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


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 Eight: Analysing the judgement of Abu Bakr”.

Argument 1:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Abu Bakr claimed that the Waris of Rasulullah (s) is his Khalifa

Sunan Abu Dawood Book 19, Tribute, Spoils, and Rulership (Kitab Al-Kharaj, Wal-Fai’ Wal-Imarah) Number 2967 reads:

Narrated Abu Bakr:
Abu Tufayl said: Fatimah came to Abu Bakr asking him for the inheritance of the Prophet(saw). Abu Bakr said: I heard the Apostle of Allah(saw) say: If Allah, Most High, gives a Prophet some means of sustenance that goes to his successor.

Comment

Shibli Numani’s vigorous argument that Abu Bakr as the Khalifa of Rasulullah (s) in effect became his Waris is unacceptable. If he was an Heir then he was an Heir who inherited the Government. One should remember that during his lifetime (s) and after that, there was no such thing as State owned land. The lands of Khayber were immediately distributed amongst the people.The scholars of Islam formulated this concept(of state owned land) much later .Anything that came into the possession of the Government was automatically distributed amongst the Muslims, there was not even a system of set stipends for the army, it was seen as a single unit, their participation in Jihad was compulsory, distribution of stipends would occur when the army were gathered together. A more formal system of a Stipends Register was developed by Umar, and it was at that time that the need to the concept of State Ownership dawned on the Government, yet even then land was not included as part of State ownership. In any case what is certain is that during the lifetime of Rasulullah (s) there was no such thing as State owned land so as to make it legitimate for Abu Bakr to take RasulAllah’s(s) land alongwith the Khilafat.

[End Quote]

Answer:

These arguments of Shiapen, which are based on ignorance, are refuted from narrations present in Shia book and also from the explanation of esteemed Shia scholar.

Abubakr(ra) was not talking about inheriting as a legal heir, where inheritance is shared between the family, he was talking about inheriting it as political heir or successor, but we say this metaphorically that Abu Bakr inherited Rasul-Allah(saw), because he never really inherited him, he just assumed control of all things Rasul-Allah (saw) ruled over. Let us see an example from Shia book, for a better understanding.

We read in Shia book al-Kafi:

قَتَلَ يَزِيدُ حُسَيْناً سَلَبَهُ اللَّهُ مُلْكَهُ فَوَرَّثَهُ آلَ مَرْوَانَ فَلَمَّا قَتَلَ هِشَامٌ زَيْداً سَلَبَهُ اللَّهُ مُلْكَهُ فَوَرَّثَهُ مَرْوَانَ بْنَ مُحَمَّدٍ

Yazid killed Husayn so Allah took his kingdom away and made the family of Marwan inherit it, then when Hisham killed Zayd bin `Ali, Allah took his kingdom and made Marwan bin Muhammad to inherit it.(Al-Kafi)

Comment: Notice that the family of Marwan is not supposed to inherit Yazid, Yazid had closer relatives who were entitled to inherit him, but this is talking of inheriting political authority, as successor. Let us present some more examples for a better understanding.

We read in Shia hadeeth:

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

Esteemed Shia scholar Al-Kulayni states:

The case of al-Anfal is different. It belongs to the Messenger only. Of such properties was Fadak that belonged to the Messenger of Allah only. It is because he and Amir al-Mu’minin (a.s.) conquered it and there no one else took part. The name al-Fay’ therefore does not apply to it. Al-Anfal applies to it. Similar to al-Anfal are such properties as the marshes, mines, oceans and the wilderness. They all belong to Imam(leader) exclusively. If people would work in them by the permission of the Imam(leader) four fifth will belong to them for labor and one fifth would belong to the Imam(leader). Such one fifth is like al-Khums. If people would work in such properties without the permission of the Imam(leader), the Imam(leader) will have all of it and no one would have any thing in them. The same would be the case if someone would work, revive, improve, develop and build on a land without the permission of the Imam(leader). It would be up to the Imam to leave it with him or take it away from him or settle it differently.” (Al-Kafi, Chapter 130, The Fay’, al-Anfal, al-Khums, its rules and the properties subject to al-Khums).

Comment: From the authentic Shia hadeeth and explanation of esteemed Shia scholar, we came to know that after Prophet(saw), the properties of anfal(including fadak) He had, would belong to the leader after him, exclusively. And the leader will spend them the way he likes. This refutes the arguments of Shiapen which were based on their ignorance.

Hence Abubakr(ra) became the leader after Prophet(saw) and used the property left by Prophet(saw) the same way as Prophet(saw) did.

قَالَ : إِنِّي سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ الله صَلَّى الله عَلَيه وسَلَّم ، يَقُولُ : إِذَا أَطْعَمَ الله , عَزَّ وَجَلَّ , نَبِيًّا طُعْمَةً ، ثُمَّ قَبَضَهُ جَعَلَهُ لِلَّذِي يَقُومُ بَعْدَهُ فَرَأَيْتُ أَنْ أَرُدَّهُ عَلَى الْمِسْلِمِينَ

Abubakr(ra) replied: “I heard the messenger of Allah (SAWS) say: “If Allah the majestic and great gave a prophet a blessing then took his soul, it becomes for the one who took his place after him.” So I decided that I should distribute it among the Muslims.” (Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Vol. 1, Pg 191 – 192, H. 13.)

Also we read what Abu Bakr said in Tareekh ibn Shubah:

فقال أَبُو بَكْرٍ، رضي الله عنه: أَنَا وَلِيُّ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ وَقَدْ عَمِلَ فِيهَا بِمَا عَمِلَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَأَنْتُمَا حَيَّانِ

[Abu Bakr said: “I am most worthy to closely follow the messenger of Allah (saw)” So he used the lands the same way the messenger (saw) used them and both of you were alive (and witnessed this).]

Thus, in this report what Abubakr(ra) meant was , all that was controlled by one leader, goes to his successor that comes after him, The same way `Umar succeeded Abu Bakr as leader, he automatically inherited Abu Bakr’s army and treasury, etc.

 

Argument 2:

Shiapen states:

[Quote]

Abu Bakr admitted that the Waris of Rasulullah (s) are his children

We read in Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Riyadh al Nadira:

“Hadhrat Fatima went to Abu Bakr and said “Is Abu Bakr the Waris of the Prophet (s) or his children? Abu Bakr said ‘I am not the Waris, rather his children are. Fatima then said ‘Why have you taken the Prophet’s portion?’ Abu Bakr said: I heard the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) say: If Allah, Most High, gives a Prophet some means of sustenance that goes to his successor”.

We appeal to justice. These three references prove that Sayyida Fatima (as) asked for her inheritance rights and Abu Bakr contradicted himself by claiming to be RasulAllah’s Waris on one occasion and saying that the children were his Waris on another. [Screen Shot]

[End Quote]

Answer:
Reply 1:

Ibn Katheer said: “The wordings of this narration have nakara (are objectionable) and are strange.” [Abu Dawud #2973].

Al-Albani commented in Irwa Al-Ghaleel: “This narration’s chain is hasan and the narrators are trustworthy except that Ibn Jumai’, who happens to be [Al-Waleed bin Abdullah] bin Jumai’ is weakened by some because of his dhabt.”

The narration contains a contradiction, since it is the only narration that includes Abu Bakr saying that the family of the Prophet – peace be upon him – inherit from him, while all the other narrations and the historical reality show that nobody inherited anything from him, but everything went to charity. What makes it stranger is that Fatima, at the end of the narration, accepts Abu Bakr’s claim that he will take control, a minute after he admitted that the Prophet’s inheritance is to be given to his heirs.

There is no doubt that the root of the confusion is Al-Waleed bin Jumai’.

Reply 2:

In the hadeeth Shiapen quoted, Abubakr(ra) was talking about legal heirs(i.e relatives or his family), where as in the previous one he was not talking about the legal heir, but political heir or successor of Prophet(saw). We can say this, only metaphorically that Abu Bakr inherited Rasul-Allah(saw), because he never really inherited him, he just assumed control of all things Rasul-Allah (saw) ruled over.

What Abubakr(ra) meant in the previous hadeeth, was transfer of authority to successor, all that was controlled by one leader, goes to his successor that comes after him, The same way `Umar succeeded Abu Bakr as leader, he automatically inherited Abu Bakr’s army and treasury, etc. In the previous report Abubakr(ra) was not talking about inheriting as a legal heir, where inheritance is shared between the relatives, he was talking about inheriting it as political heir or successor.

Hence, let us see an example from Shia book, which strengthens our view. We read in Shia book al-Kafi:

قَتَلَ يَزِيدُ حُسَيْناً سَلَبَهُ اللَّهُ مُلْكَهُ فَوَرَّثَهُ آلَ مَرْوَانَ فَلَمَّا قَتَلَ هِشَامٌ زَيْداً سَلَبَهُ اللَّهُ مُلْكَهُ فَوَرَّثَهُ مَرْوَانَ بْنَ مُحَمَّدٍ

Yazid killed Husayn so Allah took his kingdom away and made the family of Marwan inherit it, then when Hisham killed Zayd bin `Ali, Allah took his kingdom and made Marwan bin Muhammad to inherit it.(Al-Kafi).

Notice that the family of Marwan is not supposed to inherit Yazid, Yazid had closer relatives who were entitled to inherit him, but this is talking of inheriting political authority, as successor.

Hence, again we see the argument of Shiapen is invalid and null. Moreover, as for the argument that, in what sense Abubakr(ra) said , family of Prophet(saw) are his Heirs, the answer to this misunderstanding is, Abubakr(ra) meant that in general terminology family of Prophet(saw) are his heirs, but they will not get inheritance due to the exception stated by Prophet(saw), “we do not offer inheritance”. And this can be understood in a more better way, by this statement of Prophet(saw).

رَسُولَ اللَّهِ قَالَ: ” لَا يَقْتَسِمُ وَرَثَتِي دِينَارًا، مَا تَرَكْتُ بَعْدَ نَفَقَةِ نِسَائِي، وَمَئُونَةِ عَامِلِي، فَهُوَ صَدَقَةٌ

Prophet(saw) said “My heirs shall not split a Dinar between themselves, what I leave after the provision of my wives and workers is charity.”(Sahih Bukhari)

This, hadeeth of Prophet(saw) shows that, even Prophet(saw) hinted that he(saw) has heirs, but He(saw) meant that in general terminology, and He(saw) clarified that, his heirs will not split a dinar between themselves, which means they will not get inheritance. Thus, family of Prophet(saw) are his heirs in general terminology, as even Abubakr(ra) affirmed, but the ruling for them is special since they will not get inheritance, as we find from the hadeeth of Prophet(saw).

 

Argument 3:

Shiapen states:

[Quote]

These three books from the Saha Sittah establish the fact that Sayyida Fatima (as) turned to Abu Bakr in order to claim her inheritance rights and Abu Bakr held that Prophets leave no inheritance; rather whatever they leave is Sadaqah.
There can be the following two meanings of Abu Bakr’s words:

Meaning One – Anything that Prophet’s leave as Sadaqah cannot be inherited. Such words do not benefit Abu Bakr in the slightest, since it proves that he usurped Fadak and the portion of Rasulullah (s) property, thus proving injustice on his part and this injustice destroys Abu Bakr’s Khilafat.

Meaning Two – Anything that Prophet’s leave behind them is Sadaqah and has no Waris, if we understand this in this manner then this is also absolutely incorrect as already proved by us.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Before refuting the argument, we would like to quote a hadeeth from Ayesha(ra) from Sunan Abu Dawood, which would simplify the confusion of Shiapen:

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى بْنِ فَارِسٍ، حَدَّثَنَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ حَمْزَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا حَاتِمُ بْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ، عَنْ أُسَامَةَ بْنِ زَيْدٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، بِإِسْنَادِهِ نَحْوَهُ قُلْتُ أَلاَ تَتَّقِينَ اللَّهَ أَلَمْ تَسْمَعْنَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ ‏ “‏ لاَ نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا فَهُوَ صَدَقَةٌ وَإِنَّمَا هَذَا الْمَالُ لآلِ مُحَمَّدٍ لِنَائِبَتِهِمْ وَلِضَيْفِهِمْ فَإِذَا مِتُّ فَهُوَ إِلَى مَنْ وَلِيَ الأَمْرَ مِنْ بَعْدِي

Ayesha(ra) said to other wives of Prophet(saw): Do you not fear Allah ? Did you not hear the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: We are not inherited. Whatever we leave is sadaqah (alms). This property belongs to the family of Muhammad for their emergent needs and their guest. When I die, it will go to him who becomes ruler after me. (Sunan Abi Dawud 2977, Grading : Hasan).

Shiapen has again raised an irrational argument like others before, we do not know if Shiapen would wish for us to live in a jungle, but we live in a state governed by Islamic law and justice. This land that the Prophet (saw) -as leader of our nation- used to spend from it on the poor, after him it falls into the hands of his successor Abu Bakr and he is now charged with dividing its produce and spending it on the poor and needy. If the matter was left to the poor and needy to take what they wish from the land without order and justice, they’d kill each other over it.

The same applies to when all the tribes sent their Zakat to the messenger (saw) and he would spend it on the poor for them, it is up to the leader to take care of such matters.

Ibn Sireen says in “al-Amwal” by Ibn Zinjawayh:

كَانَتِ الصَّدَقَةُ تُدْفَعُ إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ وَإِلَى مَنْ أَمَرَ بِهَا، وَإِلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ وَإِلَى مَنْ أَمَرَ بِهَا، وَإِلَى عُمَرَ وَإِلَى مَنْ أَمَرَ بِهَا، وَإِلَى عُثْمَانَ وَإِلَى مَنْ أَمَرَ بِهَا، حَتَّى قُتِلَ عُثْمَانُ، ثُمَّ اخْتَلَفُوا، فَمِنْهُمْ مَنِ اخْتَارَ أَنْ يَقْسِمَها، وَمِنْهُمْ مَنِ اخْتَارَ أَنْ يَدْفَعَهَا لِلسُّلْطَانِ

[The Sadaqah was paid to the Prophet (saw) or whomever he appointed, then to Abu Bakr or whomever he appointed, then to `Umar or whomever he appointed, then to `Uthman or whomever he appointed until he was killed, then the people differed, some started to personally pay it to the poor, and others still sent it to the Sultan.]

 

Argument 4:

Another Shiawebsite RTS stated:

[Quote]

Ahmad ibn Hanbal:

Narrated to us Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Shayba and I heard it from Abdullah ibn Abi Shayba too who said: Narrated to us Fudhayl from Al-Waleed ibn Jumai from Abil Tufayl who said: When the Messenger of Allah (saw) died, Faatima (s.a) sent word to Aboo Bakr saying: “Have you inherited from the Messenger of Allah(saw) or his family?” He said: “No, rather his family.” She said: “Then where is the share of the Messenger of Allah (saw)?” Aboo Bakr said: “I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: ‘If Allah (swt) grants some wealth to a Prophet, then takes his soul, He grants it to the one who takes charge after him. So I have decided to give the benefit of it to the Muslims.” She said: “You and what you heard from the Messenger of Allah (saw) know.”

Source: Musnad Ahmad. Vol. 1, Pg. # 191 – 192.

Firstly, what Al-Dhahabi and ibn Kathir narrate from Musnad Ahmad does not contain the word “a’lam” at the end, which slightly changes the meaning of the sentence: “You and what you heard from the Messenger of Allah (saw).” This shows that Sayeda Faatima (s.a) doubts what Aboo Bakr says and does not admit to the fact that it is true. It seems rather suspicious, and makes one think that the last sentence has been added later to the Musnad in order to alter the meaning of the narration, since, as mentioned earlier, it does not make much sense. But if it were to say: “فانت كاذب و ما سمعت من رسول الله” i.e. “You are a liar, and you have not heard it from the Messenger of Allah (saw)” it would make more sense as it would be in accordance with the narrations of Bukhari and Muslim. It could well be possible that they have removed the word “كاذب” and added the word “اعلم”, to change the meaning of the narration. But even without the word liar, what Al-Dhahabi and ibn Kathir have narrated from Musnad can also be interpreted as: “This is what you claim, and you have not heard it from the Messenger of Allah (saw).”

[End Quote]

Answer:

It is true that the last wordings of the hadeeth from Musnad Ahmad are incorrect, but RTS tried to take an undue advantage, by guessing some evil wordings to be correct. But this stupidity is exposed, when we look at a similar authentic hadeeth from a different book, which gives the correct wordings for this hadeeth.

We read in “Ithaf al-Khayarah al-Maharah” by al-Bouwaysiri who reports in an authentic narration:

وَقَالَ أَبُو يَعْلَى الْمُوصِلِيُّ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ صَالِحٍ ، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ فُضَيْلٍ ، عَنِ الْوَلِيدِ بْنِ جُمَيْعٍ ، عَنْ أَبِي الطُّفَيْلِ ، قَالَ : جَاءَتْ فَاطِمَةُ إِلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ ، فَقَالَتْ : يَا خَلِيفَةَ رَسُولِ الله صَلَّى الله عَلَيه وسَلَّم ، أَنْتَ وَرِثت رَسُولِ الله أَمْ أَهْلُهُ ؟ قَالَ : بَلْ أَهْلُهُ قَالَتْ : فَمَا بَالُ سَهْمِ رَسُولِ الله صَلَّى الله عَلَيه وسَلَّم ؟ قَالَ : إِنِّي سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ الله صَلَّى الله عَلَيه وسَلَّم ، يَقُولُ : إِذَا أَطْعَمَ الله , عَزَّ وَجَلَّ , نَبِيًّا طُعْمَةً ، ثُمَّ قَبَضَهُ جَعَلَهُ لِلَّذِي يَقُومُ بَعْدَهُ فَرَأَيْتُ أَنْ أَرُدَّهُ عَلَى الْمِسْلِمِينَ ، فَقَالَتْ : أَنْتَ وَرَسُولُ الله أَعْلَمُ.

[Abu Ya`la al-Mousili said: `Abdul-Rahman bin Salih said: Muhammad bin Fudayl said, from al-Walid bin Jumay` (bin `Abdullah), from abi al-Tufayl that he said: Fatima came to Abu Bakr and said: “O successor of Rassul-Allah (SAWS), did you inherit the messenger of Allah or his family?” He said: “His family.” She asked: “Then what of the share of the messenger (SAWS)?” He replied: “I heard the messenger of Allah (SAWS) say: “If Allah the majestic and great gave a prophet a blessing then took his soul, it becomes for the one who took his place after him.” So I decided that I should distribute it among the Muslims.” Fatima told him: “You and the messenger of Allah know best.“]

Comment: So these are the correct wordings of that report, which RTS tried to misuse, these words prove that the issue was amicably resolved, as pointed out by Ibn Kathir. These wordings imply that Fatima(ra) was satisfied as she learnt that the decision of Abu Bakr(ra) was on the basis of the saying of the Lawgiver(saw) himself.

What further strengthens our view is the authentic Shia hadeeth, which is similar to the hadeeth narrated by Abubakr(ra). We read in Al-Kafi:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This Shia hadeeth is similar to the hadeeth narrated by Abubakr(ra), we find that after Prophet(saw) the property given to Prophet, will belong to the successor of Prophet, the leader of Muslims. Hence it is impossible that Fatima(ra) would reject the hadeeth narrated by Abubakr(ra), or consider him a liar as RTS claimed, or give a negative answer; rather the most plausible and rational understanding of the last wordings of the hadeeth is that, Fatima(ra) said those words in a positive way and she was convinced and the issue was resolved.

 

Argument 5:

Shiapen states:

[Quote]

Ali rejected the claim of Abu Bakr Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah’

We read in Kanz al Ummal taken from Ibn Hanbal with a Hasan [Good] chain.

“On one occasion Hadhrat Umar said to ‘Ali and Abbas – Abu Bakr said ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) had said:” We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity.” So both of you thought him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest”.

[End Quote]

Answer:

This is a false claim, because both Abbas(ra) and Ali(ra) accepted it to be the hadeeth of Prophet(saw). We read:

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

Understanding the context of this event:

This incident has a context, and inorder to understand the quote by Shiapen, we need to refer the full context of the incident, only then we would be able to understand what actually happened and why were such words used. The scenario of this incident is that, both Abbas and Ali, accepted the hadeeth that Prophet(saw) doesn’t leave inheritance, and the produce of the land goes to charity, but they thought, they can still manage it and eat from it, since the Prophet (saw) said: “The family of Muhammad may eat from it.” To them being in control of this Waqf did not pose any contradiction to the prophetic narration.

This incident is reported in Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4349 where we read:

[It is reported by Zuhri that this tradition was narrated to him by Malik b. Aus who said: Umar b. al-Khattab sent for me and I came to him when the day had advanced. I found him in his house sitting on his bare bed-stead, reclining on a leather pillow. He said (to me): Malik, some people of your tribe have hastened to me (with a request for help). I have ordered a little money for them. Take it and distribute it among them. I said: I wish you had ordered somebody else to do this job. He said: Malik, take it (and do what you have been told). At this moment (his man-servant) Yarfa’ came in and said: Ameer-ul-mu’mineen, what do you say about Uthman, Abd al-Rabman b. ‘Auf, Zubair and Sa’d (who have come to seek an audience with you)? He said: Yes, and permitted them. so they entered. Then he (Yarfa’) came again and said: What do you say about ‘ali and abbas (who are present at the door)? He said: Yes, and permitted them to enter. `Abbas said: Ameer-ul-mu’mineen (leader of the believers), decide (the dispute) between me and this sinful, treacherous, dishonest liar (meaning `Ali). The people (who were present) also said: Yes. Ameer-ul-mu’mineen (leader of the believers), do decide (the dispute) and have mercy on them. Malik b. Aus said: I could well imagine that they had sent them in advance for this purpose (by ‘ali and abbas). ‘Umar said: Wait and be patient. I adjure you by Allah by Whose order the heavens and the earth are sustained, don’t you know that the messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said:” We (prophets) do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity”? They said: Yes. Then he turned to abbas and ‘ali and said: I adjure you both by Allah by Whose order the heavens and earth are sustained, don’t you know that the messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said:” We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity”? They (too) said: Yes. (Then) Umar said: Allah, the Glorious and Exalted, had done to His messenger (may peace be upon him) a special favour that He has not done to anyone else except him. He quoted the Qur’anic verse:” What Allah has bestowed upon His Apostle from (the properties) of the people of township is for Allah and His messenger”. The narrator said: I do not know whether he also recited the previous verse or not. Umar continued: The messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) distrbuted among you the properties abandoned by Banu Nadir. By Allah, he never preferred himself over you and never appropriated anything to your exclusion. (After a fair distribution in this way) this property was left over. The messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) would meet from its income his annual expenditure, and what remained would be deposited in the Bait-ul-Mal. (Continuing further) he said: I adjure you by Allah by Whose order the heavens and the earth are sustained. Do you know this? They said: Yes. Then he adjured abbas and ‘All as he had adjured the other persons and asked: Do you both know this? They said: Yes. He said: When the messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) passed away, Abu Bakr said:” I am the successor of the messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him).” Both of you came to demand your shares from the property (left behind by the messenger of Allah). (Referring to Hadrat ‘abbas), he said: You demanded your share from the property of your nephew, and he (referring to ‘ali) demanded a share on behalf of his wife from the property of her father. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) said: The messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) had said:” We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity.” So both of you thought him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that he was true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. When Abu Bakr passed away and (I have become) the successor of the messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him), you thought me to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that I am true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. I became the guardian of this property. Then you as well as he came to me. Both of you have come and your purpose is identical. You said: Entrust the property to us. I said: If you wish that I should entrust it to you, it will be on the condition that both of you will undertake to abide by a pledge made with Allah that you will use it in the same way as the messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used it. So both of you got it. He said: Wasn’t it like this? They said: Yes. He said: Then you have (again) come to me with the request that I should adjudge between you. No, by Allah. I will not give any other judgment except this until the arrival of the Doomsday. If you are unable to hold the property on this condition, return it to me.]

Explanation:

As we can see, Abbas started off calling Ali to be a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest” and then Omar used same terms(liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest). Notice, the argument wasn’t beween Abubakr and Ali nor between Umar and Ali, rather Umar was the one who was to judge between Ali and Abbas. In this case, Umar(ra) was just assuming an argument, for sake of argument, infact Ali and Abbas, didn’t deem nor utter a word against Abubakr nor Umar, and they both affirmed the hadeeth of Prophet(saw), regarding inheritance. Hence the correct understanding of this issue is that, Al-Abbas, started off by using those words to describe Ali, since they were disputing over the charity, what they shall be the guardian of and how to distribute it, so they wanted the property to be divided between them, but this would have appeared to people as, it is inheritance, which would be against the condition on which Umar entrusted them the property. Hence we read in Tarikh Al-Islam:

Narrated Al-Zuhri saying: Narrated to me Al-A’raj that he heard Abu Huraira saying: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) saying: “By the One in whose hand is my soul, my heirs do not divide anything of what I leave behind, what we leave is charity.” So this charity was in the hands of Ali(ra) that he overcame Al-Abbas in it, and their dispute was on that, so Umar refused to divide it between them, until Abbas left it and Ali(ra) overcame it. (Tarikh Al-Islam. Vol. 3, Pg. 27).

