Why did Hazrat Umar refuse to give writing materials to the Holy Prophet before his death? Dr Shabir Choudhry, London. 10 April 2026

 Why did Hazrat Umar refuse to give writing materials to the Holy Prophet before his death? Dr Shabir Choudhry, London. 10 April 2026

During a discussion on various aspects of Islam and the time of the Holy Prophet Mohammad, one colleague said that before his death, the Holy Prophet had requested writing materials so that he could leave some instructions before his death. That was denied by Hazrat Umar. I was not aware of this, and I did some research on this, and found the following reported in Sahih Bukhari, considered to be the most authentic book after the Holy Quran.

Some historians have noted that the Prophet’s request for writing materials shortly before his death, combined with later disagreements concerning succession and inheritance, indicates that questions of leadership were sensitive at the time. However, the sources do not explicitly state what the intended written statement would have contained. The relationship between these events, therefore, remains a matter of interpretation rather than established historical fact.

The question of leadership after the death of:

The Holy Prophet Muhammad in 632 CE has been one of the most discussed issues in early Islamic history.

Unlike many later political systems, no universally agreed formal mechanism of succession had been institutionalised during the Prophet’s lifetime. Leadership had been exercised through a combination of religious authority, political leadership, and personal influence.

The aim here is not theological judgment, but historical and textual analysis — identifying what can reasonably be inferred and what remains uncertain.

Narrated 'Ubaidullah bin `Abdullah:

 

Ibn `Abbas said, "When the ailment of the Prophet (ﷺ) became worse, he said, 'Bring for me (writing) paper and I will write for you a statement after which you will not go astray.' But `Umar said, 'The Prophet is seriously ill, and we have got Allah's Book with us, and that is sufficient for us.' But the companions of the Prophet (ﷺ) differed about this, and there was a hue and cry. On that, the Prophet (ﷺ) said to them, 'Go away (and leave me alone). It is not right that you should quarrel in front of me." Ibn `Abbas came out saying, "It was most unfortunate (a great disaster) that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise. (Note: It is apparent from this Hadith that Ibn `Abbas had witnessed the event and came out saying this statement. The truth is not so, for Ibn `Abbas used to say this statement on narrating the Hadith, and he had not witnessed the event personally. See Fath Al-Bari Vol. 1, p.220 footnote.) (See Hadith No. 228, Vol. 4).

(39) Chapter: The writing of knowledge. Bukhari Hadith 114. (Book 3, Hadith 56

This Hadith (Bukhari 114), often called the “Calamity of Thursday” (Raziyyat al-Khamis), is among the most discussed narrations concerning the final days of:

The Holy Prophet Muhammad

because it touches on questions of authority, succession, interpretation of scripture, and the role of companions.

Below is a careful historical and textual analysis, distinguishing between:

• What the Hadith actually says
• What it does not say
• How different scholars interpret it
• How it should be handled methodologically in an academic work

1. The Text and Immediate Context

The narration is transmitted through:

Abdullah ibn Abbas and recorded in:

Sahih al-Bukhari

It describes an incident during the Prophet’s final illness in which he reportedly requested writing materials in order to dictate a statement that would prevent the community from going astray.

According to the narration:

Umar ibn al-Khattab

It is reported to have said that the Prophet was seriously ill and that the community already possessed the Qur’an, which he considered sufficient.

The narration states that disagreement arose among those present, after which the Holy Prophet asked those present to leave, discouraging argument in his presence.

Ibn Abbas later expressed regret that the statement was not written

2. Nature of the Report

This Hadith is:

• Brief
• Lacking detail regarding the intended statement
• Transmitted through later narrators
• Open to interpretive differences

Importantly, the report does not specify:

·       What the intended written statement would have contained

·       Whether it is related to succession

·       Whether it concerned legal guidance

·       Whether it concerned general moral advice

As a result, historical interpretation necessarily involves inference.

3. Historical Context

The event is understood to have occurred shortly before the death of:

The Holy Prophet Muhammad in 632 CE.

