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


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 Five: Imam Ali (as)’s position on Fadak”.

 

Argument 1:

Shiapen Stated:

[Quote]

Now when we look at the companions of the Prophet (s) we see that the most senior judge from amongst them was Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (as).  In this regard we read the following traditions:

بن أبي إياس ثنا شعبة عن أبي إسحاق عن عبد الرحمن بن يزيد عن علقمة عن عبد الله قال كنا نتحدث أن أقضى أهل المدينة علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه
هذا حديث صحيح على شرط الشيخين و لم يخرجاه

Abdullah said: ‘We used to say that no one is the best Judge in Madina other than Ali’
Hakim said: Sahih according to the standards of both Sheikhs’ 

This tradition also recorded in:

  1. Tabaqat kubra, by ibn Saad, v2, p339
  2. Tarikh Dimashq, v42, p404
  3. Al-Estiab, by ibn Abdulbar, v3, p1103

[End Quote] 

Answer:

The chain is good, but it weakens the Shia view more than strengthening it. It is well known that Abdullah bin Mas’ud used to consider other Khulafa in high regards than Ali(ra). In fact he said explicitly that Uthman (ra) was the best of them after the death of ‘Umar (ra). Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud’s love for Umar is well famous. For example: Ibn Abi Shaibah and Tabrani relates through Zaidah from Abdul Malik bin Umair from Zaid bin Wahb that Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud said, “Umar was the most knowledgeable of us about Allah, the most learned of us regarding the book of Allah and most knowledgeable regarding the religion of Allah.”

It is also authentically proven as reported by Ibn Abi Shaibah, Tabrani in Al-Kabeer and Hakim that Abdullah used to say, “I really think that if the knowledge of Umar is placed in one side of the balance and knowledge of all the living people in the other side then the side of Umar will proved to be weighty.” A’amash considered it an exaggeration and complained to Ibrahim Nakh’i to which Ibrahim said, “What are you so shocked about. Abdullah has said even greater statement about Umar. He has said “I believe he has gone with the nine out of ten parts of knowledge.” Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud also said as reported by Tabrani, Ibn Abi Shaibah: Whenever I see Umar it appears as though there is an angel between his eyes to guide or correct him.”

This is regarding Umar, as for Uthman then it has been reported by Ahmad in Fadhail, Ibn Sa’d, Fasawi, Tabrani, Ibn Battah in Al-Ibanah al-Kubrah and others that Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud said among his companions, “We the companions of Muhammad gathered and selected over us the best of us (i.e. Uthman).” This is also authentically proven.

As for the view of Sahaba that Ali(ra) was the best judge, then Ibn Taymiyyah has discussed this in detail. In short the Qadha here is referring to resolving disputes of people. Basically Qadha is related to two types of issues: First when two parties are in fight like when a group claim something on the other group. So this need analysis based on witnesses and other things. Second is when two groups do not oppose each but they only want to know the islamic ruling regarding what they deserve or what not like their share in inheritance etc. So it is the first type which is said regarding Ali (ra) and this is not a criteria to be the best as compared to others otherwise if we count Qadha of the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) then it would not even reach ten judgement as compared to his ruling regarding Halal and Haram which is the basis of the religion. Related to this is a narration narrated by Umm al-Mumineen Umm Salamah (ra) that the Prophet (SAWS) said, “You people present your case to me and some of you may be more eloquent in presenting his argument. So if I give someone’s right to another because of the latter’s presentation of the case then I am really giving him a piece of fire; so he should not take it.” [Bukhari]

Argument 2:

Shiapen Stated:

[Quote] 

Rasulullah (s) said to Ali: ‘When people love this world and shall usurp inheritance and love money so much amd used the religion of Allah as a source of income and the property of Allah as estates, what will you do? Ali (ra) replied: ‘I shall leave them alone, and shall seek out Allah (swt), his Prophet (s) and the next world. I shall bear patience in relation to worldly problems until I meet you’. Rasulullah (s) said: ‘You spoke correctly, O Allah! Give ‘Ali patience’.
 Kanz al Ummal, Volume 11 page 399 Tradition 31519

We appeal to justice. Abu Bakr loved this world and denied Sayyida Fatima (as) her legal right. If Hadhrat Ali (as) chose not to exercise force to get Fadak back, preferring the matter to be resolved on the Day of Judgement, he was acting in a way that had been endorsed as correct by Rasulullah (s).

[End Quote]

Answer:

The author of Kanzul Ummal atfter mentioning this hadith says:

الثقفي في الأربعين وفيه صالح بن أبي الأسود واه
“Ath-Thaqafi has narrated it in Al-Arba’een. And the chain contains Salih bin Abil Aswad and he is wah (weak)”.
And one can check it just by looking at the link given by Shiapen, but Shiapen knew that most people don’t understand Arabic.

Thus, this report is unreliable, and the appeal made by Shiapen using this unreliable and weak report becomes null and void.

Moreover, one who is familiar with the true Seerah of the Abubakr(ra) would realize that he(ra) lived a life of piety and asceticism, and never preferred world over religion. And even in this case of inheritance, Abubakr(ra) didn’t give it to Fatima(ra) due to being bounded by the command of Prophet(saw), otherwise Abubakr(ra) himself used to say “By Allah, I(Abubakr) would love to do good to the Kith and kin of Allah’s Apostle rather than to my own Kith and kin(Sahih Bukhari).

And we even have the testimony of Ahlelbayt regarding this:

عَنْ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ , عَنْ أَبِيهِ , عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ ، قَالَ : ” وَلِيَنَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ الصِّدِّيقُ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ خَيْرُ خَلِيفَةِ اللَّهِ ، وَأَرْحَمَهُ بِنَا وَأَحْنَاهُ عَلَيْنَا “
Ja’afar bin Muhammad (al Sadiq), from his Father Muhammad bin Ali (al Baqir), from Abdullah ibn Ja’afar bin Abi Talib that he said: ” Abu Bakr al Siddeeq may Allah be pleased with him became our Caliph and he was the best of the Caliphs of Allah, he was most merciful and most caring towards us.“
sources:
Fadael al Sahaba by al Darqutni.
al-Isabah by Ibn Hajar al Asqalani.
al-Mustadraq ‘ala al-Sahihayn by al Hakim.
Usool I’itiqad ahlulsunnah by al Lalikaee.
al-Radd ‘ala al Rafidah by al Maqdisi.
Hadith grading:
al-Hakim said SAHIH and al-Dhahhabi agreed with him, Ibn Hajar al Asqalani said the Hadith has a good chain of narrators.

 

Argument 3:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Shaykh Seduq in Ilal-ul-Sharai, Volume 1 page 155 reports:

Al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Fadhal narrated from Abul-Hasan (Ali ibn Musa Al-Ridha) [a]: I asked him about Amir-ul-Momineen, why he did not seek to return Fadak when he ruled the people, and he replied: “Because we the Ahlul Bayt do not take our rights from those who have wronged us, except Him (Allah). And we are the Awliya of the Momineen, we rule for them and take (and return) their rights from those that wronged them, and we do not take it for ourselves.”

The words of the Imam (as) make it clear that they rule for the benefit of the common man, when it comes to their personal usurped rights, they do not take them back themselves rather their expectation is that the usurpers and their adherents express remorse for the sin of usurping the right of Ahl’ul bayt (as) and accordingly restore that right to them.

[End Quote]

Answer:

The Shiapen used this Shia report, inorder to justify the decision of Ali(ra), this report is weak according to Shia standards. Here is the Arabic text for this:

حدثنا أحمد بن الحسن القطان قال: حدثنا أحمد بن سعيد الهمداني قال حدثنا علي بن الحسن بن علي بن فضال عن أبيه عن أبي الحسن ” ع قال: سألته عن أمير المؤمنين لم لم يسترجع فدكا لما ولى الناس؟ فقال: لأنا أهل بيت لا نأخذ حقوقنا ممن ظلمنا الا هو ونحن أولياء المؤمنين إنما نحكم لهم ونأخذ حقوقهم ممن ظلمهم ولا نأخذ لأنفسنا

In the chain narrator Ahmad b. al-Hasan al-Qattan is majhool (anonymous) as per al-Khoei’s Mu`jam, which makes this report weak.

However this same report attributed to Ahlelbayt refutes the Shia stance. We read in the Shia report that the Imams rule for the believers and return their rights from those who wronged them, So the question which raises is, Why didn’t Imams then return the rights of other relatives of Prophet(saw) who deserved the inheritance from Prophet(saw), for example the wives of Prophet(saw) who were alive during the Caliphate of Ali(ra), such as Umm Salama(ra), etc and also the other paternal relatives of Prophet(saw) who deserved the inheritance, such as children of Abbas(ra).

Why didn’t Ali(ra) do his job which was supposed to be done by Imams during their rule, in accordance to the Shia hadeeth. Once we ponder over this fact we realize that this report has been falsely attributed to Ahlelbayt.

The fact is that Ali(ra) followed the Sunnah of Caliphs who preceded him, and the excuses which Shias bring to justify the action of Ali(ra) are irrational and nonsensical and are against them and not in their favour.

 

Shia Argument 4:

[Quote]

حدثنا : أحمد بن علي بن إبراهيم بن هاشم رحمه الله قال : حدثنا : أبي ، عن أبيه إبراهيم بن هاشم ، عن محمد بن أبي عمير ، عن إبراهيم الكرخي قال : سألت أبا عبد الله (ع) فقلت له : لأي علة ترك علي بن أبي طالب (ع) فدك لما ولى الناس فقال : للاقتداء برسول الله (ص) لما فتح مكة وقد باع عقيل بن أبي طالب داره فقيل له : يا رسول الله ألا ترجع إلى دارك ؟ ، فقال (ص) : وهل ترك عقيل لنا داراً ، إنا أهل بيت لا نسترجع شيئا يؤخذ منا ظلماً ، فلذلك لم يسترجع فدك لماّ ولىّ
Narrated ahmed ibn ali ibn ibrahim ibn hashim narrated my father narrated his father ibrahim ibn hashim from mohamed ibn abi umair from ibrahim al-karkhi he said : for what reason did mola ali asws leave fadak when he ruled ? so he (asws) said : because he followed on the footsteps of rasool Allah asws when he conquered Mecca he found out that aqeel ibn abi talib has sold his house (the house of the prophet(saww)) so he was asked : o prophet! why don’t you take your house back? so he said : well aqeel didn’t leave us a house and we are the people of a house that never take anything back that is taken from us unjustly . so this is why he didn’t(ali(as)) take fadak back.
SOURCES:-
1- ilal us shari’i, vol 1, page 155
2- bihar ul anwaar, vol 29, page 396
3- al-taraif, syed ibn taos, vol 1, page 251

[End Quote]

Answer:

Shia propagandists sometimes even use the quoted report from their books, to justify the action of Al(ra). The readers can notice how desperate the Shias were that they fabricated numerous reports inorder to justify the action of Ali(ra).

