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


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 Nine: Sayyida Fatima (as)’s response to the confiscation of Fadak”.

 

Argument 1:

Shiapen Stated: 

[Quote]

The sermon of Sayyida Fatima (as)

We read in Sharh Nahaj ul Balagha by Ibn Abi al Hadeed Volume 4 page 108, printed Beirut:

“When Sayyida Fatima discovered that Abu Bakr intended on confiscating Fadak, she wrapped a cloth around her head, gathered some women from her tribe and went to Abu Bakr. At that time the Muhajireen and Ansar were summoned, a purdah was made between Fatima and the Sahaba. The daughter of the Prophet sad in a distressed manner, that led to the Sahaba crying. After a short pause she praised Allah, sent Salaam on her father the Prophet and said:

“All things on the earth and sky seeks a Waseela to Allah, the Waseela for the people to reach Allah (swt) are us, and Allah’s select people amongst creations are us”

And then she introduced herself:

“I am Fatima the daughter of Rasul and said ‘That which was bestowed to me has been taken, O Abu Bakr, if you are the inheritor of your father, and I am not my father’s inheritor you adopted a wrong means’. Then she said to the Muhajireen and Ansar requesting help, ‘O Bani Queela the inheritance of my father has been annexed from me, before your very eyes. You are listening to my words why are you lax with regards to helping me? Why do you not support my right?’

[End Quote]

Answer:

The Fabricated Sermon of Fadak:

The Sermon of Fadak has been falsely attributed to Fatima(ra), this is a pure fabricated and a lie. This isn’t even reported authentically in Shia books according to Shia standards.

Shias don’t have any authentic chain for this fabricated sermon in their own books, that is why they their scholars fool the ignorant shia masses by bringing some ridiculous claims, such as, this sermon has many chain, which means it is true, even if they have liars or anonymous narrators(who could be liars) in them. But we would like to inform those misled Shia masses that, this is what the liars were known for, they used to created chains for a text that existed, So if one liar fabricated this narration, then the other liars just followed him by using his fabrication and creating new chains for it. Hence, this fabricated sermon shouldn’t be relied by any objective and truth-seeking Shia.

Shia books have documented this sermon alone in form of a book, the first question that pops up is that, how could any narrator, narrate word by word, such a long sermon, this is truely an irrational fabrication, because if someone narrated such a long sermon hearing it just once, then that narrator must have had a voice recorder, unless that was the case, then such a lengthy sermon cannot be narrated word by word like it was reported in the fabricated narrations.

Reply 1:

This sermon was reported via three chains:

First chain has narrator Al-Ghulabi, about whom Imam Al-Daraqutni said: he fabricates hadith. See his bio in Mizan Al-I’itidal.

Second chain has Jabir Al-Ju’fi;  Al-Sha’bi, Ayoub Al-Sakhtiyani,  Al-Jawzajani, Abu Ahmad Al-Hakim, etc, accused him of lying. There is almost a consensus of hadithists that he was a liar. (Refer to Tahtheeb Al-Tahtheeb / Mizan Al-I’itidaal):

Third chain includes a group of anonymous(majhool) narrators, and even the chain is mursal, because the last narrator was born in the year 70 AH and could not have witnessed this fictitious sermon.

Hence it is rejected as a concoction and fabrication.

Reply 2:

This fictitious sermon was meaningless, if Fatima(ra) supposedly believed that she was being wronged and her property was being stolen, then Sayyida Fatima(ra) would have called for Hilful-Fudul instead of giving a Sermon. In the past, various noble-hearted individuals of Arabia thought to establish a mutual agreement. This agreement stated that the rights of the oppressed would be protected, and that the oppressor would be restrained from injustice. It was called Hilful-Fudul [i.e. Confederacy of Rights].

We read in Seerah ibn Hisham:

Ziyad b. `Abdullah al-Bakka’i related to me the following as from Ibn Ishaq: The tribes of Quraysh decided to make a covenant and assembled for that purpose in the house of `Abdullah b. Jud`an b. `Amr b. Ka`b b. Sa`d b. Taym b. Murra b. Ka`b b. Lu’ayy because of his seniority and the high reputation he enjoyed. Those party to the agreement with him were B. Hashim, B.’l-Muttalib, Asad b. `Abdu’l-`Uzza, Zuhra b. Kilab, and Taym b. Murra. They bound themselves by a solemn agreement that if they found that anyone, either a native of Mecca or an outsider, had been wronged they would take his part against the aggressor and see that the stolen property was restored to him. Quraysh called that confederacy `The Confederacy of the Fudul’. (Seerah ibn Hisham, page 47)

Shiapen might say that, if Fatima(ra) would have called for Hilful-Fudul, then Sahaba wouldn’t have helped her, as they were enemies of Ahlelbayt, However these allegations are shattered once we refer the history, because we find that Sahaba, supported Ahlelbayt against the oppressive Governor of Madina, when they called for Hilful-Fudul.

We read in Seerah ibn Hisham:

Yazid b. `Abdullah b. Usama b. al-Hadi al-Laythi told me that Muhammad b. Ibrahim b. al-Harith al-Taymi told him that there was a dispute between al-Husayn b. `Ali b. Abu Talib and al-Walid b. `Utba b. Abu Sufyan about some property they held in Dhu’l-Marwa. At that time al-Walid was governor of Medina, his uncle, Mu`awiya b. Abu Sufyan having given him the appointment. Al-Walid had defrauded al-Husayn of his rights, for as governor he had the power to do so. Husayn said to him: `By Allah you shall do me justice or I will take my sword and stand in the apostle’s mosque and invoke the confederacy of the Fudul!’ `Abdullah b. al-Zubayr who was with al-Walid at the time said: `And I swear by Allah that if he invokes it I will take my sword and stand with him until he gets justice, or we will die together.‘ When the news reached al-Miswar b.Makhrama b. Naufal al-Zuhri and `Abdu’l-Rahman b. `Uthman b.`Ubaydullah al-Taymi they said the same. As soon as he realized what was happening al-Walid gave al-Husayn satisfaction.(Seerah ibn Hisham, page 47).

Therefore, Sayyida Fatima(ra) not calling for the effective Hilful-Fudul pact, and instead giving a meaningless Sermon proves that it was a later fabrication.

Reply 3:

Regarding the quote from Sharh Nahjul Balagha then, we would like to inform the readers that, Sharh Nahjul balagha or Sharh ibn Hadeed, is not an authority work of Ahlesunnah, this is a common lie of Shia websites. Ibn Hadeed was a Ghali(extremist) Shia, having some Mutazili beliefs.

[1] Ibn Abil Hadid himself states in the beginning of his Sharh that he wrote the book on the order of Ibn Al ‘Alqami.

Imam, Taqi Al Din Al Subki Al Ash’ari states about Alqami:

وكان شيعيا رافضياً

– He was a Shia Rafidhi.

It is also stated:

هو محمد بن أحمد بن محمد بن علي. أبو طالب مؤيد الدين العلقمي البغدادي شيعي المذهب

– He is Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Ali, Abu Talib Mawaid Al Din Al ‘Alqami Al Baghdadi (from) the Madhab of the Shia.

[2] Now regarding Ibn Abil Hadid he is not a Hujjah upon Ahlesunnah because he was a Ghali Shia, Imam Ibn Kathir describes him as follows:
ابن أبي الحديد الشاعر العراقي عَبْدُ الْحَمِيدِ بْنُ هِبَةِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحُسَيْنِ أَبُو حَامِدِ بْنِ أَبِي الْحَدِيدِ عِزُّ الدِّينِ الْمَدَائِنِيُّ، الْكَاتِبُ الشَّاعِرُ الْمُطَبِّقُ الشِّيعِيُّ الْغَالِي، لَهُ شَرْحُ نَهْجِ الْبَلَاغَةِ فِي عِشْرِينَ مُجَلَّدًا، وُلِدَ بِالْمَدَائِنِ سَنَةَ سِتٍّ وَثَمَانِينَ وَخَمْسمِائَةٍ، ثمَّ صَارَ إِلَى بَغْدَادَ فَكَانَ أَحَدَ الْكُتَّابِ وَالشُّعَرَاءِ بِالدِّيوَانِ الْخَلِيفَتِيِّ، وَكَانَ حَظِيًّا عِنْدَ الْوَزِيرِ ابْنِ الْعَلْقَمِيِّ، لِمَا بَيْنَهُمَا مِنَ الْمُنَاسَبَةِ وَالْمُقَارَبَةِ وَالْمُشَابَهَةِ فِي التَّشَيُّعِ
Ibn Abil Hadid al-’Iraqi: the poet ‘Abd al-Hamid ibn Hibatillah ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn al-Husayn, Abu Hamid, Ibn Abil Hadid, ‘Izz ad-Din al-Mada’ini; the man of letters, the eloquent poet, the extremist Shia. He is the author of a commentary on Nahj al-Balaghah in 20 volumes. He was born at Mada’in in the year 586. Then he went to Baghdad and became one of the poets in the court of the Khalifah. He enjoyed the favour of the wazir Ibn al-’Alqami, on account of the two of them having literature and Shi’ism in common.(al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah (year 655, vol. 9 p. 82). Additional scan pages from Al-Bidayah: [vol 17, page 1page 354]

[3] Even expert Shia scholar al-Khawansari author of “Rawdat Al-Jannat” (5/19) describes him as:

عز الدين عبد الحميد بن أبي الحسن بن أبي الحديد , هو من أكابر الفضلاء المتتبعين , و أعاظم النبلاء المتبحرين موالياً لأهل البيت بيت العصمة و الطهارة … و حسب الدلالة على علو منزلته فى الدين و غلوه فى ولاية أمير المؤمنين

[‘Izz al-Deen ‘Abdul-Hamid bin abi al-Hassan bin ibn al-Hadid, from the greatest of virtuous knowledgeable and noble men, he was a Muwali to Ahlul-Bayt the house of infallibility and purity … and he had Ghulu in the Wilayah of Ameeer al-Mumineen (as)] [title page 2vol 5 Page 19 ; vol 5 Page 20]

Shia scholar Muhammad abu al-Fadl Ibrahim who researched “Sharh Nahjul-Balagha” said about him:

ولد بالمدائن في غرة ذي الحجة سنة ست وثمانين وخمسمائة , ونشأ بها , وتلقى عن شيوخها , ودرس المذاهب الكلامية فيها , ثم مال الى مذهب الاعتزال منها , وكان الغالب على أهل المدائن التشيع والتطرف والمغالاة , فسار في دربهم , وتقيل مذهبهم , ونظم القصائد المعروفة بالعلويات السبع على طريقتهم , وفيها غالى وتشيع , وذهب الاسراف في كثير من أبياتها كل مذهب
“Born in Madaen in the month of thu al-Hijjah in the year 586, he grew up in it, and took knowledge from its scholars, and studied the Madhabs of Kalam in it, then he leaned towards the Madhab of the Mu’atazilah, and most of the people of Madaen were extreme Shia Ghulat, so he followed their path, and adopted their Madhab, and composed the seven famous ‘Alawiyat poems, in them he showed Ghulu and Tashayyu’ and he greatly exaggerated…”]

Similar can be read in Sharh Nahjul Balagha; [Screen shot]

Even the Shia scholars such as Al Qummi in his Kitab Al Kinaa states:

ولد في المدائن وكان الغالب على أهل المدائن التشيع و التطرف والمغالاة فسار في دربهم وتقيل مذهبهم و نظم العقائد المعروفة بالعلويات السبع على طريقتهم وفيها غالي و تشيع وذهب الإسراف في كثير من الأبيات كل مذهب ..(ثم ذكر القمي بعض الأبيات التى قالهاً غالياً )
ثم خف الى بغداد وجنح الى الاعتزال واصبح كما يقول صاحب نسخة السحر معتزلياً جاهزيا في اكثر شرحه بعد ان كان شيعياً غالياً
– He was born in Al Madaa’i, which was common for its population in general to be fundamental Shi’a and extremists, and as such he followed their path and embraced their Madhhab, and formed the fundamental of faith in seven poetry eclogues known as the Seven Alawite Poetry. In this poetry he followed their traditions in going to extremism and excess in Shi’ism in many lines. He then moved to Baghdad and tilted toward the Mu’atizili, and embraced their views as it appears in most of his commentaries after he was an extremist Shi’a.

We read the similar, in Mojam al-Matbu’at al-Arabia vol 1, page 1 ; page 29]

Esteemed Shia scholar Baqar al-Majlisi has praised him with numerous titles.[Bihar al Anwar vol 108, page 72 ; page 73]

These all references shows that Ibn Abi Hadeed:
1. was a Mutazili and hardcore (Ghali) Shia
2. was undercover Shia agent
3. was religious and personal advisor of Ibn-e-Alqami (Shia minister).

Some Shia use wikipedia as a source to prove that Ibn Abi hadeed was a Sunni, however it should be known that wikipedia is an open source, which anyone can edit, with whatever proof they have and get it updated. It isn’t a reliable source for student of Islamic knowledge. If Shias disagree then we would like to present some screen shots of wikipedia from past(before it was updated by Shias) where we find that Ibn Abi hadeed was listed as a Shia. [Screen shot English ; Screen shot Arabic]

Thus, the sermon of Fadak is an imaginary fabrication, falsely attributed to Fatima(ra), and the chains of the transmission in Shia books too aren’t free from liars and anonymous narrators(who were most probably liars).

 

Argument 2:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Rather than return Fadak to its rightful heirs, Abu Bakr swore at the Ahl’ul Bayt (as)

We read in Sharh Ibn al Hadeed Khutbah page Fadak Volume 4 page 110:

Ahmad bin Abdul Aziz narrates that Sayyida Fatima appeared before the Court of Abu Bakr, and after the ruling on Fadak she gave a sermon wherein she made reference to her family lineage, and highlighted the injustice of the Shaykhayn with an one heart, When the Sermon finished and those present were moved by her words, Abu Bakr got on the pulpit immediately and said ‘People what is wrong with you! You raise your ears to everything based on Truth and Falsehood [Ali] is like a fox whose witness is his tail [Fatimah] he wishes to reawaken Fitnah (Khilafat), and seeks the support of women, the majority of whom are fornicators’. Abu Bakr said to the Ansar I have heard and refuted and analysed the words of the stupid.

