RTS says The Excuses Of Resistance Numerous attempts have been made to excuse the occurence of this lamentable

calamity. The scholars have attempted to place the blame on the entire crowd instead of pin-pointing the culprits and exposing their evil designs. But despite all these vain efforts, the evidence has been brought to light and the facts exhibited to the public eye.

RTS says Muhammad ibn Yusuf Al-Salehi Al-Shami: Al-Mazari said: 'It was allowed for the companions to disagree about this 'book' despite the Prophets explicit order, because orders can be accompanied with some evidence that may turn it from being 'mandatory,' as if an evidence came out from him [the Prophet] that it was not an order rather it was optional, therefore their judgement differed, and Umar was determined to refrain in view of what he had as evidence [leading to judge] that he (saw) said that without any assertive intent and his (saw) determination was by revelation or by judgement, and it should be the same case for dropping out his (saw) determination. So if the order was by revelation, than dropping it out should be by revelation, and if it was by judgement than it should by judgement too.' Al-Nawawi said: 'Scholars agreed that Umar's saying 'The book of Allah is sufficient' was due to his strong jurisprudence and foresight, because he was afraid that he [the Prophet] may write things that they might be unable to adhere to and they would merit punishment for that because it is prescribed and he wanted not to close the door for [own] the judgement (religious judgment) of scholars and his [the Prophet] rejection by virtue of Umars statement is an evidence that he *Umar+ was right and he pointed by his words 'The book of Allah is sufficient for us' was supported by the saying: 'We have not neglected in the Book a thing.' Surah Al-Anam. Verse 38. And this does not antagonise ibn Abbas saying: "The calamity ...etc." because Umar was definitely more knowledgeable than him [in terms of jurisprudence] and it cannot be said that ibn Abbas was not content with the Qur'aan even though he is the scholar of the nation and the

most knowledgeable from among the people about the explanation of the Qur'aan, but he was sorry for the missed declaration and having it recorded [in written format] because it is better than using deduction. And their saying hajara in the interrogative form ["did he say any 'hujr'?"] and hujr means delirium that comes out in the speech of a patient that has no order and it is inconsiderable because it has no use, and the occurrence of such thing for the Prophet (saw) is impossible. Therefore it was rather in an inquisitive question form, which indicates denial and annulling, i.e. the Prophet (saw) is not delirious: they did not dispute on taking what he (saw) said or on him (saw) writing the letter, and this is not delirium at all. Source: Subul Al-Huda Wa Al-Rashad Fi Sirat Khayr Al-Ibaad. Vol. 12, Pg. # 249.

There is a mistranslation in the last few lines. Incorrect Translation: Therefore it was rather in an inquisitive question form, which indicates denial and annulling, i.e. the Prophet (saw) is not delirious: they did not dispute on taking what he (saw) said or on him (saw) writing the letter, and this is not delirium at all. Correct Translation: Therefore it was rather in an inquisitive question form, which indicates denial and annulling, i.e. the Prophet (saw) is not delirious: meaning why are you disagreeing in taking from him, and why are you not giving him the paper, he is not delirious in reality.

RTS says: (And whatsoever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain (from it). Holy Qur'aan (59.7) Whatever the Prophet Muhammad (saw) commands must be obeyed, and whatever he forbids then it must be avoided. He (saw) would only command good and forbid evil, and hence if the Prophet (saw) wanted to write a document that would serve as guidance for the nation and called for writing materials, he (saw) should have been obeyed without

question or any confusion. To suggest that it was optional is utterly nonsensical. Obedience to the Prophet (saw) means just that, as in he (saw) must be obeyed, there is no such thing as optional obedience for a true believer and neither is there any indication of this in the Holy Qur'aan. Muslim ibn Hajjaj: Aboo Hurayra reported that he heard Allah's Messenger (saw) as saying: "Avoid that which I forbid you to do and do that which I command you to do to the best of your capacity. Verily the people before you went to their doom because they had put too many questions to their Prophets and then disagreed with their teachings." Source: Saheeh Muslim. Pg. # 1106 - 1107, H. # 130.

