For evidence as to how much area constituted fadak, we are relying on the following esteemed Sunni works:
“Fadak was a city, which was situated 2 or 3 days of travel from Madina. There were wells of water and trees of dates in it. It was the same Fadak, about which Fatima Zahra (r) said to Abu Bakr, “My father gave me this Fadak as a present”. Abu Bakr asked her in reply to produce witnesses.”
Note: Upon this demand of Abu Bakr, Fatima (as) recited this verse of the Qur’an:
“Nay, but ye have yourselves contrived a story (good enough) for you. So patience is most fitting (for me).
Al-Qur’an, Surah 12, Ayah 83, translation by Yusufali
In Ahl’ul Sunnah’s authority work Dairat-ul-Ma’arifa, Volume 7 page 135 it is written:
“Fadak is the name of a ‘Qarya’ near Khayber.”
The term ‘Qarya’ according to Ahl’ul Sunnah’s authority work “Al-Qamoos”, chapter “Bab ul Wa’a Waliya” is as follows:
“In all respects, ‘Qarya’ means ‘Masar Jameh’.
In Ahl’ul Sunnah’s esteemed work Tafseer Ibn Katheer, Urdu edition, v1, page1 18 under the Tafseer of following Quranic verse:
And remember We said: Enter this Town ‘Qarya’, and eat of the plenty therein as ye wish;
Al-Qur’an, Surah 2, Ayah 58, translated by Yusufali
Ibn Katheer in his commentary of this verse states that:
“Qarya means Bait ul Muqaddas”
Now people with rational minds should recognise that Bait-ul-Muqaddas was not a village, but it was the first Qibla, and in the same way that the second Qibla is situated in a city, the first Qibla was also situated in a city.
The question no doubt comes to mind, ‘Why is there a dispute in the meanings of “Qarya”?
Our response is that the defenders of the Sahaba want to prove that Fadak was not a large property hence taking a small piece of land was not such a contentious issue. They should of course accept the orders of the Qur’an, where we are told that:
And oppression is the biggest evil.
We read in the esteemed Sunni works, Maujam-ul-Buldan, Volume 14 page 240 and Wafa-ul-Wafa, Volume 4 page 1281:
“This city was named Fadak, while the son of Adam (as) Ham first came to this place and he put the foundation of this city”.
Fourteen centuries have passed since the advent of Islam and historians, either due to their genuine inability or enmity towards Ahl’ulBayt, have never described it fully. That’s why it is difficult to estimate the true value of this property. Nevertheless, we shall provide some historical facts, which will help to understand the income generated from this land.
In the authority work of Ahl’ul Sunnah, Sunan Abu Dawud, Volume 3 page 144 it is written:
Abu Dawood said: ‘When Umar bin Abdul-Aziz became Caliph, the income (from the property of Fadak) was 40,000 Dinars.’
It is written in Sharh of Nahaj ul Balagha by Ibn Abi Al-Hadeed, Volume 4 page 108:
“Umar expelled the Jews from Fadak. And the value of the land along with its dates was 50,000 Dirhams.”
Ibn Abi Al-Hadeed in Sharh Nahj ul Balagha wrote in v4, p108:
“There were eleven fruit trees in Fadak, that Rasulullah (s) planted with his own hands. The children of Fatima used to present them to Hajj pilgrims and they would give them Dinars and Dirhams for this service.”
The brilliant scholarly Imam from Ansar.Org Muhammad al Khider presents this devastating proof as evidence that the Shi’as exaggerate over the size of Fadak:
Al-Kulayni narrates in al-Kafi:
Abul Hasan [Imam 'Ali ar-Rida] came to [the 'Abbasid Khaleefah] al-Mahdi and saw him redressing grievances and returning property to its owners that was unrightfully appropriated). He [Imam Rida] asked, “What about our grievance? Why is it not returned?” Al-Mahdi asked. “And what might that be, Abul Hasan?” He replied, “When Allah granted his Prophet the conquest of Fadak…” Al-Mahdi asked, “Abul Hasan, describe to me the extent of this property.” He [Imam Rida] replied, “One side of it is Mount Uhud. Another side is al-’Arish in Egypt. Another side is the coastline. Another side is Dawmat al-Jandal.” (al-Kafi, Bab al-Fay’ wal-Anfal, vol. 1 p. 543; also Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 48 p. 156)
How can a piece of land in Khaybar possibly fit this description? Is this the extent to which people will allow themselves to be duped and deceived?
