Chronologically, this incident happened after the prophet ordered most of the companions to join the military expedition of Usama ibn Zayd and after Abu Bakr's despicable attempt to lead the congregational prayers on behalf of the prophet.

They accused the prophet of speaking nonsense because the pain of his illness overtook him, they accused him of being delirious. The messenger only speaks the truth and not out of desire. Allah taught him and he attained completion:

Would an honored messenger speak nonsense?? It is allah who honored him and not a human being. Would Allah send us a prophet who will talk nonsense and be delirious at any instance of his life?? This is a prophet, source of guidance for God's sake, an infallible!!! Did any other prophet speak nonsense in any instance of his life??? Certainly not! Then how could the seal of prophethood, the noble and the truthful speak nonsense?? How obnoxious their behaviour was indeed!

The necessity to believe in the messenger of Allah: Could the noble prophet speak nonsense when Allah orders us to believe in his prophet who will make for us a light with which we will walk (guidance)?!

Unconditional obedience to the prophet: Allah has ordered us to obey the prophet. He did not say to obey him under some specific circumstances. This form of unconditional obedience describes our belief in him.

Those who disobeyed the prophet are unbelievers and Allah does not love the unbelievers.

Once the prophet decides on a matter, no one is allowed to intervene to alter the decision:

We ought to respect every decision made by the prophet

All the above verses teach us that obedience to the messenger is unconditional. One's voice should not be raised above that of the prophet or in his presence. Obedience to the prophet is obedience to Allah. Any matter decided by the prophet should not be disputed, his judgement is the final decision. So don't you think that the incident of thursday was a big mistake and a sign of pure disobedience to Allah (SWT) and his messenger Muhammad (s)?!

Here are the takeaway points of the above narration:

1. The prophet desired to write a document that will protect the Muslims and believers from straying off.
2. As a result, the companions disputed in the presence of the prophet
3. The translator of the narration writes that the companions asked whether the prophet lost conciousness and said: "try to understand what he is saying." Why would they say "try to understand what he is saying" if the prophet really lost consciousness? The fact is the term they used Ahjara means to talk nonsense and not to lose consciousness! The translator deceifully gave the incorrect translation of the word used to mislead the readers and hide the gravity of the incident! So they were saying: "Is he talking nonsense? try to understand what he is saying."
4. The prophet made his will: Turn out the polytheists from the territory of Arabia, show hospitality to the (foreign) delegations as I used to show them hospitality.
5. Sa'id b. Jubair said that Ibn Abbas kept silent on the third point, or he (the narrator) just forgot what the third point was.

The next narration provides some new crucial details:

Here are the takeaway points of the above narration:

1. Umar ibn al-Kbattab was present in the room.
2. The prophet desired to write a document that will protect the Muslims and believers from straying off.
3. Umar interjected and 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"
4. The people in the room splat in two groups: a group that wanted the prophet to write the document and the other groups led by Umar who did not want the prophet to write the document.
5. The two groups indulged in loud dispute in the presence of the prophet.
6. The prophet expelled them from the room due to their dispute and noise.
7. The prophet could not write the document for them.
8. ibn Abbas considered it a heavy loss and cried heavily about the incident.

In the following narration, the translator gives a better interpretation of the word Ahjara. He translates it to delirious, which in this context (the prophet was very ill) means temporary disorder of mental faculties, hallucinating, having delusions or talking nonsense.

The takeaway points of the above narration are about the same the one reported by Muslim (#4014).

The following four narrations repeat the same points and the last three of them point that the prophet expelled them from the room and could not write his will. ibn Abbas called it a great desaster!

The following narration brings few more details:

Here are the takeaway points of the above narration:

1. There were women in the room with a screen sepearating them from the men.
2. The prophet desired to write a document for them and you they never be misguided till eternity.
3. The women wanted the prophet to write the document.
4. But Umar told the women to keep quiet and accused them of being like the wives of Yusuf when he was ill...
5. The prophet responded: "They (the wives of the prophet) are better than you (Umar and his followers)"

Ahmad ibn Hanbal reported several of this narrations and here the links:
http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?hnum=1834&doc=6
http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?hnum=2835&doc=6
http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?hnum=2945&doc=6
http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?hnum=3165&doc=6

Here is an interesting narration from Musnad Ahmad as well:

Here is the narration reported by ibn Abdul Hadeed in Sharh Nahjul Balagha:

al-Tabarani reported the following narration from Umar ibn Khattab, in his Mu'ujam al-Awsat:

Clearly, as the other narrations have shown, Umar's impudent interruption was a clear intention to oppose the prophet's order! Allah said in the Quran:

Was not Umar's action that of an enemy?? Does Umar know better than the prophet about the fate of this Ummah? Does he have any right to oppose the prophet's order??? Umar's intentions were clear. He did not want the prophet to remind his companions of what he declared at Ghadeer Khum. Umar was determined to do what it takes to oppose Ali's successorship! Otherwise, what was he afraid of?? Recall that Umar was not even supposed to be in Medina! He was ordered to join to ilitary expedition of Usama ibn Zayd. Not only has he disobeyed the prophet's order to join Usama's army, he dared to be in the house of the prophet and oppose the prophet's will to write an important document. Yes, it is because of Umar's evil intentions and deeds that we are so divided and torn apart today!

al-Tabarani also reported the following narration, in Mu'ujam al-Kabeer:

Do you see how much tensions was in the room of the prophet, just before his demise, and just because he wanted to write them a document after which they would never be misguided?? Is this how these misguided companions planned to thank the prophet?? They have truly erred.

A group of the companions and the women wanted the prophet to write such document, but Umar and his party did not. The disobeying party said that the prophet was talking nonsense! Is this how the prophet is supposed to be treated on his deathbed?? Is this how you treat him when all he wanted is ensure that the Muslims do not stray off? Is this how you respect and treat the prophet, especially when he is in pain and dying?? Have they forgotten who they were talking to??? Have they forgotten that they were talking to the master of all prophets, the seal of prophethood, the beloved of Allah, the prophet that does not speak from desire but from revelation??? The sound mind cannot find any excuse for such despicable behaviour.

The people differed in their opinions and began to dispute loudly in the room, although it was improper to differ in front of a prophet. other narrations say that they made much noise and differed greatly before the Prophet. This is the Quran's response to such behaviour:

The prophet responded to their disrespect, accusations and nonsense:

In other narrations:

Clearly, the prophet did not approve of their behaviour, that is the behaviour of those who provoked the turmoil!

Umar said to the prophet:

In other words, Umar is telling the prophet they don't need his document, they don't need his Sunnah, as the Quran is enough and that is all is needed. Not only is this response disrespecful and vilifying, but stems from Umar's ignorance and blindness, for the following reasons:

1. Hadith al-Thqalayn, in which the prophet ordered his Ummah to adhere to the Quran and Ahlul Bayt, clearly proves that the Quran is not enough! Yes, the Quran is the book of Allah and complete, but someone is needed to clarify it for us. Has Umar understood everything in the Quran and message of Allah? How would the future generation understand the message of the prophet without the Sunnah???

2. Today, don't we need the Sunnah to understand the Quran??? Can we comprehend the Quran without reference to the Hadith??

3. If Umar was convinced that the Quran was sufficient for us, then why did he seek the help of Imam Ali to solve the daily problems presented to him during his reign? Did he not pray to Allah to never be put in a front a complicated case without the presence of Ali??
   Sa'id al-Musayyib reported: "Umar Ibn al-Khattab used to beg God to preserve him from a perplexing case which the father of al-Hasan was not present to decide." Furthermore Umar said: "If there was not Ali, Umar would have perished."
   فقال عمر: أعوذ بالله أن أعيش في قوم لست فيهم يا أبا حسن
   لولا عليّ هلك عمر

   Clearly, Umar's claim is pure ignorance! The guy was not even aware of the Law of Tayammum!

   What is the basis of Umar's statement? A revelation? Knowledge? What knowledge would that be?? Why did he not oppose the prophet duting his Hadith or when he was explaining the Quran? Why did he have to say what he said then, at that moment, when the prophet did not want but to put in writing what is best for the Muslims???

   Quran 16:44
   With clear arguments and scriptures; and We have revealed to you the Reminder that you may make clear to men what has been revealed to them, and that haply they may reflect.
   بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ وَالزُّبُرِ وَأَنزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الذِّكْرَ لِتُبَيِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ مَا نُزِّلَ إِلَيْهِمْ وَلَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ

And the prophet responded:

Umar's disrespectful behavior and disobedience caused the prophet to rebuke him by telling him that His (prophet's) wives were better than Umar and his supporters. How could a believer demean the wives of the prophet, in front of the prophet, and in his house, and on his deathbed???? Is this truly the character of a believer??

As a result of all this, the prophet did not write the document:

As the Quran states, it is not fitting for a believer to have any option about a matter decided by the prophet:

Umar interrupted the prophet, he claimed that the Quran was enough (which is a lie), his supporters repeated that he said and accused the prophet of talking nonsense! I wonder why History does not name who these people are! To this, the Quran says that whoever intervenes against what the prophet has decided, is indeed on a clearly wrong Path. Moroever, this is clearly not the character of a believer!

The Quran also states that all believers must obey the prophet:

Has the disobeying party allowed the prophet to write his document?? Have they not disobeyed the order of the prophet to bring him the materials so he could write them that document??