Even this report exposes the stupidity of the person who fabricated it, as it refutes the Shia arguments, because the excuse it gives is that Prophet(saw) said, “we are the people of a house that never take anything back that is taken from us unjustly , so this is why he(Ali) didn’t take fadak back”. However the Shias argue that Ali(ra) kept demanding Fadak repeatedly, even during the Caliphate of Umar(ra), they even argue that Fatima(ra) repeatedly demanded it. They also claim that Fatimah gave a sermon and tried to get the support of the companions to get Fadak back. Also al-Husayn tried to retrieve the leadership by force. And all this is contradictory to the excuse quoted from the shia hadeeth, which says Ahlelbayt, never take back anything that is taken from then unjustly.

Anyways, we would like to say that this Shia hadeeth is weak and unreliable from Shia standards since the following narrators are Majhool:
أحمد بن علي بن إبراهيم بن هاشم = Majhool(anonymous)
إبراهيم الكرخي = Majhool(anonymous).

 

Argument 5:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

The tradition suggests that Maula ‘Ali (as) was ashamed to do anything that would contravene a decision of Abu Bakr. If this was even remotely true, then there would have been no reason to for him to reject the offer of Khilafath (the third time) on the condition that he adhered to the Qur’an, Sunnah and to the practices of Abu Bakr and Umar! Whilst agreeing to the Qur’an and Sunnah he (as) refused to adhere to the practices of Abu Bakr and Umar. This fact can be located in the following esteemed works of Ahl’ul Sunnah:

  1. al Bidayah wa al Nihaya Volume 7 page 146
  2.  Sharah Fiqh Akbar, page 66 “Fadail Naas badh ai Rasulullah” (Maktabah Haqaniya, Multan. Pakistan)
  3. Iqd al Fareed Volume 2 page 213
  4. Tareekh Abu Fida Volume 1 page 166 Dhikr Maqatil Umar
  5. Tareekh Khamees Volume 2 page 255
  6.  Tareekh Tabari Volume 14 page 158-159
  7. Tareekh Kamil Volume 3 page 35 Dhikr Shura

If Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) was ‘ashamed’ to contravene Abu Bakr’s rulings then he would have accepted this condition whole heartedly. What would be the reason for Imam Ali (as) refusing to abide by the decision of a Khalifa whose rulings he was too ashamed to change? The refusal of Imam Ali (as) to accept this condition serves as the greatest proof that he wanted to distance himself from their Bidah rulings.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Shiapen is referring to the below report:

فَقَالَ: إِنِّي قَدْ سَأَلْتُ عَنْكُمَا وَعَنْ غَيْرِكُمَا، فَلَمْ أَجِدِ النَّاسَ يَعْدِلُونَ بِكُمَا، هَلْ أَنْتَ يَا عَلِيُّ مُبَايِعِي عَلَى كِتَابِ اللَّهِ، وَسُنَّةِ نَبِيِّهِ، وَفِعْلِ أَبِي بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ؟ فَقَالَ: اللَّهُمَّ لا، وَلَكِنْ عَلَى جَهْدِي مِنْ ذَلِكَ وَطَاقَتِي.
فَالْتَفَتَ إِلَى عُثْمَانَ، فَقَالَ: هَلْ أَنْتَ مُبَايِعِي عَلَى كِتَابِ اللَّهِ، وَسُنَّةِ نَبِيِّهِ، وَفِعْلِ أَبِي بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ؟ قَالَ: اللَّهُمَّ نَعَمْ
[…I have asked about you both and about the others, and I found that the people hold you both in the highest regard and do not view anyone as being equal to you. He said:”Do you O `Ali accept that I offer you the Bay`ah, that you may work in accordance to the book of Allah, the Sunnah of his Prophet (saw), and the deeds of Abu Bakr and `Umar?” `Ali said: “By Allah no, but I will do an effort to fulfill what you said.” He turned towards `Uthman and said: “Do you accept that I offer you the Bay`ah, that you may work in accordance to the book of Allah, the Sunnah of his Prophet (saw), and the deeds of Abu Bakr and `Umar?” He said: “By Allah, yes.”…]

Here is the chain for this report:

قَالَ أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ: وَأَمَّا الْمِسْوَرُ بْنُ مَخْرَمَةَ، فَإِنَّ الرِّوَايَةَ عِنْدَنَا عَنْهُ مَا حَدَّثَنِي سَلْمُ بْنُ جُنَادَةَ أَبُو السَّائِبِ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ بْنِ أَبِي ثَابِتِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ بْنِ عُمَرَ بْنِ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ عَوْفٍ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ جَعْفَرٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنِ الْمِسْوَرِ بْنِ مَخْرَمَةَ

It has descendant of `Abdul-Rahman bin `Awf, who is Majhool(anonymous), hence it is weak.

However, this weak report isn’t against Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra) if understood correctly, Ali said: {“By Allah no, but I will do an effort to fulfill what you said.”}; this sentence shows that, Ali(ra) wasn’t confident that he would be able to adhere the given conditions, however he said, he would make an effort to fulfill the conditions, which shows that he didn’t reject the condition to follow the Quran, Sunnah and practices of Abubakr and Umar. Nor did he say that, he would only follow Quran and sunnah, but not adhere the practices of Abubakr and Umar as Shiapen claimed.

Ali(ra) was just not confident that he would be able to follow the given conditions, because the example set by Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra) during their rule, was very difficult to be followed, one who has studied the seerah(biographies) of Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra) knows this very well, this fact was testified not only by Muslim observers but even by Non-Muslim observers, for example: Mohandas Gandhi (b. 1869 CE). When the Indian National Congress emerged as a power in eight provinces in 1937 CE, Gandhi needed to present his ministers with the best role model of government and for this he cited the example of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr(ra) and Sayyiduna ‘Umar al-Faruq(ra). He writes:

“History tells us of Pratap and Shivaji living in the utmost simplicity. But opinions may be divided as to what they did when they had power. There is no division of opinion about the prophet, Abu Bakr and Omar. They had the riches of the world at their feet. It will be difficult to find a historical parallel to match their rigorous life. Omar would not brook the idea of his lieutenants living in distant provinces and using anything but coarse cloth and coarse flour.” (July 17, 1937 in Harijan newspaper).

Infact, Sayyidna Ali(ra) himself testified about this fact:

، أَخْبَرَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَمَّارٍ ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَيُّوبَ ، حَدَّثَنَا عُمَرُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ ، حَدَّثَنَا زَائِدَةُ بْنُ قُدَامَةَ ، حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ السُّدِّيُّ ، عَنْ عَبْدِ خَيْرٍ ، قَالَ : سَمِعْتُ عَلِيًّا رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ يَقُولُ : إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ جَعَلَ أَبَا بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ حُجَّةً عَلَى مَنْ بَعْدَهُمَا مِنَ الْوُلاةِ إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ ، فَسَبَقَا وَاللَّهِ سَبْقًا بَعِيدًا ، وَأَتْعَبَا مَنْ بَعْدَهُمَا إِتْعَابًا شَدِيدًا .

Abd Khair narrates from Ali ibn Abi Talib that, He(ra) said: Allah made Abu Bakr and Umar hujjah over the rulers till the day of judgement , By God, they have excelled everyone else greatly, and have put the ones after them into much difficulty in following them. (Asad ul Ghaba, vol 3, page 68).

Similarly, It was narrated that Ali(ra) said: I saw Umar bin Khattab(ra) rushing by on a camel and I said, O Ameer al-Momineen, where are you going? He said, One of the Zakah camels has run away! I said, ‘You have caused humiliation to the Caliphs who come after you’. He said, O Abu al-Hasan, do not blame me, for by the one who sent Muhammad(saw) as a Prophet, if a female kid were to die on the banks of the Euphrates, Umar would be taken to task for it on the Day of Resurrection.(Manaqib Umar, page 161).[Also refer Sallabi’s book Umar bin Khattab, his life and times, vol 1]

However,  Ali(ra) said, he would give his best to fulfill the given conditions. Therefore, this report isn’t in the favour of Shias, rather against them.

Moreover, we would like to add that in this same report `Ali says:
لَوْ عَهِدَ إِلَيْنَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ  عَهْدًا لأَنْفَذْنَا عَهْدَهُ، وَلَوْ قَالَ لَنَا قَوْلا لَجَادَلْنَا عَلَيْهِ حَتَّى نَمُوتَ، لَنْ يُسْرِعَ أَحَدٌ قَبْلِي، إِلَى دَعْوَةِ حَقٍّ
[…If the messenger (saw) had promised us anything (with regards to leadership) we would fulfill his order, and we would have argued about it until we die, no one will beat me to call people to the truth…]

So, since Shiapen accepted that portion of the report, then they must even accept the this part of the narration too, which says that nothing regarding Leadership was promised by Prophet(saw) to Ali(ra).

Furthermore, our explanation is supported by the views of Ali(ra) as well as Ahlelbayt, as they believed that Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra) followed the Sunnah of Prophet(saw).

(i).