This is a figurative term in the same way that the Ahl’ul Sunnah often claim that Umar spread Islam throughout the world, whilst in reality he did not even conquer the entire Asian Sub Continent. The need for such usage was because the Imam (as) was seeking to point out that Fadak was not the only thing that was usurped from the rightful heirs, there was also their legal entitlement to the rule of Islamic State. It is a matter of fact that the nascent Islamic State was stabilized via the financial benefits that had been gained from the lands of Khayber, that Sayyida Fatima (as) made a claim to. Prior to the conquest of Makka the Muslims did not had enough food to satiate their stomachs, the situation changed after this conquest and to this effect we read in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 548, Chapter Military Expeditions led by the Prophet (s) (Al-Maghaazi):
Narrated Ibn Umar:
We did not eat our fill except after we had conquered Khaibar.
The Estates of Fadak and Khayber created financial stability for the Islamic State, and the Imam (as) was pointing out this significant fact through this figurative term.
We read in Ahl’ul Sunnah’s esteemed work Insanul Ayun fi Seerah al Halabiyah,Volume 3, p487-488, Chapter “The death of the Prophet (s)”
“Umar was angry with Abu Bakr and said, “If you give Fadak back to Fatima, where the expenses for army and defence will come from for at present all the Arabs are fighting against you. He then took the papers of Fadak from Fatima (as), and tore them into shreds”.
Insanul Ayun fi Seerah al Halabbiyah, Vol. 3, Page 487 & 488
As we have shown, the historical facts are clear that Fadak was property from which not only one family could live easily, but which could help maintain the entire army. Tragically, the State usurped it so that its political opponents, the family of the Prophet (s), would be weakened thus preventing any attempts to oppose them.
There were several types of things, upon which Rasool Allah (saww) had a right to -E.g. Zakat, Ghanimat, Fay etc.
We read in Tafseer Kabeer, v8, p125, and Tafseer Muraghi, under the commentary of Surah Hashar:
“Ghanimah is (that property) in which you had worked to get it and used horses or rode while the Fay is (that property) in which you didn’t have make efforts to attain.”
The Qur’an has ruled on the status of Fadak as property of Fay.
What Allah has bestowed on His Messenger (and taken away) from them – for this ye made no expedition with either cavalry or camelry (like Fadak): but Allah gives power to His messengers over any He pleases: and Allah has power over all things.
Al-Qur’an, Surah 59, Ayah 6, translated by Yusufali
Imam Fakhrudeen Radhi writes in Tafseer Kabeer:
“This verse was revealed with regard to Fadak, which the Prophet (s) acquired as it was conquered without any fighting.”
Tafseer al-Kabeer, Vol. 10, page 506
From all these Sunni commentaries it is clear that Fadak was property of Fay, which the Prophet gave to Fatima Zahra (as) as a gift. But after the death of Allah’s Apostle, Abu Bakr seized it by force.
The following Sunni works shed light on this fact:
All of the books record the following:
“When the Prophet (s) returned from Khayber, he sent Muhisa bin Masood to propagate Islam to the people of Khayber. The leader of the Jews of Khayber at that time was Yusha bin Nun. The people of Fadak refused to accept Islam, but offered to give them half of their Land of Fadak. The Prophet (s) took half the land and allowed them to live there. This half Land of Fadak was the property of the Prophet (s), as the Muslims didn’t ride horses over it”.
There are several more references which show clearly that no battle was fought to conquer Fadak. The fathers of Hadhrat Ayesha and Hadhrat Hafsa neither rode their horses over this land, nor displayed their ‘legendary bravery’ to acquire the land. The Prophet (s) acquired this land from the Jewish occupants who gave it to him in return for which no war would be waged against them. He (s) presented it to his daughter Sayyida Fatima (as). It is indeed sad that after his death, the Shaykhayn failed to display their exemplary mercy and snatched it away from her.
“And do not think Allah to be heedless of what the unjust do; He only respites them to a day on which the eyes shall be fixedly open” (14:42)
For proof we shall cite the following Sunni works:
Imam Nawawi writes in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim:
وكذلك نصف أرض فدك صالح أهلها بعد فتح خيبر على نصف أرضها وكان خالصا له وكذلك ثلث أرض وادي القرى أخذه في الصلح حين صالح أهلها اليهود وكذلك حصنان من حصون خيبر…. فكانت هذه كلها ملكا لرسول الله خاصة لا حق فيها أحد غيره
“Half the Land of Fadak, which was given by the Jews following the peace treaty, was purely the property of Rasool Allah (s). Similarly, one third of the Valley of Qura which was given by the Jews after the peace treaty and two forts of Khayber…all these were the exclusive properties of the Prophet (s) and no one else had a share of it”.