Has the desobeying party followed the prophet during this calamity?? Have they listened to him?? Have they obeyed him as Allah made it incombent upon them to do so??

No wonder ibn Abbas wept till the stones on the ground were soaked with his tears. No wonder he considered this day a disaster, a heavy loss and calamity!!! Is this the way to treat the prophet on his deathbed? Is this the way to treat the prophet after all he has done for the Ummah???

What further proves their erring is not only their loud disputes in the presence of the prophet, but that the prophet rejected the saying of the opposition and expelled the companions from his room. Don't you think the angered the prophet what what they have done, especially when he was on his deathbed and wanted to save them with this blessed writing, which is coming from Allah and not from him?? Most certainly, he willed to write something he had already mention, but wanted to emphasize it in writing to make sure the message gets across to everyone.

ibn Sa'ad reported in Tabaqat al-Kubra a narration from Jabir ibn Abdullah that when the prophet asked the writing materials to write a document that will prevent the Nation from straying off, there was great hue and sayings, and Umar spoke, then the prophet rejected his saying.

It is not clear who the prophet expelled. Did he expel the disobeying group or did he expel them all? Logically, the prophet will not expel those who obey him.

The prophet's demise was nearing, and he wanted to reiterate his warning to his nation for the last time against descension and disunity and any straying from the right path. The prophet was concerned about the status of his young and weak nation. He had knowledge of the calamities that were about to strike the nation. Calamities such as Muslims turning apostates, cutting one another throats for the worldly things, rulers that do not judge by the Quran and the Sunnah of the prophet, oppressors and so on. He foretold lots of mishaps.

History has witnessed such calamities:

1. The usurpation of the Caliphate from its rightful owners
2. The usurpation of the inheritance of the progeny of the prophet and the properties of Fatimah
3. The burning of the Hadith
4. The introduction of innovations into Islam
5. The fabrication of Hadith
6. Mistreatment of Ahlul Bayt
7. Oppression of the Muslims and the stealing of their properties
8. Denial of Ahlul Bayt's virtues and supreme knowledge.
9. Those who renagaded after the demise of the prophet.
10. The competing for the pleasures of this world.
11. The cutting of the throats of one another.

Here are some of these traditions:

Some scholars report that the prophet wanted to provide a written proof of the appointment of His successor, who was Ali ibn Abi Talib. A topic the prophet had addressed on several occasions, one of them being on His last sermon at Ghadir Khum, when he said: Whomsoever I am his master, Ali is also his master. Umar himself came to congratulate Ali. The companions who opposed the writing of the will knew about the prophet's decision, and their disgraceful opposition demonstrated their enmity to Ali and their refusal to let him be their caliph. Again, if the prophet wanted Abu Bakr to be the caliph, he wouldn't have sent him, along with Umar and other prominent Quraishi to Syria, in the military expedition of Usamah bin Zaid. But they did not go. Because they were concerned about the caliphate issue instead of the stability of the Ummah!

The renown scholar Imam Abdul Hamid Ghazzali said:

It appears that Umar admits that the prophet's will was to nominate Ali as his successor. But he also said that this will was not Allah's. In this scenario, Umar exonerates himself from disobeying the prophet, but he argued that the will of the prophet was different from that of Allah.

First, we have already showed by Quranic verses that every believer is ordered to obey the messenger unconditionally and that obedience to the prophet is obedience to Allah. The verses also show that decisions made by the prophet cannot be overruled (Quran 33:36)! And finally, disobedience to the prophet is also desobedience to Allah, which makes the person an unbeliever and his goods of no effect. Umar not only prevented the prophet from writing his will but he accused him of being delusional, or to be less aggressive, some say Umar accused him of not knowing what he was saying because he was overwhelmed with great pain. He therefore disobeyed him and Allah and disrespected him as well. According to the Quran, Umar strayed off the path of a believer:

How could his sinful act be in the interest of Islam?? The prophet, the bearer of the message and the most knowledgeable, is the only one to know what the interests of the nation are and how to protect it, not Umar! Muhammad was the prophet and not Umar!! Muhammad received the revelation and not Umar! How could any one know what can protect the Ummah from straying off the right path better than the prophet who has made and guided this Ummah?? Who knows the enemies of this Ummah better than its master??? It is obvious that either Umar was ignorant of the verses of the Quran and of the true virtues of the prophet or his blindness overcame him.

