At Hudaybiyyah, after the signing of the peace treaty by the Holy Prophet (s), Umar came and said to the Prophet (s): “Are we not on the path of truth and they on the path of falsehood? Then why must we accept abjectness and wretchedness in our religion?” Umar and all of the companions were ready to fight for the conquest of Makkah to the last drop of their blood and they announced their readiness with these words. In spite of all this, you Shias try to influence this story’s conclusion in an evil manner and say that Umar had actually said to the Prophet (s) that he had never doubted in his prophethood as much as he did on that day?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. .

اسلام کوئست

Reference:

Created in 1400/12/21

Short link