Please Wait
12521
Umar has never been accused of, either by the Prophet (s) or the other members of the Ahlul Bait (a), of having doubted in the prophethood. If this was true then why did Ali (r.a.) accept him for being the husband of his beloved daughter, Umm Kulthoom? It is better if you answer these questions and refrain from baseless accusations, for that is a useless action and it will cause the Shias to become embittered. You see yourselves that, even with all the efforts that the Shias put into their work, they are still an insular sect, and their numbers do not go beyond 9% of the Muslim population.
Umar said these words due to the love that he had in defending the Prophet (s). If we want to accept your interpretation of these words, then we must say that Ali (r.a.) also disobeyed the Prophet of God (s) when he was ordered to erase the words ‘Muhammad the Messenger of God’ from the Treaty of Hudaybiyya, and he said: ‘I swear by God that I will not erase this line’. Then the Prophet (s) took the text of the treaty himself and erased the words, saying: ‘I swear by God that I am the Messenger of God even if you (disbelievers) do not have faith in it’.
Some sources of the Ahlul Sunnah have reported on the matter of the Treaty of Hudaybiyya that when Umar felt that the orders of the Prophet (s) hadn’t been carried out, he said: (والله ما شککت منذ أسلمت إلا یومئذ), which means, ‘I swear by God that ever since I became a Muslim, I never doubted in the prophethood of the Messenger (s) until that day’. In other sources, such as Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, this matter has not been reported, but news of the very same report has spread to such a degree that Umar’s actions have been subject to criticism. This itself acts as further proof of the validity of the original reports. For example:
1- Umar did not become satisfied with the order of the Prophet (s), but he became calm through the words which Abu Bakr spoke. All this while the Holy Quran has said this in regards to the Prophet (s): (وَ ما یَنْطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوى إِنْ هُوَ إِلاَّ وَحْیٌ یُوحى). In addition, the Prophet (s) himself responded by saying: ‘I am God’s messenger and I never disobey my Lord or I am the messenger of God and He will never leave me’. If Umar was satisfied with the Prophet’s (s) answer, then why did he take recourse to Abu Bakr?
2- In Sahih Muslim, that the phrase (أَلَسْتَ نَبِیَّ اللَّهِ حَقًّا) (Am I not truly Allah's (swt) messenger?) hasn’t been mentioned, but what is this line’s meaning in Sahih Bukhari? Can this not be taken to mean doubt in the prophethood of the Messenger (s)?
3- When the Prophet (s) said: (إنی رسول الله و لست أعصیه و هو ناصری) and Umar responded to him by saying: (أو لیس کنت تحدثنا أنا سنأتی البیت فنطوف به) could this not be considered a reproach by Umar?
4- These words were spoken in a situation where the Prophet (s) was greatly in need of the support of the Muslims. Was not the position taken one which strengthened Suhail Bin Amru’s argument and opened the doors to doubt in the prophet pbuh?
5- It is narrated in Sahih Muslim that: (فَانْطَلَقَ عُمَرُ فَلَمْ یَصْبِرْ مُتَغَیِّظًا). The word ‘Ghaidh’ means becoming angry and wrathful, and the word ‘Taghayyudh’ means to show one’s anger, which sometimes comes alongside with a sound that is uttered. From these sentences where Umar does not become satisfied with the words of the Prophet (s), and he does not tolerate them and goes to Abu Bakr with anger and wrath, can it not be understood that Umar had become angry at the prophet and doubted?
Now with these points which we have mentioned, can we compare this action with the action of Imam Ali (a)? Can we say that if we give Umar this distinction, then we must also consider Imam Ali’s (a) actions as being one of disobedience to the Prophet of God (s)? All this, while the historical context and historical testimony do not show any evidence of Imam Ali (a) disobeying the Prophet (s)? Can we consider the fact that Imam Ali (a) said that he had no doubt in the Prophethood of the Prophet (s) and he could not give himself the permission to erase the words ‘Messenger of Allah’, as being disobedience or disrespect towards the Prophet (s)? Of course this is even if we accept the authenticity of this quoted event. If Imam Ali (a) was to have engaged in such an act, would it not have been said that even though the prophet (pbuh) had given him permission to disrespect, why did he still do it? Did he not know that he must not be disrespectful?
