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

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 Two: General facts on Fadak”.

Argument 1:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

For evidence as to how much area constituted fadak, we are relying on the following esteemed Sunni works:

Maujam ul Buldan by Yaqoot Hamawi, v14, p238

Tareekh Khamees, v2, p88

Wafa-ul-Wafa by Noor-ud-Deen Al-Samhoodi, v4, page 1480

“Fadak was a city, which was situated 2 or 3 days of travel from Madina. There were wells of water and trees of dates in it. It was the same Fadak, about which Fatima Zahra (r) said to Abu Bakr, “My father gave me this Fadak as a present”. Abu Bakr asked her in reply to produce witnesses.”

Note: Upon this demand of Abu Bakr, Fatima (as) recited this verse of the Qur’an:

“Nay, but ye have yourselves contrived a story (good enough) for you. So patience is most fitting (for me).
Al-Qur’an, Surah 12, Ayah 83, translation by Yusufali

[End Quote]

Answer:

Keeping aside the geographical information of Fadak, the story of Abubakr(ra) asking Fatima(ra) to bring witnesses is baseless. Interestingly according to Shiapen, on the demand of Abubakr(ra), Fatima(ra) recited a verse of Quran, which stated that “patience is most fitting”, However on the other hand Shias narrate another fabricated story which says that, Fatima(ra) instead of remaining patient, She went out, gathered people and started to complain regarding the oppression on her and sought help from them. So with which of these fabrications, Shias would like to go? The fabricated report which says Fatima(ra) considered patience to be most fitting for her, or the other fabricated report, where she went out and gathered people to complain and to seek help from them.

Anyways regarding the story of witnesses being demanded from Fatima(ra), Hammad bin Ishaq (d.267 hijri) said in his expert research on the topic of inheritance in his book “Tarikat al-Nabi”:

فَأَمَّا مَا يَحْكِيهِ قَوْمٌ أَنَّ فَاطِمَةَ عَلَيْهَا السَّلامُ طَلَبَتْ فَدَكَ، وَذَكَرَتْ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَقْطَعَهَا إِيَّاهَا، وَشَهِدَ لَهَا عَلِيٌّ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ، فَلَمْ يَقْبَلْ أَبُو بَكْرٍ شَهَادَتَهُ لأَنَّهُ زَوْجُهَا، فَهَذَا أَمْرٌ لا أَصْلَ لَهُ وَلا تَثْبُتُ بِهِ رِوَايَةٌ

As for what some folks say regarding Fatimah (as) asking for Fadak and claiming that it was a gift and `Ali (as) giving his account as a witness, then Abu Bakr rejected his testimony for he was her husband; this matter is baseless and not established from any reliable narration.

Moreover, there 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(ra) 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.”]

Comment: In other words she is only relying on the laws of inheritance in the Qur’an, there was no promise nor gifts. Nor did Abubakr(ra) ask for any witnesses, He said, he would believe her if she affirms that it was given to her by Prophet(saw).

Argument 2:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

The income of Fadak was used for military purposes

We read in Ahl’ul Sunnah’s esteemed work Insanul Ayun fi Seerah al Halabiyah,Volume 3, p487-488, Chapter “The death of the Prophet (s)”

“Umar was angry with Abu Bakr and said, “If you give Fadak back to Fatima, where the expenses for army and defence will come from for at present all the Arabs are fighting against you. He then took the papers of Fadak from Fatima (as), and tore them into shreds”.
Insanul Ayun fi Seerah al Halabbiyah, Vol. 3, Page 487 & 488

As we have shown, the historical facts are clear that Fadak was property from which not only one family could live easily, but which could help maintain the entire army. Tragically, the State usurped it so that its political opponents, the family of the Prophet (s), would be weakened thus preventing any attempts to oppose them.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Al-Seerah al-Halabiyyah whose author `Ali al-Halabi was born in 975 and died in 1044 hijri quotes a couple of texts related to Fadak, obviously from them is that Fatimah was pleased with Abu Bakr. However, we find that Shiapen skip a lot of what doesn’t agree with their desires and this is their way.

When we found the text that Shiapen quoted, we were terribly disappointed, we knew for a fact it would be chainless since the author is very late but not only this, it turns out these are not his words:

وفى كلام سبط ابن الجوزى رحمه الله أنه رضي الله تعالى عنه كتب لها بفدك ودخل عليه عمررضى الله تعالى عنه فقال ما هذا فقال كتاب كتبته فاطمه بميراثها من ابيها فقال مماذا تنفق على المسلمين وقد حار بتك العرب كما ترى ثم احذ عمر الكتاب فشقه

He was simply quoting Sibt ibn al-Jawzi who died 654 hijri, whom al-Dhahabi described in al-Meezan as unreliable Rafidhi.

In Mizan al-‘E’itidal, al-Imam al-Dhahabi on vol.4 pg.471 states:

9880 – يوسف بن قزغلى الواعظ المؤرخ شمس الدين، أبو المظفر، سبط ابن الجوزي . روى عن جده وطائفة، وألف كتاب مرآة الزمان، فتراه يأتي فيه بمناكير الحكايات، وما أظنه بثقة فيما ينقله، بل يجنف ويجازف، ثم إنه ترفض . وله مؤلف في ذلك . نسأل الله العافية مات سنة أربع وخمسين وستمائة بدمشق . قال الشيخ محيي الدين السوسي : لما بلغ جدي موت سبط ابن الجوزي قال : لا رحمه الله ، كان رافضيا

9880- Yusuf ibn Qazghali al-Wa’ith the historian Shams al-Deen, abu al-Muzaffar Sibt ibn al-Jawzi. narrated from his grandfather and others, authored the book Miraat al-Zaman and in it he has gathered corrupt stories, I do not think he is reliable in what he reports but he exaggerates, then he became a Rafidhi. He has a book about this. We ask Allah for protection, he died 654 in Damascus. al-Sheikh Muhyi al-Deen al-Susi said: When my grand-father learned of the death of Sibt ibn al-Jawz he said: May Allah not show him any mercy he was a Rafidhi.

Thus, the report is unreliable since Sibt ibn Jawzi was unreliable as said by Dhahabi, as well as he was a rafidi.

Secondly, in previous arguments ‘Shiapen’ brought a report that Abubakr(ra) demanded Fatima(ra) to present witnesses for her claim. Now they present another contradictory report which says that Fatima(ra) had a written document as a proof, which was torn. The point to note is that, why would Abubakr(ra) demand witnesses at first place, if Fatima(ra) had a written document with her and that was torn.? This makes no sense at all, and obviously the Shias will bring some irrational excuses for it. And both of these are baseless fabrications. The reason to point it out was to show the readers the contradictory reports fabricated inorder to give the First Caliph of believers, a bad image.

Thirdly, in regards to Fadak being used for Military purposes then, this was from the practise of Prophet Muhammad(saw).

Muhammad ibn Maslamah, one of those who narrated an official letter from Caliph `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz, he said:

قَالَ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ مَسْلَمَةَ: فَقَسَّمَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ أَمْوَالَ بَنِي النَّضِيرِ بَيْنَ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ، وَأَعْطَى مَعَهُمْ أَهْلَ الْخَلَّةِ مِنَ الأَنْصَارِ، وَحَبَسَ فَدَكَ وَالْكَثِيبَةَ، فِيمَا بَلَغَنَا لِلْحَرْبِ وَالسِّلاحِ

[The messenger(saw) divided the money of Bani al-Nadeer between the Mouhajireen and the most beloved to him from the Ansar, he kept Fadak and al-Kateebah for war and weapons from what we heard.]

One narration says that He(saw) divided the lands between the people and gave it to them until an amount of money remained, he would then take for his family what suffices for a year and spend the rest in the cause of Allah. In another narration it says he used to place the rest in Bayt-ul-Mal, which is the treasury of the Islamic state, yet no conflict here as he can store it there to spend it on the Muslims in charity. In a third version of the text, it says he spent the rest of it, in Sadaqah. In a fourth version it says he placed the rest in weapons and war equipment.

All versions do not conflict, it basically says he fed his family and close relatives for the year and spent all the rest in the cause of Allah from feeding the poor to spending on stranded travelers to preparing the Muslim army.

Lastly, we see some historical reports on how the Messenger of Allah(saw) divided this wealth, what is consistent throughout these narrations is that He(saw) never took anything for himself, all that he took he later spent on the believers as well as keeping what barely suffices his family, this is why He(saw) told the believers when he received his share from the Khums:

ثُمَّ دَنَا يَعْنِي النَّبِيَّ مِنْ بَعِيرٍ فَأَخَذَ وَبَرَةً مِنْ سَنَامِهِ ثُمَّ قَالَ: يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنَّهُ لَيْسَ لِي مِنْ هَذَا الْفَيْءِ شَيْءٌ وَلَا هَذَا، وَرَفَعَ أُصْبُعَيْهِ إِلَّا الْخُمُسَ وَالْخُمُسُ مَرْدُودٌ عَلَيْكُمْ

Malik, Ahmad, abu Dawud and al-Nasa’i all report that the Messenger of Allah(saw) was talking to the people about the Fay’, he walked up to a mule and with his fingers took one of its hairs then told the people: “O people, I do not get anything from this Fay’, not even this -He raised his fingers- I only receive from the Khums, and even that is returned to you.”

Argument 3:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

The income from Fadak

In the authority work of Ahl’ul Sunnah, Sunan Abu Dawud, Volume 3 page 144 it is written:

قال ابو داود : ولى عمر بن عبدالعزيز الخلافة وغلته أربعون ألف دينار

Abu Dawood said: ‘When Umar bin Abdul-Aziz became Caliph, the income (from the property of Fadak) was 40,000 Dinars.’

The land of Fadak and income from its dates

It is written in Sharh of Nahaj ul Balagha by Ibn Abi Al-Hadeed, Volume 4 page 108:

“Umar expelled the Jews from Fadak. And the value of the land along with its dates was 50,000 Dirhams.”

….. As we have shown, the historical facts are clear that Fadak was property from which not only one family could live easily, but which could help maintain the entire army.

[End Quote]

Answer:

The answer to this argument can be found in this article under the heading “(5). The Shia claim is against the conduct and nature of Prophet(saw).”

Argument 4:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

General facts on Fadak

What is the difference between Ghanimah and Fay?

We read in Tafseer Kabeer, v8, p125, and Tafseer Muraghi, under the commentary of Surah Hashar:

وهو أن الغنيمة ما أتعبتم أنفسكم في تحصيلها وأوجفتم عليها الخيل والركاب بخلاف الفيء فإنكم ما تحملتم في تحصيله تعبا

“Ghanimah is (that property) in which you had worked to get it and used horses or rode while the Fay is (that property) in which you didn’t have make efforts to attain.”

Fadak was the Fay Property

The Qur’an has ruled on the status of Fadak as property of Fay.

What Allah has bestowed on His Messenger (and taken away) from them – for this ye made no expedition with either cavalry or camelry (like Fadak): but Allah gives power to His messengers over any He pleases: and Allah has power over all things.
Al-Qur’an, Surah 59, Ayah 6, translated by Yusufali

[End Quote]

Answer:

Shiapen under the title, “General facts on Fadak” considers Fadak to be Fay, that is, the property which is attained without making efforts. However esteemed Shia scholar, Kulayni the author of Al-Kafi, contradicts the facts quoted by Shiapen.

Kulayni states: “Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High, has invented the whole world for His deputy as He has said to His angels. “When your Lord said to the angels, “I am appointing someone as my deputy on earth, . . .” (2:30) The whole world was for Adam and after him it belonged to the good ones among his descendants and his successors. Whatever their enemies had taken away from them came back to them through war or conquest that is called Fay’. It is the property that would come to the as a result of conquest or war, However, 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..(Al-Kafi, Chapter 130, The Fay’, al-Anfal, al-Khums, its rules and the properties subject to al-Khums).

So we leave it upon Shias, to decide who is stating the fact, Shiapen or Kulayni.

Argument 5:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Umar also deemed Fadak to be the exclusive property of Rasulullah (s)

This is proven from al Farooq Volume 2 pages 289-290 by Shams al Hind Allamah Shibli Numani:

“…after the conquest of Syria and Iraq Omar addressed the companions, he declare on the basis of the Holy Qur’an that the conquered territories were not the property of any man, but that they were a national trust, as has been discussed under Fay. However, from the verse of the Qur’an it appears that the lands of Fadak were the Holy Prophet’s own property, and that Omar himself understood the verse to imply so: What Allah has made this people (i.e. Bani Nadir) deliver to his Apostle, to conquest which you did not lead any camels or horses, but Allah empowers his Apostles over who, he pleases”. On reading this verse Omar declared that the land was reserved for the Holy Prophet. The matter is mentioned in Sahih al Bukhari in detail in the chapters on Khums al Maghazi and al Mirath”
Al-Farooq, Vol. 2, pages 289 & 290

[End Quote]

Answer:

In Tareekh al-Madinah by ibn Shubah we read in the narration of `Umar ibn al-Khattab more detail:

كَانَتْ لِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَفَايَا خَيْبَرُ وَفَدَكُ وَبَنُو النَّضِيرِ.فَأَمَّا بَنُو النَّضِيرِ فَكَانَتْ حُبُسًا لِنَوَائِبِهِ، وَأَمَّا فَدَكُ، فَكَانَتْ لأَبْنَاءِ السَّبِيلِ، وَأَمَّا خَيْبَرُ فَجَزَّأَهَا ثَلاثَةَ أَجْزَاءٍ: جُزْئَيْنِ بَيْنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ، وَجُزْءًا لِنَفَقَةِ أَهْلِهِ، فَمَا فَضَلَ عَنْ نَفَقَةِ أَهْلِهِ رُدَّ عَلَى فُقَرَاءِ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ

[The messenger (saw) acquired (the Fay’) from Khaybar and Fadak and banu al-Nadeer. As for Banu al-Nadeer it was saved for his urgent needs, as for Fadak it was for the stranded travelers, and as for Khaybar it was divided into three: Two thirds for the Muslims and a third for his family then what remained of it would be returned on the poor Mouhajireen.]

Argument 6:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

The author’s assertion that Khayber and Fadak were used for supporting guests, travellers and ambassadors is a complete lie.

Let us see how Fadak and Khayber was utilised by Rasulullah.We read in Sahih Muslim, Bab ul Fai Book 019, Number 4347:

It has been narrated on the authority of Umar, who said: The properties abandoned by Banu Nadir were the ones which Allah bestowed upon His Apostle for which no expedition was undertaken either with cavalry or camelry. These properties were particularly meant for the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him). He would meet the annual expenditure of his family from the income thereof, and would spend what remained for purchasing horses and weapons as preparation for Jihad.

Umar said that the land was given to support his family and for weapons, al Lofji claims that it was to meet the expenditure of foreign ambassadors, visitors, guests and travellers.Now the reader has to decide whose words are to be relied upon Umar or those of al Lofji?