This is very true that we should obey whatever the Prophet (saww) commands, but his companions would know better in certain cases where there was a room for an opinion. Ali (ra) disagreed when the Prophet (saww) told him to omit Messenger of Allah from his name, because Ali (ra) knew the rights of obedience. Hence he didnt omit it, even though the Prophet (saww) commanded him to do this. He didnt omit it because of the love for the Prophet (saww). Similarly, when Omar (ra) didnt consider it appropriate, in view of the condition of the Prophet (saww), he put forward his opinion. The Prophet (saww) didnt even insist as he insisted in case of omission of Messenger of Allah on the event of Hudaybiya, which shows that he agreed to it. Otherwise, we know very well that when the Quranic verse () was revealed, according to Shias, security was guaranteed to the Prophet (saw) and he announced the imamate of Ali in Ghadeer. So the Prophet (saw) had no fear from anyone at this time, and if he wanted, he could write it down and no one could stop him, but when he chose not to write down, we cant say that it could have been due to the force of anyone. The Prophet (saw) didnt stop announcing the oneness of God when the whole Quraysh opposed him, how could he stop writing down his will due to a few persons while he was in his own house?

RTS says: Ibn Hazim: Narrated ibn Abbas, he said: ''When the pains of the messenger of Allah (saw) got heavier, he said: "Bring me a book so that I may write you something that you will never go astray after me." Then Umar said: "The pain has overtaken the Messenger of Allah, and we have the Book of Allah and it is sufficient for us." Then they disagreed and the noise got louder. The Prophet (saw) said, "Go away from me, and there should never be disagreement in my presence." Then ibn Abbas came out

saying, ''The true and real calamity was the prevention of the Messenger of Allah writing his Book.'' Narrated ibn Abbas, he mentioned this hadeeth: ''Some people talked about the Prophet (saw) on that day and said: "What is the matter with him? Is he speaking nonsense?'' Aboo Muhammad said: "This is the mistake of the scholar, that people were aware of it in the old times, and it happened to be in the previous knowledge of Allah (swt) that there will be differences among us, and a group would go astray and another one would be guided by the guidance of Allah (swt), and this is the reason behind Umar and the others saying what they said, which was the reason of being deprived the favour of the Book which if it was written there "Would never be astray after it." And this hadeeth remains of great importance for us and represents deep grief in our souls and a torment causing us pain, and we were sure that Allah the Almighty will not leave the book that His Prophet (saw) wanted to write so that no one would go astray after it without revealing it [the book] so that he whom he lives [safely] would do so based on evidence, until Allah the Almighty favoured us that we found it, so that the trouble vanished and Allah is the praised One. Source: Al-Ahkaam Al-Ahkaam. Vol. 7, Pg. # 123 - 124.

We didnt find any RTS comments on it, so lets move forward. Ibn Hajar and Nawawi:

Al-Nawawi said: 'The scholars are in agreement about the statement of Umar when he said: The Book of Allah (swt) is enough for us. That it was due to the strength of his Fiqh and precision of his visions; because he feared that if it was written, maybe people could not bear it and fail in acting upon it and therefore deserve the punishment. Because (if it was written) it was an explicit wording (which could not be opposed anymore), he (i.e. Umar) wanted that the door for Ijtihaad obstruct for the scholars (!!!) And that the Prophet (saw) gave up to write his will according to the rejection of Umar. There is an agreement on Umars view. And Umars statement the Book of Allah (swt) is enough for us is due to the verse that Allah (swt) that says: We have neglected nothing in the book. *6:38+. And it is possible that Umar wanted to decrease the burden of the messenger of Allah (saw) when he saw the intensity of his

illness, and there is a witness for this in the fact that the will was not an obligatory and necessary thing that the Ummah needed it, because if it was so, the Prophet (saw) would not leave it due to their disputes in his house, and the statement of ibn Abbas, It was a calamity that they did not let the Prophet (saw) to write down his will does not contradict this possibility, because Umar was certainly more knowledgeable than ibn Abbas. Al-Khattabi has said: Umar did not make a mistake when he rejected it, because his rejection was due to the intensity of the illness of the Prophet (saw) and because he feared that if he writes that will the Hypocrites would taunt the authenticity of that will in that situation and that is the reason that Umar stopped it, and it was not so that he wanted to oppose the Prophet (saw) intentionally, because it is not allowed to dispute with the Prophet (saw), this is never true hadeeth of ibn Abbas has been discussed at the end of Chapter of Knowledge.