(Ibn al Hadeed) says I asked this from Abu Jafar Yahya bin Abi Zaid Basree and he said ‘Abu Bakr was referring to ‘Ali by these words.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Reply 1:

The chain of this report has narrator Al-Ghulabi, regarding him Imam Al-Daraqutni said, ‘he fabricates hadith’. See his bio in Mizan Al-I’itidal. Hence this is rejected as a fabrication.

Reply 2:

Refer the response above, where we explained that, Sermon of Fadak is a fabrication, which has been falsely attributed to Fatima(ra), all its chain contains liars, anonymous narrators(who were most probably liars) or highly weak narrators. Secondly, Ibn Hadeed was an extremist Shia, hence his work will not become a proof over Ahlesunnah.

Infact, Abubakr(ra) treated Fatima(ra) in very humble and kind way, stating that he would prefer the relatives of Prophe(saw) over his own relatives. Hence we read:

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

Another proof is a weak report from al-Tarikah, we read with its chain from Anas that Abu Bakr told Fatimah:

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.”]

Moreover the fabrication Shiapen quoted, even contradicts the shia report from Sharh Nahjul Balagha by Shia scholar Kamal al-Deen Maytham bin ‘Ali bin Maytham al-Bahrani, vol 5 page 315.

“كمال الدين ميثم بن علي بن ميثم البحراني “

و أما ما سوى ذلك فإني سمعت رسول الله صل الله عليه و سلم يقول : إنا معاشر الأنبياء لا نورث ذهبا و لا فضة و لا أرضا و لا عقارا و لا دارا ولكنا نورث الإيمان و الحكمة و العلم و السنة, و قد عملت بما أمرني و سمعت, فقالت: إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم قد وهبها ليقال فمن يشهد بذلك ، فجاء علي ابن أبي طالب فشهد بذلك ، وجاءت أم أيمن فشهدت أيضا ، فجاء عمر بن الخطاب وعبد الرحمن بن عوف فشهدا ان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كان يقسمها ، فقال أبو بكر : صدقت يا ابنة رسول الله وصدق علي ، وصدقت أم أيمن ، وصدق عمر وصدق عبد الرحمن وذلك ان مالك لأبيك ، كان رسول الله يأخذ من فدك قوتكم ويقسم الباقي ويحمل منه في سبيل الله ، فما تصنعين بها ، قالت : اصنع بها كما كان يصنع بها أبي قال : فلك علي ان اصنع كما كان يصنع أبوك . فرضيت بذلك و أخذت العهد عليه به
After the conversation in which Abu Bakr (ra) explains what belongings of Rassul-Allah SAWS he offered to ‘Ali (ra) (e.g his sword and his mule) he continues by saying:

“As for the rest (of the belongings) I had heard Rassul-Allah SAWS saying: We the prophets do not give gold or silver or land or estate or house as inheritance but what we leave is belief and wisdom and knowledge and Sunnah, Abu Bakr says: And I did what he ordered and I obeyed. Fatima said: The Prophet SAWS has given it to me as a gift.
Abu Bakr said: Who bears witness to this? So both ‘Ali and Umm Ayman were witnesses of this however ‘Umar and ‘Abdul-Rahman ibn ‘Awf  bore witness that Rassul-Allah SAWS used to divide the shares of this land (between needy Muslims), after hearing this Abu Bakr said: You speak truth O daughter of Rassul-Allah SAWS, you speak truth O ‘Ali, you speak truth O Umm Ayman, you speak truth O ‘Umar and you speak truth O ibn ‘Awf that your wealth (O Fatima) is your father’s, He SAWS used to take your needs from the land and he used to divide the rest and distribute it in the name of Allah, so what will you (Fatima) do with it? she said: I do with it as my father used to do, He said: I promise you to also do with it as your father used to do. So she was pleased with this and she took an oath from him.”

The Hadith is also found in the shia book “al-Sahih(authentic) min Sirat al-Imam ‘Ali” otherwise known as “Al-Murtada min Sirat al-Murtada” volume 10 page 182 by sayyed ja’afar murtada al-’amili.

 

Argument 3:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Abu Bakr’s denial of Khums and Fadak incurred the anger of Sayyida Fatima (as)

We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325:

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.

[End Quote]

Answer:

The wording in the report, which says that Fatima(ra) was angry with Abubakr(ra) was an interpolation by the narrator ‘Zuhri’, and the evidence of it, is that wherever the words regarding anger of Fatima(ra) occurs, one of the narrator in the chain of those hadeeth is ibn Shihab al-Zuhri, who was well known for Idraaj..

Maulana Hafiz Maher Muhammad Mianwalvi in his book  “Tuhfa Imamiya” page 183 aptly explains this issue:
“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”.( Tuhfa Imamiya” page 183).

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

Now, if for the sake of argument, even if it is supposedly accepted that Fatima(ra) got angry with Abubakr(ra), excluding the wordings, proven to be interpolation by Zuhri, which says, ‘Fatima(ra) forsook or shun Abubakr(ra) and did not talk to him until the end of her life’, which are to be rejected and not relied. Then the anger of Fatima can be best explained by using the mursal hadeeth of Sha’abi , which shows eventually Fatima(ra) was pleased with Abubakr(ra), we read:

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

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

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

Shiapen might argue Asma(ra) did this all from herself, without taking permission from her husband Abubakr(ra), although this would be a foolish claim, but for sake of arguments let us entertain this too. Asma’ bint `Umays (rah), the Imami Shia view her in very high regards, in her wikipedia page they write:

[According to an authentic report in Al-KhiSaal by Shaykh Al-Sadooq, vol. 2, pg. 363, she is considered one of the women of paradise.]

On their forums (ie ShiaChat) they praise her by saying:

[asma bint umays (ra) was one of the best student of fatima (as) and was considered a scholar.]

And they try to explain the fact that she was previously Abu Bakr’s (ra) wife by saying:

[asma bint umays was an exception and that she was loyal to bibi fatima (as)]

These ignorant folk do not know anything about their own historical personalities, the actions and words of their “icons” are more than enough to refute their silly incomplete unqualified reading of history.

In Fada’il al-Sahaba by Ahmad ibn Hanbal we read:

نا يَحْيَى بْنُ زَكَرِيَّا، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنِي أَبِي، وَابْنُ أَبِي خَالِدٍ، عَنِ الشَّعْبِيِّ، قَالَ: ” تَزَوَّجَ عَلِيٌّ أَسْمَاءَ بِنْتَ عُمَيْسٍ بَعْدَ أَبِي بَكْرٍ فَتَفَاخَرَ ابْنَاهَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ، وَمُحَمَّدُ بْنُ جَعْفَرٍ، فَقَالَ وَاحِدٌ مِنْهُمَا: أَنَا خَيْرٌ مِنْكَ، وَأَبِي خَيْرٌ مِنْ أَبِيكَ، فَقَالَ عَلِيٌّ لأَسْمَاءَ: أَقْضِي بَيْنَهُمَا، فَقَالَتْ لابْنِ جَعْفَرٍ: أَمَا أَنْتَ، أَيْ بُنَيَّ فَمَا رَأَيْتُ شَابًّا مِنَ الْعَرَبِ كَانَ خَيْرًا مِنْ أَبِيكَ، وَأَمَّا أَنْتَ فَمَا رَأَيْتُ كَهْلا مِنَ الْعَرَبِ خَيْرًا مِنْ أَبِيكَ قَالَ: فَقَالَ عَلِيٌّ: مَا تَرَكْتِ لَنَا شَيْئًا، وَلَوْ قُلْتِ غَيْرَ هَذَا لَمَقَتُّكِ، قَالَ: فَقَالَتْ: وَاللَّهِ إِنَّ ثَلاثَةً أَنْتَ أَخَسُّهُمْ لا خِيَارَ

[Yahya bin Zakaria said: My father and ibn abi Khalid told me: from al-Sha`bi: `Ali married Asma’ bint `Umays so her two sons Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr and Muhammad ibn Ja`far started boasting with pride, each saying: “I am better and my father is better than yours.” So `Ali said to Asma’: “Why don’t you be the judge between them?” So she said to ibn Ja`far: “As for you son, I have not seen a young man among the Arabs better than your father Ja`far.” Then she said to Muhammad: “And as for you, I have not seen a mature man among the Arabs better than your father Abu Bakr.” `Ali then said to Asma’ (jokingly): “You’ve left nothing for me? (but) If you had said otherwise I would have hated it.” She replied to him: “By Allah, if you are the lesser from among the three men then you’re all great.”] (Ibn Hajar said “Isnaduhu Sahih” in al-Isabah 4/231).

In this report we see Asma’(ra) praising her last husband Abu Bakr(ra) and declaring in front of `Ali (ra) that Abu Bakr (ra) was better than him. She told `Ali (ra) that the fact that these two men are better than him, and he is who he is, then all three of them must be truly great. If the lesser of the three was `Ali (ra), then one can only imagine the greatness of the second two men.

Also in Siyar A`lam al-Nubala’ 2/286 are three narrations, that Abu Bakr (ra) made it a part of his will that she would wash him, and he made her give him an oath concerning this, and that Asma’ (rah) broke her fast only so she can wash her husband in a cold day.

Now the important question which arises is that, if at all Abubakr(ra) was some who oppressed Fatima(ra) or Fatima(ra) was angry on Abubakr(ra), then why would Asma(ra) even after the death of Abubakr(ra) hold him such high regards, that too saying his before Ali(ra) who supposedly believed that Fatima(ra) died being in a state of anger with Abubakr(ra)? SubhanAllah see how these Shia deviate.

Lastly, if it is asked that why did Fatima(ra) got angry at first place, then assuming that Fatima(ra) was angry, we will answer this argument 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.`Ali bin abi Talib would later obtain valuable gifts and lands from what the Khulafa’ offered him and his children, but at the time of the Prophet’s (saw) passing he had nothing, so Fatimah may Allah’s peace be upon her being the mother of two young kids, she was terribly worried about the fate of her family and she wished to obtain any means to provide for them.

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

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

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

 

Argument 4:

Shiapen Stated:

[Quote]

It should be pointed out that Abu Bakr was not alone in making Fatima Zahra (sa) angry he was joined by his sidekick Umar.  We read in Sunan Tirmidhi:

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

Narrated Abu Hurairah: ‘Fatima came to Abu Bakr and Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) to ask them about her inheritance from the Messenger of Allah (saws). They said: “We heard the Messenger of Allah (saws) say: ‘I am not inherited from.’” So she said: ‘By Allah! I will never talk to you two again.’ So she died having not talked to them.”

Defenders of the Shaykhayn have made an attempt to read more than what is actually narrated in the abovementioned episode and made the following interpretation, which would, to each unbiased mind, be crystal clear as putting words in one’s mouth:

‘Ali bin ‘Eisa said: “The meaning of not speaking to you two is: ‘Never again regarding this inheritance, because you two are truthful.’”

[End Quote]

Answer:

This statement(I will not speak to you ever), is an isolated transmission(tafarrud) of narrator Ali bin Isa.

(i). Let’s see the chain of same narration in Musnad ahmad ibn hanbal:

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

Here the addition.
قالت والله لا أكلمكما أبدا فماتت ولا تكلمهما

(I will not speak to you ever…)  is not present.

(ii). In the Musnad abu bakr the chain for the same narration is:

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

Still, the addition
قالت والله لا أكلمكما أبدا فماتت ولا تكلمهما

is not present

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

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

رقم الحديث: 53
(حديث مرفوع) حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو خَيْثَمَةَ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْوَهَّابِ بْنُ عَطَاءٍ , عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو , عَنْ أَبِي سَلَمَةَ , عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ ، قَالَ : ” لَمَّا قُبِضَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَرْسَلَتْ فَاطِمَةُ إِلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ , وَعُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا تَطْلُبُ مِيرَاثَهَا مِنَ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ , فَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ ، وَعُمَرُ : إِنَّا سَمِعْنَا النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ : إِنِّي لا أُوَرِّثُ ” .

Still, the addition
قالت والله لا أكلمكما أبدا فماتت ولا تكلمهما

is not present.

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

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

قالت والله لا أكلمكما أبدا فماتت ولا تكلمهما

is not present.

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

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

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

Thus this additional text is odd(shaadh) and is rejected, though the text of the hadeeth without this addition is authentic.

However, even if we consider this addition to be authentic, even then it doesn’t makes much difference, if understood in the proper manner as the narrator Ali bin Esa himself explained, that is;{the meaning of “I will not talk to you both”  means,  regarding this inheritance ever, you two are truthful}.

Moreover, other traditions evidently prove such statements, were said about the particular issue of share in inheritance only. The wording in:

1) Tarikh al-Tabari,
2) Musannaf Abdul Razzaq (Hadith, 9774), and
3) Sahih Abu A’wana (Hadith 6679), goes as

فَلَمْ تُكَلِّمْهُ فِي ذَلِكَ حَتَّى مَاتَتْ

“And she (Fatimah- RA) did not talk to him (Abu Bakr -RA) about it until she died.”

The wording of the narration in Tarikh al-Madina of Ibn Shabbah (d. 228 A.H.) is even more interesting and categorical;

عن الزهري، عن عروة، عن عائشة رضي الله عنها، أن فاطمة، والعباس رضي الله عنهما أتيا أبا بكر رضي الله عنه يلتمسان ميراثهما من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، وهما حينئذ يطلبان أرضه من فدك، وسهمه من خيبر فقال لهما أبو بكر رضي الله عنه: إني سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول: «لا نورث، ما تركنا صدقة، إنما يأكل آل محمد من هذا المال» ، وإني والله لا أغير أمرا رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يصنعه إلا صنعته. قال: فهجرته فاطمة رضي الله عنها، فلم تكلمه في ذلك المال حتى ماتت

Al-Zuhri narrated from Urwa’ that ‘Aisha narrated: Fatima and ‘Abbas came to Abu Bakr, seeking their share from the property of Allah’s Messenger 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 Messenger -on him be the peace and blessings of Allah- saying, ‘Our property cannot be inherited, and whatever we leave is to be spent in charity, but the family of Muhammad may take their provisions from this property.” Abu Bakr added, “By Allah, I will not change the procedure I saw Allah’s Messenger -on him be the peace and blessings of Allah- following (during his lifetime concerning this property).” He said: Therefore Fatima left Abu Bakr and did not speak to him about this property till she died. (Tarikh al-Madina. vol.1 p.197).

