A claim is essentially where a person confidently asserts a position he deems true, especially when the matter is open to question. Such a bold position requires one to be sure that there exist no holes in his argument. Unfortunately when it comes to the claims of Ibn al Hashimi we find less holes in a tea strainer.
Ibn al Hashimi who comments:
Let us consider the following scenario: a teacher is giving a lesson to his student, and he asks his student to bring a piece of chalk to write with on the chalkboard. But then the teacher faints and collapses. Now tell us: is the student going to walk outside the room to find the piece of chalk? Would any sane person do that? Instead, the student would quickly rush to the teacher’s side, try to resuscitate him, bring him a pillow, raise his legs, etc. Now, when the teacher regains consciousness, would the student immediately thrust the chalk into the teacher’s hand and say “teach us!” Surely not! Instead, the school nurse would be rushed into the room, the teacher would be transported to the medical unit, and the teacher would be given a medical leave for the day in order to rest. Even if the teacher insisted that he was feeling better and that he could resume the lesson, the others would convince the teacher that he should take the day off and rest instead.Now then, let us say that one of the students in the classroom is worried about his exam the next day, so he tries to thrust the chalk into the teacher’s hand as soon as the teacher is regaining consciousness. What would the other students say to such a student, other than get angry at him and tell him to stop worrying about his own self but rather worry about the condition of the teacher? The students would tell him not to worry about the lesson and that “the textbook would be sufficient for us to study from for the exam.”Can anyone imagine a teacher fainting, then regaining consciousness, and immediately writing on the chalkboard with a piece of chalk? Tullaab al-ilm (students of knowledge) do not even approach their Shuyookh (scholars) when they (the Shuyookh) are tired or sleepy, as this is considered rude to pester them at such a time. Even if the Shaykh insists on teaching, the student will say out of courtesy that “you should rest, Shaykh, and we can do the lesson tomorrow.” This is common etiquette; now imagine the situation when a Shaykh would be lying on the bed unconscious; would any student ask him to give a religious lesson in such a condition?
After the Prophet asked for the pen and paper, he immediately fainted and it is then that Umar told the people not to get those things as the Prophet was in great pain. It would be, in Umar’s opinion (and ours as well), criminal to pester the Prophet in such a situation. The people were exhorting the Prophet for advice even as he was in between fainting spells. Any doctor alive today would say that if a patient is in and out of consciousness, then such a patient should be stabilized first and under no circumstances should the patient be making speeches, straining himself, or taking stress of any kind; such a patient should rest.
To all extents and purposes this entire argument becomes redundant when we apply this scenario to the the event under scrutiny since the Prophet (s) was conscious throughout, as is evidenced from all of the traditions in the Sahihayn, there is hence no way that Ibn al Hashimi can try and compare those facts to this hypothetical one. Moreover, there is a massive difference between a semi conscious teacher issuing instructions about exams and the coherent Prophet (s) of Mankind issuing instructions. A teacher can be replaced the very next day, other teachers are available, but the Prophet (s) was the final Prophet (s) no one was to follow, so when he was issuing instructions, they were the final instruction of the Seal of all Prophets, no further Prophets were too come to re-issue the same instructions. A teacher’s work remit will be limited to the school that pays his salaries and the students he teaches, but the Prophet (s) was the teacher over all humanity, of every person that walked the earth, from that time until the end of the world, he was sent as a Mercy for Mankind.
Further, the Holy Prophet (s), in pre-existence the Teacher of all preceding Prophets, said in the Calamity that he wanted to write the Will, and verbally tongue-lashed this miscreant called Umar in no uncertain terms for stopping him. The issue is authority. Do we have a Creed here, a Kalima that ‘There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah, and Umar is his Corrector’. No, but given the continuous apologies for Umar from the Sunni camp, that is how their religion certainly seems – the unwritten Kalima of Sunni Islam, the de facto Kalima of Kings and Caliphs, is that when Muhammad (s) and Umar fight, Umar is right. We of course know this ‘Umar can do no wrong’ mantra of the Sunnis, which demotes Muhammad (s) to a joke (God forbid), is all because Umar was their most important founding king. What we witness is not really dislike for Muhammad (s) on the part of the Sunnis so much as a trampling of him in order to save the Sunni branch of religion, which comes from Umar.
Now a teacher may wish to aid his students on matters that will assist them to gain qualifications and with it better jobs in the future, but the Prophet (s) as a teacher was more than that. The teacher’s instructions will be restricted to his students that are in his class at that time; no one else will benefit nor indeed care about what he is saying. The teacher might be concerned about his students passing an exam. The Prophet (s) was concerned about the future of his entire Ummah, hence there is world of difference between a conscientious teacher issuing instruction and a conscientious Prophet (s) issuing instructions. The Prophet (s) was not just the teacher for those in the room at the time, he was the teacher of all human beings so when he is issuing instruction which he states ‘will never go astray’ he is seeking to commit to pen an all encompassing document that will have far reaching implications, since it will benefit every pupil from those in the room, to the generations that followed, this was an instruction of pivotal importance to the Ummah of Muhammad (s). So to frustrate the teacher in such circumstances, question his sanity (as Ibn Tamiyah states Umar did with Muhammad (s) in this Event) is far more consequential than disobeying a semi-conscious teacher in a school setting. Moreover a teacher’s words are not guaranteed to be true all the time while Allah (swt) has provided a personal guarantee of the Prophet (s) as follows in Surah Qalam verse 1-2:
Nun. By the Pen and the (Record) which (men) write,-
Thou art not, by the Grace of thy Lord, mad or possessed.
This verse makes it clear that there can never occur any scenario wherein the Prophet (s) speaks nonsense – he (s) has been guaranteed the ability to always speak in sound mental state, this is an unequivocal guarantee, no one has the right to cast doubts over his mental state. He is not like other men, stop bringing Muhammad (s) down to the level of us! This is God’s supreme, most perfect creation that is being spoken of. The Wahabis, in their typical irreverence to all that is sacred, and especially to Muhammad (s) and his family, of course view their father Umar as the ultra-Wahabi, a man who challenged even Muhammad (s) himself. Strange then that there is never any censure of Umar by them when he did wrong. Why? Because he was their King, and Sunni Islam is simply the religion of the kings.
Whilst we have evidenced the absurdity of comparing the Prophet (s) to a mere teacher, since Ibn al Hashimi deems it relevant, let us for arguments sake trade his example with a better one:
A teacher in the final semester before his retirement is very committed to his profession but has been forced into retirement on account of his poor health. Three days before his retirement the teacher is giving his final class to his students wherein he has providing them with exam tips on what will be a very tricky paper. The teacher is unwell and has a temperature. He still soldiers on and with just a few minutes left of the class he says ‘Bring me some chalk so that I can write for you something that will ensure that you make no mistakes in the pending exam’. No sooner has the teacher said this that he hears a voice from one of his pupils stating ‘his headache had overcome him; he is unsure what he is saying, the text book shall suffice to help us’. This creates a split amongst student, some insisting that the teachers orders should be followed through, others asserting they should be ignored. In light of this unholy row, that is against the ethics of this environment the teacher decides to cancel the remainder of the class.
Based on this example that bears a much closer resemblance to the Calamity of Thursday, how many reasonable people would have sided with the stance taken by the pupil, how many with the teacher? The teacher may have had a temperature but there was nothing he was saying that would suggest that he has lost the capability to teach. There were no signs of deterioration in mental health during the class, of madness, of lunacy, so how was this pupil’s intervention welcome and correct? Moreover how can this pupil be deemed a loyal, faithful student of a teacher whose instruction he rejects and whose state of mind he questions?
If according to Ibn al Hashimi, the teacher issues instructions to bring some chalk so that he could write something very important but then fainted, and a pupil thought that it was imperative in the first instance to allow him rest rather than implement this instruction on the basis that he was talking nonsense, but then teacher speaks out: ‘I am in a better state than what you are asking me’ – the pupil’s position becomes null and void. These words demonstrate that the teacher was ‘still’ insisting that his instructions be implemented, that hence renders the stance of the pupil to be an incorrect one.
It is interesting that Ibn al-Hashimi insists the approach taken by Umar and his supporters was correct in light the deterioration in the Prophet’s mental health. We would argue that the Sunni texts do not point to any such deterioration that would entitle Umar to conclude that he lacked capacity to give instructons, still if allowing the Prophet (s) to be left alone so he could recuperate was the right thing to do, why was this approach not adopted when Abu Bakr was issuing instructions on his death bed:
Ayseha [ra] said: ‘Uthman was writing the will of Abu Bakr, then Abu Bakr fainted, thus Uthman wrote the name of Umar. When Abu Bakr woke up and asked: ‘Waht you have written?’ He (Uthman) replied: ‘I wrote ‘Umar’’. He (Abu Bakr) said: ‘you wrote the thing which I wanted to tell, even if you wrote your own name instead it, you would be suitable for it’’.
Tarikh al-Madina, Volume 2 page 667
Ibn al Hashimi from the example he cited would suggest that once a teacher loses consciousness, abandoning his request and allowing him to recuperate is the correct approach to adopt. Why was this not adopted in this instance? Uthman ‘guessed’ Umar’s name and slotted it in to the Will of Abu Bakr when the latter was on his own deathbed appointing his successor in writing. Interestingly Abu Bakr’s comments when he regains consciousness ‘you wrote the thing which I wanted to tell, even if you wrote your own name instead it, you would be suitable for it’ – are words that infer confusion after all you would not give an either / or instruction on something as crucial as Khilafah! This very document was subsequently used as evidence of Umar’s right to succeed Abu Bakr as Head of State. If the Prophet (s) was not entitled to issue a Will on account of a severe headache by Umar, how was it that Umar accepted the caliphate when Abu Bakr’s last Will and testament was written while the latter is clearly documented to have fainted whilst dictating the contents? This is a most disguisting piece of hypocrisy in the part of Umar, is it not – what excuses are there now! Again the most obvious reason is that Umar was a powerhungry man, a politico, not a true spiritual disciple of the Prophet (s), so what he said applied to others did not he feel apply to him when he was gunning for the top job himself – i.e. a hypocrite. This is obvious to all but the willingly naïve despite 100s of years of propaganda by innumerable kings who followed him and tried to dress him up as a grumpy Santa Clause type to the Sunni masses. The Prophet Muhammad (s) was not even afforded the opportunity to have anything written down on account of Umar exaggerating the extent of his illness at that point in time, yet Umar accepts the Will of Abu bakr which is in his own favour though Abu Bakr is so sick he is not even conscious, Uthman filling in the blanks. This sounds like a bunch of hypocritical politicians at work – men who will do anything for power. Why was the Prophet (s) treated differently and considerably less reverentially by Umar as compared to Umar’s total confidence in what a semi-conscious Abu Bakr was writing? I’ll tell you why. Because Umar was profiting from Abu Bakr’s Will because in it the latter made the former King, and that same Umar was going to lose out when Muhammad (s) wrote his Will, which was obviously for Ali bin Abi Talib (as) to succeed, in which case Umar would never become King . There is nothing to suggest the Prophet (s) lacked capacity, unlike Abu Bakr who clearly did – yet the latter was given no opportunity to recouperate after fainting, rather he was still pushed to affirm the contents of the will in favour of Umar by Uthman. It is amazing that a fainting Abu Bakr lacking capacity was granted the right to write a will, whilst the request of the Prophet (s) to write a will (when his condition bore no resemblance to the degree of severity of Abu Bakr) was rejected due to questions being raised over his mental capacity to issue such instructions! And while Muhammad (s) was a prophet, Abu bakr was just the Sunni king, so who was likely to be out of their mind? It was not the Holy Prophet (s).
