As evidence we have relied on the following esteemed Sunni works:
We read in Riyadh:
When the Prophet died, Abu Bakr took Fadak from Fatima. Fatima went to him and said ‘Give the land of Fadak to me, as my father the Prophet (s) gave it to me’.
Tafseer Kabeer:
When Rasulullah (s) died, Fatima claimed that Fadak was land bestowed to me by my father the Prophet (s); Abu Bakr said ‘I don’t know if you are telling the truth”.
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, 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. Abu Bakr said to her, “Allah’s Apostle 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 Allah’s Apostle.
al-Bukhari under the Chapter of “The battle of Khaibar”, Arabic-English,v5, tradition #546, pp 381-383, narrates from Ayesha that:
“.. Fatimah 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”.
Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d:
“… Verily Fatimah, the daughter of the apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, sent (a message) to Abu Bakr asking him about her share in the inheritance of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, which Allah had bestowed on His Apostle as booty (without bloodshed). She at that time claimed (a share from) the (Arabic text) of the Prophet, at al-Mad’inah, Fadak and what had remained of the Khums of Khaybar. Thereupon Abu Bakr said: Verily, the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, said: We do not leave inheritance, what we leave goes into sadaqah. Verily the members of Muhammad’s family will get provision from this money. By Allah! I shall not change the distribution of the sadaqah of the Apostle of Allah from what it was in the time of Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him. I shall continue to spend them under the same heads as the Apostle of Allah was spending. So Abu Bakr refused to give anything to Fatimah. Consequently Fatimah, may peace be on her, became angry with Abu Bakr and left him. She did not talk with him till she died. She lived six months after the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him.”
We have proven from the most authentic Sunni works that Abu Bakr usurped the land of Fadak from Sayyida Fatima (as) and she demanded it back. Abu Bakr was not ready to give even an inch of land, and this so distressed Sayyida Fatima (as) she refused to talk to him until her dying day.
The lying Nasibi seeks to expose a flaw in the Shi’a argument as follows:
All of the above concerns the status of Fadak as inheritance from Rasulullah . On the other hand, if it is maintained that Fadak was a gift from Rasulullah -as claimed by al-Kashani in his tafsir, as-Safi (vol. 3 p. 186)-the matter needs to be looked into.
This claim is first and foremost contradicted by authentic reports of both the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi’ah which state that Sayyidah Fatimah radiyallahu ‘anha requested Fadak as her inheritance from Rasulullah ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam.
There is no contradiction over Sayyida Fatima (as) claiming Fadak as a gift and inheritance. The initial demand of Sayyida Fatima (as) was that Abu Bakr returns the land that had been gifted to her by her father. Sayyida Fatima (as) had the land in her possession but Abu Bakr ignored this and the written bequest of her father (s) and refused to return the land. Abu Bakr deemed the land as that of the Prophet which was in possession of his daughter held on trust as long as he (s) lived and which reverted back to the State upon his death. Sayyida Fatima (as) used this assertion to challenge Abu Bakr’s right to control the land. After all he usurped the land on the basis that it belonged to the Prophet (s). Sayyida Fatima (as) was still entitled to the land as the Legal Heir so she had every right to make a claim on this basis. Abu Bakr refused her claim that the land was under her control, and he also rejected her claim that she was her father’s Waris (legal heir). We shall now set out proofs that leave no doubt that Fadak was in fact land that had been given to Sayyida Fatima (as) as a gift.
The greatest proof that Fadak had been given as a gift to Sayyida Fatima (as) by Rasulullah (s), lies in the fact that she already had possession of the land at the time of her father’s death. This would not have been the case if the land belonged to Rasulullah (s). Property which is given as a gift is handed over to the transferee at the time when gift is made (even before the death of the testator). Whereas the share in estate of deceased is taken hold of only after the death of the deceased. The fact that Sayyida Fatima (as) was already in possession of the land of Fadak at the time of The Prophets death clearly shows that this land was given to her as a gift in the lifetime of her father and there was no question of its being treated as a share in inheritance.
We read in al Milal wa al Nihal page 13, wherein Allamah Sharastani discusses the disputes that arose following the death of Rasulullah (s):
“The 6th dispute concerned Fadak and the inheritance of Rasulullah (s). Sayyida Fatima deemed it her land, and the claim of Fatima to its ownership”
This reference proves that Fadak was not the same as the inheritance that Sayyida Fatima (as) was claiming. She (as) already had control of Fadak and now wanted her rights as Heir of her deceased father’s Estate.