At that time, the Muslim community had expanded rapidly across Arabia.

Questions relating to leadership, governance, and continuity would naturally have been sensitive.

Some historical works suggest that companions were concerned about placing additional strain on the Prophet during severe illness.

Others suggest that disagreement reflected uncertainty regarding how to interpret the request.

4. Key Analytical Question

Could there be a connection between:

·       The prevented writing

·       Later disagreement over succession

·       Delay in the oath of allegiance by Hazrt Ali

Some scholars and historians have explored this possibility, but the evidence remains indirect.

5. Important Observations

A. The first Hadith does not specify subject matter

The narration about writing materials does not state:

·       What the Prophet intended to write

·       Whether the subject is concerned with succession

·       Whether it concerned legal guidance

·       Whether it concerned general religious advice

Therefore, any claim that the intended statement concerned succession is interpretive rather than explicit.

6. Differences in Interpretation

Sunni interpretations

Many Sunni scholars interpret the narration as demonstrating:

·       Human disagreement among companions

·       Concern about the prophet’s health

·       Confidence that the Qur’an provided sufficient guidance

Classical commentators such as:

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani

argued that the community ultimately preserved unity and that essential religious guidance had already been conveyed.

Some Sunni scholars suggest that had the written instruction been essential for religious completion, it would have been preserved.

Shia interpretations

Some Shia scholars interpret the narration as indicating that an explicit written designation of leadership may have been prevented.

They connect this event with debates concerning succession following the death of the Prophet.

However, the Hadith itself does not explicitly mention succession.

Interpretation depends on broader theological frameworks.

Modern academic perspectives

Modern historians often treat the narration as evidence that:

·       Political uncertainty existed near the end of the Prophet’s life

·       Later disputes may have influenced how the event was remembered

·       Early Islamic history includes differing perspectives preserved in the textual tradition

Scholars such as:

Fred Donner

Note that early Islamic sources sometimes reflect later debates projected backwards into earlier narratives.

7. My observation on this matter.

1.    Since the Islamic teaching had already been completed, there could be no more Islamic teaching. His mission of Islamic teaching had been completed and confirmed by the Companions.

2.    But there were no clear instructions on who would assume the responsibilities of governance after his death.

3.    So, there is a strong possibility that he wanted to give some suggestions on this, or even name someone.

4.    Another important question is why writing materials were not given to the Holy Prophet? It was his request.

5.    This could have been his last request. Was it appropriate not to honour his request?

6.    Another point is, those who convened this meeting, why did they not invite an important personality like Hazrt Ali to this crucial meeting that was to set up the future course of appointments for the Muslim rulers?

7.    The meeting could have been delayed, and the decision could have been made after the Holy Prophet’s burial.

8.   Reliability Considerations

The Hadith is recorded in a major canonical collection:

Sahih al-Bukhari

which Sunni scholarship considers highly reliable.

However, historians distinguish between:

·       Reliability of transmission chains

·       Certainty regarding interpretation

·       Completeness of narrative context

It is notable that:

Abdullah ibn Abbas

was relatively young at the time of the Prophet’s death and may not have personally witnessed the event.

As indicated in classical commentary, he transmitted the report through other companions.

9. What the Hadith does NOT prove

The narration does not conclusively establish:

·       What the Prophet intended to write

·       That a specific political instruction was prevented

·       Those companions acted with a uniform motive

·       That a particular succession model was explicitly dictated

Therefore, strong conclusions based solely on this report are methodologically problematic.

7. Methodological Approach

In an academic context, this Hadith is best treated as:

·       Evidence of disagreement within the early community

·       An illustration of uncertainty near the prophet’s death

·       A text later interpreted differently by various traditions

It should not be used in isolation to support strong historical claims without corroborating sources.

8. Academic Summary

The narration reflects a moment of disagreement among companions during the final illness of the Prophet. The absence of detail regarding the proposed written statement has allowed later theological and political interpretations to develop. Historians, therefore, treat the report as evidence of early interpretive diversity rather than as a definitive statement regarding succession or doctrine.

