Did Imam Ali Appoint Abdullah ibn Umar Because He Admired Umar and His Family?
A Critical Sunni-Source Refutation of TwelverShia.net
https://www.twelvershia.net/2013/05/02/ali-ra-appointed-abdullah-ibn-umar-ra/
TwelverShia.net cites reports claiming that Imam Ali a.s wanted to appoint Abdullah ibn Umar over Syria. It then makes a much larger theological claim:
“Ali ibn Abi Talib saw great virtue and leadership qualities in Umar’s son.”
The article further connects this alleged appointment with supposed love and admiration between Imam Ali and Umar.
But the narration itself says nothing of the kind.
It does not mention Umar’s virtues, Umar’s caliphate, family affection, religious superiority or Abdullah ibn Umar’s fitness to lead the entire Muslim Ummah.
It gives one specific reason:
Abdullah ibn Umar was believed to be obeyed by some people in Syria.
1. What the main report actually says
Arabic:
ابْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ، عَنْ عُمَرَ بْنِ نَافِعٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ، قَالَ:
بَعَثَ إِلَيَّ عَلِيٌّ، فَقَالَ: يَا أَبَا عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ، إِنَّكَ رَجُلٌ مُطَاعٌ فِي أَهْلِ الشَّامِ، فَسِرْ فَقَدْ أَمَّرْتُكَ عَلَيْهِمْ.
فَقُلْتُ: أُذَكِّرُكَ اللَّهَ، وَقَرَابَتِي مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، وَصُحْبَتِي إِيَّاهُ، إِلَّا مَا أَعْفَيْتَنِي.
فَأَبَى عَلَيَّ، فَاسْتَعَنْتُ عَلَيْهِ بِحَفْصَةَ، فَأَبَى.
فَخَرَجْتُ لَيْلًا إِلَى مَكَّةَ، فَقِيلَ لَهُ: إِنَّهُ قَدْ خَرَجَ إِلَى الشَّامِ، فَبَعَثَ فِي أَثَرِي، فَجَعَلَ الرَّجُلُ يَأْتِي الْمِرْبَدَ فَيَخْطِمُ بَعِيرَهُ بِعِمَامَتِهِ لِيُدْرِكَنِي.
قَالَ: فَأَرْسَلَتْ حَفْصَةُ: إِنَّهُ لَمْ يَخْرُجْ إِلَى الشَّامِ، إِنَّمَا خَرَجَ إِلَى مَكَّةَ، فَسَكَنَ.
English:
Ibn Uyaynah narrated from Umar ibn Nafi, from his father, from Abdullah ibn Umar, who said:
“Ali sent for me and said:
‘O Abu Abd al-Rahman, you are a man who is obeyed among the people of Syria. Therefore, proceed, for I have appointed you over them.’
I said:
‘I remind you by Allah, by my relationship to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and by my companionship with him, that you excuse me from this.’
But he refused to excuse me. I sought Hafsa’s help against him, but he still refused.
I therefore left for Mecca during the night. Ali was told that I had departed for Syria, so he sent someone after me. The man came to the camel enclosure and used his turban as a halter for his camel in his haste to catch me.
Hafsa then sent word:
‘He did not go to Syria. He only went to Mecca.’
So Ali became calm.”
References:
Al-Dhahabi, Siyar A‘lam al-Nubala’, vol. 3, biography of Abdullah ibn Umar.
Ibn Asakir, Tarikh Dimashq, vol. 31, p. 181.
The stated reason is:
إِنَّكَ رَجُلٌ مُطَاعٌ فِي أَهْلِ الشَّامِ
“You are a man who is obeyed among the people of Syria.”
The report does not say:
“You possess extraordinary religious virtue.”
“You are the most knowledgeable.”
“You are the best leader.”
“I admire your father Umar.”
“Your father’s caliphate was legitimate.”
The article has inserted “great virtue and leadership qualities” into a report that speaks only about being obeyed in a particular province.
2. Sunni history explains why Syrian acceptance mattered
Imam Ali a.s had already attempted to send Sahl ibn Hunayf as his governor over Syria.
Sunni historian Ibn al-Athir records:
Arabic:
وَسَهْلَ بْنَ حُنَيْفٍ عَلَى الشَّامِ.
فَأَمَّا سَهْلٌ فَإِنَّهُ خَرَجَ حَتَّى إِذَا كَانَ بِتَبُوكَ لَقِيَتْهُ خَيْلٌ، فَقَالُوا: مَنْ أَنْتَ؟
قَالَ: أَمِيرٌ.
