[In the name of Allaah, the Most Gracious, the Ever Merciful…]

The Khawaarij of this era, those who promote political turmoil and rebellion in the name of “activism” and “freedom of speech”, have spread the following false narration:

Ibn Qutaybah said in his book, ‘Uyoon al-Akhbaar:

Al-‘Utbi [d.228] said that ‘Umar received some war booty, two-piece garments. He distributed those things among the people. He went up on the Minbar and he had a complete set himself (both pieces). So he said “Oh people, will you not listen?” So Salmaan said: “We will not listen!” ‘Umar asked, “Why, O Father of ‘Abdullaah [meaning Salmaan]!?” He said, “Because you distributed the garments to us, one garment for each person, yet you have a whole set (i.e. two garments).” ‘Umar said, “Don’t be so hasty, oh Abaa ‘Abdillah,” and he called out, “Oh, ‘Abdullaah!” Nobody answered him. So he said, “Oh ‘Abdullaah bin ‘Umar!” His son responded, “At your service, O Commander of the Faithful!” Umar said, “I ask you, by Allaah, as a witness: The garment I’m wearing as an ezaar (the lower part), is it yours?” He replied, “Allaahumma Na’am (Yes).” Salmaan, may Allaah be pleased with him, then said, “OK, so now we will obey you!”

Shaykh Rabee’ ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee (may Allaah preserve him) explained the falsehood of this story. The following is a summary of his writings on the topic:

This is how al-‘Utbi narrated this, without any chain. And it’s been mentioned in the sittings of dictation that were recorded from ibn Durayd, #132, in the same way, without a chain. Ibn al-Jowzee also put it in his book: Sifatus Safwa with no chain. So this fable is rejected from the following angles:

Firstly, it has no chain from al-‘Utbi to ‘Umar and Salmaan, may Allaah be pleased with both of them. There is a huge gap in time between ‘Umar (and Salmaan) and this ‘Utbi. You would break the necks of camels trying to make that distance! [more than 200 years of broken chain!]

The second issue is that this ‘Utbi is majhool, meaning: His own personal reliability was never established.

Thirdly, we are required to exonerate ‘Umar, Salmaan, and the Companions of Muhammad (may Allaah raise his rank and grant him peace) from this methodology of chaos found in this story of opposition to the Prophetic methodology and the Quranic methodology as it related to the obligation of obeying the people in charge, so long as they pray. So if that’s the case, then what about ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab, the one who filled the entire earth with justice (by Allaah’s Permission)?!

Fourthly, this fake story depicts the Companions as being unruly people who could not possibly cooperate and co-exist! Imagine – the leader has a garment and is then suspected for injustice and everyone refuses to obey him, so easily! What would have happened if Ibn ‘Umar would have been absent?! Obedience to the ruler would have been on hold until they located him to clear his father of the charges of injustice?! [Ridiculous!]

Fifthly, this story goes against the general methodology of ‘Umar and the Companions, in how they would prefer certain people in the distribution of the wealth. They did not understand that the spoils of war must be distributed to all the people on an equal basis (like communism).

Sixth, how could any Muslim of intellect be pleased with this chaotic rebellious methodology that would prevent the establishment of any religious or political cooperation?! This story may very well have been invented by the enemies of Islam, in order to foster political chaos and instability in the ranks of the Muslims.

[Summarized from class #47 of Shaykh Rabee’s explanation of “Sharhus-Sunnah”, taught by Moosaa Richardson at Masjid Ibn Mas’oud in Cleveland, Ohio (USA) on 1438.10.17.] [listen/download]

Special thanks to Yoosef Shanawany for his contribution.