Ibn al Hashimi who comments:
It is the phrase “he is delirious” that the Shia propagandist will use against the Ahlus Sunnah. Before we decide who said those words, let us be clear what was meant by the words “is he delirious?” Some of the Shia get overly emotional over the word “delirious”; in actuality, the meaning of the word “delirium” is simply “disturbance of consciousness”. In the United States, psychiatrists rely on the DSM-IV-TR classification scheme; we find that–according to DSM-IV-TR criteria–“disturbance of consciousness” is the core feature of delirium. Delirium can–and oftentimes is–associated with other symptoms such as hallucinations; however, this is not always the case and in fact frequently is not the case. These other symptoms such as hallucinations are merely associations, but they are not the core feature of delirium.
In fact, delirium does not have a psychiatric etiology, but rather it is classified as an “organic” or “physiological” condition. One of the commonest causes of such a disturbance of consciousness is a high grade fever. Patients who suffer from high grade fevers will oftentimes have clouding of consciousness, and this is what is known as delirium, irrespective of any other associations that may or may not be present. In other words, the one who is in a state of delirium is not considered a lunatic or a psychiatric nut, but rather a patient suffering from a severe medical condition of a biological–not psychiatric–origin…..
The word ‘delirium’ comes from the Latin delirare. In its Latin form, the word means to become crazy or to rave. This medical website provides us with the following definition of the word:
Delirium: A sudden state of severe confusion and rapid changes in brain function, sometimes associated with hallucinations and hyperactivity, in which the patient is inaccessible to normal contact. Symptoms may include inability to concentrate and disorganized thinking evidenced by rambling, irrelevant, or incoherent speech. There may be a reduced level of consciousness, sensory misperceptions and illusions, disturbances of sleep, drowsiness, disorientation to time, place, or person, and problems with memory.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=23364
This could be brought about by somebody experiencing a high fever, experiencing side affects to drugs or awaking from anesthesia. One could easily deduce if someone was in that state by asking him simple questions. If a Doctor was for example to ask a patient ‘Who is the President of the United States?’ and he responds ‘Gandhi’ it would be evident that he was speaking nonsense – The Doctor would conclude that he was delirious provided he was not previously in that state on account of dementia. To be entitled to make a will you must have valid testamentary capacity, you must:
You may have testamentary capacity and be able to make a valid will even though you are of unsound mind and suffering from delusions in some respects, as long as that insanity does not affect the above points. For example, you may have good testamentary capacity even though you are convinced that the world is a cube.
Advocate of Umar Ibn al Hashimi infers that the Prophet (s) was non compus mentus – and hence was in a state wherein one was unable to understand the genuineness of his instructions. The problem is those that are in a state of delirium would be making incoherent absurd statements that were nonsensical thus entitling people to conclude that an individual is of unsound mind.
Now let’s put the knife into Umar’s alleged honesty in calling Muhammad (s) delirious:
Now, was this instruction of the Prophet (s) the words of a man of unsound mind? He (s) is leaving an explicit instruction for writing materials to be brought before him and explains why he needs them, to write a will, the contents of which shall ensure that the Ummah will be permanently protected from disunity after him (s). It does not sound like the request of a delirious man. It is of course the request of a conscious, sane man, complying with the order of Allah (sawt) in the Quran to leave a Will as death approaches (see start of this article). If Muhammad (s), God forbid, had been saying he was seeing stars, sheep and frogs in his room, it could be said he was delirious. But he is doing what is expected for a man on his deathbed – he is being sensible – he is serious – he is articulate – he is speaking practically and appropriately – he is as dying man asking for pen and paper to dictate his Will. That is not the behavior of a delirious man. Now based on this explicit instruction what entitled Umar to automatically interject and insist that the document was not required? What would have been the harm if Umar had allowed the Prophet (s) to dictate his will, and the Sahaba to assess its contents and then deduce whether the instructions were those given by a man of sound or unsound mind? What was the logic behind Umar acting as the judge on behalf of all the attendees concluding that there was no requirement for the instructions to be implemented? What Ibn al Hashimi, advocate of the companion-Kings, is arguing is that at the time of the Prophet (s) issuing instructions he was talking nonsense that thus entitled the Sahaba to raise doubts over his mental state. We appeal to justice, consider the above cited symptoms of delirium and assess this against the narration of Ibn Abbas. Is there anything in the conduct and speech of the Prophet (s) that would entitle one to conclude that he was delirious when issuing the instructions for writing materials? No, 1000 times no, 10,000 times no! Muhammad (s) was doing exactly what a sane, coherent, clear-thinking man who is dying would do – ask for pen and paper to dicate his Will!!!!! The only argument that Muhammad (s) was delirious in saying this is Umar’s word, and many of those gathered there attacked Umar for it as they strongly disagreed with Umar. Now reach deep into your soul and look at Muhammad (s)’s words asking for pen and paper to write his Will, and pit those against Umar’s that this was delirious behaviour, and judge for yourself – was Muhammad (s)’s behavior that of a delirious man? Does Muhammad (s) even remotely sound like a delirious man, whatever your definition of delirious is? No, he sounds like a very competent and coherent man. This makes Umar a LIAR or he himself was the confused man. He either consciously lied, or he was confused, when he said Muhammad (s) was delirious. Do you really think this was confusion or lies by Umar? If you can see 1,400 yars later that Muhammad (s) was speaking coherently, then why could Umar not see that? Now go back and decide who was truthful – Muhammad (s) in asking for pen and paper to dictate his Will, or Umar saying this was delirious behavior. If you changed your view from when you answered this question a few sentences back then something has biased you to truth, and in that bias you have committeed a crime against Muhammad (s)’s honour and dignity, and exchanged it for the scheming words of a politician called Umar who said Muhammad (s) was delirious to create deliberate confusion in that room as a last-ditch attempt to prevent the writing of the Will.
When we examine the instructions of the Prophet (s) ‘fetch me something so that I may write to you something after which you will never go astray’ it is crystal clear that he was not delirious, rather he was making a sensible, rational request, and wanted to commit to paper a will for the betterment of the Ummah, which is exactly what he said. It is a universally agreed legal principle that a person making a will must be of sound mind and that means that the testator understands the act of making a will – it is absolutely clear that the Prophet (s) as testator understood the act of making a will, which is why he asked that writing materials be brought ‘so that I may write to you something after which you will never go astray’. The most obvious explanation to a neutral was that Umar through his intervention was seeking to create confusion when none previously existed, as a desperate attempt to thwart the writing of the will, since if it was written it would act as a serious setback for his political ambitions, it was in his personal interest to ensure that the Prophet (s) failed in his request to dictate his will. That is why Sahih Bukhari cites the emergence of two groups during the calamity of Thursday, those that insisted that the instructions be implemented and those opposed to it. Those two factions remain to this day as is evident from Ibn al Hashimi’s position statement and this rebuttal. The event of the Calamity of Thursday was of course the first public emergence of the Shia, loyal to Muhammad (s), in contrast to the proto-Sunnis, a breakaway faction loyal to Umar.
In another article our nemesis ansar.org admit that what Umar said to Muhammad (s), that he was delirious, was definitely wrong of him. And NOTE they HIDE the name of Umar as being the one who said this. This is called cover-up. It is covered up as people will ask ‘What pathetic knowledge did this supposed disciple of Muhammad (s) have of his Master?’ They will then ask whether Umar is the subject of a propaganda campaign in Sunni Islam.
Ansar.Org acknowledge:
Then someone (The scholars said that this person might be a newcomer to Islam) said in a questioning form, “What is wrong with him? Is he hallucinating?” Meaning, is he aware of what he is talking about or had the fever affected him? It is widely known that prophets could be sick, and that does not slander in their infallibility. Anyhow, the person who asked the question did a mistake. He thought that involuntary speech due to fever is applicable to the Messenger of Allah as it is applicable to the rest of the people. He was wrong, definitely.
So Ansar.org secretly acknowledges that Umar was wrong and committed a blunder. So in one sense it is hence surprising that Ibn al Hashimi chooses to depart from this and prefers to question the sanity of the Prophet (s), rather than suggest those that questioned it were wrong. Note this confusion in the Sunni ranks, some saying Umar was wrong others placing him in effect above Muhammad (s) on the same website. This confusion comes as Umar created confusion at the start deliberately, so it got handed down in Sunni Islam. Al Hamdhulillah Shias see the hypocrites and the true disciples with clarity and we separate them.
Surely the response of the Prophet to Umar saying he was delirious settles the matter that he was NOT delirious. Muhammad (s) responds, angrily, ‘I am better than that which you ascribe me’. Further Muhammad (s)’s forceful response to Umar shows he also viewed Umar’s words (‘Yahjur’ – delerious) as a personal insult, a verbal attack, against the Holy Prophet (s). The traditions of Bukhari and Muslim, particularly of Muslim state that they “asked prophet” whether he was talking non-sense to which “the Prophet replied” that he was in a better state what they were accusing him of. That clearly shows that that this was not a amicable discussion amongst friends, it was directed to the Prophet (s) in a taunting way and which is why he deemed it important that he “reply” to such slander. It is worthy to point out that Allah (swt) deems it a sin to mock fellow Muslims (Surah Ahzaab v7). This being case when can only imagine the repercussions associated with mocking the Prophet (s) by casting aspersions over his mental state!