Source: Fath Ul-Bari. Vol. 9, Pg. # 593. RTS says: If it was truly Umars desire to relieve the intensity of the Prophet (saw) illness and to make his (saw) heart delight, he would most certainly have achieved this through handing the writing material at his (saw) request. This way the Prophet (saw) would have been satisfied and relieved that his nation would be firmly instructed once again in the last moments of his life to be safe from misguidance. The Prophet (saw) wanted those present to bring him a piece of paper and an ink-pot to write a book, but Umar and others who supported his view opposed it until Prophet (saw) finally gave up due to his weakness in health. Those present had no right whatsoever to disobey his (saw) orders.

It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed into a plain error

Holy Qur'aan (33:36)

The resistance of the companions and their disputes and clamors before the Prophet (saw) were more tiresome to him (saw) than dictating the document. So how did those who pitied the Prophet (saw) for being tired because of dictating the book, resist him and surprise him by saying: "The messenger of Allah (saw) is speaking nonsense?" How did they think that by not bringing the paper and the ink-pot it was better for the Prophet (saw) despite the fact that he (saw) had ordered for it? Did the Prophet (saw) order something which was better to be neglected when saying, "You will never go astray?" If they feared that the Prophet (saw) would write some things that people would not be able to carry out, why would anyone deserve punishment for carrying such a great burden? On what grounds did Umar fear this when the Prophet (saw) had said: "You will never go astray?" Was Umar more aware of the ends than the Prophet (saw) himself?

If Umar feared that the hypocrites would consider the book to be untrue, why would the Prophet (saw) say: "You will never go astray?" He (saw) had confirmed the book would save the Ummah from deviation, so how would it be a cause for sedition if the hypocrites criticized it?

It is odd that the excuse is made that If Umar was afraid that the hypocrites may consider the book untrue. Because by claiming "the messenger of Allah (saw) is speaking nonsense?" he in fact strengthened the arguments of the Prophet's (saw) opponents. If the Prophet (saw) does indeed ever speak nonsense, then why should anyone believe the book he brought ?

} {

See how they coin similitudes for you, so they have gone astray, and they cannot find a Right Path

Holy Qur'aan [25:9]

The hypocrites could definitely say that since the Prophet (saw) wrote the letter in a condition in which he was not well, hence such a command is not necessary to follow. Just like the Shias will say that by not omitting the words Messenger of Allah from the name of the Prophet, Ali showed love for the Prophet (saww) , even though one can say that how can disobedience prove more love, similarly we say that because the Prophet (saww) was severely ill, and he had also the choice of writing the will later on, because he lived for three days after this incident, so it was more appropriate if someone would have stated that the Prophet (saww) should take rest at that time, and the will could be written down at any time later on when he was feeling better.

RTS says: Ibn Al-Jawzi: Explanation of the Hadeeth: "... Bring me a tablet and an ink-pot...": The scholars are not in agreement about the will of the Prophet (saw), there are two views: The first view: He wanted to write down the names of his successors after him. The second view: He wanted to write a letter about book of laws and with that remove the differences (of practice) among Muslims. But the first view is more accurate. The statement of Umar: "The Book of Allah is enough for you means: It suffices. Al-Khatabi has said: Umar rejected it because if the Prophet (saw) had written his will down to remove the differences, the virtues and intellect of Scholars and Ijtihad would be void. Al-Jawzi says: 'I say This is wrong due to two reasons, first: (if it was true) then it suggests that Umars view was more generous (towards scholars) than the Prophet (saw). Second: That if he has written down an explicit wording about an issue or issues, it would not remove the need for Ijtihaad, because the things that need Ijtihad are more than what someone can count, but Umars rejection was rather because he thought what the Prophet (saw) might write down in that intense illness cannot be from intellect, and if they were sure that it is from intellect they would bring what the Prophet (saw) wanted.

