Nawasib can offer as many defences for Abu Bakr as they like, but the bottom line is that Imam Ali (as) did not deem Abu Bakr’s position to be correct, rather he was scathing in his criticism. We read in Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4349 that Umar acknowledged the following to Imam ‘Ali (as):
Umar’s Words:
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 to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest.
Ibn Hibban records that ‘Umar said on that same occasion:
أنتَّمَاَ ِتزعمَاَن ِأنهُ ِكُاَن ِفيهُاَ ِظاَلمَاَ ِفاَجرا ِوال ِيعلَم ِأنهُ ِصاَدق ِباَر ِتاَبع ِللَحَق ِثم ِوليتَّهُققاَ ِبعققدُ ِأبققيِ ِبكققر ِسققنتَّينُ
منُ ِإماَرتيِ ِفعمَلَت ِفيهُاَ ِبمَثل ِماَ ِعمَل ِفيهُاَ ِرسول ِال ِصلَىِ ِال ِعلَيهُ ِوسلَم ِوأبققو ِبكققر ِوانتَّمَققاَ ِتزعمَققاَن ِأنققيِ
فيهُاَ ِالسهُو ِفاَجر ِوال ِيعلَم ِأنيِ ِفيهُاَ ِصاَدق ِباَر ِتاَبع ِللَحَق
And both of you (i.e. ‘Alī and al-‘Abbās) thought him to be unjust (dhaalim) and an evil doer (faajir) concerning it, and Allāh knows that he was truthful, virtuous and a follower of the truth. Then I became its Walī after Abū Bakr. Two years into my rule, I did the like of what the Messenger of Allāh and Abū Bakr did concerning it. And both of you thought me to be unjust (dhaalim) and an evil doer (faajir) concerning it, and Allāh knows that I am truthful, virtuous and a follower of the truth.
Ibn Hibban, Sahīh (Beirut: Muasassat al-Risālah;2nd edition, 1414 H) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnā’ūt], volume 14, p. 577, tradition number 6608
We appeal to justice, in any legal system the more senior a judge, the more reliability is afforded to his decision on account of a recognition that the said judge excels all other on matters of law, so that what he opines will be the most accurate ruling on a matter based on an accurate interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah. Now when we look at the companions of the Prophet (s) we see that the most senior judge from amongst them was Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (as). In this regard we read the following traditions:
بن أبي إياس ثنا شعبة عن أبي إسحاق عن عبد الرحمن بن يزيد عن علقمة عن عبد الله قال كنا نتحدث أن أقضى أهل المدينة علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه
هذا حديث صحيح على شرط الشيخين و لم يخرجاه
Abullah said: ‘We used to say that no one is the best Judge in Madina other than Ali’
Hakim said: ‘Sahih according to the standards of both Sheikhs’
This tradition also recorded in:
With this in mind it is logical that the viewpoint of Ali (as) on a legal matter will be the most accurate interpretation of the law, due to his being the most superior Judge from amongst the Sahaba. This being the case when Imam Ali (as) supported the claim of his wife for Fadak, by:
then his judgment is the most accurate and reliable judgment on the issue of Fadak, as this was the viewpoint of the most superior judicial authority from amongst the Sahaba. It was a viewpoint that was diametrically opposed to Abu Bakr, we are therefore at a loss as to why so much ink has been wasted on defending Abu Bakr, when the opinion of Ali (as) the most senior judge from amongst the Sahaba should be more accepted as the final word on the matter.
Imam Ali’s reasons for not fighting at the time to restore Fadak are the same as why he didn’t fight to claim his rightful throne back, and we have addressed these points in our article on Taqiyyah.
Taqiyyah (Expedient dissimulation)
If Nawasib are still not satisfied then allow us to give a more comprehensive reply from Kanz al Ummal, Volume 11 page 399 Tradition 31519:
Rasulullah (s) said to Ali: ‘When people love this world and shall usurp inheritance and love money so much amd used the religion of Allah as a source of income and the property of Allah as estates, what will you do? Ali (ra) replied: ‘I shall leave them alone, and shall seek out Allah (swt), his Prophet (s) and the next world. I shall bear patience in relation to worldly problems until I meet you’. Rasulullah (s) said: ‘You spoke correctly, O Allah! Give ‘Ali patience’.
Kanz al Ummal, Volume 11 page 399 Tradition 31519
We appeal to justice. Abu Bakr loved this world and denied Sayyida Fatima (as) her legal right. If Hadhrat Ali (as) chose not to exercise force to get Fadak back, preferring the matter to be resolved on the Day of Judgement, he was acting in a way that had been endorsed as correct by Rasulullah (s).
Al Khider employs the common counter attack method on the Fadak dispute:
It is therefore concluded that Fadak was neither inheritance nor a gift. This was exactly the position of Imam ‘Ali. When he became the Khaleefah he did not treat Fadak as the estate of his deceased wife Sayyidah Fatimah, by taking a quarter for himself and distributing the remaining three quarters between , Husayn and Umm Kulthum according to the rule “to the male twice the share of the female”. This is an established fact of history.
In the article ‘Fadak’ the unnamed author then sets out what he deems are Shi’a responses to Khalifa Ali (as)’s decision not to restore Fadak to the Ahl’ul bayt (as). He attributes four common excuses (conjured up in his mind) and then refutes each one of them. What is amusing is the fact that he fails to provide even a single Shi’a source wherein such a defence has been put forward. He attributes these defences to the Shi’a and then refutes them! Let us see the work of his genious mind:
1. “Members of the Ahlul-Bayt will not resume property usurped from them. As a matter of fact, when Rasulullah, Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam, conquered Mecca, he did not take his home back from the Meccans who had usurped it from him.”
This answer is not sound. Hadhrat Khalif ‘Umar bin Abdul-’Aziz (Radhi Allahu Anhu), during his Khulafa, gave the orchard called Fedek to Hadhrat al-Imam Sayyid Muhammad al-Baqir (Radhi Allahu Anhu), who accepted it, so that it was possessed by the Ahlul-Bayt A’immah until it was seized by Abbasid Khalifas. Then, in 203 Hijra, Khalifa Ma’mun wrote to his official, Qusam bin Ja’far and thus the orchard was given again to one of the Sayyid Imams, namely to al-Imam Ali Rida, and upon his death the same year, it was given to Yahya, a grandson of Zayd, who was the grandson of Sayyidina al-Husayn (Radhi Allahu Ta’ala Anhu). This person should not be mistaken for his namesake, Zayd, who was Hadhrat Sayyidah Nafisa’s grandfather and at the same time Hadhrat Sayyidina al-Hasan’s son. The orchard was usurped again by Khalifa Mutawakkil, who was Mamun’s grandson. Later on Mu’tadid gave it back again. If members of the Ahlul-Bayt (Radhi Allahu Ta’ala Anhum Ajma’een) would not take back their usurped property, then why did these Imams (who were members of the Ahlul-Bayt) take the orchard back? By the same token, it is asserted that Hadhrat Abu Bakr (Radhi Allahu Ta’ala Anhu) usurped the office of Khalifa which belonged to Hadhrat Ali (Radhi Allahu Ta’ala Anhu) by rights. Why did Hadhrat Ali (Radhi Allahu Ta’ala Anhu) accept this “usurped” right later? Furthermore, why did Hadhrat al-Husayn (Radhi Allahu Ta’ala Anhu) try to win his usurped right of Khaleefah back from Yazid so earnestly that he attained the gardens of martyrdom in the end?
Not to be hard done by modern day Salafi hero Ibn al Hasihmi also adopts the same line of argument…
Ibn al Hashimi states:
We have also seen the Shia propagandists claim that the reason Ali (رضّى الله عنه) didn’t take back Fadak was that the Ahlel Bayt does not take back usurped property. To bolster this argument, the Shia will bring up the example of Prophet Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), whose Meccan home had been usurped by the infidels; upon conquering Mecca, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) did not take it back.This answer is very weak, and easily debunked by simply providing the names of Infallible Imams of the Shia who accepted usurped property. Caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz “returned” Fadak to Imam Muhammad Al-Baqir, who accepted it. Imam Al-Baqir is considered to be one of the Infallible Imams of the Shia, and thus very much part of what the Shia consider to be the Ahlel Bayt. Caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz was wrong in returning Fadak (and his ruling was overturned by later Caliphs), but that’s not the point. The point is that we see here that one of their twelve Infallible Imams accepted usurped property.
The government once again took back Fadak, and then another Caliph came along later down the line who decided to once again return Fadak to the descendants of Fatima (رضّى الله عنها). Caliph Ma’mun would return Fadak to Imam Rida, yet another of those whom the Shia consider to be Infallible Imams. And there are a couple more examples of the Shia Infallibles accepting usurped property. Thus, this argument of the Shia is baseless.
Since Nawasib have deprived themselves from attaining the benefits of the rhetoric and wisdom bestowed on the Ahlulbayt (as), they are incapable of grasping the matter and analyzing the issue from all its aspects. The Nasibi author has stated that “Members of the Ahlul-Bayt will not resume property usurped from them” but failed to understand the actual meanings of this belief in the light of the practice of the very members of Ahl’ul bayt (as). We do not know what the Nasibi author understood by the key word used in the sentence i.e. resume, whilst the actual meaning of this sentence is that if the members of Ahl’ulbayt (as) are in power, they ‘themselves’ do not take back the property or any other right that has been usurped from them but they (as) expect the usurpers or their adherents to realize the sin they committed and restore the legitimate right of Ahlulbayt to them (as). There is a minor yet major difference between taking one’s right back on his accord or an usurpers restoring it to its actual owner. All the examples mentioned by the Nasibi authors fall into the latter category therefore there isn’t any contradiction between the (alleged) belief quoted by both Nasibi authors and the examples they cited. Let us see some of these tradition, recorded by Shaykh Seduq in Ilal-ul-Sharai, Volume 1 page 124 so that the points we have explained become clearer:
( باب 124 - العلة التي من أجلها ترك أمير المؤمنين فدك لما ولى الناس )
Chapter 124 – The reason due to which Amir Al-Momineen(asws) left Fadak when he(asws) ruled the people
1 - حدثنا علي بن أحمد بن محمد الدقاق قال : حدثني محمد بن أبي
عبد الله الكوفي عن موسى بن عمران النخعي عن عمه الحسين بن يزيد النوفلي ، عن علي بن سالم عن أبيه ، عن أبي بصير عن أبي عبد الله " ع " قال : قلت له لم لم يأخذ أمير المؤمنين " ع " فدك لما ولى الناس ولأي علة تركها ؟ فقال : لان الظالم والمظلوم كانا قدما على الله عز وجل ، وأثاب الله المظلوم ، وعاقب الظالم . فكره ان يسترجع شيئا قد عاقب الله عليه غاصبه وأثاب عليه المغصوب .
