Some of them demanded that pen and paper be given to the...

Some of them demanded that pen and paper be given to the Prophet so that he may write the will, which would save people from going astray, while others supported Umar. When the noise increased, the Prophet ordered the people to leave him alone. Abdullah ibn Masood narrates that Ibn Abbas used to say: The greatest catastrophe was that the people didn’t allow the Prophet to write the will by opposing one another and shouting loudly.

This tradition is also recorded by Imam Muslim Nishapuri in his Sahih Muslim at the end of ‘the book of Testaments’. It is also narrated by Ahmad ibn Hanbal from Ibn Abbas. Apart from this, countless narrators and historians have recorded this incident. Most narrators considered the words, ‘Innan nabiyya layahjuru’ (the Prophet is talking nonsense) offensive and replaced them with ‘innan nabiyya qad ghalaba alaihil waj-u’ (the Prophet is overcome by pain) meaning the Prophet is affected by pain.

However the fact is that Umar had called the Prophet’s words, ‘rubbish’. The narrators who came later on, considered this word offensive and replaced it. Refer to Kitabus Saqifah, a book by Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Abdul Aziz Jauhari which tries to prove this point. Many people had gathered at the Prophet’s house when he was at his death bed. Umar ibn Khattab was one of them.

The Prophet ordered that ink and paper be brought to him to enable him to write something for the people that they do not go astray after him. Upon this, Umar said a few words, which meant the Prophet is affected by pain and ‘we have the Quran with us’. ‘The Book of Allah is sufficient for us’. The people gathered in the house started opposing each other. Some of them wanted that paper and ink be given to the Prophet while others supported Umar.

When the commotion increased, the Prophet ordered everyone to leave the place. From the words of Jauhari, it is clear that the phrase, ‘the Prophet is affected by pain’ is an explanation of the original statement of Umar. The fact is that Umar had rejected the Prophet’s words saying that they were ‘rubbish’.

Hence we see that when narrators relate this incident along with the word ‘rubbish’, their sectarian link does not permit them to openly write about the person who called the Prophet’s words ‘rubbish’ and who attacked his mental state. When they reach this incident, they leave its explanation incomplete, instead of covering every detail.