If Nawasib such as al Khider have lied to the maximum by claiming that Fadak had not been gifted to Sayyida Fatima (as) they should know that this claim is destroyed by the very testimony of the claimant herself. Sayyida Fatima (as)’s claim was that her father (s) had given Fadak to her, and this makes the comments of al Khider null and void. We have already cited this reference from Riyadh al Nadira, Volume 1 page 89:
“When the Prophet died, Abu Bakr took Fadak from Fatima, she went to him and said: ‘Give the land of Fadak to me, as my father the Prophet (s) gave it to me’….”
Riyadh al Nadira, Volume 1 page 89
Allamah Yaqut al-Hamawi records in Maujam ul Buldan, Volume 3 page 313:
“After the death of the Prophet, Fatima (r) said to Abu Bakr: ‘My father the Prophet gave Fadak to me, thus give it to me’.”
We also read:
“This is (the land) about which Fatima (ra) said: ‘Allah’s messenger gave it to me’, hence Abu Bakr (ra) said: ‘I want witnesses’. That had a story”.
We read in Futuh al-Buldan, page 35:
“Malik bin J’auna narrated from his father that he said: ‘Fatima (r) said to Abu Bakr, Allah’s messenger gave Fadak to me, give it to me’.”
Al-Aathmi records in Simt al-Nujoom, Volume 2 page 391:
فَأَتَتْهُ فَاطِمَة رَضِي الله تَعَالَى عَنْهَا فَقَالَت لَهُ إِن رَسُول الله أَعْطَانِي فدك فَقَالَ هَل لَك بَينه فَشهد لَهَا عَليّ وَأم أَيمن
Fatima went to him and said: “Allah’s apostle granted me Fadak”, he (Abu Bakr) replied “Do you have a proof?” Thus Ali and Um Ayman testified in her favor.
What greater proof can there be than the claim brought by Sayyida Fatima (as) “Give the land of Fadak to me, as my father the Prophet (s) gave it to me“ she could not have advanced such a claim without having existing possession of this land at the time, she (as) did not say ‘he promised to give it to me’, that would have constituted a future guarantee, she was stating that it had already been given to her, hence her stating ‘the Prophet (s) gave it to me’, meaning she existing possession of the land at that time, and that her legal challenge was based on its usurpation. It is logical that no common person would make a claim that is baseless, particularly when they know that they will be proven wrong.
If it was not in her possession then why didn’t Abu Bakr point this out to Sayyida Fatima (as)? Al Mihal proves that Sayyida Fatima (as) had the land in her possession. Why didn’t Abu Bakr dismiss this claim straight away, stating ‘You never had possession of Fadak’? The fact that he didn’t challenge this aspect of Sayyida Fatima (as)’s claim serves as proof that the land was in her possession.
We read in Seerah al Halabbiyah, Vol. 3, Page 487 & 488:
“Sibt ibn Jauzi narrates that after Fatima made her claim to the ownership of Fadak, Abu Bakr heard her claim and Abu Bakr left a written instruction that it be restored to her, then Umar came to Abu Bakr, and asked ‘Who is this document for?’ The Khalifa said ‘It’s with regards to Fadak this is a written document for Fatima in relation to her father’s inheritance. Umar said ‘then how will you spend for the Muslims, when the Arabs are preparing to fight you, Umar then took the document and ripped it up”.
Insanul Ayun fi Seerah al Halabbiyah, Vol. 3, Page 487 & 488
This proves that the Hadith ‘Prophet’s leave no inheritance’ is a lie, since Abu Bakr did in fact accept the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as). If the Hadeeth proves the correctness of Abu Bakr’s position, then Al Khider’s assertion is a lie, since al Mihal confirms that the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as) was over her ownership of Fadak, Abu Bakr accepted this claim.
The greatest proof that Fadak was in the possession of Ahl’ul bayt (as) comes from the comments of Maula ‘Ali (as). We are quoting from the Sunni commentary of Nahj ul Balagha by Shaykh Muhammad Abduh page 83 letter to Abi Uthman bin Hunayf:
“Of course, all that we had in our possession under this sky was Fadak, but a group of people felt greedy for it and the other party withheld themselves from it. Allah is, after all, the best arbiter.”