Ali Bin Ahmad Bin Muhammad al Daqaq narrated to us, from Muhammad Bin Abu Abdullah Al Kufy, from Musa Bin Imran Al Nakhai’e, from his uncle Al Husayn Bin Yazeed Al Nowfaly, from Ali Bin Saalim, from his father, from Abu Baseer,(The narrator) says ‘I said to Abu Abdullah(asws), ‘Why did Amir Al-Momineen(asws) not seize Fadak when he(asws) ruled the people, and what is the reason for leaving it?’ So he(asws) said: ‘Because the oppressor and the oppressed would be preceding to Allah(azwj) Might and Majestic, and Allah(azwj) would Reward the oppressed, and Punish the oppressor.
Therefore, he(asws) disliked that he(asws) should retrieve something and Allah(azwj) would be Punishing its usurper over it, and Rewarding the usurped over it’.
2 - حدثنا أحمد بن علي بن إبراهيم بن هاشم رحمه الله قال حدثنا أبي ، عن
أبيه إبراهيم بن هاشم ، عن محمد بن أبي عمير ، عن إبراهيم الكرخي قال : سألت أبا عبد الله " ع " فقلت له لأي علة ترك علي بن أبي طالب " ع " فدك لما ولى الناس فقال : للاقتداء برسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله لما فتح مكة وقد باع عقيل بن أبي طالب داره فقيل له يا رسول الله ألا ترجع إلى دارك ؟ فقال صلى الله عليه وآله وهل ترك عقيل لنا دارا إنا أهل بيت لا نسترجع شيئا يؤخذ منا ظلما . فلذلك لم يسترجع فدك لما ولى .
Ahmad Bin Ali Bin Ibrahim Bin Hashim narrated to us, from his father, from his father Ibrahim Bin Hashim, from Muhammad Bin Abu Umeyr, from Ibrahim Al Karkhy who said, ‘I asked Abu Abdullah(asws), so I said to him(asws), ‘For which reason did Ali Bin Abu Talib(asws) leave Fadak when he (asws) ruled the people?’ He(asws) said: ‘For (the sake of) following Rasool-Allah(saww), when he(saww) conquered Makkah, and Aqeel son of Abu Talibas had sold his(saww) house. So it was said to him(saww), ‘O Rasool-Allah(saww)! Will you(saww) not go to your(saww) house?’ So he(saww) said: ‘And has Aqeel left a house for us(saww)? We(asws), the People of the Household, do not retrieve anything which has been seized from us(asws) unjustly’. Thus, it was due to that, he (Ali asws) did not retrieve Fadak when he(asws) ruled’.
3 - حدثنا أحمد بن الحسن القطان قال : حدثنا أحمد بن سعيد الهمداني قال
حدثنا علي بن الحسن بن علي بن فضال عن أبيه عن أبي الحسن " ع قال : سألته عن أمير المؤمنين لم لم يسترجع فدكا لما ولى الناس ؟ فقال : لأنا أهل بيت لا نأخذ حقوقنا ممن ظلمنا الا هو ونحن أولياء المؤمنين إنما نحكم لهم ونأخذ حقوقهم ممن ظلمهم ولا نأخذ لأنفسنا .
علل الشرائع ج1 ص 155
Ahmad Bin Al Hassan Al Qatan narrated to us, from Ahmad Bin Saeed Al hamdany, from Ali Bin Al Hassan Bin Ali Bin Fazal, from his father,
(The narrator says) ‘I asked Abu Al-Hassan(asws) about Amir Al-Momineen(asws). Why did he(asws) not retrieve Fadak when he(asws) ruled the people?’ So he(asws) said: ‘Because we(asws), the People(asws) of the Household, do not seize our(asws) rights from the ones who oppress us(asws), as he (Amir Al-Momineenasws) and us(asws) are the Guardians of the Believers. But rather, we(asws) pass judgement for them and we(asws) take their right from the ones who oppress them, but we do not take for ourselves(asws)’.
The words of the Imam (as) make it clear that they rule for the benefit of the common man, when it comes to their personal usurped rights, they do not take them back themselves rather their expectation is that the usurpers and their adherents express remorse for the sin of usurping the right of Ahl’ul bayt (as) and accordingly restore that right to them.
Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) was given it back by the successor of the usurpers voluntarily, he didn’t take it back himself. It was then taken back by the Abbasids then given back, then taken back and so on. There is a big difference between Imam Ali (as) became Caliph and taking it back, and Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) not having any political power and being given it back by the Caliph. Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) took it back when the conditions were suitable. We throw it back to the the Nawasib, why did Imam Ali bin Abi Talib (during Umar’s reign), Imam Jaffar Sadiq (as) and other Imams (as) take it back when they deemed it Sadaqa whilst Maula Ali (as) did not take it back (during his own reign)?
What is interesting is his admission that three of the Khalifas, (according to the unnamed author) Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz, Mamun and Mu’tadid restored Fadak to the descendants of Sayyida Fatima (as). If Fadak was not their legal right then why did these Khalifas offer this rich land to them? Why did these descendants accept the land if it was not their legal right? By advancing this argument the author has shot himself in the foot, for he has inadvertently cited three Khalifas who rejected Abu Bakr’s decision in the Fadak dispute.
un named author states:
2. “Hadrat Ali imitated Hadhrat Fatimah ‘radi-allahu anhuma’ and did not accept any share from Fedek.”
This answer makes no sense. Why did the Ahlul-Bayt A’immah (Radhi Allahu Ta’ala Anhum Ajma’een) who accepted Fedek (afterwards) not imitate Sayyidah Fatimah az-Zahra (Millions of Sallams upon her)? If it was a fard to imitate her, why did they ignore this fard, bearing in mind that their belief regarding the Ahlul-Bayt A’immah are without error and contradiction. If it was supererogatory (Wajib) and not fard, then why did Hadhrat Ali (Karamallahu wajhu) do this supererogatory act at the cost of omitting an act that was fard? Hadhrat Ali would never omit a fard act. For it is fard to give everyone his or her due. Moreover, it might be reasonable to imitate someone’s optional behavior. If this behavior is a result of coercion, then it should not be imitated. If Hadhrat Sayyidah Fatimah’s (Radhi Allahu Ta’ala Anha) not utilizing Fedek was due to someone else’s oppression, then she had to waive her right because she had no other way. In this case it would have been senseless to imitate her.
Again the Shi’a never advance this imitation argument, if Imam Ali (as) was imitating anyone it was Rasulullah (s) by not taking an action that would cause Fitnah, and we shall elaborate this later.
3. “Hadrat Ali (radi-allahu ta’ala) had witnessed Fedek’s being bequeathed to Hadhrat Fatimah. In order to show that this witnessing was done for Allah’s sake and not for worldly advantages, he did not accept any advantage from Fedek.”
Al Khidhr replies to this:
Those who knew about Hadhrat Ali’s witnessing and those who rejected it were dead by the time he became Khalifa. Furthermore, some Ahlul-Bayt Imams’ accepting the orchard named Fedek made the group called Khariji consider that Hadhrat Ali might have done this witnessing in order to obtain advantages for his children. In fact, in matters concerning real estates, such as fields, houses, vineyards and orchards, one thinks of one’s children’s advantages rather than one’s own. Perhaps, Hadhrat Ali might have advised his children not to utilize Fedek, lest his witnessing be tarnished. And his children might have refused Fedek both to imitate Hadhrat Fatimah and to fulfill this secret advice. Such is Ulama’s comments on the matter.
Again this is not a Shi’a argument the reason that Imam Ali (as) did not take the land back was because of the situation that he faced when he came to power. Those who rejected the claim may have been dead by the time, but their memory lived on in the minds of their die hard adherents led by Ayesha, Marwan and Mu’awiya, all of whom rejected the Khilafat of Imam Ali (as) and were willing to use any type of propaganda to damage him.
Ibn al Hashimi states:
According to the Shia, Fadak should have been rightfully distributed to the progeny of Fatima (رضّى الله عنها). Then, why didn’t Ali (رضّى الله عنه) do what is right? The only response the Shia can give is their standard cop-out: why, of course Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was doing Taqiyyah! The Shia will say that this is why he didn’t return Fadak. Oh, nice! Whenever the logic of historical facts do not sit well with the Shia narrative, they will then always have the trump card of Taqiyyah.
un named author states:
Claim
4. “Hadrat Ali’s not accepting the orchard called Fedek was intended for Taqiyya. Taqiyya is necessary for Shi’ah.”Al Khidhr replies to this:
Taqiyya means to lie and Shi’ah believe it is fard to lie, especially to those of the Ummah of Sayyidina Rasul-e-Akram, Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam, known as Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah. This statement of theirs is untenable. For, according to the adherents of Shi’ism, “when an Imam takes the battlefield and begins to fight it is haram for him to do Taqiyya. It was for this reason that Hadhrat Husayn did not do Taqiyya.” To say that Hadhrat Ali (Radhi Allahu Ta’ala Anhu) did Taqiyya during the period of his Khaleefat would mean to say that he committed haraam. Astaghfirullahal-Azeem.