قَالُوا: عَلَى أَيِّ شَيْءٍ؟
قَالَ: عَلَى الشَّامِ.
قَالُوا: إِنْ كَانَ بَعَثَكَ عُثْمَانُ فَحَيَّهَلًا بِكَ، وَإِنْ كَانَ بَعَثَكَ غَيْرُهُ فَارْجِعْ.
قَالَ: أَوَمَا سَمِعْتُمْ بِالَّذِي كَانَ؟
قَالُوا: بَلَى.
فَرَجَعَ إِلَى عَلِيٍّ.
English:
“Ali appointed Sahl ibn Hunayf over Syria.
Sahl travelled until he reached Tabuk, where cavalrymen met him and asked:
‘Who are you?’
He replied:
‘A governor.’
They asked:
‘Over what?’
He said:
‘Over Syria.’
They replied:
‘If Uthman sent you, then welcome. But if someone other than Uthman sent you, then return.’
Sahl asked:
‘Have you not heard what happened?’
They replied:
‘Yes.’
So Sahl returned to Ali.”
Reference:
Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, events of 36 AH, “Ali’s appointment of his governors and Muawiya’s opposition.”
This report proves the actual political problem:
Imam Ali’s appointed governor could not even enter Syria because the forces loyal to Muawiya rejected him.
Now read that historical fact alongside the words attributed to Imam Ali concerning Ibn Umar:
إِنَّكَ رَجُلٌ مُطَاعٌ فِي أَهْلِ الشَّامِ
“You are a man who is obeyed among the people of Syria.”
The reasonable evidence-based inference is that Ibn Umar’s possible acceptance among Syrians made him politically useful in attempting to remove Syria from Muawiya’s control.
This is not proof of love for Umar.
It is evidence of an attempt to solve a provincial political crisis using someone the local population might obey.
Even a modern Sunni biography defending the Companions explains the events in this order: Imam Ali first considered Ibn Umar, Ibn Umar declined, and Sahl ibn Hunayf was then sent but was turned back by Muawiya’s forces.
3. The article’s title is misleading
The title says:
“Ali appointed Abdullah ibn Umar.”
But according to the report itself:
Ibn Umar refused.
He sought Hafsa’s intervention.
He secretly left for Mecca.
He never travelled to Syria.
He never assumed the governorship.
He never governed Syria for Imam Ali.
Therefore, this was not a completed appointment.
A more accurate title would be:
“Imam Ali allegedly proposed sending Abdullah ibn Umar to Syria, but Ibn Umar refused and fled to Mecca.”
The article converts an unfulfilled proposal into a successful political appointment.
4. The report praises Syrian acceptability, not universal leadership
There is a major difference between:
مُطَاعٌ فِي أَهْلِ الشَّامِ
“Obeyed among the people of Syria”
and:
“Qualified to lead the entire Muslim Ummah.”
A provincial governor may be selected because of:
Local influence;
tribal connections;
political neutrality;
public acceptance;
negotiating ability;
or the possibility of preventing civil war.
None of these automatically proves universal religious or political superiority.
The article changes:
“He may be obeyed in Syria”
into:
“Imam Ali recognised his great leadership qualities.”
That conclusion is not stated by Imam Ali. It is the article’s own interpretation.
5. The article inflates the evidence by repeating the same report
The reports in Ibn Asakir and al-Dhahabi through:
Sufyan ibn Uyaynah,
from Umar ibn Nafi,
from Nafi,
from Ibn Umar
are essentially the same route.
Quoting the same chain from Tarikh Dimashq and Siyar A‘lam al-Nubala’ does not create two independent eyewitness reports.
The article lists several books and versions to give the impression of overwhelming independent evidence, but many of the citations are:
The same chain repeated in later sources;
weaker alternative routes;
disconnected historical reports;
or reports that do not even mention a governorship.
6. The route through Layth ibn Abi Sulaym is weak
One version cited by the article comes through:
لَيْثُ بْنُ أَبِي سُلَيْمٍ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ
“Layth ibn Abi Sulaym, from Nafi.”
But Sunni rijal scholars criticised Layth’s memory.
Yahya ibn Ma‘in said:
لَيْثُ بْنُ أَبِي سُلَيْمٍ ضَعِيفٌ، إِلَّا أَنَّهُ يُكْتَبُ حَدِيثُهُ
“Layth ibn Abi Sulaym is weak, although his narrations may be written down.”
