Had it not been for ‘Ali, ‘Umar would be destroyed

لولا علي لهلك عمر

Had it not been for ‘Ali, ‘Umar would be destroyed.

The narration is da’if due to the presence of Mu’ammal ibn Ismail as reported in al Isti’ab^[1].

It is reported without an isnad in respect of someone other than ‘Ali:

عجزت النساء أن تلد مثل معاذ لولا معاذ لهلك عمر

Women are incapable of giving birth to the like of Muaz. Had it not been for Muaz, ‘Umar would be destroyed.

There are majhul narrators in the isnad. One narrator states, “From ashyakh (people).” Who are these ashyakh? Owing to this, al Bayhaqi was not convinced regarding the sanad and said, “If this is established.”^[2]

In addition, the Shia deleted Muaz and inserted ‘Ali.^[3]

Then comes another kadhab, Muhammad Hadi al Amini, and presents his conclusion after researching the book Khasa’is al Ummah:

هذا الحديث من القضايا التي أجمعت عليها العامة و الخاصة على صحته و جاء في كتب الفريقين مما يثبت جهل عمر و قصوره في العلم إلى جانب اعترافه بفضل سيدنا أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام

This hadith is from the matters upon which the common folk (Ahlus Sunnah) and special (Rawafid) have unanimously agreed as authentic. What appears in the books of both groups establishes ‘Umar’s ignorance and lack of knowledge to the extent that he acknowledged the virtues of our master Amir al Mu’minin ‘alayh al Salam.^[4]

This only proves the dishonesty of the dishonourable Rawafid. When did the Ahlus Sunnah declare this hadith authentic?

The muhaqqiqin of the book Dala’il al Imamah of Muhammad ibn Jarir al Tabari al Rafidi have displayed dishonesty by saying that Ibn Hajar reported the narration in al Isabah.^[5] They are liars and frauds. The narration appears in al Isabah as:

لولا معاذ لهلك عمر

Had it not been for Muaz, ‘Umar would be destroyed.^[6]

There is yet another kadhab, Muhammad al Baqir al Bahbudi—the researcher of the book al Sirat al Mustaqim, who claims that al Bukhari reported it.^[7]

The author got muddled up with the incident of stoning the mad woman and added to it the alleged declaration: “Had it not been for ‘Ali, ‘Umar would be destroyed.” Al Bahbudi, the liar, then has the audacity to say that al Bukhari narrated it. He then cites other references. Just a point to remember is that this al Bahbudi is the researcher of al Kafi. How do the Shia give credence to the research of a liar? He claims that he will document sahih from Kitab al Kafi but is a liar at the same time.

Then comes the fraudster ‘Abdul Zahra’ al ‘Alawi and comments in his research on Bihar al Anwar:

قولة عمر لولا علي لهلك عمر جاءت بألفاظ متعددة و موارد كثيرة

‘Umar’s statement: “Had it not been for ‘Ali, ‘Umar would be destroyed,” has appeared with several wordings in a number of sources.^[8]

He lists Sunan Abi Dawood and Sunan al Bayhaqi as some of the references. Whereas it appears with the words: “Had it not been for Muaz, ‘Umar would be destroyed,” in Sunan al Bayhaqi. He is a liar in this regard like his friend al Bahbudi.

Just have a look at the lies and dishonesty of the Rawafid.

Next⇒ Had it not been for what Ibn al Khattab done before me, only a wretched would commit fornication/adultery

[1] Al Isti’ab vol. 3 pg. 1103.

[2] Sunan al Bayhaqi vol. 7 pg. 443.

[3] Musnad Zaid ibn ‘Ali pg. 335.

[4] Khasa’is al Ummah pg. 85.

[5] Dala’il al Imamah pg. 22.

[6] Al Isabah.

[7] Al Sirat al Mustaqim vol. 3 pg. 15.

[8] Bihar al Anwar vol. 30 pg. 679.

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents