10. Sunni Answers to Shiapen’s article on Fadak and inheritance of Prophet(saw) – “Chapter Ten”


This is our refutation of infamous Shiawebsite “Shiapen.com” which was formerly known as Answering-Ansar.org; the name of this website was changed because the lies and deception of it were exposed to such an extent that, they had to revise its stuff and come up with a new name. This article is a refutation to Shiapen’s article “Fadak: Chapter Ten: Refuting the defences of Abu Bakr’s advocates”.

Argument 1:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

In this chapter we will inshallah debase the defences that Abu Bakr’s advocates have advanced (in relation to Fadak) on the internet.

Defence One – Ibn Taymiyah’s false claim that the Hadeeth ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we leave is Sadaqah’ is Muttawatir

The Nawasib have been touting an alleged debate between a Shi’a scholar and their great Nasibi Imam Ibn Taymiyah wherein he gave earth shattering replies to the Shi’a scholar. Whilst the entire debate is about as reliable as the story of Peter Pan, allow us to refute the alleged comments of Ibn Taymiyah (that he also asserted in Minhaj al Sunnah) on this issue of Fadak. We have taken this debate from this website:

Ibn Taymiyya: Your statement that this was “a narration which he alone transmitted” is a lie. On the contrary, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Talha, Az-Zubair, Abdur-Rahman bin Auf, Al-Abbas, the wives of the Prophet and Abu Huraira narrated this in addition to Abu Bakr. Furthermore, your statement that “he wanted it for himself” is a lie. Abu Bakr did not claim it for himself, rather it was sadaqa for those who deserve it. Also, the sahaba were convinced, and Ali was one of them, that the Prophet is not inherited.

Reply One – The tradition does not have multiple chains

Since Nawasib such as Ibn Taymiyah have asserted that the Hadeeth has multiple narrators from amongst the Sahaba then we challenge these defenders of Abu Bakr to present us with even a single chain (other than that from Ayesha and Abu Bakr) from the Saha Sittah, where the Isnad is complete and all the narrators are Thiqah confirming this.

[End Quote]

Answer:

The statement of Imam Ahmed Ibn Taymiyyah about the hadeeth being Mutawattir is regarding an unusual form of Tawattur, because Ibn Taymiyyah wasn’t talking about tawattur in all the tabaqat, he was talking about tawattur amongst the sahaba. What he did was that, he referred to one hadeeth, the one in which Abbas and Ali approach Umar, and there were some other prominent Sahaba(ra) like Uthman, `Abdur-Rahman bin awf, Az- Zubair and Sa`d bin abi waqqas present; Umar asked them, “don’t you know that the messenger of Allah (saw) said:” We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity”? They said: Yes”. There were seven prominent Sahaba in this hadeeth including Umar, who acknowledge it to be a hadeeth of Prophet(saw).

Hence Ibn Taymiyyah is not quoting several different chains; Ibn taymiyyah is quoting one hadeeth in which many sahaba, affirmed it to be saying of Prophet(saw), So its mutawattir amongst Sahaba. It’s not that Ibn Taymiyyah is talking about ten different chains, rather its one hadeeth. And ibn taymiyyah is not implying its mutawattir on all the tabaqaat, he is saying this hadeeth implies tawattur, because many Sahaba acknowledge it to be hadeeth of Prophet(saw).

In the same manner, there were some other scholars too, who declared this hadeeth to be Mutawattir:

(i). Al-Kattani in “Nazmul mutanaseera min al hadeethal mutawateera” (272) wrote:

272- ‏(‏لا نورث ما تركنا صدقة‏)‏‏.‏

– أورده في الأزهار من حديث ‏(‏1‏)‏ عمر ‏(‏2‏)‏ وعثمان ‏(‏3‏)‏ وعلي ‏(‏4‏)‏ وسعد بن أبي وقاص ‏(‏5‏)‏ والعباس ‏(‏6‏)‏ وأبي بكر الصديق ‏(‏7‏)‏ وعبد الرحمان بن عوف ‏(‏8‏)‏ والزبير بن العوام ‏(‏9‏)‏ وأبي هريرة ‏(‏10‏)‏ وعائشة ‏(‏11‏)‏ وطلحة ‏(‏12‏)‏ وحذيفة ‏(‏13‏)‏ وابن عباس ثلاثة عشر نفساً قال فقد رواه من العشرة المشهود لهم بالجنة ثمانية نظير حديث من كذب علي اهـ‏.‏

‏(‏قلت‏)‏ لكن حديث من كذب تقدم أنه رواه العشرة كلهم ثم هذا الحديث قال الحافظ ابن حجر أيضاً في أماليه أنه حديث صحيح متواتر‏.‏

(محمد بن جعفر بن إدريس الكتاني الحسني الفاسي; كتاب: نظم المتناثر من الحديث المتواتر)

“Narration that no one inherits from prophets, everything that they leave behind is for charity”, Suyooti in “Azhar” reported it via:
1) Umar.
2) Uthmaan.
3) Ali.
4) Sad ibn Abi Vaqas
5) Abbas.
6) Abu Bakr.
7) Abdurrahman ibn Auf.
8. Zubayr ibn Awam.
9) Abu Hurayra.
10) Aisha
11) Talha
12) Huzayfa.
13) ibn Abbas.
13 sahaba in total 8 from “Ashara mubashara” reported this narration. So this hadeeth is close to the hadeeth “Who will lie upon me
….
Hafiz Ibn Hajar in “Amaliya Muhraja ala muhtasaru ibnul Hajeeb al Asli” said: “This narration, is authetic and mutawateer”.

(ii). Imam Jalal ad-deen as-Suyote in “al-Azhar al-mutanasera minal hadith al-mutawatera” said:

“Hadith #100: We are not to be inherited, whatever we left is for charity”.

1) Shaykhan narrated it from Umar, Uthman, Ali, Sad ibn Abu Waqqas, Al-Abbas.

2) Moslem narrated it from Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, Aburrahman ibn Auf, Zubayr ibn Awwam, Abu Hurayra.

3) Abu Dawud narrated from Aisha.

4) Nasai from Talha.

5) Tabarani from Huzayfa and ibn Abbas”.

(Source: “al-Azhar al-mutanasera minal hadith al-mutawatera” p 273, #100, makabatul Islami.)

(iii). Imam Abu Eisa Tirmidhi said:

قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى وَفِي الْبَابِ عَنْ عُمَرَ وَطَلْحَةَ وَالزُّبَيْرِ وَعَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ عَوْفٍ وَسَعْدٍ وَعَائِشَةَ

There are narrations on this topic from ‘Umar, Talhah, Az-Zubair, ‘Abdur-Rahman bin ‘Awf, Sa’d and ‘Aishah.( Jami` at-Tirmidhi #1608)

Sahaba other than Abubakr(ra), who narrated this hadeeth:

As for the claim of Shiapen to present this hadeeth from other Sahaba(ra) along with their chains, then here are the examples:

(i). From Abu Hurairah(ra) in Sahih Muslim:

Yunus -> al-Zuhri -> al-A`raj -> abu Hurayrah / TEXT: “We offer no inheritance, all we leave behind is charity.”

وَحَدَّثَنِي ابْنُ أَبِي خَلَفٍ، حَدَّثَنَا زَكَرِيَّاءُ بْنُ عَدِيٍّ، أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ الْمُبَارَكِ، عَنْ يُونُسَ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنِ الأَعْرَجِ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ “‏ لاَ نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ ‏”‏ ‏.‏

(ii). From Umar(ra) in Jami` at-Tirmidhi and Musnad Ahmed:

Ali bin esa – Abdul Wahab bin Ata – Muhammad bin Amr – Abu Salma – Abu Huraira – Umar

حَدَّثَنَا بِذَلِكَ، عَلِيُّ بْنُ عِيسَى الْبَغْدَادِيُّ قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْوَهَّابِ بْنُ عَطَاءٍ، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَمْرٍو، عَنْ أَبِي سَلَمَةَ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، أَنَّ فَاطِمَةَ، جَاءَتْ أَبَا بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ رضى الله عنهما تَسْأَلُ مِيرَاثَهَا مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالاَ سَمِعْنَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ ‏ “‏ إِنِّي لاَ أُورَثُ ‏”‏

Fatimah came to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar may Allah be pleased with them both, to ask them about her inheritance from the Messenger of Allah(saw). They said: “We heard the Messenger of Allah(saw) say: ‘I am not inherited from.'”( Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1609)

This report is even present in Musnad Ahmed.

Abdul Wahab bin Ata – Muhammad bin Amr – Abu Salma – Abu Huraira – Umar
حدثنا ‏ ‏عبد الوهاب بن عطاء ‏ ‏قال أخبرنا ‏ ‏محمد بن عمرو ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أبي سلمة ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أبي هريرة ‏
‏أن ‏ ‏فاطمة ‏ ‏رضي الله عنها ‏ ‏جاءت ‏ ‏أبا بكر ‏ ‏وعمر ‏ ‏رضي الله عنهما ‏ ‏تطلب ميراثها من رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏فقالا إنا سمعنا رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏يقول ‏ ‏إني لا أورث

‘Fatima came to Abu Bakr and Umar to ask them about her inheritance from the Messenger of Allah (saws). They said: “We heard the Messenger of Allah (saws) say: ‘I am not inherited from.’”(Musnad Ahmad #8435).

(iii). From Hudhayfah(ra) in AL-BAZZAR:

Al-Nadir bin Tahir -> Fudayl bin Sulayman -> abu Malik al-Ashja`i -> Rib`ee -> Hudhayfah / TEXT: “We offer no inheritance, all we leave is charity.”

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو كَامِلٍ، وَالنَّضْرُ بْنُ طَاهِرٍ، قَالا: أَخْبَرَنَا الْفُضَيْلُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ،قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو مَالِكٍ، عَنْ رِبْعِيٍّ، عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ: ” لا نُوَرَّثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ “، هَذَا الْكَلامُ لا نَعْلَمُ يُرْوَى عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ إِلا مِنْ هَذَا الْوَجْهِ، وَلا رَوَاهُ عَنْ أَبِي مَالِكٍ إِلا الْفُضَيْلُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ

(iv). From Aishah(ra) in Sahih Bukhari.

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مَسْلَمَةَ، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ عُرْوَةَ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ ـ رضى الله عنها أَنَّ أَزْوَاجَ، النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم حِينَ تُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَرَدْنَ أَنْ يَبْعَثْنَ عُثْمَانَ إِلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ يَسْأَلْنَهُ مِيرَاثَهُنَّ‏.‏ فَقَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ أَلَيْسَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ “‏ لاَ نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ

`Aisha said, “When Allah’s Messenger(saw) died, his wives intended to send `Uthman to Abu Bakr asking him for their share of the inheritance.” Then `Aisha said to them, “Didn’t Allah’s Messenger(saw) say, ‘Our (Apostles’) property is not to be inherited, and whatever we leave is to be spent in charity?'(Sahih Bukhari Vol. 8, Book 80, Hadith 722)

Moreover, one point needs clarification, since Shiapen demanded the ahadeeth from Sihah Sitta. It is a misconception that authentic report can only be found in Sihah Sitta, whereas in reality being being from Sihah sitta isn’t even a condition for authenticity of a Hadith.

 

Argument 2:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Reply Two – Umar did not testify that he heard this Hadeeth from the Prophet (s)

There is no evidence of chains going back to these individuals. What Ibn Taymiyya is seeking to infer to is this narration in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 92, Number 408:

Narrated Malik bin Aus An-Nasri:
I proceeded till I entered upon ‘Umar (and while I was sitting there), his gate-keeper Yarfa came to him and said, ” ‘Uthman, ‘Abdur-Rahman, Az-Zubair and Sa’d ask your permission to come in.” ‘Umar allowed them. So they entered, greeted, and sat down. (After a while the gatekeeper came) and said, “Shall I admit ‘Ali and ‘Abbas?” ‘Umar allowed them to enter. Al-’Abbas said “O Chief of the believers! Judge between me and the oppressor (‘Ali).” Then there was a dispute (regarding the property of Bani Nadir) between them (‘Abbas and ‘Ali). ‘Uthman and his companions said, “O Chief of the Believers! Judge between them and relieve one from the other.” Umar said, “Be patient! beseech you by Allah, with Whose permission the Heaven and the Earth Exist! Do you know that Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Our property is not to be inherited, and whatever we leave is to be given in charity,’ and by this Allah’s Apostle meant himself?” On that the group said, “He verily said so.”

It is interesting that Ibn Taymiyya is seeking to dupe his followers into believing that he transmitted this Hadeeth from the Prophet (s) when the reality is he had no knowledge of it, rather he enquired from those Sahaba present if they were aware of this Hadeeth. He asked the group ‘Do you know that Allah’s Apostle said’ – had he been a direct transmitter there would have been no need for Umar to questions the group in such a question, rather he would have confidently stated I heard the Prophet (s) say’ Our property is not to be inherited, and whatever we leave is to be given in charity’ did you also hear him say this? The very fact that Umar asked this group of this Hadeeth proves that he was no an eye witness to the Prophet (s) ever saying this.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Again Shiapen came up with a foolish argument; the selection of words by a person depends on the scenario and situation. Umar(ra) wasn’t narrating a hadeeth to educate people, rather he was to judge between Abbas and Ali, who disputed. Hence according to the situation, Umar(ra) asked a confirmatory question, So that the decision he made before is supported by the testimonies of other Sahaba too. So, Umar(ra) was not enquiring from those Sahaba, rather he made a confirmatory question, which can be understood in a better way from this report.

فَقَالَ عُمَرُ اتَّئِدَا أَنْشُدُكُمْ بِاللَّهِ الَّذِي بِإِذْنِهِ تَقُومُ السَّمَاءُ وَالأَرْضُ أَتَعْلَمُونَ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏”‏ لاَ نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ قَالُوا نَعَمْ ‏.‏ ثُمَّ أَقْبَلَ عَلَى الْعَبَّاسِ وَعَلِيٍّ فَقَالَ أَنْشُدُكُمَا بِاللَّهِ الَّذِي بِإِذْنِهِ تَقُومُ السَّمَاءُ وَالأَرْضُ أَتَعْلَمَانِ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏”‏ لاَ نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَاهُ صَدَقَةٌ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ قَالاَ نَعَمْ

‘Umar said: I adjure you by Allah by Whose order the heavens and the earth are sustained, don’t you know that the messenger of Allah (saw) said: We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity”? They said: Yes. Then he turned to abbas and ‘ali and said: I adjure you both by Allah by Whose order the heavens and earth are sustained, don’t you know that the messenger of Allah (saw) said:” We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity”? They (too) said: Yes. (Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4349).

So, it can be clearly seen that, Umar(ra) was asking a confirmatory question, he wasn’t enquiring whether anyone knew that hadeeth. If it was an enquiry then there was no need to ask the group of Sahaba at one time and then Abbas and Ali the other time. Objective readers will undoubtedly understand from this report that Umar(ra) was asking a confirmatory question.

If Shiapen, still wishes to continue their ignorance and stupidity, then we would like to present before the readers a clear proof that Umar(ra) did say that he heard the hadeeth from Prophet(Saw).

This report is from Musnad Ahmed:

Abdul Wahab bin Ata – Muhammad bin Amr – Abu Salma – Abu Huraira – Umar
حدثنا ‏ ‏عبد الوهاب بن عطاء ‏ ‏قال أخبرنا ‏ ‏محمد بن عمرو ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أبي سلمة ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أبي هريرة ‏
‏أن ‏ ‏فاطمة ‏ ‏رضي الله عنها ‏ ‏جاءت ‏ ‏أبا بكر ‏ ‏وعمر ‏ ‏رضي الله عنهما ‏ ‏تطلب ميراثها من رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏فقالا إنا سمعنا رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏يقول ‏ ‏إني لا أورث

Fatima came to Abu Bakr and Umar to ask them about her inheritance from the Messenger of Allah (saws). They said: “We heard the Messenger of Allah (saws) say: ‘I am not inherited from.’”(Musnad Ahmad # 8435).

Therefore, it is proven that, Umar(ra) knew the hadeeth, and he just asked a confirmatory question to other Sahaba.

 

Argument 3:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Reply Three – Imam Ali (as) did not transmit this Hadeeth

It is indeed fascinating that Ibn Taymiyah suggests that Imam Ali (as) was a transmitter of this Hadeeth when he in reality never ascribed to its authenticity and in fact continued to insist that Fadak remained the legal right of Sayyida Fatima (as).

[End Quote]

Answer:

Ahmed Ibn Taymiyyah’s perspective is already explained above. Regarding Ali(ra), then even he acknowledged that it was hadeeth of Prophet(saw), he didn’t deny it when asked. We read in Sahih Bukhari:

فَأَقْبَلَ عَلَى عَلِيٍّ وَعَبَّاسٍ فَقَالَ هَلْ تَعْلَمَانِ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ذَلِكَ قَالاَ قَدْ قَالَ ذَلِكَ‏.

`Umar then faced `Ali and `Abbas and said, ‘Do you both know that Allah’s Messenger(saw) said that?’ They replied, ‘(No doubt), he said so.'(Sahih Bukhari Vol. 8, Book 80, Hadith 720)

Worthy to note from this hadeeth is that, Ali(ra) became one of those who affirmed it to be hadeeth of Prophet(saw), and if Ali(ra) didn’t believe it to be a hadeeth of Prophet(saw), he would never acknowledge it as a hadeeth of Prophet(saw), since he was aware of the hadeeth that ascribing something to Prophet(saw) which he didn’t say would lead one to hell-fire.

Narrated Salama: I heard the Prophet(saw) saying, “Whoever ascribes to me what I have not said then (surely) let him occupy his seat in Hell-fire.” (Sahih al-Bukhari 109).

Thus, it is clear that Ali(ra) was sure that it was hadeeth of Prophet(saw), that is why he acknowledged it to be a hadeeth of Prophet(saw) when questioned by Umar(ra). And if Shiapen tries to counter this with their master excuse of taqiyya, then we would like to reminded them that Ali(ra) was the one who approached Umar(ra), Umar(ra) didn’t call him, why would he approach a person for justice with whom he needs to practise Taqiyyah(dissimulation), Secondly Shias should also remember the incident of HajjTamattu where Ali(ra) declared that he won’t follow the opinion of the Khalifa, in comparison to Sunnah of Prophet(saw), which shows that Ali(ra) wasn’t under taqiyyah under the rule of the righteous Caliphs.

 

Argument 4:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Despite Abu Bakr’s recital of this Hadeeth Maula Ali still made a claim to the inheritance of Sayyida Fatima (as) during Umar’s reign, and continued to do so throughout his reign and upheld the position that his deceased wife was the legal heir of her father’s Estate. If any Nasibi try to water this incident down and misinterpret it to suggest that it had nothing to do with Prophetic inheritance then we should point out that Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Fathul Bari, Volume 6 page 145 refuted all such opinion givers whilst commenting on this Hadeeth as follows:

Darqutni narrated that Ismail al-Qazi said: ‘They were not disputing about the inheritance, but they were disputing about the charity what they shall be the Guardians of and how to be distribute it’ That is what he (Qazi Ismail) said, but according to the narration of Nisai and Umar bin Shaba from Abi al-Bakhtri, this is proof that they were disputing over the division of the inheritance.

[End Quote]

Answer:

As explained in detail, in the refutation to the chapter eight of Shiapen under Argument #5,#6,#7, Ali(ra) didn’t approach Umar(ra) seeking it as inheritance, but he approached him so that Umar(ra) could entrust him the property. They just asked for control of the Sadaqat of Madinah from the property of banu al-Nadeer(Jews) and Mukhayreeq as they believed they were at least entitled to do so.

Umar said: I said: If you wish that I should entrust it to you, it will be on the condition that both of you will undertake to abide by a pledge made with Allah that you will use it in the same way as the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used it. (Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4349)

Umar said: I said to you both, ‘If you wish, I will place it in your custody on condition that you both will manage it in the same way as Allah’s Apostle and Abu Bakr did and as I have been doing since I took charge of managing it; otherwise, do not speak to me anymore about it.’ Then you both said, ‘Give it to us on that (condition).’ So I gave it to you on that condition…”I beseech you both by Allah, didn’t I give you all that property on that condition?” They said, “Yes.” (Sahih Bukhari Vol. 9, Book 92, Hadith 408)

Both Abbas and Ali understood that although the produce of the land goes to charity, yet they viewed that, they can still manage that property, being its trustees, hence they approached Umar(ra) with this request.

Regarding the Hadith of Abi al-Bakhtari then it is disconnected as is known. Abi al-Bakhtari must have heard it from an unknown man, so it is not authentic and unreliable. And it even contradicts authentic report from Sahih Muslim, which says that Ali and Abbas wanted the property to be entrusted to them.

Umar said: You(Ali and Abbas) said: Entrust the property to us. I said: If you wish that I should entrust it to you, it will be on the condition that both of you will undertake to abide by a pledge made with Allah that you will use it in the same way as the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used it. (Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4349).

Hence the explanation of Ismail al-Qazi remains valid, that Ali and Abbas were not disputing regarding inheritance, but regarding what they shall be the guardian of and how to distribute it, and the report from Abi al-Bakhtri is rejected due to disconnection.

Secondly, what makes this claim null and void, is the fact that, both Abbas(ra) and Ali(ra) were disputing over it, had it been the issue of inheritance then there wouldn’t have been a need to bring this dispute before Umar(ra), who handed over it to them, on the condition that they manage it in the same way Prophet(saw), Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra) managed it, which they agreed to abide. If it was about inheritance, then this condition wouldn’t have been set, neither they would have accepted this condition, nor they would have brought this case before Umar(ra) again.

IMPORTANTLY: One of the strongest facts which supports our view is that, when Ali(ra) became Caliph, he never over rule the decision of Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra), and supposedly didn’t implement on the rule of Quran, by giving the share of inheritance to the remaining heirs of Prophet(saw). Like wives of Prophet(saw) and children of Abbas(ra), etc, though Ali(ra) was a person who would go to any extent in following Quran and Sunnah. Thus, this clearly proves that Ali(ra) accepted the hadeeth narrated by Abubakr(ra).