Ibn Hibban said:
كَانَ مِنَ الْعُبَّادِ، وَلَكِنِ اخْتَلَطَ فِي آخِرِ عُمُرِهِ، حَتَّى كَانَ لَا يَدْرِي مَا يُحَدِّثُ بِهِ، فَكَانَ يَقْلِبُ الْأَسَانِيدَ، وَيَرْفَعُ الْمَرَاسِيلَ، وَيَأْتِي عَنِ الثِّقَاتِ بِمَا لَيْسَ مِنْ حَدِيثِهِمْ.
“He was among the devoted worshippers, but he became confused toward the end of his life until he no longer knew what he was narrating. He would reverse chains, raise disconnected reports and narrate from reliable transmitters things that were not from their reports.”
Reference:
Al-Dhahabi, Siyar A‘lam al-Nubala’, biography of Layth ibn Abi Sulaym; Sunni rijal collections.
Therefore, the Layth version cannot be presented as independent strong confirmation equal to the Ibn Uyaynah route.
Interestingly, this weaker version says:
فَلَمْ يُعَاوِدْهُ
“Ali did not ask him again.”
That differs from the other version’s impression that Imam Ali continued insisting until Ibn Umar fled.
The article places variant reports together without discussing their differing details or reliability.
7. The route in Nu‘aym ibn Hammad’s al-Fitan is also weak
The article cites the route:
ابْنُ الْمُبَارَكِ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ نَافِعٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ
“Ibn al-Mubarak, from Abdullah ibn Nafi, from his father, from Ibn Umar.”
But Sunni rijal scholars severely criticised Abdullah ibn Nafi, the client of Ibn Umar.
Al-Bukhari said:
مُنْكَرُ الْحَدِيثِ
“His hadith is objectionable.”
Al-Nasa’i said:
مَتْرُوكُ الْحَدِيثِ
“Abandoned in hadith.”
Al-Daraqutni said:
مَتْرُوكٌ
“Abandoned.”
Yahya ibn Ma‘in said:
ضَعِيفٌ
“Weak.”
Reference:
Sunni rijal entries for Abdullah ibn Nafi, the client of Ibn Umar.
Therefore, the al-Fitan version is not an independent authentic corroboration.
The article places it beside the stronger route without warning the reader that its narrator was called weak, objectionable and abandoned by major Sunni critics.
8. Some cited versions do not prove a governorship at all
One report cited by the article only says:
هَذِهِ كُتُبُنَا، فَارْكَبْ بِهَا إِلَى الشَّامِ
“These are our letters. Ride with them to Syria.”
Taking letters to Syria does not necessarily mean being appointed governor.
A messenger, envoy, negotiator and provincial governor are different positions.
Another report merely says that Imam Ali thought Ibn Umar might have travelled to Syria and wanted him brought back.
That also does not independently prove that he had appointed him governor.
The article combines different reports about:
A proposed governorship;
carrying letters;
travelling to Syria;
and being searched for after leaving
as though all of them independently state the same completed appointment.
They do not.
9. Umar explicitly excluded his own son from the caliphate
When Umar was dying, the people asked him to appoint a successor.
Sahih al-Bukhari records:
Arabic:
فَقَالُوا: أَوْصِ يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ، اسْتَخْلِفْ.
قَالَ: مَا أَجِدُ أَحَدًا أَحَقَّ بِهَذَا الْأَمْرِ مِنْ هَؤُلَاءِ النَّفَرِ أَوِ الرَّهْطِ الَّذِينَ تُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَهُوَ عَنْهُمْ رَاضٍ.
فَسَمَّى عَلِيًّا، وَعُثْمَانَ، وَالزُّبَيْرَ، وَطَلْحَةَ، وَسَعْدًا، وَعَبْدَ الرَّحْمَنِ.
وَقَالَ: يَشْهَدُكُمْ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عُمَرَ، وَلَيْسَ لَهُ مِنَ الْأَمْرِ شَيْءٌ، كَهَيْئَةِ التَّعْزِيَةِ لَهُ.
English:
The people said:
“O Commander of the Faithful, give your final instructions and appoint a successor.”
Umar said:
“I do not find anyone more entitled to this matter than these individuals with whom the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was pleased when he died.”
He named:
Ali,
Uthman,
al-Zubayr,
Talha,
Sa‘d,
and Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf.