Second, Umar says that the will of the prophet was not Allah's will. In other words, the prophet's will was to make Ali his true successor, but this was not the will of Allah. Is it possible for the prophet to desire a will different from that of Allah, the One who chose him over all livings to carry His message to mankind? Is this possible? Is this how he supports his evil action?? Since when during the prophethood of Muhammad, He has uttered a word, make a deed or made a decision from his own desire??? The prophet would not decide on something without the consent of Allah. Every deed, saying or action is acted upon after revelation from Allah. As the Quran puts it:

What does the request of the prophet remind you of? He said: "Come near let me write for you a writing after which you will never go astray." What hadith has the prophet unceasingly repeated to his companions to save them from ever straying off the right path?? Is it not hadith al-Thaqalyn??

Umar knew this very well and his will was to remove Ahlul Bayt from this picture, which is why he said: "Allah's Book is sufficient for us."

Some (very fierce haters of the Shia'a) say that what the prophet wanted to write is clear and they refer to the following narration in Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim, which they use to justify the caliphate of Abu Bakr:

Since they believe that everything in Sahih Muslim and Bukhari is authentic, they therefore claim that this hadith is authentic and identifies what the prophet wanted to write.

Boy, there are many problems with this claim:

1. First, most of the Sunni scholars agree that the prophet never hinted and shared a Hadith stating that Abu Bakr was his successor. Please refer to the following link for more details.

2. Second, if the prophet desired to make Abu Bakr the next caliph, how could he not find the time to do this in public, in front of everyone, so that no one who witnessed it can argue against it and reject it. Will this not create more doubt if the prophet does it in private??

3. Third, why did not the prophet make Abu Bakr the caliph of the Muslims at Ghadeer Khum, in front of the 100,000 witnesses? Was this not the perfect opportunity??

4. Fourth, the prophet had already made Ali his successor at Ghadeer Ghadeer, and of course they will deny that. In fact, they have denied it!

5. Fifth, if their narration is true, then why did not Abu Bakr use it to justify his caliphate when Ahlul Bayt and their followers rejected it??? Why did he not use it to justify his right to the caliphate in al-Saqifa??

6. Sixth, the fact that Ahlul Bayt rejected the caliphate of Abu Bakr means that Abu Bakr did something wrong, because Ahlul bayt are the second of the Thaqalayns and do not differ from the Quran and Sunnah of the prophet.

7. Seventh, what are these virtues that Abu Bakr has so that the prophet can succeed him?? Is he the image of the prophet? Is he the best of people after the prophet?? Is he better than Ahlul Bayt?? Did he inherit the knowledge of the prophet?? Is the most knowledgeable of all after the prophet?? Is he the bravest of all?? Is he the purest of all?? Is he the male first Muslim after the prophet?? Is he the most pious and truthful?? Is he the most obedient to Allah and his prophet? The fact is he has nothing to all of these!!!! Read the chapter of Ahlul Bayt and find out for yourself what they are worth. It is enough to remind you of Hadith al-Thaqalayn. All the companions envied Ali and Ahlul Bayt for their unmatched virtues, and not Abu Bakr.

8. Eigth, If it was the prophet's desire to make Abu Bakr his successor, why did he order him to join the army of Usama??? Did he forget he wanted to make him his successor???

9. Where in this Hadith does it talk about Khilafat??

10. Ninth, Look at the narrators of this Hadith: al-Zuhri and Urwa ibn Zubayr. U'urwa ibn Zubayr ibn A'awam is the son of the companion al-Zubayr, and he was born during the caliphate of Umar. He is known to have hated Imam Ali and he fought against him in the battle of the Camel, just like his father! Did not the prophet say that whoever hates Ali is a hypocrite and whoever loves Ali is a believer. Therefore, this Urwa, whom is considered a good man by the Sunni (and blindly accept his Hadith without scrutiny) was a hypocrite because of his hatred for Ali.

    ibn Abdul Hadid reported in Sharh Nahjul Balagha that al-Zuhri and Urwa were together and insulted Imam Ali. The news reached al-Hussein so he came to them...

    وكان الزهري من المنحرفين عنه، وروى جرير بن عبدالحميد عن محمد بن شيبة قال: شهدت مسجد المدينة، فإذا الزهري وعروة ابن الزبيرجالسان يذكران علياً فنالا منه. فبلغ ذلك علي بن الحسين فجاء حتى وقف عليهما فقال: أما أنت يا عروة، فإن أبي حاكم أباك إلى الله فحكم لأبي على أبيك، وأما أنت يا زهري، فلو كنت بمكة لأريتُك كير أبيك»
    وروى عاصم بن أبي عامر البجلي، عن يحيى بن عروة، قال: كان أبي إذا ذكر علياً نال منه

    How can you rely on a narration transmitted by Urwa and al-Zuhri, especially when it concerns the caliphate?? Are these the kind of narrations you use to refute people's claim?? Let's not forget that Aishah hated Ali as well! The 2 Sihah are full of narrations from unreliable people, hypocrites, haters of Ahlul Bayt. Yet, they claim everything in it is Saheeh.

In fact, the same people who made the above claim, also love Mua'awiya!!! The same Mua'awiya who fought Ali and rejected his caliphate. The same Mu'awiya who started the tradition of insulting Ali on the Pulpits of the Mosques for 90 years!!! In fact, I don't understand how someone can love the prophet, his Ahlul bayt and their enemies at the time! I don't get it, just as I don't get the trinity: God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, but all in one! If people think this trinity makes sense in the Christian world, then we have Muslims that find it logic to love Allah, the prophet, his Ahlul bayt and their enemies. LUDICROUS!

In the end, you can believe all you want. Allah gave you that choice, but he also gave you a brain for logical reasonning and critical thinking. I find it interesting and desappointing that when it comes to topics like these (where Abu Bakr and Umar are involved), many Muslims spend their time refuting the reasoning of the Shia'a rather than focusing on the essence of the story. Forget about what the Shia'a say and don't let it confuse you or provoque you. Just use your brain and decide for yourself what makes sense. Stop using fabrications to justify your position! Use commonsense as well.

Some companions came to Aisha and told her that the prophet made a will regarding Ali. But she refuted the news because she claimed that the prophet passed away on her chest and that he never made any will regarding Ali.

Another narration reports that the prophet did not make any will at all.

Yet, the next narration reports that the prophet was resting on Ali's chest before his last breath.

Another narration that supports this fact is the following:

History testified to these predictions and have been discussed in the chapter dealing with the companions. History testified how they cut the throats of one another in the battle of the Camel, Nahrawan, Siffin and at Karbala'. History testified how Abu Bakr fought all the Muslims who refused to pay the zakat to him and called them Ahlul Ridda. So take a breath and realize that the companions are humans like you, they make mistakes and many committed atrocities in the name of Allah! So stop coming up with ridiculous excuses to defend them even when they err!

In the room there were two groups: the group that clearly heard the request of the prophet and wanted to obey him and allow him to write the document, and the group led by Umar, that repeated what Umar said and objected to the demand of the prophet. The opposing group pretented not to understand what the prophet was saying and accused him of delirium or talking nonsense (read the narrations again before accusing me of making this up). The opposing group caused the loud and disrespectful dispute, which they are not allowed to do in the presence of the prophet. Their irresponsable and ill-mannered behavious angered the prophet and expelled them and made them understand that his state was better than what they accused him of. Clearly, the two groups groups can't be both right. Obedience is the keyword here. Unconditional obedience does not allow excuses for those who fail to obey! This is commonsense. The fact is that in this event, the companions led by Umar erred and they erred big time! You would assume that by that time, they would have learned not to raise their voices and dispute in the presence of the prophet, but they have not! Umar and Abu Bakr have made that mistake before, and here again, Umar causes it! They disrespected the prophet and disobeyed his order. At the end, they prevented him from writing his will and expelled them from the room! They have caused a great disaster and a heavy loss, as ibn Abbas narrated.

The following are some of the ridiculous pretexts they used based on their own point of views to justify the actions of Umar in the calamity of Thursday. All of this so they can preserve his so-called honor or diginity. As if it was not enough of a great sin to treat the prophet of delirious or talk disrespectfully to his wowen, when all he wanted was save his nation for the last time from straying off.

1. They argue that the prophet wanted to test the companions instead of actually writing what he intended. The prophet had more than 23 years to test his nation. He is not going to do so when he is nearing his demise. The proof of that is that the prophet was so desappointed of their reactions that he angrily expelled the companions from the house (probably the opposition group). If those who opposed were right, the prophet would not have expelled the companions. He would have shown his appreciation. But they strayed by desobeing the order of the prophet, as they did when the prophet ordered them to join the army of Usama ibn Zayd. What about the fact that ibn Abbas description of this incident as a catastrophe, a calamity, with tears pouring out strongly!!! Is this not an indication that this is was no test and that Umar and his followers did an evil thing, while the prophet was nearing his demise? What a great way to bid farewell to the prophet!!! It is a disgrace that such a man (Umar) became the caliph of the Muslims!!!!

2. They argue that the intention of Umar was to relieve the prophet from the burden of writing since he was seriously ill:
   Thereupon Umar said: Verily Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) is deeply afflicted with pain...
   فقال ‏ ‏عمر ‏ ‏إن رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏قد غلب عليه الوجع...

   First of all, any companions capable of writing could have done the writing himself. Umar could have taken this writing task if he really wanted to help! But he did not. He just rejected the entire idea of having the document written! The prophet knew best about his situation. He knew well that he could dictate what he wanted to be written.