 

Argument 5:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Reply Four – Mutawatir hadith defined

If we accept this principle then we should make it clear that it does not apply to Abu Bakr’s recital of the HadeethWe the Prophets do not leave inheritance’, and as evidence we shall rely on the fact narrated by Ayesha:

‘They disagreed about his inheritance and could find no one with knowledge on that point, then Abu Bakr said, ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah may Allah grant him peace, saying ‘We the company of the Prophets, we are not inherited from. What we leave is Sadaqah’.
1.  Tareekh ul-Khulafa, Page 62
2. Kanz al Ummal Volume 12 page 488 Tradition 35600
3. Sawaiq Muhriqa, page 91
4. Tarikh Dimashq, v30, p311
5. Semt al-Awali by Esami, Volume 1 page 378

This proves that Abu Bakr was the sole narrator of this Hadeeth, a lone narration cannot be defined as Muttawatir. This shall suffice to shut the mouth of Ibn Taymiyah and his modern day adherents.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Here is that Hadith in Arabic from Tareekh Dimashq:

30340
(حديث مرفوع) (حديث موقوف) قَالَ : وَاخْتَلَفُوا فِي مِيرَاثِهِ ، فَمَا وَجَدُوا عِنْدَ أَحَدٍ مِنْ ذَلِكَ عِلْمًا ، قَالَ : وَاخْتَلَفُوا فِي مِيرَاثِهِ ، فَمَا وَجَدُوا عِنْدَ أَحَدٍ مِنْ ذَلِكَ عِلْمًا ، فَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ : سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، يَقُولُ : ” إِنَّا مَعْشَرَ الأَنْبِيَاءَ لا نُورَثُ ، مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةً ”

All sources seem to rely on the chain, which has narrator Abd Al-Rahman bin Omar Al-Omari who is a liar according to Abu Hatim.

Thus, this report is Munkar(denounced) and rejected, moreover several authentic reports prove it to be false, because when Fatima(ra) asked for her share from inheritance, then NOT just Abubakr(ra), but even Umar(ra), testified that he heard the hadeeth from Prophet(saw). We read:

حدثنا ‏ ‏عبد الوهاب بن عطاء ‏ ‏قال أخبرنا ‏ ‏محمد بن عمرو ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أبي سلمة ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أبي هريرة ‏
‏أن ‏ ‏فاطمة ‏ ‏رضي الله عنها ‏ ‏جاءت ‏ ‏أبا بكر ‏ ‏وعمر ‏ ‏رضي الله عنهما ‏ ‏تطلب ميراثها من رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏فقالا إنا سمعنا رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏يقول ‏ ‏إني لا أورث

‘Fatima came to Abu Bakr and Umar to ask them about her inheritance from the Messenger of Allah (saws). They said: “We heard the Messenger of Allah (saws) say: ‘I am not inherited from.’”(Musnad Ahmad # 8435).

Hence the report used by Shiapen is Munkar(denounced) which was narrated by a liar, so rejected.

 

Argument 6:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Reply Five – The Sunni have accepted that this Hadeeth has a sole narrator

If any doubt still remains then allow us to cite the comments of one of the esteemed Sunni scholars Ali bin Muhammad Qoshji (d. 879 H) from his authority work Sharh al-Qoshji, page 406, wherein the author attacks the Shi’a position on Fadak:

“(Tusi asserts that) amongst Abu Bakr’s bad deeds is the fact that he contradicted the Qur’an by refusing to apportion the Prophet’s inheritance, and this denial was based on his narration ‘prophets do not leave inheritance’ which is Ahad while to specify a rule from Quran must be based on a mutawatir narration. [Qoshji’s reply] Although the Hadeeth is Ahad and its content (matan) is suspicious, sometimes even a Ahad narration provides absolute proof ”

Moreover, Qadhi Eji in his famed work Al-Mawaqif, Volume 3 page 607 clearly declared this Hadith: ‘Khabar al-Wahid’ (a single narration).

[End Quote]

Answer:

Shiapen seems to have misunderstood the issue, In the hadeeth “prophets do not leave inheritance” the word “Prophet” has been suspected by some scholars, because they considered it to be an interpolation of the narrator, since the established and Mutawattir hadeeth is without this addition, that is, “We do not leave inheritance, what is left is charity”.

This is why even Shiekh Ameen al Shinqiti in his Tafseer Adwa’ al – Bayan li Muhammad al – Ameen al – Shinqiti (d.1393) said:

وأما ما اشتهر في كتب أهل الأصول وغيرهم بلفظ “نحن معاشر الأنبياء لا نورث” فقد أنكره جماعة من الأئمة

[As for what became popular under the following form of textWe the prophets do not leave inheritance” this was rejected by a group of Imams.]

However, this objection has nothing to do with this version of hadeeth, “We do not leave inheritance, what is left is charity”, as this version of the hadeeth was accepted by scholars unanimously and infact some of them declared it to be Mutawattir.

Note: Those of our inquisitive readers, who wish to read an academic research on the reports regarding the text of hadeeth “We the prophets do not leave inheritance”, then please refer this link.{Click Here}

Secondly, One of the objections that we have noticed the Shias often raise is that the narration is ahaad as opposed to mutawatir. They use this to suggest that a narration cannot be used as evidence upon them. Yet, this tactic is flawed for several reasons that we shall clarify.

The first issue is the definition of the term “mutawatir”. According to the scholars of both the Sunni and Shia sects, a mutawatir hadith is a narration in which a group of people narrate the hadith on each level to the extent that it would be impossible for them to have agreed upon fabricating the tradition.

Of course, the definition itself is vague since such a number differs in the eyes of each individual. To one person, four narrators on each level are sufficient for a mutawatir hadith. Others will suggest that a larger number, like ten, is necessary for a hadith to be mutawatir. In the case of the latter, if the hadith had only nine narrators, it would be seen as ahaad.

As we can clearly see, the definition of the word is very subjective. A Sunni could see a hadith as ahaad while a Shi’ee can see it as mutawatir, and neither would have anything other than their claim as evidence.

The second problem with the term is that it was not used by hadith scholars, due to the obvious nature of the problem mentioned above. Ibn Al-Salah (p. 145) commented upon Al-Khateeb’s inclusion of the word in his book of hadith science, “In his words what makes one feel that he didn’t follow the people of hadith, which is because it does not even follow their science.”

This second problem is indeed problematic, since the scholars of hadith are at the forefront of the science, and have more weight than the scholars of any of the other respected sciences.

The third problem is that if one is to suggest that one must only follow mutawatir hadiths, then we implore the Shias to be the first to apply this upon themselves. They will find it extremely ironic that they will not be able to justify the imamate of the twelve Imams, especially the late ones, in which we have barely received multiple routes that suggest their imamate.

This is a quote from Hashim Ma’arouf Al-Hasani, the Shi’ee hadith specialist, from his book Dirasaat fil Hadith wal Muhaditheen, p. 36, Dar Al-Ta’aruf (1426 AH):
قال الشيخ عبد الصمد في رسالته التي الفها في علم الدراية: المتواترهو ما رواه جماعة يحصل العلم بقولهم، للقطع بعدم امكان تواطؤهم على الكذب عادة، ويشترط ذلك في كل طبقاته صحيحا كان اولا، واضاف الى ذلك. وهذا لا يكاد يعرفه المحدثون في الاحاديث لقلته، وهو كالقران وظهور النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم والقبلة والصلات وعدد الركعات، والحج ونصب الزكوة ونحو ذلك وتشبيه التواتر بهذه الامور الثابتة بالضرورة من دين الاسلام، هذا التشبيه يشعر بان التواتر في الحديث يكاد ان يكون في حكم المعدوم من حيث ندرته وعدم وجوده بين المرويات عن النبي والائمة عليهم السلام.
“Al-Shaikh Abdulsamad (the father of Al-Baha’ee) in his risala about ilm al-diraya said: The mutawatir is what a group of people have narrated in which ilm (sure knowledge) is achieved, due to the impossibility of them conspiring to lie together usually, and this could be authentic on all levels or not, and he said: And the hadithists are almost unaware of this due to the lack of them (such hadiths), and like it is the Qur’an, the appearance of the Prophet (pbuh), the qibla, prayers and the number of raka’aat, the hajj, the amount of zakat, and things like these. Liking these to mutawtatir is a necessity of Islam. This liking makes one feel that the mutawatir in hadith is almost non-existent, due to the rarity of such in the narrations of the Prophet (pbuh) and the Imams.”

Top Shia classical scholar al-Shaheed al-Thani said in “Nihayat al-Dirayah” by al-Sayyid Hasan al-Sadr, pg.99:
بأنه لم يتحقق إلى الان خبر خاص بلغ حد التواتر إلا حديث: من كذب علي متعمدا فليتبوأ مقعده من النار
[We have not confirmed until this moment that any Shia narration reached the level of Tawatur except the Hadith of: “Whoever lies on me intentionally let him take his rightful seat in hell-fire.”]

 

Argument 7:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

If there is any doubt as to the meaning and context of Hadhrat Ali (as)’s comments then let us cite the esteemed Sunni work ‘al Awasim min al Qawasim’ page 194, by Qadhi Abi Bakr ibn Arabi.

وأما قول عمر أنهما اعتقد ان أبا بكر ظالم خائن غادر ، فإنما ذلك خبر عن الاختلاف في نازلة وقعت من الأحكام ، رأى فيها هذا رأيا ورأى فيها أولئك رأيا ، فحكم أبو بكر وعمر بما رأيا ، ولم ير العباس وعلى ذلك

Umar’s statement is that they (Ali and Abbas) believed Abu Bakr to be an unjust, treacherous and dishonest, verily that is a narration relating to a disagreement in laws, he (Abu Bakr) had an opinion and they (Ali Abbas) had another opinion. Thus Abu Bakr and Umar issued a judgment according to their opinion while Abbas and Ali disagreed with that opinion.

Ibn Arabi was a major Sunni scholar that accepted that Abu Bakr’s decision to hold and transfer the Prophet’s property as Sadaqah, led to Maula Ali, grading him as unjust and treacherous. Clearly when Ali (as) and Abbas (ra) heard Abu Bakr reciting this Hadeeth it was the first time that they had heard of such a claim, and they rejected the authenticity of the tradition, hence Ibn Tamiyah’s claim that the Sahaba became convinced by Abu Bakr’s citing the Hadeeth is a blatant lie, he even tried to include Hadhrat Ali (as) among those who agreed!

[End Quote]

Answer:

Deceitful Shiapen is misrepresenting the view Qadhi Abi Bakr ibn Arabi, He never implied that Ali(ra) and Abbas(ra) rejected the authenticity of hadeeth, infact he said that Ali(ra) and Abbas(ra) did accept the hadeeth of Prophet(saw), but their understanding or interpretation of the hadeeth was different.

Hence we read that, Qadhi Abi Bakr ibn Arabi further states:

قلنا: يحتمل أن يكون ذلك في أول الحال- والأمر لم يظهر بعد- فرأيا أن خبر الواحد في معارض القرآن والأصول والحكم المشهور في الزمن لا يعمل به حتى يتقرر الأمر، فلما تقرر سلما وانقادا، بدليل ما قدمنا من الحديث الصحيح إلى آخره، فلينظر فيه. وهذا ايضا ليس بنص في المسألة، لأن قوله “لا نورث، ما تركنا صدقة” يحتمل أن يكون: لا يصح ميراثنا، ولا أنا أهل له، لأنه ليس لي ملك، ولا تلبست بشيء من الدنيا ينتقل إلى غيري عني. ويحتمل”لا نورث”
حكم، وقوله” ما تركنا صدقة” حكم آخر معين أبر به أنه قد أنفذ الصدقة فيما كان بيده من سهمه المتصير إليه بتسويع الله له، وكان من ذلك مخوصاص بما لم يوجف المسلمون عليه بخيل ولا ركاب، وكان له سهمه مع المسلمين فيما غنموه بما أخذوه عنوة. ويحتمل ان يكون صدقة منصوبا على أن يكون حالا من المتروك. وإلى هذا أشار أصحاب أبي حنيفة، وهو ضعيف وقد بيناه في موضعه. بيد أنه يأتيك من هذا أن المسألة مجرى الخلاف، ومحل الاجتهاد، وأنها ليست بنص من النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم فتحتمل التصويب والتخطئة من المجتهدين. والله أعلم

[We said: It is possible that this was the case at the beginning -when the matter was unclear- they both saw that the narration of a single man as opposed to the Qur’an and the foundations and popular ruling at the time cannot be accepted until it is determined, when it was in fact determined they both submitted and followed, as proven by the authentic narration we provided, so look into it. And this hadeeth is also not an explicit proof in this issue, because his(saw) words “We offer no inheritance, what we leave is Sadaqah” this could mean that: I am not capable of offering inheritance as I own nothing, nor did I acquire anything in this world that can be transferred to others.
It is also possible that “We offer no inheritance” is a ruling and “What we leave is Sadaqah” is another ruling in which he states that he has offered the Sadaqah from what he had possessed in his hand from his share which was given to him by Allah, specifically the booty for which the muslims did not move their horses or camels and He(saw) also had his share with the muslims in what they took as booty by force.

It is also possible that the word “Sadaqa” refers to the situation of what a person leaves when he dies. This is what the companions of Abu Hanifa indicate, and it is weak as we proved previously.

What this shows is that the matter is differed upon, and it is open to personal Ijtihad(interpretation), and it is not proven by a text from the Prophet (saw), and therefore it is possible that both correctness and error can exist by the mujtahid in this matter.

(Al Awasim min al Qawasim). [-End Quote-]

Now after proving that, Qadhi Abubakr Ibn Arabi, didn’t mean to say that Ali(ra) and Abbas(ra) rejected the authenticity of the hadeeth, rather they affirmed it to be hadeeth of Prophet(saw), but they differed with Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra) on its understanding; We would like to say that, Qadhi ibn Arabi’s view in invalid; especially when there were other high ranking Muhadditeen who considered that, Abbas(ra) and Ali(ra) approached to Umar(ra) for a different purpose, not demanding it as inheritance. For example, Ismail al-Qazi and Imam Abu Dawud .

Ismail al-Qazi said:

فقال إسماعيل القاضي فيما رواه الدارقطني من طريقه لم يكن في الميراث إنما تنازعا في ولاية الصدقة وفي صرفها كيف تصرف

‘They(Abbas and Ali) were not disputing about the inheritance, but they were disputing about the charity what they shall be the guardian of and how to distribute it’ (Fathul Bari).

Imam Abu Dawud :

قَالَ أَبُو دَاوُدَ إِنَّمَا سَأَلاَهُ أَنْ يَكُونَ يُصَيِّرُهُ بَيْنَهُمَا نِصْفَيْنِ لاَ أَنَّهُمَا جَهِلاَ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏”‏ لاَ نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ فَإِنَّهُمَا كَانَا لاَ يَطْلُبَانِ إِلاَّ الصَّوَابَ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ عُمَرُ لاَ أُوقِعُ عَلَيْهِ اسْمَ الْقَسْمِ أَدَعُهُ عَلَى مَا هُوَ عَلَيْهِ

Abu Dawud said: They asked him for making it half between them, and not that they were ignorant of the fact the Prophet (ﷺ) said: We are not inherited. Whatever we leave is sadaqah (alms). They were also seeking the truth. ‘Umar then said: I do not apply the name of division to it ; leave it on its former condition.(Sunan Abu Dawud).

Comment: The explanation by Imam Abu Dawud implies that, they weren’t asking for inheritance, but they just disputed and wanted to divide it.

Shah Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dehlvi in his Ash’at al-Lam’aat Sharh Mishkat states:

The property of Prophet(saw) being dedicated for the needs of Muslims, and it being managed by the Caliph(ruler), is agreed upon by Sahaba, even Ali(ra) and Abbas(ra), and it’s was not specific to Abubakr(ra)…Allama Khattabi states, that the issue is complicated where Ali(ra) and Abbas(ra) took the Charitable endowments as per the set conditions, they even accepted that Prophet(saw) didn’t leave inheritance, even the prominent Muhajireen testified over this, but then why did they again approached to Umar(ra) for a judgement on this issue; The answer for this is, they were facing difficulties in managing that property, they asked for it to be divided so that they could manage separately their respective shares. Umar(ra) rejected this appeal of division, so that it might not be called as their property, since division generally takes place in inherited things. Muhadditeen has explained it likewise. (Ash’at al-Lam’aat Sharh Mishkat, Volume 5 page 353).

Hence the correct summary of the incident, is that, During the Caliphate of Abubakr(ra), both Ali(ra) and Abbas(ra) went to Abubakr(ra) demanding inheritance from Prophet(saw), and when Abu bakr(ra) informed them about the hadeeth of Prophet(saw), they accepted it and the matter was resolved, which is apparent from their answer to the question of Umar. But they understood that although the produce of the land goes to charity, yet they can still manage it and also eat from it, since the Prophet (saw) said: “The family of Muhammad may eat from it.” To them being in control of this Waqf did not pose any contradiction to the prophetic narration. Hence they went to Umar(ra), so that Umar entrusts them the property, And Umar(ra) did entrust them that property, on the condition that they manage it the way it used to be during the life of Prophe(saw) and Abubakr(ra), they agreed over this, but eventually Ali(ra) and Abbas(ra) disputed over the management of that property, hence they again approached to Umar(ra), so that he judges between them, by dividing the property and entrusting them their respective shares, which Umar(ra) rejected.

Thus, explanation of Qadhi Abubakr ibn Arabi, doesn’t says that Abbas(ra) and Ali(ra) rejected the hadeeth, rather they affirmed it; which exposes the deceit of Shiapen, Yet we say that the view of Ibn Arabi was invalid, and it goes against the views of high ranking scholars and the text of hadeeth, because both Abbas(ra) and Ali(ra) agreed with the Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra), that the property of Prophet(saw) is not inherited. View of Qadhi Abubakr ibn Arabi would only be been considered valid, if it is proven that Ali(ra) and Abbas(ra) came to Umar(ra) seeking inheritance, but as we have explained this wasn’t the case.

 

Argument 8:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Reply Six – Uthman and the wives of the Prophet (s) had no knowledge of the Hadeeth

Ibn Taymiyah al-Nasibi also counted Uthman and the wives of the Prophet (s) as narrators of the Hadeeth. The simplest way to refute this comes from the Hadeeth (that we have already cited) in Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 367, Kitab al Maghaazi:

…. “I told ‘Urwa bin Az-Zubair of this Hadeeth and he said, ‘Malik bin Aus has told the truth” I heard ‘Ayesha, the wife of the Prophet saying, ‘The wives of the Prophet sent ‘Uthman to Abu Bakr demanding from him their 1/8 of the Fai which Allah had granted to his Apostle. But I used to oppose them and say to them: Will you not fear Allah? Don’t you know that the Prophet used to say: Our property is not inherited, but whatever we leave is to be given in charity?”

Ibn Taymiyah advanced Uthman and the wives as narrators of this Hadeeth, the reality is they had no knowledge of this Hadeeth, proven by the fact that they sent Uthman to present their inheritance claim on their behalf! If Uthman had heard this Hadeeth why did he not interject and say ‘O Mothers, what inheritance are you referring to, Rasulullah (s) said ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we leave is Sadaqah’’

The claim of the wives and Uthman going as their representative is proof that they had never heard of the Hadeeth, a Hadeeth that Ibn Taymiyah al-Nasibi claims they narrated!

[End Quote]

Answer:

Ahmed Ibn Taymiyyah’s perspective has already been explained above. Regarding wives of Prophet(saw), then they did accept this hadeeth, when Ayesha(ra) informed them about it, they didn’t reject this narration. None of the wives of Prophet(saw) objected to it, hence when the mothers of believers had no problem in accepting this hadeeth, then Rafidah are nobodies to object its reliability.

If Shiapen disagree, and wish to continue in their ignorance, then we challenge them to produce any authentic Sunni or Shia hadeeth where wives of Prophet(saw) during the Caliphate of Ali(ra), approached him seeking the inheritance from Prophet(saw); for example, Umm Salama(ra), etc. Please note that we are not talking about Fadak in particular, since Shiapen might come up with another foolish claim that, Fadak was under Marwan’s control that time, we are talking about the property left by Prophet(saw)in general, not specifically Fadak, like Charitable Endowments in Madina, etc, which were under the control of Ahlelbayt.

Next, Shiapen argued that how could Uthman(ra) be a narrator of this report, when He was sent by some wives of Prophet(Saw) to Abubakr(ra) inorder to demand the inheritance. The answer to this argument is that, some of wives of Prophet(Saw), just INTENDED to send Uthman(ra), they didn’t send Uthman(ra), but then Ayesha(ra) corrected them before they approached Uthman(ra) with their request. We read in Sahi buikhari:

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مَسْلَمَةَ، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ عُرْوَةَ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ ـ رضى الله عنها أَنَّ أَزْوَاجَ، النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم حِينَ تُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَرَدْنَ أَنْ يَبْعَثْنَ عُثْمَانَ إِلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ يَسْأَلْنَهُ مِيرَاثَهُنَّ‏.‏ فَقَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ أَلَيْسَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ “‏ لاَ نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ

Narrated `Urwa: Aisha said, “When Allah’s Apostle died, his wives INTENDED to send Uthman to Abu Bakr asking him for their share of the inheritance.” Then `Aisha said to them, “Didn’t Allah’s Apostle say, ‘Our (Apostles’) property is not to be inherited, and whatever we leave is to be spent in charity?’ (Sahih Bukhari Vol. 8, Book 80, Hadith 722)

Thus, as it is clear in this hadeeth of Bukhari, wives of Prophet(saw) intended to send Uthman(ra), but then Ayesha(ra) informed them of the hadeeth, which proves they didn’t approach Uthman(ra) with the request. Had they approached Uthman(ra), then even Uthman(ra) would have informed them of the same hadeeth.

Even if Shiapen disagrees, we can say that, Uthman(ra) did acknowledge this to be the hadeeh of Prophet(saw), when he was questioned by Umar(ra), and this is what Ibn Taymiyyah was implying.

 

Argument 9:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

It is indeed interesting that Ayesha rebukes the other wives for failing to recollect words that the Prophet (s) said frequently, yet (s), she herself testifies that when the Prophet (s) died:

‘They disagreed about his inheritance and could find no one with knowledge on that point, then Abu Bakr said, ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah may Allah grant him peace, saying ‘We the company of the Prophets, we are not inherited from. What we leave is Sadaqah’.
 Tareekh ul-Khulafa, Page 62

[End Quote]

Answer:

Hadith is here from Tareekh Dimashq:

30340
(حديث مرفوع) (حديث موقوف) قَالَ : وَاخْتَلَفُوا فِي مِيرَاثِهِ ، فَمَا وَجَدُوا عِنْدَ أَحَدٍ مِنْ ذَلِكَ عِلْمًا ، قَالَ : وَاخْتَلَفُوا فِي مِيرَاثِهِ ، فَمَا وَجَدُوا عِنْدَ أَحَدٍ مِنْ ذَلِكَ عِلْمًا ، فَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ : سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، يَقُولُ : ” إِنَّا مَعْشَرَ الأَنْبِيَاءَ لا نُورَثُ ، مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةً ”

All sources seem to rely on the chain, which has narrator Abd Al-Rahman bin Omar Al-Omari who is a liar according to Abu Hatim.

