The pen and paper episode relating to the final days of the life of our blessed Prophet (s) is an unfortunate episode that has fuelled intense polemical debate between the Sunni and Shia schools of thought dating back hundreds of years. In October 2001, we submitted our contribution article titled “obedience to the prophet”wherein we sought to assess the conduct of Umar and his supporters against the Quranic verses requiring unconditional obedience to the Prophet (s). This article was a refutation of an article penned by our nemesis Ansar.Org which which had up until then been touted by the cyber-nasabis as an internet masterpiece. With the passage of time, aided by Saudi petrodollars more nasibi websites have emerged the most notable being the erroneously titled ahlelbayt.com with Ibn al Hashimi at the helm who has sought to supply several defences for Umar. Whilst detailed articles, rebuttals and counter-rebuttals have taken place through history the commonly accepted notion has been to acknowledge that the incident was a significant one. It is hence both fascinating and curious to witness the Ahlelbayt.com website seeking to re-invent history and to depart from hundreds of years of Sunni polemics by presenting the entire episode as a non-event. This essential denial is the last-ditch recourse of those unable to satisfactorily defend their position. Whilst it seems somewhat unusual that the advocates for and against Umar dedicate hours of their lives to what Ibn al Hashimi would deem a non-episode we will seek to analyse this fresh approach to understanding the Sunni perspective of this event, this bid’a of ibn al Hashimi’s innovative position. The emergence of this fresh attempt to exonerate Umar and his friends necessitated the importance for us to re-examine this issue and publish a 2nd edition. In line with the approach taken by Ibn al Hashimi we changed the entire structure of the article and and its name so as to make it an appropriate refutation of both nasibi articles. It is quite possible that after this refutation he will then come out and say the incident of the ‘Calamity’ as it is known never even happened, though it has been conceded to be authentic by all Sunni scholars, with narration in the Sahih of Bukhari with several authentic chains!
This is one of the traditions we read in Sahih al-Bukhari (the others which provide more detail will be shown shortly) as narrated by Ibn ‘Abbas:
When the time of the death of the Prophet approached while there were some men in the house, and among them was ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, the Prophet said: “Come near let me write for you a writing after which you will never go astray.” ‘Umar said: “The Prophet is seriously ill, and you have the Qur’an, so Allah’s Book is sufficient for us.” The people in the house differed and disputed. Some of them said, “Come near so that Allah’s Apostle may write for you a writing after which you will not go astray,” while the others said what ‘Umar said. When they made much noise and quarreled greatly in front of the Prophet, he said to them, “Go away and leave me.” Ibn ‘Abbas used to say, “It was a great disaster that their quarrel and noise prevented Allah’s Apostle from writing a statement for them.
Sahih al Bukhari Arabic-English Volume 9 hadith number 468 and Volume 7 hadith 573
BUKHARI GIVES MORE DETAILS (BELOW)
This is a highly significant event that occurred towards the end of the Prophet’s life. The Prophet (s) wanted to write a document, which we later prove in this article to be his Will, and this was so momentous in its contents that people would never go astray. Clearly, the Prophet’s explicit words “you will never go astray”, illustrate the critical nature of the Prophet’s command and prove that what the Prophet intended to write related to the matter of delivering the message and religious guidance of the people. It is only logical to accept that at this critical stage when the Prophet (s) was near the time when he would depart from this world, he should take the opportunity to write his will as per the command of Allah in the Qur’an in which he could issue final instructions to the Muslim Ummah. However, one group led by Umar felt that this momentous order of the Prophet should be disregarded, while the other group stated that the Prophet’s (s) order should be obeyed. We read a further account in Sahih al Bukhari as narrated by Sa’id Ibn Jubair, who heard Ibn ‘Abbas say:
“Thursday! And you know not what Thursday is?” After that Ibn ‘Abbas wept till the stones on the ground were soaked with his tears. On that I asked Ibn ‘Abbas, “What is (about) Thursday?” He said, “When the condition (i.e. health) of Allah’s Apostle deteriorated, he said, ‘Bring me a bone of scapula, so that I may write something for you after which you will never go astray.’ The people differed in their opinions although it was improper to differ in front of a prophet. They said, ‘What is wrong with him? Do you think he is talking no sense (delirious)? Ask him (to see if he is talking no sense). The Prophet replied, ‘Leave me, for I am in a better state than what you are asking me.’ Then the Prophet ordered them to do three things saying: ‘Turn out all the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, show respect to all foreign delegates by giving them gifts as I used to do.’ The third order was something beneficial which either Ibn ‘Abbas did not mention or he mentioned but I forgot!.
Sahih al Bukhari Arabic-English Volume 9 hadith number 468 and Volume 4 hadith 393
Advocate Ibn al Hashimi’s desperate efforts to exonerate his client Umar of all wrong-doing will be assessed in the next chapter, let us first consider whether this was indeed a non-episode as he has called the event, indeed giving his entire defence of Umar the title “The Non-Episode of the Calamity of Thursday”, in itself a self-contradiction as a Calmity IS an event, and it was not the Shias who gave the event that name it was the companions and the Sahih of Bukhari. We appeal to basic logic first. First any dispute at the deathbed wherein parties are fighting over the instructions of the dying man wishing to write his Will IS an episode and will always be remembered as such in any culture. Furthermore, in Islam the writing of a Will is compulsory, which adds insult to injury as far as the gravity of the situation is concerned – not to leave a Will is a sin, and he who prevents a dying man from writing his Will is a big fat sinner. Now what then if the dying man is a prophet of Allah (swt)? How then can an event wherein a prophet is prevented from writing his Will be called a non-event? And what if that prophet is Mohammad (s) the Seal of Prophets (s)? And what, is it still a non-event when the Seal of Prophet (s) states that he is not intending to write a Will dealing with personal issues like who inherits his favourite camel but he is intending to write a Will dealing with an issue so substantive that he himself says it will prevent the Ummah (that’s you and me) from EVER going astray into eternal damnation? In the name of the God of the 124,000 prophets, how can this all be called a non-episode?
The facts wherein the current arch-Sunni protagonist Ibn Hashimi has entered a state of semi-denial of the event of the Calamity of Thursday by considering it a ‘non-event’ can be broken down as follows:
An event that formed the root origin of disputes amongst the Sahaba can never be deemed a non-episode. If you ever wish to ascertain any hostilities between parties, it is imperative to ascertain its origins, since a matter that might seem a non event at the time, can never be deemed as such if its long term repercussions fuel further hostilities. Ibn al-Hashimi is merely acting like a murderer clumsily seeking to cover his tracks in hope that his identity is never identified.
Event: The Event of the ‘Calamity of Thursday’ (The Event of Pen and Paper) – the Prophet Muhammad (s), who Muslims believe to be the Seal of 124,000 Prophets, attempts to write his Will but is foiled by an associate called Umar who blocks him. In the presence of the Seal of Prophets (s) a major dispute breaks out, with some of his associates rebelling against Muhammad (s) over the issue of the Will. Therein two Sects amongst the Muslims emerge at Muhammad (s)’s deathbed, one faction from his associates siding with Muhammad (s) and his family, the other faction amongst his associates choosing to side with Umar against Muhammad (s).
Place: Deathbed of Muhammad (s), Madina, Arabia.
Time Check: 2 or 3 days before the death of Muhammad (s), the Seal of 124,000 Prophets. Muhammad (s) will die on three days later.
Authenticity: the Event is accepted by all Muslims. As examples the narrations from the two pre-eminent monolithic Sunni sources of Bukhari and Muslim are shown here (others are in the main article):
The above is a shocking story, even with the great Sunni apologists Bukhari and Muslim presenting matters.
Not surprisingly the Calamity of Thursday is a DEEPLY disturbing event for the Muslim conscience. And when I say Muslim I mean someone who believes deep down in their heart and soul that Muhammad (s) is the supreme authority of God, not someone they bring to their own level like fisherman’s wives. For generations Sunni advocates have tried to obscure the Calamity of Thursday, to flush this reality down the proverbial toilet pan. Tragically for such advocates, the history of the event refuses to do what it is told, it just refuses to flush away, IT IS JUST TOO BIG TO FLUSH AWAY.