In truth, Imam Ali’s (a) refusal to erase the title of the Prophet (s) was a rejection of the polytheist’s request, and if someone pays attention to this matter, they will understand that he was simply honoring the status of the Prophet (s) and his actions did not reflect any form of protest or disrespect against him. One proof in this matter is that he did not have any protest against the essence of the task itself.
Now in regards to Umar’s marriage to Umm Kulthoom, there is some contention and differences as to its occurrence and some people repudiate it. In the case of such a marriage having taken place, it was not one based on happiness and willingness.
Some sources from the Ahlul Sunnah have reported on the matter of the Treaty of Hudaybiyya and have said that Umar, when he felt that the commands of the Prophet (s) were not being carried out, said: (والله ما شککت منذ أسلمت إلا یومئذ), which means ‘I swear by God that ever since I became Muslim, I never doubted in the prophethood of the Messenger (s) until that day’. As an example we will refer to the words of Suyuti: (ألست نبی الله ؟ قال : بلى فقلت : ألسنا على الحق وعدونا على الباطل ؟ قال : بلى قلت : فلم نعطى الدنیة فی دیننا إذن ؟ قال : إنی رسول الله ولست أعصیه وهو ناصری قلت : أو لیس کنت تحدثنا أنا سنأتی البیت ونطوف به ؟ قال: بلى أفأخبرتک أنک تأتیه العام؟ قلت: لا قال: فإنک آتیه ومطوف به فأتیت أبا بکر فقلت یا أبا بکر: ألیس هذا نبی الله حقا؟ قال: بلى قلت: ألسنا على الحق وعدونا على الباطل؟ قال: بلى قلت: فلم نعطی الدنیة فی دیننا إذن ؟ قال: أیها الرجل إنه رسول الله ولیس یعصی ربه وهو ناصره فاستمسک بغرزه تفز حتى تموت فو الله إنه لعلى الحق. قلت: أو لیس کان یحدثنا إنا سنأتی البیت ونطوف به؟ قال: بلى أفأخبرک أنک تأتیه العام؟ قلت: لا قال: فإنک آتیه ومطوف به قال عمر: فعملت لذلک أعمالا فلما فرغ من قضیة الکتاب قال رسول الله صلى الله علیه وسلم لأصحابه: قوموا فانحروا ثم احلقوا...) [1]
Of course, this passage has not been narrated in certain other books, but the reports recorded there of what Umar did has brought about criticism by others, to the extent that they have said that these reports confirm and substantiate those reports that actually do contain the passage. Based on this, we will narrate some traditions from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim which will be useful for our readers: In Sahih Bukhari in the 9th volume and on the 256th page it has been narrated that:
(فَقَالَ عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ فَأَتَیْتُ نَبِیَّ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَیْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَقُلْتُ أَلَسْتَ نَبِیَّ اللَّهِ حَقًّا قَالَ بَلَى قُلْتُ أَلَسْنَا عَلَى الْحَقِّ وَعَدُوُّنَا عَلَى الْبَاطِلِ قَالَ بَلَى قُلْتُ فَلِمَ نُعْطِی الدَّنِیَّةَ فِی دِینِنَا إِذًا قَالَ إِنِّی رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَلَسْتُ أَعْصِیهِ وَهُوَ نَاصِرِی قُلْتُ أَوَلَیْسَ کُنْتَ تُحَدِّثُنَا أَنَّا سَنَأْتِی الْبَیْتَ فَنَطُوفُ بِهِ قَالَ بَلَى فَأَخْبَرْتُکَ أَنَّا نَأْتِیهِ الْعَامَ قَالَ قُلْتُ لَا قَالَ فَإِنَّکَ آتِیهِ وَمُطَّوِّفٌ بِهِ قَالَ فَأَتَیْتُ أَبَا بَکْرٍ فَقُلْتُ یَا أَبَا بَکْرٍ أَلَیْسَ هَذَا نَبِیَّ اللَّهِ حَقًّا قَالَ بَلَى قُلْتُ أَلَسْنَا عَلَى الْحَقِّ وَعَدُوُّنَا عَلَى الْبَاطِلِ قَالَ بَلَى قُلْتُ فَلِمَ نُعْطِی الدَّنِیَّةَ فِی دِینِنَا إِذًا قَالَ أَیُّهَا الرَّجُلُ إِنَّهُ لَرَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَیْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَلَیْسَ یَعْصِی رَبَّهُ وَهُوَ نَاصِرُهُ فَاسْتَمْسِکْ بِغَرْزِهِ فَوَاللَّهِ إِنَّهُ عَلَى الْحَقِّ قُلْتُ أَلَیْسَ کَانَ یُحَدِّثُنَا أَنَّا سَنَأْتِی الْبَیْتَ وَنَطُوفُ بِهِ قَالَ بَلَى أَفَأَخْبَرَکَ أَنَّکَ تَأْتِیهِ الْعَامَ قُلْتُ لَا قَالَ فَإِنَّکَ آتِیهِ وَمُطَّوِّفٌ بِهِ...), which translated means: ‘Umar Bin Khattab said: I entered the presence of the Prophet of God (s) and I asked him: Oh Prophet of God (s), Are you not the true