Chapter Two – Refuting the defences submitted by Umar’s advocates

 

A defence is essentially a reply to the claims of the other party, which asserts reasons why the claims should be disallowed. Ibn al Hashimi has set by seeking to create an absolute denial of the our factual allegations. We shall address each of the defences submitted along with those of his brothers from Ansar.Org.

Defence One – Umar was right to prevent the instruction from being implemented because the Prophet (s) allegedly fainted whilst issuing it

 

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.”
Umar ibn al-Khattab thought–and rightfully so–that the request for a pen and paper no longer applied now that the Prophet had fainted. Instead of getting the pen and paper, Umar felt that they should allow the Prophet to rest. However, some of the Sahabah felt that they should get the pen and paper anyways, and that they should implore the Prophet to write for them; these people said: “Bring him (the writing material) so that Allah’s Messenger may write a document for you and you would never go astray after him.”

Reply One – There is a fundamental inaccuracy here – NO Sunni tradition in say that the Prophet (s) fainted or lost consciousness!

Ibn al Hashimi admits that Umar sought to prevent the Prophet (s) from writing the document. It is interesting that Ibn al Hashimi is suggesting that Sunni sources would suggest that the Prophet (s) slipped into unconsciousness whilst issuing the instructions, though none of the Sunni traditions (with the original Arabic text) would concur with this. Let us look at the versions of the event recorded by the Sunni Sahihayn, the two most revered Sunni collections of Bukhari and Muslim. We read in Sahih Bukhari under the chapter ‘Holding Fast to the Quran and Sunnah’ Volume 9, Book 92, Number 468:

Narrated 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 bin Al-Khatttab, 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 some of them said what ‘Umar said. When they made much noise and differed greatly before the Prophet, he said to them, “Go away and leave me.” Ibn ‘Abbas used to say, “It was a great disaster that their difference and noise prevented Allah’s Apostle from writing that writing for them.

Muslim presents various narratives of the event in the Book of Wills:

Sahih Muslim Book 013, Number 4016:

Ibn Abbas reported: When Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) was about to leave this world, there were persons (around him) in his house, ‘Umar b. al-Kbattab being one of them. Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Come, I may write for you a document; you would not go astray after that. Thereupon Umar said: Verily Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) is deeply afflicted with pain. You have the Quran with you. The Book of Allah is sufficient for us. Those who were present in the house differed. Some of them said: Bring him (the writing material) so that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) may write a document for you and you would never go astray after him And some among them said what ‘Umar had (already) said. When they indulged in nonsense 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. Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) could not write (or dictate) the document for them.

Sahih Muslim Book 013, Number 4014:

Sa’id b. Jubair reported that Ibn ‘Abbas said: Thursday, (and then said): What is this Thursday? He then wept so much that his tears moistened the pebbles. I said: Ibn ‘Abbas, what is (significant) about Thursday? He (Ibn ‘Abbas) said: The illness of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) took a serious turn (on this day), 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 meet to dispute in the presence of the Apostle. They said: How is he (Allah’s Apostle)? Is he talking nonsense? Try to learn from him (this point). He (the Holy Prophet) said: Leave me. I am better in the state (than the one in which you are engaged). I make a will about three things: Turn out the polytheists from the territory of Arabia; show hospitality to the (foreign) delegations as I used to show them hospitality. He (the narrator) said: He (Ibn Abbas) kept silent on the third point, or he (the narrator) said: But I forgot that.

Sahih Muslim Book 013, Number 4015:

Sa’id b. Jubair reported from Ibn Abbas that he said: Thursday, and what about Thursday? Then tears began to flow until I saw them on his cheeks as it they were the strings of pearls. 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 inkpot), 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 talking nonsense.

Note: In the underlined sentences of the last two traditions above, instead of relying on the Saudi paid English translator, we have presented the ‘actual’ translation when translating the Arabic term ‘Yahjur’ as ‘nonsense’ while the Saudi translator has translated them as “Has he lost his consciousness?” and “Allah’s Messenger (may peace upon him) is in the state of unconsciousness” respectively.