 

Argument 5:

Shiapen Stated:

[Quote]

Sayyida Fatima (as) was so angry at Abu Bakr’s confiscation that she refused to reply to his Salaams

Ibn Qutaybah in al Imamah wa al Siyasa page 13 records that:

“Hadhrat Umar said to Abu Bakr we have angered Fatima let us go to her and seek her forgiveness. They both went to the house and asked permission to enter. Sayyida Fatima did not grant them this permission. They then went to ‘Ali and spoke to him, he allowed them to enter the house. When they sat before Fatima she turned her face away from them, they said Salaams to her but she did not deem them worthy enough to merit a reply”.

Sayyida Fatima (as) said that she would complain about the Shaykhayn before Rasulullah (s) and would curse them in every Salat

Ibn Qutaybah in al Imamah wa al Siyasa page 14 records that:

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

[End Quote]

Answer:

These reports attributed to Fatima(ra) are fabrications and concoctions by liars. Infact, we find the opposite from Ahlelbayt regarding Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra).

Ja`far al-Sadiq says `Ali (ra) sent SALAT upon `Umar (ra):

أَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ الْعَتِيقِيُّ ، نَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ عُمَرَ الْحَافِظُ ، نَا أَبُو حَامِدٍ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ هَارُونَ الْحَضْرَمِيُّ ، نَا يَعْقُوبُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ الدَّوْرَقِيُّ ، نَا سُفْيَانُ بْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ ، عَنْ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ ، عَنْ جَابِرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ، قَالَ : قَالَ عَلِيٌّ لِعُمَرَ بْنَ الْخَطَّابِ ، وَهُوَ مُسَجًّى : ” صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْكَ وَدَعَا لَهُ ” ، قَالَ سُفْيَانُ : قِيلَ لِجَعْفَرِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ : أَلَيْسَ قِيلَ لا يُصَلَّى عَلَى أَحَدٍ إِلا عَلَى النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ؟ ، قَالَ : هَكَذَا سَمِعْتُ “

[Ahmad bin Muhammad abu Ja`far al-`Atiqi said: abu al-Hasan al-Daraqutni `Ali bin `Umar al-Hafiz al-Baghdadi told us, abu Hamid Muhammad bin Haroun al-Hadrami told us, Ya`qoub bin Ibrahim al-Dawraqi told us, Suffiyan ibn `Uyaynah told us, from Ja`far bin Muhammad, from his father Muhammad bin `Ali, from Jabir ibn `Abdullah al-Ansari that he said: `Ali told `Umar bin al-Khattab while he was on his death-bed: “Salla-Allahu `Alayka, and he made Du`a for him.” Suffiyan said: They said to Ja`far: “Isn’t it said that one cannot send Salat except on the Prophet (SAWS)?” he replied: “This is how I heard it.”]
source: al-Jami` li-Akhlaq al-Rawi by al-Khateeb #1327.
grading: Sahih.

سألت أبا جعفر محمد بن علي : هل كان أحد من أهل البيت يسب أبا بكر وعمر ؟ قال : معاذ الله بل يتولونهما ، ويستغفرون لهما ، ويترحمون عليهما
Fadha’il Al-Sahaba (p. 86), Jabir said: I asked Abu Ja’afar Mohammed bin Ali if anyone from ahlul bayt cursed Abu Bakr and Omar? He said: God-forbid! Rather, they follow them, pray for forgiveness to them, and ask for mercy for them.”

عن أبي خالد الأحمر قال : سألت عبدالله بن حسن عن أبي بكر وعمر فقال : صلى الله عليهما ولا صلى على من لايصلي عليهما . [ حسن ] .
From Abu Khaled al-Ahmar: I asked ‘Abdullah bin al-Hassan about Abu bakr and ‘Umar so he said: “May the peace of Allah be upon them and no peace on those who don’t send peace upon them.” (Fadael al-Sahaba wa Manaqibihim wa Qawl Ba’adihim fi Ba’ad” by the famous scholar of Hadith al-Darqutni)
Grading: Hasan.

أجمع بنو فاطمة عليهم السلام على أن يقولوا في أبي بكر وعمر أحسن ما يكون من القول
From Jabir, from Mohammed bin Ali (Al-Baqir), “There is a consensus among the children of Fatima (as) to say the best possible praise for Abu Bakr and Omar.” (Fadha’il Al-Sahaba by Al-Daraqutni, p. 83)

As for the forged book which was quoted by Shiapen, that is al-Imāma wal-Siyāsa this was spuriously attributed to Ibn Qutayba by the Shias. Al-imamah was Siyasah is a forged book that lacks proper isnad for its reports and is falsely attributed to Ibn Qutaybah ad Danouri. There are many irrefutable and convincing proofs and evidences which clearly show that Ibn Qutayba could have not authored it. Plus the book has some very gross and laughable historical mistakes which raises serious question that whether the author of the book is a historian or not. For example the book mentions that Muslims first conquered al-Andalus/Spain during the time of the Abbasids, and it also confuses As-Saffah and his brother Abu Jaffar al Mansur to be the same person, whereas they were two different and separate Abbasid Caliphs such that as-Saffah was the first abbasid caliph, and latter on he was succeeded by his brother abul Jaffar al Mansur.

Infact, Al-Imāma wa al-Siyāsa was authored by the extremist Shī`ī author of the forged al-Ma`arif, and not the Sunnī scholar Ibn Qutayba (d. 276), the author of the real al-Ma`arif and other works such as Ta’wīl Mukhtalif al-Ĥadīth.

Al-Sayyid Shihāb al-Dīn al-Ālūsī (d. 1270) while refuting some fabrications said:

هو من مفتريات ابن قتيبة وابن أعثم الكوفي والسمساطي وكانوا مشهورين بالكذب والافتراء

It is from among the fabrications of Ibn Qutayba, Ibn A`tham al-Kūfī and al-Simsāţī, who were famous for lying and slandering.( Rūĥ al-Ma`ānī fī Tafsīr al-Qur’ān, volume 22, page 11)

Thus it should be clear that the Ibn Qutayba mentioned by al-Ālūsī in the quote above is the extremist Shī`ī author of al-Imāma wa al-Siyāsa and the forged al-Ma`arif, not the Sunnī scholar Ibn Qutayba.

Also, the text of this report proves it to be a concoction because it goes against the ethics and excellent manners of daughter of Prophet(Saw). Fatima(ra) had such good manners that she could never curse a muslim just because he (supposedly) didn’t give her share from the inheritance of her father.

Moreover, we Ahlesunnah believe that, not responding to Salam of Abubakr(ra), doesn’t befit the conduct of Fatima(ra), and if the Shias still disagree with us then we remind them a Shia hadeeth which states:

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

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

Therefore, if Shias also believe that Fatima(ra) had the best traits, then they should believe that Fatima(ra) was not angry with Abubakr(ra), nor did she shun him.

Lastly, though Ahlesunnah, believe that it wasn’t the conduct of Fatima(ra) of not responding the Salam of a believer, and she had the best traits, but the Shiabooks draw a different image, because we read in their books:

صلى الله عليه وآله أنها قد جاءت لحاجة فغدا علينا ونحن في لحافنا (2) فقال: السلام عليكم، فسكتنا واستحيينا لمكاننا، ثم قال: السلام عليكم (3) فسكتنا، ثم قال: السلام عليكم فخشينا إن لم نرد عليه أن ينصرف وقد كان يفعل ذلك (4) فيسلم ثلاثا فإن أذن له وإلا انصرف، فقلنا: وعليك السلام يا رسول الله أدخل، فدخل

Narrated Ali(ra): When Prophet(saw) came to our house, we(Ali and Fatima) were lying on the bed, He came and said “Assalamalaykum”, but we remained silent, He again said “Assalamulaikum” we remained silent, then Prophet(saw) again said “Assalamulaikum”, so we feared that, if we don’t respond the Salam, he(saw) might return back, as he sometimes used to do, he would convey the Salam three times, if he would get the response, then that would be fine, if not then he would return, so we responded, Alaykasalam O RasulAllah, please come inside, so he came in. (Man la yahdhul faqih, vol 1, page 321).

According to the Shia hadeeth, Fatima(ra) and Ali(ra), didn’t respond to the ‘Salaam’ of Prophet(saw) twice, and for the third time, they feared that he(saw) might return, thus they responded the ‘Salaam’.

 

Argument 6:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Ibn Katheer’s disrespect of Sayyida Fatima (as)

This Nasibi writes in al Bidaya wa al Nihaya Volume 5 page 289

“If Sayyida Fatima became angry then so what, she was an ordinary woman, from the children of Adam, her anger is just like the common children of Adam”.

Reply

Not all the children of Adam are the same; some are superior to others as is the case with Sayyida Fatima (as). We read in Tafseer Mazhari Volume 2 page 48, Surah Aal-e-Imran:

“The Hadeeth in Bukhari wherein Rasulullah (s) said Fatima is a part of my body proves that Fatima was superior to the men and women of the world, and Imam Malik said ‘I don’t know of anyone superior to Fatima az-Zahra”.

Comment

Sayyida Fatima (as) is no doubt from the loins of Adam, but her anger and distress is on par with the anger and distress of Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s).

[End Quote]

Answer:

Firstly, the answer of Ibn Katheer(rah) signifies his love for Ali(ra), because the rational and sensible explanation he gave, defends Ali(ra) from claim that Fatima(ra) got angry with him, when he wanted to marry daughter of Abu Jahl.(Refer Sahih Vol. 5, Book 57, Hadith 76)

Secondly, we would advice the Shias to contemplate over the question that, doesn’t the Prophet(saw) get angry if someone angers his other family members and companions, or believers? Isn’t he hurt if someone hurts his other family members and close friends or the believers? or was it specific to Fatima(ra) only?.

Would the Shia stop us from saying that the Prophet(saw) gets angry if someone angered or hurt his cousin ‘Ali (ra) or his grandson Hussein (ra) for example? We doubt it, so does this mean it isn’t exclusive for Fatima (ra)? Let’s find out:

We read in an authentic Shia hadeeth:

محمد بن يعقوب عن علي بن ابراهيم عن ابيه عن ابن محبوب عن علي بن رئاب عن عبد صالح عليه السلام قال، ادع بهذا الدعاء في شهر رمضان مستقبل دخول السنة
. . .

اللهم صل على القاسم والطاهر ابني نبيك، اللهم صل على رقية بنت نبيك والعن من آذى نبيك فيها، اللهم صل على ام كلثوم بنت نبيك والعن من آذى نبيك فيها، اللهم صل على ذرية نبيك،

(source)

Muhammd b. Ya’qub from ‘Aliy b. Ibrahim from his father from ibn Mahbub from ‘Aliy b. Râ’ib from Abd Salih (peace be upon him) he said: Call with this prayer in the month of Ramadan in the future with the entrance of the year: O Allah send your blessings upon Qâsim and Tâhir sons of your Prophet, O Allah send your blessings upon Ruqayyah daughter of your prophet and curse those who hurt your Prophet through her, O Allah send your blessings upon Umm Kulthûm daughter of your Prophet and curse those who hurt your Prophet through her… [Tahdhib al-Ahkam, Vol. 3, Pg. 106-122]

Comment: So Prophet(saw) isn’t just hurt with the hurting of Fatima(ra) but also from the hurting of his other daughters. And ironically a portion of Shias hurt Prophet(saw) and his daughters by claiming that they weren’t his biological daughters. Hence what should be the ruling on such Shias which encompasses lay Shias as well as Shia scholars.?

In al-Bukhari we read:

Narrated abu Ad-Darda: While I was sitting with the Prophet (PBUH), abu bakr came, lifting up one corner of his garment uncovering his knee. The Prophet said, “Your companion has had a quarrel.” abu bakr greeted (the Prophet ) and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! There was something (i.e. quarrel) between me and the Son of Al-khattab. I talked to him harshly and then regretted that, and requested him to forgive me, but he refused. This is why I have come to you.” The Prophet said thrice, “O abu bakr! May Allah forgive you.” In the meanwhile, ‘Umar regretted (his refusal of abu bakr’s excuse) and went to abu bakr’s house and asked if abu bakr was there. They replied in the negative. So he came to the Prophet(saw) and greeted him, but signs of displeasure appeared on the face of the Prophet till Abu Bakr pitied (‘Umar), so he knelt and said twice, “O Allah’s Apostle! By Allah! I was more unjust to him (than he to me).” The Prophet said, “Allah sent me (as a Prophet) to you (people) but you said (to me), ‘You are telling a lie,’ while abu bakr said, ‘He has said the truth,’ and consoled me with himself and his money.” He then said twice,“Won’t you then give up harming my companion?” After that nobody harmed Abu Bakr.

Comment: Above we see that the Prophet (SAWS) became angry NOT for the anger of Abu Bakr (ra) but for something much much less than the anger of Abu Bakr (ra). So, does the Shia accept that Allah became angry for the anger of Abu Bakr (ra)?

Prophet Muhammad(saw) said: Do not hurt me regarding Aisha, as the Divine Inspirations do not come to me on any of the beds except that of Aisha.”( Saheeh” al-Bukhari #2620).

Not only that, the Prophet(saw) also becomes extremely angry for the weak and the elderly… we read in al-Bukhari:

Narrated Abu Mas’ud: A man came and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! I keep away from the morning prayer because so-and-so (Imam) prolongs it too much.” Allah’s Apostle became furious and I had never seen him more furious than he was on that day. The Prophet said, “O people! Some of you make others dislike the prayer, so whoever becomes an Imam he should shorten the prayer, as behind him are the weak, the old and the needy.”

And also in Bukhari:

Narrated Zaid bin Khalid Al-Juhani: A man asked Allah’s Apostle about the Luqata. He said, “Make public announcement of it for one year, then remember the description of its container and the string it is tied with, utilize the money, and if its owner comes back after that, give it to him.” The people asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What about a lost sheep?” Allah’s Apostle said, “Take it, for it is for you, for your brother, or for the wolf.” The man asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What about a lost camel?” Allah’s Apostle got angry and his cheeks or face became red, and said, “You have no concern with it as it has its feet, and its water-container, till its owner finds it.”

Similarly we read in Shia hadeeh that Prophet(saw) gets hurt with the hurting of believers:

قال (صلى الله عليه وآله) أيضا: من آذى مؤمنا فقد آذاني، ومن آذاني فقد آذى الله عز وجل، ومن آذى الله فهو ملعون في التوراة والإنجيل والزبور والفرقان (مشكاة الأنوار – علي الطبرسي – الصفحة ١٤٩)

Prophet(saw) said: He who hurts a believer, he has hurt me. And one who hurts me has hurt Allah. And the one who hurts Allah is accursed as per Tawrah, Injeel, Zuboor, and Quran(Mishkat al-Anwaar, by Ali Tabrasi, page 149)

In another Shia hadeeth we read:

The Holy Prophet (S) said “One who hurts his parents, hurts me and one who hurts me has hurt Allah. And the one who hurts Allah is accursed.” (Mustadrak ul-Wasa’il) [Source: Greater sins, by Ayatollahul-Uzma Dastaghaib page 160]

Comment: Thus the fact is that, the Prophet (SAWS) gets angry for the anger and hurting of many people, this is not restricted to only one of his daughters (ra).

Moreover, according to Shia narration, this is not a special treatment for Fatimah (as), rather this applies to all believers, in al-Kafi 2/350:

هِشَامِ بْنِ سَالِمٍ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبَا عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ( عليه السلام ) يَقُولُ قَالَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ لِيَأْذَنْ بِحَرْبٍ مِنِّي مَنْ آذَى عَبْدِيَ الْمُؤْمِنَ وَ لْيَأْمَنْ غَضَبِي مَنْ أَكْرَمَ عَبْدِيَ الْمُؤْمِنَ

Hisham bin Salim said: I heard abu `Abdillah (as) saying: Allah most high said: “He who hurts my believing slaves then I have declared war on him, but he who treats my believing slaves with kindness then he has saved himself from my anger.” (al-Majlisi said “Sahih” 10/377).

Not only does this person anger Allah, but he incurs his wrath and becomes in a state of war against Allah which is much more terrible. Intrestingly the later portion of this hadeeth states, that the one who treats the believing slaves of Allah with kindness, he has saved himself from Allah’s anger, and Prophet(saw) said: رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ قَالَ ‏ “‏ أَرْحَمُ أُمَّتِي بِأُمَّتِي أَبُو بَكْرٍ

The most MERCIFUL of my Ummah towards my Ummah is Abu Bakr.(Sunan Ibn Majah Book 1, Hadith 159, Grading Sahih ; Sunan Tirmidhi, Book 49, Hadith 4159, Grading: Sahih).

Even Ahlelbayt testified Abubakr(ra) being the most merciful towards them:

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

 

Argument 7:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Sayyida Fatima (as) left a will that Abu Bakr be prevented from attending her funeral

We read in Sharh Ibn al Hadeed Volume 4 page 136 Chapter Khutbah Bayan Fadak:

“Hadhrat Fatima’s anger was such that she left a will stipulating that Abu Bakr not attend her funeral prayers”

[End Quote]

Answer:

These are weak and unreliable reports from Shia book Sharh ibn al Hadeed, the commentary of Shia book Nahjul Balagha.

Actually, there are two views regarding the burial and funeral of Fatima(ra).

View- I:

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

Let us quote the report with Arabic text for the benefit of the readers:

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

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

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

There are some other reports too, and even those are extremely weak, for example in Musannaf Abdur razzaq pg 521, there are three reports, their chains are as follows:

a. Abdur razzaq – Ibn Juraij and Amr bin Dinar – Hasan bin Muhammad

b. Abdur razzaq – Ibn Uyayna – Amr bin Dinar – Hasan bin Muhammad

c. Abdur razzaq – Muammar – Urwah – Ayesha.

All these three narrations are disconnected. The first and second narration due to Hasan bin Muhammad ibn hanafiya; he never met Fatima(ra) nor was present during that time. His father Muhammad ibn Hanafiya was born after death of Fatima(ra) when Ali(ra) married Khawlah bint Jafar Hanafiya. And in the third narration Muammar didn’t meet Urwah. Hence all these reports are disconnected and it is not known from where these people got these information. Hence these reports are extremely weak and rejected, as even stated by Shah Abdul Haq Muhadith Dehalwi(rah).

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

It has been mentioned in ahadees(narrations) that Abubakr siddique(ra) did not attend the funeral of Fatima(ra) , nor was he informed about it. Some people say that Fatima(ra) made a will,wishing that Abubakr(ra) shall not lead her funeral prayers. However, Muhaddiseen negate this statement by people and call it a concocted story. How could Fatima(ra) make such a will? when ruler of the time possesses more right to lead funeral prayer. That’s the reason why Imam Hussain(ra) allowed the ruler of Madinah, Marwaan bin Hakam, who was appointed by Ameer Muawiya(ra), to lead the funeral prayer of Imam Hasan(ra) and said, ‘had it not been command of shari’ah, I wouldn’t have allowed you to lead his funeral prayer’. Some scholars say that Fatima’s(ra) funeral took place at night, and so Abubakr(ra) didn’t come to know about it. This is far from the truth as Asma bint Umais(ra) was in wedlock(nikah) with Abubakr(ra) at that time, and Asma(ra) made preparations of Fatima’s(ra) bath and funeral clothing. Now this is something not possible that Abubakr’s(ra) wife is present there while he being unaware of it. Abubakr’s(ra) knowledge about Fatima’s(ra) funeral is categorically evident from the report in which she said : I feel shy to be presented before men after my death without being covered. It was a custom to bring women’s funeral out just as men’s. They did not have any special arrangements for women. Asma said, “O daughter of the Messenger of Allah(saw) should I show you what have I seen in Ethiopia(Habsha)?” Hence, she asked for some green twigs, bended it(over the body) and then put a cloth over it. So Fatimah(ra) said, “How good and beautiful is this. A woman could be differentiated with it from a man. So when, I will die then you and Ali should give me the bath and do not permit anyone (during that).” When she died ‘Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) came to enter, so Asma said, “Do not enter.” She complained to Abu Bakr and said, “This Khath’ami woman is coming between me and the daughter of the Messenger of Allah(saw). And she has made like Howdaj of Marriage for her.” Then Abu Bakr came and stopped at the door and said, “O Asma! What made you to stop the wives of the Prophet(saw) from the daughter of the Porphet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) and you have also made like the Howdaj of marriage for her?” She(Asma) replied, “She(Fatima) asked me to prevent anyone from entering, and I showed her this (method of covering the body) when she was alive so she told me to do this with her.” Then Abu Bakr said, “Do as she asked you to do.” Then he left ,and Ali and Asma gave bath to her (Ash’at al-Lam’aat Sharh Mishkat, Volume 5 pages 354-355)

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

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

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

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

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

View- II:

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

We read in Riyad al nadhira:

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

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

 

Argument 8:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Asma binte Umays physically prevented Ayesha from participating in Sayyida Fatima (as)’s funeral rites and even rejected Abu Bakr’s attempts to intercede for her

As evidence we shall rely on the following esteemed Sunni works:

  1. al-Istiab, Volume 2 page 114, Fatima bint Muhammad
  2. Jadhab al Kaloob al Dayaar al Mehboob page 219, Dhikr Kabar Fatima binte Muhammad
  3. Wafa al Wafa ba Khabar Dhar Mustafai Volume 3 page 504
  4. Kanz al Ummal, Volume 13 page 686 Tradition 37756
  5. Tareekh Khamess Volume 1 page 277 Dhikr Fatima bine Rasulullah (s)
  6. Asad’ul Ghaba, Volume 7 page 262, The letter ‘Fa’
  7. Zakhair al-Uqbah, page 53

We read in al Istiab:

“When she (Fatima) died, Ayesha arrived with the intention of coming in, but Asma said to her: ‘Don’t enter’. Ayesha complained to Abu Bakr that: ‘This woman has prevented me from entering upon the Prophet’s daughter’. Abu Bakr then personally asked Asma: ‘Why do you prevent the wife of the Prophet (s) from, entering?’ She replied: ‘She (Lady Fatima) had issued a directive prevented any on to enter upon her.”
 al-Istiab, Volume 2 page 114

These references prove that Sayyida Fatima (as) was angry at both Abu Bakr and Ayesha, those that Sayyida Fatima (as) are angry at cannot be the most beloved of Rasulullah (s).

[End Quote]

Answer:

This report is more in favour of Sunnis, as it describes that Abu Bakr(ra) gave permission to Sayyida Asma bint ‘Umais(ra) to perform the funeral according to Fatima’s(ra) will indicating that Abu Bakr(ra) was aware of her Janaza. Also the narration doesn’t indicate that Sayyidah Fatimah(ra) said it due to her anger against any of the Sahabi or Sahabiya. She only disliked some of the acts being done with women’s dead body and she asked that NO ONE should be permitted when she is being given the burial bath, this was a general command for everyone(except Asma and Ali), that is why Asma(ra) didn’t allow Ayesha(ra).

The narration is also in Sunan al-Kabeer of Al-Bayhaqi.
– أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو حَازِمٍ الْحَافِظُ، أنبأ أَبُو أَحْمَدَ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ الْحَافِظُ، أنبأ أَبُو الْعَبَّاسِ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِسْحَاقَ الثَّقَفِيُّ، ثنا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، ثنا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ مُوسَى، عَنْ عَوْنِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ، عَنْ أُمِّهِ أُمِّ جَعْفَرِ بِنْتِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ جَعْفَرٍ، وَعَنْ عُمَارَةَ بْنِ مُهَاجِرٍ، عَنْ أُمِّ جَعْفَرٍ، أَنَّ فَاطِمَةَ بِنْتَ رَسُولِ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَتْ: ” يَا أَسْمَاءُ إِنِّي قَدِ اسْتَقْبَحْتُ مَا يُصْنَعُ بِالنِّسَاءِ، إِنَّهُ يُطْرَحُ عَلَى الْمَرْأَةِ الثَّوْبُ فَيَصِفُهَا “، فَقَالَتْ أَسْمَاءُ: يَا بِنْتَ رَسُولِ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَلَا أُرِيكِ شَيْئًا رَأَيْتُهُ بِأَرْضِ الْحَبَشَةِ فَدَعَتْ بِجَرَائِدَ رَطْبَةٍ فَحَنَّتْهَا، ثُمَّ طَرَحَتْ عَلَيْهَا ثَوْبًا، فَقَالَتْ فَاطِمَةُ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهَا: ” مَا أَحْسَنَ هَذَا وَأَجْمَلَهُ يُعْرَفُ بِهِ الرَّجُلُ مِنَ الْمَرْأَةِ فَإِذَا أَنَا مِتُّ فَاغْسِلِينِي أَنْتِ وَعَلِيٌّ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ وَلَا تُدْخِلِي عَلَيَّ أَحَدًا “، فَلَمَّا تُوُفِّيَتْ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهَا جَاءَتْ عَائِشَةُ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهَا تَدْخُلُ، فَقَالَتْ أَسْمَاءُ: لَا تَدْخُلِي فَشَكَتْ أَبَا بَكْرٍ، فَقَالَتْ: إِنَّ هَذِهِ الْخَثْعَمِيَّةَ تَحُولُ بَيْنِي وَبَيْنَ ابْنَةِ رَسُولِ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، وَقَدْ جَعَلَتْ لَهَا مِثْلَ هَوْدَجِ الْعَرُوسِ , فَجَاءَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ فَوَقَفَ عَلَى الْبَابِ، وَقَالَ: يَا أَسْمَاءُ مَا حَمَلَكِ أَنْ مَنَعْتِ أَزْوَاجَ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَدْخُلْنَ عَلَى ابْنَةِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَجَعَلْتِ لَهَا مِثْلَ هَوْدَجِ الْعَرُوسِ، فَقَالَتْ: أَمَرَتْنِي أَنْ لَا تُدْخِلِي عَلَيَّ أَحَدًا وَأَرَيْتُهَا هَذَا الَّذِي صَنَعْتُ وَهِيَ حَيَّةٌ فَأَمَرَتْنِي أَنْ أَصْنَعَ ذَلِكَ لَهَا، فَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ: فَاصْنَعِي مَا أَمَرَتْكِ، ثُمَّ انْصَرَفَ وَغَسَّلَهَا عَلِيٌّ، وَأَسْمَاءُ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُمَا

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

Also, this report describes that Abu Bakr(ra) gave permission to Sayyida Asma bint ‘Umais to perform the funeral according to Fatima’s(ra) will indicating that Abu Bakr (ra) was well aware of her funeral. Had it been that Abubakr(ra) bore enmity towards Ahlelbayt, as the enemies of Islam(rafidah) try to portray then, why would Abubakr(ra) allow his wife to nurseFatima(ra) in her illness? It was Abubakr(ra) who, out of his care and concern for the daughter of Prophet(saw), sent his wife to nurse Fatima(ra) during her illness. Would a person who bears enmity do so?

 

Argument 9:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Rasulullah (s) said that you cannot be angry at a Muslim for more than three days

We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325:

… 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.

The end of this reference makes it clear that Sayyida Fatima (as) finished ALL relations with these individuals, she wanted nothing to do with them, and never spoke to them again while she remained alive. Nasibis often suggest that good cordial relations were resumed soon after the Fadak dispute though one wonders how this could be the case when Ayesha in the Sahih of Bukhari testifies to the fact the Leader of the Women of Paradise NEVER spoke to Abu Bakr again.

Sayyida Fatima did not speak to Abu Bakr for the last six months of her life and this is significant since it is also stipulated in Sahih Bukhari Bab al Adab, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 100:

“Narrated Abu Aiyub Al-Ansari:
Allah’s Apostle said, “It is not lawful for a man to desert his brother Muslim for more than three nights. (It is unlawful for them that) when they meet, one of them turns his face away from the other, and the other turns his face from the former, and the better of the two will be the one who greets the other first.”.

We would like to ask the Ahl’ul Sunnah about what their Fatwa is on Sayyida Fatima (as). Was she ignorant of the Hadeeth of her father? Or did she blatantly disregard the word of her father? Her anger at Abu Bakr went far beyond three days, how do you reconcile this with the fact that (according to this Hadeeth) one whose separation through anger of a fellow Muslim exceeds three days shall go to Hell?

[End Quote]

Answer:

The daughter of the Prophet(saw) was not a man to socialize with other men, in order for one to assume that she deserted them. Fatima only approached them as the official government, not as a group of friends.

Reasonable response that why Fatima(ra) didn’t talk to Abubakr(ra):

Reply 1:

Fatimah(ra) did not deliberately shun Abu Bakr(ra) in the first place; a woman like her is far above doing such a thing because the Prophet(saw) forbade shunning for more than three days. Rather, she did not speak to him because there was no need to do so.

Fatimah(ra) was distracted from everything by her grief at the loss of the noblest of creation, her Father(saw), which was a calamity in comparison to which all other calamities look small. She was also preoccupied with her illness, which kept her bedridden and unable to participate in anything, let alone meeting the caliph of the Muslims, who was busy every minute of the day with the affairs of the Ummah, the wars of apostasy and other matters.

She also knew that she would soon join her father, as the Messenger of Allah(saw) had told her that she would be the first one of his family to join him, as reported in Sahih Muslim. The ones who has this type of knowledge regarding their death, does not worry about any worldly affairs.

But if the Shias still disagree with us then we remind them a Shia hadeeth which states:

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

Imam Abu Abdillah(as) said: The Messenger of Allah (saaw) said in his sermon: Shall I not inform you of the best traits in the world and the hereafter? Pardoning of the one who oppresses you and establishing relations with one who has cut you off and kindness towards the one who does evil against you, and granting one who has denied you.(Al-Kafi, Book of Faith & Disbelief, page 364). Majlisi said “Hasan kal-Sahih” 8/192.

So, if Shias also believe that Fatima(ra) possessed the best traits then they must believe that Fatima(ra) had pardoned those who she supposedly thought to have wronged her, and she didn’t shun Abubakr(ra).

If it’s questioned that what is the evidence that, after the issue of demanding inheritance, did Fatima(ra) continue speaking to Abubakr(ra)?; Then the answer is that there was no reason for Fatima(ra) to speak with Abubakr(ra), since Abubakr(ra) was non-mahram for Fatima(ra), and there was no need to speak with Abubakr(ra) unless there was a need. Speaking with a non-mahram without any necessity is prohibited as mentioned in a Shia hadeeth:

ونهى (رسول اللہ ﷺ ) أن تتكلم المرأة عند غير زوجها أو غير ذي محرم منها أكثر من خمس كلمات مما لابد لها منه

The Prophet(saw) prohibited a woman from talking to anyone besides her husband or a non-Mahram more than five words which are very necessary. (Man la yahdhul faqih, vol 4, page 21).

So, since there wasn’t a necessity after that, there was no need for Fatima(ra) to speak with Abubakr(ra).

Reply 2:

It’s already explained that the words of Fatima’s(ra) anger are the interpolation of narrator Zuhri not of Ayesha(ra). Besides the question on the identity of the one who uttered the words “Therefore Fatima left Abu Bakr and did not speak to him till she died” another important question is about the meaning of these words; Does this mean Sayyidah Fatima never spoke to Sayyidina Abu Bakr at all or was it only about the particular topic?

Narrations from Sahih Bukhari etc. do not clarify this point and without the clarification one tends to believe it was general. Other narrations however evidently prove it was said about only the particular issue of inheritance.

The wording in;

1) Tarikh al-Tabari,
2) Musannaf Abdul Razzaq (Hadith, 9774), and
3) Sahih Abu A’wana (Hadith 6679), goes as

فَلَمْ تُكَلِّمْهُ فِي ذَلِكَ حَتَّى مَاتَتْ

“And she (Fatimah- RA) did not talk to him (Abu Bakr -RA) about it until she died.”

These reports clearly prove that Sayyidah Fatima (ra) did not speak to Abu Bakr (ra) only about the particular topic.

Reply 3:

Now, for the sake of argument, if it is supposedly accepted that Fatima(ra) got angry with Abubakr(ra), disregarding the words, “Fatima(ra) forsook or shun Abubakr(ra) and did not talk to him until the end of her life”, which are to be rejected due to being interpolation of Zuhri. Then the anger of Fatima can be best explained by using the mursal hadeeth of Sha’abi , which shows that eventually Fatima(ra) was pleased with Abubakr(ra), we read:

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

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

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

If it is asked that why did Fatima(ra) get angry at first place, then assuming that Fatima(ra) was angry, we will answer this argument 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.`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 two young kids, she was terribly worried about the fate of her family and she wished to obtain any means to provide for them.

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

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

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

Reply 4:

Scholarly explanations regarding, Fatima(ra) not speaking with Abubakr(ra).

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

2. Imam An-Nawawi said: “With regard to what is mentioned about Fatimah (ra) shunning Abn Bakr(ra), what it means is that she kept to herself and did not meet him, and this is not the shunning that is haram, which involves not greeting the person and turning away when meeting him. The words in this hadith, ‘she did not speak to him’, mean that she did not speak to him about this matter, or that she kept to herself and did not ask him for any need, and she had no need to meet him or talk to him. There is no narration at all to suggest that they met and she did not greet or speak to him.” (Sharah Sahi Muslim vol 12, page 73)

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

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

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

 

Argument 10:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Nawasib have sought to portray Sayyida Fatima (as) as dying the death of Jahilyah [Naudhobillah]

We read in Sahih Muslim Book 020, Number 4555:

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who defected from obedience (to the Amir) and separated from the main body of the Muslims-if he died in that state-would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya.

We have already proven that Sayyida Fatima (as) didn’t accept the decision of Abu Bakr (the Imam of her time according to Ahl’ul Sunnah).Not only this, but she died angry with him and Abu Bakr was not allowed to attend her funeral prayers.

Now the Nawasib have two options.

Option One: Fatima (as) died the death of Jahilyah (naudobillah).
Option Two: Fatima (as) didn’t consider Abu Bakr the legitimate Imam of that time.

If the answer Option Two, then who was her Imam? And why do Nasabis apply the term ‘Deviated Sect’ to those that reject the caliphate of their Rightly Guided Khalifas?

[End Quote]

Answer:

May Allah’s curse be upon the writers at Shiapen for making such horrible slanders!

The answer to this commonly raised allegation by Shias is that; “Sayyida Fatima(ra) did accept Abubakr(ra) as the Khalipha(successor) of Prophet Muhammad(saw)!”.

The proof for it is found in the authentic report, where Fatima(ra) approaches Abubakr(ra) for demanding her inheritance, and calls Abubakr(ra) as, “O Khalipha of Messenger of Allah”, which is a clear proof that, like her husband(Ali) and the rest of believers, even she(ra) accepted Abubakr(ra) as the Khalipha of Prophet(saw). Had it been that she didn’t accept Abubakr(ra) as the Khalipha, she wouldn’t have used those terms, since we know that dignified Arabs would never call a person with the position title, unless they truly believe that the person deserves that posotion title. For example, Suhail bin Amr who was a disbeliever at the time of treaty Hudaibiyah, didn’t allow Muslims to write the words “(Messenger of Allah)” after name Muhammad(saw) in the treaty. Now let us quote the words of Fatima(ra) from an authentic report, where She(ra) used the title, “Khalipha of Messenger of Allah” for Abubakr(ra).

We read in “Ithaf al-Khayarah al-Maharah” by al-Bouwaysiri, that
وَقَالَ أَبُو يَعْلَى الْمُوصِلِيُّ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ صَالِحٍ ، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ فُضَيْلٍ ، عَنِ الْوَلِيدِ بْنِ جُمَيْعٍ ، عَنْ أَبِي الطُّفَيْلِ ، قَالَ : جَاءَتْ فَاطِمَةُ إِلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ ، فَقَالَتْ : يَا خَلِيفَةَ رَسُولِ الله.
Abi al-Tufayl said: Fatima came to Abu Bakr and said: “O Khalipha of Rasool-Allah (SAWS)

Moreover, one of the biggest scholars of the Muslims and Fatima’s (ra) great-grandson Muhammad bin `Ali stated that he does not know of anyone from his family who was not loyal and obedient to Abu Bakr (ra).

It is narrated from Bassam bin `Abdullah al-Sayrafi: I asked Abu Ja`far(al-Baqir): “What do you say about Abu Bakr and ‘Umar may Allah be pleased with them?” He replied: “By Allah I am loyal to them and I ask Allah to forgive them and we never knew anyone from our family who was not loyal to them. (“Fadael al-Sahaba wa Manaqibihim wa Qawl Ba’adihim fi Ba’ad” by al-Imam al-Darqutni.
grading: Hadith Hassan(good).

Based on the above reports the matter is as clear as daylight. Fatima(ra) accepted Abubakr(ra) as the Caliph of Prophet(saw) and she was loyal to him and so was her entire family.

And if its, asked that did Fatima(ra) give bay’ah to Abubakr(ra) then we say that, this is not required from women in Islam and we have never read any Caliph demanding women to offer such a pledge. For the women it was enough that their husbands or male relatives or tribal leaders went and gave a pledge of allegiance. In the case of Fatima(ra) it was her husband Ali(ra) who gave a pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr (ra) and she just followed along. Moreover, it was never recorded in any instance that Fatima (ra) disobeyed Abu Bakr (ra).

Secondly even if supposedly one accepts the unreliable interpolation regarding Fatima(ra) being angry with Abubakr(ra) then too, it is not a proof that Fatima(ra) removed herself from obedience to Caliph Abubakr(ra). It would be considered as a disagreement between them, and the history is filled with cases where people disagreed with the decision of their Caliphs, but this doesn’t imply in any way that they refused to give allegiance nor that they broke their allegiance. Especially, when we know the noble character of Fatima(ra) and Abubakr(ra), as these were the people who never preferred worldly things over the hereafter. It’s in fact thinking low of Fatima(ra), that because of a worldly things(land of fadak), Fatima(ra)  didn’t give allegiance or broke it.

 

Argument 11:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Nawasib deem Ahl’ul bayt (as) Rafidhis

The Nawasib call Shia as Rafidhis or rejecters / dissenters because we reject the Khilafath of Abu Bakr & Co. They also misinform their believers that the Shia Sect was founded by Abdullah Ibn Saba. We have already proved that Maula Ali (as) and Fatima (as) were not happy and never accepted the decision of Abu Bakr and not only this, but she died angry with him and insisted that he be prevented from attending her funeral prayers. Based on these facts,

  1. Were Sayyida Fatima (as) and Maula Ali (as) rafidhis? (They would fall within the definition of Rafidhi that Nawasib give)
  2. If they were not Rafidhi then the Shi`a are the true followers of Ahl’ ul bayt (as) and not Abdullah Ibn Saba.

[End Quote]

Answer:
According to Ahle Sunnah, Ahlelbayt were Sunnis not Rafidhis, infact they loved and respected Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra).

Ahlelbayt loved and respected Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra), the irrefutable proof for it is, Ali(ra) named his children Abubakr and Umar(ra), which is an established fact in both Shia and Sunni books. For examples:

عن أبي سعيد الخدري: نظرت إلى غلام أيفع, له ذؤابة وجمة , والله يعلم أني منه حينئذ لفي شك، ما أدري غلام هو أم جارية، فمررنا بأحسن منه وهو جالس إلى جنب على فقلت: عافاك الله، من هذا الفتى إلى جانبك؟ قال: هذا عثمان بن على سميته بعثمان بن عفان، وقد سميت بعمر بن الخطاب، وسميت بعباس عم رسول الله، وقد سميت بخير البرية محمد، فأما حسن وحسين ومحسن فإنما سماهم رسول الله وعقَّ عنهم وحلق رءوسهم, وتصدق وزنها وأمر بهم
فسموا وختنوا

It was reported from Abu Saeed al-Khudri, he once saw a beautiful boy near Ali, and asked who that is? Ali answered: “This is Uthman ibn Ali. I named him after Uthman ibn Affan. I also named my children after Umar ibn al-Khattab, uncle of prophet (Peace be upon him) – Abbas, and after the chief of all creation – Muhammad (Peace be upon him). As for al-al-Hasan and al-Husayn and Muhsin, they were named by prophet (Peace be upon him)” [Ali Muhammad as-SalabiSiratul Amiralmuminin Ali ibn Abu Talib” p 226] المختصر من كتاب الموافقة، ص 141 [al Mukhtasar min kitab al Muwafaqah bayn Ahlul-Bayt wal Sahabah by al Zamakhshari, page 141]

And Ali(ra) also married his daughter Umm Kulthum bin Fatima to Umar(ra), as proven from authentic Shia and Sunni reports.

حُمَيْدُ بْنُ زِيَادٍ عَنِ ابْنِ سَمَاعَةَ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ زِيَادٍ عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ سِنَانٍ وَ مُعَاوِيَةَ بْنِ عَمَّارٍ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ( عليه السلام ) قَالَ سَأَلْتُهُ عَنِ الْمَرْأَةِ الْمُتَوَفَّى عَنْهَا زَوْجُهَا أَ تَعْتَدُّ فِي بَيْتِهَا أَوْ حَيْثُ شَاءَتْ قَالَ بَلْ حَيْثُ شَاءَتْ إِنَّ عَلِيّاً ( عليه السلام ) لَمَّا تُوُفِّيَ عُمَرُ أَتَى أُمَّ كُلْثُومٍ فَانْطَلَقَ بِهَا إِلَى بَيْتِهِ .
يقول المجلسي موثق21/197
يقول البهبودي صحيح3/121)

Hameed bin Ziad from Ibn Sama’ah, from Muhamad bin Ziad from Abdullah bin Sinan and Muawiyah bin Ammar from Abu Abdullah PBUH: I asked him about the woman whose husband is died, Does she spend her iddat Period in her house or wherever she wants? Imam replied: Wherever She wants, For Ali PBUH when Umar had died he came to his house and took umm Kalthoum to his house.

Source: Al-Kulayni, Al-Kaafi, vol. 6, pg. 115, hadeeth # 1

Al Allamah Majlisi says: Muwathaq ( meaning “reliable”) 21/197.

Al Allamah Bahbudi Says: Sahih, 3/121.

Further testimonies from Ahlelbayt are as follows:

(i). Narrated Muhammad bin AlHanafiya: I asked my father (`Ali bin Abi Talib), “Who are the best people after Allah’s Apostle ?” He said, “Abu Bakr.” I asked, “Who then?” He said, “Then `Umar. ” I was afraid he would say “Uthman, so I said, “Then you?” He said, “I am only an ordinary person. (Sahi bukhari 5.20)

Hafiz ibn Katheer  in “Bidaya wal Nihaya” vol 7, chapter “شيء من فضائل أمير المؤمنين علي بن أبي طالب” wrote:

وقد ثبت عنه بالتواتر أنه قال على منبر الكوفة‏:‏ أيها الناس‏!‏ إن خير هذه الأمة بعد نبيها أبو بكر ثم عمر، ولو شئت أن أسمي الثالث لسميت‏
“And it’s proven from Ali in “tawatur(highest authenticity)” form, that He said on the minbaar in Kufa: “O people! The best one in this Ummah after her Prophet is Abu Bakr [ra] , then Umar [ra] . And if I wanted to say you the third name, I would do that.”

(ii). Al Ibanah tul Kubra chapter “(1\1229 #254)

قال اجتمع عند علي رضي الله عنه جاثليتو النصارى و رأس الجالوت كبير علماء اليهود فقال الرأس: تجادلون على كم افترقت اليهود؟ قال: على إحدى و سبعين فرقة.
فقال علي عليه السلام “لتفترقن هذه الأمة على مثل ذلك، و أضلها فرقة و شرها: الداعية إلينا! أهل البيت آية ذلك أنهم يشتمون أبا بكر و عمر رضي الله عنهما

“Ibn Battah reported in his al-Ibaanah al Kubraa, in the chapter: Mentioning the sections of the Nations in their religion and upon how many sects will the Ummah split into, from the Hadeeth of Abee ‘Alee bin Ismaa’eel bin al-Abbaas al-Warraaq who said: al-Hassan bin Muhammad bin as-Sabaah az-Za’faraanee narrated to me that Shabbaabah said, that Sawaadah bin Salamah said that ‘Abdullaah bin Qays(ra) said: “A group of Christians came to ‘Alee (ra) and at the head of them was a major scholar of the Jews. So the leader said: “You debate about how many groups the Jews split into?” He said: “Into seventy one sects”. And ‘Alee(ra) said: “And this Ummah will split into similar to that, and the most deviated and evil sect of them: the ones who call to us (Ahlul Bayt), and a sign of them is that they insult Aboo Bakr(ra) and ‘Umar(ra)”

(iii).

أجمع بنو فاطمة عليهم السلام على أن يقولوا في أبي بكر وعمر أحسن ما يكون من القول
From Jabir, from Mohammed bin Ali (Al-Baqir), “There is a consensus among the children of Fatima (as) to say the best possible praise for Abu Bakr and Omar.” (Fadha’il Al-Sahaba by Al-Daraqutni, p. 83).

(iv).

سألت أبا جعفر محمد بن علي : هل كان أحد من أهل البيت يسب أبا بكر وعمر ؟ قال : معاذ الله بل يتولونهما ، ويستغفرون لهما ، ويترحمون عليهما
Fadha’il Al-Sahaba (p. 86), Jabir said: I asked Abu Ja’afar Mohammed bin Ali if anyone from ahlul bayt cursed Abu Bakr and Omar? He said: God-forbid! Rather, they follow them, pray for forgiveness to them, and ask for mercy for them.”

(v).

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

(vi).

عن عيسى بن دينار المؤذن مولى عمرو بن الحارث الخزاعي قال : سألت أباجعفر عن أبي بكر وعمر فقال : مسلمين رحمهما الله .
فقلت له : أتولاهما وأستغفر لهما .
فقال : نعم .
قلت : أتأمرني بذلك .
قال : نعم ثلاثاً ، فما أصابك فيهما فعلى عاتقي ، وقال بيده على عاتقيه ،
وقال : كان بالكوفة علي رضي الله عنه خمس سنين فما قال لهما إلا خيراً ولا قال لهما أبي إلا خيراً ولا أقول إلا خيراً . [ صحيح ] .
From Isa bin Dinar al-Muatthin the mawla of ‘Amro bin al-Harith al-Khuza’ee: I asked Abu Ja’afar about Abu bakr and ‘Umar and he answered: Muslims, may Allah have mercy on them.I told him: Should I be loyal to them and ask Allah to forgive them?He said: Yes; I said: Do you order me to do so?; He said: Yes, Yes, Yes three times and I take responsibility for what I say.;He continued saying: Ali may Allah be pleased with him was in al-Kufa for five years and he always spoke good of them and so did my father and so do I.(Fadael al-Sahaba wa Manaqibihim wa Qawl Ba’adihim fi Ba’ad” by the famous scholar of Hadith al Darqutni)
Grading: Sahih.

(vii). In his “Siyar” at page 259 Dhahabi narrated:

كتب إلي عبد المنعم بن يحيى الزهري، وطائفة قالوا: أنبأنا داود بن أحمد، أنبأنا محمد بن عمر القاضي، أنبأنا عبد الصمد بن علي، أنبأنا أبو الحسن الدارقطني، حدثنا أحمد بن محمد بن إسماعيل الادمي، حدثنا محمد بن الحسين الحنيني، حدثنا مخلد بن أبي قريش الطحان، حدثنا عبد الجبار بن العباس الهمداني، أن جعفر بن محمد أتاهم وهم يريدون أن يرتحلوا من المدينة، فقال: ” إنكم إن شاء الله من صالحي أهل مصركم، فأبلغوهم عني: من زعم أني إمام معصوم مفترض الطاعة، فأنا منه برئ، ومن زعم أني أبرأ من أبي بكر وعمر، فأنا منه برئ “.

From AbdulJabar ibn Al-Abbas al-Hamadani: ”Jafar as-Sadiq came to them when they were leaving Madinah and told them: You are inshallah from amongst the best of people from your country (or from your Egypt)  So report to them from me: He who claims that I’m an infallible imam who must be obeyed, I disassociate myself from him and he who claims that I disassociate myself from Abu Bakr and Umar, I disassociate myself from him.”

(viii).

عن أبي خالد الأحمر قال : سألت عبدالله بن حسن عن أبي بكر وعمر فقال : صلى الله عليهما ولا صلى على من لايصلي عليهما . [ حسن ] .
From Abu Khaled al-Ahmar: I asked ‘Abdullah bin al-Hassan about Abu bakr and ‘Umar so he said: “May the peace of Allah be upon them and no peace on those who don’t send peace upon them.” (Fadael al-Sahaba wa Manaqibihim wa Qawl Ba’adihim fi Ba’ad” by the famous scholar of Hadith al-Darqutni)
Grading: Hasan.

(ix). In “Siyar” page 259 Dhahabi narrated:
وبه عن الدارقطني، حدثنا إسماعيل الصفار، حدثنا أبويحيى جعفر بن محمد الرازي، حدثنا علي بن محمد الطنافسي، حدثنا حنان بن سدير، سمعت جعفر بن محمد، وسئل عن أبي بكر وعمر، فقال: إنك تسألني عن رجلين قد أكلا من ثمار الجنة
By it by Al Daraqutni, who said: narrated Ismail el Saffar, who said: narrated Abu Yahya Ja’afar Bin Mohammad Al Razi, who said narrated Ali Bin Mohammad Al Tanafsi, who said: narrated Hanan Sadir: I heard Ja’afar Bin Mohammad and he was asked about Umar and Abu Bakr He said: “You Ask me of two Men who ate from the fruits of heaven”.

Infact Ahlelbayt deemed enemies of Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra) were the Rafidah:

(i).

أنه دخل على علي بن أبي طالب في إمارته فقال: إني مررت بنفر يذكرون أبا بكر وعمر، يرون أنك تضمر لهما مثل ذلك، منهم عبد الله بن سبأ، فقال علي: مالي ولهذا الخبيث الأسود، ثم قال: معاذ الله أن أضمر لهما إلا الحسن الجميل، ثم أرسل إلى ابن سبأ فسيّره إلى المدائن،و قال: لا يساكنني في بلاد أبدا, ونهض إلى المنبر حتى إذا اجتمع الناس أثنى عليهما خيراً، ثم قال: أو لا يبلغني عن أحد يفضلني عليهما إلا جلدته حد المفتري
Suwaid ibn Ghaflah: I entered on ‘Ali ibn abi Talib during his emirate and said: “I passed by some folks who were talking about Abu Bakr and ‘Umar and saying that you have a deep hatred for both of them, one of those folks is ‘Abdullah ibn Saba, ‘Ali said: “I do not understand this wicked black man(Ibn Saba), I seek refuge in Allah from this matter and I only have deep beautiful respect for them.” Then he sent after Ibn Saba and exiled him to al-Madaen(In Yemen) and said: “He will not live in the same land with me.” He then went to his Mimbar and when the people gathered he complimented both of them and said nothing but good things about them. then he said: “If it reaches me that anyone prefers me over them then I shall lash them as they do with the slandering liar.”[al-Khateeb made Takhreej for it in “al-Kifayah” p376 and said that Abu ‘Abdullah al-Boushanji graded it as Sahih, Abu Nasr Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah al-Imam said in the commentary: It is narrated through other chains, it is Thabit.]

(ii). Imaam adh-Dhahabee said in his Siyaar A’laam an-Nubalaa (5/390):
قال عيسى بن يونس جاءت الرافضة زيدا فقالوا تبرأ من أبي بكر وعمر حتى
ننصرك قال بل أتولاهما قالوا إذا نرفضك فمن ثم قيل لهم الرافضة
Eesaa bin Yoonus said: The Raafidah came to Zayd and said to him,“Free yourself from Abee Bakr and ‘Umar so that we can aid you.” He replied,“Rather I will give allegiance to them (i.e. Aboo Bakr and ‘Umar).” They said, “Then we reject you.” So then it was said to them, “ar-Raafidah” (the rejecters).”

(iii).

لبة الرافضة من زيد ابن علي التبرؤ من أبو بكر و عمر فقال: إنهما وزيرا جدي, فقالوا له: إذا نرفضك, فقال لهم: إذهبوا فأنتم الرافضة.”
The Rafidah amongst the Shia told Zaid ibn ‘Ali ibn al-Hussein (rah) during his revolution that he has to abandon the love of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar and he replied: “They are the Companions of my grandfather”, they said to him: “Then we shall refuse you” so he said:”Go! for you are the Rejectionists(al-Rafidah).”[Tu’oun Rafidat al-Yaman fi Sahabat al-Rassul, p17 by Abu Nasr Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah al-Imam and he said: SAHIH]

(iv).

8 – أنبأنا أبو بكر محمد بن طرخان بن بلتكين بن يحكم ، أنا أبو الفضائل محمد أبن أحمد بن عبد الباقي بن طوق ، قال : قرىء على أبي القاسم عبيدالله ابن علي أبن عبيد الله الرقي ، نا أبو أحمد عبيد الله بن محمد أبن أبى مسلم ، أنا أبو عمر محمد بن عبد الواحد ، أخبرني الغطافي ، عن رجاله ، عن الصادق عن آبائه الطاهرين عن جابر قال : لما بويع علي خطب الناس فقام إليه عبد الله بن سبأ فقال له : أنت دابة الأرض ، قال فقال له : اتق الله ، فقال له : أنت الملك ، فقال له : اتق الله ، فقال له : أنت خلقت الخلق ، وبسطت الرزق ، فأمر بقتله ، فاجتمعت الرافضة فقالت : دعه وانفه إلى ساباط المدائن فإنك إن قتلته بالمدينة خرجت أصحابه علينا وشيعته ، فنفاه إلي ساباط المدائن فثم القرامطة والرافضة ، قال : ثم قامت إليه طائفة وهم السبئية وكانوا أحد عشر رجلا فقال أرجعوا فإني علي بن أبي طالب أبي مشهور وأمي مشهورة ، وانا أبن عم محمد صلي الله عليه وسلم فقالوا لا نرجع ، دع داعيك فأحرقهم بالنار ، وقبورهم في صحراء أحد عشر مشهورة فقال من بقي ممن لم يكشف رأسه منهم علينا : أنه إله ، واحتجوا بقول ابن عباس : ” لا يعذب بالنار إلا خالقها ” . قال ثعلب : وقد عذب بالنار قبل علي أبو بكر الصديق شيخ الإسلام رضي الله عنه وذاك أنه رفع إليه رجل يقال له : الفجأة وقالوا إنه شتم النبي صلي الله عليه وسلم بعد وفاته ، فأخرجه إلى الصحراء فأحرقه بالنار . قال فقال ابن عباس : قد عذب أبو بكر بالنار فاعبدوه أيضا.

‘Ali stood as a Khateeb amongst the people after Bay’ah then Ibn Saba’ went to him and said: You are the beast of the earth, Ali said: fear Allah! so Ibn Saba said: You are Al-Malik, Ali said: Fear Allah! so Ibn Saba said: you created the creations and offered the bounties, So ‘Ali ordered that he be killed but the Rafidhah told ‘Ali: leave him be it is better if you exile him to al-Madaen in Yemen otherwise his Shias and followers will rebel against us…until the end of the narration.

(v).
2469 – أنا محمد بن الحسين بن يعقوب قال : نا عثمان بن أحمد قال : نا إسحاق بن إبراهيم بن . . . ، قال : نا سريج بن يونس قال : نا علي بن هشام ، عن هشام بن الزبير ، عن زيد بن علي قال : البراءة من أبي بكر وعمر البراءة من علي عليه السلام . قول عبد الله بن الحسن بن الحسن
It has been narrated from Zaid ibn Ali that he said : Dissociation from Abu Bakr and Umar is dissociation from Ali.

