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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
- The Prophet asked for writing materials
- Umar objected
- The companions differed and argued
- The Prophet ordered them to leave
- 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment