Seerah Episode 103

By Dr. Yasir Qadhi

Typically speaking, the seerah finishes not with the death of the Prophet
PBUH, but rather with the election of Abu Bakr and the sending of Usama
ibn Zayd and his caravan to Syria. These two things are immediately
related to the death of the Prophet PBUH so they should be discussed to
be full and complete.

The issue of what happens after the death of the Prophet PBUH is
extremely controversial between two strands of Islam, Sunni and Shia. You
cannot discuss this issue without mentioning both sides. Today we will
discuss one particular incident which took place in the final days in the life
of the Prophet PBUH. We skipped over it intentionally so we can discuss it
now. That incident is called 'the Incident of Thursday' or 'the Incident of the
Scrolls (Qirtas).' And 'qirtas' is something they would write on i.e. a
parchment. This incident involves a very  controversial issue - whether the
Prophet PBUH intended to specify who would be the khalifa after him and
in particular whether or not Ali RA was that person. At the end of the day,
what happened happened, but still there is an issue that every single
Muslim is exposed to, and every person finds some controversy in it.
Therefore questions arise and so we have to go back to the very beginning
and discuss where the split occurred between the Sunni and Shia.

We already discussed the incident of the well of Ghadir Khumm. For the
Shia this incident is considered to be of utmost importance. For us we
affirm the incident 100%, but our interpretation is very different. And that is
that, when you put it into context, simply, the Prophet PBUH was defending
Ali RA and he said, 'Whoever irritates Ali irritates me, whoever is my mawla
then Ali is also his mawla.' So it is very clear the Prophet PBUH was
criticizing those who found fault with Ali, and from our perspective this
incident was never intended to make Ali RA the khalifa. What demonstrates
this are many things, we will mention the main one:

1. The fact that the very last days of his life PBUH, he always emphasized
Abu Bakr and he insisted Abu Bakr lead the salah. For us this is the
decisive issue. Never has the Prophet PBUH commanded anyone to lead
the salah when he is alive, and he is in the masjid. And he commands and
says, "Allah and His messenger do not allow anyone other than Abu Bakr."
And when they could not find Abu Bakr, and instead Umar RA was found,
what does the Prophet PBUH say? He says, "No go and find Abu Bakr," so
Umar breaks the salah and Abu Bakr is put in front. These are not trivial
matters. This is extremely significant.

So in light of all of this, we have to understand this incident of the scrolls we

will discuss now. And this incident is in Bukhari and Muslim, it is muttafaq
alayh (authentically agreed upon) and authentic. The hadith occurs in bits
and pieces, that ibn Abbas narrates, "Thursday, and what a Thursday it
was. When the pain of the Prophet PBUH increased, he said, 'Bring me a
book and I will write for you something that you will never go astray.'" And
Umar RA said, "The Prophet PBUH is overcome by pain, he is clearly
suffering, and we have the book of Allah, that is sufficient for us." Some
others said (it is not mentioned who said this in any of the books of hadith
of the Sunni tradition): "The Prophet PBUH is speaking randomly because
of his fever." Others said, "Confirm what the Prophet PBUH wants." So the
sahaba differed amongst themselves, the voices went back and forth, and
the Prophet PBUH then said, "Stand away from me, for it is not befitting
that any ikhtilaf goes on in my presence." And then ibn Abbas says, "The
Prophet PBUH advised us three things before he died:

1. Expel the mushrikun from Jazira al-Arab.

2. Treat the delegations that come to you in the same manner I treated
them.
And one of the sub narrators said, 'I forgot what was the third one.' Then
ibn Abbas said, "What a calamity, the biggest calamity was what came
between the Prophet PBUH and the writing of that parchment."

Many issues to discuss.

Before we get to the controversy, Bukhari mentions many different benefits

from this hadith. They are:

1. The importance of writing down knowledge.

2. Treating delegations that come in a positive and good manner. We
should be hospitable to them and this was of the last bits of advice the
Prophet PBUH gave.
3. It is haram to differ in front of the Prophet PBUH; and moreover it is
disliked in general.
4. We should not sit too long when we visit the sick, because it becomes
a nuisance for the sick person.
Ibn Hajar compiles other hadith regarding the third point the narrator forgot.
He says it seems to indicate 1 of 2 things:

1. Either the third point was to send Usama's army to al-Sham; or

2. His grave should not become an idol.
Because both of these things are narrated in other versions that he said
towards the end of his life.