Firstly Taqiyyah does not mean to lie and we have addressed the concept in two of our articles:
The creed of Shia’a; explained
Taqiyyah (Expedient dissimulation)
Like both authors, we also believe that Imam Ali (as) did not adopt Taqiyyah, his silence was because he did not want any action to be used in the propaganda campaign against him and again we shall address this in the later part of this article.
Al Khider advances this earth shattering reference:
Sayyid Murtada (known as ‘Alam al-Huda) narrates in his book on Imamah entitled ash-Shafi, that when ‘Ali became the khalifah he was approached about returning Fadak. His reply was: “I am ashamed before Allah to overturn something that was prohibited by Abu Bakr and continued by ‘Umar.” (al-Murtada, ash-Shafi fil-Imamah, p. 231; and Ibn Abil Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. 4
It is amazing how these Nawasib all just perpetuate the same lies, like school kids spreading rumors in a playground. One Nasibi dishonestly cites a text, and his followers copy it like blind mice. Take the example of Ibn al Hashimi who even inspecting the original source quoted the same text verbatim in his article ‘Fadak, Part II: Why Didn’t Ali (رضّى الله عنه) Return Fadak?’. Is this what we have come to expect from this great Shia destroyer?
Why don’t these Nawasib understand that their Caliph did what he had to do, no matter how much deceit the Nawasib adopt, they can never absolve their Caliph of this sin. They have indeed been deceitful to cite Ibn Abi al Hadeed and convince the Shias when he was not a Shia, but a Mutazali Sunni scholar. And as for the reference cited from Sayyid Murtada’s work ash-Shafi fil-Imamah, it should be known that his book was a refutation to a book ‘Al-Mughni’ by a Mutazali Sunni scholar Qazi Abduljabbar (d. 415 H) and hence adhering to the pattern of debates, at several places in the book, Sayyid Murtada used the texts from the sources of his opponents and the tradition relied by the Nasibi author is no different in this regards as the tradition’s chain includes the names of orthodox Sunni figures:
“Abu abdullah Muhammad bin Umran al-Merzebani from Muhammad bin Ahmad al-Katib from Ahmad bin Ubaid bin Naseh al-Nahawi from al-Zyadi from al-Sharqi bin al-Qatami from Muhammad bin Ishaq from Saleh bin Kysan from Urwa from Ayesha”
The tradition is quite lengthy and contains the incident of Fadak from the beginning including the Fatima’s (as) notion of rejecting Abu Bakr. Sayyid Murtada quoted this Sunni tradition to prove that lady Fatima Zahra (as) clashed with Abu Bakr and since the tradition is not from a Shia source, we see that Sayyid Murtada before using the tradition clearly stated:
“The Majority of these narrators are neither accused of Shiaism nor have fanatics narrated her statements”
This is a Sunni tradition that is non existent in Shia hadith literature, although it can be located in Sunnis hadith books such as Maqtal al-Hussain by Khawarezmi. Therefore, the next time the cunning Nawasib produce a Shia source to convince the Shias rather than demanding that we respond to the words narrated from the mouths of their ancestors.
Al Khider wants to suggest that Maula Ali (as) was ashamed of changing the status quo set by Abu Bakr and questions why he failed to take remedial steps to claim back Fadak and restore it to its rightful owners, yet according to Ahl’ul Sunnah’s most authentic work Sahih Bukhari, Maula Ali (as) claimed Fadak during the Caliphates of Abu Bakr and Umar. Maula Ali (as) and Abbas:
- approached Umar and demanded the right of Fadak.
- were entrusted (by Umar) to manage Fadak in accordance with the conditions set by Abu Bakr.
- ignored these conditions and disputed with one other, that resulted in Maula Ali (as) attaining full control over Fadak.
Note: We are only representing the Authentic Sunni Point of View on this historical incident, which differs from Shi’a point of view. We will give Shi’a point of view about this later on.
This is the complete tradition from 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 .”
Readers can also consult traditions on this subject: Sahih Bukhari Hadeeth: 9.408, 8.720 4:326.
Can Al Khider and Ibn al Hashimi explain why they do not ascribe to what their most authentic Hadeeth scholar Imam Bukhari has recorded? Once you accept that which has been authentically transmitted to you (according to your standards), then why are you (al Khider) producing a weak Hadeeth suggesting that Imam Ali (as) was ashamed of doing things which Abu Bakr prohibited?
Tell us al Khider and Ibn al Hashimi, does the above tradition corroborate the tradition you both cited, wherein Imam Ali (as) was ashamed before Allah to overturn something that was prohibited by Abu Bakr and continued by ‘Umar?
Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4349 and 4350 informs us that Abu Bakr prohibited Fadak by using the Hadith of “No heirs of Prophet” while Maula Ali (as) remained unconvinced with it and deemed the Khalifa’s confiscation of Fadak as proof of him being a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest.
If Maula Ali (as) was really ashamed of overturning something that was prohibited by Abu Bakr, why would he make a claim before Abu Bakr in the first place?
Both Ahadith confirm the fact that when Hadhrat Umar continued to follow the practice of Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Mawla Ali (as) also of deemed him a ’liar, dishonest, treacherous and sinful’.
There is therefore no question of Maula ‘Ali (as) being ashamed of reclaiming something that had been prohibited by Abu Bakr and Umar.
The tradition suggests that Maula ‘Ali (as) was ashamed to do anything that would contravene a decision of Abu Bakr. If this was even remotely true, then there would have been no reason to for him to reject the offer of Khilafath (the third time) on the condition that he adhered to the Qur’an, Sunnah and to the practices of Abu Bakr and Umar! Whilst agreeing to the Qur’an and Sunnah he (as) refused to adhere to the practices of Abu Bakr and Umar. This fact can be located in the following esteemed works of Ahl’ul Sunnah:
If Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) was ‘ashamed’ to contravene Abu Bakr’s rulings then he would have accepted this condition whole heartedly. What would be the reason for Imam Ali (as) refusing to abide by the decision of a Khalifa whose rulings he was too ashamed to change? The refusal of Imam Ali (as) to accept this condition serves as the greatest proof that he wanted to distance himself from their Bidah rulings. The fact that this rejection by Maula ‘Ali (as) of the so called hadeeth cited by Abu Bakr is replete in Sunni books of Tareekh and Fiqh leaves no doubt that it is fabricated, and this clear proof makes the narration cited by al Khider as completely baseless.
After these great responses, the author of the article Fedek arrives at the following conclusion:
Conclusion with common sense…
Hadhrat Abu’l-Barakat Abdullah Suwaydi al-Baghdadi writes in his Hujaj-e-Qatiya:
“Supposing all these evidences are disignored and it is still presumed that the Khalifa Abu Bakr as-Siddiq took the date orchard called Fedek by force; then why did Hadhrat ‘Ali (Radhi Allahu Ta’ala ‘Anhu) not give the date orchard to Hadhrat al-Hasan and al-Husayn when he became the Khaleefah and everything was now in his hands, under his command? Why did he not change what had been done by the three Khalifas previous to him? Hadrat Ali’s following the same policy as had been followed by the previous three Khaleefahs concerning the date orchard is a plain evidence for the fact that it had not been taken by force by Abu Bakr.”
Ibn al Hashimi states:
So again, we ask our Shia brothers: why didn’t Ali (رضّى الله عنه) return Fadak once he became Caliph? Why did he uphold Abu Bakr’s decision (رضّى الله عنه) if it was so wrong? Why don’t the Shia hate Ali (رضّى الله عنه) for failing to return Fadak? Why don’t they hate Ali (رضّى الله عنه) for reaping the gains of Fadak while he was Caliph? Why the double standard with Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه)? The Shia say that Caliph Umar (رضّى الله عنه) gave Fadak back to Hasan (رضّى الله عنه) and Hussain (رضّى الله عنه), and they accuse Caliph Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) of being a tyrant because he snatched it back from them. So then the question is: why didn’t Ali (رضّى الله عنه) return Fadak to Hasan (رضّى الله عنه) and Hussain (رضّى الله عنه) when he became Caliph? Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) is a tyrant but Ali (رضّى الله عنه) is not? Indeed this is nothing short of an incredible double standard.
The mere fact that Imam Ali (as) didn’t raise his sword to forcibly take back Fadak during his own tenure as Caliph 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 have already evidenced from Umar’s own testimony that the ruling on Fadak that went against Sayeda Fatima based on an alleged Hadeeth was not accepted by Imam Ali (as), on the contrary he (as) deemed the judgment of Abu Bakr and its endorsement by Umar as proof that both men were liars, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. Of course, present day advocates of the first two caliphs will desperately want us to believe that Imam Ali (as) somehow and at some undisclosed occasion retreated with his harsh criticism of the caliphs and had accepted the decisions made by them and thereby accepted the forged Hadeeth. They jump to this conclusion be seeking to draw an inference from the fact that Imam Ali (as) did not claim Fadak back as part of the estate of Rasulullah (s) when he became Khalifa. Since they are alleging that the inaction of Imam Ali (as) entitles them to draw such an inference that he accepted the judgement of Abu Bakr then the onus is on our opponents to prove it. Drawing an inference when no evidence exists to support it is a faulty premise. If our opponents intend to draw such an inference, they need to strengthen the evidence they have adduced on this issue or weaken our evidence. The evidence needs to be from the witness testimony of Imam Ali (as) himself that supports their position, afterall they are the ones arguing that the inaction of Caliph Ali (as) to overturn the Fadak judgement means that he upheld the decision. From our perspective the strength of evidence in our case lies with the fact that Imam Ali (as) deemed the judgements of the Shaikhan to annex Fadak as evidence that both judges were "liars, treacherous, dishonest, sinners, unjust and immoral" we would opine that this entitles us to assume that there must have been extenuating circumstances as to why Imam Ali (as) didn't take Fadak back during his tenure. Clearly it couldn't have been due to him upholding the Fadak judgments when we have the severe critique of Imam Ali (as) on both trial judges.