Imam Ibn Habban also testified that:
فكانت فدك لرسول الله خالصة
“Fadak was a exclusive property of Allah’s Apostle”
However as opposed to all other Sunni historians, Shah Waliyullah in “Quratul Ain” page 228 and Ibn Taymeeya in his Minhaj al Sunnah, Dhikr of Fadak, both have impertinently refused to accept that Fadak was in possession of the Prophet (s). We have proven from esteemed Sunni works that the Prophet (s) had exclusive ownership of Fadak.
Those who conceal the right of Sayyida Fatima (s) deserve the recital:
“the curse of Allah on the liars” (Al-Quran)
This is proven from al Farooq Volume 2 pages 289-290 by Shams al Hind Allamah Shibli Numani:
“…after the conquest of Syria and Iraq Omar addressed the companions, he declare on the basis of the Holy Qur’an that the conquered territories were not the property of any man, but that they were a national trust, as has been discussed under Fay. However, from the verse of the Qur’an it appears that the lands of Fadak were the Holy Prophet’s own property, and that Omar himself understood the verse to imply so: What Allah has made this people (i.e. Bani Nadir) deliver to his Apostle, to conquest which you did not lead any camels or horses, but Allah empowers his Apostles over who, he pleases”. On reading this verse Omar declared that the land was reserved for the Holy Prophet. The matter is mentioned in Sahih al Bukhari in detail in the chapters on Khums al Maghazi and al Mirath”
Al-Farooq, Vol. 2, pages 289 & 290
The author of ‘The Issue of Fedek: A rebuttal to common lies propagated against Ahl al-Sunnah regarding Ahlul-Bayt’ makes this curious unfounded claim in his article, namely that Abu Bakr used the land in exactly the same manner that Rasulullah (s) wished.
Ahmad Jawdat Pasha al-Lofji writes in his Qisas-e-Ambiya:
“Rasulullah Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam devoted his date orchard named Fadak in Khaybar to the pious foundation and dictated how it was to be utilized. He advised in his will that income from the orchard should be given to foreign ambassadors, to visitors, guests and travellers. Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Radhi Allahu ‘Anhu implemented this will during his Khaleefat”.
The author’s assertion that Khayber and Fadak were used for supporting guests, travellers and ambassadors is a complete lie. Let us see how Fadak and Khayber was utilised by Rasulullah.We read in Sahih Muslim, Bab ul Fai Book 019, Number 4347:
It has been narrated on the authority of Umar, who said: The properties abandoned by Banu Nadir were the ones which Allah bestowed upon His Apostle for which no expedition was undertaken either with cavalry or camelry. These properties were particularly meant for the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him). He would meet the annual expenditure of his family from the income thereof, and would spend what remained for purchasing horses and weapons as preparation for Jihad.
Umar said that the land was given to support his family and for weapons, al Lofji claims that it was to meet the expenditure of foreign ambassadors, visitors, guests and travellers.Now the reader has to decide whose words are to be relied upon Umar or those of al Lofji?
If Abu Bakr was merely implementing the ‘will’ of Rasulullah (s) then how did he have possession of it and not his descendants? If one consults Sahih Bukhari, we see that Ayesha provides a detailed description of the final days of the Prophet (s), and yet she furnishes no evidence of Abu Bakr being within close proximity of the Prophet (s) during that time, rather she informs us:
‘When Allah’s Apostle fell sick with the fatal illness and when the time of prayer became due and Adhan was pronounced, he said, ‘Tell Abu Bakr to lead the people in prayer’
Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 11, Number 633
We would also like some clarity, who is to be in possession of the will after the death of the deceased,his legal heirs or the khalifa of the time? Moreover if this Will ever existed then why wasn’t this presented as evidence during the Fadak dispute? Why do we not find any Sunni sources proving that Abu Bakr produced this will, or made reference to the will of the Prophet (s)? This Nasibi Mullah has attributed something to Abu Bakr that he never himself claimed. At no time did Abu Bakr say that he was implementing the will of Rasulullah (s). We challenge this unnamed author to produce any Sunni text containing copy of this will with these conditions? How did Abu Bakr get sight of it? Abu Bakr would only have had sight of the will if he was the trustee or the beneficiary. He was neither. Maula Ali (as) was the Wasi, and Sayyida Zahra (as) was the beneficiary – so how does Abu Bakr come into the equation? No one would have greater knowledge on this supposed will than these two individuals, so Can the Ahl’ul Sunnah produce a single source wherein Imam ‘Ali (as) and Sayyida Zahra (as) referred to Prophet (s) stipulating this order under his will?