Commentary of Nahj ul Balagha by Shaykh Muhammad Abduh, page 83
Maula Ali said Fadak was in her hands, anything in one’s hands is one’s possession, and this destroys the assertion of liars such as al Khider, who claim that the Shi’a lie when they claim Sayyida Fatima (as) had been gifted with Fadak during the lifetime of Rasulullah (s).
Further proof can be ascertained from Sunan Abu Dawood Book 19, Tribute, Spoils, and Rulership (Kitab Al-Kharaj, Wal-Fai’ Wal-Imarah), Hadeeth Number 2998:
“…Banu an-Nadir were deported, and they took with them whatever their camels could carry, that is, their property, the doors of their houses, and their wood. Palm-trees were exclusively reserved for the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him). Allah bestowed them upon him and gave them him as a special portion.
He (Allah), the Exalted, said: What Allah has bestowed on His Apostle (and taken away) from them, for this ye made no expedition with either camel corps or cavalry.” He said: “Without fighting.” So the Prophet (peace be upon him) gave most of it to the emigrants and divided it among them; and he divided some of it between two men from the helpers, who were needy, and he did not divide it among any of the helpers except those two. The rest of it survived as the sadaqah of the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) which is in the hands of the descendants of Fatimah (Allah be pleased with her)“.
As evidence we shall quote directly from the article ‘Early Differences and Sects in Islam’ – adapted largely from Al-Farq bayn al-Firaq (The Difference between the Sects) by Abu Tahir `Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi that appears on this Sunni Website:
http://webpages.marshall.edu/~laher1/firaq.html – Cached
“Next, they differed regarding inheritance of the land of Fadak. This was a piece of land which the Prophet had acquired as a form of booty, and which he retained during his lifetime. When he passed away, `Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) had assigned it to Fatimah (may Allah be pleased with her) during his lifetime”.
Moreover, we read in Majmal Buldan, Volume 3 page 312:
Ali used to say: ‘The prophet (s) granted it to Fatima during His life’.
The claim of Maula ‘Ali (as) before Abu Bakr that Rasulullah (s) gave Fadak to Sayyida Fatima (as) during his lifetime, proves that she had existing possession of it, it was no inheritance.
We read in Wafa al Wafa page 99:
“When Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz became Khalifa he restored the land of Fadak to the descendants of Sayyida Fatima, and wrote to his representative in Madina on this regards”
Allamah Yaqut al-Hamawi records in Mujam al-Buldan, Volume 3 page 312:
When Umar bin Abdulaziz become the Caliph, he wrote to his governor of Madina and ordered him to gave Fadak to the progeny of Fatima’s (ra)’.
Similarly in Volume 1 page 38 we read:
وقد كتب أمير المؤمنين إلى المبارك الطبري مولى أمير المؤمنين يأمره برد فدك على ورثة فاطمة بنت رسول الله
“The commander of believers wrote a message to his governor Mubarak al-Tabari ordering him to return Fadak to the inheritors of Fatima the daughter of Allah’s Prophet”
In a renowned biography of Caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz rendered by Sunni scholar Abdul Aziz Syed al-Ahl translated in Urdu by Maulana Ragihb Rehmani states in pages 256-257:
“The Holy prophet distributed the property of Bani Nazir and Bani Qariza quraida but did not distribute Fadak (al-Khiraj, by al-Qarshi, page 41).
This was due to the fact that Fadak was not captured via the running of camels and horses (i.e. during to war), it was hence purely for the Prophet of Allah. He (s) would spend this money on his household and distribute the remainder amongst travellers.
It is said that Hadhrat Fatima asked for it, the Prophet (s) however refused the request. It is also said that Prophet (s) had actually given Fadak to her. After the death of the Holy Porphet, a difference of opinion emerged between Abu Bakr (ra) and Fatima (ra) over Fadak. Abu Bakr perhaps kept it in his control so that he could help the Muslims in the time of need, as Muslims were quite poor in the early days. Despite Fatima (ra) being unhappy with Fadak being under the control of Abu Bakr, it still remained under the control of Caliphs and it were the Caliphs who have always been looking after it. (Fatima al-Zahra wal Fatmioon, page 85, quoted from Sharah Abul Hadeed Nahjul Balagha, page 109; Ibn Jauzi page 110).