If our opponents are going to insist on us accepting their conclusions, then we will hold them to strict proof, they must produce a Sahih narration that references the unequivocal testimony from the tongue of Imam Ali (as) wherein he has:
- accepted the Hadeeth and abandoned his earlier staunch stance.
- stated that he wasn't exercising his power to reclaim Fadak as he upheld the ruling of Abu Bakr
By way of background we would like to know the specific occasion when the dramatic volte-face occurred, when Imam Ali (as) sought forgiveness for wrongly deeming both caliphs to be liars, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. We are not willing to entertain any form of conjecture that as Imam Ali (as) didn’t take back Fadak during his own tenure one can infer his acceptance of the Hadeeth coined by Abu Bakr, rather we want to see an admission from the tongue of Imam Ali (as). When they produce this evidence then and only then will they be entitled to draw the desired inference: in other words, there must be a case to answer on this issue. So where is that evidence when it comes to them seeking to explain the inaction of Imam Ali (as)? Our opponents don't have a scintilla of evidence to support their argument. In the absence of any evidence their argument falls by the wayside. It is not enough for a them to rely on the Imam Ali (as)'s inaction as proof.
If they are going to insist that the inaction of Imam Ali (as) on a matter constitutes his acceptance, then we invite our opponents to ponder over two points:
1. When Imam Ali (as) became Khalifa a major source if criticism that was levelled against him by his opponents was that he was shielding the killers of Uthman, they were from amongst how own supporters and he was refusing to punish them. There is no evidence that he ever did. Should we therefore conclude the inaction of Imam Ali (as) to address this matter meant he supported the killing of Uthman and he was willingly providing a safe haven for those that partook in it?
2. Imam Bukhari records this narration:
حَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، قَالَ أَمْلَى عَلَىَّ هِشَامُ بْنُ يُوسُفَ مِنْ حِفْظِهِ أَخْبَرَنَا مَعْمَرٌ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، قَالَ قَالَ لِي الْوَلِيدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْمَلِكِ أَبَلَغَكَ أَنَّ عَلِيًّا، كَانَ فِيمَنْ قَذَفَ عَائِشَةَ قُلْتُ لاَ. وَلَكِنْ قَدْ أَخْبَرَنِي رَجُلاَنِ مِنْ قَوْمِكِ أَبُو سَلَمَةَ بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ وَأَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ الْحَارِثِ أَنَّ عَائِشَةَ ـ رضى الله عنها ـ قَالَتْ لَهُمَا كَانَ عَلِيٌّ مُسَلِّمًا فِي شَأْنِهَا.
فَرَاجَعُوهُ فَلَمْ يَرْجِعْ وَقَالَ مُسَلِّمًا بِلَا شَكٍّ فِيهِ وَعَلَيْهِ كَانَ فِي أَصْلِ الْعَتِيقِ كَذَلِكَ
Narrated Az-Zuhri:
Al-Walid bin `Abdul Malik said to me, "Have you heard that `Ali' was one of those who slandered `Aisha?" I replied, "No, but two men from your people (named) Abu Salama bin `Abdur-Rahman and Abu Bakr bin `Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Harith have informed me that Aisha told them that `Ali remained silent about her case."
Sahih al-Bukhari 4142In-book reference : Book 64, Hadith 186USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 5, Book 59, Hadith 463 (deprecated numbering scheme)
Using their logic should we assume the silence of Imam Ali (as) meant he accepted that the allegation of zinah that had been levelled against Aisha?
We read in the esteemed Shi’a work Rudhutul Kafi, Sermon of Al-Fatan wa Al-Bidah, page 59, published in Iran:
“The Caliphs before me intentionally practiced such acts in which they went against the Prophet (s). They broke the promises (which they made with Rasool) and changed the Sunnah of the Rasulullah (s). If (today) I ask people to leave all these things (innovations) and restore things back to the way they were at the time of Rasulullah (s), my army shall rebel and abandon me, and I shall be left alone. All that shall remain turning to me shall be those Shi’a who recognise my virtues and rank”.
Then he further explained by giving some examples that:
“If I return Fadak to the heirs of Fatima (as), and if I order to restore the “Sa’a” (a unit for measuring wheat) of Rasool Allah (s). And if I return the properties, which were given by Rasool (s) to their original owners, and deny the decisions which were based on injustice (and tyranny), and snatch the women who were illegally taken by some people and return them to their husbands, and if I deny the (unjust) distribution of Fadak, and start giving the shares to every one equally (as were originally given by Rasool (s), but earlier caliphs started giving according to status), …. and restore the condition of Khums of Rasool (saww), and to bring Masjid-e-Nabi to it’s original position, and to make “Mash alal Khaffin” haram, and to issue punishment (“Had”) for drinking “Nabeedh” (alcohol made out of barley), and give the fatwa for Mut’ah being Halaal, and start saying 5 Takbirs at funeral, and make it obligatory upon people to recite “Bismillah” loudly during Salat …… and ask people to follow the Quranic and Sunnah way of giving Talaq, and ask people to give all the Sadaqat, and to restore the way of ablution, ghusl and Salah to their original forms and time, and give back the fidya (which was unjustly taken) to Ahl-e-Najran, and return the slave girls of Ahle Faras, and ask people to return to Qur’an and Sunnah of Rasool (s), then all people will abandon me (and I will be left alone). I ordered people that they should only gather for Fardh (obligatory) prayers during Ramadhan, and told them that congregation (Jamah) in Nafl (i.e. Tarawih) is a Bidah (innovation) then all of these people started shouting that Sunnah of Hadhrat Umar has been changed.”
Whilst our opponents will dismiss this narration as it is a Shia source, we find Caliph Ali (as) lamenting before Allah (swt) over how far his subjects had deviated from the Quran and Sunnah in Sunni works too. Ibn Kathir records this interesting narration:
حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْعَزِیزِ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْأُوَیْسِیُّ، ثنا إِبْرَاهِیمُ بْنُ سَعْدٍ، عَنْ شُعْبَةَ، عَنْ أَبِی عَوْنٍ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عُبَیْدِ اللَّهِ الثَّقَفِیِّ، عَنْ أَبِی صَالِحٍ الْحَنَفِیِّ، قَالَ: رَأَیْتُ عَلِیَّ بْنَ أَبِی طَالِبٍ علیه السلام أَخَذَ الْمُصْحَفَ فَوَضَعَهُ عَلَى رَأْسِهِ حَتَّى لَأَرَى وَرَقَهُ یَتَقَعْقَعُ، ثُمَّ قَالَ: " اللَّهُمَّ إِنَّهُمْ مَنَعُونِی أَنْ أَقُومَ فِی الْأُمَّةِ بِمَا فِیهِ، فَأَعْطِنِی ثَوَابَ مَا فِیهِ
Narrated to us Abdul-Aziz Ibn Abdullah Al-Uwaysi saying, narrated to us Ibrahim Ibn Sa'd from Shu'ba from Abi Awn Mohammad bn Ubaidallah Ath-Thaqafi from Abi Saleh Al-Hanafi who said: I saw Ali Ibn Abi Talib taking the Qur'an and placing it on his head in a manner that I could see its pages were making a sound [due to their moving back and forth] and he was saying: "O Allah, they prevented me (to establish amongst the Ummah) what is in this Book, so give me the reward of what is in it".
All the narrators are Thiqah(Trustworthy)
(Sunni source: Al-Badaya wa Al-Nahayah,Volume 7, page 610)
Comment
This is a fascinating narration as it clearly demonstrates that the Ummah preferred the Seerah of the Sheikhain over the Qur'an. The Ummah had gone so far astray by the time Imam Ali (as) took the helm of power, that the Qur'an wasn't viewed as a prime source of guidance. If the Ahlul Sunnah argue why imam Ali (as) didn't end innovative practises such as taraweeh during his tenure as khalifa or re take Fadak herein lies your answer, the khalifas that preceded him had in effect successfully indoctrinated their subjects into believing that their practices took precedent over the Book of Allah (swt).
A Head of State that takes the reigns of power does not implement his programs of reform forthwith. Policies are implemented gradually, and based on prioritization. Those policies that need to be addressed immediately are two fold, those that need to:
1) overcome challenges such as poverty, unemployment and alienation
2) address challenges that threaten the smooth functioning of the state, such as co-ordinated mob rule creating criminality, anarchy and disorder, a failure to address such a challenge might lead to a breakdown in the rule of law, bringing down the Government and creating a failed state ruled by anarchy.
Both of the above priorities have an overriding objective, to improve the quality of life amongst the people by eradicating those elements that were hitherto acting as a barrier to social cohesion and equality. Any Head of State taking power during a period of social upheaval and decay will seek to impress on his subjects that he will strive to alleviate their difficulties. The Head of State may have himself suffered due to the decision making of the previous Government, he may have some personal issues that require resolving, but in the greater scheme of things personal matters, are personal to that individual, and they can be shelved since a Head of State will seek to prioritize on implementing those policies that will benefit his subjects. If the Head of State was to leave societal ills / challenges and instead focus on rectifying any injustice that had been done to him, that would lead to a messy dispute that would not be resolved without a serious risk of disorder, how would his subjects view that leader? Would they be impressed that he is fighting for his personal interests at a time when his subjects are suffering from poverty, alienation and unemployment? If faced with major challenges the Head of State chooses to abandon pursuing his personal disputes in favour of focusing on resolving those ills affecting the people as a whole, this in no way means that the Head of State has temporarily deferred his personal issues, it in no way means that he has relinquished his claim, he has merely deemed it a lesser priority since the challenge of societal decay and civil unrest are those that need to be addressed as a matter of urgency, all other matters becoming secondary.
