or had been written by the Prophet (s) when he was in an unfit state of mind. Such a reaction would have been in complete conformity with Umar’s nature, in the immediate days following the death of the Prophet (s), his daughter (as) made a claim to the Estate of Fadak and submitted the written will of her father bequeathing the Estate to her, rather than consider the contents of this will, Umar snatched it and ripped it up. If Umar was not prepared to accept the written instruction of the Prophet (s) made long before the calamity of Thursday when he was in perfect health why would he accept any written document issued when (according to Umar) he lacked mental capacity?
Right at the beginning of his (s) mission when the Prophet (s) was instructed “And warn your tribe of near kindred…” (26: 214), he (s) summoned his close relatives and delivered this speech, the first call to Islam:
“Al-Fadl bin Sahl- Afan bin Muslim- Abu Awana- Uthman bin al-Mughira- Abi Sadeq- Rabeea bin Najed narrated that a man came to Ali and said: Oh commander of believers, why only you inherited your cousin without your uncle? He (Ali) replied: The messenger of Allah invited the children of Abdulmutalib and he cooked for them food, they ate till they get fulfilled and the food remained as if no one had touched it, then he (the prophet) brought water and all of them drank from it, but the water remained as if no one had touched it or drank from it.
Then he (the prophet) said: ‘Oh children of Abdulmutalib, I have been sent to you specially and to the people in general, and you saw the sign of that, therefore who among you give baya to be my brother, my companion, my inheritor and my minister.’
No one responded for that, hence I responded and I was the youngest among them, he (the prophet) said: ‘Sit down’ for three times. I responded and He say ‘Sit down’, till the third time he clapped by his hand on my thigh and said: ‘You are my brother, companion, inheritor and minister’. Hence I inherited my cousin without my uncle.”
Khasais by Imam Nesai, page 85
A wasi in Islamic Law is one that executes the Will of the deceased. When Imam Ali (as) was the Wasi of the Prophet (s) then it is common sense that a Will existed setting out his roles and responsibilities. According to Shia sources The Prophet (s) passed over the necessary essentials to Ali bin Abi Talib (as) as his true successor in the same way that one Imam passed on the mantle of leadership to his successor. This belief may be unpalatable to the likes of Ibn al Hashimi but the fact is there was an opinion amongst the sahaba that the Prophet (s) had dictated a will in favour of Maula Ali (as). We read in Sahih Muslim Book 13, Number 4013:
Aswad b. Yazid reported: It was mentioned before A’isha that will had been made (by the Holy Prophet) in favour of Ali (as the Prophet’s first caliph), whereupon she said: When did he make will in his favour? I had been providing support to him (to the Holy Prophet) with my chest (or with my lap). He asked for a tray, when he fell in my lap (relaxing his body), and I did not realise that he had breathed his last. When did he make any will in his (‘Ali’s) favour?
Observe how Ayesha seeks to quash this viewpoint by insisting that the Prophet (s) died resting on her bosom, are we going to assume he was in this same position until he (s) died? Moreover there exist narrations in Tabaqat ibn Sad Volume 2 pages 327-329 that inform us that he (s) died whilst in the arms of Imam Ali (as). We should not digress from the subject at hand, the fact is there existed an opinion amongst some Sahab that the Prophet (s) had dictated a Will the contents of which included his appointment of Maula Ali (as) as his successor, as Head of State. This opinion would not merely have appeared out of the blue, Ibn Saba was certainly at the scene to whisper fables about the ‘imaginary wilayah of Ali’. Knowledge of this will was so well circulated that it had even reached the ears of Ayesha. It should come as no surprise to learn that Ayesha had sought to reject this argument, hoe could she corroborate a will, the contents of which deemed the reign of her father to be unlawful? Nawasib cannot claim that Ayesha would never hide the truth, since we have clear examples of her bias that exhibited her support for her father and hatred of Imam Ali (as). When the Prophet (s) died she herself testified that when the Prophet (s) died:
‘They disagreed about his inheritance and could find no one with knowledge on that point, then Abu Bakr said, ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah may Allah grant him peace, saying ‘We the company of the Prophets, we are not inherited from. What we leave is Sadaqah’.