   Is this situation any worse than the burden the prophet had to carry for 23 years to spread the message of Allah, through rejection, bloody wars, threats, stoning and more?? Was the carrying of a pen and the writing of that document any worse than these events?? This is just a pretext so they can defend their master Umar! The prophet responded to them:

   Leave me, for my present state is better than what you call me for.
   فقال دعوني فالذي أنا فيه خير مما تدعوني إليه.

   The companions were there to listen, learn and obey, and not to prevent him from what he intented to do for them! I remind the reader of the following verse:

   Quran 33:36
   It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.
   وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ وَلَا مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَى اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَمْرًا أَن يَكُونَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ وَمَن يَعْصِ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلَالًا مُّبِينًا

   If Umar cared so much about the prophet's state, then what is the purpose of the remaining of his saying:

   The Book of Allah is sufficient for us.
   وعندكم القرآن حسبنا كتاب الله.

   Is he saying that whatever the prophet wanted to say is in the Quran?? Did the Angel reveal this to him?? How did he know that??? Did he read the mind of the prophet?? Umar knew well what the prophet intended to write. Letting the prophet write this document would have destroyed his evil plot!!! After the demise of the prophet, Umar made sure to destroy and discourage the narration of the Sunnah of the prophet during his reign, as Abu Bakr did during his reign as well.

3. They argue that Umar thought that it was wiser not to bring the ink-pot and the paper to the prophet. Who is wiser, Umar or the prophet? Who is the messenger of Allah and the guided and the most knowledgeable? Umar or the prophet? Hasn't the Quran made it clear that we must unconditionally obey the messenger of the Allah??
   Quran 3:31-32
   Say: If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful - Say: Obey Allah and the Messenger; but if they turn back, then surely Allah does not love the unbelievers.
   قُلْ إِن كُنتُمْ تُحِبُّونَ اللّهَ فَاتَّبِعُونِي يُحْبِبْكُمُ اللّهُ وَيَغْفِرْ لَكُمْ ذُنُوبَكُمْ وَاللّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ - قُلْ أَطِيعُواْ اللّهَ وَالرَّسُولَ فإِن تَوَلَّوْاْ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يُحِبُّ الْكَافِرِينَ

4. They argue that Umar was afraid that the prophet would write something that would be impossible to follow and implement, and therefore abandoning it would be sinful and require punishment from Allah. So Umar prevented the prophet from this writing to save the companions from such punishment. It is amazing how scholars have reached such pretexts. As if they could place themselves in the brain of Umar and think his thoughts. Are they implying that the prophet is not wise and intelligent enough to make such assessment? Is he not compassionate enough? Would the prophet order something that his nation could not carry out and therefore caused them to err? These scholars would say anything to exonerate Umar.

5. They argue that Umar "Umar feared the hypocrites might cast doubts about the authenticity of such writing, since it would be written during the Prophet's sickness, and that it would be a cause for dissension." Hasn't the prophet said: "Bring me a shoulder blade and ink-pot (or tablet and inkpot), so that I write for you a document (by following which) you would never go astray." If this argument was true (Umar's fear...), don't you think the prophet would have been aware of this problem?? How can such statement be the source of dissension? By definition, the hypocrites are pretenders! they present themselves as believers, while their hearts cast doubts about their beliefs. The statement of the prophet was meant to protect the believers from straying. The hypocrites are already on the wrong path. So why does it matter that the hypocrites cast doubts about the authenticity of the writing?? Are they not already casting doubts about the prophethood and mission of Muhammad???

6. Umar said: "we have got Allah's Book with us and that is sufficient for us." They argue that this statement is true based on the following verses:
   Quran 6:38
   ...We have not neglected anything in the Book, then to their Lord shall they be gathered.
   ...مَّا فَرَّطْنَا فِي الكِتَابِ مِن شَيْءٍ ثُمَّ إِلَى رَبِّهِمْ يُحْشَرُونَ
   Quran 5:3
   ...This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion;
   ...الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الإِسْلاَمَ دِينًا

   Yes, the Quran is complete and no one has argued otherwise. But does it detail all the prayers, the Adhan and Iqamat, the Hajj, etc?? Of course not. It is complete because it contains everything Allah has revealed. It contains all the Laws, but not the details, as this is left for Sunnah to elaborate on. So it is not enough to protect us from misguidance and discension. Are we not misguided and disunited today??? How many Islamic sects are there? Don't they all differ in the matter of Jurisprudence??? Is this not a sign of discension and disunity? Is this not a sign of a shattered nation?? Did not the prophet foretell that we will follow the ways of those nations who were before us (the Jews and the Christians), span by span and cubit by cubit (i.e., inch by inch) so much so that even if they entered a hole of a mastigure, we would follow them.