During the era of Farooq Azam (ra), when the Muslims acquired victories, and their hardships decreased, he contemplated returning Fadak to the heirs of Rasulullah (s), and accordingly did so. Hadhrat Ali (ra) and Hadhrat Abbas (ra) approached him, disputing over the matter, but he refused to make a decision and said that they were better informed of the situation than him.
Marwan bin Hakam then acquired Fadak as it was gifted to him by Muawiya. Then Marwan bestowed it upon his sons, Abdul Malik and Abdul Aziz, it was then divided into three portions between Umar, Walid and Sulaiman. When Walid became the Head of State, he gave his share to Umar. When Umar acquired power, he wrote to the Governor of Madina stating that it be returned to the progeny of Fatima (s). It hence remained under the control of the progeny of Fatima (r) during his reign”.
Khalifa tuz Zahid-Hadhrat Umar bin Abdul Aziz, pages 256-258 (Nafees Academy, Urdu Bazar, Karachi)
In ‘A short history if Islam’ Sunni scholar Dr A. Rahim page 168, Chapter Umar II, provides a worryingly poor representation of facts whilst praising Umar ibn Abdul Aziz. He writes:
“Umar II was very fair and generous to the member’s of ‘Ali’s family. He restored to them the property of Fadak which was appropriated by Marwan”.
If only this scholar had looked into the truth of the matter! Marwan did not misappropriate Fadak. Poor destitute Marwan was gifted this land from his kind hearted relative, who happened to also be the Khaleefa of the time Uthman ibn al Affan. Uthman took control of it following Umar death, who had it following Abu Bakr’s death. It was Abu Bakr who misappropriated Fadak, which Umar ibn Abdul Aziz then returned to the children of Fatima (as), and the author has shown maximum dishonesty as part of his efforts to protect Abu Bakr’s actions.The crucial thing to observe here is the historian’s usage of the word ‘restore’. One can only restore something to someone who had an existing control of, and that is why Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz returned Fadak to the descendants of Sayyida Fatima (as).
We read in Futuh al-Buldan, pages 36-37:
In 210 Hijri Ammerul Mumineen Mamun bin Harun al-Rashid gave an order that Fadak be given to the family of Fatima. This order was given to his representative in Madina Quthum bin Jafar: ‘I Commander of the Faithful as the successor of the Prophet have a duty to follow the way of the Prophet. Anything or Sadaqah that the Prophet (s) gave must be given by me, all his virtues come from Allah, and my aim is to do that which pleases my Creator. I have found that the Prophet (s) gave Fadak as a gift to his daughter and made her the sole owner and this is such a clear matter that carries no doubt amongst the Prophet’s family. Verily the Commander of the Faithful deems it correct to return Fadak to the descendents of Fatima so as to implement the Justice of Allah (swt) and get closer to him in the process, and implement the order of the Prophet (s) and attain a good reward. The Commander of the Faithful gives order that the return of Fadak be recorded in a Register and that this Order be sent to employees. Since the death of the Prophet (s) the tradition has remained that Pilgrims on Hajj give an invitation to the People to claim anything Prophet (s) gave as Sadaqah or gift to the People, their words would be accepted, in this circumstance Sayyida Fatima has a greater right that her claim regarding the possession of Fadak after the Prophet (s) be accepted. The Khaleefa has told his Servant Mubarak Tabari ‘Return Fadak to the Waris of Fatima, all its boundaries, rights, production and Servants should be returned. Muhammad bin Yahya bin Husayn bin Zaid bin ‘Ali bin Husayn bin ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib and Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Husayn bin Ali bin Abi Talib, have been appointed by the Commander of the Faithful as Agents over Fadak. Verily you should be made aware that this is the opinion of the Commander of the Faithful and this is that which has come to him from Allah (swt) so as to receive the blessing of Allah and his Prophet. Your subordinates should be informed that Muhammad bin Yahya and Muhammad bin Abdullah be treated in the same manner as you dealt with Mubarak Tabari, these two should be supported with the production processes, profits should given to them so as to attain reward from Allah (swt). Wasallam Wednesday 2nd Zeeqad 210 Hijri’
We read in Majma al-Buldan, Volume 3 page 313:
In year 210 Hijri Mamun gave an order to return (Fadak) to the progeny of Fatima. Thus he wrote to his representative in Madina Qatham bin Jaffar and said: ‘Allah’s messenger (s) gave Fadak to Fatima (r) and that was a known and clear matter according to His (prophet) family and Fatima kept demanding it. Hence he (Mamun) has decided to return it to her inheritors’
If Sayyida Fatima (as) had no control of Fadak then this Sunni Khaleefa would not have restored it to her descendants.