قَالَ أَبُو دَاوُدَ أَرَادَ أَنْ لاَ يُوقِعَ عَلَيْهِ اسْمَ قَسْمٍ ‏.

Abu Dawud said: He (‘Umar) intended that the name of division should not apply to it.(Sunan Abu Dawud).

So Umar was trying to make a point that, they shouldn’t be fighting over it nor ask for its division since it isn’t their property. Hence, in response to their dispute, Omar is implying that if Al-Abbas’s descriptions of Ali are correct, then Abu Bakr and Umar are to be described as such, because Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra) never gave them that property as inheriance but rather Umar just entrusted them over it, on the condition of managing it in same way as Prophet(saw) used to manage it. And both Ali and Abbas agreed over this condition and even they affirmed the hadeeth of Prophet(saw) not leaving inheritance. But since they disputed over the property, and want to divide the entrusted property, it would appear to people as inheritance, so Umar had to remind them that, they shouldn’t be fighting over it nor ask for it to be divided, since it isn’t their property nor inheritance, which is why Umar said, what is being misinterpreted by Shiapen.

As for what al-`Abbas said to `Ali, those are the words of a father to a son. al-`Abbas said it indicating `Ali, because he was in the position of a son with him. He wanted to make him retract what he thought was a mistake.

Moreover, Umar did not approve of Abbas’s words against Ali; Umar took the correct view that people can get in arguments and make honest mistakes and nobody should simply jump to strong personal attacks like Abbas did against Ali, calling him a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.” Therefore, Umar repeated the words of Abbas verbatim in order to prove a point, Umar was just making use of rhetoric. The problem is that these Shia propagandists have no hold of Arabic Balagha. If they did, they would know that direct translation in English would not give the proper understanding. This is an example of, (reductio ad absurdum; Latin: “reduction to the absurd”) also known as an apagogical argument, which is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result.

We would like to give an example just to enrich the mind: A mother and father who had told their two sons that the capitol of France was Paris. A few days later, the two sons get in an argument over the capitol of France. One brother says the capitol is Berlin, whereas the other says the capitol is London. When they go to their father to arbitrate over this matter, one brother says about the other: “Father, can you settle this dispute of mine with my idiot brother who thinks the capitol of France is Berlin?” The father is not appalled at the fact that his two little sons forgot the capitol of France; this is a mistake that anybody can make. But what he is appalled at is the language used by this son, calling his brother an “idiot.” The father then says: “So you thought of Mom as an idiot when she said that Paris was the capitol of France, and you thought I was an idiot when I said that too?” By saying this, the father is trying to dissuade the son from jumping to conclusions about his brother’s character, because in such a process, he would also believe his mother and father to be idiots as well.

Hence, Umar was simply repeating the words of Abbas verbatim. How can the Shias ignore this “coincidence” especially in light of Arabic Balagha? It is obvious from this that Umar was proving a point, and his words should thus be analyzed in this context. Another important observation is that the Shia propagandists will say that it was Ali who called Abu Bakr and Umar to be a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.” But the reality is that, it was merely Umar who said that Abbas was implying this. There is a significant point.

What further proves our point is that `Ali’s words to Abu Bakr are documented after the incident regarding the demand of inheritance, in Sahih al-Bukhari:

إِنَّا قَدْ عَرَفْنَا فَضْلَكَ، وَمَا أَعْطَاكَ، اللَّهُ وَلَمْ نَنْفَسْ عَلَيْكَ خَيْرًا سَاقَهُ اللَّهُ إِلَيْكَ، وَلَكِنَّكَ اسْتَبْدَدْتَ عَلَيْنَا بِالأَمْرِ

[O Abu Bakr, we know well your superiority and what Allah has given you, and we are not jealous of the goodness that Allah has bestowed upon you, but you did not consult us.]

Secondly, it is unthinkable that either Al-Abbas or Ali thought of Abu Bakr or Omar in such manner. This is because both caliphs were approached by both men, who were seeking justice. It is not logical for someone to seek justice from someone that they saw as a liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.

Thirdly, notice the hadeeth that how Abbas(ra) referred to ‘Umar(ra) as “Ameer-ul-mu’mineen(leader of the believers)!” This proves that ‘Umar was a legitimate Khaleefah, contrary to shi’aa lies and propaganda.

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

We read in the books of Sunan:

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

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

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

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

Two years into his Khilafah, `Umar ibn al-Khattab out of good will towards them entrusted the Sadaqat of Madinah to both men since they were the heads of Ahlul-Bayt, he never gave it to them as inheritance, but just appointed them over it to care for it and benefit from it and to distribute its produce as the Prophet (saw) and Abu Bakr did before.

`Ali asked for his wife’s part to be entrusted to him and al-`Abbas asked for his nephew’s part to be entrusted to him, but `Umar said what we read in Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari.

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

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

Al-`Abbas and `Ali then disputed about the charity what they shall be the guardian of and how to distribute it’, it appears as if al-`Abbas was angry at `Ali so much that he called him names, so they both went to `Umar asking him to decide between them by dividing the entrusted property. `Umar refused to give any other judgment and told them to return it if they’re unable to manage it.

He said:

فَإِنْ عَجَزْتُمَا عَنْهُ فَادْفَعَا إِلَيَّ فَأَنَا أَكْفِيكُمَاهُ

[If you are unable to run this land, then return it to me and I shall save you the effort.].

As for the Fay’ of the lands of Khaybar including Fadak, `Umar held on to them and kept them well managed and properly taken care of as the Prophet (saw) used them for the urgent needs of the nation.

Thus, it is clear that both Abbas and Ali understood that although the produce of the land goes to charity, yet they viewed that, they can still manage the share which they would have got as inheritance, by being its trustees, and eat from it, since the Prophet (saw) said: “The family of Muhammad may eat from it.” To them being in control of this Waqf did not pose any contradiction to the prophetic narration.

A question may be asked, does this mean that since both went to `Umar each man asking for his part, and that `Umar reminded them of the narration, does it mean that they reject the prophet’s (saw) narration? As clarified above the answer is NO, he reminded them the hadeeth because both of them were disputing over the property and wanted to divide the entrusted property, which would have appeared to people as, inheritance, So Umar reminded them that, they shouldn’t ask for it, since it isn’t their property nor inheritance, hence Umar(ra) mentioned the hadeeth and asked their view on it. And both of them in the same narration affirmed it to be a hadeeth of Prophet(saw).

Lastly, both knew full well that `Umar was present when Abu Bakr made his ruling and agreed with him, this can only mean -as is apparent from the narration- that they only asked to control it.

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

 

Argument 6:

Shiapen states:

[Quote]

Another argument advanced is that the matter concerned managing the Sadaqa of the Prophet (s) between Maula Ali (as) and Abbas (ra) not inheritance. In Awnul Ma’bud, the commentary of Abu Dawud, we read:

‏This means Ali and Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them, acquired guardianship over the Sadaqah after the Messenger of Allah and Abu Bakr. They argued about dividing the Sadaqah between them, half and half, because one of them wanted to utilise the sadaqah in one way and the other in another. However, Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, ruled that this should not be done since this is how it would be if it was inheritied and the Messengers are not inherited. This is why he repetitively said the hadith, to emphasise that it should not be divided in a manner resembling how it would be if it were inherited, so people in the future do not confuse the wealth as inheritance.

The issue is not about guardianship over sadaqah. A few of the reasons are as follows:

  1. There would be no reason for any Sahabi to simply dispute over the guardianship of sadaqah unless they had an agenda to abuse their position and take personal benefits. Both Shias and Sunnis agree that Abbas and Ali (as) had no such motives.
  2. If the issue was not about inheritance, there would have been no reason for Umar to bring up the hadith ‘Prophets do not leave inheritance’.

[End Quote]

Answer:

This was an issue of Guardianship as explained by scholars and as apparent from the hadeeth itself.

We read in Sahih Mulim:

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

We read in Sunan Nisai:

Umar said: I took control of it after Abu Bakr, and I did with it what he used to do. Then these two came to me and asked me to give it to them so that they could dispose of it as the Messenger of Allah disposed of it, and as Abu Bakr disposed of it, and as I disposed of it. So I gave it to them and I took promises from them that they would take proper care of it.( Sunan an-Nasa’i 4148, Grading Sahih)

1 Ans: Al-`Abbas and `Ali disputed about the charity what they shall be the guardian of and how to distribute it, Or, As the author of Awnul Ma’bud said, “one of them wanted to utilise the sadaqah in one way and the other in another”, So they both went to `Umar asking him to decide between them by dividing the entrusted property. Also Umar(ra) denied giving it as inheritance to Ali and Abbas, which both of them agreed when questioned. Umar set the condition that, they must use it the same way Prophet(saw) used; if it was given as inheritance then this condition wouldn’t have been set.

2 Ans: As already explained, they were disputing over the charity, what they shall be the guardian of and how to distribute it, but disputing over the entrusted property and asking for its division would have appeared to people as inheritance, So Umar(ra) felt the need to mention the hadeeth and ask their view on it. And both Ali and Abbas in the same narration agreed it to be a hadeeth of Prophet(saw). This is the reason, in Awnul Ma’bud, the commentary of Abu Dawud, we read:

‏This means Ali and Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them, acquired guardianship over the Sadaqah after the Messenger of Allah and Abu Bakr. They argued about dividing the Sadaqah between them, half and half, because one of them wanted to utilise the sadaqah in one way and the other in another. However, Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, ruled that this should not be done since this is how it would be if it was inheritied and the Messengers are not inherited. This is why he repetitively said the hadith, to emphasise that it should not be divided in a manner resembling how it would be if it were inherited, so people in the future do not confuse the wealth as inheritance. (Awnul Ma’bud).

 

Argument 7:

Shiapen states:

[Quote]

  1. They originally went to Abu Bakr in a claim of inheritance and the narrations of when they went to Umar tell us they claimed the same thing. If Maula Ali (as) considered Fadak to be Sadaqa then why did he over-power Abbas and take the entire estate of Fadak from him?

We will also point out that Umar said very clearly that the issue was about inheritance and not guardianship over wealth. In Bukhari’s version of the hadith, Umar said:

“Then I took charge of this property for two years during which I managed it as Allah’s Apostle and Abu Bakr did. Then you both (‘Ali and ‘Abbas) came to talk to me, bearing the same claim and presenting the same case. (O ‘Abbas!) You came to me asking for your share from the property of your nephew, and this man (Ali) came to me, asking for the share of his wife from the property of her father.”
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 80, Number 720

Its very clear that this is in regards to Fadak which Fatima (as) and Abbas (r) claimed from Abu Bakr, as made crystal clear in another Bukhari hadith:

“Fatima and Al ‘Abbas came to Abu Bakr, seeking their share from the property of Allah’s Apostle and at that time, they were asking for their land at Fadak and their share from Khaibar. Abu Bakr said to them, ” I have heard from Allah’s Apostle saying, ‘Our property cannot be inherited, and whatever we leave is to be spent in charity…’”

[End Quote]

Answer:

During the Caliphate of Abubakr(ra), both Ali(ra) and Abbas(ra) went to Abubakr(ra) demanding inheritance from Prophet(saw), and when Abu bakr(ra) informed them about the hadeeth of Prophet(saw), they accepted it and the matter was resolved, which is apparent from their answer, to the question of Umar directed at them. But they understood that although the produce of the land goes to charity, yet they can still manage it and also eat from it, since the Prophet (saw) said: “The family of Muhammad may eat from it.” To them being in control of this Waqf did not pose any contradiction to the prophetic narration. Hence they went to Umar(ra), so that Umar entrusts them the property.

The best explaination of a hadeeth is by a hadeeth itself, hence let us quote the same hadeeth from Sahi Muslim, where we explicitly find that the request made by Abbas and Ali was to entrust the property. We read:

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

So this hadeeth helps understanding the hadeeth of Bukhari which is being misinterpreted by Shiapen. In this hadeeth it can be clearly seen that, Both Abbas and Ali went to Umar with an “identical pupose”, which in bukhari is mentioned as “bearing the same claim and presenting the same case”; And that identical purpose or same claim of Abbas and Ali was that property is entrusted to them, hence we clearly find them stating, “Entrust the property to us”. They only asked to control it, each claiming he has the right to do so, one through his wives’ share and the other through his nephew’s.

Another proof is that, when Ali and Abbas approached Abubakr, the usage of words is different, compared to when they came to Umar. When they approached Abubakr(ra) they asked for inheritance(miraas), whereas when they approached Umar during his rule, they didn’t ask for inheritance(miraas).

When they went to Abubakr:

فَجِئْتُمَا تَطْلُبُ مِيرَاثَكَ مِنَ ابْنِ أَخِيكَ وَيَطْلُبُ هَذَا مِيرَاثَ امْرَأَتِهِ مِنْ أَبِيهَا

“You both came to me, you asked to inherit your nephew and…”(Sahih Muslim).

When to came to Umar:

جِئْتُمَانِي وَكَلِمَتُكُمَا وَاحِدَةٌ، وَأَمْرُكُمَا جَمِيعٌ، جِئْتَنِي تَسْأَلُنِي نَصِيبَكَ مِنِ ابْنِ أَخِيكَ، وَأَتَانِي هَذَا يَسْأَلُنِي نَصِيبَ امْرَأَتِهِ مِنْ أَبِيهَا
“You came to me and you were in agreement (back then), you asked me for your share from your nephew…”(Sahih Bukhari)

Hence, there remains no doubt that, Abbas(ra) and Ali(ra) went to Umar(ra) with a different request than to Abubakr(ra). They went to Umar(ra) with the request to entrust them the property.

NOTE: Shiapen out of their ignorance are repeatedly claiming that, the property over which Abbas and Ali disputed was fadak, but this is a blatant lie, and a deceitful trick of Shiapen, Fadak was never entrused to Ali(ra) it remained in the hands of Umar(ra).

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

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

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

We read in the books of Sunan:

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, its clear that Fadak and Khaiber remaind in the hands of Umar(ra), and it was never entrusted to Ali(ra) or Abbas(ra).

 

Argument 8:

Shiapen states:

[Quote]

Some narrations of this event tie the dispute to a particular piece of land of Banu Nadir which was with-held by Umar from the two. This being the case, why would the two squabble over something which the other didn’t have? It was Umar who had it and did not give it. If there was any dispute, it was Ali (as) and Abbas on one side and Umar and his supporters on the other.

[End Quote]

Answer:

This argument is deceitful; there are clear proofs that Umar(ra) entrusted them that land over which they were disputing.

Umar(ra) said: If you are unable to manage it, then return it to me, and I will be sufficient to manage it on your behalf.’ “(Sahih Bukhari Vol. 8, Book 80, Hadith 720).

Umar(ra) said: If you wish that I should entrust it to you, it will be on the condition that both of you will undertake to abide by a pledge made with Allah that you will use it in the same way as the Messenger of Allah (saw) used it. So both of you got it. He said: Wasn’t it like this? They said: Yes. He said: Then you have (again) come to me with the request that I should adjudge between you. No, by Allah. I will not give any other judgment except this until the arrival of the Doomsday. If you are unable to hold the property on this condition, return it to me.(Sahih Muslim Book 19, Hadith 4349).

Umar said: I took control of it after Abu Bakr, and I did with it what he used to do. Then these two came to me and asked me to give it to them so that they could dispose of it as the Messenger of Allah disposed of it, and as Abu Bakr disposed of it, and as I disposed of it. So I gave it to them and I took promises from them that they would take proper care of it.( Sunan an-Nasa’i 4148, Grading Sahih)

So again, the deceit of Shiapen is exposed, because the ahadeeth clearly states that Abbas and Ali were entrusted with that, over which they were disputing, hence Umar(ra) asked them to return it, if they were unable to manage it.

Secondly, as for the claim that the dispute was between Umar and his supporters on one side and Abbas and Ali on one, then these are baseless lies of Shiapen, because if one reads these narrations, then it can be clearly seen that, the dispute was between Ali and Abbas, and both of them came to Umar disputing with each other, so that Umar could decide between them.

We read:

“Al-Abbas and Ali came to ‘Umar with a dispute. Al-Abbas said: ‘Pass judgment between him and I.’ the people said: ‘Pass judgment between them.’ ‘Umar said: ‘I will not pass judgment between them.( Sunan Nisai)

`Abbas said, ‘O, chief of the believers! Judge between me and this man (Ali ). `(Bukhari)

Abbas said: Ameer-ul-mu’mineen (leader of the believers), decide (the dispute) between me and this sinful, treacherous, dishonest liar (meaning `Ali). The people (who were present) also said: Yes. Commander of the Faithful, do decide (the dispute) and have mercy on them.(Sahih Muslim)

Even in the portion we quoted before from Sahih Muslim, we can clearly see Umar saying, {“Then you have (again) come to me with the request that I should adjudge between you”}. This is a clear proof, that Shiapen is deceiving its readers.

 

Argument 9:

Shiapen states:

[Quote]

The bottom line is that both Ali and Abbas were demanding their share from the inheritance of the Holy Prophet (s) as stated by Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani in the commentary of the tradition:

فقال إسماعيل القاضي فيما رواه الدارقطني من طريقه لم يكن في الميراث إنما تنازعا في ولاية الصدقة وفي صرفها كيف تصرف كذا قال لكن في رواية النسائي وعمر بن شبة من طريق أبي البختري ما يدل على إنهما أرادا أن يقسم بينهما على سبيل الميراث

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

[End Quote]

Answer:

Hadith of Abi al-Bakhtari is disconnected as is known. Abi al-Bakhtari must have heard it from an unknown man, so it is unauthentic and unreliable. And it even contradicts authentic report from Sahih Muslim, which says that Ali and Abbas wanted the property to be entrusted to them.

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

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

Secondly, even the explanation by Imam Abu Dawud implies the same that, they weren’t asking for inheritance, but they disputed and wanted to divide it.

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

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

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

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

Fourthly, in Awnul Ma’bud, the commentary of Abu Dawud, we read:

‏This means Ali and Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them, acquired guardianship over the Sadaqah after the Messenger of Allah and Abu Bakr. They argued about dividing the Sadaqah between them, half and half, because one of them wanted to utilise the sadaqah in one way and the other in another. However, Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, ruled that this should not be done since this is how it would be if it was inheritied and the Messengers are not inherited. This is why he repetitively said the hadith, to emphasise that it should not be divided in a manner resembling how it would be if it were inherited, so people in the future do not confuse the wealth as inheritance. (Awnul Ma’bud)

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

 

Argument 10:

Shiapen states:

[Quote]

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

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

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

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

[End Quote]

Answer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[-End Quote-]

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

Ismail al-Qazi said:

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

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

Imam Abu Dawud :

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Argument 11:

Shiapen states:

[Quote]

Anyone whom Ali (as) deems treacherous is also treacherous in the eyes of the Sahaba

We read in Ahl’ul Sunnah’s authority work Tafseer Mazhari Part 12, Volume 5 page 14, commentary of Surah Hud:

“In our view it is established that Hadhrat ‘Ali was the axis of Wilayath and all other Saints including the Sahaba follow his station of Wilaya”

When Abu Bakr perpetrated injustice towards the daughter of the Prophet (s), Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) deemed him to be a ‘liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest’. If the Sahaba follow in the footsteps of the Wilaya of Imam ‘Ali (as) then Hadhrat Ali (as)’s view of such a person is also shared by the Sahaba.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Deceitful Shiapen is misinterpreting the words of Umar(ra), since Ali(ra) didn’t utter a word nor deem anything against Abubakr(ra) or Umar(ra), rather those words were used by Abbas(ra) for Ali(ra), and Umar(ra) repeated those in a rhetorical sense, as explained previously in the article.

Infact, Ali and al-`Abbas both accepted it to be a hadeeth of Prophet(saw), when Umar(ra) asked them about it, which is a clear proof that Ali(ra) or Abbas(ra) didn’t consider Abubakr(ra) to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. We read:

`Umar said, ‘I beseech you by Allah by Whose permission both the heaven and the earth exist, do you know that Allah’s Messenger(saw) said, ‘Our (the Apostles’) property will not be inherited, and whatever we leave (after our death) is to be spent in charity?’ And by that Allah’s Messenger(saw) meant himself.’ The group said, ‘(No doubt), he said so.’ `Umar then faced `Ali and `Abbas and said, ‘Do you both know that Allah’s Messenger(saw) said that?’ They replied, ‘(No doubt), he said so.‘(Sahih Bukhari Vol. 8, Book 80, Hadith 720).

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

Moreover, as for the reliability of Abubakr(ra) in the sight of Ali(ra), then here is the view of Ali(ra) that Abubakr(ra) was truthful when narrating ahadeeth of Prophet(saw), and this nullifies the deceitful attempts of Shiapen to misinterpret the rhetorical words of Umar(ra).

حَدَّثَنَا مُسَدَّدٌ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو عَوَانَةَ، عَنْ عُثْمَانَ بْنِ الْمُغِيرَةِ الثَّقَفِيِّ، عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ رَبِيعَةَ الأَسَدِيِّ، عَنْ أَسْمَاءَ بْنِ الْحَكَمِ الْفَزَارِيِّ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ عَلِيًّا، – رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ – يَقُولُ كُنْتُ رَجُلاً إِذَا سَمِعْتُ مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم حَدِيثًا نَفَعَنِي اللَّهُ مِنْهُ بِمَا شَاءَ أَنْ يَنْفَعَنِي وَإِذَا حَدَّثَنِي أَحَدٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِهِ اسْتَحْلَفْتُهُ فَإِذَا حَلَفَ لِي صَدَّقْتُهُ قَالَ وَحَدَّثَنِي أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَصَدَقَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ – رضى الله عنه – أَنَّهُ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ ‏”‏ مَا مِنْ عَبْدٍ يُذْنِبُ ذَنْبًا فَيُحْسِنُ الطُّهُورَ ثُمَّ يَقُومُ فَيُصَلِّي رَكْعَتَيْنِ ثُمَّ يَسْتَغْفِرُ اللَّهَ إِلاَّ غَفَرَ اللَّهُ لَهُ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ ثُمَّ قَرَأَ هَذِهِ الآيَةَ ‏{‏ وَالَّذِينَ إِذَا فَعَلُوا فَاحِشَةً أَوْ ظَلَمُوا أَنْفُسَهُمْ ذَكَرُوا اللَّهَ ‏}‏ إِلَى آخِرِ الآيَةِ

Asma’ bint al-Hakam said: I heard Ali say: I was a man; when I heard a tradition from the Messenger of Allah(saw), Allah benefited me with it as much as He willed. But when some one of his companions narrated a tradition to me I adjured him. When he took an oath, I testified him. AbuBakr narrated to me a tradition, and AbuBakr narrated truthfully. He said: I heard the apostle of Allah(saw) saying: When a servant (of Allah) commits a sin, and he performs ablution well, and then stands and prays two rak’ahs, and asks pardon of Allah, Allah pardons him. He then recited this verse: “And those who, when they commit indecency or wrong their souls, remember Allah” (Al-Qur’an 3:135).[ Sunan Abi Dawud 1521, Albani said: Sahih]

Thus, in accordance to the quote used by Shiapen, everyone needs to consider Abubakr(ra) as truthful, since Ali(ra) considered him truthful.

 

Argument 12:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

The Hadeeth ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity)’ was not used by Abu Bakr to confiscate the land that Rasulullah (s) left for the Sahaba

We read in Futuh al-Buldan, Volume 1 page 18:

The wealth and property of the Banu Nazir were the exclusive ownership of Rasulullah (s), and Rasulullah (s) would use the land to under the date tress for cultivations, produce would then be distributed to his family, anything that was outstanding would be purchased for weapons, Rasulullah (s) gifted some of the lands of Banu Nazir to Abu Bakr, Abdur Rahman bin Auf, Abu Dajana, Samak bin Kharsha and al Sa’adi as a gift.

We read in Fatah ul-Buldan, Volume 1 page 21:

وحدثنا الحسين قال: حدثنا يحيى بن آدم قال: أخبرنا قيس بن الربيع عن هشام بن عروة، عن أبيه قال: أقطع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم الزبير بن العوام أرضا من أرض بنى النضير ذات نخل.

