Chapter One – Preface
Why a Revised Edition?
The “pen and paper” episode that transpired during the final days of our beloved Prophet (s) remains a contentious issue, fueling intense theological debates between Sunni and Shia scholars for centuries. In October 2001, we published an article titled Obedience to the Prophet, analyzing Umar’s actions in light of Quranic injunctions mandating unconditional obedience to the Prophet (s). This was a direct rebuttal to an article by Ansar.Org, which had been widely championed by online Nasibi circles as a formidable defense of Umar’s conduct.
Over time, with substantial financial backing from Saudi sources, additional Nasibi websites have emerged—the most notable being the misleadingly named Ahlelbayt.com, spearheaded by Ibn al-Hashimi, who has attempted to justify Umar’s actions. Although numerous rebuttals have historically examined this incident, the general consensus has acknowledged its significance. It is therefore both surprising and revealing to see Ahlelbayt.com attempt to revise history, deviating from traditional Sunni polemics by dismissing this pivotal event altogether.
This denial represents a last-resort strategy by those unable to defend their stance convincingly. If this event were truly insignificant, why do its proponents invest so much time and effort in reinterpreting it? Given this recent push to exonerate Umar, we found it necessary to revisit the issue and publish this second edition. To align with the new approach taken by Ibn al-Hashimi, we restructured our original article and renamed it to effectively counter both Nasibi perspectives. It is not unlikely that, following this refutation, he may go so far as to claim that the entire “Calamity” never occurred—despite its authentication by all Sunni scholars and its presence in Sahih Bukhari through multiple authentic chains.
The Key Events of the “Pen and Paper” Incident
Fact One: The Prophet’s (s) Request and Umar’s Opposition
One of the primary narrations in Sahih al-Bukhari describes the moment when the Prophet (s), in his final days, requested writing materials. Present among those in the room was Umar ibn al-Khattab, who opposed the instruction. Ibn Abbas narrates:
“When the Prophet’s (s) illness worsened, he said: ‘Bring me writing materials so I may write something for you that will prevent you from ever going astray.’ Umar responded: ‘The Prophet is seriously ill, and we have the Qur’an, so the Book of Allah is sufficient for us.’ The people in the room disagreed; some insisted that the Prophet’s request be fulfilled, while others supported Umar’s statement. The argument grew loud and chaotic, prompting the Prophet (s) to say: ‘Leave me.’” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Hadith 468; Vol. 7, Hadith 573)
Fact Two: Doubts Cast Over the Prophet’s Mental State
This momentous event was met with a troubling response. The Prophet (s) sought to write a statement of such importance that it would ensure guidance for his followers, yet a faction led by Umar dismissed his request. Another narration from Sahih al-Bukhari, recorded by Sa’id Ibn Jubair through Ibn Abbas, details how some in the gathering questioned whether the Prophet (s) was speaking irrationally. The Prophet (s) ordered three final instructions, yet the details of one of them remain unknown due to the chaos that ensued.
Fact Three: This Was a Major Event
Despite Ibn al-Hashimi’s attempts to downplay this incident, historical records confirm its gravity. He calls it “The Non-Episode of the Calamity of Thursday”—a contradiction in itself, as the term “calamity” denotes a significant event. The term was not introduced by the Shia but by Ibn Abbas himself, who wept over its occurrence. Even Sahih Bukhari names the chapter discussing it as The Calamity of Thursday.
Disputes over a dying man’s final wishes are always considered serious matters in any culture, and in Islam, writing a will is not only customary but obligatory. To prevent someone—especially a prophet—from fulfilling this duty is an egregious act. Given that the Prophet (s) explicitly stated that his intended writing would prevent the Ummah from going astray, dismissing the incident as insignificant is simply untenable.
Furthermore, Ibn al-Hashimi’s rejection of the event’s importance contradicts Sunni scholarship itself. By downplaying the calamity, he undermines the companions’ recorded views and the authority of Sahih Bukhari. The only reason for such revisionism is to shield Umar from blame. Sunni Islam’s defensive strategy prioritizes protecting figures like Umar and Abu Bakr, even at the cost of disregarding authentic hadith collections and the testimonies of the companions.