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ , قَالَ : حَدَّثَنِي سُرَيْجُ بْنُ يُونُسَ مِنْ كِتَابِهِ ، قثنا مَرْوَانُ بْنُ مُعَاوِيَةَ الْفَزَارِيُّ ، قَالَ : أنا عَبْدُ الْمَلِكِ بْنُ سَلْعٍ الْهَمْدَانِيُّ ، عَنْ عَبْدِ خَيْرٍ ، قَالَ : سَمِعْتُهُ يَقُولُ : قَامَ عَلِيٌّ عَلَى الْمِنْبَرِ ، فَذَكَرَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، فَقَالَ : ” قُبِضَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَاسْتُخْلِفَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ ، فَعَمِلَ بِعَمَلِهِ وَسَارَ بِسِيرَتِهِ ، حَتَّى قَبَضَهُ اللَّهُ عَلَى ذَلِكَ ، ثُمَّ اسْتُخْلِفَ عُمَرُ فَعَمِلَ بِعَمَلِهِمَا ، وَسَارَ بِسِيرَتِهِمَا ، حَتَّى قَبَضَهُ اللَّهُ عَلَى ذَلِكَ ”

حَدَّثَنَا حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيٌّ ، حَدَّثَنَا الْحُسَيْنُ بْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ الْمَحَامِلِيُّ ، حَدَّثَنَا مَحْمُودُ بْنُ خِدَاشٍ ، حَدَّثَنَا مَرْوَانُ بْنُ مُعَاوِيَةَ ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْمَلِكِ بْنُ سِلْعٍ الْهَمْدَانِيُّ ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ خَيْرٍ قَالَ : قَامَ عَلِيٌّ عَلَى الْمِنْبَرِ فَقَالَ : قُبِضَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَاسْتُخْلِفَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ ، وَعَمِلَ بِعَمَلِهِ وَسَارَ بِسِيرَتِهِ حَتَّى قَبَضَهُ اللَّهُ ، ثُمَّ اسْتُخْلِفَ عُمَرُ فَعَمِلَ بِعَمَلِهِمَا ، وَسَارَ بِسِيرَتِهِمَا حَتَّى قَبَضَهُ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ عَلَى ذَلِكَ .

Abd khair said (once)Ali(ra) while he was sitting on the minbar, said: Prophet(Saw) passed away and abubakar(ra) was appointed as khalipha . He(ra) implemented his duty according to the way of prophet(Saw) and continued working according to the seerah of prophet(Saw) until he died, then umar(ra) became the khalipha, he too implemented his duty like the way prophet(saw) and abubakar(ra) did, and worked according to their seerah and died on the same way(Fadhail Sahaba by Imam Ahmed, Rijaal Thiqaat ; Majmua al zawaid, vol 5, page 179).

(ii). Ali(ra) said regarding Abubakr(ra) : Of all people, you were the best companion of the Messenger of Allah(saw); you possessed the best qualities; you had the best past; you ranked highest; you were closest to him. And of all people you resembled the Messenger of Allah(saw) the most in terms of his guidance and demeanor…And a truly good successor you proved to be when the people apostatized. You did what no other Khaleefah of a Prophet did before you. You stood up firmly and bravel when his other companions lost their resolve and became soft. And when they became weak, you adhered to the methodology of the Messenger of Allah(saw). You truly were as the Messenger of Allah(saw) said: Weak in your body, but strong regarding commands of Allah…You have always been a protector, a sanctuary, and source of honor for this religion…May Allah not lead us astray after you.(At-Tabsirah, by Ibn Jawzee, vol 1, pages 477-479 and Ashaab Ar-Rasool, vol 1, page 108). [Also refer:The Biography of Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq, Ali Sallabi. Pg 736-738]

(iii). Ali(ra) said: The Messenger of Allaah appointed Abu Bakr to lead the believers in their prayers for the last nine days of the Prophet’s life and he died without recalling him. The believers, subsequently, made him responsible for their affairs, and gave him their Zakaah. They willingly pledged allegiance to him and I am the first person from Banu ‘Abd al-Muttalib to confirm his leadership. He(abubakr) disliked leadership and wished that one of us would take his place. By Allaah, he was the best of those who remained after the Prophet ; the eldest, the kindest, and truly the most compassionate and pious. He was like angel Mikaaeelalayhi salam in his benevolence and Prophet Ibraaheem alayhi salam in his willingness to forgive and his dignified bearing. He took the path of the Prophet and passed away on that path (may Allaah have mercy on him)….So who among you can be compared to the two of them(Abubakr and Umar) May Allaah’s mercy be on them, and may Allaah provide us with the ability to continue in their paths. Let whoever loves me, love them, for whoever does not love them has angered me, and I will have nothing to do with him. If I hear anymore derogatory talk about the two of them, I will punish the offenders severely. After today, whoever is brought before me will get the punishment of a slanderer. Verily, the best of this nation after its Prophet is Abu Bakr and ‘Umar . Then Allaah knows best who is the best. I am saying this asking Allaah’s forgiveness for both you and myself.”

[ Taken From “The Devils Deception”, A translation of “Tablees Iblees” of Ibn al-Jawzee, Edited and translated by Dr. Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips]

A similar text in other book says:

[…I heard `Ali say: “Allah took the soul of his Prophet (saws) while being the best that a prophet can be.” He praised him and said: “After that, Abu Bakr received successor-ship, so he followed the way and example of the Prophet (saws), then Allah took his soul while being the best anyone can be, so he was the best of this nation after its Prophet (saws). After that, `Umar received successor-ship, so he followed their way and example, then Allah took his soul while being the best that anyone can be, so he was the best of this nation after its Prophet (saws) and Abu Bakr.”]

(iv). We read in the book “Ali ibn Abi Talib by Ali M Sallabi”:

Ali said: Who do you know who is like them(Abubakr and Umar)? May Allah have mercy on them, and may Allah help us to follow their path. No one can attain what they attained except by following in their footsteps and loving them. So whoever loves me, let him love them;whoever does not love them hates me, and I have nothing to do wih him. (Ali ibn Abi Talib, by Dr. Ali M Sallabi, vol 1, page 390)

(v). In At-tuyuriyyaat, jafar ibn muhamad reports on the authority of his father that a man said to Ali: We hear you say in your khutbah: O Allah! Grant us righteousness through the means you granted it to the rightly- guided caliphs; who are these caliphs? Ali’s eyes became wet with tears, and he said: The are my beloved ones, abubakr and umar the exemplars of guidance, the sheikhs of Islam, the two notables of the tribe of Quraysh who deserved to be followed after the death of the prophet(saw). He who followed them is safeguarded, and anyone who treads their path is guided to the path of righteousness. A person who clings to them becomes a members of Allah’s party. (Biographies of the rightly guided caliphs page 344)

(vi). We read in Tarikh al-Tabari 4/419:

حدثني عمر قال حدثنا علي قال حدثنا ابن دأب وسعيد بن خالد عن صالح بن كيسان عن المغيرة بن شعبة قال لما مات عمر رضي الله عنه بكته ابنة أبي حثمة فقالت واعمراه أقام الأود وأبرأ العمد أمات الفتن وأحيا السنن خرج نقي الثوب بريئا من العيب قال وقال المغيرة بن شعبة لما دفن عمر أتيت عليا وأنا أحب أن أسمع منه في عمر شيئا فخرج ينفض رأسه ولحيته وقد اغتسل وهو ملتحف بثوب لا يشك أن الأمر يصير إليه فقال يرحم الله ابن الخطاب لقد صدقت ابنة أبي حثمة لقد ذهب بخيرها ونجا من شرها أما والله ما قالت ولكن قولت

[We were told by `Umar, we were told by `Ali, he said: Ibn Da’b and Sa`id bin Khalid told me, from Salih bin Kaysan, from al-Mughirah bin Shu`bah, he said: When `Umar died may Allah be pleased with him, the daughter of abu Hathmah cried him saying: “O `Umar, he straightened the curve, cured the disease, he buried the Fitnah and established the Sunnah. He departed (from this world) with untarnished clothes and little shortcomings.” Mughirah said: When `Umar was buried I went to `Ali as I liked to hear what he had to say about `Umar, I saw him brushing his hair and beard while being wrapped in a cloth after bathing, he had no doubt that authority would be his, he then said: “May Allah have mercy upon Ibn al-Khattab, the daughter of abi Hathmah spoke the truth for he achieved the goodness (of this world) and remained safe from its evils. By Allah, she never said it (knowing it) but she was taught it.”]

We also found it in an even earlier source, Tarikh al-Madinah by Ibn Shubah al-Numayri [died. 262 AH], He writes on 2/91:

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبَّادِ بْنِ عَبَّادٍ، قال: حَدَّثَنَا غَسَّانُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْحَمِيدِ، قَالَ: بَلَغَنَا أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ مَالِكِ بْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ الأَزْدِيَّ حَلِيفَ بَنِي الْمُطَّلِبِ، قَالَ: لَمَّا انْصَرَفْنَا مَعَ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ مِنْ جِنَازَةِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ دَخَلَ فَاغْتَسَلَ، ثُمَّ خَرَجَ إِلَيْنَا فَصَمَتَ سَاعَةً، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” لِلَّهِ بَلاءُ نَادِبَةِ عُمَرَ لَقَدْ صَدَقَتِ ابْنَةُ أَبِي حَثْمَةَ حِينَ، قَالَتْ: وَاعُمَرَاهُ، أَقَامَ الأَوَدَ وَأَبْدَأَ الْعَهْدَ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ، ذَهَبَ نَقِيَّ الثَّوْبِ، قَلِيلَ الْعَيْبِ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ أَقَامَ السُّنَّةَ وَخَلَّفَ الْفِتْنَةَ “، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” وَاللَّهِ مَا دَرَتْ هَذَا وَلَكِنَّهَا قُوِّلَتْهُ وَصَدَقَتْ، وَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ أَصَابَ عُمَرُ خَيْرَهَا وَخَلَّفَ شَرَّهَا، وَلَقَدْ نَظَرَ لَهُ صَاحِبُهُ فَسَارَ عَلَى الطَّرِيقَةِ مَا اسْتَقَامَتْ، وَرَحَلَ الرَّكْبُ، وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي طُرُقٍ مُتَشَعِّبَةٍ لا يَدْرِي الضَّالُّ وَلا يَسْتَيْقِنُ الْمُهْتَدِي

[We were told by Muhammad bin `Abbad bin `Abbad, he said: Ghassan bin `Abdul-Hamid told us, he said: It has reached us that `Abdullah bin Malik bin `Uyaynah al-Azdi the ally of banu al-Muttalib said: When we left with `Ali may Allah be pleased with him from `Umar’s funeral, he entered his house and bathed and came out, he remained silent for a while then said: “May Allah reward the woman who grieved for `Umar’s passing, the daughter of Abu Hathmah spoke the truth when she said: O `Umar! He straightened the curve and fulfilled the oath. O `Umar! He departed (from this world) with untarnished clothes and little shortcomings. O `Umar! He established the Sunnah and abandoned mischief.” He then said: “By Allah, she didn’t know these matters but she was taught to say them and she spoke the truth. By Allah, he achieved the goodness (of this world) and remained safe from its evils; he had looked at his companion and followed the path wherever it was straight, the rider left them in dividing ways wherein the misled cannot obtain guidance and the guided cannot attain certainty.”]