Al Khider can bark all he likes but the bottom line is when this verse descended it was incumbent upon Rasulullah (s) to act upon it, and give Sayyida Fatima (as) her rights. We have established from the authentic works of Ahl’ul Sunnah that Rasulullah acted upon this verse accordingly, by gifting the land of Fadak to Sayyida Fatima (as). Possession occurs when a thing is handed over without any conditions. Rasulullah (s) never took it back, nor personally administered it after gifting it to Sayyida Fatima (as). If Nawasib are to offer some lame excuse that Rasulullah (s) took it back prior to his death, then we should point out that this was impossible, since taking back bestowed gifts is a major wrong in the eyes of the Prophet (s). We read in We read in Sahih Bukhari, Book of Gifts Volume 3, Book 47, Chapter 18 Hadith number 791:
“The Prophet said the bad example is not for us. He who takes back his present is like a dog that swallows back its vomit”
If Sayyida Fatima (as) did not have an existing possession of Fadak:
As part of his massive effort to reject the notion that Sayyida Fatima (as) had possession of Fadak as a gift, al Khider asserts:
However, even if this claim is assumed to be an authentic one, we still cannot accept it. We cannot accept it since it is diametrically opposed to the precept of parental fairness to children espoused by Islam.
The Sahabi Bashir ibn Sa’d came to Rasulullah ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam, telling him that he had given one of his sons a garden as a gift, and requesting Rasulullah to be witness thereto. Rasulullah asked whether he had given a similar gift to all of his children. When he replied in that he had not in fact done so, Rasulullah ‘alayhi wa-alih wasallam told him, “Go away, for I will not be a witness to injustice.” (Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Hibat, no. 14)
Rasulullah denounced the act of giving one child more than the other as injustice. Is it then at all plausible that one such as he, as an infallible Nabi who refuses to be witness to injustice, would himself perpetrate that injustice? Is it imaginable that he, who is entrusted with the Trust of the Heavens, could breach a mundane trust of this world by giving Fadak as a gift to Fatimah alone amongst all his daughters? We all know that Khaybar was taken in the 7th year after the Hijrah, and that Zaynab died in the 8th year, and Umm Kulthum in the 9th year after the Hijrah. How can it then be thought that Rasulullah would give something to Fatimah but not to his other daughters?
If anything this serves as the greatest proof that Sayyida Fatima (as) was the sole daughter of Rasulullah (s). If these daughters indeed existed then Rasulullah (s) would have certainly apportioned them their share of inheritance as he had done with Sayyida Fatima (as). The very fact that we have no historical evidence of him ever giving them anything as a gift / inheritance is the clearest evidence that they did not exist. If they did exist then we have to accept that Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s) were unjust. After all the same Prophet (s) who marries Sayyida Fatima (as) according to revelation from Allah (swt) marries the other three daughters to kaafirs!
The same Prophet that showered all manner of honour on Sayyida Fatima (as) deeming her pain to be on par with his, giving her the title Leader of the Women of Paradise does not bother to relay even a single Hadith in praise of his other daughters. Ahl’ul Sunnah’s authority work Mishkat al Masabeeh, under the Chapter ‘Bab Fadail Ahl’ul bayt’ has 49 traditions with regard of the relatives of the Prophet including his uncle Abbas, even his adopted son Zaid. Curiously the author of a book that takes traditions from TEN esteemed Sunni works fails to cite even a single Hadeeth on the “other daughters” in this chapter.
