As proof we shall cite:
1. Tareekh Tabari (English translation) Volume 11 page 149
2. Kanz al Khitab al Khilafath ma al Maar Volume 3 page 135
3. Al Imama wa al Siyasa Volume 1 page 18, Dhikr Wafaath Abu Bakr
4. Murujh al Dhahab Volume 2 page 308 Dhikr Khilafath Abu Bakr
5. Iqd al Fareed, Dhikr Wafaath Abu Bakr Volume 2 page 208
6. Tarikh Al Islam Volume 3, pages 117 - 118
7. Ahadith al-Mukhtarat, Volume 1 page 88
al-Hafiz Diya al-Din Muhammad ibn al-Wahid al-Maqdisi (d. 643 H) in his authority work al-Ahadith al-Mukhtarat, Volume 1 page 88 stated:
عنهن فأما الثلاث اللاتي وددت أني لم أفعلهن فوددت أني لم أكن كشفت بيت فاطمة أو تركته وأن أعلق على الحرب وددت أني يوم سقيفة بني ساعدة كنت قدفت الأمر في عنق أحد الرجلين أبو عبيدة أو عمر فكان أمير المؤمنين وكنت وزيرا ووددت أني حيث كنت وجهت خالد بن الوليد إلى أهل الردة
Abu Bakr said: ‘I wish I never violated or abandoned the house of Fatima even if she had waged a war against me. I wish that on the day of Saqifah I had placed the affair (i.e. caliphate) on the neck of either Abu Ubaydah or Umar so that such would be the Commander of the believers while I remained his vizier’.
Al-Dhahabi recorded in Tarikh Al Islam Volume 3, pages 117 - 118 wrote:
Ulwan bin Dawood Al-Bajali narrated from Humayd bin Abdul-Rahman from Saleh bin Kaysan, of Humayd bin Abdul-Rahman bin Auf, of his father, who said: I entered at Abu Bakr to wish him farewell during his sickness in which he died. So I saluted him and asked him about how he has become. Then he sat up. Then I said: "Praised be Allah (swt), for you have woken up in a good state." Then he said: "Do you not see that I am suffering, and that you made me work with my suffering, in which I made covenant with you to follow after me, and I chose the best one of you myself, and each one of you had a tumor in his nose, wishing that the case would be handed over to himself. And I saw the world has come before me, and when it came, you would wing your houses by walls of silk and silk garments, and you would wear Azeri wool as if one of you was a spine of a monkey. And by Allah (swt), if one of you would come to the front and his neck would be hit without a punishment, then it would be better for him than wandering in the midst of the material world." Then he said: "Indeed, I do not regret anything except for three things I did which I wish I would not have done, and three things I did not do which I wish I had done, and three things I wish I have asked the Messenger of Allah (saw) about. As for the three things I wish I had not done, then I wish that I would not have uncovered the house of Fatima (s.a) or just left it, even if they closed it for a war. And I wish that on the day of Saqifa Bani Sa'ida I would have left the case to one of the two men, Umar or Abu Ubayda.
Similar like this and longer than this has been (Narrated ibn Wahab - Al-Layth bin Sa'd - Saleh bin Kaysan - Hameed bin Abdul-Rahman bin Auf - Abdul Rahman bin Auf), and it is also reported by Ai'dh.
We read in the English translation of Tabari Volume 11 page 149that Abu Bakr expressed 3 regrets on his death bed, the first being:
“I wish I had not thrown open the house of Fatima to reveal something even though they had locked it with hostile intent”
To those that insist that relations between the Banu Hashim and Abu Bakr were cordial following his becoming Khalifah, why the forced entry of Sayida Fatima (as)'s home? What was the hostile intent of those inside?
These seven esteemed Sunni scholars noted Abu Bakr’s admission of his mistakes, so why do his modern day champions go mad when we accuse Abu Bakr of making a mistake on the Fadak issue? This is of course unpalatable for the followers of Abu Bakr, and their modern day advocate Al Khider tries his best to muddy the waters and present both parties as correct. There have been efforts to suggest that such narrations are weak BUT Suyuti recorded in in the Urdu translation of Musnad Fatima Zahra page 44 and said the chain is Hasan (good).
We would ask that our readers think about these opening comments of Al Khider. As yourselves, are they Logical or Illogical?