   It is obvious that the Quran is not sufficient for us. All scholars differ in their interpretations of the Quranic verses, even in the presence of the Sunnah. What would have happened if the Sunnah was completely obliterated??? Would we not be in a worse situation?? So how can we be guided??? They differ about who the members of Ahlul bayt are, they differ on how the Wudu' was performed, they differ on whether the Muta'a was obrogated or not, they differ on many things! That is because the Sunnah was obliterated. It is the Sunnah that clarifies the verses of the Quran. There is a Sunnah so that we can understand the Quran.

   So clearly, we need someone who has the knowledge to interprete it for us, during the lifetime of the prophet and after his demise, so that the correct interepretation does not get lost and future generations benefit from it. The insufficiency of the Quran alone is exactly why the prophet left us the Thaqalayn: the Quran and Ahlul Bayt.

   The prophet was the spoken Quran, the only one who could explain its content:

   Quran 16:44
   With clear arguments and scriptures; and We have revealed to you the Reminder that you may make clear to men what has been revealed to them, and that haply they may reflect.
   بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ وَالزُّبُرِ وَأَنزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الذِّكْرَ لِتُبَيِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ مَا نُزِّلَ إِلَيْهِمْ وَلَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ
   Quran 16:64
   And We have not revealed to you the Book except that you may make clear to them that about which they differ, and (as) a guidance and a mercy for a people who believe.
   وَمَا أَنزَلْنَا عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ إِلاَّ لِتُبَيِّنَ لَهُمُ الَّذِي اخْتَلَفُواْ فِيهِ وَهُدًى وَرَحْمَةً لِّقَوْمٍ يُؤْمِنُونَ
   Quran 2:151
   Even as We have sent among you a Messenger from among you who recites to you Our communications and purifies you and teaches you the Book and the wisdom and teaches you that which you did not know.
   كَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا فِيكُمْ رَسُولاً مِّنكُمْ يَتْلُو عَلَيْكُمْ آيَاتِنَا وَيُزَكِّيكُمْ وَيُعَلِّمُكُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَيُعَلِّمُكُم مَّا لَمْ تَكُونُواْ تَعْلَمُونَ

   Also it is this same Quran that ordered us to take from the prophet what he gave us and avoid what he forbade us:

   Quran 59:7
   ...and whatever the Messenger gives you, accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back,...
   ...وَمَا آتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانْتَهُوا ...

   This statement of Umar is clearly false since the prophet commanded us to hold fast to the Quran and his progeny in order no to go astray. His progeny is the spoken Quran, after him. They are the authentic interpretors, as they have inherited the knowledge of the prophet.

7. In some of the narrations from al-Bukhari's Sahih, the word Ahjara was translated into delirious. Please go back to the second section. Yet, some argue that the word Ahjara does not mean something that serious as being delusional or hallucinating, in this context. In fact, they used a lighter definition, just like they used the wrong definition for the word Mawla in the context Hadith Ghadeer. Let's assume that the companions meant by Ahajar something like what is he saying, his words are not clear, and so on, and if the prophet understood that meaning, then why would the prophet tell them:
   Leave me, for my present state is better than what you call me for
   دعوني فالذي أنا فيه خير

   Wouldn't it be unjust of him to be angry at them if they could not understand what he was saying? Or did they understand what he was saying and they wanted to find an excuse to prevent the writing of this document in order not to spoil their plot??

   Moreover, did not part of the companions understand what the prophet was saying??? Did he not tell them to bring something so he can write the document?? So which part of this warranted their ill-mannered reaction?? The fact that a group of the companions and the women in the house understood what the prophet was saying suggests that the reaction of the opposing group was deliberate and meant to prevent the prophet from writing this document. They succeeded.

   Finally, the fact that the many of the companions and the women understood what the prophet said and insisted that the prophet writes this document means that the prophet was neither in a state of unconsciousness, nor delirious nor talking nonsense, especially that Ahlul bayt did not oppose what the prophet willed! Look at the following narration from Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal:

   ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏سفيان ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏سليمان بن أبي مسلم ‏ ‏خال ‏ ‏ابن أبي نجيح ‏ ‏سمع ‏ ‏سعيد بن جبير ‏ ‏يقول قال ‏ ‏ابن عباس " يوم الخميس وما يوم الخميس ثم بكى حتى بل دمعه ‏ ‏وقال ‏ ‏مرة دموعه ‏ ‏الحصى قلنا يا ‏ ‏أبا العباس ‏ ‏وما يوم الخميس قال اشتد برسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏وجعه فقال ‏ ‏ائتوني أكتب لكم كتابا لا تضلوا بعده أبدا فتنازعوا ولا ينبغي عند نبي تنازع فقالوا ما شأنه ‏ ‏أهجر ‏ ‏قال ‏ ‏سفيان ‏ ‏يعني هذى ‏ ‏استفهموه فذهبوا يعيدون عليه فقال دعوني فالذي أنا فيه خير مما تدعوني إليه وأمر بثلاث ‏ ‏وقال ‏ ‏سفيان ‏ ‏مرة أوصى بثلاث ‏ ‏قال أخرجوا المشركين من ‏ ‏جزيرة العرب ‏ ‏وأجيزوا ‏ ‏الوفد بنحو ما كنت ‏ ‏أجيزهم ‏ وسكت ‏ ‏سعيد ‏ ‏عن الثالثة فلا أدري أسكت عنها عمدا وقال مرة أو نسيها ‏ ‏و قال ‏ ‏سفيان ‏ ‏مرة ‏ ‏وإما أن يكون تركها أو نسيها "

   The key point is how Sufyan defined the word Ahjara. He said it meant Hadha. Other words, to talk wildly, as in delirium!

8. Arguing that the document was not Wajib because they prophet had already completed his revelation is ludicrous. By that time (few days before his demise), the prophet had already entirely delivered his divine Message. Therefore, what the prophet wanted to write is certainly something he had already iterated before and wanted to reiterate again. However, the fact that the prophet wanted to write this document marks its importance, especially when it is something that will keep the Ummah on the right path, and comes from the master of all prophets. Everything the prophets says or does is IMPORTANT!!! The obligation of the companions at this point was to obey him like true believers. Some did, while those led by Umar did not! Verse 59:7 clearly states to accept whatever the Messenger gives us, accept it and keep back whatever he forbids us. The prophet wanted to write a document to save us from straying and all they had to do is take accept that!

9. Some would argue that the fact that the prophet did not write the document means that it was not so important or was not needed after all. Could not the prophet have written this document after he expelled the companions?? Could he not have asked his purified and loyal Ahlul Bayt to do so for him?? Of course he could have. But he did not because he knew the bad companions would have rejected it! They would have said something like, it is a lie or the prophet was so sick and in pain that he did not know what he was saying or we were not there to see him say it or write it!!! They were good with excuses! They would turn the prophet into someone who writes and says things from desire and who could err the people he guided! Did not Abu Bakr and Umar reject the argument of Ahul Bayt when they defended their right to the caliphate or their right ownership of Fadak or their right of their inheritance??? Did not the bad companions ignore the Hadith of the prophet and burn them and stopped its narrations? Did not some of companions ignore Hadith al-Thaqalayn after all??? Did they not fight Ali in three 3 battles???? Then what would prevent them from rejecting the document he could have written after expelling them???

10. Finally, they argue that Umar did not understand the implication of the prophet's request. If that was truly the case, than the wise prophet would have been aware of it and would have corrected the misunderstanding of Umar. But it was not the case. Instead, the prophet got very angry and desappointed and expelled them from the room. This is a clear indication that Umar understood well the implication of the request of the prophet and his intention was to prevent the writing of the prophet.

The reason the prophet ended up not writing the document is because of their loud dispute and desagreement, of their disrespect and animosity, of their accusations!!! We have strayed indeed because that document was not written. Get it?? Because of that disaster and the greed and worldly desires of some companions and the Umayyads and Abbasids, I have to sit here, spend lots of time to make things clear to you and to wake you up from the ignorance-coma that these people put you in!

The least impact I expect this paper to have on you, the reader, is a little motivation to get up and start your own investigation, if you are really interested in Islam. Otherwise, the same misconceptions and lies will continue to be passed on from generation to generation, as it has been happening for 1431 years! Your duty and obligation as a Muslim is discover whether the religion you have inherited from your parents and ancestors is the correct one.

Abu Bakr was very sick as well, and desired to write his will. However, Umar did not have a problem interrupting Abu Bakr as he interrupted the prophet!!! Why? Do you now understand that the whole thing was a setup?? Umar had an issue with the prophet writing a document more important than Abu Bakr's but did not have a problem with Abu Bakr's writing of his will. It becomes quite clear now that Umar's opposition was planned. He did not want the prophet to write this document because he knew darn well what the prophet was about to write. He was going to reiterate, and this time in writing, that Ali was his successor. But Umar had a big problem with that because he wanted that position so badly. So he Abu Bakr and Umar usurped it from its rightful owner!

The prophet officially made Ali his successor at Ghadeer Khum. Please read the chapter of the caliphate to understand that. Let me present to you what Ali said on the day of al-Shura:

Yet, they did not let the prophet write that document! It because of them that we are shattered and have become divided like the Christians and the Jews, as the prophet foretold!