“Hisham bin Urwah narrated from his father that amongst the lands of Banu Nazir, the Prophet (s) gifted the land of palm trees to Zubair bin al-Awam”

Comment

These references demonstrate that Rasulullah (s) had bestowed land to Zubayr, Abdur Rahman ibn Auf and Abu Dajana, why did not Abu Bakr ask these individuals to prove that the land had been bestowed to them? If the Hadeeth he recited to quash Sayyida Fatima (as)’s claim was true then why did he not use it to justify the seizure of lands belonging to these Sahaba? Why were witnesses not asked of them by Abu Bakr? Why was no action taken against them to vest control of these lands?

[End Quote]

Answer:

If the Prophet (saw) gave someone a gift, this would be common knowledge and it would be this man’s property, no one would take it away from him as they have no right to do so. The Prophet (saw) gave `Ali the sword Dhul-Faqar, this is common knowledge, why would Abu Bakr need to take it away from him?

And infact these reports are a proof against Shias, as they prove Abubakr(ra) to be a just and fair ruler. All those stories which mention that Abubakr(ra) asked Fatima(ra) to bring witnesses are false and fabricated, because had it been that such a thing occurred then, the reference to these properties of Sahaba would have been definitely given by Ali(ra) or Fatima(ra) to Abubakr(ra), they would have questioned about it to Abubakr(ra), inorder to overrule his judgement, but nothing as such occurred which proves that the story about Abubakr(ra) demanding witnesses is false.

 

Argument 13:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

The Hadeeth ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity)’ was even rejected by the wives of the Prophet (s)

We read in Sahih al Bukhari:

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

Allah (swt) says in his Holy Book that the reason why we are supposed to have one male witness and two female witnesses, is that if one the females forgets the other will remind her [2:282], but what we see in the narration above is that one female does not forget and a large number had forgotten that the Prophet had said a thing. It is indeed unfortunate that Muhammad Ismail Bukhari failed to record the reply that these nine wives had given to Ayesha.

This tradition proves that the wives of Rasulullah (s) did not deem the Hadeeth cited by Abu Bakr striking out the concept of Prophetic inheritance to be correct, if they did they would have not have sent Uthman to claim their inheritance share. No doubt Nasibi will argue that this tradition from Ayesha supports Abu Bakr’s stance then our reply is simple – if during the Fadak case, the testimony of Hasnayn (as) was rejected due to them being too young, then by the same token the testimony of Abu Bakr’s daughter who played with dolls in 9 Hijri should also be rejected.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Shiapen has raised some ridiculous arguments, and they were being dishonest while making these arguments, had they quoted the complete narration they would have got the answer to their arguments. Shiapen argued that, Imam Bukhari failed to record the reply from the nine wives of Prophet(saw) given to Ayesha(ra) and secondly, they raised objections over accepting the testimony of Ayesha(ra). So let us cite the important part of the same narration which Shiapen, purposely left, as it would destroy their silly arguments.

Sahi buikhari 5.367: 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.’

Thus, both Shia arguments are refuted from this important part of the narration, which was purposely left by Shiapen. Imam Bukhari didn’t fail to record the response given by nine wives of Prophet(saw), actually there wasn’t any response, since they stopped demanding it when they were informed about the hadeeth of Prophet(saw).

Secondly, if the mothers of believers, that is nine wives of Prophet(saw) didn’t have any problem accepting the testimony of Ayesha(ra), then who are these Shia propagandists to object?

Moreover, though we have proven in our answers, that the supposed anger of Fatima(ra), was from the idraaj(interpolation) of narrator Zuhri, yet the Shias would use those reports due to lack of objectivity. Interestingly even those reports were narrated by Ayesha(ra), if Shias are unwilling to accept the testimony of Ayesha(ra) in one scenario, then why aren’t they objecting her (supposed) testimony in other scenario? Why these double standards?

Thirdly, if supposedly the remaining wives of Prophet(saw) weren’t satisfied with this ruling, then can the Shias cite their trusted and reliable books which recorded supposed claim of wives of Prophet(saw) during the Caliphate of Ali(ra)? And also the response of Ali(ra) to them? Or did Shia scholars too failed to record those supposed claims made during Caliphate of Ali(ra)?.

 

Argument 14:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Ayesha’s applying for the inheritance of her husband proves the Hadith ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity)’ false

As evidence we shall cite Madarij un Nabuwwah Volume 2 page 756:

“Ayesha narrates after the death of Rasulullah (s) I went to claim my share of inheritance that was Khayber, Fadak and the land of Banu Nadheer, but Abu Bakr gave nothing, he gave the same reply that he had given to the other wives of the Prophet and Fatima daughter of the Prophet (s)”.
Madarij un Nabuwwah, Volume 2 page 756

[End Quote]

Answer:

This is a secondary source not a primary one. The author mentions this report without a chain of narrators, so it’s a chain-less narration. And a narration without a chain is like a body without head, it has no value, and is rejected, since anyone can attribute anything to a person.

Moreover, it goes against authentically established reports(Sahi buikhari 5.367), where Ayesha(ra) informs other wives of Prophet, about the saying of Prophet(saw). Where as in this chain-less report, we find that Abubakr(ra) informed the wives of Prophet(saw) regarding the saying of Prophet(saw), which further weakens its status.

Therefore, this chain-less report is base-less and unreliable and is rejected, so all the arguments made by Shias using this false report, become null and void.

 

Argument 15:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Ayesha was particularly fortunate; we read this tradition in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Chapter of Gifts in between Hadeeth number 773 and 774:

“Asma said to al Qasim bin Muhammad and Ibn Abu Atiq ‘I inherited some land in the forest from my sister Ayesha and Mu’awiyah offered me 100,000 for it but I give it to both of you as a gift”.

Consider this carefully. Rasulullah (s) left no inheritance for her, which in effect meant that she had to live on a very basic standard of living, with a very basic staple diet. This being the case, how did she attain possession of land valued at 100,000 dirhams? What Islamic Law gave her entitlement to such rich land?

[End Quote]

Answer:

Ayesha(ra) could have got that land, as share of Khums, since even She was a member of Ahlelbayt. Or most probably, it was the same land of Khayber which we already discussed, and even Ali(ra) received a share from it. Fatimah(ra) had died at the time, but her husband `Ali(ra) received his rightful share from it.

We read:

The Prophet concluded a contract with the people of Khaibar to utilize the land on the condition that half the products of fruits or vegetation would be their share. The Prophet used to give his wives one hundred Wasqs each, eighty Wasqs of dates and twenty Wasqs of barley. (When ‘Umar became the Caliph) he gave the wives of the Prophet the option of either having the land and water as their shares, or carrying on the previous practice. Some of them chose the land and some chose the Wasqs, and ‘Aisha chose the land.(Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 39, Number 521)

Khaybar was split into two parts, one part was taken by force and other parts taken without violence, the part in question here is the one taken by force which is why the wives received a share of the produce from its Khums, this is why wives of Prophet(saw) got a piece of land from it. This also shows that the wives are from Ahlul-Bayt since they also receive from the Khums of the close relatives. The Jews working these lands broke the law, so `Umar kicked them out of it into al-Sham, then he told the Muslims who took part in the battle of Khaybar to follow him as he will divide this now empty land between them, and so all those people on whom the Prophet (saw) usually spent, from the riches of this land, they all received a share of the land like the mothers of believers did, and also all the fighters such as al-Zubayr and `Ali received parts of this land since they fought to conquer it.

It says in the books of Islamic economy or the books of “Amwal” as they are called in Arabic concerning this incident in a long narration:

ثُمَّ كَانَ الَّذِي يَلِيهِ سَهْمُ بَنِي سَاعِدَةَ، ثُمَّ كَانَ الَّذِي يَلِيهِ سَهْمُ بَنِي النَّجَّارِ، ثُمَّ كَانَ الَّذِي يَلِيهِ سَهْمُ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ، رضي الله عنه

[…Then the share of bani Sa`idhah, then the share after that was for bani al-Najjar, then was the share of `Ali ibn abi Talib…]

Not only this, but Umar(ra) gave Ali(ra) some other lands too. We read in Musannaf ibn abi Shaybah a narration with an authentic chain to Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (rah):

حدثنا حفص بن غياث عن جعفر عن أبيه أن عمر أقطع عليا ينبع وأضاف إليها غيرها.

[Hafs bin Ghiyah told us, from Ja`far bin Muhammad al-Sadiq, from his father that `Umar gave away (the land of) Yanbu` to `Ali and then added others(lands) to it.]

Comment: Muhammad al-Baqir(rah) knew better about his grandfather’s life and property.

In Sunan al-Beihaqi al-Kubra we read:

عن جعفر بن محمد ، عن أبيه : أن علي بن أبي طالب قطع له عمر بن الخطاب – رضي الله عنهما – ينبع ، ثم اشترى علي بن أبي طالب – رضي الله عنه – إلى قطيعة عمر – رضي الله عنه – أشياء فحفر فيها عينا ، فبينا هم يعملون فيها إذ تفجر عليهم مثل عنق الجزور من الماء ، فأتي علي وبشر بذلك

[Ja`far bin Muhammad from Muhammad al-baqir that `Umar ibn al-Khattab gave `Ali bin abi Talib – may Allah be pleased with them – the land of Yanbu`, then `Ali bin abi Talib – may Allah be pleased with him – also bought other things on top of it, and he dug a well in it, and while they were digging in it a great amount of water started gushing out from the ground, so `Ali returned and told them the good news.]

From Musannaf `Abdul-Razzaq, in the section about the Will of `Ali (ra):

وصية علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه
حدثنا أبو محمد عبيد بن محمد الكشوري قال : أخبرنا محمد بن يوسف الحذافي قال : أخبرنا عبد الرزاق قال : أخبرنا معمر ، عن أيوب ، أنه أخذ هذا الكتاب من عمرو بن دينار ، هذا ما أقر به وقضى في ماله علي بن أبي طالب : ” تَصَدَّقَ بِيَنْبُعَ ابْتِغَاءَ مَرْضَاةِ اللَّهِ لِيُولِجَنِي الْجَنَّةَ , وَيَصْرِفَ النَّارَ عَنِّي , وَيَصْرِفَنِي عَنِ النَّارِ , فَهِيَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَوَجْهِهِ

[Abu Muhammad `Ubeid bin Muhammad al-Kawshari, he said: Muhammad bin Yusuf al-Huthafi told us: `Abdul-Razzaq told us: Ma`mar told us, from Ayyub, that he took this book from `Amro bin Dinar, this is what `Ali bin abi Talib decided and wrote concerning his wealth: “Offer Yanbu` as Sadaqah, to seek the pleasure of Allah so that he may grant me Jannah, and protect me from fire and keep me away from it, it is in the cause of Allah for his face…]

We read in al bidaya that when Madain was conquered and Sad ibn Waqas sent the spoils and other things to the Muslims at Madinah

ن عمر لما نظر إلى ذلك قال إن قوما أدوا هذا لامناء ، فقال له علي بن أبي طالب: إنك عففت فعفت رعيتك، ولو رتعت لرتعت. ثم قسم عمر ذلك في المسلمين فأصاب عليا قطعة من البساط فباعها بعشرين ألفا
Umar looked at it and said that the nation has sent these things, so Ali ibn Abi Talib said : you treat the nation well so the nation treated you well, and if you had become careless, so the nation would also have become careless. Than Umar distributed it amongst the Muslims and Ali received a piece of carpet which he sold on twenty thousand dirham.[Al bidaya, Vol. 7, p. 67]

Some times Sayyiduna ‘Ali did not personally join the armies on their expeditions, but he duly received his share of the spoils of war. Abu Ubayd has recorded that Sayyiduna ‘Umar fixed Sayyiduna ‘Ali’s share at 5000 dirhams, and gave both his sons Hasan and Husayn a similar share of 5000. (“al-Amwal” p. 237)

When , in the era of Umar, it was decided to pay the nobles of Islam , a certain amount of money/stipend, so as to better their financial situation, we read:

و فرض لأبناء البدريين ألفين ألفين إلا حسنا و حسينا فإنه ألحقهما بفريضة أبهما لقرابتهما برسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم
And two thousand dirham for the sons of the Sahaba who participated in Badr, except Hasan and Hussain, for whom it was equal to their father (i.e five thousand dirham like other sahaba of Badr) because they were close in relation to the Prophet (s)
Tabaqat ibn Sad, Vol. 3, p. 313
Kitabul Khiraj, p. 43
Futuhul Buldan, p. 454

Not only this, even Abubakr(ra) gave gifts to Ahlelbayt.

Abu Bakr gave a maid slave to Ali.
عن أبي جعفر قال أعطى أبو بكر عليا جارية
It has been narrated from Abu Jafar that he said : Abu Bakr gave a maid slave to Ali.
(Musannif, Vol. 3, p. 138)

Another son of Sayyiduna ‘Ali, namely Muhammad, was born to him from a woman from Banu Hanifah who was brought to Madinah as a war captive by Khalid ibn al-Walid after his expedition against her tribe that had turned apostate with Musaylamah. This woman was given to Sayyiduna ‘Ali by Sayyiduna Abu Bakr. (“Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d” vol. 5 p. 67) and this Muhammad is known in history as Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah.

Ali would take share from the war booty that the Muslims would receive, hence the most clear proof of it are his descendants, Umar, Ruqayya, and the more famous one amongst the Shias, Muhammad ibn Hanafiyah. Apart from the slave maid that Ali received as we mentioned above, the mother of Umar ibn Ali and Ruqayya bint Ali is Umm Habib bint Rabiya, and her name is Suhba, she was received as a war captive in the battle against Bani Taghlab.

وعمر الاكبر بن علي ورقية بنت علي وأمهما الصهباء وهي أم حبيب بنت ربيعة بن بجير بن العبد بن علقمة بن الحارث بن عتبة بن سعد بن زهير بن جشم بن بكر بن حبيب بن عمرو بن غنم بن تغلب بن وائل وكانت سبية أصابها خالد بن الوليد حين أغار على بني تغلب بناحية عين التمر
Tabaqat ibn Sad, Vol. 5, p. 86
Nasb Quraish p. 42
Futuhul Buldan, p. 117

It has been mentioned in Shia books also.
عمر الاطرف بن أمير المؤمنين على بن أبى طالب ” ع ” ويكنى أبا القاسم ، قاله الموضح النسابة ، وقال ابن خداع : يكنى أبا حفص . وولد توأما لاخته رقية ، وكان آخر من ولد من بنى على المذكور ، وأمه الصهباء الثعلبية وهى أم حبيب بنت عباد بن ربيعة بن يحيى بن العبد بن علقمة من سبى اليمامة ، وقيل من سبى خالد بن الوليد من عين التمر
Ummadatut Talib, p. 361
Sharh Nahjul Balagha , Ibn Hadeed al Rafidhi, Vol. 2, p. 718

Muhammad ibn Hanafiyah was the son of Khawla bint Jafar bin Qais, who was a war captive, in the battle of Yamama.
Tabqat ibn Sad, Vol. 5, p. 66
Muarif , ibn Qutaiba, p. 91
Tarikh ibn Khalkan, Vol. 1,p. 449

أبى القاسم محمد بن أمير المؤمنين على بن أبى طالب ” ع ” وهو المشهور بابن الحنفية وأمه خولة بنت جعفر بن قيس بن مسلمة بن عبد الله ابن ثعلبة بن يربوع بن ثعلبة بن الدئل بن حنفية بن لجيم ، وهى من سبى أهل الردة
Ummadatut Talib, p. 353

Similarly when some spoils were received in the battle at Haira, Abu Bakr gifted them to Hussain son of Ali.
ووجه إلى أبى بكر بالطيلسان مع مال الحيرة وبالالف درهم. فوهب الطيلسان للحسين بن على رضى الله عنهما
Futuhul Buldan, p. 254

 

Argument 16:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

The rich fortunes for Ayesha did not just end there, we see that Mu’awiya also lavished her with money and gifts.  Ibn Kathir narrates in Al-Bidaya Wa Al-Nihaya. Volume 11 page 443:

And Hisham Ibn Urwa from his father who said: Mu’awiya sent to Aisha the Mother of Believers a hundred thousand dirhams, she spent it in one day, and there remained not even a single Dirham, and one of her servants said to her: I saved you one Dirham for us to buy meat, she said: if you reminded me before I would (have spent it). And Atta said: Mu’awiya sent to Aisha a necklace worth a hundred thousand, when she was in Makka, and she accepted it.

[End Quote]

Answer:

It seems Shiapen in their hatred have lost the ability to see the virtues of mother of believers Ayesha(ra). This report shows the greatness of Ayesha(ra) and her generosity. If asked why was she given that amount, then the answer is that, she might have got it as her share from Khums.

Moreover, Muawiya(ra) even used to give gifts to Ahlelbayt, especially Hassan(ra) and Hussain(ra).

1895 – وأنبأنا ابن ناجية قال : حدثني محمد بن مسكين قال : حدثنا يحيى بن حسان قال : حدثنا سليمان بن بلال ، عن جعفر بن محمد ، عن أبيه ، أن الحسن ، والحسين ، رضي الله عنهما ، كانا يقبلان جوائز معاوية رحمه الله

1895 Hasan and Hussein (r) used to accept the gifts of Muwaiya[Al-Sharee’ah by Al-Ajurri, died in 360 AH]

Ameer Muawiya gifted 3 hundred thousand dirham, 1 thousand clothes , 30 slaves and 100 camels to Imam Hasan. [Ummadatul Qari, p. 283]

After the death of Imam Hasan, Imam Hussain would come every year to Ameer Muawiyah , who would honor him and give him gifts. [Al bidaya , Vol. 7, p. 162]

وكان معاوية يبعث إليه ( أي إلى الحسين ) في كل سنة ألف ألف دينار سوى الهدايا من كل صنف

And he (Muawiya) would send gifts worth 1 hundred thousand dinar each year to him (Imam Hussain).[Shia book Maqtal Abi Makhnaf , p. 7]

Muawiya would send thousands of dirhams each year to Hussain. Aside from that, he would send lots of gifts to him also. [shia book Nasikh ut tawarikh , Vol. 6, p. 78]

Once Muawiya went to Madinah, and distributed 5 thousand to the nobles of Madina.  After them came Imam Hasan, Muawiya gave Hasan an amount equal to the amount he distributed to all the others before Hasan. [Jila ul Ayun , p. 297]

 

Argument 17:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Rasulullah (s) transferred Fadak to his daughter for her financial support, yet this land was illegally taken, and the Leaders objected to returning the inheritance of Rasulullah (s). There is a world of difference between the treatment of Sayyida Fatima (as) and Ayesha. Such was the animosity that Abu Bakr held towards Sayyida Fatima (as) he even ordered a search of her home to ensure that she was not hoarding any money that she had to no right to. Lest Nawasib accuse us of lying, allow us to prevent the evidence from their most esteemed writer Ibn Tamiyah:

وغاية ما يقال إنه كبس البيت لينظر هل فيه شيء من مال الله الذي يقسمه وأن يعطيه لمستحقه

“he broke in the house to see if there was some thing of Allah’s money to distribute it or give it to the who deserved it”
Minhaj al Sunnah, Volume 8 page 291

[End Quote]

Answer:

From the Arabic text Shiapen quoted, it can be seen that, they missed to translate وغاية ما يقال. This means ‘the most that can be said’, hence it signifies Ibn Taymiyyah is replying to the shia argument and this is not his opinion.

When we refer the complete context, we realized that, Shiapen have misquoted Ibn Taymiyyah, and this is the way of the Shiapen. Minhaj al-Sunna is still one of the most devastating refutations of them ever, so they have gone through it with a fine-toothed comb to try and pick at anything they can.

Here is the full quote

فصل قال الرافضي الثامن قول أبي بكر في مرض موته ليتني كنت تركت بيت فاطمة لم أكبسه والرد عليه]
فَصْلٌ
قَالَ الرَّافِضِيُّ (2) : ” الثَّامِنُ: قَوْلُهُ فِي مَرَضِ مَوْتِهِ: لَيْتَنِي كُنْتُ تَرَكْتُ بَيْتَ (3) فَاطِمَةَ لَمْ أَكْبِسْهُ (4) ، وَلَيْتَنِي كُنْتُ فِي ظُلَّةِ بَنِي سَاعِدَةَ ضَرَبْتُ عَلَى يَدِ أَحَدِ (5) الرَّجُلَيْنِ، وَكَانَ هُوَ الْأَمِيرَ، وَكُنْتُ الْوَزِيرَ (6) ; وَهَذَا يَدُلُّ عَلَى إِقْدَامِهِ عَلَى بَيْتِ (7) فَاطِمَةَ عِنْدَ اجْتِمَاعِ أَمِيرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَالزُّبَيْرِ وَغَيْرِهِمَا فِيهِ ” (8) .
وَالْجَوَابُ: أَنَّ الْقَدْحَ لَا يُقْبَلُ حَتَّى يَثْبُتَ اللَّفْظُ بِإِسْنَادٍ صَحِيحٍ، وَيَكُونَ
دَالًّا دَلَالَةً ظَاهِرَةً عَلَى الْقَدْحِ، فَإِذَا انْتَفَتْ إِحْدَاهُمَا انْتَفَى الْقَدْحُ، فَكَيْفَ إِذَا انْتَفَى كُلٌّ مِنْهُمَا؟ ! وَنَحْنُ نَعْلَمُ يَقِينًا أَنَّ أَبَا بَكْرٍ لَمْ يَقْدَمْ عَلَى عَلِيٍّ وَالزُّبَيْرِ بِشَيْءٍ مِنَ الْأَذَى، بَلْ وَلَا عَلَى سَعْدِ بْنِ عُبَادَةَ الْمُتَخَلِّفِ عَنْ بَيْعَتِهِ أَوَّلًا وَآخِرًا.
وَغَايَةُ مَا يُقَالُ: إِنَّهُ كَبَسَ الْبَيْتَ لِيَنْظُرَ هَلْ فِيهِ شَيْءٌ مِنْ مَالِ اللَّهِ الَّذِي يُقَسِّمُهُ، وَأَنْ يُعْطِيَهُ لِمُسْتَحِقِّهِ، ثُمَّ رَأَى أَنَّهُ لَوْ تَرَكَهُ لَهُمْ لَجَازَ ; فَإِنَّهُ يَجُوزُ أَنْ يُعْطِيَهُمْ مِنْ مَالِ الْفَيْءِ.
وَأَمَّا إِقْدَامُهُ عَلَيْهِمْ أَنْفُسِهِمْ بِأَذًى، فَهَذَا مَا وَقَعَ فِيهِ قَطُّ بِاتِّفَاقِ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ وَالدِّينِ، وَإِنَّمَا يَنْقُلُ مِثْلَ (1) هَذَا جُهَّالُ الْكَذَّابِينَ، وَيُصَدِّقُهُ حَمْقَى (2) الْعَالَمِينَ، الَّذِينَ يَقُولُونَ: إِنَّ الصَّحَابَةَ هَدَمُوا بَيْتَ فَاطِمَةَ، وَضَرَبُوا بَطْنَهَا حَتَّى أَسْقَطَتْ.
وَهَذَا كُلُّهُ دَعْوَى مُخْتَلِقٍ، وَإِفْكٌ مُفْتَرًى، بِاتِّفَاقِ أَهْلِ الْإِسْلَامِ، وَلَا يَرُوجُ إِلَّا عَلَى مَنْ هُوَ مِنْ جِنْسِ الْأَنْعَامِ.
وَأَمَّا قَوْلُهُ: ” لَيْتَنِي كُنْتُ ضَرَبْتُ عَلَى يَدِ أَحَدِ الرَّجُلَيْنِ ” فَهَذَا لَمْ يَذْكُرْ لَهُ إِسْنَادًا، وَلَمْ يُبَيِّنْ صِحَّتَهُ، فَإِنْ كَانَ قَالَهُ فَهُوَ يَدُلُّ عَلَى زُهْدِهِ وَوَرَعِهِ وَخَوْفِهِ مِنَ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى

We will summarise as the translation may not clarify what Ibn Taymiyyah is trying to say.

Basically the Rafidhi scholar al-Hilli brought the following narration …..قَوْلُهُ فِي مَرَضِ مَوْتِهِ: لَيْتَنِي كُنْتُ تَرَكْتُ بَيْتَ (3) فَاطِمَةَ لَمْ أَكْبِسْهُ
(Abu Bakr said on his death bed, if only I left the house of Fatimah and barged in…) Now according to the narration Ali and Zubayr (rd) were also in the house.