Tareekh ul-Khulafa, Page 62
Contrary to this, the same Ayesha suggests that the Hadith was a commonly known narration when she sought to prevent the other suriving wives of the Porphet (s) from staking a claim to their deceased husband’s estate as is clear from Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 367, Kitab al Maghaazi:
…. “I told ‘Urwa bin Az-Zubair of this Hadeeth and he said, ‘Malik bin Aus has told the truth” I heard ‘Ayesha, the wife of the Prophet saying, ‘The wives of the Prophet sent ‘Uthman to Abu Bakr demanding from him their 1/8 of the Fai which Allah had granted to his Apostle. But I used to oppose them and say to them: Will you not fear Allah? Don’t you know that the Prophet used to say: Our property is not inherited, but whatever we leave is to be given in charity?”
Just observe how she alters ‘knowldege’ of this hadith from unknown to well known in a matter of days, merely to support her fathers missaporpriation of Fadak from Sayyida Fatima (as). Then we have Ayesha’s inability to mention Imam ‘Ali (as)’s name whilst recollecting an incident that occurred in the final days of the life of the Prophet (s):
When Ubaidullah Ibn Utbah mentioned to Ibn Abbas that Aisha said “In his death-illness the Prophet was brought to (Aisha’s) house while his shoulders were being supported by Fadhl Ibn Abbas and another person”, then Abdullah Ibn Abbas said: “Do you know who this ‘other man’ was?” Ibn Utbah replied: “No.” Then Ibn Abbas said: “He was Ali Ibn Abi Talib, but she is averse to name him in a good context.”
The references for the above narration can be located in the following texts:
1. Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Volume 6 page 228 Tradition 25956
2. al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, by Ibn Sa’d, v2, part 2, p29
3. History of al-Tabari (Arabic), v1, pp 1800-1801
4. al-Ansab al-Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri, v1, pp 544-545
Ayesha’s biasness towards her father and prejudice against Ali (as) were the factors that motivated her to deny the existence of this will.
When Ayesha was not going to accept a will wherein Ali was cited as the successor of the Prophet (s) how can we accept that a man such as Umar would accept it?
Ibn al Hashimi stated:
Another interesting point is that the Shia say that Umar sought to prevent the Prophet from writing a will in favor of Ali. We wonder: how would Umar know what the Prophet wished to write on that day when in fact this knowledge was part of al-Ghaib (the Unseen)? Not even Ali knew what the Prophet wished to write on that day, so how could Umar have known?
To evidence this let us allow our readers to ponder over these words of Ibn al Hashimi that he had cited earlier in the article:
Umar felt that they should not bother the Prophet by asking him to write down religious advice, but rather they should allow the Prophet to regain consciousness, get some rest, and recuperate. Therefore, Umar said to the other Muslims: “The Prophet is seriously ill and you have the Quran; so the Book of Allah is enough for us.”
If Umar really wanted to convey the message to other sahaba present, namely that they allow the Prophet to regain consciousness, get some rest and recuperate, then Umar would not have in the very sentence provided a ‘long term alternative’ to the intended ‘Will’ of Prophet by saying “you have the Quran; so the Book of Allah is enough for us”. It is logical that ‘some rest’ means would have meant just that, the opportunity to relax and then return to the matter when he (s) felt better. Umar initiated no desire for the instructions to be halted temporarily, had that been his intention he would have said ‘give the Prophet a few minutes or a couple of hours to rest’. Rather than suggest that the Prophet (s) be allowed a little rest before he returned to the issue, he cited a ‘long term alternative or substitute source of guidance’ making it clear that the Prophet (s) should never return to the matter, no matter how he feels later. Umar’s intervention, through his words “The Prophet is seriously ill and you have the Quran; so the Book of Allah is enough for us” clearly indicates that this order should never be complied noit now, nor in the future, after all according to Umar the presence of the Quran negated the necessity for the Prophet (s) to dictate instructions for eternal guidance! This fact destroys Umar’s probable intention according to Hashimi’s conjecture, namely he wanted the Prophet (s) to get ‘some rest’ – as far as Umar was concerned even if he felt 100% later, the order should never be implemented, the Quran was sufficient, that was the end of the matter. This exposes the evil intention of Umar. Umar had actually got wind of precisely what the Prophet wanted to write namely a ‘source of guidance’ which is precisely why Umar sought to counter him by citing an ‘an alternative source of guidance’ that was going to help the Ummah ‘in the long term’.
