Dear Sunni brothers;
Look at the Sahih Bukhari link below WHICH YOU PROVIDED THAT SHOWS how your sham sahabah, Umar bin Khattab, REFUSED TO GIVE THE HOLY PROPHET something to write on during his last days before his death:
The link is the one you (Zalim) provided: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/003.sbt.html
Volume 1, Book 3, Number 114:
Narrated 'Ubaidullah bin 'Abdullah:
Ibn 'Abbas said, “When the ailment of the Prophet became worse, he said, ‘Bring for
me (writing) paper and I will write for you a statement after which you will not go
astray.’ But 'Umar said, ‘The Prophet is seriously ill, and we have got Allah’s Book
with us and that is sufficient for us.’ But the companions of the Prophet differed about
this and there was a hue and cry. On that the Prophet said to them, 'Go away (and leave
me alone). It is not right that you should quarrel in front of me.” Ibn 'Abbas came out
saying, "It was most unfortunate (a great disaster) that Allah’s Apostle was prevented
from writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise. (Note: It
is apparent from this Hadith that Ibn 'Abbes had witnessed the event and came out
saying this statement. The truth is not so, for Ibn 'Abbas used to say this statement on
narrating the Hadith and he had not witnessed the event personally. See Fath Al-Bari
Vol. 1, p.220 footnote.) (See Hadith No. 228, Vol. 4).
LOOK HOW YOUR SUNNI COMMENTORS ARE TRYING TO DOWNPLAY THE INCIDENT WITH THEIR LAST STATEMENTS.
Imam Bukhari writes in Volume I of his Sahih:
Umar said, ‘The Messenger of God is overcome
by pain. We do not need any testament. We
already have the Book of God, and that is
enough for us.’(page 25)
Bukhari has recorded the same incident in
Volume II of the Sahih in the following words:
“The Messenger of God said: ‘Bring a piece of
paper. I will write something on it for you which
will prevent you from going astray.’ But the
people who were present, began to argue among
themselves. Some of them said that the
Messenger of God was talking in delirium.” (p.
121)
Here Bukhari has made an attempt to conceal
Umar’s identity behind the screen of the words
some of them.
But Shaikh Shihab-ud-Deen Khaffaji, a Sunni
historian, is less coy in this matter, and says:
“Umar said: ‘The Messenger of God is talking
nonsense.’” (Nasim-ur-Riyadh, Volume IV, page
278)
For a Muslim to insinuate that the Last and the
Greatest Messenger of God was “talking
nonsense” was a most wanton and reckless
statement. Is it at all possible that the Bringer
and the Interpreter of God’s Last Message to
mankind, could become a “nonsense-talker?”
And yet, what was so unreasonable or irrational
or reprehensible in his request to let him write
his will?
Umar’s gratuitous remarks led to an argument
among those companions who were present in
the chamber of the Prophet. A few of them said
that they ought to obey their Master, and bring
pen, paper and ink to him. But the others who
were in majority, supported Umar and withheld
the writing implements from him. The argument
became so raucous that the Prophet had to order
them to get out of his room, and to leave him
alone.
Bukhari further writes in his Sahih:
“When the sickness of the Apostle took a serious
turn, he said, ‘Bring paper so that I may indite
for you a will that would prevent you from going
astray after my death.’ Umar bin al-Khattab said,
‘No. This is meaningless talk. The Book of God
is sufficient for us.’ Another man said: ‘We must
bring paper,’ until there was an argument, and
the Apostle said: ‘Get out of here.’”
The defiance of the Messenger of God by Umar
had polarized the former’s entourage into two
groups. It was precisely from this moment that
schism reared its head in the Muslim umma.
It was probably the last time when Muhammad,
the Messenger of God and the Sovereign of
Muslims, had expressed any wish before his
companions. But they defied him. He was
shocked but perhaps he was not surprised at
their defiance. It was not the first time that they
had defied him. Usama’s expedition had
unmasked them.
Sir William Muir
About this time, recognizing Umar, and some
other chief men in the room, he (Mohammed)
called out: ‘Fetch me hither ink and paper, so
that I may record for you a writing which shall
hinder you from going astray for ever.’ Umar
said, ‘He wandreth in his mind. Is not the Coran
sufficient for us?’ (The Life of Mohammed,
London, 1877)
Muhammad Husayn Haykal
While under a strong attack of fever and
surrounded by visitors, Muhammad asked that
pen and ink and paper be brought. He said he
would dictate something for his followers’
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 blessings be upon him - was
severely ill and since the Muslims already had
the Quran, no further writing was necessary. It is
related that that thought belonged to Umar. The
people present disagreed among themselves,
some wishing to bring writing materials and take
down what the Prophet would dictate, and others
thinking that any further writing besides that of
the Book of God would be superfluous.
Muhammad asked them to leave, saying, ‘You
must not disagree in my presence.’ Ibn Abbas
feared that Muslims might lose something
important if they did not bring the writing
materials but Umar held firmly to his decision
which he based upon God’s Own words in His
Book: “In this scripture, We have left out
nothing.” (The Life of Muhammad, Cairo, 1935)
In an article captioned Iqbal and Islamic Polity,
published in the April 1964 issue of the monthly
magazine, Muslim News International, of
Karachi, Pakistan, the writer, Jamilud-Din
Ahmad, says:
“…The question which confronts the Muslim
countries is, whether the law of Islam is capable
of evolution - a question which will require
great intellectual effort and is sure to be
answered in the affirmative; provided the world
of Islam approaches it in the spirit of Umar - 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 writer quoted above apparently is very
proud of the “moral courage” of Umar.
