Reply
• “Umar” was a fairly common and acceptable name amongst the Arabs. This name is not limited only for “Umar ibn Khattab”. By referring to the books of “Rejal” and their translations, we find that many individuals had this name. Thus, Ibn Hajar Asqalaani has listed the names of 22 individuals among the companions of Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a) whose name was “Umar”. Noteworthy among them was Umar bin Abi Salmah Makhzumi (who was the stepson of Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a) and a staunch supporter of H. Ali (a.s))
• In the light of historical evidences, H. Ali (a.s) was not involved in the naming of this particular son. It was Umar ibn Khattab – due to his position and influence – who interfered in the naming of this child and gave him his own name. Ahmed bin Yahya Belazari (d: 279 AH) writes about this and says, “Umar bin Khattab named the son of Ali as “Umar” (Ansab-ul- Ashraaf, vol 2 pg 192)
• History has noted similar instances of the unwanted meddling of the second caliph in matters unrelated to him. For instance,
(a) Ahmed ibn Yahya Belazari writes about Abdullah bin Qais, “The earlier name of Abdullah bin Qais bin Nakab was “Khayat”. Umar ibn Khattab changed it to “Abdullah” (Ansabul Ashraaf, vol 13, pg 33)
(b) Ibn Aseer Jazari Shafei (d: 630 AH) writes in the biography of Abdur Rehman Haaris Makhzumi about the meddling of Umar and says, “Abdur Rehman grew up in the care of Umar. The old name of Abdur Rehman was “Ibrahim”. Umar changed his name and selected the name of “Abdur Rehman” for him.” (Asadul Ghabah fi Maarefat Sahabah, vol 3 pg 284)
(c) Ibn Saad Basari (d: 230 AH) writes, “The name of the son of Mashruk was ‘Ajda’a. Umar renamed him as “Abdur Rehman” (At-Tabaqaatul Kubra, vol 6, pg 74)
(d) Ibn Qutaybah Daynoori writes about Hormazan – the Persian King – that when he accepted Islam, Umar chose the name “ Arfatah” for him. (Al-Maarif, pg 421)
(e) Mutaqqi Hindi has given another instance of the interference of the second caliph and he writes, “Umar bin Khattab changed the name of Tohail bin Ribah to Khalid bin Ribah. Tohail was the brother of Bilal bin Ribah” (Kanzul Ummal)
(f) Ibn Saad & Ibn Hajar Asqalaani Shafei have narrated, “The previous name of ‘Kaseer bin Slt’ was ‘Qaleel bin Slt’. Umar changed the ‘Qaleel’ into ‘Kaseer’
• By paying attention to the above instances and by pondering on the fact that Ameerul Momineen (a.s) had no role in the naming of his son as “Umar” and that his son was named by the crude and corrupt caliph, does any question arise about the cordial and amiable relations between H. Ali (a.s) & Umar ibn Khattab?
• It is possible that some of our esteemed readers may wonder that why did H. Ali (a.s) not oppose the naming of his son by Umar (la)? In reply we would like to say that the nature of the second caliph was violent, aggressive and hostile. Hence, the companions used to abstain from any kind of confrontation with him. They avoided contentious and unpleasant discussions with him. Issuing a decree to kill Saad bin Ebadah for not paying allegiance to Abu Bakr; whipping his own sister and son-in-law; beating the relatives of Khalid bin Walid; beating Jarood Aameri – the chief of the tribe of Rabia; thrashing of Abi Ka’ab a respected Ansar; setting on fire the palace of Saad bin Abi Waqqas – one of the ten companions of Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a) for whom he (s.a.w.a) prophesied Paradise (they are known as Ashar-e-Mubashherah) are all examples of the violent, rigid and hardline behaviour of Umar with the companions of Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a).
(Ansabul Ashraaf, vol 2 pg 263 & pg 272; Uqdud Farid, vol 4, pg 260; Tabaqaatul Kubra, vol 3 pg 267 & vol 5 pg 62; Musnif Abdur Razaak, vol 3 pg 557; Kitab Janaez, H.no 6681; Tareekh Madina vol 2 pg 690)
This aggressive and hostile attitude was so common towards all Muslims in general and the companions of Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a) in particular, that it is noted in history that the “whip of Umar ibn Khattab (la) was more dangerous and terrifying than the sword of Hajjaj bin Yusuf.”