Source: Kashf Al-Mushkil Min Hadeeth Al-Sahihayn. Vol. 2, Pg. # 2, H # 315. There are few mistakes in this translation. First of all, Ibn Jowzi is not saying that the first view is more correct, rather he is saying that the first statement is more apparent. Secondly, but Umars rejection was rather because he thought what the Prophet (saw) might write down in that intense illness cannot be from intellect needs correction. Its translation is Umars rejection was rather because he thought what the Prophet (saw) might write down in that intense illness which couldnt be understood. [To be checked]

RTS says: Need we say anymore? Does one see an apologetic pattern where Sunni ulema are trying hard, very very hard, to maintain the integrity of Umar ibn Al-Khattab no matter what he does. When they could not succeed in killing the Prophet (saw) in Tabuk, they conspired to oppose every wish of the ailing Prophet (saw). They refused to assemble under the banner of Usama ibn Zayd, violating the Prophets (saw) specific and repeated orders, frustrated the Prophets (saw) desire to write down his document which followed by having the audacity to say the Quraan was sufficient, thus implying that there was no further requirement for guidance or any sort of direction from a delirious and dying Prophet (saw). Umar confessed his own delusion and doubt of Muhammad (saw) being a Prophet in the peace treaty of Hudaybiya by which he says: By God, I had never doubted since I embraced Islam except on that day, so I went to the messenger of Allah (saw) and said: 'Are you truly the Apostle of Allah?' The Prophet (saw) said, 'Yes, indeed!' And once again, we see his stance unchanged in that he questions the Prophet (saw) judgement whilst being on his death bed questioning as to whether the direction given by the Prophet (saw) was from other than Allah (swt). Each and every person who claims to be a Muslim is commanded and obliged to unquestionably submit to the command of the Prophet (saw) under any circumstances, for whatever comes from his (saw) mouth is undoubtedly nothing but the truth!

Rather we should say that the Shias are trying hard, very very hard, to somehow prove Umar (ra) as a person who tried to kill the Prophet (saw), who would disobey the Prophet (saw) all the time, who would doubt his prophethood, who stopped him from making his will. Suppose we think that Umar (ra)

wanted to kill the Prophet (saw), why didnt he join the Quraysh who spent all their lives in killing the Prophet (saw)? Why did he join the Prophet (saw) when the Muslims were the weakest? If he would disobey the Prophet (saw) all the time, why did he remain a Islam after the death of the Prophet (saw) especially when he had defeated two greatest empires? If he doubted the Prophethood, why did he embrace Islam? Shias have made up stories that Abu Bakr and Umar embraced Islam because some astrologer told them that Prophet Muhammad (saw) would become a big ruler, so they wanted to take part in it to receive some benefits. If this was true, why did they try to kill the Prophet (saw) when his rule was yet over a small piece of land? And most importantly, why did the Prophet (saw) kept such huge enemies close to him, and why did he marry their daughters? Why did he let them have so much influence over the people that killing them would have been troublesome? Afterwards, RTS has mentioned few traditions to prove that whatever the Prophet (saw) speaks is true, and we have already agreed with it and explained it as well.

RTS says: Is The Holy Qur'aan Sufficient?

Umar said: "The illness has defeated the Prophet (i.e. he is talking nonsense), and we have got Allah's Book with us and that is sufficient for us."

Aboo Bakr Al- Ajuri:

The decision about all the religious duties that Allah (swt) ordered in His Book cannot be known without the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (saw). This is the opinion of the scholars of Muslims, and anyone who says something contrary to this, then it throws those individuals out of the fold of Islam and they become apostate.

Source: Kitab Al-Sharia. Vol. 1, Pg. # 412.