We are sure that no reasonable person educated in manners would use such terminology for any respected figure, let alone the Greatest of Allah (swt)’s Creations. We are sure that the Nawasib would never use such language about one of their dying scholars on his deathbed, but according to Ibn al Hashimi it is appropriate to use this for the Prophet (s), whose words entitled one group amongst those present to conclude that the instructions he gave were the instructions of a delirious man! Contrary to what Ibn al Hashimi would lead us to believe when someone is referring to someone as delirious such a terminology is derogatory in nature, it is intended to disparage / disgrace an individual, the comment ‘whether prophet is talking non sense’ if the Sahaba were merely seeking to allay their apprehension as to whether the Prophet (s) was indeed speaking non sense, they could have asked clarification without the need to cast direct aspersions upon his sanity, it is evident that the words seeks to taunt an individual, we often hear of scenarios wherein A says something that conflicts with what B thinks, and B responds: “Are you crazy?” B does not genuinely believe that A is experiencing problems rather he has used such terminology to taunt B [via an interrogative form of speech].
Muhammad (s) is in full control of his senses and not at all delirious, or he would not have tonguelashed Umar for quoting the Quranic story of Yusuf (as) and the women to attack the wives of the Revealer of the Quran, Muhammad (s) himself. Muhammad (s) then attacks Umar, putting him in his place for insulting his wives, telling him “They (my wives) are better than you.”’
Of course, for the ultra-Wahabis like Ibn al Hashimi, Muhammad (s), his wives, and God himself can all go to hell if they dare to contradict what King Umar says – Umar is always right! Others see him for what he was – including many gathered there by the deathbed of the Holy Prophet (s), who took Muhammad (s)’s side against Umar and his group.
A teacher will remain a teacher whether at work or at home, unless he enters into a mental state of delirium whereby one concludes that he is unfit to practice as his teacher, his practice certificate will therefore be revoked due to his mental incapacity. If we are to say that the Prophet (s) can enter into a state of delirium then we are in effect saying that he is no longer acting in the capacity of a Prophet (s) which thus entitles the Sahaba to withdraw their adherence to his instructions, the implications being that his position as the Prophet (s) had been revoked as he was mentally incapable of issuing binding instructions! Once he is deemed delirious neither can he issue instructions, nor can he dictate the contents of his will. He is therefore in effect unfit to continue in his role as a Prophet (s). This is the sad conclusion that Ibn al Hashimi is seeking to lead us to, and ultimately we all know it is simply to save the face of Umar, his King, or even the ultra-Wahabis would not so casually attack the person of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (s).
Ibn al Hashimi who comments:
If we look at the definition of the word used in the Hadith, we find:hajara; yahjuru; hajran; hijranan; ahjara :- To desert, forsake, leave, renounce, abandontahajara; ihtajara :- To depart from one another, separate, or forsake one another; become alienated
(source: Wortabet’s Arabic – English Dictionary)
In the context of the Hadith, the word was used in the sense of someone who leaves or departs from his original state of mind; more specifically, it referred to a person who is separating from the people and this world, as in losing consciousness. In other words, the man who asked “is the Prophet delirious” did not mean that the Prophet was talking nonsense or that he had gone crazy. Instead, the man was simply asking if the Prophet was conscious or not, and we know from Shaykh Mufid’s description of the event that the Prophet was unconscious.
The words “is he delirious” appear in Sahih Bukhari, as follows:
…The ailment of Allah’s Apostle became worse (on Thursday) and he said, “Fetch me something so that I may write to you something after which you will never go astray.” The people (present there) differed in this matter, and it was not right to differ before a prophet. Some said, “What is wrong with him? (Do you think) he is delirious (seriously ill)? Ask him (to understand his state).”
(Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 716)
In the above narration, someone asked “is he delirious?” By this, he meant “is he in a state of altered consciousness?” In Sahih Muslim, we read:
The illness of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) took a serious turn (on Thursday), and he said: “Come to me, so that I should write for you a document that you may not go astray after me.” They (the Companions around him) disputed, and it is not right to dispute in the presence of the Apostle. They said: “How is (Allah’s Apostle)? Has he lost his consciousness? Try to learn from him (this point).”
(Sahih Muslim, Book 013, Number 4014)
And once again:
…He (the narrator) said that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: “Bring me a shoulder blade and ink-pot (or tablet and ink pot), so that I write for you a document (by following which) you would never go astray.” They said: “Allah’s Messenger (may peace upon him) is in the state of unconsciousness.”
(Sahih Muslim, Book 013, Number 4015)
Ibn al Hasahimi really has tried his utmost to play a deceptive game with his readers in this paragraph. He starts out defining precisely what delirium is in the medical world so as to suggest that it is not a particularly offensive word. Thereafter he proceeds to claim that the words used during this event did not mean delirious, rather they referred to an ‘altered state of consciousness’! First and foremost we would like to know why this Nasibi has not cited all the meanings of ‘yahjur’ for his readers. In that there is no doubt, ‘Yahjur’ comes from the root word ‘Hajara’. According to Hans Wehr’s “A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic edited by J. Milton Cowan”
Hajara means “To emigrate; to give up; to abandon; to talk nonsense“
In addition to the general definitions of emigrate the Arabic dictionary “Al-Munjad” also defines Hajara as:
“incoherent speech, nonsense”
If that will not suffice as proof of Ibn al Hashimi’s dishonesty his supporters should know that the root word ‘hajara’ had also been used to refer to nonsense by Allah (swt) on two occasions, firstly in Surah Furqan verse 30:
“O my Lord! Truly my people took this Quran for just foolish nonsense.”
Then in Al-Mumenoon, verse 67:
“In arrogance: talking nonsense about the (Quran), like one telling fables by night.”
Even if we were to use the partial definition none of it can apply to this event, remember Ibn al Hashimi argued:
If we look at the definition of the word used in the Hadith, we find:hajara; yahjuru; hajran; hijranan; ahjara :- To desert, forsake, leave, renounce, abandontahajara; ihtajara :- To depart from one another, separate, or forsake one another; become alienated
(source: Wortabet’s Arabic – English Dictionary)
If that it the literal meaning of ‘Yahjur’ how has he twisted it in a manner to mean ‘altered state of consciousness’? None of these words resemble the term ‘Yahjur’. Moreover none of them would actual make sense if we inserted them into the event under that we are analysing. The Prophet (s) is on his death bed, he asks for pen and paper and then some say ‘Has he deserted / forsaken / left renounced / abandoned us?’ – does that make sense? The only logical usage of ‘Yahjur’ that makes sense if we apply it to the tradition is the term Ibn al Hashimi intentionally forgot to mention ‘to talk nonsense’ – In other words, the Companions actually accused the Messenger of Allah [s] of being in a state of delirium.
In the English translation of Tabari, the translator has remained faithful to the Arabic text. He narrates from Ibn Abbas:
“The Messenger of God said bring me a tablet (lawh) and an inkpot (dawat), so that I can write for you a document, after which you will not go astray”. Some people said that the Messenger of God was talking deliriously”.
The History of Tabari, Volume 9 translated by Ismail. K. Poonawala p 175
At times Dr Muhsin Khan translator of Sahih Bukhari likewise defines it as delirious as Ibn al Hashimi acknowledges:
Ibn al Hashimi who comments:
The words “is he delirious” appear in Sahih Bukhari, as follows:…The ailment of Allah’s Apostle became worse (on Thursday) and he said, “Fetch me something so that I may write to you something after which you will never go astray.” The people (present there) differed in this matter, and it was not right to differ before a prophet. Some said, “What is wrong with him? (Do you think) he is delirious (seriously ill)? Ask him (to understand his state).”(Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 716)
The allegation was so serious that the English translator of Miskhat al-Masabih actually omitted from translation the entire sentence wherein the words ‘Yahjur’ is used for the Prophet (s). Ibn al Hashimi might seek solace at the fact that the translator of Sahih Muslim sought to give it a more sanitized meaning, but the reality is that NO Arabic dictionary in the world defines ‘Yahjur’ as ‘is in the state of unconsciousness’ – not even the dictionary that the author had himself partially cited, so one wonders why he has arrived at this new meaning. Could it be that he is merely seeking to cover up the sins of his ancestors? This questions arose immediately after the Prophet (s) issued the instructions for writing materials, that then merited this charming response. There is nothing in the traditions of the Sahaihayn that suggest that the Prophet (s) then fainted, that might have made the translation of Ibn al Hashimi and that from Sahih Muslim plausible and this negates the claim that the Sahaba were merely seeking to ascertain whether the Prophet (s) was in a conscious state. Moreover if we are going to understand the actual usage of it in this context what better way to ascertain it that to look at the reaction of the person being talked of, the Prophet (s). Here is another variation of the pen and paper episode from Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 288:
Narrated Said bin Jubair: Ibn ‘Abbas said, “Thursday! What (great thing) took place on Thursday!” Then he started weeping till his tears wetted the gravels of the ground . Then he said, “On Thursday the illness of Allah’s Apostle was aggravated and he said, “Fetch me writing materials so that I may have something written to you after which you will never go astray.” The people (present there) differed in this matter and people should not differ before a prophet. They said, “Allah’s Apostle is talking nonsense.’ The Prophet said, “Let me alone, as the state in which I am now, is better than what you are calling me for.” The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders saying, “Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, respect and give gifts to the foreign delegates as you have seen me dealing with them.” I forgot the third (order)” (Ya’qub bin Muhammad said, “I asked Al-Mughira bin ‘Abdur-Rahman about the Arabian Peninsula and he said, ‘It comprises Mecca, Medina, Al-Yama-ma and Yemen.” Ya’qub added, “And Al-Arj, the beginning of Tihama.”)
Note: The translation of the underlined part has been done by us because as we had pointed out in previous chapter also, the translator committed dishonesty by translating it as “Allah’s Apostleis seriously sick” while ‘Yahjur’ does not mean “seriously sick”.
The Prophet (s) would have had no reason to respond in this manner if clarification was merely being sought as to whether he had fainted, but his reaction with the words ‘Let me alone, as the state in which I am now, is better than what you are calling me for’ proves that he was refuting the questions raised over his sanity, namely the suggestion that he was in a delirious state that caused him to utter nonsense.
It is indeed amazing that Ibn al Hashimi insists that nothing negative should be deduced from the usage of delirious during this event, rather it was a valid assessment of what was a dying patient. This shameless Nasibi should know and understand that this is no ordinary dying patient, rather the personal view of this patient carries massive value in the eyes of Allah (swt).