To better understand the approach adopted by Umar, let us first get our readers to consider these predictions Rasulullah (s) who said to his Sahaba that clearly demonstrated his concern for them and the Ummah at large. We read in Sahih al Bukhari Book of afflictions, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 201:
“Narrated Jarir: “The Prophet said to me during Hajjat-al-Wada’, “Let the people keep quiet and listen.” Then he said (addressing the people), “Beware! Do not renegade as disbelievers after me by striking (cutting) the necks of one another.”
No only did Rasulullah (s) warn his Sahaba, he also foretold that a group would become Murtads and would perish in the fire as result of their apostacy:
Narrated Asma’: The Prophet said, “I will be at my Lake-Fount (Kauthar) waiting for whoever will come to me. Then some people will be taken away from me whereupon I will say, ‘My followers!’ It will be said, ‘You do not know they turned Apostates as renegades (deserted their religion).’” (Ibn Abi Mulaika said, “Allah, we seek refuge with You from turning on our heels from the (Islamic) religion and from being put to trial”).
Sahih al Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 172
We also read in al-Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 182:
Narrated Usama bin Zaid: Once the Prophet stood over one of the high buildings of Medina and then said (to the people), “Do you see what I see?” They said, “No.” He said, “I see afflictions falling among your houses as rain drops fall.”
The question that comes to one’s mind is ‘Why would the Prophet (s) convey these dire warnings to his companions?’ It is logical that he must have foreseen some type of indication that would suggest that problems would arise after him. These comments were clearly based on Rasulullah’s own observations of the situation. It was his Farewell Pilgrimage, he would only with the Sahaba a little while longer and yet it was clear that he saw the Sahaba going astray after him and being engulfed in afflictions ‘despite’ the fact that the Quran was there to guide them. It is therefore quite logical to link this to his order on his deathbed namely that Rasulullah (s) wanted to prevent such risks, and wanted to write a document that would act as a source of guidance for them to protect them from the afflictions he envisaged, hence his clear unequivocal instruction that writing materials be brought to him.
The words used by Rasulullah (s) are particularly of significant: “Come near let me write for you a writing after which you will never go astray.” The Prophet (s) at Arafat said similar words as we have mentioned:
“O people! I am leaving among you what if you follow them, you will never go astray; the book of Allah and my Etra my Ahlulbayt’
Declared ‘Sahih’ by Imam Albaani in Silsila Sahiha, volume 4 page 355
Whilst some people may assert that no one can pre-empt what the Prophet (s) wanted to write, there is nevertheless a clear link between what the Prophet (s) was saying on his death bed and what he had said at Mount Arafat. At Arafat the Prophet spoke of two things, adherence to which would prevent the people from going astray for all eternity. Similarly on his deathbed the Prophet (s) likewise wanted to write a document in the form of clear and final instructions which would ensure that the Ummah would never go astray after him, and which would suffice as written proof of the Prophet’s last will. If the matter is not clear, then why did Umar insist that no writing materials should be given and that “The Quran is sufficient for us”? Was Umar not present at Mount Arafat when the Prophet (s) had made it clear that there are two sources of eternal guidance? Indeed, we know that he was.
Curiously the great Maliki scholar Qadi ‘Iyad Ibn Musa al Yashbi (d.544 Hijri) in his acclaimed work ‘Ash Shifa’ manages to unintentionally acknowledge Umar’s knowledge of this tradition. Whilst defending Umar’s stance in disobeying the Prophet and thereby disobeying Allah by refusing the writing materials, this scholar writes:
“Umar knew that the Sharia was confirmed and the Deen established and Allah has said, “Today I have completed your Deen for you” (5:3) and the Prophet had said, “I am leaving you the Book of Allah and my family”. Umar said, ‘The Book of Allah is enough for us’, to refute those who were arguing with him and not to refute the Prophet’s commands”.
Ash Shifa by Qadi ‘Iyad Ibn Musa al Yashubi, English translation by Aisha Abdurrahman Bewley (Madinah Press, First edition 1991)
If as al Yashbi, states Umar was fully aware that the Holy Prophet (s) had said: “I am leaving you the Book of Allah and my family”, then why was he now insisting on following only the ONE source of guidance (the Quran) and not the other (The Ahl’ulbayt)? The Prophet (s) had made it unambiguously clear that the Quran is not sufficient for us, that the Quran and the Ahlul’bayt were connected, and that the Ahlul Bayt complimented the Quran as the other source of guidance. However, Umar who had heard these words and thus knew full well that the Quran in itself was not enough, asserted that the Quran was the sole source of guidance, thus excluding the Ahlul Bayt and thereby contravening the Prophet’s own clear statement. Does this refusal comply with Quranic injunctions to obey the Prophet (s)? Does this attempt to negate the Prophet’s (s) previous command by denying that there is a source of guidance complimenting the Quran, constitute obedience to Allah?
