In this chapter we will inshallah debase the defences that Abu Bakr’s advocates have advanced (in relation to Fadak) on the internet.
The Nawasib have been touting an alleged debate between a Shi’a scholar and their great Nasibi Imam Ibn Taymiyah wherein he gave earth shattering replies to the Shi’a scholar. Whilst the entire debate is about as reliable as the story of Peter Pan, allow us to refute the alleged comments of Ibn Taymiyah (that he also asserted in Minhaj al Sunnah) on this issue of Fadak. We have taken this debate from this website:
Ibn Taymiyya: Your statement that this was “a narration which he alone transmitted” is a lie. On the contrary, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Talha, Az-Zubair, Abdur-Rahman bin Auf, Al-Abbas, the wives of the Prophet and Abu Huraira narrated this in addition to Abu Bakr. Furthermore, your statement that “he wanted it for himself” is a lie. Abu Bakr did not claim it for himself, rather it was sadaqa for those who deserve it. Also, the sahaba were convinced, and Ali was one of them, that the Prophet is not inherited.
This claim is of no worth to us since none exists in Shi’a books, if traditions were coined after Fadak due to political affiliations it means nothing. Imam Ali rejected the tradition outright appearing as a witness for his wife and his verdict on Abu Bakr’s usage of the tradition was that it served as evidence that he was a liar, treacherous sinful and dishonest (see Sunni references already cited by us). It should be noted the Chief Nasibi Ibn Taymiyah in his book ‘Minhaj’ asserted that the tradition was Muttawatir and received ijma of the Sahaba, but we reject any Ijma’a that the infallible Imams have not entered upon. Islam is not shaped by the Ijma’a of fallible humans. Maula Ali (as) and Sayyida Fatima (as) rejected the Hadeeth, upon hearing it Sayyida Fatima (as) became upset with Abu Bakr, deeming him to be a liar, his assertion contradicted ten verses of the Qur’an, and according to al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi any position against the Ahl’ul bayt (as) is Batil (void).
Since Nawasib such as Ibn Taymiyah have asserted that the Hadeeth has multiple narrators from amongst the Sahaba then we challenge these defenders of Abu Bakr to present us with even a single chain (other than that from Ayesha and Abu Bakr) from the Saha Sittah, where the Isnad is complete and all the narrators are Thiqah confirming this.
There is no evidence of chains going back to these individuals. What Ibn Taymiyya is seeking to infer to is this narration in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 92, Number 408:
Narrated Malik bin Aus An-Nasri:
I proceeded till I entered upon ‘Umar (and while I was sitting there), his gate-keeper Yarfa came to him and said, ” ‘Uthman, ‘Abdur-Rahman, Az-Zubair and Sa’d ask your permission to come in.” ‘Umar allowed them. So they entered, greeted, and sat down. (After a while the gatekeeper came) and said, “Shall I admit ‘Ali and ‘Abbas?” ‘Umar allowed them to enter. Al-’Abbas said “O Chief of the believers! Judge between me and the oppressor (‘Ali).” Then there was a dispute (regarding the property of Bani Nadir) between them (‘Abbas and ‘Ali). ‘Uthman and his companions said, “O Chief of the Believers! Judge between them and relieve one from the other.” Umar said, “Be patient! beseech you by Allah, with Whose permission the Heaven and the Earth Exist! Do you know that Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Our property is not to be inherited, and whatever we leave is to be given in charity,’ and by this Allah’s Apostle meant himself?” On that the group said, “He verily said so.”
It is interesting that Ibn Taymiyya is seeking to dupe his followers into believeing that he transmitted this Hadeeth from the Prophet (s) when the reality is he had no knowledge of it, rather he enquired from those Sahaba present if they were aware of this Hadeeth. He asked the group ‘Do you know that Allah’s Apostle said’ – had he been a direct transmitter there would have been no need for Umar to questions the group in such a question, rather he would have confidently stated ‘I heard the Prophet (s) say’ Our property is not to be inherited, and whatever we leave is to be given in charity’ did you also hear him say this? The very fact that Umar asked this group of this Hadeeth proves that he was no an eye witness to the Prophet (s) ever saying this.
It is indeed fascinating that Ibn Taymiyah suggests that Imam Ali (as) was a transmitter of this Hadeeth when he in reality never ascribed to its authenticity and in fact continued to insist that Fadak remained the legal right of Sayyida Fatima (as). We read in the English translation Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8 Hadith 720:
Narrated Malik Ibn Aus:
‘Umar said to ‘Ali and ‘Abbas: “… Then I took charge of this property for two years during which I managed it as Allah’s Apostle and Abu Bakr did. Then you both (‘Ali and ‘Abbas) came to talk to me, bearing the same claim and presenting the same case. (O ‘Abbas!) You came to me asking for your share from the property of your nephew, and this man (Ali) came to me, asking for the share of his wife from the property of her father…”
Despite Abu Bakr’s recital of this Hadeeth Maula Ali still made a claim to the inheritance of Sayyida Fatima (as) during Umar’s reign, and continued to do so throughout his reign and upheld the position that his deceased wife was the legal heir of her father’s Estate. If any Nasibi try to water this incident down and misinterpret it to suggest that it had nothing to do with Prophetic inheritance then we should point out that Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Fathul Bari, Volume 6 page 145 refuted all such opinion givers whilst commenting on this Hadeeth as follows:
Darqutni narrated that Ismail al-Qazi said: ‘They were not disputing about the inheritance, but they were disputing about the charity what they shall be the Guardians of and how to be distribute it’ That is what he (Qazi Ismail) said, but according to the narration of Nisai and Umar bin Shaba from Abi al-Bakhtri, this is proof that they were disputing over the division of the inheritance.
If Imam Ali (as) remembered the Hadeeth cited by Abu Bakr, deeming it correct then why did he demand Sayyida Fatima (as)’s inheritance right during Umar’s reign?
The reality is there is no basis to claim that the Hadeeth is Muttawatir. Let us cite the definition of Muttawatir as quoted by Dr. Suhayb Hasan, An Introduction to the Science of Hadeeth, Darussalam Publishers, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, page 30:
Ibn Hajar [al-'Asqalani] has dealt with different classes of Hadeeth in the Sharh Nukhbat al-Fikr at great length. The most important division of Hadeeth is into Muttawatir (continuous) and wahid (isolated). A Hadeeth is said to be Muttawatir (lit. repeated successively or by one after another) when it is reported by such a large number that it is impossible that they should have agreed upon falsehood, so that the very fact that it is commonly accepted makes its authority unquestionable. To this category belong Hadeeth that have been accepted by every Muslim generation down from the time of the Holy Prophet.[52] The Muttawatir Hadeeth are accepted without criticizing their narrators.
If we accept this principle then we should make it clear that it does not apply to Abu Bakr’s recital of the Hadeeth ‘We the Prophets do not leave inheritance’, and as evidence we shall rely on the fact narrated by Ayesha:
‘They disagreed about his inheritance and could find no one with knowledge on that point, then Abu Bakr said, ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah may Allah grant him peace, saying ‘We the company of the Prophets, we are not inherited from. What we leave is Sadaqah’.
1. Tareekh ul-Khulafa, Page 62
2. Kanz al Ummal Volume 12 page 488 Tradition 35600
3. Sawaiq Muhriqa, page 91
4. Tarikh Dimashq, v30, p311
5. Semt al-Awali by Esami, Volume 1 page 378
This proves that Abu Bakr was the sole narrator of this Hadeeth, a lone narration cannot be defined as Muttawatir. This shall suffice to shut the mouth of Ibn Taymiyah and his modern day adherents.
If any doubt still remains then allow us to cite the comments of one of the esteemed Sunni scholars Ali bin Muhammad Qoshji (d. 879 H) from his authority work Sharh al-Qoshji, page 406, wherein the author attacks the Shi’a position on Fadak:
“(Tusi asserts that) amongst Abu Bakr’s bad deeds is the fact that he contradicted the Qur’an by refusing to apportion the Prophet’s inheritance, and this denial was based on his narration ‘prophets do not leave inheritance’ which is Ahad while to specify a rule from Quran must be based on a mutawatir narration. [Qoshji's reply] Although the Hadeeth is Ahad and its content (matan) is suspicious, sometimes even a Ahad narration provides absolute proof ”
Moreover, Qadhi Eji in his famed work Al-Mawaqif, Volume 3 page 607 clearly declared this Hadith: ‘Khabar al-Wahid’ (a single narration).
The admission from Allamah Qoshji and Eji that the tradition recited by Abu Bakr is ‘Ahad’ or ‘Khabar al-Wahid’ destroys the claim of Ibn Taymiyah that it was Muttawatir. Qoshji and Eji accept that Abu Bakr narration was ‘Ahad’ and according to Ibn Taymiyah if the narration reminded everyone [of the Hadeeth] the esteemed Ahl’ul Sunnah’s scholars would not have deemed this to be a lone narration. The research of these two scholars is clear proof that Ibn Tamiyah’s claim is open deception. The most incredible claim of this Nasibi is his passionate defence of Abu Bakr:
Also, the sahaba were convinced, and Ali was one of them, that the Prophet is not inherited.
This is amazing, since the same Ali (who Ahl’ul Sunnah deem Mahfuz (protected) and Shi’a deem Masum) after hearing Abu Bakr’s recital of this tradition (according to Sahih Muslim, on the authority of Umar) concluded that Abu Bakr was a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest! Imam Ali (as) did not remember the Hadeeth after Abu Bakr’s recital, when he rejected this Hadeeth then the defence of others is worthless! If Nawasib are going to enter the world of fairy tales it would be advisable for them not to suggest the inability of a Shi’a scholar to refute a claim that a Shi’a school child could take apart! If there is any doubt as to the meaning and context of Hadhrat Ali (as)’s comments then let us cite the esteemed Sunni work ‘al Awasim min al Qawasim’ page 194, by Qadhi Abi Bakr ibn Arabi:
Umar’s statement is that they (Ali and Abbas) believed Abu Bakr to be an unjust, treacherous and dishonest, verily that is a narration relating to a disagreement in laws, he (Abu Bakr) had an opinion and they (Ali Abbas) had another opinion. Thus Abu Bakr and Umar issued a judgment according to their opinion while Abbas and Ali disagreed with that opinion.
Ibn Arabi was a major Sunni scholar that accepted that Abu Bakr’s decision to hold and transfer the Prophet’s property as Sadaqah, led to Maula Ali, grading him as unjust and treacherous. Clearly when Ali (as) and Abbas (ra) heard Abu Bakr reciting this Hadeeth it was the first time that they had heard of such a claim, and they rejected the authenticity of the tradition, hence Ibn Tamiyah’s claim that the Sahaba became convinced by Abu Bakr’s citing the Hadeeth is a blatant lie, he even tried to include Hadhrat Ali (as) among those who agreed!
Ibn Taymiyah al-Nasibi also counted Uthman and the wives of the Prophet (s) as narrators of the Hadeeth. The simplest way to refute this comes from the Hadeeth (that we have already cited) in Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 367, Kitab al Maghaazi:
…. “I told ‘Urwa bin Az-Zubair of this Hadeeth and he said, ‘Malik bin Aus has told the truth” I heard ‘Ayesha, the wife of the Prophet saying, ‘The wives of the Prophet sent ‘Uthman to Abu Bakr demanding from him their 1/8 of the Fai which Allah had granted to his Apostle. But I used to oppose them and say to them: Will you not fear Allah? Don’t you know that the Prophet used to say: Our property is not inherited, but whatever we leave is to be given in charity?”