[End Quote]

Answer:

Fadak being used for travellers is not a lie, rather Shiapen made the allegation out of ignorance.

In Tareekh al-Madinah by ibn Shubah we read in the narration of `Umar ibn al-Khattab:

[The messenger (saw) acquired (the Fay’) from Khaybar and Fadak and banu al-Nadeer. As for Banu al-Nadeer it was saved for his urgent needs, as for Fadak it was for the stranded travellers, and as for Khaybar it was divided into three: Two thirds for the Muslims and a third for his family then what remained of it would be returned on the poor Mouhajireen.]

Similarly, We read in Sunan Abi Dawud 2967 (Grading : Hasan) :

Malik ibn Aws al-Hadthan said: One of the arguments put forward by Umar was that he said that the Messenger of Allah(saw) received three things exclusively to himself: Banu an-Nadir, Khaybar and Fadak. The Banu an-Nadir property was kept wholly for his emergent needs, Fadak for travellers, and Khaybar was divided by the Messenger of Allah(saw) into three sections: two for Muslims, and one as a contribution for his family. If anything remained after making the contribution of his family, he divided it among the poor Emigrants.

Secondly, regarding the narration of Umar bin al-Khattab, then he quotes the verse of Fay’and tells those who are present, that how Rasul-Allah(saw) spent it. This narration also says that he(saw) divided the lands between the people and gave it to them until an amount of money remained, he would then take for his family what suffices for a year and spend the rest in the cause of Allah. In another narration it says he used to place the rest in Bayt-ul-Mal, which is the treasury of the Islamic state, yet no conflict here as he can store it there to spend it on the Muslims in charity. In a third version of the text, it says he spent the rest of it in Sadaqah. In a fourth version it says he placed the rest in weapons and war equipment.

Argument 7:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

The means via which Sayyida Fatima (as) acquired Fadak

Allah declares in the Holy Qur’an:

And render to the kindred their due rights, as (also) to those in want, and to the wayfarer: But squander not (your wealth) in the manner of a spendthrift.
Al-Qur’an, Surah 17, Ayah 26, translated by Yusufali

Note:

Allah who owns every thing has provided a means for his Servants to acquire some of these things. Land e.g that is acquired without fighting is Fay and the Prophet (s) is it’s sole owner. He could give it to whoever he pleased, either as a gift, or by any other mode. Accordingly, when this verse was revealed he (s) gave the land of Fadak to Fatima Zahra (as) under the order of Allah. This is proven from the following authority works of Ahl’ul Sunnah:

Tafseer Durr al Manthur v4, p177

Kanzul Ummal, v2, p158

Lababul Naqool, p137, Sura Isra

Jam’e Asbab al-Nazul, Surah 17 verse 26 by Shiekh Khalid

Shawahid al-Tanzeel, Volume 1 page 570

In the Tafseer of above mentioned verse we read:

“Abu Saeed al Khudri and Abdullah Ibn Abbas narrate that when the verse relating to giving rights to kindred was revealed, the Prophet called Fatima Zahra (as) and gifted the land of Fadak to her”.
Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Vol. 4, page 177

[End Quote]

Answer:

This is report is weak and unreliable. Verse is telling to give “Haq(due)” of the relative. And Gift is not called haq(right). As far as Tafseer al-Durr al-Manthour, its author died in the 10^th century hijri so obviously there will be no chains involved, he quoted this narration from ibn Mardawayn from ibn `Abbas also without chain so it’s rejected. However we searched for this hadeeth in other books and were able to locate it with a chain.

Verification of Chain of narrators:

Ibn Adi in “Kamil fi duafa” (5/190) narrated it from Abu Saeed via chain: Narrated to me al-Qasim ibn Zakariya, which said: narrated to me Abbad ibn Yaqub, which said: narrated to me Ali ibn Abis from Fudayl ibn Marzuq from ‘Atiyyah from Abu Saeed al-Khudri.

The chain of this narration has two narrators who were heavily criticized by the scholars of hadeeth and the major problem in this chain is narrator Atiyya Awfi.

(a). Narrator ‘Atiyyah ibn Sad al-Awfi al-Koofe:

Atiyah narrated this hadeeth from Abu Sa’eed, but not Al Khudri.

Imam Sakhavi in “Fath al-Mugheeth ” 3/210 wrote:
من طريق الثوري أنه سمع الكلبي نفسه يقول كناني عطية أبا سعيد وكذا قال أبو خالد الأحمر قال لي الكلبي قال لي عطية كنيتك بأبي سعد فأنا أقول حدثنا أبو سعيد قال الخطيب وإنما فعل ذلك ليوهم الناس أنه أبو سعيد الخدري
“From (Sufyan)Thawri that he heard Kalbi (Muhammad ibn Saeeb) said: “Atiya gave me a nick-name Abu Sa’eed”. Abu Khalid Ahmar also said: “Kalbi said to me:” Atiya said to me: “I gave you kunya Abu Sa’eed, and I say:”It was narrated to me from Abu Sa’eed”. Al Khateeb said:” He did this to delude people, that the person (he narrates from) is Abu Sa’eed Khudri”.

Majority of hadeeth scholars from the Mutaqaddimeen agreed upon Attiyah Awfi’s weakness. He was also a Mudallis on the top of that, and a Shia.

For the benefit of readers, here is the list of renowned scholars of Ahlesunnah who considered Atiyyah unreliable:

فقال أحمد _ كما في العلل (رقم 1306) _ : ( كان هشيم يضعف حديث عطية ). وانظر : التاريخ الصغير (1/267) .
1. “Hushaim used to declare his(Atiyya’s) hadith to be weak”.

وقال عبدالله بن أحمد _ كما في العلل (رقم 1306) _ : سمعت أبي ذكر عطية العوفي فقال : ( هو ضعيف الحديث ).
2. Imam Ahmed said: “Atiyya was weak in hadith”

وقال النسائي _ كما في الضعفاء والمتروكون (رقم 481) _ : ( ضعيف ).
3. Nasai said: Weak.

وقال أبوزرعة الرازي _ الموضع السابق من الجرح _ : ( ليّن )
4. Abu Zur’ah said: Layyin(soft).

وقال أبوحاتم الرازي _ كما في الجرح والتعديل (3/1/رقم 2125) _: ( ضعيف ، يكتب حديثه ، وأبونضرة أحب إليّ منه
5. Abu Hatim said: “weak, his Hadith to be written. And Abu Nadhra is better than him, according to me.”

وقال ابن عدي _ كما في الكامل (7/85) _ : ( وقد روى عنه جماعة من الثقات ، ولعطية عن أبي سعيد ( الخدري ) أحاديث عداد ، وعن غير أبي سعيد ، وهو مع ضعفه يكتب حديثه ، وكان يعد من شيعة الكوفة ).
6. Ibn Adi declared him to be weak and said that his hadeeh is written.

قال ابن حبان _ كما في المجروحين (2/176) بعد أن ذكر قصته مع الكلبي _ : ( فلا يحل الاحتجاج به ، ولا كتابة حديثه إلا على جهة التعجب ).
7. Ibn Hibban mention him in his book “Al-Majroohin”, and said, “his hadith should not be written except with ta’ajjub”

وقال الساجي _ كما في تهذيب التهذيب _ : ( ليس بحجة ، وكان يقدم علياً على الكل )
8. As-Saaji said: “he is not hujjah”. [See “Tahdheeb” of Ibn Hajar (7/201)]

وقال أحمد _ كما في العلل (رقم 4502) _ : ( وكان سفيان _ يعني الثوري _ يضعف حديث عطية )
9. According to Imam Sufiyan Ath-Thawri, Atiya’s hadith were weak[Al-‘Ilal, of Imam Ahmed (4502)]

10.

ال لي علي عن يحيى : عطية، وأبو هارون ،ٌ وبشر بن حرب عندي سواء
التاريخ الكبير ج 5 ص 89
Al-Bukhari said: “Ali told me: from Yahya: Atiya and Abu Harun and Bishr Ibn Harb are all of the same status to me(i.e. He saw all men as weak and didn’t narrate from any of them).

وقال البخاري _ كما في التاريخ الكبير (4/رقم 2041): ( كان يحيى يتكلم فيه ) . وانظر : التاريخ الكبير (5/360) والصغير (1/267)

Imam Yahya bin Saeed Qattan used to criticize him.

وقال البخاري _ كما في التاريخ الصغير (1/267) _ قال أحمد في حديث عبدالملك عن عطية عن أبي سعيد قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : ( تركت فيكم الثقلين ) : ( أحاديث الكوفيين هذه مناكير ).
11. Imam Bukhari said: “-Imam Ahmad said about hadith of Abdulmalik from Atiya from Abu Said (“I’m leaving for you two things”)-“These Kufi Ahadith, are munkar”. (see “Tarih as-Sagir” vol 1, p 267)

وقال _ في رواية أبي الوليد بن أبي الجارود كما في الضعفاء للعقيلي (3/359) _ : (كان عطية العوفي ضعيفاً ).
12. In the report from Ibn Abi Jarood, ImamYahya Ibn Mu’een said: “Atiyya was weak”. [Adh-Dhu’afa of Al-Uqailee (3/359)]

رواه أبو يعلى بسند فيه عطية العوفي و هو ضعيف
13. Imam Busayri said: Weak. (Athaf Alkhayr, vol 4, page 478)

وقال أبوداود _ كما في سؤالات الآجري ( 1/264رقم376) _: ( ليس بالذي يُعتمد عليه ).
14. Abu Dawud also declared him weak. (Sawaalaat alAjri Abi Dawdood)

وقال الدارقطني _كما في السنن (4/39) _ : ( ضعيف ) .
وقال _ كما في العلل (4/6) _ : ( مضطرب الحديث ).
15. Daar Qutni declared him weak, as in his Sunan.
And also called him ‘Mudhtarib-ul-hadith’, as in Al-‘Ilal.

وقال البيهقي _ كما في السنن الصغير (2/101) وفي المعرفة (6/144) _ : ( ضعيف ).
وقال _ كما في السنن الكبرى (8/126) _ : ( لا يحتج بروايته ).
16. Bayhaqi said: he is weak, as in Sunan Al-Sugra.
Also said: he is not to be taken as proof, in Al-Kubra

قال ابن خزيمة _ كما في صحيحه (4/68) _ : ( في القلب من عطية بن سعد العوفي ).
17. Ibn Khuzayman weakened him by saying that he wasn’t satisified with him.

عطية هالك
18. Ibn Hazm said: Atiyya Halik(Perished). (Al Muhalli vol 11, page 335).

و هو ضعيف متروك
19. Heythami in “Majmau zawaid” #11125 said Atiyyah weak, abandoned.

وقال الجوزجاني _ كما في أحوال الرجال (رقم 42) _ : ( مائل ).
20. Jawzjani said: Astray.

ورجح الذهبي _ كما في السير (5/325) _ أنه : ( ضعيف الحديث )
وانظر : الميزان (5/100)
21. Imam Dhahabi in Al-Mizan said Weak . (Al-Mizan5/100)
In ad-du’afa(1/88) he says: “They are agreed upon his weakness”.

ابن الصلاح 643 هجرية
ذكر قصة تكنيته للكلبي في مقدمته فقال (وهو ‏(‏أبو سعيد‏)‏ الذي يروي عنه ‏(‏عطية العوفي‏)‏ التفسير يدلس به موهماً أنه أبو سعيد الخدري)
22. Ibn Salah said he intentionally does Tadlees from Abu Sa`eed.

14الطبراني 360 هـ هجرية
وروى الطبراني في معجمه ( فمبشر بن عبيد معدود في الوضَّاعين، وحجاج. وعطية ضعيفان
23. Tabarani said Hajjaj and `Atiyyah are both weak.

عطية أيضا ضعيف
ضعيف عند الجمهور
24. Nawawee in al-Adhkaar vol 1, page 30 considered him weak, and also said, Weak in the sight of Majority. (Tatheeb al-Asma wal Lughaat, vol 1, page 48)

هو ضعيف باجماع اهل العلم
25. Ibn Taimiyyah in al-Qaa’idatul-Jaleel page 215 said: Weak per consensus of people of knowledge.

26. Ibn Rajab did listed him among weak narrators in Sharh ‘ilal of tirmidhi (2/884):
ويلتحق بهؤلاء من البيوت الضعفاء، عطية بن سعد العوفي وأولاده (أما عطية) فضعفه غير واحد، وقد تكرر ذكره في الكتاب غير مرة
And among the family of weak narrators is ‘Atiyya and his sons.

عطية واه
27. Shaykh Sahsawani discussed the Jarh on `Atiyya in his “Siyanat Al-Insan” and considered him weak. Siyanat Al-Insan Vol 1, page 98.

28. Atiyya is also mentioned by Aboo Bakr ibn al-Muhibb al-Ba’labakee in ad-Du’afaa wal-Matrookeen.(“At-Tawasul, by Sheikh Albani”).

ضعيف الحفظ معروف بالتدليس القبيح
29. Ibn Hajr states regarding Atiyya Al-Awfi: Weak in memory, famous for evil Tadlees. (Tabqaat Mudalliseen vol 1, page 50).

و شيخه عطية ضعيف
30. Ibn Katheer said Atiyya is Weak. Tafsir ibn Kathir, vol 2, page 312.

أما عطية فاجتمعوا على تضعيفه
31. Ibn Jawzi said Atiyya is weak. Al Mawzoo’at vol 1, page 368.

في إسناده محمد بن الحصين بن عطية العوفي عن أبيه عن جده وثلاثتهم ضعفاء
32. Al-Mundhiri said in his “Mukhtasar As-Sunan”, as quoted by Sheikh Bashir Sahsawani , “Atiyya was weak in Hadith”. And at other place (in the same book), “his hadith are not to be taken as proof”. And in other place, “…in its sanad are Muhammad bin Hasan bin Atiyya Al-‘Awfi, from his father, from his grandfather (Atiyya). And all these three are weak.” [Siyanat Al-Insaan page-103]

الأثر ضعيف معلول فان فيه عطية
33. Allama Suyuti said weak in Al Durr al Manthur, vol 3, page 283.

في اسناده ضعف لضعف عطية
34. Nuruddin Alsindi said Atyiyya is weak in Kifaya al hajja fi Sharh Sunan ibn Majah vol 2, page 449.

حجاج و عطية ضعيفان
35. Allama Zilli considered Atiyyah weak. (Faydh Al Qadeer, vol 5, page 216)

و الجمهور على تضعيفه
36. Hafiz ibn Mulqan said: Weak according to Majority. (Al Badar Al Muneer, vol 7, page 463)

ضعفه الجمهور
37. Allama Ayni said Weak according to majority. (Umdat al qaari vol 6, page 250).