Comment

There is nothing from the traditions that say the Prophet (s) fell into unconsciousness. Ibn Hashimi has concocted his own version of the event from his imagination, one in which he makes it up that the Prophet (s) fainted and then innovates further versions of the event in which Umar reacts saying ’they should allow the Prophet to regain consciousness, get some rest, and recuperate’. This is what the Sunni mind wishes happened between Muhammad (s) and Umar, it is of course not what the traditions say actually happened between these two men – the traditions show that since this was the last time Umar saw Mohammad (s) before his death a couple of days later, Muhammad (s) left the world on very bad terms with Umar, indeed expelling him from his presence owing to him mutinying against him.

The traditions that we have cited are from the two principal canonical works of Ahl’ul Sunnah – they are are one narrative without break, none of them evidence that the Prophet (s) fainted whilst issuing instructions for a pen and paper. It is rather possible to deduce that the critical incident from instruction to refusal was over in a matter of minutes and the Prophet (s) was conscious throughout. Our dear Prophet (s) was so conscious and aware that he even refuted the suggestion that he was delirious and attacked the intention of those people trying to say he was delirious by denying that he was then promptly throwing the rebellious faction amongst his companions out of his house – how many delirious men have the ability to do all that! The text does not refer to the Prophet (s) awaking mid way and then addressing the attendees, he remained in an awake and coherent state throughout.

Reply Two – Even if the Prophet (s) fainting is proven, that would not exonerate the conduct of Umar

Even if we accept Ibn al Hashimi’s take on the event, namely Umar’s intervention was in light of the Prophet (s) fainting that in no way exonerates the conduct of Umar. It would be unreasonable to behave like this in the presence of a normal dying man, since relatives and hospital staff will deem it right to comfort him and see to it that his dying wishes are fulfilled, his slipping in and out of consciousness would be irrelevant, if he wanted something the normal reaction of his loved ones would be to seek to ensure his wishes were complied with. With this in mind how can Umar’s blatant, unashamed, obstructive behaviour that involved him:

  • questioning the mental state of the Prophet (s),
  • arguing with his women folk that wanted the wishes of the Prophet (s) to be implemented
  • incurring the anger of the Prophet (s) who sought to protect the position taken by the women folk
  • successfully frustrating the efforts for the will to be written the Prophet (s) by ushering away one individual that brought writing materials
  • causing a row in the presence of the Prophet (s)

be deemed correct, on the premise that the Prophet (s) had temporarily fainted? No normal dying person should be treated in such an undignified manner no matter how poor his health is, let alone the Seal of all Prophets.

Defence Two – Umar exercised ijtihad, he did not want to trouble the sick Prophet (s) on account of his deep love for him (s)

Ibn al Hashimi who comments:

Umar felt–and we agree with him on this–that the Prophet’s request was no longer applicable due to the fact that the Prophet fell unconscious. This is not a matter of disobedience but rather it is simply Umar’s Ijtihad that the request was no longer applicable in this new situation (i.e. the Prophet was now unconscious). Furthermore, Umar’s position was based out of his deep love for the Prophet, as Umar hated to see him in pain and distress.

In tackling this particular Sunni defence of Umar, we begin by reminding the reader that we have of course just established that Mohammad (s) was not unconscious, since there is NO tradition that says he was and it is only conjecture that he was. Hence it is an innovation to say that Mohammad (s) ‘fell unconscious’. Of course this means the party that seeks to defend Umar is prone to a sectarian outlook characterized by a fantastical love of Umar so much so that it has indeed felt it necessary to invent the unconsciousness of Mohammad (s) as a necessary untruth in order to exonerate the object of the prime fantasy, Umar, from very serious charges tantamount to high treason against the very same Mohammad (s).

Reply One – Umar’s Ijtihad cannot contradict the Quran

Whilst advocate Ibn al Hashimi cites the defence of ijtihad to protect his client Umar he should know that a stance can only be correct if it is corroborated by the Quran and Sunnah. Any act that contradicts these two sources cannot be deemed to be ijtihad since it has gone against Nass (clear text). It is here that the advocates of Umar once again fall flat on their faces because Umar’s conduct violated the Quranic rulings relating to obedience to the Prophet (s) namely:

“Obey Allah and Obey his Prophet and worry, and be warned that the Prophet’s duty is only to deliver the message clearly” (Surah al Maidah verse 92)

“Perform Salat (Prayer), give Zakat and Obey Allah and his Prophet” (Surah Mujadilah verses 12-13)

Both these noble verses clarify the matter unambiguously. Allah commands the Muslims in the Quran to obey Allah – unconditionally – and furthermore to obey the Prophet – once more, unconditionally.