Ibn Taymiyah advanced Uthman and the wives as narrators of this Hadeeth, the reality is they had no knowledge of this Hadeeth, proven by the fact that they sent Uthman to present their inheritance claim on their behalf! If Uthman had heard this Hadeeth why did he not interject and say ‘O Mothers, what inheritance are you referring to, Rasulullah (s) said ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we leave is Sadaqah’’
The claim of the wives and Uthman going as their representative is proof that they had never heard of the Hadeeth, a Hadeeth that Ibn Taymiyah al-Nasibi claims they narrated!
It is also worthy to note the surprise of Ayesha the words ‘Don’t you know that the Prophet used to say’ – these words are used point out something that is common knowledge, since the Prophet (s) regularly stated this. If this was indeed the case, how is it that the other eight wives of the Prophet (s) had no knowledge of these words of the Prophet (s)? Were they all suffering from amnesia when they appointed Uthman to represent them in their inheritance claim? This proves that Ayesha was merely propagating a rumour that had been started by her father. It is indeed interesting that she rebukes the other wives for failing to recollect words that the Prophet (s) said frequently, yet (s), she herself testifies that when the Prophet (s) died:
‘They disagreed about his inheritance and could find no one with knowledge on that point, then Abu Bakr said, ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah may Allah grant him peace, saying ‘We the company of the Prophets, we are not inherited from. What we leave is Sadaqah’.
We appeal to justice, how can it be plausible that she had no recollection of this Hadith at the time that the Prophet (s) died, but was then suggesting to the other wives that this was common knowledge to everyone? One would have assumed a Hadith that the Prophet (s) repeatedly told the wives of the Prophet (s), would have at least been recollected by the same Ayesha that was then criticizing the other wives of the Prophet for forgetting? If anything this proves, how concerted efforts were made by the State to propagate this tradition, so that the common man would assume it was original. Naturally Ayesha the daughter of the Khalifa who invented this tradition, was at the forefront in getting people to accept it, by suggesting that the Prophet (s) had repeatedly said it!
It is indeed interesting that Ibn Taymeeya suggests that Abu Huraira also attested to this Hadeeth, since if we analyze his narration we note how it goes against the assertion of Abu Bakr that Prophets leave nothing. This is the Hadeeth from Sahih Bukhari, Book of inheritance Volume 8, Book 80, Number 721:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle said, “Not even a single Dinar of my property should be distributed (after my deaths to my inheritors, but whatever I leave excluding the provision for my wives and my servants, should be spent in charity.”
Firstly this tradition conflicts with the fact that Ayesha narrates that after the death of the Prophet (s), Abu Bakr only knew of this Hadeeth. Secondly and most crucially, the tradition conflicts with that narrated by Abu Bakr ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity)’ for the Khaleefa made it clear that the Prophet (s) left nothing behind. Abu Huraira narrates the same with an exemption, monies to servants and the wives are protected from distribution. Where did this exemption appear? It is worthy to note that the same narrator offers another exempt category in Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4355:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: My heirs cannot share even a dinar (from my legacy) ; what I leave behind after paying maintenance allowance to my wives and remuneration to my manager is (to go in) charity.
In this narration there is no mention of Servants being entitled to the money of the Prophet (s), here salaries go to the wives and the ‘manager’.
Whilst these different narration from the same individual should suffice to discredit its authenticity, even if we were to accept that this is authentic ‘Why didn’t Abu Bakr recall this Hadeeth in the same manner?’ And even more interestingly, ‘why did Ayesha not recall the Hadeeth in the same manner when the other wives were applying to make a joint claim to the inheritance of the Prophet (s)?’ Why did she not state “Will you not fear Allah? Don’t you know that the Prophet used to say: Our property is not inherited, but whatever we leave is to be given in charity? We can only receive the alimony that the Prophet (s) left for us”? If anyone knew of the Hadeeth in the manner that Abu Huraira suggested it would have been the wives of the Prophet (s) since it purported to state their monetary entitlement following the death of the Prophet (s), so how is it not one of them knew the hadeeth as it appeared in this fashion? The very fact that nine wives of the Prophet (s) and even Abu Bakr never narrated the Hadeeth in this manner proves that the narration of Abu Huraira was concocted during the era of Abu Bakr. When the sheer absurdity of the alleged Hadith dawned on the Khalifa, and it implications, namely that the wives of the Prophet (s) would in effect be rendered poor and destitute overnight, it was essential that an exemption to the rule be recited. It was most convenient that Abu Hurraira was able to recall this exemption, even though Abu Bakr, his daughter and the other wives of the Prophet (s) had no recollection of it! It was also convenient since this provided the means via which salaries could be utilized to pay for public officials; after all they could all fall into the category of Servants and claim a stake to the money of Muhammad (s) at the expense of his daughter, who was entitled to nothing.
Whilst we have already refuted Ibn Taymiyah al Nasibi’s comments on this, Mu’awiya’s children ‘Reviving Islam’ in their re-hash of Ansar.Org’s article seek to suggest that Maula Ali (as) attested to the authenticity of this Hadeeth. They start by seeking to breakdown their evidence and we will inhsallah comment on their points and then reply to their summary,
Reviving Islam states:
The Next proof comes from the following hadith, due to the incredible benefit of this hadith we will state some points of benefit in brackets;
Narrated Malik bin Aus:
‘I went and entered upon ‘Umar, his doorman, Yarfa came saying ‘Uthman, ‘Abdur-Rahman, Az-Zubair and Sa’d are asking your permission (to see you). May I admit them? ‘Umar said, ‘Yes.’ So he admitted them Then he came again and said, ‘May I admit ‘Ali and ‘Abbas?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ ‘Abbas said, ‘Ya, Ameer-ul-Mu’mineen! Judge between me and this man (Ali ).
[Benefit of this part of the hadith: Notice how Al 'Abbas referred to 'Umar ibn Al Khattab (radhiyallahu Anhumaa) as "Ameer-ul-mu'mineen (leader of the believers)!" This proves that 'Umar was a valid Khaleefah, unlike the shi'aa try and claim. It furthermore points out that 'Aliy himself (radhiya Allahu 'Anhu) recognized the leadership of 'Umar! Furthermore, they were coming to him seeking judgment as you will soon see.]
The words of Abbas cited in Sunni text are of no value to us. If the pair went to Umar this was because he was the chief architect behind its usurpation during Abu Bakr’s reign, and not that he was a legitimate Khaleefa. It is common sense that when someone does injustice to you, you confront the unjust party not some irrelevant third party!
Reviving Islam states:
‘Umar said, ‘I beseech you by Allah by Whose permission both the heaven and the earth exist, do you know that Rasoolullah said,
‘Our (the Prophets’) property will not be inherited, and whatever we leave (after our death) is to be spent in charity?’ And by that Allah’s Apostle meant himself.’ The group said, ‘(No doubt), he said so.’ ‘Umar then faced ‘Ali and ‘Abbas and said, ‘Do you both know that Rasoolullah said that?’ They replied, ‘(No doubt), he said so.’
[Benefit: 'Umar is narrating that the Nabi forbade anyone to inherit wealth from him. He asked BOTH 'Aliy and 'Abbas (radhiya Allahu 'Anhumaa) if it were true that the Nabi said that. They agreed that He had said it! So we now have both Aliy and 'Abbas, from Ahlul Bayt, agreeing with Abu Bakr As Siddeeq and 'Umar on this issue that nothing is to be inherited from the Nabi how Al 'Abbas referred to 'Umar ibn Al Khattab (radhiyallahu Anhumaa) as "Ameer-ul-mu'mineen (leader of the believers)!" This proves that 'Umar was a valid Khaleefah, unlike the shi'aa try and claim. It furthermore points out that 'Aliy himself (radhiya Allahu 'Anhu) recognized the leadership of 'Umar! Furthermore, they were coming to him seeking judgment as you will soon see.]
Ali (as) and Abbas were asked if they had heard this Hadeeth – they confirmed they had. They were saying that have heard a hadith that had gained popularity during the time of Abu Bakr, since he used this to dispossess Sayyida Zahra (as) of her inheritance rights. They did not confirm that they had heard this from the Prophet (s) or attested that it was Sahih, rather the example is like a widely disseminated fictitious event that is aired before an individual, the person that fabricated the event spread it so widely that it was common knowledge amongst the people. If you are then asked if you have heard about this you will respond ‘yes’. This response does not mean that he attested to whether authenticity of the event, it is merely an affirmation that the event is known to him. If our assertion is reject our assertion and they remain adamant over this alleged admission the later text they cite in effect negates all that they are grinning over.
Reviving Islam states:
Umar said, ‘So let me talk to you about this matter. Allah favored His Messenger with something of this Fai ‘ (i.e. booty won by the Muslims at war without fighting) which He did not give to anybody else;
Allah said:
“And what Allah gave as booty (Fai’) to His Messenger (Muhammad) from them, for which you made no expedition with either cavalry or camelry. But Allah gives power to His Messengers over whomsoever He wills. And Allah is Able to do all things.” (Al-Hashr 59:6)And so that property was only for Rasoolullah . Yet, Wallahi! (by Allah), he neither gathered that property for himself nor withheld it from you, but he gave its income to you, and distributed it among you till there remained the present property out of which the Prophet used to spend the yearly maintenance for his family, and whatever used to remain, he used to spend it where Allah’s property is spent (i.e. in charity etc.). Rasoolullah followed that throughout his life.
Now I beseech you by Allah, do you know all that?’ They said, ‘Yes.’ ‘Umar then said to ‘Ali and ‘Abbas, ‘I beseech you by Allah, do you know that?’ Both of them said, ‘Yes.’ ‘Umar added, ‘And when the Prophet died, Abu Bakr said, ‘ I am the successor of Allah’s Apostle, and took charge of that property and managed it in the same way as Rasoolullah did.
Then Allah took Abu Bakr unto Him and I became Abu Bakr’s successor, and I kept that property in my possession for the first two years of my Caliphate, managing it in the same way as Rasoolullah used to do and as Abu Bakr used to do, and Allah knows that I have been true, pious, rightly guided, and a follower of what is right.
Now you both (i.e. ‘Aliy and ‘Abbas) came to talk to me, bearing the same claim and presenting the same case; you, ‘Abbas, came to me asking for your share from your nephew’s property, and this man, i.e. ‘Ali, came to me asking for his wife’s share from her father’s property. I told you both that Rasoolullah said,
‘Our (prophets’) properties are not to be inherited, but what we leave is Sadaqa (to be used for charity).’
When I thought it right that I should hand over this property to you, I said to you, ‘I am ready to hand over this property to you if you wish, on the condition that you would take Allah’s Pledge and Convention that you would manage it in the same way as Rasoolullah used to, and as Abu Bakr used to do, and as I have done since I was in charge of it.’
So, both of you said (to me), ‘Hand it over to us,’ and on that condition I handed it over to you. So, I ask you by Allah, did I hand it over to them on this condition?” The group said, “Yes.” Then ‘Umar faced ‘Ali and ‘Abbas saying, “I ask you by Allah, did I hand it over to you on this condition?” They said, “Yes.” He said, ” Do you want now to give a different decision? By Allah, by Whose Leave both the Heaven and the Earth exist, I will never give any decision other than that (I have already given). And if you are unable to manage it, then return it to me, and I will do the job on your behalf.” ”
[Volume 8, Book 80, Number 720; Kitaab Al Faraa'idh]
Points of Benefit:
1) Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (radhiya Allahu ‘Anhumaa) both dealt with this land as the nabi did.