و شيخه العوفي يضعف بشدة
38. Ayman Saleh Sha’baan considered Atiyya extremely weak. (Jama’a Al Usool vol4, page 269).

مدلس ضعيف
39. Sheikh Albani said: Mudallis, Weak. (Silsila Daeefa).

إسناده ضعيف لضعف عطية
40. Sheikh Shu`aiyb Al-Arna’ut considered him weak.(Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal vol 2, page 58).

و عطية ضعيف
41. Dr Abdul Aleem Bastawi said weak. (Mousu’at fi Ahadeeth Al Imam al-Mahdi page 362)

42. Dr. Bashshar Awwad considered him weak. [Tahreer Taqreeb At-Tahdheeb (3/267) Mu`assasah Ar-Risalah]

43. Sharf al-haq Azeemabadi said Weak according to Majority. (Aun Al Ma’qbood, vol 3, page 336).

There are several other scholars too, who weakened Atiyya awfi.

Answering Shiapen’s argument that, “Atiyya al-Awfi was authenticated by some the famed Sunni scholars”. [Screen Shot]

Response: There were few scholars of Rijaal(critical analysis of the narrators of ahadeeth) who made tadeel of Atiyya, and they were the ones who were considered Mutasahil(lenient) by scholars of hadeeth science and their view is not preferred when it goes against the views of majority of experts and pioneers of Rijaal(critical analysis of the narrators of ahadeeth). And some other scholars who were quoted by Shiapen are from Muta’khireen(later scholars). Those that study this subject should be aware that the views of late scholars are never put ahead of the opinions of the early scholars for several reasons. The simple fact that the earlier scholars met, or were contemporaries, or at least lived at a time that was closer to the narrator, surely outweighs those that came centuries later. The opinions of the level of Al-Thahabi and Ibn Hajar came to existence perhaps at times five or six centuries after the fact. This leads us to believe that their opinions are solely based upon the opinions of the early scholars, who had a much clearer vision of the person and the hadiths of the narrator in question. Perhaps the only time in which a late scholar’s opinion has weight is when it comes to discussing or commenting on the opinions of the early scholars.”

Hence the tadeel of Atiyya awfi, doesn’t hold any weight, since majority of the experts of Ilm ul Rijaal(science of narrators) from Mutaqaddimeen(early scholars) who were considered as the leaders and pioneers in their field, considered Atiyya awfi to be unreliable and their view is preffered in cases like this one.

However for benefit of the readers, we would like discuss the views of those scholars, quoted by Shiapen. Importantly the readers should notice that, most of the times, Shiapen acted as per their habbit of deceit, and presented half-quotes of scholars, because the full quotes would have certainly weakened their claims, which is proof in itself, that even they believed, what they were advocating for is a very weak position, so they had to resort on half-quotes.

(i). Shiapen stated: [Quote] Imam Ibn Hajar himself declared him ‘Seduq’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p678).[End Quote]

Response:

This is the deceit of Shiapen, for which they are notorious. This is a half quote presented by Shiapen, inorder to deceive the readers.

Ibn Hajar actually states regarding Atiyya Al-Awfi:

صدوق يخطىء كثيرا وكان شيعيا مدلسا
“Saduq, used to make many mistakes and was a Shia mudallis.” [Taqreeb (3/393)]

In another place Ibn Hajar said:

ضعيف الحفظ معروف بالتدليس القبيح

Weak in memory, famous for evil Tadlees.(Tabqaat Mudalliseen).

Ibn Hajar makes the criticism of Tadlees over Atiyya, this itself is sufficient to discard Atiyya’s reports, because as said earlier Atiyya used to practise evil Tadlees, and would give an impression that he is narrating from Abu Saeed Khudri, where as infact he was narrating from Kalbi, whom he gave the nick name of Abu Saeed, this is one of the reason why Atiyya awfi has been weakened by scholars.

Sheikh Albani explained this issue in his book, stating:

al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr says of him: “Truthful but makes many mistakes; he was a Sbee’ee mudallis.” So he(ibn hajar) clarifies this narrator’s weakness and it is due to two things: (i) The weakness of his memory as shown by his saying: “He makes many mistakes.” This is like his saying about him in Tabaqaatul-Mudalliseen: “weak in hadeeth” Even more clear is his saying about him in “Talkbeesul-Habeer (p.24l, Indian edn.) whilst discussing another hadeeth: “It contains ‘Atiyyah ibn Sa’eed al-‘Awfee and he is weak.” (ii) His tadlees. However al-Haafidh should have explained the type of tadlees which he performed, since tadlees with the scholars of hadeeth is of many types, the most well-known of which are:

(a) That a narrator reports a narration from someone he met when in fact he did not directly hear that narration from him, or that he narrated something from a contemporary whom he did not actually meet, giving the impression that he heard it from him. For example by saying ‘From so and so’ or ‘so and so said.’

(b) That the narrator calls his Shaikh by an unfamiliar name or title, different to the name by which he is commonly known in order to hide his true identity. The scholars have clearly stated that this is something forbidden if his Shaikh was an unreliable narrator, and he does this to hide his identity or to give the impression that he was a different reliable narrator with the same name or title.This is known as tadlees ush-Shuyookh.

The tadlees of Atiyya was of forbidden type as I have explained in my book , Silsilatul ahadeeth-daeefah.(no.24)

So in conclusion we say that ‘Atiyyah used to narrate from Aboo Sa’eed alKhudree(ra), then when he died he used to sit with one of the great liars well known for lying about hadeeth, who was al-Kalbee. Then ‘Atiyyah used to narrate from him, but when doing so would call him ‘Aboo Sa’eed’ to give the impression to those listening that he had heard these narrations from Aboo Sa’eed al-Khudree! This to me in itself would be enough to destroy the credibility of ‘Atiyyah, so how about when we have in addition to it his weak memory! Therefore I would have been pleased for al -Haafidh to clarify the fact that it was this evil type of tadlees which ‘Atiyyah was guilty of, even if only by an indication as he does in Tabaqaatul-Mudalliseen by his saying: “Well-known for evil tadlees” as has preceded. It is as if al-Haafidh forgot or erred, or something else, as humans are prone to make mistakes some – times, since he says about this hadeeth that in one narration ‘Atiyyah says:

“Aboo Sa’eed narrated to me,” and he himself says about this: “Therefore through this we know that we are safe from ‘Atiyyahs tadlees,” as Ibn ‘Alaan narrated from him, and some modern day authors follow him blindly in that. I say: This declaration that he heard it from him would only be of use if his tadlees were of the first type, but the tadlees of ‘Atiyyah is of the second and worse type and will not be cured by this statement since he still said “Aboo Sa’eed narrated to me” which is exactly the evil type of tadlees which he is known for. So from what has preceded it will be clear that ‘Atiyyah is weak due to his poor memory and evil tadlees.

As for the understanding of some people today that the saying of al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr in at-Taqreeb amounts to declaration of the reliability of ‘Atiyyah, then this is something which is not correct at all. I also asked Shaikh Ahmad ibn as- Haafidh Siddeeq when I met him in the Zaahiriyyah Library in Damascus about this understanding and he too found it very strange. For when the mistakes of a narrator become many his reliability is destroyed, as opposed to one whose mistakes are few. The first of these is weak whereas the second is hasan in hadeeth. This is why al-Haafidh in Sharhun-Nukhbah says, that one whose mistakes are many is the partner of one whose memory is poor, and he declares the ahaadeeth of both of them to be rejected, so refer back to that along with the footnotes of Shaikh ‘Alee al-Qaaree (pp 121&130).

[End Quote of Sheik Albani, from his book Tawassul and its types, page 96 & 97].

Regarding the claim that Ibn Hajar considered Atiyya saduq then, Dr. Bashshar Awwad and Sh. Shu`aiyb Al-Arna’ut comment on this view of Ibn Hajar:

“In fact, he is weak. He has been declared weak by Hushaim, Yahya bin Sa’eed Al-Qattan, Ahmed bin Hanbal, Sufiyan Ath-Thawri, Abu Zur’ah Ar-Razi, Ibn Mu`een in some reports, and in other he said: “there is no problem with him”. Also Atiya has been declared weak by Abu Hatim, Nasai, Zawzjani, ibn Adi, Abu Dawud, IBn Hibban, DaarQutni, As-Saaji. So they are all agreed upon declaring him weak. And no one declared him thiqah except Ibn Sa’d. So i don’t know from where he got this, “Saduq, used to make exessive mistakes…” [Tahreer Taqreeb (3/20)].

Hence, the fact that Ibn Hajar said “Makes MANY mistakes” is usually enough to weaken his narration according to the majority of scholars. Some ignorant Shia try to argue that by the terms many mistakes, Ibn Hajar meant tadlees, but is an incorrect argument becausenTadlees is not a “mistake”,Tadlees in itself is a pattern/style of narrating. Just like Irsaal. Some Mudalliseen were Thiqa take example Am’ash, even though he was known for doing tadlees. Therefore, when Ibn hajar said that atiyya makes lots of mistakes it was not about tadlees, rather it was regarding his memory like mixing the chains or the narrators. Ibn Hajar listed Tadlees separately, if he meant tadlees as mistakes, then he would have said “Katheer-ul-Tadlees”.

Ibn abi Hatim said that the Saduq narrator who makes a lot of mistakes, his narrations in case of Tafarrud are rejected unless they are related to matters of Adab and Zuhd and Akhlaq.

(ii). Shiapen stated: [Quote] Imam Yahyah bin Moin said: ‘Nothing bad about him’ (Tarikh ibn Moin by al-Daqaq, p27)

Mahmood Saeed Mamdoh said in his book ‘Rafe al-Manara’, page 163: ‘Yahya bin Moin declared that about whom he said ‘nothing bad about him’, it means that he is Thiqah.’ [End Quote].

Response:

Yahya bin Ma’een even weakened Atiyya awfi, and this was related by Al-Uqaili according to Mughlatai. Ibn Shaheen also quoted Ibn Ma’een’s weakening of Attiyyah in his book of weak narrators (p. 273).

As for Mahmood Seed Mamdoh, then he is a biased innovator, who has been criticized by Scholars for his ignorance of Hadeeth science, bias and his unacademic approach. Hence his view holds no weight in the sight of Ahlesunnah.

la ba’asa bihi (he is not bad).”The usage of the term amongst ahlul hadeeth suggests that he is not of a high degree of trustworthiness, if he were, then Yahya ibn Moin would have simply said: Thiqa, but he didn’t.

Now the fact is that there are other views repored from Yahya ibn Moin, regarding Atiyya, which proves that Ibn Moin changed his view on Atiyya and considered him weak:

وقال يحيى بن معين _ في رواية ابن الجنيد (رقم 234) _ : ( كان ضعيفاً في القضاء ، ضعيفاً في الحديث ).

In one of the narration of Ibn Junaid, it is narrated from Yahya bin Moin: “he (Atiyya) was weak in Qadha and also weak in hadith.

وقال _ في رواية أبي الوليد بن أبي الجارود كما في الضعفاء للعقيلي (3/359) _ : (كان عطية العوفي ضعيفاً ).
In the report from Ibn Abi Jarood, Imam Ibn Moin said: “Atiyya was weak”. [Adh-Dhu’afa of Al-Uqailee (3/359)]

وقال _ في رواية ابن أبي مريم كما في الكامل (7/84) _ : ( ضعيف إلا أنه يكتب حديثه ).
In the report of Ibn Abi Maryam from Ibn Moin, Imam said: “he was weak. except his hadith to be written.” [Al-Kamil (5/369) Daar Ul-Fikr]

So, We find that Yahya ibn Maeen has conflicting opinions on Atiyya awfi, and what has reached through multiple routes is that, He considered Atiyya weak, which proves that Yahya ibn Maeen changed his view on Atiyya and considered him weak, as this is even the view of majority of experts and pioneers of Ilm ul Rijaal(science of narrators) and his contemporaries, thus this will be preffered.

Also, we would like to clarify that, Shias might quote another statement of Yahya ibn Maeen regarding Atiyya which says (Saalih) “ففي سؤالات الدوري ( 2 / 407 ) : قيل ليحيى كيف حديث عطية ؟ قال : صالح”

Scholars like Ibn Hajar explained that, “the term Saalih is not same as Saalih Al-Hadith(good in hadith), the former has nothing to do with adalah or worthiness as narrator”. Its similar to terms like, Mashoor(famous) or Tabe’i, which doesn’t have relation to their reliability as narrator. So this term (Saalih) used by Ibn Maeen has nothing to do with Tawtheeq of Atiyya. (Also refer Nukat ‘ala muqaddimah ibn salah v 2 p 280)

(iii). Shiapen stated: [Quote] Allamah Umar bin Shaheen included him in the book of Thiqah narrators (Asma al-Thuqat, p172) [End Quote]

Response:

Ibn Shaheen did not strengthen Atiyya awfi, but only quoted the opinion of Yahya. Furthermore, he quoted the opinion of Yahya weakening him too. Ibn Shaheen quoted Ibn Ma’een’s weakening of Attiyyah in his book of weak narrators (p. 273), i.e; Ibn Shaheen also mentions him in Al-Dhua’afa p. 273.

Hence, Ibn Shaheen has just recorded those narrators in his Thiqat who has some tawtheeq from scholars, no matter if they were actually Thiqah according to him or not. So quoting Ibn Shaheen doesn’t give Atiyya awfi any support.

Regarding Atiyya awfi, Ibn shaheen found Ibn Mu’een tawtheeq regarding him, so he listed him in it.

Ibn Shaheen said:
(1023) عطية العوفي ليس به بأس قاله يحيى
“Atiyya Al-‘Awfi, there is no problem with him. This was said by Ibn Mu’een.”

So, Ibn Shaheen just quoted the view of Ibn Maeen, which is not his own view. And Ibn Shaheen also quoted Ibn Ma’een’s weakening of Attiyyah in his book of weak narrators (p. 273).

Moreover, all those who were listed in his Thiqaat are not necessarily thiqah even according to Ibn Shaheen’s own view.
(116) والبراء بن يزيد الغنوي صاحب أبي نضرة ضعيف
(163) وقال يحيى جعفر بن ميمون صالح قال أحمد حدث عنه يحيى والثوري وأبو عبيدة الحداد أخشى أن يكون ضعيف الحديث
الحرث بن عبيد البصري أبو قدامة ضعيف قاله يحيى وقال مرة أخرى الحارث بن عبيد ثقة
(348) داود بن فراهيج روى عنه شعبة ليس به بأس قاله يحيى وقال فيه مرة أخرى هو ضعيف
(353) الربيع بن صبيح قال يحيى ثقة وقال مرة أخرى ضعيف وقال فيه لا بأس به
(795) وعبد الرحمن بن بديل بن ميسرة ليس به باس وقال مرة أخرى عبد الرحمن بن بديل عن أبيه إن الله أهلين روى عنه بن مهدي ضعيف

(iv). Shiapen stated: [Quote] al-Ejli said: ‘Thiqah’ (Marifat al-Thiqat) [End Quote]

Response:

Again, Shiapen displayed their deceit by half quoting al-Ajli.
– معرفة الثقات – العجلي – ج 2 – ص 140 ، ط1 ، مكتبة الدار ، 1405 هـ ، المدينة المنورة .
الموسوعة الشاملة – معرفة الثقات
( 1255 ) عطية العوفي كوفي تابعي ثقة وليس بالقوي .

al-Ajli said “thiqah wa laysa bil qawi” i.e. he was thiqah and not strong.