Our readers should not ignore the fact that if ‘yahjur’ was inoffensive and all that the Sahaba were referring to was the pending departure of Rasulullah (s) when he made a request for writing materials, then the translators of Bukhari would have inserted the said word ‘depart’ without a moments hesitation, but they did not. We note that the word so disturbed the English translator of Mishkat al Masabih, Maulana Fazlul Karim that he chose not to translate the word ‘yahur’ at all, and simply skipped past the word as if it did not exist in the Arabic whilst the word is clear for all to see in the text:
When the Urdu translator of Sahih Muslim, Maulana Abid Rahman Siddiqui Kandlavi was confronted with this tradition, he was so conscious of its offensive nature that he sought to lessen the offence / impact by altering the statement of the Sahaba into a rhetorical question, “What is your state? Can you also enter into a state of delirium? (no).”
Sahih Muslim, Arabic to Urdu, vol 2 page 702 Hadith 1729 (Quran Mahal, Karachi, year 1964)
By deviously inserting the word ‘no’ into the brackets Khandlavi was seeking to suggest that the Sahaba were dismissing the fact that Rasulullah (s) could enter into a state of delirium. The interesting thing is when Khandlavi had to face up with the challenge of translating the very next tradition wherein it ends abruptly with those present declaring that the Prophet (s) was in a state of yahjur, rather than use the term ‘delirium’ as he had just done, he altered it to read: “The Sahaba said that the Prophet (s) is extremely ill” even though the Arabic word ‘yahjur’ is clear for all to see:
Sahih Muslim, Arabic to Urdu, vol 2 page 702 Hadith 1730 (Quran Mahal, Karachi, year 1964)
Ibn al Hashimi who comments:
The Prophet asked for a pen and paper in order to write down some religious advice for the Muslims. However, immediately after asking for the pen and paper, the Prophet fainted and became unconscious. While the Prophet lay unconscious, a man got up to get the pen and paper, but Umar ibn al-Khattab called him away from doing that. 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.”
He also said at another point
… 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.”
We have stressed many times in this article that none of the Sunni traditions suggest that the Prophet (s) lost consciousness; the Qiyas of Ibn al Hashimi is completely false. There is nothing that proves this, Umar;’s words follow immediately after the Prophet (s) speaks, had the Prophet (s) fainted at this point Ibn Abbas would have mentioned it in his narrative, but he did not. Moreover even if we were to accept that the Umar was actually conversing with those in the room and not the Prophet (s) directly, this in no way reduces his culpability.
Let us give an example:
“You attend a dinner party for your work colleagues at the home of A. Whilst the dinner is being prepared the colleagues start talking over various topics. A expresses his view on a topic, B differs with his view and turns to others in the room and says ‘verily these are the rants of a mad man, he doesn’t have a clue what is talking about”
When any individual seeks to talk about someone in the presence of another, with full knowledge that the person he is criticizing is within earshot of the conversation, his intention is as follows:
B’s outburst is extremely rude, after all the better approach would have been to remain silent or to have taken A to the side and said that he did not agree with his view. Choosing to adopt the method of a public dressing down is insulting and goes against all rules of decorum. The same example also applies to Umar’s conduct during the pen and paper episode. If he was indeed conversing with others by expressing doubts over the mental state of the Prophet (s), in the presence of the Prophet (s) his conduct was rude, unacceptable and evidences the utter disreguard he held for the feelings of the Prophet (s).
Ibn al Hashimi who comments:
The Prophet himself explains the reason why he got angry which was (in his very own words): “Go away (and leave me alone). It is not right that you should quarrel in front of me.” Notice that the Prophet was angry at their bickering with each other, not the fact that Umar refused to give him a pen and paper. The Prophet did not say “go away” when Umar refused the pen and paper, but rather he said “go away” when the people started quarreling amongst each other. It is important to catch the Shia propagandist on this point. We read:
When they indulged in nonsense (talk) and began to dispute in the presence of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), he said: “Get up (and go away)” Ubaidullah said: Ibn Abbas used to say: “There was a heavy loss, indeed a heavy loss, that, due to their dispute and noise.” (Sahih Muslim, Book 013, Number 4016)
The Muslims began to quarrel with each other even before the Prophet passed away. Their ranks were already becoming disunited, and as soon as the Prophet died, there would be even greater schisms and civil wars. Allah has warned this Ummah against such a thing in the Quran, and this is what worried the Prophet: the people arguing in front of him was a proof to him that his Ummah would schism into so many groups and sects.
A very important point to ponder upon is that the Prophet said “go away” to everyone in the room, not just to Umar or those who wished to deny him the pen and paper. The Prophet said “go away” to even those who wanted to give the Prophet a pen and paper. This is a very strong proof that the Prophet was angered by them all, and he was angry at them for bickering amongst each other.
Let us answer this by expaning on the very same example that we had cited in the previous reply:
“You attend a dinner party for your work colleagues at the home of A. Whilst the dinner is being prepared the colleagues start talking over various topics. A expresses his view on a topic, B differs with his view and turns to others in the room and says ‘verily these are the rants of a mad man, he doesn’t have a clue what is talking about”
These comment inflame others and a row ensues, the distressed host is so angered and upset at what has transpired he decides to call off the meal and asks everyone to room due to the dispute that has been created”
Based upon these facts shoud we conclude that B is completely innocent of any wrongdoing in this scenario? The host out of his decency may have well thought it best to call off the event and asked all parties to leave it does not mean that he is not angered at B who caused the problem in the first place? If a dispute has occurred between the dinner guests that forced the host to abandon the event, the decision to abort may have been on account of the row but the main culprit will remain that individual whose comments led to the hostilities. He will be blamed for creating the nasty atmosphere, that enflamed feelings, causing the dispute and subsequent abandonment of the meeting.
If Ibn al Hashimi insists that we accept that a row led to the calamity of Thursday and not Umar’s controversial stance, are we going to accept that no blame should be apportioned to Umar? It would be wrong to put it all down to the row and not ascertain what comments sparked off the dispute! If Umar is removed from the equation there would have been no dispute, after all it was his opposition to the order and his questioning the sanity of the Prophet (s), that people in the room aligning themselves according to whether they supported or opposed his position. Let us give another example:
If the police attend a scene of public disorder involving a dispute between two parties, the common practice would be to arrest both groups. Statements would be taken from the parties and any witnesses. Both parties might be charged with public disorder (in the long run) but the police will seek to ascertain what caused the dispute in the first instance. If is found that the comments of one individual acted as the precipitator to the disorder that ensued, all parties may indeed have broken the law, but it is that individual that will be the subject to stern criticism an indeed additional charges for he will be deemed as the root cause of the dispute, his comments are what incited the parties to behave in the manner that they did.
If Ibn al Hashimi refuses to accept our stance then let us assess the matter according to the way he assesses who was the root cause behind the downfall of Uthman. Ibn al Hashimi has constantly sought to impress on his fans that all fitnah during the era of Uthman that led to his untimely demise was the brain child one of Abdullah ibn Saba. Coud he kindly refer us to a single authentic source wherein Uthman cursed Ibn Saba for his incitement? Uthman only attacked seditious elements and not made reference to Ibn Saba or the Sabaiyah on any occasion. Sunni sources to not place Ibn Saba anywhere near Madina when Uthman was assassinated. Despite this Ibn al Hashimi will argue that Ibn Saba has Uthman’s blood on his hands, it was his inflammatory sermons that incited people to move against Uthman. Ibn al Hashimi will argue that if there was no Ibn Saba there would have been no Fitnah during the reign of Uthman everything would have been perfect throughout the Muslim empire, small matters such as his financial mismanagement, nepotism and corruption would have been minor issue that no one would have batted their eyelid at. To Ibn al Hashimi it would be wrong to discuss the assassination iof Uthman without citing Ibn Saba as they key antagonist. Ibn al Hashimi likewise accuses Ibn Saba’s followers of initiating the Battle of Jamal, to him whilst a dispute between the parties of Ali (as) and Ayesha occurred, the root cause of the dispute was the nefarious conduct of the Sabaiyah on the eve of the battle. Again he insists the nexus beween the Sabaiyah and Jamal was so great that the dispute cannot be discussed without apportioning blame to the Sabaiyah.
Applying Ibn al Hashimi’s own principles of historical analysis to the calamity of Thursday why is it wrong for us to argue that the root cause of the calamity of Thursday was Umar? Is Ibn al Hashimi really going to expect us to accept that the Umar had no qualms with the conduct of Umar?
It was Umar who:
In such circumstances it would be naïve to suggest that Umar had no role in the dispute and thus no criticism should be leveled at him. Had Umar not acted in the obtuse manner that he did, there would have been no disobedience or dispute that would have upset the Prophet (s). There was no sense in just telling Umar to get out, since he had a complete group that was backing him, the only solution lay in telling all to leave, this in no way means that he (s) was not angry with Umar, he was the cause of the dispute on the first instance and the Prophet (s) was rightly angry with Umar. What greater proof can there be than that Prophet (s)’ response to Umar’s insult of his wives whose crime was that the instruction be implemented “They are better than you” – which evidences that the real frustration was towards Umar. It seems that according to the world of Ibn al Hashimi there is no such this as saying words that incite people or ferment trouble, unless of course this refers to the supposed ancestor of the Shia Abdullah ibn Saba!
Ibn al Hashimi who comments:
Shia Slander Against Umar ibn al-Khattab
The Shia propagandists claim that Umar said that the Prophet was talking nonsense or that he asked if the Prophet was delirious. Yet, this is a blatant and manifest lie! In absolutely no Hadith did Umar ibn al-Khattab say these words. The event is narrated in multiple Hadith, including in Sahih Bukhari (4.52.288, 5.59.716, 4.53.393, 7.70.573, 1.3.114) and Sahih Muslim (13.4014, 13.4015, 13.4016). Yet, not in a single version–neither in the Sahihayn nor in any other Hadith compilation for that matter–are any such words ascribed to Umar ibn al-Khattab. It is only the Shia who make such claims that it was Umar who said that, but we demand them to show us the proof, and they can never do that, namely because Umar never said such a thing nor has such a thing ever been ascribed to him (aside from Shia books). Umar’s only explanation for refusing the Prophet’s order was that the Prophet was in a great deal of pain and that he (Umar) wished to ease the Prophet’s pain and burden.
