 | | Is obedience to Rasulullah (s) conditional or unconditional? | | The traditions (s) relating to the pen and paper episode | | Analysis of the incident, excuses offered and our replies | | Elucidation of the Truth | | The consequence of the Pen and paper episode |
| |  | | | | You can email the details of this article to a friend. | |  |
| The consequence of the Pen and paper episode
The sad fact is the repercussions of that sad event are still being felt today. No matter how much advocates will try the truth is Rasulullah (s) wanted to write a document that would be an eternal source of guidance for the Sahaba and every generation of Muslims. Hadhrath Umar opposed the idea, citing the fact "The Qur'an is sufficient for us". We would like to ask Ansar and fellow defenders of the Sahaba, was Umar's declaration correct? Has the Qur'an been sufficient? Have the Muslims been protected from misguidance due to the presence of the Book of Allah (swt)? This is clearly not the case. The sad truth is even the Sahaba went astray despite the presence of the Qur'an. They became divided quarrelled, fought and killed each other. If we look today Al Islam is divided into many Sects, all of which purport to rely on the Qur'an to uphold their school of thought, to justify their stance. There is no standard commentary of the Qur'an that all Muslims accept, there are countless commentaries of the Qur'an with differing interpretations of verses, based upon theological schools of affiliation. The Muslims are divided 'despite ' the presence of the Qur'an.
Rasulullah (s) was of course fully aware that Qur'an would not suffice. By making it clear that he wanted to write a document "after which you will never go astray", he (s) had taken personal responsibility for this task, vouching for the importance of the document he wished to write. By intervening and preventing this, Hadhrath Umar had in effect prevented the writing down of a document that would be an eternal source of guidance for the Muslim Ummah. Every generation of Muslims had been deprived of this document on account of Hadhrath Umar's disobedience. The Ummah is still reeling from this act of opposition.
The origin of disunity began here
Allamah Shahrastani in his famous books on divisions in Islam states that the origin of dispute amongst the companions owes its origin to this very tragic episode. He writes:
"the first dispute that took place during the Prophet's sickness, according to what the Imam Abu Abdullah Muhammad b. Isma'il al-Bukhari relates on the authority of Abdullah b. Abbas, is as follows: When the last sickness of the Prophet became acute, he said, 'Bring me an inkpot and writing material; I shall write something for you so that you will not be led astray after my departure'. Umar said, 'the Prophet has been overcome by pain, God's Book is sufficient for us'. A noisy argument arose among those gathered; whereupon the Prophet said 'Go away there should be no quarrelling in my presence'. Ibn Abbas says, 'What a tragedy which prevented us from having some writing of the Prophet!".
Al Mihal al Nahal, by Allamah Muhuummud b. Add'al Karim Shahrastani, page 18 - English translation by A.K.Kazi and J.G.Flynn (publishers Kegan Paul International, First Edition 1984)
The emergence of two groups began here
The narration's indicate that two divisions occurred amongst the Companions subsequent to the order: One party felt that the Prophet's wishes should be complied with; the other party, the leader of which was Hadhrath Umar, said that the Prophet's [saw] request should be ignored. We learn from the tradition that Hadhrath Umar and his associates prevented the document from being written.
From these two groups stemmed two schools of thought
From these two camps, two distinct schools of thought emerged, with differing views on obedience to the Prophet (s).
As Shi'a we believe that it is incumbent to obey all orders of the Prophet (s) and for that we rely on the verses already quoted. We therefore are critical of any individual who refuses to comply with the Prophet's (s) order. The Sunni Muslims believe that it is not incumbent to follow every order made by the Prophet (s) and in order to prove this they advance the attitude of Hadhrath Umar during this episode. This is clear from the comments of the Hanafi scholar Allamah Shibli Numani:
"People have often erred in respect of the nature of Prophethood, and difference of opinion continued even among the Muslims. The majority of people think that every word and deed of a Prophet is determined by God. Those who were a little bolder made an exception in the matter of some social usages. But the fact is that whatever injunction a prophet gives by virtue of his being a prophet are without doubt from God, while other words and deeds have reference only to time and place and possess no permanent religious or legal value. The way Omar cleared up the question had not been done by anybody else".
Al Faruq, by Allamah Shibli Numani, Vol 2 page 234
As already explained, even accepting the argument given - although it is in manifest contradiction to the statements concerning obedience to the Prophet (s) in the Book of Allah - it is clear that in this incident the Prophet did indeed speak in his capacity as a Prophet (s) on the matter of permanent religious guidance as signified by the phrase "so that you will never go astray after me". Assuming nevertheless for the sake of argument that the above position is correct, then naturally the only way to ascertain whether or not the Prophet is speaking in his capacity as a Prophet (s) or not, is how the Prophet (s) himself clarifies his statement. For how else would we be able to know whether or not the Prophet (s) is speaking in the capacity of a Prophet? Clearly the Prophet (s) himself must clarify this matter in this statement, otherwise we would be unable to judge. Hence, if the Prophet's (s) command clearly indicates that it is related to matters of religious guidance, then clearly he is speaking in his capacity as a Prophet (s). This matter thus evidently WAS related to the matter of religious guidance, as is unambiguously manifest by the Prophet's (s) pointing out that the instructions to be written would prevent the Muslim Ummah from ever going astray after him if the instructions were obeyed.
Numani, however, seeks to justify his incoherent position by citing other examples of when Hadhrath Umar held opinions that differed to that of the Prophet's (s) divinely guided commands:
"Omar's opinion also differed entirely from that of the Holy Prophet as to the treatment of the prisoners taken at Badr. On the occasion of the truce of Hudaibiya he remonstrated and said why such an unequal treaty should be concluded. It is obvious from these instances that Omar considered these matters to be distinct from the Holy Prophet's position as prophet. Had he considered these matters, on the contrary, to pertain to the prophetic office and yet interfered with them, we should look upon him as being out of the pale of Islam, let alone considering him a great hero of Islam".
Al Faruq, by Allamah Shibli Numani, Vol 2 page 267
It is down to our readers to use their rational and conscience to decide which approach is the correct one, and whether it truly conforms with the clear verses of the Qur'an on obedience to the Prophet, which show that one who opposes the Prophet's decision goes astray, and that only by obeying the Prophet (s) unconditionally can one be guided aright: Surah Nur verse 54 "Obey Allah and his Prophet and if you dispute, then on him is what is imposed on him and on you is what is imposed on you; and if you obey him you are guided aright; and there is no duty on the Prophet save the clear delivery"
This matter cannot just be ignored for Allah (swt) says in the Qur'an "Oh you who believe, Fear Allah and believe in the Prophet". Muslims are being addressed here, so if you do not have the correct belief in the Prophet (s) then you have a deficiency in your Iman.
|
Obedience to the Prophet[saww]