Messenger of God (s)? He answered in the affirmative. Then I asked him: Are we not on the path of truth and our enemies on the path of falsehood? He answered in the affirmative. I asked him: then why, with all of the assistance of our religion, should we show weakness. The Prophet (s) answered: I am God’s messenger in truth and I do not refrain from his command; he is my helper. I said: Did you not tell me that we shall go to the ‘House of God’ and we will circumambulate around it? He answered: Yes, but did I say that we will go this very year? I answered: No you did not. Then he said: So then in the future you will go to it and circumambulate around it. Then I went to Abu Bakr (may God be pleased with him) and said: Abu Bakr! Is this man not the true Prophet of God (s)? He said: Yes. I said: Are we not on the path of truth and our enemies on the path of falsehood? He said: Yes. I said: Then why, with all of our adherence to our religion, do we show weakness? He said: Behold, oh man! Of course he is God’s chosen one and he will never do anything but what his God commands him. God is his helper and he is on the path of righteousness. I said: Did he not tell us that we will soon be around and circumambulating the ‘House of God’? He said: Yes, but did he give you news that we will be going this very year? I said: No, he did not say. Then he said: Then in truth, you will soon see it and you will go around it in circumambulation.
In Sahih Muslim, in the 9th volume, and on the 259th page it is narrated: (فجَاءَ عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ فَأَتَى رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَیْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَقَالَ یَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَلَسْنَا عَلَى حَقٍّ وَهُمْ عَلَى بَاطِلٍ قَالَ بَلَى قَالَ أَلَیْسَ قَتْلَانَا فِی الْجَنَّةِ وَقَتْلَاهُمْ فِی النَّارِ قَالَ بَلَى قَالَ فَفِیمَ نُعْطِی الدَّنِیَّةَ فِی دِینِنَا وَنَرْجِعُ وَلَمَّا یَحْکُمِ اللَّهُ بَیْنَنَا وَبَیْنَهُمْ فَقَالَ یَا ابْنَ الْخَطَّابِ إِنِّی رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَلَنْ یُضَیِّعَنِی اللَّهُ أَبَدًا قَالَ فَانْطَلَقَ عُمَرُ فَلَمْ یَصْبِرْ مُتَغَیِّظًا فَأَتَى أَبَا بَکْرٍ فَقَالَ یَا أَبَا بَکْرٍ أَلَسْنَا عَلَى حَقٍّ وَهُمْ عَلَى بَاطِلٍ قَالَ بَلَى قَالَ أَلَیْسَ قَتْلَانَا فِی الْجَنَّةِ وَقَتْلَاهُمْ فِی النَّارِ قَالَ بَلَى قَالَ فَعَلَامَ نُعْطِی الدَّنِیَّةَ فِی دِینِنَا وَنَرْجِعُ وَلَمَّا یَحْکُمِ اللَّهُ بَیْنَنَا وَبَیْنَهُمْ فَقَالَ یَا ابْنَ الْخَطَّابِ إِنَّهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَلَنْ یُضَیِّعَهُ اللَّهُ أَبَدًا قَالَ فَنَزَلَ الْقُرْآنُ عَلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَیْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بِالْفَتْحِ فَأَرْسَلَ إِلَى عُمَرَ فَأَقْرَأَهُ إِیَّاهُ فَقَالَ یَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَوْ فَتْحٌ هُوَ قَالَ نَعَمْ فَطَابَتْ نَفْسُهُ وَرَجَعَ...) [2]
The historical context, as well as the historical testimony of this matter, has been explained by some researchers along the following lines:
1- Umar did not become satisfied with the order of the Prophet (s), but calmed down through the words of Abu Bakr. All this while, the Holy Quran has spoken the following words about the Prophet (s): (وَ ما یَنْطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوى إِنْ هُوَ إِلاَّ وَحْیٌ یُوحى) [3] . The Prophet (s) himself said this in his response: ‘I am God’s messenger and I never disobey Him, Or, ‘I am God’s messenger and God will never leave me.’ If Umar was satisfied with the answer of the Prophet (s), then why did he go to Abu Bakr afterwards. [4]
2- Although in Sahih Muslim, the phrase (أَلَسْتَ نَبِیَّ اللَّهِ حَقًّا) [5] hasn’t been mentioned, what is the meaning of this tradition in Sahih Bukhari? Can this not be taken to mean doubt in the Prophethood of the Prophet (s)?