In any case this whole discussion should be (in Sunni eyes) an irrelevant issue since their principle book would have us believe that Rasulullah (s) left no will whatsoever. This is what we read in Sahih Bukhari:
Narrated Talha bin Musarrif:
I asked ‘Abdullah bin Abu Aufa, “Did the Prophet make a will?” He replied, “No,” I asked him, “How is it then that the making of a will has been enjoined on people, (or that they are ordered to make a will)?” He replied, “The Prophet bequeathed Allah’s Book (i.e. Quran).”
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 51, Number 3
The unnamed author claims that Abu Bakr was implementing the will of the Prophet (s), Muhammad bin Ismaeel Bukhari recorded that the Prophet (s) left no will, we leave it to our readers to decided on which of these two is lying.
The claim that Abu Bakr that income from the orchard should be given to foreign ambassadors, to visitors, guests and travellers is destroyed by the very Hadith he cited to deny Sayyida Fatima (as) her inheritance rights. The Nasibi suggested:
Ahmad Jawdat Pasha al-Lofji writes in his Qisas-e-Ambiya:
“… He advised in his will that income from the orchard should be given to foreign ambassadors, to visitors, guests and travellers. Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Radhi Allahu ‘Anhu implemented this will during his Khaleefat”.
The supposed Hadith that Abu Bakr cited, ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity) “ would make the ability to implement this will impossible, since the entire contents of the orchard would not be Abu Bakar’s to distribute. It would be in the possession of the poor and needy – it would have been their right as Sadaqa, and it would be their discretion to decide on how they disposed of the income of Fadak, since (according to the Hadith of Abu Bakr) they were the beneficiaries of the Estate of Muhammad (s), it was them to decide where this went not Abu Bakr.
Allah declares in the Holy Qur’an:
And render to the kindred their due rights, as (also) to those in want, and to the wayfarer: But squander not (your wealth) in the manner of a spendthrift.
Al-Qur’an, Surah 17, Ayah 26, translated by Yusufali
Allah who owns every thing has provided a means for his Servants to acquire some of these things. Land e.g that is acquired without fighting is Fay and the Prophet (s) is it’s sole owner. He could give it to whoever he pleased, either as a gift, or by any other mode. Accordingly, when this verse was revealed he (s) gave the land of Fadak to Fatima Zahra (as) under the order of Allah. This is proven from the following authority works of Ahl’ul Sunnah:
In the Tafseer of above mentioned verse we read:
“Abu Saeed al Khudri and Abdullah Ibn Abbas narrate that when the verse relating to giving rights to kindred was revealed, the Prophet called Fatima Zahra (as) and gifted the land of Fadak to her”.
Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Vol. 4, page 177
Also see:
Jam’e Asbab al-Nuzul by Sheikh Khalid Abdurehman Makki (published in Karachi)
The deceitful Nawasib in their hatred for Sayyida Fatima Zahra (sa) often make feeble attempts to create doubts over the authenticity of the chain of this narration because of a narrator Atya al-Aufi by citing the criticism levelled at him by some people. What they never present is the authentication of Atya al-Aufi by some the famed Sunni scholars. For example Muhammad al-Nuhamisi in the foot note of Shaykh Taqiuddin Ahmad bin Ali bin Abdulqadir al-Moqrizi’s (d. 845 H) famed book Emta al-Asma, Volume 13 pag 16 stated: ‘According to me his hadith is not less than the grade of Hasan’. Ibn Hajar records that Imam Tirmidhi considered his hadith as Hasan (Nataj al-Afkar, v2 p414). Imam Ibn Hajar himself declared him ‘Seduq’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p678). Imam Yahyah bin Moin said: ‘Nothing bad about him’ (Tarikh ibn Moin by al-Daqaq, p27) while Sunni scholar Mahmood Saeed Mamdoh said in his book Rafe al-Manara, page 163: ‘Yahya bin Moin declared that about whom he said ‘nothing bad about him’, it means that he is Thiqah.’ Imam Muhammad Ibn Saad said: ‘Thiqah’ (Tabaqat al Kubra, v6 p304). Allamah Umar bin Shaheen included him in the book of Thiqah narrators (Asma al-Thuqat, p172). al-Ejli said: ‘Thiqah’ (Marifat al-Thiqat). Mahmoud Saeed Mamdouh rightly states in his book: ‘We conclude that Atya al-Aufi are authenticated by Yahya bin Saeed al-Qatan, ibn Saad, ibn Moin, al-Tirmidhi, al-Bazar, ibn Shaheen and some others.’ (Rafe al-Manara, p173). And most relevantly, on p144 of the same book, we read: ‘It is settled in the science of Hadith that if there is praise and criticism about a narrator and the reason for the criticism is unknown then (criticism) must be rejected and shall not be relied on and the praise about the narrator must be accepted. This is the correct (act) and that is what the scholars follow.’