Ansar.org stated:
“The difference between the Khaleefah Abu Bakr and Sayyidah Fatimah was an acceptable difference in which either side had an opinion founded on proof.”
How can the opinion of both be founded on proof when there was a total contradiction between the two? The only conceivable fact is that ones opinion was based upon proof and ones opinion upon conjecture for the simple reason being that if something is based upon proof it is an evidence and confirmation of truth and truth does not contradict another truth, hence, the logic is ludicrous.
No man with a rational mind can accept the fact that both Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Fatima (as) were right in their claims, for the following reasons:
Imam Ali said: “When there are two differing calls, then one is towards misguidance”
Al Khider then seeks to compare the dispute those that arise between Mujtahids:
While setting out an example of two of the Maraji’ of the Shi’ah, he say: “… The position of both disputants would then be viewed with equal respect and appreciation, in consideration of the fact that both persons base their claims upon textual evidence and proof, albeit that one of the two opinions would ultimately take precedence over the other.”
Comparing the above example with the case of Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Fatima (as) is like comparing apples to oranges because:
Having tried his best to water the matter down, Al Khider then seeks to whip up hatred towards the Shi’a. We would ask those with open minds to mull over these words are they Fair or Dishonest?
Ansar.org stated:
However, when it comes to Abu Bakr and Fatimah there is a complete change of attitude. To the Shi’ah Abu Bakr is the enemy, and for as long as he be the enemy he will be considered evil incarnate, and error is inseparable from any of his judgements. Thus it is that sentiments have become the standard by which matters such as this are judged”
Does this Nasibi know what sentiment means? Sentiment could mean emotion, feeling, view, etc, but it is true that we judge by emotions? As we have already demonstrated, there are many verses of the Holy Qur’an used by the Shi’a, as evidence which go against the character of Abu Bakr, let alone the anger of Hadhrat Fatima (as). Then how can he say that sentiments have become the standard by which matters as this are judged? Let us now analyse this difference of opinion, a difference that involved the confiscation of land, the denial of inheritance, and a position so severe that that claimant never spoke to the ‘Mujtahid’ again. All these defences have no bearing on reality. The bottom line is this:
This is the reality so let us see how Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s) judge such a person:
We read in Sahih Muslim The Book of Transactions (Kitab Al-Buyu`) – ‘It is forbidden to seize land and other things without legitimate right’.
Book 010, Number 3920:
Sa’id b. Zaid b. ‘Amr b. Nufail (Allah be pleased with them) reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: He who wrongly took a span of land, Allah shall make him carry around his neck seven earths.
We read in Sunan Tirmidhi Hadeeth 3078:
Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said, “If anyone deprives an heir of his inheritance, Allah will deprive him of his inheritance in Paradise on the Day of Resurrection.”
Ibn Majah transmitted it, and Bayhaqi transmitted it in Shu’ab al-Iman on the authority of Abu Hurrayra.
We read in Surah al Fajr verse 19:
And ye devour inheritance all with greed.
Al-Qur’an, Surah al-Fajr, Ayah 19, translated by Yusufali
The verse condemns those that take advantage of other people’s inheritance. No one, not even the Sahaba are exempt from this verse. If the Nasibi defence mechanism kicks in, namely that this verse was Madani and that people were unaware of rules on inheritance at the time, then such advocates should know that these rulings date back to Abrahamic Laws. As is proven from Tafseer Ruh al Ma’ani Part 30 page 127:
“Underage Arab children and women could not inherit from their parents. The people would usurp their share until the Shari’ah of Ibrahim and Ismail made it clear that women and children were heirs to inheritance”
This shall suffice to refute the excuse that the Surah is Makkan whilst the verse is Madani.
We read this Hadeeth in Ibn Majah that has been authenticated by Shaikh Albaani in Sahih Sunan Ibn Majah vol.1, p.7, no.12.
Abdullah Ibn Masoud (radhi allahu anhu) reported on the authority of his father, that Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) said: “He, who deliberately attributes a lie to me, let him take his seat in the Hell-Fire.”