The implications of this event extend far beyond a historical debate. The Calamity of Thursday exposes deep-rooted conflicts within early Islam, illustrating a division between those who followed the Prophet’s (s) directives and those who resisted them. By denying its significance, modern Sunni apologists attempt to preserve their theological framework, even if it means disregarding their most venerated sources.
A Shia Revert’s Perspective
For those of us who have transitioned from Sunni to Shia Islam, the Calamity of Thursday represents a defining moment. This incident is documented not only in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim but also in historical works like Al-Milal wa al-Nihal by Shahrastani, which identifies this event as the origin of divisions among the companions.
Reflecting on this incident led me to a personal crisis of faith. The Prophet (s), the Seal of 124,000 prophets, sought to leave behind a will—an action mandated by the Qur’an (2:180). He stated that what he wished to write would prevent misguidance, yet Umar and his supporters opposed him. The stark reality of this event forced me to choose between following the Prophet (s) or aligning with those who obstructed his final instructions.
Ultimately, I chose the path illuminated by the Prophet (s) and his family. The Prophet (s) declared: “I am the city of knowledge, and Ali is its gate.” The gate to truth and salvation was always clear—only those willing to look beyond historical distortions can recognize it.
This revised edition serves to counter the misleading narratives attempting to erase this event’s significance. No amount of revisionism can obscure the truth of what transpired on that fateful Thursday. It is our duty to analyze history critically, free from biases that prioritize political figures over prophetic authority. The evidence speaks for itself, and it is time to confront it with honesty and integrity.
Chapter Two – Refuting the Defenses Submitted by Umar’s Advocates
Understanding the Nature of a Defense
A defense is essentially a response to an accusation, presenting reasons why the claims should be dismissed. Ibn al-Hashimi has attempted a complete denial of the factual allegations we have raised. In this chapter, we will systematically address each of the defenses he and his counterparts from Ansar.Org have put forth.
Defense One – Umar Was Justified in Preventing the Prophet’s (s) Instruction Because the Prophet (s) Allegedly Fainted
Ibn al-Hashimi’s Claim
According to Ibn al-Hashimi:
The Prophet (s) requested writing materials to record religious advice for the Muslims. However, immediately after making this request, he allegedly fainted. Seeing this, Umar ibn al-Khattab intervened, suggesting that they should not trouble the Prophet (s) but rather allow him to rest and recover. Umar then stated: ‘The Prophet is seriously ill, and you have the Quran; the Book of Allah is sufficient for us.’
Response One – There Is No Sunni Tradition Stating That the Prophet (s) Fainted
Even Ibn al-Hashimi acknowledges that Umar actively prevented the Prophet (s) from writing the document. However, his claim that the Prophet (s) fainted is entirely baseless, as no Sunni tradition in its original Arabic text supports this assertion. Let us examine the records from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, the two most authoritative Sunni hadith collections:
Sahih Bukhari (Vol. 9, Book 92, Hadith 468) records Ibn Abbas narrating:
When the Prophet (s) was nearing death, he asked for writing materials to dictate something that would prevent his followers from going astray. Umar responded, ‘The Prophet is seriously ill, and we have the Quran, so the Book of Allah is sufficient for us.’ A dispute arose in the room. Some supported the Prophet’s (s) request, while others sided with Umar. As their argument intensified, the Prophet (s) became distressed and ordered them to leave. Ibn Abbas later lamented, ‘It was a great disaster that their quarrel prevented the Prophet (s) from writing that document.’
Similarly, Sahih Muslim (Book 13, Hadith 4016) presents the same narrative, confirming that Umar intervened and dismissed the Prophet’s (s) request. Nowhere in these reports is there any mention of the Prophet (s) losing consciousness.