Similarly Hakim Haskani al-Hanai also records in Shawahid al-Tanzeel, Volume 1 page 570:
أخبرنا عقيل بن الحسين قال: أخبرنا علي بن الحسين قال: حدثنا محمد بن عبيد الله قال: حدثنا أبو مروان عبد الملك بن مروان قاضي مدينة الرسول بها سنة سبع وأربعين وثلاث مائة قال: حدثنا عبد الله بن منيع ، قال: حدثنا آدم قال: حدثنا سفيان عن واصل الأحدب عن عطاء: عن ابن عباس قال: لما أنزل الله: (وآت ذا القربى حقه) دعا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله فاطمة وأعطاها فدكا وذلك لصلة القرابة.
Aqeel bin al-Hussain from Ali bin al-Hussain from Muhammad bin Ubaidullah from Abu Marwan Abdulmalik bin Marwan the judge of Madina from Abdullah bin Manee from Adam from Sufyan from Wasel al-Ahdab from Atta from ibn Abbas saying: ‘When Allah revealed ‘{And give to the near of kin his due}’ Allah’s Apostle (s) called Fatima and gave her Fadak because she was the near of kin’.
As for Shia text, we read in Tafseer al-Qumi, Volume 2 page 155:
حدثني أبي عن ابن ابي عمير عن عثمان بن عيسى وحماد بن عثمان عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام قال:….قالت فأشهد أن الله أوحى إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله “وآت ذا القربى حقه” فجعل فدك لفاطمة
My Father narrated from Ibn Abi Umayr from Uthman bin Isa and Hamaad bin Uthman that Abu Abdullah said: ‘…. she (Um Ayman) said: ‘I testify that Allah revealed to Allah’s apostle ‘{And give to the near of kin his due} thus he (s) gave Fadak to Fatima’.
One of the objections raised by the Sunni scholars to deny Sayyida Fatima’s right to the land of Fadak is that Sura Isra (also known as Sura Bani Israel) is a Makkan Sura which incorporates the verse on giving close relatives their rights, whereas Fadak was acquired in Madina. How is it that an incident that took place in Madina, is referred to in a Makkan verse?
The present Qur’an was arranged during Uthman’s era, he didn’t arrange verses according to their revelation. As there is no specific proof (by any tradition) that this verse was revealed in Makka, it cannot be claimed as a Makkan verse.
There are several verses, which were revealed twice. Fakhrudeen Radhi for example stated that Surah Fateha descended in Makka and Madina. Similarly Ibn Hajar al Makki in Sawaiqh Muhriqa, page 102 writes:
“Akrama Khariji claimed that verse of ‘Muwaddah’ was revealed in Makka, but the great scholar of Tafseer Ibne Abbas said that it was revealed in Madina.
Ibn Hajr is in effect stating that if the position of Ibn Abbas is correct, then this verse was revealed twice. We shall likewise advance that the verse of ‘Dhul Qurba’ was revealed twice.
It is important to highlight here the legal position of the Quranic verses when it is to be decided whether a sura is Makkan or Madini.
While determining whether a Qur’anic Sura is Makkan or Madani it is seen whether it was revealed before the Hijra or after it. If a Sura has been revealed before Hijra it is designated Makkan no matter where the Holy Prophet was at the time of revelation. On the other hand if the Sura is revealed after the Hijra, it is considered Madani no matter where the Holy Prophet was at the time of its revelation. However a problem arose with some Qur’anic Suras whose revelation started in Makka (before Hijra) but which were completed after the Hijra (in Madina). To deal with such a situation, the unanimous agreement among the Sunni scholars is that such a Sura is to be considered Makkan as its revelation started before Hijra even though some of its portion has been revealed after Hijra. Acting on this accepted principle we can very safely say without any contradiction that the verse of Dhul Qurba in Sura Isra had been revealed in Madina though the Sura was first revealed before Hijra in Makka.