Also if we open the popular copy of Shia book Nahj-ul-Balaghah to sermon 227, we read`Ali says:

لله بلادُ فُلاَن، فَلَقَدْ قَوَّمَ الاْوَدَ، وَدَاوَى الْعَمَدَ، وَأَقَامَ السُّنَّةَ، وَخَلَّفَ الْفِتْنَةَ! ذَهَبَ نَقِيَّ الثَّوْبِ، قَلِيلَ الْعَيْبِ، أَصَابَ خَيْرَهَا، وَسَبَقَ شَرَّهَا، أَدَّى إِلَى اللهِ طَاعَتَهُ، وَاتَّقَاهُ بِحَقِّهِ، رَحَلَ وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي طُرُق مَتَشَعِّبَة، لاَ يَهْتَدِي بِهَا الضَّالُّ، وَلاَ يَسْتَيْقِنُ الْمُهْتَدِي.

[May Allah reward such and such man, he straightened the curve, cured the disease, abandoned mischief, and established the Sunnah. He departed (from this world) with untarnished clothes and little shortcomings. He achieved the goodness (of this world) and remained safe from its evils. He offered Allah’s obedience and feared Him as He deserved. He went away and left the people in dividing ways wherein the misled cannot obtain guidance and the guided cannot attain certainty.] {Nahj-ul-Balaghah, Sermon 227}

If we refer to the oldest and most popular commentary on Nahj-ul-Balaghah, written by the Mu`tazili Shia Ibn abi al-Hadid [died. 656 AH].

Ibn abi al-Hadid says in Sharh Nahj-ul-Balaghah 12/3: “The one meant here is `Umar bin al-Khattab, I have found the original copy of Nahjul Balagha in abi al-Hasan al-Radi’s own handwriting and he wrote “`Umar” under the word “such and such”.”

He also writes: “I asked the head of the order of Ahlul-Bayt, abu Ja`far Yahya bin abi Zayd al-`Alawi (about this matter) and he said: “`Umar bin al-Khattab”, I told him: “Would the chief of believers praise him this much!?” He replied: “Yes.””

(vii). The conditions of ‘peace treaty’ set by Hassan(ra) for Muawiya(ra) proves that Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra) followed the Sunnah of Prophet(saw).

The agreement states:

In the name of Allah , the beneficent, the most Merciful. These are the conditions of peace between Hasan bin Ali bin Abi Talib and Muawiya bin Abi Sufyan. The first condition is that you should follow Quran , Sunnah and the seerah of the righteous Caliphs.
Shia books, Jila ul Ayun, Page 232
Same thing is also present in Ibn `Aqil, al-Nasa’ih al-Kafiya, p. 156.
Al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 10, p. 115.

Similar thing is also present in Shia book Kashful ghummah:
سم الله الرحمان الرحيم هذا ما صالح عليه الحسن بن على بن أبي طالب معاوية بن أبي سفيان صالحه على أن يسلم إليه ولاية أمر المسلمين على ان يعمل فيهم بكتاب الله تعالى وسنة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم وسيرة الخلفاء الراشدين
Ali bin Esa Al-Arbili , Kashaful Ghumma vol. 2, p. 45

Comment: This is a very crucial condition made by Hassan(ra) which needs to be pondered over. Hassan(ra) set one of the condition before Muawiya(ra) which stated that he(Muawiya) should follow, Quran , sunnah and seerah of righteous caliphs. But the shias accuse the 3 righteous caliphs as being innovators and they accuse them of not ruling by Quran and sunnah. So, if what shias say had a grain of truth in it, then why would Hassan(ra) mention that the seerah(biography) of righteous caliph is to be followed along with Quran and Sunnah? If the 3 righteous caliphs ruled against what Quran and sunnah teaches then why did Hassan(ra) include them in his condition along with Quran and sunnah? Doesn’t this seems to be two contradictory conditions at one place? But the fact is that this condition itself establishes the reality before unbiased and objective readers that neither the 3 righteous caliphs ruled against Quran and sunnah nor were they innovators. That is why Hassan(ra) included them, as to be followed along with Quran and sunnah.

 

Argument 6:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

So ‘Why’ didn’t caliph Ali (as) take Fadak back?

We read in the esteemed Shi’a work Rudhutul Kafi, Sermon of Al-Fatan wa Al-Bidah, page 59, published in Iran:

“The Caliphs before me intentionally practiced such acts in which they went against Rasool Allah (saww). They broke the promises (which they made with Rasool) and changed the Sunnah of Rasool Allah (saww). If (today) I ask people to leave all these things (innovations) and restore things back to the way they were at the time of Rasulullah (s), my army shall rebel and abandon me, and I shall be left alone. All that shall remain turning to me shall be those Shi’a who recognise my virtues and rank.
Then he further explained by giving some examples that: “If I return Fadak to the heirs of Fatima (as), and if I order to restore the “Sa’a” (a unit for measuring wheat) of Rasool Allah (s). And if I return the properties, which were given by Rasool (s) to their original owners, and deny the decisions which were based on injustice (and tyranny), and snatch the women who were illegally taken by some people and return them to their husbands, and if I deny the (unjust) distribution of Fadak, and start giving the shares to every one equally (as were originally given by Rasool (s), but earlier caliphs started giving according to status), …. and restore the condition of Khums of Rasool (saww), and to bring Masjid-e-Nabi to it’s original position, and to make “Mash alal Khaffin” haram, and to issue punishment (“Had”) for drinking “Nabeedh” (alcohol made out of barley), and give the fatwa for Mut’ah being Halaal, and start saying 5 Takbirs at funeral, and make it obligatory upon people to recite “Bismillah” loudly during Salat …… and ask people to follow the Quranic and Sunnah way of giving Talaq, and ask people to give all the Sadaqat, and to restore the way of ablution, ghusl and Salah to their original forms and time, and give back the fidya (which was unjustly taken) to Ahl-e-Najran, and return the slave girls of Ahle Faras, and ask people to return to Qur’an and Sunnah of Rasool (s), then all people will abandon me (and I will be left alone). I ordered people that they should only gather for Fardh (obligatory) prayers during Ramadhan, and told them that congregation (Jamah) in Nafl (i.e. Tarawih) is a Bidah (innovation) then all of these people started shouting that Sunnah of Hadhrat Umar has been changed.”

[End Quote]

Reply 1:

Firstly, Hujjah cannot be established on assumptions, and this contradicts the obligatory principle of Amr bil maroof wa nahi anil munkar(Enjoining good & forbidding evil). Imagine Prophet(saw) assuming that Abu Jahl will never accept his prophethood so he doesn’t gives him the Message, this would sound irrational and nonsense, because hujjah cannot be established based on assumptions.

This sermon shows that, based on assumptions Ali(ra) left the important and obligatory principle of Amr bil Maroof wa Nahi al Munkar(enjoining the good and forbidding the wrong) and regarding forbidding the wrong we read in Shia hadeeth that:

The messenger of Allah(saw) said: Allah bears grudge (dislikeness) for the “WEAK BELIEVER”, who doesn’t have any religion(Deen). It is asked: Who will be believer who doesn’t have any religion? Prophet(saw) said: The one who doesn’t fulfill the obligation of “Forbidding Wrong”. (Furu’al Kafi Vol. 5 Page. 59).

Secondly, Allah has given the honour to Muslims that:
You are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin Al-Ma’rûf and forbid Al-Munkar, and you believe in Allâh. They will do you no harm, barring a trifling annoyance; if they come out to fight you, they will show you their backs, and no help shall they get. (3:110-111).

Comment: But according to the sermon from Shia book, Hazrat Ali(ra) didn’t fulfill the criteria to be included among the best of the people.

Shias try to counter these points by bringing up the incident of Prophet Harun(as), when Prophet Musa(as) left him with the people, and those people started worshiping a calf and didn’t listen to Harun(as). However this issue is a proof against Shia, because Harun(as) did indeed try to forbid those people from wrong and evil, to the extent that they were about to kill him. This proves that he was not only forbidding them from tongue but also protesting them as much as he could. This is evidenced in the following verses of Quran:

And Hârûn (Aaron) indeed had said to them beforehand: “O my people! You are being tried in this, and verily, your Lord is (Allâh) the Most Beneficent, so follow me and obey my order.” They said: “We will not stop worshipping it (i.e. the calf), until Mûsa (Moses) returns to us.” (Quran 20:90-91)

When Musa returned to his people, angry and sad, he said, .How bad is the thing you have done in my absence! How did you act in haste against the command of your Lord?. He dropped down the Tablets, and grabbed the head of his brother, pulling him towards himself. He (Harun) said, .My mother‘s son, the people took me as weak and were about to kill me. So do not let the enemies laugh at me, and do not count me with the wrong-doers.(Quran 7:150)

But Ali(ra) didn’t even ask Marwan to return Fadak, neither did he write a letter to him for that, where as he wrote letters to those governors appointed by Uthman(ra) whom he wanted to replace, and such didn’t happen regarding Fadak. Harun(as) didn’t just assume that people will disobey him, so he needs to be silent, on the contrary Harun(as) tried hard to forbid those people from wrong and evil and invited them towards good, to the extent that they were about to kill him.

Also it needs to be mentioned that, the text of this sermon from Shia book(which is fabrication according to Sunnis) implies that Ali(ra) was addressing to only those people who follow him. And this sermon was not addressed to people who were expected to rebel against him.

Reply 2:

This sermon could never be uttered by Imam Ali, it is fabrication of Saba’ites for the following reasons:

According to Sermon Ali(ra) could not establish the correct deen(Shiasm) during the era of First three Caliphs nor even in his own period of Caliphate and could not even enforce the Deen on his own group of people. Ali(ra) was afraid of the fact that if he implements the actual Shariyah, the people would go against him. This is something very silly. Ali would have prohibited those un-islamic practices if those were haraam. Ali was not a worthless caliph that is ruled by his people. He was a complete man that had his own opinions. Unity is not prioritized over the sharee’ah. (We being Muslims discard all these fabrication because it disowns the integrity of such a noble companion of Prophet(saw)).

It’s a pity on the fabricator of this sermon who has just disown the dignity and noble virtue of Ali(ra) and has accused him for having gone against the Holy Qur’an. The sermon is totally opposite reflection of the Qur’anic verses. Ali(ra) should not be in worry of the OPPOSITION nor in fear of ABANDONMENT of his people but he should have been worried for the DEEN OF Allah[saww] which was supposed to have got distorted.

Allah states: O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allâh, even though it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, be he rich or poor, Allâh is a Better Protector to both (than you). So follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you may avoid justice, and if you distort your witness or refuse to give it, verily, Allâh is Ever Well ¬Acquainted with what you do!!! (Quran 4:135)

Allah(swt) states: So do not become weak (against your enemy), nor be sad, and you will be superior (in victory), if you are indeed (true) believers (Quran 3:139).

Allah(swt) states: O ye who believe! Guard your own souls: If ye follow (right) guidance, no hurt can come to you from those who stray. the goal of you all is to Allah: it is He that will show you the truth of all that ye do.(Quran 5:105).

Follow the right guidance means to enjoin the practice of Islam & to forbid the Batil or Anti-Islamic acts. After he got the authority, it was obligatory on him to implement the original Shariah of lslam and to abandon the supposed bidah of the former caliphs regardless of the opinion or reaction of his people.

Moreover we read in Qur’an that Allah sent the messenger Muhammed(saw) with the DEEN to make it SUPERIOR over all other religions[i.e creed, doctrine & traditions…](Quran 9:33).

Islam came to master them all, overcome them all & super-seat them all. Ironically we saw the Caliphs who according to Shia were against Islam managed to prevail their customs and practices over the supposed Real ISLAM (the deen of Shia) & Ali(ra) could not manage to prevail the supposed real Islam over the “Misguided Path of the prior Caliphs” not even in his own era of Caliphate & not even on his own people. Ali(ra) looked weak & helpless before them ! Important to note, it has been 1400 years ago, Twelver Shia has not a single day opportunity to lead prayers in Bait-ullah(Ka’aba)!!!

Secondly, the Caliphs prior to Ali(ra) used to consider their acts true on the basis of their Ijtehad. If we believe the sermon have a grain of truth then, it means they merely made mistake on their Ijtehad. But (Naozubillah) Imam Ali despite knowing the fact about wrongful innovation in the deen of Islam was bearing all that. Imam Ali is also accountable for this mischievous act in accordance to Shia hadeeth. In Shia book Furu’l Kafi, Kitab-uj-jihad we read: Allah sent down revelation to Dawood that I have forgiven your sins but I have held “Bani Israel” accountable on behalf of your sins. He asked: How can you do that? You don’t commit Zulm, don’t you? Allah said: “It’s because they didn’t make quick arrangement to make you away from falsehood”.(Al-Kafi).

Some Shias might argue that, Ali(ra) didn’t change the supposed incorrect system as “there is no compulsion in religion”, So we answer them by saying that this verse means that we can’t force anyone to embrace Islam. But we have to disassociate ourself from those who are against Islam. And if we have the authority or power we have to implement Islamic Shariyah. Suppose if someone starts abusing Imam Ali(ra) or Ahlelbayt, or someone starts gambling, or other evil acts in Iran? Would Iranian government leave those people on the basis that there is no compulsion in religion?

Shias also try to counter these points by bringing up the incident of Prophet Harun(as) when Prophet Musa(as) left him with the people, and those people started worshipping a calf and didn’t listen to Harun(as). However this issue is a proof against Shia, because Harun(as) did indeed tried hard to forbid those people from wrong and evil and invited them towards good, to the extent that they were about to kill him. This proves that he was not only forbidding them from tongue but also protesting them as much as he could. However Ali(ra) never forbade the first three Caliphs and their followers from wrongful acts in contrary to Harun(ra).

Reply 3:

In text of this report it is stated, {Ali(ra) wanted, “to issue punishment (“Had”) for drinking “Nabeedh” (alcohol made out of barley)”} , However, this is wrong since Nabeedh is a harmless juice, which is non-intoxicating. Nabidh was not drank for intoxication, but rather as a flavoured-drink, this does not fall under the prohibition of drinks which cause intoxication. Therefore, the ruling of prohibition does not fall upon this specific drink Nabidh. The alcohol found in Nabidh naturally occurs from fermentation, and it is commonly known that according to Ahlesunnah Nabidh is forbidden after it ferments and thereby becomes toxic, which is why it is only consumed for the first 2-3 days after its preparation. After that period, the content would be thrown away for fear that it might become intoxicating.

Moreover, the Prophet(saw) commonly drank Nabidh which was not fermented. There are many narrations to this effect; For example:

In Sahih Muslim (3748), it is narrated by Anas: “I served honey, juice (Nabidh), water, and milk in my cup for Allah’s Messenger to drink from.”

We even have Shia narrations regarding the permissibility of Nabidh.

Imam Jafar was asked about Nabidh , he said : it is halal.

عن عبد الرحمن بن الحجاج قال: استأذنت لبعض أصحابنا على أبي عبد الله عليه السلام فسأله عن النبيذ فقال: حلال

Wasail al Shia, Vol. 25, p. 339

A similar narration is present in Madinatul Muajiz by Hashim Buhrani

Kalbi says that I said to Imam Jafar: What do you say about Nabidh? He said : It is halal

Madinatul Muajiz, Vol. 5, p. 463

Similarly Shia Shaykh Tusi says in al-Nihaya, pg. 592
ولا بأس بشرب النبيذ غير المسكر، وهو أن ينقع التمر أو الزبيب ثم يشربه وهو حلو قبل أن يتغير.

Moroever, we have the statements of Shia scholars who have said that wudhu (ablution) can be done with nabidh, because the Prophet (peace be upon him) did so.

Shaikh Saduq says in Man la yahduruhul faqih,

ولا بأس بالتوضوء بالنبيذ لان النبي صلى الله عليه وآله قد توضأ به

There is no problem in performing ablution with nabidh , for the Prophet (s) performed ablution with it.(Man la yahdhuruhul faqih, Vol. 1, p. 15).

As for punishing the ones who drank intoxicants then, We have an authentic report that:

عَلِيٍّ، رضى الله عنه قَالَ جَلَدَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فِي الْخَمْرِ وَأَبُو بَكْرٍ أَرْبَعِينَ وَكَمَّلَهَا عُمَرُ ثَمَانِينَ وَكُلٌّ سُنَّةٌ

Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib: The Apostle of Allah (saw) and AbuBakr gave forty lashes for drinking intoxicant and Umar made it eighty. And all this is sunnah, the model and standard practice.(Sunan Abu Dawud: Book 38, Number 4466)

Therefore, in the light of all these points we declare with certainty that, this sermon in Shia book has been falsely attributed to Imam Ali(ra).

 

Argument 7:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Hadhrat Ali (as) was merely adhering to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s)

We read in Sahih al Bukhari, Book of Knowledge Volume 1, Book 3, Number 128:

Narrated Aswad:
Ibn Az-Zubair said to me, “Ayesha used to tell you secretly a number of things. What did she tell you about the Ka’ba?” I replied, “She told me that once the Prophet said, ‘O ‘Ayesha! Had not your people been still close to the pre-Islamic period of ignorance! I would have dismantled the Ka’ba and would have made two doors in it; one for entrance and the other for exit.” Later on Ibn Az-Zubair did the same.

Comment

Was it incumbent on Rasulullah (s) to re-design the Ka’aba, Yes or No? If it was not then why did Rasulullah (s) say ‘Had not your people been still close to the pre-Islamic period of ignorance (infidelity)! I would have dismantled the Ka’ba and would have made two doors in it’. If it was compulsory then why did Rasulullah (s) fail to carry out this religious duty on account of his fear of the reaction by the newly converted Sahaba?

The Hadeeth proves that a fear of Fitnah amongst the people led Rasulullah (s) to abandon an important act. By the same token,Hazrat Ali(as)also din not take hold of Fadak and return it to his children.Since Fadak was in the hands of usurpers, if he moved to take it back forcefully he would have faced fierce resistance, Fitnah and a major backlash which would have been extremely harmful to the nascent Islamic state and religion. Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) therefore adhered to the Sunnah of Rasulullah and maintained silence on the matter for the sake of maslahat.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Firstly, the analogy made by Shias is invalid, because the example of Ka’aba cannot be used in this case since Ka’aba is the house of Allah(swt) which is waqf property, it isn’t a private property owned by some people, where as Fadak and other properties left by Prophet(saw) had to be (supposedly) treated as private properties of its rightful owners. And it is known fact that properties which are waqf, their rulings differ with regards to the rulings on properties which are owned by people. Had it been that the issue was regarding private property of a person being usurped then Prophet(saw) would have definitely done justice with it, since, when it came to people’s private property being usurped, then Prophet(saw) stood against Abu Jahl(la) even when he(saw) didn’t have legal authority over Makkah.