We would ask that our readers ponder and think over the seriousness of Abu Bakr’s actions during the Fadak dispute. Not only did her usurp the legal rights of Sayyida Zahra (as) he sought to justify his decision by falsely attributing a lie to the Prophet (s). The fact that the Sunni scholars agree that he was the sole individual that was aware of it, clearly proves that it had been coined by him. This Hadeeth was a clear fabrication, Sayyida Zahra never agreed to it and Maula Ali (as) deemed Abu Bakr’s citing it as proof of him being a liar. We leave it to our readers to decide the eternal abode of Abu Bakr in light of this Hadeeth.
As evidence we shall rely on the following esteemed Sunni sources:
“Abu Dharr narrates that Rasulullah (s) asked me ‘What will you do when the Imams after me shall take this property of Fai as their own? Abu Dharr said ‘I swear by He who made you a Prophet, I shall raise my sword and declare war until I take it back’. Rasulullah (s) said .I shall give you a better option, be patient until you meet me’.
Ahl’ul Sunnah do not deny the truthfulness of Abu Dharr, he died in 32 Hijri during the reign of Uthman – he passed through the reigns of three Khalifas, Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, and Rasulullah asked ‘What will you do when the Imams after me shall take this property of Fai as their own?’
If Rasulullah (s) was referring to the Imams that followed the death of Abu Dharr then it would be meaningless, since Rasulullah (s) issued instructions as to how to respond when witnessing this usurpation during his life time. So which Imams was Rasulullah (s) referring to? It was the same Imam who on the basis of a concocted Hadeeth ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity)’, justified the usurpation of the property of Fai from Sayyida Fatima (as) and this will be addressed on the Day of Judgement, which is why Rasulullah (s) told Abu Dharr to remain patient and not fight.
If Nasabi point out that Abu Bakr had sought forgiveness from Sayyida Fatima (as) then we will say that this was nothing more than a political gesture, if he was really sincere then he should have returned the land that he had usurped from Sayyida Fatima (as) he failed to do so, and will therefore be answerable before Allah (swt) about this in the next world when all injustices perpetuated shall be heard and perpetrators punished accordingly. The modern day Champion of the Salafi movement Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips sets out the conditions for repentance, in his ‘Tafseer Soorah al Hujuraat’ page 97-98:
“If the crime involved the rights of others, the fourth condition requires that the repentant rectify the situation by receiving the punishment or seeking forgiveness of others if slander was involved and returning stolen goods if property was involved [Muhammad as Siddeeqee, Daleel al Faaliheen (Egypt: al Halabee Press, 1971) volume 1 pp 78-80]. If the property has been usurped or damaged the repentant should use his or her own resources to replace it. This remains as a debt on the sinner until such time as it is paid in full or its owner releases him or her from the obligation. The Prophet (s) taught that Allaah does not pardon sins involving the rights of other humans. If these rights are not pardoned by their owners in this life, they may be demanded during the Final Judgement and paid in the form of righteous deeds subtracted from the scales of the sinner. The Prophet (s) once asked his companions if they knew who a truly bankrupt person was and they replied it was one who did not have any dirhams nor deenars. He then informed them that it was one who came before Allaah with his good deeds on the day of judgement, after having cursed and hit people and stolen their property in this life. Those whom he had abused would demand their rights, and good deeds would be taken from his scale to fulfil their rights until his good deeds run out. Then bad deeds would be taken from their scales and put on his scales until all of their rights were paid back in full. Following that he would be thrown into the Hellfire. [Sahih Muslim (Eng tr) Volume 4 page 1441 Hadith number 6655].
Tafseer Soorah al Hujuraat, Page 97-98
Sunni scholar Dr Tahir ul Qadri in his book on the virtues of Sayyida Fatima (as) ‘Al Durr’athul Baydh fee Manaqib Fatima al Zahra (as)’ page 56 records this Hadeeth.
Miswar narrates that Rasulullah (s) said ‘Verily Fatima is my … I desire whatever she desires, and whatever pains her, pains me’
Qadri narrated this tradition from the following esteemed Sunni works:
Al Duratul Baydha fi Manaqib Fatima al-Zahra (as), Page 56
On the next page (57-58) Qadri records this narration recorded by Sakhawi in Ishtajlab ir-Taqaa al-Gharf Bahib Aqrabaa ar-Rasool Wadhawi ash-Sharaf, pages 96-97:
Sad bin Abi Qurshee narrates that Hadhrath Abdullah bin Hasan bin Hasan bin Ali bin Abi Talib who had not yet attained puberty approached Umar bin Abdul Aziz in relation to a matter. Umar suspended his gathering heard the matter and fulfilled his need. He then squeezed his stomach in such a manner that he began to feel pain, with that he said to him ‘Remember this on the Day of Judgement at the time of intercession’. When he left the people asked why he dedicated such time to this child. He replied ‘I heard a Hadeeth from a Thiqah narrator who said ‘I heard the Prophet (s) sayd ‘Fatima is a part of my body I desire whatever she desires’.
