An Analysis of Rawafidhi allegations on Sayyeduna Umar bin Khattab RA based upon hadith e qirtas. | Al Kitab

 

Narrated 'Ubaidullah bin `Abdullah:
Ibn `Abbas said, "When the ailment of the Prophet (ﷺ) 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 (ﷺ) differed about this and there was a hue and cry. On that the Prophet (ﷺ) 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 Messenger (ﷺ) was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise.

Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 114
In-book reference: Book 3, Hadith 56

Above I have mentioned hadith e qirtas, a hadith avoided by the respected scholars of ahlus sunnah wal jamaat. A hadith overused by the respected scholars of ahl e tashaii. To summarize the hadith the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم while in sickness and close to his worldly demise asked for a pen and a paper from his companions, Umar ibn al Khattab, May Allah be pleased with him, refused to provide him a pen and paper as he thought that the prophet is sick and needs to rest and when the Quran is present no advice could be as crucial as the health of Sayyeduna Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم. This strikes a bit problematic to the believers as refusal to the prophet in any shape or form is kufr. However, it's not that clear cut, claiming Kufr to somebody who has recited la ilaha illallah is much more complex than that.

The two conclusions the Rawafidh derive from this are:

1. Umar refused something that the prophet said and hence has committed kufr 
2. Umar’s refusal was because of the fact that he knew that the prophet is writing a will in which he was going to officially make Sayyeduna Ali, May Allah be pleased with him, his successor after his death. 

Let us address both these claims one by one, In the first claim, a principal is being set that any and every type of refusal of anything the Prophet has ordered is kufr. Let us now take this principle to a run. 

The infidels said (to the Prophet), We do not agree with you on this, for if we knew that you are Apostle of Allah we would not have prevented you for anything (i.e. entering Mecca, etc.), but you are Muhammad, the son of `Abdullah. Then he said to `Ali, Erase (the name of) 'Apostle of Allah'. `Ali said, No, by Allah, I will never erase you (i.e. your name) 

Sahih al-Bukhari 4251 

This is an authentic hadith from al bukhari, Sayyeduna Ali ‘refused to erase the name of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم. By the prior principal set we will have to (maazallah) make takfir upon Sayyeduna Ali, May Allah be pleased with him. We will not, we will absolutely not make takfir upon the lion of Allah as his refusal was not a refusal of authority or prophethood his refusal was simply based on the fact that he did not see the kuffar’s demands to be crucial enough for the mighty name of Sayyeduna Muhammadصلى الله عليه وسلمي to be erased. The refusal itself was motivated out of love for the prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and hence despite not being ideal is still not considered to be kufr. We still however acknowledge the fact that the authority of prophethood is superior to anybody’s love towards the prophet صلى الله عليه وسلمي and hence he must never be refused regardless of how much love one has for him. This also highlights the importance of rationality over emotions. For the refusal came out of emotions yet the rationale suggests the prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم does not speak without revelation and hence he must never be refused. the biggest weapon is his rationale after revelation. We will touch on that later once we reach psychoanalysis. 

However, it would be hypocritical to make takfir upon Sayyeduna Umar because he refused the prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and praise Sayyeduna Ali because he refused the prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. This shows that the principle set by us itself was weak and naïve. Now let us address the second principle.

Umar’s refusal was because of the fact that he knew that the prophet is writing a will in which he was going to officially make the Sayyeduna Ali, May Allah be pleased with him, his successor after his death.

The second principle, stands solely upon one single fact Umar thought that the Prophet of Allah, Peace be upon him, was dying. Hence he thought that by not giving him the pen and paper he would be able to achieve success in leaving the ummah unclear about the successorship of the prophet. Let us unveil and unravel this one by one. Everything that the prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم says is a revelation, naturally, everything he writes would also be a revelation. "I will write for you a statement due to which you will not go astray’" could only be out of revelation. This gives rise to our first two questions.

1. Did Umar stop a divine revelation from Allah?
2. Did Allah will for that revelation to reach the public?

Now we have quite a puzzle here that can only be solved by unbiased rationality. It is easy to conclude that death itself cannot stop revelations, it must wait for the revelations to be over so the likes of Umar bin Khattab, May Allah be pleased with him, can never stop it, and if somebody believes that Umar stopped the people from knowing what was revealed to the prophet the has accused the prophet of failure (maazallah) because.

O Messenger! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord, for if you fail to do that, you have not fulfilled the task of His messengership. Allah will certainly protect you from the evil of men. Surely Allah will not guide the unbelievers (to succeed against you). 

Quran 5:67 

An open invitation and question to every Rawafidh are that if you have believed that Umar had stopped the people from knowing what Allah had revealed then you have to acknowledge that the prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم has not fulfilled the task of messengership. Now the natural second argument will be that no, there was a revelation but Allah willed for it to not be public, to show us the true face of Sayyeduna Umar. In this case they will have to prove the existence of such "private revelations".

To end the case Umar was wrong in denying the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم of what he ordered however Umar had no idea that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was going to die. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did not immediately die after the incident of the pen and addressed the companions publicly before his actual death in which he never announced any successorship of the prophethood. We conclude that Sayyeduna Umar ibn al Khattab al Farooq al ameer ul Momineen is innocent of the allegations claimed by the Rawafidhi. 

— @Author Fahad Salim Mom