The truth is that Maula ‘Ali (as) was the only son in law of the Prophet (s) as we read in ‘Riyadh al Nadira’ Volume 3 page 220, Dhikr Fadail ‘Ali:
Rasulullah (s) said to ‘Ali ‘You possess three virtues not possessed by anyone else
This virtue (Rasulullah being father in law) would not be exclusive if Rasulullah (s) also had other son in laws! If Nawasib try to argue that Uthman’s marriage may have occurred later we should point out that according to the Ahl’ul Sunnah the daughters of Rasulullah (s) were married long before Sayyida Fatima (as), and were the wives of two of Abu Jahl’s sons. Rasulullah (s) could not have praised ‘Ali (as) for this exclusive honour if he had other sons in law!
The famed title of Uthman ‘Dhul Nurayn’ coming from the mouth of the Prophet (s)(as asserted by Sunnis) is not present in any of the six esteemed works of Ahl’ul Sunnah. When the very existence of these daughters cannot be established then how can we accept that Uthman was the possessor of two lights?
It is indeed ironic that the Salafi and Deobandi Nawasib reject the notion of our Prophet (s) being created from Nur (Light), rather they deem him an ordinary human like us created from mud. Curiously when it comes to honouring Uthman suddenly he is deemed Dhul Nurayn ‘the possessor of two lights’. If Prophet (s) is not ‘Light’ then how can Uthman become the possessor of ‘Two Lights’? How can this then be used as an excuse that he married the ‘supposed’ two daughters of the Prophet (s)?
We would urge Al Khider to abandon using such principles of logic when debating with us. Particularly when your esteemed works paint the picture of Rasulullah (s) being unjust to his wives. See Sahih al Muslim Bab Fadil Sahaba Book 031, Number 5984:
A’isha, the wife of Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him), said: The wives of Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) sent Fatima, the daughter of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him). She sought permission to get in as he had been lying with me in my mantle. He gave her permission and she said: Allah’s Messenger, verily, your wives have sent me to you in order to ask you to observe equity in case of the daughter of Abu Quhafa. She (‘A’isha) said: I kept quiet. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to her (Fatima): 0 daughter, don’t you love whom I love? She said: Yes, (I do). Thereupon he said: I love this one. Fatima then stood up as she heard this from Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and went to the wives of Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) and informed them of what she had said to him and what Allah’s messenger (may peace be upon him) had said to her. Thereupon they said to her: We think that you have been of no avail to us. You may again go to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and tell him that his wives seek equity in case of the daughter of Abu Quhafa. Fatima said: By Allah, I will never talk to him about this matter. ‘A’isha (further) reported: The wives of Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) then sent Zainab b. jahsh, the wife of Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him), and she was one who was somewhat equal in rank with me in the eyes of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and I have never seen a woman more advanced in religious piety than Zainab, more God-conscious, more truthful, more alive to the ties of blood, more generous and having more sense of self-sacrifice in practical life and having more charitable disposition and thus more close to God, the Exalted, than her. She, however, lost temper very soon but was soon calm. Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) permitted her to enter as she (‘A’isha) was along with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) in her mantle, in the same very state when Fatima had entered. She said: Allah’s Messenger, your wives have sent me to you seeking equity in case of the daughter of Abu Quhafa. She then came to me and showed harshness to me and I was seeing the eyes of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) whether he would permit me. Zainab went on until I came to know that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) would not disapprove if I retorted. Then I exchanged hot words until I made her quiet. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) smiled and said: She is the daughter of Abu Bakr.” This Hadeeth has also been narrated on the authority of Zuhri with the same chain of transmitters, but with a slight variation of wording.
Now the Shari’i view on equity to wives is as follows:
We ask Al Khider to look at this reference closely. In their efforts to praise Ayesha Sunni Ulema have accepted that Rasulullah (s) abandoned the principles of equity. Clearly if (according to Ahl’ul Sunnah) Rasulullah (s) was unjust to his wives they can’t rule out the possibility of him being unjust to his daughters also!
The realisation by some of the Sunni caliphs of the usurpation of Ahlulbayt’s right in the case of Fadak and its subsequent hand over to them (as) has caused such pain to the cyber Nawasib that they have now come up with an excuse that the acts of their caliphs are not Hujjah upon them.