With this in mind if one wishes to understand why Imam Ali (as) did not deem Fadak his priority when taking up power one needs to understand the unique and unusual circumstances that led to him taking office. This was not some simple transition of power. Uthman had been murdered and the people had begged Maula ‘Ali to take helm of the State to prevent matters falling into further anarchy. Imam Ali (as) inherited a Khliafath that had been plagued by corruption and nepotism, that brought riches to the Ummayyads and their supporters at the expense of the ordinary man on the street, which is one of the main reasons why the anti Uthman movement commanded such popularity amongst the masses, a movement that ultimately led to aggrieved parties storming Uthman’s residence and killing him. When the people then turned to Ali (as) and gave him bayya they did so in hope that he would act as a force of good that would overcome the serious inequality and divisions that had been borne out of Uthman’s reign. Imam Ali (as)’s priority once taking office was to address the plague of nepotism and corruption that became a hallmark of the latter part of Uthman’s rule which is why he immediately began dismissing the Ummayad’s from their political positions. His next focus was to quash the efforts of those that were seeking to sow discord in the Ummah, and this was a genuine threat to his leadership since Imam Ali (as) was surrounded by Fitnah all around, no sooner had Talha and Zubayr given bayya that they broke it, joining Ayesha in a movement against the Khalifa, whipping up support and garnering a fighting force that was demanding he handed over the killers of Uthman. Their refusals to abandon their Fitnah lead to the Battle of Jamal. At the same time Mu’awiyah was also taking advantage of the situation, presenting the blood-stained shirt of Uthman, and his wife’s severed fingers throughout Syria he was cooking up a frenzy of agitation towards Imam Ali (as) in Syria that lead to the Battle of Sifeen. The death of Uthman had provided the enemies of Maula Ali (as) with ample opportunity to defame him. If readers inspect Volume 16 of Tabari, they will see that:
• Ayesha was constantly blaming Maula Ali (as) for killing of Uthman.
• Marwan bin Hakam was constantly blaming Mawla Ali (as) for killing of Uthman.
(Note: Even during the time, when Uthman was alive, Marwan was constantly accusing Maula Ali (as) of inciting people against Uthman and rule of Bani Ummayyah)
• Mu’awiyah was continually making propaganda that Ali and Bani Hashim killed Uthman for their personal interests. (Note: Muawiyah even order that Ali to abandon opposition to Uthman during the civil strife in Madina).
Surrounded by opposition / civil strife all round, the slightest action that would have been exploited by his opponents, could create a further challenge to his reign. With such major challenges afoot, would it have been correct to keep such matters in abeyance and instead focus on getting Fadak back, an act that would no doubt have involved physical force? The usurpation of Fadak was indeed a genuine grievance, as land that was the right of Fatima(as) had been annexed but it was ultimately a personal dispute, one that would upon restoration benefit Ali (as) and his children, nobody else. Would it have been correct for Imam Ali (as) to fight for the restoration of Fadak when the more pressing issue of nepotism, corruption and civil disorder was affecting the Ummah as a whole? Imam Ali (as) was already facing unprecedented criticism from those vigilante elements that were accusing him of harboring the killers of Uthman and demanding that he transfer them into their hands, would it have been a wise political decision to get embroiled into a further dispute that would no doubt provide the opportunity for his critics to further attack him by suggesting he cared more about his personal land than bettering people’s lives and seeking justice for Uthman? Did Imam Ali (as) not have enough on his plate already? Why would he want to bring on an additional complication / challenge by fighting for his personal interest against the Ummayyads?
Had Maula Ali (as) taken back Fadak back during this period, the Ummayads would have seized the opportunity to accuse Ali of killing Uthman by inciting the people against him, so as to get attain power and his objective in attaining power was for personal gain, taking land rather than peace. The Banu Umayya were master tacticians in the field of propaganda and they would have pounced on the slightest glimmer of opportunity, getting people to turn on the Khalifa.
Maula ‘Ali (as) was in effect walking on egg shells, and of interest are his words recorded in Umadatul Qari Sharah Sahih Bukhari, Volume 16 page 218:
عن علي رضي الله تعالى عنه قال اقضوا كما كنتم تقضون فإني أكره الأختلاف حتى يكون للناس جماعة أو أموت كما مات أصحابي
Ali (r) said: ‘You shall maintain the type of orders that you had done in the past, because I dislike disagreement, until the people gather under a single group, or I die as my companions died’.
This best explains why Maula Ali (as) failed take remedial action to take back Fadak, his fear of further division, that would only weaken his support base further.
Just like Fadak, Khums was also a legal entitlement that Abu Bakr changed in respect of Sayeda Fatima (sa) and the remainder Banu Hashim during his tenure. We read in Sunan Abu Daud Book 19, Hadith 2972:
حَدَّثَنَا عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عُمَرَ بْنِ مَيْسَرَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ مَهْدِيٍّ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ الْمُبَارَكِ، عَنْ يُونُسَ بْنِ يَزِيدَ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، أَخْبَرَنِي سَعِيدُ بْنُ الْمُسَيَّبِ، أَخْبَرَنِي جُبَيْرُ بْنُ مُطْعِمٍ، أَنَّهُ جَاءَ هُوَ وَعُثْمَانُ بْنُ عَفَّانَ يُكَلِّمَانِ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فِيمَا قَسَمَ مِنَ الْخُمُسِ بَيْنَ بَنِي هَاشِمٍ وَبَنِي الْمُطَّلِبِ فَقُلْتُ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ قَسَمْتَ لإِخْوَانِنَا بَنِي الْمُطَّلِبِ وَلَمْ تُعْطِنَا شَيْئًا وَقَرَابَتُنَا وَقَرَابَتُهُمْ مِنْكَ وَاحِدَةٌ . فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم " إِنَّمَا بَنُو هَاشِمٍ وَبَنُو الْمُطَّلِبِ شَىْءٌ وَاحِدٌ " . قَالَ جُبَيْرٌ وَلَمْ يَقْسِمْ لِبَنِي عَبْدِ شَمْسٍ وَلاَ لِبَنِي نَوْفَلٍ مِنْ ذَلِكَ الْخُمُسِ 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 مَا كَانَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم يُعْطِيهِمْ . قَالَ وَكَانَ عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ يُعْطِيهِمْ مِنْهُ وَعُثْمَانُ
Narrated Jubair b. Mut'im:
That he and 'Uthman b. 'Affan went to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) talking to him about the fifth which he divided among the Banu Hisham and Abu 'Abd al-Muttalib. I said: Messenger of Allah, you have divided (the fifth) among our brethren Banu 'Abd al-Muttalib, but you have not given us anything, though our relationship to you is the same as theirs. The Prophet (ﷺ) said: The Banu Hisham and the Banu 'Abd al-Muttalib are one. Jubair said: He did not divide the fifth among the Banu 'Abd Shams and the Banu Nawfal as he divided among the Banu Hashim and the Banu 'Abd al-Muttalib. He said: Abu Bakr used to divide the fifth like the division of Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) except that he did not give the relatives of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), as he gave them. 'Umar b. al-Khattab and 'Uthman after him used to give them (a portion) from it.
(Graded Sahih by Albani)
When Imam Ali (as) became Khalifa members of the Banu Hashim approached demanding their entitlement to Khums. Imam al-Bayhaqi records this narration:
Muhammad b. Ishaq said and verily it's been narrated to us (al- Bayhaqi) on the authority of J`afar b. Muhammad (ra) from his father (ra) that Hassan (ra), Hussain (ra), Ibn `Abbas and `Abdullah b. J`afar (ra) - may Allah be pleased with them - that they asked `Ali (ra) - for their share of Khums so he (ra) said, 'it is your right but I'm combating Mu`awiya so if you wish neglect your right of Khums (for now)'.
Al Shafe`i la said:
`Abdul `azeez b. Muhammad narrated to me this hadith and said that Muhammad b. Ishaq (the prime narrator of the hadith on the authority of Imam al Baqir ra) spoke the truth, the hadith is like that and it's been transmitted on the authority of J`afar (Imam al Sadiq ra) who has reported it from his forefathers (ra), and J`afar (ra) is much more trustworthy and knowledgeable about the hadith of his father (Imam al Baqir (ra) than ibn Ishaq).
Sunan al-Kubra, Volume 6 page, Book about the share of fay and ghanimah (Kitab qismul fay wa al-ghanimah)
Comment
Whilst Imam Ali (as) did not deny that this was their legal right, he requested that they defer this, as her was amid troubles with Mu’awiya. The situation at that time dictated that Imam Ali (as) focus on the sedition being spread by Mu’awiya that was challenging his rule, rather than deal with monetary matters specific to his tribe. Lest not forget that Imam Ali (as) as the Head of State had control over the state treasury and had the power and ability to unilaterally access these funds and pay the Banu Hashim what was due to them BUT he requested that they withdraw the request pro tempore. Now compare Khums to Fadak, that was NOT in the control of Imam Ali (as), rather his Umayyad enemy and Mu’awiya acolyte Marwan ibn al Hakam had total control over it, would he have voluntarily handed back Fadak to Imam Ali (as) if he had demanded it? Clearly not, it would have in fact led to Umayyad hostility towards Caliph Ali (as) not just in Syria from where Mu’awiya was gathering an army but in Madina also. Imam Ali (as) was reluctant physically wrest back control of Fadak from Marwan despite it being the legal right of offspring for the very reason he was reluctant to give his offspring their legal right to Khums, these matters were not his priority at that time. The total focus for Imam Ali (as) at that time was to focus and prioritise the key challenge for him, quashing the sedition of Mu’awiya.