He then said ‘If Fatima was here then this would have been what she desired, in the way that I had treated her son. They then asked ‘Why did you embrace him in such a manner and say what you did?’. Umar bin Abdul Aziz replied ‘There is not even one person amongst the Banu Hashim who hasn’t been given the rights of intercession, I desire to attain intercession through this boy.
Al Duratul Baydha fi Manaqib Fatima al-Zahra (sa), Page 57
It is indeed unfortunate that whilst a later Khaleefa who the Sunnis grade as on par with the Rightly Guided Khalifa’s afforded Sayyid’s respect because he felt that this is what Sayyida Fatima (as) and would comply with the Hadeeth of the Prophet (s) the first Khaleefa has a complete disregard to this Hadeeth, and in fact passes a judgement that opposes her desire!
The Glorious Quran impresses upon it believers to remain truthful and keep aloof from dishonesty both in word and deed. Breaking promises false within the ambit of lying conduct, whilst keeping one’s promise is conduct expected of a believer. Allah (swt) has placed a legal obligation upon believers to fulfil their promises / covenants, we read in Surah Bani Isra verse 34:
وَلا تَقرَبوا مالَ اليَتيمِ إِلّا بِالَّتي هِيَ أَحسَنُ حَتّىٰ يَبلُغَ أَشُدَّهُ ۚ وَأَوفوا بِالعَهدِ ۖ إِنَّ العَهدَ كانَ مَسئولًا
Do not approach the orphan’s property except in the best manner until he comes of age. And fulfil the covenants; indeed all covenants are accountable
The same duty is set out in the Sunnah, we read in Sahih Bukhari "the Book on Wills and Testaments (Wasaayaa)":
حَدَّثَنَا سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ دَاوُدَ أَبُو الرَّبِيعِ، حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ جَعْفَرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا نَافِعُ بْنُ مَالِكِ بْنِ أَبِي عَامِرٍ أَبُو سُهَيْلٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ " آيَةُ الْمُنَافِقِ ثَلاَثٌ، إِذَا حَدَّثَ كَذَبَ، وَإِذَا اؤْتُمِنَ خَانَ، وَإِذَا وَعَدَ أَخْلَفَ
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "The signs of a hypocrite are three: Whenever he speaks he tells a lie; whenever he is entrusted he proves dishonest; whenever he promises he breaks his promise."
Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 51, Hadith 12
We can deduce from this Quranic verse and Hadith that the act of breaking a covenant is the sign of a hypocrite and is tantamount to kufr. Now when Sayeda Fatima (sa) made her claim to Fadak and khums (fifth share) Abu Bakr rejected it. We read in Sahih Bukhari:
حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا هِشَامٌ، أَخْبَرَنَا مَعْمَرٌ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنْ عُرْوَةَ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، أَنَّ فَاطِمَةَ، وَالْعَبَّاسَ ـ عَلَيْهِمَا السَّلاَمُ ـ أَتَيَا أَبَا بَكْرٍ يَلْتَمِسَانِ مِيرَاثَهُمَا مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَهُمَا حِينَئِذٍ يَطْلُبَانِ أَرْضَيْهِمَا مِنْ فَدَكَ، وَسَهْمَهُمَا مِنْ خَيْبَرَ. فَقَالَ لَهُمَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ " لاَ نُورَثُ، مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ، إِنَّمَا يَأْكُلُ آلُ مُحَمَّدٍ مِنْ هَذَا الْمَالِ ". قَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَاللَّهِ لاَ أَدَعُ أَمْرًا رَأَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَصْنَعُهُ فِيهِ إِلاَّ صَنَعْتُهُ. قَالَ فَهَجَرَتْهُ فَاطِمَةُ، فَلَمْ تُكَلِّمْهُ حَتَّى مَاتَتْ.