Now Ibn Taymiyyah answers him that the narration is not authentic at all and no where is it established that Abu Bakr harmed anyone of them. So if we are to assume that what they are saying is authentic(which isn’t) then Abu Bakr broke into the house to see if there was some of Allah’s wealth to distribute it or give it to those who deserved it, but then he realised that if had not entered, it would have been better. Because it is permissible to give them wealth of fai’ (booty). But then Ibn Taymiyyah goes on to explain again that the narration is not authentic and all those incidents the Shia narrate of Abu Bakr kicking the stomach of Fatimah etc.

It is quite clear that Ibn Taymiyyah rejected what was narrated, but only answered to those Shias who think there is some truth in it. So it’s not his view.

 

Argument 18:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

The wives of the Prophet (s) inheriting their apartments from Rasulullah (s) proves that the Hadeeth ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we leave is Sadaqah’ is false

[End Quote]

Answer:

The Shias usually raise argument regarding the houses of the wives of Prophet that wives of Prophet(saw) inherited the houses. It seems Shias don’t know that, even Fatima(ra) did get to keep her house. Obviously neither She(ra) nor Ali(ra) bought it, as they had no money at all. Infact Ali(ra) didn’t have enough dowry for her. Abu Bakr(ra) never took her house away, nor did he take the houses of Prophet’s wives away, Now why is that?

Reply 1:

Muhib ad-Deen at-Tabari states:

The shias hold (opinion) that a Prophet’s property is also inherited and the houses (of the wives) were inherited by the wives of Prophet(saw). This contention is false and even if that was so they would have got only one eight share. Sayidah Fatimah would have got half share while the remaining would have gone to the asbah (relatives on the father’s side). However, we come across no evidence of any of these members having received a share of having waived his or her share, or permission sought from any of the asbah to bury Sayydina Umar (in the house of Aisha), or to enclose the houses in the mosque.

Further it is also baseless to say that the houses didn’t belong to prophet’s (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) wives but they only had the right to stay there. We do know that Sayyidah Sawdah had left her house for Sayydidah Aisha and Sayyidah Safiyah’s house was sold by her heirs. Sayyidah Aisha had also sold her house with the stipulation that she would reside there as long as she was alive.

Most of the scholars contend that the houses belonged to the wives of the prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) and they had not inherited them. (”as-Samtu Thamin fi manaqib Ummahat al-Muminin” (p 27), by Muhib ad-Deen at-Tabari).

[Note: Even though Sayyidah Safiyah’s(ra) property was NOT inherited by her heirs, because they were non-muslim, but she sold her property and bequest a portion of her property to her brother, who was a non-muslim, and this is acceptable as per Islamic Shariah.

Mother of the Believers Safiyyah bint Huyayy made a bequest to some of her Jewish relatives. Ibn Qudaamah said in Al-Mughni: “The bequest of a Muslim to a non-believing beneficiary of the Islamic protection (Dhimmah)…. The permissibility of the bequest of a Muslim to a non-believing beneficiary of the Islamic protection (Dhimmah) was reported from Shurayh, Ash-Sha‘bi, Ath-Thawri, Ash-Shaafi‘i, Is-haaq and the scholars of the Hanafi School; we do not know of any difference of opinion from other scholars. Muhammad ibn Al-Hanafiyyah, ‘Ataa’ and Qutaadah said about the words of Allaah (which mean): {…except that you may do to your close associates a kindness [through bequest].} [Quran 33:6] – they said: it is the bequest of a Muslim to a Jew or a Christian. Sa‘eed said: ‘Sufyaan from Ayyoob from ‘Ikrimah reported to us that Safiyyah bint Huyayy sold her chambers to Mu‘aawiyah for 100,000 and she had a Jewish brother, so she invited him to Islam so that he would inherit from her but he refused, so she made a bequest to him of a third of the 100,000. [End of quote]].

Prophet (saw) and his wives were all emigrants, they were not residents of Madinah, so when he (saw) came and resided there, he built for his wives and his daughters houses, those houses were for them, it was their property, this is why they weren’t counted as inheritance, as one cannot inherit his/her own property. In other words he gave each of them a house to live in. This is even proven from Quran. Since Allah said to wives of Prophet(Saw) in Surah Ahzab verse 32-33:{“O wives of the Prophet ! You are not like any other women. If you keep you have Taqwa, then be not soft in speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease should be moved with desire, but speak in an honorable manner. And stay in your houses, and do not Tabarruj yourselves like the Tabarruj of the times of ignorance..} ; Allah didn’t say to wives of Prophet(Saw), stay in the houses of Prophet(Saw). This poves that the houses of wives of Prophet(Saw) were their own houses.

Reply 2:              

The Prophet (saw) said in the narration, “My heirs will not inherit a dinar or a Dirham (i.e. money), for whatever I leave excluding the adequate support of my wives(Nafaqah) and the wages of my employees (All else) is given in charity.” (Sahih al bukhari Book #51, Hadith #37)

So it can be said that Prophet’s wives had no one to spend on them after his(saw) death since they cannot remarry, and so the houses they got to keep during their lives as a part of their Nafaqah.

Any of the above response is sufficient to answer the question of the houses of wives of Prophet, so Shias can pick whichever they like or take both.

 

Argument 19:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

The three Khaleefa’s inheriting the ring of the Prophet is proof that the Hadeeth ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we leave is Sadaqah’ is false

We read in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 767:

Narrated Anas:
that when Abu Bakr became the Caliph, he wrote a letter to him (andstamped it with the Prophet’s ring) and the engraving of the ring wasin three lines: Muhammad in one line, ‘Apostle’ in another line, and’Allah’ in a third line. Anas added: ‘the ring of the Prophetwas in his hand, and after him, in Abu Bakr’s hand, and then in’Umar’s hand after Abu Bakr. When Uthman was the Caliph, once he wassitting at the well of Aris. He removed the ring from his hand andwhile he was trifling with it, dropped into the well. We kept on goingto the well with Uthman for three days looking for the ring, andfinally the well was drained, but the ring was not found.

[End Quote]

Reply 1:

Shiapen thinks it has found some valuable piece of information, it says the Prophet’s (saw) ring was inherited by the three Caliphs after him.

They’re mainly talking about the Prophet’s (saw) seal, which he got made in order to use for official documents and state related matters.

First of all, Shiapen just used the term “inherited” metaphorically, as Abu Bakr isn’t a son of Rasul-Allah (saw) so he may inherit him; rather inheritance means to transfer this ring from one political leader to his successor after his death, without applying the rules of inheritance on it. The Prophet’s (saw) money and lands were dedicated for charity, his money was distributed before his death while his lands were used to feed Muslims after his death and some say they were given to Muslims before his death all by his orders.

All of these objects like the ring or shoes or turban, are not inherited, rather preserved by the Khalifah for later generations so all Muslims can benefit from their blessings and rejoice by looking at them.

Notice that Abu Bakr never gave the ring to his children, he handed it to the leader after him so it may be used in the affairs of the Muslims as it was used in the time of Rasul-Allah (saw), which implies that it wasn’t inherited in a literal way.

Reply 2:

As per Shia Fiqh attaining a ring, sword and other related items is due to a general law namely Habwa. And we find that the general rules of inheritance are not applied to these things.

Let us cite a Shia Scholar who explains the concept of Habwa from Minhaj al-Salihin by Sayyed Khoei, Volume 2 page 412:

يحبى الولد الذكر الأكبر وجوبا مجانا بثياب بدن الميت وخاتمه وسيفه ومصحفه

The elder son is given the Habwa for free that is the cloth, the ring, the sword and the Quran of the dead.

 

Argument 20:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Ayesha inheriting the garments of Rasulullah (s) proves that the Hadeeth ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we leave is Sadaqah’ is false

We read in the English Translation of Sahih Muslim, Book 24, under the Chapter The Book Pertaining to Clothes and Decoration (Kitab Al-Libas wa’l-Zinah) Book 024, Number 5149 as follows:

Abdullah. the freed slave of Asma’ (the daughter of Abu Bakr). the maternal uncle of the son of ‘Ata, reported: Asma’ sent me to ‘Abdullah b. ‘Umar saying: The news has reached me that you prohibit the use of three things: the striped robe. saddle cloth made of red silk. and the fasting in the holy month of Rajab. ‘Abdullah said to me: So far as what you say about fasting in the month of Rajab, how about one who observes continuous fasting? -and so far as what you say about the striped garment, I heard Umar b. Khatab say that he had heard from Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him): He who wears silk garment has no share for him (in the Hereafter), and I am afraid it may not be that striped garment; and so far as the red saddle cloth is concerned that is the saddle cloth of Abdullah and it is red. I went back to Asma’ and informed her whereupon she said: Here is the cloak of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and she brought out to me that cloak made of Persian cloth with a hem of brocade, and its sleeves bordered with brocade and said: This was Allah’s Messenger’s cloak with ‘A’isha until she died, and when she died. I got possession of it. The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) used to wear that, and we washed it for the sick and sought cure thereby.

We also read in the same chapter of Sahih Muslim Book 024, Number 5181:

Abu Burda reported: I visited A’isha and she brought out for us the coarse lower garment (of Allah’s Messenger) made in Yemen and clothes made out of Mulabbada cloth, and she swore in the name of Allah that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) died in these two clothes.

[End Quote]

Answer:

The prophet’s (saw) wealth from money and lands were all spent in charity after his passing, but what of his clothes? Clothes won’t bring much price especially old worn out clothes since Rasul-Allah (saw) never dressed himself in anything fancy or expensive nor would he buy new clothes except rarely.

Shiapen would like us to believe they were inherited, they quote two reports. However the fact is that, `A’ishah herself used to make clothing and give to the Prophet (saw) as mentioned in “Akhlaq al-Nabi” by al-Asbahani:

حَدَّثَنَا عَبَّاسُ بْنُ مُجَاشِعٍ، نَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ أَبِي يَعْقُوبَ، نَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ كَثِيرٍ، نَا هَمَّامٌ، عَنْ قَتَادَةَ، عَنْ مُطَرِّفٍ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهَا، أَنَّهَا قَالَتْ: ” صَنَعْتُ لِرَسُولُ اللَّهِ بُرْدَةً سَوْدَاءَ مِنْ صُوفٍ، فَلَبِسَهَا

[`A’ishah said: I made for the messenger of Allah (saw) a black shawl made from wool, so he wore it.]

Notice that in the first narration she never said: “inherited”, she only said: “was with `A’ishah” nor did the second mention inheritance. This is because it wasn’t inheritance, the Prophet’s (saw) clothing today is kept in a museum but back then there was no such thing, so his clothes would be kept with whoever is alive from the trusted people who were close to him, this includes his family, wives and servants.

Other members of his household also took care of a couple of his possessions, `Amir al-Sha`bi reported that `Ali Zayn al-`Abideen had the Prophet’s (saw) shield:

نَا أَحْمَدُ، نَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ، نَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ، نَا وَكِيعٌ، نَا إِسْرَائِيلُ، عَنْ جَابِرٍ، عَنْ عَامِرٍ، قَالَ: ” أَخْرَجَ لَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ الْحُسَيْنِ دِرْعَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ فَإِذَا هِيَ يَمَانِيَةٌ، رَقِيقَةٌ، ذَاتُ زَرَافِينَ، فَإِذَا عُلِّقَتْ بِزَرَافِينِهَا شَمَّرَتْ، وَإِذَا أُرْسِلَتْ مَسَّتِ الأَرْضَ

Also it is authentically narrated from his son Muhammad bin `Ali that, he took care of it after his father:

حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ، نَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ، نَا ابْنُ أَبِي أُوَيْسٍ، حَدَّثَنِي سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ بِلالٍ، عَنْ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، قَالَ: كَانَتْ فِي دِرْعِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ حَلْقَتَانِ مِنْ فِضَّةٍ عِنْدَ مَوْضِعِ الثَّنِيِّ وَفِي ظَهْرِهِ حَلْقَتَانِ أَيْضًا، وَقَالَ: لَبِستَهَا فَخَطَبَتِ الأَرْضَ

[Sulayman bin Bilal from Ja`far from his father: There were two rings of silver in the Prophet’s (saw) near the front and two on his back, I wore it and so it dropped to the floor.]

As for the narration of Zayn al-`Abideen keeping the messenger’s (saw) sword, it can’t be included as Dhul-Fiqar was a gift from him (saw) to `Ali, not counted as inheritance.

Moreover, as per Shia Fiqh attaining a ring, sword and other related items is due to a general law namely Habwa.

Let us cite a Shia Scholar who explains the concept of Habwa from Minhaj al-Salihin by Sayyed Khoei, Volume 2 page 412:

يحبى الولد الذكر الأكبر وجوبا مجانا بثياب بدن الميت وخاتمه وسيفه ومصحفه

The elder son is given the Habwa for free that is the cloth, the ring, the sword and the Quran of the dead.

Comment: Therefore, we find that the general rules of inheritance are not applied to these things.

To make it clearer and to show relics of Prophet(saw) weren’t inheritance we quote:

أَخْرَجَ إِلَيْنَا أَنَسٌ نَعْلَيْنِ جَرْدَاوَيْنِ لَهُمَا قِبَالاَنِ، فَحَدَّثَنِي ثَابِتٌ الْبُنَانِيُّ بَعْدُ عَنْ أَنَسٍ أَنَّهُمَا نَعْلاَ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم

[`Isa bin Tahman said: Anas brought out to us two worn out leather shoes without hair and with pieces of leather straps. Later on Thabit al-Banani told me that Anas said that they were the shoes of the Prophet.]

And:

رَأَيْتُ قَدَحَ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم عِنْدَ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ، وَكَانَ قَدِ انْصَدَعَ فَسَلْسَلَهُ بِفِضَّةٍ قَالَ وَهْوَ قَدَحٌ جَيِّدٌ عَرِيضٌ مِنْ نُضَارٍ‏.‏ قَالَ قَالَ أَنَسٌ لَقَدْ سَقَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فِي هَذَا الْقَدَحِ أَكْثَرَ مِنْ كَذَا وَكَذَا‏.‏ قَالَ وَقَالَ ابْنُ سِيرِينَ إِنَّهُ كَانَ فِيهِ حَلْقَةٌ مِنْ حَدِيدٍ فَأَرَادَ أَنَسٌ أَنْ يَجْعَلَ مَكَانَهَا حَلْقَةً مِنْ ذَهَبٍ أَوْ فِضَّةٍ فَقَالَ لَهُ أَبُو طَلْحَةَ لاَ تُغَيِّرَنَّ شَيْئًا صَنَعَهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَتَرَكَهُ

[`Asim al-Ahwal said: I saw the drinking bowl of the Prophet with Anas bin Malik, and it had been broken, and he had mended it with silver plates. That drinking bowl was quite wide and made of Nadar wood, Anas said, “I gave water to the Prophet in that bowl more than so-and-so (for a long period).” Ibn Sireen said: Around that bowl there was an iron ring, and Anas wanted to replace it with a silver or gold ring, but Abu Talha said to him, “Do not change a thing that Allah’s Apostle has made.” So Anas left it as it was.]

Question, did Anas the servant of Rasul-Allah (saw) inherit him? Although he served him for about ten years, a mere servant can in no way inherit, what is to be understood is that they preserved the prophet’s (saw) clothes not inherited them.

The relics which Prophet (saw) left behind were preserved, we read in an authentic narration by Ahmad that `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz during his Khilafah, had an entire house full of the prophet’s (saw) possessions:

حَدَّثَنَا هِشَامُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ مُهَاجِرٍ، حَدَّثَنِي أَخِي عَمْرُو بْنُ مُهَاجِرٍ قَالَ: كَانَ لِعُمَرَ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ بَيْتٌ يَخْلُو فِيهِ، فِي ذَلِكَ الْبَيْتِ مَا تَرَكَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ؛ فَإِذَا سَرِيرٌ مَرْمُولٌ بِشَرِيطٍ، وَقَعْبٌ يُشْرَبُ فِيهِ الْمَاءُ، وَجَرَّةٌ مَكْسُورَةُ الرَّأْسِ يُجْعَلُ فِيهَا الشَّيْءُ، وَوِسَادَةٌ مِنْ أَدَمٍ مَحْشُوَّةٌ بِلِيفٍ، وَقَطِيفَةٌ غَبْرَاءُ كَأَنَّهَا مِنْ هَذِهِ الْقُطُفِ الْجُرْمُقَانِيَّةِ ؛ فِيهَا مِنْ وَسَخِ شَعْرِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ، ثُمَّ يَقُولُ: ” يَا قُرَيْشُ، هَذَا تُرَاثُ مَنْ أَكْرَمَكُمُ اللَّهُ بِهِ وَأَعَزَّكُمْ، يَخْرُجُ مِنَ الدُّنْيَا عَلَى مَا تَرَوْنَ

[`Amro bin Mouhajir told me: `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz had a house which he would spend time in alone, in that house were what the messenger (saw) left behind (…then he lists a couple of objects like a broken jug…) `Umar would tell Quraysh: “This is the man whom Allah honored you and blessed you with, he leaves the world as you see (in poverty).]

Abu al-Shaykh al-Asbahani reports similarly through another chain listing a couple of various objects that were in the room such as his drinking bowl or his leather cushion filled with fibre of date-palms and others.

حَدَّثَنَا حَسَنُ بْنِ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، نَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْوَهَّابِ، نَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ الْحَسَنِ الْعَسْقَلانِيُّ، نَا يَحْيَى بْنُ حَسَّانَ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ مُهَاجِرٍ، قَالَ: ” كَانَ مَتَاعُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ عِنْدَ عُمَرَ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ، فِي بَيْتٍ يُنْظَرُ إِلَيْهِ كُلَّ يَوْمٍ قَالَ: وَكَانَ رُبَّمَا اجْتَمَعَتْ إِلَيْهِ قُرَيْشٌ، فَأَدْخَلَهُمْ فِي ذَلِكَ الْبَيْتِ ثُمَّ، اسْتَقْبَلَ ذَلِكَ الْمَتَاعَ، فَيَقُولُ: هَذَا مِيرَاثُ مَنْ أَكْرَمَكُمُ اللَّهُ بِهِ، وَأَعَزَّكُمُ اللَّهُ بِهِ، قَالَ: وَكَانَ سَرِيرًا مَرْمُولا بِشَرِيطٍ، وَمِرْفَقَةٌ مِنْ أَدَمٍ مَحْشُوَّةٌ بِلِيفٍ، وَجَفْنَةٌ، وَقَدَحٌ، وَقَطِيفَةُ صُوفٍ، كَأَنَّهَا جُرْمُقَانِيَّةٌ قَالَ: وَرَحًى وَكِنَانَةٌ فِيهَا أَسْهُمٌ، وَكَانَ فِي الْقَطِيفَةِ أَثَرُ وَسَخِ رَأْسِهِ، فَأُصِيبَ رَجُلٌ، فَطَلَبُوا أَنْ يَغْسِلُوا بَعْضَ ذَلِكَ الْوَسَخِ، فَيُسْعَطَ بِهِ، فَذُكِرَ ذَلِكَ لِعُمَرَ، فَسُعِطَ فَبَرَأَ

[Muhammad bin Mouhajir told me: The belongings of the messenger of Allah (saw) were with `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz in a house that he visits daily, and when Quraysh would come he’d let them enter that house and look at them then say (…similar to the above then he’d list some of the objects in the house…)]

The clothes of the Prophet (saw) were even fixed by some of the Khulafa’ and they wore them as he did, we read in a narration from the book “Akhlaq-ul-Nabi”:

أَخْبَرَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ أَبَانَ، حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ إِسْحَاقَ، حَدَّثَنَا مُعَاذُ بْنُ أَسَدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ الْمُبَارَكِ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ لَهِيعَةَ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ نَوْفَلٍ، أَنَّهُ حَدَّثَهُ عَنْ عُرْوَةَ بْنِ الزُّبَيْرِ، ” أَنَّ ثَوْبَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ الَّذِي كَانَ يَخْرُجُ فِيهِ إِلَى الْوَفْدِ ثَوْبٌ أَخْضَرُ طُولُهُ أَرْبَعَةُ أَذْرُعٍ، وَعَرْضُهُ ذِرَاعَانِ وَشِبْرٌ، فَهُوَ عِنْدَ الْخُلَفَاءِ قَدْ خَلُقَ، فَبَطَّنُوهُ بِثَوْبٍ يَلْبَسُونَهُ يَوْمَ الْفِطْرِ وَالأَضْحَى

[`Urwah said: The clothes that Rasul-Allah (saw) used to meet the delegations with were green and four cubits in length, their width was two cubits and a little more, it is now with the Caliphs they fixed it up and wear it on the days of `Eid.]

Also in the authentic narration, his (saw) spear was treated the same:

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدَانُ، نَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ، نَا أَبُو خَالِدٍ، عَنْ عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُمَرَ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ، أَن ّالنَّبِيَّ ” كَانَ يُرْكَزُ لَهُ الْحَرْبَةُ، فَتُوضَعُ بَيْنَ يُدَيْهِ، فَيُصَلِّي إِلَيْهَا، وَالنَّاسُ وَرَاءَهُ، وَكَانَ يَفْعَلُ ذَلِكَ فِي السَّفَرِ فَمِنْ ثَمَّ اتَّخَذَهَا الأُمَرَاءُ

[Ibn `Umar said: The Prophet (saw) had a spear and it would be set in the ground in front of him so that he may hold on to it when leading the prayer, this was done during travel then later on the chiefs of the Muslims used it for that same purpose.]

If one asks, why weren’t they sold and given as Sadaqah? We’re sure the Muslims at the time all agreed to preserve them, this way they remain for the entire nation and future generations; none of them had the heart to sell whatever remained from Rasul-Allah’s (saw) clothes or possessions as they held too much value in everyone’s eyes, even the lands he left behind (saw) were always watered and maintained by his successors.

Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq would not go around taking the prophet’s (saw) clothes, his shoes or his turban, he allowed his wives, relatives and servants to keep these things in their possession but they were not to claim ownership of them depriving the nation from their blessing nor were they inherited under the legal Islamic laws. Later Caliphs collected such relics from his family members and close ones so as to not lose track of them and preserve them from loss or damage.

We can also give many secondary legitimate explanations to the above other than the ones we already offered, we can say the Imam of the Muslims sold the Prophet’s (saw) armor to `Ali and `Abbas or he may have granted it to them and in return they’d drop a part of their share from a military conquest, taking its price and offering it as Sadaqah to the believers, in this way they would have bought it and not inherited it, and the price would be spent in charity as instructed. It could also be that the Imam offered them some of the Prophet’s (saw) possessions as a part of their share from the spoils of war, so if he saw that they were in need of clothes he would offer them the clothes of the Prophet (saw) instead of other clothes, this way they are not inherited but received as part of their share as near relatives. It could also be that some possessions ended up with some poor folks or beggars, then the Imam offered a large sum to buy it from them and later gifted it to `Ali and `Abbas as a gift not as inheritance and the household often received gifts. It could also be that some of the Prophet’s (saw) possessions were of no value such as a cup or shoe or stick nor would the nation be able to benefit from them since they fetch no price, so the Imam and the Muslims agreed to grant these objects to the household out of love for them and to honor them.

 

Argument 21:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Ayesha’s inheriting land from Rasulullah (s) is proof that the Hadeeth ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we leave is Sadaqah’ is false

We read in the English Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 23: Chapter Funerals (Al-Janaa’iz) Volume 2, Book 23, Number 475:

Narrated ‘Amr bin Maimun Al-Audi:
I saw ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab (when he was stabbed) saying, “O ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar! Go to the mother of the believers Ayesha and say, ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab sends his greetings to you,’ and request her to allow me to be buried with my companions.” (So, Ibn ‘Umar conveyed the message to ‘Ayesha.) She said, “I had the idea of having this place for myself but today I prefer him (‘Umar) to myself (and allow him to be buried there).” When ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar returned, ‘Umar asked him, “What (news) do you have?” He replied, “O chief of the believers! She has allowed you (to be buried there).” On that ‘Umar said, “Nothing was more important to me than to be buried in that (sacred) place. So, when I expire, carry me there and pay my greetings to her (‘Ayesha ) and say, ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab asks permission; and if she gives permission, then bury me (there) and if she does not, then take me to the grave-yard of the Muslims.

To understand the significance of this tradition one needs to be aware that when someone dies under Sunni and Shi’a Fiqh the deceased can be buried in three places:

  1. His ancestral graveyard
  2. A Muslim graveyard
  3. Land belonging to somebody else.

For the first two options, no express permission is required BUT the third option requires the express permission of the owners of that Land. Now let us consider the facts in this tradition:

  • Umar is stabbed
  • He asks the express permission of Ayesha to be buried with Abu Bakr and Rasulullah (s)
  • Ayesha said that she had reserved this plot for herself, but would allow Umar to be buried there.