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

 

Argument 12:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Rather than return Fadak to its rightful heirs, Abu Bakr swore at the Ahl’ul Bayt (as)

We read in Sharh Ibn al Hadeed Khutbah page Fadak Volume 4 page 110:

Ahmad bin Abdul Aziz narrates that Sayyida Fatima appeared before the Court of Abu Bakr, and after the ruling on Fadak she gave a sermon wherein she made reference to her family lineage, and highlighted the injustice of the Shaykhayn with an one heart, When the Sermon finished and those present were moved by her words, Abu Bakr got on the pulpit immediately and said ‘People what is wrong with you! You raise your ears to everything based on Truth and Falsehood [Ali] is like a fox whose witness is his tail [Fatimah] he wishes to reawaken Fitnah (Khilafat), and seeks the support of women, the majority of whom are fornicators’. Abu Bakr said to the Ansar I have heard and refuted and analysed the words of the stupid.

(Ibn al Hadeed) says I asked this from Abu Jafar Yahya bin Abi Zaid Basree and he said ‘Abu Bakr was referring to ‘Ali by these words.

[End Quote]

Answer:

As answered previously, the Sermon(Khutba) of Fadak and stories related to it are fabricated and made up by rafidah liars. The chains of these reports contains liars, unknown narrators(who were probably liars) and extremely weak narrators.

Infact, Abubakr(ra) treated Ahlelbayt in a very humble and kind way, stating that he would prefer the relatives of Prophe(saw) over his own relatives. Hence we read:

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

Another proof is a weak report from al-Tarikah, we read with its chain from Anas that Abu Bakr told Fatimah:

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.”]

The fabrication Shiapen quoted even contradicts the shia report from Sharh Nahjul Balagha by Shia scholar Kamal al-Deen Maytham bin ‘Ali bin Maytham al-Bahrani, vol 5 page 315.

“كمال الدين ميثم بن علي بن ميثم البحراني “

و أما ما سوى ذلك فإني سمعت رسول الله صل الله عليه و سلم يقول : إنا معاشر الأنبياء لا نورث ذهبا و لا فضة و لا أرضا و لا عقارا و لا دارا ولكنا نورث الإيمان و الحكمة و العلم و السنة, و قد عملت بما أمرني و سمعت, فقالت: إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم قد وهبها ليقال فمن يشهد بذلك ، فجاء علي ابن أبي طالب فشهد بذلك ، وجاءت أم أيمن فشهدت أيضا ، فجاء عمر بن الخطاب وعبد الرحمن بن عوف فشهدا ان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كان يقسمها ، فقال أبو بكر : صدقت يا ابنة رسول الله وصدق علي ، وصدقت أم أيمن ، وصدق عمر وصدق عبد الرحمن وذلك ان مالك لأبيك ، كان رسول الله يأخذ من فدك قوتكم ويقسم الباقي ويحمل منه في سبيل الله ، فما تصنعين بها ، قالت : اصنع بها كما كان يصنع بها أبي قال : فلك علي ان اصنع كما كان يصنع أبوك . فرضيت بذلك و أخذت العهد عليه به
After the conversation in which Abu Bakr (ra) explains what belongings of Rassul-Allah SAWS he offered to ‘Ali (ra) (e.g his sword and his mule) he continues by saying:

“As for the rest (of the belongings) I had heard Rassul-Allah SAWS saying: We the prophets do not give gold or silver or land or estate or house as inheritance but what we leave is belief and wisdom and knowledge and Sunnah, Abu Bakr says: And I did what he ordered and I obeyed. Fatima said: The Prophet SAWS has given it to me as a gift.
Abu Bakr said: Who bears witness to this? So both ‘Ali and Umm Ayman were witnesses of this however ‘Umar and ‘Abdul-Rahman ibn ‘Awf  bore witness that Rassul-Allah SAWS used to divide the shares of this land (between needy Muslims), after hearing this Abu Bakr said: You speak truth O daughter of Rassul-Allah SAWS, you speak truth O ‘Ali, you speak truth O Umm Ayman, you speak truth O ‘Umar and you speak truth O ibn ‘Awf that your wealth (O Fatima) is your father’s, He SAWS used to take your needs from the land and he used to divide the rest and distribute it in the name of Allah, so what will you (Fatima) do with it? she said: I do with it as my father used to do, He said: I promise you to also do with it as your father used to do. So she was pleased with this and she took an oath from him.”

The Hadith is also found in the shia book “al-Sahih(authentic) min Sirat al-Imam ‘Ali” otherwise known as “Al-Murtada min Sirat al-Murtada” volume 10 page 182 by sayyed ja’afar murtada al-’amili.

Regarding the quote from Sharh Nahjul Balagha then, we would like to inform the readers that, Sharh Nahjul balagha or Sharh ibn Hadeed, is not an authority work of Ahlesunnah, this is a common lie of Shia websites. Ibn Hadeed was a Ghali(extremist) Shia, having some Mutazili beliefs.

Ibn Abil Hadid is not a Hujjah upon Ahlesunnah because he was a Ghali Shia, Imam Ibn Kathir describes him as follows:
ابن أبي الحديد الشاعر العراقي عَبْدُ الْحَمِيدِ بْنُ هِبَةِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحُسَيْنِ أَبُو حَامِدِ بْنِ أَبِي الْحَدِيدِ عِزُّ الدِّينِ الْمَدَائِنِيُّ، الْكَاتِبُ الشَّاعِرُ الْمُطَبِّقُ الشِّيعِيُّ الْغَالِي، لَهُ شَرْحُ نَهْجِ الْبَلَاغَةِ فِي عِشْرِينَ مُجَلَّدًا، وُلِدَ بِالْمَدَائِنِ سَنَةَ سِتٍّ وَثَمَانِينَ وَخَمْسمِائَةٍ، ثمَّ صَارَ إِلَى بَغْدَادَ فَكَانَ أَحَدَ الْكُتَّابِ وَالشُّعَرَاءِ بِالدِّيوَانِ الْخَلِيفَتِيِّ، وَكَانَ حَظِيًّا عِنْدَ الْوَزِيرِ ابْنِ الْعَلْقَمِيِّ، لِمَا بَيْنَهُمَا مِنَ الْمُنَاسَبَةِ وَالْمُقَارَبَةِ وَالْمُشَابَهَةِ فِي التَّشَيُّعِ
Ibn Abil Hadid al-’Iraqi: the poet ‘Abd al-Hamid ibn Hibatillah ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn al-Husayn, Abu Hamid, Ibn Abil Hadid, ‘Izz ad-Din al-Mada’ini; the man of letters, the eloquent poet, the extremist Shia. He is the author of a commentary on Nahj al-Balaghah in 20 volumes. He was born at Mada’in in the year 586. Then he went to Baghdad and became one of the poets in the court of the Khalifah. He enjoyed the favour of the wazir Ibn al-’Alqami, on account of the two of them having literature and Shi’ism in common.(al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah (year 655, vol. 9 p. 82)).

Even expert Shia scholar al-Khawansari author of “Rawdat Al-Jannat” (5/19) describes him as:

عز الدين عبد الحميد بن أبي الحسن بن أبي الحديد , هو من أكابر الفضلاء المتتبعين , و أعاظم النبلاء المتبحرين موالياً لأهل البيت بيت العصمة و الطهارة … و حسب الدلالة على علو منزلته فى الدين و غلوه فى ولاية أمير المؤمنين

[‘Izz al-Deen ‘Abdul-Hamid bin abi al-Hassan bin ibn al-Hadid, from the greatest of virtuous knowledgeable and noble men, he was a Muwali to Ahlul-Bayt the house of infallibility and purity … and he had Ghulu in the Wilayah of Ameeer al-Mumineen (as)]

Shia scholar Muhammad abu al-Fadl Ibrahim who researched “Sharh Nahjul-Balagha” said about him:

ولد بالمدائن في غرة ذي الحجة سنة ست وثمانين وخمسمائة , ونشأ بها , وتلقى عن شيوخها , ودرس المذاهب الكلامية فيها , ثم مال الى مذهب الاعتزال منها , وكان الغالب على أهل المدائن التشيع والتطرف والمغالاة , فسار في دربهم , وتقيل مذهبهم , ونظم القصائد المعروفة بالعلويات السبع على طريقتهم , وفيها غالى وتشيع , وذهب الاسراف في كثير من أبياتها كل مذهب
“Born in Madaen in the month of thu al-Hijjah in the year 586, he grew up in it, and took knowledge from its scholars, and studied the Madhabs of Kalam in it, then he leaned towards the Madhab of the Mu’atazilah, and most of the people of Madaen were extreme Shia Ghulat, so he followed their path, and adopted their Madhab, and composed the seven famous ‘Alawiyat poems, in them he showed Ghulu and Tashayyu’ and he greatly exaggerated…”]

Even the Shia scholars such as Al Qummi in his Kitab Al Kinaa states:

ولد في المدائن وكان الغالب على أهل المدائن التشيع و التطرف والمغالاة فسار في دربهم وتقيل مذهبهم و نظم العقائد المعروفة بالعلويات السبع على طريقتهم وفيها غالي و تشيع وذهب الإسراف في كثير من الأبيات كل مذهب ..(ثم ذكر القمي بعض الأبيات التى قالهاً غالياً )
ثم خف الى بغداد وجنح الى الاعتزال واصبح كما يقول صاحب نسخة السحر معتزلياً جاهزيا في اكثر شرحه بعد ان كان شيعياً غالياً
– He was born in Al Madaa’i, which was common for its population in general to be fundamental Shi’a and extremists, and as such he followed their path and embraced their Madhhab, and formed the fundamental of faith in seven poetry eclogues known as the Seven Alawite Poetry. In this poetry he followed their traditions in going to extremism and excess in Shi’ism in many lines. He then moved to Baghdad and tilted toward the Mu’atizili, and embraced their views as it appears in most of his commentaries after he was an extremist Shi’a.

Hence it is the deceitful trick of Shiapen, to introduce the work of an extremist Shia, as something which is acceptable by Sunnis.

 

Argument 13:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

One who swears at Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) and Sayyida Fatima (as) has failed to pay the ‘wage’ of Prophethood

Allah (swt) says in Surah ash Shura:

Say: “No reward do I ask of you for this except the love of those near of kin.”
Al-Qur’an, Surah 42, Ayah 23, translated by Yusufali

Allah (swt) has made it incumbent upon al Muslims to love the close relatives of Rasulullah (s) and the Sunni scholars are in agreement that the verse refers to loving Imam ‘Ali (as), Sayyida Fatima (as) and their children. As evidence we shall cite the following esteemed Sunni works:

Jalaluddin Suyuti in Tafseer Durre Manthur under the commentary of this verse records the following:

Abdullah Ibne Abbas narrates ‘When this verse descended the people asked who are these close relatives whose love had been made compulsory?’ Rasulullah said they are ‘Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn’.

Gharaib al Qur’an comments on the verse as follows:

Sad bin Jayr narrates after the descent of this verse Rasulullah (s) was asked ‘who are your kinfolk who are these close relatives whose love had been made compulsory?’ Rasulullah said they are ‘Ali, Fatima, and their sons’. The commentator then added ‘Verily there is no doubt that that this verse descended with regards to the Ahl’ul Bayt (as) as a matter of pride and superior rank.

[End Quote]

Answer:

No doubt that this so called agreement is only in shia imagination, and in reality their claim, is nothing but another blatant lie.

Firstly, Suyuti in his tafsir Durre Manthur quoted this report by pointing out its weakness:

وأخرج ابن المنذر وابن أبي حاتم والطبراني وابن مردويه بسند ضعيف من طريق سعيد بن جبير، عن ابن عباس قال‏:‏ لما نزلت هذه الآية ‏{‏قل لا أسألكم عليه أجرا إلا المودة في القربى‏}‏ قالوا‏:‏ يا رسول الله، من قرابتك هؤلاء الذين وجبت مودتهم‏؟‏ قال‏:‏ علي وفاطمة وولداها‏.‏

Narrated ibn Munzir, ibn Abu Hatim, Tabarani, ibn Mardaveyh, VIA WEAK CHAIN from the way of Saeed ibn Jubair from ibn Abbas, which said: When this (discussed) verse was revealed, asked: “O messenger of Allah, who are your  family, which love became obligation? He said: Ali, Fatima and their children.

This was narrated by Tabarani in “al-Kabir”, Qati`y in zawaid to “Fadail sahaba” (#1141):

Harb ibn all-Hasan at-Tahhan – Hussain al-Ashqar – Qays (ibn Rabia) – Al-Amash from Said ibn Jubair – ibn Abbas.

1) Harb ibn al-Hasan was weak. See “Majmau zawaid” #14747

2) Hussain al-Ashqar weak. He was criticized by Bukhari, Abu Zurah, Abu Hatim, Nasai and Daraqutni. (“Mizanul itidal” 1/531/#1986)

3) Qays ibn Rabia was weak. He was discredited by Nasai, Daraqutni, Ahmad and ibn Maeen. (“Mizanul itidal” 3/393/№6910)

4) Al-Amash Sulaiman ibn Mihran was thiqat, but known mudalis, and he narrated this in anana form.

Shaikh Albani said this narration is false in “Silsila ad-daefa” (#4974).

Moreover,  Allamah Syed Sibtain Shah Naqvi has given a beautiful refutation to the Shia view from a grammatical perspective: {Click Here}

In this answer he refutes the shia understanding of the verse, by saying that if this would have been related to Ahlelbayt then the wordings of the verse should have been “Zawil Qurba” , instead of “Fil  Qurba”. The wording “fil qurba” implies that the verse is not related to Ahlelbayt. Fil qurba is a general term to describe whoever close to you and that is the exact meaning that Allah pointed the prophet(saw) to do, that is, to spread love to every Muslim. On the other hand zawil qurba can be used to restrict to ahlel bayt. Especially in the language of Taye طئ where zawil  is used instead of Allazey to descrbe Nassab ” relations etc ” which in this case it will restrict the meaning to Ahlel bayt.

Secondly, this Surah is Makkan, and Prophet(saw) was addressing this to the disbelievers, as apparent from the verse before and after. So the question that rises is that, why would the Prophet(saw) ask the Kuffar and Mushrikeen to love the Ahlel Bayt, before even asking them to believe in Allah and the message of tawheed?