Let's get into the controversy. According to the non-Sunni groups, the
Prophet PBUH explicitly intended to write the wasiyya for Ali RA. That Ali
RA should be the khalifa when I am gone. That is the whole controversy.
And according to the Shia, because of Umar RA, this didn't happen. And
Ibn Abbas is saying (indirectly from the Shia perspective), "The biggest
calamity was the fact that, the Prophet PBUH did not get to write down that
Ali should have been the khalifa." Of course he DID NOT say this - but this
is what the Shia think he means by 'the biggest calamity.' We will discuss
the controversy from three questions.

1. How do we understand Umar's stance? Because he said, 'The Book of

Allah is enough for us,' and he diverted the command of the Prophet PBUH
away.

Our scholars have interpreted this in many different ways. We'll go over
these briefly.

- Imam al-Khattabi  (d. 388 H) said that, 'We cannot understand that Umar's
statement was meant to imply the Prophet PBUH was making a mistake.
Rather, Umar RA saw the pain the Prophet PBUH was in. And he feared
that he might say something vague and ambiguous that the munafiqun
might take advantage off. Additionally, it is well known the sahaba at the
time would negotiate directly with the Prophet PBUH, if the circumstances
required such as at Badr and Hudaybiyyah. Umar RA was under the
impression that this was one of those situations where he could go back
and forth and negotiate with the Prophet PBUH.

- Imam al-Maziri who died 536 H, an early commentator of Sahih Muslim,

said that, 'It appears the Prophet PBUH is giving a command, 'Bring me
something to write.' But, there are always signs that could be used to
indicate that sometimes a command is actually a request. And it must be
assumed that Umar RA saw something that downgraded this command to
a request, and therefore he wanted to go back and forth. And Umar RA
made an ijtihad based on his assumptions and he will be rewarded for that.'

- So according to al-Maziri and also al-Qurtubi, the famous scholar from

Cordoba, who died 670 H, he also said the same thing that Umar RA must
have seen something in the context that he felt this was not a command.

- Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 595 H) and ibn Hajar narrated these positions and agreed
with them, that Umar RA out of care and concern saw something and felt
now is not the time to get involved in a side issue. Rather he felt they
should leave the Prophet PBUH alone to his pain and suffering so he can
rest.

- Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 H) comments and says, "Scholars have

unanimously agreed this incident shows us the understanding of Umar RA
and his excellence, and his farsightedness for he was fearful of something
being written down that they could not perform, and might have been
punished for. And he took the generalities of the Qur'an, that Allah clearly
mentions, 'Today I have perfected your religion for you,' and realizing that
the religion was completed, he wanted to protect the Prophet PBUH and
ease matters upon him (meaning his pain). And he wanted to protect the
ummah from misguidance.

- This is also the position of Imam al-Bayhaqi (d. 458 H), that Umar RA
wanted to make things easy. He saw the suffering of the Prophet PBUH,
the pain, and he simply felt compassion and mercy for him.

The point here is that, we really, and there is no denying this, look at this
incident and we are biased. Just like the other group is also biased. Our
bias is: In light of the track record of Umar RA, in light of the previous 20
years and all that he has done, and the next 13 years he will live, we have
to understand what he has done in a positive light. Even if we don't
understand the details, we were not there so we do not know what Umar
RA saw in the Prophet PBUH to make his decision. But there must be a
leap of faith and knowing Umar's past and future, and all of the ahadith that
praise Umar RA:

"If there was a nabi after me it would be Umar,"

"If shaytan sees Umar coming down a path he will run away,"
"If anyone in the future were to be inspired it would be Umar."

In light of all these hadith, we simply have to have a leap of faith and say,
'Whatever was his decision, there must have been a good reason for it.'
Obviously the Shia have a negative view of Umar RA from day one. And if
you don't have a positive view of someone, and they do something vague,
you will read in and have a bad opinion. The fact of the matter is, Umar's
actions are ambiguous - no one was there. These explanations are good
attempts, but they are attempts at the end of the day. What did Umar RA
see? What was the issue that caused Umar RA to not immediately execute
the command of the Prophet PBUH? We were not there, but our opinion of
Umar RA is that he must have had a very very good reason. This is
therefore a point of theology to make a jump and believe Umar RA saw
something; he was worried for the sickness of the Prophet PBUH, he had
compassion and mercy, and didn't want the Prophet PBUH to write
something the ummah could not follow.