This appears to be an oxymoron, but Al-Ajli’s words refer to Atiyyah’s truthfulness, not his ability to narrate narrations, which is clear from his words “not strong”. So this doesn’t serve shi’i opinion.

As for al-Ajli’s view, then he is considered Mutasahil(Lenient) by scholars of hadeeth. Al-Mu’allimi and Al-Albani considered him Mutasahil. Hence even if his view is supposed to be Tawtheeq, which isn’t the case, yet it wouldn’t be given preference since it goes against the majority of Imams of Jarh wa Tadeel, who considered Atiyya as weak.

In Tamam Al-Mina p. 231 Sheikh Albani states: “And it appears as though he followed Al-Ajli who mentioned him in the thiqaat, and so did Ibn Hibban, and their tawtheeq isn’t reassuring, since they are known for being lenient”.

(v). Shiapen stated: [Quote] Imam Muhammad Ibn Saad said: ‘Thiqah’ (Tabaqat al Kubra, v6 p304). [End Quote]

Response:

But Ibn Saad then further states after stating this opinion:

ومن الناس من لا يحتج به

“there are people who don’t consider him for evidence”.

And according to Ibn Hajar, Ibn Saad is not to be relied on, when he is on odd with majority of experts and pioneers of Ilm ul Rijaal(science of narrators), specially like in this case.

On page 417 of Hadi as-Saari he said:
عبد الرحمن بن شريح بن عبد الله بن محمود المعافري أبو شريح الإسكندراني وثقه أحمد وابن معين والنسائي وأبو حاتم والعجلي ويعقوب بن سفيان وشذ بن سعد فقال منكر الحديث قلت ولم يلتفت أحد إلى بن سعد في هذا فإن مادته من الواقدي في الغالب والواقدي ليس بمعتمد وقد احتج به الجماعة

(vi). Shiapen stated: [Quote] Ibn Hajar records that Imam Tirmidhi considered his hadiths as Hasan (Nataj al-Afkar, v2 p414) [End Quote]

Response: Lets check out the following narration from al-Tirmidhi:

حدثنا زياد بن أيوب البغدادي حدثنا محمد بن ربيعة عن فضيل بن مرزوق عن عطية العوفي عن أبي سعيد الخدري قال
كان نبي الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يصلي الضحى حتى نقول لا يدع ويدعها حتى نقول لا يصلي
قال أبو عيسى هذا حديث حسن غريب

Abu Isa Tirmidhi said: This hadeeth is Hasan Ghareeb.

Firstly, this is neither a direct comment on Atiyya nor on the hadeeth in question. Actually, Al-Tirmithi uses the term for weak narrators if they are not accused of lying.

Secondly, several hadiths in which Tirmidhi says that the hadith is Hasan ghareeb, they turns out to be weak. Many scholars say that Tirmidhi himself mean by this terminology that the chain is weak as Tirmidi sometimes himself points out the weakness after terming the hadith Hasan Ghareeb. And moreover, Shaykh Sahsawani has given lots of examples from Jami’ Tirmidhi where Imam Tirmidhi declared a well known weak hadith to be Hasan.

Anyways, this is not a direct comment on Atiyya as said earlier, this doesn’t serve Shia purpose, because here the issue is with narrator in particular.

(vii). Another Shiawebsite[RTS] has a misconception that Ibn Khuzaimah authenticated Atiyyah, but this is wrong, and the fact is that Ibn Khuzaimah actually weakens Attiyyah but only uses his narrations when the narration is authentic through another chain. Refer to his Saheeh 2/1139. This is the case with the example provided by RTS, which comes through the hadith Jabir.

قال ابن خزيمة _ كما في صحيحه (4/68) _ : ( في القلب من عطية بن سعد العوفي ).
Ibn Khuzayman weakened him by saying that he wasn’t satisified with him.

(Viii). Shiapen stated: [Quote] Muhammad al-Nuhamisi in the foot note of Shaykh Taqiuddin Ahmad bin Ali bin Abdulqadir al-Moqrizi’s (d. 845 H) famed book Emta al-Asma, Volume 13 pag 16 stated: ‘According to me his hadith is not less than the grade of Hasan’. [End Quote]

Response:

Criticism on Atiyya, is from majority of Leaders and pioneers of Ilm ul Rijaal(science of narrators), from Mutaqadimeen (early scholars) scholars, and the view of later scholars like this one quoted by Shiapen cannot be preferred, as this is a known fact among people of knowledge.

Views of late scholars are never put ahead of the opinions of the early scholars for several reasons. The simple fact that the earlier scholars met, or were contemporaries, or at least lived at a time that was closer to the narrator, surely outweighs those that came centuries later.

And most, if not all, Muta’khireen(later scholars) who give tadeel to Atiyya are the innovators who followed their desires and motives to elevate the weak ahadeeth, inorder to back their innovation. So, they went against the view of majority of pioneers and experts of Ilm ul Rijaal, inorder to validate their innovation.

Thus the view of later scholars(Muta’khireen) is nothing and holds no weight, when it goes against the view of majority Mutaqaddimeen(early scholars) , who were the pioneers and experts of Ilm ul Rijaal. They declared Atiyya, weak and unreliable, like Imam Hushaim, Imam Yahya bin Sa’eed Al-Qattan, Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal, Imam Sufiyan Ath-Thawri, Imam Abu Zur’ah Ar-Razi, Imam Ibn Mu`een in some reports, ImamAbu Hatim, Imam Nasai, Imam Zawzjani, Imam ibn Adi, Imam Abu Dawud, Imam Ibn Hibban, Imam DaarQutni, and Imam As-Saaji,

And if one wishes for the views of Mutaakhireen, then take examples of renowned scholars like Albani, Shoeb arnaut, etc, they all weakned Atiyyah awfi.

(ix). Shiapen stated: [Quote] Mahmoud Saeed Mamdouh rightly states in his book: ‘We conclude that Atya al-Aufi are authenticated by Yahya bin Saeed al-Qatan, ibn Saad, ibn Moin, al-Tirmidhi, al-Bazar, ibn Shaheen and some others.’ (Rafe al-Manara, p173).[End Quote]

Response:

As stated before, Mahmood Saeed Mamdoh is a biased innovator and a deviant inclined towards Tashayyu'(shi’ism), who has been criticized by Scholars for his ignorance of Hadeeth science, bias and his un-academic approach. Here is an example from his book Rafa’ al-Minarah by where he is misquoting Imam Ibn al-Qayyim. He attributing the madhhab that prophets are alive in their graves to Ibn al-Qayyim by quoting from Nuniyah. In reality Ibn al-Qayyim was quoting the view of his opponents before refuting them. He left the intial of the poem which also indicates that he was presenting opponent’s arguments. Here is the initial:

فإن احتججتم بالشهيد بأنه … حيّ كما قد جاء في القرآن
والرسل أكمل حالة منه بلا … شك وهذا ظاهر التبيان
فلذاك كانوا بالحياة أحق من … شهدائنا بالعقل والبرهان

Ibn al-Qayyim starts the refutation like this:

فيقال أصل دليلكم في ذاك … حجتنا عليكم وهي ذات بيان
إن الشهيد حياته منصوصة … لا بالقياس القائم الأركان
هذا مع النهي المؤكد أننا … ندعوه ميتا ذاك في القرآن
ونساؤه حل لنا من بعده … والمال مقسوم على السهمان
هذا وأن الأرض تأكل لحمه … وسباعها مع أمة الديدان
لكنه مع ذلك حيّ فارح … مستبشر بكرامة الرحمن
فالرسل أولى بالحياة لديه مع … موت الجسوم وهذه الأبدان
وهي الطرية في التراب وأكلها … فهو الحرام عليه بالبرهان
ولبعض أتباع الرسول يكون ذا … أيضا وقد وجدوه رأي عيان

Hence the views of such dishonest, biased and in-academic person holds no weight in the sight of Ahlesunnah.

Moreover, the scholars whom Mahmood saeed quoted, their stance and position has already been clarified and answered, however there remains one scholar whom Mahmood quoted, whose view was not discussed, it is Imam Yahya bin Saeed al-Qatan, and the reality is that Imam Yahya bin Saeed al-Qatan considered Atiyya to be weak as stated by Dr. Bashshar Awwad and Sh. Shu`aiyb Al-Arna’ut:
“In fact, he(Atiyya) is weak. He has been declared weak by Hushaim, Yahya bin Sa’eed Al-Qattan, Ahmed bin Hanbal, Sufiyan Ath-Thawri, Abu Zur’ah Ar-Razi,…[Tahreer Taqreeb (3/20)].

وقال البخاري _ كما في التاريخ الكبير (4/رقم 2041): ( كان يحيى يتكلم فيه ) . وانظر : التاريخ الكبير (5/360) والصغير (1/267)
Imam Yahya bin Saeed Qattan used to criticize him.

Thus contrary to what Mahmood saeed claimed, Imam Yahya bin Saeed al-Qattan actually considered Atiyya as weak. This is one of the examples of Mahmood saeed’s ignorance of hadeeth science and his bias.

(x). Shiapen stated: [Quote] And most relevantly, on p144 of the same book, we read: ‘It is settled in the science of Hadith that if there is praise and criticism about a narrator and the reason for the criticism is unknown then (criticism) must be rejected and shall not be relied on and the praise about the narrator must be accepted. This is the correct (act) and that is what the scholars follow.’[End Quote]

Response:

However, in the case of Atiyya awfi, the criticism on him is known and established. Shiekh Albani says in his book:

“So what has preceded it will be clear that Atiyya is weak due his poor memory and evil tadlees.” (Tawassul and its types, page 96).

And Atiyya being weak, is the view of majority of Imams of Jarh wa tadeel, hence this view will be relied upon, which makes the narrations of Atiyya unreliable.

View of Shia hadeeth scholars regarding Atiyya Awfi:

Atiyyah was declared Majhool(anonymous) by Shia scholars, due to lack of tawheeq regarding his credibility. So not just Sunni, but even according to Shia standards, Atiyya Awfi’s hadeeth cannot be relied.

Esteemed Shia scholar Ayatullah Khoei in his book states:

عطية العوفي: ذكره البرقي من أصحاب الباقر (ع) ونسبه الميرزا والقهبائي إلى رجال الشيخ، ولكن في المطبوع من رجال الشيخ عطية الكوفي ولا يبعد كونه محرف العوفي – مجهول – لا يبعد اتحاده مع لاحقه.

Atiyah al-Awfi, Majhool(anonymous). (see. al-Mufeed min mujam rijal al-hadith, p. 375).

Final nail in the coffin, of Atiyya Awfi:

Final nail in the coffin of Atiyya Awfi comes from esteemed Shia scholar, Allama Abdul Hussain Amini, who had a better understanding of Sunni hadeeth science and the reliability of narrators as per Sunni standards, in comparision to the ignorant and deceitful Shiapen website. So let us see how, esteemed Shia scholar busted the deception of Shiapen, and presented the correct view on Atiyya in accordance to Sunni standards.

Esteemed Shia scholar, Abdul Hussain Amini in his book Al-Ghadeer, while commenting over Sunni hadeeth , He says on :

وإسناد الرواية في التاريخ رجاله بين كذاب وضاع وبين مجهول لا يعرف إلى ضعيف متهم بالزندقة كما أسلفناه في ص 84، 140، 141 327 وهم:
1 – السري 2 – شعيب 3 – سيف 4 – عطية 5 – يزيد الفقعسي.
وحديث يكون في إسناده أحد من هؤلاء لا يعول عليه

Allama Abdul Hussain Amini is basically saying that ibn Katheer summarized Tabari’s Tareekh, and Tabari’s book is full of weak narrators, and in any narration, in which one of the five narrators (Sarriy, Shu`ayb, Sayf, `Atiyyah, Yazid alfaqasi) is present, then it is not worth any consideration.( Allama Abdul Hussain Amini in his book al-ghadir, Vol. 8, p. 333) [In the link page 42]

On page 36, Amini mentions full names of these five unreliable narrators one of them is Atiyya Awfi:

1 – السري.

2 – شعيب بن إبراهيم الأسيدي الكوفي

3 – سيف بن عمر التيمي الكوفي

4 – عطية بن سعد العوفي الكوفي(Atiyya bin saad al awfi al kufi)

5 – يزيد الفقعسي

We are pressenting this information in detail because, we found some Shia ignorants making silly excuses like, Atiyya mentioned by Shia scholar could be any Atiyya not specifically Atiyya Awfi. So this refutes their ignorance as the full names of these five unreliable narrators were given on page 36.[Screen shot].

Moreover in the Urdu Translation of the above book(Al-Ghadir) we read:
….Shoeb, Sayf, ATIYYA aur Yazid Faqasi se marvi hai, jo Jhoote, Hadees Saaz , Baatil Nawaz aur Gumnaam hain.
Translation: Shoeb, Sayf, ATIYYA and Yazi Faqasi reported it, who were LIARS, HADEETH FABRICATORS, FALSIFIERS AND UNKNOWN. (Urdu version of Al-Ghadeer, Vol. 8, p. 384.)

We would also like to notify the deceit of Shia Urdu translators. In the Arabic/orginal version, the chapter we quoted, chapter جناية التاريخ consists of 14 pages. In the Urdu translation, it has been summarized brutally into a half page. And this text was present in this very chapter, which we gave. See Arabic version Vol. 8, p. 455-568, and Urdu version, Vol. 8, p. 384.

Hence the final verdict regarding Atiyya awfi is that he was weak,and his reports are unreliable, as has been declared by majority of high ranking Sunni scholars who were pioneers of Jarh wa Tadeel. As even understood and acknowledged by esteemed Shia scholar Abdul Hussain Amini.

(b). Narrator Fudayl ibn Marzuq:

Fudayl himself is reliable, but there is worth noticing point regarding him.

Ibn Hibban said: “he narrated FABRICATIONS FROM ATIYYAH (In the report in question, he is narrating from ‘Atiyyah). (See “Mizanul itidal” 3/362/# 6772).