3- Umar, when the Prophet (s) responded to him by saying: (إنی رسول الله و لست أعصیه و هو ناصری) [6] , he responded by saying: (أو لیس کنت تحدثنا أنا سنأتی البیت فنطوف به) [7] . Can this not be considered as being disrespectful to the Prophet (s)? [8]
4- These words were spoken in conditions where the Prophet (s) was direly in need of the assistance of the Muslims. Was this sort of behavior and criticism strengthening to Suhail Bin Amru and the dissipation of various kinds of doubt in the Prophethood of the Messenger(s)? [9]
5- In Sahih Muslim’s narration, this phrase has been mentioned: (فَانْطَلَقَ عُمَرُ فَلَمْ یَصْبِرْ مُتَغَیِّظًا). The word ‘Ghaidh’ means to become wrathful and angry and ‘Taghayyudh’ is to show one’s anger, sometimes along with sounds being heard. [10] From these sentences where Umar does not become satisfied with the words of the Prophet (s), and he does not tolerate them and goes to Abu Bakr with anger and wrath, can we not understand disrespect and doubt?
Now with these points being mentioned, can we compare this action with the action of Imam Ali (a)? Can we say that if we give Umar this distinction, then we must also consider Imam Ali’s (a) action as being one of disobedience to the Prophet of God (s)? All this, while the historical context and historical testimony do not show any evidence of Imam Ali (a) disobeying the Prophet (s)?
Can we consider the fact that Imam Ali (a) said that he had no doubt in the Prophethood of the Messenger (s) and he could not give himself the permission to erase the words ‘Messenger of Allah’, as being disobedience or disrespect towards the Prophet (s)? Of course, this is even if we accept the authenticity of this quoted event.