This is irrelevant. Abu Bakr unlawfully usurped land that he had no right to and brought it under his control. This land was the legal right of Sayyida Fatima (as), and it was up to HER how she administered it. Let us cite an example:
“My friend owns a charity truck that goes through the country distributing goods to the poor and needy. Upon his death I, as his close friend steal the truck and use it to carry on that charitable work. The deed may be noble and may have just carried on the status quo, BUT I have committed two major sins:
1. Stolen the truck
2. Denied heirs their legal right to the truck
How I deal with that asset is irrelevant, the truck belongs to the Heirs and they are entitled under Shari’ah to dispose of it in any way that they choose. I have no say / right to decide how that asset should / should not be disposed off.
Reviving Islam states:
2) Both ‘Aliy and ‘Abbas agreed and recognized that both Umar and Abu Bakr had done so.
Again that recognition does not mean that they agreed with their positions. If they had no objection to this method why did they make a claim to the inheritance during the reign of ‘Umar? If they were happy with the method of the first Khaleefa why did they not just let this state of affairs continue, and allow Umar to continue implementing the Sunnah of the Prophet (s), after all, taking charge and administering land is a huge administrative responsibility, when Maula Ali (as) and Abbas were content that the Sunnah of the Prophet (s) was being correctly implemented by the Head of State, why on earth would they want to burden themselves with taking on this massive responsibility? There is a famous saying in English ‘If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it’ – when Shakhayn were already administering the property appropriately why were Maula Ali (as) and Abbas demanding that it be given to them?
Reviving Islam states:
3) Unlike the Shi’aa claim, this issue was solved in this sitting between ‘Umar, Aliy and Al ‘Abbas (radhiya Allahu Anhum). There is no need even to discuss the issue if it had been solved over 1,400 years ago. This goes to show that the Shi’aa are not following Ahlul Bayt as they claim. If they were they would follow in the footsteps of Aliy and Al ‘Abbas and be pleased with the verdict of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.
We will now prove that the position touted by this Nasibi is a lie and he has sought to rely on a partial narration to favour the sins of his caliph. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 367:
Narrated Malik bin Aus Al-Hadathan An-Nasri,
…Then ‘Umar turned towards ‘Ali and ‘Abbas and said, …So I kept this property in my possession for the first two years of my rule (i.e. Caliphate) and I used to dispose it of in the same way as Allah’s Apostle and Abu Bakr used to do; and Allah knows that I have been sincere, pious, rightly guided and the follower of the right (in this matter.Later on both of you (i.e. ‘Ali and Abbas) came to me, O ‘Abbas! You also came to me and the claim of you both was one and the same.So I told you both that Allah’s Apostle said, “Our property is not inherited, but whatever we leave is to be given in charity.’ Then when I thought that I should better hand over this property to you both or the condition that you will promise and pledge before Allah that you will dispose it off in the same way as Allah’s Apostle and Abu Bakr did and as I have done since the beginning of my caliphate or else you should not speak to me (about it).’ So, both of you said to me, ‘Hand it over to us on this condition.’ And on this condition I handed it over to you. Do you want me now to give a decision other than that (decision)? By Allah, with Whose Permission both the sky and the earth stand fast, I will never give any decision other than that (decision) till the Last Hour is established. But if you are unable to manage it (i.e. that property), then return it to me, and I will manage on your behalf.” The sub-narrator said…So, this property (of Sadaqah) was in the hands of Ali who withheld it from ‘Abbas and overpowered him. Then it came in the hands of Hasan bin ‘Ali, then in the hands of Hussain bin ‘Ali, and then in the hands of Ali bin Hussain and Hasan bin Hasan, and each of the last two used to manage it in turn, then it came in the hands of Zaid bin Hasan, and it was truly the Sadaqah of Allah’s Apostle .”
As far as the Shi’a point of view is concerned, we believe that the sub-transmitter of Bukhari’s Hadeeth made some mistake in giving the correct account. The relevant facts are as follows:
One needs to be aware that Maula Ali (as) and Abbas approached Umar on two occasions.
First Occasion: Umar entrusted them the entire Estate of Fadak.
Second Occasion: Umar restored Fadak back to his custody (on account of the dispute between Ali (as) and Abbas).
Clearly, the sub-transmitter of Bukhari’s Hadeeth seems to have made a mistake by thinking that Maula Ali (as) overpowered Abbas after they went to Umar the second time.
The overpowering had occurred before the second incident, prior to Abbas going to Umar. Following the second incident (after Umar took Fadak back), there was no property left for Maula Ali (as) to overpower Abbas.
What this in effect means is that long after the death of Abu Bakr, Maula Ali (as) maintained his stance that the hadeeth ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we leave is Sadaqah’ was false and he deemed Fadak his right (so much so that he was prepared to over power Abbas for it)., so how can we accept the tradition cited by this Nasibi?
This is a crucial point. When did Maula Ali (as) realise the truthful of Abu Bakr’s claim?
We had in an earlier chapter cited from a Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, showing hat Maula Ali advocated on behalf of his wife and cited Quranic verses on Prophetic inheritance to disprove the alleged Hadeeth cited by Abu Bakr. If Abu Bakr was unable to convince Ali at that time, when did he convince him?
We have already demonstrated in the previous chapter that Sayyida Fatima (as) made several claims to Fadak in her final six months on the earth, why didn’t Maula Ali (as) stop her by saying:
‘You are wasting your time, don’t disturb the truthful Khaleefa, since your father had said ‘We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity’
Six months was ample time to convince her, so why didn’t Maula Ali (as) succeed in doing this? How could it be that Maula Ali (as) was aware of the Hadeeth and Sayyida Fatima (as) was ignorant of it, and worse was so stubborn that she refused to accept that the Hadeeth was Saheeh, even though her husband believed in it?
The mere fact that Imam Ali (as) didn’t raise sword over the issue of Fadak during the era of first two and during in his own tenure of caliphate does not prove that Imam Ali (as) actually accepted the judgment of Abu Bakr and Umar on Fadak, The present day advocates of Abu Bakr and Umar are reading too much into recorded history so as to interpret things for their own benefit. We read in Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4349:
When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) passed away, Abu Bakr said:” I am the successor of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him).” Both of you came to demand your shares from the property (left behind by the Messenger of Allah). (Referring to Hadhrat ‘Abbas), he said: You demanded your share from the property of your nephew, and he (referring to ‘Ali) demanded a share on behalf of his wife from the property of her father. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) had said:” We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity.” So both of you thought him (i.e. Abu Bakr) to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that he was true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. When Abu Bakr passed away and (I have become) the successor of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him), you thought me to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest.
We learn following points from the above cited speech of Umar made before Imam Ali (as) and Abbas:
1. When Fatima Zahra (sa) claimed inheritance before Abu Bakr, the latter rejected the claim and coined a Hadith (prophets never leave inheritance) which forged Hadith and the overall judgment was not accepted by Fatima Zahra (sa) and Imam Ali (as) to the extent that Imam Ali (as) considered Abu Bakr to be liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest person as as he had forged the Hadith and thereby committed ‘sin’ (as became ‘sinful’) and treacherous and dishonest as his intention was tainted with malice with the purpose to deprive Ahlulbayt (as) from their lawful right and this was again a sinful act.
2. After death of both the claimant [Fatima Zahra (sa)] and usurper [Abu Bakr], when Umar came into power Imam Ali (as) once again advanced the same claim and since the new ruler was a close friend of the late caliph, he unsurprisingly upheld Abu Bakr’s judgment relying on the same forged hadith that thereby ensured that the Ahlulbayt (as) continued to be deprived of their right that likewise made Imam Ali (as) opine that Umar like Abu Bakr was an individual that was a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. When Umar is stating that Maula Ali (as) and Abbas deemed his and his predecessors position on Fadak as evidence that they were liars, sinful, treacherous and dishonest, then any insistence that they both deemed the Hadeeth to be Sahih is without any foundation.
Umar’s restoring these lands proves that the Hadeeth is false. If Nawasib advance the claim that he had just handed over managerial administration of this land, then this means that such a handover option was possible, so why was this option not made available to Sayyida Zahra (as)?
According to this Nasibi author’s logic:
If this is true, then why did Maula Ali (as) trouble himself by making a claim to Fadak during Umar’s reign? If Maula Ali (as) knew and attested to the authenticity of the Hadeeth are we to then conclude he was seeking to acquire possession to land that he had no legal right to?
This leaves us with two options:
Option One – Maula Ali (as) accepted the Hadeeth and made a claim to Fadak.
This is clearly the implication of the Bukhari tradition that this Nasibi has sought solace in. If this is true then it means that Maula Ali (as) was so dishonest that he consciously sought to obtain land that he had no legal right to.
Option Two – Maula Ali (as) rejected the Hadeeth and made a claim to Fadak.
This is clearly more logical and protects the integrity of Maula Ali (as). Imam Ali (as) could only have made a claim to Fadak if he rejected the Hadeeth that Abu Bakr cited, and this must be the case since Al Faruq made it clear that Maula Ali (as) deemed Abu Bakr’s seizure of Fadak as evidence that he was ‘a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest’.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too, you cannot both agree that Maula Ali supported the taking of Fadak on the basis of this Hadeeth and then also accept that he tried to claim this confiscated land at a later date.
Reviving Islam states:
So, In reality however, the proof stands and the Sunnah must be followed. That is why the Noble and blessed Fatima bint Muhammad did not further demand after Abu Bakr had refused. She knew the proof and so she obeyed.
We will respond by citing three narrations. Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Number 60:
Narrated ‘Aisha:
Fatima sent somebody to Abu Bakr asking him to give her inheritance from the Prophet from what Allah had given to His Apostle through Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting). She asked for the Sadaqa (i.e. wealth assigned for charitable purposes) of the Prophet at Medina, and Fadak, and what remained of the Khumus (i.e., one-fifth) of the Khaibar booty.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325:
Narrated ‘Aisha:
(mother of the believers) After the death of Allah ‘s Apostle Fatima the daughter of Allah’s Apostle asked Abu Bakr As-Siddiq to give her, her share of inheritance from what Allah’s Apostle had left of the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) which Allah had given him.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 368:
Narrated ‘Aisha:
Fatima and Al’Abbas came to Abu Bakr, claiming their inheritance of the Prophet’s land of Fadak and his share from Khaibar.
At minimum this show this evidences the Sayyida Fatima (as) petitioned for her inheritance rights on three separate occasions:
If it is argued that the above narrations relate to same event then allow us to expand a little further on the second tradition cited from Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4 Hadith 325 that will suffice as proof that Sayyida Fatima (as) did make further demands:
“After the death of Allah’s Apostle Fatima (AS), the daughter of Allah’s Apostle asked Abu Bakr As Siddiq to give her, her share of inheritance from what Allah’s Apostle (PBUH) had left of the Fai which Allah had given him. Abu Bakr said to her: “Allah’s Apostle said: `Our Property will not be inherited, what ever we (Prophets) leave is Sadiqa (to be used for Charity)”
… Fatimah remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet (PBUH). She used to ask Abu Bakr for her share from the Property of Allah’s Apostle which he (PBUH) left at Khaibar and his Property at Medina …
This report informs us that she made the demand for her right repeatedly, and hence makes the argument of this Nasibi null and void. The continued demand of Sayyida Fatima (as) despite the excuse advanced by Abu Bakr is further proof that it was false! If Sayyida Fatima (as) was convinced of the correctness of Abu Bakr’s decision in the first instance, there would have been no need for her to continue to demand her inheritance rights!