Thus, Ibn al-Hashimi’s argument is built upon a fabrication. The hadith literature clearly shows that the Prophet (s) remained conscious and actively responded to those disputing in his presence.
Response Two – Even if the Prophet (s) Had Fainted, That Would Not Justify Umar’s Actions
Even if we hypothetically accept Ibn al-Hashimi’s claim that the Prophet (s) momentarily lost consciousness, that does not justify Umar’s opposition.
When a person is critically ill and has a final wish, it is universally regarded as proper conduct to facilitate that wish, not obstruct it. If the Prophet (s) had briefly lost consciousness, the logical and respectful response would have been to wait until he regained strength, then fulfill his request. Instead, Umar did the opposite—he dismissed the Prophet’s (s) command altogether and led a dispute in his presence.
Moreover, the Prophet (s) was clearly aware of his surroundings, to the extent that he verbally refuted accusations of delirium and ordered those causing the dispute to leave his presence. If the Prophet (s) had truly been unconscious, how could he have responded so decisively?
Defense Two – Umar’s Intervention Was an Act of Ijtihad Motivated by His Love for the Prophet (s)
Ibn al-Hashimi’s Claim
Ibn al-Hashimi argues that Umar’s actions were not an act of disobedience but rather an instance of ijtihad (independent reasoning). He claims that Umar, out of deep love for the Prophet (s), did not want to trouble him while he was in pain.
Response One – Umar’s Actions Contradicted the Quran
The Quran commands absolute obedience to the Prophet (s):
“Obey Allah and obey His Prophet, and beware! If you turn away, then know that the duty of the Prophet is only to convey the message clearly.” (Surah al-Ma’idah, 5:92)
“O you who believe! Obey Allah and His Messenger, and do not turn away from him while you hear him.” (Surah al-Anfal, 8:20)
These verses make it clear that obedience to the Prophet (s) is unconditional. There is no allowance for anyone, including Umar, to override or dismiss the Prophet’s (s) commands.
Furthermore, Musnad Ahmad (Vol. 3, Hadith 346) confirms:
Jabir said: ‘The Prophet (s) asked for a document to be written that would prevent misguidance, but Umar objected until he rejected it altogether.’
This explicit rejection of the Prophet’s (s) command is not ijtihad—it is disobedience.
Response Two – Preventing the Prophet (s) from Writing His Will Was a Direct Violation of Islamic Law
Islam mandates that a dying individual must make a will:
“It is prescribed for you when death approaches one of you, if he leaves behind any goods, that he makes a bequest for his parents and close relatives, in a just manner. This is a duty upon the righteous.” (Surah al-Baqarah, 2:180)
If it is obligatory for an ordinary Muslim to leave a will, how could the Seal of the Prophets (s) be denied the same right? Umar’s intervention directly contradicted the divine command, obstructing the Prophet’s (s) ability to fulfill his religious duty.
Defense Three – Umar Was Concerned for the Prophet’s (s) Well-being
Ibn al-Hashimi’s Claim
Ibn al-Hashimi suggests that Umar acted out of compassion. He argues that the Prophet (s) was experiencing immense pain and that Umar merely wanted to ease his suffering by discouraging him from speaking further.
Response – Umar’s Actions Increased the Prophet’s (s) Distress
The claim that Umar was acting out of concern is contradicted by his own words and actions.
Al-Tabaqat al-Kabir (Vol. 2, p. 305) records:
Umar insulted the women who supported the Prophet’s (s) request, comparing them to the deceitful women in the time of Prophet Yusuf (as). The Prophet (s) rebuked Umar, saying: ‘They are better than you.’
This response from the Prophet (s) clearly indicates that Umar’s behavior was inappropriate and distressing. Instead of demonstrating care, he caused additional anguish to the Prophet (s) in his final moments.
Furthermore, if Umar truly cared for the Prophet’s (s) well-being, the logical course of action would have been to offer assistance—such as bringing the writing materials when requested—rather than creating discord and rejecting the Prophet’s (s) last wishes.