In any event, in Sahih Muslim, in the 9th volume and 257th page, it has reported the following about Imam Ali (a): (لَمَّا أُحْصِرَ النَّبِیُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَیْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عِنْدَ الْبَیْتِ صَالَحَهُ أَهْلُ مَکَّةَ عَلَى أَنْ یَدْخُلَهَا فَیُقِیمَ بِهَا ثَلَاثًا وَلَا یَدْخُلَهَا إِلَّا بِجُلُبَّانِ السِّلَاحِ السَّیْفِ... قَالَ لِعَلِیٍّ اکْتُبْ الشَّرْطَ بَیْنَنَا بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِیمِ هَذَا مَا قَاضَى عَلَیْهِ مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ فَقَالَ لَهُ الْمُشْرِکُونَ لَوْ نَعْلَمُ أَنَّکَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ تَابَعْنَاکَ وَلَکِنْ اکْتُبْ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ فَأَمَرَ عَلِیًّا أَنْ یَمْحَاهَا فَقَالَ عَلِیٌّ لَا وَاللَّهِ لَا أَمْحَاهَا فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَیْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَرِنِی مَکَانَهَا فَأَرَاهُ مَکَانَهَا فَمَحَاهَا وَکَتَبَ ابْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ..) [11]
The words of (لَا وَاللَّهِ لَا أَمْحَاهَا) has also been narrated in different ways:
1- (... فقال النّبی صلّى اللّه علیه و سلم لعلیّ: امحه فقال: ما انا بالّذی أمحاه فمحاه النّبی صلّى اللّه علیه و سلم بیده..) [12]
2- (... فأمر رسول اللّه صلّى اللّه علیه و سلم بمحو فقلت: لا أستطیع فقال: أرنیه، فأریته فمحاه بیده) [13] . Can these words that ‘I do not bear the ability to remove the words ‘Messenger of God’’, be attributed to anything other than respect for the status and rank of the Prophet (s)? [14]
If Imam Ali (a) had done such a thing, would it not have been said that even though the prophet (pbuh) had allowed him to disrespect him, he shouldn’t have done it?? Did he not know not to be disrespectful? In reality, the refusal of Imam Ali (a) from erasing the words on the treaty was a way of rejecting the polytheist’s position and refusing to do what they wanted to be done. Someone who pays attention to this matter will understand that Imam Ali (a) simply showed great respect to the status and position of the Prophet (s). His action was not that of protesting against the Prophet’s (a) orders. Proof of this lies in the fact that he did not have any protest in the essence of the matter itself, which was to sign the treaty.
Now in regards to Umar’s marriage to Umm Kulthoom there is some contention and differences as to its occurrence and some people repudiate it. In the case of such a marriage taking place, it was not one based on happiness and serendipity. For further information please refer to: Question 446 (site: 476) and ‘The Marriage of the 2nd Caliph with Umm Kulthoom, Question 2628 (Site: 2752)’.
In regards to the Ahlul Sunnah being the majority amongst the Muslims, this has no basis for being the decider of that group’s claim of truth. According to the Quran, being of the majority does not guarantee that one is on this path of truth, and in some certain cases, being in the majority is sometimes rebuked and criticized. [15] The fighters in the Battle of Badr numbered only 313 individuals and their opposing army was more than 3 times larger and much better equipped. Yet this did not make the larger group the more truthful one in its claim; these very people were arrayed and ready to fight against and destroy Islam. In addition, throughout history, governments and the general power were in the hands of non Shias and no stops were pulled for the destruction of this group. Therefore, it is not a matter of great surprise that the Shias are amongst the minority and their religious ideology is not amongst the dominating powers. It is possible to say that the Shia are not from amongst the majority, but if we were to gauge each of the 4 Sunni sects individually with the Shia sect, then the Shia sect would in fact be counted as being more numerous.
[1] Al-Durr al-Manthur, vol. 9, pg. 225. Also, see: Tafsir Tabari, vol. 22, pg. 246; Tafsir Baghawi, vol. 7, pg. 318; Tafsir al-Khazin, vol. 5, pg. 448; Musannaf Abdul-Razzaq, vol. 5, pg. 339; Al-Mu’jam al-Kabir lil-Tabarani, vol. 14, pg. 398; Dala’il al-Nubuwwah lil-Beyhaqi, vol. 4, pg. 159; Sahih Ibn Hayan, vol. 20, pg. 267; Al-Awsat li Ibn al-Mundhir, vol. 10, pg. 225; Al-Nasekh wal-Mansukh lil-Nuhas, vol. 2, pg. 124; Subul al-Huda wal-Rashad, vol. 5, pg. 53; Zad al-Ma’and, vol. 3, pg. 257; Mukhtasar Sirah al-Rasul, vol. 1, pg. 272; Tarikh Dameshq, vol. 57, pg. 229; Umar ibn al-Khattab, vol. 1, pg. 71; Mukhtasar Tarikh Dameshq, vol. 7, pg. 244; Tarikh al-Islam lil-Dhahabi, vol. 1, pg. 264; Nihayatul-Arb fi Funun al-Adab, vol. 4, pg. 471.