(c). Narrator Ali ibn Abis:

Ibn Maeen said he’s nothing. Juzajani, Azdi, Nasai said he’s weak. Ibn Hibban said he made terrible mistakes, and deserve to be abandoned. (“Mizanul itidal” 3/134/#5872). Ibn Jawzi included him in “Duafa wal matrukin” (2/p195) and noticed that Sade and others said he’s weak. Saji said he had manakir (“Tahzib at-tahzib”7/#571). Dhahabi in “Kashaf” (#3934) noticed his weakness. Ibn Hajar said he’s weak in “Taqrib” (#4757).

NOTE: Additionally, When we searched other books for a chain for this Hadith, turns out the narration ALSO has Husayn bin Yazid who leans towards weakness, then in it are also Sa`eed and Fudayl, two Shia narrators who are Saduq and some weakened them, overall a weak unacceptable narration.

Moreover, later in this article we’ll be proving that, these reports go against Quran, and also against other reports which state that Prophet(saw) refused to give Fadak to Fatima(ra).

Argument 8:

A Shia stated:

[Quote]

There are two more routes.

Route 1:

قرأت على الحسين بن يزيد الطحان ، حدثنا : سعيد بن خثيم ، عن فضيل ، عن عطية ، عن أبي سعيد

Route 2: This route is from al-Hakim al-Haskani

نا : الحاكم الوالد أبو محمد ، قال : ، حدثنا : عمر بن أحمد بن عثمان ببغداد شفاها ، قال : أخبرني : عمربن الحسن بن علي بن مالك قال : ، حدثنا : جعفر بن محمد الأحمسي قال : ، حدثنا : حسن بن حسين ، قال : ، حدثنا : أبو معمر سعيد بن خثيم ، وعلي بن القاسم الكندي ويحيى بن يعلى ، وعلي بن مسهر ، عن فضيل بن مرزوق ، عن عطية : ، عن أبي سعيد ، قال : لما نزلت : وآت ذا القربى حقه أعطى رسول الله (ص) فاطمة فدكا.

[End Quote]

Answer:

As for Route 1: The chain which claims that this land was gifted to Fatimah is composed of the following men: Husayn – Sa`eed -Fudayl -`Atiyyah.

All four men were Koufan and therefore Shiite in their beliefs. This on its own would be enough to cast doubt on the content of whatever they’re going to narrate about Fadak.

Narrator Atiyya’s weakness has alreaby been establised above in detail.

As for narrator Husayn: Imam Abu Hatim in al-Tahdheeb said “Layyin” meaning “His narration has weakness(softness).” However, we find that Ibn Hibban gave tawtheeq to this narrator but Ibn Hibban’s book is loaded with Majaheel(anonymous narrators) whom he labels “Thiqah”. Therefore in the view of people of knowledge Tawtheeq of Ibn Hibban or `Ijli amount to nothing.

Narrator Sa`eed: Truthful, said to be Shia, has mistakes.

More importantly, the two experts abu Hatim and abu Zur`ah said in the book of `Ilal that this chain is Mursal and that the original report doesn’t even have abu Sa`eed in it, it stops at `Atiyyah:
وَسألت أبي، وأبا زرعة، عَنْ حديث رَوَاهُ سَعِيدُ بْنُ خُثَيْمٍ، عَنْ فُضَيْلِ بْنِ مَرْزُوقٍ، عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ، قَالَ: لَمَّا نَزَلَتْ هَذِهِ الآيَةُ:ف وَآتِ ذَا الْقُرْبَى حَقَّهُق، دَعَا النَّبِيُّ فَاطِمَةَ فَجَعَلَ لَهَا فَدَكًا. فقالا: إنما هو عَنْ عَطِيَّةَ، قَالَ: لما نزلت. مرسل. قَالَ: ليس فيه ذكر أَبِي سَعِيد قَالَ أَبُو زُرْعَةَ: حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو نعيم، عَنْ فضيل، عَنْ عطية فقط قَالَ: لما نزلت. ليس فيه ذكر أَبِي سَعِيد

abu Zur`ah says its from Fudayl from `Atiyyah only, it has no mention of abu Sa`eed “قَالَ: ليس فيه ذكر أَبِي سَعِيد” Meaning it’s a Mursal from `Atiyyah. A narrator mistakenly inserted abu Sa`eed in this chain to make it Muttasil, it’s actually Mursal. This narrator is probably Sa`eed bin Khaytham who makes mistakes. The chain abu Zur`ah narrated from abu Nu`aym who is a Thiqah-Thabt is the actual chain and has no abu Sa`eed. In other words this story about Fadak being gifted is no more than a story circulating among the Koufans.

As for Route 2: Then according to Shia scholar Aqa Buzruq al-Tehrani , al-Hakim al-Haskani was a Shiite.
آقا بزرالطهراني في الذريعة إلى تصانيف الشيعة ج 4 ص 194
The author of this book often quotes from the Rafidi Tafseer Furat so all in all his book Shawaahid al-Tanzil is not a Hujjah.

Also, apart from Atiyyah whose weakness and unreliability was established above, this chain even contains `Umar bin al-Hasan bin `Ali and he’s a liar according to al-Hakim, Daraqutni and al-Dhahabi.

Hence this narration is unreliable. Moreover, later in this article we’ll be proving that, these reports go against Quran. And also against other reports which state that Prophet(saw) refused to give Fadak to Fatima(ra).

Argument 9:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Similarly Hakim Haskani al-Hanai also records in Shawahid al-Tanzeel, Volume 1 page 570:

أخبرنا عقيل بن الحسين قال: أخبرنا علي بن الحسين قال: حدثنا محمد بن عبيد الله قال: حدثنا أبو مروان عبد الملك بن مروان قاضي مدينة الرسول بها سنة سبع وأربعين وثلاث مائة قال: حدثنا عبد الله بن منيع ، قال: حدثنا آدم قال: حدثنا سفيان عن واصل الأحدب عن عطاء: عن ابن عباس قال: لما أنزل الله: (وآت ذا القربى حقه) دعا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله فاطمة وأعطاها فدكا وذلك لصلة القرابة.

Aqeel bin al-Hussain from Ali bin al-Hussain from Muhammad bin Ubaidullah from Abu Marwan Abdulmalik bin Marwan the judge of Madina from Abdullah bin Manee from Adam from Sufyan from Wasel al-Ahdab from Atta from ibn Abbas saying: ‘When Allah revealed ‘{And give to the near of kin his due}’ Allah’s Apostle (s) called Fatima and gave her Fadak because she was the near of kin’.

[End Quote]

Answer:

The author of the above book is obviously a Shia, although not a Rafidhi and their scholar Aqa Buzruq al-Tehrani listed him among the Shia authors in al-Dharee`ah ila Tasaneef al-Shi`ah. On top of it is written in the introduction of the Shia Tafseer Furat al-Kufi that al-Hasakani in his book mainly quotes from Tafseer Furat, meaning the contents of his book are Shia contents. The chain of this narration is weak anyway since narrator Abdullah bin Manee’ is majhool(anonymous), and same is the case of Adam who narrates from al-Thawri , since his status too is unknown.

Argument 10:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

As for Shia text, we read in Tafseer al-Qumi, Volume 2 page 155:

حدثني أبي عن ابن ابي عمير عن عثمان بن عيسى وحماد بن عثمان عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام قال:….قالت فأشهد أن الله أوحى إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله “وآت ذا القربى حقه” فجعل فدك لفاطمة

My Father narrated from Ibn Abi Umayr from Uthman bin Isa and Hamaad bin Uthman that Abu Abdullah said: ‘…. she (Um Ayman) said: ‘I testify that Allah revealed to Allah’s apostle ‘{And give to the near of kin his due} thus he (s) gave Fadak to Fatima’.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Shiapen has quoted their own book, Tafseer al-Qummi to prove that Fatimah owned Fadak, we do not understand why they do this since whenever we quote this book to prove that Shia believe in the corruption of the Qur’an, they object and say this book is unreliable. So Shiapen needs to first make up their mind whether, Tafseer al-Qummi is authentic or not.

Moreover, we shall see in later part of this article that, these reports go against Quran, and also against other reports which state that Prophet(saw) refused to give Fadak to Fatima(ra), hence they are to be rejected.

Argument 11:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

The Prophet (s) also gave Fatima Zahra (as) a written instruction about Fadak

Following are the proofs from authority works of Ahl’ul-Sunnah:

Rauzat ul Safa as quoted in Tashdheed-ul-Mathaeen page 102

Ma’arij un Nabuwwah, page 321

Habeeb us Siyaar, vol 1, Dhikr of Ghazwa Khayber

The texts read as follows:
“Jibrael (as) came to Prophet Muhammad (s) and told him that Allah (swt) had ordered that he give the Dhul Qurba (close relatives) their rights. Rasulullah (s) asked who was meant from Dhul Qurba and what is meant from ‘right’. Jibrael (as) replied that Dhul Qurba refers to Fatima Zahra ®, and from ‘right’ it is meant the property of Fadak. The Prophet (s) called Fatima and presented Fadak to her giving her a written paper as a proof. This paper was presented to Abu Bakr (ra) after the death of Rasool Allah (saww) by Fatima and she said that it was the paper which the Prophet (s) wrote for her, Hasan and Husayn”

[End Quote]

Answer:

These are not authority works of Ahlussunnah. In Ma’arij un Nubuwwah the author did not provide any chain for this report, which is sufficient to reject it, since a report without a chain is like a body without a head and is rejected, because anyone can attribute anything to anyone. Moreover the author mentioned this by saying “Some people say…”, and these people most probably are Shias, since they have similar fabricated reports like this in their books.

Secondly, these reports go against Quran and other reports which state that Prophet(saw) refused to give Fadak to Fatima(ra), thus this report is a fabrication and needs to be rejected.

Argument 12:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

The contents of the written paper

In Fatawa Azizi, page 165, (published Karachi) al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz sets out the contents of the written document:

Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Abdul Muttalib bin Hashim bin Abd Manaf has given this piece of land, whose premises are known, to his daughter Fatima Zahra. And after her, this land is entrusted to her children. And anyone who denies it after hearing it, then it’s sin is on his head. And Allah is “Sami” and “Aleem”.

[End Quote]

Answer:

As stated earlier, the authenticity of this baseless story can never be proven by Shias. Which is similar to the story of the Jews who also fabricated a document and attributed to Prophet(saw) and when an investigation was done by Muslim scholars, it was proven as a fabrication and Jews weren’t able to prove its authenticity.

Moreover, the content of this document itself proves it to be a fabrication, because, If it was such important gift that, Prophet(saw) had to write a document regarding , its owner ship belonging to Fatima(ra),and that too mentioning that, its rejection would be a sin, then obviously such a matter wouldn’t have been kept secret from the Muslims in general, that was an issue which could lead people to commit sin, yet we find Shias quoting reports which state that Fatima(ra) wasn’t able to bring sufficient number of witnesses to claim Fadak, which proves that this information wasn’t made public, which then further weakens the reliability of this fabricated document.

Argument 13:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Common objection raised by Abu Bakr’s defenders

One of the objections raised by the Sunni scholars to deny Sayyida Fatima’s right to the land of Fadak is that Sura Isra (also known as Sura Bani Israel) is a Makkan Sura which incorporates the verse on giving close relatives their rights, whereas Fadak was acquired in Madina. How is it that an incident that took place in Madina, is referred to in a Makkan verse?

Reply One

The present Qur’an was arranged during Uthman’s era, he didn’t arrange verses according to their revelation. As there is no specific proof (by any tradition) that this verse was revealed in Makka, it cannot be claimed as a Makkan verse.

[End Quote]

Answer:

This claim of Shiapen was refuted by Shia Imam and Shia scholars.

Imam Abu Ja’far(al-Baqir) stated: …Then He sent Prophet Muhammad(S) and for the ten years that he lived in Makka everyone who testified to the fact that “No one deserves to be worshipped except Allah, and that Muhammad is His messenger” Allah admitted him to paradise just because of his affirmation. It was belief and affirmation. Allah did not punish anyone of those who died following Muhammad in that matter except those who took partners for the Beneficent. Evidence of this is what Allah, has revealed in Chapter 17 in Makka. Verses {“Your Lord has ordained that you must not worship anything other than Him and that you must be kind to your parents.(17:23)} TILL THE VERSE {He is Well-aware and watches over His servants.(17:30)}”. [al-Kafi, H #1506, CH #14, h #1].

So as per Imam al-Baqir(rah), the verse 23 to 30 of Surah Isra, were revealed in Makkah.

Likewise, Shia tafseer not only states that Surah(17) is Makki but even declares the verse(26) to be Makki.

ShiaTafsir mizan states:
الميزان في تفسير القرآن سورة الإسراء 23 – 39
قوله تعالى: «و آت ذا القربى حقه و المسكين و ابن السبيل» تقدم الكلام فيه في نظائره، و بالآية يظهر أن إيتاء ذي القربى و المسكين و ابن السبيل مما شرع قبل الهجرة لأنها آية مكية من سورة مكية.
(Source)
In His saying {And give to the kindred his due and to the poor and to the wayfarer}, We already mentioned earlier on similar verse, by this aya it appears that giving (charity) to kindred and poor and wayfarer was legislated before Hijra because this aya is Makki from a Makki surah.

Similarly Shia tafseer which Shiapen is fond of quoting, states that Surah Bani Isra’el(17) is Makki Surah.

سورة بني إسرائيل مكية

Tafsir Qummi Vol. 2, p. 3.

Shia Ayatullah Nasser Makarem Shirazi states:

وبالنسبة لمكان نزول السورة، فمن المشهور أن جميع آياتها مكية، ومما يؤيد ذلك أن مضمون السورة ومفاهيمها يناسب بشكل كامل مضمون ومحتوى وسياق السور المكية، هذا بالرغم من أن المفسرين يعتقد بأن هناك مقطعا من السورة قد نزل في المدينة، ولكن المشهور ما شاع بين المفسرين من مكية تمام السورة

As far as the issue that where this Surah(Isra) was revealed, then the famous thing is that all the verses are Makki, and what supports it is the text and the meanings and the context of the Surah, even though some Mufassireen believe that there are parts which were revealed in Madinah, but the famous thing between Mufassireen is that the whole Surah is Makki.( ‘al Amthal Fi Tafsir Kitab Allah Al Manzil, by Sheikh Nasser Makarem Shirazi, Vol8, page 384).

So the esteemed Shia Ayatullah, says that there are Mufassirs who held the opinion that some verses of Surah Isra were revealed in Medina, but he rejects their odd view by stating the famous thing which is that the complete Surah is Makki, as this is supported by the text, meaning and context of the Surah, according to him.

Argument 14:

Another Shiawebsite[RTS] stated:

[Quote]

The best argument that the Salafi scholar Ibn Kathir derives when narrating this narration is that this Qur’aanic Surah (i.e. Surah 17, Al-Asraa or Bani Isra’eel) is a Makkan Surah and therefore to say that the Prophet (saw) gave Fadak to Faatima (s.a) when Verse 26 of this Surah was revealed, is void. He goes even further to say that this narration may have been fabricated by the Rafidha! When the best argument of a great scholar of theirs lowers himself to such a level, then it is fairly obvious that they stand no chance in refuting the issue of Fadak.