Let us for arguments sake accept the Nasibi author’s claim that Sayyida Fatima (as) made no further demand following the Khaleefa’s judgement, would this mean she accepted his evidence? Would it be surprising if she (as) had abandoned pursuing matters further in light of the facts:
In lights of these facts, would it have been a surprise of Sayyida Zahra (as) gave up on the matter? In this day and age, people are often disaffected by the decisions of public bodies such as the police. There is common assumption that even if a complaint is made, nothing will come of it, since ‘people in high places look after each other’. Even when a complaint is made, the response can be so bias (one sided) that an individual may simply lose faith in pursuing the matter. In the UK, people often do not complain against the police, since the complaints are investigated by the police themselves. Now think about the facts here, not only is the legal right of Sayyida Zahra (as) taken, the person who takes the land is listening to the complaint in the capacity of a Judge.
Had Sayyida Zahra (as) chosen to abandon further complaints then she had every right to do so, a system so unfair that allows the usurper to also act as a Judge contravenes the rules of natural justice. Any reasonable person faced with such blatant injustice would lose faith in the judicial system, and choose not to pursue the matter further.
Whilst the Nawasib have tried their utmost to absolve their client Abu Bakr’s usurpation of the legal right of Fatima Zahra’s and have as part of their endeavors formulated an array of technical excuses. One such excuse is, that the most crucial part of the episode of Fadak narrated in various Sunni books, namely the words “Therefore Fatima left Abu Bakr and did not speak to him till she died” is not the statement of Ayesha but rather the words of the sub narrator, namely Ibn Shihab Zuhri and they seek to substantiate their position by pointing out that the said sentence begins with the word “Qal” (He said) and not from “Qalat” (She said). The Nawasib, on the basis of this excuse, solace themselves that neither did Fatima Zahra (sa) died angry of Abu Bakar nor did she cease speaking to him until she died.
We should point out an irony pertaining to this very issue. We have frequently relied upon the works of famed Sunni scholar Dr. Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri whom the hardcore Nawasib accuse of being a Shia, yet now the same Nawasib happily quote him as he presented a series of Shia rebuttals including the very issue under discussion pertaining to Zuhri.
If Nawasib are over obsessed with the presence of “Qal” (He said) in some of the versions of the Fadak dispute, allow us to cite a version devoid of the word “Qal” that automatically renders it to be the direct uncontaminated account of Ayesha. We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 546:
Narrated `Aisha: Fatima the daughter of the Prophet sent someone to Abu Bakr (when he was a caliph), asking for her inheritance of what Allah’s Apostle had left of the property bestowed on him by Allah from the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) in Medina, and Fadak, and what remained of the Khumus of the Khaibar booty. On that, Abu Bakr said, “Allah’s Apostle said, “Our property is not inherited. Whatever we leave, is Sadaqa, but the family of (the Prophet) Muhammad can eat of this property.’ By Allah, I will not make any change in the state of the Sadaqa of Allah’s Apostle and will leave it as it was during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle, and will dispose of it as Allah’s Apostle used to do.” So Abu Bakr refused to give anything of that to Fatima. So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not talk to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband `Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself. When Fatima was alive, the people used to respect `Ali much, but after her death, `Ali noticed a change in the people’s attitude towards him. So `Ali sought reconciliation with Abu Bakr and gave him an oath of allegiance. `Ali had not given the oath of allegiance during those months (i.e. the period between the Prophet’s death and Fatima‘s death). `Ali sent someone to Abu Bakr saying, “Come to us, but let nobody come with you,” as he disliked that `Umar should come, `Umar said (to Abu Bakr), “No, by Allah, you shall not enter upon them alone ” Abu Bakr said, “What do you think they will do to me? By Allah, I will go to them’ So Abu Bakr entered upon them, and then `Ali uttered Tashah-hud and said (to Abu Bakr), “We know well your superiority and what Allah has given you, and we are not jealous of the good what Allah has bestowed upon you, but you did not consult us in the question of the rule and we thought that we have got a right in it because of our near relationship to Allah’s Apostle .” Thereupon Abu Bakr’s eyes flowed with tears. And when Abu Bakr spoke, he said, “By Him in Whose Hand my soul is to keep good relations with the relatives of Allah’s Apostle is dearer to me than to keep good relations with my own relatives. But as for the trouble which arose between me and you about his property, I will do my best to spend it according to what is good, and will not leave any rule or regulation.
Again, for those Nawasib with an ardent obsession with the word “Qal” and “Qalat” we would like to slap them with two Sunni reports containing the word “Qalat (she said) that leaves us with no doubt that this was indeed the direct testimony of Ayesha. We read in Musnad Abu Bakar al-Maruzi, page 87 Hadith No. 38:
دَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ زَنْجَوَيْهِ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ قَالَ: أَرَنَا مَعْمَرٌ , عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ , عَنْ عُرْوَةَ , عَنْ عَائِشَةَ , أَنَّ فَاطِمَةَ , وَالْعَبَّاسَ , أَتَيَا أَبَا بَكْرٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا يَلْتَمِسَانِ مِيرَاثَهُمَا مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ , وَهُمَا [ص: 88] حِينَئِذٍ يَطْلُبَانِ أَرْضَهُ مِنْ فَدَكٍ وَسَهْمَهُ مِنْ خَيْبَرَ فَقَالَ لَهُمَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ: سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ: «لَا نُورَثُ , مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ , إِنَّمَا يَأْكُلُ آلُ مُحَمَّدٍ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي هَذَا الْمَالِ» وَإِنِّي وَاللَّهِ لَا ادْعُ أَمْرًا رَأَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَصْنَعُهُ فِيهِ إِلَّا صَنَعْتُهُ , قَالَتْ: فَهَجَرَتْهُ فَاطِمَةُ , فَلَمْ تُكَلِّمْهُ فِي ذَلِكَ حَتَّى مَاتَتْ , فَدَفَنَهَا عَلِيٌّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ لَيْلًا , وَلَمْ يُؤْذَنَ بِهَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ , قَالَتْ: فَكَانَ لِعَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ وَجْهٌ مِنَ النَّاسِ حَيَاةَ فَاطِمَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهَا , فَلَمَّا تُوُفِّيَتْ فَاطِمَةُ انْصَرَفَتْ وُجُوهُ النَّاسِ عَنْ عَلِيٍّ , فَمَكَثَتْ فَاطِمَةُ سِتَّةَ أَشْهُرٍ بَعْدَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ , ثُمَّ تُوُفِّيَتْ , قَالَ مَعْمَرٌ: فَقَالَ رَجُلٌ لِلزُّهْرِيِّ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ: فَلَمْ يُبَايِعْهُ سِتَّةَ أَشْهُرٍ قَالَ: لَا وَلَا أَحَدٌ مِنْ بَنِي هَاشِمٍ حَتَّى بَايَعَهُ عَلِيٌّ
Narrated Ahmad Ibn Ali from Abu Bakr Ibn Zanjawaih from Abdulrazaq from Mo’ammar from Al-Zuhri from Urwa from Ayesha who said: Fatima and Al-Abbas came to Abu Bakr, seeking their share from the property of Allah’s Apostle and at that time, they were asking for their land at Fadak and their share from Khaibar. Abu Bakr said to them, “I have heard from Allah’s Apostle saying, ‘Our property cannot be inherited, and whatever we leave is to be spent in charity, but the family of Muhammad may take their provisions from this property.” Abu Bakr added, “By Allah, I will not leave the procedure I saw Allah’s Apostle following during his lifetime concerning this property.” She said: ”Fatima got angry with Abu Bakr and did not talk to him about it till she died, then Ali buried her at night and did not allow Abu Bakr to take part in her funeral. She said: Ali had a status in the life of Fatima but when she died, people negated his status, and she lived for six months after death of holy prophet (saw) and then died” Mo’ammar said: Then a man asked Al-Zuhri: ‘Did he not pledge allegiance for six months?’ He said: “Neither he nor anyone of the tribe of Bani Hashim did pay allegiance, till Ali pledged allegiance”. He said: and when Ali saw that people negate his status so he asked for treaty with Abu Bakr and to pledge allegiance; so he sent someone to Abu Bakr…
Ahmad Ibn Ali is the legendary Imam Abu Y’ala the author of the famed Musnad Abu Y’ala whilst Abu Bakr Ibn Zanjawaih is also another great Imam of Ahle Sunnah referred to by Dhahabi as ‘Hafiz Imam’ (Syar alam alnubala, v12, p346) and Ibn Hajar as: ‘Thiqa’ (Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb, v2, p107 ).
Similarly, Imam of Ahle Sunnah Naeem bin Hamad al-Marozi (d. 229 H), who was one of the teachers of Bukhari recorded the identical report on the authority of Abu Bakr Ibn Zanjawaih in his esteemed work ‘Al-Fetan’.
We challenge our opponents to quote any early Sunni Imam who may have advanced the notion that the portion of tradition under discussion was not part of Ayesha’s statement rather a Idraj of Zuhri! We have noticed that this excuse has been concocted by the enemies of Fatima Zahra (as) very recently which is why we do not find any early Sunni Imam pointing out such a defect in their works. Imam Dhahabi records in Siyar alam al-Nubala, volume 2 page 121:
ولما توفي أبوها تعلقت آمالها بميراثه وجاءت تطلب ذلك من أبي بكر الصديق فحدثها أنه سمع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول “لا نورث ما تركناه صدقة” فوجدت عليه ثم تعللت
When her father died, she sought for her inheritance thus she went to Abu Bakr asking for her share, but he (Abu Bakr) told her that he had heard Allah’s apostle saying “we don’t leave inheritance, whatever we leave is charity” therefore she got angry at him and then she got ill.
From the next lodged defence one can quickly gauge how desperate the clients of Abu Bakr get to absolve their client of any wrong doing. In Defence Four we noted their insistence that the anger of Fatima (as) was the wrong interpolation of Zuhri and should be dismissed forthwith. The next defence keep Zuhri out of the frame, whilst not denying the narration it suggest that their was in fact an error on the part of the narrator Ayesha
Reviving Islam states:
The claim that she remained angry, seems to be incorrect. A’ishah reports that she remained angry. However, ‘A’ishah (radhiya Allahu ‘Anhaa) was not around Faatimah (alayhas salaam) at all times. Neither was she around Abu Bakr and other Sahaba at all times. So we can see that it is possible she is mistaken.
Why should Ayesha’s testimony all of a sudden be deemed a mistake? Its amazing that the only narration on the conquest of Constantinople exists in Sahih Bukhari from just one narrator and yet Nawasib happily cited as evidence that Yazeed was in Heaven – yet when we have the testimony Ayesha that exists in the six major Sunni works all of a sudden the narration becomes doubtful, to the point that Ayesha’s position on the matter is criticised. When they feel like it these Nawasib will only accept narration from the Saha Sittah and they will not accept anything that conflict with them, rather will only deem evidence presented from these books as sound. Why they do the goal posts change on this issue, the Nawasib are raising doubts over a narration from Sahih Bukhari, narrated by Ayesha giving priority to a book outside the Saha Sittah, why is that?
Is it not tragic that in their hatred of Sayyida Zahra (as) these Nawasib didn’t even care for the honour of Ayesha who they deem Siddiqa. These Nawasib have suddenly initiated a desire to protect the integrity Abu Bakr some 1400 years later, would Ayesha not have had the same desire for Ayesha to protect the integrity of her father? If there was any element of doubt about the incident, an ordinary supporter of Abu Bakr would have never narrated it, let alone his beloved daughter. If for arguments sake the only evidence we had was that of Ayesha , then maybe the mistake defence could be advanced, but when we analyse other supporting texts confirming the anger of Sayyida Fatima (as we shall cite later), her cursing Abu Bakr and Maula Ali (as)’s burying her without notifying Abu Bakr then all this supports the stance of Ayesha and strengthen our position on this matter.
