Ibn Taymiyyah on why Khalifah Umar made the comments about the Prophet (saw)

[whoaretheshia]

We all know a common justification as to why Umar ibn al Khattab, with due respect, decided to judge that the Quran was enough for the believers is that he did not want the Prophet (saw) to be bothered , and that he deeply loved him. Despite the Prophet (saw) knowing full well his competency and only asking for a pen and paper, and his command to be obeyed absolutely whatever an individuals opinion was, some people thought better.

Let us read what Ibn Tamiyyah has said in trying to explain this particular event:

"Umar was confused whether the statement of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) was from the severity of the illness or the words of a man who knew what he was saying ... The Holy Prophet (pbuh) was indeed ill, and Umar did not know whether his statement was from the delirium caused by illness (min wahj almard) like sick people normally do or from the statement of someone who knew what he was saying so that he could accept it"
Minhaj al-Sunnah 6/24

SubhanAllah, so Ibn Taymiyah thinks Khalifah Umar didn't know whether the illness had made the Prophet lose his mind when he said "Give me a pen and paper for me to write for you that which after you will never go astray". When the Messenger of Allah (saw) demand you of something , you do it. You put your opinions to the side, for he is Awla and Mawla over you, more worthy over you than you are over your own selves, and the one in charge, your guardian and your master.

Personally speaking, i don't understand why he is regard as Shayk-al-Islam as he is more of a liability to you than an asset. In Aqeedah he was a deviant of the highest order according to the views of orthodox Sunni Muslims (Ashari and Maturidi), and in Fiqh, he permitted an adult to suckle / drink the milk of a woman in order to become Mahram to her - which was one of the justifications given by the famous al-Azhar scholar who passed the Fatwah he did recently and ended up getting removed from his position). I highly doubt many of you would even accept his reasoning here, and his books are full of fallacious reasoning like this.


If you will reply, do so with respect , please stick to the topic, and do not jump onto something entirely different. By doing that, it demonstrates an inability to directly address the comments at hand. I am not here to quarrel, nor offend. Rather i want a polite, well mannered and reasoned dialogue.

[furhan]

We all know a common justification as to why Umar ibn al Khattab, with due respect, decided to judge that the Quran was enough for the believers is that he did not want the Prophet (saw) to be bothered , and that he deeply loved him. Despite the Prophet (saw) knowing full well his competency and only asking for a pen and paper, and his command to be obeyed absolutely whatever an individuals opinion was, some people thought better.

Let us read what Ibn Tamiyyah has said in trying to explain this particular event:

"Umar was confused whether the statement of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) was from the severity of the illness or the words of a man who knew what he was saying ... The Holy Prophet (pbuh) was indeed ill, and Umar did not know whether his statement was from the delirium caused by illness (min wahj almard) like sick people normally do or from the statement of someone who knew what he was saying so that he could accept it"
Minhaj al-Sunnah 6/24

SubhanAllah, so Ibn Taymiyah thinks Khalifah Umar didn't know whether the illness had made the Prophet lose his mind when he said "Give me a pen and paper for me to write for you that which after you will never go astray". When the Messenger of Allah (saw) demand you of something , you do it. You put your opinions to the side, for he is Awla and Mawla over you, more worthy over you than you are over your own selves, and the one in charge, your guardian and your master.

Personally speaking, i don't understand why he is regard as Shayk-al-Islam as he is more of a liability to you than an asset. In Aqeedah he was a deviant of the highest order according to the views of orthodox Sunni Muslims (Ashari and Maturidi), and in Fiqh, he permitted an adult to suckle / drink the milk of a woman in order to become Mahram to her - which was one of the justifications given by the famous al-Azhar scholar who passed the Fatwah he did recently and ended up getting removed from his position). I highly doubt many of you would even accept his reasoning here, and his books are full of fallacious reasoning like this.


If you will reply, do so with respect , please stick to the topic, and do not jump onto something entirely different. By doing that, it demonstrates an inability to directly address the comments at hand. I am not here to quarrel, nor offend. Rather i want a polite, well mannered and reasoned dialogue.

Delirium means disturbed state of consciousness. This is the medical definition and is in the DSM (book used extensively for classifying psychological conditions). Source; I’m a medical student.

Both sunni/shia sources confirm that the prophet had lost consciousness. Furthermore we find that this occurred on a Thursday and the Prophet SAW passed away on the Monday. Let’s take the shia view for arguments sake that Umar maligned the prophet SAW on the Thursday. It still won’t explain why the prophet SAW didn’t use the other days to write the wil.