Conclusion

I have attended Islamic lectures, visited different mosques, and listened to many respected scholars over the years, yet I had never heard this narration discussed openly. This made me wonder why. It is difficult to believe that such an important incident—where differences emerged among the companions while the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) was still alive—would remain absent from public religious discourse.

When I first came across this report, I assumed it might be part of Shia polemics, as many controversial historical claims are often dismissed in that way. However, when I began my own research, I was astonished to find the narration recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari, regarded by Sunni Muslims as the most authentic book of Hadith after the Qur’an. Later, I found the same event narrated in Sahih Muslim as well, with slightly different wording but the same essential meaning.

The report appears in Kitab al-Wasiyyah (The Book of Wills), commonly cited as Sahih Muslim 1637c (numbering may vary by edition).

Text of the Narration in Sahih Muslim

Narrated by Ibn Abbas:

When Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) was about to leave this world, there were several people in his house, and among them was Umar ibn al-Khattab. Allah’s Messenger said:

“Come, I may write for you a document after which you would never go astray.”

Thereupon, Hazrat Umar said:

“Verily, Allah’s Messenger is deeply afflicted with pain. You have the Qur’an with you. The Book of Allah is sufficient for us.”

Those who were present in the house differed. Some of them said:

“Bring him the writing material so that Allah’s Messenger may write a document for you, and you would never go astray after him.”

Others repeated what Umar had already said.

When they began to dispute and argue in the presence of Allah’s Messenger, he said:

“Get up (and leave).”

‘Ubaidullah reported that Ibn Abbas used to say:

“There was a heavy loss, indeed a heavy loss, that due to their dispute and noise, Allah’s Messenger could not write (or dictate) the document for them.”

Another Wording in Sahih Muslim

Another narration includes the expression that some said:

“The Messenger of Allah is in a state of unconsciousness (or overcome by pain).”

Ibn Abbas would reportedly weep while narrating this incident and referred to it as:

Raziyyat Yawm al-Khamis

“The Calamity of Thursday”

This incident later became one of the major points of discussion in Sunni-Shia debates regarding succession, authority, and leadership after the Prophet.

Difference Between Bukhari and Muslim

In Sahih al-Bukhari, the wording often appears as:

“The Prophet is seriously ill…”

while in Sahih Muslim the wording is:

“Verily Allah’s Messenger is deeply afflicted with pain…”

The wording in Muslim appears more formal and explicit, but both collections preserve the same essential event:

1. The Prophet asked for writing materials
2. Umar objected
3. The companions differed and argued
4. The Prophet ordered them to leave
5. Ibn Abbas later described it as a great calamity

This report remains one of the most discussed narrations in Islamic political history, especially in relation to succession after the Prophet and the broader question of political authority in Islam. It is highly relevant when examining the principles of leadership, consultation, and constitutional governance established in Madina.

This incident is commonly known as:

Hadith al-Qirtas (The Pen and Paper Incident) or

Raziyyat al-Khamis (The Calamity of Thursday)

I do not claim to impose an interpretation upon the reader. My purpose is not to judge the companions, nor to provoke sectarian argument, but to present what is recorded in the most authentic Sunni sources and to encourage honest reflection.

Every sincere reader has the right—and indeed the responsibility—to examine the evidence and form their own conclusion. History should not be feared; it should be understood. Only through truth, scholarship, and intellectual honesty can we approach a clearer understanding of the past.

The honourable readers may decide for themselves what this incident signifies. END.

All Wars Are Bankers’ Wars: Iran and the Bankers’ Endgame By Ellen Brown, 13 April 2026

 All Wars Are Bankers’ Wars: Iran and the Bankers’ Endgame

By Ellen Brown, 13 April 2026

“The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.”  —Prof. Caroll Quigley, Georgetown University, Tragedy and Hope (1966)

 

In February 2026, the United States and Israel launched surprise airstrikes on Iran. The officially proffered reasons — preventing Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon and forestalling its aggression — have not held up under scrutiny. As James Corbett documented in recent Corbett Report episodes, the nuclear pretext appears to be recycled propaganda, and the scale and timing of the strikes raise deeper questions about motive. 