Narrated `Aisha:
Fatima and Al `Abbas came to Abu Bakr, seeking their share from the property of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) 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 Messenger (ﷺ) 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 Messenger (ﷺ) following during his lifetime concerning this property." Therefore Fatima left Abu Bakr and did not speak to him till she died.
Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 8, Book 80, Hadith 718
The key words for the purposes of this discussion is his covenant:
"By Allah, I will not leave the procedure I saw Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) following during his lifetime"
Herein lies a sworn covenant from Abu Bakr that he will deal with the personal assets of Rasulullah (s) as he (s) did during his lifetime. On the face of it, it could be argued there is nothing to complain about here, its merely an affirmation to administer these assets in the same way Rasulullah (s) did. The question is, did he? Part of the claim of a Sayeda Fatima (sa) related to her share (khums) of Khaibar, did she receive her share of the fifth of war spoils (khums) in the same way that Rasulullah (s) would provide it to her (s)? We get our answer in Sunan Abu Dawud under the chapter "Tribute, Spoils, and Rulership"
حَدَّثَنَا عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عُمَرَ، حَدَّثَنَا عُثْمَانُ بْنُ عُمَرَ، أَخْبَرَنِي يُونُسُ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ الْمُسَيَّبِ، حَدَّثَنَا جُبَيْرُ بْنُ مُطْعِمٍ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم لَمْ يَقْسِمْ لِبَنِي عَبْدِ شَمْسٍ وَلاَ لِبَنِي نَوْفَلٍ مِنَ الْخُمُسِ شَيْئًا كَمَا قَسَمَ لِبَنِي هَاشِمٍ وَبَنِي الْمُطَّلِبِ . قَالَ وَكَانَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ يَقْسِمُ الْخُمُسَ نَحْوَ قَسْمِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم غَيْرَ أَنَّهُ لَمْ يَكُنْ يُعْطِي قُرْبَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم كَمَا كَانَ يُعْطِيهِمْ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَكَانَ عُمَرُ يُعْطِيهِمْ وَمَنْ كَانَ بَعْدَهُ مِنْهُمْ .
Narrated Jubair b. Mu'tim:
The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) did not divide the fifth among the Banu 'Abd Shams and Banu Nawfal as he divided among the Banu Hashim and Banu 'Abd al-Muttalib. He said: Abu Bakr used to divide (the fifth) like the division of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), except that he did not give the relatives of the Messenger of Allah as the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) himself gave them. 'Umar used to give them (from the fifth) and those who followed him.
Grade: Sahih (Al-Albani)
Sunan Abu Daud Book 19, Hadith 2973
Observation
We would appeal to our readers, he would distribute the fifth share of the spoils of war to everyone, apart from granting this to the close relatives of Rasulullah (s) contrary to what Rasulullah did. The words are clear:
أَنَّهُ لَمْ يَكُنْ يُعْطِي قُرْبَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم
كَمَا كَانَ يُعْطِيهِمْ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم
"except that he did not give the relatives of the Messenger of Allah as the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) himself gave them"
The close relatives of Rasulullah (s) are of course Sayeda Fatima (sa), Imam Ali (as), Imam Hasan (as) and Imam Hussain (as)
The facts are clear to us all, Abu Bakr gave a covenant to deal with the assets of Rasulullah (s) as he had done during his lifetime and then broke that covenant by denying Khums to the close relatives of Rasulullah (s) contradicting his Sunnah in the process. The conclusion is therefore clear to all asunder, one that breaks his oath is a munafiq.
We read in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5 Hadeeth 61 the verdict of Rasulullah (s):
“Allah’s Apostle said, “Fatima is a part of me, and he who makes her angry, makes me angry.”
Modern day Sunni scholar Dr Tahir al Qadri in ‘Al Durr’athul Baydh fee Manaqib Fatima al Zahra (as)’ page 60-61:
Hadhrath ‘Ali [r] narrated that Rasulullah (s) said to Fatima ‘Verily Allah is displeased at your displeasure, and is pleased at your pleasure”
Al Duratul Baydha fi Manaqib Fatima al-Zahra (sa), Page 60 & 61
Qadri relied on the following esteemed Sunni works for this Hadeeth:
In this connection let us not forget the words of Allah (swt) in Surah Ahzab verse 57:
Those who annoy Allah and his Apostle Allah has cursed them in this world and in the Hereafter and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment.