One question I have brother is how do you know? What makes you certain you knew what we was going to write? In my opinion it’s a weak argument to base something off “he might have written about the Ali’s successorship”.

Thirdly about Ibn Taymiyyah. I am maturidi so I don’t take from him. But if he held that opinion then why is it significant? Do the majority of Sunnis hold that opinion? There have been shia scholars who hold questionable opinions, but I wouldn’t refute the entirety of shiaism based off the opinion of one scholar.

Lastly, if we are discussing fiqh - then there have been instances where the infallible imams have directly contradicted each other. The excuse given has been taqiyyah - I saw in one instance where there were contradictory opinions (both graded authentic) over whether the Madhi (pre ejaculate) broke wudu or not.

What possible risk to the life of the imam would be caused by his ruling on pre-ejaculate?? It seems hard to believe for me brother.

But the take home message is that we can reject opinions of fallible scholars and take other opinions. You cannot reject the infallibles and their opinions have completely gone against one another.

[furhan]

[ You are not allowed to view attachments ][ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

We all know a common justification as to why Umar ibn al Khattab, with due respect, decided to judge that the Quran was enough for the believers is that he did not want the Prophet (saw) to be bothered , and that he deeply loved him. Despite the Prophet (saw) knowing full well his competency and only asking for a pen and paper, and his command to be obeyed absolutely whatever an individuals opinion was, some people thought better.

Let us read what Ibn Tamiyyah has said in trying to explain this particular event:

"Umar was confused whether the statement of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) was from the severity of the illness or the words of a man who knew what he was saying ... The Holy Prophet (pbuh) was indeed ill, and Umar did not know whether his statement was from the delirium caused by illness (min wahj almard) like sick people normally do or from the statement of someone who knew what he was saying so that he could accept it"
Minhaj al-Sunnah 6/24

SubhanAllah, so Ibn Taymiyah thinks Khalifah Umar didn't know whether the illness had made the Prophet lose his mind when he said "Give me a pen and paper for me to write for you that which after you will never go astray". When the Messenger of Allah (saw) demand you of something , you do it. You put your opinions to the side, for he is Awla and Mawla over you, more worthy over you than you are over your own selves, and the one in charge, your guardian and your master.

Personally speaking, i don't understand why he is regard as Shayk-al-Islam as he is more of a liability to you than an asset. In Aqeedah he was a deviant of the highest order according to the views of orthodox Sunni Muslims (Ashari and Maturidi), and in Fiqh, he permitted an adult to suckle / drink the milk of a woman in order to become Mahram to her - which was one of the justifications given by the famous al-Azhar scholar who passed the Fatwah he did recently and ended up getting removed from his position). I highly doubt many of you would even accept his reasoning here, and his books are full of fallacious reasoning like this.


If you will reply, do so with respect , please stick to the topic, and do not jump onto something entirely different. By doing that, it demonstrates an inability to directly address the comments at hand. I am not here to quarrel, nor offend. Rather i want a polite, well mannered and reasoned dialogue.

[Hadrami]

If Umar RA stopped the will from being written (which shia believe suppose to be about imamah), then the blame should also be on the healthy ones for not being able to stop Umar RA. If it was an insult, why Ali RA did nothing to stop Umar? The blame would be on him too. Shia maybe think Ali was o useless and incapable to stop Umar. Shia try to twist every hadith to portray sahaba as evil, but those are always backfired and end up showing imam as weak & unable to do anything. Actually shia also insulted Rasulullah shallallahu alayhi wasallam whom they believe unable to get it on paper until he passed away. Do shia think Umar stand near him for the next few days? Shia, stop watching bollywood

[Hadrami]

2. He did not bravely slam the door on the face of polytheists and openly and boldly claim to be Muslim, but was in his home in a state of fear, which is understandable.

do you think umar stayed away in a state of fear for 1300 year and counting like your whimpy mahdi. I dont think any leader in the history of mankind can beat shia mahdi's cowardice. You should be proud

al-Tusi in his book al-Ghaybah page 203, al-Murtada in his book al-Shafi volume 4 page 149 and al-Mufid in his book al-Fusoul al-Mukhtarah page 395:
“The only reason behind the ghaybah (occultation) of the Mahdi and the reason that he cannot appear is that he fears that he will be killed.”

[whoaretheshia]

Other than the partially relevant response by brother Furhan, everything else is wholly irrelevant. I am not claiming he would have wrote a will about Ali ibn Abi Talib. This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with al-Mahdi. To engage in a well mannered and fair debate or discussion, jumping boats to wholly irrelevant topics is nonsensical.