Umar would not need to have asked for permission to be buried in the Muslim graveyard, and he also acknowledges this, stating if Ayesha rejects his request ‘then take me to the grave-yard of the Muslims’. The Hadith that Abu Bakr cited would mean that all that the Prophet owned became Sadaqah for the poor, so why did Umar not seek the permission of the Muslims, after all he was essentially going to be buried on land that they owned?

The fact that Umar asked for the express permission of Ayesha proves that this plot belonged to her, and she admits this saying ‘I had the idea of having this place for myself’. According to Ahl’ul Sunnah, Rasulullah (s) was buried at the very place where he died and this was in the house of Ayesha which belonged to Rasulullah (s). Rasulullah (s) was not buried in the Muslims graveyard he was buried in his own land. Ayesha had reserved her burial place next to Rasulullah (s), and this could ‘only’ have been done if she had inherited this space from Rasulullah (s). If she was not the inheritor (owner) of this plot then why did Umar seek her permission to be buried there? This was land that was privately owned and it was distinct from the Muslim graveyard which is why he turned to Ayesha, Waris of that land to seek permission to be buried there. If Prophets leave no inheritance then why did Ayesha inherit this plot of land from Rasulullah (s)?

[End Quote]

Answer:

This argument of Shiapen is based on utter ignorance.

Firstly, the house in which Ayesha(ra) lived was her own house, from the time of Prophet(saw). So she didn’t inherit this house from Prophet(saw). This is the reason Umar(ra) sought permission from her, for his burial.

Muhib ad-Deen at-Tabari refutes the Shia argument stating:

The shias hold (opinion) that a Prophet’s property is also inherited and the houses (of the wives) were inherited by the wives of Prophet(saw). This contention is false and even if that was so they would have got only one eight share. Sayidah Fatimah would have got half share while the remaining would have gone to the asbah (relatives on the father’s side). However, we come across no evidence of any of these members having received a share of having waived his or her share, or permission sought from any of the asbah to bury Sayydina Umar (in the house of Aisha), or to enclose the houses in the mosque.

Further it is also baseless to say that the houses didn’t belong to prophet’s(saw) wives but they only had the right to stay there. We do know that Sayyidah Sawdah had left her house for Sayydidah Aisha and Sayyidah Safiyah’s house was sold by her heirs. Sayyidah Aisha had also sold her house with the stipulation that she would reside there as long as she was alive.

Most of the scholars contend that the houses belonged to the wives of the prophet(saw) and they had not inherited them. (”as-Samtu Thamin fi manaqib Ummahat al-Muminin” (p 27), by Muhib ad-Deen at-Tabari)

Secondly, regarding the argument that why Umar(ra) didn’t sought permission from Muslims to be buried in a Muslim graveyard, then the Shias should know that graveyards or mosques are waqf for Muslims, a Muslim don’t need to take permission from the rest of Muslims, for his burial. This is the reason Fatima(ra) didn’t demand the share of inheritance from the land of Jannatul Baqi. Thirdly the answer to this foolish argument is in the same quote from shiapen, which says that it isn’t necessary to ask permission to be buried in Muslim graveyard, if Shiapen continues riding their horses of stupidity then their next claim might be that, did Muslims took permission from poor Muslims before entering the mosque of Prophet(saw).

Moreover, the hadeeth which Shias are using doesn’t mean that the poor Muslims would become the owners of land, this is incorrect understanding of Shias, but rather it means that the needy Muslims were entitled to be helped or supported from it(i.e. its produce) and that that responsibility was on successor of Prophet(saw).

 

Argument 22:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Umar giving Ayesha possession of the very same land that Abu Bakr denied Sayyida Fatima (as) is proof that the Hadith ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we leave is Sadaqah’ is false

Anyhow what is even more extremely surprising is that Hadhrat Ayesha who silenced the other wives of the Holy Prophet [saww] by addressing them that they are not entitled to inheritance herself gets a better deal!

It is narrated in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 39, Number 521:

The Prophet concluded a contract with the people of Khaibar to utilize the land on the condition that half the products of fruits or vegetation would be their share. The Prophet used to give his wives one hundred Wasqs each, eighty Wasqs of dates and twenty Wasqs of barley. (When ‘Umar became the Caliph) he gave the wives of the Prophet the option of either having the land and water as their shares, or carrying on the previous practice. Some of them chose the land and some chose the Wasqs, and ‘Aisha chose the land.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Al-Hafid Abi Bakar al-Haythami records: Amir bin Abdulrahman bin Nestas reported about Khaybar and said: ‘The Messenger (s) of Allah (swt)’s conquest (Khaybar) and everything in it like palm trees and farms became his (s) possession, the Holy Prophet (pbuh) and His companions didn’t work for it, He (pbuh) entered into an agreement with the Jews, that the Jews work on the farms and share with the Muslims the crop as much as there is Bada by Allah and by His Messenger (pbuh). That was when the Messenger of Allah sent ibn Rawaha for dividing the crop amongst them, and when he gave them the choice, they (Jews) chose the dates. Khaybar remained a residency of the Jews according to their agreement with the Holy Prophet (pbuh) until the reign of Umar, when he(Umar) expelled them (the Jews). The Jews said: ‘Didn’t the prophet (pbuh) make an agreement with us on such and such?’ (Umar) said: ‘Yes, but on what was bada by Allah and his Messenger but now its bada to me to relegate you.’ Then Umar expelled them and divided the land amongst those Muslims who participated in the conquest. Then he (Umar) said: ‘Now the people here are Muslims, Jews will no longer reside here. Verily the agreement of the Messenger of Allah was about cropping to count the “zakat” before the crop was eaten’.[Majma al Zawaid, Volume 4 Hadith 6604]

This was a land taken by force, so it’s spoils were to be divided among the fighters but Rasul-Allah (saw) took their permission and allowed the Jews to remain and work it and that these same fighters would get from the produce, each an amount that he (saw) sees fit. The wives of the Prophet (saw) were fed from the Khums of this land, they’d receive a certain amount of food yearly that would last them until the end of the year.

This was as far as spoils of war, but as far as the land itself it isn’t a “spoil of war”, it has a different ruling, the land is to be used the way the leader sees fit. He can divide it as the Khums is divided, or he can keep its original people in it and strike a deal with them or he can make it a Waqf for later Muslim generations. Concerning these parts of Khaybar which had these Jews, Umar kicked them out of it based on a prophetic Hadith and because they attacked the Muslims and broke their peace. He then told anyone who participated in conquering those lands to head over there and that he shall divide it among them based on their shares, so he gave lands to every one of them including al-Zubayr and `Ali and the rest. As for the wives who were being fed from the Khums, he knew that they may not be able to handle a large land, so he gave them a choice of still being fed the same amount as before or to take from the land what is estimated to be equal to their share of Khums. MEANING, everyone received from this land, the Muslims and Ahlul-Bayt including the wives.

The Shia argument is, “Why did Fatimah not inherit but `A’ishah inherited?”

Answer: ” This land was not inherited, Khaybar was split into two parts, one part was taken by force and other parts taken without violence, the part in question here is the one taken by force which is why the wives received from its Khums according to the narrations, this also shows that the wives are from Ahlul-Bayt since they also receive from the Khums of the close relatives. As for Fatima(ra) , then she wasn’t alive by this time.

It says in the books of Islamic economy or the books of “Amwal” as they are called in Arabic concerning this incident in a long narration:

ثُمَّ كَانَ الَّذِي يَلِيهِ سَهْمُ بَنِي سَاعِدَةَ، ثُمَّ كَانَ الَّذِي يَلِيهِ سَهْمُ بَنِي النَّجَّارِ، ثُمَّ كَانَ الَّذِي يَلِيهِ سَهْمُ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ، رضي الله عنه

[…Then the share of bani Sa`idhah, then the share after that was for bani al-Najjar, then was the share of `Ali ibn abi Talib…]

It lists the names of the men and tribes who received parts of this land as it was divided.

To conclude, this is not an inheritance to begin with, and Fatimah (ra) wasn’t alive at the time, but her husband `Ali received his rightful share from it.

Thus this hadeeth is not about wives of Prophet(saw) receiving inheritance.

Moreover, we find in authentic narrations that Ayesha(ra) informed other wives of Prophet(Saw) that the property of Prophets can’t be inherited. Sahi buikhari 5.367: 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.

Comment: It would be a silly assumption to make that Ayesha(ra) later accepted inheritance of Prophet(saw) and allowed even the other wives of Prophet(saw) to  accept inheritance, and they didn’t even question about the previous view of Ayesha(ra). Thus this argument of Shias is baseless and invalid.

 

Argument 23:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Umar’s giving Rasulullah’s property in Madina to Maula ‘Ali and Abbas is proof that the Hadeeth ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we leave is Sadaqah’ is false.

We read in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325 with regards to the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as):

Narrated ‘Ayesha: (mother of the believers) After the death of Allah ‘s Apostle Fatima the daughter of Allah’s Apostle asked Abu Bakr As-Siddiq to give her, her share of inheritance from what Allah’s Apostle had left of the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) which Allah had given him. Abu Bakr said to her, “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity).” Fatima, the daughter of Allah’s Apostle got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude till she died. Fatima remained alive for six months after the death of Allah’s Apostle.

She used to ask Abu Bakr for her share from the property of Allah’s Apostle which he left at Khaibar, and Fadak, and his property at Medina (devoted for charity). Abu Bakr refused to give her that property and said, “I will not leave anything Allah’s Apostle used to do, because I am afraid that if I left something from the Prophet’s tradition, then I would go astray.” (Later on) Umar gave the Prophet’s property (of Sadaqa) at Medina to ‘Ali and ‘Abbas, but he withheld the properties of Khaibar and Fadak in his custody and said, “These two properties are the Sadaqa which Allah’s Apostle used to use for his expenditures and urgent needs. Now their management is to be entrusted to the ruler.” (Az-Zuhrl said, “They have been managed in this way till today.”)

  1. If the Hadeeth (Prophets leave no inheritance) was true why did Umar violate the actions of Rasulullah (s) and hand this property of Rasulullah (s) over to ‘Ali and Abbas?
  2. If Imam ‘Ali and Abbas weren’t entitled to this property (due to the Hadeeth) why did they accept it?
  3. Abu Bakr said that all that the Prophet leaves becomes Sadaqa upon his death. The tradition says ‘Umar gave the Prophet’s property (of Sadaqa) at Medina to ‘Ali and ‘Abbas’ If this is true, how could ‘Ali (as) and Abbas accept this property when Sadaqa is haraam on the family of ‘Ali (as) and Abbas (ra)? Were Umar, ‘Ali (as) and Abbas ignorant of the ruling?

[End Quote]

Answer: 

This is a misunderstanding of the Shias, Umar(ra) allowed Ali(ra) and abbas(ra) to take control of charitable endowments at Madinah as “trustees”–not as “inheritors.” As trustees, Ali(ra) and Abbas(ra) would be responsible for dealing out the charity funds. As such, the two would be continuing in the steps of the Prophet(saw), Abu Bakr(ra) and Umar(ra), all of whom were trustees who distributed the revenue from charitable endowments.

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

So, neither did Umar(ra) give anything to them as inheritance or Sadaqa nor did he violate the Sunnah, Umar(ra) just gave them control of charitable endowments at Madinah as “trustees”–not as “inheritors.

Even Umar(ra) refused to give any other judgment and told them to return it if they’re unable to manage it.

He said:

فَإِنْ عَجَزْتُمَا عَنْهُ فَادْفَعَا إِلَيَّ فَأَنَا أَكْفِيكُمَاهُ

[If you are unable to run this land, then return it to me and I shall save you the effort.]

 

Argument 24:

[Quote]

Some Shias might argue that why didn’t Abubakr(ra) entrust the property to Fatima(ra), like Umar(ra) entrusted it to Ali(ra) and Abbas(ra) on the condition that both of them will use it in the same way as the Messenger of Allah (saw) used it. Why wasn’t Fatima(ra) given such option by Abubakr(ra)?

[End Quote]

Answer:

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

 

Argument 25:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Rasulullah (s) opened a thousand doors of knowledge for Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) who remained ignorant of the Hadeeth ‘whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah’

As evidence we shall rely on Tafseer Kabeer Volume 2 page 233 ‘In Ali Safathi’ Adam wa Nuh’

Hadhrat Ali said ‘Rasulullah (s) taught me one thousand doors of knowledge, and every door contained another thousand doors of knowledge’ proves that it is false

[End Quote]

Answer:

Regarding the narration of 1000 doors of knowledge, then that Hadith is a fabrication (“Silsila ad-daeefa” 4545, 6627). Narrator Ibn Lahi`ah, that’s famous Abdullah ibn Lahi`ah. The Scholars of jarh wa tadil agreed that he was weak narrator. He was weak, and couldn’t be relied upon, before his books burned, and after that, as said Imaam Yahya ibn Maeen. (“Mizanul itidal” 2/475/#4530).

Imaam Abdullah ibn Ahmad narrated in his “Sunnan” (#1265) from Amr ibn Wasila, that Ali was asked: “Tell us something, that prophet(saw) said your in secret”. He answered: “Messenger of Allah didn’t tell me anything in secret, that he concealed from people”.

Also in “Najhul-balagha” (sermon 163) it was narrated that Ali said to Uthman: “I know nothing which you do not know, nor can I lead you to any matter of which you are not aware. You certainly know what we know, we have not come to know anything before you which we could tell you; nor did we learn anything in secret which we should convey to you”.

 

Argument 26:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Recognised Sunni scholars have recorded the following:

‘Umar ibn al Khattab used to seek refuge with Allah from every difficult question or case for which there is no Abu Hasan in which he was not present.
1. Tareekh’ul Khulafa by al Hafidh Jalaladeen Suyuti page 178;
2. al-Isti’ab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, v3, page 39;
3. al-Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa’d, v2, page 338

Hadhrat Ali’ (as)’s superiority in resolving disputes is even acknowledged by the Wahabie scholar Syed Abul Hasan Nadwi, he writes:

“A number of reports testify that the Prophet said: “Ali is most capable among you to deliver a correct judgement”. Ali is on record that he was a comparatively younger man when the Prophet asked him to go to Yemen. Ali reports: “thereupon I said to the Apostle of God ‘You are sending me to a people who would be having disputes among them but I have no experience of deciding cases”. The Prophet replied, ‘Allah will help you to say only what is right and just and you would be yourself satisfied by it’. Ali then adds that he never had any doubt about the correctness of his judgement since then. Umar was often exacerbated if Ali was not available to solve an entangled problem. He often used to say: ‘Umar would have been ruined if Ali was not there’.
The Life of Caliph ‘Ali, page 202 , by Abul Hasan Nadwi

Comment

The tradition proves that the knowledge of Abu Bakr was not even an iota compared to that possessed by Hadhrat ‘Ali (as). Umar depended on Maula ‘Ali in resolving disputes. Rasulullah (s) taught Hadhrat ‘Ali one thousand doors of knowledge, and yet he failed to tell him that Prophets leave no inheritance, rather this was a top secret that only reached the ears of Abu Bakr

[End Quote]

Answer:

Undoubtedly the noble Sahaabi ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib was one of the wisest and most determined of people. However this doesn’t mean that no one was more knowledgeable or superior to him.

Regarding the report of Umar(ra) would be ruined,

قال أحمد ابن زهير حدثنا عبيد الله بن عمر القواريرى حدثنا مؤمل بن إسماعيل حدثنا سفيان الثورى عن يحيى بن سعيد عن سعيد بن المسيب قال كان عمر يتعوذ بالله من معضلة ليس لها أبو الحسن وقال فى المجنونة التى أمر برجمها وفى التى وضعت لستة أشهر فأراد عمر رجمها فقال له على إن الله تعالى يقول وحملة وفصاله ثلاثون شهرا الحديث وقال له إن الله رفع القلم عن المجنون الحديث فكان عمر يقول لولا على لهلك عمر

One of the narrator is Muamil bin Ismaeel:
وكذلك مؤمل بن إسماعيل في حديثه عن الثوري ضعف
Muamil’s narration from Thawri are weak
Fathul Bari 25/435.

Hadeeth scholars weakened him:
وقال البخاري: منكر الحديث.
وقال ابن سعد والدارقطني : كثير الخطأ.
وقال المروزي: إذا انفرد بحديث وجب أن يتوقف ويتثبت
فيه لأنه كان سيئ الحفظ كثير الغلط »
(ميزان الاعتدال2/221 تهذيب التهذيب10/381).
Abu Zar’a says
في حديثه خطأ كثير
Mizan 4/228

Shaykh, Allama of Yemen, Muqbil ibn Hadi al-Wadi was asked:

ما صحت حديث : ” لولا علي لهلك عمر ” ؟

What is authenticity of hadith “If not Ali, Umar would perish”?

He answered:

هو ما يثبت ، يستشهد به النحويون ، لولا علي لهلك عمر ، لكنه لا يثبت بارك الله فيكم .

It is not proven, grammarian use to cite: If not Ali, Umar would perish. But this (report) isn’t established (proven). Barakallahu fikum. {Source}

Even if these words are supposed to be authentic, then it shows the humbleness of Umar(ra), and that he wasn’t an arrogant person, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t knowledgeable. Such words of humbleness were even reported by Ali(ra), but still we know and believe that Ali(ra) was among the most knowledgeable men of this Ummah, as can be evident from other reports from Sahaba testifying Ali(ra) to be one of the most knowledgeable men, same applies to Umar(ra).

Example of such words used by Ali(ra) :

حدثنا أبو كريب  قال : حدثنا  وكيع  وحدثنا ابن وكيع  قال : حدثنا أبي عن أبي معشر  ، عن محمد بن كعب  قال : سأل رجل عليا  عن مسألة ، فقال فيها ، فقال الرجل : ليس هكذا ولكن كذا وكذا . قال علي   : أصبت وأخطأت ،  وفوق كل ذي علم عليم
A man asked Ali about a [religious] issue, and he answered, the man said : It is not like this but this is such and such , on which Ali said : You are correct and I erred, and there is a superior(person in knowledge) to every knowledgeable person. (Kanzul Ammal, Vol. 10, p. 134; Jamia AlIlm, ibn Abdul Barr,vol 1 page 531)

We would like to share some reports regarding the knowledge of Umar(ra) and Abubakr(ra) :

It was narrated that ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Umar said: I heard the Messenger of Allaah(saw) say: “Whilst I was sleeping, a cup of milk was brought to me and I drank until I saw its wetness coming out of my nails. Then I gave the rest to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab.” They said, “How did you interpret that, O Messenger of Allaah?” He said, “(It is) knowledge.”  (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 82; Muslim, 2391).

Qubaysah ibn Jabir, the top Faqih of the people of Kufa, and one of the commanders of `Ali’s (ra) army at Jamal, he said about `Umar (ra):
حدثنا حسين بن علي عن زائدة قال : قال عبد الملك : حدثني قبيصة بن جابر قال : ما رأيت رجلا أعلم بالله ولا أقرأ لكتاب الله ولا أفقه في دين الله من عمر
[Husayn bin `Ali told us, from Za’idah that he said: `Abdul-Malik said: Qubaysah bin Jabir told me: “I have not seen a man who has, more knowledge of Allah, or recited the book of Allah, nor more knowledgeable in the religion of Allah than `Umar.]

Ibn Abi Shaibah and Tabrani relates through Zaidah from Abdul Malik bin Umair fro Zaid bin Wahb that 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 bn masood 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.” (Refer Asad ul Ghaba vol 3, pg. 651 ; siyar a’lam nubala vol 2, page 520)

Comment: These all are authentic testimonies from valuable people.

Regarding knowledge of Abubakr(ra) then we read in the narration of abu Sa`eed al-Khudari in Sahih al-Bukhari:
حدثني عبد الله بن محمد حدثني أبو عامر حدثنا فليح قال حدثني سالم أبو النضر عن بسر بن سعيد عن أبي سعيد الخدري رضي الله عنه قال خطب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم الناس وقال إن الله خير عبدا بين الدنيا وبين ما عنده فاختار ذلك العبد ما عند الله قال فبكى أبو بكر فعجبنا لبكائه أن يخبر رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عن عبد خير فكان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم هو المخير وكان أبو بكر أعلمنا فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أن من امن الناس على في صحبته وماله أبا بكر ولو كنت متخذا خليلا غير ربى لا تخذت أبا بكر خليلا ولكن أخوة الإسلام ومودته لا يبقين في المسجد باب الأسد إلا باب أبى بكر
In a narration, from abu Sa`eed: [The Prophet (saws) delivered a sermon and told us: “Allah has given a choice to a slave, between the worldly life and between what he has, and the slave chose what Allah has.” So Abu Bakr cried and we all found his crying to be strange, why cry about a slave who was given a choice? However the salve turned out to be the Prophet (saws) and Abu Bakr was the most knowledgeable of us…]

Comment: Here abu Sa`eed (ra) declares Abu Bakr (ra) as the most knowledgeable.

Now let us turn to ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib(ra), It was narrated from Abu Juhayfah that ‘Ali(ra) ascended the minbar and praised and glorified Allaah and sent blessings upon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then he said: “The best of this ummah after its Prophet is Abu Bakr. The second is ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him), and after that, whoever Allaah wants to be good will be good.”  [Narrated by Imam Ahmad in his Musnad, 839. And Shaykh Shu’ayb al-Arna’oot said: its isnaad is qawiy{strong)].

وعن صلة بن زفر قال: كان علي إذا ذكر عنده أبو بكر قال: السباق يذكرون السباق قال: والذي نفسي بيده ما استبقنا إلى خير قط إلا سبقنا إليه أبو بكر
Sila bin Nadhar narrates when Abu Bakr was mentioned in front of Ali , than he would say “a person who excelled others greatly is being mentioned, by the One in whose hand is my life, whenever we intended to do a good work, than Abu Bakr excelled us in that “. (Riyadh al Nazirah, vol1, pg 156 ; Kanzul Amal, vol 6, page 813;)

It was narrated that ‘Ali (saw) said: “No one is brought to me who regards me as superior to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar but I will punish him with a beating like a fabricator.” Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: It was narrated that he used to speak from the minbar of Kufa and say that the best of this ummah after our Prophet was Abu Bakr, then ‘Umar. This was narrated from him via more than eighty isnaads(80 chains), and it was narrated by al-Bukhaari and others. Hence the earlier Shi’ah all used to agree that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were superior, as has been mentioned by more than one.(Manhaaj al-Sunnah, 1/308 )

Indeed it is narrated that ‘Ali learned some ahaadeeth from Abu Bakr (may Allaah be pleased with them both) concerning some issues. It was narrated that Asma’ bint al-Hakam al-Fazaari said: “I heard ‘Ali say: I was a man who, if I heard a hadeeth from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), Allaah would benefit me thereby as much as He willed to benefit me. If a man from among his companions told me a hadeeth I would ask him to swear to it; if he swore to it then I would believe him.” He told me that Abu Bakr said, and Abu Bakr spoke the truth, “I heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say, ‘There is no man who commits a sin then he gets up and purifies himself and prays, and seeks the forgiveness of Allaah, but Allaah will forgive him.’ Then he recited this verse of Aal ‘Imraan 3:135] . Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 406; classed as hasan by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.)

Comment: Add to this the fact, that Abu Bakr (ra) never narrated anything from `Ali (ra) but `Ali (ra) narrated prophetic narration from Abu Bakr (ra), this shows that `Ali (ra) never knew everything and that he had to take some knowledge from his senior.

Shaykh al-Islam Ahmed Ibn Taymiyah(rah) said: “No one among the respectable Muslim scholars has said that ‘Ali was more knowledgeable or had more understanding of Islam than Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, or even than Abu Bakr alone. Those who claim that there is consensus on that are among the most ignorant of people and the greatest liars. Rather, more than one of the scholars have stated that there is scholarly consensus that Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq was more knowledgeable than ‘Ali, such as Imam Mansoor ibn ‘Abd al-Jabbaar al-Sam’aani al-Marwadhi, one of the leading scholars of the Sunnah among the companions of al-Shaafa’i, who mentioned in his book Taqweem al-Adillah ‘ala’l-Imam that there was consensus among the scholars of the Sunnah that Abu Bakr was more knowledgeable than ‘Ali. I do not know of anyone among the famous imams who disputes this point. How could it be otherwise when Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq used to issue rulings and commands and prohibitions, and pass judgements, and deliver khutbahs in the presence of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as he used to do when he and Abu Bakr would go out to call the people to Islam, and when they migrated together, and on the day of Hunayn, and on other occasions, when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) remained silent and approved of what Abu Bakr said; no one else enjoyed such status. When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) consulted with the wise and knowledgeable men among his companions, he would consult Abu Bakr and ‘Umar first, because they were the first to speak about matters of Islam in the presence of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) before the rest of his companions. (Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 4/398).