Now let us see if what ibn Kathir says has any basis:

Al-Zamakhshari:

Surah Al-Asraa, it is Makkan, except for the verses 26, 32, 33, 57 and from 73 to 80 which are Madani and the verse 111 has been revealed after the Surah of Al-Qasas.

Source: Tafsir Al-Kashaf. Vol. 3, Pg. # 491.

Al-Suyuti & Al-Muhallah:

Surah Al-Asraa, it is Makkan, except for the verses 26, 32, 33, 57 and from 73 to 80 which are Madani and the verse 111 has been revealed after the Surah of Al-Qasas.

Source: Tafsir Al-Jalalayn. Pg. # 282

[End Quote]

Answer:

Firstly, the verses 23 to 30 of Surah Isra were revealed in Makkah as per Shia Imam.

So as per Imam al-Baqir(rah), the verse 23 to 30 of Surah Isra, were revealed in Makkah.

Secondly, Some Mufassireen(commentators of Quran) believe that there are parts of Surah Isra which were revealed in Madinah. But the view of the majority is that, the whole Surah was revealed in Makkah. Even Shia Ayatullah Nasser Makarem Shirazi backs this view and considers this to be a famous view between Mufassireen, since this viewed is supported by the text and the meanings and the context of the Surah.

And those who gave exception to the verse 26 as a Madani verse in Makki Surah are of that opinion based on the same kind of narrations of ‘Atiyya al-Awfi on Fadak which are weak and unreliable. Imam Ibn Katheer as a specialist in hadith knew it, this is why he rejected this odd and weak view.

Allama Mahmud Al-Alusi quotes the different views in his tafseer:

Surah 17, the Bani Isra’eel. It is also called Al-Isra and Subhan too. And this Surah is Makkan according to what ibn Mardawaih has narrated from ibn Abbas and ibn Al-Zubayr, and being Makkan in its entire form is also the opinion of the majority. And the author of Al-Ghanyan has said that there is consensus on this, it is said though that with the exception of the two verses: “And surely they had purposed to turn you away…”{17:73} and “And surely they purposed to unsettle…”{17:76} and it is said except the following four verses: The previous two verses and the verse “And when We said to you: Surely your Lord encompasses men…” {17:60} and “And say: My Lord! make me to enter a goodly entering…” {17:60}, and Maqatil has added this verse too: “Surely those who are given the knowledge before…” {17:107} and Al-Hassan has said that except the following five verses of it: “And do not kill any one whom…” {17:33} and “And go not nigh to fornication…” {17:33} and “Those whom they call upon…” {17:57} and “Keep up prayer” {17:78} and “And give to the near of kin his due” {17:26}, and Qatada has said that except eight verses: and that is the verse “And surely they had purposed to turn you away” {17:73} up to the end, and there are also other opinions.(Ruh Al-Ma’ani Fi Tafseer Al-Qur’aan. Vol. 15, Pg.1).

Comment: We find here that the first opinion quoted by Al-Alusi is, majority view is that the entire Surah is Makkan. He further quotes the author of Al-Ghanyan who said there is consensus on this view. Mahmud Alusi also quotes the odd view of the verse 26 being Madani attributing it to Al-Hassan Basri, But we could not find it in any reliable book of Tafsir. Ruh al-Ma’ani is very late compilation and it doesn’t critique the narrations in the way it is done by Muhaddithoon. Yet, Mahmud Al-Alusi himself rejected the view that verse 26 was revealed in Madina, eventually in his tafseer.

Hence Mahmud Al-Alusi eventually states in his tafseer:

And what has been narrated by Al-Bazzar, Aboo Ya’la, ibn Abi Hatam and ibn Mardawaih from Abi Sa’eed Al-Khudri that when this verse was revealed, the Messenger of Allah (saw) called Faatima (s.a) and gave her the Fadak, does not confine in addressing to him (saw), because there is something in my heart about the authenticity of this narration, based on the fact that this Surah is Makkan and this verse is not of the exceptions (i.e. of being a Madani verse) and Fadak was not under the Messenger of Allah’s (saw) control at that time, rather she (s.a) asked for it as her inheritance after the death of the Prophet (saw), as it is famous. (Ruh Al-Ma’ani Fi Tafseer Al-Qur’aan. Vol. 15, Pg. # 62).

Thus, Al-Alusi himself rejected the odd and weak opinion which was contrary to the context of the Surah and the majority view that, the verse 26 was Madani.

Allama As-Suyuti has a chapter in his book Al-Itqan fi ulum al-Quran, in which he has enlisted all the Madani verses in Makki Surah. Under Surah Isra he did not give exception to the verse 26, which means he too believed that verse 26 was Makki and He rejected the odd and weak view that verse 26 of surah Isra was Madani.

Argument 15:

Another Shiawebsite[RTS] stated:

[Quote]

she (s.a) came with Umm Ayman who said, ‘I will not testify until I first argue against you O Aboo Bakr, with what RasoolAllah (saw) has said. I adjure you to Allah (swt), O Aboo Bakr! Do you not know that RasoolAllah (saw) said: ‘Surely Umm Ayman is a woman from the inhabitants of Paradise?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ She said, ‘So I hereby testify that Allah (swt)revealed unto RasoolAllah (saw) [ Surah ar-Rum 30:38]; Then give to the near of kin his due, so he made Fadak to be for Faatima (s.a) by the Command of Allah.’

Source: Shia Tafsir Al-Qummi. Vol. 2, Pg. # 155 – 159.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Firstly, Sunni scholar Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlvi said regarding this argument in his book:

The liar doesn’t remember things, this verse was revealed in Makkah and in Makkah, where was fadak? (i.e the issue of fadak arose much later in madinah)[Tuhfa ithna Asharia]

Shia Shaikh Tibrisi, the grand scholar of Shias, says in Tafsir Jawami ul Jami
سورة الروم مكية (1) إلا آية منها، وهي قوله: (فسبحان الله حين تمسون) (2) وهي ستون آية
Surah Rome is revealed in Makkah, except a verse from it and that is (30:17 So glory be to Allah when ye enter the night) and it has sixty verses.(Tafsir Jawami ul Jami Vol. 3, p. 3)

The same thing is said by Faiz al Kashani, the giant Shia Mufassir, in Tafsir Safi:
سورة الروم مكية الا قوله فسبحان الله حين تمسون عدد آيها ستون
Surah Rome is revealed in Makkah except the verse (30:17 So glory be to Allah when ye enter the night) and it has sixty verses.(Tafsir Safi, Vol. 4, p. 125)

Similarly it is also mentioned by another top tafsir of Shias, Tafsir Majma ul Bayan
سورة الروم مكية وآياتها ستون هي مكية قال الحسن إلا قوله: (فسبحان الله حين تمسون) الآية
Surah Rome is revealed in Makkah, it has sixty verses , all of which are Makki, Hasan said, except the verse (30:17 So glory be to Allah when ye enter the night).(Tafsir Majma ul Bayan, Vol. 8, p. 42)

Similarly, it is mentioned in Sunni Tafseers such as,Tafsir Jalalayn and Tafsir Razi, etc.

Secondly, the Grammar of the verse proves the Shia narration to be false:

The pronoun in the words of verse(30:38) that is { حَقَّهُ}( ḥaqqahu) is 3rd person masculine singular pronoun not a feminine pronoun. It literally translates as (his due){ So give to the kinsman HIS due}, if this verse was revealed so that Prophet(saw) gives certain due to Fatima(ra) then the pronoun should have been feminine(i.e Her) not masculine(i.e His).

Thus even from the grammatical point of the view, the fabricated report used by Shias doesn’t fit in the verse, rather it goes against it. And as per the rule taught by Imams in Shia books, any report which goes against Quran, is to be rejected.

Thirdly, Shia Tafseer of Ali bin Ibrahim Al-Qummi, was falsely attributed to its author. See Buhooth fi Ilm Al-Rijal p. 428. The book was criticized for the anonymity of the author. Another major problem with the book, is that it is filled with authentic narrations that support that idea that the Qur’an has been tampered with. Perhaps Shiawebsite RTS supports this view, which is why they would champion this book.

Argument 16:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Reply Two – Some verses were revealed in Makka as well as in Madina

Reply Three – The Quran contains Madani verses in Makkan Surah’s

[End Quote]

Answer:

These replies are invalidated, since according to Shia scholar, all verses of Surah Isra were revealed in Makkah. Not only this, but the verse in question(17:26) too was revealed in Makkah, as per Shia Imam and Shia Scholars.

Argument 17:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Reply Five

Even if we accept for the sake of argument that the verse ordering the Prophet(s) to give his relatives their rights is a Makkan verse and not Madani this still does not negate Syeda Fatima’s claim to the land of Fadak. We as Muslims believe that the Qur’an is a book whose every Ayah is valid and applicable till the Day of Judgment. If a verse is revealed in Makka, does it lose its validity when the Prophet moves to Madina? Of course any command by Allah to His Prophet holds good wherever the Prophet is and the Prophet is under an obligation to act upon it. If the Prophet gifted Fadak to his daughter in Madina, this was no doubt an implementation of the will of Allah.

[End Quote]

Answer:

This is a foolish argument from Shiapen, because the fabricated reports they are arguing for, states that “WHEN THE VERSE WAS REVEALED, Prophe(saw) gave Fadak to Fatima(ra)”, It doesn’t state “the verse was revealed in Makkah and (years later) when Muslims conquered Khaiber, Prophet(saw) gave Fadak to Fatima(ra)”.

The report used by Shiapen states, when the verse was revealed fadak was given to Fatima(ra), thus the obvious point which raises is that, in Makkah there was no fadak, it came into the hands of Muslims, years after their life in Medina. So, how could Allah(swt) command Prophet(saw) to give Fatima(ra) fadak, when he(saw) was still in Makkah and did not have Fadak?

This argument of Shiapen, actually doesn’t make any sense, and the fact that this verse was revealed in Makkah, itself is a proof that this verse had no relation to Fadak. This verse had a command, and that command was applicable on Muslims from the Makkan life, and in Makkan life there was no Fadak, which proves that, this verse had no relation to Fadak.

Moreover, there is a different report regarding the reason of revealation of this verse, on the same source quoted by Shiapen, Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, we read:

Imam ibn Mardawayn narrates from Ibn Abbas that: Messenger of Allah commanded the giver; how to give, and from whom should the giving begin, thus Allah(swt) revealed this verse {And give to the near of kin his due}, thus Allah(swt) commanded to start giving from the near of kin then to the poor and to the wayfarer.(Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, vol 4, page 177).[Urdu V. Screen Shot]

Multi-Angular analysis of Shia myth, that Prophet(saw) gifted Fadak to Fatima(ra) on the orders of Allah(swt):

This myth is commonly propagated by Shias, that Prophet(saw) presented Fadak to Fatima(ra) as a gift by the orders of Allah(swt). Hence we decided to present before the readers a multi-angular analysis of this Shia view, so that the readers can judge themselves that whether this claim of Shias has any truth in it or, is it baseless and far from truth.

(1). Sunni Scholars declared this report as false.

(a). Imam Dhahabi in Meezan al-Aitidaal vol 5, page 164-165 states that this report is false.

(b). Imam Badruddin Ayni, in Umdat al-Qaari, vol 15, page 28 states that this report is unproven.

(2). Period of Revelation of Chapter 17; Verse 26 proves that the Shia claim is false.

First of all we should note that this verse was revealed in Mecca, and Fadak become a land of Muslims only after hijra in Madina .[see commentary of Ibn Kathir (5/69)].

Shia tafseer which Shiapen is fond of quoting states that Surah Bani Isra’el(also known as Surah al-Isra) is Makki Surah.

سورة بني إسرائيل مكية

Tafsir Qummi Vol. 2, p. 3.

Intrestentingly Shia tafseer not only states that Surah(17) is Makki but even declares the verse(26) to be Makki. ShiaTafsir mizan states:

الميزان في تفسير القرآن سورة الإسراء 23 – 39
قوله تعالى: «و آت ذا القربى حقه و المسكين و ابن السبيل» تقدم الكلام فيه في نظائره، و بالآية يظهر أن إيتاء ذي القربى و المسكين و ابن السبيل مما شرع قبل الهجرة لأنها آية مكية من سورة مكية.
(Source)
In His saying {And give to the kindred his due and to the poor and to the wayfarer}, We already mentioned earlier on similar verse, by this aya it appears that giving (charity) to kindred and poor and wayfarer was legislated before Hijra because this aya is Makki from a Makki surah.

Similarly, Shia Ayatullah Nasser Makarem Shirazi states:

Comment: So the esteemed Shia Ayatullah, says that there are Mufassirs who held the opinion that some verses of Surah Isra were revealed in Medina, but he rejects their odd view by stating the famous thing which is that the complete Surah is Makki, which is supported by the meaning and context of the Surah.

(3). The Grammar of the verse proves the Shias claim to be false:

The pronoun in the words of verse(17:26) that is { حَقَّهُ}( ḥaqqahu) is 3rd person masculine singular pronoun not a feminine pronoun. It literally translates as (his right){And give to the near of kin HIS due}, if this verse was revealed so that Prophet(saw) gives certain due to Fatima(ra) then the pronoun should have been feminine(i.e Her) not masculine(i.e His).

(4). Context of the verse proves the Shia claim to be false:

The context of this verse(17:26), shows that the addressee were the Muslims, because the verse continues, stating {…and do not spend wastefully}, this proves that the addressee were the Muslims not Prophet(saw) and even the verses before this verse (i.e 17: 22 to 25) and the verse after it (i.e 27) prove that the addressee were the Muslims in general. We request the readers to read these verses inorder to verify and judge that whether the addressee were the Muslims or the Prophet(saw).

The Quranic Verses 22 to 27 of Chapter 17:

Allah(swt) says:

Set not up with Allah any other ilah(god), or you will sit down reproved, forsaken (in the Hellfire). And your Lord has (Qada)decree that you worship none but Him. And that you be dutiful to your parents. If one of them or both of them attain old age in your life, say not to them a word of disrespect, nor reprimand them but address them in terms of honor. And lower unto them the wing of submission and humility through mercy, and say: “My Lord! Bestow on them Your mercy as they did bring me up when I was young.” Your Lord knows best what is in your souls. If you are righteous, then, verily, He is Ever Most Forgiving to those who turn to Him in repentance. And give to the kinsman his due, and to the Miskin (poor), and to the wayfarer. But spend not wastefully (your wealth) in the manner of a spendthrift. Verily, the spendthrifts are brothers of the Shayatin (devils), and the Shaytan is ever ungrateful to his Lord. (Quran 17 : 22 – 27).