Thirdly, the correct and authentic and agreed upon view of Sunnis regarding this verse is what reported in authentic ahadeeth from Ibn Abbas(ra).

We read in Sahih Bukhari:

Ibn `Abbas recited the Qur’anic Verse:–‘Except to be kind to me for my kin-ship to you–” (42.23) Sa`id bin Jubair said, “(The Verse implies) the kinship of Muhammad.” Ibn `Abbas said, “There was not a single house (i.e. sub-tribe) of Quraish but had a kinship to the Prophet (saw) and so the above Verse was revealed in this connection, and its interpretation is: ‘O Quraish! You should keep good relation between me (i.e. Muhammad) and you.”( Sahih al-Bukhari 3497)

Narrated Ibn `Abbas: That he was asked (regarding): “Except to be kind to me for my Kinship with you.’ (42.23) Sa`id bin Zubair (who was present then) said, “It means here (to show what is due for) the relatives of Muhammad.” On that Ibn `Abbas said: you have hurried in giving the answer! There was no branch of the tribe of Quraish but the Prophet(saw) had relatives therein. The Prophet(saw) said, “I do not want anything from (you) except to be Kind to me for my Kinship with you.”(Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith 343)

Fourthly, Allama Qurtubi said in his Tafseer:

الأولى ـ قوله تعالى: { قُل لاَّ أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْراً } أي قل يا محمد لا أسألكم على تبليغ الرسالة جعلاً. { إِلاَّ ٱلْمَوَدَّةَ فِي ٱلْقُرْبَىٰ } قال الزجاج: «إِلاَّ الْمَوَدَّةَ» استثناء ليس من الأول؛ أي إلا أن تَوَدُّوني لقرابتي فتحفظوني. والخطاب لقريش خاصَّةً؛ قاله ابن عباس وعكرمة ومجاهد وأبو مالك والشعبيّ وغيرهم. قال الشعبيّ: أكْثَرَ الناس علينا في هذه الآية فكتبنا إلى ابن عباس نسأله عنها؛ فكتب أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كان أوسط الناس في قريش، فليس بَطْنٌ من بطونهم إلا وقد وَلَدَه؛ فقال الله له: { قُل لاَّ أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْراً إِلاَّ ٱلْمَوَدَّةَ فِي ٱلْقُرْبَىٰ } إلا أن تَوَدُّوني في قرابتي منكم؛ أي تراعوا ما بيني وبينكم فتصدّقوني. فـ «ـالْقُرْبَى» هاهنا قرابة الرَّحِم؛ كأنه قال: اتبعوني للقرابة إن لم تتبعوني للنبوّة

Say: “No reward do I ask of you for this except the love of those near of kin.”. That means: O Muhammad, I don’t want you to give anything to me instead of preaching this message.

Regarding words “except the love of those near of kin” az-Zujaj said: “except the love” means exception from the not of the first kind. Meaning, I want you to love me only due to family kinship, and to protect me in such way. Such explanation was given by ibn Abbas, Ikrima, Mujahid, Abu Malik, Shabe and others.

Ash-Shabe said: When people started asking lot of question regarding this verse, we send letter to ibn Abbas asking explanation, he wrote to us: Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) among all people has closest types of kinship. He has familty ties with all their branches. Allah Taala revealed to him: I don’t want from you for this anything except love due to family ties. Meaning: I want you show love to me due to my family ties with you. That’s mean I want you to affirm me due to these ties between us. That’s why “qurbah” here means patrimonial (ties). As if he would say them: If you don’t obey me due to my prophecy, at least obey me due to our family ties. {(this hadith from Shabe, Suyuti quoted in “Durr” in the commentary to this verse, with reference to Said ibn Mansur, Hakim – who authenticated it, Abd ibn Humayd, ibn Sad, Beyhaki and ibn Marwadeyh)}

Allama Ibn Jawzi in “Zaydul maisir” (5/387) quoted 5 opinions on meaning of this verse, and noted that first one (which was narrated by shaykhan from ibn Abbas) is correct one.

Abu Ala al-Mawdudi in his tafsir gave a comprehensive explanation, rejecting the reports which Shia quote:

The word qurba in the original has been interpreted differently by the different commentators. One section of them takes it in the meaning of kinship and has given this meaning to the verse “I do not ask of you any reward for this service, but I do desire that you (O people of Quraish) should show some regard tar the kinship that there is between me and you. You should have accepted my invitation. but if you do not accept it, you should not be so hard-hearted as to Become my bitterest enemies in the entire land of Arabia. ” This is the interpretation given by Hadrat ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbas, which has been cited by lmam Ahmad, Bukhari. Muslim. Tirmidhi, Ibn Jarir, Tabarani, Baihaqi. Ibn Said and others on the authority of many reporters and the same commentary has been given by Mujahid. ‘Ikrimah, Qatadah, Suddi, Abu Malik, ‘Abdur Rehman bin Zaid bin Aslam, Dahhak. ‘Ata bin Dinar and the other major commentators.

The other section takes qurba in the meaning of nearness and interprets the verse to mean: “I do not seek from you any other reward than this that you should develop in yourselves a desire for attaining nearness to Allah. That is; you should be reformed. That is my only reward. ” This commentary has been reported from Hasan Basri and a saying of Qatadah also has been cited in support of this: so much so that in a tradition by Tabarani this saying has also been attributed to Ibn ‘Abbas. In the Qur’an itself, at another place, this same subject has been treated, thus: “Tell them: I do not seek of you any reward for this work: I only ask of the one who will. to adopt the way of his Lord.’ (AI-Furqan: 57).

The third group takes qurba in the meaning of the kindred, and interprets the verse to mean this: “I do not seek from you any other reward than this that you should love my near and dear ones.” Then, some of the commentators of this group interpret ‘the kindred” to mean alt the children of ‘Abdul Muttalib, and some others restrict it to Hadrat ‘AIi and Fatimah and their children. This commentary has been reported from Said bin Jubair and ‘Amr bin Shu’aib, and in some traditions it has been attributed to Ibn ‘Abbas and Hadrat ‘AIi bin Husain (Zain al-’Abedin), but this interpretation cannot be accepted for several reasons. Firstly. when Surah Ash-Shura was sent down at Makkah, Hadrat ‘AIi and Fatimah had not yet been married and, therefore, there could be no question of their children. As for the children of ‘Abdul Muttalib, they were not all following the Holy Prophet but some of them had openly joined with his enemies, and the enmity of Abu Lahab is too well known. Second, “the kindred” of the Holy Prophet were not only the children of ‘Abdul Muttalib but he had his kindred among all the families of the Quraish through his mother and his father and his wife. Hadrat Khadijah. In all these clans he had his best supporters as well as his staunch enemies ‘Third, and this is the most important paint, in view of the high position of a Prophet from which he starts his mission of inviting the people towards Allah, it does not seem fitting that he would ask the people to love his kindred in return for his services in connection with his great Mission. No person of fine taste could imagine that Allah would have taught His Prophet such a mean thing, and the Prophet would havc uttered the same before the Quraish. In the stones that have been narrated of the Prophets in the Qur’an, we find that a Prophet after a Prophet stands up before his people sad says: “I do not ask of you any reward: my reward is with Allah, Lord of the worlds.” (Yunus: 72; Hud: 29, 51; Ash-Shu’ara’: 109, 127, 145, 164, l80). In Surah Ya Sin the criterion given of a Prophet’s truthfulness is that he gives his invitation without any selfish motive. (v. 21). In the Qur’an the Holy Prophet himself has been made to say again and again words to the effect: “I demand no reward from you for this message. ” (Al An’am: 90, Yusuf: 104, Al-Mu’minun: 72, Al-Furqan: 57, Saba: 47, Suad: 86, At-Tur; 40, AI Qalam: 46). After this, what could be the occasion for the Holy Prophet to tell the people that in return for his service of inviting them to Allah, they should lout his relatives. Then it seems all the more irrelevant when we state that the addressees here are the disbelievers and not the believers. The whole discourse, from the beginning w the end, is directed to them. Therefore, there could be no question in this regard of asking the opponents for any reward, for a reward is asked of those who show some appreciation for the services that a person has rendered for them. The disbelievers were not at all appreciative of the Holy Prophet’s services: on the contrary, they regarded them as a crime and had turned bitterly hostile to him. (Tahfeem ul Quran by Abu Ala al-Mawdudi, for 42:23).

Shiekh Ali Muhammad as-Sallabi states in his book:

This verse appears in Soorat ash-Shoora, which was revealed in Makkah before the migration to Madinah, according to the consensus of Ahl as-Sunnah. It is well known that ‘Ali(ra) did not marry Fatimah(ra) until after the battle of Badr, which was in 2 AH, al-Hasan(ra) was born in 3AH and al-Husayn(ra) in 4 AH. This verse was revealed many years before the existence of al-Hasan and al-Husayn, so how could the Prophet(saw) interpret it as referring to the obligation to honour relatives who were not yet known or born?

The commentary on this verse that appears in as-Saheeh from Ibn Abbas is contrary to that. Ibn Taymiyah said: “Here is Ibn ‘Abbas(ra), the interpreter of the Qur’an and the most knowledgeable of Ahl al-Bayt after ‘Ali(ra), saying: ‘This does not mean being kind to my relatives. Rather it means: I do not ask you, O Arabs and O Quraysh, for any reward; instead, I ask you to uphold the ties of kinship between me and you.’ So he asked the people to whom he was sent first of all to uphold these ties of kinship with him and not to transgress against him, so that he could convey the message of his Lord.

The hadith that they regard as explaining the verse is false and fabricated, according to the consensus of the scholars of hadith who decide such issues; this was stated by Ibn Taymiyah. Ibn Katheer also compiled all the hadiths that were narrated concerning the interpretation of this verse and determined that the hadiths stating that the kinship mentioned here refers to Fatimah(ra) and her sons have weak chains of narration. He narrated a report from Ibn Abi Hatim that says: “A man whom he named told us, Husayn al-Ashqar told us… he narrated from a fanatic Shiite shaykh, namely Husayn al-Ashqar, whose reports cannot he accepted in this context. Stating that this verse was revealed in Madinah is farfetched, because it is Makkan, and at that time Fatimah(ra) did not have any children at all, since she did not get married to ‘Ali(ra) until after the battle of Badr in 2 AH. The correct interpretation of this verse is the one given by the scholar of the Ummah and the interpreter of the Qur’an, Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas(ra)). Ibn Hajar also discussed the weakness of the reports mentioned and the fact that they are contrary to the sound hadith. (Ali ibn Abi Talib, by Sheikh Ali Muhammad as-Sallabi, vol 2, pg 403-405)

 

Argument 14:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

The testimony of Rasulullah (s) that the Sahaba bore hatred in their hearts towards Imam ‘Ali (as)

As evidence we shall rely on the following esteemed Sunni sources:

  1. Izalat ul Khifa, Volume 1 page 487
  2. Kanz al Ummal, Volume 6 page 408 min Qism al Fayl
  3. Riyadh al Nadira, Volume 3 page 234

We read in these books:

Ali bin Abi Talib narrated: ‘While I was walking with Allah’s messenger (s) through the streets of Madina, we saw a garden and I said: ‘Oh Allah’s messenger, what a beautiful garden’. Allah’s messenger (s) said: ‘A better garden is awaiting for you in Paradise’. Then we passed through another one, thus I said: ‘Oh Allah’s messenger, what a beautiful garden’. Allah’s messenger said: ‘A better garden awaits you in Paradise’. We passed through seven gardens and about each of them I said: ‘What a beautiful garden’ and Allah’s messenger said to me ‘A better garden awaits you in Paradise’. Then when the streets became empty, Allah’s messenger (s) embraced me and began to cry profusely’. I asked: ‘O messenger of Allah, why are you crying?’ He said: ‘The hearts of the people bear hatred towards you that shall open up after my death’. I said: ‘Oh Allah’s messenger will my faith be safe?’ He (the prophet) said: ‘Yes your faith will be safe’.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Here is the arabic text of Hadith of Musnad Ahmad:
حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ، قثنا عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عُمَرَ، نا حَرَمِيُّ بْنُ عُمَارَةَ،   نا الْفَضْلُ بْنُ عَمِيرَةَ أَبُو قُتَيْبَةَ الْقَيْسِيُّ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنِي مَيْمُونٌ الْكُرْدِيُّ أَبُو نُصَيْرٍ، عَنْ أَبِي عُثْمَانَ النَّهْدِيِّ، عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ، قَالَ: كُنْتُ أَمْشِي مَعَ النَّبِيِّ  فِي بَعْضِ طُرُقِ الْمَدِينَةِ، فَأَتَيْنَا عَلَى حَدِيقَةٍ، فَقُلْتُ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، مَا أَحْسَنَ هَذِهِ الْحَدِيقَةَ؟ فَقَالَ: ” مَا أَحْسَنَهَا؟ وَلَكَ فِي الْجَنَّةِ أَحْسَنُ مِنْهَا “، ثُمَّ أَتَيْنَا عَلَى حَدِيقَةٍ أُخْرَى، فَقُلْتُ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، مَا أَحْسَنَهَا مِنْ حَدِيقَةٍ، فَقَالَ: ” لَكَ فِي الْجَنَّةِ أَحْسَنُ مِنْهَا “، حَتَّى أَتَيْنَا عَلَى سَبْعِ حَدَائِقَ، أَقُولُ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، مَا أَحْسَنَهَا؟ وَيَقُولُ: ” لَكَ فِي الْجَنَّةِ أَحْسَنُ مِنْهَا
Narrator Al-Fadhl bin Umaira is munkar al-hadith according to Al-Thahabi in Mizan Al-I’itidal.

Al-Saji: mentioned it in his “Al-Dhu’afaa’” (compilation of WEAK Ahadih). The Hadith is weak (sanadan) AND has Manakir (defects).
Al-Uqayli said: Al-Fadhl (the narrator) is not to be trusted in Ahadith.

Therefore, this report is Munkar and rejected.

One thought on “9. Sunni Answers to Shiapen’s article on Fadak and inheritance of Prophet(saw) – “Chapter Nine”

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