“Obey Allah and his Prophet and if you dispute, then on him is what is imposed on him, and on you is what is imposed on you; and if you obey him you are guided aright; and there is no duty on the Prophet save the clear delivery”. (Surah Nur verse 54)

Once more, the Quran establishes firmly that the duty of the Muslim is simply to obey the Prophet – no limitations have been mentioned as to the extent of this obedience; hence the obedience must be unconditional and without limitation. This verse also makes it clear that if one obeys the Prophet in this way, only then will one be rightly guided, and that the Prophet’s duty is only to convey the message.

Say, “Obey Allah and the Prophet, but if they turn back, then verily Allah does not love the disbelievers” (Surah Aal-e-Imran verse 32)

“O ye who believe! Obey Allah and His Messenger, and turn not away from him when ye hear (him speak).” (Surah Anfal verse 20)

“And obey Allah and His Messenger and do not quarrel.” (Surah Anfal verse 46).

All these verses prove that obedience to the Prophet (s) is utterly unconditional and on a par with obedience to Allah (swt); as far as the Quran is concerned there is no difference between the two. So much is the unconditional nature of this obedience stressed in the Quran, that Surah Aal-e-Imran clarifies that it is forbidden to turn back and ignore the Prophet’s command: “If they turn back, then verily Allah does not love the disbelievers.” Similarly, the Muslims are commanded never to turn away if they hear the Prophet speak – once more, this command is unconditional: “…and turn not away from him when ye hear (him speak)” . Finally the third verse under discussion commands the Muslims not to quarrel, and in context, not to quarrel over the Prophet’s command: “And obey Allah and His Messenger and do not quarrel.” After Tawheed belief in Prophethood is of cardinal import for a Muslim – a Muslim will never be capable of obeying Allah (swt) until he obeys his Prophet (s). One who openly disobeys the Prophet (s), turns away from him despite hearing him, turns back from him, and quarrels before him over his command, is therefore committing haraam. It is therefore amazing that Ibn al Hashimi is seeking to convince his audience that Umar’s disobedience and opposition to the order of the Prophet (s) was ijtihad that was correct! He would not make such allowances for someone who was not his King like Umar was, but that is the way with monarchists, which is what Sunni Muslims are.

Whilst these verses have set out the duty to obey the Prophet (s) the following verse makes it clear that we should accept EVERYTHING our dear Prophet (s) gives to us. Allah (swt) says in Surah Hashr:

“And whatsoever the messenger giveth you, take it. And whatsoever he forbiddeth, abstain (from it).”

That is the Quran’s verdict. It is hard, it is solid, it is resounding in its commands to obey the order of the Holy Prophet (s). If there is any doubt as to the fact that Umar was REJECTING the final command of the Seal of Prophets in the Calamity incident, let us study this tradition from the Musnad of Ahmad, Volume 3 page 346 declared ‘Sahih’ by Shaykh Shoib al-Arnaut, which deals with what Umar was up to in the Calamity of Thursday:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا موسى بن داود حدثنا بن لهيعة عن أبي الزبير عن جابر : أن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم دعا عند موته بصحيفة ليكتب فيها كتابا لا يضلون بعده قال فخالف عليها عمر بن الخطاب حتى رفضها

Jabir said: ‘The Holy Prophet (pbuh) asked for a paper to write his Will after which which no one would get astray, but Umar objected until he rejected it’.