In Umdah’ tul Qari Sharh Sahih Bukhari is an esteemed Sunni work. In its Volume 19 page 243 we are told that Surah Taghbun is a Makki Sura containing Madani verses:
سورة التغابن….وقال مقاتل مدنية وفيها مكي وقال الكلبي مكية ومدنية وقال ابن عباس مكية إلا آيات من آخرها نزلت بالمدينة
Taghabun Sura…. Maqatil said that it was revealed in Madina and include verses that were revealed in Makka, Kalbi said that it was revealed in Makka and Madina, Ibn Abbas said that it was revealed in Makka except the last verses that have been revealed in Madina.
The same position with regard to another Quranic verse is highlighted in the authority work of Ahl’ul Sunnah Asbabul Nazool, page 280 where it is written:
“Sura Shura is a Makki Surah but verse of “Muwaddat” is a Madani verse.”
We shall accordingly advance that Sura Isra was a Makkan Surah that included “Dhul Qurba” a Madani verse and duty is cast upon our opponents to positively prove that ALL the verses in Surah Isra were revealed in Makkah.
In authority work of Ahl’ul Sunnah, Lababul Naqool, page 137 Sura Isra, it is written:
“Once the Prophet (s) asked Ayesha to spend all that they had. Ayesha replied then nothing would be left for them. After that this verse was revealed “Wala taj’al”. Allamah Suyuti writes that this verse is Madani”
The Verse of ‘Dhul Qurba’ is 26th verse of Sura Isra. And the above mentioned verse “Wala taj’al” is 29th verse of Sura Isra. Since this verse showed the merits of Ayesha and proves that Ayesha was in the house of the Prophet (s) in Madina, the Nasibis accepted that this verse (in a Makkan Sura) was Madani not Makki.
We appeal to justice, when it comes to the rank of Ayesha it can be accepted that some verses of a Makkan Surah were revealed in Madina, but when it comes to Fatima Zahra (as) her right is denied solely on the basis that the Surah is Makki, so the verse of “Dhul Qurba” could not have been revealed in Madina! Is this not a clear contradiction?
Even if we accept for the sake of argument that the verse ordering the Prophet(s) to give his relatives their rights is a Makkan verse and not Madani this still does not negate Syeda Fatima’s claim to the land of Fadak. We as Muslims believe that the Qur’an is a book whose every Ayah is valid and applicable till the Day of Judgment. If a verse is revealed in Makka, does it lose its validity when the Prophet moves to Madina? Of course any command by Allah to His Prophet holds good wherever the Prophet is and the Prophet is under an obligation to act upon it. If the Prophet gifted Fadak to his daughter in Madina, this was no doubt an implementation of the will of Allah.
Following are the proofs from authority works of Ahl’ul-Sunnah:
The texts read as follows:
“Jibrael (as) came to Prophet Muhammad (s) and told him that Allah (swt) had ordered that he give the Dhul Qurba (close relatives) their rights. Rasulullah (s) asked who was meant from Dhul Qurba and what is meant from ‘right’. Jibrael (as) replied that Dhul Qurba refers to Fatima Zahra (r), and from ‘right’ it is meant the property of Fadak. The Prophet (s) called Fatima and presented Fadak to her giving her a written paper as a proof. This paper was presented to Abu Bakr (ra) after the death of Rasool Allah (saww) by Fatima and she said that it was the paper which the Prophet (s) wrote for her, Hasan and Husayn”
In Fatawa Azizi, page 165, (published Karachi) al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz sets out the contents of the written document:
Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Abdul Muttalib bin Hashim bin Abd Manaf has given this piece of land, whose premises are known, to his daughter Fatima Zahra. And after her, this land is entrusted to her children. And anyone who denies it after hearing it, then it’s sin is on his head. And Allah is “Sami” and “Aleem”.
We have proved from 10 Sunni works that the Prophet (s) presented Fadak to Fatima Zahra (as) as a gift by the orders of Allah (swt) and it was in her possession. But the same Shah Abdul Aziz in “Tuhfa Ithna Ashari”, “Shah Wali Ullah” in “Quratul Ain” and Ibn Taymeeya in “Minhaj-us-Sunnah” and their modern day apprentice al Khider in ‘Fadak’ continue to lie by denying this fact. May Allah’s curse be upon these liars!