Muhammad, the Messenger of God, was on his
deathbed, and perhaps did not have many hours
to live. It was this time that Umar chose to
demonstrate his moral courage. At Hudaybiyya,
Muhammad Mustafa had ordered him to carry a
message to the Quraysh in Makkah but he
refused to go on the plea that since there was no
one in that city to protect him, they would kill
him.Also, when the Treaty of Hudaybiyya was
signed, Umar was led, by his “love” of Islam to
defy the Apostle of God, and now when the
latter was dying, the same “love” asserted itself
once again, and forced him to prevent him (the
Apostle) from dictating anything that would
“impair the authority of the Book of God.”
If Umar was prompted to disobey Muhammad
Mustafa for this reason, then it means that he
(Umar) believed that he (Muhammad) was going
to challenge the authority of Qur’an. But how did
Umar know that Muhammad would challenge the
authority of Qur’an? If the latter had dictated the
will, its first few words would have shown,
beyond any doubt, if he was, in the words of
Umar, “wandering in his mind” and was “talking
nonsense.”
Perhaps it did not occur to Jamilud-Din Ahmad
that Umar was pitting his “critical and
independent mind” against the authority of
Al-Qur’an al-Majid which says:
It is prescribed, when death approaches any of
you, if he leaves any goods, that he make a
bequest to parents and next of kin, according
to reasonable usage; this is due from the
God-fearing. (Chapter 2; verse 180)
But it is possible that Umar was prompted to
disobey the Apostle not by his fear that the latter
would, in the last moments of his life, undo the
work he had done in a lifetime, by overriding the
authority of Qur’an; but by his presumption that
he (the Apostle) would put into writing what he
had said earlier at Ghadeer-Khumm before the
multitude of the pilgrims, designating Ali ibn
Abi Talib as his successor. Umar had to block
him regardless of cost. A testament bearing the
seal and signature of the Prophet, designating
Ali as the future head of the State of Islam would
be a document that would put caliphate beyond
the reach of all other candidates for it.
The Prophet had no illusions about the intentions
of his principal companions vis-à-vis Ali’s
succession as the supreme head of the dominion
of Islam. As he grew noticeably weaker, they
grew noticeably bolder in defying him. The
expedition of Usama was still hanging fire. In
sheer exasperation, the Prophet invoked the
curse of God upon those men who did not report
for duty to Usama but they did not budge. And
they were just as unfazed when he ordered them
out of his chamber.
A modern Muslim may find it incredible that any
companion of the Prophet of Islam would
attribute his commands to “delirium.” But there
is a Qur’anic parallel for such conduct. It
appears that those companions of Muhammad,
the Prophet of the Arabs, who said that he was
“wandering in his mind,” had their own
forerunners in the brothers of Joseph, the
Prophet of the Israelites. The brothers of Joseph
said that Jacob, their father who was also a
prophet, was “wandering in his mind.” They
thought that they were the “smart” ones which he
was not. Qur’an has quoted them as follows:
They said: “truly Joseph and his brother are
loved more by our father than we: But we are a
goodly body! really our father is obviously
wandering (in his mind) Slay ye Joseph or cast
him out to some (unknown) land, that so the
favor of your father may be given to you alone
(there will be time enough) for you to be
righteous after that.” (Chapter 12; verses 8
and 9)
Translator’s Note
The ten brothers not only envied and hated their
innocent younger brothers Joseph and Benjamin.
They despised and dishonored their father as an
ignorant fool - in his dotage. In reality Jacob had
the wisdom to see that his younger and innocent
sons wanted protection and to perceive Joseph’s
spiritual greatness. But his wisdom, to them,
was folly or madness or imbecility, because it
touched their self-love, as truth often does. And
they relied on the brute strength of numbers - the
ten hefty brethren against old Jacob, the lad
Joseph, and the boy Benjamin. (A. Yusuf Ali)
Explaining the last line of the second verse,
quoted above, the commentator further says:
They (the brethren of Joseph) say in irony, “Let
us first get rid of Joseph. It will be time enough
then to pretend to be ‘good’ like him, or to repent
of our crime after we have had all its benefits in
material things.”
Here a student of history might pose the
question: Why didn’t Muhammad dictate his will
later, after the initial failure; surely, there were
occasions when the companions gathered again
to see him, and he could have dictated his will
to them.
We can assume that Muhammad could have
dictated his will at a later time but what was
there to prevent Umar and his supporters from
claiming that it was dictated in a state of
“delirium,” and was “nonsensical,” and was,
therefore, not acceptable to the umma.
Muhammad had not heard anything more ugly
since the times of Abu Jahl, and was not very
anxious to hear it again, especially when he was
on his deathbed. He, therefore, abandoned the
idea.
Umar’s ploy would have worked even if
Muhammad had dictated the will. To rationalize
Umar’s conduct, his apologists say that religion
had been completed and perfected, and a will,
therefore, was not necessary. It is true that
religion was now complete and perfect but it
didn’t mean that the umma was perfect, and that
it could dispense with guidance since it was in
no danger of deviating from the course of Truth.
The umma could deviate from rectitude and it
did. All the civil wars, dissension’s and schisms
in Islam, were caused by this deviation.
For the umma to assert that such a will was not
necessary, is to arrogate too much authority to
itself. It ought to leave this matter to the
judgment of the man whom God selected to be
His Messenger to mankind. He alone knew if a
will was necessary or not. What right the umma
has to restrict the freedom of action of the
Representative of God on this earth?
Umar’s defiance of Muhammad, when the latter
was already at the door of death, is one of the
most hideous scenes in the history of Islam, and
no amount of window-dressing by historians can
finesse it away. The same scene was also the
prelude to sustained confrontation between the
companions and the members of his (the
Prophet’s) family.