Now this tradtion is quite clear that Umar rejected the command of Mohammad (s) on his deathbed. Quite a thrilling admission! We do not hesitate from saying King Umar by rejecting the command of the Prophet (s) on his deathbed disobeyed the command of Allah (sawt) (Surah Hashr above) and such disobedience was a characteristic of those who left the religion ( Surah Aal-e-Imran v 32). Do not attack the Shias for saying this. What we say is what God says, for we cite the Quran. When the Prophet (s) is giving the Ummah the Will of the Seal of 124,000 Prophets for eternal guidance, Umar quashes this final order of Mohammad (s), against the command of God forbidding contradicting Mohammad (s), and against 124,000 prophets. The excuse given by the Sunni defence for Umar is that he was exercising ijtihad, the same tired old excuse which often contradicts common sense and has been offered by the Sunni Muslims as a defence for every horrific outrage committed by the early Arab companion-kings, guilty of crimes ranging from murder to rape. But here the ijtihad excuse is even more absurd – for it is a violation of the aforementioned verses of the Quran ITSELF that Umar was insisting was sufficient for us. Think about it! It’s implications for Umar’s character at this final stage of his life as a ‘companion’ are shocking – he became a rebel against Muhammad (s)! No surprise then that Muhammad (s) treated him as one and threw him out of his house just as Allah (sawt) threw Iblees out from his presence.

Reply Two – Umar prevented Muhammad (s) from writing his Will. There can be no ijtihad in those actions that prevent the Prophet (s) from carrying out his religious duty – and his Will being written was such a religious duty, an obligatory action

Let us set out some facts in big black letters for the followers of the companion-kings:

  1. Fact one is that in Islam it is compulsory for a Muslim approaching death to write a Will, based on the verse of the Quran which is accepted by even the monarchists:“It is prescribed for you when death approaches one of you, if he leaves behind any goods that he makes a bequest for Parents and (the nearest kinsmen) in goodness, this is a duty upon the pious” (The Quran 2:180).This is not at all controversial between Sunni and Shia – our monarchist brothers should go and ask their Sheikh if they themselves should write a Will – he will tell them that if they live their lives by Islam they MUST make a Will in Islam before they die.
  2. Fact two is that Muhammad (s) tried to write a Will to comply with the order of Allah (sawt). When? Why, in the Calamity of Thursday of course, there is no other such event. If any biased Sunni Muslims seeks to delude himself that the Calamity of Thursday was not, in essence, a Calamity about Muhammad trying to write his Will, yet a Will which Umar prevented from being written, then we refer that same person to that book his religion desperately loves called the Sahih of Muslim – that object of Sunni desire records the Calamity of Thursday in its ‘Book of Wills’. Given the close relationship between the Sahih of Muslim and Sunni Muslims, this fact effectively puts an end to any dispute that the Calamity of Thursday was not about Muhammad’s Will and Umar preventing it being written.
  3. Fact three is that Umar prevented this Will from being written – this also is not disputed even if his motive is by the Sunni monarchists. Shias say it was a sign of mutiny and treachery, Sunnis posit various excuses which we are destructuring here (and some Sunnis like Ghazali himself have admitted Umar was opposing Muhammad (s)’ Will being written as the Prophet (s) wished to write Ali (as) as his successor, in effect a political mutiny by Umar and his camp against Muhammad (s), Ali (as) and his Shia.

Umar’s act was of course why Ibn Abbas called it a Calamity, for this was going to be the Will of Wills in Creation, it was to be the Written Will of the the Seal of 124,000 Prophets, and this man Umar blocked it being written! That is how deviant he was.

It is this that is the most heart-breaking fact about this incident. It was this that caused Ibne Abbas to weep so much the ground beneath him became wet with his tears (see the tradition of Sahih Bukhari that we previously cited). By Allah! Umar became impudence incarnate on that fateful Thursday. He became as stubborn as Iblees who like Umar did not accept God’s choice of Khalifa (Surah Baqarah, Verse 34). Dear brothers and sisters, many Muslims have felt hurt 1,400 years after Muhammad (s) because of the pain caused to him by what Umar said to him on his deathbed. They love Allah (sawt) and Muhammad (s), and Umar is not important in that equation. Umar revealed himself as still a man of jahiliyya, an enemy. After all this was the same Umar who came with a sword to murder Muhammad (s) before Umar allegedly converted to Islam. Was this conversion sincere? When do murderers go and become the best of people? You are not alone in your suspicions. But logic is clearer than suspicion. Why do you entrust your soul to the Sunni religion which was created by Umar, and which is nothing but the religion of the ancient Arab Kings? The true Muslims were those who sided with Muhammad (s) on that day, not with the rebel Umar. All Sunni Islam is that same political institution that these rebels innovated later fabricating traditions about its founding kings so that the brainwashed subjects of these kings came to revere Umar, the first companion to breakaway from Muhammad (s). Umar was the leader of the traitors in the midst of the Seal of Prophets and whom Muhammad (s) showed to us by attacking them and pointing to who they were from his deathbed on the Calamity of Thursday. So why then do you resist the call to Shi’ism, the party of legitimacy, of truth, the party of Muhammad (s) not of Umar?

