Response to: Abu huraira enemy of allah & his book, and a thief (according to Umar)


The following is a response to “Abu huraira: Enemy of Allah & His Book, and a Thief”. The article was penned by Hasan Molai, Khair Talab, and Slave of Ahlubait, and can be found on the Wilayat website and Slave of Ahlubait’s blog.

The narration used to suggest that Abu Huraira was an enemy of Allah was included in both articles. However, the Wilayat website provided a shortened version of the narration, while Slave of Ahlubait included it in full.

The narration goes like this:

Abu huraria said: Umar said to me: o ENEMY OF ALLAH and enemy of Islam! you betrayed the money of Allah . He said: I said: I am not an enemy of Allah and not an enemy of Islam but an enemy to whoever is an enemy of them and I did not betray the money of Allah but they were the costs for a camel and spears added together. He said: return it and I said to him the same thing again. He said: he fined me 12 000 . He said: then I stood up for midday prayer and said: O Allah, forgive the commander of the faithful. And what was after that is that he wanted me to work and I didn’t do it. Then he said: not and Yusuf did ask to work and he was better than you. Then I said: verily Yusuf is a prophet son of a prophet son of a prophet son of a prophet and I am son of Umaymah and I fear three and two. He said: don’t you say five? I said: no. He said: what are they? I said: I fear that I speak without knowledge, and issue ruling without knowledge, and that my back gets beaten , and that my representation/arguments gets insulted .

Imam Hakim says: sahih on the conditions of Sheikhain but not written
Dhabi says: sahih on the conditions of Bukhari and Muslim


Note: The translation of some words above is extremely weak. For example, the term “spears” in the Arabic is siham, which means “shares”. However, it seems that the translator made two mistakes. Firstly, he assumed that the term siham means “arrows”, then wrote “spears” instead of “arrows”.

We also find the following commentary on the first article:

well, we are now told that all sahaba are adil, and we should just believe in them, and what they quoted is correct

bla bla

but was this opinion there in the era of companions? nope

why? simple, if it was so, why would umar call abu huraira enemy of allah and his book and a thief? how it proves my stance? simple, if he believe in his adalat, he would not have termed him thief


The narration does not serve the purpose of the Shia. First of all, the commentary itself suggests that accusations cannot be made by companions against one another at all since they all considered each other reliable.

This is false since there was always the possibility that a person that was a companion of the Prophet – peace be upon him – could apostate. This is why it is the view of Ahl Al-Sunnah that it is only those that die upon Islam that are referred to as companions. In other words, in the eyes of Omar, a person who accompanied the Prophet – peace be upon him – can be branded as an enemy of Allah if that person has committed inexcusable acts of treachery. In this case, he was accusing Abu Huraira of stealing from the money of the people of Bahrain, as per the Saheeh narration in Musanaf Abdulrazaq #20659, while he was ruling the area.

Of course, Abu Huraira refutes this allegation by testifying that he acquired this new wealth through the acquisition of shares and through the selling of mounts that were reproducing.

None of the narrations state that Omar ordered to have Abu Huraira’s hand cut off.

The reaction of Omar varies in both narrations. The narration above suggests that Omar fined him while the second narration from Abdulrazzaq suggests that Abu Huraira was absolved.

Since both narrations are authentic, we can reconcile by holding the view that he was first fined, but was then absolved.

More importantly, both narrations agree that Omar asks Abu Huraira to return to govern. If Omar had not gone back on his view and accusation against Abu Huraira, then he would have not offered him that position, and he would have implemented the Shari’ah rule by cutting his hand off. Instead, he was satisfied with Abu Huraira and recanted his accusation, since it is not befitting for Omar to position an enemy of Allah as a governor.


  1. The 2 narrations are from Abu Hourayra? the one whith suggest he was fined and the one with suggest he was absolved?

    • They are both from Ibn Sireen who is narrating both events. It seems like the students of Ibn Sireen need to be looked into.

  2. It mean Abu Hurairah was innocent and Omar is guilty of doing tafeer upon Abu Huraira and his takfeer upon another companion makes him kaafir.

    • `Umar didn’t say aba Hurayrah was a disbeliever. When he thought that he abused his position he got angry and accused him of being “An enemy of God”, this is an Arabic expression that you can label anyone who betrays religious duties with, it doesn’t necessarily mean Takfeer. Aba Hurayrah explained his position and `Umar understood and wished to appoint him, if `Umar thought that aba Hurayrah apostated he would have executed him. As for you Shia, you believe the entire nation apostated except five or seven, so I can almost guarantee you hell-fire with that belief you Takfeeries.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.