We read in Nur al Absar page 41, Dhikr Zawaaj al Nabi:
“Ayesha narrated 2210 Hadeeth”
Exactly the same figure has been recorded by Deobandi scholar Syed Sulaiman Nadvi in ‘Hadhrat Ayesha Siddiqa – her life and works’ page 61.
If Ayesha had made such a major blunder, one that puts her father’s Khilafat and Iman at risk, then why do you act on her 2210 narrations? What is the guarantee that Ayesha was not mistaken about all those rest of the narrations?
We read in Nur al Absar page 41, Dhikr Zawaaj al Nabi:
“Hadhrat Ayesha died in 84 Hjri, her Funeral prayer was offered by Abu Hurrayra”
The incident of Fadak occurred in 11 Hijri and Ayesha lived for another 73 years, why did she not correct her mistake and set out the correct position (alleged by this Nasibi)? Why did no one else correct her position on this?
We read in Tauhfa Ithna Ashari page, 419
“The Sahih narration has reached us. That Rasulullah pointed in the direction of Ayesha and said ‘Obtain half the Deen from this red faced one’.
If Ayesha could narrate tradition incorrectly, then why would Rasulullah (s) deem such an unreliable woman half the religion?
Sunan Tirmidhi records a narration free of Zuhri and Ayesha, that informs us as follows:
Abu Huraira said: ‘Fatima went to Abu Bakr and Umar asking them for her heritage from Allah’s Messenger, thus they said: ‘We heard Allah’s Messenger saying ‘I don’t leave inheritance’. She said: ‘By Allah, I will not talk to you again ever’. Thus she died and never talked to them again’’.
It is interesting to note that a few Nasibi and Sunni commentator interpret that tradition to suggest that Fatima only stopped talking to the Sheikhain on the matter of inheritance, when she makes it clear that she would never talk to them again. The crucial thing is we have the testimony of two individuals, arguably the most prolific hadeeth narrators from amongst men and women respectively, both of them testifying to the fact that Fatima (as) died in a state of anger towards Abu Bakr. Whilst the narration of Ayesha ends with her informing us of the anger of Fatima (as), Abu Hurraira actually cites the words of Fatima (as), wherein she makes an oath ‘By Allah, I will not talk to you again ever’. If Ayesha was mistaken as has been argued, was Abu Hurraira also mistaken? Abu Hurraira outlived Ayesha and eventually died in 59 Hijri, and yet (like Ayesha) he never came across any tradition suggesting that Fatima (as) forgave Abu Bakr.
On the basis of some accounts of the Fadak dispute from Sunni books, Nasibi advocates have put in considerable overtime in their workstations, in hope of receiving remuneration on the day of Judgment from their spiritual father Muawiya, and have lodged a submission that relations between the mistress of the women of this universe (as) and Abu Bakr remained cordial, she simply ceased discussing the issue of her inheritance with him. With this interpretation, Nawasib indirectly try to infer that Fatima Zahra (sa) had actually accepted the stance of Abu Bakr.
We shall cite some narratives of the Fadak dispute from Sunni Hadith work that certainly do not suggest that the cessation in dialogue between Fatima Zahra’s (sa) and Abu Bakr was Fadak alone and save that, friendly relations continued. We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325:
Narrated Ayesha(mother of the believers),’After the death of Allah’s Apostle Fatima,the daughter of Allah’s Apostle asked Abu Bakr As-Siddiq to give her the share of inheritance from what Allah’s Apostle had left of the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting)which Allah had given him. Abu Bakr said to her, “the Holy Prophet (saww) had said, ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity).” Fatima, the daughter of Allah’s Apostle got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude till she died. Fatima remained alive for six months after the death of the Holy prophet(saww).
We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 546:
Narrated `Aisha: Fatima the daughter of the Prophet sent someone to Abu Bakr (when he was a caliph), asking for her inheritance of what Allah’s Apostle had left of the property bestowed on him by Allah from the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) in Medina, and Fadak, and what remained of the Khumus of the Khaibar booty. On that, Abu Bakr said, “Allah’s Apostle said, “Our property is not inherited. Whatever we leave, is Sadaqa, but the family of (the Prophet) Muhammad can eat of this property.’ By Allah, I will not make any change in the state of the Sadaqa of Allah’s Apostle and will leave it as it was during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle, and will dispose of it as Allah’s Apostle used to do.” So Abu Bakr refused to give anything of that to Fatima. So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not talk to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband `Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself….
Ponder into the words “and kept away from him” coupled with what follows it i.e. “and did not talk to him till she died” when read together any unbiased mind can deduce that her:
(a) anger
(b) keeping aloof from that particular individual and;
(c) not talking to him until she died
in no way suggests that it was restricted just the issue of Fadak, she completely severed links completely from him..
Even if for the sake of argument we accept the interpretation advanced by our opponents, the fact that the mistress of all the women of this universe died angry with Abu Bakr is undisputable, it attracted her ire to such an extent that she refused to talk to Abu Bakr him on the issue. This clearly was significant enough to upset her, so why are Nawasib not prepared to assess this? This entitles us to ask questions of our opponents:
Even if for the sake of argument, we were to accept that Fatima Zahra (sa) became angry with Abu Bakar and did not talk to him on the issue of Fadak this in no way entitles Nawasib to deduce that it meant that she acceded to his stance because:
It is common sense that if you persistently demand something from another and that individual through his stubbornness dismisses that demand, there will come a point you like any proud individual will draw a line on the issue, you will simply state “enough is enough” and desist from making any further demands. The decision not to appeal any further in no way means you accept that person’s viewpoint, you simply don’t wish to waste your time and energy any further, moreover, the more rejections you get then more humiliating it is for you, no matter wants to put up with being repeatedly treated in such a shoddy manner. Having unsuccessfully made several demands before Abu Bakr, Fatima Zahra (sa) recognized that he was not going to alter his stance so she deemed revisiting it to be pointless, it would simply cause more stress, humiliation and pain to her. Fatima (as) had seen her testimony rejected as well as that of her husband, sons and servant, there was clearly nothing further that she could do, to alter his position.
In there efforts to defend their client, his advocates sometimes forget that there past submissions contradict the new ones. One of narration they quote ad nausea is this one:
Reviving Islam states:
there is proof from the Authentic Sunnah that Faatimah (alayhas salaam) became pleased with Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq before her death.
al-Hafidh Ibn Katheer mentions in his al bidayaah 6/333 that: When Fatima (alayhas salaam) was experiencing her sickness [before death], Abu Bakr as Sideeq came to her and sought to please her, and she became pleased. “
The exact narration has originally been reported by Imaam al-Baihaqi through Ismaeel ibn Abee Khaalid who narrated from Ash-Sh’ubi, and the isnaad (chain) of this report is sahih (authentic).
Whilst we will address this narration in Defence Seven, the important thing is the Nawasib are rejoicing at the fact that a successful reconciliation was achieved on the deathbed ofFatima(as). If this is the case how can Nawasib also argue that cordial relations continued between Fatima (as) and Abu Bakr with Fadak being the only bone of contention? If that was the case there would be no reason whatsoever for Abu Bakr to seek the pleasure ofFatima(as) since (as per Nawasib claims) he was never out of favor. Nawasib can’t have their cake and eat it, you can’t on the one hand argue that no relations broke down between the two following Fadak, and then also insist that Abu Bakr successfully acquired the forgiveness of Abu Bakr on her death bed.
If our opponents are going to argue that the anger was solely with regards to Fadak, then this would mean on all other matters, relations were completely cordial. If this was indeed the case why did Imam Ali (as) bury her without notifying Abu Bakr? We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 546:
“…. So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not talk to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband `Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself”
In any community when someone is deceased relatives and friends will try their utmost to cascade this news to those that had good relations with him, even those that new the deceased remotely as in they might exchange pleasantries in the Mosque. If there is some time between death and burial, the surviving relatives will seek their utmose to invite acquanitabces to the funeral, they will think about whoever the deaceased was close with and will the try and get the measseg out of the bas news, and details of the funeral. The only person that you’d choose not to notify would be that person the deceased found abhorrent, that you knew the deceased died angry with. No relative would deem it worthwhile notifying such an individual. So, if relations between Fatima Zahra (sa) and Abu Bakr were fine save, the prickly issue of Fadak, the allow us to present three key observations:
If the argument is that Fatima(as) died at night so there was insufficient time to notify Abu Bakr, we will point out that she (as) died during the day so there was ample time to notify the Khalifa. Dr. Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri in his book “The virtues of Sayyedah Fatima (sa)” records this tradition:
Fatimah (سلام اللہ علیھا) was aware of her own death
82. عن أم سلمى رضي الله عنها قالت: اشتكت فاطمة شكواها التي قبضت فيه، فكنت أمرضها فأصبحت يوما كأمثل ما رأيتها في شكواها تلك، قالت: وخرج علي لبعض حاجته، فقالت: يا أمه! اسكبى لى غسلا، فسكبت لها غسلا فاغتسلت كأحسن ما رأيتها تغتسل، ثم قالت: يا أمه! أعطينى ثيابى الجدد، فأعطيتها فلبستها، ثم قالت: يا أمه! قدمى لى فراشى وسط البيت، ففعلت و اضطجعت و استقبلت القبلة و جعلت يدها تحت خدها، ثم قالت: يا أمه! أنى مقبوضة الآن و قد تطهرت، فلا يكشفنى أحد فقبضت مكانها، قالت: فجاء علي فأخبرته.
Umm Salma (رضي الله عنها) narrates, “When Fatimah
(سلام اللہ علیھا) had the illness which took her life, I nursed her. During this time, on one occasion her condition was slightly better one morning. Ali (كرم الله وجهه) had gone out for some job. Fatimah said, ‘O mother! Bring some water for me to bathe.’ I brought some water and as far as I saw she bathed perfectly. Then she said, ‘O mother, bring me new clothes’ so I gave her clothes to her and she put them on. Then she said, ‘O mother! Make my bed for me in the middle of the house,’ so I did accordingly. Then she laid down, faced towards the Kabah, placed her hand under her cheek and said, ‘O mother! It is time for my death and I have purified myself. Do not let anybody undress me.’ Fatimah (سلام اللہ علیھا) passed away in that very position.” Umm Salmah continues, “Then Ali (كرم الله وجهه) came back and I informed him of Fatimah’s (سلام اللہ علیھا) death
Please note that the said tradition can be located in the following books
Sunnis scholars weaken this tradition due to the presence of Muhammad bin Isehaq, and Ubaidullah bin Abi Rafe. It should however be pointed out that Ibn Hajar refused to weaken this tradition and defended both two narrators in his book al-Qawl al-Musadad Fi al-Dhub an Musnad Ahmad, page 71. Ibn Hajr in fact e authored the said book to refute those Sunnis scholars who weakened some traditions in Musnad Ahmad, he cited those traditions and then defended them.