Some Sunni Muslims hold the Prophet (s) left no Will before his death, conveniently omitting the fact that he tried to, but some even saying he made no attempt to do so, in contempt of the Quran telling him to do so! Are we to accept that Muhammad (s) fell short of his compliance with the Divine Instruction in the Quran that he did not try and leave a Will? Such negligence on the part of the Holy Prophet (s) is unthinkable, The Calamity of Thursday puts the knife in to this appallingly debased lie that Mohammad (s) failed to comply with this responsibility which was obligatory on him from the Quran. We as the original Muslims, the Shia, are sickened by these ‘Muslims’ continually twisting and turning eventually insulting Muhammad (s)’s sense of duty to his God in order to dodge the blame being levied squarely upon the shoulders of Umar for this tragic and horrible event. The monarchists sacrifice even the Prophet Muhammad (s) for their King Umar by saying the former failed to leave a Will disobeying God and the Quran rather than seeing the Calamity for what it is – Muhammad (s) trying to write his Will yet being foiled by Umar and that political party of traitors with him. What better opportunity can there be for one to make a will than when he is on his deathbed? The Sahih of Muslim and numerous other sources which we have cited title this entire event Mohammad (s)’s attempt to write a Will! Muhammad (s) died a few hours after the Calamity of Thursday on Friday morning. While Ali (s) concerned himself with the burial, Abu Bakr and Umar ran off to play politics, returning after having crowned Abu Bakr king in a coup d’etat, a fact which we are supposed to applaud in the monarchists’ worldview! The Calamity was the beginning of that coup, the suppression of Muhammad (s)’s Will.

Crucially Ibn al Hashimi exposes this repugnant Sunni tendency – he too says Umar’s intervention was right. But his controversial comments caused a row and Allah (swt) says is in his Glorious Book:

“Oh you who believe, don’t raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet, don’t speak loud unto him, as you speak among yourselves otherwise all your good deeds will be null and void” (Surah Hujuraat Verse 2)

Finally, dear Sunni Muslims, rather than giving a personal view that your King Umar’s intervention was right, even as monarchists would it not be better for you to ascertain right and wrong by looking at how the Prophet (s) himself reacted to Umar’s approach? After all, is Muhammad (s) the prophet or is King Umar the prophet? We know there is a tradition in Sunni Islam that alleges that Muhammad (s) said:

“If there were a prophet after me, it would have been Umar”
Sunan Tirmidhi, Volume 2 page 754.