For us it is completely logical, when the Quran and Ahll’ul bayt (as) were the mechanism for preventing deviation after him (s) then it would be logical that he would place one man from the Ahl’ul bayt (as) at the helm of the State. He did so at Ghadir Khumm, and we shall quote this tradition cited by Shaykh ul Islam Dr Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri from ‘The Ghadir Declaration’ page 80:
It is narrated by ‘Ali (as) himself. He said: on the day of Ghadir Khum, the Messenger of Allah (saww) had a turban tied round my head (as a symbol of honour) and let the loose end hang down at the back. Then he said: The angels whom Allah (swt) had sent to help me at Badr and Hunayn were wearing turbans of the same kind. He then added: surely the turban differentiates between belief and disbelief.” ‘
[Tayalisi related it in al-Musnad (p.23#154); and Bayhaqi in as-Sunan-ul-kubra (10:14).
Hindi says in Kanz-ul-'ummal (15:306,482#41141,41909) that, besides Tayalisi, this tradition has also been narrated by Bayhaqi, Tabarani, Ibn Abi Shaybah and Ibn Muni'. Hindi has added the following words:
"Surely the turban differentiates between Muslims and polytheists."
'Abd-ul-A'la bin 'Adi has also narrated that the Prophet (saww) called 'Ali bin Abi Talib (as) on the day of Ghadir Khum, tied a turban round his head (as a sign of honour) and let the loose end hang down at the back.
This tradition is recorded in the following books:
i. Ibn Athir, Asad-ul-ghabah fi ma'rifat-is-sahabah (3:170)
ii. Muhib Tabari, ar-Riyad-un-nadrah fi manaqib-il-'ashrah (3:194).
iii. Zurqani, Sharh-ul-mawahib-il-laduniyyah (6:272).
This coronation followed the declaration of the Wilayah of Maula Ali (as) at Ghadir Khumm with the words ‘Of whomsoever I am Maula, Ali is his Maula’. The majority Sunni stance is that the sermon had no significance and was merely a reaffirmation of the friendship of Ali (as) before the companions, Maula meant friend, not Master. We appeal to justice, what do you say of Rasulullah (s) tying the turban around the head of Imam Ali (as)? Is this a standard practice that one does to a specific friend in a large gathering, or is it tied around the head of one that you deem your Wasi, Waris and successor? If the turban was used to tie the head of Ali (as), the Prophet (s) wanted to draft a binding legal document that would tie this Ummah till eternity. Ibn al Hashimi might find this implausible, but allow us to cite the stance of the grand scholar of Ahl' ul Sunnah Imam Abdul Hamid Ghazzali makes it clear that the Prophet (s) wanted to commit to paper what he had declared Ghadir Khumm.
"Rasulullah declared ‘Of whomsoever I am Maula Ali is his Maula’. Umar [r] accepted this congratulating Ali [r] saying “Congratulations you have become the Maula of men and women”, but after this his desire for power overtook him and when the Prophet said “Bring me a pen and paper so that I can remove any doubts over who will succeed me, Umar [r] replied “Leave him for he is talking nonsense”.
Sirr’ul Alameen, by Abdul Hamid Ghazzali page 9
So according to Imam Ghazzali
That will suffice to negate Ibn al Hashimi’s protestations over his hero client’s innocence. Ibn al Hashimi and his Nasibi brethren cannot simply walk away from the stance of Ghazzali for two reasons:
Umar was present at Ghadir where he personally congratulated Ali (as) with the famed words:
“Congratulations! O Ibn Abi Talib! You are my master and (the master of) every Muslim. (On this occasion) Allah revealed this verse: Today, I have perfected your religion for you”
Umar was not sincere when he made this bayya and was intent on ensuring that this order was not implemented following the death of the Prophet (s). To enable this it was essential that he thwart any transition of power from Muhammad (s) to Ali (as) and crucially block any efforts to affirm the declaration of Ghadir on his deathbed. When the Prophet lay on his deathbed on the Thursday and made the request for writing material Umar knew that the Prophet (s) now sought to commit that appointment to pen. Umar’s response wherein he raised doubts over the sanity of the Prophet (s), comments that caused a furore in the room was calculated to ensure that this document would never see the light of day. Umar’s conduct during the calamity of Thursday wherein he caused a dispute in the Prophet’s chamber was an attempt to frustrate the efforts of the Prophet (s).