Now turning to the text we learn that Sayyida Fatima (as) died during the morning, Imam Ali (as) was away but returned during the day so was fully aware of her death. At this point Imam Ali (as) like any other bereaved relative would have got the message out of the tragedy that had befallen his house, he or those close to him would have got word out that Fatima (as) had left the earth, and the timing of her funeral. Now if Imam Ali (as) recognized that Fatima(as) had good cordial relations with Abu Bakr, why was he not informed of her death and the time of burial? There was ample time to do so the day passed, she was buried at night, yet the Imam (as) consciously hid this from Abu Bakr, as Bulkhari informs us he “buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself” – there would be no reason w hatsever to keep this from Abu Bakr unless Imam Ali (as) recognized that Fatima (as) died with Abu Bakr, and his decision not to invite him to the funeral was in keeping with her hostile attitude towards him. It is clear Imam Ali (as) did not wish ti invite that controversial figure to attend the funeral of his wife, that had caused her hurt and anguish, at such a level her anger towards never subsided, she was angered with Abu Bakr for usurping Fadak and remained angry with until she died.
This is a significant point. The wife of Abu Bakr, who had deep respect and love for Fatima (as) attended the home of Ali (as) and partook in the burial rites. She was invited, it would not have taken much trouble for Imam Ali (as) to request that she also go to her husband and tell him to share in their grief and attend her funeral. The reality is she did not, if she did then there would have been no reason for Abu Bakr to have remained ignorant of the funeral of Fatima(as).
Clearly there would be no reason to withhold allegiance of Fatima(as) was pleased with Abu Bakr, with the exception of the Fadak dispute. Yet (as per Sunni narrations) thatFatima(as) was angry at Abu Bakr and as long as she was alive Imam Ali (as) dod not give bayya to Abu Bakr. Now what would be the reason for Imam Ali (as) to delay giving bayya to Abu Bakr unil after the death ofFatima(as). The narrative of Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 546 states:
So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not talk to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband `Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself. When Fatima was alive, the people used to respect `Ali much, but after her death, `Ali noticed a change in the people’s attitude towards him. So `Ali sought reconciliation with Abu Bakr and gave him an oath of allegiance. `
Now if relations between Sayyida Fatima (as) and Abu Bakr were cordial why had Imam Ali (as) refrained from giving bayya to Abu Bakr until after the death of Fatima(as)? The narration states that “Ali sought reconciliation with Abu Bakr” – clearly there would be no need for reconciliation if there was no animosity between Ali (as) and Abu Bakr. In the first place. Clearly there was, and it had a direct nexus with Fatima (as) as long as she was by his side Maula Ali (as) did not give bayya to Abu Bakr. This in itself proves that the anger of Fatima (as) was so severe towards Abu Bakr, she wanted nothing whatsever to do with him, so much so that her husband took the same line and (as per Sahih Bukhari) did not reconcile and give bayya until his wife left the earth.
Ibn al Hashimi states:
Taken from Madaarijun Nubuwwah, Kitaabul Wafaa, Baihaqi and in the commentaries of Mishkaat.Kitaabul Muwaafiqah narrates that Anaani said:
“Abu Bakr came to the door of Fatima in the midday sun and said: ‘I shall not leave from here as long as the daughter of Rasool-Allah remains displeased with me. Ali came to Fatima and giving her an oath urged her to become pleased. Then she became pleased (with Abu Bakr)
The book Madaarijun Nubuwwah is a compilation of narrations from other books, without any chains of narration. It is interesting that Ibn al Hashimi presents this text as fact when it contains no chain. How can a chainless narration be presented as fact, when we have a Sahih narration leading up to Ayesha who confirmed that Sayyida Fatima (as) never forgave Abu Bakr! If we are wrong and a Sahih chain narration of the above tradition does indeed exist then we invite Ibn al Hashimi to present it.
Reviving Islam states:
there is proof from the Authentic Sunnah that Faatimah (alayhas salaam) became pleased with Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq before her death.
al-Hafidh Ibn Katheer mentions in his al bidayaah 6/333 that: When Fatima (alayhas salaam) was experiencing her sickness [before death], Abu Bakr as Sideeq came to her and sought to please her, and she became pleased. ”
The exact narration has originally been reported by Imaam al-Baihaqi through Ismaeel ibn Abee Khaalid who narrated from Ash-Sh’ubi, and the isnaad (chain) of this report is sahih (authentic).
The same narration was also cited by Ibn al Hashimi. There are so many weak aspects in using the tradition recorded by Baihaqi that an array of replies can be given in its refutation:
By emphasizing on the chain of the narration being Sahih, the cunning author has tried to fool the common and naïve readers who are not well versed with the science of Hadith. The narrators in the chain may be authentic but what the Nasibi author has failed to point out is that the tradition is Mursal (disconnected) because it is a Tabayee (Shu’bi) who is giving testimony of an incident which he did not see with his eyes and this testimony is not made by someone of that era i.e. by a Sahabi. We shall remind them, that according to Salafies, the Mursal are not acceptable as Imam Nasiruddin Albaani records in his book ‘Deefa an al-Hadith al-Nabawi’, page 82:
المرسل من أقسام الضعيف على قواعد علماء الحديث
“Mursal is a kind of weak according to hadith scholars”
Another darling of Salafies Ibn Uthaimin recorded in his book Majmo’a Fatawa ibn Uthaimin, Volume 6 page 164:
“Mursal is a kind of weak [Hadeeth], hence its not hujja”
And most importantly, the incident which Sh’ubi claims to have witnessed, took place even before his birth as Imam Ibn Hazam records in Al-Muhala, Volume 11 page 50:
“Al-Sh’ubi was born two years after the death of Umar (ra)”
When al Sh’ubi was born during the Caliphate of Uthman from whom did he get receipt of the reconciliation? Is it not curious that an individual born during reign of Uthman, that would have meant that he would have not acquired a sound of knowledge of Hadeeth until he was (at minimum a teenager) thus placing him in the Caliphate of Ali ibn Ali Talib (as) came to know that Sayyida (as) forgave Abu Bakr and yet not a single Sahabi that outlived Rasulullah (s) testified to Sayyida Fatima (as) reconciling with Abu Bakr? Is that believable?
If a Nasibi comes producing scenarios wherein Sunni scholars accept a Mursal tradition, such is not the case when the Mursal tradition is narrated by Sh’ubi since they reject Mursal traditions explicitly narrated by Sh’ubi. Imam Qastalani records in his popular commentary of Sahih Bukhari namely Irshad al-Sari, Volume 6 page 475:
“The Mursal of al-Sh’ubi is not hujja at all, especially when it is contradicting the Sahih”
Therefore, the Mursal tradition is to be rejected automatically since according to the ‘Sahih’ tradition of Bukhari, Fatima Zahra (as) did not talk to Abu Bakr until she died. Allamah Ibn Abdul Barr while referring to the opinion of Scholars regarding the Mursal narrated by Shu’bi records in his authority work Al-Tamhid, Volume 22 page 320:
“The mursal of al-Sh’ubi according to them is worth nothing”
The fact that Sh’ubi has been blacklisted by the Sunni scholars in terms of Mursal traditions narrated by him destroys the feeble attempts by Nawasib to absolve their caliph from the sin he committed by making Fatima Zahra (sa) angry.
Allamah Abdulqadir al-Demashqi records in Al-Madkhal, Volume 1, page 397:
“The preference is given to Musnad over Mursal”
Imam of the Deobandies Anwar Shah Kashmiri records in Al-Urf al-Shadi Sharah Sunan Tirmidhi, Volume 2 page 44:
“The Musnad is preferred over the Mursal”
Allamah Salahuddin Khalil al-Alaai (d. 761 H) records in Jame’a al-Usool, Volume 1 page 43:
“Most Malikies and Hanafies such as Abi Jaffar al-Tahawi and Abi Bakr al-Razi said to give preference to Musnad over Mursal when they contradict each other”
Qadhi Shawkani records in Irshad al-Fuhul, Volume 2 page 268:
“The Musnad narration precedes the Mursal narration”
Applying this Sunni principle, we see that the Mursal narrated by Sh’ubi contradicts the Sahih tradition of Bukhari hence the statement of Sh’ubi remains worthless.
The fact that Fatima Zahra (sa) did not forgive Abu Bakr and died angry towards him has been attested by Imam of Ahle Sunnah Shah Abdul Haq Muhadith Dehalwi in his famed work Ash’at al-Lam’aat Sharh Mishkat (Urdu translation by Allamah Muhammad Abdul Hakeem Sharaf Qadri), Volume 5 pages 353-354:
“The case of Fatima al Zahra is difficult among all the cases. If I say that Fatima was ignorant with regards to the Hadeeth cited by Abu Bakr then it is impossible and if I say that she was not provided the opportunity to hear this Hadeeth then it is also difficult, because after hearing this Hadeeth from Abu Bakr and the testimonies of the Sahaba, she did not accept the Hadeeth which is why she became angry. If she had become angry before hearing the Hadeeth then why didn’t desist from her anger, anger that was so lengthy that she did not talk to Abu Bakr as long as she remained alive”
Ash’at al-Lam’aat Sharh Mishkat, Volume 5 pages 353-354 (Farid Book Stall, Urdu Bazar, Lahore)
The testimony of this major Sunni scholar serves as clear proof that Sayyida Fatima (as) never changed her position nor forgave Abu Bakr.
Ayesha narrates in Bukhari that Sayyida Zahra departed from the world in a state of animosity towards Abu Bakr. Ibn Katheer sites a disconnected and an unacceptable narration suggesting that the matter was resolved. Is it not somewhat unusual that a source outside the family was aware that hostilities were settled, yet one parties own daughter wasn’t? Doesn’t it strike our readers as somewhat odd that something like being forgiven by the Prophet’s daughter, may have come up in conversation during the last year of the Khaleefa’s life? How is it that outsiders knew that matter was resolved, whilst Ayesha remained completely ignorant of it!
In a court case the strength of a case very much depends on the witness statements of the victim and any eye witnesses. If both witnesses can corroborate what occurred then the case is a strong one. In this regards we already have the witness testimony of Ayesha who states that Sayyida Fatima (as) never forgave Abu Bakr. This position is supported by the direct actions / testimony of Sayyida Fatima (as) in this regards. Ibn Qutaybah records the failed efforts of the Shaykhayn to seek forgiveness for their upsetting Fatima (as) when they attended her home, she responded by making it clear to them:
‘When I meet my father the Prophet (s), then I shall’ complain about the both of you (Abu Bakr and Umar), and said to Abu Bakr ‘By Allah I shall curse you after every Salat”.
Al-Imamah wa al-Siyasa, Vol. 1, Page 14
These words of Fatima (as) prove that she never forgave Abu Bakr and Umar and that she made it clear that she would bring her anger to the attention of her father (s). The testimony Sayyida Fatima (as) and the supporting evidence Ayesha leaves us with no doubt that Sayyida Zahra (as) never forgave Abu Bakr.
We have already cited the testimony of Umar from Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 434 wherein he unequivocally said that when Fatima (sa) advanced her claim before Abu Bakar, he struck out the claim by citing the (alleged) Hadith according to which Prophets never leave inheritance which that Imam Ali (as) deemed Abu Bakr a ‘liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest’ person and after deaths of Fatima (sa) and Abu Bakar, as Umar upheld the decision of Abu Bakr, he (as) likewise considered Umar to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. Do the present day desperate advocates of Abu Bakr want us to believe that Imam Ali (as), who also happens to be the fourth rightly guided caliph of Ahle Sunnah and among Ashra Mubashra and the most knowledgeable amongst Sahaba, was still pursuing the (initial) demand of Fatima (sa) that (according to present day Nawasib) she retracted and died pleased with Abu Bakr? Are they ready to issue an unequivocal verdict against Imam Ali (as) in this regard? We would also invite them to cite the words of Umar wherein he may have pointed out to Imam Ali (as) that he (as) was unnecessarily pursuing the matter when his deceased wife had withdrawn her claim and died pleased with Abu Bakr (contrary to the well known version reported by Ayesha and others). Had Fatima (sa) changed her stance over the issue of inheritance and her opinion regarding Abu Bakr then as part of the lengthy conversation cited in Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 434 this was the opportune moment for Umar to have clarified that Fatima (sa) had accepted the hadith coined by Abu Bakr and hence she died happy with him, that would then not have left her husband with any legal reply and justification for his claim, his claim would have been immediately struck out. The bottom line is that unless present day advocates of Abu Bakr are ready to issue a verdict of sheer ignorance and greed against Imam Ali, his (as) reaction and stance recorded in their books regarding the first and second caliph is sufficient to prove that Fatima (sa) had never forgiven Abu Bakr nor had she changed her stance on the issue by accepting the Hadith coined by Abu Bakr!
