Umar b. al-Khattab

Umar, also spelled Omar (عمر بن الخطاب‎ ʻUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, "Umar, Son of Al-Khattab"; c. 584 CE – 3 November 644 CE), was a senior companion of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. He was appointed by Abu Bakr to succeed him and occupied the position of caliph till his death.


Amina Inloes, Amina Inloes is originally from the US and has a PhD in Islamic Studies from the University of Exeter on Shi'a hadith. She is the program leader for the MA Islamic Studies program at the... Answer updated 3 months ago

First, in this day and age, it is good for us to be thoughtful about how we phrase things. "Liberating" people from Zoroastrianism is rude. Zoroastrianism, like most world religions, has good things and bad things. In any case, it is good to respect people's faith and heritage, especially since Zoroastrianism continues to be practiced today.

Second, describing the conquest of lands by the Muslim Empire as "liberation" can come across the wrong way.

It is true that 'Umar ibn al-Khattab ordered an invasion of the Sassanian Empire which led to the conquest of what is present-day Iran. So, it is more correct to say that he annexed Iran to the Arab-Muslim Empire, and this was one of the factors that led Iran to become a Muslim region.

That being said, military annexation of a region is not the same thing as converting a people to Islam, or even introducing them to Islam. Actual conversion to Islam in conquered lands happened over a span of time. Conversely, Islam spread in many areas, such as Indonesia, where the initial Muslim Empire had no power. There were good and bad points about the conquests of the early Muslim Empire.

Sometimes - in my experience - some of our Sunni brothers and sisters glorify those conquests, perhaps out of respect for the first 3 caliphs, without taking into consideration that they were in fact military conquests which were not dissimilar to the expansion of other empires. Like other military expansions they brought some good and and some difficulty, some people in these areas were (according to what we can glean from historical records) fine with being under Muslim rule or even welcomed it, and some resisted it. Basically it's good to take a more intermediate position, neither to say "Islam spread by the sword and those Muslims are violent!" nor to say "Muslims liberated all the other regions from their former faiths." (In fact, that comes across as quite violent.) 

As for who introduced Iran to Islam, why not begin with Salman al-Farsi? And, second, what about the letter that the Prophet (S) sent to the Persian king, inviting him to Islam?


Simple search in Sunni books of Hadeeth leads to the fact that all the three whom you named ran away from the Jihad.

1. Abu Bakr: 

Al-Haakim Al-Nisaboori who is one of the well known Sunni scholars narrated in his famous book  Al-Mustadrak Alal Saheehayn, Volume 3, Page 37 that Abu Bakr ran away.

2. Umar:

In Saheeh Bukhari and Dalaa'l Al-Sidq , V. 1, P.362 and Noor Al-Absaar by Shiblanji, P. 87, you find that Umar ran away.

3. Uthman:

Ibn Katheer (student of Ibn Yatmiyyah) mentioned in his books Al-Bidayah Wal Nihayah V.4, P. 28 that Uthman ran away.

Many other Muslims have also run away from the battles due to weakness in the faith. Only the firm and strong in faith stood fast and never ran away.

Exposing the hypocrites was declared in Quran by their deeds but not by their names. Same was done by the Prophet (SAWA) who did not expose their names.

The Prophet  (SAWA) has clearly stated that many of his companions will change and turn back from right path after him then will be sent to hellfire. (Saheeh Bukhari, Hadeeth number 4259

and Saheeh Bukhari, Hadeeth number 6098,

and Saheeh Bukhari , Hadeeth number 6099,

and Saheeh Bukhari, Hadeeth number 6026,

and Saheeh Bukhari, Hadeeth number 6528.



Sayyed Mohammad Al-Musawi, Sayyed Mohammad al-Musawi is originally from Iraq and heads up the World Ahlul Bayt Islamic League in London. Other than being involved in various humanitarian projects, he frequently responds to... Answered 5 months ago