Even if you consider the latter blatant fabrication by the monarchists as fact, Umar was not even close to being a prophet of Muhammad (s)’ status – a man greater than Moses, Jesus, Abraham and Noah, peace be upon them all. Now did the Holy Prophet Muhammad (s), the Seal of Prophets (s) agree and say that Umar’s socalled ‘ijtihad’ was correct, that Umar was on a par of negating what he had commanded? Had Rasulullah (s) acknowledged this ‘sincere’ intervention, there would have been no need for him to have intervened whilst Umar was remonstrating with his wives leading to Muhammad (s) telling Umar ‘they are better than you’ (as we shall cite later – yes, even women were regarded as better than King Umar, who is supposedly Prophet material in the religion of the kings!). This evidences factually (rather than in terms of Sunni fables) that the Prophet (s) did not welcome Umar’s comments about his sanity and did not consider Umar’s religious knowledge sufficient for him to do ijtihad. We are sure that no sane person would welcome anyone questioning their sanity, and would never deem the accuser as acting in his best interests, so for Ibn al-Hashimi to argue that Umar’s intervention wherein he questioned the sanity of the Prophet (s) was an act of sincere love and devotion is the height of caprice. But more central to countering Ibn Hashimi’s argument is the fact that Muhammad (s) did not regard Umar’s actions as the latter’s ijtihad. As shown before the Quran says in several places we cannot accept the opinion of anyone (including the Sunni King Umar) over that of the Prophet Muhammad (s). Further, there is no ijtihad when that action causes one to contradict Muhammad (s). The argument that Umar did ijtihad is hence contrary to all logic and turns Islam into a joke, for it means its prophet is so lowly in knoweldge as to be corrected on religious matters by the ijtihad of Umar who is the man with the higher knowledge. To Shias this is an alien notion indeed, indeed a repulsive notion which makes us feel sick, and of course Imam Ali (as) never conflicted with Muhammad (s) and was the closest of men to him and his defender at all times. Yet the notion of Umar’s conflict with Muhammad (s) is in harmony here in Sunni Islam, a religion which since it is taken from Umar is ultimately founded upon disobedience to Muhammad (s). Of course we must point out the Sunni in the street would not agree with his scholars on this matter, but the Sunni on the street is selectively brainwashed to revere Umar and not ask questions like this as to who is right when Muhammad (s) and Umar conflict.

If as Ibn al Hashimi attests Umar was concerned at the pain the Prophet (s) was experiencing (which is unproven from primary sources), how was he seeking to alleviate that alleged pain by refusing his instructions, thus creating an almighty row, wherein the Prophet (s) took offence to the aspersions cast on his state of mind and thus told everybody to leave? It was Umar’s disobedience that acted as the precipitator to the row that made the Prophet (s) feel worse, so how can one argue that Umar’s intervention was for the betterment of the Prophet (s)? If Umar did not want to trouble the Prophet (s) he could have said ‘Do not worry Master, we will note down your instructions, tell us what you want to say’ – that would have been the dignified manner in which to treat the Prophet (s), not refuting him and questioning his sanity. Why did Umar take it upon himself to decide that the instruction was of no importance before the Prophet (s) was provided the opportunity to have his instructions committed to paper? Had the Will been written down, any reasonable person could have analysed its contents and deduced whether the instruction issued were those of a man of sound mind.

Reply Three – It would be morally right to enable a dying man the opportunity to write his will

Now given the fact that Umar knew it was Muhammad (s)’s intention to write a Will, since this is what Muhammad (s) was saying he intended to do, why then did Umar seek to prevent it being written on the alleged grounds Muhammad (s) was in pain? Many terminally ill patients are in discomfort and pain but this is ignored when the serious matter of writing a Will must be dealt with. The writing of the Will was necessity, as we have already discussed, it was not an option.

If a relative objects to a hospitalized relative receiving life saving treatment to which he has contemplated to, fearing that the procedure might be painful, and prevents immediatel family from signing the consent to treatment form, his intervention and objections will be deemed unacceptable, and will not be deemed as an intervention motivated by love or concerns for the patient. That is legally exactly what Umar did – he failed to respect the wishes of the patient and this led to harm – the failure of the Will of the Seal of Prophets which it was mandatory for Muhammad (s) to write! Further, Umar was himself likely to lose out politically if the Will was written, so his personally involving himself through this behavior is doubly unethical – legally this is called a conflict of interest, and demands non-intervention and withdrawal or at least a declaration of duality of interest.