Today, segments from both Sunnis and Shias pose questions such as:
The above questions can be answered by the fact that the early Sunni Muhadatheen formulated a doctrine that ‘each and every Sahabi was just’ and ‘they were sources of guidance’ on different aspects of religion. Now, any rational and unbiased mind would think all because thousands of people fell within the category ‘companions of Holy Prophet’ as they embraced Islam during his (s) lifetime it doesn’t automatically mean that every single one was automatically just , truthful and worthy of veneration. Many of them indulged in acts that violated Islamic injunctions but in order to ensure that all future generations were indoctrinated in a belief that every Sahabi was just, the early Sunni Muhadatheen hid the crimes and sins committed by the Sahaba and would not record those incidents that painted them in a bad light. This fact, coupled with the Hadith-fabrication factories established by the Umawi authorities, is why such a vast gap exists between Shias and Sunnies on the status of Sahaba. In order to substantiate our claim regarding the stance of the early Sunni Muhadatheen, let us quote Imam Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Haroon bin Yazeed al-Khilal Abu Bakr (d. 311) who authored the esteemed Sunni work Al-Sunnah the margin of which has been written by Dr.Attya al-Zahrani . We read in Al-Sunnah, Volume 3 page 511 Tradition 822:
Al-Fadhel bin Ziyad said: ‘A man presented a book to Ahmad bin Hanbal which contained Hadiths denouncing certain companions of the Prophet [as]’. He (Ahmad) read through it, and said, “Verily, whoever compiled this is an evil man’.
And I heard Abu Abdullah saying: ‘I have been informed that Salam bin Abi Muti’ went to Abi Awwanah and borrowed from him a book that contained unfortunate narrations that he had heard from Al-A’mash. He therefore showed them to Abi Awwanah. Salam bin Abi Muti’ then proceeded to burn them’.
A man said to Abu Abdullah: ‘I hope this does not harm him in any thing’. Abu Abdullah replied, ‘Harm him!! Nay, he will rewarded Inshallah’. // The chain is Sahih.
We read in Volume 3 page 512 Tradition 827:
Al-Abbas bin Muhammad Al-Dawri stated that in Muhadhir’s books he read some Hadiths that were abandoned. So I asked him, “What are these abandoned ahadith?” He replied: ‘These are the scorpions that Ibn Abi Shaybah forbade me from reporting’ // The chain is Hasan.
We read in Volume 3 page 511 Tradition 824:
Abu Bakr al-Maruwthi said: ‘I heard Abu Abdullah saying: ‘Don’t say anything about the companions of Allah’s messenger except the good things’ // The chain is Sahih.
We read in Volume 3 page 510 Tradition 821:
Abu Bakr al-Marwdhi said to Abu Abdullah: ‘I have borrowed a book from the man of hadith in which there exists some bad Hadiths. Should I tear it or burn it?’ He (Ahmad bin Hanbal) replied: ‘Yes’. Salam bin Abi Muti borrowed a book from Abi Awana a that contained such traditions thus Salam burnt the book. I said: ‘Shall I burn it?’ He replied: ‘Yes’. // The chain is Sahih.
We read in Volume 3 page 510 Tradition 820:
Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal narrates that he heard his father saying: ‘Salam bin Abi Mutee is among the Thuqaat [reliable] the companion of Ayub, he was a pious man and Abdulrahman bin Mahdi narrated his narrations to me’. Then my father said: ‘Abu Awwanah had compiled a book that contained the faults of the companions of the Prophet and it contained unfortunate traditions. Thus Salam bin Muti’ came to him and said, ‘O Abu Awwanah! Give me the book’. He did. Salam took it and burnt it’’. // The chain is Sahih.
We read in Volume 3 page 502 Tradition 803:
Yahya bin Moin said: ‘Ahmad, Khalaf and another man were with Abdulrazaq, when the blemish Hadiths appeared. Ahmad thrusted his fingers into his ears for a long time. He thene removed his fingers and then put them back again (over his ears) until all the traditions passed’. // The chain contains al-Abbas bin Muhammad.
We read in Volume 3 page 501 Tradition 800:
A man asked Abu Abdullah: ‘When someone narrates traditions containing faults of the companions of Allah’s Messenger, should he narrate it just as he heard it?’ He replied: ‘I disliked narrating a tradition containing a fault of the companions of Allah’s Messenger and I abandon such traditions that contain faults of the companions of Allah’s Messenger’.
We read in Volume 3 page 504 Tradition 807:
Muhana said: I’ asked Ahmad about Ubaidullah bin Musa al-Abasi?’ He replied: ‘He is Kufi’. I said: ‘How is he?’ He replied: ‘As Allah wanted him to be’. I said: ‘O Abu Abdullah, how is he?’ He replied: ‘I don’t like to narrate from him’. I said:’Why?’ He replied: ‘Because he narrated Hadiths that degraded some companions of the Prophet’ .// The chain is Sahih.
We can see from the above cited evidence, that the doctrine coined by the early Sunni scholars namely ‘each and every Sahabi is just [Aadil]’ was one that every Sunni Muslim was compelled to adhere to, anything that conflicted with this had to be ignored. This seems to have been the practice of the early generation – the Salaf Saliheen. With this in mind would the Salaf Saliheen happily recorded any accounts of the pen and paper wherein their esteemed Khalifa and Sahibi Umar ibn al Khattab’s conduct could shake the very roots of this Sunni doctrine? We will leave it to our readers to ponder over this themselves.
The premise for this line argument submitted by Ibn al Hashimi is that Bukhari would have recorded the words delirious had these indeed been the words of Umar. Unfotunately Ibn al Hashimi is seeking to falsely convince his readers that the great Hadeeth narrator would never commit dishonesty when recording narrations, no matter how incriminating they were. The reality is Imam Bukhari had a proven track of doing just that, he would intentionally tamper with those traditions that painted the Sahaba in a bad light. To allay doubts allow us to evidence some examples wherein Bukhari has been involved in the malicious tampering of traditions:
We read in Sahih Muslim Book 003, Number 0718:
Abd al-Rabmin b. Abza narrated It on the authority of his father that a man came to ‘Umar and said: I am (at times) affected by seminal emission but find no water. He (‘Umar) told him not to say prayer. ‘Ammar then said. Do you remember,0 Commander of the Faithful, when I and you were in a military detachment and we had had a seminal emission and did not find water (for taking bath) and you did not say prayer, but as for myself I rolled in dust and said prayer, and (when it was mentioned before) the Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: It was enough for you to strike the ground with your hands and then blow (the dust) and then wipe your face and palms. Umar said: ‘Ammar, fear Allah. He said: If you so like, I would not narrate it.
Now if we read same tradition recorded by Imam Bukhari, we will come to know that he just did not record the underlined statement of Umar which was clearly showing Umar’s sheer ignorance of the Islamic laws. We read in Sahih Bukhari [Arabic], Volume 1 page 129 and in Sahih Bukhari [English], Volume 1, Book 7, Number 334:
Narrated ‘Abdur Rahman bin Abza:
A man came to ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab and said, “I became Junub but no water was available.” ‘Ammar bin Yasir said to ‘Umar, “Do you remember that you and I (became Junub while both of us) were together on a journey and you didn’t pray but I rolled myself on the ground and prayed? I informed the Prophet about it and he said, ‘It would have been sufficient for you to do like this.’ The Prophet then stroked lightly the earth with his hands and then blew off the dust and passed his hands over his face and hands.”
It was just not Imam Muslim who had taken risk of recording a true account, but other Sunni scholars also recorded it just like what Muslim did:
We read in Sahih Muslim Book 017, Number 4226:
Anas b. Malik reported that a person who had drink wine was brought to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him). He gave him forty stripes with two lashes. Abu Bakr also did that, but when Umar (assumed the responsibilities) of the Caliphate, he consulted people and Abd al-Rahman said: The mildest punishment (for drinking) is eighty (stripes) and ‘Umar then prescribed this punishment.
This version of tradition recorded in Sahih Muslim proves that Umar was totally ignorant of the Islamic punishment for alcohol consumption and hence resorted to consultation from Sahaba while in Sahih Bulhari Volume 8, Book 81, Number 764, we do not find Bukhari mentioning the stance of Umar:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The Prophet beat a drunk with palm-leaf stalks and shoes. And Abu Bakr gave (such a sinner) forty lashes.
Bukhari at once place has recorded a tradition which is a statement of a companion, yet he considered it as the Prophet’s statement while the companion didn’t mention that he had heard that from the Prophet [s]. We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 92, Number 396:
Narrated Anas:
We were with ‘Umar and he said, “We have been forbidden to undertake a difficult task beyond our capability (i.e. to exceed the religious limits e.g., to clean the inside of the eyes while doing ablution).”
We read in Fatah al-Bari, Volume 13 page 271:
The narration of Bukhari in this hadith shows that the Sahabi said: “We have been ordered and forbidden”. Actually it is considered as connected chain, even if he didn’t connect it to the prophet (pbuh), then he sufficed by the statement: “We have been forbidden to undertake a difficult task beyond our capability” and skip the story.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 50:
Narrated Nafi’:
Whenever Ibn ‘Umar recited the Quran, he would not speak to anyone till he had finished his recitation. Once I held the Quran and he recited Surat-al-Baqara from his memory and then stopped at a certain Verse and said, “Do you know in what connection this Verse was revealed? ” I replied, “No.” He said, “It was revealed in such-and-such connection.” Ibn ‘Umar then resumed his recitation.
Nafi added regarding the Verse:–”So go to your tilth when or how you will” Ibn ‘Umar said, “It means one should approach his wife in ..”
As you might have observed, the tradition is not complete has been left by Bukhari because he was hiding something here. That is what Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani referred to in Fatah al-Bari, Volume 8 page 189:
His statement “then stopped at a certain Verse and said, “Do you know in what connection this Verse was revealed? ” I replied, “No.” He said, “It was revealed in such-and-such connection” he recorded it vague.
So what was the statement of the Sahabi this time that the legendry imam Bukhari was trying to hide? Let us unveil it from Tafseer al-Tabari, Volume 4 page 404 under the verse of Al-Harth:
Nafi said: Whenever Ibn ‘Umar recited the Quran, he would not speak to anyone till he had finished his recitation. Once I held the Quran and recited this verse “Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will” and said: Do you know in what connection this Verse was revealed? I replied: ‘No’. He said: ‘It was revealed in approaching the women in their anus’.
Hence, we read in Fatah al-Bari, Volume 8 page 189:
“His statement “approach his wife in” is recorded in the same way as it is in all the versions (of Bukhari) and didn’t complete the sentence”
Bukhari recorded a tradition from his master Humaidi but being a staunch biased Sahaba worshipper, he deleted the name of a Sahabi Samra and instead put ‘a certain man’ as we can read this tradition in Sahih Bukhari in this manner:
Narrated al-Humaidi from Sufyan from Amro bin Dinar from Tawoos from Ibn ‘Abbas:
Once ‘Umar was informed that a certain man sold alcohol. ‘Umar said, “May Allah curse him! Doesn’t he know that Allah’s Apostle said, ‘May Allah curse the Jews, for Allah had forbidden them to eat the fat of animals but they melted it and sold it.”