Ibn Isaac in his book on the prophet’s biography relates the incident which states that Quraish advised the man to go the Messenger of Allah, pbuh, to help him to regain his right from Abu Jahl; they also sought to make fun of Abu Jahl for the hostility they knew between him and the prophet, pbuh. Ibn Isaac said: The Messenger of Allah, pbuh, walked to him and knocked at his door. “Who is at that”?. Abu Jahl asked. ” I am Mohammed”, the prophet said. Shivering with fear, Abu Jahl jumped to meet the prophet who said to him” Give this man his due”. “Do not leave until I get him his money”, Abu Jahl said, and went inside and came out with the due payment and gave it to the man.(Seerah Ibn Hisham, page 155-156)

However this was not case with Ka’aba since it is waqf property not private property, that is why Prophet(saw) left the Mustahab act, since the current design of Ka’aba wouldn’t affect the acts of worship of Muslims in anyway, neither harm the Shariah nor would affect the faith of Muslims, hence Prophet(saw) left the Mustahab act and didn’t re-design it, but the private properties being usurped is completely different issue as it would affect people in lot of ways and it would be injustice towards them. If supposedly the right of the heirs of Prophet(saw) was usurped then being the ruler, it was mandatory for Ali(ra) to give those people justice by returning their supposed share of inheritance back to them.

Secondly, the issue is not restricted to Fadak only, there were other properties too which were left by Prophet(saw), and weren’t in the hands of usurpers, why weren’t those distributed to the ones who supposedly deserved inheritance from it, like wives of Prophet(eg: Umm Salama RA) and Children of Abbas(ra), etc. ?

An additional point for benefit of readers is that, Kaaba being not built on its original dimensions turned out to be a blessing on Muslim Ummah, because the Muslims got the chance to offer the prayer inside of Ka’aba since, the semi-circle near Ka’aba known as Al-Haatim or Hijr Ismail, is actually the portion of Ka’aba, so when a Muslim offers a prayer in that semi-circle then he/she is offering the prayer in Ka’aba. If Kaaba was built on its original dimensions then Muslims certainly would have been deprived from this privilege. Thus Prophet(saw) not changing the structure of Kaaba turned out to be a blessing over Ummah, whereas the issue of Fadak, (supposedly) not being returned by Ali(ra), has turned into a wrath on Shias, since Shias wail & mourn for it, it has caused disunity in Ummah, etc.

Thus, it is clear that, Shias have made a wrong comparison and have tried to compare apples with oranges, so all their analogies and excuses using the example of Kaaba are nullified.

 

Argument 8:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

When Hadhrat ‘Ali became Khalifa, Fadak was in the hands of Marwan

We read in Mirqat:

مروان أي في زمن عثمان رضي الله تعالى عنهم والمعنى جعلها قطيعة لنفسه وتوابعه والقطيعة الطائفة من أرض الخراج يقطعها السلطان من يريد ومروان هو مروان بن الحكم جد عمر بن عبد العزيز ۔۔۔

“Then Marwan during Uthman’s time made it his personal property and his retinue, the ruler has the right to grant piece of land to whoever he wants and Marwan is Marwan ibn al-Hakam the grand father of Umar bin Abdulaziz, he was born during Allah’s messenger time but he didn’t see the prophet, because the prophet had exiled his father to Taeif and he remained there till Uthman became the ruler, hence he (Uthman) brought him (al-Hakam) back to Madina with his son (Marwan), after that Fadak was transferred to Umar bin Abdulaziz”
Mirqat Sharh Mishkat, Volume 12 page 317

While talking about Fadak, Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti records in Tarikh Khulafa, Volume 1 page 95:

فكانت كذلك حياة أبي بكر ثم عمر ثم أقطعها مروان ثم صارت لعمر بن عبد العزيز

“It was so during Abu Bakr and Umar’s time, then he (Uthman) granted it to Marwan and then it transferred to Umar bin Abdulaziz”

By granting the entire estate of Fadak to one man Uthman Ibn Affan contradicted the practises of the Shaykhayn.

Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) was therefore faced with a difficult situation. Marwan would have argued that Fadak had been bestowed to him and if anyone had usurped the land it was the early Khalifas, and he deemed them to be rightful Khalifas, who would decide matters subject to Islamic Shari’ah, he would have then argued:

you have become Khalifa and are committing an injustice towards me, if you are with the truth you should maintain silence as you had done so in the past.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Not every random report in history is correct, these reports are weak.

Shia grand Ayatullah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr says in his book “Fadak fil-Tarikh” pg.38:
ولما ولي معاوية بن أبي سفيان الخلافة أمعن في السخرية وأكثر من الاستخفاف بالحق المهضوم، فأقطع مروان بن الحكم ثلث فدك، وعمر بن عثمان ثلثها، ويزيد ابنه ثلثها الاخر، فلم يزالوا يتداولونها حتى خلصت كلها لمروان بن الحكيم أيام ملكه، ثم صفت لعمر بن عبد العزيز بن مروان، فلما تولى هذا الأمر رد فد ك على ولد فاطمة عليها السلام وكتب إلى واليه على
[When Mu`awiyah ibn abi Sufiyan was granted the authority of Khilafah, he increased his mockery towards the oppressed, and he granted a third of Fadak to Marwan bin al-Hakam, a third to `Amro bin `Uthman and a third to his son Yazid, and they kept holding on to it until Marwan obtained all of it during his kingdom, then it fell into the hands of `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz bin Marwan, and he returned Fadak to the children of Fatima (as) and wrote his governor a letter concerning this.]

Comment: So according to Shia Ayatullah, Marwan obtained all of Fadak when he became the ruler. That occurred decades after Ali(ra). So Ali(ra) could have easily refuted the assumed argument of Marwan by saying that, The Caliph can appoint whomever he wishes to take care of the lands and work them, and since he is the Caliph now, then he wants someone else to take care of Fadak. This would be similar to Ali’s(ra) stance of changing governors of certain regions which were appointed by Uthman(ra), since Ali(ra) was the Caliph, He replaced them, so he could have easily done the same for Fadak.

Secondly, even if for sake of argument we suppose that Fadak was made a private property of Marwan, then too we are discussing the scenario when Ali(ra) was the Caliph and ruler over the Ummah, Fadak wasn’t in the area which was ruled by Muawiya(ra), it was nearby Medina, and was within Ali’s(ra) territory.

Moreover the Caliph before Ali(ra), that is, Uthman(ra) was killed and overthrown openly, so it wasn’t difficult, for `Ali to remove a nobody like Marwan, or to takeover Fadak from Marwan. Thus it was the duty of Ali(ra) to give justice to those who were supposedly wronged and were being wronged. Allah(swt) states in Quran:

O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allâh, even though it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, be he rich or poor, Allâh is a Better Protector to both (than you). So follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you may avoid justice, and if you distort your witness or refuse to give it, verily, Allâh is Ever Well ¬Acquainted with what you do!!! (Quran 4:135)

So do not become weak (against your enemy), nor be sad, and you will be superior (in victory), if you are indeed (true) believers (Quran 3:139).

Also, Ali(ra) wasn’t from those who would fail to implement the Sunnah of Prophet(saw) of returning the rights of those who were wronged, like the example of Prophet(saw) standing against Abu Jahl(la) in Makkah for the right of a man.

Thirdly, these made up irrational excuses of Shias are contradictory to the answer given by their infallible Imam, when the question that, why Ali(ra) didn’t return Fadak was asked to him, which we have already refuted in our article.

Most importantly, the weakness of this argument can be realized from another angle, because Fadak was not the only property left by Prophet(saw), there were other properties too.

We read in Sahi Muslim: She(Fatima) used to demand from Abu Bakr her share from the legacy of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) from Khaibar, Fadak and his charitable endowments at Medina.(Sahi Muslim bk 19, hadeeth 4354).

Moreover, we find that certain property was under the control of Ahlelbayt:

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

Hence, we see that there were other properties too, which were under the control of Ahlelbayt, So again the question is, Did Ali(ra) give back the supposed right of those who deserved the inheritance from Prophet(saw)? For Ahlesunnah the answer is quite obvious, “No”, because Ali(ra) followed the Sunnah of Prophet(saw) and the Caliphs before him.

 

Argument 9:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Reply Nine – According to Ahl’ul Sunnah ‘difficulties’ meant Rasulullah (s) was unable to forcefully get his daughter back

We read in Tareekh Khamees, Volume 1 page 273 Hijrat Zaynab:

“Ayesha narrates that Islam had caused a separation between Zaynab and Abi al-Aas but Rasulullah (s) was in such a desperate situation that he was unable to separate them in Makka”

We read in Sirah Ibn Hisham:

وكان رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم لا يحل بمكة ولا يحرم مغلوبا على أمره وكان الإسلام قد فرق بين ۔۔۔

“Rasulullah (s) was in a difficult situation in Makka, he was unable to make something Halal or Haram and when Zaynab became Muslim this caused a separation with her husband Abi al-Aas bin al-Rabeh. Despite this, Rasulullah (s) due to difficulties was unable to separate Zaynab from Abi al-Aas. Zaynab despite embracing Islam remained with the Kaafir; he remained a polytheist at the time that Rasulullah (s) migrated”.
 Sirah Ibn Hisham, Volume 3 page 202

If Rasulullah (s) was unable to claim his daughter back from the clutches of her Kaafir husband, then Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) was not superior to Rasulullah (s).If he was in difficulty following the reigns of the first three Khalifas who made it impossible for him to claim back Fadak from the usurpers, then no objections should be raised.

[End Quote]

Answer:

This is yet another silly analogy, Shias are comparing apples with oranges, since Shias are left with no rational arguments, they are now clutching at straws, to somehow overcome the humiliation caused to them due to the action of Ali(ra).

Firstly Prophet(saw) didn’t possess any authority in Makkah, unlike Ali(ra) who was the Caliph over the Ummah. So comparing these two scenarios is wrong.

Secondly, the ruling that Muslim woman cannot be in marriage with Non-Muslim husband was not revealed in Makkah, that is why most of the women who embraced Islam remained with their Non-Muslim husbands, this the reason why Prophet(saw) didn’t separate women who embraced Islam whose husbands were still Kafir. We read in Muwatta Malik: Safwan went out with the Messenger of Allah(saw), while he was still a kafir. He was present at the battles of Hunayn and at-Ta’if while he was still a kafir and his wife was a muslim. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, did not separate Safwan and his wife until he had become muslim, and his wife was settled with him by that marriage.(Muwatta Malik, Book 28, Hadith 1139).