Al-Qur’an, Surah Ahzab, Ayah 57, translated by Yusufali
In the Fadak dispute Abu Bakr caused pain to Fatima (as) and he incurred her anger. One who pains her is on par with causing pain to Rasulullah (s), and such a thing is injustice towards Rasulullah (s) and his descendants, and can never benefit from the intercession of the Prophet (s) for whilst the Qur’an praises the concept of forgiveness there exist some individuals who can never benefit from forgiveness, Allah (swt ) states in Surah Munafiqoon:
It is equal to them whether thou pray for their forgiveness or not. Allah will not forgive them. Truly Allah guides not rebellious transgressors.
Al-Qur’an, Surah 63, Ayah 6, translated by Yusufali
We should also point out that Allah (swt) stipulated to Hadhrat Ibrahim (as) that the Covenant of Imamate would not was to one that is Dhaalim, hence he cannot be the Imam over the Muslims.
We read as follows in the English Translation of Malik’s Muwatta, Book 21: Jihad Book 21, Number 21.14.32:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu’n-Nadr, the mawla of Umar ibn Ubaydullah that he had heard that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said over the martyrs of Uhud, “I testify for them.” Abu Bakr as-Siddiq said, “Messenger of Allah! Are we not their brothers? We entered Islam as they entered Islam and we did jihad as they did jihad.” The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “Yes, but I do not know what you will do after me.” Abu Bakr wept profusely and said, “Are we really going to out-live you!”
Note – In his efforts to cover up the sins of Abu Bakr, the translator has changed the words of Rasulullah (s). A key word has been omitted, the comment of Rasulullah(s) “Yes, but I do not know what you will do after me.” Should actually read “Yes, but I do not know what ‘bidah’ you will do after me.”
Let us now see the Sunni commentary of the words of Rasulullah (s) “Ishad Ilayhum’, taken from Tanveer al Lohal Sharh Muwatta Imam Malik by Allamah Suyuti Volume 1 page 307:
“Rasulullah said “I testify for them.” As their Iman was correct and they were protected from being ruined and committing sins, they were protected from change and worldly greed”.
In Wafa al Wafa Volume 3 page 931 by Allamah Nurudeen Samoudhi:
“Rasulullah stood next to the martyred bodies and said ‘These are my Sahaba in whose favour I shall testify to on the Day of Judgement’. Abu Bakr said ‘Are we not Sahaba?’ Rasulullah(s) said ‘Yes but I do not know of your deeds after me, it is established that these people left the World empty handed’.
The followers of the Sahaba are fond of citing the esteemed rank of Abu Bakr, but he himself asked Rasulullah (s) to testify to his Iman, his rank bore no benefit, since Rasulullah (s) knew that he would act unjustly towards his beloved daughter, so he flatly refused to testify to his Iman. Allah (swt) does not forgive those that pain Sayyida Fatima (as) and as evidence we shall cite the following esteemed Sunni works:
Sahih Bukhari, Hadeeth: 8.578:
Narrated ‘Abdullah:
The Prophet said, “I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount”. ‘Abdullah added: The Prophet said, “I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount, and some of you will be brought in front of me till I will see them and then they will be taken away from me and I will say, ‘O Lord, my companions!’ It will be said, ‘you do not know what they did after you had left.’
Ummul Momineen Umm Salma (ra) narrates in al Istiab Volume 3 page 390 and Kanz al Ummal Volume 6 page 67 that:
“Amongst my Sahaba are some that I do no wish to look at, and after my death they shall not see me”.
Commenting on this Hadeeth Deobandi scholar Shaykh ul Hadeeth Hadhrat Sarfaraz Khan Safdar states in Izalath al Rahab page 398;
“These are those individuals that recited the Shahada before Rasulullah (s) and after him became murtad (apostates), this includes later generations that became murtad and the people of Bidah”
For further details one can consult Sharh Nawawi Volume 1 page 129.