RTS has collected similar statements of other scholars which we omit so as to avoid unnecessarily making the article lengthy. We reply that the statement of Omar should be understood in a context, just like when Ali told Ibn Abbas not to debate with the Khawarij from the Quran because it has many faces *Nahjul balagha+ doesnt mean that he forbade from using Quran as evidence in debates. Similarly, when Omar said Quran is sufficient, he meant that this book is sufficient for guidance, if you follow this you will not be misguided. This is not the rejection of Sunnah, and he didnt consider it appropriate that the Prophet (saw) write down what he wanted for the guidance of people because of his severe condition, not because he considered it unnecessary to be followed. We read in al-Kafi Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Isa from Ali ibn Hadid from Murazim from abu Abd Allah, recipient of divine supreme covenant, who has said the following: Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High, has certainly revealed an explanation for all things. I swear by Allah, He has not left untold any rule that His servants would need up to the Day of Judgment except that He has mentioned it in the Holy Quran. He has done so, so that people will not say, Would that such and such had been said in the Holy Quran. The fact is that He has already said it in the Holy Quran. Similarly we read in another narration of al-Kafi Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from ibn Faddal from Al-Thalaba ibn Maymun from one he narrated from al-Mualla ibn Khunays who has said the following: Abu Abd Allah, recipient of divine supreme covenant, has said, For every issue disputed between two people there is a principle for it in the book of Allah, the Most Majestic, the Most Glorious, however, mans power of intelligence is not able to find it. This is very clear in its meaning that everything is mentioned in the Holy Quran, and it is enough for guidance, and Sunnah is an explanation of the Holy Quran. So if someone says that Quran is sufficient for guidance, his statement is not to be considered as the rejection of the Sunnah, unless he clearly mentions it.

RTS says: The confession, The Book of Allah is enough is exactly what the Kharijites would say, and most Muslims, if not all, are aware of the fact that they were apostates. The Sheikhayn realized only too late that the Holy Quraan was insufficient to guide the people in their daily lives and

it was a must to access the traditions of the Prophet (saw). When the dispute took place between the Quraysh and Ansar for leadership, instead of seeking a solution from the Holy Quraan, Umar said, Leaders must be from Quraysh. In practice, Umar was not following his own dictum. Indeed, the Holy Quraan without its interpreters (The Ahlulbayt) is most certainly insufficient! Actually neither Abu Bakr nor Umar rejected the Sunnah, it is the wrong conclusion of RTS which is based on flawed thinking, due to which it is accusing them of not following their own dictum.

RTS says: Many scholars were of the view that the Prophet (saw) had every intention to appoint his leader(s) after him. Typically, from the list of candidates were Aboo Bakr and Umar, who were in priority to others. Now let us analyse this absurd claim. Ibn Hajar: The statement: I may write a letter. The letter was to appoint the successor after the Prophet (saw), and it will be mentioned in the book of Ahkaam in the 'Chapter of Al-Is'tikhlaaf.' Source: Fat'hul Bari Sharh Saheeh Al-Bukhari. Vol. 9, Pg. # 591. Ibn Hajar: Book of Ahkaam In The Chapter of Al-Is'tikhlaaf Narrated Al-Qasim ibn Muhammad: A'isha said, "O my head!" Allah's Messenger (saw) said, "If that (i.e. your death) should happen while I am still alive, I would ask Allah to forgive you and would invoke Allah for you." A'isha said, "O my life which is going to be lost! By Allah, I think that you wish for my death, and if that should happen then you would be busy enjoying the company of one of your wives in the last part of that day." The Prophet (saw) said, "But I should say, 'O my head!' I feel like calling Aboo Bakr and his son and appoint the former as my successors lest people should say something or wish for something (i.e. wish for the leadership). Then I said: Allah will insist (on Aboo Bakr becoming a Caliph) and the believers will prevent (anyone else from claiming the Caliphate)," or "Allah will prevent (anyone else from claiming the Caliphate) and the believers will insist (on Aboo Bakr becoming the Caliph)." Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar: It was said to Umar, "Will you appoint your successor?" Umar said, "If I appoint a Caliph (as my successor) it is