The habit of folding ( crossing) 

hands during Salaah came from non-Muslims (notably Zoroastrians) and wasn’t part of the Salaah of the Holy Prophet (sawa), nor during the government of Abu Baker. However, during the rule of Umer ibn Khattab, when Persia was concurred by Muslims, several prisoners of war were brought from Persia to Madina. They folded their hands in front of Umer, who asked them why they did so. They responded that it was their habit in front of respected people. Umer liked it and decided to keep it in the prayer. Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s) and many of the Sahaba refused this, because no one has the right to change or add or to omit anything from the Salaah, and the Prophet (sawa) had famously said, “Pray as you saw me praying.
Therefore Amir ul Mo’mineen (a.s), his followers (Ammar ibn Yasir, Salman al Farsi, Abu Dhar al Ghifari) and all of his other pious companions continued opening their hands while praying, exactly like the Prophet (s) used to. 
In the Sunni school of thought, none of the four leading jurists (Abu Hanifa, Shafi’i, Malik ibn Anas, Ahmad ibn Hanbal) ever said that it was obligatory to fold hands during Salaah, because there was no evidence to support it. Imam Malik even said it was not good to fold hands, and all Malikis thus open their hands in Salaah. A famous Sunni ‘Aalim from Egypt, Sayyid Sabiq, wrote in his book Fiqh as Sunnah: “we do not have even a single authentic Hadith that the Prophet (s) ever folded his hands in the Salaah.
 Numerous famous individuals from the Sunni school of thought such as Abdullah ibn Zubayr and Laith bin Saad didn’t fold their hands either. Folding hands in Salaah was therefore not part of Islam, it was brought to Muslims from non Muslims by Umer ibn Khattab.



Amina Inloes, Amina Inloes is originally from the US and has a PhD in Islamic Studies from the University of Exeter on Shi'a hadith. She is the program leader for the MA Islamic Studies program at the... Answered 7 months ago

The challenge when trying to answer questions about history is that all we can rely on is evidence that has come to us (such as texts or archaeological evidence) and often it is not 100% clear what happened.

In any case, there are some texts that say that 'Umar ibn al-Khattab ordered that the line "prayer is better than sleep" be added to the Fajr adhan. For instance, in al-Muwatta' (a prominent early Sunni source), it is said that the mu'adhdhin came to Umar ibn al-Khattab at fajr time and found him sleeping, so he told him, "Prayer is better than sleep" (to tell him to get up), and then 'Umar ibn al-Khattab ordered that it be added to the adhan. (See the relevant chapter in the book on salat in the Muwatta')

However, some people, especially Sunnis, hold a different view.

I think it is reasonable to say that all Muslims who do the adhan try to do the adhan in the way they think is correct and the way the Prophet (S) intended it. Shi'i fiqh does not prescribe "prayer is better than sleep" in the adhan because the dominant Shi'i view is that this is was not how the Prophet (S) instructed Muslims to do it. At the end of the day, Allah judges on intentions, and we do our best to follow the Sunnah!


Sayyed Mohammad Al-Musawi, Sayyed Mohammad al-Musawi is originally from Iraq and heads up the World Ahlul Bayt Islamic League in London. Other than being involved in various humanitarian projects, he frequently responds to... Answer updated 1 year ago

No government has the right to legalize any act which was committed by any ruler if the act was away from the real teachings of the Prophet ( SAWA).

Muslim governments should follow the real teachings of the Prophet Muhammad and his Holy Progeny who narrated and practices his teachings.



Sayyed Mohammad Al-Musawi, Sayyed Mohammad al-Musawi is originally from Iraq and heads up the World Ahlul Bayt Islamic League in London. Other than being involved in various humanitarian projects, he frequently responds to... Answer updated 1 year ago

The person who killed Umar bin al-Khattab was called Peeroz or Fairoz from Nahawand. He is well known by Abu Lo’lo’a as his daughter’s name was Lo’lo’a لؤلؤة.

He was praying in the Masjid when he killed Umar.



Temporary marriage, or mut'at al-nisa, was sanctioned in Islamic law via the revelation of Qur'an 4:24. There is no debate between the various schools of Islam, as far as I know, about this verse being revealed to confirm the validity of this kind of marriage.

The debate is about its scope and whether it stays applicable to this day or was rendered void in the early years of Islam.

Ibn Taymiyya, well-known for his lack of love for the Shi'a, writes:

  • According to Ibn Hazm: Ibn Mas'ud, Mu'awiya, Abu Sa'id (al-Khudri), Ibn 'Abbas, Salama and Ma'bad, the sons of Umayya bin Khalaf, Jabir (bin 'Abdullah al-'Ansari), and 'Amr bin Hurayth continued, after the death of the Prophet, to consider it (i.e. mut'a) lawful. Moreover, Jabir reported, regarding all the Companions, that they continued to uphold its lawfulness during the time of the Prophet and of Abu Bakr and almost till the end of 'Umar's caliphate.
  • Then he (i.e. Ibn Hazm) adds, "Among the Successors of the Companions, Tawus, Sa'id b. Jubayr, 'Ata', and the rest of the Makkan jurists believed in its permissibility."