Thirdly, we have scenario where Prophet(saw), though didn’t have authority as a leader in Makkah, yet he stood firm for the rights of those who were being wronged, let us quote the same book which shias have used.

Ibn Ishaaq in his book on the prophet’s biography relates the hadith of the man who sold Abu Jahl some camels and failed to pay him their price. The story states that Quraish advised the man to go the Messenger of Allah, pbuh, to help him to regain his right from Abu Jahl; they also sought to make fun of Abu Jahl for the hostility they knew between him and the prophet, pbuh. Ibn Isaac said: The Messenger of Allah, pbuh, walked to him and knocked at his door. “Who is at that”?. Abu Jahl asked. ” I am Mohammed”, the prophet said. Shivering with fear, Abu Jahl jumped to meet the prophet who said to him” Give this man his due”. “Do not leave until I get him his money”, Abu Jahl said, and went inside and came out with the due payment and gave it to the man.(Seerah Ibn Hisham, page 155-156).

Now the question is that, when Ali(ra) had authority, why didn’t he implement the Sunnah of Prophet(saw) by demanding the supposed rights of those who were wronged, to be returned by the usurpers?.

Secondly, Ali(ra) even had certain properties under his control which were left by Prophet(saw), then why didn’t he give the share of inheritance from those to the heirs of Prophet who were supposedly wronged regarding inheritance from Prophet(Saw).?

 

Argument 10:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

We read in Ahl’ul Sunnah’s esteemed work al-Istiab, Volume 1 page 147, the letter ‘ra’, Dhikr Rafa bin Raafi’e:

لما خرج طلحة والزبير كتبت أم الفضل بنت الحارث إلى على بخروجهم، فقال علي ۔۔۔

“When Talha and Zubayr rebelled against Ali, Um al-Fadhl bin al-Harith wrote to Ali informing him about their rebellion, he (Ali) said: ‘This is a astonishing from Talha and Zubayr. When Allah (swt) brought his Prophet back to Him and we said ‘We are his (prophet) family and guardians, no one disputes us in his authority (leadership)’ our people rejected us and made others as their leaders. By Allah! Had it not been a fear of dissension and a return to apostasy, and my fear of the destruction of the religion, we would have changed things, but we maintained silence”.
 Al-Istiab, Volume 1 page 147

Khilafat and Fadak were both the rights of the Ahl’ul bayt (as); both had been usurped. Just as fear of disputes and return to Jahiliyya prevented Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) from claiming his right of Khilafat back, the same applied to the Fadak dispute.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Firstly, this report is a fabrication from Abu Mukhnaf[Lut bin Yahya al azdi], Here is the Arabic text along with the chain.

وتوفي في أول إمارة معاوية وذكر عمر بن شبة عن المدائني عن أبي مخنف عن جابر عن الشعبي قال: لما خرج طلحة والزبير كتبت أم الفضل بنت الحارث إلى على بخروجهم، فقال علي: العجب لطلحة والزبير؛ إن الله عز وجل لما قبض رسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم قلنا: نحن أهله وأولياؤه لا ينازعنا سلطانه أحد، فأبى علينا قومنا فولوا غيرنا. وأيم الله لولا مخافة الفرقة وأن يعود الكفر ويبوء الدين لغيرنا فصبرنا على بعض الألم ثم لم نر بحمد الله إلا خيرا ثم وثب الناس على عثمان فقتلوه، ثم بايعوني ولم أستكره أحدا، وبايعني طلحة والزبير ولم يصبرا شهرا كاملا حتى خرجا إلى العراق ناكثين. اللهم فخذهما بفتنتهما للمسلمين.

Regarding Abu Makhnaf:

Ibn hajar said “Not trustworthy”
Abu Hatim says Matrook(abandoned)
Darqutni says Dhaeef(weak)
Yahya bin Mueen says, “he is nothing”
Ibn Adi said a shiite and narrates their narrations
Tahir patni says liar.

Lisan al mizan 4/462, mizan al aitdal 2/320, tazikratul mouzuat p. 286

Thus this report cannot be used by Shias to make the analogy(qiyas).

Secondly, If the analogy for Ali(ra) not returning Fadak is similar to Ali(ra) not demanding Caliphate, then some questions raise like, Fatima(ra) being a woman demanded Fadak and as per Shias, she made a public sermon on this issue, then why didn’t Ali(ra) being young and brave man, make such demand for his supposedly usurped Caliphate?

According to Shias, Fatima(ra) being a woman never reconciled with Abubakr(ra) nor gave him allegiance since her right was usurped, but the lion of Allah, Ali(ra) gave allegiance to Abubakr(ra) even though his supposed right of Caliphate was usurped.

Moreover, Shias argue that Ali(ra) kept insisting on the financial gains of Fadak even during caliphate of Umar(ra), but why didn’t Ali(ra) insist in the same way for his supposedly usurped Caliphate?

It’s a pity that these Shias, who claim that they are the supporters of Ali(ra) fail to realize that their foolish and non-sensical analogies are portraying Ali(ra) in very negative light.

We Ahlesunnah love Ali(ra) in the right manner that is prescribed by Shariah, and we consider these Shia analogies as inappropriate towards Ali(ra). Hence let us quote the statements of Ali(ra) which refutes the claims of Shiapen.

قرأت على أبي الفهم بن أحمد السلمي، أخبركم أبو محمد عبد الله بن أحمد الفقيه سنة سبع عشرة وستمائة، أنبأ أبو الفتح محمد بن عبد الباقي، أنبأ مالك بن أحمد سنة أربع وثمانين وأربعمائة، ثنا علي بن محمد بن عبد الله المعدل إملاء سنة ست وأربعمائة، ثنا أبو علي أحمد بن الفضل بن خزيمة، ثنا عبد الله بن روح، ثنا شبابة، ثنا أبو بكر الهذلي، عن الحسن قال: لما قدم علي البصرة قام إليه ابن الكواء، وقيس بن عباد فقالا له: ألا تخبرنا عن مسيرك هذا الذي سرت فيه، تتولى على الأمة، تضرب بعضهم ببعض، أعهد من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عهده إليك، فحدثنا فأنت الموثوق المأمون على ما سمعت، فقال،
أما أن يكون عندي عهد من النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في ذلك فلا، والله إن كنت أول من صدق به، فلا أكون أول من كذب عليه، ولو كان عندي من النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم عهد في ذلك، ما تركت أخا بني تيم بن مرة، وعمر بن الخطاب يقومان على منبره، ولقاتلتهما بيدي، ولو لم أجد إلا بردي هذا، ولكن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لم يقتل قتلاً، ولم يمت فجأة، مكث في مرضه أياماً وليالي، يأتيه المؤذن فيؤذنه بالصلاة، فيأمر أبا بكر فيصلي بالناس، وهو يرى مكاني، ثم يأتيه المؤذن فيؤذنه بالصلاة، فيأمر أبا بكر فيصلي بالناس، وهو يرى مكاني، ولقد أرادت امرأة من نسائه أن تصرفه عن أبي بكر فأبى وغضب وقال: “أنتن صواحب يوسف، مروا أبا بكر يصلي بالناس”.
فلما قبض الله نبيه، نظرنا في أمورنا، فاخترنا لدنيانا من رضيه نبي الله لديننا. وكانت الصلاة أصل الإسلام، وهي أعظم الأمر، وقوام الدين. فبايعنا أبا بكر، وكان لذلك أهلاً، لم يختلف عليه منا اثنان، ولم يشهد بعضنا على بعض، ولم نقطع منه البراءة، فأديت إلى أبي بكر حقه، وعرفت له طاعته، وغزوت معه في جنوده، وكنت آخذ إذا أعطاني، وأغزو إذا أغزاني، وأضرب بين يديه الحدود بسوطي، فلما قبض، ولاها عمر، فأخذ بسنة صاحبه، وما يعرف من أمره، فبايعنا عمر، لم يختلف عليه منا إثنان، ولم يشهد بعضنا على بعض، ولم نقطع البراءة منه. فأديت إلى عمر حقه، وعرفت طاعته، وغزوت معه في جيوشه، وكنت آخذ إذا أعطاني، وأغزو إذا أغزاني، وأضرب بين يديه الحدود بسوطي.
فلما قبض تذكرت في نفسي قرابتي وسابقتي وسالفتي وفضلي، وأنا أظن أن لا يعدل بي، ولكن خشي أن لا يعمل الخليفة بعده ذنباً إلا لحقه في قبره، فأخرج منها نفسه وولده، ولو كانت محاباة منه لآثر بها ولده فبرئ منها إلى رهط من قريش ستة، أنا أحدهم.
فلما اجتمع الرهط تذكرت في نفسي قرابتي وسابقتي وفضلي، وأنا أظن أن لا يعدلوا بي، فأخذ عبد الرحمن مواثقنا على أن نسمع ونطيع لمن ولاه الله أمرنا، ثم أخذ بيد ابن عفان فضرب بيده على يده، فنظرت في أمري، فإذا طاعتي قد سبقت بيعتي، وإذا ميثاقي قد أخذ لغيري، فبايعنا عثمان، فأديت له حقه، وعرفت له طاعته، وغزوت معه في جيوشه، وكنت آخذ إذا أعطاني، وأغزو إذا أغزاني، وأضرب بين يديه الحدود بسوطي.
فلما أصيب نظرت في أمري، فإذا الخليفتان اللذان أخذاها بعهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إليهما بالصلاة قد مضيا، وهذا الذي قد أخذ له الميثاق، قد أصيب، فبايعني أهل الحرمين، وأهل هذين المصرين.
قالا: فأخبرنا عن قتالك هذين الرجلين -يعنيان: طلحة والزبير- قال:
بايعني بالمدينة، وخلعاني بالبصرة، ولو أن رجلاً ممن بايع أبا بكر وعمر خلعه لقاتلناه.
وروى نحوه الجريري، عن أبي نضرة.
المصدر
تاريخ الاسلام للذهبي ص 486 – 487
I read to Abi al Fihm bin Ahmed Alsalmi, Abu Ahmed Abdullah bin Ahmed the jurisprudent told you in the year 617 (AH), Abu al Fatih Muhammad bin Abd al Baqi told us, Malik bin Ahmed told us in the year 484, Ali bin Muhammad bin Abdullah al Adl dictated to us in the year 406, Abu Ali Ahmed bin Al Fadl bin Khuzaymah narrated to us, Abdullah bin Rooh narrated to us, Shabaabah narrated, Abu Bakr an Hizli narrated, from al Hassan who said: When Ali came to Basrah, Ibn al Kuwaa came to him, and Qays bin Abaad came so they said to him: Won’t you tell us about this expedition of yours, you are reigning over the ummah which is slicing at each other, the Prophet (pbuh) promised you what he promised, so he told us, and you are trustworthy regarding what you heard, he(Ali) said: As for having a promise with the Prophet (pbuh) in that matter, I did not, by God if I was the first person to believe in him I will not be the first to lie about him, and if I had from the Prophet (pbuh) a promise about that matter, I would not have left the brother of bani teem bin murrah or Umar bin al Khattab to take their place on the minbar, I would have fought them with my own hands, even if by my words, but the Prophet (pbuh) was not murdered, nor did he die suddenly, he remained sick for days and nights, the caller to prayer would come to him to announce the prayer, and he would order Abu Bakr to pray as Imam for the people, and he (pbuh) saw my place, and the announcer to prayer would call to prayer, and he would command Abu Bakr to pray as imam for the people, and he (pbuh) saw my place, and one of his womenfolk wanted to distance him from Abu Bakr but he became angry and said: You are the friends of Yousef, command Abu Bakr to lead the prayer. When God took His Prophet (pbuh), we looked at our affairs, and we chose for our world who the Prophet (pbuh) chose for our religion, and the prayer was the root of Islam, and the most important matter, and the pillar of the religion. So we gave the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr, and he deserved that, and not even two among us disagreed about that, nor did we bear witness against each other, nor did we accuse him of anything, so I gave Abu Bakr his rights, and I obeyed him, and I fought alongside his soldiers, and I used to take if he gave me, and fight if he commanded me, and by his command reach the borders, and when he died, he passed the responsibility to Omar, and he took by the sunnah of his friend, and he was indistinguishable from him, so we gave him the pledge of allegiance, nor did two of us disagree on the matter, nor did we bear witness against each other, nor did we accuse him of anything. So I gave Omar his rights, and I obeyed him, and I fought alongside his armies, and I took if he gave me, and fight if he commanded me, and by his command reach the borders and when he died I remembered my close relations [to the Prophet (pbuh)] and precedence and predecessor-ship and virtues, and I felt nobody was equal to me, but it was feared that a Khalifah would not be able to commit a sin except that it would follow him to the grave, and that it would remove him and his sons from it, and if it were favoritism he would have inherited it to his son but he didn’t allow his son to take it and left the matter to the decision of 6 from Quraysh, I was one of them, and when the 6 got together I remembered my close relations [to the Prophet (pbuh)] and precedence and predecessor-ship and virtues, and I thought they would not be fair to me, so Abdulrahman took a promise from us that we would listen and obey to whoever God put as our leader for our affairs, so he took the hand of Ibn Affan and hit his hand against his hand, so I looked at my affair, and my obedience had preceded my allegiance, and my covenant was given to someone other than me, so we gave the pledge of allegiance to Uthman, and I gave him his rights, and I obeyed him, and I fought in his armies, and I took if he gave me, and fight if he commanded me, and by his command reach the borders  And when he was injured I looked at my condition, and the two Khalifahs who had taken leadership by the promise of the Prophet (pbuh) to them in prayer had passed away, and the one who had been given the covenant was injured, so the people of Meccah and Medina gave me the pledge of allegiance, and the people of Egypt, So they said: So tell us about your fighting these two men, meaning Talha and Zubair. He said: They gave me the pledge of allegiance in Medina, but then left their allegiance in Basrah, and if any man who had pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr and Omar had left their allegiance they would have fought them.
And al Jariri narrated like it, from Abi Nadra
[Source: The history of Islam by Al Dhahabi, pages 486-487]