I was asked to read the Sunni article, proofread this Shia article, and to pen my own preface to this article. The main authors have produced a legalistic step-by-step refutation of the Sunni perspective on the matter of the Pen and Paper incident as presented by the Sunni propagandist Ibn al-Hashimi from the erroneously-styled ahlelbayt.com spelling. This Shia article painfully exposes the wholesale misinterpretation of primary historical sources and hadith that the Sunni brother has concocted to get Umar ‘off the hook’ of being accused of Judasian treason against Muhammad (s) in his last days. I am not going to say any more about Ibn al-Hashimi save from saying I don’t like being lied to. And I was lied to by people with tongues of gold like him when I was a Sunni Muslim, these people being the Sunni propagandists who presented to me a largely fictionalized version of an apolitical fairytale caliphate complete with airbrushed companions. My thanks are to Allah (swt) for the Shia scholars who strip such liars and their like of their false veil of purity and integrity.
The article is typical of the strongly evidenced nature of Shia works my own research led me to read. One strand of difference between Shia and Sunni was exemplified to me over how they reported and analysed key events like the Calamity of Thursday, the Saqifa, the Murder of Fatima (sa). The Shia accepted the reality of the companions and exposed their misdemeanours like real reporters and journalists expose the crimes of the Israelis in Palestine, while Sunni propagandists reminded me of Fox News – covering up, failing to report atrocities, a de facto state media organization whose primary aim was not truth, but protecting the state (with Fox News it is the state of Israel, with the Sunni propagandists it was the Caliphate, which was founded by Abu Bakr and Omar).
For me as a revert to the Shi’a of Ali from a staunch Sunni background, I was asked to proof read this article because the Calamity of Thursday was my calamity of conscience and it was a key historical event for me in my personal quest for truth and salvation. And the issue is clear. Without replying to muddy areas some Sunnis purposefully like to create, which I leave to the main body of this article, in a nutshell what is this event all about?
The Seal of 124,000 prophets had like all Muslims to leave a Will, as is commanded by Allah (sawt) in the Noble Qur’an in those famous verses that when death approaches a Muslim must make a Will:
“It is prescribed for you when death approaches one of you, if he leaves behind any goods that he makes a bequest for Parents and (the nearest kinsmen) in goodness, this is a duty upon the pious” (The Qur’an 2:180)
So what happened in the Calamity of Thursday?
Fact #1: Muhammad (s) tried to write his Will 2 or 3 days before he departed this world.This is the Will of the Seal of 124,000 prophets. My God!
Fact #2: Muhammad (s) said what was going to be written in his Will was of such massive importance the people after him would never be misguided – the key for salvation was to be written into stone!
Fact # 3: Umar stopped the Will being written (whatever the motive- read the article and judge for yourself)
Fact #4 At this point two sects emerged at the deathbed of Muhammad (s) – one with his wives (mentioned in many sources and not denied – see main article) favouring the family of Muhammad (s) AND Muhammad (s), the other favouring Umar and going AGAINST Muhammad (s) and his family. The head of Muhammad (s)’s family after him was of course Ali (as). Yet Umar’s conflict with Muhammad (s) is to anyone who is not biased by love of Umar a rebellion against Muhammad (s)’s authority), and this defines a traitor. Except of course to those misguided souls, the ultra-monarchist Sunnis who cannot understand an Islam without King Umar – indeed shockingly those who take the side of Umar against Muhammad (s) in this Event say Muhammad (s) was indeed out of line and Umar tried to bring him to heel, God forbid! However, the facts about Umar have not flushed away after 1,400 years. Most Muslims love Muhammad (s) too much. The bad behavior by Umar was downright inexcusable had it been expressed to a normal man, but it becomes treachery given who Muhammad (s) in is authority was, and what Muhammad (s) was trying to do, which was to leave the Will of the Seal of 124,000 Prophets for the billions of followers.