    Source: Ibn Taymiyya al-Harrani, al-Muntaqa min Akhbar al-Mustafa, edited by Muhammad Hamid al-Faqqi, 2 volumes, Cairo: al-Maktabat al-Tijariyya, 1931 edition, volume 2, page 520.

This is confirmed from multiple earlier sources but this seemed like a nice summary to share.

The two key messages, then, are as follows:

1. Something happened towards the end of Umar b. al-Khattab's rule as caliph that made most, but not all, people stop practicing mut'a.

The event that led to many people abandoning mut'a was a declaration by 'Umar as follows:

  • Jabir b. 'Abdullah reported: We contracted temporary marriage giving a handful of dates or flour as a dower during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and during the time of Abu Bakr until 'Umar forbade it in the case of 'Amr b. Huraith.

    Source: Saheeh Muslim: Book 008, The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 3249

In his famous Tafsir, Ibn Jarir al-Tabari under verse 4:24 that, as mentioned earlier, is the Qur’anic basis of mut’a, reports a narration from al-Hakam bin 'Uyayna who was asked whether this verse on mut'a was abrogated.

He said, "No." He then said, "'Ali said that had it not been for 'Umar's prohibition of the mut'a, no one would have committed zina except a scoundrel.'"

An easily accessible source in its English translation is Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti's Ta'rikh al-khulafa where al-Suyuti has a section for the 'Firsts' of 'Umar. He says quite clearly that 'Umar was the first to prohibit mut’a. See page 136 of the book The History of the Khalifas who took the Right Way, by Ta-Ha publishers, 1995 edition.

2. Those who continued to consider it permissible included much later scholars.

These included, as mentioned by Ibn Taymiyya, Tawus b. Kaysan, Sa'id b. Jubayr, 'Ata b. Abi Rabah who were all considered authorities of hadith transmission and are relied upon by the Bukhari, Muslim and so on.

Therefore, the validity of mut’a was a bona fide valid legal position in Islamic circles even a century after the Prophet’s demise.

But by that time the waters had been muddied by the hadith fabricators.

Knowing that ‘Ali and those who were inclined towards him held it valid, and knowing that ‘Umar’s prohibition in itself was not convincing enough for all legal scholars, words were put in the mouth of ‘Ali to say mut’a had been banned by the Prophet (s) on the day of Khaybar.

There are several reasons why this does not add up, and why the narration must be discarded as false.

  • Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani quotes saying that ".... in it (narration) is the banning of the nikah of mut'a on the day of Khaybar, and this thing is not known by any of the scholars of the sirah or the narrators of reports".
    Source: al-'Asqalani, Fath al-Bari, Cairo edition, volume 9, page 138
  • al-'Ayni, another major commentator on Bukhari's Sahih, says: "Ibn 'Abd al-Barr said that the mention of the banning of mut'a on day of Khaybar is incorrect"
    Source: al-'Ayni, 'Umdat al-Qari, Cairo edition, volume 17, page 246
  • al-Qastallani, another major commentator on Bukhari's Sahih, says: "al-Bayhaqi said that it (i.e. banning of mut'a at Khaybar) is not known by any of the scholars of the sirah"
    Source: al-Qastallani, 'Irshad al-Sari, Cairo edition, volume 6, page 536


So there are two important matters here that touch on the essence of what happened after the Prophet (s) and why the Muslim community is divided even today.

First, it is about what happens when you follow the wrong role model after the Prophet (s) who, consistent with his temperament, decided one day to ban mut’a following his own personal judgement and also promised punishment to those who opposed that ruling.

Second, this is about how fake narrations were created to support ‘Umar’s unilateral banning of mut’a as a tool of propaganda against ‘Ali’s position. These were created long after ‘Umar had passed away, during and soon after the time of the Fitna when the community lay divided between ‘Ali’s supporters and his enemies.

A banning by ‘Umar could never stand against the position of ‘Ali and the Ahl al-Bayt who maintained that mut’a was allowed. And so the fabricators went to work to create fake hadith so they could attribute that decision of ‘Umar back to the Prophet (s) and, cheekily, do it through ‘Ali himself.

But liars always leave traces. You just have to know where to look.

Abolfazl Sabouri, Abolfazl Sabouri is based in New Zealand and has an MA in Jurisprudence and Islamic Studies. He is a graduate of Elmiyeh seminary in Qom with more than 15 years of study and research where he has... Answer updated 1 year ago

There is some Hadiths about temporary marriage and even the verse 24 Sura 4 is about it but Sunnies believe it happened Naskh about it. Some of them say the Naskh was in the time of Prophet and some say it was in the time of Umar.