[2] The report of this incident isn't limited to these two books; for access to more sources, you can refer to the book Dala’il al-Sidq Linahjil-Haqq, vol. 5, pg. 215, Muhammad Hasan Mudhaffar Najafi. 6 volumes. Publisher: Mu’assasah Alul-Bayt, Qom, 1422; Sahih Bukhari, vol. 10, pg. 450; Tafsir Tabari, vol. 22, pg. 201; Ibn Kathir, vol. 7, pg. 354; Tarikh Tabari, vol. 2, pg. 122 (the incidents of the sixth year hijri); Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah (Ibn Hisham), vol. 4, pg. 284; Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra (Ibn Sa’d), vol. 2, pg. 78; Sharh Nahjil-Balaghah (Ibn Hadid), vol. 12, pg. 5; Al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah, vol. 4, pg. 136 (incidents of the sixth year hijri); Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah (Ibn Kathir), vol. 3, pg. 320; Al-Sirah al-Halabiyyah, vol. 2, pg. 706; and the Al-Maktabah al-Shamilah software.
[3] Najm:3 and 4.
[4] Seyyid ibn Tawus, Al-Tara’if fi Ma’rifat Madhahib al-Tawa’if, vol. 2, pg. 442, Khayyam Publications, Qom, 1400, first print.
[5] Are you not the true messenger sent to us?!
[6] I am the messenger of Allah (swt) and I don’t disobey Him and He is my helper.
[7] Wouldn’t you tell us that we will visit the Ka’bah in the near future?
[8] See: Allamah Hilli, Nahjul-Haqq wa Kashf al-Sidq, pg. 337, Dar al-Kitab al-Lubnani Publications, Beirut, 1982, first print; Kohansal, Alireza, Farsi translation of Nahjul-Haqq wa Kashf al-Sidq, pg. 348, Ashura Publications, Mashad, 1379, first print; Seyyid ibn Tawus, Tara’if fi Ma’rifat Madhahib al-Tawa’if, vol. 2, pg. 442.
[9] من طریف ذلک إقدامه على نبیهم بهذه المواقفة فی مثل تلک الحال من الصلح و شدة الحاجة إلى عون المسلمین لنبیهم بالقول و الفعل أ و کان ذلک الموقف موقف تعنیف و تخجیل و فتح لأبواب الشک فی النبوة و تقویة حجة سهیل بن عمرو و الکفار... Seyyid bin Tawus, Al-Tara’if fi Ma’rifat Madhahib al-Tawa’if, vol. 2, pg. 442.
[10] الغَیْظُ: أشدّ غضب، و هو الحرارة التی یجدها الإنسان من فوران دم قلبه، ... و التَّغَیُّظُ: هو إظهار الغیظ، و قد یکون ذلک مع صوت مسموع کما قال: سَمِعُوا لَها تَغَیُّظاً وَ زَفِیراً [الفرقان، 12]. See: Al-Mufradat fi Gharib al-Quran, pg. 620; The Abjadi Arabic-Farsi Dictionary, pg. 100.
[11] When the prophet (pbuh) was next to Beyt Mahsur, the Makkans stipulated that: Upon entering Makkah, the prophet (pbuh) and his followers not stay more than three days; Not to enter with unsheathed swords; Not to take anyone with them outside of Makkah and Not to prevent any of his followers from staying in Makkah. The prophet (pbuh) told Ali (as): “Record their conditions.” He wrote: “Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim. What has been recorded in this agreement, is a treaty between Muhammad the Messenger of Allah (sa) and the people of Makkah. Here the mushriks of Makkah objected to the prophet (pbuh) saying that if we had ever become certain that you are the messenger of God, we would have done bey’ah with you; if you want us to act upon your request, you have to write it like this: “What has been recorded in this agreement is a treaty between Muhammad ibn Abdillah and the people of Makkah. The prophet (pbuh) told Ali (as): “Erase the term “the messenger of Allah”! Ali (as) said: “By Allah! I will never erase this phrase.” The prophet (pbuh) then said: “So show me where this phrase has been written!” Ali (as) showed it to him and the prophet (pbuh) wiped that part of the writing out with his hand. See: Sahih Bukhari, the chapter on jizyah and muwada’ah with soldiers.
[12] The messenger of Allah (swt) said to Ali (as): “Erase the sentence you wrote!” Ali (as) said: “There is no way I can erase such a sentence.” The messenger of Allah (swt) himself erased the sentence. See: Sahih Bukhari, the chapter of peace; الحافظ أبو الحسن مسلم بن الحجاج القشیری النیسابوری فی «صحیحه» ج 5 ص 173 ط محمد على الصبیح .