The books of Ahl’ul Sunnah state that Maula Ali (as) did not settle his differences with Abu Bakr until Sayyida Fatima (as) died and only gave bayya six months after the death of the Prophet (s). If Sayyida Fatima (as) had forgiven Abu Bakr then why would Maula ‘Ali (as) had delayed giving bayya? If the matter had been resolved there would have been no grounds for Maula Ali (as) to delay bayya until after the death of Sayyida Fatima (as)! Why have the Sunni Ulema mentioned this delay, linking it to the death of Sayyida Zahra (as)? When the matter had been allegedly resolved at the khaleefa had graced his presence in the home of Maula Ali (as) then why did he (as) not seize the opportunity to give bayya immediately? Why continue to delay the matter?
Whilst we as Shi’a reject the notion of Bayya outright, the Ijm’aa amongst the Sunni Ulema is that Maula ‘Ali (as) gave bayya to Abu Bakr, following the death of Sayyida Fatima (as). This would mean that he gave bayya six months after the death of the Prophet (s). Whilst the rules of Sunni / Shi’a polemics stipulate that it is not incumbent on one Sect to accept a Hadeeth cited from the other Sects, lets us cite a portion of the tradition that the Nasibis from Reviving Islam had themselves sought solace in a tradition taken from Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5 Hadeeth number 546:
A’ishah narrates what has been narrated above she adds,
“So Abu Bakr refused to give anything of that to Fatima. So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not talk to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet.
When she died, her husband ‘Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the Janazah by himself. When Fatima was alive, the people used to respect ‘Ali much, but after her death, ‘Ali noticed a change in the people’s attitude towards him.
So Ali sought reconciliation with Abu Bakr and gave him Bay’ah (the oath of allegiance). ‘Ali had not given the oath of allegiance during those months (i.e. the period between the Prophet’s death and Fatima’s death). ‘Ali sent someone to Abu Bakr saying, “Come to us, but let nobody come with you,” as he disliked that ‘Umar should come.
If we accept that Maula Ali (as) never gave bayya to Abu Bakr until Sayyida Fatima (as) died then we have yet further evidence that she left the earth angry with the Khaleefa and left the world in that state. This would further explain why (according to Sunnis) Maula Ali gave bayya after six months. If Sayyida Zahra (as) had made peace with Abu Bakr during her lifetime then there be any reason for Maula Ali (as) to keep silent on the issue of bayya, particularly when no time should be wasted when it comes to performing good deeds? If we accept the claim of the Reviving Islam Team, then Maula Ali (as) should have given bayya to Abu Bakr immediately, since Sayyida Fatima (as) had resolved all disputes with the Khalifa and was convinced by his ruling on Fadak.
The Ahlebayt.com produces this Shi’a source to debase Shi’a claims that Sayyida Fatima remained angry with Abu Bakr.
The Imaamiyyah Shia author of Hujjaajus Saalikeen states:“Verily, when Abu Bakr saw that Fatima was annoyed with him, shunned him and did not speak to him after this on the issue of Fadak, he was much aggrieved on account of this. He resolved to please her. He went to her and said: ‘ Oh daughter of Rasulullah! You have spoken the truth in what you have claimed, but I saw Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) distributing it (i.e. the income of Fadak). He would give it to the Fuqaraa, Masaakeen and wayfarers after he gave your expenses and expenses of the workers.’ She then said:’ Do with it as my father, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had done.’ Abu Bakr said:’ I take an oath by Allah for you! It is incumbent on me to do with it what your father used do with it.’ Fatima said: ‘By Allah! You should most certainly do so.’ Abu Bakr said: ‘ By Allah! I shall most certainly do so.’ Fatima said: ‘ O Allah! Be witness.’ Thus, she became pleased with this and she took a pledge from Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr would give them ( Fatima and others of the Ahl-e-Bait) expenses therefrom and distribute the balance to the Fuqaraa, Masaakeen and wayfarers.”
The stupid Ahlelbayt.com team obsession with cutting and pasting whatever they can without substantiating it first has caught up with them! To describe Hujjaajus Saalikeen a Shi’a source was a lie that was first perpetuated by Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi in his book Tauhfa Ithna Ashari. Amazingly he was never able to actually produce the book, page, and publisher details as evidence. Sadly naive Sunnis have ever since kept copying the same text, without even trying to prove the existence of the book! Ahlelbayt.com has yet again done the same. It is indeed unfortunate that in their efforts to exonerate Abu Bakr, they even fabricate the existence of books, this is indeed taking the notion of ‘by any means necessary’ to its most extreme level.
Ibn al Hashimi states:
If Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) remained angry until her death, this does not look bad for Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), but rather it looks bad for Fatima (رضّى الله عنها). She was clearly in the wrong, and we have cited evidence for this from the Shia’s own Al-Kafi, which clearly stated that Prophets do not leave inheritance. Thus, Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) made an error, and if she never forgave Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), then she is angry at a man wrongfully. And not just any man–but the Caliph of the Ummah. This makes Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) look whimsical. The Sahabah–including Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه)–used to give half of their wealth, and even more than that, in charity. An unbiased observor could say that if Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) remained adamant in her anger over Fadak being given as charity, then this only makes her look greedy. She should be willing to give this property as charity for the benefit of the emerging Muslim state.
It is for this reason that the Ahlus Sunnah makes excuses for Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) and gives her the benefit of the doubt, citing narrations that show that she indeed did become happy with Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) near the end of her life.
Just look at the arrogance of this writer, he suggesting that they are doing Sayyida Fatima (a) a favor by suggesting she resolved her differences with Abu Bakr, since failure to do so deems her greedy and whimsical! What we see here is the perfect example of an advocate defending a weak case. When it is clear that there is no realistic prospect of his client being absolved of the charges leveled against him, he shall seek to attack the character and credibility of the opposing witnesses. This is precisely what Ibn al Hashimi has done here.
Greedy by definition means – ‘excessively desirous of acquiring or possessing, especially wishing to possess more than what one needs or deserves’, is it right to conclude that to even think that the daughter of the Prophet (s) was greedy?
Lest not forget that Sayyida Fatima (as) had possession of Fadak from the point that it was gifted to her by the Prophet (s) until Abu Bakr usurped it. Despite her acquisition of such an estate that generated considerable wealth, wealth that enabled Abu Bakr to fund the war effort during his reign we see no evidence of her living any form of a lavish lifestyle of pomp and ceremony, that is synonymous of those acquiring wealth, she continued to live a frugal, simple lifestyle and ensured the riches of Fadak were utilized to aid the Ummah’s poor and needy, so to suggest that she was greedy is a baseless, shameless lie.
How can anyone entertain such a notion when the same daughter and her family have been praised by Allah (swt) for their generosity in Surah Insaan:
They perform (their) vows, and they fear a Day whose evil flies far and wide.
And they feed, for the love of Allah, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive,-
(Saying),”We feed you for the sake of Allah alone: no reward do we desire from you, nor thanks.
“We only fear a Day of distressful Wrath from the side of our Lord.”
But Allah will deliver them from the evil of that Day, and will shed over them a Light of Beauty and (blissful) Joy.
And because they were patient and constant, He will reward them with a Garden and (garments of) silk.
Al-Qur’an, Surah Insan, Ayah 7-12, translated by Yusufali
Sunni Scholars have recorded that this verse descended in their honour. For example we red in Tasehil le Uloom al-Tanzil, Volume 4 page 167
This verse is revealed in favor of Ali bin Abi Talib, Fatima, Hassan and Hussain may Allah be pleased with them.
You can find such commentaries in the following Sunni Tafsirs:
1. Tafsir Thalabi, v10 p99
2. Asbab Nuzul al-ayat, by Wahidi, p296
3. Shawahid al-Tanzil by Hasakani, v2 p403
4. Tafsir Baghawi, v4 p428
5. Tafsir Zad al-Masir by Ibn Jawzi, v8 p145
6. Tafsir al-Razi, v30 p244
7. Tafsir ibn Arabi, v2, p370
8. Tafsir al-ez bin Abdulsalam, v3 p401
9. Tafsir Qurtubi v19, p130
10. Dur al-Manthur by Suyuti, v6 p299
11. Fath al-Qadir by Shawkani, v5 p349
These verses descended to highlight the selflessness and piety of the Ahl’ul bayt (as). The historical occasion to which these blessed verses refer was, when Ali (as), Fatima (as), Hasan (as) and Hussain (as) fasted for three consecutive days, because a needy person would come to the door asking for sustenance at the time of breaking the fast, and they would immediately hand over their food to him. Allah (swt) was so pleased by the generosity of the action of Sayyida Zahra (as), her husband and sons that He (swt) converted their actions into verses of the Glorious Qur’an to serve as guidance for the Muslims. Allah (swt) testifies to the generosity of Sayyida Fatima (as) and this impure Nasibi is suggesting that her claim for Fadak made her greedy!
Why should Sayyida Zahra (as) claiming land as her legal right constitute an act of greed? If making a claim to this Estate was greedy, what should we say of Rasulullah (s) who bestowed the entire estate of Fadak to her? Was he greedy (God forbid) for gifting this large piece of land to her? What right does Ibn al Hashimi have to deem Sayyida Zahra (as) greedy, when she has made a claim to the very same land that the Prophet (s) had given her?
We find it interesting that this Nasibi has no qualms about suggesting that Sayyida Zahra (as) was greedy for claiming Fadak, yet we never them pass similar judgments on those Sahaba that acquired massive riches during the reign of the third khalifa. Syed Qutb Shaheed quotes the following in Social Justice in Islam, page 250:
“In the caliphate of Uthman the Companions acquired estates and wealth. On the day he was killed Uthman held in his coffers a hundred and fifty thousand dinars and a million dirhams. The value of his estates at Wadi al Qura, at Hunain and elsewhere was a hundred thousand dinars; he also left a great number of horses and camels. The value of Zubair’s estate at his death was fifty thousand dinars; he also left a thousand horses and a thousand female slaves. Talha’s income from Iraq was a thousand dinars a day, and from the district of Sirat he still had more. Abd al Rahman ibn Auf had in his stables a thousand horses, and he also possessed a thousand camels and ten thousand sheep; at his death a quarter if his estate was valued at eighty four thousand dinars. Zaid ibn Thabit left gold and silver in ingot form, besides money and estates. Al Zubair built a mansion at Basra and had palaces also in Cairo, in Kufa and in Alexandria. Talhs also built a mansion at Kufa, and he raised a palace at Medina, using gypsum, baked brick and teak. Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas built his palace with corneilian, roofed it, and included a large courtyard placing on the top of all crenulated walls”
We appeal to justice! Would Sahaba that became tycoons and amassed such massive amount of wealth not come within the definition of greedy? Has Ibn al Hashimi or for that matter any of other Abu Bakr’s advocate ever attacked these Sahaba and deemed them greedy? Their pens have never been utilized against these extravagant Sahaba but when the beloved daughter is making a claim to land that had been snatched from her that she was now seeking to reclaim back as per the law of inheritance; she is attacked by Ibn al Hashimi and deemed greedy. This evidences the grudge that this Nasibi bears in his heart towards Sayyida Zahra (as).