Hence the report used by Shiapen is Munkar(denounced) which was narrated by a liar, so rejected. Moreover, several authentic reports prove it to be false, because when Fatima(ra) asked for her share from inheritance, then NOT just Abubakr(ra), but even Umar(ra), testified that he heard the hadeeth from Prophet(saw). We read:

حدثنا ‏ ‏عبد الوهاب بن عطاء ‏ ‏قال أخبرنا ‏ ‏محمد بن عمرو ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أبي سلمة ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أبي هريرة ‏
‏أن ‏ ‏فاطمة ‏ ‏رضي الله عنها ‏ ‏جاءت ‏ ‏أبا بكر ‏ ‏وعمر ‏ ‏رضي الله عنهما ‏ ‏تطلب ميراثها من رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏فقالا إنا سمعنا رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏يقول ‏ ‏إني لا أورث

‘Fatima came to Abu Bakr and Umar to ask them about her inheritance from the Messenger of Allah (saws). They said: “We heard the Messenger of Allah (saws) say: ‘I am not inherited from.’”(Musnad Ahmad # 8435).

 

Argument 10:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

The ‘Hadeeth’ Abu Bakr narrated contradicts the one that Abu Huraira narrated

It is indeed interesting that Ibn Taymeeya suggests that Abu Huraira also attested to this Hadeeth, since if we analyze his narration we note how it goes against the assertion of Abu Bakr that Prophets leave nothing. This is the Hadeeth from Sahih Bukhari, Book of inheritance Volume 8, Book 80, Number 721:

Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle said, “Not even a single Dinar of my property should be distributed (after my deaths to my inheritors, but whatever I leave excluding the provision for my wives and my servants, should be spent in charity.”

Firstly this tradition conflicts with the fact that Ayesha narrates that after the death of the Prophet (s), Abu Bakr only knew of this Hadeeth. Secondly and most crucially, the tradition conflicts with that narrated by Abu Bakr Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity)’ for the Khaleefa made it clear that the Prophet (s) left nothing behind. Abu Huraira narrates the same with an exemption, monies to servants and the wives are protected from distribution. Where did this exemption appear?

[End Quote]

Answer:

Shiapen, knew that the bubble of their deceit got burst by the hadeeth of Abu Huraira(ra), hence they were quick to make desperate, un-academic and non-sensical attempts to discredit authentic hadeeth.

Firstly, the hadeeth of Ayesha(ra) which says only Abubakr(ra) knew that hadeeth is Munkar(denounced) and rejected as already explained.

Secondly, Shiapen should learn the meaning of the word “contradiction” before judging anything as contradiction, because the hadeeth narrated by Abubakr(ra) and Abu Huraira(ra) doesn’t opposes each other. Actually, sometimes the narrators narrated a hadeeth in a detailed(ziyada) version, and sometimes in abridge form, but that doesn’t mean the abridge form is contradicting the detailed form. Let us shatter the un-academic argument of Shiapen from the detailed version of hadeeth from Abubakr(ra).

Narrated `Aisha: Fatima and Al-`Abbas came to Abu Bakr, claiming their inheritance of the Prophet’s land of Fadak and his share from Khaibar. Abu Bakr said, “I heard the Prophet(saw) saying, ‘Our property is not inherited, and whatever we leave is to be given in charity. But the family of Muhammad can take their sustenance from this property.‘ By Allah, I would love to do good to the Kith and kin of Allah’s Apostle rather than to my own Kith and kin.”(Sahih Bukhari Vol. 5, Book 59, Hadith 368)

Hence we find that Abubakr(ra) did narrate the detailed version of hadeeth, which talks about the exception mentioned by Prophet(saw), so this refutes the deceitful attempt of Shiapen to discredit the hadeeth of Abu Huraira(ra).

 

Argument 11:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

It is worthy to note that the same narrator offers another exempt category in Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4355:

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: My heirs cannot share even a dinar (from my legacy) ; what I leave behind after paying maintenance allowance to my wives and remuneration to my manager is (to go in) charity.

In this narration there is no mention of Servants being entitled to the money of the Prophet (s), here salaries go to the wives and the ‘manager’.

Whilst these different narration from the same individual should suffice to discredit its authenticity, even if we were to accept that this is authentic ‘Why didn’t Abu Bakr recall this Hadeeth in the same manner?

[End Quote]

Answer:

As explained before, sometimes the narrators narrated a hadeeth in a detailed(ziyada) version, and sometimes in abridge form, but that doesn’t mean the abridge form is contradicting the detailed form. For example, we find the abridge form even narrated by Abu Huraira(ra) which supports the hadeeth narrated by Abubakr(ra).

وَحَدَّثَنِي ابْنُ أَبِي خَلَفٍ، حَدَّثَنَا زَكَرِيَّاءُ بْنُ عَدِيٍّ، أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ الْمُبَارَكِ، عَنْ يُونُسَ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنِ الأَعْرَجِ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ “‏ لاَ نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ ‏”‏ ‏

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah(saw) said:” We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is a charity.”(Sahih Muslim Book 19, Hadith 4357).

Thus this refutes the un-academic and deceitful attempts by Shiapen to attack the credibility of hadeeth narrated by Abu Huraira(ra) in detailed form, because these ahadeeth can easily be reconciled and they don’t contradict each other. It is just the biasness of Shiapen, which is why they are trying hard to make it appear like a contradiction, whereas it isn’t a contradiction rather a contradistinction. We fear that, if the biasness of Shiapen continues the same way, then they might even claim that Quran has contradiction because at one place it says that Human beings were created of dust, and at other place it says human beings were created of water.

 

Argument 12:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

And even more interestingly, ‘why did Ayesha not recall the Hadeeth in the same manner when the other wives were applying to make a joint claim to the inheritance of the Prophet (s)?’ Why did she not state “Will you not fear Allah? Don’t you know that the Prophet used to say: Our property is not inherited, but whatever we leave is to be given in charity? We can only receive the alimony that the Prophet (s) left for us”? If anyone knew of the Hadeeth in the manner that Abu Huraira suggested it would have been the wives of the Prophet (s) since it purported to state their monetary entitlement following the death of the Prophet (s), so how is it not one of them knew the hadeeth as it appeared in this fashion?

The very fact that nine wives of the Prophet (s) and even Abu Bakr never narrated the Hadeeth in this manner proves that the narration of Abu Huraira was concocted during the era of Abu Bakr.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Again, this argument displays the ignorance of Shiapen, because Ayesha(ra) did inform the wives of Prophet(Saw) about the exception.

We read in Sahi Bukhari:

Urwa bin Az−Zubair said: ” I heard `Aisha, the wife of the Prophet saying, ‘The wives of the Prophet sent `Uthman to Abu Bakr demanding from him their 1/8 of the Fai which Allah had granted to his Apostle. But I used to oppose them and say to them: Will you not fear Allah? Don’t you know that the Prophet used to say: Our property is not inherited, but whatever we leave is to be given in charity? The Prophet mentioned that regarding himself. He added: ‘The family of Muhammad can take their sustenance from this property. So the wives of the Prophet stopped demanding it when I told them of that.’ (Sahi buikhari 5.367)

Likewise, even Abubakr(ra) narrated the detailed version with the exception:

Narrated `Aisha: Fatima and Al-`Abbas came to Abu Bakr, claiming their inheritance of the Prophet’s land of Fadak and his share from Khaibar. Abu Bakr said, “I heard the Prophet(saw) saying, ‘Our property is not inherited, and whatever we leave is to be given in charity. But the family of Muhammad can take their sustenance from this property.‘ By Allah, I would love to do good to the Kith and kin of Allah’s Apostle rather than to my own Kith and kin.”(Sahih Bukhari Vol. 5, Book 59, Hadith 368).

 

Argument 13:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Defence Two – Maula Ali (as) and Abbas (ra) verified that the Hadeeth ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we leave is Sadaqah’ is authentic

Reviving Islam states:

The Next proof comes from the following hadith, due to the incredible benefit of this hadith we will state some points of benefit in brackets;
Narrated Malik bin Aus:
‘I went and entered upon ‘Umar, his doorman, Yarfa came saying ‘Uthman, ‘Abdur-Rahman, Az-Zubair and Sa’d are asking your permission (to see you). May I admit them? ‘Umar said, ‘Yes.’ So he admitted them Then he came again and said, ‘May I admit ‘Ali and ‘Abbas?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ ‘Abbas said, ‘Ya, Ameer-ul-Mu’mineen! Judge between me and this man (Ali ).
[Benefit of this part of the hadith: Notice how Al ‘Abbas referred to ‘Umar ibn Al Khattab (radhiyallahu Anhumaa) as “Ameer-ul-mu’mineen (leader of the believers)!” This proves that ‘Umar was a valid Khaleefah, unlike the shi’aa try and claim. It furthermore points out that ‘Aliy himself (radhiya Allahu ‘Anhu) recognized the leadership of ‘Umar! Furthermore, they were coming to him seeking judgment as you will soon see.]

Comment

The words of Abbas cited in Sunni text are of no value to us. If the pair went to Umar this was because he was the chief architect behind its usurpation during Abu Bakr’s reign, and not that he was a legitimate Khaleefa. It is common sense that when someone does injustice to you, you confront the unjust party not some irrelevant third party!

[End Quote]

Answer:

The words of Abbas(ra) in this authentic hadeeth do mean a lot to unbiased and objective readers, but may not to the bigots at Shiapen. If Shiapen has an objection with the words of this narration, then they have no right to use a portion of the same narration against Sunnis; either they should accept it as a whole or reject it completely. Or else they should bring forth any authentic report from the Shia books, regarding this issue.

Anyways, from this authentic report, we find Abbas(ra) the beloved uncle of Prophet(saw), the chief of Bani Hashim, calling Umar(ra) as Ameer ul Momineen, this refutes a lot of doubts raised by enemies of Islam. Secondly, Abbas(ra) and Ali(ra) approached Umar(ra) so that he judges between Abbas(ra) and Ali(ra); Abbas said, “Ya, Ameer-ul-Mu’mineen! Judge between me and this man (Ali )” . Whole the argument by Shiapen from its base itself is non-sensical and false.

 

Argument 14:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Reviving Islam states:

‘Umar said, ‘I beseech you by Allah by Whose permission both the heaven and the earth exist, do you know that Rasoolullah said,‘Our (the Prophets’) property will not be inherited, and whatever we leave (after our death) is to be spent in charity?’ And by that Allah’s Apostle meant himself.’ The group said, ‘(No doubt), he said so.’ ‘Umar then faced ‘Ali and ‘Abbas and said, ‘Do you both know that Rasoolullah said that?’ They replied, ‘(No doubt), he said so.’

[Benefit: ‘Umar is narrating that the Nabi forbade anyone to inherit wealth from him. He asked BOTH ‘Aliy and ‘Abbas (radhiya Allahu ‘Anhumaa) if it were true that the Nabi said that. They agreed that He had said it! So we now have both Aliy and ‘Abbas, from Ahlul Bayt, agreeing with Abu Bakr As Siddeeq and ‘Umar on this issue that nothing is to be inherited from the Nabi how Al ‘Abbas referred to ‘Umar ibn Al Khattab (radhiyallahu Anhumaa) as “Ameer-ul-mu’mineen (leader of the believers)!” This proves that ‘Umar was a valid Khaleefah, unlike the shi’aa try and claim. It furthermore points out that ‘Aliy himself (radhiya Allahu ‘Anhu) recognized the leadership of ‘Umar! Furthermore, they were coming to him seeking judgment as you will soon see.]

Comment

Ali (as) and Abbas were asked if they had heard this Hadeeth – they confirmed they had. They were saying that have heard a hadith that had gained popularity during the time of Abu Bakr, since he used this to dispossess Sayyida Zahra (as) of her inheritance rights. They did not confirm that they had heard this from the Prophet (s) or attested that it was Sahih, rather the example is like a widely disseminated fictitious event that is aired before an individual, the person that fabricated the event spread it so widely that it was common knowledge amongst the people. If you are then asked if you have heard about this you will respond ‘yes’. This response does not mean that he attested to whether authenticity of the event, it is merely an affirmation that the event is known to him.

[End Quote]

Answer:

These are the word games of Shiapen using which they have been deceiving their folk.

The question to Ali(ra) and Abbas(ra) was not that, whether they heard of a Hadeeth without believing in its authenticity, as Shiapen is trying to portray, rather they were asked a direct question that did Prophet Muhammad(saw) said that or not, we read:

هَلْ تَعْلَمَانِ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ذَلِكَ قَالاَ قَدْ قَالَ ذَلِكَ‏.‏

Do you both know that Allah’s Messenger(saw) said that?’ They replied, ‘(No doubt), he said so” (Sahih Bukhari Vol. 8, Book 80, Hadith 720)

Hence, we can clearly see that, both Ali(ra) and Abbas(ra) were asked a direct question that whether they believe Prophet(saw) said so or not, and their response was that, “HE SAID SO”, which implied they believed in that hadeeth, their response wasn’t that they heard it from someone(without attesting to the authenticity of it); Rather they gave an unequivocal answer, which destroys the deceitful word games of Shiapen, they said , “HE(saw) SAID SO”, which is a clear proof, that they believed in the hadeeth and attested to its authenticity.

Secondly, before asking the confirmatory question to everyone present there, Umar(ra) started off by saying “’I beseech you by Allah by Whose permission both the heaven and the earth exist, do you know that Allah’s Messenger(saw) said…..” ; Those blessed with wisdom can understand, that Umar(ra) was asking them whether they believe that to be hadeeth of Prophet(saw) , this is the reason he emphasized on it, starting it with the words “I beseech you by Allah by…” ; If he was asking them, whether they heard the hadeeth from somewhere(without attesting its authenticity), then there was no need to emphasize on it in this way, infact they all knew that this hadeeth was famous, so there was no need to ask whether they heard of it, if the purpose was not to know whether they acknowledge its authenticity and believe in it. Thus, the words of Umar(ra) also prove that, he asked them whether they believe Prophet(saw) said that hadeeth or not, and they responded in affirmative.

Thirdly, if Ali(ra) didn’t believe it to be a hadeeth of Prophet(saw), he wouldn’t have given a positive response, he would have outright rejected it, as a positive response might be misunderstood by people, or atleast he would have remained silent, or he would have said, He HEARD SO but he is unsure of its authenticity; He must have done so if he doubted the authenticity, because he was aware of the hadeeth that ascribing something to Prophet(saw) which he didn’t say would lead one to hell-fire. Narrated Salama: I heard the Prophet(saw) saying, “Whoever ascribes to me what I have not said then (surely) let him occupy his seat in Hell-fire.” (Sahih al-Bukhari 109).

But contrary to all these possibilities of negation; Ali(ra) said, “He(prophet) said so”, this destroys the deceitful word games of Shiapen. And the fact is that, both Ali(ra) and Abbas(ra) believed it to be saying of Prophet(saw).

 

Argument 15:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Reviving Islam states:

1) Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (radhiya Allahu ‘Anhumaa) both dealt with this land as the nabi did.

Comment

This is irrelevant. Abu Bakr unlawfully usurped land that he had no right to and brought it under his control. This land was the legal right of Sayyida Fatima (as), and it was up to HER how she administered it. Let us cite an example:

“My friend owns a charity truck that goes through the country distributing goods to the poor and needy. Upon his death I, as his close friend steal the truck and use it to carry on that charitable work. The deed may be noble and may have just carried on the status quo, BUT I have committed two major sins:

  1. Stolen the truck
    2. Denied heirs their legal right to the truck

How I deal with that asset is irrelevant, the truck belongs to the Heirs and they are entitled under Shari’ah to dispose of it in any way that they choose. I have no say / right to decide how that asset should / should not be disposed off.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Let us shatter these silly philosophical arguments of Shiapen by citing an authentic Shia hadeeth in Al-Kafi, where we find that the leader after Prophet(saw) would inherit his Property, so that he could manages it in an appropriate way. This nowhere mentions that the biological heirs such as the children of Prophet(saw) or the other rightful heirs such as wives of Prophet(saw) would get a share from it.

علي بن إبراهيه، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي عنير، عن حفص بن البختري، عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلاو قال:

الأىفال ما له يوجف عليه بخيل ولا ركاب، أو قوو صالحوا، أو قوو أعطوا بأيديهه، وكل أرض خربة

وبطون الأودية فهو لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وهو للاماو من بعده يضعه حيث يشاء

Abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) said:”Al-Anfal is such property for the acquisition of which no camels or horses are use and no armed expeditions are undertaken. It is the property that may come as a result of negotiated settlement or certain people would give with their own hands, may come from a barren land or from inside the valleys. Such properties belong to the Messenger of Allah and it will belong to the Imam(Leader) after the the Messenger of Allah. The Imam(Leader) will spend them as he may consider proper.”(Al Kafi, Chapter The Fay’, al-Anfal, al-Khums, its rules and the properties subject to al-Khums, page 186).

 

Argument 16:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Reviving Islam states:

2) Both ‘Aliy and ‘Abbas agreed and recognized that both Umar and Abu Bakr had done so.

Comment

Again that recognition does not mean that they agreed with their positions. If they had no objection to this method why did they make a claim to the inheritance during the reign of ‘Umar? If they were happy with the method of the first Khaleefa why did they not just let this state of affairs continue, and allow Umar to continue implementing the Sunnah of the Prophet (s), after all, taking charge and administering land is a huge administrative responsibility, when Maula Ali (as) and Abbas were content that the Sunnah of the Prophet (s) was being correctly implemented by the Head of State, why on earth would they want to burden themselves with taking on this massive responsibility? There is a famous saying in English ‘If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it’ – when Shakhayn were already administering the property appropriately why were Maula Ali (as) and Abbas demanding that it be given to them?

[End Quote]

Answer:

As already explained, Abbas(ra) and Ali(ra) didn’t approach Umar(ra) seeking it as inheritance, Shiapen should learn that, repeating a false claim multiple times, won’t make it a fact.

The correct summary of the incident, is that, during the Caliphate of Abubakr(ra), both Ali(ra) and Abbas(ra) went to Abubakr(ra) demanding inheritance from Prophet(saw), and when Abu bakr(ra) informed them about the hadeeth of Prophet(saw), they accepted it and the matter was resolved, which is apparent from their answer to the question of Umar. But they understood that although the produce of the land goes to charity, yet they can still manage it and also eat from it, since the Prophet (saw) said: “The family of Muhammad may eat from it.” To them being in control of this Waqf did not pose any contradiction to the prophetic narration. Hence they went to Umar(ra), so that Umar entrusts them the property, And Umar(ra) did entrust them that property, on the condition that they manage it the way it used to be during the life of Prophe(saw) and Abubakr(ra), they agreed over this, but eventually Ali(ra) and Abbas(ra) disputed over the management of that property, hence they again approached Umar(ra), so that he judges between them, by dividing the property and entrusting them their respective shares, which Umar(ra) rejected.

IMPORTANTLY: One of the strongest facts which supports our view is that, when Ali(ra) became Caliph, he never over rule the decision of Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra), and supposedly didn’t implement on the rule of Quran, by giving the share of inheritance to the remaining heirs of Prophet(saw). Like wives of Prophet(saw) and children of Abbas(ra), etc, though Ali(ra) was a person who would go to any extent in following Quran and Sunnah. Thus, this clearly proves that Ali(ra) accepted the hadeeth narrated by Abubakr(ra).

 

Argument 17:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Reviving Islam states:

3) Unlike the Shi’aa claim, this issue was solved in this sitting between ‘Umar, Aliy and Al ‘Abbas (radhiya Allahu Anhum). There is no need even to discuss the issue if it had been solved over 1,400 years ago. This goes to show that the Shi’aa are not following Ahlul Bayt as they claim. If they were they would follow in the footsteps of Aliy and Al ‘Abbas and be pleased with the verdict of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.

Reply One – Analysing other traditions from Bukhari will assist us in determining the truth

We will now prove that the position touted by this Nasibi is a lie and he has sought to rely on a partial narration to favour the sins of his caliph. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 367:

Narrated Malik bin Aus Al-Hadathan An-Nasri,
…Then ‘Umar turned towards ‘Ali and ‘Abbas and said, …So I kept this property in my possession for the first two years of my rule (i.e. Caliphate) and I used to dispose it of in the same way as Allah’s Apostle and Abu Bakr used to do; and Allah knows that I have been sincere, pious, rightly guided and the follower of the right (in this matter.Later on both of you (i.e. ‘Ali and Abbas) came to me, O ‘Abbas! You also came to me and the claim of you both was one and the same.So I told you both that Allah’s Apostle said, “Our property is not inherited, but whatever we leave is to be given in charity.’ Then when I thought that I should better hand over this property to you both or the condition that you will promise and pledge before Allah that you will dispose it off in the same way as Allah’s Apostle and Abu Bakr did and as I have done since the beginning of my caliphate or else you should not speak to me (about it).’ So, both of you said to me, ‘Hand it over to us on this condition.’ And on this condition I handed it over to you. Do you want me now to give a decision other than that (decision)? By Allah, with Whose Permission both the sky and the earth stand fast, I will never give any decision other than that (decision) till the Last Hour is established. But if you are unable to manage it (i.e. that property), then return it to me, and I will manage on your behalf.” The sub-narrator said…So, this property (of Sadaqah) was in the hands of Ali who withheld it from ‘Abbas and overpowered him. Then it came in the hands of Hasan bin ‘Ali, then in the hands of Hussain bin ‘Ali, and then in the hands of Ali bin Hussain and Hasan bin Hasan, and each of the last two used to manage it in turn, then it came in the hands of Zaid bin Hasan, and it was truly the Sadaqah of Allah’s Apostle .”

As far as the Shi’a point of view is concerned, we believe that the sub-transmitter of Bukhari’s Hadeeth made some mistake in giving the correct account. The relevant facts are as follows:

  1. For two years in Umar’s reign, both Maula Ali (as) and Hadhrat Abbas came to Umar and demanded their right of Fadak (while they never accepted the fake Hadeeth by Abu Bakr).
  2. Umar restored Fadak to them on condition that they maintain it as Abu Bakr had done. But they didn’t observe this condition and wanted to take possession of Fadak.After some time, Maula Ali (as) overpowered Hadhrat Abbas and took control of whole Fadak property (while he considered Fadak to be the right of Fatima Zahra (sa). This dispute reached a level where both Hadhrat Abbas and Hadhrat Ali(as) went to Umar to settle this dispute between them (while Abbas was also of view that he had a share and Abu Bakr only lied upon Rasool (saww) by fabricating a Hadeeth).
  3. Umar told them that they cannot maintain the property while they disputed over possession. So, he placed it under his custody. This matches with history, it remained in the hands of the state proven by the fact that when Uthman succeeded Umar as Khaleefa, the kind generous Khaleefa who looked out for the needs of his poor relatives gave the entire Estate of Fadak to Marwan bin Al-Hakam.

[End Quote]

Answer:

These are illusionary claims of Shiapen, the fact is that Umar(ra) never entrusted Fadak to Abbas(ra) and Ali(ra). This can even be proven from a hadeeth in Sahih Muslim, reported by Ayesha(ra), which even refutes the illusionary blame of Shiapen on the sub-narrator of Sahi Bukhari.