حَدَّثَنَا عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُوسَى، عَنْ إِسْرَائِيلَ، عَنْ أَبِي إِسْحَاقَ، عَنِ الأَسْوَدِ، قَالَ قَالَ لِي ابْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ كَانَتْ عَائِشَةُ تُسِرُّ إِلَيْكَ كَثِيرًا فَمَا حَدَّثَتْكَ فِي الْكَعْبَةِ قُلْتُ قَالَتْ لِي قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم " يَا عَائِشَةُ، لَوْلاَ قَوْمُكِ حَدِيثٌ عَهْدُهُمْ ـ قَالَ ابْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ بِكُفْرٍ ـ لَنَقَضْتُ الْكَعْبَةَ فَجَعَلْتُ لَهَا بَابَيْنِ باب يَدْخُلُ النَّاسُ، وَبَابٌ يَخْرُجُونَ ". فَفَعَلَهُ ابْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ.
Narrated Aswad:
Ibn Az-Zubair said to me, “Ayesha used to tell you secretly a number of things. What did she tell you about the Ka’ba?” I replied, “She told me that once the Prophet said, ‘O ‘Ayesha! Had not your people been still close to the pre-Islamic period of ignorance (infidelity)! I would have dismantled the Ka’ba and would have made two doors in it; one for entrance and the other for exit.” Later on Ibn Az-Zubair did the same.
Was it incumbent on Rasulullah (s) to re-design the Ka’aba, Yes or No? If it was not then why did Rasulullah (s) say ‘Had not your people been still close to the pre-Islamic period of ignorance (infidelity)! I would have dismantled the Ka’ba and would have made two doors in it’. If it was compulsory, then why did Rasulullah (s) fail to carry out this religious duty on account of his fear of the reaction by the newly converted Sahaba?
The Hadith proves that a fear of Fitnah amongst the people led Rasulullah (s) to abandon an important act. By the same token,Imam Ali(as)also did not take hold of Fadak and return it to his children. Since Fadak was in the hands of usurpers, if he moved to take it back forcefully he would have faced fierce resistance, Fitnah and a major backlash which would have been extremely harmful to the nascent Islamic state and religion. Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) therefore adhered to the Sunnah of Rasulullah and maintained silence on the matter for the sake of the problems he was facing.
In his commentary of the above Hadeeth (destruction of the Ka’aba) Allamah Badr’adeen A’ini in his commentary of Sahih al Bukhari Umdah thul Qari Volume 1 page 615, Bab al Ilm makes an interesting comment:
Ibn Batal said: It is possible to abandon ‘enjoining the good’ if there is a fear of fitna from the people who would deny it.
According to this Sunni principle Hadhrat Ali (as)’s not taking back Fadak was Amr bil Maroof (enjoining the good), and if a good act creates a fear of inciting anger and Fitnah amongst the people leading to chaos in the society then it is permissible to abandon its implementation. Based on the facts, Imam Ali (as) was in a difficult situation when it came to getting back Fadak, he knew that doing so would lead to open hatred and opposition from the followers of the first three Khalifas. It was this fear that led to Imam Ali (as) preferring to adhere to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) and maintain silence.
Allamah Badruddin al-A’ini continues with his commentary of the Ka’aba tradition in Umdat ul Qari, Volume 2 page 204:
“In Allah’s religion, people want to be led in a manner that they are familiar with, however there must be strictness when it comes the obligations (such as prayers, fasting etc)”
Here Al-Aini is trying to say that the people were familiar with a particular appearance of the Kaaba and had Prophet (s) sought to alter its appearance, the newly converted Muslims would have created a hue and cry. By the time Hadhrat Ali (as) came to power the Estate of Fadak had been usurped for 45 years. The initial usurpers had died, but many amongst their subjects had witnessed Fadak as being in the hands of the descendants of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. Imam Ali (as) upon becoming Khalifa had many vigorous opponents to him coming to power and was faced with a difficult situation when it came to dealing with those who had usurped his wife’s land. If he adopted a firm approach and took it back by force then this act would have created widespread Fitnah and opposition. His fear of the nefarious activities of the Banu Umayyad and Ayesha, led him to steer clear of this matter.
had died, but many amongst their subjects had witnessed Fadak as being in the hands of the descendants of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. Imam Ali (as) upon becoming Khalifa had many vigorous opponents to him coming to power and was faced with a difficult situation when it came to dealing with those who had usurped his wife’s land. If he adopted a firm approach and took it back by force then this act would have created widespread Fitnah and opposition. His fear of the nefarious activities of the Banu Umayyad and Ayesha, led him to steer clear of this matter.
Imam Nawawi says in his commentary of this Hadeeth, in his Sharh Muslim Volume 9 page 89:
“This Hadeeth proves principles of Ahkam. When two issues conflict with one another, when a problem that carries benefit conflicts with another carries harm and it is not possible to do the good and abandon the harmful altogether, then one should start with the most important. Rasulullah saw a benefit in reconstructing the Ka’aba and build it as it was during the time of Ibrahim. He (s) also feared Fitnah from the new Muslims, who would glorify the Ka’aba and believed that reconstructing it was some thing horrible, therefore he (s) chose not to reconstruct the Ka’aba”.
Sharah Sahih Muslim, Volume 9 page 89
The restoration of Fadak carried a benefit, but would have created an image that Imam Ali (as) had reclaimed land that had been taken by the earlier Khalifas. He was aware that the current unlawful occupiers would openly resist this and would spread Fitnah throughout the empire, complaining against Imam Ali (as)’s ‘unjust usurpation’ of the land that had been given to them by the third Khalifa. The owners at that time were sworn enemies of Hadhrat ‘Ali (as). Had Imam Ali (as) forcefully claimed back Fadak at that critical time it would have created a very negative image, and would have been mere fodder for the propaganda machine that was the Banu Umayyads. Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) therefore preferred silence on this matter.
We read in Mirqat:
مروان أي في زمن عثمان رضي الله تعالى عنهم والمعنى جعلها قطيعة لنفسه وتوابعه والقطيعة الطائفة من أرض الخراج يقطعها السلطان من يريد ومروان هو مروان بن الحكم جد عمر بن عبد العزيز ۔۔۔
“Then Marwan during Uthman’s time made it his personal property and his retinue, the ruler has the right to grant piece of land to whoever he wants and Marwan is Marwan ibn al-Hakam the grand father of Umar bin Abdulaziz, he was born during Allah’s messenger time but he didn’t see the prophet, because the prophet had exiled his father to Taeif and he remained there till Uthman became the ruler, hence he (Uthman) brought him (al-Hakam) back to Madina with his son (Marwan), after that Fadak was transferred to Umar bin Abdulaziz”
Mirqat Sharh Mishkat, Volume 12 page 317
We read in Al-Aqd al-Farid, Volume 2 page 87:
“He (Uthman) granted Fadak to Marwan”
While talking about Fadak, Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti records in Tarikh Khulafa, Volume 1 page 95:
“It was so during Abu Bakr and Umar’s time, then he (Uthman) granted it to Marwan and then it transferred to Umar bin Abdulaziz”
By granting the entire estate of Fadak to one man Uthman Ibn Affan contradicted the practises of the Shaykhayn. Hadhrat ‘Ali was faced with the land being in the possession of Marwan, who was his arch enemy in the same way that Iblis was an arch enemy of Hadhrat Adam (as). Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) was therefore faced with a difficult situation. Marwan would have argued that Fadak had been bestowed upon him and if anyone had usurped the land it was the early Khalifas, and he deemed them to be rightful Khalifas, who would have decides matters pursuant to Islamic Shari’ah, he would have then argued:
you have become Khalifa and are committing an injustice towards me, if you are with the truth you should maintain silence as you had done so in the past.
Marwan knew Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) would never wrest Fadak from him.
It is indeed incredible that our opponents are fond of questioning why the all powerful Khalifa ‘Ali (as) never used force to take his rights back, but fail to ask why Uthman the Khalifa failed to use force to defend his right of Khilafath! After all Nasibis claim that none of the inhabitants of Madina or the surrounding areas rebelled against Uthman, rather it was the evil Sabaites from Egypt, who were responsible for starting the agitation, laying siege to Uthman’s residence for forty days and finally killing him. We often quiz our accusers as to ‘why the residents to Madina failed to defend Uthman?’ The reply of great debaters like Ansar.org is that Uthman didn’t want bloodshed in Madina, so he didn’t ask people to fight against the rebels.
Curiously when we argue that Maula Ali (as) didn’t fight Marwan and the Bani Umayyads to restore Fadak, so as to prevent bloodshed, they reject such an assertion. This clearly shows double standards of the Nawasib.
Had Maula Ali (as) taken Fadak back at that time, his opponents would have seized the opportunity to propagate that it was Ali himself who assisted in killing of Uthman, so as to ultimately take Fadak. The same had already shamelessly blamed Muhammad bin Abi Bakr, Ammar Yasir and Malik bin Ashtar for the killing of Uthman.Imam Ali (as) taking Fadak back would have been the perfect excuse for them to add his name to the ‘Killer List’.
When Ayesha, Marwan, Talha, Zubayr and Mu’awiya were recruiting people in their armies against Ali (as) for the accusation that he was hiding the killers of Uthman, taking Fadak back would have been the perfect opportunity to paint him as the mastermind who wanted Uthman killed so as to attain Fadak.
We read in Tareekh Khamees, Volume 1 page 273 Hijrat Zaynab:
“Ayesha narrates that Islam had caused a separation between Zaynab and Abi al-Aas but Rasulullah (s) was in such a desperate situation that he was unable to separate them in Makka”
We read in Sirah Ibn Hisham:
وكان رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم لا يحل بمكة ولا يحرم مغلوبا على أمره وكان الإسلام قد فرق بين ۔۔۔
“Rasulullah (s) was in a difficult situation in Makka, he was unable to make something Halal or Haram and when Zaynab became Muslim this caused a separation with her husband Abi al-Aas bin al-Rabeh. Despite this, Rasulullah (s) due to difficulties was unable to separate Zaynab from Abi al-Aas. Zaynab despite embracing Islam remained with the Kaafir; he remained a polytheist at the time that Rasulullah (s) migrated”.