 

Argument 27:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Let us not forget that Maula ‘Ali (as) shared the virtues of past Prophets, as is evidenced in the following esteemed Sunni works:

  1. Nur al Absar, page 6 by Shiblinji
  2. Riyadh al Nadira Volume 2 page 239, Dhikr Ali ibn Abi Talib
  3. Tafseer al-Kabeer, by Fakhrudeen al-Razi, under the commentary of the Verse of Imprecation (Mubahila), v2 p288.
  4. Mu’jam al-Adbaa, by Yaqut al-Hamawi, Volume 2 page 321

Allamah Yaqut al-Hamawi in his book Mu’jam al-Adba has copied down material from various elderly Sunni scholars/authors, as at one stage, he clearly stated:

وهذه الكتب المدونة في هذا الباب والتي نقلت منها ثم نقلت من دواوين العرب والمحدثين وتواريخ أهل الأدب والمحدثين

“These written books which I copied from and I also copied from books by Arabs, Hadiths and history books written by literature men and hadith scholars”

In Volume 2 page 321, Yaqut Hamawi has recorded the following Hadith from the work of Imam Abdurazzaq al-San’ani:

عبد الرزاق عن معمر عن الزهري عن سعيد بن المسيب عن أبي هريرة قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وهو في محفل من أصحابه: (إن تنظروا إلى آدم في علمه، ونوح في همه، وإبراهيم في خلقه، وموسى في مناجاته، وعيسى في سنه، ومحمد في هديه وحلمه، فانظر إلى هذا المقبل). فتطاول الناس فإذا هو علي بن أبي طالب عليه السلام

Abdurazzaq – Mu’amar – Zuhri – Sa’eed ibn Musayib – Abu Hurayrah from Holy Prophet (pbuh): ‘Whoever wishes to see Adam in his knowledge, Nuh in his determination, Ibrahim in his morals , Musa in his sublimity , Isa in his devotion and Muhammed in his patience and guidance, then he should look at Ali bin Abi Talib’.
Mu’jam al-Adbaa, by Yaqut al-Hamawi, Volume 2 page 321

[End Quote]

Answer:

After referring the quoted book On page 319, We found that this hadith comes from Mohammed bin Ahmad(محمد بن أحمد بن عبيد الله الكاتب
المعروف بالمفجع), the poet known as Al-Mufji’i.

وله قصيدته ذا الأشباه، وسميت بذات الأشباه لقصده فيما ذكره من الخبر الذي رواه عبد الرزاق عن معمر عن الزهري عن سعيد بن المسيب عن أبي هريرة
“Lahu” in this sentence is talking about Al-Mufji’i

So book qasedah by al-Mufji’i, he narrated this hadith. Which can be understood from: لقصده فيما ذكره من الخبر

Now, this Mohammed bin Ahmad, the poet known as Al-Mufji’i was a Rafidi. This is what Shia scholars said about him:
142 ـ محمّـد بن أحمد بن عبدالله المفجّع (ت 327 هـ)(1):
أبو عبـدالله البصري، من وجوه أهل اللغة والاَدب.
قال النجاشي: صحيح المذهب، حسن الاعتقاد، وله شعر كثير في أهل البيت عليهم السلام يذكر فيه أسماء الاَئمّة ويتفجّع على قتلهم حتّى سُمّي المفجّـع.
This tawtheeq from Al-Najashi is enough to assume that this man is a rafidhi.

We didn’t find any opinions of the scholars on this man, so he is majhool(anonymous), however, Abdul Razaq died in the year 211 hijri. So, even if we were to assume that he was a thiqa, it is impossible for him to have narrated from Abdul Razaq, which makes this report unreliable. And esteemed Sunni scholars called it a fabrication.

Also, the Shia might argue that, though chain is broken, and Mufji’i is majhool(unknown) but the hadith could possibly be in Musannaf Abdul-Razaq. However, that is the most interesting thing to discuss because this report isn’t present in Musannaf Abdul-Razaq; which is why Shiapen quoted Yaquut Al Hamawi and Al-Mufji’i, instead of quoting Abdul-Razaq and citing a reference. This atleast, proves the status of Mufji’i, as a liar who used to fabricate reports.

 

Argument 28:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

The failure of Rasulullah (s) to tell his Wasi (Ali) that ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity)’ is further proof that it is false

We have already cited the words of the Prophet (s), right at the beginning of his mission. The Prophet (s) said at the Feast of Kinsmen before his close relatives the following about Hadhrat ‘Ali:

“This is my brother, Wasi (agent) and successor among you. Listen to him and obey him”.
1. Tareekh Tabari, (English translation) by W.M.Watt, Vol 6 pp 90-91
2. Tareekh ibn Atheer, Vol 2 p 62
3. Musnad Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, Vol 1 p 159
4. Khasais, by al Nasai, p 18

[End Quote]

Answer:

This argument actually backfires on Shiapen, because if they believe that Prophet(saw) didn’t tell Ali(ra) about that hadeeth, then it is because Ali(ra) wasn’t going to be the wasi or successor of Prophet(saw). And Prophet(saw) telling this ruling to Abubakr(ra) would mean , he wanted to keep his real successor and wasi informed about this issue. Add to this the fact, that Abu Bakr (ra) never narrated anything from `Ali (ra) but `Ali (ra) narrated prophetic narration from Abu Bakr (ra), this shows that `Ali (ra) never knew everything and that he had to take some knowledge from his senior.

Moreover, it’s recorded by Imam Tirmidhi in his “Sunan” [Al-Manaaqib, manaaqib Abu Bakr and ‘Umar]

حدثنا الحسن بن الصباح البزار أخبرنا سفيان بن عيينة عن زائدة عن عبد الملك بن عمير عن ربعي هو ابن حراش عن حذيفة قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم “اقتدوا بالذين من بعدي أبي بكر وعمر”
Narrated by Hudhaifa (ra), he said: Prophet (saw) said, “follow those after me: Abu Bakr and Umar.”

And regarding the narration used by Shiapen about Ali(ra) being Wasi and Successor, then it is false, sheikh Albani said fabricated. Refer “Silsila ad daifa” 4932

For the version such as:
أنت أخي ووصيي وخليفتي من بعدي وقاضي ديني
Prophet (saw) said to Ali (ra): “You are my brother, heir, and caliph after me, and judge of my religion”.
Sheikh ul-islam ibn Taymiya said: “Fabrication and lie”. “Minhaj as sunnah” 7/353.

These narrations are running via narrators:

محمد بن اسحاق وعبد الغفار بن القاسم وعبد الله بن عبد القدوس
Muhammad ibn Ishaq, Abdulqaffar ibn Qaseem, Abdullah ibn Abd Al Qudus.

(i). As for Abdulqaffar ibn Qaseem, he is Abu Maryam Ansaree. Liar, wicked rafidi.

Ibn Katheer said in “Tafseer” 3/364:
متروك كذاب شيعي اتهمه علي بن المديني وغيره بوضع الحديث وضعّفه الأئمة رحمهم الله
“(AbdulQaffar) is matrook, liar, shia. Ali ibn Madini and others accused him in fabrication of narrations. And imams (of this ummah) may Alah forgive them, said that he is weak”.

Dhahabi in “Mizan” vol 2, #5147 wrote:
رافضي. ليس بثقة. قال علي بن المدينى: كان يضع الحديث، ويقال: كان من رءوس الشيعة. وروى عباس عن يحيى: ليس بشئ. وقال البخاري: عبد الغفار بن القاسم بن قيس بن فهد ليس بالقوى عندهم
“(Abdulqaffar) rafidi, not truthful. Ali ibn Madini said that he fabricated narrations. And he said that (Abdulqaffar) was from the chief of shias. Abbas (Ad Duri) reported from Yahya (ibn Muin): “(Abdulqaffar) is nothing”. Bukhare said: “Abdulqaffar ibn Qaseem ibn Qays ibn Fakhd is not strong in their (ulama) opinion”.

وقال أبو حاتم والنسائي وغيرهما: متروك الحديث
“Abu Haatim, Nasai and other said (Abdulqaffar) is matrook al hadeeth”.

(ii). Regarding Abdullah ibn Abd Al Quddus:
يحيى: ليس بشئ، رافضي خبيث. وقال النسائي وغيره: ليس بثقة. وقال الدارقطني: ضعيف
“Yahya (ibn Muin) said: “He’s nothing, wicked rafidi”. Nasai and others: “Not truthful”. Daraqootne: “Weak”.

A similar version is mentioned in Khasais e Ali(ra) of Imam Nasai,

Al-Fadl bin Sahl- Afan bin Muslim- Abu Awana- Uthman bin al-Mughira- Abi Sadeq- Rabeea bin Najed narrated (the prophet) said to Ali: …‘You are my brother, companion, inheritor and minister’. Hence I inherited my cousin without my uncle.”( Khasais by Imam Nesai, page 85).

This report was declared as Munkar(denounced), as there is Ilal(hidden defect) in the chain.

Imam Ahmad was asked about the narration of Abi Sadiq from Rabee’a bin Najith from Ali. He responded by saying that Abu Awana, the main narrator of this narration made a mistake. He narrated it two times; the first is what you see above. The second is through a completely different chain that includes Maysara Al-Kindi. Imam Ahmad mentioned that Musa bin Isma’eel said that he heard it from Abu Awana twice; the first from his Abu Awana’s memory and the second from his book. He concluded that the first narration is a mistake and the second chain is the correct chain. See Muntakhab Ilal Al-Khallal p. 207.

Note: Maysara Al-Kindi who is present in the correct chain, is an anonymous(majhool) narrator that was only referred to a thiqa by Ibn Hibban.

Ibn Hibbaan’s tawtheeq is not much value due to the fact that he believed in the concept of asl al-`adaalah, and that is rejected by basically all the scholars. The concept of asl al-`adaalah is purely “wishful thinking”. When we study the hadeeth and the narrators and amount of fabricated hadeeth, it would make no sense to believe “all muslims are innocent until proven guilty”. Because it maybe that they were trustworthy, but they had bad memory, or got confused in hadeeth, or they didn’t remember the narrators they got the hadeeth from.

Shaikh Muqbil was asked in Al-Muqtarah (p. 47):
السؤال: ابن حبان معروف أنه يوثق المجاهيل، فإن كان الراوي غير مجهول وقد روى عنه أكثر من واحد، وقال ابن حبان: هذا مستقيم الحديث أو قال هذا ثقة هل نتوقف في توثيقه أم نعتبره؟
الجواب: من أهل العلم كما في التنكيل بما في تأنيب الكوثري من الأباطيل من قال فيه: إنه يقبل. وهو إختيار المعلمي.
أما (ثقة) فالغالب أنه عرف هو نفسه بالتساهل، فيتوقف لأنه قد عرف هو بالتساهل في توثيق المجاهيل، فإذا وثق غير مجهول يقبل منه، أما المجهولون فقد عرف منه التساهل في هذا.
Question: Ibn Hibban is known for strengthening anonymous narrators, so if the narrator wasn’t unknown, and has more than one student, and Ibn Hibban said: mustaqeemul hadith or thiqa, do we still not accept him or do we?
Answer: Some of the scholars, like Al-Mu’allami in Al-Tankeel accepted this. As for the term thiqa, in most cases, he is known for being lenient, so we stop, because he was lenient in strengthening unknown narrators. However, if he strengthened someone that is known, then we accept it.

Al-Albani said (Al-Rawd Al-Dani fil Fawa’id Al-Hadeethia, p. 18):
ولهذا نجد المحققين من المحدثين كالذهبي والعسقلاني وغيرهما لا يوثقون من تفرد بتوثيقه ابن حبان
“And that is why we find the muhaditheen like Al-Thahabi and Ibn Hajar and others, not strengthening those that Ibn Hibban strengthens alone.”

Therefore, here we have Al-Dhahabi, Ibn Hajar, Al-Mu’allami, Al-Albani, and Shaikh Muqbil all hold the opinion that Ibn Hibban’s strengthening of anonymous narrators is not acceptable.

Moreover, as already said, Imam Dhahabi declared this hadeeth to be Munkar,

وقال الذهبي في الميزان: لا يكاد يعرف، وعنه أبو صادق بخبر منكر فيه
Al-Dhahabi said regarding Rabee’a bin Najith in Al-Mizan: He is barely known, and Abu Sadiq narrated from him a Munkar hadith.

Hence the hadeeth from Khasais by Imam Nasai too is Munkar(denounced) and rejected.

 

Argument 29:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Maula Ali (as)’s possession of the material possessions of the Prophet (s) proves that the ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we leave is Sadaqah’ is false.

Imam Zayn’ul Abideen (as)’s possession of the sword belonging to the Prophet (s) is proof that the Hadeeth ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we leave is Sadaqah’ is false

We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 342:

Narrated ‘Ali bin Al-Husain:
That when they reached Medina after returning from Yazid bin Mu’awaiya after the martyrdom of Husain bin ‘Ali (may Allah bestow His Mercy upon him), Al-Miswar bin Makhrama met him and said to him, “Do youhave any need you may order me to satisfy?” ‘Ali said, “No.” Al-Miswar said, Will you give me the sword of Allah’s Apostle for I am afraid that people may take it from you by force? By Allah, if you give it to me, they will never be able to take it till I die.”

The fact that Imam Zayn’ul Abideen (as) possessed the sword belonging to Rasulullah (s) could only have been attained if it had been passed on to him by his ancestors.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Refer the response to the Argument #19, where we have explained and refuted these silly arguments of Shiapen.

 

Argument 30:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

The anger of Sayyida Fatima (as) upon hearing the Hadeeth ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity)’ is proof that it was a lie

[End Quote]

Reply 1:

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

Hence, the wording of Fatima’s(ra) anger were an interpolation(idraaj) from the narrator Zuhri, and since he didn’t witness the incident then his view doesn’t hold any weight, as it becomes the Mursal of Zuhri and Mursal reports of Zuhri according to scholars of hadeeth science are useless and nothing.

قال يحيى بن سعيد القطان : مرسل الزهري شر من مرسل غيره
Imam Yahya ibn Saeed al-Qattaan said: “Mursal az-Zuhri is worse than the Mursal of any other!”

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

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

Reply 2:

Secondly, Assuming Fatima(ra) was angry, we will answer this question by quoting some Shia books.

In al-Amali lil-Saduq pg.555:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus the anger of Fatima(ra) in this context, doesn’t affect the authenticity of hadeeth at all.

Reply 3:

Even for the sake of argument, if it is said that Fatima(ra) was angry then that doesn’t affect the authentic saying of Prophet(saw). Just like the incident where Ali(ra) was angry on Fatima(ra), when she implemented on the saying of Prophet(saw), didn’t disapprove the saying of Prophet(saw). So why would the supposed anger of Fatima(ra) make the hadeeth of Prophet(saw), false? Here is that incident we are referring:

Ja’far b Muhammad reported on the authority of his father, Muhammad b. ‘Ali b. Husain from jabir bin Abdullah:  Ali came from the Yemen with the sacrificial animals for the Prophet(saw) and found Fatimah(ra) to be one among those who had put off Ihram and had put on dyed clothes and had applied antimony. He (Hadrat’Ali) showed disapproval to it, whereupon she said: My father has commanded me to do this. He (the narrator) said that ‘Ali used to say in Iraq: I went to the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) showing annoyance at Fatimah for what she had done, and asked the (verdict) of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) regarding what she had narrated from him, and told him that I was angry with her, whereupon he(saw) said: She has told the truth, she has told the truth.(Sahi Muslim, Book 7 ,Number 2803).

 

Argument 31:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Sayyida Fatima (as) was truthful and Masum

We read in Surah Aale Imran verse 38:

“When she was delivered she said: “O my Lord! behold! I am delivered of a female child!” And Allah knew best what she brought forth, “and nowise is the male like the female. I have named her Mary and I commend her and her offspring to Thy protection from the Evil One the Rejected.”
Al-Qur’an, Surah Ale Imran, Ayah 38, translated by Yusufali

Rasulullah (s) made the same du’a for his daughter. Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah Qadhi Thanaullah Panee Pathee in Tafseer Mazhari Volume 2 page 41, under the commentary of this verse states:

“It is true that when Rasulullah (s) married his daughter to ‘Ali he made this supplication ‘O Creator I commend her and her offsprings to Thy protection from the Evil One the Rejected’. This supplication has been narrated from Ibn Habban and was also made for Hadhrat ‘Ali. Rasulullah (s) had a greater right than the wife of Imran to have the du’a accepted. We are confident, neigh definite that Sayyida Fatima and her children are protected from Shaytan”.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Firstly, the translation by Shiapen for the last portion of Thanaullah’s view is incorrect. Secondly the view of Thanaullah is mispresented by Shiapen, He was not talking about infallibility but just regarding the touch of shaytan during birth.

Thanaullah panee pathnee said:

Abu Hurairah narrated: I heard the Messenger of Allah saying: No son of Adam shall be born unless that he should be touched by the Satan at the hour of birth, when he initiates his life crying out of the Satan’s touch, except Maryam and her son.(Agreed upon). Meaning due to the blessing of this dua of Hana(mother of Mary) Mary and her son were protected from the touch of Shaytan. The other report Abu Huraira narrated: The Prophet said, “When any human being is born. Satan touches him at both sides of the body with his two fingers, except Jesus, the son of Mary, whom Satan tried to touch but failed, for he touched the placenta-cover instead.”

I(Thanaullah) say: “It is true that when Rasulullah(s) married his daughter to ‘Ali he made this supplication ‘O Creator I commend her and her offsprings to Thy protection from the Evil One the Rejected’. And said the same for Hadhrat Ali. Reported by Ibn Hibban from Anas.”

Rasulullah (s) had a greater right than the wife of Imran to have the du’a accepted. So I expect that, Sayyida Fatima and her children may have been protected from Shaytan and Shaytan might not have touched them”.[Tafseer Mazhari]

Comment: From the proper quote from Tafseer Mazhari, we came to know that, Thanaullah was talking about only the touch of Shaytan at the time of birth, not infallibility as a whole. Also this was just an assumption made by Thanaullah, that even Fatima(ra) and her children were protected from the touch of Shaytan at time of birth, and this assumption atleast for Fatima and Ali(ra) is incorrect, since this is specific supplication to protect from Shaytan at the of birth, so it cannot cover Fatima(ra) and Ali(ra).

Moreover, we read in authentic hadeeth that, even Ammar bin Yasir(ra) was protected from Shaytan, but neither the Sunnis nor the Shia consider him to be infallible, which backs the Sunni understanding of these ahadeeth, that these have nothing to do with infallibility. We read:

Narrated Alqama: I went to Sham (and asked. “Who is here?”), The people said, “Abu Ad-Darda.” Abu Darda said, “Is the person whom Allah has protected against Satan, (as Allah’s Messenger (saw) said) amongst you”. The subnarrator, Mughira said that the person who was given Allah’s Refuge through the tongue of the Prophet was `Ammar (bin Yasir). [Sahih al-Bukhari #3287]

What further strengthens our explanation is an authentic Shia hadeeth where we find that Shaytan came in the dream of Fatima(ra). Hence we read:

It is reported with a Hasan(good) chain from Imam Jafar sadiq: One night Fatima(as) saw in a dream. Rasool Allah(saw) took Ali(as) and Hasnain(Hassan and Hussain) outside of Madina…Jibreel(as) descended and said: O Prophet(saw), the dream of Fatima(as) was caused by a shaytan, whose name is Dhaar, and he comes in the dreams of believers and causes grief and afflicts them. And shows them the dreams of distress. (Jila ul uyoon, vol 1, page 188, 189).

Therefore, this has nothing to do with infallibility, and the silly claim of Shiapen gets invalidated.

 

Argument 32:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Sayyida Fatima (as) was truthful and Masum

Also of relevance is the fact that Dr Tahir al Qadri in ‘Al Durr’atul Baydh fee Manaqib Fatima al Zahra (as)’ page 76:

“Hadrath Abdullah ibn Masud narrates that the Prophet (s) said ‘Hadhrat Fatima had protected her exalted status and purity in such a manner that Allah (swt) deemed the Fire of Hell to be haraam on her descendents”.
Al Duratul Baydha fee Manaqib Fatima al Zahra (as), Page 76

Qadri took this Hadeeth from the following esteemed Sunni works:

  1. Musnad al Bazar, Volume 5 page 223
  2. Mustadrak al Hakim, Volume 3 page 165
  3. Hilayat al Awliya, Volume 4 page 188
  4. Meezan al Itidal, Volume 5 page 261
  5. Faydh al Qadeer, Volume 2 page 462

Sayyida Fatima (as) was Masum like her father, and if an infallible personality is angry at someone, so is Allah (swt), and when Sayyida Fatima was angered at Abu Bakr’s recital of this Hadeeth, then there is no doubt that this Hadeeth was a lie

[End Quote]

Answer:

This is the belief of deviants and Ghulats(exaggerators) that Ahlelbayt were infallible, and this belief has no reliable base, and what is actually proven authentically, negates this myth.

Infact, esteemed classical Shia scholar Shiekh Sadooq in his book Manla yahduruhul faqih on page 359 said:

إن الغلاة والمفوضة لعنهم الله ينكرون سهو النبي صلى الله عليه وآله ويقولون: لو جاز أن يسهو عليه السلام في الصلاة لجاز أن يسهو في التبليغ
Al-Gulat(exaggerators) and al-mufaqida may Allah curse them, reject possibility of error from Nabi(Prophet), they say: If error in pray possible, then error in tablig also possible”

Regarding the hadith quoted by Shiapen, then it was narrated by al-Bazzar, Abu Yala, al-Uqayli, Tabarani, ibn Shahin from Abdullah ibn Masood(ra).

Hadith is weak refer “Daeef al-jami” #1885.. Ibn Shahin narrated it in his “Juzz Fadhail Fatima” via 3 chains.

The first chain which is elevated till ibn Masood, it has Amr ibn Ghayth. Imam Bukhari and Abu Hatim said about him: “Munkar al-hadith”( “Mizanul itidal” 3/216/#6183).

Second chain is narrated from Huzayfa. In it Hafs ibn Umar al-Ubuli narrated from two weak narrators. First one is Salam ibn Sulaiman al-Qare, he was saduq. Uqayli said that his ahadeth couldn’t be relied upon(“Mizanul itidal” 2/177/#3345). Second is Abdulmalik ibn Walid ibn Madan, he was weak(“Taqrib” #4227.). It’s worse to mention that Hafs ibn Umar himself was weak(Mizanul itidal” 1/560/#2130).

The third chain has Talid ibn Sulaiman, who was weak rafidi(“Taqrib” #4227).

Hakim narrated it in “Mustadrak” (#4726) from the way which contains Amr ibn Ghayth. Dhahabi said it’s weak in “Talkhis”.

Al-Bazzar after he narrated this hadith in his “al-Bahru zahir” (5/223) said: “this Amr (ibn Ghayth) al-Kufi, it’s not possible to rely upon his this hadith”. Same ibn Ghayth is present in the chain of this hadith from “Hilliyatul awliya” (4/188).

Moreover, it seems that even Abbas(ra) the uncle of Prophet(saw) didn’t consider Fatima(ra) to be Masum, thats why He disputed with her, until others gave testimony. In authentic  Shia narration according to al-Majlisi from al-Kafi we read :

مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنْ أَبِي الْحَسَنِ الثَّانِي ( عليه السلام ) قَالَ سَأَلْتُهُ عَنِ الْحِيطَانِ السَّبْعَةِ الَّتِي كَانَتْ مِيرَاثَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) لِفَاطِمَةَ ( عليها السلام ) فَقَالَ لَا إِنَّمَا كَانَتْ وَقْفاً وَ كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) يَأْخُذُ إِلَيْهِ مِنْهَا مَا يُنْفِقُ عَلَى أَضْيَافِهِ وَ التَّابِعَةُ يَلْزَمُهُ فِيهَا فَلَمَّا قُبِضَ جَاءَ الْعَبَّاسُ يُخَاصِمُ فَاطِمَةَ ( عليها السلام ) فِيهَا فَشَهِدَ عَلِيٌّ ( عليه السلام ) وَ غَيْرُهُ أَنَّهَا وَقْفٌ عَلَى فَاطِمَةَ

[From abu al-Hasan (as) I asked him about the seven gardens which were the inheritance from the prophet (saw) to Fatimah, he replied: “They’re not an inheritance, they’re a Waqf (…until he said…) When the messenger (saw) passed away, al-`Abbas came and disputed with Fatimah (over the land) so `Ali and others testified that the lands were a Waqf for Fatimah.

