Regarding Omar's Refusal to Give the Prophet a Pen to Write his Will!!Interesting Q&A

[scents of paradise]

http://www.************************/r...estion&qid=369

[woeuntothee]

What an outlandish website, i thought the salafi sect was just a phase younguns go thru.

[Gajibur]

Assalamu alaykum sister.

That's a pretty good answer. However i don't understand why the chain of narrators are being questioned. This incident was mentioned in bukhari and muslim and bukhari and muslim only contain hadith with sahih chains (or at least that's what i thought). However, i still think it is right to question the authenticity of the hadith, as an authentic chain does not necessarily guarantee an authentic hadith. I think some good points were raised regarding the authenticity of the hadith. I think the hadith might be dodgy because Allah had already declared islam as complete. So why would the prophet need to provide any more guidance or teachings on a piece of paper. If it was because he wanted people to remember, then what about the rest of the sunnah, which was mostly not written down, didn't the prophet worry about that.

[MohammadMufti]

Walaikum Asalam

However i don't understand why the chain of narrators are being questioned. This incident was mentioned in bukhari and muslim and bukhari and muslim only contain hadith with sahih chains (or at least that's what i thought).

Akhi, in the Sahiheen, there is often multiple narrations dealing with the same event, so it is always a good idea to compare these. Sheikh GF Haddad for example, in response to a Shi'i questioning regarding hadith at thaqalayn shows the importance of looking at all available narrations. A hadith from Sahih Muslim isn't case-closed, as he showed, that wording of "Qur'an and Ahl al Bayt" was limited to Hazrat Zayd (ra) (and perhaps some others) whereas the other wording "Qur'an and Sunnah" was found in Muwatta of Imam Malik and others and narrated to 10 or more different companions (ra). So in the general, these are Sahih collections, but with regards to some specific ahadith, than those are open to questioning.

[Saad]

taken from the lectures of Dr. Allamah Khalid Mahmood (d.b.)

PEN AND PAPER

The Shias made up another story. They claim that when the Beloved Prophet (SallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) came to Madinah after Gadeer I Khum, he fell ill, and requested them to bring a pen and paper to write something "you bring a pen and paper for me, so that I may write something for you and you will not go astray after me". it was a narrative that the Beloved Prophet (SallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) had asked for a pen and a paper in his last moments. In fact, the Beloved Prophet (SallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) had intended to bequeath three things, which are all mentioned in the hadeeth. The first thing Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) had intended to inform the companions (radhiyAllaahu anhum) was to permit foreign deputations to come and to provide an opportunity for them to talk on international matters. After my death, the ambassadors of foreign countries, representatives of foreign countries will come to you. So keep and maintain international relations with them. You should grant them permission to come, as I was doing . Islaam does not want you to stagnate to stay at one place only. No. Islaam says that you should spread over the earth as much as you can so that the voice of Allaah may spread over the wide land. This was the first advice. The second advice was not to depend on the Jews and that the whole island of Arabia should be evacuated of Jews. This was the order of Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) for at the time of his demise, the Jews were living even in Madinah. They were evacuated by Hadhrat Umar (radhiyAllaahu anhu) during his period of caliphate, saying that Amy Master (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) had bequeathed that the infidels and Jews should not live here. All Jews, who were living in Madinah, were asked to pack their bags and baggage and were assured to be given full compensation for what they left behind. Islaam does not educate to oppress or to take possession of belongings of others. What could not be taken was compensated for. The Jews left from Khyber and they were compensated for each and every thing.

These were the advises of Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam). To entertain the foreign deputations and not to send them back and the second advice was to evacuate the Jews from the Island of the Arabs. The third advice was Not to worship his grave as the people coming with love and affection may do. Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam), who spent his whole life in propagating Tauheed and the Oneness of Allaah, stated that his grave may not be worshipped for the purpose of prayer. These were three matters about which bequeath was made. In some narratives, the bequeath was for the second matter, i.e. about the evacuation of the Jews.

The Shias do not except all this and say that the purpose of requesting pen and paper was to dictate Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu's) caliphate. If, the purpose was to dictate Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu's) caliphate, then they should at least admit that there was no declaration made at Gadeer I Khum concerning caliphate, due to which now the necessity of bequeath arose. If declaration had been made there in the presence of 13 people, then there was no need of bequeath here. If Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) had to bequeath here, no declaration was made there. If declaration was made there, then there was no bequeath here and this was not the bequeath of caliphate, but for some other matter. But, these Shiah ayatullahs are strange people, who on one side say that declaration was made at Gadeer I Khum and at the same time claim that Rasulullaah was requesting for pen and paper to nominate the caliph.

WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS IT TO WRITE?

The matter of a pen and paper is called Hadeeth I Qirtas. For most of the people, this has become a very sensitive matter. Whenever the Shiahs have to propagate concerning this belief , they quote this incident of the Apen and paper. Then people come to us to enquire about it, saying Awhy was pen and paper requested. Now please think over this carefully.....

In governmental affairs, who is usually responsible to write? At the state level, someone acts as Chief secretary, so on whose shoulders does the responsibility of writing lie? The responsibility lies with the chief secretary.