Sirah Ibn Hisham, Volume 3 page 202
Zaynab according to Ahl’ul Sunnah was the daughter of Rasulullah (s) and al Bidayah wa al Nihaya Volume 3 page 332, states that she embraced Islam at the time of the first revelation. Her husband Abi al Aas remained a Kaafir, and he embraced Islam after the battle of Badr. According to Ayesha, Zaynab’s embracing Islam caused a rift between husband and wife, but for Rasulullah (s) the situation in Makka made him so desperate that he was unable to physically take his daughter away from the clutches of the Mushrikeen, even though he had the power to create a crack in the moon. Let us not forget that by his side was Umar Ibn al Farooq who Ahl’ul Sunnah acclaim as powerful, brave, and tough against the Kuffar.We would like to know of what use was his power and strength in Makka when instead of taking immediate remedial action Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman all remained silent. If these three were indeed Rasulullah’s closest friends then why did they not fight and risk their lives so as to ensure that Zaynab was retuned to Rasulullah (s)? It is indeed sad that all these virtues were present and yet Abu Bakr’s kindness, Umar’s firmness against the Kuffar and Uthman’s shyness were of no use here.
We appeal to justice, the Fadak dispute concerned worldly possession, whilst Zaynab was a human being; there is a world of difference between the two. If Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman were indeed the closest friends of Rasulullah (s), then why do the sources portray Rasulullah (s) as so desperate in Makka? If Rasulullah (s) was unable to claim his daughter back from the clutches of her Kaafir husband, then Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) was not superior to Rasulullah (s).If he was in difficulty following the reigns of the first three Khalifas who made it impossible for him to claim back Fadak from the usurpers, then no objections should be raised, since the Ahl’ul Sunnah have portrayed Rasulullah (s) in such a desperate manner, that discussing the matter causes immense shame.
We read in Ahl’ul Sunnah’s esteemed work al-Istiab, Volume 1 page 147, the letter ‘ra’, Dhikr Rafa bin Raafi’e:
لما خرج طلحة والزبير كتبت أم الفضل بنت الحارث إلى على بخروجهم، فقال علي ۔۔۔
“When Talha and Zubayr rebelled against Ali, Um al-Fadhl bin al-Harith wrote to Ali informing him about their rebellion, he (Ali) said: ‘This is a astonishing from Talha and Zubayr. When Allah (swt) brought his Prophet back to Him and we said ‘We are his (prophet) family and guardians, no one disputes us in his authority (leadership)’ our people rejected us and made others as their leaders. By Allah! Had it not been a fear of dissension and a return to apostasy, and my fear of the destruction of the religion, we would have changed things, but we maintained silence”.
Al-Istiab, Volume 1 page 147
Khilafat and Fadak were both the rights of the Ahl’ul bayt (as); both had been usurped. Just as fear of disputes and return to Jahiliyya prevented Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) from claiming his right of Khilafat back, the same applied to the Fadak dispute.
The Prophet (s) had during his lifetime foretold Imam Ali (as) that the Ummah would oppose betray him and urged him to pursue peace when faced with this challenge. In this regards we will present we read in Majmau' al-Zawa'id wa Manba' al-Fawa'id by Ali ibn Abu Bakr al-Haythami (d. 807 hijri).
وَعَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ -:
« إِنَّهُ سَيَكُونُ بَعْدِي اخْتِلَافٌ وَأَمْرٌ، فَإِنِ اسْتَطَعْتَ أَنْ تَكُونَ السِّلْمَ فَافْعَلْ ».
رَوَاهُ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ، وَرِجَالُهُ ثِقَاتٌ.
Ali (ra) narrates that the Prophet (s) said soon after me disputes and problems shall arise. Verily if this arises and you can pursue the path of peace, then do so.
Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī [died 852 A.H.] in al-Matalib al-`Aliya bi Zawa'id al-Masanid al-Thamaniya:
حدثنا حَبِيبٍ عَنْ ثَعْلَبَةَ بْنِ يَزِيدَ الْحِمَّانِيِّ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ عَلِيًّا رَضِيَ الله عَنْه يَقُولُ عَلَى الْمِنْبَرِ:
« وَاللَّهِ إِنَّهُ لَعَهْدُ النَّبِيِّ الْأُمِّيِّ: " إِنَّ هَذِهِ الْأُمَّةَ سَتَغْدِرُ بِي ».
"Ali (ra) said from the pulpit, By Allah (swt) the unlettered Prophet (s) gave a promise that this ummah shall quickly betray me"
Muhammad ibn Abd-Allah al-Hakim al-Nishapuri (died 430 Hijri) records in his work Al-Mustadrak `alâ al-Sahîhayn:
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو حَفْصٍ عُمَرُ بْنُ أَحْمَدَ الْجُمَحِيُّ، بِمَكَّةَ، ثنا عَلِيُّ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ، ثنا عَمْرُو بْنُ عَوْنٍ، ثنا هُشَيْمٌ، عَنْ إِسْمَاعِيلَ بْنِ سَالِمٍ، عَنْ أَبِي إِدْرِيسَ الْأَوْدِيِّ، عَنْ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قَالَ:
« إِنَّ مِمَّا عَهِدَ إِلَيَّ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: أَنَّ الْأُمَّةَ سَتَغْدِرُ بِي بَعْدَهُ »
هَذَا حَدِيثٌ صَحِيحُ الْإِسْنَادِ، وَلَمْ يُخَرِّجَاهُ
Ali (ra) said verily the unlettered Prophet (s) took a promise from me that this ummah shall quickly betray me
(Source: Hakim Nishapuri graded this as Sahih as did Dhahabi in Talkhis al-Mustadrak)
As we have already proven when Imam Ali (as) was the Khalifa, Fadak was in the hands of his enemy Marwan. It was Marwan’s duty to return the land back of which he had no intention. Marwan was a trickster, and a master in stirring dissension, the rich source of the Fadak land, served as a major financial benefit to him. Had Imam Ali (as) moved to forcefully take back Fadak it would have no doubt led to the death of his opponents that would have in turn constituted a breach of the promise that he (as) made to Rasulullah (s).Hadhrat Ali (as) honoured his promise with Rasulullah (s) and adopted patience, his stance in no way means that he deemed the Khilafat of the three Khalifas to be rightful, neither does it prove that Imam Ali (as) deemed Abu Bakr’s usurpation of Fadak to be correct
We read in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Hadeeth Number 428: Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:
We were in a Ghazwa (Sufyan once said, in an army) and a man from the emigrants kicked an Ansari man (on the buttocks with his foot). The Ansari man said, “O the Ansar! (Help!)” and the emigrant said. “O the emigrants! (Help!) Allah’s Apostle heard that and said, “What is this call for, which is characteristic of the period of ignorance?” They said, “O Allah’s Apostle! A man from the emigrants kicked one of the Ansar (on the buttocks with his foot).” Allah’s Apostle said, “Leave it (that call) as is a detestable thing.” ‘Abdullah bin Ubai heard that and said, ‘Have the (the emigrants) done so? By Allah, if we return Medina, surely, the more honourable will expel there from the meaner.” When this statement reached the Prophet. ‘Umar got up and, said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Let me chop off the head of this hypocrite (‘Abdullah bin Ubai)!” The Prophet said “Leave him, lest the people say that Muhammad kills his companions.” The Ansar were then more in number than the emigrants when the latter came to Medina, but later on the emigrant increased.
The reference makes it clear that a hypocrite was sitting in the midst of the Sahaba, Umar offered to have him killed, but the Prophet (s) refused stating that he did not want outsiders to think that Rasulullah (s) kills his Sahaba. On the same principle Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) did not force Marwan to return Fadak to him, already facing direct civil strife, he simply did not want to partake in any action that would be used as propaganda by the Ummayads. Had he done so opposition would have led to resistance and bloodshed, and people would have said ‘Ali the Khalifa is killing his subjects for worldly benefits’. Ali (as) maintained silence for the same reason that the Prophet (s) did. Maula Ali (as) was keen to avoid taking forceful steps to reacquire Fadak, as he was fearful over the manner in which his loquacious Ummayad opponents would highlight his stance. This fear was a genuine one, we after all see how today’s pro Ummayad Salafi Shaykh Ibrahim al-Jabhan who in his work Tabdeed al-Dhalam pages 131 & 132 unashamedly attacks the reign of Ali (as) stating:
هذا علي رضي الله عنه تولى الخلافة ومكث فيها خمسة أعوام أو تزيد فهل أكل الناس في عهده وشربوا إلا دماء الأبرياء وعرق الضعفاء ودموع الثكالى واليتامى والبؤساء
”This is Ali (ra), he ruled for five years or more and the people during his reign didn’t eat or drink other than the blood of innocent people, the sweat of weak people, and the tears of women, orphans and poor people.”
If this Shaykh de jour is prepared to attack the reign of Ali (as), to the point that he even inferred his culpability in the murder of “innocent people”, rather than attack those seditious elements whose activities led to the battles of Jamal, Siffeen and Naharwan, can one imagine what he would have written of Ali (as) had he sought to forcefully wrest Fadak from Marwan, that would have undoubtedly raised the scepter of bloodshed between the Hashemites and Ummayyads? If Imam Ali (as) chose to leave the issue of Fadak, fearing what the people might say, then he did so as he was adhering to the Sunnah of the Prophet (s). In the same he (s) refrained from taking action against a blasphemer so as to avoid criticisms from outside observers, Maula Ali (as) likewise during his reign refrained from taking steps to get Fadak back under his control, fearing how such an action, during a period of civil unrest would be viewed by onlookers.