In light of this reality how should we assess Umar’s political intervention when Allah (swt) says in Surah Ahzab verse 36:
It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by God and His Apostle to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys God and His Apostle, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.
When as per the admission of Ghazzali, Allah (swt) had through the Prophet (s) appointed Ali (as) as his Khailfa after him, what gave him the right to overrule that decision and prevent him from affirming this appointment through a binding written will? This verse make it absolutely clear that an order of Rasulullah (s) can not be overruled, when Rasulullah (s) has made a decision it has to be honored. Advocates of Umar may indeed present a vast array of defences, but we have the Word of Allah (swt) namely “if anyone disobeys Allah and His Apostle he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path”. With such a clear verse, how can the advocates of Umar deem his opposition to be better than Rasulullah’s order?
The explicit instruction the Prophet (s) made to the Ummah was with regards to Imam Ali (as). The words of the Prophet (s) were “Come near let me write for you a writing after which you will never go astray.”
An instruction wherein the Ummah would benefit from written instruction protecting it from deviation is essentially a directive that if followed will ensure guidance to the right path. It is only right that the Prophet (s) would seek to make such an order, after all Allah (sw) says in Surah Fateha:
Show us the straight way
The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray.
It would be illogical for Allah (swt) to to order his followers to make this supplication 17 times a day and not direct us to ‘those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace’. The Prophet (s) accordingly wanted to issue a written instruction directing the Ummah to where they should refer themselves to to enable their guarantee to the right destination. In the same way that today’s driver uses a Satellite Navigation System to ensure guidance to the intended destination, the Prophet (s) likewise wanted his Ummah to invest in that Satellite Navigation System that would ensure they got to the intended destination the Siratul Mustaqeem, hence his will if implemented would ensure they ‘will never go astray’. Alhamdolillah we can deduce that intended destination by analysing those traditions relating to Ali bin Abi Talib (as) for the Prophet (s) made it clear that his adherence would protect the Ummah from deviation and would lead us to the right path.
From assessing hadith, there is one narration that provides us with a clear indication of what that missing third order actually was. The Sunni scholar Shah Ismail Shaheed, in his book “Mansab-e-Imamate” records the following Prophetic tradition:
“If you make Ali your Khalifa, although I do not think you will, you will find him to be a Guide (Hadi), one who is Guided (Mahdi), and one who will take you to the Right Path (Sirratul Mustaqim)”.
Mansab-e-Imamate, by Shah Ismail Shaheed, page 46
This must have been the third order which would prevent the Companions from going astray – the appointment of Ali as Caliph after the Prophet, since he “will take you to the Right Path”, thus blocking the people from straying. The Prophet (s) had thus already expressed his desire that Ali (as) succeed him, but at the same time he also acknowledged that the Companions would not comply with his wish. Clearly, something must have happened in the presence of the Prophet (s) for him to assert “If you make Ali your Khalifa, although I do not think you will“; and it did happen, during the Calamity of Thursday when Umar and his supporters prevented the writing of a document which would have put Ali (as) at the head of the community. Had the companions taken heed of the Prophet’s (s) words and made Ali (as) the Khalifa, they would have never gone astray. On the contrary, Ali (as) would have led them to the Right Path (Sirratul Mustaqim) according to the Prophet’s (s) clear statement.
Ansar.org will of course beg to differ and once again present their Nasibi comments that are clearly seeking to attack Imam ‘Ali (as). The moderator claims:
The Shia say that the Prophet peace be upon him wanted to write his will. The Shia claim that the will was for Ali to be the successor in leading the Ummah. However, we understand from the Shia that the Prophet wanted to give the leadership to Ali to save his Ummah from going astray? Then can someone explain to us how come there were lots of afflictions and wars in the caliphate of Ali?
This is an indirect Nasibi tactic aimed at seeking to cast aspersions and attack the Caliphate of Ali ibne abi Talib (as) by blaming him for afflictions that arose during his Khilafah. For Ansar it is okay to attack the Leadership of Ali but not those that attacked and rebelled against him. Rasulullah (s) had identified Imam Ali (as) as the guide for the Ummah and stated that those that followed him would be guided to the right path. As we have already mentioned earlier he (s) had already warned his Sahaba with these clear words:
Sahih Bukhari, Book of Afflictions, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 182:
“I see afflictions falling among your houses as rain drops fall.”