true, because somebody who was better than I (i.e. Aboo Bakr) did so, and if I leave the matter undecided, it is true because somebody who was better than I (i.e. Allah's Messenger (saw) did so." On this, the people praised him. Umar said, "People are of two kinds: Either one who is keen to take over the Caliphate or one who is afraid of assuming such a responsibility. I wish I could be free from its responsibility in that I would receive neither reward nor retribution, I won't bear the burden of the caliphate in my death as I do in my life." Explanation of Ibn Hajar: The statement: And appoint refers to the appointment of a successor who would gain the power after him. This is what Al-Bukhari has understood from it and therefore he has narrated it in this chapter, even though the word appointment has a more general meaning. But according to the narration of Urwah from A'isha: Call your father and brother so that I may write a letter and at the end of it: Allah will prevent (anyone else from claiming the Caliphate) and the believers will insist (on Aboo Bakr becoming the Caliph). And in the narration of Muslim: Call your father and brother for me so that I may write a letter, because I fear that someone wish (the Caliphate) and Allah and the believers are not satisfied except with Aboo Bakr (to become Caliph). And in the narration of Al-Bazzar: I seek refuge with Allah that the people fight over the Caliphate with Aboo Bakr. And all of these point out that the meaning of it was the successorship. But AlMuhallab has gone to the extreme by claiming that: In this narration there is an undisputable evidence about the appointment of Aboo Bakr as Caliph, and it is strange that he himself says after that: It is evident that the Prophet (saw) has not appointed any successors." Source: Fathul Bari Sharh Saheeh Al-Bukhari. Vol. 17, Pg. # 57 - 58. Now let us see how A'isha contradicts herself . Muslim ibn Hajjaj: Ibn Aboo Mulaika narrated: I heard A'isha as saying she was asked as to whom Allah's Messenger (saw) would have nominated his successor if he had to nominate one at all. She said: 'Aboo Bakr.' It was said to her: 'Then whom after Aboo Bakr?' She said: 'Umar.' It was said to her. 'Then whom after Umar?' She said: 'Aboo Ubaida ibn Al-Jarrah,' and then she kept quiet at this. Source: Saheeh Muslim. Pg. # 1120-1121, H. # 2385. There is no contradiction. All the narrations prove that the Prophet (saw) didnt declare his successor. The previous narrations only show that the Prophet (saw) intended to declare Abu Bakr as his successor, but later on he changed his mind and realized that it would happen this way. This also had the benefit

that Muslims realized that the caliph can be selected through Shura. If the Prophet (saw) had nominated a caliph, it might have resulted in Muslims not considering Shura as the process of selection of a caliph, and many have considered that only a previous caliph can nominate a successor. RTS says: Is'haq ibn Rahwayh: Narrated from Wakee from Abul Amis from ibn Abi Mulaika from A'isha who said: "The Messenger of Allah (saw) passed away and he did not appoint any successors." She (A'isha) then said: "The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: If I was going to appoint a successor I would have appointed Abi Bakr or Umar. Footnote: It is Saheeh (Authentic). All of its narrators are trustworthy and of the narrators of Bukhari and Muslim. The narration has been narrated also by Al-Nasa'i, Muslim in his Saheeh and Ahmad ibn Hanbal in his Musnad. Source: Musnad Is'haq ibn Rahwayh. Vol. 3, Pg. # 660. If the Prophet (saw) had made it clear that Aboo Bakr would be given the position of successorship after him, a few questions would spring to mind as to why the gathering at Saqifah took place? Why did the Ansar disagree with Aboo Bakr becoming the leader? Why the dispute?