 

The thesis that “All Wars Are Bankers’ Wars” was popularised by Michael Rivero in a 2013 documentary by that name. His accompanying article begins with a quote from Aristotle (384-322 BCE):

 

The most hated sort [of moneymaking], and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural use of it. Money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. 

 

Rivero then traces how private banking interests have financed and profited from conflicts on both sides for centuries — from the founding of the Bank of England in 1694 to fund William III’s wars to modern regime-change wars. 

 

Full-Spectrum Financial Dominance

Other commentators point to the report of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) titled “Rebuilding America’s Defences” (September 2000), which called for “full-spectrum” U.S. military forces to achieve global preeminence. It postulated the need for a “catastrophic and catalysing event — like a new Pearl Harbour” to accelerate the military transformation the authors envisioned. 

 

This was followed by a 2007 Democracy Now interview in which Gen. Wesley Clark revealed that weeks after 9/11, he had been shown a classified Pentagon memo outlining plans to “take out seven countries in five years”: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off with Iran. The first six have since been destabilised or regime-changed. Iran, considered the ultimate prize for Middle East dominance and oil control, remains the last one standing. 

 

Why those seven, and why was Iran the ultimate prize? Greg Palast’s 2013 article titled “Larry Summers and the Secret ‘End-Game’ Memo” supplied the missing financial logic. In 1999, the world was opened to unregulated derivatives trading, so that sovereign bonds, oil flows, shipping routes, and war-risk policies could all be collateralised, rehypothecated (pledged multiple times over), and gambled upon. The lynchpin was the 1997 WTO Financial Services Agreement (the Fifth Protocol to GATS), which became operational in 1999. 

 

None of the seven targeted countries joined the WTO, and they were also not members of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). That left them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers’ central bank in Switzerland. Other countries that were later identified as “rogue states” were also not members of the BIS, including North Korea, Cuba, and Afghanistan. 

 

As for Iran, it is not only the largest and strongest of the Islamic countries but also operates the world’s only fully interest-free (riba-free) banking regime. This stands in direct contrast to the conventional Western model, which relies on interest as its primary revenue mechanism. “Money making money out of itself” underpins the global derivatives complex, which is built on rehypothecated, collateralised debt-at-interest.

 

The last piece in the financial control grid was detailed in David Rogers Webb’s 2024 book The Great Taking. The Everything Bubble, including what some commentators estimate to be more than a quadrillion dollars in derivative bets, is just waiting for a pin. When it bursts, it will trigger large institutional bankruptcies; and under the legal machinery Webb documents, the derivative players will take all. 

 

The 2026 Hormuz insurance crisis triggered by Lloyd’s of London could be that pin. More on all that below.

The City of London and Lloyd’s Weaponise Chaos

 

For more than three centuries, the City of London – the “Square Mile” that is London’s financial centre — has financed both sides of wars and sold insurance against the destruction that would follow. Lloyds of London is the insurance pillar of the City’s financial control grid. It is not actually an insurance company but is a corporate body that “operates as a partially-mutualised marketplace within which multiple financial backers, grouped in syndicates, come together to pool and spread risk.” 

 

Lloyds has built its reputation on always performing, but it performs at a cost. In 1898, it formalised long-standing practice by introducing the “Free of Capture and Seizure” clause, stripping war risks from standard policies so it could charge extortionate premiums when conflict erupted. It exercised that clause in both world wars and is exercising it in 2026.

 

After the strikes on Iran, Lloyd’s Joint War Committee expanded its “high-risk” zone in the Middle East. Several of its underwriters issued 72-hour cancellation notices effective March 5, and war-risk premiums for Hormuz transits jumped from 0.25% to 1–5% of hull value. Lloyds has stressed that coverage remains available — at the right price. But for a $100 million oil tanker, that means an extra $1–5 million per voyage, a premium the owners are understandably reluctant to pay. 