 

Argument 33:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Abu Bakr’s asking for witnesses to support the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as) serves as a proof that the Hadeeth ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity)’ is false

This point is worthy of note. Abu Bakr is praised for his determination in sticking to the Sunnah of the Prophet. He claimed that he had heard the Prophet (s) say ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah’. His citing these words should have constituted conclusive proof, that rendered the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as) baseless. When he allegedly heard these words from Rasulullah (s) why did he continue to entertain the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as) and demand that she produce witnesses who could verify her claim?

[End Quote]

Answer:

Indeed Shiapen is deprived of wisdom! Abubakr(ra) rejected the demand of Fatima(ra) regarding inheritance from Prophet(saw), by quoting the hadeeth of Prophet(saw), but in the supposed incident of Abubakr(ra) asking for witnesses(which is unproven), then it was regarding Fadak being gifted to Fatima(ra).

In the(fictitious) scenario witnesses weren’t demanded to prove whether Fatima(ra) would inherit from Prophet(saw) or not, but it was asked to prove whether it was gifted to her. Because the issue of inheritance wouldn’t apply on things which were gifted, thus the hadeeth Abubakr(ra) used wouldn’t apply for the claim that it was gifted, that is why witnesses were supposedly demanded, in the fictitious scenario which never occurred and can never be proven from any authentic report.

On the contrary, 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 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 or 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).

Thus, this argument of Shiapen is an example of their extreme ignorance.

 

Argument 34:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Abu Bakr’s failure to implement the Hadith ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity)’ is further proof that it is false

If the Hadeeth is indeed correct and everything owned by Prophets becomes Sadaqah then why was this land not distributed by Abu Bakr to his Muslim subjects? Why did he keep it under his own control? He had taken the land from Sayyida Fatima (as) claiming that the land belonged to all Muslims as it was Sadaqah so why did he not distribute this Sadaqah during his reign? His failure to do so serves as clear proof that he concocted the Hadeeth to deny Sayyida Fatima (as) her right.

[End Quote]

Answer:

This hadeeth which Shias are using doesn’t mean that the Muslims would become the owners of land, this is incorrect understanding of Shiapen, rather it means that the needy Muslims were entitled to be helped or supported from it. And this would carried out by the successor of Prophet(saw), who would manage the property left by Prophet(saw). So, though the property was in Abubakr’s(ra) control, but the wealth that was generated from it was spent the same way it was done by Prophet(saw).

Prophet (saw) -as leader of our nation- used to spend from it on the poor, and after him it went into the hands of his successor Abu Bakr and he was charged with dividing its produce and spending it on the poor and needy. If the matter was left to the poor and needy to take what they wish from the land without order and justice, they’d kill each other over it.

Secondly, the hikmah behind not giving the land to Muslims is that, if it is given to poor Muslims, then those after them, would be deprived from this charity, because the Muslims who got the property would claim it to be their own. Hence keeping the property under the control of Caliph and distributing the produce generated from that property was the best thing, and that is why we read:

كان أبو بكر يأخذ غلتها فيدفع إليهم منها ما يكفيهم ويقسم الباقي وكان عمر كذلك ثم عثمان ثم كان على كذلك
Abu Bakr would send the produce of Fadak to Ahlel bayt, as much was enough for them , and would distribute the rest (amongst the needies) , and same did Umar, and after him, Uthman, and after him Ali.
(Sharh nahjul balagha, Ibn Abil hadeed, Vol. 2 ,p. 292
It has also been recorded by :
Sharh nahjul balagha, ibn maitham, Vol. 5, p. 107
Durr al najafia, Sharh nahjul balagha, p. 332
Sharh Nahjul balagha, by Faizul Islam Ali Naqi, Vol. 5, p. 920).

 

Argument 35:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

The fact that Sadaqa is haraam on Banu Hashim is proof that the Hadeeth ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we leave is Sadaqah’ is false

To understand this argument one needs to analyse the significance of Abu Bakr’s words as set out in Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Number 60 reads as follows:

Narrated ‘Aisha:
Fatima sent somebody to Abu Bakr asking him to give her inheritance from the Prophet from what Allah had given to His Apostle through Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting). She asked for the Sadaqa (i.e. wealth assigned for charitable purposes) of the Prophetat Medina, and Fadak, and what remained of the Khumus (i.e., one-fifth) of the Khaibar booty. Abu Bakr said, “Allah’s Apostle said,’We (Prophets), our property is not inherited, and whatever we leave is Sadaqa, but Muhammad’s Family can eat from this property, i.e.Allah’s property, but they have no right to take more than the food they need.’

Abu Bakr is claiming that all the Prophet (s) left converts into Sadaqa, and the Ahl’ul bayt (as) are entitled to get their share of this Sadaqa. How can this Hadeeth be Saheeh when Sadaqa is haraam on the family of Maula ‘Ali (as)?

[End Quote]

Answer: 

If the Shias read the same hadeeth with proper understanding then they will get the answer for this question. It wasn’t Abubakr(ra) who invented the view as the Shia are claiming, rather it was the command of the Prophet(Saw), which Abubakr(ra) quoted. So it was Prophet(Saw) who allowed his family to take sustenance from that property. This will be clear by reading another hadeeth, where Ayesha(ra) clarifies the same thing.

Urwa narrated that Ayesha(ra) said: Prophet used to say: Our property is not inherited, but whatever we leave is to be given in charity(sadaqa)? The Prophet mentioned that regarding himself. He added: ‘The family of Muhammad can take their sustenance from this property. (Sahi bukhari 5.367)

So the correct understanding of hadeeth is that, Property is left by Prophet(saw) is to be given in charity but sustenance of prophet’s family is exempted from being given in charity(sadaqa) or to be considered sadaqa..

Moreover, Sadaqah is a word used to describe many things, this land was referred to as Sadaqah but it is technically a Waqf, the man who sets up the land as Waqf is the one to decide who it is for, he can either make it for all Muslims, or just for certain families like how Fatimah made her property a Waqf only for bani Hashim and bani `Abdul-Muttalib, `Ali on the other hand made some of his property as Waqf for all Muslims.

Imam al-Baqillani writes in “Manaqib al-A’immah” chapter thirty six page 609:

[What he left behind from money of Fay’ is called “Sadaqah” in here  meaning a gift from Allah to the Muslims and a Rukhsah(dispensation) for them to take from it what they require to prepare for war (…until he said…) and Rasul-Allah (saw) called the Rukhsah a Sadaqah such as when he said concerning the verse {There is no blame upon you for shortening the prayer, [especially] if you fear that those who disbelieve may disrupt [or attack] you.} He (saw) said: “It is a Sadaqah given to you by Allah so accept his Sadaqah.” meaning a gift and a Rukhsah and a blessing from Allah. Also Allah says: {Give us full measure and be charitable(Tasaddaq) to us. Indeed, Allah rewards the charitable.} The word used is Tasaddaq from Sadaqah and what is meant is gift us and bless us.]

If the Prophet (saw) gave his family food and provisions from the land of  Fay’ or what was later known as the Sadaqat of Rasul-Allah (saw),  this doesn’t mean they’re eating from the money of Sadaqah, rather this is a right given by Allah to his Prophet (saw), that he can benefit from this land as long as he is alive and feed his family, and even after him, so what they received from it is not a part of the Sadaqah, it is a right given to the Prophet (saw).

Therefore, the sustenance of Prophet’s(saw) family is not charity(sadaqa) and Abubakr(ra) didn’t violate the sunnah but rather he affirmed the Sunnah and the commands of Prophet(saw).

 

Argument 36:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

The Du’a of Prophet Zakariya (as) proves that the Hadeeth ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah’ is false

This is a supplication made by Prophet Zakariya (as) wherein the Prophet (as) prays for someone to inherit him.

In Surah Maryam 019.004-6, Allah (swt) refers to the supplication of Prophet Zakariya:

Praying: “O my Lord! infirm indeed are my bones, and the hair of my head doth glisten with grey: but never am I unblest, O my Lord, in my prayer to Thee! Now I fear (what) my relatives (and colleagues) (will do) after me: but my wife is barren: so give me an heir as from Thyself, – (One that) will (truly) represent me, and represent the posterity of Jacob; and make him, O my Lord! one with whom Thou art well-pleased!”
Al-Qur’an, Surah Maryam, Ayah 4 – 6, translated by Yusufali

[End Quote]

Answer:

Ali al-Kaya al-Harrasi (450-504) stated:

فطلب من الله تعالى ولداً يقوم بالدين بعده, فيرثه النبوة, ويرث من آل يعقوب, ولا يجوز أن يهتم بالدعاء هذا الاهتمام, ومراده أن يورثه المال, فإن ذلك مباين لطريقة الأنبياء, ولأنه جمع وراثته إلى وراثة آل يعقوب, ومعلوم أن ولد زكريا لا يرثهم

So he asked Allah most high for a son to take his place in religion, he’d inherit his prophet-hood and he’d inherit from the family of Ya`qoub. It is not permissible that he’d be so desperate in his Du`a’ if his intention was to inherit money, this opposes the way of prophets, also what proves our point is that he combined his inheritance with that of the family of Ya`qoub although it is known that his son is not entiteled to inherit (wealth) from them.(AHKAM AL-QUR’AN LIL-KAYA AL-HARRASI).

Sulayman bin Ahmad al-Tabarani (360) stated:

إنَّما دعاءُ زكريا بالولدِ لِيَلِيَ أمورَ الدِّين بعدَهُ؛ لخوفهِ من بَنِي أعمامهِ أن يبدِّلوا دِيْنَهُ بعدَ وفاته، وخافَ أن يستولُوا على علومهِ وكُتُبهِ فيحرِّفُونَها، ويواكلونَ الناس بها، ويفسدون دِيْنَهُ، ويصدُّون الناسَ عنه.

Zakariya only made a Du`a’ for a child so he can succeed him in matters of religion after him, for fear from his paternal-cousins that they may change his religion after his passing, and he feared that they may take control of his teachings and books then corrupt them, and trade them for worldly possessions thus blocking the people from his religion.(AL-TAFSEER AL-KABIR LIL-TABARANI)

To further strengthen this explanation, we would like to present an authentic Shia narration graded as authentic by Shia scholar Majlisi from al Kafi which mentions the inheritance Yahya(as) received from his father Zakariah(as).

It is narrated from Imam Baqir that he said:
ثم مات زكريا فورثه ابنه يحيى الكتاب والحكمة وهو صبي صغير
Then Zakariah died and he inherited the Book and wisdom to his son Yahya while he was a young child. (Al kafi, vol 1, page 382)

Hence the correct interpretation of the Quranic verse, doesn’t effects the authenticity of the hadeeth narrated by Abubakr(ra), in any way.

 

Argument 37:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Rasulullah (s)’s objection to the Sahaba giving away over a third of their property to charity is a proof that the Hadeeth ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah’ is false

[End Quote]

Answer:

Again, this argument is based on ignorance of Shiapen, the authentic hadeeth “Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah”, is specific and special ruling for Prophet(saw), like some other special rulings. These special and specific rulings are not applicable on the Muslims in general. So the objection of Prophet(saw) to the Sahaba giving away over a third of their property to charity has no relation with the hadeeth, because it was for the Muslims in general, where as this hadeeth is specific to Prophets.

For better understanding of readers, let us cite the example of a general ruling and a specific ruling; Needy Muslims can accept Sadaqa(charity), and Prophet(saw) allowed Muslims to accept it, however the Bani Hashim are exempted from this rule, because they cannot except the charity from Muslims. So how can the general rulings by Prophet(saw) for Muslims, falsify the specific ruling for Bani Hashim? This wouldn’t happen, which makes the argument invalid.

Therefore, the ruling which is for general Muslims cannot make the ruling which is specific for Prophet(saw), false.

 

Argument 38:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

The Prophet (s) inheriting proves that the Hadith recited by Abu Bakr ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity)’ is a lie

As evidence we shall cite the following esteemed Sunni works:

  1. Madarij un Nubuwwa Volume 2 page 756-757 Dhikr Taqseem Meeras al Nabi
  2. Izalat ul Khifa Volume 3 page 90
  3. Qurut ul Aynain Part 2 Dhikr Fadak page 228 by Shah Waliyullah Dehlavi
  4. Aftaab ai Hidayath page 240, Dhikr Fadak by Maulana Kareem’udeen
  5. 5. Tafseer Zia ul Quran by Peer Muhammad Karam Shah, Surah Maryam commentary

We read in Qurut al Aunain:

The great truthful one said that Rasulullah (s) said neither do we leave inheritance, nor do we inherit from anyone, and this report is Muttawatir”

We read in Aftaab:

The Sahih Hadeeth is present, namely that Prophets do no inherit, nor do they leave inheritance, all they leave is Sadaqah”

The three references assert that Sayyida Fatima (as) claimed her inheritance rights, and Abu Bakr replied by saying that “Prophets neither inherit nor do they leave any inheritance whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity)”. And this Hadeeth according to the Ahl’ul Sunnah is Sahih and Muttawatir.

The assertion that Prophets inherit from no one is a blatant lie and to prove our case, we advance the following Sunni sources:

Rasulullah (s) inherited livestock belonging to his father

We read in the following Sunni books:

  1. Dalail al Nubuwwah page 121 by Naeem Ahmad bin Abdullah al Safani (printed Hyderabad)
  2. Sirah Halabiyah, Volume 1 page 85 (Egypt print)

that Abdullah the father of the Prophet had five camels, a stable, and a herd of sheep which Rasulullah (s) inherited from him.

Rasulullah (s) inherited a sword from his father

As evidence we have relied on the following esteemed Sunni works:

  1. Zaad al Maad Volume 1 page 48 Dhkir Sulha
  2. Seera Halbeeya Volume 3 page 247 Dhikr Sulha
  3. Mudharij’athul Nubuwwa Chapter 11 Dhurby Sulha Akhzaath Volume 2 page 596
  4. Ruzatul Ahbaab page 299

We read in Zaad:

“Rasulullah (s) owned nine swords,one was called Mashur.This was first sword that was included amongst the possessions of Rasulullah (s) that he inherited from his father”.

Rasulullah (s) inherited a male and female Servant from his father

In al Maarif page 64, Dhikr Maw’l Rasulullah (s) Ibn Qutaybah informs us:

“Rasulullah (s) inherited a Servant called Shuqran from his father”

Many Sunni sources confirm that Rasulullah (s) also inherited a female servant called Umm Ameen Burra from his father and this is attested in the following esteemed Sunni works:

  1. al Bidaya wa al Nihaya, Volume 5 page 325 Dhikr Umm
  2. Dalail al Nubuwwa, page 1221

[End Quote]

Answer:

The reports Shiapen quoted are from secondary sources, and those scholars didn’t provide any chain for those reports, hence their reliability cannot be verified, if Shiapen wanted to make a strong claim, then they should have atleast provided a primary source, whose reliability could be verified.

Anyways, we don’t wish to dishearten the Shias, we will entertain their un-proven argument, regardless of the validity of quoted reports, since these reports aren’t problematic for Ahlesunnah, even if Prophet(saw) did get anything from his father or mother, since his parents weren’t prophets they can leave behind anything, then this does not affect the beliefs of those who believe Prophet(saw) did not leave inheritance. The reason is because Muhammad(saw) wasn’t a prophet at the time of his parent’s death nor was he receiving revelation, so this ruling would not apply on him.

The Hadith says Prophet(saw) did not leave behind inheritance “La Nourath” or in some narrations “La Nourith” both meaning they don’t offer inheritance, not the opposite.

As per the proofs put forth by Shiapen, Muhammad(saw) from his father received inheritance, such as; 1. Live stock 2. Sword 3. Male servant(Shuqran) 4. Female servant(Umm Ayman).

Firstly, as per the report the “Prophets don’t inherit from anyone”, then Ahlesunnah believe that Prophet Muhammad(saw) was granted the Prophethood at the age of 40yrs. So Muhammad(saw) became a Prophet at the age of 40yrs, and at the time when He(saw) received those things from his father, He(saw) wasn’t a Prophet, so the hadeeth didn’t apply to him. His father Abdullah died, two months before the birth of Muhammad(saw) and according to some other accounts two months after the birth of Muhammad(saw), where as Muhammad(saw) became Prophet at the age of 40yrs.

Secondly, the sword doesn’t come under the general law of inheritance rather, it is considered as habwa, Let us cite Esteemed Shia Ayatullah Sayyed Khoei who explains the concept of Habwa:

يحبى الولد الذكر الأكبر وجوبا مجانا بثياب بدن الميت وخاتمه وسيفه ومصحفه

The elder son is given the Habwa for free that is the cloth, the ring, the sword and the Quran of the dead.( Minhaj al-Salihin, Volume 2 page 412)

These things are not divided between the heirs and the laws of inheritance doesn’t apply to them because, they are a kind of memorials of the dead.

Thirdly, regarding Shuqran, the Male Servant of Prophet(saw), Al-Tabari in his book mentions under the title “An Account of the Messenger of God’s Freedmen” states:

Shuqran, He was from Abyssinia and his name was Salih bin Adi. [The authorities] disagree about his affair. It is reported on the authority of Abdallah bin Dawud al-khuraybi that the Messenger of God inherited him from his father, while others state that he was from Persia and was named Salih bin Hawl bin Mihrbudh bin Adharjushnas bin Mihrban bin Firan bin Rustam bin Firuz bin May bin Bahram bin Rashthari. It is alleged that [his ancestors] were land-ownders of al-Rayy. It is reported on the authority of Mus’ab al-Zubayri who said that Shuqran belonged to Abd al-Rahman bin Awf, that the latter presented him to the Prophet. (The History of al-Tabari Vol. 9, page 143, under: An Account of the Messenger of God’s Freedmen).

Comment: So we find that there are two different opinions regarding Shuqran, moreover he was freed by Muhammad(saw).

Fourthly, regarding Umm Ayman, the female Servant of Prophet(saw), Al-Tabari in his book mentions under the title “Biographies of the women whose death dates are known, of the Emigrants, Ansar, and others who were the prophet’s contemporaries, believed in him and followed him” states:

Umm Ayman, the Prophet’s client and nurse. Her name was Barakah. It was reported that the Prophet bequeathed to Umm Ayman five camels and a herd of sheep. He had freed her when he married Khadijah, whereupon, she was married to Ubayd bin Zayd. (The History of al-Tabari Vol. 39, page 191192)

Comment: So even Umm Ayman(ra) was freed by Prophet(saw) at the time of his marriage with Khadijah(ra), and Muhammad(saw) was not honoured with Prophethood by that time, he(saw) became a Prophet several years after it.

Thus, the examples presented by Shiapen, regarding Muhammad(saw) inheriting from his father, none of these contradicts the odd and unproven hadeeth they quoted about Prophets not inheriting.

 

Argument 39:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

The tradition narrated by Abu Bakr does not meet the standards of Hadeeth authenticity set by the Sunni Ulema

The issue of proof is a key component required to arrive at a correct decision in a dispute. Abu Bakr cited a single Hadeeth to strike out the inheritance claim, a Hadeeth that no one else had heard. If justice really was being sought then clearly the onus was on Abu Bakr to prove the authenticity of the Hadeeth, then we would have seen whether or not the requirement of witnesses could be met. No one would have been located save Umar and Ayesha unless of course the Government adopted more coercive methods. The scholars have developed certain rules as means of determining the authenticity of a Hadeeth.We are quoting directly from Sirat-un Nabi Volume 1 page 42, by Hanafi scholar Shibli Numani:

“…the following categories of reports are to be discredited without an enquiry into the characters of their narrators:

  1. The traditions that are contrary to reason
  2. The traditions that go against accepted principles
  3. Any tradition concerning an incident so noteworthy that, if it had actually taken place, it ought to have been related by many, and yet there is but a single narrator to it”.

Seerat un-Nabi, Page 42

For the purposes of this discussion we shall refute this Hadeeth in light of rules 1, 2 and 10.

1. According to the Ahl’ul Sunnah a tradition contrary to reason is false

2. According to Ahl’ul Sunnah a tradition that contradicts the Qur’an is false

3. According to the Ahl’ul Sunnah a tradition that ought to have been known to all and sundry, but has only a single narrator is false

[End Quote]

Response to argument #1:

This tradition is not contrary to reason but rather in perfect accordance to it. Prophet(saw) is not to be inherited by his heirs, as this is protection from Allah so that there will be no reason for anyone to criticise him on the grounds that he(saw) only sought worldly gains for himself and his heirs. As for the rest of mankind, they do not have that position of prophethood that could be undermined by the issue of inheritance. In a similar way, Allah(saw) also protected our Prophet(saw) from being literate or a poet, so as to eliminate any doubt about his prophethood, but others did not need this type of protection.

Secondly, what is contrary to reason is that, those companions of Prophet(saw), who spend their life, their wealth, their families, etc, for sake of Allah(swt) and Prophet(saw), they fought for Prophet(saw), especially the Ansar, would these true lovers of Prophet(saw) allow the daughter of Prophet(saw) be oppressed in this case, even when she supposedly sought their help and assistance?. Were these strong people afraid in their own land from people of small tribes like Banu Taim(Abu bakr) or Banu Adi(Umar)?. Does this sound rational from any angle? No not at all.

Response to argument #2:

This tradition doesn’t contradict Quran, as it has been clearly explained in the article. There is no specific verse of Quran which says, Prophet Muhammad(saw) would leave inheritance. And Shias argue that the general verse apply on Prophet(saw) too, then they should even reject those reports which state that Prophet(Saw) cannot accept charity, because even those contradict the general verses of Quran.

Response to argument #3:

This misunderstanding has already been refuted, this report is not narrated by single narrator. In reality the narration of the prophet not leaving behind inheritance was narrated by several companions other than Abu Bakr, such as `Umar and abu Hurayrah and Hudhayfah and others, which makes the argument null and void.

Moreover, the famous Qur’anic Mufassir Mahmoud bin `Abdullah al-Husayni al-Alusi (d.1270) said in his Tafseer:

إن تخصيص القرآن بخبر الآحاد جائز على الصحيح وبجوازه قال الأئمة الأربعة ، ويدل على جوازه أن الصحابة رضي الله تعالى عنهم خصصوا به من غير نكير فكان إجماعاً

[Restricting Qur’anic meaning with the Ahad narration is permissible in the correct opinion and permitted by the four Imams, what proves its permissibility is that the Sahabah (ra) have restricted the meanings of verses with it without objections so it is by consensus.]

 

Argument 40:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Abu Bakr’s decision in the Fadak dispute contradicted his own method of ruling

We read in Izala tul Khifa Part 2, Volume 3 page 114:

“Whenever a dispute was brought before Abu Bakr, he would seek to direct him towards the Qur’an, or relevant Hadeeth of Rasulullah (s), if no evidence could be located from the Qur’an or Sunnah he would ask for the help of the Sahaba, if the Sahaba were agreed on Hadeeth he would take it, if a Hadeeth was not agreed upon he would gather selected people and seek their advice. When all the people agreed on an opinion, Abu Bakr would rule accordingly”.

Abu Bakr’s double standards have been exposed here! If Abu Bakr was indeed the just man as is claimed then when Fatima (as) made her claim to her father’s property, this was a general dispute, Abu Bakr was himself a party to the dispute. He could have asked the Sahaba who would have arrived at the correct outcome. He could have applied justice, a dispute had occurred, Sayyida Fatima (as) was upset. Abbas and Ali did not concur with Abu Bakr’s ruling so when Sayyida Fatima (as) made her claim why not convene a meeting including ‘Ali, Abbas and the Sahaba and ask them ‘The daughter of Fatima has claim her inheritance to Rasulullah’s Estate what is your opinion?’ He could have then made a ruling’.But Abu Bakr did not have the courage to entertain a hearing wherein Hadhrat ‘Ali would be setting out his wife’s case.

[End Quote]

Answer:

The answer to this silly argument is in the report itself, which was quoted by Shiapen. Abubakr(ra) would seek advice from Sahaba(ra) when there was no clear evidence in Quran or Sunnah. However, in regards to Prophet Muhammad(saw) not leaving behind inheritance, then this was proven from Sunnah and saying of Prophet Muhammad(saw), so then why would Abubakr(ra) seek advice from Sahaba(ra)?

Moreover, we find that, Umar(ra) during his Caliphate did what, Shias are accusing Abubakr(ra) for not doing, so are the Shias going to consider Umar(ra) fair and just and if not then they have no right to make such arguments on Abubakr(ra) at the first place.

‘Umar said: I adjure you by Allah by Whose order the heavens and the earth are sustained, don’t you know that the messenger of Allah (saw) said:” We do not leave inheritance; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity”? They(Uthman, Abd al-Rabman b. ‘Auf, Zubair, Sa’d, etc) said: Yes. Then he turned to abbas and ‘ali and said: I adjure you both by Allah by Whose order the heavens and earth are sustained, don’t you know that the messenger of Allah (saw) said:” We do not leave inheritance; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity”? They (too) said: Yes. (Sahih Muslim).