Conclusion
The defenses put forth by Umar’s advocates fail under scrutiny. The hadith records confirm that the Prophet (s) remained conscious throughout the incident. Umar’s opposition was neither an act of ijtihad nor an expression of concern, but rather an obstruction of the Prophet’s (s) final instructions. His defiance contradicted clear Quranic commands and resulted in a dispute so severe that Ibn Abbas mourned it as a great calamity. No amount of revisionism can erase these historical facts.
Chapter Three – Refuting the Claims of Umar’s Advocates
The Nature of a Claim
A claim is a declaration made with confidence, asserting a position as truth, especially in matters open to debate. A strong claim must be free from contradictions and inconsistencies. However, when assessing the arguments of Ibn al-Hashimi in defense of Umar, we find his reasoning riddled with contradictions and weaknesses.
First Claim – Any Rational Person Would Have Acted as Umar Did
Ibn al-Hashimi presents a hypothetical analogy to justify Umar’s actions, likening the Prophet’s (s) request for writing materials to a fainting teacher being assisted by students rather than immediately resuming teaching. He argues that since the Prophet (s) fainted, Umar was correct in preventing the writing of the document, claiming that any reasonable person would have acted similarly.
Reply One – The Prophet (s) Is Not Comparable to a Teacher
This analogy is flawed. A teacher and the Seal of the Prophets (s) are not equivalent. The Prophet (s) was not merely an instructor of worldly knowledge but the final Messenger of Allah, who conversed with Gabriel and received divine revelation. Unlike a teacher whose role can be assumed by another, the Prophet’s (s) final words held eternal significance.
Furthermore, all accounts in the authentic Sunni compilations indicate that the Prophet (s) was conscious throughout the event. The assumption that he was delirious or incapacitated contradicts historical reports and disrespects the status of the Prophet (s) as divinely guided in all his words and actions.
Reply Two – The Prophet’s Authority Should Have Been Respected
The issue at hand was not whether the Prophet (s) needed rest but whether he had the authority to dictate his final will. The Prophet (s) explicitly stated that he wanted to write something to ensure that his followers would never go astray. Disregarding this request was not an act of concern but one of direct defiance. The Sunnis’ unwavering defense of Umar’s conduct turns their ideology into an implicit doctrine that Umar had the right to challenge and override the Prophet (s).
Second Claim – Suggesting That the Prophet (s) Was Delirious Is Not Derogatory
Ibn al-Hashimi attempts to sanitize the statement attributed to Umar, claiming that saying the Prophet (s) was delirious was not an insult but merely a recognition of his physical state.
Reply One – The Prophet (s) Was Clear and Conscious
The Prophet (s) was fully aware of his words, which were delivered with clarity and purpose. He explicitly stated that he wanted to write a document to guide the Ummah. Calling this request the speech of a delirious man was not an innocent medical observation but a deliberate attempt to prevent the writing of that document.
Reply Two – The Hypocrisy of Accepting Abu Bakr’s Will While Rejecting the Prophet’s (s) Request
Sunni sources document that Abu Bakr, while unconscious, had his will written by Uthman, with Umar accepting it. This blatant double standard exposes the political motivations behind rejecting the Prophet’s (s) request. If Abu Bakr’s will could be trusted despite his unconscious state, then why was the Prophet (s) denied the right to dictate his final instructions when he was evidently conscious?
Third Claim – “Yahjur” Does Not Mean Delirium
Ibn al-Hashimi argues that “yahjur” does not mean delirium but rather refers to an altered state of consciousness.
Reply One – The Context Proves Otherwise
Classical Arabic dictionaries and Quranic usage confirm that “yahjur” means to speak nonsense. The Prophet (s) was so deeply insulted by this remark that he rebuked those present, saying, “Leave me, for I am in a better state than what you attribute to me.”
Reply Two – Sunni Scholars’ Attempts to Sanitize the Text
Sunni translators have manipulated the text by either omitting the word “yahjur” or translating it as “seriously ill” rather than “delirious.” This dishonest approach confirms that the original wording was problematic for those seeking to protect Umar’s reputation.