Comment: It says to give Kinsman his “right”, and a “right” of a person is something which is due to him or something belonging to him. Who says that Fadak is the “right” of Fatimah (as)? The “right” of the poor is to give them charity and speak to them in respect, the right of the traveler is to feed him and honor him during his stay, so now what’s the right of near relatives? To give them big pieces of land? Or to give them precedence, to be responsible for them and to keep close relations with them? Obviously, it’s for the later.

(5). The narrations used by Shias are irrational

Even from the rational view we can judge the narrations used by Shias to be fake, because the fabricated reports which Shias quote comes from Sahaba like Abu Sa’eed Khudri(ra) and Abdullah ibn Abbas(ra), which states that fadak was given to Fatima(ra) when the verse 26 of Surah al-Isra was revealed, so if they were the witness for this, then why weren’t they called by Fatima(ra) to give the testimony or as witness that Fadak was given to Fatima(ra) by Prophet(saw), as she supposedly was lacking number of witnesses? This shows that the ones who fabricated these reports and attributed them to Sahaba, were lacking common sense.

Moreover, Verse is telling to give “Haq(due)” of the relative. And Gift is not called haq, where as Shias claim that Fadak was gifted to Fatima(ra).

(6). The Shia claim is against the conduct and nature of Prophet(saw).

Allah(swt) commanded his Prophet(saw) in Surah Ahzab verse 28{Prophet, say to your wives,‘If your desire is for the present life and its finery, then come, I will make provision for you and release you with kindness}.We find in this verse that Allah(swt) didn’t like family members of Prophet(saw) to desire for a luxurious life. So why would Allah(swt) command his Prophet(saw) to give his daughter a land which would generate huge amount of income?

Not only Allah(swt) didn’t like a luxurious life for the family members of Prophet(saw), but even Prophet Muhammad(saw) himself didn’t like it for himself or his family members. One who is familiar with the Seerah of the Holy Prophet(saw) would realize that he lived a life of piety and asceticism. He(saw) used to get a lot of bounty from the battles, yet he used to spend that all in the way of Allah, leaving only what is required for absolute necessity with him. Even protecting his precious skin from the strips of the rough mat he used to lay, did not constitute a necessity for him that he would buy a soft mat for himself. He(saw) would leave the congregation after prayer has been called for to rush to his room and not delay spending seven dirhams that, he forgot and were all what remained in that day, in the way of Allah. And so he died leaving no dirham, and no dinar and his shield was mortgaged to a Jew for a few handfuls of wheat to feed his house-hold. He truly lived those words of wisdom that he spoke: “What does this life (Dunya) have to do with me. I am in this life like a stranger or one who is passing buy resting in the shade of a tree.” He also wanted his family members to live a similar life, not attached to this world and not collecting any wealth.

Shias who try to portray that the Messenger of Allah(saw) left for his family big rich pieces of land that would turn them into kings, listen and contemplate to what he(saw) said in the authentic narration of Bukhari:

حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ عَبْيدَةَ، نَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ حَرْبٍ، نَا ابْنُ فُضَيْلٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عُمَارَةَ بْنِ الْقَعْقَاعِ، عَنْ أَبِي زُرْعَةَ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ: ” اللَّهُمَّ اجْعَلْ عَيْشَ آلِ مُحَمَّدٍ قُوتًا “

[The messenger (saw) used to say: “O Allah, make the provision of Muhammad’s family only a bare subsistence.”]

In another version of the narration:

حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عُبَيْدَةَ، نَا مُوسَى بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ الْمَسْرُوقِيُّ، نَا أَبُو أُسَامَةَ، عَنِ الأَعْمَشِ، عَنْ عُمَارَةَ بْنِ الْقَعْقَاعِ، عَنْ أَبِي زُرْعَةَ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ: ” اللَّهُمَّ اجْعَلْ رِزْقَ آلِ مُحَمَّدٍ كَفَافًا

[Abu Hurayrah said: “The messenger (saw) used to say: “O Allah, make the provision of Muhammad’s family Kafaf.”]

Sa`eed bin `Abdul-`Aziz was asked about the meaning of the word “Kafaf” he answered:

سُئِلَ سَعِيدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ: مَا الْكَفَافُ مِنَ الرِّزْقِ؟ قَالَ: شِبَعُ يَوْمٍ، وَجُوعُ يَوْمٍ

“To eat a day and starve on the next day.”

Both narrations are of a similar meaning and are clear.

Also in “al-Tarikah” by Ishaq we read:

ثنا عَارِمٌ، قَالَ: ثنا ثَابِتُ بْنُ يَزِيدَ، قَالَ: ثنا هِلالُ بْنُ خَبَّابٍ، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، أَنّ النَّبِيَّ الْتَفَتَ إِلَى أُحُدٍ، فَقَالَ: ” وَالَّذِي نَفْسُ مُحَمَّدٍ بِيَدِهِ، مَا يَسُرُّنِي أَنَّ أُحُدًا تَحَوَّلَ لآلِ مُحَمَّدٍ ذَهَبًا أُنْفِقُهُ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ، أَمُوتُ يَوْمَ أَمُوتُ وَأَدَعُ مِنْهُ دِينَارَيْنِ، إِلا دِينَارَيْنِ أُعِدُّهُمَا لِدَيْنٍ إِنْ كَانَ “، فَمَاتَ وَمَا تَرَكَ دِينَارًا وَلا دِرْهَمًا، وَلا عَبْدًا وَلا وَلِيدَةً، وَتَرَكَ دِرْعَهُ عِنْدَ يَهُودِيٍّ بِثَلاثِينَ صَاعًا مِنْ شَعِيرٍ، يَعْنِي مَرْهُونَةً عِنْدَهُ

[Ibn `Abbas said: The Prophet (saw) turned to face the mountain of Uhud then said: “By he who holds in his hand the life of Muhammad, I would not be pleased if Uhud turned into gold for the family of Muhammad then I spent it all in the cause of Allah, if I die leaving behind two Dinars unless for a debt.”]

In the authentic narration in Musnad Ahmad, Musnad abu Dawud and Sunan al-Nasa’i:

فَقَالَتْ لَهَا فَاطِمَةُ انْظُرِي إِلَى هَذِهِ السِّلْسِلَةِ الَّتِي أَهْدَاهَا إِلَيَّ أَبُو حَسَنٍ قَالَ: وَفِي يَدِهَا سِلْسِلَةٌ مِنْ ذَهَبٍ، فَدَخَلَ النَّبِيُّ فَقَالَ: ” يَا فَاطِمَةُ، بِالْعَدْلِ أَنْ يَقُولَ النَّاسُ: فَاطِمَةُ بِنْتُ مُحَمَّدٍ وَفِي يَدِكِ سِلْسِلَةٌ مِنْ نَارٍ ؟ ! ” ثُمَّ عَذَمَهَا عَذْمًا شَدِيدًا، ثُمَّ خَرَجَ وَلَمْ يَقْعُدْ، فَأَمَرَتْ بِالسِّلْسِلَةِ فَبِيعَتْ، فَاشْتَرَتْ بِثَمَنِهَا عَبْدًا فَأَعْتَقَتْهُ، فَلَمَّا سَمِعَ بِذَلِكَ النَّبِيُّ كَبَّرَ، وَقَالَ: ” الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ الَّذِي نَجَّى فَاطِمَةَ مِنَ النَّارِ

[Thawban narrated that Fatimah said to bint Hubayrah: “Look at this bracelet that abu al-Hasan gifted me.” In her hand was a bracelet made from gold, so the Prophet (saw) entered and said: “O Fatimah, do you find it just that people call you Fatimah bint Muhammad while in your hand is a bracelet of fire!?” So he gave her a harsh talk and left and never sat down. Fatimah then ordered the bracelet be sold and with its price she freed a slave, when the messenger (saw) heard this he said: “Allah is the greatest, he saved Fatimah from the fire.”]

Similarly, in a Shia hadeeth from Uyoon Akhbar al Reza we read:

161 – وَبِهذَا الإِسناد عَنْ عَلِىِّ بْنِ الحُسَيْن‏عَلَيْهِمَا السَّلاَمُ أَنَّهُ قالَ: حَدَّثَني أَسْماءِ بِنْتِ عميس قالَتْ: كُنْت عِنْدَ فاطِمَة عَلَيْهَا السَّلاَمُ إِذْ دَخَلَ عَلَيْها رَسُولَ اللَّهِ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ وَفِي عُنُقها قِلادَة مَن ذَهَبَ كانَ اشتَراها لَها عَلِىِّ بْنِ أَبِي طالِب‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ مِن فِيٍ‏ء فَقالَ لَها رَسُولَ اللَّهِ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ: يا فاطِمَةُ لا يَقُولُ النَّاسُ إِنَّ فاطِمَة بِنْت مُحَمَّد تَلبَسُ لِبسَ الجَبابِرَةِ فَقَطَعتها وَباعَتها وَاِشْتَرَتْ بِها رَقبَةَ فَأَعتَقَتها فَسَرَّ بِذلِكَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ.

It is narrated on the authority of Ali ibn Al-Hussein (s) that Asma Bint Omays said, “I was with (the Blessed Lady) Fatima (s) when God’s Prophet (s) entered. (The Blessed Lady) Fatima (s) was wearing a golden necklace which Ali ibn Abi Talib (s) had provided for her from his own share of war booties. God’s Prophet (s) said, ‘O Fatima! Will not the people say that Fatima – the daughter of Muhammad is dressed in the attire of the oppressors?’ She immediately took it off, sold it, bought a slave with the money and freed him. Then God’s Prophet (s) became happy.”( Uyoon Akhbar al Reza, compiled by Shaikh Saduq.)

Also in the authentic narration of ibn `Umar from Hammad bin Ishaq’s book:

أَنّ النَّبِيَّ كَانَ إِذَا خَرَجَ كَانَ آخِرُ عَهْدِهِ فَاطِمَةَ عَلَيْهِمَا السَّلامُ، فَإِذَا رَجَعَ كَانَ أَوَّلُ عَهْدِهِ بِفَاطِمَةَ عَلَيْهِمَا السَّلامُ، فَلَمَّا رَجَعَ مِنْ غَزْوَةِ تَبُوكَ، وَقَدِ اشْتَرَتْ مُقَيْنِعَةً، فَصَبَغَتْهَا بِزَعْفَرَانٍ، وَأَلْقَتْ عَلَى بَابِهَا سِتْرًا، أَوْ أَلْقَتْ فِي بَيْتِهَا بِسَاطًا، فَلَمَّا رَأَى ذَلِكَ النَّبِيُّ رَجَعَ، فَأَتَى الْمَسْجِدَ، فَقَعَدَ فِيهِ، فَأَرْسَلَتْ إِلَى بِلالٍ، فَقَالَ: اذْهَبْ، فَانْظُرْ مَا رَدَّهُ عَنْ بَابِي؟ فَأَتَاهُ فَأَخْبَرَهُ، فَقَالَ: ” إِنِّي رَأَيْتُهَا صَنَعَتْ ثَمَّةَ كَذَا وَكَذَا، فَأَتَاهَا فَأَخْبَرَهَا، فَهَتَكَتِ السِّتْرَ وَكُلَّ شَيْءٍ أَحْدَثَتْهُ، وَأَلْقَتْ مَا عَلَيْهَا، وَلَبِسَتْ أَطْمَارَهَا

[Ibn `Umar said: The Prophet (saw) whenever he traveled or returned from his travels he would always visit Fatimah first, so when he returned from the conquest of Tabuk, she had bought decorations and painted them with saffron and placed a rug in her house, when the Prophet (saw) saw them he turned back and went to the mosque to sit in it. Fatimah sent after Bilal and told him: “Go and see what turned him back from my door?” when he told him this, the Prophet (saw) said: “I saw that she did such and such.” Then Bilal returned and told her this, so she tore off everything, she also took off what she wore and returned to her old clothes.]

Similarly in Sahi Bukhari 3:783, Once the Prophet went to the house of Fatima but did not enter it. ‘Ali came and she told him about that. When ‘Ali asked the Prophet about it, he said, “I saw a (multicolored) decorated curtain on her door. I am not interested in worldly things.” ‘Ali went to Fatima and told her about it. Fatima said, “I am ready to dispense with it in the way he suggests.” The Prophet ordered her to send it to such-and-such needy people

Thawban the servant of Rasul-Allah (saw) reports similarly:

وَحَلَّتِ الْحَسَنَ وَالْحُسَيْنَ عَلَيْهِمَا السَّلامُ قُلْبَيْنِ مِنْ فِضَّةٍ، فَقَبَّضَ، وَلَمْ يَدْخُلْ، فَظَنَّتْ أَنَّمَا مَنَعَهُ أَنْ يَدْخُلَ مَا رَأَى، فَهَتَكَتِ السِّتْرَ، وَفَكَّكَتِ الْقُلْبَيْنِ عَنِ الصَّبِيَّيْنِ، فَبَكَيَا، وَقَطَّعَتْهُ بَيْنَهُمَا، فَانْطَلَقَا إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ وَهُمَا يَبْكِيَانِ، فَأَخَذَهُمَا مِنْهُمَا، فَقَالَ: ” يَا ثَوْبَانُ، اذْهَبْ بِهَذَا إِلَى فُلانٍ، أَوْ إِلَى أَبِي فُلانٍ، قَالَ: أَهْلُ بَيْتٍ بِالْمَدِينَةِ، إِنَّ هَؤُلاءِ أَهْلَ بَيْتِي أَكْرَهُ أَنْ يَأْكُلُوا طَيِّبَاتِهِمْ فِي حَيَاتِهِمُ الدُّنْيَا، يَا ثَوْبَانُ، اشْتَرِ لِفَاطِمَةَ قِلادَةً مِنْ عَصْبٍ وَسِوَارَيْنِ مِنْ عَاجٍ

[Thawban said: Fatimah gave Hasan and Husayn two silver bracelets, so the messenger (saw) never entered her house, she thought that it was caused by what was in her house, so she tore off the curtain and removed her kids bracelets and they began to cry, she then gave them the pieces of cloth and they went to the Prophet (saw) and gave it to him. He (saw) said: “O Thawban, take these to so and so’s households in Madinah, as for these (Fatimah and her family) they are my household, I’d hate for them to eat of the good things of this world. O Thawban, buy Fatimah a necklace made from cheap beads and for the kids bracelets of ivory.”]

Similarly we read in Shia book, Jila ul Ayun:

It has been narrated in mutabar (i.e reliable) way that when the Prophet (s) would return from journey, he would first come to the home of Fatima, and than to his wives. Once the Prophet (s) was on a journey, and Fatima had made some ornaments from silver and left a curtain hanging on the door. So when the Prophet (s) returned from the journey, and came to Fatima’s home, and his companions were waiting on the door. When the Prophet (s) saw this, he turned back angrily , and sat down near the pulpit in the Masjid.(Jila ul Ayun, Vol. 1, p. 170).

