By
Balogun Abdulbasit Umar
In every age, the enemies of Islam have tried different tactics to weaken the Ummah. Sometimes they come openly with their kufr, and sometimes they hide under the cloak of Islam while planting doubts in the hearts of the unsuspecting. One of the most dangerous among them in our own time are those who have inherited the slanders of the Rāfiḍah, the Shi’a sect, and are now busy spreading their poison under new names and in new forms.
Recently, we have heard claims from a man who boldly declared that Abū Bakr and ʿUmar (may Allah be pleased with them both) were not sad about the death of the Prophet ﷺ, but were only interested in leadership after him. And when people rightly objected to this blatant insult, his followers came to his defense, saying: “But some people also said the Prophet left debts behind, and that his parents are in Hell.”
This is where we must pause and expose their deception.
THE FALSEHOOD OF THEIR CLAIM AGAINST ABŪ BAKR AND ʿUMAR
History records clearly that Abū Bakr and ʿUmar were among the most devastated by the passing of the Prophet ﷺ. ʿUmar was in such shock that he threatened to strike down anyone who said the Prophet had died, until Abū Bakr recited the verse:
“Indeed, you will die, and indeed, they will die.” (Qur’an 39:30)
Hearing this, the people calmed down, realizing that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ had indeed returned to his Lord. Was this the action of men who were scheming for power? No, it was the grief of true lovers and protectors of the Messenger ﷺ. The historical record testifies against this man’s slander.
WHAT IS THE FALLACY OF FALSE EQUIVALENCE?
The defense made by his followers is a classic example of what is called the fallacy of false equivalence. This means comparing two things as if they are the same, when in reality they are not alike at all. It is like equating night with day simply because both involve the sky, or saying poison and medicine are the same because both come in bottles.
This is exactly what these bootlickers are doing. They want us to believe that mentioning a hadith about the Prophet’s debts or his parents is the same as inventing lies against Abū Bakr and ʿUmar. But the two are not alike in the least.
WHY THEIR COMPARISON IS ROTTEN
The narrations about debt and the Prophet’s parents are found in authentic hadith books. Scholars explained them with wisdom, depth, and respect. Never to dishonor the Prophet ﷺ.
The debt showed the Prophet’s humility and generosity, not disgrace.
As for his parents, some scholars explained the hadith as part of Allah’s decree, while others held they will be tested on the Day of Judgment. But no scholar of Ahl al-Sunnah ever used this to insult the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
On the other hand, accusing Abū Bakr and ʿUmar of being power-hungry is pure fabrication, without Qur’an, without Sunnah, and without history. It is a slander rooted in Shi’i propaganda and nothing more. To compare the two is to commit the fallacy of false equivalence: putting a lie and an authentic narration on the same level.
THE OPEN INSULTS AGAINST THE COMPANIONS
Even worse, these same people who claim their leader did not insult have openly called the noble Companions of the Prophet ﷺ by names such as Dedewure (fool), Alatenuje (hungry scavenger), and Eletekete (a man of mischief). Is this not insult? Is this not abuse?
They mock and degrade the very men who carried the Qur’an, preserved the Sunnah, fought alongside the Prophet ﷺ, and spread Islam to the corners of the earth. And yet they dare say, “Our leader did not insult.” This is hypocrisy of the highest order.
THE BOOTLICKERS EXPOSED
These followers are nothing but bootlickers, willing to twist logic and destroy principles just to defend the slanders of their leader. They do not realize that they are simply echoing the old poison of the Rāfiḍah. The very poison that destroyed nations before us.
Once you strip away respect for the Sahabah, the Qur’an itself becomes suspect. Once you smear Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, ʿUthmān, and ʿAlī, the entire chain of Islam collapses. This is exactly what the Shi’a have always aimed for.
The truth is simple: those who attack the Companions are not defenders of the Prophet ﷺ, but his enemies. They are not lovers of Ahl al-Bayt, but liars hiding behind their names. They are not seekers of truth, but spreaders of confusion and mischief.
THE BOOTLICKERS’ HOLLOW DEFENSE
Whenever these vituperations come out the bootlickers (Association of Dedewures and Amukunmekos) try to be clever by one-third , they rush to say: “Our principal is speaking based on research. If you disagree, respond with knowledge.”
But here’s the problem: was their principal speaking from any knowledge in the first place? Where is the “research” when a man hides books under the table, shops for fatwas online, and parrots Orientalists without citing sources? Research means evidence, methodology, sources, and intellectual transparency. What their principal presents is hearsay dressed up as scholarship.
So when they demand, “Bring knowledge,” they are exposing their own contradiction. If knowledge is the standard, then their principal has failed that test already. You cannot demand rigorous proof from others while your leader survives on distortions, half-truths, and internet cut-and-paste.
This is another clear case of false equivalence. They equate their principal’s weak, unsourced claims with the centuries of documented scholarship of the scholars from Ahl as-Sunnah. They equate his half-baked parroting with the authentic knowledge preserved by scholars of Hadith, Tafsir, and Fiqh. It’s like comparing a child’s dodle house (Ile Adodo) with the architecture of the Ilorin Central Mosque. That is pure intellectual dishonesty.
BLIND PARTISANSHIP; THE POISON WITHIN
What deepens this tragedy is the blind partisanship of the alumni and supporters of the center. Many of them know, deep in their hearts, that their principal is walking straight into the evil forest with his reckless claims. Yet instead of calling him back, they choose to cheer him on. Their loyalty is not to the truth, but to a man and an institution. They would rather bend their faith than question their principal. This is not scholarship, nor is it love for Islam. It is cultish devotion dressed up as religiosity.
In conclusion, the claim that Abū Bakr and ʿUmar were not sad about the Prophet’s death is a lie.
The attempt to defend this lie by comparing it to hadith about debts or his parents is a deception. It is the fallacy of false equivalence —treating two things as the same when in reality they are not even comparable.
Then, the open insults these people throw at the Sahabah only prove that they are walking the exact path of the Shi’a and the enemies of Islam.
The Ummah must beware. Those who defend lies with more lies are only exposing themselves. And those who insult the Companions are insulting Islam itself.