The second question:

2. What did the Prophet PBUH actually want to write?

In one version we learn these three things that he wanted to say (from the
hadith of Ibn Abbas above). Is this what he wanted to write? Many scholars
said yes, and when he couldn't write it, he simply said it. However another
opinion that a number of early scholars follow including Sufyan ibn
Uyaynah who died 198 H, that the Prophet PBUH wanted to write the exact
opposite of what the Shia say: He wanted to dictate a letter that Abu Bakr
RA should be the khalifa after him. Where is this coming from? There are
authentic narrations in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim that before the
Prophet PBUH fell really sick, he said to Aisha in the early part of his
sickness that, "Call for me Abu Bakr and your brother, so that I may write a
letter because I am worried that someone (anyone) may desire or aspire for
something (leadership) and say, 'I have more right,' but Allah and His
messenger will refuse anyone other than Abu Bakr." This hadith is in
Bukhari and Muslim but it's not on Thursday, it's a few days before. Now
remember the incident of Umar was on Thursday, and the Prophet PBUH
died on Monday. So one can argue the exact opposite - and this is also the
position of Ibn Taymiyyah. He wrote a 10 volume book, Minhaj al-Sunnah
al-Nabawiyah, where he discusses these differences between the two
groups. And in this book he clearly mentions this letter was a letter in favor
of Abu Bakr RA. So the letter of the Prophet PBUH was either 1 of 2
scenarios:

1. Either to write down the 3 things as described in the hadith of Ibn Abbas:

 Expel the mushrikun from Jazira al-Arab.

 Treat the delegations that come to you in the same manner I treated
them.
 And one of the sub narrators said, 'I forgot what was the third one.'"

2. The wasiyya of Abu Bakr.

Ibn Taymiyyah's point was also supported by a number of early scholars;

there really wasn't any evidence supporting the notion that the Prophet
PBUH wanted to say Ali is the next khalifa. Now the final question is:

3. Can it be imagined that he wanted to write a wasiyya for Ali RA? Is it

logically rational?

From our perspective, to claim this is to claim the Prophet PBUH failed in
his mission. Because, regardless of what you want to say about Umar RA,
the undeniable fact that both groups affirm is this incident occurred on
Thursday. He passed away on Monday. 4 full days later. And if the matter
was of such importance, then how could he have allowed 4 days to go by
without saying anything about it? Why didn't he do something for 4 days?
Who else is visiting him? Fatima RA is visiting him, Ali RA is visiting him.
Ibn Hajar points this out as well: "It is not possible that the Prophet PBUH
would have left something so important without saying anything for 4 days."
Imam al-Nawawi comments that, "We have two options: Either Allah told
him to write something down, and it didn't happen as a number of sahaba
stopped him - the only alternative is that the command was abrogated. Or
else you are saying he did not obey Allah's command. OR, it was an ijtihad
by himself, and after what happened he changed his mind and said, 'No
need to write it down.'"

So we say the incident of the scrolls, from our perspective, we assume

Umar RA must have had reason for his actions. Second, we have evidence
that what the Prophet PBUH wanted to write is other than what is claimed
by the Shia. It was either the three commands he spoke, OR the exact
opposite which is that Abu Bakr RA should be khalifa. And thirdly,
regardless of anything, what will we say to the fact that for 4 days he didn't
say anything else about Ali being the khalifa? This is ignoring the fact that
there are so many other evidences for Abu Bakr RA. The year the Prophet
PBUH could not go on Hajj, he sent Abu Bakr first. And even when Ali RA
was sent, Abu Bakr asked, "Are you coming as the amir or ma'mur?" Ali RA
said no, "I am not the amir." Very explicit. So in Hajj he delegates Abu
Bakr. And in Salah. And so on, so indeed for us it is clear the Prophet
PBUH intended Abu Bakr RA to be the khalifa.

[Transcribed by Br. Safwan Khan & Faizan]