 

Argument 41:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Abu Bakr did not honour his grounds for usurping Fadak

Abu Bakr assertion that he was rigid in implementing the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) is the greatest defence that his advocates present, who can condemn someone who was only enforcing the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s). Sayyid Abul Hasan Nadwi a leading Imam of the Deobandi’s in his book ‘The Life of Caliph Ali’ heaps glowing admiration on Abu Bakr’s action:

There are other reports also which corroborate the determination of Abu Bakr never to deviate, [not] even slightly, from the practice of the Prophet and follow only what he knew to be the Prophet’s will.
Excerpted from “The Life of Caliph Ali” by Abul Hasan Nadwi

We read in Sahih Muslim, The Book on Government (Kitab Al-Imara) Chapter ‘Appointing anyone as a succeeding caliph or leaving aside the question of appointment’ Book 020, Hadeeth Number 4485:

It has been narrated on the authority of ‘Abdullah b. ‘Umar who said: I was present with my father when he was wounded. People praised him and said: May God give you a noble recompense! He said: I am hopeful (of God’s mercy) as well as afraid (of His wrath) People said: Appoint anyone as your successor. He said: Should I carry the burden of conducting your affairs in my life as well as in my death? (So far as Caliphate is concerned) I wish I could acquit myself (before the Almighty) in a way that there is neither anything to my credit nor anything to my discredit. If I would appoint my successor, (I would because) one better than me did so. (He meant Abu Bakr.) If I would leave You alone, (I would do so because) one better than me, i. e. the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), did so. ‘Abdullah says: When he mentioned the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) I understood that he would not appoint anyone as Caliph.

His willingness to ignore the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) here proves that this alleged rigid enforcement of the Sunnah was a sham, and was said at the spur of the moment to strike out the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as).

[End Quote]

Answer:

This report used by Shiapen, actually destroys the myth of Shias from its roots, that Ali(ra) was appointed by Prophet(saw), as his successor, since Umar(ra) clearly states that Prophet(saw) didn’t appoint anyone as his successor.

Secondly, the argument of Shiapen is baseless, and if Abubakr(ra) should be blamed for this issue, then even Ali(ra) is not free from a similar blame, and the Shias will need to accept that even Ali(ra) ignored the Sunnah of Prophet(saw), because during the time of the Messenger of Allah(saw) and the three caliphs who succeeded him, Madinah was the capital of the Islamic state. The leader of the Muslims lived there and ran its affairs himself. However, this situation changed after allegiance was sworn to Ali (ra) as caliph, since he changed the Capital from Madina to Kufa.

We read in Al -Awaasim Min Al-Qawaasim:

Ali went to Kufa. He left Madina at the end of the month of Rabi’ al-Akhir in 36 A H. in order to be near to Syria. His son al-Hasan wanted his father to stay in Madina and take it as the abode of the khalifate as the three Khalifs had done before him (at-Tabari, 5:171). (Al -Awaasim Min Al-Qawaasim, page 88)

The Shias might argue that, Ali(ra) didn’t wish to change the capital or leave the way of Prophet(saw), but such were the circumstances in which he went for this opinion for the benefit of Muslim Ummah, So we respond those Shias that, even Abubakr(ra) didn’t wish to appoint a Caliph, it was due to the situation and the benefit of the Ummah, he had to appoint the Caliph, ofcourse with consultation of some prominent Sahaba(ra). Hence to us, none of these two Caliphs could be blamed for their decisions, which they took for the benefit of Muslim Ummah, nor does it mean in anyway that they action was against the Sunnah of Prophet(saw).

This issue can be easily understood from the example of collection of Quran, we know this was not done by Prophet(saw), but Abubakr(ra) was the first one to do so. Such were the circumstances due to which he went for this task, for the benefit of Muslim Ummah. And it was the favour of Abubakr(ra) over the Muslim Ummah till the end of the world. Hence we read:

عبد خير قال: سمعت عليًا يقول: «أعظم الناس أجرًا في المصاحف: أبو بكر الصديق، هو أول من جمع بين اللوحين»
عن علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه أنه قال : أعظم الناس أجرا في المصاحف أبو بكر ، إن أبا بكر كان أول من جمع القرآن بين اللوحين
Abd Khayr said: I heard Ali bin Abi Talib may Allah be pleased with him saying: “The Person who has the most reward when it comes to the Mushaf(Quran) is Abu Bakr al Siddeeq, he is the first who combined what is between the two boards.”(Mukhtasar min kitab al Muwafaqah p44 also in Fada’el al Quran for Ibn Katheer, Isnad is sahih.)

So, could any rational and objective person accuse Abubakr(ra) for ignoring the way of Prophet(saw) of not collecting the Quran? Not, at all, similar was the case of Abubakr(ra) nominating Umar(ra) and then after approval from the prominent Sahaba, appointing Umar(ra) as Caliph.

Now after referring these examples and many like these(eg: Umar establishing the Islamic calendar), Shias might say that, though these practises of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs were for the benefit of Ummah, yet the question remains that what is the validity of these practices? Then answer to this question is in the hadeeth, where we find the Prophet(saw) commanded Muslims to follow the Sunnah of Rightly-Guided Caliphs after him. We read:

Messenger of Alllah(saw) said: Those of you who live after me will see great disagreement. You must then follow my sunnah and that of the rightly-guided caliphs. Hold to it and stick fast to it. Avoid novelties, for every novelty is an innovation, and every innovation is an error.(Sunan Abi Dawud 4607 ; Grading: Sahih).

And the practical example for the understanding of this hadeeth came from Ali(ra); We read:

Hudain b. al-Mundhir Abu Sasan reported: I saw that Walid was brought to Uthman bin ‘Affan as he had prayed two rak’ahs of the dawn prayer, and then he said: I make an increase for you. And two men bore witness against him. One of them was Humran who said that he had drunk wine. The second one gave witness that he had seen him vomiting. Uthman said: He would not have vomited (wine) unless he had drunk it. He said: ‘Ali, stand up and lash him. ‘Ali said: Hasan, stand up and lash him. Thereupon Hasan said: Let him suffer the heat (of Caliphate) who has enjoyed its coolness. (‘Ali felt annoyed at this remark) and he said: ‘Abdullah b. Ja’far, stand up and flog him, and he began to flog him and ‘Ali counted the stripes until these were forty. He (Hadrat ‘Ali) said: Stop now, and then said: Allah’s Apostle(saw) gave forty stripes, and Abu Bakr also gave forty stripes, and Umar gave eighty stripes, and all these fall under the category of the Sunnah, but this one (forty stripes) is dearer to me. (Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Hadith 4231).

Comment: We find that though Umar(ra) gave eighty stripes, yet Ali(ra) considered it as Sunnah.

In regards to the claim of Abubakr(ra) appointing his successor, there are few facts that needs to stated for proper understanding of this issue:

The fact is that, Abu bakr NOMINATED Umar and presented him to the shura, then everyone(including Ali!) accepted Umar hence it was a valid shura and not an unfair appointment.

Abu Bakr(ra) said: “Verily, as you can clearly see I have been afflicted with a severe illness, and I feel certain that, because of the severity of my condition, I will soon die. Therefore, Allah has released you from the pledge that you have made to me, and my covenant with you(as your Khaleefah) has also come to an end. Allah has returned your affair to you(i.e your ability to choose a leader among yourselves), So appoint over yourselves whomsoever you wish. Indeed, if you choose your new leader while I am still alive, you will be less likely to differ among yourselves after I am gone”. (At-tareekh Al-Islaame 9/258).

Dr Ali M. Sallabi states in his book: The Prophet’s companions consulted one another regarding the matter of choosing the next Khaleefah. Whenever a given companion was nominated for the job, he would refuse and suggest someone else in his place. Such was the way of the Prophet’s companions; each one of them thought that his Muslim brother was better and more worthy than he was. For this reason, the Prophet’s companions, unable to arrive at a decision among themselves, returned to Abubakr and said to him, “O Khaleefah of the Messenger of Allah, your opinion is our opinion(i.e appoint your successor for us).” He said, Then give me some time, so that I can see what is best in the view of Allah and what is best for His religion and His slaves. Abubakr, as did the Prophet(saw) before him, always consulted his companions before making an important decision. In keeping with that policy, he discussed the matter with a few eminent companions. (The Biography of Abubakr As-Siddeeq by , Dr. Ali M. Sallabi, page 724)

Hence Abubakr(ra) in fact mutually consulted about his choice (i.e Umar) in specific, with some of the prominent Muslims, including Abdur Rahman ibn Awf(ra) , Uthman bin Affan(ra) , Ali ibn Abi Talib(ra), and Talhah ibn Ubayd-Allah(ra).

Thus we read:…[Abu Bakr] said addressing this audience:“I have not appointed any relative of mine as Caliph, and I have not installed Umar as Caliph on my own. I have rather done it only after holding consultations with men of sound judgment. Are you then agreed to his being your Caliph?” Hearing this, they (the masses) said: “We all agree with your choice and opinion.” Following this, he (Abu Bakr) said: “You should then carry out Umar’s orders and obey him.”(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, pp.313-314).

Similarly we read: Abu Bakr looked out over the people from his enclosure…He said (to the people): “Will you be satisfied with him whom I have left as (my) successor over you…?” They responded: “We hear and obey.” (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.11, pp.146-147)

Therefore we find that Abubakr(ra) initially left it upon the Sahaba(ra) to choose their new leader, but since they failed to do so, and asked him to choose a leader from them, therefore Abu bakr NOMINATED Omar and presented him to the shura and he acted upon it, but that too, so everyone(including Ali!) accepted Omar hence it was a valid shura and not an appointment.

If Shias still argue that, why Abubakr(ra) wanted a Caliph be appointed during his lifetime, unlike Prophet(saw), then we respond that, the reason to it was given by Abubakr(ra), He said, “Indeed, if you choose your new leader while I am still alive, you will be less likely to differ among yourselves after I am gone”. (At-tareekh Al-Islaam 9/258).” Since Abubakr(ra) didn’ receive revelation nor had knowledge of unseen, he wanted to make sure that, no disunity occurs after him. But the case of Prophet(saw) was different because he used to receive revelation and was made aware of some future events, hence he didn’t have to explicitly appoint Abubakr(ra) as his Caliph, because he was made aware that people will appoint Abubakr(ra) as his successor, that is why he was happy when he saw Abubakr(ra) leading the prayer to Sahaba on his final day. Anas bin Malik Al-Ansari, said: “Abu Bakr used to lead the people in prayer during the fatal illness of the Prophet till it was Monday. When the people aligned (in rows) for the prayer the Prophet lifted the curtain of his house and started looking at us and was standing at that time. His face was (glittering) like a page of the Qur’an and he smiled cheerfully.(Sahih Bukhari). Thus he(saw) left this issue on the people, because he knew that eventually Abubakr(ra) would be appointed by them.

The view of Ali(ra) regarding the decision of Abubakr(ra) for appointing Umar(ra) :

وأخرج ابن عساكر عن يسار بن حمزة قال: َلمَّا َثقِ َ ل أبو بكر اشرف على النَّا ِ س من كوة
فقال: أيها النَّاس إني قد عهدت عهدًا، أفترضون به، فقال النَّاس: رضينا يا خليفة رسول الله،
فقام عليٌ فقال: لا نرضى إلا أن يكون عمر، قال: َفِإنَّهُ عُمَر، ذكر ذلك السيوطي في “تاريخ
الخلفاء”.
Ibn Asakir related that Yasar Ibn Hamzah said: When Abu Bakr got gravely ill, he appeared to people from a small window; he said to them: “O people I have decided to entrust somebody to the caliphate, are you going to accept that ?” The people said: “We accepted that O the Caliph (successor) of the Messenger of Allah.” Ali Ibn Abi Talib stood and said: “We will never accept anyone other than Umar.” Abu Bakr said: “It will be Umar.” (“Tarikh al-Khulafa, p. 61. ; Musannif , Kitabul Fazail ; Asadul Ghaba, Vol. 4 ,p. 70 ; Riyadh un nadhra, Vol. 2, p. 88 )

We read in Kanzul Ammal
أشار لعمر ولم يألُ فبايعه المسلمون وبايعته معهم
Ali(ra) said: (Abu Bakr) pointed to Umar (i.e pointed that he should be caliph) and he didn’t err in it , hence the Muslims rendered allegiance to him, and I rendered allegiance along with them. [Kanzul Ammal, Kitabul Fatan, Vol. 6, p. 82]

View of the prominent Sahabi Abdullah ibn Masood(ra) regarding decision of Abubakr(ra) :

Abdullah ibn Mas’ood(ra) said, “The three most penetrating and judicious of people are the following: Moosa’s(as) female companion, who said, ‘O’ my father, hire him! Verily, the best of men for you to hire is the strong, the trustworthy”.(Quran 28:26), Yousuf’s(as) companion, who said, ‘Make his stay comfortable, for it may be that he will profit us or we shall adopt him as a son”.(Quran 12:21), and Abu Bakr(ra) when he appointed ‘Umar(ra) as his successor.(Majma az-Zawaaid vol 10, pg 268)

Testimony of Abdullah Ibn Abbas(ra) regarding Caliphate of Umar(ra):

Abdullah ibn Abbas(ra) said to Umar(ra) : ‘No two people disputed concerning your Caliphate’.(Al-Itiqad bu Al-Bayhaqi, pg. 188).

Comment: This proves that there was a consensus(ijma) of the greatest generation(Sahaba) regarding the Khilafah of Umar(ra).

Tetimonies of Ahlelbayt that Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra) followed the Sunnah :

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 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).

Ali said: By the One who causes the seed to split an sprout and the one who created the soul, no one loves them(Abubakr and Umar)but a pious believer, and no one hates them but an immoral evildoer. They accompanied the Messenger of Allah(saw) with sincerity and loyalty, enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil, and they never did anything contrary to what the Messenger wanted to do.( Ali ibn Abi Talib, by Dr. Ali M Sallabi, vol 1, age 389)

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 389-390)

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).

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.””

 

Argument 42:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Abu Bakr prevented the recital of Hadeeth that caused disputes

We read in Tadhkiratul Huffaz Volume 1 page 3 by Dhahabi:

“After the death of the Prophet (s) Abu Bakr gathered the people and said ‘You recite such Hadeeth from Rasulullah, that you yourselves are at logger heads as to whether it is Sahih, people after you shall differ even more, stop quoting such Hadeeth. If anyone asks you about a matter then say the Book of Allah (swt) is between the two of us, whatever the Qur’an deems halaal, you deem halaal, whatever it deems haraam you also deem haraam”.

The narration informs us that Abu Bakr prohibited the recital of a Hadeeth that’s authenticity was in doubt and caused a dispute.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Al-Dhahabi, on the same page weakens this report as Munkar(denounced),,hence rejected; which makes the silly argument of Shiapen null and void.

Moreover, even this unreliable report infact back-fires Shiapen, as it shows the extreme caution Abubakr(ra) took regarding the authenticity of ahadeeth. He(ra) didn’t allow the recital of ahadeeth whose authenticity was doubtful. Hence, Abubakr(ra) narrating the hadeeth that Prophet(saw) said: “We do not leave inheritance…” means that he(ra) was certainly confident about its authenticity.

 

Argument 43:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Abu Bakr’s Hadeeth burning campaign

Dhahabi in Tadhkiratul Huffaz Volume 1 page 5 Dhikr Abu Bakr states:

“Ayesha narrates ‘My father Abu Bakr gathered the Hadeeth of the Prophet, there were 500 in total, but following a difficult night of tossing from side to side, I heard the fear and asked ‘Have you seen a nightmare?’, or are you changing sides for some other reason? When dawn came Abu Bakr said “Daughter bring the Hadeeth that are in your possession, he then summoned fire, and burnt the Hadeeth. I asked ‘Why did you burn them?’ He said ‘I was worried that they remain after I die, the Hadeeth I narrated from Thiqah narrators are not relayed in the same manner. If they are not reported in the same way I shall be culpable for such a mistake”.

These were the close friends of Rasulullah (s) one threatened to set alight to the house of Sayyida Fatima (as). We will discuss this in Chapter 12.

One set alight manuscripts of the Qur’an and Abu Bakr set alight Hadeeth! Abu Bakr set them alight as he was unsure as to whether they were Sahih. The Hadeeth ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity)’ was narrated solely by Abu Bakr, one cannot even hazard a guess as to where he found this Hadeeth, yet he even set this on fire during the final stage of life.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Al-Dhahabi, on the same page weakens this report as Munkar(denounced), hence rejected; which makes the silly Shiapen’s argument null and void.

Moreover, let’s see why Abu Bakr burned the Hadiths.

Aisha (ra) says:“My father (Abu Bakr) had a collection of 500 hadiths. One night I noticed that he was very restless. He was tossing about in the bed and could go to sleep. I got worried over this and inquired. “Are you suffering from any trouble or worried about anything?” But he did not speak and remained restless throughout the night. Next morning he called me and said, “bring the collection of hadith that I gave you to keep.” I brought the book and he set fire to it, till it was burnt. He said “The collection contained many hadiths that I had heard from other people. I thought if I died and left behind a Hadith accepted as authentic by me, but really not so, then I should have to answer for that.” (Source: By Muhammed Zakaria, Faza’il-E-Amaal Chapter “stories of Sahabah”, page 140)

It was Abu Bakr’s(ra) zeal for knowledge that caused him to compile a book of 500 hundred hadiths. But it was due to his extreme cautiousness that he supposedly burnt the collection of Hadiths. Anyways, this incident is not proven and denounced.

Also, Abubakr(ra) never said, that he heard the hadeeth of inheritance, from any other person, rather, he declared hearing it himself, from Prophet(saw) which is why he remained firm on it.

 

Argument 44:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Abu Bakr’s favourable treatment of the Sahaba compared to Sayyida Fatima (as)

Hayatus Sahaba by Maulana Mohammad Yousuf Kandlawi is a key modern day piece of work, held in high esteem amongst the Hanafi Sect in Pakistan particularly used by the Tableeghi Jamaath for Dawah purposes. The book provides a detailed backdrop to the lives of the Sahaba, with reliance on the classical Sunni sources. Although we have cited the complete narration from Volume 2 page 51 earlier we shall now analyse this narration from from another angle:

“Ubaida reports ‘Aina bin Hasan and Aqra bin Habis approached Hadrat Abu Bakr (rad) and said ‘O Caliph of the Messenger of Allah!” There is some fallow land in out area. If you deem it considerable, give us the land so that we can cultivate it to earn our livelihood. He donated it to them and wrote a decree in support thereof…[Al Kanz (Volume 2 page 189)al Isabah (Volume 3 page 55) Al Bukhari (Volume 1 page 59). This Hadith has been mentioned by the above sources with a correct Isnad…]“.

Although the narration later on shows that Umar overruled Abu Bakr on the matter, the striking thing from this narration is the preferential treatment that Abu Bakr gave to the Sahaba compared to Sayyida Fatima (as). Like this land, Abu Bakr also deemed Fadak to be land belonging to the Muslims. Abu Bakr justified his confiscation of Fadak on this very basis, arguing that Sayyida Fatima (as) had no claim to the land, upon the death of the Prophet (s) it reverted to the Muslims. If Sayyida Fatima (as) had no right to claim land that (according to Abu Bakr) belonged to the Muslims, why was he willing to donate Muslim land to two Sahaba as a gift? Could he not have adopted the same approach with Sayyida Fatima (as)? Why was she treated differently? This reference clearly proves that Abu Bakr showed prejudicial treatment with regards to the way he treated Sayyida Fatima (as) in the Fadak dispute.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Shiapen, didn’t give the complete grading mentioned in the report, Here is the complete grading mentioned in the same scan page they provided.

[Al Kanz (Volume 2 page 189) al-Isabah (Volume 3 page 55) Al Bukhari (Volume 1 page 59) also Al-Kanz(vol 1, page 80). This Hadith has been dealt with by the above – mentioned sources with a correct Isnad, Ali bin Medini says that there is gap in this Hadith as Ubaidah has not found this story. Abdur Razzaque transmitted it briefly as per the report of Talib.]

So according to Ali bin Medini the chain of this report is disconnected.

Let us cite the complete incident, for the benefit of the readers, so that they get an idea what actually happened.

Uyaynah ibn Hasan and al-Aqra ibn Habis came to Abubakr and said: “O Successor of the Messenger of Allah(saw), there is some swampy land where no grass grows and it is of no use. Why don’t you give it to us to cultivate it, so that perhaps there will be some benefit in it after today?” Abubakr said to those who were around him, “What do you think of what they said, if it is swampy land that is of no use?” They said, “We think that you should give to them, so that perhaps there will be some benefit in it after today.” So he gave it to them and wrote a document for them stating that it was theirs. He wanted Umar to witness it, but he was not present among the people, so they went to Umar and asked him to bear witness. They found him applying pitch to a camel of his and said, “Abubakr has asked you to bear witness to what is in this document. Shall we read to you or will you read it?” He said, “I am as you see I am, if you wish you can read it and if you wish you can wait until I am finished and I will read it myself.” They said, “No, we will read it.” So they read it and when he heard what was in the document, he took it from their hands, then he spat on it an wiped it(i.e obliterated what was written). They complained about that and said something bad. He said, “The Messenger of Allah(saw) used to be kind to you, and Islam was in a weak position at that time. Now Allah has made Islam strong, so go and work hard. May you never succeed if you graze your flocks in that land!” They went to Abubakr and started to complain, saying, “By Allah, we do not know if you are the Caliph or Umar.” He said “No, he could have been the Caliph if he had wanted to be”. Then Umar came and was angry. He stood over Abubakr and said, “Tell me about this land what you gave to these two. Is it your own land or does it belong to all the Muslims?” He said, “No, it belongs to all the Muslims.” He said, “Then what made you give it to these two only and not to all the Muslims?” He said, “I consulted these people who were around me and that is what they advised me to do.” He said, “If you consulted those who were around you, did you consult all the other Muslim, and were they pleased with it?” Abubakr(ra) said “I told you that you were more qualified for this role than I, but you insisted.”(Mahd as-Sawab fee Fada’il Ameer al-Momineen Umar ibn al-Khattab vol1, page 262).

Points to note:

(i). If this incident is accepted, then it shows that Abubakr(ra) made consultation and based a judgement, that turned out to be incorrect, so he retracted from his decision and we believe Abubakr(ra) was not infallible. If it is asked that why did Abubakr(ra) decided to give that land, then the answer is in the report itself, that it was of no use and fallow; and he didn’t make the decision on his own opinion rather, he consulted his advisers too, but that was not sufficient as pointed by Umar(ra).

(ii). Secondly the two men didn’t claim it as their right, which Abubakr(ra) granted them, this was not the case, here they requested it to be granted to them as a favour, This cannot be compared to the demand of Fatima(ra), who demanded it as inheritance from Prophet(saw), which Abubakr(ra) couldn’t fulfill due to being binded by the command of Prophet(saw). So Shiapen has tried to compare apples with oranges inorder to prove their argument.

(iii). Thirdly, this report shows us that Shoora(consultation) was practised in all decisions concerning the Muslims affairs and, moreover, that Abubakr would be willing to surrender his opinion, even though he was who he was. This is a picture of shoora as it should be, within the framework of the commands of Allah and the rulings on what is Halal and What is Haram. It is not the pseudo-shoora that is enacted in parliaments from which the people have gained nothing but the bitterness of oppression, injustice and loss.

(iv). We know, if we are in a position of administration and someone steps in our territory, we become very sensitive and a fight may take place due to it. But Abubakr(ra) said, if Umar(ra) wants to be the Khalipah, he can be the Khaliphah, which shows that, they were doing for the sake of Allah, they were not doing it for their personal interests. Abubakr(ra) didn’t have a problem giving up Khilafah to Umar(ra). Further Abubakr(ra) said: “I told you that you were more qualified for this role than I, but you insisted”. Can we imagine a Leader or a Prime Minister or a President, who would say to their adviser, ‘You are to be the leader, you are more qualified than me?’, In the greatest democracies of democracies we wouldn’t find that, but SubhanAllah, that was the way of Sahaba(ra), they were the least superficial, they were simple, easy, straight forward and honest people. Abubakr(ra) is saying this publicly, infront of Uyaynah and al-Aqra; Indeed Sahaba were the men who were living for hereafter not for this world, their minds were connected to hereafter, their eyes were fixed on paradise, this world for them was just a bridge.

One thought on “8. Sunni Answers to Shiapen’s article on Fadak and inheritance of Prophet(saw) – “Chapter Eight”

  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)]

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