In the same way that a Doctor after identifying a condition, prescribes medication for his patient, the Prophet (s) had likewise told the companions where they should turn to when they were surrounded by affliction, and confusion reigned in on them, he said:
“Shortly after me discord and hatred will arise among you, when such a situation arises, go and search out Ali because he can separate the truth from falsehood”.
Kanzul Ummal, by Ali Muttaqi al Hind, volume 2 page 612 (Korab Dhieri, Multan)
The duty was on the Ummah to follow him to save themselves from afflictions, if the Sahaba chose to ignore these words preferring to rebel, fight and curse him, the loss was theirs not Imam Ali (as). For the Ansar Nasibis to in effect suggest that fault lies at Imam Ali (as), is the type of slander only becoming of one who hides his Nasibi beliefs behind the title ‘Sunni’.
Ibn al Hashimi stated:
When they (the people) had left (the room), he (the Prophet) said: “Send back to me my brother (Ali) and my uncle (Abbas).”
They sent for someone to call them and he brought them. When he had them sitting close, he (the Prophet) said: “Uncle of the Apostle of Allah, will you accept my testamentary bequest (wasi), fulfill my promise, and carry out my religion?”
“Apostle of Allah, your uncle is an old man with the responsibilities of a large family,” answered Al-Abbas. “You vie with the wind in liberality and generosity. You have made promises which your uncle could never fulfill.”
Then he (the Prophet) turned to Ali ibn Abi Talib, and said: “Brother, will you accept my testamentary bequest (wasi), fulfill my promises, carry out my religion on my behalf and look after the affairs of my family after me?”
“Yes, Apostle of Allah,” he (Ali) replied. (Kitab Al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, p.131)
This Nasibi knows fully well that this reference that he cited had nothing whatsoever to do with his appointing a successor. The discussion here concerned the Prophet asking whether his uncle implement his will, pay off his debts and tend to the needs of his family. The word ‘Deeni’ does not exclusively mean ‘religion’, it is also used for the term ‘debts’. Thus the translation of the above cited passage can also be read as follows:
When they (the people) had left (the room), he (the Prophet) said: “Send back to me my brother (Ali) and my uncle (Abbas).” They sent for someone to call them and he brought them. When he had them sitting close, he (the Prophet) said: “Uncle of the Apostle of Allah, will you accept my testamentary bequest (wasi), fulfill my promise, and carry out my debt?” “Apostle of Allah, your uncle is an old man with the responsibilities of a large family,” answered Al-Abbas. “You vie with the wind in liberality and generosity. You have made promises which your uncle could never fulfill.” Then he (the Prophet) turned to Ali ibn Abi Talib, and said: “Brother, will you accept my testamentary bequest (wasi), fulfill my promises, carry out my debt on my behalf and look after the affairs of my family after me?” “Yes, Apostle of Allah,” he (Ali) replied.
The Prophet (s) seeking to appoint a debtor would concur with the fact that the Prophet (s) died owing debts, as was evidenced by Khateeb Sherbini in Mughni al-Muhtaj, Volume 2 page 10:
“He (s) died and his armor was mortgaged to a Jew”
We read in Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 743:
Narrated ‘Aisha:
The Prophet died while his armor was mortgaged to a Jew for thirty Sa’s of barley.
As the elder of the family and his uncle it was appropriate to ask him in the first instance. When he rejected the offer he then turned to Imam Ali (as) who duly obliged. The text has no reference to Khalifah, and the response of his uncle “Apostle of Allah, your uncle is an old man with the responsibilities of a large family,” is making it clear that he lacked the financial means to pay off any debts the Prophet (s) owed, it would have been nonsensical for him to give this repose if he had been offered the Caliphate since his ability to lead would have no link with the size of his family! Abbas understood the offer to be one relating to implementing his will, not being the Khalifa after him. When the Prophet (s) then turns to Ali (as) he again asks that he implements his religious obligation and tends to his family with these words: “Brother, will you accept my testamentary bequest (wasi), fulfill my promises, carry out my debt on my behalf and look after the affairs of my family after me?” These words do not refer to succession; they clearly refer to fulfilling the dying wishes of the Prophet (s), nothing else. Abbas (ra) and Ali (as) the parties in the room at the time, never took this instruction to refer to Caliphate, how does Ibn al Hashimi conclude this?