We read in Sahih Muslim:

It has been narrated by ‘Urwa b Zubair on the authority of ‘A’isha, wife of the Prophet (SAWS), that Fatima, daughter of the Messenger of Allah (SAWS), requested Abu Bakr, after the death of the Messenger of Allah (may peace he upon him), that he should set apart her share from what the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) had left from the properties that God had bestowed upon him. Abu Bakr said to her: The Messenger of Allah (SAWS) said:” We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is Sadaqa (charity).” The narrator said: She (Fatima) lived six months after the death of the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) and she used to demand from Abu Bakr her share from the legacy of the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) from Khaibar, Fadak and his charitable endowments at Medina. Abu Bakr refused to give her this, and said: I am not going to give up doing anything which the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) used to do. I am afraid that it I go against his instructions in any matter I shall deviate from the right course. So far as the charitable endowments at Medina were concerned, ‘Umar handed them over to ‘Ali and Abbas, but ‘Ali got the better of him (and kept the property under his exclusive possession). And as far as Khaibar and Fadak were concerned ‘Umar kept them with him, and said: These are the endowments of the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) (to the Umma). Their income was spent on the discharge of the responsibilities that devolved upon him on the emergencies he had to meet. And their management was to be in the hands of one who managed the affairs (of the Islamic State). The narrator said: They have been managed as such up to this day.(Sahih Muslim Book 19, Hadith 4354).

We read in the narration of Ibn Hadthan from Sunan abi Dawoud #2967:

انَتْ لِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ثَلَاثُ صَفَايَا بَنُو النَّضِيرِ وَخَيْبَرُ وَفَدَكُ ، فَأَمَّا بَنُو النَّضِيرِ فَكَانَتْ حُبُسًا لِنَوَائِبِهِ ، وَأَمَّا فَدَكُ فَكَانَتْ حُبُسًا لِأَبْنَاءِ السَّبِيلِ ، وَأَمَّا خَيْبَرُ فَجَزَّأَهَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ثَلَاثَةَ أَجْزَاءٍ جُزْأَيْنِ بَيْنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَجُزْءًا نَفَقَةً لِأَهْلِهِ فَمَا فَضُلَ عَنْ نَفَقَةِ أَهْلِهِ جَعَلَهُ بَيْنَ فُقَرَاءِ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ
[Rasul-Allah (saw) had three lands: Banu al-Nadeer, Khaybar and Fadak. As for banu al-Nadeer he kept it for his urgent needs etc…]

Ali and al-`Abbas, when they came to `Umar, they were not asking for Fadak or Khaybar, they just asked for control of the Sadaqat of Madinah from the property of banu al-Nadeer(Jews) and Mukhayreeq as they believed they were at least entitled to do so.

We read in the books of Sunan:

عَلِيًّا، وَالْعَبَّاسَ رضي الله عنهما يختصمان فيما أفاء الله على رَسُولِ اللَّهِ مِنْ أَمْوَالِ بَنِي النَّضِير

[`Ali and al-`Abbas both disputed over what Allah has given as Fay’ to his messenger from the property of banu al-Nadeer.]

هُمَا يَخْتَصِمَانِ فِي الصَّوَافِي الَّتِي أَفَاءَ اللَّهُ عَلَى رَسُولِهِ مِنْ أَمْوَالِ بَنِي النَّضِير

[And they were disputing regarding the pure possessions that Allah granted as Fay’ to his messenger (saw) from bani al-Nadeer.]

Therefore, it is established fact that Fadak and Khaiber remained in the hands of Umar(ra), and it was never entrusted to Ali(ra) or Abbas(ra). This destroys the baseless and illusionary arguments made by Shiapen.

 

Argument 18:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

One needs to be aware that Maula Ali (as) and Abbas approached Umar on two occasions.

First Occasion: Umar entrusted them the entire Estate of Fadak.

Second Occasion: Umar restored Fadak back to his custody (on account of the dispute between Ali (as) and Abbas).

Clearly, the sub-transmitter of Bukhari’s Hadeeth seems to have made a mistake by thinking that Maula Ali (as) overpowered Abbas after they went to Umar the second time.

The overpowering had occurred before the second incident, prior to Abbas going to Umar. Following the second incident (after Umar took Fadak back), there was no property left for Maula Ali (as) to overpower Abbas.
What this in effect means is that long after the death of Abu Bakr, Maula Ali (as) maintained his stance that the hadeeth ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we leave is Sadaqah’ was false and he deemed Fadak his right (so much so that he was prepared to over power Abbas for it)., so how can we accept the tradition cited by this Nasibi?

[End Quote]

Answer:

These are baseless and false claims of Shiapen, the fact is that Umar(ra) never entrusted Fadak to Abbas(ra) and Ali(ra). This can even be proven from a hadeeth in Sahih Muslim, reported by Ayesha(ra), which even refutes the illusionary blame of Shiapen on the sub-narrator of Sahi Bukhari.

We read in Sahih Muslim:

It has been narrated by ‘Urwa b Zubair on the authority of ‘A’isha, wife of the Prophet (ﷺ), that Fatima, daughter of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), requested Abu Bakr, after the death of the Messenger of Allah (may peace he upon him), that he should set apart her share from what the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had left from the properties that God had bestowed upon him. Abu Bakr said to her: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:” We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is Sadaqa (charity).” The narrator said: She (Fatima) lived six months after the death of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and she used to demand from Abu Bakr her share from the legacy of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) from Khaibar, Fadak and his charitable endowments at Medina. Abu Bakr refused to give her this, and said: I am not going to give up doing anything which the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) used to do. I am afraid that it I go against his instructions in any matter I shall deviate from the right course. So far as the charitable endowments at Medina were concerned, ‘Umar handed them over to ‘Ali and Abbas, but ‘Ali got the better of him (and kept the property under his exclusive possession). And as far as Khaibar and Fadak were concerned ‘Umar kept them with him, and said: These are the endowments of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) (to the Umma). Their income was spent on the discharge of the responsibilities that devolved upon him on the emergencies he had to meet. And their management was to be in the hands of one who managed the affairs (of the Islamic State). The narrator said: They have been managed as such up to this day.(Sahih Muslim Book 19, Hadith 4354)

Thus it is established that Umar(ra) never entrusted Fadak to Ali(ra) and the reason Umar(ra) gave, for not entrusting Fadak was that, he wanted the management of Fadak to be in the hands of the Leader, who would manage the affairs of the Islamic state. Hence the illusionary claims and blames of Shiapen are destroyed.

 

Argument 19:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Reply Two – At what point did Maula Ali (as) realise that the Hadeeth is Sahih?

This is a crucial point. When did Maula Ali (as) realise the truthful of Abu Bakr’s claim?

We had in an earlier chapter cited from a Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, showing hat Maula Ali advocated on behalf of his wife and cited Quranic verses on Prophetic inheritance to disprove the alleged Hadeeth cited by Abu Bakr. If Abu Bakr was unable to convince Ali at that time, when did he convince him?

[End Quote]

Answer:

In the refutation of that chapter, we have proven that, the cited report from Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d was a fabrication by the narrator Muhammad bin `Umar al-Waqidi the historian, a man accused of fabricating narrations, by hadeeth scholars from Ahlesunnah. So fabricated reports might become a proof for Shiapen, because they are people of desire, where as Ahlesunnah are academic and objective people, thus these kinds of fabrications from liars like Waqidi, have no value in the sight of Ahlesunnah, we reject these fabrications outrightly.

 

Argument 20:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Reply Three – Why did Umar give them Fadak when the Hadith is Sahih?

Umar’s restoring these lands proves that the Hadeeth is false. If Nawasib advance the claim that he had just handed over managerial administration of this land, then this means that such a handover option was possible, so why was this option not made available to Sayyida Zahra (as)?

[End Quote]

Answer:

The reply to this argument is that, both Ali(ra) and Abbas(ra) themselves made a request to Umar(ra) that they be entrusted the charitable endowments at Madina and as for fadak which was a different property then Umar(ra) didn’t entrust Fadak to Ali(ra) and Abbas(ra).

We read in Sahi muslim Bk 19, Number 4354: Ayesha(ra) said: So far as the charitable endowments at Medina were concerned, ‘Umar handed them over to ‘Ali and Abbas, but ‘Ali got the better of him (and kept the property under his exclusive possession). And as far as Khaibar and Fadak were concerned ‘Umar kept them with him, and said: These are the endowments of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) (to the Umma). Their income was spent on the discharge of the responsibilities that devolved upon him on the emergencies he had to meet. And their management was to be in the hands of one who managed the affairs (of the Islamic State). The (sub)narrator said: They have been managed as such up to this day.

So if the Shia argument is that why wasn’t Fatima(ra) entrusted with Charitable endowments at Madina by Abubakr(ra) then the answer to it is that, both Ali(ra) and Abbas(ra) themselves made a request to Umar(ra) that they be entrusted the charitable endowments at Madina. Where as we don’t find that Fatima(ra) ever made such a request to Abubakr(ra). Secondly, the reason why Abubakr(ra) from himself didn’t give this option to Fatima(ra) could be because, it would have been difficult for a women to manage such affairs.

Thus, this answer refutes the desperate non-sensical attempts of Shiapen to discredit the established and authentic hadeeth of Prophet(saw).

 

Argument 21:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Reply Four – Maula Ali (as)’s approaching Umar for Fadak is proof that he didn’t believe the Hadeeth was Sahih

According to this Nasibi author’s logic:

  1. The usurpation of Fadak was justified as Prophet’s leave no inheritance
  2. Maula Ali was aware of the Hadeeth and hence believed the confiscation of Fadak was lawful

If this is true, then why did Maula Ali (as) trouble himself by making a claim to Fadak during Umar’s reign? If Maula Ali (as) knew and attested to the authenticity of the Hadeeth are we to then conclude he was seeking to acquire possession to land that he had no legal right to?

[End Quote]

Answer:

Shiapen out of ignorance is repeatedly claiming that, Ali(ra) approached Umar(ra) for fadak, but this is wrong claim, and a deceitful trick of Shiapen. `Ali and al-`Abbas, when they came to `Umar, they were not asking for Fadak or Khaybar, they just asked for control of the Sadaqat of Madinah from the property of banu al-Nadeer(Jews) and Mukhayreeq as they believed they were at least entitled to do so.

`Ali and al-`Abbas both openly declared that they believe the hadeeth to be the saying of Prophet(saw) ; but what is apparent is that they understood that although the produce of the land goes to charity, yet they can still manage it and eat from it, since the Prophet (saw) said: “The family of Muhammad may eat from it.” To them being in control of this Waqf did not pose any contradiction to the prophetic narration. This is the reason Ali(ra) and Abbas(ra) approached Umar(ra) and requested him to entrusted the property to them.

IMPORTANTLY: One of the strongest facts which supports our view is that, when Ali(ra) became Caliph, he never over rule the decision of Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra), and supposedly didn’t implement on the rule of Quran, by giving the share of inheritance to the remaining heirs of Prophet(saw). Like wives of Prophet(saw) and children of Abbas(ra), etc, though Ali(ra) was a person who would go to any extent in following Quran and Sunnah. Thus, this clearly proves that Ali(ra) accepted the hadeeth narrated by Abubakr(ra).

 

Argument 22:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Defence Three – Sayyida Fatima (as)’s not making a further demand is proof that Abu Bakr was correct

Reviving Islam states:

So, In reality however, the proof stands and the Sunnah must be followed. That is why the Noble and blessed Fatima bint Muhammad did not further demand after Abu Bakr had refused. She knew the proof and so she obeyed.

Reply:

Let us for arguments sake accept the Nasibi author’s claim that Sayyida Fatima (as) made no further demand following the Khaleefa’s judgement, would this mean she accepted his evidence? Would it be surprising if she (as) had abandoned pursuing matters further in light of the facts:

  • Her inheritance is seized
  • She (as) challenges the seizure
  • The matter is decided by the same individual that took the land in the first place
  • Her testimony, as well as that of her husband, sons and Servant are rejected
  • A false Hadeeth is conveyed to justify the seizure

In lights of these facts, would it have been a surprise of Sayyida Zahra (as) gave up on the matter? In this day and age, people are often disaffected by the decisions of public bodies such as the police. There is common assumption that even if a complaint is made, nothing will come of it, since ‘people in high places look after each other’. Even when a complaint is made, the response can be so bias (one sided) that an individual may simply lose faith in pursuing the matter. In the UK, people often do not complain against the police, since the complaints are investigated by the police themselves. Now think about the facts here, not only is the legal right of Sayyida Zahra (as) taken, the person who takes the land is listening to the complaint in the capacity of a Judge.

Had Sayyida Zahra (as) chosen to abandon further complaints then she had every right to do so, a system so unfair that allows the usurper to also act as a Judge contravenes the rules of natural justice. Any reasonable person faced with such blatant injustice would lose faith in the judicial system, and choose not to pursue the matter further.

[End Quote]

Answer:

All the arguments raised by Shiapen have already been refuted, except these logic based arguments of Shiapen. They claimed that, Fatima(ra) chose to abandon her claim, because she lost faith in the judicial system, However the Sunni view for Fatima(ra) abandoning her claim is that, she was convinced after hearing the hadeeth of Prophet(saw), hence she didn’t make any further demands.

So let us present before the readers some solid proofs which prove that, Fatima(ra) was convinced by the hadeeth of Prophet(saw) reported by Abubakr(ra), that is why she didn’t make any further claims, contrary to what Shiapen stated.

Reply 1:

Abubakr(ra) informed Fatima(ra) that, the property of Prophet(saw) after him will belong to his successor, and Fatima(ra) gave a positive response to this stating, “You and Messenger of Allah know the best”.

We read in “Ithaf al-Khayarah al-Maharah” by al-Bouwaysiri, that

وَقَالَ أَبُو يَعْلَى الْمُوصِلِيُّ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ صَالِحٍ ، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ فُضَيْلٍ ، عَنِ الْوَلِيدِ بْنِ جُمَيْعٍ ، عَنْ أَبِي الطُّفَيْلِ ، قَالَ : جَاءَتْ فَاطِمَةُ إِلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ ، فَقَالَتْ : يَا خَلِيفَةَ رَسُولِ الله صَلَّى الله عَلَيه وسَلَّم ، أَنْتَ وَرِثت رَسُولِ الله أَمْ أَهْلُهُ ؟ قَالَ : بَلْ أَهْلُهُ قَالَتْ : فَمَا بَالُ سَهْمِ رَسُولِ الله صَلَّى الله عَلَيه وسَلَّم ؟ قَالَ : إِنِّي سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ الله صَلَّى الله عَلَيه وسَلَّم ، يَقُولُ : إِذَا أَطْعَمَ الله , عَزَّ وَجَلَّ , نَبِيًّا طُعْمَةً ، ثُمَّ قَبَضَهُ جَعَلَهُ لِلَّذِي يَقُومُ بَعْدَهُ فَرَأَيْتُ أَنْ أَرُدَّهُ عَلَى الْمِسْلِمِينَ ، فَقَالَتْ : أَنْتَ وَرَسُولُ الله أَعْلَمُ.
Abu Ya`la al-Mousili said: `Abdul-Rahman bin Salih said: Muhammad bin Fudayl said, from al-Walid bin Jumay` (bin `Abdullah), from abi al-Tufayl that he said: Fatima came to Abu Bakr and said: “O successor of Rassul-Allah (SAWS), did you inherit the messenger of Allah or his family?” He said: “His family.” She asked: “Then what of the share of the messenger (SAWS)?” He replied: “I heard the messenger of Allah (SAWS) say: “If Allah the majestic and great gave a prophet a blessing then took his soul, it becomes for the one who took his place after him.” So I decided that I should distribute it among the Muslims. Fatima told him: “You and the Messenger of Allah know best.”

Comment: We find that when Abubakr(ra) narrated the hadeeth, Fatima(ra) gave a positive response, by saying ‘You and the Messenger of Allah know best’.

Now Shias, might argue that this wasn’t a positive response from Fatima(ra), and this hadeeth was fabricated by Abubakr(ra), so Fatima(ra) never believed in this hadeeth. Our reply is that, Shias aren’t aware of the authentic hadeeth present in their own books, which backs the hadeeth narrated by Abubakr(ra), which implies that response of Fatima(ra) was positive.

Shia Hadeeth which supports the hadeeth narrated by Abubakr(ra) :

In Al-Kafi we read:

علي بن إبراهيه، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي عنير، عن حفص بن البختري، عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلاو قال:

الأىفال ما له يوجف عليه بخيل ولا ركاب، أو قوو صالحوا، أو قوو أعطوا بأيديهه، وكل أرض خربة

وبطون الأودية فهو لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وهو للاماو من بعده يضعه حيث يشاء

Abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) said:”Al-Anfal is such property for the acquisition of which no camels or horses are use and no armed expeditions are undertaken. It is the property that may come as a result of negotiated settlement or certain people would give with their own hands, may come from a barren land or from inside the valleys. Such properties belong to the Messenger of Allah and it will belong to the Imam(leader) after the the Messenger of Allah. The Imam(leader) will spend them as he may consider proper.”(Al Kafi, Chapter The Fay’, al-Anfal, al-Khums, its rules and the properties subject to al-Khums, page 186).[Majlisi in Mirat al Uqul vol 6, page 255 graded it as Hasan(good)]

Esteemed Shia scholar Al-Kulayni(author of Al-Kafi) who is considered Thiqatul Islam by Shias, said:

وأما الانفال فليس هذه سبيلها كان للرسول عليه السلام خاصة وكانت فدك لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله خاصة، لانه صلى الله عليه وآله فتحها وأمير المؤمنين عليه السلام، لم يكن معهما أحد فزال عنها اسم الفئ ولزمها اسم الانفال وكذلك الآجام(2) والمعادن والبحار والمفاوز هي للامام خاصة

The case of al-Anfal is different. It belongs to the Messenger only. Of such properties was Fadak that belonged to the Messenger of Allah only. It is because he and Amir al-Mu’minin (a.s.) conquered it and there no one else took part. The name al-Fay’ therefore does not apply to it. Al-Anfal applies to it. Similar to al-Anfal are such properties as the marshes, mines, oceans and the wilderness. They all belong to Imam(leader) exclusively.(Al-Kafi, Chapter 130, The Fay’, al-Anfal, al-Khums, its rules and the properties subject to al-Khums).

Thus from Sunni and Shia hadeeth we find that after Prophet(saw) the property given to Prophet, will belong to the successor of Prophet, the leader of Muslims. Since Abubakr(ra) became the Imam(Leader) after Prophet(saw), the property that was granted by Allah to Prophet(saw), became the property of the Leader(i.e Abubakr). And it was upon Abubakr(ra) to manage it in the best possible ways for the benefit of Ummah, which He(ra) did.

Now, the Shias need to contemplate over the fact that, even their infallible Imam, declared the same thing, so how could Fatima(ra) deny this established saying of the Prophet(saw)? Aren’t the Shias portraying Fatima(ra) in a wrong manner, by claiming that she wasn’t convinced with the hadeeth of Prophet(saw), which was even supported by infallible Shia Imam?

If the Shias want to continue their bigotry, then we recommend them to blame their infallible Imam with the same accusations they made against Abubakr(ra).

Reply 2:

Shiapen stated that, {“Any reasonable person faced with such blatant injustice would lose faith in the judicial system, and choose not to pursue the matter further”}, but on the other hand they even claim that even Ali(ra) during the rule of Umar(ra) approached Umar(ra) demanding inheritance for his wife, Fatima(ra). Infact, Shiapen in the same article even stated that, {“If the pair went to Umar this was because he was the chief architect behind its usurpation during Abu Bakr’s reign”;} Therefore, the question which arises is that, if Fatima(ra) being a reasonable person choose not to pursue the matter further, then why was Ali(ra) acting like an unreasonable person, and (supposedly) kept pursuing it?

And importantly, why didn’t Ali(ra) pursue his (supposed) usurped Caliphate, in the same way, Which would have been reasonable and much more important, in comprision to pursuing inheritance for his wife?.

Not only this, but Ali(ra) even married his and Fatima’s(ra) daughter Umm Kulthum(ra) to Umar(ra). We don’t understand, which reasonable person would marry his own beloved daughter to a person who supposedly was involved in oppression done on his family, unless that family is pleased with that person and disbelieves in all such false accusations against him, like how a member of Ahlelbayt stated; it is narrated: from Bassam bin `Abdullah al-Sayrafi: I asked Abu Ja`far(al-Baqir): “What do you say about Abu Bakr and ‘Umar may Allah be pleased with them?” He replied: “By Allah I am loyal to them and I ask Allah to forgive them and we never knew anyone from our family who was not loyal to them. (“Fadael al-Sahaba wa Manaqibihim wa Qawl Ba’adihim fi Ba’ad” by al-Imam al-Darqutni ; Grading: Hadith Hassan(good).

Also we read

محمد بن علي، قال: ” أجمع بنو فاطمة – عليهم السلام – على أن يقولوا في أبي بكر وعمر أحسن ما يكون من القول

Mohammed bin Ali (Al-Baqir), “There is a consensus amoing the children of Fatima (as) to say the best possible praise for Abu Bakr and Omar.” (Fadha’il Al-Sahaba by Al-Daraqutni, p. 83).

 

Argument 23:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Defense Four – The crucial part of the Fadak episode narrated in Sunni books is not the statement of Ayesha rather that is what Zuhri falsely opined

Whilst the Nawasib have tried their utmost to absolve their client Abu Bakr’s usurpation of the legal right of Fatima Zahra’s and have as part of their endeavors formulated an array of technical excuses. One such excuse is, that the most crucial part of the episode of Fadak narrated in various Sunni books, namely the words “Therefore Fatima left Abu Bakr and did not speak to him till she died” is not the statement of Ayesha but rather the words of the sub narrator, namely Ibn Shihab Zuhri and they seek to substantiate their position by pointing out that the said sentence begins with the word “Qal” (He said) and not from “Qalat” (She said). The Nawasib, on the basis of this excuse, solace themselves that neither did Fatima Zahra (sa) died angry of Abu Bakar nor did she cease speaking to him until she died.

We should point out an irony pertaining to this very issue. We have frequently relied upon the works of famed Sunni scholar Dr. Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri whom the hardcore Nawasib accuse of being a Shia, yet now the same Nawasib happily quote him as he presented a series of Shia rebuttals including the very issue under discussion pertaining to Zuhri.

Reply One: The incident has also been reported without “Qal”

If Nawasib are over obsessed with the presence of “Qal” (He said) in some of the versions of the Fadak dispute, allow us to cite a version devoid of the word “Qal” that automatically renders it to be the direct uncontaminated account of Ayesha.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Even though this narration can be found in the Saheehain, some scholars, like Al-Bayhaqi, have suggested that the anger of Fatima was only ascribed to her by the sub-narraor Al-Zuhri, who never witnessed these events. Sunni scholars argued that even though the hadith can be found in the Saheehain, it was narrated in disconnected form, which causes it to fall outside the conditions of the authors of the Saheehain.