Sahih Bukhari ,Volume 3, Book 34, Number 426
When we read this tradition from the original source from where Imam Bukhari had taken it i.e. from Musnad al-Humaidi, we find the name of Sahabi Samra is cited:
Narrated Sufyan from Amro bin Dinar from Tawoos from Ibn Abbas who said:
Once ‘Umar was informed that Samra sold alcohol. ‘Umar said, “May Allah curse Samra! Doesn’t he know that Allah’s messenger said, ‘May Allah curse the Jews, for Allah had forbidden them to eat the fat of animals but they melted it and sold it.”
Musnad al-Humaidi, Volume 1 page 17 Tradition 15
When Bukhari demed it imperative to water down thise traditions that exposed the ignorance of the Sahaba he would have placed a far greater priority on protecting the identity of that individual that accused the Prophet (s) of speaking nonsense, particularly when the culprit was Umar.
Although we are determined not to go off the actual topic in hand, but since Ibn al-Hashimi is very much fond of his Imam Bukhari, let us just add yet another reply to our argument. We read in Tarikh Baghdad, Volume 2, page 12:
Ohaid bin Abi Jaffar said: ‘I heard Muhammad bin Ismail saying: ‘I heard some Hadiths in Basra and wrote them in Syria and heard some Hadith in Syria and wrote them in Egypt’. Then I asked him: ‘O Aba Abdullah, have you wrote it completely as it was?’ Then he did not reply and remained quite’
Clearly Bukhari’s silence to what was a serious accusation speaks volumes! Rather than defend this accusation he remained silent, that proves that he was indeed not recording traditions in a complete manner.
While commenting on one of the traditions of Sahih Bukhari, Imam Ibn Ibn Hajar wrote in Fatah al-Bari, Volume 10 page 227:
“This is the one of the strangest things which exist in Bukhari, to record a hadith with one chain of narration but with two contexts”.
It gets even worse, Imam Ibn Hajar deemed Bukhari as “Mudalis” in his book Tabaqat al-Mudaliseen that can be downloaded from the following Salafi library:
http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=12&book=1144
Mudalis is an individual that commits fraud in Hadith as recorded by Ibn Kathir in his book Al-Baeth al-Hathit, page 7:
“Tadlis are of two types, the first type is to narrate from someone he met what he didn’t hear from him or to narrate from someone he didn’t”
“While the second type of Tadlis is to mention the unpopular name or the nickname of the narrator in a manner which keeps his identity unknown.”
And in order to the seriousness of the critisicm, let us shed some light on the definition put forward by Sunni scholars of a Mudalis. We read in Al-Yawaqit wa al-Durrar, by Abdulrauf al-Manawi, Volume 1 page 128:
Shu’aba said: ‘To perform adultery is better than doing Tadlis’
And he also said: ‘Tadlis is the brother of lie’
We read in Siar alam al-Nubala, Volume 18 page 456:
Abu Isaac al-Shirazi said: ‘Tadlis is the brother of lie’
We read in Al-Baeth al-Hathit by Ibn Kathir, page 7:
Shafiyee said: ‘Tadlis is the brother of lie’
We read in Al-Kefaya Fi Elm al-Rewaya by Khatib Baghdadi, page 355:
Shu’aba said: ‘To perform Tadlis in hadith is worse than to perform adultery’
On page 356 we read:
Abu Osama said: ‘May Allah destroy the houses of those who perform Tadlis, verily they are liars’
We also read:
Ibn al-Mubarak said: ‘To fall down from the sky is better than performing Tadlis in a single hadith’.
It is interesting that Bukhari states “They said” that alludes to more than one person making this statement whilst both Ahlelbayt.com and and Ansar.Org assert that it was just one person…
Ansar.Org acknowledge:
Then someone (The scholars said that this person might be a newcomer to Islam) said in a questioning form, “What is wrong with him? Is he hallucinating?” Meaning, is he aware of what he is talking about or had the fever affected him? It is widely known that prophets could be sick, and that does not slander in their infallibility. Anyhow, the person who asked the question did a mistake. He thought that involuntary speech due to fever is applicable to the Messenger of Allah as it is applicable to the rest of the people. He was wrong, definitely.
Does this not in itself prove that Bukhari committed dishonesty? Ibn al Hashimi if you wish to uphold the integrity of Bukhari then you will to acknowledge that whilst one individual may well have indeed suggested the Prophet (s) was delirious others supported him in what he suggested. That is our position and it is clear from an anaylsis of this event that there existed only two groups in the Prophet (s)’ chamber during the calamity of Thursday:
Group One: those opposed to the Prophet (s) writing his will
Group Two: those that insisted that the Prophet (s) be allowed to write his will
Group One was lead by Umar, it was he who started off the dispute by first insisting that the Prophet (s) not be allowed to write the will on account of icapacity.
This is how it is recorded in Sahih Bukhari 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 Quran, 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 Bukhari Arabic-English Volume 9 hadith number 468 and Volume 7 hadith 573
We would ask our readers to look carefully at the parts that we have underlined, Umar expressed his opinion and the others said what ‘Umar said. Group One was led by Umar with his supporters saying what he said. Now when we look at the narration of Bukhari wherein no individual is named we are informed that Group One that was opposed to the Prophet (s) writing his will said “What is wrong with him? (Do you think) he is delirious (seriously ill)? Ask him (to understand his state)” . It is interesting that this same group that said what Umar had said were saying that the Prophet (s) is delirious. It seems completely implausible to believe that these individuals would have repeated the same term in unison, clearly someone must have chanted the slur in the first instance that would have led to others following suit. It is logical that that someone had to be an individual of sufficient seniority / clout to command support from others in the room, he must have said this first, that this gave others the confidence to assert likewise. When we know that others in the room were following the lead of Umar, and these same people were claiming the Prophet (s) was delirious it is not difficult to deduce who first raised the call over the mental health of the Prophet (s).
As for the suggestion that this was the comment of a lone ignorant new convert, could these Nawasib how a convert possessed sufficient clout to convince veteran Sahaba in the room that the Prophet (s) was delirious, so much so that they asserted the same opinion as him? Were the hardened old Sahaba so naïve that they could be duped by the words of a new convert? It is worthy to note that the tone of the discussion was so obscene that even the hardcore Nawasib of Ansar.Org acknowledge it was inappropriate to use such language, and they put it down to a new revert, implying he was simply unfamiliar and lacked the knowledge and manners to recognize the exalted status of the Prophet (s). The problem is it was not a new Muslim; Ibn al Hashimi had thrown down this challenge to us:
not in a single version–neither in the Sahihayn nor in any other Hadith compilation for that matter–are any such words ascribed to Umar ibn al-Khattab. It is only the Shia who make such claims that it was Umar who said that, but we demand them to show us the proof, and they can never do that, namely because Umar never said such a thing nor has such a thing ever been ascribed to him (aside from Shia books). Umar’s only explanation for refusing the Prophet’s order was that the Prophet was in a great deal of pain and that he (Umar) wished to ease the Prophet’s pain and burden.
We will happily respond by citing the admission of his own beloved Shaikh ul Islam Ibn Taimiyyah who said in Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 6 page 202:
“On Thursday he (the Holy Prophet) determined to write a will. But, Umar said: ‘What is wrong with him, is he delirious?’ Umar had doubts if that statement (of the Holy Prophet) was a rave due to illness, or was a regular statement. Thus Umar feared that the Holy Prophet might have been raving due to fever”.
Ibn al Hashimi, once we have the testimony of your leading Imam on the issue, who despite the sanitising by Imam Bukhari was brave enough to look through the veils and acknowledge that Umar used the term delirious then you have no basis to reject the Shia stance as baseless concoction. As Ibn Taimiyyah rightly said it was a veteran Muslim Umar, not a convert (as Ansar.Org and Ahlelbayt.com assert) so he should have known better, it can’t just be explained away as an error as might be the case with a new Muslim. Let us give an example:
“A newly qualified lawyer is given a large amount of money to place into a new client account as he intends on purchasing a property. He relies on the fact that this new client is rich. A few days later the client asks that the money be returned to him as he no longer wishes to proceed with the transaction. Financial services conduct an investigation of the client and discover that he is a drug dealer, all of his monies have been made through illegal earnings. Bank statements evidence him paying in a cheque from the Firm into his savings account. The lawyer has innocently become party to a money laundering transaction and has fallen foul of his professions regulatory authority, The new lawyer was naïve he should have questioned the new client, asked for details of his business, clarified where the money had come from. The lawyer will be disciplined by his peers and will likely get a reprimand, but will in mitigation point out that his naivety was due to the fact that he was a newly qualified lawyer, unsure of how to conduct himself in those circumstances. This fact may well lesson the punishment, all the same he has breached his professions code of conduct albeit it unwittingly.
If the same conduct is carried out by an experienced lawyer who is a partner of the firm there will be no such mitigation. He should have known better, claims of innocence and naivety will fall on deaf ears when his is ajudged by his fellow peers at a disciplinary tribunal. Upon looking at his track record it emerges he has a recent reprimand of irregularities with a client account, this further goes against him. In light of these facts his license will be revoked, and he will no longer be entitled to practice as a lawyer”.
Now applying this to the facts there is a massive difference between a new Muslim accusing the Prophet (s) of being delirious and Umar doing so. Both have committed major sins, but they will be judged according to their knowledge. The new Muslim might not have recognized the status of the Prophet (s) and hence used such terminology, but no such mitigation would be available to Umar, a Muslim for many years it is tragic that even at this late stage of the Prophet (s) he still failed to recognise the status of the Prophet (s) and was prepared entertain notions over his mental state to justifyrefusing his dying instructions! Umar had already received a reprimand from Allah (swt) when this verse descended in his honour (Surah Hujurath) – The Bani Tamim delegation occurred in 9 Hijri and yet a year later he was again conducting himself in manner whereby he questioned the sanity of the Prophet (s), argued with his wives, opposed him and risked having all of his deeds nullified in the process.
Ibn al Hashimi who comments:
The Quran is Sufficient for UsThe Shia propagandists will then criticize Umar ibn al-Khattab for what he said (i.e. “the Quran is sufficient for us”). The Shia will say that Umar meant by this that obeying the Sunnah was not necessary. However, this is not a proper understanding of what Umar was saying. In fact, Umar–throughout his life–stressed the importance of obeying the Prophet’s Sunnah, so it would be impossible to accuse Umar of being one of the so-called “Quraniyyoon” or “Munkar-e-Hadith” (i.e. Hadith rejectors).The people were pestering the Prophet to give them religious advice, despite the fact that the Prophet was having a difficult time talking without pain. So Umar was calling them away from that; in other words, Umar was saying “leave him alone and let him rest”. And he told them that “the Quran is sufficient”. The Shia imply that by this Umar meant that the Prophet’s words were useless or not worthy because the Quran was “sufficient”. However, this is an incorrect definition of the word; the word “sufficient” means “adequate, enough, meeting the requirement, etc.” What the Prophet would have told them would definitely be beneficial, and Umar was not saying otherwise. He was simply saying that the people had enough to survive with, to make do, etc, such that they shouldn’t bother the Prophet in his time of pain.