The Private Credit Spark

Meanwhile, other dark clouds are hovering over the market. Financial analyst Stephanie Pomboy warns that the $1.5-3 trillion private credit market is in lockdown, forcing fire sales of liquid assets, and the much larger $5 trillion BBB-rated corporate bond market is teetering. Downgrades will force mass selling, and pensions face a $4 trillion shortfall. 

 

The Hormuz crisis supplies the perfect accelerant to this collateral crisis: higher oil prices create inflation, which raises bond yields (interest), collapsing the value of collateral and triggering margin calls across the derivatives game board. Margin calls then force private credit funds into fire sales. 

 

This is one reason some commentators point to the City of London as the real architect of the Middle East chaos. The old war-insurance machine and the new derivatives machine operate together. One creates the chaos premium; the other harvests it through rehypothecation and legal seizure.

 

Palast and the End Game Memo: Making the World Safe for Derivatives 

Guaranteeing against shipping loss is one type of insurance, but a much bigger insurance trap is the derivatives market. Sold as a form of insurance against market risk, derivatives are a speculative betting game that extracts rents from all major economic flows. 

 

In his 2013 article, Greg Palast presented evidence of a secret 1997 memo to Deputy Treasury Secretary Larry Summers from Timothy Geithner (then U.S. Ambassador to the WTO acting for Summers) describing the “End-Game” of the WTO Financial Services negotiations. Geithner wrote to Summers,

“As we enter the end-game… I believe it would be a good idea for you to touch base with the CEOs ….”

 

The memo then listed the private phone numbers of Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Citibank, and Chase Manhattan, numbers which Palast confirmed were real.

What was the end-game? Palast wrote: 

 

US Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin was pushing hard to de-regulate banks.  That required, first, repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act to dismantle the barrier between commercial banks and investment banks.  It was like replacing bank vaults with roulette wheels.

Second, the banks wanted the right to play a new high-risk game: “derivatives trading.” … Deputy Treasury Secretary Summers (soon to replace Rubin as Secretary) body-blocked any attempt to control derivatives.

 

But what was the use of turning U.S. banks into derivatives casinos if money would flee to nations with safer banking laws?

 

The answer conceived by the Big Bank Five: eliminate controls on banks in every nation on the planet – in one single move.… The bankers’ and Summers’ game was to use the Financial Services Agreement, an abstruse and benign addendum to the international trade agreements policed by the World Trade Organisation.

… The new rules of the game would force every nation to open its markets to Citibank, JP Morgan and their derivatives “products.”

 

And all 156 nations in the WTO would have to smash down their own Glass-Steagall divisions between commercial savings banks and the investment banks that gamble with derivatives.

 

The WTO Financial Services Agreement became the battering ram for opening global markets to this derivative play. Every member nation was forced to open its banking system or face sanctions. In 1999, the portion of Glass-Steagall separating investment banking from depository banking in the U.S. was repealed, leaving depositors’ money vulnerable to speculative risk. Derivatives then exploded. Sovereign bonds, oil contracts, shipping insurance policies, and war-risk premiums were all sliced into credit-default swaps, hedges, and other derivative products.

 

Derivatives trading has since become one of the most concentrated and profitable businesses on the planet, and it is almost entirely controlled by a handful of megabanks. According to data from the Bank for International Settlements and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the top five U.S. banks alone hold roughly 90% of all U.S. bank derivatives, with JPMorgan, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley dominating the global over-the-counter market. These institutions capture the lion’s share of derivative profits, especially during periods of volatility when the “chaos premium” spikes. 

“The Great Taking” — the Legal Trap Granting Derivatives Super-Priority in Bankruptcy 

 

In The Great Taking, David Rogers Webb lays bare the final piece in this financial control grid: virtually every security today is dematerialised (digitised) and pooled in central depositories. Quiet changes to the Uniform Commercial Code and equivalent E.U. rules have turned ordinary investors into mere “entitlement holders” holding only a legal claim against their brokerages. 