As the reader can see, even when he (saw) could grant his family the luxuries of life, he kept them away from these distractions, not because he’s miserly God forbid, but because he wishes them the best rank in the after-life.

In an authentic narration from al-Zuhd by Ahmad:

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الصَّمَدِ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبَانُ، حَدَّثَنَا قَتَادَةُ، عَنْ أَنَسٍ قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ذَاتَ يَوْمٍ: ” وَالَّذِي نَفْسُ مُحَمَّدٍ بِيَدِهِ مَا أَمْسَى فِي آلِ مُحَمَّدٍ صَاعٌ مِنْ حَبٍّ، وَلا صَاعٌ مِنْ تَمْرٍ ” وَإِنَّهُمْ يَوْمَئِذٍ لَتِسْعَةُ أَبْيَاتٍ، لَهُ يَوْمَئِذٍ تِسْعُ نِسْوَةٍ

[Anas said: The messenger (saw) said one day: “By he who holds the life of Muhammad in his hand, the family of Muhammad never went to sleep at night having a Sa` of seeds or a Sa` of dates.” And they (his family) were nine houses, he had nine women.]

Not only this, Prophet(saw) didn’t even fulfill the request of his beloved daughter to grant her a servant. In the Sahih from al-Bazzar and Bukhari, is this narration from `Ali ibn abi Talib of when the Prophet (saw) received some servants from the spoils of war:

Narrated ‘Ali: Fatima complained of what she suffered from the hand mill and from grinding, when she got the news that some slave girls of the booty had been brought to Allah’s Apostle. She went to him to ask for a maid-servant, but she could not find him, and told ‘Aisha of her need. When the Prophet came, Aisha informed him of that. The Prophet came to our house when we had gone to our beds. (On seeing the Prophet) we were going to get up, but he said, ‘Keep at your places,’ I felt the coolness of the Prophet’s feet on my chest. Then he said, “Shall I tell you a thing which is better than what you asked me for? When you go to your beds, say: ‘Allahu Akbar (i.e. Allah is Greater)’ for 34 times, and ‘Alhamdu Lillah (i.e. all the praises are for Allah)’ for 33 times, and Subhan Allah (i.e. Glorified be Allah) for 33 times. This is better for you than what you have requested.” (Sahih Bukhari, Book 4, Volume 53, Hadith 344)

Similar report is even present in Shia book, Man la yahdhul faqih of Sheikh Sadooq:

947 – وروي أن أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام قال لرجل من بني سعد: ” ألا أحدثك عني وعن فاطمة الزهراء أنها كانت عندي فاستقت بالقربة حتى أثر في صدرها، وطحنت بالرحى حتى مجلت يداها، وكسحت البيت (3) حتى اغبرت ثيابها، وأوقدت تحت القدر حتى دكنت ثيابها (4) فأصابها من ذلك ضر شديد، فقلت لها: لو أتيت أباك فسألته خادما يكفيك حر ما أنت فيه (5) من هذا العمل، فأتت النبي صلى الله عليه وآله فوجدت

عنده حداثا (1) فاستحيت فانصرفت، فعلم صلى الله عليه وآله أنها قد جاءت لحاجة فغدا علينا ونحن في لحافنا (2) فقال: السلام عليكم، فسكتنا واستحيينا لمكاننا، ثم قال: السلام عليكم (3) فسكتنا، ثم قال: السلام عليكم فخشينا إن لم نرد عليه أن ينصرف وقد كان يفعل ذلك (4) فيسلم ثلاثا فإن أذن له وإلا انصرف، فقلنا: وعليك السلام يا رسول الله أدخل، فدخل وجلس عند رؤوسنا ثم قال: يا فاطمة ما كانت حاجتك أمس عند محمد؟ فخشيت إن لم نجبه أن يقوم، فأخرجت رأسي فقلت: أنا والله أخبرك يا رسول الله انها استقت بالقربة حتى أثر في صدرها، وجرت بالرحى حتى مجلت يداها، وكسحت البيت حتى اغبرت ثيابها، وأوقدت تحت القدر حتى دكنت ثيابها فقلت لها: لو أتيت أباك فسألته خادما يكفيك حر ما أنت فيه من هذا العمل، قال: أفلا أعلمكما ما هو خير لكما من الخادم؟ إذا أخذتما منامكما (5) فكبرا أربعا وثلاثين تكبيرة، وسبحا ثلاثا وثلاثين تسبيحة، واحمدا ثلاثا وثلاثين تحميدة، فأخرجت فاطمة عليها السلام رأسها وقالت: ” رضيت عن الله وعن رسوله رضيت عن الله وعن رسوله ” (6)

فإذا فرغت من تسبيح فاطمة عليها السلام فقال: ” اللهم أنت السلام، ومنك السلام ولك السلام، وإليك يعود السلام، سبحان ربك رب العزة عما يصفون، وسلام على المرسلين والحمد لله رب العالمين، السلام عيك أيها النبي ورحمة الله وبركاته، السلام على الائمة الهادين المهديين، السلام على جميع أنبياء الله ورسله وملائكته، السلام علينا وعلى عباد الله الصالحين ” ثم تسلم على الائمة واحدا واحدا عليهم السلام وتدعو بما أحببت.

(Man la yahdhul faqih, vol 1, page 320-322). [Urdu Version scan page]

A valid question might come in the mind of readers, that why did Prophet(saw) deny this request of his beloved daughter, sayyida Fatima(ra), when she was most deserving for it? The plausible answer to this question is that Prophet(saw) knew that, soon after him, his daughter would leave this world, thus when such information is known then the things that would benefit us in hereafter are preferred over the worldly things. And why wouldn’t the Prophet(saw) do so, when he(saw) also said in the Sahih of ibn `Abbas:

اطَّلَعْتُ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، فَرَأَيْتُ أَكْثَرَ أَهْلِهَا الْمَسَاكِينَ

[I looked into heaven and saw that most of its dwellers were the poor.]

In a narration where he (saw) was gifted a fancy bed by an Ansari woman, he told `A’ishah:

يَا عَائِشَةُ، رُدِّيهِ، فَوَاللَّهِ لَوْ شِئْتُ لأَجْرَى اللَّهُ مَعِيَ جِبَالَ الذَّهَبِ وَالْفِضَّةِ

[O `A’ishah, return it! By Allah, if I wished then Allah would make me mountains of gold and silver.]

إِنْ شِئْتَ أُعْطِيتَ خَزَائِنَ الأَرْضِ مَا لَمْ يُعْطَهُ أَحَدٌ قَبْلَكَ، وَلا يُعْطَاهُ أَحَدٌ بَعْدَكَ، وَلا يَنْقُصُكَ مِنَ الآخِرَةِ شَيْئًا، قَالَ: اجْمَعُوهُمَا لِي فِي الآخِرَةِ

[Khaythamah reported that it was said to the Prophet (saw): “If you wish, we shall grant you the treasures of the earth and what nobody before received nor will anyone after you receive, and your status in the after-life shall not diminish.” He (saw) replied: “Gather all of this for me only in the after-life.”]

These and several other narrations like them prove that he (saw) preferred poverty to wealth as wealth blinds the heart and blocks the mind from the remembrance of Allah, rather it makes one attached to his life and distant from the idea of death and judgment.

A question may be asked in the end, is acquiring wealth forbidden? The simplest answer is NO, the Prophet (saw) even taught some of his companions Du`a to repel poverty, but he also told them of the evils and luxuries of life and told them to not be attached to it, and he (saw) praised poverty and promised the poor a great reward.

After all this, does it make sense if he’d hand them a giant rich piece of land enabling them to live like kings? Or is it more logical for men like him to offer these lands to the poor and needy yet allow his family to take what is sufficient to fill their stomachs?

The messenger (saw) himself said in the narration of the companion Ka`b bin `Iyad:

إن لكل أمة فتنة وفتنة أمتي المال

[Verily, there is a Fitnah (trial) for every nation and the trial for my nation is money.]

Who would place someone he loves through this horrible trial?

May Allah bless our beloved prophet Muhammad (saw) and reward him the best reward for advising his nation and guiding them to the path of truth and to salvation by the permission of Allah.

So it’s unjust and unfair to rely on the fabricated narrations that Allah(swt) command to Prophet(saw) to give Fatima(ra) a land which used to produce huge income. Allah didn’t sent the messengers and prophets, to collect wealth and bestow it upon their descendants!

(7). The fabricated narrations used by Shias contradict other reports which says the opposite.

Before we quote those reports which says that Prophet(saw) refused to give Fadak to Fatima(ra), we would like to notify that, these reports are in-line with the conduct and nature of Prophet(saw) as we read, about his conduct in the above analysis. This case is not much different than the one in which Fatima(ra) asked for a servant and Prophet(saw) didn’t fulfil this wish of his beloved daughter, and even here we will find that Prophet(saw) refused to give Fatima(ra), Fadak when she asked for it.

Here is the “Hasan” report up to `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz, which states that Fatimah(ra) asked for the land and was denied it by the Prophet (saw). In Sunan abu Dawud we read:

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ الْجَرَّاحِ، حَدَّثَنَا جَرِيرٌ، عَنْ الْمُغِيرَةِ، قَالَ: جَمَعَ عُمَرُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ بَنِي مَرْوَانَ حِينَ اسْتُخْلِفَ، فَقَالَ: إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ كَانَتْ لَهُ فَدَكُ فَكَانَ يُنْفِقُ مِنْهَا وَيَعُودُ مِنْهَا عَلَى صَغِيرِ بَنِي هَاشِمٍ وَيُزَوِّجُ مِنْهَا أَيِّمَهُمْ، وَإِنَّ فَاطِمَةَ سَأَلَتْهُ أَنْ يَجْعَلَهَا لَهَا فَأَبَى فَكَانَتْ كَذَلِكَ فِي حَيَاةِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ حَتَّى مَضَى لِسَبِيلِهِ، فَلَمَّا أَنْ وُلِّيَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ عَمِلَ فِيهَا بِمَا عَمِلَ النَّبِيُّ فِي حَيَاتِهِ حَتَّى مَضَى لِسَبِيلِهِ، فَلَمَّا أَنْ وُلِّيَ عُمَرُ عَمِلَ فِيهَا بِمِثْلِ مَا عَمِلَا حَتَّىمَضَى لِسَبِيلِهِ

[`Abdullah that Jareer told him that al-Mugheerah said: `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz gathered the children of Marwan when he received Khilafah, he said: “Rasul-Allah (saw) had Fadak, he used to spend from it on the little ones of bani Hashim and marry-off their bachelors, and Fatimah had asked him to grant her it during the life of Rasul-Allah (saw) so he refused and died, then Abu Bakr became in charge so he used it as Rasul-Allah (saw) did until he died, then `Umar…]

At the end he says:

فَرَأَيْتُ أَمْرًا مَنَعَهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ فَاطِمَةَ عَلَيْهَا السَّلَام لَيْسَ لِي بِحَقٍّ وَأَنَا أُشْهِدُكُمْ أَنِّي قَدْ رَدَدْتُهَا عَلَى مَا كَانَتْ يَعْنِي عَلَى عَهْدِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ

[So I saw a matter that Rasul-Allah (saw) prevented Fatimah, I have no right (to give it to you) so I ask you to bear witness that I have returned it to the way it was during the messenger’s (saw) time.]

Another narration is from `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz by abu al-Barqan in Baladhuri’s book, it is similar to the one above, it denies that the messenger (saw) gave the land to Fatima(ra):

إن فدك كانت مما أفاء اللَّه عَلَى رسوله ولم يوجف المسلمون عَلَيْهِ بخيل ولا ركاب، فسألته إياها فاطمة رحمها اللَّه تعالى، فقال: ما كان لك أن تسأليني، وما كان لي أن أعطيك، فكان يضع ما يأتيه منها في أبناء السبيل

[Fadak was from what Allah gave as a Fay’ to his messenger (saw) without riding to battle, so Fatimah asked him for it and he (saw) said: “It is not your right to ask me nor is it my right to offer it to you.” He (saw) spent from it on the stranded travellers…]

Next narration is that of Ja`far bin Muhammad al-Ansari in the book of Tabaqat ibn Sa`d, it is a long one but confirms what we previously read, it says:

كانت فدك صفيا لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فكانت لابن السبيل وسألته ابنته فدك أن يهبها لها فأبى رسول الله ذلك عليها

[Fadak was purely the property of Rasul-Allah (saw) so he made it for the stranded travellers, then his daughter asked him for Fadak to grant it to her but he (saw) refused…]

There is another weak report in al-Tarikah, we read with its chain from Anas that Abu Bakr(ra) told Fatimah(ra):

Comment: In other words she is only relying on the laws of inheritance in the Qur’an, there was no promise or gifts.

Result:

Thus, these points are enough reason to reject the Shia claims and the narrations they used from Shia or Sunni books, which state that, Prophet(saw) presented Fadak to Fatima(ra) as a gift by the orders of Allah (swt). Those reports as nothing but fabrications and concoctions.

Argument 18:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

We have proved from 10 Sunni works that the Prophet (s) presented Fadak to Fatima Zahra (as) as a gift by the orders of Allah (swt) and it was in her possession. But the same Shah Abdul Aziz in “Tuhfa Ithna Ashari”, “Shah Wali Ullah” in “Quratul Ain” and Ibn Taymeeya in “Minhaj-us-Sunnah” and their modern day apprentice al Khider in ‘Fadak’ continue to lie by denying this fact. May Allah’s curse be upon these liars!

[End Quote]

Answer:

Praise be to Allah! The readers can witness this article, that all of these so-called evidences presented by Shiapen, fell like a pack of cards. None of them was able to pass the test of authenticity, and all of these were proven to be fabrications in the light of Quran, authentic reports, conduct and nature of Prophet(saw), Arabic Grammar andverification of chain of narrators. On the top of that, there are even reports where Prophet(saw) refused to give Fadak to Fatima(ra).

Thus, Shiapen has terribly failed to prove that Fadak was gifted to Fatima(ra) by the orders of Allah(swt) or to prove that Fadak was in Fatima’s(ra) possession, and Shiapen needs to learn that, just quoting random reports whose authenticity can never be established, will never be considered as a fact, by any objective, unbiased, and truth-seeking person. So, if they were trying to fool the Shia audience with these baseless and unproven evidences then they don’t need to since, they are already upon misguidance, and we pray that Allah(swt) guides among them, the Shias who deserve the guidance. And if Shiapen wanted to mislead the Sunnis, then they need to bring reliable evidences to stand against Ahlesunnah, as what we have witnessed from the quality of proofs brought by Shiapen, then they don’t even qualify to be brought, against Ahlesunnah, infact it left scars of humiliation on Shiapen.

May Allah’s curse be upon the liars from Shiapen, who made a false accusation on Sunni Scholars.