Did Umar Call the Prophet ﷺ Delirious? — The Calamity of Thursday Explained
The hadith of the Thursday incident — in which the Prophet ﷺ on his deathbed requested writing materials and was met with disagreement among those present — has been weaponized by Shia polemicists to attack the companion Umar ibn Al-Khattab (RA) and, by extension, to cast doubt on the infallibility of the Prophet ﷺ himself. The attack relies on a deliberate misreading of the Arabic text, an attribution unsupported by any narration, and a theological framework that collapses under scrutiny.
The Hadith
Ibn Abbas used to say: “The greatest calamity is that which prevented the Messenger of Allah ﷺ from writing that book for them, because of their disagreement and noise.”
Grade: Sahih · Bukhari & Muslim
The Objection
Umar ibn Al-Khattab said“the Messenger of Allah is delirious” directly to the Prophet’s face. He mobilized his supporters to prevent the Prophet ﷺ from writing a will designating Ali ibn Abi Talib as successor. His statement “The Book of Allah is sufficient for us” was a rejection of the Sunnah. The scholars who defend Umar’s position are distorting the Prophet’s ﷺ legacy and attacking his infallibility.
The Response
First: The Word “Ahajar” Was Never Attributed to Umar in Any Narration
The Shia claim that Umar said “the Messenger is delirious” has no basis in any chain of transmission. Every narration of this hadith attributes to Umar one statement only.
What all narrations record from Umar (RA) is:
“So Umar said: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ has been overcome by pain, and you have the Quran — the Book of Allah is sufficient for us.”
As for the word ahajar — appearing in some narrations as “What is the matter with him? Ahajar!” — Ibn Abbas narrated it as coming from an unspecified group present in the house, without identifying who among them said it. The attribution of this word specifically to Umar exists nowhere except in Shia polemical literature — it has no basis in the hadith narrations themselves.
Second: The Word “Ahajar” Does Not Mean What the Shia Claim — Three Linguistic Readings
The word hajara/yahajiru is the center of the controversy. Classical scholars established that it cannot be read as a straightforward report about the Prophet’s ﷺ mental state. Three readings exist:
Reading A — The Interrogative (Preferred):
This reading negates delirium from the Prophet ﷺ rather than affirming it.
Reading B — The Address to the Disputants:
Some scholars read it as ahjaran — with a damma on the ha’ and tanween — addressed to those who were arguing before the Prophet ﷺ. The meaning: “You have brought nonsense and evil speech before the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.” The word describes the behavior of the arguers, not the Prophet ﷺ.
Reading C — Carried on Umar’s Words:
If the word is taken as apparently reporting on the Prophet’s ﷺ condition, it is interpreted by carrying it on what Umar (RA) said —“overcome by pain.” The speaker meant severe pain produces incoherence in ordinary people, not that the Prophet ﷺ was actually incoherent — and he did not control his wording precisely under the emotional pressure of the moment.
Scholars agreed that it is impossible for al-hajr — meaning obscenity or incoherent speech — to be correctly reported of the Prophet ﷺ, who was infallible in health and illness alike.
“Nor does he speak from his own inclination. It is not but a revelation revealed.”
Had any companion genuinely believed the Prophet ﷺ was delirious — as a factual report — another companion would have rebuked him for it. The Prophet ﷺ himself would have refuted it. Neither rebuke nor refutation was transmitted, which confirms that those present understood the word as negating delirium, not affirming it.
Third: Umar’s Position Was an Act of Ijtihad — Approved by the Prophet ﷺ
It was permissible for the companions to differ regarding the writing, despite his explicit command, because commands may be accompanied by indications that convey them from obligation. An indication appeared to Umar (RA) that the command was not obligatory but optional — so their ijtihad differed. Umar’s determination to abstain was based on the evidence he perceived that what was to be written was not something they could not do without.