If any dying man of sound mind (who is hypothetically in hospital with terminal cancer) was to initiate a desire to dictate a will so as to prevent disputes after him any individual that sought to frustrate such efforts and prevented him from implementing his instructions would not be praised for his conduct, rather his intervention would be deemed obstructive, unhelpful and disrespectful. Any sincere relative in the room at the time would recognize how essential it was that his wish be fulfilled not just to respect his wishes, but this would be advantageous [from a personal perspective] to ensure clarity over his estate. A man on his deathbed is barring a miracle at the Mercy of the Angel of Death who could cease his soul at any time. In such tragic circumstances his loved ones will both know and recognise this harsh grim reality. They will seek to cherish every last moment they have with this individual whilst he is of sound mind, and will seek to ensure that all of his dying requests are met. Crucially if this dying relative whilst conscious but in state of discomfort issues instructions for writing materials so as to make his last will and testament, relatives would deem it right that he do so, not only would it provide clarity for matters on all future matters, whether that be the distribution of assets or the paying off of debts, from a religious perspective it would ensure that he fulfilled his religious obligation to write a will. The dying man may for example have a fever and be in pain due to his cancerous state but the crucial thing is he deems himself fit enough to make a will his wish should thus be respected and followed, after all his disposition means that he could lose consciousness, slip into a coma and even die at any minute. Were he to make the order a little later, he may lack capacity due to his fading mental health that would in consequence render any will issued thereafter void. With such inherent risks, associated with delay, anyone with sincere love for that dying relative would deem it imperative that the Will and testament of the sane, dying relative be noted as a matter of urgency, it would not be appropriate to object and prevent it due to concerns over his fading health, since doing so would simply cause bitter disputes after him, and would hurt the feelings of that dying relative.
Now applying the above scenario to the facts, when a gravely ill but conscious prophet of sound mind is issuing instructions to write a MANDATORY Will that would have a far reaching permanent advantage for the Ummah, thus indicating that he was fit and well enough to issue such instructions Umar’s intervention on account of his (s) physical health was unwelcome, rude and obstructive. Umar’s words ‘pain has overcome him’ as grounds for rejecting the order alludes to the fact that in his opinion he (s) was incapacitated – and hence lacked or was deprived of the strength or power to make a will. From a legal perspective, litigation around Probate Law usually revolves around the incapacity of a testator due to senility, dementia and insanity or any such defects which render him unable to form a proper will. If Ibn al Hashimi is going to be successful in his defence of Umar then the onus is upon him to establish the incapacity of the Prophet (s) due to senility, dementia and insanity or any such defects that rendered him incapable of making a will. Our position is that there was no evidence from the condition of the Prophet (s) nor from his instructions issued that would entitle Umar or his defence lawyer Ibn al Hashimi to arrive at such a conclusion, particularly when the Prophet (s) made it clear through his words that he (s) had sufficient strength to dictate his Will.

Defence Three – Umar was concerned for the well being of the Prophet (s)

Ansar.org states:

“The Prophet peace be upon him was suffering from a severe headache when he asked his Companions for something to write on. The Prophet peace be upon him said that what he would write would save his Ummah from going astray forever.So Omar said, “Pain had taken over the Prophet peace be upon him.” Omar meant that the Prophet peace be upon him was tired, therefore, do not increase his pain and leave him alone”.

Ibn al Hashimi who comments:

The perceptive reader should consider that on Thursday the Prophet was in more intense pain than ever before, and it is likely that the Prophet asked for a pen and paper because he was having a hard time speaking loudly and instead he wished to softly dictate what to write to the people closest to him so that they could convey the written message to the others. We see that it was at this point in time that the Prophet was having unbearable pain and could not talk without unbearable discomfort; it was for this reason that Umar ibn al-Khattab wished that the Prophet would not talk as it would cause him unnecessary pain. This was a sign of love and affection, not of rebellion or opposition. We read:Sahih Muslim, Book 013, Number 4016:
Ibn Abbas reported: When Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) was about to leave this world, there were persons (around him) in his house, Umar ibn al-Khattab being one of them. Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: “Come, I may write for you a document; you would not go astray after that.” Thereupon Umar said: “Verily Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) is deeply afflicted with pain. You have the Quran with you. The Book of Allah is sufficient for us.” Those who were present in the house differed. Some of them said: “Bring him (the writing material) so that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) may write a document for you and you would never go astray after him.” And some among them said what Umar had (already) said. When they indulged in nonsense 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, Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) could not write (or dictate) the document for them.”
Umar ibn al-Khattab wanted the people to leave the Prophet alone because he was very sick and talking was very painful for him.