Fourth Claim – Umar Was Addressing the People, Not the Prophet (s)
Some argue that Umar was speaking to the people, not directly to the Prophet (s), and was merely preventing a dispute.
Reply – The Context Shows That He Challenged the Prophet (s)
The hadith clearly states that the Prophet (s) made a request, and Umar immediately countered it. The argument that he was addressing the people is weak because his words were a direct response to the Prophet (s), not a neutral commentary.
Fifth Claim – The Calamity Was Caused by the Sahaba’s Dispute, Not Umar
Ibn al-Hashimi argues that the Prophet (s) was angered by the people disputing, not by Umar’s refusal to bring the writing materials.
Reply – Umar Was the Root Cause of the Dispute
Umar’s objection was the catalyst for the division in the room. If he had obeyed the Prophet (s), there would have been no dispute. The Prophet (s) did not rebuke those who wanted to obey him; rather, he was angered by those who created the argument in the first place.
Sixth Claim – Umar Did Not Call the Prophet (s) Delirious
Ibn al-Hashimi asserts that no authentic Sunni hadith explicitly attributes the statement of delirium to Umar.
Reply – Ibn Taymiyyah Confirms That Umar Used This Term
Despite Sunni hadith collections avoiding explicit attribution, Ibn Taymiyyah himself admits that it was Umar who made this statement, confirming what Shia sources have maintained all along.
Seventh Claim – The Quran Is Sufficient for Us
Umar argued that the Quran alone was sufficient, negating the necessity of the Prophet’s (s) written instruction.
Reply One – The Prophet (s) Knows What Is Best for the Ummah
The Quran itself commands obedience to the Prophet (s). By saying that the Quran alone was sufficient, Umar contradicted this fundamental principle.
Reply Two – Umar’s Actions Contradicted His Statement
If the Quran was truly sufficient, why did Umar engage in political maneuvering at Saqifa? Why did he later issue his own legal rulings? His actions contradict his statement.
Eighth Claim – The Prophet’s (s) Request Was Optional
Some argue that the Prophet (s) merely “suggested” writing a will, implying that it was not a command.
Reply – Obedience to the Prophet (s) Is Not Optional
The Quran commands absolute obedience to the Prophet (s). If he ordered something, it was not optional. Disobeying him was an act of rebellion.
Conclusion
The arguments in defense of Umar’s actions are fundamentally flawed and contradict Islamic principles. Umar’s refusal to allow the Prophet (s) to write his will was not an act of compassion but a political maneuver that had lasting consequences for the Muslim Ummah. The Calamity of Thursday was not merely a historical incident; it was a defining moment that exposed the division between those who truly followed the Prophet (s) and those who sought to usurp authority for personal and political gain.
Chapter Four – Addressing the Counterarguments of Umar’s Advocates
A counterargument is a method used to challenge an argument or dissuade someone from pursuing a particular stance. Ibn al-Hashimi has adopted this approach in his article, presenting several arguments intended to deter the Shia from criticizing Umar. However, his attempt relies heavily on distortion and misrepresentation, ultimately undermining his own credibility.
First Counterargument: Shaykh Mufid Stated That the Prophet (s) Fainted After Issuing the Instructions
Ibn al-Hashimi argues:
“The point that most Shia propagandists avoid mentioning is that the Prophet (s) fainted immediately after making his request. This is documented in their own sources. Shaykh Mufid states:
‘He (the Prophet) fainted from fatigue and sorrow. He remained unconscious for a short while while those present wept. The Apostle of Allah regained consciousness and said: “Bring me ink and parchment so that I may write something after which you will never go astray.” Again he fainted, and one of those present rose to find ink and parchment.
“Go back,” Umar ordered him.’
(Kitab Al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, p.130)
Ibn al-Hashimi interprets this to mean that the Prophet (s) was in and out of consciousness and that Umar only spoke after the Prophet (s) had fainted, thus making his actions justifiable.