As I earlier said, none of the previous narrations show that the Prophet (saw) clearly declared AbuBakr to be his successor, so it is sufficient. RTS says: Al-Bukhari: Narrated ibn Abbas from Umar: ...And no doubt after the death of the Prophet (saw) we were informed that the Ansar disagreed with us and gathered in the shed of Bani Sa'ida. Alee and Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us, while the emigrants gathered with Aboo Bakr... Source: Saheeh Al-Bukhari. Vol. 8, Book 82, Hadeeth 817. Muslim Muslim ibn Hajjaj: We have on the authority of ibn Umar saying that his father Umar on his death bed said, "If I would appoint my successor, (I would because) one better than me did so. (He meant Aboo Bakr.) If I would leave you alone, (I would do so because) one better than me (i. e. the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)), did so. Source: Saheeh Muslim. Pg. # 884, H. # 11. Same narrations which prove that Abu Bakr was not declared as a successor.

RTS says: When Aboo Bakr was arduously affected by his disease, he commanded Uthman to write his will. When he reached the following words: "I have appointed as a successor" he fainted before mentioning the name of his appointee. When Aboo Bakr regained his consciousness, he asked Uthman to read what he had written down. So he said, "I nominate Umar ibn Khattab." So he replied, You would have been fitting for it had you written your own name instead. The Prophet (saw) was prevented from writing a document on the account of his health then on what grounds did Umar accept this document being written from Aboo Bakr? Did he not think to say "The Qur'aan is sufficent" or, "We have not neglected anything in the book?" Umar was nothing more then a hypocrite hungry for the seat of leadership. We find not a single trace of evidence to suggest that the Prophet (saw) was not in the right state of mind to write a document, unlike Aboo Bakr who was falling in and out of consciousness and despite his testimony, is given proof over the Prophet (saw). Al-Muttaqi Hindi: Narrated Aslam who said: "Uthman wrote the document which contains the will for the caliphate, but Aboo Bakr requested Uthman to leave a space and not to fill the space with the name of any one, and afterwards he became unconcious, but Uthman took the document and filled the space with Umar's name, and then Aboo Bakr woke up and enquired, 'Show me the document!' When he read the document he saw that there was Umar's name and he said, 'Who did this?' Uthman replied saying, 'It is I.' Aboo Bakr said, 'May Allah (swt) have mercy on you and reward you good, but if you had kept your name therein, you could be worthy of it.'" Footnote: Ibn Kathir said 'This report is correct in its chain.' Source: Kanz Al-Ummal. Vol. 5, Pg. # 281. Even though a large number of narrations clearly prove that the Prophet (saw) was severely ill, RTS tries to show as if he was completely normal. And just because a person is in the right state of mind, it doesnt mean that he can be well completely. It is strange the way RTS tries to manipulate the narrations for its own purposes. In this narration, we dont even find the name of Umar. Abu Bakrs condition was not well, when he fainted, Uthman wrote the name of Umar with which Abu Bakr agreed when he recovered. Umar was not present to prevent the writing, and it was Uthman who wrote it. So how is this narration used to accuse Umar of hypocrisy? This is because if the Shias dont employ this method of manipulating the narrations to prove their arguments, they will have no other way.

Then RTS mentioned few other similar narrations, of which I am quoting only one to show why Uthman wrote the name of Umar. Aboo Ja'far said and Al-Waqidi said: Ibraheem ibn Abi Al Nadar narrated from Muhammad ibn Ibraheem ibn Al-Harith, he said: "Aboo Bakr called for Uthman alone, then he said: 'Write: In the name of Allah (swt). The Beneficent, Ever-Merciful. This is what Aboo Bakr ibn Abi Quhafa consigned for Muslims.' After this... He said: 'Then he (Aboo Bakr) fainted and went out, then Uthman wrote: After this, I have appointed Umar ibn Al-Khattab as my successor over you, and I have not accredited anyone better than him.' Then Aboo Bakr woke up and asked Uthman to read for him. Then he (Uthman) read for him (Aboo Bakr). Then Aboo Bakr did takbeer and said: ''I see that you were afraid that people may disagree with each other if I pass away while I am unconscious!'' He replied: 'Yes!' Then he said: ''May Allah (swt) recompense you with good on the behalf of Islam and Muslims." And Aboo Bakr confirmed it based on this perspective. Footnote: Narration is Saheeh (Authentic). Source: Saheeh Tarikh Al-Tabari. Vol. 3, Pg. # 123 - 124.