 

As for bank depositors, they have for centuries been categorised as mere “creditors” of their banks. Once the money is deposited, legal title passes to the bank. The depositor holds only a contractual claim (a demand liability) that ranks as an unsecured creditor position in the event of insolvency. 

 

In any insolvency, stocks, bonds, and deposits are legally collateral for the derivatives complex — collateral that has been rehypothecated multiple times over. And when the derivative collateral fails, the rehypothecated house of cards that has been built on it collapses. Margin calls cascade, super-priority is triggered, and the Great Taking begins. (For more on this quite complicated subject, see Webb’s book and my earlier article here.)

 

Iran’s Interest-Free Islamic Banking: The Structural Obstacle

So, what did it matter if Iran and a handful of other countries declined to join in this lucrative bankers’ game? The risk was that when depositors and shareholders realised that they did not actually own their funds, they would move their assets to those safe zones. The holdout countries were also safe from the sort of sanctions imposed by Western governments (and enforced by Western banks and clearing houses) on Russian central bank assets after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. 

 

Leading this band of holdouts was Iran, which, since its 1983 Law for Usury-Free Banking Operations, has run the world’s only fully interest-free (riba-free) banking regime. Its banks use Sharia-compliant contracts — profit-sharing (musharakah), cost-plus financing (murabaha), and leasing (ijara) — instead of charging or paying interest. This banking model stands in direct contrast to the conventional Western model, which relies on interest as its primary revenue stream and underpins the global derivatives complex with collateralised, rehypothecated debt. 

 

Iran’s system was designed to eliminate usury and align finance with real economic activity and risk-sharing rather than speculative debt. It has long been viewed as structurally incompatible with the interest-based, collateral-heavy architecture of City of London and Wall Street finance — an architecture that requires perpetual debt servicing and easily rehypothecated assets to feed the derivatives machine. 

 

By rejecting interest at the national level, Iran has thus insulated itself and its financial partners from the control grid that has made the global “Great Taking” possible.

 

The Insurance Chaos Has Softened, but the “Black Swan” Still Hovers 

The Strait of Hormuz is not fully closed, but traffic remains severely reduced under Iran’s selective, permission-based transit regime. Only vessels from “friendly” or non-hostile nations are being cleared after prior coordination with Iranian authorities. Significant backlogs persist, with more than 1,000 vessels reported waiting or diverted and over 34,000 shipping routes rerouted in the first four weeks of disruption. 

 

President Trump’s $20 billion reinsurance facility, announced on March 6, is now operational and has been doubled to $40 billion. Additional major U.S. insurers have joined, while Lloyd’s of London has engaged in related discussions. The facility remains centred on American carriers with U.S. government backing. But analysts doubt it will restart widespread commercial traffic without broader liability protection and safer conditions. 

 

In short, the “insurance chaos” trigger has eased but has not vanished. Premiums remain elevated, uncertainty lingers, and the collateral and derivatives pressures Webb described are still in play.

 

Conclusions and Resolutions

The 2007-08 Global Financial Crisis (GFC) is now widely regarded as having been triggered by the unchecked explosion of unregulated derivatives — especially credit default swaps and collateralised debt obligations — which turned subprime mortgages into a systemic time bomb. The damage was not confined to the United States: developing countries suffered heavily as well. 

 

Today the risk of a crash is even greater than during the GFC. The global OTC derivatives market has officially ballooned to a notional value of $846 trillion, more than seven times the size of the entire world economy.  

 

Long-range political solutions are possible. Congress could restore Glass-Steagall and impose a financial transaction tax. State governments could withdraw their approval of relevant portions of the UCC and form public banks that can protect against local bank bankruptcies. (See my earlier articles here and here.) 

 

But the immediate need in the current context is to settle the conflict with Iran, and settle it fast, before another black-swan shock ignites the derivatives daisy chain and activates the final Great Taking on a global scale.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

This article was first posted as an original to ScheerPost.com.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books including Web of Debt, The Public Bank Solution, and Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age. Her 400+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com. 

She is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from the author

https://www.globalresearch.ca/all-wars-bankers-wars-iran/5922072