Here we shall address to comments of this Nasibi that he has asserted at different points in his article:
The Sahabah–including Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه)–used to give half of their wealth, and even more than that, in charity. An unbiased observor could say that if Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) remained adamant in her anger over Fadak being given as charity, then this only makes her look greedy. She should be willing to give this property as charity for the benefit of the emerging Muslim state.
and here:
Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) did a very noble thing by donating Fadak to charity, as was the command of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم). The Shia try to villify Abu Bakr, but what was Abu Bakr’s only “crime” other than helping the poor? If the Shia want to make this a competition between Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) and Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), then let us remember that the former wanted it for her own personal usage, whereas Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) wanted it to be given as charity for the benefit of the Muslim Ummah. The Shia should stop focusing on the issue of Fadak, because it was a sincere mistake of Fatima’s (رضّى الله عنها); the Ahlus Sunnah does not discuss Fadak in its own circles for this very reason, out of reverence for Fatima (رضّى الله عنها). The Shia meanwhile force our hand and make us continually prove that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) was in the wrong, in order that we may exonerate Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) from wrong doing. We ask Allah Almighty to accept Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) into the Highest Ranks of Paradise.
Ibn al Hashimi seems to suggest that Sayyida Fatima (as) was under some legal obligation to support the confiscation of Fadak. In accordance with Ibn al Hashimi’s interpretation of the State position should we assume that the decision in Fadak establishes a precedent whereby the owner of an estate has no right of legal redress, if the State chooses to confiscate his land and donate it to charity? Ibn al Hashimi in fact takes things a step further and seems to suggest that the affected party that challenges such a decision should be deemed greedy and unpatriotic. The world according to Ibn al Hashimi seems to suggest that citizens are afforded no protection if their possessions are seized by the State and donated to further a noble cause.
According to the alleged Hadith, the command of the Prophet (s) is to give our personal possessions / wealth as charity, not the assets of others. Whether the annexed land was more beneficial because it aided the wider Muslim populous is an irrelevant issue, since Abu Bakr distributing the product from land that he had no legal entitlement to. This is like the example of a robber that steals from the rich and gives to the poor. No doubt many poor people may have escaped the pangs of hunger through this financial assistance, but the bottom line is the robber remains a robber, and his status before Allah (swt) shall be that of a robber, not one that bettered the lives of the poor and destitute. Along the same lines consider the example of a drug dealer that lives of illegal and immoral earnings, such as drug dealing and running a brothel, but donates all he makes to charity. Any money that he earns from such earnings will not become purified and become Halal if they go to a good cause. There is not mitigation, even if the money benefits scores of people, since the origin of that money is Haram that in term makes such generous donations of no avail. The donor remains a sinner in the eyes of Allah (swt) no matter what benefit people attained from his donations.
We would also urge our readers to think about the mindset of Ibn al Hashimi who is praising the distribution of stolen property! Would he also praise a man in the example we gave that donated all the money (attained through immoral earnings) to charity?
If Abu Bakr ‘did a very noble thing by donating Fadak to charity, as was the command of the Prophet’ what position will he hold of Uthman who shifted away from this ‘noble thing’, rather he gave it to his cursed Nasibi cousin Marwan for his own personal usage?
Let us quote this fact from the testimony of Ibn al Hashimi who stated:
The Shia curse Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) for taking Fadak away from Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and giving it to Marwan (رضّى الله عنه).
We are yet to find any Ibn al Hashimi criticisms of Uthman who have the entire Estate of Fadak to Marwan, even though he had no qualms with attacking Sayyida Zahra (as) for claiming Fadak ‘for her own personal usage’. Is it not amazing that if Sayyida Zahra (as) claims Fadak as was her legal right, an inference is drawn that she is greedy, but if Uthman generously donates Fadak for Marwan’s personal use, it isn’t objectionable on the contrary both the donor and donee are ‘(ra)’.
Sipah-e-Sahaba who have turned lying and misinterpreting Shi’a Islam and History into a fine art advance this very curious argument in their article ‘The theory of Imamte’.
IT IS REPORTED THAT ON HADHRAT ABU BAKR’S ELECTION TO CALIPHATE, HADHRAT FATIMAH (R.A) ACCOMPANIED BY HER GRAND UNCLE HADHRAT ‘ABBAS (R.A) WENT TO SEE HADHRAT ABU BAKR, AND ASKED HIM NOT ONLY TO DISTRIBUTE THE PROPERTY LEFT BY THE HOLY PROPHET AMONG HIS HEIRS, BUT ALSO TO GIVE THE REGION OF FADAK EXCLUSIVELY TO HER ETC. CAN SHE GO WITHOUT THE CONSENT AND EVEN DIRECTION OF HER HUSBAND HADHRAT ALI (R.A.)?
http://www.kr-hcy.com/statichtml/files/104294860870304.shtml – Cached
Sayyida Fatima (as) did indeed take Maula ‘Ali (as) before Abu Bakr and we are in no doubt that this was under the consent of her husband. Maula ‘Ali (as) had gone woth her so as to testify in her favour, and to refute the assertions of Abu Bakr. Abbas went as he was also an Heir to the Prophet’s inheritance.
Sipah Sahaba Pakistan states:
WHY DID SHE GO TO HIM, IF NOT BECAUSE SHE AND HER HUSBAND AND HER GRAND UNCLE, ALL RECOGNISED IN HIM A LAWFUL INCUMBENT OF THE CALIPHATE? FOR IF THAT WAS NOT SO SHE HAD TO TELL HADHRAT ABU BAKR TO QUIT THE OFFICE IN FAVOUR OF HER HUSBAND THE SO-CALLED HEIR-PRESUMPTIVE OF THE HOLY PROPHET (SAW).
During the Fadak dispute, Abu Bakr’s usurpation made him a defendant in the action, which is why she went to this unjust Khaleefa to claim the land back. Let us cite an example:
If you are at work and a colleague takes your watch that was on your table, you will go directly to him because he was the person that took your possession; you won’t go to another colleague and dispute over the matter! The act of going there to him, demanding your right is because that person has usurped your property, it cannot be interpreted as you recognising him as your loyal friend.
Had Sayyida Zahra (as) had a dispute with another party she would have never had gone to Abu Bakr to resolve the dispute.
Had Sayyida Fatima (as) chose to remain silent and not issued proceedings before Abu Bakr, then his modern day advocates would have absolved Abu Bakr of all charges that we level against him, on the contrary they would have interpreted her silence as proof that she had accepted Abu Bakr’s decision. Sayyida Fatima (as) went to Abu Bakr to expose his injustice and present two blatant contradictions that this party applied. Upon the deathbed of the Prophet (s) when Rasulullah (s) ordered writing material to be brought to him, Umar replied ‘The Qur’an is sufficient for us’ – thus suggesting that the Qur’an had greater weight that the word (Sunnah) of the Prophet (s). Just days later during the Fadak dispute, Abu Bakr sought to strike out the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as) by presenting a Hadeeth he attributed to her father. Sayyida Fatima (as) pointed out that her right was established from the Qur’an, but now the Sunnah of the Prophet (s) was advanced to counter her claim. Sayyida Fatima (as) therefore exposed the Saqifite party by proving that they neither adhered to the Qur’an or Sunnah of the Prophet (s). She in effect exposed the activities of this party by pointing out that the same party who said ‘The Qur’an was sufficient’ ignored the Qur’an when it came to ruling on her inheritance rights! Alhamdolillah Sayyida Fatima (as) lifted the veils on the Shaykhayn’s true attitudes!
We read in Surah Taha verse 47, how Allah (swt) ordered Prophets Musa (as) and Harun (as) to appeal directly to Pharoah, demanding their rights for their people:
“So go ye both to him, and say, ‘Verily we are messengers sent by thy Lord: Send forth, therefore, the Children of Israel with us, and afflict them not: with a Sign, indeed, have we come from thy Lord! and peace to all who follow guidance!
Al-Qur’an, Surah Taha, Ayah 47, translated by Yusufali
We read in Surah Yusuf verse 55 that Prophet Yusuf (as) made a direct appeal to the Kaafir King of the time, demanding that he be appointed as treasurer:
(Joseph) said: “Set me over the store-houses of the land: I will indeed guard them, as one that knows (their importance).”
Al-Qur’an, Surah Yusuf, Syah 55, translated by Yusufali
We appeal to justice. when Prophet Musa (as) demanded his right before Pharoah and Yusuf (as) approached a Kaafir King demanding appointment as a treasurer, then does it prove that they recognised these leaders as the rightful Heads of State and gave them bayya? Did these Prophets tell these unjust Leaders to quit office so that they can take over the reigns of power? In the same way that the approach of these Prophets to unjust caliphs cannot be advanced as proof of their being lawful incumbents of State Leadership, Sayyida Fatima (as)’s approach to Abu Bakr cannot be produced as evidence that she deemed him to be the lawful incumbent of the Khilafath. If the failure of these two Prophets to tell these unjust Leaders to leave their positions cannot be advanced as proof that they were legitimate rulers, then Sayyida Fatima (as)’s ‘failure’ to tell Abu Bakr to abdicate his seat in favour of Maula Ali (as) cannot be advanced as proof that she deemed his Khilafath to be legitimate either. If Sayyida Fatima (as) said nothing to Abu Bakr at that time, then we will say that her son Imam Hasan (as) in effect echoed her sentiments during Abu Bakr’s reign, Suyuti: records that:
“Al Hassan Ibn Ali came to Abu Bakr when he was upon the mimbar of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and said ‘Come down from my father’s seat’. He said ‘You have told the truth, it is your father’s seat,’ and he placed him in his lap and wept’. Ali said ‘By Allah this was not from my command’.
History of the Khalifahs who took the right away, by: Al Hafiz Jalaludin Suyuti. English translation by Abdasamad Clark Page 71. Taha Publishers
A Sunni website quotes:
Fatima remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. She held herself aloof from Abu Bakr which shows that her grievance also persisted. Such complaints and misunderstandings are, however, not uncommon among near relations. Often one becomes very touchy about minor matters, particularly if one considers oneself to be right. But the differences between Fatima and Abu Bakr never developed into animosity. Fatima’s resentment was marked by a restraint which speaks of her civility and cordiality which were the essential features of her character.
Excerpted from “The Life of Caliph Ali” by Abul Hasan Nadwi
http://muslim-canada.org/ali_abubakr.html – Cached
Consider the facts, property is usurped and the aggrieved party:
Would you describe such a reaction as ‘a minor matter’? Did Sayyida Fatima deem this as a ‘common misunderstanding’ or a ‘minor matter’? Had one of Nadwi’s relatives treated his daughter in such a manner, usurping her legal rights that he left behind, do you think he would have defined the dispute a ‘minor matter’? – This Nasibi is so shameless that he calls himself a Sayyid and then beats the drum of the man who usurped his mother’s inheritance rights! We ask our readers wouldn’t you get ‘touchy’ if someone usurped your inheritance rights? Would you deem the usurping of your legal right to be a ‘minor matter’? Maula ‘Ali (as) clearly did not deem this to be a minor matter as we have already proven, he deemed Abu Bakr’s usurpation of Fadak as proof that he was a ‘liar, treacherous, sinful and dishonest’.