Then Umar said:
“Abdullah ibn Umar may attend with you, but he has no share in the rule.”
The narrator added that this was something like consolation for him.
Reference:
Sahih al-Bukhari 3700.
The key words are:
وَلَيْسَ لَهُ مِنَ الْأَمْرِ شَيْءٌ
“He has no share in the authority.”
Umar himself explicitly refused to make his son a candidate for the caliphate.
Therefore, TwelverShia.net cannot turn a possible provincial mission into proof that Abdullah ibn Umar possessed extraordinary qualifications for supreme leadership.
Suitability for one local political task is not qualification for universal caliphate.
10. Umar reportedly criticised the suggestion of appointing his son
Ibn Hajar records:
Arabic:
وَوَقَعَ فِي رِوَايَةِ الطَّبَرِيِّ مِنْ طَرِيقِ الْمَدَائِنِيِّ بِأَسَانِيدِهِ، قَالَ: فَقَالَ لَهُ رَجُلٌ: اسْتَخْلِفْ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ عُمَرَ.
قَالَ: وَاللَّهِ مَا أَرَدْتَ اللَّهَ بِهَذَا.
وَأَخْرَجَ ابْنُ سَعْدٍ بِسَنَدٍ صَحِيحٍ مِنْ مُرْسَلِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ النَّخَعِيِّ نَحْوَهُ، قَالَ:
فَقَالَ عُمَرُ: قَاتَلَكَ اللَّهُ، وَاللَّهِ مَا أَرَدْتَ اللَّهَ بِهَذَا، أَسْتَخْلِفُ مَنْ لَمْ يُحْسِنْ أَنْ يُطَلِّقَ امْرَأَتَهُ؟
English:
In al-Tabari’s report through al-Mada’ini’s chains, a man said to Umar:
“Appoint Abdullah ibn Umar as your successor.”
Umar replied:
“By Allah, you did not intend Allah through this suggestion.”
Ibn Sa‘d transmitted a similar report with an authentic chain to Ibrahim al-Nakha‘i, although it is mursal. Umar said:
“May Allah deal with you! By Allah, you did not intend Allah through this. Should I appoint as successor someone who did not even know how to divorce his wife correctly?”
Reference:
Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari, commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari’s report of Umar’s consultative council.
Status:
Ibn Hajar says Ibn Sa‘d’s chain is authentic to Ibrahim al-Nakha‘i, but the report is mursal. It is therefore supporting historical evidence, not equal to a fully connected sahih narration.
The underlying divorce incident itself is authentic.
Abdullah ibn Umar divorced his wife while she was menstruating. The Prophet ﷺ ordered him to take her back and taught him the correct time for divorce.
Thus, Sunni sources preserve Umar’s own exclusion of his son from succession and a report criticising his judgement.
This does not mean Ibn Umar had no good qualities. It means the article’s claim of extraordinary universal leadership is exaggerated.
11. Ibn Umar later regretted not fighting alongside Imam Ali
Sunni sources transmit that Abdullah ibn Umar later regretted remaining neutral.
Arabic:
وَصَحَّ عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُمَرَ مِنْ وُجُوهٍ أَنَّهُ قَالَ:
مَا آسَى عَلَى شَيْءٍ كَمَا آسَى أَنِّي لَمْ أُقَاتِلِ الْفِئَةَ الْبَاغِيَةَ مَعَ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ.
English:
“It is authentically established from Abdullah ibn Umar through several routes that he said:
‘I regret nothing as much as I regret that I did not fight the rebellious party alongside Ali.’”
Reference:
Ibn Abd al-Barr, al-Isti‘ab fi Ma‘rifat al-Ashab, biography of Abdullah ibn Umar.
Al-Dhahabi also records:
Arabic:
مَا آسَى عَلَى شَيْءٍ فَاتَنِي إِلَّا أَنِّي لَمْ أُقَاتِلْ مَعَ عَلِيٍّ الْفِئَةَ الْبَاغِيَةَ.
English:
“I regret nothing that I missed except that I did not fight the rebellious party alongside Ali.”
Reference:
Al-Dhahabi, Siyar A‘lam al-Nubala’, biography of Abdullah ibn Umar.
Al-Dhahabi notes that one particular route is disconnected, but other Sunni scholars transmitted the statement through several routes and affirmed its attribution.
This is crucial.