Now regarding the argument that there are some version of hadeeth where this hadeeth was reported in continous form, then the answer to this argument is that, if some ahadeeth are without قال  “He said” and are continous, then the only reasonable proposition is that they were dropped by some narrator in between. Dropping of some interjecting words is fathomable but addition of the same by multiple narrators is not. But this hidden fact became apparent in some other narrations, where this was distinguished. So, it isn’t necessary that the word’ قال (He said)’ should be there in every report to conclude whether it is idraj(interpolation) of narrator or not, because there are some reports where this issue is clear and there are other reports where this issue was not clear. Hence the unclear reports cannot over rule what is proven from the clear reports regarding the idraaj(interpolation) of narrator Zuhri.

Secondly, those ahadeeth which are unclear, they don’t even specify that the wordings abou, Ali(ra) delaying the allegiance were also an interpolation of narrator Zuhri, yet we find that esteemed Sunni hadeeth Scholars declared, that it was from the opinion of Zuhri, and he never witnessed that event, so it was weakened and declared unreliable by scholars like Bayhaqi and others, as it goes against other authentic hadeeth which says that Ali(ra) gave allegiance to Abubakr(ra) on the very first day. This is a strong evidence that, it is not necessary that each and every report needs to have the word which signify that those are the wordings of sub-narrator, the interpolation is judged based on the other ahadeeth where the evidence is clear. And the narrations which clearly prove those to be wordings of male narrator over rule the argument of Shiapen based on unclear reports.

Thirdly, not just Tahir ul Qadri, but there were other scholars too who declared those wordings to be Idraaj of Zuhri.

(i). Maulana Muhammad Nafi’ after referring to 15 different works of Hadith and history has stated that, he found 36 narrations with the mention of Sayyidah Fatimah’s (RA) question for what she initially understood as her right from Abu Bakr (RA). 11 of those 36 that are narrated from companions other than Aisha (RA) and do not involve Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri as a narrator. None of those 11 has any word about the anger of Sayyidah Fatimah (RA). Out of the 25 that come from ‘Aisha (RA) through al-Zuhri alone, 9 are such that have no indication of the kind either. The remaining 16 do have the words under consideration but as said all these come through one narrator Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri. Out of these 16, there are 6 that clearly have the قال  i.e. “He said” thing mentioned above.(Ruhama-u-Baynahum, Makkah Books, Lahore, vol.1 pp. 126-130)

(ii). Maulana Hafiz Maher Muhammad Mianwalvi in his book  “Tuhfa Imamiya” page 183 wrote:
“The number of hadith which mention about Hazrat Fatima(ra) demand for share of the Fadak land are fifteen in number. There are five hadith in Sahih Bukhari, two hadith in Sahih Muslim, two hadith in Ibn Tirmidhi, four hadith in Sunan Abi Dawood, and one hadith in Sunan Nisai. The word “anger” is only mentioned in the Hadith transmitted from Hazrat Aisha(ra). It is not mentioned in the Hadith narrated from other companions like Hazrat Abu Huraira, Hazrat Um Hani, etc. Further the hadith narrated from Hazrat Aisha is of two types, one type mentions the word “anger” while the other type does not mention “anger”. The hadith which mention the word “anger” are all narrated by Ibn Shahab Zuhri[well known for his interpolation of statements]. This means that after Hazrat Abu Bakr(ra) had mentioned the reason for not giving Hazrat Fatima(ra) the share in Fadak, the latter had become silent after being satisfied. The narrator(Zuhri) equated “silence” to “anger” and added the words to the hadith. This is also known as Mudraj in Hadith sciences. “An addition by a reporter to the text of the saying being narrated is termed mudraj (interpolated). Such an addition may be found in the beginning, in the middle, or at the end, often in explanation of a term used”.

Two sub narrators narrating from Zuhri, clearly distinguished those words to be the words of male narrator:

(i). Narrator Ma’amar.

The narration of Ma’amar from Al-Zuhri in Musanaf Abd Al-Razzaq #9774, in which we find the words “he said,” implies male narrator Al-Zuhri. The same is found through Abdullah bin Mohammad from Hisham from Ma’amar in Saheeh Al-Bukhari #6230, and Mustakhraj Abi Awana #5376 through two chains from Abd Al-Razzaq from Ma’amar.

(ii). Narrator Uqail ibn Khalid.

The narration of Uqail from Al-Zuhri in Saheeh Muslim #2713 includes the words “he said,” implying that it is an addition by Al-Zuhri.

As we know from the methodologies of the early hadith scholars in accepting the additions of reliable narrators, if one Hafiz narrates an addition, it is seen as acceptable. This is the case with Ma’amar, who is one of the strongest students of Al-Zuhri. Plus, it is supported by one of the narrations of Uqail, and we do not believe that it was a coincidence that it was attributed to Uqail with the same version that it was attributed to Al-Zuhri unless it was truly narrated by Al-Zuhri.

Result:

(i). In the light of these evidences, we come to understand that those words were actually uttered by al-Zuhri, hence it becomes clear that they cannot be taken as people often take.

(ii). It cannot be a scribal error for it is so given in multiple sources. Wording of the narration from

  1. a)  Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 6230
  2. b) Sahih Muslim, Hadith 4352
  3. c) Musannaf Abdul Razzaq, Hadith 9774
  4. d) Mustakhraj/Musnad/Sahih Abu A’wana, Hadith 6679
  5. e) Tarikh al-Tabari vol.3 p.208
  6. f) Tarikh al-Madina of Ibn Shabbah, vol.1 p.197
  7. g) Sunan al-Kubra of al-Baihaqi, Hadith 12732
  8. h) Shia book Sharh NahjulBalagha by Ibn Abi Al-Hadeed, 16, p. 218

(iii). For this reason, asserts Maulana Muhammad Nafi’, it is apparent that these words were actually uttered by Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri and significance of this lies in the fact that he was not there when the whole issue came up. In fact he was born many years later. The reason to attribute these words to al-Zuhri is the fact of him being known to add comments of his own the narrations he reported, as pointed out by many scholars of note. Whether it is him or anyone else does not question the basic reality of the person saying these words being a male which in turn signifies that he was not even born when all those things happened.

(iv). The above understanding can be further strengthened by seeing the flow of wording and placement of the interjecting words like “He said” in the narration of Al-Tabari.

The narration from Tarikh al-Tabari is same as in Bukhari and in the same work it comes with that “he said” thing. In fact careful analysis of it only proves what we earlier mentioned. Here is the actual Arabic text;

حدثنا أبو صالح الضراري، قال: حدثنا عبد الرزاق بن همام، عن معمر، عن الزهري، عن عروة، عن عائشة، أن فاطمة والعباس أتيا أبا بكر يطلبان ميراثهما من رسول الله ص، وهما حينئذ يطلبان أرضه من فدك، وسهمه من خيبر، فقال لهما أبو بكر: أما انى سمعت رسول الله يقول: [لا نورث، ما تركنا فهو صدقة، إنما يأكل آل محمد في هذا المال] وإني والله لا أدع أمرا رأيت رسول الله يصنعه إلا صنعته قال: فهجرته فاطمة فلم تكلمه في ذلك حتى ماتت، فدفنها علي ليلا، ولم يؤذن بها أبا بكر وكان لعلي وجه من الناس حياة فاطمة، فلما توفيت فاطمة انصرفت وجوه الناس عن علي، فمكثت فاطمة ستة أشهر بعد رسول الله ص، ثم توفيت. قال معمر: فقال رجل للزهري: أفلم يبايعه علي ستة أشهر! قال: لا، ولا أحد من بني هاشم، حتى بايعه علي قال لا، ولا أحد من بني هاشم

Aishah (said): Fatimah and al-Abbas came to Abu Bakr demanding their share of inheritance of the Messenger of God. They were demanding the Messenger of God’s land in Fadak and his share of Khaybar’s tribute. Abu Bakr replied, “I have heard the Messenger of God say, “Our, i.e. the prophets’ property cannot be inherited and whatever we leave behind is alms to be given in charity. The family of Muhammad will eat from it. By God, I will not abandon a course which I saw the Messenger of god practicing, but will continue it accordingly. He said: Fatimah shunned him and did not speak to him about it until she died. Ali buried her at night and did not permit Abu Bakr to attend her burial. While Fatimah was alive, Ali held respect among the people. After she died their attention turned away form him. Ma’mar: A man asked al-Zuhri, “Did Ali not give his oath of allegiance for six months?” He said: “No, nor anyone of the Banu Hashim until Ali rendered his,”.(Tarikh al-tabari, Dar al-Turath, Beirut, 1387 A.H. vol.3 pp.207-208))

Now this actually supports all we saw earlier about the words “He said” in Sahih Bukhari etc. Just as the last words were uttered by al-Zuhri the earlier words after “he said” are also from al-Zuhri as they are for a surety not of Aisha (RA) as she cannot be referred to as “He”. The words in blue even help us know that it was actually al-Zuhri’s statement to which someone mentioned by Ma’mar sought his clarity about.

 

Argument 24:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Reply Two: The incident has also been reported with the specific use of “Qalat”

 Again, for those Nawasib with an ardent obsession with the word “Qal” and “Qalat” we would like to slap them with two Sunni reports containing the word “Qalat (she said) that leaves us with no doubt that this was indeed the direct testimony of Ayesha. We read in Musnad Abu Bakar al-Maruzi, page 87 Hadith No. 38: 

دَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ زَنْجَوَيْهِ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ قَالَ: أَرَنَا مَعْمَرٌ , عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ , عَنْ عُرْوَةَ , عَنْ عَائِشَةَ , أَنَّ فَاطِمَةَ , وَالْعَبَّاسَ , أَتَيَا أَبَا بَكْرٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا يَلْتَمِسَانِ مِيرَاثَهُمَا مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ , وَهُمَا [ص: 88] حِينَئِذٍ يَطْلُبَانِ أَرْضَهُ مِنْ فَدَكٍ وَسَهْمَهُ مِنْ خَيْبَرَ فَقَالَ لَهُمَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ: سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ: «لَا نُورَثُ , مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ , إِنَّمَا يَأْكُلُ آلُ مُحَمَّدٍ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي هَذَا الْمَالِ» وَإِنِّي وَاللَّهِ لَا ادْعُ أَمْرًا رَأَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَصْنَعُهُ فِيهِ إِلَّا صَنَعْتُهُ , قَالَتْ: فَهَجَرَتْهُ فَاطِمَةُ , فَلَمْ تُكَلِّمْهُ فِي ذَلِكَ حَتَّى مَاتَتْ , فَدَفَنَهَا عَلِيٌّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ لَيْلًا , وَلَمْ يُؤْذَنَ بِهَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ , قَالَتْ: فَكَانَ لِعَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ وَجْهٌ مِنَ النَّاسِ حَيَاةَ فَاطِمَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهَا , فَلَمَّا تُوُفِّيَتْ فَاطِمَةُ انْصَرَفَتْ وُجُوهُ النَّاسِ عَنْ عَلِيٍّ , فَمَكَثَتْ فَاطِمَةُ سِتَّةَ أَشْهُرٍ بَعْدَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ , ثُمَّ تُوُفِّيَتْ , قَالَ مَعْمَرٌ: فَقَالَ رَجُلٌ لِلزُّهْرِيِّ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ: فَلَمْ يُبَايِعْهُ سِتَّةَ أَشْهُرٍ قَالَ: لَا وَلَا أَحَدٌ مِنْ بَنِي هَاشِمٍ حَتَّى بَايَعَهُ عَلِيٌّ

Narrated Ahmad Ibn Ali from Abu Bakr Ibn Zanjawaih from Abdulrazaq from Mo’ammar from Al-Zuhri from Urwa from Ayesha who said: Fatima and Al-Abbas came to Abu Bakr, seeking their share from the property of Allah’s Apostle and at that time, they were asking for their land at Fadak and their share from Khaibar. Abu Bakr said to them, “I have heard from Allah’s Apostle saying, ‘Our property cannot be inherited, and whatever we leave is to be spent in charity, but the family of Muhammad may take their provisions from this property.” Abu Bakr added, “By Allah, I will not leave the procedure I saw Allah’s Apostle following during his lifetime concerning this property.” She said: ”Fatima got angry with Abu Bakr and did not talk to him about it till she died, then Ali buried her at night and did not allow Abu Bakr to take part in her funeral. She said: Ali had a status in the life of Fatima but when she died, people negated his status, and she lived for six months after death of holy prophet (saw) and then died” Mo’ammar said: Then a man asked Al-Zuhri: ‘Did he not pledge allegiance for six months?’ He said: “Neither he nor anyone of the tribe of Bani Hashim did  pay allegiance, till Ali pledged allegiance”. He said: and when Ali saw that people negate his status so he asked for treaty with Abu Bakr and to pledge allegiance; so he sent someone to Abu Bakr…

Ahmad Ibn Ali is the legendary  Imam Abu Y’ala the author of the famed Musnad Abu Y’ala whilst Abu Bakr Ibn Zanjawaih is also another great Imam of Ahle Sunnah referred to by Dhahabi as ‘Hafiz Imam’ (Syar alam alnubala, v12, p346) and Ibn Hajar as: ‘Thiqa’ (Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb, v2, p107 ).

Similarly, Imam of Ahle Sunnah Naeem bin Hamad al-Marozi (d. 229 H), who was one of the teachers of Bukhari recorded the identical report on the authority of Abu Bakr Ibn Zanjawaih in his esteemed work ‘Al-Fetan’.

[End Quote]

Answer:

This is a mistake from one of the narrator, most likely Abi Bakr ibn Zanjawaih, because of the following reasons:

(i). This narration from Musnad Abi Bakr was narrated by Imam Abdul Razzaq, and has a longer chain where as we find the same narration in the book of Imam Abdul Razzaq itself, which has a shorter chain and there the word used was Qala(He said), which denotes that these were the wordings of male narrator.

Musannaf Abdul Razzaq. Hadith 9774

[ 9774 – عبد الرزاق عن معمر عن الزهري عن عروة عن عائشة أن فاطمة والعباس أتيا أبا بكر يلتمسان ميراثهما من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ، وهما حينئذ يطلبان أرضه من فدك ، وسهمه من خيبر ، فقال لهما أبو بكر : سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول : لا نورث ، ما تركنا صدقة ، إنما يأكل آل محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم من هذا المال ، وإني والله لاأدع أمرا رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يصنعه إلا صنعته ، قال : فهجرته فاطمة ، فلم تكلمه في ذلك ، حتى ماتت (2) ، فدفنها علي ليلا ، ولم يؤذن بها أبا بكر ، قالت عائشة : وكان لعلي من الناس حياة فاطمة حبوه (3) ،

فلما توفيت فاطمة ، انصرفت وجوه الناس عنه ، فمكثت فاطمة ستة أشهر بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ثم توفيت ، قال معمر : فقال رجل للزهري : فلم يبايعه على ستة أشهر ؟ قال : لا ، ولا أحد من بني هاشم ، حتى بايعه علي ، فلما رأى علي انصراف وجوه الناس عنه

Here is the longer chain of narration from Musnad Abi Bakr which has the word Qaalat.

Ahmed bin Ali – Abi Bakr ibn Zanjawaih – Abdul Razzaq – Muammar – Zuhri – Urwah – Ayesha.

Whereas, here is the shorter and more reliable chain from Abdul Razzaq’s book who is the narrator in the above chain, which has the word Qala(male wording).

Abdul Razzaq – Muammar – Zuhri – Urwah – Ayesha.

So from the above analysis it should be clear before the readers that the chain from Musannaf Abdul Razzaq is shorter and it has the wordings of Qala(He said), where as the hadeeth in Musnad Abi Bakr is long and one of its narrator is Imam Abdul Razzaq himself. This implies, one of the later narrator(i.e Ibn Zanjawaih) in the long chain of Musnad Abibakr made a mistake, since the narrator before him, that is Abdul razzaq, in his own book mentioned it with the word Qala(i.e He said).

(ii). Secondly, The same wording of male narrator implying Zuhri, is found through Abdullah bin Mohammad from Hisham from Ma’amar in Saheeh Al-Bukhari #6230, and Mustakhraj Abi Awana #5376 through two chains from Abd Al-Razzaq from Ma’amar.

Thus it is safe to say that what we find in Al-Marwazi’s book is an error by later narrator, Abi Bakr Ibn Zanjawaih. And the correct word is Qala(He said), which implies words of male narrator.

 

Argument 25:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Reply Three: The fact that Fatima (as) died angry of Abu Bakr has been relied upon by various early Sunni Imams without any hint of such excuse

We challenge our opponents to quote any early Sunni Imam who may have advanced the notion that the portion of tradition under discussion was not part of Ayesha’s statement rather a Idraj of Zuhri! We have noticed that this excuse has been concocted by the enemies of Fatima Zahra (as) very recently which is why we do not find any early Sunni Imam pointing out such a defect in their works. Imam Dhahabi records in Siyar alam al-Nubala, volume 2 page 121:

ولما توفي أبوها تعلقت آمالها بميراثه وجاءت تطلب ذلك من أبي بكر الصديق فحدثها أنه سمع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول “لا نورث ما تركناه صدقة” فوجدت عليه ثم تعللت

When her father died, she sought for her inheritance thus she went to Abu Bakr asking for her share, but he (Abu Bakr) told her that he had heard Allah’s apostle saying “we don’t leave inheritance, whatever we leave is charity” therefore she got angry at him and then she got ill.

[End Quote]

Reply 1:

Firstly, it’s noteworthy that Imam Dhahabi didn’t affirm the the wordings, which are the crux of the shia argument, that is the wordings, which says,{ “Fatima(ra) forsook or shun Abubakr(ra) and did not talk to him until the end of her life”}, so we find Imam Dhahabi didn’t affirm these controversial wordings.

Secondly, not every scholar was able to identify the interpolation in hadeeth regarding anger of Fatima(ra), likewise not every scholar was able to identify the interpolation in same hadeeth regarding the delay of Ali(ra) allegiance to Abubakr(ra), but there were few scholars who made in depth research and were able to identify the interpolation in those ahadeeth. So the academic approach to this differing issue is that, the view of those scholars who were able to indentify and prove the interpolation will be given preferance, and those who weren’t able to identify the interpolation, then their view is not binding upon us to follow.

In regards to early scholar who held the same view as ours then, we read:

Al-‘Ayni narrated that Al-Muhallab said: “No narrator said that they met and refused to greet one another; rather she stayed in her house, and the narrator described that as shunning.” (Abatil Yajab An Tamah min Al-Tarikh, page 108).

Comment: Al-Muhallab not using the name of wife of Prophet or any Sahabai and referring the one who made the error in understanding as, “narrator(Raawi)” signifies that, he considered it to be a misunderstanding from a sub-narrator.

Reply 2:

Imam Dhahabi didn’t affirm the the wordings, which are the crux of the shia argument, that is the wordings, which says, {“Fatima(ra) forsook or shun Abubakr(ra) and did not talk to him until the end of her life”}. So we find Imam Dhahabi didn’t affirm these controversial wordings, but only affirmed that, “Fatima got angry at Abubakr and then she got ill”. If it is supposed that, what Imam Dhahabi affirmed is authentic then, this can be best explained by using the hadeeth of Sha’abi , which shows what happened after that, hence we read:

أخبرنا أبو عبد الله الحافظ ثنا أبو عبد الله محمد بن يعقوب الحافظ ثنا محمد بن عبد الوهاب ثنا عبدان بن عثمان العتكي بنيسابور ثنا أبو ضمرة عن إسماعيل بن أبي خالد عن الشعبي قال ثم لما مرضت فاطمة رضي الله عنها أتاها أبو بكر الصديق رضي الله عنه فاستأذن عليها فقال علي رضي الله عنه يا فاطمة هذا أبو بكر يستأذن عليك فقالت أتحب أن آذن له قال نعم فأذنت له فدخل عليها يترضاها وقال والله ما تركت الدار والمال والأهل والعشيرة إلا ابتغاء مرضاة الله ومرضاة رسوله ومرضاتكم أهل البيت ثم ترضاها حتى رضيت

When Fatima(ra) became ill, Abu Bakr(ra) came to her and asked for permission to enter. So Ali(ra) said, “O Fatima! This is Abu Bakr asking for permission to enter.” She answered, “Do you want me to give him permission?” He said, “Yes.” So she allowed him (to enter), and he (Abu Bakr) came in seeking her pleasureso he told her: “By Allah (swt)! I only left my home and property and my family seeking the pleasure of Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saw) and you, O Ahlulbayt.” So he talked to her until she was pleased with him. (Sunan Al-Bayhaqi. Vol. # 6, Pg. # 30)

(Al-Dhahabi said in the Siyar (Al Arna’ut ed. 2:121): “She applied the Sunna by not giving permission to anyone to enter her husband’s house except by his command.”).

Note: Al-Bayhaqi, ibn Kathir, and ibn Hajar all authenticate this hadeeth and ibn Kathir states it as Saheeh in his Al-Bidayah and ibn Hajar in his Fath Al-Bari has said the mursal of Sha’bi is authentic. We read in “Ma`rifat al-Thiqaat” by Imam al-`Ijli vol.2 pg.12: The Mursal of al-Sha`bi is Sahih he almost never does Irsaal unless it is Sahih.

This report is also supported by the fact that, during the illness of Fatima(ra), Abubakr(ra) sent his wife Asma(ra) to nurse Fatima(ra), which was probably after he visited Fatima(ra) in her illness and felt that his wife should be the one who nurses daughter of Propet(saw), hence he sent his wife. Had it been that Fatima(ra) was displeased with Abubakr(ra), Fatima(ra) wouldn’t have accepted this gesture of Abubakr(ra) or his wife, since there were many other women from Bani Hashim or Mujahireen or Ansar who could have tended Fatima(ra), if she didn’t want wife of Abubakr(ra) to nurse her.

 

Argument 26:

Another Shiawebsite RTS argued:

[Quote]

Shiawebsite RTS chose to play a game. They submit that the attribution of the addition to Al-Zuhri is accurate for the sake of the argument, but then suggest that disconnected narrations by Al-Zuhri are reliable, hence they quote the following:

Khatib Al-Baghdadi:

Yaqoob ibn Sufyan said: I heard Ja’far ibn Abd Al-Waheed Al-Hashimi saying to Ahmad ibn Salih that Yahya ibn Sa’eed said: “The Mursal (hurried) of Al-Zuhri is unreliable.” Ahmad got angry and said: “What does Yahya know about the knowledge of Zuhri? That which Yahya said is untrue!” Source: Al-Kifaya. Pg. # 386.

[End Quote]

Answer:

However, this is quote is unreliable and rejected, because Ja’afar bin Abd Al-Waheed Al-Hashimi is a liar. See his biography in Lisan Al-Mizan.

Secondly, this contradicts other established reports such as the following:
قال يحيى بن سعيد القطان : مرسل الزهري شر من مرسل غيره
Imam Yahya ibn Saeed al-Qattaan said: “Mursal az-Zuhri is worse than the Mursal of any other!”