[13] The prophet ordered me to erase it, and I said that I didn’t bear the ability to do so…See: Al-Kamel (Ibn al-Athir), vol. 3, pg. 162, published by Al-Muniriyyah Publications, Egypt). Also, see: Shushtari, Qadhi Nurullah, Ihqaq al-Haqq wa Iz’haq al-Batel, vol. 8, pg. 638; Firuzabadi, Seyyed Murteza, Fada’il al-Khamsah min al-Sihah al-Sittah, vol. 2, pp. 334-337, Islamiyyah Publications, Tehran, 1392 ah, second print.
[14] This is while there is no doubt in the total obedience of Ali (as) regarding the prophet (pbuh). We will mention two hadiths here to prove this point:
1- نزل النبیّ صلّى اللّه علیه و سلم الجحفة فی غزوة الحدیبیة فلم یجد بها ماء فبعث سعد بن مالک فرجع بالروایا و اعتذر فبعث النبیّ صلّى اللّه علیه و سلم علیا فلم یرجع حتى ملأها Ahmad bin Ali al-Asqalani famous as Ibn Hajar, Al-Isabah, vol. 3, pg. 194, Egypt; Al-Sheykh Suleyman Al-Balakhi Al-Qanduzi (1293 ah), Yanabi’ al-Mawaddah, pg. 123, Islambul.
2- فی قصة حاطب بن أبى بلتعة: و نزل جبریل فأخبر النبیّ صلّى اللّه علیه و سلم بما فعل فبعث رسول اللّه صلّى اللّه علیه و سلم علیا، و عمارا، و الزبیر، و طلحة، و المقداد بن أسود، و أبا مرثد فرسا فقال لهم: انطلقوا حتى تأتوا روضة خاخ فان بها ظعینة معها کتاب من حاطب ابن أبى بلتعة الى المشرکین فخذوا منها و خلوا سبیلها و ان لم تدفعه إلیکم فاضربوا عنقها قال: فخرجوا حتى أدرکوها فی ذلک المکان الذی قال رسول اللّه صلّى اللّه علیه و سلم فقالوا لها: این الکتاب فحلفت باللّه ما معها کتاب فبحثوها و فتشوا متاعها فلم یجدوا معها کتابا فهموا بالرجوع فقال على رضی اللّه عنه: و اللّه ما کذبنا و لا کذب رسول اللّه صلّى اللّه علیه و سلم و سل سیفه فقال: أخرجى الکتاب و الا لأجردنک و لأضربن عنقک فلما رأت الجد أخرجته من ذؤابتها و کانت قد حبسته فی شعرها فخلوا سبیلها و لم یتعرضوا لها و لا لما معها الحدیث. See: Al-Hafedh Abu Muhammad Husein bin Mas’ud al-Farra’ al-Baghawi al-Shafe’i (516 ah), Ma’alem al-Tanzil, vol. 7, pg. 62, Al-Qahirah; Al-Hafedh Ibn Kathir al-Dameshqi (774 ah), Al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah, vol. 4, pg. 283, Egypt; Jalaluddin al-Dashtaki (1000 ah), Rawdhah al-Ahbab, pg. 431; Al-Sheikh Abu Abdillah Muhammad bin Abi Bakr al-Zar’i al-Hanbali, Al-Turuq al-Hukmiyyah fil-Siyasah al-Shar’iyyah, pg. 9, Al-Sunnah al-Muhammadiyyah Publications, Egypt; Ihqaq al-Haqq wa Iz’haq al-Batil, vol. 8, pp. 640-641.
[15] Ma’idah:103. For further information on Islam’s view on democracy and the vote of the majority, see: Islam and Democracy, Question 5619 (website: 7763).
: آیا عمر در روز صلح حدبییه به پیامبر اکرم (ص) گفته است که هیچگاه به این اندازه در نبوت پیامبر شک نکرده بودم؟ 
: Apakah benar Umar pada hari perdamaian Hudaibiyyah berkata kepada Rasulullah Saw bahwa aku tidak pernah menyangsikan kenabian Rasulullah Saw seperti saat ini?