Fact #5: So bad did this dispute become that Muhammad (s) attacked Umar verbally, throwing him and others out of his house because of Umar’s attack on him. This was the very last time Muhammad (s) met with Umar. Yes! Shocking! The last relationship held between Muhammad (s) and the suber-companion of Sunni Islam, Umar, was one in which Umar was a rebel leader against Muhammad (s), the Seal of Prophets!
Fact #6:Muhammad (s) never completed the Will because of Umar’s interference.
Fact #7: Umar prevented the Seal of 124,000 prophets writing the greatest Will there was ever to be written
0
Fact #8: Muhammad (s) said the Will was to be the key to salvation for all Muslims who followed him, yet this key was lost on account of Umar and his followers. And which sect of Muslims follows every single utterance of Umar? So can Umar’s followers have the key to salvation, the truth?
Now we can ruminate over what was meant to be written in the Will, and I agree it was Ali (as)’s wilayat as some Sunnis admit (see the main body of this article), but the facts from Sahih Bukhari and Muslim are exactly as I have presented them above. And that’s my point. That’s why I converted, nothing else counts. The choice based even on the hard facts from Sahih Bukhari and Muslim created a crisis of conscience – follow Muhammad (s) or NOT to follow Muhammad (s) and to follow Umar instead. A man more dear than my father and authorized by God as the Seal of 124,000 prophets, versus a man some people told me was his friend while other Muslims said was a false friend, a man who backstabbed my spiritual father. When I read with my own eyes what this socalled friend behaved like with my spiritual father, I held my spiritual father’s hand and turned my back on that false friend, for my spiritual father turned his back on him also the last time they met.
I left Sunni Islam and joined the Shia. I found the key to Salvation – Ali (as). Of course my spiritual father Muhammad (s) did not let the promise of Salvation he wished to write in that Will go to waste because of Umar. That was not his way, God calls him the Mercy to Mankind. It’s just that that key to Salvation could not be given on account of Umar’s behavior to Umar’s followers. It was given to the Shia. I took that key, a key to a gate, a gate signposted to us by the Prophet (s) through these remarkable words:
“I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate.”
Those numbered facts, stripped bare to the bone, above are from the monoliths of Sunni Islam called the Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim. What follows now is the main body of the article that takes on the Sunni defence, strips the Sunni arguments down exposing them as just pathetic excuse-makers and apologists (plus those smooth, golden-tongued Sunni lies you need a lie-detector like this website to detect) – all excuses for the in-excusable – what Umar did on that fateful Thursday to Muhammad (s). I converted of course before reading this article. I realised on deep thinking back then that there could be no excuse for Umar – I did not need anything more to convince me of what was happening on that calamitous black Thursday. Back then I was not familiar with the politics being played by men like Umar at the time of Muhammad (s)’s departure from the world. And even with that naivety still in me it seemed the Event of Pen and Paper was a desperate last-ditch effort by Umar to prevent Ali(as) being declared in writing as successor of Muhammad (s) by Muhammad (s) after the verbal declaration of succession at Ghadir Khumm in his favour. In fact this is (as the main article shows) exactly what the intellect of the great Sunni authority Ghazali led him to conclude as well. I was not alone in my suspicions. The Event of the Pen and Paper represents the subsequent public emergence after Ghadir of a group of traitors amongst the companions, drawn from that group who in 2 or 3 days would mysteriously appoint themselves Kings over Arabia at the Saqifa. And if Umar having to rebel openly on Black Thursday meant the whole cat and mouse game was over, yes it was, but Umar had also exposed himself as a traitor in the process, a treachery that echoes through all eternity. Take away the embellishments about him his successors fabricated through Hadith tales, this was obviously a man who was not really sincerely concerned with the spiritual dimension to religion but with material power and dominion, a man who would go onto found the racist Mawli system which would effectively demean non-Arab Muslims, and here at the start of his political career he is founding a system of leadership, of Arab empire, just like St Paul did with Christianity. Muhammad bin Ishmael Bukhari deserves to be congratulated for at least admitting that.
Wa Salaam