أبو حاتم : حدثنا أحمد بن أبي شريح ، سمعت الشافعي ، يقول : إرسال الزهري ، ليس بشيء
Imam shafei said: The irsal of Zuhri is nothing(i.e useless)

يَحْيَى بْنِ مَعِينٍ ، قَالَ : ” مَرَاسِيلُ الْزُّهْرِيِّ لَيْسَ بِشَيْءٍ
Yahya ibn Maeen said: Maraseel of Zuhri are nothing.(Kitab Al-Maraseel)

أخبرنا أبو محمد بن طاوس ، أنبأنا أبو الغنائم بن أبي عثمان ، أنبأنا أبو عمر بن مهدي ، أنبأنا محمد بن أحمد بن يعقوب ، ثنا جدي ، قال : وسمعت عليا ، يقول : مرسلات الزهري رديئة
Ali bin Madeeni said: Maraseel of Zuhri are nothing.(tareekh dimashq)

Imam Al-Dhahabi regards the Mursal of younger Successors such as al-Hasan al-Basri, al-Zuhri, Qatada and Humaid al-Tawil as the weakest type of Mursal.

 

Argument 27:

Shiawebsite RTS then argued that all mudraj reports are to be accepted in Saheeh Al-Bukhari, stating:

[Quote]

The criticism of Zuhri has been recorded in Tarikh Kabir of Bukhari. However, despite this, Bukhari still deemed him as proof to have recorded from him in his authentic works. Al-Bukhari, being a hadeeth scientist himself would have undoubtedly taken Zuhri’s Idraaj in to consideration before including it into his ‘Saheeh’ (Authentic) collection.

[End Quote]

Answer:

This is false. Al-Bukhari has mentioned disconnected reports in his book. Are those to be accepted as reliable as well? Al-Bukhari has referred to his book as Al-Jami’ Al-Saheeh Al-Musanad min hadeethi Rasoolillah, implying that the connected reports to the Messenger of Allah(saw) are authentic. This does not apply to narrations of the sahaba or tabi’een, or disconnected reports(like the one under discussion), which is why scholars have never made a big deal out of criticizing such reports, even though they are very obviously weak.

 

Argument 28:

Shiawebsite RTS Stated:

[Quote]

Carrying on, Shiapen provide an additionional narration in which Fatima supposedly dies angry with Abu Bakr and Omar. They state; Sunan Tirmidhi records a narration free of Zuhri and Ayesha, that informs us as follows:

Similarly another Shiawebsite RTS quote:

Narrated Alee ibn Isa from Abdul Wahab ibn Ata from Muhammad ibn Amr from Abi Salama from Abi Huraira who said: Faatima (s.a) came to Aboo Bakr and Umar and she asked to give her, her share of inheritance from the Messenger of Allah (saw). They both said: We heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) saying: “I do not leave property to be inherited.” She (s.a) said: “By Allah (swt)! I will not talk to you both forever.” And then she died and did not speak with them.

Narration has been graded Saheeh (Authentic) by Al-Albani. Aboo Isa has added the meaning of “I will not talk to you both” is that I will not talk to you about this property forever, you both are right. And this Hadeeth (i.e. I do not leave property…) is narrated in another form from Aboo Bakr from the Messenger of Allah (saw).

Source: Saheeh Sunan Al-Tirmidhi. Vol. 2, Pg. # 214, H. # 1609.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Al-Albani is referring to two different narrations that he strengthened due to their agreement in the content attributed to the Prophet(saw). However, the second narration, which is our focus, is the only one that includes that Fatima swore to not talk to them forever. The second narration, which includes this addition, only comes to us through the path of Ali bin Eisa, who is Al-Bazzar Al-Baghdaadi. He was not known by the scholars of hadith and Al-Khateeb in his History of Baghdaad is not sure if he is the shaikh of Al-Sami or another anonymous(majhool) shaikh. Hence,  Ibn Hajar graded Ali bin esa in Taqreeb al-Tahdheeb: “He is ‘Maqbool’ [i.e. acceptable ONLY IF SUPPORTED].

This statement(I will not speak to you ever), is an isolated transmission(tafarrud) of dubious narrator Ali bin Eisa, following are the evidences for this claim:

(i). Lets see the chain of same narration in Musnad ahmad ibn hanbal:
Abdul Wahab bin Ata – Muhammad bin Amr – Abu Salma – Abu Huraira
حدثنا ‏ ‏عبد الوهاب بن عطاء ‏ ‏قال أخبرنا ‏ ‏محمد بن عمرو ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أبي سلمة ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أبي هريرة ‏
‏أن ‏ ‏فاطمة ‏ ‏رضي الله عنها ‏ ‏جاءت ‏ ‏أبا بكر ‏ ‏وعمر ‏ ‏رضي الله عنهما ‏ ‏تطلب ميراثها من رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏فقالا إنا سمعنا رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏يقول ‏ ‏إني لا أورث ‏

Here  the addition.
قالت والله لا أكلمكما أبدا فماتت ولا تكلمهما(I will not speak to you ever…)  is not present

(ii). In the Musnad abu bakr the chain for the same narration is:
Abdullah – Father – Abdul Wahab bin Ata – Muhammad bin Amr – Abu Salma – Abu Huraira
حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي حدثنا عبد الوهاب بن عطاء قال: أخبرنا محمد بن عمرو عن أبي سلمة عن أبي هريرة أن:
-فاطمة رضي الله عنها جاءت أبا بكر وعمر رضي الله عنهما تطلب ميراثها من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقالا: إنا سمعنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول: إني لا أورث

Still, the addition
قالت والله لا أكلمكما أبدا فماتت ولا تكلمهما is not present

(iii). In Kitab-al-Fattan of Naeem bin Hammad the chain is:

Abu khaythamaAbdul Wahab bin Ata – Muhammad bin Amr – Abu Salma – Abu Huraira

رقم الحديث: 53
(حديث مرفوع) حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو خَيْثَمَةَ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْوَهَّابِ بْنُ عَطَاءٍ , عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو , عَنْ أَبِي سَلَمَةَ , عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ ، قَالَ : ” لَمَّا قُبِضَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَرْسَلَتْ فَاطِمَةُ إِلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ , وَعُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا تَطْلُبُ مِيرَاثَهَا مِنَ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ , فَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ ، وَعُمَرُ : إِنَّا سَمِعْنَا النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ : إِنِّي لا أُوَرِّثُ ” .
Still, the addition
قالت والله لا أكلمكما أبدا فماتت ولا تكلمهما is not present.

(iv). Ibn Hajr recorded it in (موافقة الخبر الخبر) :

أن فاطمة عليها السلام جاءت أبا بكر وعمر رضي الله عنهما تطلب ميراثها من النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقالا إنا سمعنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول إني لا أورث
الراوي: أبو هريرة المحدث: ابن حجر العسقلاني – المصدر: موافقة الخبر الخبر – الصفحة أو الرقم: 2/177
خلاصة حكم المحدث: حسن
Here also, the additional text

قالت والله لا أكلمكما أبدا فماتت ولا تكلمهما   is not present.

The chain of Musnad Ahmad is shorter than the chain in Sunan al Tirmidhi, and the ending narrators of all the three chains are same, and in Musnad Ahmed which has a shorter chain, we don’t find the additional part. Hence, the hadith with shorter chain in Musnad Ahmad is to be preferred. Also, the chain of Kitab-al-Fattan is equal to that in Sunan Tirmidi, yet we don’t find the additional part there.  Moreover, the chain in Musnad Abu Bakr is longer than the hadith in sunan al tirmidhi, but still the words قالت والله لا أكلمكما أبدا فماتت ولا تكلمهما ‏ are not present.

So we have 3 different chains where the last three narrators are same and in the text of the hadeeth with these three chains, there is no additional part. And the additional part only comes in the text of the hadeeth in Sunan tirmidi, which has the dubious fourth narrator Ali bin Eisa, who is Al-Bazzar Al-Baghdaadi. He was not known by the scholars of hadith and Al-Khateeb in his History of Baghdaad is not sure if he is the shaikh of Al-Sami or another anonymous shaikh. Hence Ibn Hajar graded Ali bin esa in Taqreeb al-Tahdheeb as: “He is ‘Maqbool’ [i.e. acceptable ONLY IF SUPPORTED].

This proves that the additional part of the text was the taffarud(isolated transmission) of narrator Ali bin esa, since the other three chains with the same last three narrators didn’t have the additional phrase”(I will not speak to you ever)”, and they are not supporting the addition of Maqool narrator Ali bin esa. Ibn Hajar grades him maqbool in Taqrib. (4780). In the begining of his taqrib, Ibn hajar made crystal clear what does the term maqbool means in his view:
من ليس له من الحديث إلا القليل ، ولم يثبت فيه ما يترك حديثه من أجله ، وإليه الإشارة بلفظ : مقبول ، حيث يتابع ، وإلا فلين الحديث
The one who has no hadiths except for a few, and that it is not proven that anyone left his hadiths during his time and the term “Maqbul” is applied to him when backed by other narrations. If not, then he is weak in hadiths.

Thus the addition is odd(shaadh) and is rejected, though the text of the hadeeth without the addition is authentic, since it is supported by other reports.

 

Argument 29:

Shiapen Stated:

[Quote]

The Nawasib themselves present evidence wherein Fatima (as) forgave Abu Bakr on her deathbed. In there efforts to defend their client, his advocates sometimes forget that there past submissions contradict the new ones.  One of narration they quote ad nausea is this one:

there is proof from the Authentic Sunnah that Faatimah (alayhas salaam) became pleased with Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq before her death.
al-Hafidh Ibn Katheer mentions in his al bidayaah 6/333 that: When Fatima (alayhas salaam) was experiencing her sickness [before death], Abu Bakr as Sideeq came to her and sought to please her, and she became pleased. “ 
The exact narration has originally been reported by Imaam al-Baihaqi through Ismaeel ibn Abee Khaalid who narrated from Ash-Sh’ubi, and the isnaad (chain) of this report is sahih (authentic).

[End Quote]

Answer:

We quote these reports in order to show there are reports which invalidates the mursal report of Zuhri, which says Fatima(ra) was angry with Abubakr(ra) until she died. Secondly, there are degrees within disconnected reports, some disconnected reports are stronger than others. Al-Ijli explained: The mursal of `Amir al-Sha`bi(20-109) is authentic; he barely narrates disconnected narrations unless they were saheeh. We read in “Ma`rifat al-Thiqaat” by Imam al-`Ijli vol.2 pg.12: The Mursal of al-Sha`bi is Sahih he almost never does Irsaal unless it is Sahih.

Al-Sha`bi being a big follower and early Imam, he had authentic knowledge and knew the companions and their news more than anyone, even more than other companions knew about each other, we read in “al-Tareekh al-Sagheer” of al-Bukhari vol.1 pg.288 that al-Sha`bi said:

[I had met more than five hundred from the companions of the Prophet (saw).]

In “al-Thiqaat” by Ibn Hibban vol.5 pg.186 we read:

[Al-Sha`bi narrated from one hundred and fifty companions of the messenger (saw).]

He lived in the time of `Ali and his children and he narrated from al-Hasan bin `Ali, he also lived and died in Madinah where the companions and household resided.

If Shias wish to continue their bigotry, and want to rely on the disconnected report of Zuhri, then we quote Mursal report from Al-Sha’abi which states that, eventually Fatima(ra) was pleased with Abubakr(ra). So, why would any objective reader, accept the mursal report of Zuhri, that says Fatima(ra) died in state of anger with Abubakr(ra), which is much weaker in comparision to the Mursal report of Al-Sha’abi, that says Fatima(ra) was pleased with Abubakr(ra)?.

 

Argument 30:

Shiapen Stated:

[Quote]

Allamah Ibn Abdul Barr while referring to the opinion of Scholars regarding the Mursal narrated by Shu’bi records in his authority work Al-Tamhid, Volume 22 page 320:

ومراسيل الشعبي ليست عندهم بشئ

“The mursal of al-Sh’ubi according to them is worth nothing”

[End Quote]

Answer:

Ibn Abd al barr(died 463 AH) seems to be the only person with a low opinion of Al-Sha’bi’s mursal reports. But this doesn’t even really matter since Ibn Abd al barr himself is from late scholar, and there were scholars before him who viewed maraseel of Al-Sha’b in high regard.

Al-Ijli(died.261AH) explained: The mursal of `Amir al-Sha`bi(20-109) is authentic; he barely narrates disconnected narrations unless they were saheeh. We read in “Ma`rifat al-Thiqaat” by Imam al-`Ijli vol.2 pg.12: The Mursal of al-Sha`bi is Sahih he almost never does Irsaal unless it is Sahih.

Al-Sha`bi being a big follower and early Imam, he had authentic knowledge and knew the companions and their news more than anyone, even more than other companions knew about each other, we read in “al-Tareekh al-Sagheer” of al-Bukhari vol.1 pg.288 that al-Sha`bi said:

[I had met more than five hundred from the companions of the Prophet (saw).]

In “al-Thiqaat” by Ibn Hibban vol.5 pg.186 we read:

[Al-Sha`bi narrated from one hundred and fifty companions of the messenger (saw).]

He lived in the time of `Ali and his children and he narrated from al-Hasan bin `Ali, he also lived and died in Madinah where the companions and household resided.

Note: Al-Bayhaqi, ibn Kathir, and ibn Hajar all authenticate that hadeeth of Sha’bi and ibn Kathir states it as Saheeh in his Al-Bidayah and ibn Hajar in his Fath Al-Bari has said the mursal of Sha’bi is authentic.

 

Argument 31:

Shiapen Stated:

[Quote]

The fact that Fatima Zahra (as) was ‘angry’ with someone is sufficient to negate the suggestion that it was merely over a particular matter

 Even if for the sake of argument we accept the interpretation advanced by our opponents, the fact that the mistress of all the women of this universe died angry with Abu Bakr is undisputable, it attracted her ire to such an extent that she refused to talk to Abu Bakr him on the issue.  This clearly was significant enough to upset her, so why are Nawasib not prepared to assess this? This entitles us to ask questions of our opponents: Why did this decision anger her so much?

[End Quote]

Answer:

Assuming Fatima(ra) was angry and not just sad as stated in some narrations, we will answer this question by quoting some Shia books.

In al-Amali lil-Saduq pg.555:

باع علي (ع) حديقة له ، ووزع ثمنها كله على الفقراء ، فجاءته فاطمة (ع) غضبى ، وقالت :- أنا جائعة وإبناي جائعان ولا شك أنك مثلنا في الجوع ، لم يكن لنا منه درهم ؟ وأخذت بطرف ثوب علي

[`Ali (as) sold a garden he owned and distributed what he received among the poor and needy, so Fatimah (as) came to him and she was angry, she said: “I am hungry and so are my two sons and I am sure you are as well, have you not left us one Dirham?” And she pulled on `Ali’s clothes.]

Kashf-ul-Ghummah lil-Irbili 2/101:

شكت فاطمة (عليها السّلام) إلى رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله) عليّاً، فقالت: يا رسول الله، ما يدع شيئاً من رزقه إلاّ وزعه بين المساكين

[Fatimah (as) complained to Rasul-Allah (saw) about `Ali (as), she said: “O Rasul-Allah, he never leaves anything from his money unless he gives it away to the poor.”]

Although we do not believe in one word from what is written in the books of the Shia, yet it is correct that `Ali’s family was poor in the time of the Prophet (saw), this is because out of his wisdom our Prophet Muhammad (saw) never offered his family any treasure nor did he wish for them to inherit gold, to keep them detached from the worldly life and so they may not have internal struggles and fight over the wealth he left them. `Ali bin abi Talib would later obtain valuable gifts and lands from what the Khulafa’ offered him and his children, but at the time of the Prophet’s (saw) passing he had nothing, so Fatimah may Allah’s peace be upon her being the mother of two young kids, she was terribly worried about the fate of her family and she wished to obtain any means to provide for them.

Fatimah was not materialistic nor was she greedy for lands and wealth, she only thought that by obtaining a piece of land by Halal means, she would be ensuring her children’s survival. When Abu Bakr told her the reality of the matter the instinct of motherhood that Allah planted in her drove her to react in the way that she did. However, Ahlul-Bayt soon discovered that they were blessed, Rasul-Allah (saw) had left them a true treasure, an entire generation of pious believers surrounding them, a generation that loved Rasul-Allah (saw) and valued his family and placed them above all others, so whenever gifts were to be distributed the prophetic-household would receive the biggest share, and whenever spoils are to be divided they would be given precedence.

This is why when `Ali bin abi Talib passed away we read in his will, that he freed many servants and distributed the lands, we read in the Sahih Hadith in al-Kafi 7/49: that `Ali gave away the lands of Yanbu` as Sadaqah, and he left the lands in the valley of al-Qura for his children, and the land in Daymah, and the land in Udhaynah are all Sadaqaat.

Hence, Ahlul-Bayt were never poor after Rasul-Allah (saw) passed away and they were loved and respected by the believers until a vile Fitnah struck our nation from which no believer was safe whether he was a Hashimi or non-Hashimi. The Hashimites had lands and servants and wealth and `Ali bin abi Talib died leaving behind him a blessed fortune for his children and for the poor and needy.

 

Argument 32:

Shiapen Stated:

[Quote]

Maula Ali (as)’s decision not to notify Abu Bakr of the funeral of Fatima (as) proves that he was honoring the fact that she died angry at him

If our opponents are going to argue that the anger was solely with regards to Fadak, then this would mean on all other matters, relations were completely cordial.  If this was indeed the case why did Imam Ali (as) bury her without notifying Abu Bakr?

[End Quote]

Answer:

There are two views regarding the burial and funeral of Fatima(ra).

View- I:

The first view in Sahi Bukhari is actually from the idraaj(interpolation) of narrator Zuhri, which is Mursal and very weak.

Let us quote the report with Arabic text for the benefit of the readers from Tarikh al-Tabari where it can be clearly seen that it was the statement of a male narrator:

حدثنا أبو صالح الضراري، قال: حدثنا عبد الرزاق بن همام، عن معمر، عن الزهري، عن عروة، عن عائشة، أن فاطمة والعباس أتيا أبا بكر يطلبان ميراثهما من رسول الله ص، وهما حينئذ يطلبان أرضه من فدك، وسهمه من خيبر، فقال لهما أبو بكر: أما انى سمعت رسول الله يقول: [لا نورث، ما تركنا فهو صدقة، إنما يأكل آل محمد في هذا المال] وإني والله لا أدع أمرا رأيت رسول الله يصنعه إلا صنعته قال: فهجرته فاطمة فلم تكلمه في ذلك حتى ماتت، فدفنها علي ليلا، ولم يؤذن بها أبا بكر وكان لعلي وجه من الناس حياة فاطمة، فلما توفيت فاطمة انصرفت وجوه الناس عن علي، فمكثت فاطمة ستة أشهر بعد رسول الله ص، ثم توفيت. قال معمر: فقال رجل للزهري: أفلم يبايعه علي ستة أشهر! قال: لا، ولا أحد من بني هاشم، حتى بايعه علي قال لا، ولا أحد من بني هاشم

‘Aishah (said): Fatimah and al-Abbas came to Abu Bakr demanding their share of inheritance of the Messenger of God. They were demanding the Messenger of God’s land in Fadak and his share of Khaybar’s tribute. Abu Bakr replied, “I have heard the Messenger of God say, “Our, i.e. the prophets’ property cannot be inherited and whatever we leave behind is alms to be given in charity. The family of Muhammad will eat from it. By God, I will not abandon a course which I saw the Messenger of god practicing, but will continue it accordingly. He said: Fatimah shunned him and did not speak to him about it until she died. Ali buried her at night and did not permit Abu Bakr to attend her burial. While Fatimah was alive, Ali held respect among the people. After she died their attention turned away form him. Ma’mar: A man asked al-Zuhri, “Did Ali not give his oath of allegiance for six months?” He said: “No, nor anyone of the Banu Hashim until Ali rendered his.(Tarikh al-tabari, Dar al-Turath, Beirut, 1387 A.H. vol.3 pp.207-208)

Comment: It is apparent that, these wordings were from the male narrator, implying Zuhri and not the wordings of Ayesha(ra). Imam Zuhri didn’t witness this incident as he wasn’t born when this event took place. And according to scholars Mursal reports of Zuhri are the weakest. Hence scholars have rejected this view.

Shah Abdul Haq Muhadith Dehalwi in his book Ash’at al-Lam’aat Sharh Mishkat stated:

It has been mentioned in ahadees that Abubakr siddique(ra) did not attend the funeral of Fatima(ra) , nor was he informed about it. Some people say that Fatima(ra) made a will,wishing that Abubakr(ra) shall not lead her funeral prayers. However, Muhaddiseen negate this statement by people and call it a concocted story. How could Fatima(ra) make such a will? when ruler of the time possesses more right to lead funeral prayer. That’s the reason why Imam Hussain(ra) allowed the ruler of Madinah, Marwaan bin Hakam, who was appointed by Ameer Muawiya(ra), to lead the funeral prayer of Imam Hasan(ra) and said, ‘had it not been command of shari’ah, I wouldn’t have allowed you to lead his funeral prayer’. Some scholars say that Fatima’s(ra) funeral took place at night, and so Abubakr(ra) didn’t come to know about it. This is far from the truth as Asma bint Umais(ra) was in wedlock(nikah) with Abubakr(ra) at that time, and Asma(ra) made preparations of Fatima’s(ra) bath and funeral clothing. Now this is something not possible that Abubakr’s(ra) wife is present there while he being unaware of it. Abubakr’s(ra) knowledge about Fatima’s(ra) funeral is categorically evident from the report in which she said : I feel shy to be presented before men after my death without being covered. It was a custom to bring women’s funeral out just as men’s. They did not have any special arrangements for women. Asma said, “O daughter of the Messenger of Allah(saw) should I show you what have I seen in Ethiopia(Habsha)?” Hence, she asked for some green twigs, bended it(over the body) and then put a cloth over it. So Fatimah(ra) said, “How good and beautiful is this. A woman could be differentiated with it from a man. So when, I will die then you and Ali should give me the bath and do not permit anyone (during that).” When she died ‘Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) came to enter, so Asma said, “Do not enter.” She complained to Abu Bakr and said, “This Khath’ami woman is coming between me and the daughter of the Messenger of Allah(saw). And she has made like Howdaj of Marriage for her.” Then Abu Bakr came and stopped at the door and said, “O Asma! What made you to stop the wives of the Prophet(saw) from the daughter of the Porphet(saw) and you have also made like the Howdaj of marriage for her?” She(Asma) replied, “She(Fatima) asked me to prevent anyone from entering, and I showed her this (method of covering the body) when she was alive so she told me to do this with her.” Then Abu Bakr said, “Do as she asked you to do.” Then he left ,and Ali and Asma gave bath to her .