(Tabaqaatul Kubra, vol 3 pg 282; Ansaabul Ashraaf, vol 10, pg 322)
Besides the hostile and rude behaviour of the second caliph, there could be other grounds too and based on those reasons, H. Ali (a.s) chose not to oppose the naming of his son as “Umar”. It is also possible that he (as) has opposed the naming of his son but history has not recorded it. Or it has recorded it but we are unaware of this opposition. And it is also probable that the name of the son is Amr bin Ali and not Umar bin Ali. Amr & Umar have almost similar spellings in Arabic. (Amr = عمر و ) & (Umar = عمر )
Another son of H. Ali (a.s) too has a name similar to the third caliph. The name of this son was Usman bin Ali. A similar question can be asked about this son too. Why was he named after the third caliph?
(a) By refering to books of history, “Rejal” and “Ansaab” (Geneology), it becomes clear that like the name “Umar”, the name “Usman” too was common and widespread among the Arabs. Ibn Hajar Asqalaani in his book “Al-Isaabah fi Tameez sahabah” has mentioned the names of 24 companions of Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a) whose name was “Usman”
(b) Historical evidences point to the fact that H. Ali (a.s) named his son “Usman” in honour of “Usman bin Maz’oon” – a loyal and sincere companion of Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a). And this naming is in no way related to the third caliph “Usman bin Afwan”.
• Abu Faraj Isfehani narrates from H. Ali (a.s) “I have named by son “Usman” in honour of my brother Usman bin Maz’oon” (Maqalatul Talibeen, pg 55)
• Abul Hasan, Mohammed bin Jafar Abidali writes about the warriors of the battle of Badr, “One of the people present in the battle of Badr was Usman bin Ma’zoon. It is his name that H. Ali (a.s) chose for his son.” (Tehzeebul Ansaab, pg 27)
Historians have introduced one more son of H. Ali (a.s) as Abu Bakr ibn Ali. Abu Bakr was the kuniyat (agnomen) of that son. But there is a debate concerning his name. Some say that his name was “Abdullah”, some say that it was “Mohammed” while some say that it was “Abdur Rehman”. There are some historians – like Abul Faraj Isfehaani – who have expressed their inability to find his name and have said that they are unaware of his real name. Concerning these differences, it is written
(a) “Abu Bakr was not the name but was the kuniyat of the son of H. Ali (a.s). As per the prevailing customs of that era, kuniyat could be related to some outsider also and it was not necessarily selected on the basis of the person’s father or mother.
(b) The kuniyat “Abu Bakr” too was prevalent and widespread among the Arabs. And from the onset of Islam, it was used for many people. There is no documentary evidence to show that this kuniyat of the son of H. Ali (a.s) is in any way related to the kuniyat of the first caliph.
(c) The name of the first caliph was “Abdullah” and his kuniyat was “Abu Bakr”. If H. Ali (a.s) wanted to show his cordial relations with the first caliph, then he should have named his son “Abdullah” and not “Abu Bakr”
On this basis – without referring to all historical evidences that prove the strained and tense relation between H. Ali (a.s) and Abu Bakr (la) – we can safely conclude that this similarity in the name of the son of H. Ali (a.s) with Abu Bakr does not point to any amiable and friendly relations between H. Ali (a.s) & Abu Bakr (la).
And if these names do point to the friendly relations between H. Ali (a.s) & the three caliphs, then why is this affection only one-sided? Why have the three caliphs not named their children and “Ali”, “Hasan” & “Husain”?
Among the friends and companions of the Ahle Bait (a.s) we can find names like Yazid, Muawiyah, Abdul Malik, Amr etc. Does it mean that these names were selected in honour of the caliphs or of Amr Aas?
Another point that must not be overlooked is that the hatred and loathing for these names of the caliphs have gradually increased with the passage of time. The abhorrence that every lover and Shia of Ahle Bait (a.s) has for these caliphs has gradually reached its pinnacle today. So much so that not only do we detest these individuals but also cannot tolerate their names.