What better rebuttal of the Nawasib can there be than our reminding them of the excelled status afforded to Umar bin Abdul Aziz in their sect. Have they forgotten his being deemed the fifth rightly guided caliph by some Sunni scholars? Allow us to remind them of the words of Ibn Tamiyah who in his Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 4 page 104 stated:
وبعدهم لم يكمل أحد في هذه الأمور إلا عمر بن عبد العزيز
“After them (the four Caliphs) no one possesses the perfect qualities save Umar bin Abdulaziz”
Shaykh Hassan Saqqaf has stated in Sahih Sharh al-Aqeed al-Tahawya, page 722:
خامس الخلفاء الراشدين الإمام المجتهد القدوة السلفي عمر بن عبدالعزيز
“The fifth guided Caliph, the Imam, the Mujtahid, the Salafi pattern, Umar bin Abdulaziz”
We read in Tarikh al-Khulafa by Suyuti, Volume 1 page 201:
عمر بن عبد العزيز بن مروان : الخليفة الصالح أبو حفص خامس الخلفاء الراشدين
“Umar bin Abdulaziz bin Marwan Abu Hafs, the pious Caliph and the fifth guided Caliph”
Legendry Salafi scholar Muhamad Rasheed Raza stated in Mujalat al-Mannar, Volume 1 page 504:
الخليفة العادل والإمام المجتهد عمر بن عبد العزيز الذي رفع من شأن آل البيت الكرام بعد اضطهادهم من سلفه الأمويين
“The just Caliph and the Mujtahid Imam Umar bin Abdulaziz who raised the status of the Ahlulbayt who were previously oppressed by his Umayyad predecessors”
Similarly Abu al-Hassan al-Sulaymani wrote in Fiqh al-Tafjeerat, page 189:
وقد جرى صنيع السلف في عَدِّ المجددين في كل قرن باعتبار رأس المئة الهجرية، فَعَدُّوا عمر بن عبد العزيز في المئة الأولى
“Our Salaf, in counting the reformers of each century, have counted Umar bin Abdulaziz (as reformer) for the first century”
This has been said about Umar bin Abdul Aziz in the light of the following Hadith that has been graded Sahih by Al-Albaani in Silsila Sahiha, Volume 2 page 148:
”Allah’s Prophet (s) said : ‘[After] every one hundred years Allah will send to this nation one who shall reform the religion“
This pathetic new generation of Nawasib may now take a U-turn and make an attempt to disassociate themselves from the acts of their rightly guided caliphs but are they also trying to suggest that Ahlulbayt (as), about whom we have clear directions from Holy Prophet (s) to adhere to them, actually accepted land as rightful owners whilst they knew that they had no right of ownership in it? Are they trying to say that the Imams of the Ahlubayt (as) by accepting land, they had no legal entitlement to, thereby fell within the ambit of the following Hadith:
Narrated Salim’s father: The Prophet said, “Any person who takes a piece of land unjustly will sink down the seven earths on the Day of Resurrection.”
Sahih Bukhari – Book of Beginning Of Creation, Volume 004, Book 054, Hadith Number 418
Also we read in Sahih Muslim Book 10 , 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 Majmoo by Nawawy, Volume 14 page 227:
فإن كان المغصوب باقياً لزمه رده
“If the wrongly taken property still exists, he should return it back”
Moreover we would like Nawasib to clarify the role of the Sunni clergy during the said period? Why did they not utter a word when this supposed illegal act, was going on, that went against the first rightly guided khalifa whose decision should have been binding on the generations that succeeded him? Did they not have a religious duty to intervene in the matter and make it clear that the Caliph was overruling the decision of the first Caliph? Today’s advocates cannot argue that such silence was on account of fear from a tyrannical leaders, since Umar ibn Abdul Aziz is counted as a rightly guided khalifa, thus rendering him a very open minded approachable individual. There are only two options:
Option One: They were hypocrites that oversaw the unjust distribution of land and never uttered a word
Option Two They accepted the ruling of Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz, hence their silence.
If Abu Bakr was indeed the rightful Khaleefa of Rasulullah (s), then he only had a right to control those lands that were in the possession of Rasulullah (s) prior to his death. This was not the case with Fadak; it was in the hands of Sayyida Fatima (as), so what right did he have to interfere in land that was in her possession? Abu Bakr should have had a different approach, inquiring into the matter and then deciding ‘if the truth is established then I shall seize the land’. Abu Bakr’s failure to make a claim, in the absence of proof, and decision to annex the land of another person cannot be deemed appropriate behavior by the State.