A proper analogy of this is if a man wants to give his sons some money. But one of his sons knows that his father is running low on money, so he says to the rest of his brothers: “Leave father alone; what we have earned from work is sufficient for us.” This does not mean that he is scorning the money from his father or that this money wouldn’t be beneficial; it simply means that what they already have is enough to get by, such that they should not bother their father for any more.
It is amazing to see Ibn al Hashimi suggest that these words were said as a counter to people that were pestering the Prophet (s) to give religious advice. Can any form of pestering be gauged from the tradition narrated by Ibn Abbas? We see no evidence of the Sahaba pestering the Prophet (s) with questions. On the contrary it was the Prophet (s) that was ordering those present to bring him writing materials so that he could issue a religious instruction.
The example wherein the Prophet (s) giving instructions to the Sahaba is like a father instructing his sons does not hold true. Ibn al Hashimi being an adherent of those who loved worldly things wrongly gives the example of money, tangible asset whilst the Prophet was not leaving something tangible such as money for the Sahaba, he was leaving that permanent asset that would protect the Ummah from deviation and guide them to the right path.
In the analogy the son knows that his father’s financial circumstances are limited so he speaks out in a manner that protects him. The Prophet (s) was seeking to make reference to a ‘source’ to enable the ummah to derive their teachings after him, whilst Ibn al Hashimi’s example does not concur with this rather the example is of a father who is running low on cash, since when was the Prophet was running low on religious knowledge that he was seeking to cascade? Had this ability become depleted? There is a world of difference between a father wanting to give money, and the Prophet (s) wanting to dictate a will the contents of which will guide his Ummah for all eternity. The order of the father is restricted to his sons, they will benefit from his money, but the order of the Prophet (s) was one that would benefit the entire Ummah for all eternity.
It is common place for a father to know what is best for his children, this is on account of his experience gained over time, the foresight and experience of the Prophet of Allah, was far greater than a normal fallible father, he possessed a comprehensive knowledge of all matter,it is hence a lame excuse to suggest that thgere could occur a scenario when this figurative fathers instructions to write a document of eternal guidance could be overruled by his figurative son (Umar) who knew better!
Moreoever in Islam, when a father ‘instructs’ his children to carry out his instructions provided thet are allowed by Shariah, his children are obliged to implement them. The same duty is not replicated between a father to his child, he is not required to do as he says!
Allah (swt) says in his Glorious Book:
“We have enjoined on man kindness to his parents” (Surah Ahfaaq verse 15)
Ibn Kathir in his commentary of this verse states:
”And We have enjoined on man to be dutiful and kind to his parents.) (46:15) meaning, `We have commanded him to treat them well and show compassion towards them. Abu Dawud At-Tayalisi recorded from Sa`d bin Abi Waqqas, may Allah be pleased with him, that his mother said to him: “Hasn’t Allah commanded that you obey your parents Then I will not eat any food or drink any drink until you disbelieve in Allah.” Thus she stubbornly abstained from eating and drinking, until they had to open her mouth with a stick. Then this Ayah was revealed”
Sunni traditions likewise confirm this duty. We read in Sahih Muslim Book 001, Number 0158:
It is narrated on the authority of ‘Abdur-Rahman b. Abu Bakra that his father said: We were in the company of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) that he observed: Should I not inform you about the most grievous of the grave sins? (The Holy Prophet) repeated it three times, and then said: Associating anyone with Allah, disobedience to parents, false testimony or false utterance. The Holy Prophet was reclining, then he sat up, and he repeated it so many times that we wished that he should become silent.
We read in Sahih ibn Haban, Volume 2 page172 which has been graded ‘Hasan’ by Albaani in Silsila Sahiha, Volume 2 page 43:
“The pleasure of Allah is via parents’ pleasure and Allah’s discontent is via parents’ discontent”
A son is not entitled to dispute over a father’s orders, he should do as he says and must treat him with respect. If children are under a duty to obey their parents, there is a far greater duty to obey the Prophet (s), since the Quran requires that we obey him unconditionally. When a child is not entitled to override an order of his father, what right did Umar have to override the order of the Prophet (s)?
It would have also been more accurate If Ibn al Hashimi had cited in his analogy the son insulting the father and huring his feelings, that would have enabled his readers to assess the matter far more accurately. In his example the son merely made reference to the fact that existing financial resources would suffice, but here the figurative
”Your Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him, and do good to parents. If any one of them or both of them reach old age, do not say to them: uff (a word or expression of anger or contempt) and do not scold them, and address them with respectful words” (Surah Al-Isra verse 23)
If we are not entitled to show anger or contempt towards our parents, how should we assess Umar whose contempt towards the Prophet (s) was such that he openly raised questions over his sanity?
Contrary to what Ibn al Hashimi miht believe the Prophet (s) is best positioned to know what is / is not sufficient for his Ummah. When he (s) want to dictate a will that will provide eternal guidance for his Ummah, Umar has no right to overrule him and insist that the Quran will suffice for guidance. What gave him the mandate to overrule the Prophet (s) and decide what is best for the Ummah?
One can observe any situation in the world, whether that be at work, school, University the opinion of a Superior individual must be obeyed over a lesser ranked person. A General must be obeyed over a Lieutenant, a teacher must be obeyed over a Pupil, a Chief Executive must be obeyed over a Head of Department. Obedience is linked to rank and superiority. Let us break things down with this example:
“A child is seriously ill in hospital, the Consultant informs the parents that a blood transfusion will be needed to save the child, and that he needs them to sign the appropriate consent forms. If in this midst of this discussion a medical student observing these discussions as part of his training raises his objections and says ‘No the consultant is being absurd, Paracetomol is sufficient for the child’ and then obstructs the parents from signing the consent form, the Medical Student’s conduct is completely unacceptable he has sought to exert his opinion over a more senior colleague, there is after all a massive difference between a student and a consultant”.
In the normal world the student would be rebuked and disciplined for his conduct that any reasonable person would deem completely unacceptable. Unfortunately the concept of reasonableness is completely rejected when it comes to Ibn al Hashimi defending Umar. Rather than accept that this approach was incorrect since Umar was duty-bound to allow the Prophet (s) to dictate his will, he is praised for his intervention and decision making, and is portrayed as having a level of foresight that exceeded that of the Prophet (s)!
The crucial question that we would like to know is whether Umar lived his life according to the statement ‘The Quran is sufficient for us’? If this was good enough to frustrate the Prophets will, did he lead a life in accordance to this statement? If he did we could atleast admire him for sticking to his principles, after all this was a statement that so greatly impressd Allamah Dr. Muhammad Iqbal who whilst discussing the future of Muslim advancement, states it is possible:
“provided the world of Islam approaches it in the spirit of Omar the first critical and independent mind in Islam who, at the last moments of the Prophet, had the moral courage to utter these remarkable words: ‘The Book of God is sufficient for us’.”
The Reconstruction of Religious thought in Islam, by Allamah Muhammad Iqbal, p 143, Sang-e-Meel Paperbacks, Lahore, 1996 edition
S. Moinul Haque to this episode, in his admiration for Umar mnade these comments that echo the sentiments of Allamah Iqbal:
“…it appears that there was considerable strength in view taken by Umar, who rightly pointed out that the Din (message of Allah) had been completed and this was confirmed by the Quranic revelation”.
Kitab Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, Volume 2, page 305 English translation by S. Moinul Haque, Kitab Bhavan Publishers, New Delhi
This is indeed a very curious conclusion to arrive at. Haque suggests “was considerable strength in view taken by Umar.” We would like to ask the question, was there not considerable strength in the order of Rasulullah?” The greatest scholar of the Deen was Rasulullah (s) not Umar he was a mere follower. He (s) knew what was best for his Ummah, and yet Umar took it upon himself to oppose him and say “The Quran is sufficient for us.” Are the advocates of Umar suggesting that he had more knowledge than Rasulullah (s)?
Haque feels that Umar was correct to oppose Rasulullah (s) since the Deen i.e. Quranic verses, were complete. He was of course making an indirect reference to the descent of this verse:
“….This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion” (Quran 5:3 )
Whilst the Deen was undoubtedly completed with the descent of this verse, it does not entitle any individual to reject the verses that preceded it. The verse testifies to the COMPLETION of the deen not the ABROGATION of preceding verses. This type of logic is tantamount to a thinking so commonly espoused by the Leaders of Muslim countries who advocate their faith in the Holy Quran but refuse to abide by its contents. The Quran states clearly that obedience to Rasulullah (s) is unconditional, this verse in no way negates this obedience – after all Rasulullah (s) was the embodiment of the deen. Is it logical to believe that with the completion of the Deen, Umar was entitled to turn his back on Rasulullah’s orders? How can you proclaim to be adhering to the Deen, if at the same time you are opposing Rasulullah (s)? Moreover let us contemplate what the opposition was to – Umar and his party were opposed to Rasulullah (s) writing down his words on a piece of paper. If Karim is advocating this to have been the correct approach, then why did the classical Sunni Imams like Ismail Bukhari insist on travelling the world to collate Prophetic words? After all Umar was against this and openly opposed this in the presence of the Prophet (s) – Haque is stating that this was correct as the Deen was completed, this being the case, have the Ahl’ul Sunnah Ulema acted against the precedent set by Umar, by compiling books of hadith?
If any action after this verse is to be rejected because the Deen is complete then why did Abu Bakr and Umar deem it essential to participate in Leadership discussions at Saqifa Banu Sa’ada? Why indulge themselves in such a discussion after all the Deen was complete, and as Umar had said the Quran is sufficient for us? If we are to reject all actions after this verse, then does that also not mean that we reject the event of Saqifa and declare it haraam?
Let us consider the words of Rasulullah (s) he wanted to write a document “after which you will never go astray” - Rasulullah (s) clearly viewed this as a document that would protect the Ummah from misguidance that would save them in times of Fitnah. Umar’s objection “The Quran is sufficient for us” would seem to suggest that the Quran was that all encompassing document that protects the faithful from fitnah. If this is indeed the case then why did the Shaykhain participate at Saqifa? Many Sunni Ulema have praised the actions of Shaykhain pointing out that their attendance at Saqifa had prevented the nation being engulfed by the fitnah of tribalism and violence that would have destroyed the entire fabric of society. As Allamah Shibli Numani comments in al-Faruq, Volume 1 page 92, by Abu Bakr accession to Khalifa “a rising storm was thus warded off”. How could such a “rising storm” of fitnah exist when as Umar insisted ‘The Quran is sufficient for us’?