We read in Musnad and Nasai:
“Rasulullah (s) said some people from my Ummah will be brought before me and sent to Hell, I will state ‘O Allah! These are my Sahaba’ The reply will be ‘You do not know of the innovations they introduced after you, since you left them they became apostates”
To get a clearer understanding of the words ‘Zaat al Shamil’ in this tradition we shall cite the comments from “Hasheeya Imam al Sindhi bhar Nasai Volume 4 page 118:
“Zaath al Shamil’ means they shall be thrown into Hell”
Those who will be taken away from the Cistern will be those Sahaba that perpetuated injustice against the daughter of the Prophet (s) by preventing her from inheriting her father’s property. Coining a fabricated tradition ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity)’ – led to Imam ‘Ali (as) deeming Abu Bakr ‘a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest’.
If only those that attack the Shi’a bothered to inspect their books. They accuse the Shi’a of attacking the Sahaba, what can we say of your justice, when Bukhari, Nasai, Muslim and Ibn Hanbal recorded traditions wherein the Sahaba were deemed Murtads, you deem them your Imams. When the innocent Shi’a quote these comments or criticise those that subjected Sayyida Fatima (as) to injustice, then the Fatwas of Takfeer are immediately issued!
We read in Musnad Ibn Hanbal Volume 12 page 128, (printed Egypt) under the Chapter Musnad Abdullah bin Umro bin Aas:
Abdullah narrates at that time of the sun rising I was sitting next to Rasulullah (s) who said ‘Allah (swt) shall raise a people with a leader on The Day of Judgement whose faces shall shine like the sun. Abu Bakr said ‘O Rasulullah (s) are we those people?’ He replied ‘No these are the poor and the Muhajireen are famous on the Earth’.
The Ahl’ul Sunnah deem Abu Bakr as the most superior amongst the Sahaba, when this great figures face shall not be illuminated on the Day of Judgement, then the situation of the other members of this party who aided injustice against the daughter of the Prophet will dawn upon them. Abu Bakr usurped the legal right of Sayyida Fatima (as) which led to Imam ‘Ali (as) grading the Khalifa as ‘a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest’. We have proven from Hadeeth that the truth and the Qur’an is with ‘Ali (as), is the Great Truthful one and purified in the Qur’an. Shah Abdul Aziz stated that ‘the Ahl’ul Sunnah deem Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) as protected’, the words of Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) are so damning that they make the Hadeeth presented by Abu Bakr false, and make any virtues he possessed null and void. Anyone that Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) deems a liar is also a liar in the eyes of Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s).
Whoever committed Kufr was Dhaalim. Whoever did Shirk was a Dhaalim – Abu Bakr perpetuated both acts before embracing Islam, he was a Mushrik and Dhaalim, hence was not entitled to be an Imam over the Ummah. We have no personal grudge with the three Khalifas we bow in servitude at the Judgement of the Qur’an that deems idol worshippers to be Dhaalim and hence are not deserving of the contract of Imamate. If the world appointed the three as Imams then it is worthy to point out that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was also appointed as Imam by the people, there is no difference between Abu Bakr and Mirza since the people appointed them to the Station of Imamate. If man has a right then you should accept both of them, picking differences is an injustice, Alhamdulilah we the Shi’a have rejected both.
“Ghayr al-Mughdhoobe alayhim wa ladh-Dhualeen”
Every Momin who prays five times a day makes this supplication at least 17 times a day before Allah (swt) ‘Guide us to the Right Path…Allow us to follow the footsteps of those that have not unuttered Your wrath’ we have honestly analysed the Qur’an and Sunnah and have concluded that theses words in Surah Fateha place a prohibition on accepting Abu Bakr as an Imam, since Abu Bakr incurred the wrath of the daughter of Rasulullah (s). Those that believe in the truthfulness of Prophet Muhammad (s), and deem his every word as true, are reminded his words recorded in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5 Hadeeth 61:
“Allah’s Apostle said, “Fatima is a part of me, and he who makes her angry, makes me angry.”
This Hadeeth makes it clear that Sayyida Fatima (as)’s anger is on par with the anger of Rasulullah (s). This is all the more significant when we recognize that one who incurs the wrath of Rasulullah (s) also incurs the wrath of Allah (swt), and Allah (swt) makes it clear in Surah Fateha that we should steer clear of those that incur the wrath of Allah (swt). If our opponents believe (as is in Sharh Fiqh Akbar) that the Prophet’s parents and Uncle are Kaafirs and this belief does not make them criminals under the Shari’ah then their should be no objection if we believe that the Father in Law has incurred the Wrath of Allah.