If Rasulullaah (SallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) had asked for pen and paper, then who was responsible to provide these things? The answer is the Chief Secretary. The Muslims, especially the young ones, should know as to who the Chief Secretary of Rasulullaah (SallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) was. In the Writing Department, the Chief Secretary was Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu) . Because it was the habit of the Arabs that the father's open declarations were seconded by sons. So, Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu) was the Secretary for Rasulullaah (SallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) , as he was a member of Banu Hashim Family and his (SallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) real cousin. At the time of the Treaty of Hudaibia, Rasulullaah (SallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) was the Head and Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu) was his (SallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) Secretary. Who had written the treaty? Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu) was in charge of the Writing Department and related matters, (i.e. pen, paper, etc.). The Chief Secretary to Hadhrat Abu Bakr was Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyAllaahu anhu) and after that Hadhrat Umar had kept Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu) as his Chief Secretary, so it was not possible that Rasulullaah (SallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) had nominated Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu) as Caliph and Hadhrat Umar (radhiyAllaahu anhu) had forcibly taken possession of a government portfolio. Is it logical, for him whose right is forfeited, to be appointed and officiate? Moreover, on many occasions, when Hadhrat Umar (radhiyAllaahu anhu) went out, he appointed Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu) to act as his successor. From this, it is clear that neither was Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu) aware that it was his right, nor was this in the mind of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyAllaahu anhu). The Secretary of Rasulullaah (SallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) was Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu) . Secretary of Hadhrat Siddiq-e-Akbar was Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyAllaahu anhu), and Secretary of Hadhrat Umar was again Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu). So, when Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu) was Secretary of Rasulullaah (SallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) and when Rasulullaah (SallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) had requested the pen and paper, who was responsible to provide these things?

Definitely, Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu) , the Chief Secretary. The Shias propagate that the pen and paper were not provided to Rasulullaah (SallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) . We tell them that it was the responsibility of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu). Why then did they not hold him responsible for it? The answer is simple.

ONE MORE NARRATION WITH REGARD TO THE REQUEST FOR PEN AND PAPER:

Imam Jafar (radhiyAllaahu anhu) narrates that Hadhrat Ali said, "Rasulullaah (SallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) had ordered me to come to him with paper so that he Rasulullaah (SallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) might write something thereon, but I did not do so, as I was afraid that he (SallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) might not take his (SallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) last breath in my absence and as such I did not go to bring the pen and paper". Who said these words? Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu) had clearly said it, but the Shias say no, the decision of caliphate had to be written out, which was to be given to Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu) . We ask them as to how they came to believe that the decision with regard to caliphate was to be written? And if it was to be written out, then they should at least admit that there was no declaration made at Gadeer I Khum. Furthermore, Who was responsible for it? Another point follows....

After this incident, Rasulullaah (SallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) remained alive for two more days. The question arises as to why Rasulullaah (SallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) had not made the request again? If he (SallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) was divinely deputed to nominate a successor, why had He (SallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) not again said: "Bring pen and paper".

This proves that it is a concocted story that Rasulullaah (SallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) had to nominate or had previously nominated his successor.

Sources:

P22 Imam Bukhari, V 1, p449).

P23 (Nauvi Sharah, Saheeh Muslim), V 2, p43)

P25 (Musnad Ahmad, V 1, p195)

[Gajibur]

Assalamu alaykum brother khanbaba

Great answer, you raised some great points

[Gajibur]

Walaikum Asalam



Akhi, in the Sahiheen, there is often multiple narrations dealing with the same event, so it is always a good idea to compare these. Sheikh GF Haddad for example, in response to a Shi'i questioning regarding hadith at thaqalayn shows the importance of looking at all available narrations. A hadith from Sahih Muslim isn't case-closed, as he showed, that wording of "Qur'an and Ahl al Bayt" was limited to Hazrat Zayd (ra) (and perhaps some others) whereas the other wording "Qur'an and Sunnah" was found in Muwatta of Imam Malik and others and narrated to 10 or more different companions (ra). So in the general, these are Sahih collections, but with regards to some specific ahadith, than those are open to questioning.

Assalamu alaykum brother

You have misunderstood me brother, i wasn't saying that we shouldn't look at other narrations regarding this event. What i was saying was, why is it that the isnad(chain of narrators) is being questioned. Since Bukhari and Muslim only contain hadith with sahih chains of narration (sahih isnad), it is pointless to question the isnad of these hadith isn't it ?. For me, we don't need to look at the isnad of these hadith, the other arguments put forward are enough to debunk these hadith.

[Mubid al-Majus]

Salam `alaykum,

Sister scents,

I mean no offense but in my opinion, this reply does more damage than it benefits. A much more intellectual reply, better than anything available on the internet, can be constructed while keeping feet within traditional scholarship. I will insha'Allah elaborate when I get time. Right now, I have to leave.

Ma` salama.

[MohammadMufti]

Assalamu alaykum brother

You have misunderstood me brother, i wasn't saying that we shouldn't look at other narrations regarding this event. What i was saying was, why is it that the isnad(chain of narrators) is being questioned. Since Bukhari and Muslim only contain hadith with sahih chains of narration (sahih isnad), it is pointless to question the isnad of these hadith isn't it ?. For me, we don't need to look at the isnad of these hadith, the other arguments put forward are enough to debunk these hadith.

The insad (of the Sahiheen) doesn't need to be questioned, I'd agree. But in some cases (with varying ahadith on a topic), look into the isnad can show which narrator (though he may be thiqah) narrated a hadith without the context such as the hadith "Fatima is of me, whoever makes her angry has made me angry" where the narration which contains this alone was deprived of it's complete contextual reasoning. Nevertheless, I did misunderstand your post so I didn't reply accuratly to begin with, ma'salam.

[JayshAllah]

Salam `alaykum,

Sister scents,

I mean no offense but in my opinion, this reply does more damage than it benefits. A much more intellectual reply, better than anything available on the internet, can be constructed while keeping feet within traditional scholarship. I will insha'Allah elaborate when I get time. Right now, I have to leave.

Ma` salama.

Please do, brother. :flower:

Your fan,
JayshAllah.