The modernist Egyptian historian Husnain Haykal in his highly recognized work “The Life of Muhummud” writes:
“While under a strong attack of fever and surrounded by visitors, he asked that pen and ink and paper be brought. He said he would dictate something for his follower’s benefit, assuring them that if they adhered to it, they would never go astray. Some of the people present thought that since the Prophet-May God’s peace and blessing be upon him-was severely ill and since the Muslims already had the Quran, no further writing was necessary. It is related that thought belonged to Umar…Ibn Abbas felt concerned that the people would lose something important if they did not hasten to bring the writing materials, whereas Umar held firmly to his judgement which he based upon God’s own estimate of His Holy Book: ‘In this scripture we have left out nothing’.”
The life of Muhummud, by Husnain Haykal, 2nd edition translated by Ismail Faruqi, p 501
Indeed the scripture of Allah covers all issues, but it is the Prophet of Allah who explains to us the details of the universal principles laid out in the Quran. For this reason, by its very nature the Quran alone without the Prophet’s Sunnah is not sufficient to derive Islamic Law for all spheres of life. That is why Allah states in the Quran, Surah Nisa verse 65:
“No by Allah they haven’t believed until they make you a Judge in all their disputes.”
And that is why every decision of the Prophet (s) is binding upon us, Surah Hashr verse 7:
“Whatever the Prophet gives you take it, whatever he prevents you from doing refrain from it.”
If we analyze the Book of Allah, we see that Allah (swt) does not describe everything in detail. On the contrary the Quran establishes universal principles and general rules for all things, but as to the exact implication and methodology for how we are supposed to implement and practice those universal rules, this was left for Muhammad (s) to clarify both verbally and through his own practical example, i.e. his Sunnah. That is why the Book of Allah alone is not sufficient for the Muslims to comprehend Islam and derive Islamic Law. Muhammad (s) was sent to not only relay Allah (swt)’s Word, but to explain Allah’s Book and its deep meanings to the people.
“…We have revealed to you the Remembrance so that you may explain to humankind that which has been revealed for them…” (The Holy Quran 16:44)
Accordingly, the Quran alone can never be enough, but must be accompanied by the Prophet’s commands and exemplification. After all, the Prophet (s) was sent to a people who were living in the dark ages, most of whom were illiterate. And as the above verse shows they and the Muslims in general needed the Prophet (s) to clarify the verses of the Quran – that is why Muhammad’s (s) mission was to relay and explain those actions through his Sunnah which provided a practical commentary on the Quranic verses. Thus, according to the Quran itself (e.g. “We have revealed to you the Remembrance so that you may explain to humankind that which has been revealed for them.”), the Quran can NEVER be enough. If we read the Quran, it is evident that Allah (swt) chooses not to elaborate on crucial parts of the Deen, but leaves the Prophet [saw] to clarify the universal principles revealed in the Book. For example the Quran makes no reference on how to calculate Zakaat, It does not explain the Hajj rites, – even the first Pillar and cornerstone of Islam, Salaat (Prayer), is not explained in the Quran. Allah (swt) does not explain how you are to perform Salaat, how to pray, what to say when you are standing, or when you bend, or when you prostrate; do you sit down first or do you stand?
Thus, we can see clearly that Allah (swt) in His infinite Wisdom had intentionally ensured that the Quran is not sufficient in itself for people to derive Islamic Law, so that people would turn to the Prophet to explain the application of the universal principles contained in the Quran. Furthermore, after the death of the Prophet (s) until the Day of Judgement, the people will have to turn to the Prophet’s (s) Ahlul’bayt for guidance as to the clarification of the meaning of the Quran and the authentic Sunnah of the Prophet (s):
“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
The fact of the matter is Umar’s comments was just a temporary political statement that had no bearing on reality. When the Prophet (s) died it was the same Umar that was threatening the Sahaba with execution, insisting the Prophet (s) was not dead, rather was in communicado with Allah (swt). Here he was not enlightened by the Quranic verses confirming the Prophet (s) could die, rather this reality only dawned on him when Abu Bakr returned to Madina and recited such a verse.
Umar’s statement “The Quran is sufficient for us” indicated that no guidance was required for the future rather the Quran was that eternal source of guidance for the Ummah. If this was the case, why did he subsequently abandon the funeral rites of the Prophet (s) and enter into discussions with the Ansar over who should succeed the Prophet (s) as Guide over the Ummah? We see no example of Umar inviting his Ansar opponents to deduce who has the right to rule the ummah by reciting verses relating to such a criteria from the Quran. Curiously rather than rely on the Quran his sidekick Abu Bakr sought reliance on a Hadith ‘The Imams will be from the Quraysh’.
During his own reign, Umar appeared to be – in contradiction to the stance he displayed previously – fully aware that the Quran is NOT sufficient for us. In fact, the same Umar – who had previously claimed that “The Quran is sufficient for us” as a justification to disobey the Prophet, ignore the Messenger’s role as the clarifier of the message, prevented him from writing his last instructions and will, thereby disobeying Allah’s command to take whatever the Prophet gives – used to advise his own representatives during the time of his Caliphate to follow sources other than the Quran for guidance, and explicitly acknowledged that the Quran is NOT sufficient to clarify details! The Sunni Jamaat, Hakikat Kitabevi, record that during his Caliphate:
“Umar ibn al Khattab (RA) appointed Shuraih as a Qadi and told him ‘Look at what is revealed explicitly in the Book. Do not ask others for such matters! If you cannot find {an answer to what you are asked} in it, resort to the Sunna of Muhummud (AS)! If you cannot find in it either, perform ijtihad and give your answer according to how you understand”.
Advice for the Muslim, by Waqf Ikhlas, p 109 (Waqf Ikhlas Publications, seventh edition, Istanbul, Turkey)
Is it not unusual that the same Umar who stated that the Quran is sufficient for us, is here telling Shuraih that actually the Quran is not always sufficient? Is it not extremely peculiar that the same Umar – who is here informing Shuraih that he should look to the Sunnah of the Prophet to clarify issues not detailed in the Book of Allah, or if not the Sunnah, that he should perform ijtihad without any form of guidance whatsoever – believed that an order of the same Prophet (s) on his death bed whose Sunnah we are obliged to follow, should be disobeyed because the Quran alone is sufficient? When it came to formulating a 6 man Shura to appoint his successor, wherein Abdul Rahman bin Auf was given the cating vote we see no Quranic basis for this methodology, yet this was all drawn up as mechanism to appoint a Guide after him.
Amusingly Ibn al Hashimi also acknowledges that Umar did not literally believe that the Quran was a sole source of guidance…
The Shia propagandists will then criticize Umar ibn al-Khattab for what he said (i.e. “the Quran is sufficient for us”). The Shia will say that Umar meant by this that obeying the Sunnah was not necessary. However, this is not a proper understanding of what Umar was saying. In fact, Umar–throughout his life–stressed the importance of obeying the Prophet’s Sunnah, so it would be impossible to accuse Umar of being one of the so-called “Quraniyyoon” or “Munkar-e-Hadith” (i.e. Hadith rejectors).
If Umar always adhered to the Quran and Sunnah for guidance why did he on the deathbed of the Prophet (s) make it clear that only the Quran would suffice as a guide? Does the fact that he subsequently adhered to the Quran and Sunnah not show hypocricy on his part?
Despite the explicit verses relating to obedience to the Prophet (s) that we have touched on in previously to refute the absurd claim the Umar exercised ijtihad, Ansar.org seek to offer their own twisted logic and cite a verse that actually destroys their whole argument.
Ansar.org states:
Allah says, “O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: that is best, and most suitable for final determination.” [Al-Nissa, 59] Therefore, only the book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger would save us if we ever differed or disagreed.
So the verse cited by Ansar states
We would like to ask Ansar.org, did the Sahaba adhere to this order on Rasulullah’s deathbed? Did they obey him? Did they refer to Rasulullah to resolve the dispute? The verse states that refer differences to Rasulullah (s) and here the Sahaba with Umar at the helm was disputing with Rasulullah (s). The verse commands obedience to Rasulullah (s) and Umar was stating that his instructions should not be carried out. Was this true adherence to the Quran and Sunnah? Rasulullah (s) was the talking Quran and practical Sunnah in their midst, they refused to obey him and accused him of talking nonsense! Is this type of respect and obedience the Quran and Sunnah teach us? Is this the type of behaviour that we should appreciate?
With regards to Ansar’s comments:
only the book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger would save us if we ever differed or disagreed”.
We would ask why did Umar not state “The Quran and Sunnah are sufficient for us”?. Has he forgotten about the Sunnah? Even if we are to accept this claim then sadly for Ansar.org, despite their Nasibi efforts to distance themselves from Imam ‘Ali (as), they will still fail to do so. The Quran and Sunnah both require someone at the helm of the State who has a command of both sources and is the correct interpreter of both. In connection with this the Holy Prophet once in the presence of his companions said to Ali (as), “You are my brother and inheritor”, when the Companions asked what previous Prophet’s had left as inheritance, he replied “The Book of God and the teachings of that Prophet”.
1. Riyadh al Nadira by Mohib al Tabari, Vol 3 p 123
2. Izalatul Khifa (Urdu translation), by Al Muhadith Shah Waliyullah Dehlavi, Vol 1 p 444
If Ali bin Abi Talib (as) is the inheritor of the Book of God, and the Prophet’s sense, it is common sense that he was also his rightful successor.
Ansar’s advocacy for Umar reaches new levels of absurdity:
“If the Prophet peace be upon him were insisted in writing that book, then neither Omar nor anyone else would be able to prevent him. If Allah had ordered the Prophet peace be upon him to write the book, then the Prophet had no choice but to write it down, regardless if Omar agreed or not! However, the book was optional”
Rasulullah (s) wanted to write a document that would serve as guidance for them, if the Sahaba wished to opt out and insult Rasulullah (s) then it was their loss not Rasulullah’s. To suggest that this was merely optional, is ludicrous. We are discussing obedience to Rasulullah (s) and there is no such thing as optional. The verses of the Quran make it clear that obedience to Rasulullah (s) is unconditional. We are yet to find a verse that states that following Rasulullah (s) is optional. We have already cited the fact that Allah (swt) states in Surah Hashr verse 7:
“Whatever the Prophet gives you take it, whatever he prevents you from doing refrain from it”