Ibn Umar’s refusal to support Imam Ali was not later remembered by Ibn Umar as a great virtue.
He regretted failing to stand with Imam Ali against the rebellious party.
Sunni historian Ibn Kathir states regarding the Syrian army that killed Ammar ibn Yasir:
وَبَانَ بِذَلِكَ أَنَّ عَلِيًّا مُحِقٌّ وَأَنَّ مُعَاوِيَةَ بَاغٍ
“It became clear through this that Ali was upon the truth and that Muawiya was a rebel.”
Reference:
Ibn Kathir, al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, events of Siffin.
Therefore, Ibn Umar’s later regret supports Imam Ali’s legitimacy. It does not support the article’s attempt to make Ibn Umar’s refusal a virtue against Shia beliefs.
12. Being Umar’s son proves nothing about Imam Ali’s view of Umar
The article’s hidden argument is:
“Imam Ali selected Umar’s son; therefore, Imam Ali admired Umar.”
This is a false bloodline argument.
A son is judged according to his own conduct, not automatically according to his father.
The clearest example is Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr.
Al-Dhahabi records:
Arabic:
ثُمَّ انْضَمَّ إِلَى عَلِيٍّ، فَكَانَ مِنْ أُمَرَائِهِ، فَسَيَّرَهُ عَلَى إِمْرَةِ مِصْرَ سَنَةَ سَبْعٍ وَثَلَاثِينَ.
English:
“Then Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr joined Ali and became one of his commanders. Ali sent him as governor of Egypt in the year 37 AH.”
Reference:
Al-Dhahabi, Siyar A‘lam al-Nubala’, biography of Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr.
Muhammad was Abu Bakr’s biological son.
Yet he supported Imam Ali, became one of his commanders and was appointed governor of Egypt.
Shia sources preserve Imam Ali’s statement concerning him:
مُحَمَّدٌ ابْنِي مِنْ صُلْبِ أَبِي بَكْرٍ
“Muhammad is my son, although he is from the loins of Abu Bakr.”
Shia biographical sources honour Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr because of his loyalty to Imam Ali and Ahl al-Bayt—not because of his father.
This proves the principle:
Lineage is not the criterion.
Conduct toward Imam Ali and Ahl al-Bayt is the criterion.
Therefore, even if Imam Ali offered Umar’s son a political position, that proves nothing about Imam Ali’s judgement of Umar’s caliphate.
13. The article’s conclusion is a non sequitur
What the strongest report may establish:
Imam Ali believed Abdullah ibn Umar might be obeyed by some Syrians.
What TwelverShia.net claims it establishes:
Imam Ali admired Umar.
Imam Ali accepted Umar’s superiority.
Imam Ali approved Umar’s caliphate.
Imam Ali saw extraordinary universal leadership in Ibn Umar.
Imam Ali’s relationship with Ibn Umar disproves Shia beliefs.
None of those conclusions appears in the report.
The report mentions one local political consideration:
مُطَاعٌ فِي أَهْلِ الشَّامِ
“Obeyed among the people of Syria.”
Sunni history confirms why this quality mattered: the forces controlling Syria had already rejected and turned back Imam Ali’s appointed governor, Sahl ibn Hunayf.
Final Verdict
Even if the strongest Sunni version is accepted, it proves only that Imam Ali allegedly considered Abdullah ibn Umar a potentially useful figure because some Syrians might obey him during a dangerous political crisis.
It does not prove love for Umar.
It does not prove acceptance of Umar’s caliphate.
It does not prove universal leadership superiority in Abdullah ibn Umar.
It was not a completed appointment: Ibn Umar refused and fled to Mecca.
The article’s supporting reports are not all equally strong. Some repeat the same chain, one passes through the weak Layth ibn Abi Sulaym, another through Abdullah ibn Nafi, whom Sunni critics called weak and abandoned, and some do not mention a governorship at all.
Umar himself excluded his son from succession:
وَلَيْسَ لَهُ مِنَ الْأَمْرِ شَيْءٌ
“He has no share in the authority.”
Abdullah ibn Umar later regretted not fighting alongside Imam Ali against the rebellious party.
And Imam Ali’s appointment of Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr proves that sons were evaluated independently from their fathers.
The article has taken a proposed provincial strategy and transformed it into a theological endorsement of Umar and his family.
That conclusion is not history.
It is polemical invention.
Did Imam Ali Really Appoint Ibn Umar?
Primary Category :
Secondary Category :
Loading comments...