(Ash’at al-Lam’aat Sharh Mishkat, Volume 5 pages 354-355)

Anyways the first view is that: “Ali, buried Fatima(ra) at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself”.(Bukhari). The Shias due to their bigotry try to misuse this incident against Abubakr(ra), and inorder to portray that Fatima(ra) had a grudge against Abubakr(ra), they claim that, Abubakr(ra) wasn’t informed about the funeral of Fatima(ra). But the fact which Shias aren’t aware of is that wife of Abubakr(ra) was the one who was nursing Fatima(ra) in her final illness and She was the one who gave Fatima(ra) funeral bath. Thus Abubakr(ra) was well informed regarding the funeral of Fatima(ra). Regarding the misunderstanding that, Ali(ra) did not inform Abubakr(ra) about funeral of Fatima, then how often do we see, a person whose father, or mother or wife passed away, he goes around exclaiming the death of that person? And secondly, there was no need for Ali(ra) to inform Abubakr(ra) regarding it, since Abubakr(ra) was already informed and was getting the news regarding the condition of Fatima(ra) on a daily basis from his wife Asma. If it is questioned that, why has the name of Abu Bakr(ra) specifically been mentioned and not the names of other companions? Then it is because Abubakr(ra) was the Caliph and the leader of Ummah during that time, and the common practise was that Caliph would lead the funeral prayers, but since as per Shia hadeeth it was the wish of Fatima(ra) that men shouldn’t pray over her, then he was not officially informed about the funeral prayer, according to this first view.

We read in Shia book, Illal ul sharai , under Chapter 149: (The reason for which Fatima (as) was buried at night and not buried at daytime) that:

حدثنا علي بن احمد بن محمد رضى الله عنه قال: حدثنا محمد بن أبى عبد الله الكوفي قال: حدثنا موسى بن عمران النخعي، عن عمه الحسين بن يزيد عن الحسن ابن علي بن أبى حمزة، عن أبيه قال: سألت أبا عبد الله ” ع ” لاي علة دفنت فاطمة عليها السلام بالليل ولم تدفن بالنهار؟ قال: لانها أوصت ان لا يصلي عليها رجال

Told us Ali b. Ahmad b. Muhammad (ra) who said: Told us Muhammad b. Abi Abdullah al Kufi who said: Told us Musa b. Imran al Nakha’i, from his uncle al Hussain b. Yazid from al Hasan b. Ali b. Abi Hamza, from his father who said: (I) asked Aba Abdullah (as) for what reason Fatima(as) was buried at night and not buried at daytime? (Imam(as)) said: “For indeed she had willed/bequeathed that men should not pray upon her.”

So from this shia hadeeth we came to know that it was the wish of Fatima(ra) that men in general, shouldn’t pray upon her. This is the reason men weren’t informed regarding the funeral of Fatima(ra) and Ali(ra) made that prayer. Some Shias who can’t bear to see their argument being shattered from their own books, they try to deceive people by adding (two men) in the brackets after men in the above hadeeth. Inorder to portray that this wish was to restrict Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra). But this deception is exposed if we see the Arabic word for men used in the hadeeth, that whether it was singular, dual or plural. In Arabic the word “rajul” is used for a man(singular); “rajulan” is used for two men(dual); and “rijalis used for more than two men(plural)”, and in the above Shia hadeeth the word used was “Rijal” which is plural. Hence it means that the wish was for men in general, as Fatima(ra) was extremely shy woman. If the Shias still wish to argue that the wish for just two men(Abubakr and Umar), then they should first prove from an Authentic Shia report that, Ali(ra) informed ALL his close companions, relatives and family members regarding burial of Fatima(ra) and they ALL(i.e his close companions and relatives) attended the funeral prayer of Fatima(ra) along with Ali(ra), and anyone whose name their name Shias aren’t able to prove from their authentic report; should be put under the category of those with whom Fatima(ra) was displeased.

Moreover, the Shias even claim that the grave of Fatima(ra) was not known to Sahaba, this is an irrational argument because Fatima(ra) was buried in the graveyard Jannat al-Baqee in Madinah, as mentioned by Ibn katheer in al-Bidaya, and even Shias believe the same. As for the proper location then, Sahaba or residents of Madinah in specific knew it, because they knew about all he graves in Jannat al-Baqee, so even if SUPPOSEDLY, Ali(ra) didn’t inform them the location of grave, even then its quite obvious that they would know it, because any new grave in Baqee after the burial of Fatima(ra) would mean that was her grave. It’s common sense, so Sahaba knew the grave of Fatima(ra). However, for now there seems to be uncertainty regarding the Grave of Fatima(ra), since there are different opinion about it, some claim that it is known, some say it is not. See this Image as example [Grave of Fatima RA], or this [Video], but as for those who disagree that Grave of Fatima(Ra) is known then to the we answer that, there are many graves of Sahaba in Jannat al-Baqi that are unknown. We read the same on Shiawebsite, which quotes the famous historian/Traveller Ibn Batuta. We read in famous Shiawebsite:[“the famous traveller Ibn Batuta came to describe al-Baqi in a way which does not in any way differ from the description given by Ibn Jubair. He adds saying, “At al-Baqi are the graves of numerous Muhajirin and Ansar and many companions of the Prophet (s), except that most of their names are unknown.”] . (Source). So we don’t know the names of most of Sahaba buried in Jannat al-Baqee, Fatima(ra) is not alone. And we believe it’s from the Qadr of Allah that the grave of Fatima(ra) becomes unknown to later people, since we see how ignorant Shias worship Fatima(ra) even when her grave is unknown, what would have they done when it was known, also their corrupt practise of taking the soil from the graves of people whom they consider infallible is also known fact, so Allah saved her grave from all sorts of these corrupt practises by making it unknown to later people.

View- II:

Second view also comes through different weak chains from al-Sha’bi and Ali bin Hussain, grandson of Ali(ra) and Fatima(ra) where we find that Abubakr(ra) led the funeral prayer of Fatima(ra).

We read in Riyad al nadhira:

عن مالك عن جعفر بن محمد عن أبيه عن جده علي بن الحسين قال ماتت فاطمة بين المغرب والعشاء فحضرها أبو بكر وعمر وعثمان والزبير وعبد الرحمن بن عوف فلما وضعت ليصلى عليها قال علي رضي الله عنه تقدم يا أبا بكر قال وأنت شاهد يا أبا الحسن قال نعم تقدم فوالله لا يصلي عليها غيرك فصلى عليها أبو بكر رضي الله عنهم أجمعين ودفنت ليلا خرجه البصري وخرجه ابن السمان في الموافقة وفي بعض طرقه فكبر عليها أربعا- الرياض النضرة – 1/82
Ali said : Move ahead Abu Bakr (for imamah) Abu Bakr said : While you are present O Abul Hasan? Ali said : Yes, By God, no one will pray upon her except you. So Abu Bakr prayed over her and she was buried at night.

It is mentioned in many books that Abu Bakr attended the funeral prayer of Fatima.
صلى أبو بكر الصديق على فاطمة بنت رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فكبر عليها أربعا
Abu Bakr lead the funeral prayer of Fatima daughter of the Messenger of Allah (s) with four takbir.
Tabaqat ibn Sad, Vol. 8 ,p. 19
Sunan Al Kubra, Baihaqi, Vol. 4,p. 29
Kanzul Ammal, Vo. 7, p. 114
Riyaz un nazra, Vol. 1, p. 156
Hilyatul Awliya, Vol. 4, p. 96.

 

Shia Argument 33:

[Quote]

Some Sunni Scholars have used the portion which you declare as interpolation by Zuhri, to form the fiqh ruling that burial can be made at night, as Fatima(ra) was buried at night.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Some Sunni scholars using a portion of the idraaj from Zuhri, to form a ruling that burial can be made at night, is not problematic, because it is a known fact that, Scholars of jurisprudence sometimes used to rely on weak reports to form a fiqh ruling, in absence of any authentic report.

Anyways, Fatima(ra) being buried at night not only comes from mursal report of Zuhri, but it was reported by in a weak report from Ahlelbayt too, but in a completely different version.

عن مالك عن جعفر بن محمد عن أبيه عن جده علي بن الحسين قال ماتت فاطمة بين المغرب والعشاء فحضرها أبو بكر وعمر وعثمان والزبير وعبد الرحمن بن عوف فلما وضعت ليصلى عليها قال علي رضي الله عنه تقدم يا أبا بكر قال وأنت شاهد يا أبا الحسن قال نعم تقدم فوالله لا يصلي عليها غيرك فصلى عليها أبو بكر رضي الله عنهم أجمعين ودفنت ليلا خرجه البصري وخرجه ابن السمان في الموافقة وفي بعض طرقه فكبر عليها أربعا- الرياض النضرة – 1/82
Ali said : Move ahead Abu Bakr (for imamah) Abu Bakr said : While you are present O Abul Hasan? Ali said : Yes, By God, no one will pray upon her except you. So Abu Bakr prayed over her and she was buried at night.

Moreover, regarding the ruling of burying at night, there is authentic proof where people were buried at night during lifetime of Prophet(saw).

Narrated Ibn `Abbas. A person died and Allah’s Apostle used to visit him. He died at night and (the people) buried him at night. In the morning they informed the Prophet (about his death). He said, “What prevented you from informing me?” They replied, “It was night and it was a dark night and so we disliked to trouble you.“ The Prophet went to his grave and offered the (funeral) prayer.( Sahih Bukhari 2.339).

So we find that there are clear authentic proofs which shows that Sahaba(ra) buried people during night, and Prophet(saw) didn’t object on it.

Therefore, the report which Sunni scholars of jurispudence used is not sole evidence on which the ruling was made; rather it is secondary proof which is backed by other authentic reports regarding burial during night.

 

Argument 34:

Shiapen Stated:

[Quote]

Why was Asma the wife of Abu Bakr not only informed but allowed to partake in the funeral rites?

This is a significant point.  The wife of Abu Bakr, who had deep respect and love for Fatima (as) attended the home of Ali (as) and partook in the burial rites.  She was invited, it would not have taken much trouble for Imam Ali (as) to request that she also go to her husband and tell him to share in their grief and attend her funeral.  The reality is she did not, if she did then there would have been no reason for Abu Bakr to have remained ignorant of the funeral of Fatima(as).

[End Quote]

Answer:

One of the proofs which indicate that the relationship between Abu Bakr(ra) and Fatimah (ra) was normal and stable is that the wife of Abu Bakr(ra) Asma’ bint ‘Umays, is the one who tended Fatimah(ra) the daughter of the Prophet(Saw), during her final illness, for more than two months and she was with her until she left this world and She was one of those gave the funeral bath.

It is not possible that Asma(ra) the wife of Abubakr(ra), went to tend Fatima(ra) for two months without the permission of her husband(Abubakr). There are report which describe that Abu Bakr(ra) gave permission to Sayyida Asma bint ‘Umais to perform the funeral according to Fatima’s(ra) will indicating that Abu Bakr (ra) was well aware of her funeral. We read:

Umm Ja’far narrates: Fatimah the daughter of the Messenger of Allah(saw) said, “O Asma! I do not like what is being done to the body of women. A cloth is spread over it which describes her (i.e. her private parts).” Asma said, “O daughter of the Messenger of Allah(saw) should I show you what have I seen in Ethiopia(Habsha)?” Hence, she asked for some green twigs, bended it(over the body) and then put a cloth over it. So Fatimah(ra) said, “How good and beautiful is this. A woman could be differentiated with it from a man. So when, I will die then you and Ali should give me the bath and do not permit anyone (during that).” When she died ‘Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) came to enter, so Asma said, “Do not enter.” She complained to Abu Bakr and said, “This Khath’ami woman is coming between me and the daughter of the Messenger of Allah(saw). And she has made like Howdaj of Marriage for her.” Then Abu Bakr came and stopped at the door and said, “O Asma! What made you to stop the wives of the Prophet(saw) from the daughter of the Porphet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) and you have also made like the Howdaj of marriage for her?” She(Asma) replied, “She(Fatima) asked me to prevent anyone from entering, and I showed her this (method of covering the body) when she was alive so she told me to do this with her.” Then Abu Bakr said, “Do as she asked you to do.” Then he left ,and Ali and Asma gave bath to her. [As-Sunan al-Kubra of Al-Bayhaqi (no.6930)]

This shows that Abubakr(ra), was well informed regarding the funeral of Fatima(ra). Regarding the misunderstanding that, Ali(ra) did not inform Abubakr(ra) about funeral of Fatima, then how often do we see, a person whose father, or mother or wife passed away, he goes around exclaiming the death of that person? And secondly, there was no need for Ali(ra) to inform Abubakr(ra) regarding it, since Abubakr(ra) was already informed and was getting the news regarding the condition of Fatima(ra) on a daily basis from his wife Asma.

 

Argument 35:

Shiapen Stated:

[Quote]

Why did Maula Ali (as) not give bayya to Abu Bakr until AFTER Fatima (as) left the earth? 

Clearly there would be no reason to withhold allegiance of Fatima(as) was pleased with Abu Bakr, with the exception of the Fadak dispute.  Yet (as per Sunni narrations) thatFatima(as) was angry at Abu Bakr and as long as she was alive Imam Ali (as) dod not give bayya to Abu Bakr.  Now what would be the reason for Imam Ali (as) to delay giving bayya to Abu Bakr unil after the death ofFatima(as).  The narrative of Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 546 states:

So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not talk to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband `Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself. When Fatima was alive, the people used to respect `Ali much, but after her death, `Ali noticed a change in the people’s attitude towards him. So `Ali sought reconciliation with Abu Bakr and gave him an oath of allegiance. `

[End Quote]

Answer:

As already explained this view comes from Zuhri, and he didn’t provide the source from where he got this news from; this even contradicts other authentic report which says Ali(ra) gave bayah to Abubakr(ra) on the first day. Hence the view of Zuhri is unreliable and rejected.

The best proof that it was the opinion of Zuhri is the hadeeth from Musannaf Abdul razzaq, where we clearly see that it was the opinion of Imam Zuhri not the original narrator Ayesha(ra).

قال معمر : فقال رجل للزهري : فلم يبايعه على ستة أشهر ؟ قال : لا ، ولا أحد من بني هاشم ، حتى بايعه علي ، فلما رأى علي انصراف وجوه الناس عنه ،
أسرع إلى مصالحة أبي بكر ، فأرسل إلى أبي بكر أن ائتنا ولا تأتنا معك بأحد
Mu’ammar said: A man said to al-Zuhri: So ‘Ali did not give the pledge of allegiance for six months? He(Zuhri) said: No, nor did anyone from bani Hashim do so until ‘Ali did, When ‘Ali saw the people turning away from him he hurried to Abu Bakr in order to reconsile with him, he sent after him saying: Come to us and do not bring anyone else. ( Musannaf Abul Razzaq, hadeeth 9774)

(i). Imam Beyhaki said in Itiqad wal Hadiy ila sabili Rashad (p 494):

The thing that was narrated regarding Ali didn’t pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr 6 months, is not from words of Aisha. That is words of az-Zuhri, which some narrators inserted to hadith of Fatima from Aisha (may Allah be pleased with them). Muamar ibn Rashid memorized it, and narrated it in clear form, and he marked words of az-Zuhri separate from hadith itself.[Itiqad wal Hadiy ila sabili Rashad (p 494)]

(ii). Imam Ibn Hajar Said:

وقال ابن حجر في شرح حديث عائشة المشار إليه آنفاً:(( وقد تمسك الرافضة بتأخر علي عن بيعة أبي بكر إلى أن ماتت فاطمة، وهذيانهم في ذلك مشهور. وفي هذا الحديث ما يدفع حجتهم، وقد صحح ابن حبان وغيره من حديث أبي سعيد الخدري وغيره: (أن علياً بايع أبا بكر في أول الأمر) وأما ما وقع في مسلم عن الزهري أن رجلاً قال له: (لم يبايع علي أبا بكر حتى ماتت فاطمة؟ قال: لا ولا أحد من بني هاشم) فقد ضعفه البيهقي بأن الزهري لم يسنده، وأن الرواية الموصولة عن أبي سعيد أصح،وجمع غيره بأنه بايعه بيعة ثانية مؤكدة للأولى، لإزالة ما كان وقع بسبب الميراث كما تقدم، وعلى هذا فيحمل قول الزهري (لم يبايعه علي): في تلك الأيام على إرادة الملازمة له والحضور عنده، وما أشبه ذلك. فإن في انقطاع مثله عن مثله ما يوهم من لا يعرف باطن الأمر أنه بسبب عدم الرضا بخلافته، فأطلق من أطلق ذلك، وبسبب ذلك أظهر علي المبايعة التي بعد موت فاطمة رضي الله عنها لإزالة هذه الشبهة))فتح الباري 7/495
The Rafidah have sticked to the opinion that Ali delayed his Pledge of Allegiance (Bay’ah) to Abu Bakr until Fatimah died, and their (Rafidah) delirium in that matter is well known. They have no proof whatsoever in that Hadith, for it was authenticated by Ebn HIbban and others (Al-Bayhaqi, Ahmad etc.) that Ali gave his pledge to Abu Bakr at the very beginning of the matter, this was narrated by the Sahabi Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudri. As for what has been narrated in SAHIH MUSLIM, on the authority of Al-Zuhri, that a man said to him: ‘Ali did not give his pledge to Abu Bakr until Fatimah died? Al Zuhri said: ‘No he didn’t, neither did anyone of the Bani Hashim’, then Al-Bayhaqi has weakened this narration, for the narration is not connected and the narration of the SAHABI Abu Sa’eed is more authentic, and  other narrations that altogether tell us that a second pledge took place, to remove (the distress occured between Fatimah and Abu Bakr) what happened due to the inheritance matter.[Fath Al-Bari 7/495]

(iii). We read in Sawaik al-Muhrika by ibn Hajar al-Makki(p 58) :

“Beyhaki said: Report from Ayesha in Saheeh Muslim, that Ali and others from Banu Hashim didn’t pledge allegiance (to Abu Bakr) till death of Fatima, is weak. Narrator Zuhri didn’t prove its chain”.

The authentic hadeeth which proves that Ali(ra) gave allegiance to Abubakr(ra) on the first day:

فعن أبى سعيد الخدري- رضي الله عنه- قال قبض رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم واجتمع الناس في دار سعد بن عبادة وفيهم أبو بكر وعمر قال فقام خطيب الأنصار فقال أتعلمون أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كان من المهاجرين وخليفته من المهاجرين ونحن كنا أنصار رسول الله ونحن أنصار خليفته كما كنا أنصاره قال فقام عمر بن الخطاب فقال صدق قائلكم أما لو قلتم على غير هذا لم نبايعكم وأخذ بيد أبي بكر وقال هذا صاحبكم فبايعوه فبايعه عمر وبايعه المهاجرون والأنصار قال فصعد أبو بكر المنبر فنظر في وجوه القوم فلم ير الزبير قال فدعا بالزبير فجاء فقال قلت ابن عمة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وحواريه أردت أن تشق عصا المسلمين فقال لا تثريب يا خليفة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقام فبايعه ثم نظر في وجوه القوم فلم ير عليا فدعا بعلي بن أبي طالب فجاء فقال قلت ابن عم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وختنه على ابنته أردت أن تشق عصا المسلمين قال لا تثريب يا خليفة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فبايعه.
Abu Sa’eed al Khudri said: When the Prophet’s(saw) soul passed away and when the people gathered at the place of Sa’ad bin Ubadah and amongst them were Abu bakr and Umar; A Khateeb from the Ansar(Supporters) spoke: “You know that the Prophet of Allah(saw) was from the Mouhajirun(immigrants) and his Caliph must also be from the Mouhajirun, we were the Ansar of the Prophet(saw) and we will be the Ansar of his Caliph just as we were his Ansar”. then Umar bin al Khattab stood up and said “This Man from amongst the Ansar speaks truth and if it were anything other than this then we would not give you a baya’ah(Pledge of allegiance)” then he grabbed the hand of Abu bakr and said: “this is your Close companion so give him Baya’ah” then Umar and the Mouhajirun and the Ansar all gave him Baya’ah. Abu bakr stood on the Mimbar and he looked at the faces of all the people there but he never saw al Zubair so he called for him and and he came so he told him: “O son of the Prophet’s(saw) aunt and his disciple would you want to split the cause of the Muslims?” Zubair said: “Not at all O Caliph of the Prophet of Allah” then he stood and gave him Baya’ah, Then he looked at the faces of the people but did not spot Ali so he called for Ali bin abi Talib and he came to him so he said: “O cousin of the prophet of Allah and the husband of his daughter would you want to split the cause of the Muslims?” So Ali replied: “Not at all O Caliph of the Prophet of Allah” then he stood and gave him Baya’ah.

[Al-Bayhaqi said: ‘ Abu Ali Al-Hafidh said: I heard Mohammad Ibn Ishaq Ibn KHUZAYMAH (Imam of the Imams) saying: ‘Muslim Ibn Al-Hajjaj (Imam Muslim!) entered upon me and asked me about that Hadith, so I wrote it down for him and read it. He said: ‘This Hadith is worth a Badnah (precious camel)’. I said: ‘A Badnah? Rather it is worth a Badrah (a Badrah is a bag with 10.000 Dinar!. And the Hadith was also narrated by Al-Hakim in his Al-Mustadrak ‘ala Al-Sahihayn (80/3) and he said: ‘This Hadith is Sahih according to the terms of the Shaykhayn who did not narrate it.’ Its like he said and it was also narrated by Ahmad (185/5) and in Mujama’a al Zawa’ed (5/183), rijal are people of saheeh. ; Al Bidayah wal Nihayah (5/281), chain thabit and saheeh and in al Sunan al Kubrah (8/143) with two SAHIH chains.]

 

Argument 36:

Shiapen Stated:

[Quote]

A major Sunni scholar’s admission that the anger of Fatima (as) towards Abu Bakr never subsided until she died

The fact that Fatima Zahra (sa) did not forgive Abu Bakr and died angry towards him has been attested by Imam of Ahle Sunnah Shah Abdul Haq Muhadith Dehalwi in his famed work Ash’at al-Lam’aat Sharh Mishkat (Urdu translation by Allamah Muhammad Abdul Hakeem Sharaf Qadri), Volume 5 pages 353-354:

“The case of Fatima al Zahra is difficult among all the cases. If I say that Fatima was ignorant with regards to the Hadeeth cited by Abu Bakr then it is impossible and if I say that she was not provided the opportunity to hear this Hadeeth then it is also difficult, because after hearing this Hadeeth from Abu Bakr and the testimonies of the Sahaba, she did not accept the Hadeeth which is why she became angry. If she had become angry before hearing the Hadeeth then why didn’t desist from her anger, anger that was so lengthy that she did not talk to Abu Bakr as long as she remained alive”
 Ash’at al-Lam’aat Sharh Mishkat, Volume 5 pages 353-354 (Farid Book Stall, Urdu Bazar, Lahore)

[End Quote]

Answer:

These assumptional statements made by the scholar are based on the disconnected idraaj(interpolation) of narrator Zuhri, and since the disconnected report of Zurhri itself is unreliable and rejected, this makes any assumption based on this report null and void. This scholar is from the group of those scholars who didn’t make a proper research over this issue, and took the report for granted, as it came in Bukhari and Muslim, and made assumptional statements based on the disconnected report of Zuhri, and further gave an explanation to it, which Shiapen didn’t quote. However, there were scholars who made a proper research and were able to prove that those wordings were of Zuhri who was known for his interpolations, and not the wordings of Ayesha(ra).