The disagreement of the companions regarding this document is like their disagreement regarding his ﷺ saying:“No one should pray the afternoon prayer except in Banu Qurayzah.” Some feared missing the prayer time and prayed; others held to the apparent command and did not. The Messenger ﷺ did not rebuke either group — because both acted from justified ijtihad and good purpose.
The strongest evidence that Umar’s position was correct is the Prophet’s ﷺ own silence:
The Prophet ﷺ did not rebuke Umar (RA) for his position. In Islamic legal theory, the Prophet’s ﷺ silence on a matter amounts to approval — it carries the ruling of a prophetic narration. Had Umar exceeded the bounds of propriety or opposed a divine obligation, the Prophet ﷺ — who rebuked far lesser matters — would not have remained silent.
Furthermore, the Prophet ﷺ lived for days after this incident and conveyed instructions verbally — including the command to expel the polytheists from the Arabian Peninsula. If the writing had been an obligation from Allah, the Prophet ﷺ would not have abandoned it due to their disagreement, just as he never abandoned conveying any other divine obligation.
“O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message.”
Had this been a revelation-mandated writing, Allah would have ensured its completion as He ensured every other obligation of conveyance.
Fourth: “The Book of Allah Is Sufficient for Us” Was Not a Rejection of the Sunnah
Umar’s (RA) statement was not a theological claim that the Sunnah is unnecessary. It was a contextual judgment — based on his reading of the situation — that what the Prophet ﷺ intended to write was already covered by existing guidance.
“We have neglected nothing in the Book.”
Umar (RA) saw that the Prophet ﷺ was in severe pain, that the companions already possessed the Quran and the established Sunnah, and that the door of scholarly ijtihad — which the Prophet ﷺ himself had encouraged — remained open. His intention was to ease the burden on the Prophet ﷺ, not to silence revelation.
Grade: Sahih · Bukhari & Muslim
The Prophet ﷺ entrusted certain matters to scholarly ijtihad and rewarded it. Umar’s position fell squarely within this framework.
Fifth: The Shia Claim of Ali’s Designated Succession Is Refuted by the Hadith Itself
The Shia claim that Umar prevented the Prophet ﷺ from writing a will designating Ali ibn Abi Talib as caliph. This is contradicted by the hadith itself: the same narration records that the Prophet ﷺ gave verbal instructions — expelling the polytheists from the Arabian Peninsula and honoring delegations as he had done. He was silent on the third matter or the narrator forgot it.
Had the designation of Ali been an obligation from Allah, the Prophet ﷺ would have conveyed it verbally as he conveyed these other commands — since he remained alive for days afterward and spoke to his companions throughout. The silence is decisive.
On Ibn Abbas’s Grief
Ibn Abbas’s (RA) statement that the incident was “the greatest calamity” does not contradict Umar’s correctness. Ibn Abbas (RA) — the scholar of the ummah and foremost interpreter of the Quran — regretted what was missed in terms of explicit written clarification, because explicit statement is more appropriate than deduction. He grieved what might have been — not that Umar had sinned. And Umar (RA) was undoubtedly more knowledgeable than Ibn Abbas in this specific judgment, as his approval by the Prophet ﷺ confirms.
The Shia attack on Umar ibn Al-Khattab (RA) in the Thursday incident fails on every front. The word ahajar was never attributed to Umar in any narration — all chains record only his statement about the Prophet ﷺ being overcome by pain. The word itself, correctly read, negates delirium from the Prophet ﷺ rather than affirming it — as Ibn Hajar and Al-Qurtubi established. Umar’s position was a legitimate ijtihad, approved by the Prophet’s ﷺ own silence — a silence that in Islamic legal theory carries the weight of prophetic endorsement. The writing was not an obligation from Allah; had it been, neither disagreement nor pain would have prevented its completion. The infallibility of the Prophet ﷺ in mind, speech, and conveyance of revelation — in health and in illness — is established by the Quran, the Sunnah, and scholarly consensus, and nothing in this incident contradicts it.