We read in Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English version, Volume 9, p212: {Between Traditions 9.281 and 9.282}:
(21) CHAPTER. If a judge has to testify in favour of a litigant when he is a judge or he testifyied for him before he became a judge (can he pass a judgment in his favour accordingly or should he refer the case to another judge before whom he would bear witness?). And the judge Shurayh said to a person who sought his witness, “Go to the ruler so that I may bear witness (before him) for you.” And ‘Ikrima said, “Umar said to ‘Abdur-Rahman bin ‘Auf, ‘If I saw a man committing illegal sexual intercourse or theft, and you were the ruler (what would you do)?. ‘Abdur-Rahman said, ‘I would regard your witness as equal to the witness of any other man among the Muslims. ‘Umar said, ‘You have said the truth.’ ‘Umar added: If I were not afraid of the fact that people may say that ‘Umar has added to the Qur’an extra (verses), I would have written the Verse al-Rajm (stoning to death of married adulterers) with my own hands.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9 pages 213-213
Interestingly we read the following words of Sunni Scholar Abu Bakar Razi recorded by Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti in Al Itqan (Urdu), Volume 2, page 67:
“About the statement of Umar i.e “If I were not afraid of the fact that people may say that ‘Umar has added to the Qur’an extra verses, I would have written the Verse al-Rajm with my own hands” Abu Bakar Razi has written in his book ‘Al Burhan’: ‘The literal words of this statement prove that it is permissible [Jaiz] to write down those words in the Quran, and it was the fear of people which stopped Umar from this writing this in the Mushaf and sometimes it happens that obstacles appear between permissible things and since the writing the verse of stoning was permissible hence it is obvious that its recitation is also proven.”
We appeal to justice, if Imam ‘Ali (as)’s abstaining from taking back Fadak from Marwan was due to the difficult situation in which he had found himself in, namely that he feared the stead of Fitnah, then this is no different to the position that had been adopted by Umar Ibn al Khattab, who through the fear of Fitnah chose not to add a verse of Rajm into the Qur’an. If this fear, does not alter Ahl’ul Sunnah’s portrayal of Umar as a firm, strong Sahaba, then Imam ‘Ali (as)’s not taking back Fadak also does not alter his position as a brave warrior.
We read in al Istiab Volume 3 pages 316 & 317, Dhikr A’ini bin Hasan:
“On one occasion Aineea entered the home of Rasulullah (s) without seeking permission. Rasulullah (s) asked why he failed to ask for permission, he replied ‘Master I have never sought permission from anyone from the Hazr tribe’. At the time Ayesha was sitting next to Rasulullah (s), and the Chief of Bedouins asked ‘Who is this red faced women?’ He (s) replied ‘This is my wife Ayesha’. The Bedouin said ‘Master if you allow me I shall give you a more beautiful woman in exchange for her’. Ayesha asked ‘Who is this disgraceful person?’ Rasulullah (s) said ‘As you see, he is the Chief of his tribe’.
Al-Istiab, Vol. 3, Pages 316 & 317
If a man enters your home without permission and offers to exchange your red cheeked wife with another, and you have no response to such behaviour, then only two conclusions can be reached:
You are either:
A shameless person, devoid of any sense of dignity or honour.
OR:
You have maintained silence in response to the difficult situation that you find yourself in.
Applying this to the facts, Rasulullah’s failure to address a man’s entering his home without prior permission and his subsequent insult of Ayesha was not because he (s) had no dignity (astaghfirullah) rather he remained silent on account of the situation he was confronted with.
By the time Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) became Khalifa, he had witnessed Abu Bakr usurp Fadak belonging to his wife. If Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) failed to take back Fadak during his rule it was due to the difficult situation facing him.Had he taken it Marwan would have incited dissension throughout the Ummah. Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) did not alter the situation as he knew that any manoeuvring on his part would serve as propaganda fodder for his opponents, that would in turn lead to mass Fitnah. Imam Ali (as) therefore adopted silence in exactly the same manner that Rasulullah (s) had done. Let us not forget that according to the Ahl’ul Sunnah, Ayesha was the most beloved wife of Rasulullah (s), and Angels delivered a photo of Ayesha to him (s) prior to marriage [Sahih al Bukhari]. The Bedouins comments, namely his attempted exchange for this beloved wife was a major insult, and Rasulullah’ silence to this was definitely due to some hidden reason or foreseen problems.
The author of Fedak advances this claim:
If there had been such a will and Hadhrat Ali (Karramallah wajhu) had known about it, it would have been necessary and permissible for him to fulfill it during his khilafat. However, he followed the example of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (Radhi Allahu ta’ala Anhu) and dealt the property out to poor, destitute and stranded people. If it should be maintained that he dealt out his share, then why did he deprive the Sahibayn wa Syedayn, al-Imam al-Hasan and al-Imam al-Husayn Radhi Allahu Ta’ala Anhuma of the property they were to inherit from their blessed mother (may millions of Salaams be upon her)?
Ibn al Hashimi states:
The Shia accusations against Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) are baseless, since he was following orders from Prophet Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) and this decision was upheld by Ali (رضّى الله عنه). If the Shia want to lay blame on Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) for using Fadak as a charitable property, then the Shia should also accuse Ali (رضّى الله عنه) since he did the same thing during his Caliphate.
Hadhrat Ali (as) did not take control of the property in his reign. We challenge this Nasibi to show us which authentic Sunni source confirms that he followed the Sunnah of Abu Bakr with regards to its distribution. The property had been given to Marwan by the Khalifa Uthman and he did NOT take it back. This is one of the main arguments that Ahl’ul Sunnah use against us, namely he left it as it was, whilst this author claims he took control of the land and then distributed it among the poor and needy from it!
There’s a world of difference between the approach taken by Abu Bakr and ‘Ali (as). Abu Bakr usurped land that was in the lawful possession of somebody else, whereas Maula ‘Ali (as) despite his being the Head of State did not exercise force to reclaim this land. The difference between these two approaches is like comparing night to day.
Ibn al Hashimi states:
In any case, if Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was a brave and courageous man, then he should have done what is right and restored the land to its rightful owners. The cowardly image of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) that the Shia portray–of a man who cannot stand up for what he thinks is right–is offensive to the Ahlus Sunnah. The Shia believe that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) could make all the atoms of the earth submit to him, so surely he should have used some of this supernatural power to do what is right.
Those that uphold and praise violence to attain power through methods such as suicide bombing in market places that kill and maim innocent men, women and children would indeed interpret the stance of Imam Ali (as) as that of a coward. What they don’t appreciate is being a leader doesn’t just involve using your muscle to intimidate and brow beat your opponents! The intelligent leader knows when to use force and when not to. If Imam Ali (as) desisted from violently claiming back Fadak it was on account of him assessing the situation around him and deciding upon the best option. Is that not what any good leader should do? Is the use of force the best option in all circumstances? Why should Imam Ali (as)’s decision to avoid Fitnah and turmoil from the Banu Ummaya by forcefully taking back Fadak be deemed cowardly? Does Ibn al Hashimi really believe that Marwan a chief Fitnah monger would have just restored Fadak to Imam Ali (as) without galvanising clan support and putting up a fight? Would it have been brave if Imam Ali (as) had used force and in consequence hordes of Banu Ummaya Nawasib from Madina came out and shed the blood of the supporters of Imam Ali (as)? When The Islamic State had just (whether rightly or wrongly) rid itself of a corrupt Khalifa whose nepotism made the Banu Ummayads and their supporters rich aristocrats, at the expense of all others (who were living on or below the poverty line), what was the priority for Imam Ali (as)? Was it to use his legendary bravery and get back the legal estate of his wife, or was it to meet the needs of his poor down trodden subjects that had suffered so immensely during the reign of the third Khalifa? Imam Ali (as) was not just the greatest Islamic warrior, he was also the greatest amongst the Sahaba in wisdom. If Imam Ali (as) through his immense wisdom felt that the best option was to keep his sword sheathed in the matter of Fadak, since raising it could risk turmoil, why should that be deemed cowardice? These Salafis will never understand that resorting to violence to get your way is not always the correct approach. Ibn al Hashimi needs to stop watching cowboy films and take a reality check! Violence begets violence, and if a Leaders patience is prioritised over force that should not automatically be rendered cowardice on the part of a Leader.
This shameless Nasibi did not even consider the fact that Allah (swt) has given man free choice, and not forced him to believe in His (swt) Deen. He (swt) ordered his Prophets and their executors to lead normal lives and not utilise the supernatural powers that He (swt) bestowed on them, as a mechanism for improving their lives. That is why they were sometimes in power, whilst at other times they were oppressed. Whilst Allah (swt) could have no doubt aided his Prophets via miracles, to overcome and destroy their enemies, He (swt) said to the greatest of Creations:
Thou art not one to manage (men’s) affairs.
Al-Qur’an, Surah 88, Ayah 22, translated by Yusufali
Along the same lines, Allah (swt) says:
The worshippers of false gods say: “If Allah had so willed, we should not have worshipped aught but Him – neither we nor our fathers,- nor should we have prescribed prohibitions other than His.” So did those who went before them. But what is the mission of messengers but to preach the Clear Message?
Al-Qur’an, Surah 16, Ayah 35, translated by Yusufali
That is why the objection of Ibn al Hashimi (as) to why Imam Ali (as) didn’t utilise his ’supernatural power’ is so false, since exactly the same questions could be asked of the Prophets and their executors, who were overpowered by infidels and hypocrites, and yet Allah (swt) did not instruct them to allay their difficulties by utilising miracles. Is it not an accepted fact that previous Prophets were killed, and their executors were persecuted? Prophet Sulayman (as) was the Wasi of his father, the powerful Dawood (as), yet after his death, his strong kingdom was snatched, even though Sulayman (as) had amongst his loyal followers Asif, who the Quran attests possessed a partial knowledge of the Book with which he was able to move the throne of Bilks within the blinking of an eye! How was such a powerful supporter of Sulayman (as) incapable of using his ‘supernatural power’ to prevent the downfall of the Kingdom of his Master (as)? Along the same lines, Imam Ali (as) who possessed a complete knowledge of the book, did indeed have far greater supernatural powers than moving a throne within the blinking of an eye, had he supplicated against the usurpers of Fadak they would have been destroyed, but he was ordered to maintain patience in the face of injustice, as were the past divine orders given to Prophets and their executors.