Here are views of some esteemed scholars of Ahlesunnah, regarding this issue:

1. Al-‘Ayni narrated that Al-Muhallab said: “No narrator said that they met and refused to greet one another; rather she stayed in her house, and the narrator described that as shunning.” (Abatil Yajab An Tamah min Al-Tarikh, page 108)

2. Imam Al-Qurtubi, the author of al-Mufhim, said in the context of commenting on the hadith of Aishah(ra) : “Moreover, she [meaning Fatimah(ra)] did not meet Abu Bakr(ra) because of her grief at the loss of the Messenger of Allah(saw) and because she stayed in her house, the narrator described that as forsaking or shunning. But the Messenger of Allah(saw) said: ‘It is not permissible for a Muslim to forsake his brother for more than three days. She was the most Knowledgeable of people about what was permissible and forbidden in that regard, and she was the least likely of people to go against the command of the Messenger of Allah (saw). How could she be like that when she was a part of the Messenger of Allah(saw) and the leader of the women of paradise?.(Al-Mufhim, vol 12, page 73)

3. Imam Ibn Qutaybah said: “As for the dispute of Fatimah(ra) with Abu Bakr (may Allah he pleased with them both) concerning the inheritance of the Prophet(saw) this was not something strange, because she did not know what the Messenger of Allah(saw) had said, and she thought that she would inherit from him as children inherit from their fathers. When Abu Bakr told her what the Prophet had said, she gave up her demand”.(Tawil Mukhtalaf al-Hadith vol 1, page 19).

4. Maulana Hafiz Maher Muhammad in his book  “Tuhfa Imamiya” wrote:
“Hazrat Abu Bakr RA had mentioned the reason for not giving Hazrat Fatima(ra) the share in Fadak, the latter had become silent after being satisfied. The narrator(Zuhri) equated “silence” to “anger” and added the words to the hadith. (Tuhfa Imamiya, page 183)

 

Argument 37:

Shiapen Stated:

[Quote]

The direct actions of Sayyida Zahra (as) prove that she never forgave Abu Bakr

Ibn Qutaybah records the failed efforts of the Shaykhayn to seek forgiveness for their upsetting Fatima (as) when they attended her home, she responded by making it clear to them:

‘When I meet my father the Prophet (s), then I shall’ complain about the both of you (Abu Bakr and Umar), and said to Abu Bakr ‘By Allah I shall curse you after every Salat”.
 Al-Imamah wa al-Siyasa, Vol. 1, Page 14

[End Quote]

Reply 1:

Al-Imāma wa al-Siyāsa is a forged book filled with fabrications, which is spuriously attributed to Sunni scholar Ibn Qutayba by Shias. However the fact is that this book was authored by the extremist Shia author of the forged al-Ma`arif, and not the Sunnī scholar Ibn Qutayba (d. 276), the author of the real al-Ma`arif and other works such as Ta’wīl Mukhtalif al-Ĥadīth.

It even lacks proper chain for its reports. Plus the book has some very gross and laughable historical mistakes which raises this serious question that whether the author of the book is a historian or not. For example the book mentions that Muslims first conquered al-Andalus/Spain during the time of the Abbasids, and it also confuses As-Saffah and his brother Abu Jaffar al Mansur to be the same person, whereas they were two different and separate Abbasid Caliphs such that as-Saffah was the first abbasid caliph, and latter on he was succeeded by his brother abul Jaffar al Mansur.

Reply 2:

We can never expect nor imagine that this could be the action of Fatima(ra) towards those who approached her seeking her forgiveness, a woman like her would never act like that, because was one of the best women of the worlds.

Moreover according to Shia hadeeth:

علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن عبد الله بن سنان، عن أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) قال: قال رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله) في خطبته: ألا اخبركم بخير خلائق الدنيا والآخرة؟: العفو عمن ظلمك، وتصل من قطعك، والاحسان إلى من أساء إليك، وإعطاء من حرمك.

Imam Abu Abdillah(as) said: The Messenger of Allah (saaw) said in his sermon: Shall I not inform you of the best traits in the world and the hereafter? Pardoning of the one who oppresses you and establishing relations with one who has cut you off and kindness towards the one who does evil against you, and granting one who has denied you.(Al-Kafi, Book of Faith & Disbelief, page 364).

Therefore, if Shias also believe that Fatima(ra) possessed the best traits, then they must also believe that, she could never act in such a way.

Reply 3:

Imam Ahmed Ibn Taymiyyah(rah) states in his Minhaaj al-Sunnah, vol. 4, pp. 243-244:

وكذلك ما ذكره من حلفها أنها لا تكلمه ولا صاحبه حتى تلقى أباها وتشتكي إليه أمر لا يليق أن يذكر عن فاطمة رضي الله عنها فإن الشكوى إليه أمر لا يليق أن يذكر عن فاطمة رضي الله عنها فإن الشكوى إنما تكون إلى الله تعالى كما قال العبد الصالح إنما أشكو بثى وحزني إلى الله وفي دعاء موسى عليه السلام اللهم لك التكلان وقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لابن عباس إذا سألت فاسأل الله وإذا استعنت فاستعن بالله ولم يقل سلني ولا استعن بي
وقد قال تعالى فإذا فرغت فانصب وإلى ربك فارغب

And like what (the slander) which is mentioned, she took oath not to talk to him (Abu Bakr) and his companion (Umar) until she meets her father (prophet saw) and complain to him about the issue, (such) doesn’t suit to mention about Fatimah (ra) because the complain must be directed towards Allah like what pious servant (Yaqoob) said : “I only complain of my suffering and my grief to Allah” and in the supplication of Musa (as) “O Allah to you I entrust my affairs” and Prophet (saw) said to Ibn Abbas “If you ask, then ask Allah; and if you seek help, seek help from Allah” and he (saw) did not tell him (Ibn Abbas) to ask me nor did he tell him to seek help from me. And Allah said: “So when you have finished [your duties], then stand up [for worship]. And to your Lord direct [your] longing.”

After Ibn Taymiyyah refutes rafidi slander against Sayyedatul Nisa Al-alameen Fatimah (ra) and defends her he ends with this statement.

فقاتل الله الرافضة وانتصف لأهل البيت منهم فإنهم ألصقوا بهم من العيوب والشين مالا يخفى على ذي عين

May Allah fight the rafidah and take revenge for ahlul-bait for they have attached shortcomings and disgrace upon them which is not hidden from the one who have eyes.

 

Argument 38:

Shiapen Stated:

[Quote]

Why did the principal claimant’s family not state that the matter had been resolved?

We should not forget the surviving claimants that would have been affected by this alleged dramatic change of heart. Do we any hadeeth from Imam Ali (as), or Sayyida Fatima (as)’s children that could have clear up this dispute, by notifying the people that all had been resolved? This would have been more likely in the case of Imam Ali (as), particularly when we see the complete tradition in Sunan al-Bayhaqi is as follows:

When Fatimah was ill, Abu Bakr visited her and sought her permission (to see her). So Ali called out, “O Fatimah, Abu Bakr here seeks your permission (to see you).” Fatimah asked, “Would you like that I permit him?” Ali replied, “Yes.” Thus, she permitted him and he entered seeking her contentment saying, “By Allah I have not left home, wealth, family and kin other than in pursuit of the pleasure of Allah, the pleasure of His Messenger, and the pleasure of you all, the Ahl al-Bayt. So he continued trying to make her happy until she was well pleased.
[Sunan al-Baihaqi, Hadith 12515]

Here we see that it was Maula Ali (as) who allegedly persuaded Sayyida Fatima (as) to see Abu Bakr that resulted in an amicable settlement. When Maula Ali (as) was witness to this joyous occasion why do we not have a single narration wherein he recollects this incident and informs the people that his wife had forgiven Abu Bakr (as)?

[End Quote]

Answer:

There was no need to make such a claim, because the loyalty of Ahlelbayt towards Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra) is the clear proof that, the matter had been resolved, if it wasn’t, Ahlelbayt wouldn’t have been loyal to Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra).

Testimony of Abu Ja’afar, the member of Ahlelbayt, the grandson of Hussain(ra) :

عن بسام بن عبدالله الصيرفي قال : سألت أباجعفر قلت : ماتقول في أبي بكر وعمر رضي الله عنهما ، فقال : والله إني لأتولاهما وأستغفر لهما وما أدركنا أحد من أهل بيتي إلا وهو يتولاهما . [ حسن ] .
From Bassam bin Abdullah al-Sayrafi: I asked Abu Ja’afar: What do you say about Abu bakr and ‘Umar may Allah be pleased with them? He replied: “By Allah I am loyal to them and I ask Allah to forgive them and we never met anyone from my family who was not loyal to them.” (Fadael al-Sahaba wa Manaqibihim wa Qawl Ba’adihim fi Ba’ad” by the famous scholar of Hadith al Darqutni)
Grading: Hasan.

عن كثير النوال قال : قلت لابي جعفر محمد بن على عليه السلام : جعلني الله فداك ! أرأيت أبا بكر وعمر ، هل ظلماكم من حقكم شيئا – أو قال : ذهبا من حقكم بشئ ؟ فقال : لا ، والذى أنزل القرآن على عبده ليكون للعالمين نذيرا ، ما ظلمنا من حقنا مثقال حبه من خردل ، قلت : جعلت فداك أفأتولاهما ؟ قال : نعم ويحك ! تولهما في الدنيا والاخرة ، وما أصابك ففى عنقي ، ثم قال : فعل الله بالمغيرة وبنان ، فإنهما كذبا علينا أهل البيت

It has been narrated from katheer un nawwal that he said : I said to Abu Jafar : May Allah give me the honor to be sacrificed for you, did Abu Bakr and Umar oppressed you regarding your rights? or said : Did they spoilt any of your rights? He said: No, by the One who revealed the Holy Quran on his servant, they didn’t oppressed us regarding our rights a bit. I said : May I be sacrificed on you, should I keep them close? He said, Yes, keep them close to yourself in this world and the hereafter, and if it creates any trouble for you, than it shall be on my throat. Than he said : May Allah give Mughaira and Banan the same reward which they deserve, they lie on us Ahlel bayt.[Sharh Nahjul balagha, by Ibn Abil hadeed shia mutazili, Vol. 4, p. 113]

Moreover, according to a well known proverb, “actions speak louder than words”; Ali(ra) named his sons and grandsons after Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra), and Ali(ra) even adopted the son of Abubakr after Abubakr’s death, whose name was Muhammad bin Abubakr. Further he married his daughter from Fatima(ra), Umm Kulthum(ra) to Umar(ra). Not only this but when Ali(ra) became Caliph, he didn’t overrule the decision of Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra), he didn’t give inheritance to heirs of Prophet(saw). So what better proof can be from these agreed upon facts by both Sunnis and Shias, here we find the actions of Ali(ra) clearly proving that there weren’t any differences between his family and Abubakr(ra) or Umar(ra).

 

Argument 39:

Shiapen Stated:

[Quote]

If Sayyida Fatima (as) said nothing to Abu Bakr at that time, then we will say that her son Imam Hasan (as) in effect echoed her sentiments during Abu Bakr’s reign, Suyuti: records that:

Al Hassan Ibn Ali came to Abu Bakr when he was upon the mimbar of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and said ‘Come down from my father’s seat’. He said ‘You have told the truth, it is your father’s seat,’ and he placed him in his lap and wept’. Ali said ‘By Allah this was not from my command’.
History of the Khalifahs who took the right away, by: Al Hafiz Jalaludin Suyuti. English translation by Abdasamad Clark Page 71. Taha Publishers

[End Quote]

Answer:

Shiapen has again failed to understand a simple narration which actually portrays the love of Abubakr(ra) for Prophet Muhammad(saw) and as usual they applied their evil connotation to it. This incident most likely occurred just after the death of Prophet(saw), when Hassan(ra) saw Abubakr(ra) on the pulpit of Prophet(saw) for the first time. Hassan(ra) at that time was 7 years old, approx. Being of such young age, Hassan(ra) wasn’t able to understand the death of Prophet(saw).

By the term “father” Hassan meant his grand father Muhammad(saw), this expression is commonly used by Arabs to address their fore-fathers or grand-father, similarly the expression of Son is also used by Arabs to address their grand-children.

Let us cite few examples where the expression of father or son was used to denote the grand parents and grand children respectively:

1. Narrated Abu ‘Is-haq: Al-Bara’ was asked while I was listening, “Did you flee (before the enemy) along with the Prophet (saw) on the day of (the battle of) Hunain?” He replied, “As for the Prophet, he did not (flee). The enemy were good archers and the Prophet (saw) was saying, “I am the Prophet (saw) undoubtedly; I am the son of `Abdul Muttalib.“(Sahih al-Bukhari #4316).

Comment: Here we find that Prophet(Saw) said he is the son of Abdul Muttalib, where as he was the grand-son of Abdul Muttalib.

2. Narrated Abu Bakra: I heard the Prophet (saw) talking at the pulpit while Al-Hasan was sitting beside him, and he (i.e. the Prophet ) was once looking at the people and at another time Al-Hasan, and saying, “This son of mine is a Sayyid (i.e. chief) and perhaps Allah will bring about an agreement between two sects of the Muslims through him.”(Sahih al-Bukhari #3746)

Comment: Here we see that Prophet(saw) called Hassan(ra) as his son, though he was his grand-son.

3. Sa`id bin Mansur recorded that Ibn Mas`ud said that the Messenger of Allah said: Every Prophet had a Wali (best friend) from among the Prophets. My Wali among them is my father Ibrahim, the Khalil (intimate friend) of my Lord, the Exalted and Most Honored). “(Saheeh al-Jami” 2158).

Comment: Prophet(saw) called Ibrahim(as) as his father, though he was the fore-father of Muhammad(saw).

Therefore, Hassan(ra) using the word father, means that he was referring to Prophet(saw), this is how Abubakr(ra) understood it, and wept, as it reminded him of Prophet Muhammad(saw). And this reaction of Abubakr(ra) wasn’t odd, rather he would weep, when he was reminded of Prophet(saw), there we read:

Anas reported that after the death of Allah’s Messenger (saw) Abu Bakr said to ‘Umar: Let us visit Umm Aiman as Allah’s Messenger (saw) used to visit her. As we came to her, she wept. They (Abu Bakr and Umar) said to her: What makes you weep? What is in store (in the next world) for Allah’s-Messenger (saw) is better than (this worldly life). She said: I weep not because I am ignorant of the fact that what is in store for Allah’s Messenger (saw) (in the next world) is better than (this world), but I weep because the revelation(Wahi) which came from the Heaven has ceased to come. This moved both of them to tears and they began to weep along with her.(Sahi Muslim, Book 31, Hadith 6009).

Therefore, the report which shows the love of Abubakr(ra) for Prophet Muhammad(saw) was misinterpreted by Shiapen against Abubakr(ra). But, the fact that Abubakr(ra) wept, shatters the deceitful interpretation of Shiapen, because they can’t give an academic answer to this reality, except with their bigotic excuses.

Such an action is even reported from Hussain(RA) during the Caliphate of Umar(RA). We read:

لذهبي – سير أعلام النبلاء
– حماد بن زيد : ، حدثنا : يحيى بن سعيد الأنصاري ، عن عبيد بن حنين ، عن الحسين ، قال : صعدت المنبر إلى عمر ، فقلت : نزل ، عن منبر أبي ، وإذهب إلى منبر أبيك ، فقال : إن أبي لم يكن له منبر ! فأقعدني معه ، فلما نزل ، قال : أي بني ! من علمك هذا ؟ ، قلت : ما علمنيه أحد ، قال : أي بني ! وهل أنبت على رؤوسنا الشعر إلاّ الله ، ثم أنتم ! ووضع يده على رأسه ، وقال : أي بني ! لو جعلت تأتينا وتغشانا ، إسناده صحيح.
[…] Oِn the authority of Al-Hussein [Ibn Ali Ibn Abi Talib] who said: I went to Omar while he was given a sermon over the minbar (pulpit). I ascended to him and said: “Come down from the minbar of my father, and go to the minbar of your father!”. Omar answered: “My father had no pulpit”. At this time Omar got down from the minbar, and sat me on the minbar beside him and while he was descending he said: “O my son! Who taught you this?” I (Al-Hussein) said: “Nobody taught me this.” He (Omar) said: “O my son, and is there anyone else besides Allah and then you (Rasulullah and Ahl Al-Bayt) who honoured us!” Then he (Omar) put his hand on Al-Hussein’s head […] [Narrated also by Al-Dhahabi, Ibn ‘Asakir, Ibn Hajr, Al-Khatib Al-Baghdadi]

Al-Hussein was a child during the reign of Omar and during that incident. Al-Hussein was born in the 4th year Hijri and Rasulullah (peace be upon him) passed away in 11th Hijri.  Al-Hussein was only 6 to 7 years old. In another version we read the following wording: “… He (Omar) then took me and held me with his two hands.” And in another narration it is mentioned “… At this time he sat me on the minbar beside him..” And in another narration it is mentioned “… he put his hands on my head“. So he (Al-Hussein) is narrating what he said (his reaction when he saw Omar) as a child, and the reaction and the wordings of a child are different to that of an grown up. Al-Hussein’s wording (get off the minbar of my father) was in regards to his grandfather Rasulullah (peace be upon him) who was like a father to him and even called Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein his sons.

And if this is not proof enough then here is an authentic narration, with the wording JADDI (my grandfather):

جزاكم الله خيرا ، ويؤيد ما ذهبتم إليه رواية ابن شبة للأثر ، فقال (3/ 798) :
حَدَّثَنَا الْحِزَامِيُّ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ وَهْبٍ، قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنِي يُونُسُ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ كَعْبٍ:
” أَنَّ حُسَيْنَ بْنَ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا قَامَ إِلَى عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ وَهُوَ عَلَى مِنْبَرِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَخْطُبُ النَّاسَ يَوْمَ الْجُمُعَةِ , فَقَالَ: انْزِلْ عَنْ مِنْبَرِ جَدِّي، فَقَالَ عُمَرُ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ: «تَأَخَّرْ يَا ابْنَ أَخِي» ، قَالَ: وَأَخَذَ حُسَيْنٌ بِرِدَاءِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا فَلَمْ يَزَلْ يَجْبِذُهُ وَيَقُولُ: انْزِلْ عَنْ مِنْبَرِ جَدِّي، وَتَرَدَّدَ عَلَيْهِ حَتَّى قَطَعَ خُطْبَتَهُ وَنَزَلَ عَنِ الْمِنْبَرِ، وَأَقَامَ الصَّلَاةَ، فَلَمَّا صَلَّى أَرْسَلَ إِلَى حُسَيْنٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ فَلَمَّا جَاءَهُ قَالَ: «يَا ابْنَ أَخِي مَنْ أَمَرَكَ بِالَّذِي صَنَعْتَ؟» قَالَ حُسَيْنٌ: مَا أَمَرَنِي بِهِ أَحَدٌ، قَالَ: يَقُولُ لَهُ ذَلِكَ حُسَيْنٌ ثَلَاثَ مَرَّاتٍ، كُلَّ ذَلِكَ يَقُولُ: مَا أَمَرَنِي بِهِ أَحَدٌ، قَالَ عُمَرُ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ: «أَوَ لِي؟» وَلَمْ يَزِدْ عَلَى ذَلِكَ، وَحُسَيْنٌ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ يَوْمَئِذٍ دُونَ الْمُحْتَلِمِ ”
وسنده حسن
Al-Hussein went to Omar while he was given a sermon over the minbar (pulpit) of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) on the day of Jumu’ah. He (Al-Hussein) said: “Come down from the minbar of my Grandfather. Omar said: “Wait a second, o son of my brother (Rasulullah).” Al-Hussein then grabbed Omar’s garment and repeated what he said until Omar stopped his Khutbah (speech) and descended the minbar (pulpit) and finished his prayer. Once Omar finished his prayer he asked for Al-Hussein, once he (Al-Hussein) arrive he (Omar) asked him: “Who told you to do this?” Al-Hussein answered: Nobody ordered me to do so.” Al-Hussein repeated that three times. […] At this time Al-Hussein did not reach puberty (i.e. he was a child).

 

Argument 40:

Shiapen Stated:

[Quote]

A Nasibi’s efforts to suggest that the dispute was a ‘minor matter’

Consider the facts, property is usurped and the aggrieved party:

  • Has her truthfulness challenged by the usurper
  • Refuses to speak to the usurper for the rest of her short life
  • Curses him in her prayers
  • Orders that he does not attend her funeral

Would you describe such a reaction as ‘a minor matter’?

[End Quote]

Answer:

It seems Shiapen believes that repeating a lie again and again, would make it a fact, so we find them repeating these lies again and again. Anyways, the answers are as follows:

1 Ans: Her truthfulness was never challenged as has been explained and answered, and rather her truthfulness was affirmed.

Here is a weak report where we find that Abubakr(ra) didn’t demand witnesses from Fatima(ra) saying she was reliable and trusted in his sight.

We read in al-Tarikah with its chain from Anas that Abu Bakr(ra) told Fatimah(ra):

أَنْتِ عِنْدِي مُصَدَّقَةٌ أَمِينَةٌ، فَإِنْ كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ عَهِدَ إِلَيْكِ فِي ذَلِكَ عَهْدًا، أَوْ وَعَدَكِ مِنْهُ وَعْدًا أَوْجَبَهُ لَكُمْ صَدَّقْتُكِ، وَسَلَّمْتُهُ إِلَيْكِ، قَالَتْ فَاطِمَةُ عَلَيْهَا السَّلامُ: لَمْ يَكُنْ مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ فِي ذَلِكَ إِلَيَّ شَيْءٌ إِلا مَا أنزل اللَّهُ تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى فِيهِ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ

[Abu Bakr told her: “You are reliable and trusted in my sight, if Rasul-Allah (saw) had promised you anything concerning this, I would believe you and hand it to you.” Fatimah replied: “The messenger (saw) never said anything, it is only what is written in the Qur’an.”]

2 Ans: The argument based on unreliable and rejected view of Zuhri that Fatima(ra) refused to speak to Abubakr(ra) for the rest of her life, has been answered in this article.

3 Ans: This was not from the morals and traits of Fatima(ra), as explained in the article. Hence it’s a lie and concoction, which is rejected.

4 Ans: This wish was general for all as explained previously, and it sounds irrational that she allowed wife of Abubakr(ra) to give her funeral bath and even to nurse her, but disallowed Abubakr(ra) to attend her funeral for a personal reason. The fact is that, it was not personal, and her wish to disallow people was general.

Now, does it appear as a major issue, like the Shia want to portray by blowing it out of proportion?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s