Reply One: This Reference Proves Nothing
By citing this reference, Ibn al-Hashimi fails to exonerate Umar’s conduct. The key questions remain:
- Did Umar cast doubt on the Prophet’s (s) mental state?
- Did Umar prevent the will from being written?
- Did Umar incur the Prophet’s (s) anger, leading him to abandon his request?
These points remain valid regardless of whether the Prophet (s) was conscious or unconscious at various moments.
Reply Two: This Was Merely Shaykh Mufid’s Opinion, Unsupported by Evidence
Ibn al-Hashimi dishonestly omits the final part of Shaykh Mufid’s account:
‘Go back, he is talking nonsense,’ Umar ordered.
Additionally, Ibn al-Hashimi paradoxically relies on a Shia scholar’s opinion while rejecting Sunni sources that contradict his position. There is no corroborating Sunni text that states the Prophet (s) was unconscious when issuing his instruction. The Sahihayn indicate that he remained conscious throughout the event. Ibn al-Hashimi’s reliance on a Shia source to convince a Sunni readership is flawed unless he can present supporting evidence from Sunni works.
Second Counterargument: Imam Raza (as) Also Stated That the Quran Is Sufficient
Ibn al-Hashimi argues:
“The Shia criticize Umar for saying that the Quran is sufficient, but their own Imam Raza (as) said something similar:
‘Rayyan said to Imam Reza (as), “What do you say about the Quran?” He replied: “It is the speech of Allah; do not exceed it, and do not seek guidance from anything else, or you will go astray.”‘ (Bihar al-Anwar, Vol. 92, p.117)
If the Shia criticize Umar, they must also criticize Imam Raza (as).”
Reply One: The Tradition Is Weak
The narration is unreliable as it contains Ibn Masroor, who is an unknown narrator.
Reply Two: The Context Is Completely Different
Umar’s statement was made in the context of rejecting the Prophet’s (s) command, whereas Imam Raza (as) was answering a specific theological question about the Quran’s authority.
Reply Three: According to Sunnis, Claiming That the Quran Alone Is Sufficient Is a Khariji Belief
Imam Dhahabi states in Tazkirah tul Hufaz (Vol. 1, p. 3):
“He did not say ‘The Quran is sufficient for us’ as the Khawarij do.”
If Ibn al-Hashimi insists Umar was correct, he must accept that he adhered to a Khariji belief.
Third Counterargument: Imam Ali (as) Disobeyed the Prophet (s) at Hudaybiyyah
Ibn al-Hashimi claims:
“During the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, the Prophet (s) asked Imam Ali (as) to erase ‘Messenger of Allah’ from the document, but he refused.”
Reply One: The Nawasib Would Have Criticized Imam Ali (as) No Matter What
If Imam Ali (as) had erased the title, the Nawasib would accuse him of denying the Prophet’s (s) status. His refusal was out of reverence.
Reply Two: The Instructions Were Not Obligatory
The Prophet (s) instructed Imam Ali (as) to erase the title as part of a temporary concession, not a religious obligation.
Reply Three: Umar Was the One Who Truly Disrespected the Prophet (s) at Hudaybiyyah
Sahih al-Bukhari (2731, 2732) records that Umar openly questioned the Prophet (s) and doubted his mission.
Final Observations
The arguments presented by Ibn al-Hashimi fail to absolve Umar of his actions during the Calamity of Thursday. The Prophet (s) sought to prevent the Ummah from straying by writing a directive, yet Umar obstructed this effort and questioned the Prophet’s (s) sanity. The notion that Umar acted out of concern is untenable, as his actions directly contradicted numerous Quranic injunctions demanding absolute obedience to the Prophet (s). The facts speak for themselves: Umar was responsible for depriving the Ummah of a written instruction that would have prevented deviation. The attempts by his advocates to defend him through distortions and false equivalencies only further expose the gravity of his actions.
Leave a Reply