Similarly Ali ibn abi Talib  stated, when the six men gathered after the passing of `Umar to elect a successor, each man spoke, when it was `Ali’s turn he said:
لَوْ عَهِدَ إِلَيْنَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ  عَهْدًا لأَنْفَذْنَا عَهْدَهُ، وَلَوْ قَالَ لَنَا قَوْلا لَجَادَلْنَا عَلَيْهِ حَتَّى نَمُوتَ، لَنْ يُسْرِعَ أَحَدٌ قَبْلِي، إِلَى دَعْوَةِ حَقٍّ
[…If the messenger (saw) had promised us anything (with regards to leadership) we would have fulfilled his wish, and we would have argued about it until we die, no one will beat me to call people to the truth…](Tareekh al-Tabari 4/428).

 

Argument 11:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

We read in Ahl’ul Sunnah’s esteemed work Lughut al Hadeeth Volume 2 page 97, Kitab Jeem:

‘Ali said ‘had Rasulullah (s) not made me promise I would have killed my opponents’

As we have already proven when Imam Ali (as) was the Khalifa, Fadak was in the hands of his enemy Marwan. It was Marwan’s duty to return the land back of which he had no intention. Marwan was a trickster, and a master in stirring dissension, the rich source of the Fadak land, served as a major financial benefit to him. Had Imam Ali (as) moved to forcefully take back Fadak it would have no doubt led to the death of his opponents that would have in turn constituted a breach of the promise that he (as) made to Rasulullah (s).Hadhrat Ali (as) honoured his promise with Rasulullah (s) and adopted patience, his stance in no way means that he deemed the Khilafat of the three Khalifas to be rightful, neither does it prove that Imam Ali (as) deemed Abu Bakr’s usurpation of Fadak to be correct.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Again a baseless fabrication, because Ali(ra) did kill many of the opponents during battles such as Siffin and Naharwan, which implies that he(ra) broke the promise mentioned in the false report.

Secondly, if Shiapen tries to counter back arguing that, in the battle of Siffin, Ali(ra) was defending his state or he didn’t initiate the battle and if opponents gets killed in such situation then it won’t affect the supposed promise to Prophet(saw), then we say that Fadak too was supposedly the right of some people who were wronged, and we know that during his caliphate Ali(ra) made efforts to change the governors of some regions which worsened the situation that led to a fight. So even in the case of fadak too, it wouldn’t have affected the promise, if the opponents would get killed. But Ali(ra) didn’t make any such efforts for Fadak.

Moreover, the excuse given by Shiapen is against them, since according to many Shias Ali(ra) had Ilm Ghayb(knowledge of unseen) , So obviously he knew the time when Marwan will die, so it shouldn’t be the matter of his concern that, Marwan could get killed, if he tries to take away Fadak, because supposedly, he knew that Marwan would die after many years.

Thirdly, Ali(ra) even had certain properties under his control which were left by Prophet(saw), then why didn’t he give the share of inheritance from those to the heirs of Prophet who were supposedly wronged regarding inheritance from Prophet(Saw)?.

4 thoughts on “5. Sunni Answers to Shiapen’s article on Fadak and inheritance of Prophet(saw) – “Chapter Five”

  1. Imam Ahmad narrates in Musnad (1055), Abdullah in Zawaid (1059), Ibn Abi Shaibah in Musannaf (37053) through Abdul Malik bin Sila’ from ‘Abd Khair that he heard ‘Ali (ra) say:
    قُبِضَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، وَاسْتُخْلِفَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ فَعَمِلَ بِعَمَلِهِ، وَسَارَ بِسِيرَتِهِ، حَتَّى قَبَضَهُ اللهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ عَلَى ذَلِكَ. ثُمَّ اسْتُخْلِفَ عُمَرُ فَعَمِلَ بِعَمَلِهِمَا، وَسَارَ بِسِيرَتِهِمَا، حَتَّى قَبَضَهُ اللهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ عَلَى ذَلِكَ
    “The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) died and Abu Bakr was appointed as his successor, and he did what he had done and followed on his footsteps, and persisted in doing so until Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, took his soul in that state. Then ‘Umar was appointed as his successor so he did what they had done and followed their footsteps until Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, took his soul in that state.”
    Shaykh Shu’aib Arna’ut declared this Isnad to be Hasan while Al-Albani declared its Isnad to be Jayyid (good). [Musnad Ahmad (1055) (1059) with footnotes of Arna’ut, Zilal al-Jannah (2/552) by Al-Abani]
    One may object to it by saying that Abdul Malik bin Sala’ is the main narrator and no one declared him Thiqah except Ibn Hibban.
    However, more than one scholar have narrated from him which include the like of Abdullah bin Numair. In such cases narrators are generally accepted. That is why Hafiz Ibn Hajar declared Abdul Malik to be Saduq.
    Besides Ad-Daarqutni said in “Al-‘Ilal” that Abdul Malik was more dependable than Isma’eel As-Suddi, Musayyib bin ‘Abd Khair, Abu Sawda al-Nahdi. [See, Mawsu’ah Aqwal Ad-Daarqutni fi Rijal al-Hadith (3/422-423)]

  2. I am a shia. I read your reply over fidak wherein u tried hard to prove that fidak was not fatima’s and her claim for fidak was wrong.
    I just want ask some questions in this matter.
    Why the hadith about inheritance of prophet was narrated by anyone other than Abu Bakr.???
    This hadith is against Quran where other Prophets have inheritance wealth as well as knowledge from previous prophets.

    Surprisingly why this so called hadith is not known to Fatima ???
    Matter of inheritance should have been known to family members.
    Why the testimony of Ali(as) was not accepted???Could he speak lie for just a piece of land ???? After all his lone witness should also be given importance becoz he was khalifa e Rashid.

  3. We read in Bihar al anwar :

    …The, after the prophet(saws) passed away, Muslims entrusted (two) righteous caliphs, who both revived the way of Prophet(saws), and they both never skipped the Sunnah of Prophet(saws) then after they passed away Uthman became caliph..etc [Bihar al Anwar, vol 33, page 535]

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s