Reply – Umar increased the pain and distress of the Prophet (s) by opposing his instructions and insulting his wives

We wish to reiterate that the narrations of Sunni sect do not have any evidence of the Prophet (s) falling in and out of consciousness. Umar’s instructions were directed at the Prophet (s) and he was seeking to supplant the latter’s authority with his own. The Prophet (s) had told those in the room to make provision for writing materials, Umar was hence conversing with the same individuals making it clear that this order should not be implemented. When the Sunni narrations point to the Prophet (s) remaining conscious when issuing this instruction and Umar insisting that this should be ignored, his conduct was an open challenge to the Prophet (s). Umar whilst recollecting his lead role during the event states:

“We were with the Prophet, may Allah bless him, and there was a screen between the women and between us. The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, said: Wash me with seven waterskins and bring something to write upon and an inkpot, I shall write a document for you and you will never be misguided till eternity. The women said bring to the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him what he wants. Umar said; I said to them: Keep quiet. You are like the women of Yusuf when he is ill and you shed tears, and when he is healthy you hold him by his neck. Thereupon the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him said: They are better than you”
al-Tabaqat al Kabir, Volume 2 page 305 English translation by S. Moinul Haq

Interestingly, the women in the house found the Prophet’s command to be perfectly clear and recognised that the Noble Messenger was speaking coherently in a perfect state of mind. However, in this instance Umar by his own confession disobeyed the Prophet’s (s) orders and, further, insulted Muhammad (s) ‘s wives in the dying man’s own house and in his presence. One continues to be astonished at the extent of Umar’s vile manners, here before the Mothers of the Believers. Umar’s rude conduct was such that in any house it would necessitate the man of the house asking for an apology for his wife, if not punch the other man on the nose. Muhammad (s) in fact though has his full wits about him and attacks Umar verbally to defend his wives. Umar’s disobedience and insults against the women (including the wives of Rasulullah [s]) wherein he compared them to the ill charactered women from the time of Prophet Yusuf (as) further caused the Prophet (s) to rebuke him, since ALL the women did was to insist that his (s) order be carried out as the Book of Allah commands. Muhammad (s)’s words “they are better than you”, illustrates that it was Umar who was in the wrong whereas the women had taken the correct path. Of course, diehard Sunnis will accept none of this and say Umar was correct and Muhammad the Seal of Prophets (s) and his wives all wrong. Yes for those diehards – Muhammad (s) – Seal of 124,00 Prophets, Master of Jesus, Noah, Abraham and Moses – was wrong, misguided, false and needing the guidance of Umar. Of course we Shias cannot accept this king-worship. Muhammad (s) is superior to all men, even if Umar does happen to be a king of Sunni Islam and the founding father of Sunni Islam. It also shows Umar was not really concerned about the Prophet (s)’s health and wellbeing – what worse a way to upset a dying man than to start hurling foul insults at his wives! It is not even done by the lowest people in society. Umar’s rudeness to Muhammad (s)’s wives in Muhammad (s)’s very own personal presence round his bed succeeded in causing Muhammad (s) sufficient distress for him to verbally lash out at Umar! This is the kind of disgusting, vile and contemptible behavior that Umar was perpetrating before the dying Seal of Prophets! And to this day there are Sunni Muslims who applaud him for it, while like true hypocrites they wouild not tolerate such behavior if it was their own father who was on his deathbed!
These hard facts, which are unpalatable but which must be digested, show once again Muhammad (s) left this world on hostile terms with this strange, odd fellow called Umar. Here his strangeness is in abusing a dying man by insulting his wives wthin earshot of him – that is the real Umar, not the King Umar of fabrications. There is of course a brand of Sunni Islam that deeply applauds Umar for this kind of hostility to women (and people in general) – but stand back, think deeply, and pause bearing in mind the situation here being the deathbed of Muhammad (s). One then realizes this was not good conduct on Umar’s part, it was nothing but sheer impudence to the Holy Prophet (s). And indeed many a muslim present there reacted against Umar – two factions formed, one the party of Umar the other that of Muhammad (s) and his family. Could you have behaved like Umar? No. Why? Don’t find excuses – say it, there’e nothing to feel ashamed about – yes, that’s right, because you are sincere in your devotion to and respect of Muhammad (s). Something Umar and the extreme Wahabi Muslims in earnest are not, and their own Sunni brethren are aware of this fact.

Subscribe to our newsletter to receive regular updates on our new publications. Shia pen uses the "google groups" system for its newsletters.